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.

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

Well, you asked me to clarify what my problem was, and that's how I read semi-imaginary.

I think you read me to be disagreeing with you when I was responding to Sean. In re-reading, I see a misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up, and Jessica has done most of the heavy lifting there. There is a big difference among (1) a market for a particular item (2) the economy as a whole and (3) economics as a description of certain behaviors. The fact that the value of something changes /= disappearance of a whole economy /= the scientific status of economics. Economics and economies are not "semi-imaginary", even if the values of some things are highly disputed at different periods of time.

What ita said.

Economies are not imaginary. An economy will always exist when there is competition over access to limited resources. An anthill has an economy, even though individual ants don't possess much of an imagination.

If our existing money-based economy gets replaced with one based on the blunt-force application of sticks and rocks, it doesn't mean that one is more real than the other.

Next week's Excel spreadsheets are most definitely imaginary.

My personal experience contradicts your assertion!