I had a pain-free day yesterday. After the six previous days, that was blissful.
That said, I am not pretending that the problem I have with a kidney stone no longer exists: I was painfully reminded when I woke up this morning that it still does. All I am saying is that, largely down to Jacqueline's careful management of my pain control, it was well managed yesterday and has already been contained this morning. There are also signs that Thursday's treatment was successful, at least in part, which is encouraging. This debacle may not be over as yet, but I'm beginning to believe it will be, and that matters.
The result was that my thinking was flowing again. Mid-morning, John Christensen and I were on the phone for some time asking essential, almost ontological, questions about what economics really is and, as a consequence, what wealth, income, money and much more really are. These might be the basis for future podcast discussions because we both think that economics is now so debased that we need to go back to basics and start again.
This was a theme I already wanted to work on, and Jacqueline then riffed on that conversation, which she had overheard, to relate the issue around money to energy. Sher and I then debated that issue in ways that I, at least, found fascinating, and the result of these conversations, and my desire to explore economics from a different angle, is the experimental piece of writing on potential that I am posting this morning.
I am not sure that this piece, and some others I have been exploring that flow from it, are necessarily the right basis for that line of thinking, but whilst I was ill, I was reading Austin Kleon's latest book, Don't Call It Art. I like his work and style, and his suggestion that, rather than worry about perfecting something, the purpose of thinking is to put ideas out into the ether and see what happens. That is what I am doing here.
Doing so, I stress that, whilst I wrote the piece in question, I should recognise what, in footballing parlance, would be called the assists from both John and, most particularly, Jacqueline.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] For the background to this post, please read this companion piece. […]
Richard so glad things are progressing in the right direction to the extent that you can get some thinking done<p>
Its so good you have support from Jacqueline and your boys.<p>
Cant imagine what that kind of pain is like. Hope the whole issue gets cleared up soon
The pain is, apparently, at least as bad as childbirth but there is no air and gas or an epidural. And it goes on and on without morphine…. I can tell you, from experience.
I think you are onto something profound here. It’s much more useful as an argument than MMT
Thanks
Hi Richard, I hope the kidney stone is improving!
Economics for the general populace has increasingly become a stick to beat us with. I love theory and data more than most, but in practice economics touches our lives when politicians tell us we’re on our own. Taxes spent, austerity incoming. Because economics.
Meanwhile the richest got £895bn of QE? Bad gambling debts in the finance sector? Here’s a handout, go start new ventures. Yes, there’s all the technical gilt stuff, but the end result is inflated assets for those who already held the most. Don’t worry uber-rich, take as much risk as you like, government has the bailouts ready, go take risks to inflate your portfolio.
If media even objects we get told “because economics” “because GDP” & loads of terms more impenetrable than the worst jargon from our own fields. Translating economics to what actually happened to my household feels like a taboo subject. We’re just not invited to the top table.
Apologies if I sound jaded. I wanted to separate Covid and Ukraine from Brexit effects on my finances, so I built a simple calculator that lets people model it with a few quick figure entries. Methodology derived from published research: NBER 2025, Resolution Foundation, LSE, OBR, Bank of England, ECB, Saxo/FE Analytics. Free, no data collected, runs in the browser.
http://www.brexitbonus.com
I shouldn’t have had to build this! But here we are. Economics should include accessible tools that let ordinary people punch in a few figures and understand what happened to them. That’s my add for whatever it’s worth.
Thanks.
I just do not have the energy to look right now.
In an earlier comment, Robert hill said he thought that this would be better as an argument than MMT. I tend to agree: although I very much agree with MMT as a description of how the real economy works, use of the term I suspect now causes “the establishment” to slam the shutters down on further discussion and carry on as before.
Glad things are improving. MMT kind of challenges ones wideer view of economics. I would say that a big problem is economlcs is wedded to money. And management of the economy has become, almost unchallenged, synonymous with managing money.
Whilst money flows in one direction, materials and services flow in the other and the assumption has been that money and its signals will allign to bring the best for all.
This must be challenged and we must ask if there are people who know how to manage beyond the precepts offered by economists and their money paradigm.
Not sure if you are thinking along these lines but I seen the contours of something emerging as I read your work.
Although for.an economist to turn around and say”it’s maybe not about the money” must be painful. Not kidney stone painful.