He shows pretty simply the naturalness of economic systems at their root, at the same time that he dismisses their more grotesque manifestations. I apologize I don’t have the book at hand to make a better statement about it and I’m a bit low on time. I’m not just trying to namedrop. I just honestly think you would enjoy it.
That’s likely true. I don’t know much about economics because of the complexity and boringness. I’ve read some interesting books by economists but they’re more like everyman philosophy than strict economics - same type of thing as Thoreau, but more modern.
Joker said:
Economics are subordinated to politics, religion, and social relations.
I would say it is the others that are subordinate to economics. Without having ones economic house in order first very little else is possible in the long run, whether it be in religion, politics or social relations. The discipline of economics affords us the sustenance, recourses and money to survive and continue, no matter what else one is doing.
Joker, I can appreciate your effort but it’s still pretty meek and unconvincing.
Economics is also about you making a living and having money to support yourself. Without that, a job or money to support yourself, nothing else much matters. That’s why economics is number one.
All civilizations are constructed to gain the most from the people involved, whether that gain is for everyone (in a civilized civilization) or only for a small number of people (the “civilizations” of man.) Because of this, someone must keep tabs on where the resources go and how much goes to what people and what projects. Otherwise, the society wastes resources, whether they have established the money concept or not.