Interjecting for a list that will make your brain go kaflooey: Slate's The Explainer's Unanswered Questions

So the null economy (defined by me as nothing being exchanged) still counts.

If a tree is exchanged in the middle of a forest and nobody is around, does it still make an economy?

MWAH! Gud! I just wrote this entire post, which I deleted before hitting the post button, about how argumentation on the internet would be so much easier if only everyone took the whole medieval/aquinas approach where all of the terms are defined in advance.

I interupt Natter for a Christmas Miracle/Virgin Birth -- [link]

I think we are getting into the territory of people who bid $25 for $20 gift cards, on eBay.

These are people whom I would like to kick in the hindparts, or possibly rip them off.

I don't think I was explicitly asserting any of those things. I don't think changes in value, even drastic ones automatically cause an economy to disappear, but they do sometimes disappear. To the point of damaging the ability to trade effectively on many different levels. And I recognize that there are different levels of economic activity, in fact one of my points is that sometimes an entire level can be crippled or destroyed for a time. I don't believe I ever asserted that all economic activity can vanish with a thought, just that the amount of trust and consesnual reality involved in economic activity seems greater and to have a more significant impact than in other areas of human endeavor that involve high degrees of trust and/or consensual reality.

And I don't see where any of that implies that I think there cannot be scientific measurement, study or understanding of economics on any level.

You're contradicting yourself here in an important way, by saying that "even drastic ones automatically cause an economy to disappear, but they do sometimes disappear".... "I don't believe I ever asserted that all economic activity can vanish with a thought." And not only does this appear to be a contradiction, I don't know to what economy you're referring. Anyway, as to saying that economics/economies are similar to valuation in relying on unusually volatile and subjective concepts, this is what you said:

Probably the single most important thing to understand about economics is that it's all semi-imaginary. That is, economies only exist because we all agree to let them exsist, but economies all have very real consequences and effects. That's why even professional economists don't fully understand the economy. It should be completely under our control, and it is, except for the part where it's not.

And that's where you said that economics (the discipline) is semi-imaginary and that it can't therefore be fully understood, that economies wouldn't exist unless we all agreed to let them exist (which is demonstrably false, but I don't think you are holding that anymore, but in any case confuses the concept of valuation with economies), and implies that the argument that economies can wink out if we all disagree about value.

What are these goals?

What I think flea said upthread: to describe human behavior.

So the null economy (defined by me as nothing being exchanged) still counts.

Definitely, because people place value on other people's behavior, too. Even if our two strawmen did nothing but meditate, one would be willing to pay $X to make the other quit breathing through his mouth or wash his feet or whatever. The difference between an economist and a sociologist is that the economist would believe that the willing to pay number is the answer and the sociologist would draw in other factors before deciding the value of non-annoyance in this tiny little society of two.

Economics is not something I ever studied. so as a layperson, economics - or I should say economists are extremly hard to follow . "thowing out the volitale fuel and food index, inflation is flat" As an intelligent being - I uderstand why these are thown out , because economist are looking for long term trends - and if food and fuel stay up long enought , it will show up in the over all inflation /CPI , etc. But as an individual ( or a family ) I can see what those volitale indexes are doing to me and my budget. Over a span of 3 or 4 months I can see what it is doing to my town and to the companies we work for. So I tend to listen with a skeptical ear.

Ditto 'Houseing bubble" or burst. I live in the bay area. there is a limited number of places to build houses, so the market , as long as people keep moving to this area , will continue to be tight. about 6 months ago my house was revalued at about 160K over what I bought for ( 2. 5 years ago) . If I look at actual prices today, they are about 70 to 110K over what I paid. As long as I keep the debtload on the house equal or less than what I paid, I win ( if that is a goal) and the bubble bursting isn't something that matters to me. The market today is slower, but prices ( in this area) are only dropping a lot if you really need to sell your house. A friend of mine desired to sell her house, but not in a big hurry. The fish weren't biting . She took her house off the market - and the next day she had an offer, in the range she was looking for . The buyers were just waiting to see if she would lower her price. Real estate is just a different game than it was a year ago,

My summation of the discussion would be "Sean didn't mean any harm by it! He just likes playing with the idea!"

A miscommunication between the lines, or something.

These are people whom I would like to kick in the hindparts, or possibly rip them off.

Rip off their hindpants? Is that a penalty or a reward?

Also, I don't think you should talk trash about those people's economy. If they value the gift card at over $25, that's their business. Poor things.

I interupt Natter for a Christmas Miracle/Virgin Birth

If that baby dragon has seven heads, then I'd suggest avoiding long term investments.