3 ms·
Please don't forget the economic theorizers, and the subtle and not-so-subtle pressures that keep them in line. (Put another way: in "[1] economic theories abo
by rlucas 11y ago
Please don't forget the economic theorizers, and the subtle and not-so-subtle pressures that keep them in line.
(Put another way: in "[1] economic theories about the use of [2] capital in a [3] market economy" there's a whole lot of assumptions and underpinnings, at least three of them, that are not laws of physics, but rather are ways of perpetuating and recapitulating our present system.)
- ska 11y agoI fail to see how my statement did not include what you are saying, or how it suggested anything else.
- rlucas 11y agoWanted to give the same critical emphasis to the economic theory explanation as you had given to the socioeconomic class interest bit. The statement articulated two "parts" of the explanation. The second "part" was phrased as a matter of class self-interest, with a critical tone. But the phrasing of the first, as being "from" economic theories, can very easily be read as giving those theories a pass, esp. in environments like HN. If we wanted to explain with some finality, we might answer, "why do we mandate lead shielding around radioisotopes" by saying the reason is "from physical and biochemical theories [about harm from ionizing your DNA]." Or we might answer, "why are some traits observed to be epigenetic / both heritable and environmental" by saying the reason is "from biological theories." The appeal to science-y authority is pretty conversation-ending in technically-oriented conversation venues like HN, I find. Or more properly, it might not end conversations but it makes that piece a leaf node. I just like to remind people that economic theories are far, far more than their hard-science counterparts, political products.
- ska 11y agoOk, I guess that makes more sense now. I do t see the imbalance of emphasis you read in it, but that is fine.