In a capitalist world, the often-overlooked systems of technical standards offer a rare example of economic collaboration that prioritizes the public good over profit.
Any subject can be qualified, and you’re right that more things probably should.
There’s capitalism; then, for me, there’s laissez-faire capitalism and regulated capitalism as the two main branches. Somewhere within laissez-faire economics lies libertarianism and anarchy, which are political structures, but the implementation of which would presumed literally no central control - people trading precious metals, goods and services directly. On the other branch you have regulated markets that eventually include limited socialism - usually restricted to public infrastructure and military, and where you start to blend in aspects of communism. And while I’m certain there are technical terms for all of the, I care a little less about economics than I do sports, which is to say not at all.
I have my own opinions about what I think is wrong with Capitalism in the US, and what changes I think could fix them, but this is decidedly not my area of expertise and I’m very much a believer of differentiating between opinions and knowledge.
What you’re seeing, I think, is a limitation in American education combined with DILIGAF - disinterest in becoming enough of a subject expert to use precise terminology. However, I think it’s misplaced to get upset about it; I’m certain medical doctors, aerospace engineers, computer engineers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, classical musicians, voting theory scientists - they all probably mentally tear their hair out a little when talking to laypeople because we’re all so “imprecise” in our terminology. I think it’s just a consequence of living in a world so complex and varied, it’s not possible for one person to be an expert and use precise terminology when talking about every subject - and this includes economics.
I don’t think these two academics are suffering from disinterest or a lack of subject expertise.
I think they are in a space where they don’t think it applies to their output in this particular venue. Maybe in a space where they are subconsciously tied to a “here/now/default” take on the world that is just the US and everything else is this othered “elsewhere” that gets perceived as somehow smaller, less relevant or exceptional.
Part of it is a cultural disconnect. They may think the implications of “capitalism” when used to an American audience are clear. My observation is that this is not just a cultural disconnect in the use of the world, but instead that the word when used inside the US is fluid, poorly defined, deliberately imprecise and more or less tautological.
Capitalism is whatever the US does now, as perceived by whoever is using the word. I think that’s a very purposeful result of US politics and, had they gotten to it on time, Americans may have benefitted from putting an end to it before the entire system lost all meaning.
I don’t think these two academics are suffering from disinterest or a lack of subject expertise.
Perhaps not, but successful academics will also understand and tailor their messaging to their audience, dumbing it down if necessary.
I think that’s a very purposeful result of US politics
Complete agreement. So is the international hegemony of the dollar, and why, a decade ago, the US government had an apoplectic fit when OPEC made noises about starting to accept payments in, or fixing prices to, something other than the dollar. I don’t think the general public understood just how important it is that so many of the global currencies are tied to the value of the dollar, and, like English, it’s the financial lingua franca.
I disagree that it’s been overall bad for the US, although I think it’s been extremely unhealthy for the world at large.
Any subject can be qualified, and you’re right that more things probably should.
There’s capitalism; then, for me, there’s laissez-faire capitalism and regulated capitalism as the two main branches. Somewhere within laissez-faire economics lies libertarianism and anarchy, which are political structures, but the implementation of which would presumed literally no central control - people trading precious metals, goods and services directly. On the other branch you have regulated markets that eventually include limited socialism - usually restricted to public infrastructure and military, and where you start to blend in aspects of communism. And while I’m certain there are technical terms for all of the, I care a little less about economics than I do sports, which is to say not at all.
I have my own opinions about what I think is wrong with Capitalism in the US, and what changes I think could fix them, but this is decidedly not my area of expertise and I’m very much a believer of differentiating between opinions and knowledge.
What you’re seeing, I think, is a limitation in American education combined with DILIGAF - disinterest in becoming enough of a subject expert to use precise terminology. However, I think it’s misplaced to get upset about it; I’m certain medical doctors, aerospace engineers, computer engineers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, classical musicians, voting theory scientists - they all probably mentally tear their hair out a little when talking to laypeople because we’re all so “imprecise” in our terminology. I think it’s just a consequence of living in a world so complex and varied, it’s not possible for one person to be an expert and use precise terminology when talking about every subject - and this includes economics.
I don’t think these two academics are suffering from disinterest or a lack of subject expertise.
I think they are in a space where they don’t think it applies to their output in this particular venue. Maybe in a space where they are subconsciously tied to a “here/now/default” take on the world that is just the US and everything else is this othered “elsewhere” that gets perceived as somehow smaller, less relevant or exceptional.
Part of it is a cultural disconnect. They may think the implications of “capitalism” when used to an American audience are clear. My observation is that this is not just a cultural disconnect in the use of the world, but instead that the word when used inside the US is fluid, poorly defined, deliberately imprecise and more or less tautological.
Capitalism is whatever the US does now, as perceived by whoever is using the word. I think that’s a very purposeful result of US politics and, had they gotten to it on time, Americans may have benefitted from putting an end to it before the entire system lost all meaning.
Perhaps not, but successful academics will also understand and tailor their messaging to their audience, dumbing it down if necessary.
Complete agreement. So is the international hegemony of the dollar, and why, a decade ago, the US government had an apoplectic fit when OPEC made noises about starting to accept payments in, or fixing prices to, something other than the dollar. I don’t think the general public understood just how important it is that so many of the global currencies are tied to the value of the dollar, and, like English, it’s the financial lingua franca.
I disagree that it’s been overall bad for the US, although I think it’s been extremely unhealthy for the world at large.