Life---existence and viability---the functional viability of the society itself: this depends on social factors. Society depends, of course, on factors that are social. That being the case, it depends on factors that are informal rather than formal. The informal factors we are discussing are not things enshrined in law. They are informal, and social. These factors can also be called cultural factors; the fact is, you can also call it ethnic. In any human society that we know about, life depends, for its viability and comfort if not its very existence, on social factors; they are therefore crucial parts of our analysis. This is what our world depends on. What is crucial for us is economics, because, in our particular society, we have this. Economics, then, is something that seems quite mysterious but there is nevertheless something that we call "economics" and therefore there are "economic aspects" of how our lives are. And that is important. So "it's the economy stupid."
The economy, then, is a crucial factor in our lives. This foundation or basis of economics is not found on Wall St., however. It is not found in "models," as used by academics, and it doesn't depend on these academics' mathematics. Nor are these crucial factors in any way touched on, "explained" by, some crisscrossing lines they devised that "explain," or "mean" something, or "stand for" something they might call supply and demand. It's all bullshit. It's all concepts and representation. You cannot just substitute one concept for another and get something.
Yet for our way of life, or our social form, "economics" is important. That is one thing that is clear. Therefore what I say is that economics is social, not mathematical. The economists are therefore mistaken, because their "default mode" automatically reverts to math. (Which they believe "stands for" something.) Certainly it is true, and I think worth observing, that people make money based on mathematics. That kind of thing happens, stock trading formulas and that kind of thing --- just what is not crucial to economics. (or is it? kind of a delicate matter to juggle in the mind after all. very post-modern and all)
Our society depends upon economics, as we have noted. Economics does not depend upon Wall St., however. Then Wall St. is not the crucial factor, not for the health of the economy, but maybe for the death of the economy, or for making a disease of it... It is not the crucial factor in what makes the capitalistic economy or way of life exist. Capitalism depends upon social factors. The math, or the Wall St. ideology, or those kinds of concerns --- they do not explain it.
The concerns of economics departments are definitely ideological, although the ideology is hidden (this is the nature of what is called "ideology"). The concerns of Wall St., as with the concerns of other components of economic ideology, do not explain the health, or the life, of capitalism. And capitalism is in fact the basic principle of the world. And, of course, it follows (a possible word substitution here could be "it is not surprising") that none of these institutions provide an explanation of capitalism.
So, in capitalism, a phenomenon which has never been explained... (If you want to get close, go to the "capitalism" entry in the 1919 Brittanica, which is on-line --- sorry, I mean 1911 --- http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ ... look at the "capitalism" entry. Here, what is said about "capitalism," which had "already become controversial," ((exact quote: "so highly controversial a question as to require here more detailed examination."))
ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE)
That content has not yet been altered by the ideologists.