But, returning to Arthur's cry of pain about the writing of some economists, the problem is really because economics is a double-stranded subject.
I was tempted to compare it with DNA, but the metaphor isn't accurate because the two strands are not complimentary. They don't fit well together. One strand is of economics as a science. When we look at the mechanical processes of production, distribution, employment and so forth, then there's no reason why economics shouldn't be considered a science. I think this will be greatly helped one day when money is able to be used as a true scientific unit of measurement. That is, when money ceases to be the modern (and, historically, recent) form of paper tokens of arbitrary value as decided by politicians from year to year, or even month to month, for populist reasons in one country or another. (One of the biggest dangers in the forthcoming recession. Threatening noises are already being made concerning Japanese attempts at devaluing the Yen [while pretending not to]. ) The other strand of economics is due to human nature -- that is, economics as a "literary science" in much the same way as sociology, or psychology or history is. Economics also has to try and make sense of the oft-irrational side of human nature that erupts from time to time. And, like the other human sciences, economics can't be said to have made much headway so far. The latter is much more complex. What do we make of it? The first thing is to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is such a thing as "human nature" per se. Our "human nature" is really an accumulation of all sorts of different "drives", "instincts", "genetic propensities", call them what you will. As a species, we are the product of evolution which has made many huge twists and turns throughout the last 3,000 million years according to vast geological changes and, often, dramatic climatic changes caused by accidental hits by large asteroids or eruptions of super-volcanoes. All the life-forms at present on earth are the results of particular conditions which existed right up to the time when they reached their 'final' form. The DNA of every species is a sort of layered cake or sandwich, the result of all the previous environmental regimes which occurred previously. There's no rhyme or reason to any of our "natures". None of us are unified -- man least of all. We, as the most advanced species (it seems), have the longest evolutionary history behind us, and our "nature" is correspondingly more complicated than most. Understanding all this in a fairly balanced way is just about the most difficult intellectual task there is. I think this will gradually make more and more sense as the "literary sciences" already mentioned become more scientific -- as we know more and more about neurophysiology, anthropology, game theory and the like. Despite the slurs made about the subject, economics has always been of interest to the greatest minds throughout history from Aristotle onwards. And not only philosophers. Some of the greatest scientists, such as Copernicus (one of the first monetarists), and Isaac Newton (when Master of the Mint) have made big contributions. Although it still has many loose ends which probably won't be resolved for decades, I think it's a fascinating subject. Keith Hudson __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
