Next up: a Buffista discussion of the illusion of pari-mutuel betting!

(N.b. I don't actually know what pari-mutuel betting is, just that it's a point of debate among style guides and anyway kind of a cool word, like passerine or igneous .)

I am so terribly lost. I don't know who implied otherwise.

I'm not saying *you* did.

An economy in ruins still exists, though -- the disappearance of a market (for tulips, comic books, or Enron stock) does not imply the disappearance of the larger system of supply/demand/exchange in which that market existed.

That's true. But the value we place on tulips or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle knockoffs is the fluid part which can look as wispy as Ben Affleck's real hairline. So the whole of economics isn't imaginary, but the fact that value is held aloft by an abstracted system driven by consensus leaves it vulnerable to consensual whims. And when people consense that Lee sucks tulips suck then economies which seemed solid melt into air.

Government, or even social codes, are also products of consensual agreement, but do not (generally) have that kind of volatility. Well, at least not in the culture I live in. If I lived in Rwanda I might have a different view on what's more volatile.

In more-easy-for-me-to-follow news, I watched the last two episodes of the new British Robin Hood and it was stupid crap.

Watch The Lost Room! It's neither stupid nor crappy. It's smart and engrossing.

The horse may be dead now - veering off into Journey is usually a good sign of that - but my thought as I walked home with my WAY TOO HEAVY baby strapped to my chest was that my beef about economics is that many economists think it's about how money behaves. IMO, money does not behave at all (mine sure as hell refuses to stay put, for example). Economics is about how people behave.

I continue to find the idea that some parts of economics (i.e., currency) depend on certain shared beliefs (the value of currency) non-profound

Well, okay, lots of things I say and read here aren't profound, but that doesn't mean they're not interesting to the people (including me) in discussion over them.

Except for the stuff about cats. That's always profound, if they're kittens in that still-fuzzy stage.

It doesn't seem that you (bon) and you (Sean) differ on meaning...but that there seems to have been some implication I missed that Sean was ... god, I need a word that's not 'devalue' ... slamming economies or something. Or even saying they were the only thing displaying that characteristic.

Economies are not the same thing as things that are fictional

And if I'm going to get really semantically nitpicky, semi-imaginary != fictional.

I've already watched Lost Room, Hec.

Skipper.

I'm not saying *you* did.

And I'm not saying you said I did. I'm saying I don't know who did. Who did?

I don't know of any human society that does not exist on some level because people agree to trade things for other things

I'm not entirely sure this is what I was implying either, though if I did inadvertantly, it wasn't my intention.

And I may be giving the impression that I think consensual reality is more profound than I actually think it is. I just like talking about it.

semi-imaginary != fictional

I guess I'm not following where the "semi" part comes in, then.

[eta: My point, if I have one, is that markets != economies. A market for tulips may vanish overnight, but the Dutch still have an economy. Just not one that values tulips anymore.]

Well, modern economics is based on utilitarianism, so (to simplify like a fool) value is based on perceived utility. But every economist, even the Milton Friedmans of the world, know the fundamental theorem of welfare economics (i.e. economics as practiced in capitalist cultures), which is that economic results are only valid when all other variables are held constant. Left vs. right economics is all about whether people believe that all other variables could be held constant in any given situation. Your rightward Friedmans would say that the free market holds other variables constant, while your leftward Galbraiths would say that no such situation exists. That's a rule of thumb, not a precise description.

I have to say, it sounds like he was responding in kind, unless there was some compelling reason to heap scorn and derision upon the man's chosen profession. In his class.

You, very obviously, were not there, Strega, and I don't appreciate the disrespect you show me when assuming that the scorn and derision was mutual. The criticism was invited, as the whole class was discussing the roots of modern economic theory, and I cited noted economists, such as Galbraith and Veblen, on weaknesses in free-market and rational-choice economics. I was respectful in my dissent. The guy was thuggish and rude, mocking me in class for my accent or other stupid things and even denying me a chance to make up a pop quiz he threw after I'd missed a week of classes (including a review session that touched on all the new material he'd be testing us on) when my grandfather died.

You're out of line in your snark, and if you perceive me as being the kind of person you're accusing me of being, then my email address is valid and I hope you use it.