Wednesday, February 22, 2012

What Causes a Situation to be termed "Economically Positive"?

The result of my (apparently controversial) cut-and-paste operation, and the act simply stems from and was instigated by the Financial Times newspaper itself, is that a message is generated. I have included that message, in order to be transparent. I am trying to do here is to focus on Martin Wolf's first three sentences only, which seems to be a bit of a losing battle. Perhaps this is illicit activity, but, it does seem, doesn't it?, that cutting and pasting would be a smart move, if you just want to use three sentences. FT seems to think that the unit of reference should only be the full article, so that is a dispute or difference of interest. In capitalism that would be solved by free markets. But if I am a member of the general society and yet not a member of the business community of business sector of that society, I may have my own ideas. Also: the FT people use the word "investment" here in a way that would seem to be euphemistic (but then such words always are, aren't they?) So, what is to be done? The FT message is reproduced below, just as it popped up before my eye.
"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email to buy additional rights."
Another interesting technical point: I am basically following their instructions correctly since I am including the link, which merely a link it the article, as it turns out. After all that?

The world is in the midst of a natural gas revolution. Even the sober International Energy Agency refers to a scenario it calls a “golden age of gas”. If such optimism proves right, the implications would not only be far greater than those of the eurozone’s painful dissolution, but would also be economically positive.


So, to get that which is "economically positive" we need fracking? Wolf seems to create, despite his best intentions, a straight line from "fracking" to "economics."

In the fragment, he tries to separate economic implications from social implications that are far greater . There are two implications: the "great" ones and the "economically positive" ones. But, in the end, we are back with fracking. So, the basic thing to recognize here is the straight line between fracking and the notion of what is economically positive. Despite his environmentalist caveats, such thinking can only imply just what Wolf is trying to avoid implying: that the economic health of a society is dependent on the arbitrary happenstance of some new industry or commodity.
    This reasoning seems inadequate to me, and as with so many other areas in  the field of economics I do not quite get it or see the sense in it. And I am concerned with the lack of sense in economics, this is a real cause for concern, and the notion of a lack of sense in the field encompasses at one both the "field," meaning study of, economics, and the real world practices of trade.These two can also be called "ideology" and "material actuality," which is a bit what Marx discussed, and which does in fact make good sense up to a point.

No comments:

Post a Comment