The College of Arts and Sciences. That’s where you can find some top professors who excel at what they do. And they try to be as profound as possible. The country, however, has gone another way. Our US/America wants things simple, and modern, and sleek. Newspapers feature – from a new breed of intellectuals now – a kind of “abbreviated” writing. The writers use unexamined assumptions. They offer vague approximations. They accept whatever kind of of unexamined assumptions works, in order to flesh out their style. What they are writing is the current, new style. Over at the university, there is another style of scholarly practice, but it must certainly be dying. Anyways, who was been reading? The fact is they are not getting read. There is no great number of people reading. And so, it has been having no influence for some time now. Time – and the society – moves on.
There is this older kind of text, then, and this one attempts to dig into details, but in a meaningful way; it attempts to notice all of the distinctions, but with maximum precision. US/America is a capitalist country. Increasingly, the only thing we can discern that matters is money, and the country where this is happening is finally responding to the market and it is moving towards a different kind of writing. The old forms of scholarly excellence are clearly being replaced by younger, abbreviated forms of intellect and these are less precise. The new trend. Scholarship is in decline. In capitalism the entire society is a market. It is that society that is implicated (different from saying the individual) in this phenomenon, that of a market demand. It is a social demand, or trend, but not merely individual. There are those sitting in high places – gatekeepers of the culture you can say – who are now forced to give in. For this is the commercial demand of the society.
Excellent scholars exist – like jewels in lotuses. But lonely jewels. No one is listening to them. No one is praying to them, anymore.
All the mainstream economics jargon in the books looks at markets as if the phenomenon were somehow a kind of individualism, but a moment’s reflection should suffice, and a reasonable person will no doubt discern that that anything we wish to call “economics” exists socially. But we are not supposed to say that; this is not in the books, which put this emphasis on the individual economic actor, unconnected to others. That view is contrary to reality. Why is there this project to reduce the kinds of things called “economics” to an individual level? It is astounding, once you see through this! For example: How can a market be one individual? Or only individuals? But we the books look like they thing the entire market is only individuals. It isn’t true! Why this brazen mistake? In my view, which I do not think is crazy, a whole society is now choosing to lower its standard, in regard to a certain kind of writing. That is not the decision of one individual. And if we look over at the individuals, then what we can see are a few remaining “old-fashioned scholars,” and their editors perhaps, who would like to extend the “ancien regime.” All that is left are a few tottering old kings, then. Markets are not individual.
The only way to describe the “science of economics” is as a pernicious ideology.