The economics is an strategic subject in politics and in many other fields. This topic has a long history behind him. Economics has been invented by thinkers like Aristotle. The Soviets, for instance, deconsidered Plato (saying that he was « useless ») while they took great care of Aristotle, who was an inventor of the economy. This philosophers was one of the first to think about the values between slaves and their masters, talking about the difference between action and framework. Other thinkers, like Hume, participated to the development of this subject.
Those ideas show that economics can be considered as having a real impact. For instance, the bourgeoisie became more and more important in society when it managed to invent accounting measures, which is strategic as well. This work, based on logics, has very complex ramifications. As well, it is possible to add that the development of financial markets was linked to the mobiliaration of the economy, which is necessary to change the focus of power. Zola described very well, in his book La Curée, the development of financial markets, and how it affected a great way society. A new class of « insiders » were created while it led a lot of misery around. Anyway, in my opinion, financial markets are not the reason of misery but how it is allocated. Those markets are far from being perfect, and thinking about them in terms of « science » cannot be relevant.
Overall capitalism always existed : Plato, in his book The Laws, which is a great program of education for the citizen of his ideal city, develops about the fact of « mastering » a specific task. This mastery is very linked to the specialization of tasks, theorized by Adam Smith. This approach is necessary to give a good framework of what capitalism is : amoral (not immoral) and that can allow a great deal of models. Progress can benefit a great deal of people, but it is necessary to do that to reconcile growth and impact. It is not an easy step, but it can be made. Marx told that capitalism must spread not to die, and that is the reason why it absorbed a lot of empires (arabic or chinese). But reconciling growth and impact can make us understand why, in my opinion, the keynesian approach is very relevant.
- First, it is reluctant to use beyond a certain extend mathematics. Keynes was an excellent mathematician but he saw economics as a thought, in the field of philosophy. That is the reason why he didn’t like to overuse mathematics in the financial markets, as he saw, for instance, monetary market (not so mathematized compared to other fields) as strategic.
- Second it combines an approach of public spending and investment in the long run and private freedom. It led to the 30 glorious years (at least for Europe) and succeded as well with China since the reformer Deng Xiaoping went to power.
Those arguments show why, in my opinion, economics is a thought and not a science. Neoliberals and Marxists do the same mistakes both. And the result, in the long run, is far from being great (of course Marxist are even worse than the Neoliberals). As technology is rethinking the way money will be used, for instance, we need to go back to economics to what is really is. Elaborating theories and not believing those who tend to consider as « truths » or a « science » what it cannot be. It could be relevant to rediscover thinking and not going to an « ivoiry tour » that is in the long run inefficient.
The observer 