On the first part...It is a better way to look at it - A perspective cannot be substantiated by evidence.
It is my opinion.
If you see products or services as 'property', then to transfer that wealth to another - to use money - i.e the mechanism of transfer..
Property ownership moves from one entity to another, with the exchange.
Just a perspective, like I say, but a much better way to look at it....(it takes away the emphasis of money as the thing, and focuses value more on products and services)
the second part...
....and economics are the dreams of the control freaks that attempt to control the future and love to talk about it a lot.
An economists job's is an attempt to predict the future, ergo it's conceptual. It's not real.
Capitalism is real, and requires no economic model - it looks after itself .
Economists are are not required.
(as opposed to socialism/communism )
The claim that one’s perspective is “better” is just a claim. The claim can certainly be substantiated by a well-reasoned argument.
Now that you’ve explained your claim, I get it. I definitely view money as such a mechanism. I don’t think I said anything to the contrary of that in the video, but I certainly appreciate the perspective.
Economics is a pretty well-established science, and I’d say the Austrian school does a hell of a lot more than “predicting the future.”
Economics is just the study of the realities of scarcity, supply and demand, etc.
Economy is a very real part of life. In fact, economics is everywhere and in everything.
Do we have enough hot dogs for everyone at the cook out?
Will there be enough water for the garden if a dry spell comes?
These are economic concepts. This is what I was getting at in the video.
of course, everything is- economics, like you say.
( I was viewing it more on the macro/engineering of societies level)
Economics is a pretty well-established science,
I totally disagree.
I can tell you that next year on April 1st, if I drop an apple from my hand, what the exact velocity of the apple will be, when it hits the ground...
Now if you could tell me on any given date next year, when an economic event will happen, with the result known before the event - I'll concede the argument..! lol
Of course as economics deals with unpredictable realities (I don’t know where you are getting the notion that economics is all about predictions, though), it is not the same as natural science. The praxeological realities it deals with are very concrete, however.
You understand that things like psychology, sociology, etc, are sciences as well, right?
Why do you imagine the study of economics to be a mere prediction of future events?
I'm not clear about your request, tbh... lol
On the first part...It is a better way to look at it - A perspective cannot be substantiated by evidence.
It is my opinion.
If you see products or services as 'property', then to transfer that wealth to another - to use money - i.e the mechanism of transfer..
Property ownership moves from one entity to another, with the exchange.
Just a perspective, like I say, but a much better way to look at it....(it takes away the emphasis of money as the thing, and focuses value more on products and services)
the second part...
An economists job's is an attempt to predict the future, ergo it's conceptual. It's not real.
Capitalism is real, and requires no economic model - it looks after itself .
Economists are are not required.
(as opposed to socialism/communism )
I hope that helps somewhat...?
The claim that one’s perspective is “better” is just a claim. The claim can certainly be substantiated by a well-reasoned argument.
Now that you’ve explained your claim, I get it. I definitely view money as such a mechanism. I don’t think I said anything to the contrary of that in the video, but I certainly appreciate the perspective.
Economics is a pretty well-established science, and I’d say the Austrian school does a hell of a lot more than “predicting the future.”
Economics is just the study of the realities of scarcity, supply and demand, etc.
Economy is a very real part of life. In fact, economics is everywhere and in everything.
Do we have enough hot dogs for everyone at the cook out?
Will there be enough water for the garden if a dry spell comes?
These are economic concepts. This is what I was getting at in the video.
of course, everything is- economics, like you say.
( I was viewing it more on the macro/engineering of societies level)
I totally disagree.
I can tell you that next year on April 1st, if I drop an apple from my hand, what the exact velocity of the apple will be, when it hits the ground...
Now if you could tell me on any given date next year, when an economic event will happen, with the result known before the event - I'll concede the argument..! lol
Of course as economics deals with unpredictable realities (I don’t know where you are getting the notion that economics is all about predictions, though), it is not the same as natural science. The praxeological realities it deals with are very concrete, however.
You understand that things like psychology, sociology, etc, are sciences as well, right?
Why do you imagine the study of economics to be a mere prediction of future events?