Does Economics Affect Everything?

[INRM]

Does economics affect every aspect of human existence, and if so, does that mean skilled economists and bankers are unusually adept at exerting undue control over mankind?

[Puppycow]

Regarding the first part of your question, I suppose we should start with definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economics):

ec·o·nom·ics
   /ˌɛkəˈnɒmɪks, ˌikə-/ –noun
1.
( used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
2.
( used with a plural verb ) financial considerations; economically significant aspects: What are the economics of such a project?

If you mean the first definition, I would say the answer is no. If you mean the second definition, I would say a qualified yes. Not literally everything, but mostly every aspect of human existence is affected directly or indirectly by "financial considerations."

The answer to the second part of your question is, no.
What are you going to do? Not have banks? Not attempt to study the economy? To do either, you must have bankers and economists.

[Sceptic-PK]

Does physics affect everything? Does this mean that physicists are unduly controlling mankind?

[theprestige]

INRM, have you ever considered going to school, or learning a trade? Filling your mind with something useful, and interesting, and meaningful? Mastering a skill, and using it to better your life and the lives of those around you?

[psionl0]

Does economics affect every aspect of human existence, and if so, does that mean skilled economists and bankers are unusually adept at exerting undue control over mankind?
Substitute the word "money" for "economics" and the answer is arguably "yes".

Naturally, the more you understand money, the more influence you will have compared to your less financially literate neighbours.

[Puppycow]

Does physics affect everything? Does this mean that physicists are unduly controlling mankind?

;)

[Dave Rogers]

[...]does that mean skilled economists and bankers are unusually adept at exerting undue control over mankind?

Do you have any evidence that these mythical creatures exist?

Dave

[timhau]

Oh, but they do. Unfortunately, they all climbed into a wardrobe sometime late in 2007. We've been unable to locate them since (but I hear Narnia's GNP is up 7.2% in Q3).

[drkitten]

If you mean the first definition, I would say the answer is no.

I dunno. I'd say that almost every aspect of the human condition is affected directly by "the material welfare of mankind."

But, of course, that doesn't mean that skilled economist can control people any more than we expect skilled meteorologists to be able to control the weather. On the other hand, we do expect skilled meteorologists to be able to tell us what the weather's going to be so we can decide whether or not to go to the beach this weekend. And I suspect that meteorologists have nicer picnics than the rest of us, because they get caught in sudden rainstorms less often.

[Dave Rogers]

It occurs to me, apropos of nothing, that the OP would make more sense if the topic were "Does Economics Effect Everything?"

Dave

[psionl0]

Basically, effect means cause or result while affect means influence. The idea that economics causes everything is less likely than economics influences everything.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/affect-effect-grammar.html

[Dave Rogers]

Basically, effect means cause or result while affect means influence.

I know that. Read the OP again.

Dave

[The True Scotsman]

Does economics affect every aspect of human existence, and if so, does that mean skilled economists and bankers are unusually adept at exerting undue control over mankind?

The only power most economists have is the power of persuasion. They generally don't make the calls. That's where politicians come in and that is where you might want to look when discussing "control over mankind."

[Beerina]

Does physics affect everything? Does this mean that physicists are unduly controlling mankind?

Generally speaking, physicists don't try to get laws passed to declare their theory correct, with dissenters sent to prison.

[psionl0]

I know that. Read the OP again.
Does economics affect cause every aspect of human existence, and if so, does that mean skilled economists and bankers are unusually adept at exerting undue control over mankind?
Nope - it doesn't make sense to me unless the answer is supposed to be "no".

[CatOfGrey]

Does economics affect every aspect of human existence, and if so, does that mean skilled economists and bankers are unusually adept at exerting undue control over mankind?

Much as the rules of physics can describe physical stuff in our universe, economics (specifically microeconomics) explain much of human decision making. I would not be surprised if economics does a better job at this than sociology or psychology.

However, government influence can make studying economics difficult, by artificially changing the circumstances under which humans make decisions.

Economics (in this case, macroeconomics) also describes the interactions of industries and the effects of laws and changing economic conditions on societies and nations as a whole.

[INRM]

Cat of Grey,

What's microeconomics?

[KoihimeNakamura]

The study of financial interactions between two atoms.

[kevinquinnyo]

This is a broad, open-ended question.

I would alter it to: Every action is affected by the reality of economics.

Maybe thousands of years from now, we will live in a post-scarcity world, where we can "generate" anything we want at almost* no cost and exist in some sort of neural-network or <insert futurist ideal here>, but for now, yes, all resources have alternative uses and weighing and examining those choices and costs, is what economics is all about.

* - Even then, everything has a cost. Any action that you choose to do, could have been replaced with another action that was foregone, so every action and every thing has a cost. That's basically what economics is about.

Sorry to be so vague and philosophical, but the question is so broad - I hope I'm not way off in the deep end...

[kevinquinnyo]

And as far as the second part of the question: No. No way. As long as government is limited/kept in check, that can't happen.

Natural monopolies are rare. That kind of power consolidation that you speak of only happens when government gets out of control, or (similarly) a mafia rises to power through violence. We can freely choose whom to do business with. We can all join credit unions, or put our money in local banks if we choose. None of us are forced to do business with any corrupt megabank.

[Sceptic-PK]

Generally speaking, physicists don't try to get laws passed to declare their theory correct, with dissenters sent to prison.

When have economists done this?

[INRM]

Cat of Grey

I would not be surprised if economics does a better job at this than sociology or psychology.

Well isn't economics/microeconomics based on human psychology, and human behavior?

[Chaos]

Cat of Grey,

What's microeconomics?

:rolleyes:

Did it ever, even once in your entire life, occur to you that it might be a good idea to get at least a basic clue about something before you start bleating out brainless paranoid nonsense about it? You know, instead of again and again and again making you complete and utter ignorance about anything worthwhile glaringly obvious?

You should try it. For our sake, if not for yours.

[drkitten]

isn't economics/microeconomics based on human psychology, and human behavior?

Did you know that there's more than one site on the internet?

[The True Scotsman]

Cat of Grey

Well isn't economics/microeconomics based on human psychology, and human behavior?

There is over-lap between the fields, but they are still largely considered separate disciplines (probably due to how they are studied).

[Almo]

If you need food to eat, and you interact somehow with other humans to make that food, then economics affects you.

All humans need food to eat. None (or exteremely few) grow all their own food without any assistance from anyone else.

I think that means economics affects everyone.

[Puppycow]

I dunno. I'd say that almost every aspect of the human condition is affected directly by "the material welfare of mankind."The first definition doesn't mean "the material welfare of mankind" itself, but the science that deals with the material welfare of mankind.

[Mr.D]

Could one not argue that human behavior (as in decision making) is the result of people's perceptions of opportunity cost?

Put that way, then one answer to the OP is that it means that people who are more skilled or adept at manipulating people's perceptions of opportunity costs certainly have more influence on how other people behave than those who aren't; But this is hardly something a good advertiser or successful politician doesn't already know.

As for whether that influence is "undue" or not ...

[Halfcentaur]

Medical doctors also are unusually adept at exerting control over human existence, if they all decided to do just that and put aside their personal drive to compete against one another, or possibly the drive to care for others( I've heard they're into that sort of thing too). Do you think economists are in their field to help humans, or are they competing against each other for personal gain? Do you think all economists are willing to band together to share the wealth with each other according to what is fair, compared to what they could achieve on their own? Sounds like communism to me. You should be very afraid. All these freedoms you've been enjoying are about to go away.

[INRM]

Mr. D

As for whether that influence is "undue" or not ...

Good question...

[The True Scotsman]

Could one not argue that human behavior (as in decision making) is the result of people's perceptions of opportunity cost?

Put that way, then one answer to the OP is that it means that people who are more skilled or adept at manipulating people's perceptions of opportunity costs certainly have more influence on how other people behave than those who aren't; But this is hardly something a good advertiser or successful politician doesn't already know.

As for whether that influence is "undue" or not ...

Kind of sounds like "Information Asymmetry Theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry

[CatOfGrey]

Cat of Grey,

What's microeconomics?

MICROeconomics focuses on the behavior of individuals, individual families, or individual firms.

MACROeconomics focuses on behavior of 'the economy' as a whole, which usually refers to countries, governments, and societies.

[CatOfGrey]

Could one not argue that human behavior (as in decision making) is the result of people's perceptions of opportunity cost?

Put that way, then one answer to the OP is that it means that people who are more skilled or adept at manipulating people's perceptions of opportunity costs certainly have more influence on how other people behave than those who aren't; But this is hardly something a good advertiser or successful politician doesn't already know.

As for whether that influence is "undue" or not ...

The term I would use for this is 'expertise'. A doctor may have more influence in a hospital. But when that doctor take his car in for service, the car mechanic carries the influence. And when the mechanic has do their taxes, then the accountant carries the influence. And the accountant probably isn't going to dig ditches to install sprinklers in the yard...

[Francesca R]

Generally speaking, physicists scientists don't try to get laws passed to declare their theory correct, with dissenters sent to prison.[my change]

Wonder what that fuss about "climate gate" was for then?

[Dave Rogers]

Wonder what that fuss about "climate gate" was for then?

Remind me, what laws were passed and how many people got sent to prison?

Dave

[tensordyne]

:boxedin:

Something about the current understanding of Economics I never liked is how it is defined as the study of goods and services that are most often thought of as being scarce. Would it not be better to define Economics as the art and science of planning? I say this because if you define your study with scarcity in it, it is very possible that scarcity is what you will see everywhere. Plus, if you look at what Economists do in relation to Governments, I hope most people will agree that Economists make planning recomendations all the time.

So, if you define/redefine Economics as the Art and Science of Planning or making plans, I imagine most of Human activity is Economic in nature. Unless you do something spontaneous, you would be doing something in an economic fashion. Just a thought

[drkitten]

:boxedin:

Something about the current understanding of Economics I never liked is how it is defined as the study of goods and services that are most often thought of as being scarce. Would it not be better to define Economics as the art and science of planning?

No, because a lot of what economics does involves unplanned responses. Indeed, the idea of the free market specifically eschews the idea of "planning"; instead everyone does whatever they want, and the market is the collective response of the universe.

I say this because if you define your study with scarcity in it, it is very possible that scarcity is what you will see everywhere.

Well, there's a reason for that. "Scarcity" simply means that there's not limitless quantities of something for free; since I can't think of anything available in limitless quantities except for stupidity, that means that you do indeed see scarcity everywhere.


So, if you define/redefine Economics as the Art and Science of Planning or making plans,
... then you've just added to the vast amount of stupidity available.

[The True Scotsman]

:boxedin:

Something about the current understanding of Economics I never liked is how it is defined as the study of goods and services that are most often thought of as being scarce. Would it not be better to define Economics as the art and science of planning? I say this because if you define your study with scarcity in it, it is very possible that scarcity is what you will see everywhere. Plus, if you look at what Economists do in relation to Governments, I hope most people will agree that Economists make planning recomendations all the time.

So, if you define/redefine Economics as the Art and Science of Planning or making plans, I imagine most of Human activity is Economic in nature. Unless you do something spontaneous, you would be doing something in an economic fashion. Just a thought

A more precise definition of economics is "the study of trade-offs." The reason it is defined this way is that everything is scarce and so we must make decisions about how we use resources (ex. I have 4 hours before I need to leave for work, if I play video games the entire time, I won't have any time left to swim laps).

[Loss Leader]

Cat of Grey



Well isn't economics/microeconomics based on human psychology, and human behavior?


Only very recently. The field blending the two is called Behavioral Economics. You should read a book about it. Or, really, any book ... any book at all.

[Francesca R]

Only very recently.Well, approximately since the 1940s and game theorists like Morgenstern, von Neumann and Nash. Which makes it about one quarter of the age of classical economics.

[INRM]

Neuroeconomics is a subset of behavioral economics right?

[Roboramma]

Neuroeconomics is a subset of behavioral economics right?
I worry that neuroeconomics might lead to mind control.:boxedin:

[drkitten]

Neuroeconomics is a subset of behavioral economics right?

No. Neurology isn't a part of traditional behavioral economics, which is why Wikipedia describes neuroeconomics as "an interdisciplinary field that [...] combines research methods from neuroscience, experimental and behavioral economics, and cognitive and social psychology."

As you'd know if you were capable of doing research on your own.

[INRM]

Sounds like a great way to figure out new insights into how to manipulate people

[The True Scotsman]

Sounds like a great way to figure out new insights into how to manipulate people

Oh, the tyranny of words...:rolleyes:

What you call manipulation, I call influence. What's the difference? Not a whole lot, other than the "tone" of the word (ie one is a negative term, the other is a fairly neutral term (at least when people are involved)).

Do you mean to cast economists in a negative light?

[Roboramma]

Do you mean to cast economists in a negative light?

Aren't you worried that neuroeconomics might lead to mind control?

Next you're going to suggest that eating salad won't lead to mind control.

To INRM think about this: every time you open up the JREF forum you are exposing yourself to new ideas presented by other people, ideas that can affect your mind.

Perhaps even worse than that, every time you post on JREF you make posts that will be read by other members, and which will in some way affect their minds! Are you not worried that your presence on JREF may lead to mind control?

[Mark6]

I dunno. I'd say that almost every aspect of the human condition is affected directly by "the material welfare of mankind."

But, of course, that doesn't mean that skilled economist can control people any more than we expect skilled meteorologists to be able to control the weather.
Since everyone knows that a flap of butterfly's wing affects a hurricane a month later, by INRM's logic it is skilled lepidopterists who can control weather.

It makes as much sense as everything else INRM posts.

[The True Scotsman]

Since everyone knows that a flap of butterfly's wing affects a hurricane a month later, by INRM's logic it is skilled lepidopterists who can control weather.

It makes as much sense as everything else INRM posts.

Yes, actually the Illuminati were originally called the Il-Luna-Mothi. :D

[INRM]

The True Scottsman

What you call manipulation, I call influence. What's the difference?

The degree of how "influential" it is. When you are doing research into how a person's brain works, it allows you a much greater degree of influence than you would have if you didn't. I think it allows undue influence.

[drkitten]

When you are doing research into how a person's brain works, it allows you a much greater degree of influence than you would have if you didn't.

No, it doesn't, or meteorologists would control the weather.

I think it allows undue influence.

As usual, what you think happens to be wrong.

[The True Scotsman]

The True Scottsman

The degree of how "influential" it is. When you are doing research into how a person's brain works, it allows you a much greater degree of influence than you would have if you didn't. I think it allows undue influence.

How do you think this works? Do you think economists are going to find some magic phrase that, when spoken, will turn people into mindless zombies that will obey their every command?

Economists are mainly concerned with human welfare and economic efficiency. If they are attempting to extrapolate anything from research on the mind, it is research into how people respond to incentives and trade-offs to help certain aspects of the economy run more smoothly. It isn't about controlling people's reactions, but rather about determine what their reactions might be.

[Mr.D]

The degree of how "influential" it is. When you are doing research into how a person's brain works, it allows you a much greater degree of influence than you would have if you didn't. I think it allows undue influence.

<anecdote>
I was at a party last night. There happened to be a very attractive young woman in attendance with ... shall we say a rather obvious pair of forward facing assets. I was outside in the poker game and after I was eliminated, I found it quite amusing to people-watch and observe her manipulate the men inside into fetching drinks for her and letting her bend the rules of the charades-like game they were all playing.

Anyway, the point is that she clearly had a "much greater degree of influence [on others]" than other (equally pretty) women who didn't have large breasts and tight clothing.

So, to put it a little vulgarly, do you think big **** allow undue influence, INRM? If so, what do you think should be done about it?

[Roboramma]

The True Scottsman



The degree of how "influential" it is. When you are doing research into how a person's brain works, it allows you a much greater degree of influence than you would have if you didn't. I think it allows undue influence.

If you are worried about the "mind control" exerted by economists and neuroscientists, this should freak you out considerably more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation
:boxedin:

[UWdude]

Sexuality, reproduction, and care for offspring affects everything. Economics are a tool used in those goals, but not the only tool.

I was at a party last night. There happened to be a very attractive young woman in attendance with ... shall we say a rather obvious pair of forward facing assets. I was outside in the poker game and after I was eliminated, I found it quite amusing to people-watch and observe her manipulate the men inside into fetching drinks for her and letting her bend the rules of the charades-like game they were all playing.

Anyway, the point is that she clearly had a "much greater degree of influence [on others]" than other (equally pretty) women who didn't have large breasts and tight clothing.

So, to put it a little vulgarly, do you think big **** allow undue influence, INRM? If so, what do you think should be done about it?

Ironic I read this after I posted.


Anyways, to respond, every person in the world will use whatever advantage they can get to acquire their desires. If it is beauty, they will use it, if it is money, they will use it, if it is intellect, they will use it, if it is a sixth toe, they will use it. An intelligent person complaining about how shallow and mindless and pointless bimbos are, is only doing so because they wish more people respected and rewarded intelligence instead of beauty. (Not implying above poster was complaining)

[INRM]

The True Scotsman

Economists are mainly concerned with human welfare and economic efficiency.

They are concerned with economic efficiency, but not necessarily about human welfare; unless you mean the welfare of the humans who run big and powerful banks and financial institutions.

It isn't about controlling people's reactions, but rather about determine what their reactions might be.

One reason people involved in economics would try to determine the way people react to certain situations is to figure out how to manipulate those reactions.


INRM
"In closing, I want to remind you all that no matter how I die, even if there was a suicide note; it was murder"

[drkitten]

They are concerned with economic efficiency, but not necessarily about human welfare; unless you mean the welfare of the humans who run big and powerful banks and financial institutions.

That's simply wrong. One of the things that the humans "who run big and powerful banks and financial institutions" need to be aware of is what the people who don't consider to be key to their welfare, and how to provide those key things at minimum cost.

Even slaves need to eat; it's cheaper to feed slaves than to buy new ones. Every successful slaveholder knows that.

Economists study what people in general want. Some people will use the insights from economists to their advantage and against the interests of the "general public"; that's not the fault of the economists, however.

[The True Scotsman]

They are concerned with economic efficiency, but not necessarily about human welfare; unless you mean the welfare of the humans who run big and powerful banks and financial institutions.

I know an economist who is currently working on deriving a demand-model (as well as gathering data) for arsenic-free water in Bangladesh and is looking to use what was found to strengthen the case for better water filtration. But I guess she just cares about the big banks and financial institutions. :rolleyes:

One reason people involved in economics would try to determine the way people react to certain situations is to figure out how to manipulate those reactions.

You seem to reject the word "influence" in favor of "manipulate." Please tell me, then, how you define both.

INRM
"In closing, I want to remind you all that no matter how I die, even if there was a suicide note; it was murder"

"In closing, I want to remind you, INRM, that even if you did die, no one on this forum would know, because they don't know who you are."