[Noisebridge-discuss] economics

Brian Morris cymraegish at gmail.com
Wed Nov 23 02:39:10 UTC 2011

Joseph -

IMHO a big issue in economics is jargon. It uses a different language
incompatible with other areas for things that mean the same (eg marginal ,

Here it seems you are batting around with the terms "conservative" and
"liberal". I very strongly disagree that conservatives are liberal on
environmental issues.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Joseph Brenner <doomvox at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >This is where terms like 'inelastic demand' is bandied about.
> I would add that if you know some math, as many people here do, econ
> terminology often seems weird.
> Like, "Elasticity?  Oh, you mean the slope."
> > As an analogy, microeconomics is more like physics and math, and
> > macroeconomics is more like biology.
> Yes, pretty close.  I usually compare it to ecology: they're both
> studies of complex, interrelated systems.
> And there are some historical connections (Adam Smith was influenced
> by Darwin).
> The funny thing is that liberals tend to be conservative on
> environmental issues, whereas conservatives tend to be liberal on
> them.
> But then, conservatives haven't been inclined to be "conservative"
> (i.e. playing it safe) on economic issues in recent decades, so go
> figure.
> > I feel like the thought that economics is 'too complex' to understand
> > is more a function of the competing noise in the marketplace of ideas
> > than any inherently difficult concepts.
> There are a lot of people jamming, just now.  It's critically
> important to put over the idea that it's all the fault of Big
> Government and those damn Democrats.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20111122/7e884f59/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list