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.

We should have a profundity standard for all discussions!

I'm so painfully bored that I'm getting the jump on next week's totally unnecessary Excel spreadsheets.

Next week's Excel spreadsheets are most definitely imaginary.

Kind of.

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

Well, it's not totally imaginary--and my assumption (watch me project into Sean) is that imaginary comes up at all because it's sustained by our acceptance of and belief in it. My chair needs no such sustenance. Even if I don't use it to sit in, it's still chairy.

I don't know what the proper word is, and I haven't seen it used here yet, or at least not recognised it as such.