Can economics explain more than sociology or/and psychology?

They were heavily importing during the 80-90’s, providing $100k homes, jobs, and [liberal] voting tickets with instructions. I don’t know when they started nor do I keep track of the numbers. In California, the Mexicans migrate in huge numbers to the point that in Oregon, even further North, rather than teaching Canadian French (a close neighbor), the schools teach Spanish as a mandatory second language for the children.

The Spanish speakers are more than the French speakers, and French is merely a second language, whereas Spanish is a first language.

If I look at economics vs. psychology, it feels like apples bicycles to me. With sociology vs. economics I can see one swallowing the other more easily, sociological economics or economic sociology.

But with psychology vs. economics it seems we are coming at different phenomena, with overlaps of course.

If I want to know why Joe did something and not something else, in many situations I will get no answers from economics. Perhaps the category of people Joe is in, low income white guys with college degrees, will then give me statistical probabilities, though here sociology seems dragged in. But Joe as an individual, no. Then also all that Joe experiences, the sujective end of psychology, the interior side, would also not be covered by economics which is necessarily Behaviorist, or?

The same issues come up around interpersonal dynamics. Yes, explanations for category interactions - single working class guy exchanges smile with blah, blah women at bar…but again this is statistical. What Joe experiences and even does when encountering the woman at the bar can be guessed at, perhaps bet on fairly well - as long as one is a carefully better, has great statistics and uses a large sample - but it does not help me zero in on Joe.

Pscyhology also can do little to help with many of the patterns economics is focused on.

If we hold mathematics up as an example of measuring how much can be explained, then we can say: economics means much mathematics with many formulas and not merely statistics, whereas psychology and especially sociology mean almost no mathematics except merely some formulas and statistics.

Market economics is a complete fiction and construct especially concerning traditional social hierarchy. There is nothing natural about it and it is all built upon bullshit obfuscations or assumptions of human nature.

Not much natural but much mathematical about it.

Many people fear economics too, …

No, that is not true. I regard the developmental way from human nature to human culture and from human culture to human nature. Economics is neither a begin (basis etc.) nor an end (goal etc.) in my philosophy. It is merely a part of the two ways (near the middle of each of them).


And yet economics determines value. And value determines sociology, and the way groups of people relate to each other in evaluating the ways they may seek advantages or suffer disadvantages in value, in relation to each other. Finally, as their evaluative skills improve,as they are able to focus in on individual measurement of value. The social and individual values interchange in a process increasing discrimination.

The individual evaluation is based on narrowing of social discrimination of a wider array of value. After that is reified, or learned, can individuals as representative of their kind of value become nominally valuable.

So its economy, sociology, then psychology.


The root of all economics is power, control, manipulation, profit, and exploitation. We really need to address that.

The fatal flaws of sociology and psychology is that they tend to address or focus on things very dogmatically which is why both are ineffective until the lens of morality along with authority are removed. Both systems of thought largely exist by making appeals to authority.

I think that psychology is at the root of everything, then comes sociology and then economics.
Thus, economics explains less than both of sociology and psychology.

with love,

Economics, especially market economics, uses much mathematics.





Economics is not the number one. Economicis is subordinated but also superordinated. It depends on to what and whom.

The spatial determinants of the economy, later becoming the economy of the id, has the closest relationship to almost pre verbal - perceptual approach to the utilization of space, value, and social relativism. Migrant society on constant move, then settling down into a bartered society, is parallel to the post analysis phase of behaviorism.

Analysis- psychology- has failed to account for large defective shifts in the accomoditative aspects of analysis,primarily, because of the increasing rate of change of the perimeters of the accelerating social change.

Therefore, the behavioris connected Skinnerian revolution as effected by a shift toward utilitarian principles, developed a causal ambiguity, as t whether which caused which? Did the use and utility go hand in hand in the developmental shift toward a calculus of inter-casual relationship between principles and their social-psychological effects? Or, I’d the principles of the deterministic relationships of societal-psychological movements cause the emergence of utility, use and spatial determinants? (Per Freud, Levin)

The fact that behaviorism displaced an unsuccessful psych-analysis, shows that the defensive posture of a displacement- failed to account for the shift as a socially determined movement, therefore the model of dynamic economy behind it makes much more sense.

Within the complex of defenses, denial is a cousin of displacement, as that which is placed elsewhere, (to the less then conscious) , becomes targeted at places of the weakest territory. Th weakness in the model of economic accountability as the major mover of social change, thus denies it first, because of institutionalized preference and prejudice, then such denial undermines the models-mathematical and spatial, protecting itself while destroying their underlying models.

Functional shifts are replaced by pragmatic ones, as a matter of effective political world view, and the last defensive program leads to rationalism per se.

Hence the circle is complete, the failure of analysis is prone to the charge of lack of insight, and the bypass from pre-figurative modeling to post modern spatial relationship is are accounted for in other ways.

Lack of effect brought analysis is replaced by lack of affect and although tree are certain credible notions connecting gross societal changes such as alienation-
for instance ‘The Otsider’, is a cultural phenomenon, displacement, fails to account for it in other than peripheral, patent ways, the culminative effect , is a discontinuing relationship with the cause. The total effect is the trend toward the failure of defensive structures, and the reductive shift toward the more primary defenses tending to displacement, within the literal , economic meaning of the word.

This is why mass exodus from places like Syria can be interpreted as the regressive psychological economical movements, based on anti-analytical, anti-psychological movements. The shift away from the person, the identity, the nation-hood, is the result.

It is at once, an individual flight away from its own raisin d’etre, the flight from the self, which analysis can not resolve. Therefore, the reversion to spatial determinants in economy, and utalization, can no longer be micro managed, it has lost its contact with structural basis,and social programs of control become the only way to deal with them.

This loss of traditional seem, does lead to occasional anarchic examples of outburst, and unfounded realizations of what behind the disassociated analysis, the vagrant always escaping from himself, does not understand why he is always on the move, from place to place, he leaves to leave himself behind, fearful to stay, lest his displacements ill ventually sink in the fact that he had lost control f himself to manipulation of the virtual of the real.

This is why, economy is moving a primary, regressed view of a basic, economic , spatially and literally determined social-psychology.

And explains more than philosophy by the same token. IMHO

YES… it is kinda frightening to see people follow the money, competing for the doom of mankind… and who are unable to take responsibility for it. There is nothing more irrational than repeating the same mistakes over and over and expecting different results. Competing to death eventually leads to the death of competition, and exposes the hoax that is psychology.

China Meltdown Triggering Worldwide Recession
Kedar Grandhi, ICH, reports “Albert Edwards, a strategist at Société Générale bank, has warned of an impending global financial crisis similar to the one that occurred in 2008-09. This time, he said, it could lead to the collapse of the Eurozone. … recession/

‘China To Spark Global Financial ICE AGE With Depression Sending Markets Crashing By 75%’ … hing-by-75

The following problem can also be better explained and better solved by economics:

Money is the result of the effort to quantize, document, and manipulate power.
Economics is the study of social influence via money.

The affectance underlying all economics is the psychology of PHT - Perception of Hope and Threat (positive and negative charged influence/affectance).

Economicis is both subordinated and superordinated. It depends on to what and whom. Economics can both affect and be affected.

Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources. If you do not have a scarcity, Economics does not have anything to say about it. (Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden had no reason to understand Economics.) Everything else falls form that. It does not explain sociology, nor psychology, instead it looks at reality from a different angle. Like a set of glasses that make the view clearer, but at times can make it more difficult, like wearing someone else’s glasses, or attempting to see a cell with a telescope. It is connected to Sociology and Psychology, because our society and our minds grew in a scarce environment.

As a person who is studying Economics in College, but who started out looking at a lot of chemistry books, there is a scary amount of parallels between Microeconomics, and Chemistry.

Now, Witchcraft, or Macroeconomics as some call it, was created by a mathematician, who at most had two economics classes in his whole life. It shows. Macro is amazingly mathematical, and in the same sense very separated from reality (note, all economic arguments for communism and socialism are macro arguments).

Economics attempts to use math to understand not just humans (which is simply its most common application) but nature and reality. Economic physics, Economic Biology, Economic Psychology are slowly becoming focuses because, they are a specific application of the two things. Expect more of this.

Econometrics is a hell of a lot of fun, and what every fucking sociologist and psychologist uses for any broad social trend.

The people we should all hate is political scientists… The bastards… ;-p (Note: no reason given, nor will any be provided.)