- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Indeed,, pretending that there is a real economy distinct from the monetary economy does an excellent job of confusing the effort to distinguish between speculation and prudent financial investment, because that is a distinct that is within the financial sector.
Appealing to a fictitious realm to try to make the distinction does not help matters, because the con artists rationalizing the speculation when it helps them garner a larger share of a nation's income tend to be skilled at creating fictions. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
The distinction is not between the "real economy" and the "financial economy" - rather, it is between the "making stuff" economy and the "making bets" economy. And the shell game is that parts of the financial sector are in the former, and parts of the non-financial sector are probably in the latter.
The finance sector makes an excellent servant for a monetary production economy, and an egregious master. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Kind of "attack them where you are weakest", marginalist economics claiming ownership of the term "real". I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
... what you're saying is that there are few principled reasons to ...
No, I am saying that the principle that marginalist economists try to use as a foundation for the distinction is a load of bullshit.
Its not as if marginalist economists represent all economics ... fortunately, since this issue is outside the scope of their analytical toolkit. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
