Where Economists go wrong? Part-1

Economics is widely regarded as the queen of social sciences. It is single handedly the finest fodder for any philosopher’s brain. The megalomaniac inside us hesitantly waits for the idea to pan out. Let me predict something ,evethough completely irrelevant,the rise of consciousness in Quantum electrodynamics will eventually lead to a race trying to relate our consciousness with economics to the core.

The two ideas that i wish to discuss here, is common for all social sciences.

  • The inclusion of highest cognitive force to each layer of analysis
  • Non-linear relationship between base and superstructures.

Every social science flourish on the idea of multiple layers interacting with each other to generate a number of combinations each pertaining to a logical nature of behaviour of the layer. Lets consider an example, the Keynesian Multiplier effect, during a recession, he suggests the government to invest on high cost public projects which would generate employment and which in turn will lead to rise of demand and eventually the investors would come around these projects and slowly but surely will outweigh the debt the goverment has endured. In one chain of events,his beautiful perspective of demand generalised the need for government planning and control over markets. The house of cards will fall the moment we introduce the highest level of cognitive process in each chain of the system. The moment I assume, that the essential objective of these cognitive process is to minimise the expenditure of perceived valuable resource, everything in the chain is prone to large changes. The cognitive process encompass of all types of cognitive capabilities includinn emotional intelligence, behavioural differences etc that the participant possess at an individual level (more about that later).

I don’t blame Keynes here,but I do blame Hayek for his complete neglet of market behaviour thinking that market is the collective agreement of the participants and that centralised government planning is dangerous. He has practically assumed that any bunch of transaction is an agreement of buyer and seller where as in reality, it depends on the cognitive process involved in the transaction. Hopefully in future,I will try to argue with Marxian and Neoliberals.

For the second point in consideration, lets make an argument that we as a group of life forms were introduced to a completely isolated set of resource pool. How will our economic behaviour ? I am still pondering over the idea.But why Economics,The reason for my consideration of Economics is very simple, it is a base structure, the organisation and structuralisation of same can lead to formation of superstructures like polity etc. The formation of economic behaviour will essentially contribue to formation of our ethical nature, aesthetic sensibility and other social and mental structures. We sure know that they can be easily warped by economic problems as well. The economists of yesteryears often forget that the superstructures can often provide feedback to base structures , that there is non-linear two way relationship between base and superstructures.

If so, what should be the objective of development,markets are non-balancing, manipulative mess of a system, superstructures and base share a non-linear relationship that often picks up the side with more cognitive effort. The objective of development can be defined at a social level, but I strongly,rationally believe, it should be always suggested at individual level. I am in the process of forming a clear opinion on it, when the clarity of thought is achieved, I will discuss it with you.


Manipulative consumerism at its best.

I went through an interesting article. The article questions whether mobile phones are knowingly made difficult to repair so that companies can milk  money from consumers.

Should we tolerate hard-to-fix devices for better phones? https://www.androidauthority.com/device-repairability-807585/amp/


“സഖാവേ, എനിക്ക് മടുത്തു , എന്തെങ്കിലും ഒന്ന് ചെയ്യൂ” അവൾ പരിതപിച്ചു. കുറച്ചു നാളുകൾക്കു ശേഷം അയാൾക്കു സിഗരറ്റ് വാങ്ങി കൊടുത്തു അവൾ. നിസ്സംഗതയോടെ അതിന്റെ അലസമായ പുകചുരുളകളിൽ ജീവന്റെ ശൂന്യത ആസ്വദിക്കാൻ തുടങ്ങിയതാണ് അയാൾ. “സഖാവേ കേൾക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ”. അയാൾ കേൾക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ എന്നുപോലും അവൾക്കു ഉറപ്പില്ല. “സഖാവേ..അയാൾ ഇന്നും..” അവളുടെ വാക്കുകളിൽ ആർദ്രത പടരുന്നുണ്ട്. അയാൾ പക്ഷെ ആ പുകചുരുളകളിൽ ആയിരുന്നു, അവ അയാളോട് സംസാരിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്, അവ ചില കഥകൾ പറയുന്നുണ്ട്, അവ കണ്ണീരു പൊഴിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്, അയാളുടെ ഓർമകൾ ആ പുക ചുരുളുകൾ കൊണ്ട് ചില കഥകൾ ആടുന്നുണ്ട് മനസ്സിൽ. അയാളുടെ കണ്ണുകൾ നിറയുന്നുണ്ട്. അയാൾ കണ്ണുകൾ പതിയെ അടച്ചു. അവൾ അയാളെ കടുത്ത ദേഷ്യത്തോടെ നോക്കി, നടുനിവർത്തി തന്റെ ചുറ്റുപാടുകളിലേക്ക് അലസമായി നോക്കി. അവൾ മൗനം പൂണ്ടു, പക്ഷെ അവളുടെ കണ്ണുകളിൽ ആർദ്രത മറഞ്ഞുപോയിരുന്നു. ആ വികാരം, ആ വിചാരം, അതാണ് എന്നും വിപ്ലവത്തിന്റെ ശംഖൊലികളായി മാറിയിട്ടുള്ളത്.