7 ms·
Understanding central banking, like so many other things, also means understanding philosophies, worldviews, perceptions, and outlooks. And goals. Especially go
by uticus 4y ago
Understanding central banking, like so many other things, also means understanding philosophies, worldviews, perceptions, and outlooks. And goals. Especially goals.
So yes, read. But my advice: read widely, not naively, because economic theory looks like math from the shoreline but it tastes and feels like philosophy when you dive in.
Fun starting point: learning about the different "schools" of economic thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought
- stevievee 4y agoI love how you worded your advice here and I agree this is the best approach because macroeconomics is a "social science". Everything you hear and understand about central banking as it exists today is just part of the prevailing school of economic thought. It is not the only way forward and many would argue it is not even the best way forward (but we are always led to believe it is)
- connectsnk 4y agoYou worded it very well. Any suggestions on understanding the “goals” part of modern central banking?
- orangepurple 4y agoDebt: The First 5000 Years ASIN : 1612194192 Publisher : Melville House; Updated, Expanded edition (October 28, 2014) Language : English Paperback : 560 pages ISBN-10 : 9781612194196 ISBN-13 : 978-1612194196
- davidw 4y agoSomething else to be mindful of when reading about economics is that the more centrist, middle of the road, technocrat type of stuff that underpins modern economies tends to not be all that loud on the internet, whereas you get people endorsing more fringe, absolutist theories who make a lot of noise.
- civilized 4y agoI was going to say the opposite -- in my reading, the tone of the mainstream media narrative around central bank actions is always technocratic. Interest rate changes, we are told, are intended to heat or cool the economy just so, to reach an ideal balance of employment and inflation. Central bankers agonize over data and projections to reach a decision. Whether these interventions are in fact scientific, their past track record, who benefits from them, alternative viewpoints... none of that is discussed. I have no particular viewpoint on what central banks should or shouldn't do, and I am no more impressed with Austrian or goldbug or crypto community ideologies about the topic. I just find the discussion unsatisfying. I don't believe that central bankers are brilliant economic engineers with deep insights into the ideal economy that can only be explained to us non-experts through crude temperature/thermostat metaphors. It all seems a bit cargo culty to me.
- dntrkv 4y agoAny complex topic discussed in the public sphere will not be satisfying. Economics is especially bad since everyone, for some reason, thinks they're an expert in the topic and will argue in favor of the last popular idea they heard from their favorite internet economist.
- civilized 4y agoLike with some areas of medicine, many people are opinionated on economics because they're suspicious they're being exploited and questioning the system seems like a way to push back. In medicine, though, I have more confidence (overall) that establishment views are scientific.
- spaetzleesser 4y agoMedicine and economics have quite a history of blatantly ignoring things that don’t fit with the accepted consensus. I still remember how meditation was viewed as nonsense. The gut flora is another issue where medicine was/is way behind the curve. Looking at statements about the housing bubble in 2008 or about inflation a few years ago I don’t trust much in the economics profession either. They seem to always be behind the curve.
- yamtaddle 4y ago> And goals. Especially goals. One of the more memorable ah-ha moments or me in college was embarrassingly simple: my IPE professor leaned against the desk while the class was discussing something, and quietly asked, "why have an economy?"
- SkyMarshal 4y agoHow can you not have an economy in a society of more than one person? Or perhaps in a society that has exceeded Dunbar’s number.
- yamtaddle 4y agoEconomy != market, or trade, and implies some deliberate ordering, regulation, and (probably) nurturing.
- gofreddygo 4y ago"Economy" being a made up term , makes no sense in that question. "why have economics" makes a better question. it being a made up field, with terrible history of accuracy, poor reasoning, virtually no way to replicate and test theories, interests only those that participate (willingly, out of curiosity or due to poor career choices) in that field of pseudo-science. Why have it at all tho? Politics.
- yamtaddle 4y agoAll terms are made up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy http://www.websters1913.com/words/Economy http://www.websters1913.com/words/Economy (chiefly sense 2 on that second one) The question makes sense using either of those sources for one's understanding of the term.
- throwaway14356 4y agometeorologists did eventually find a place at the end of the news.
- LeifCarrotson 4y agoThis was never more clear to me than when I read Mazzucato's "The Value of Everything" and then, immediately after, Krein's "The Value of Nothing". It looks like math, feels like philosophy, and the aftertaste is one of bitter selfish persuasion.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- halotrope 4y agoThis begs to mention the beloved ft.com 404 page: https://www.ft.com/errors/page/404 https://www.ft.com/errors/page/404
- mayankkaizen 4y agoThat was both clever and hilarious.
- belter 4y ago"Classical Economics": There is no such page. We are not going to interfere.
- mbrodersen 4y agoThanks for the link! What a fun read.
- zeruch 4y ago"economic theory looks like math from the shoreline but it tastes and feels like philosophy when you dive in." I'm plagiarizing that for the rest of my life
- anonporridge 4y agoEconomics is the study of how to most effectively manipulate conscious actors to engage in work they don't intrinsically want to do towards some large, long term goal. That goal is always primarily to increase the power and influence of the society (crudely GDP growth) because those that don't direct most energy towards this goal eventually end up getting out competed and supplanted by those external societies that do.