Economic writing after my own heart
I have just learned of a new book that I believe every AB reader could relate to.
DON’T BUY IT: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy
by: ANAT SHENKER-OSORIO
An excerpt from the book summary:
This concise, entertaining book shows us how wrong-headed metaphors and deceptive language have muddled our economic thinking, and how better word choice alone can win the debate.Today the term “dismal science” seems almost too kind: too many of today’s economic arguments deserve the mantle of mysticism.
Below are a few quotes from a an excerpt of the preface of the book.
Mainline thinking about the U.S. economy is starting to resemble Scientology: beyond a coterie of high-profile, high-income believers, the more those of us outside the fold learn about the teachings, the wackier the whole enterprise sounds.Members who attempt to leave either orthodoxy—in one case a church and in the other a market-worship orientation—are shunned and ostracized.In a nutshell, the overriding message is twofold: it’s your fault that the Economy sucks, but there’s not much you can do to improve it. This storyline must sound achingly familiar to Christians. The blame for damnation to hell lies with you and you alone. Yet though prayer and piety are good ideas, only God determines who merits redemption. Economic salvation is out of your hands, but that’s no excuse to quit your night job or start spending on luxury items like college.
I find this next statement most inline with my thinking when for years here at AB I have asked: What do we have an economy for?
In most domains, policies must be advertised as serving our national interests, but when GDP talk rolls around, this is no longer the case. We’re here to please the economy, not the other way around.
I’ll send this one to my daughter to add to my “gift list”. It’s a list of books she can consider when she wants to give me a gift.
Agreed the “language” does not make sense. Than a “Representative” is supposed to make “tax law”? eh? We need economists to “write plans” and post on https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/
Than we people can comment and vote to confirm or not.
I’m *very* interested to read this. First hit my radar in an email from The Agenda Project last July.
Here’s the memo Anat wrote at their request (PDF):
http://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3%2Fg83hAUUwsnhavYFSxxpsxBbhh%2FBBCH
The gist: ecological metaphors are rhetorical failures, actually counterproductive, in achieving progressive goals. We should be using mechanical metaphors.
*Very* interesting…
This comment has been removed by the author.
There is little to disagree with in regards to Shanker-Osorio’s main thesis. She certainly is correct to point out, “When we call the economy “unhealthy” or “recovering,” we give it the status of a living being. Americans must submit to any indignity required to “keep the economy happy.” Tread lightly, we can’t risk irritating the economy!”
However, she gives the impression that the use of biologic/naturalistic metaphors to describe the “economy” happened by accident. The language of deception is created by the deceivers, and they are the disseminators of language to the general public. Control of the media has been the trump card held by the corporate elite, the upper one percent. Through the control of information they can control the arguments and the language used in making all sides of any argument. Thereby they control the results regardless of the merits of either side of an argument. The words chosen by any antagonist are designed to add advantage to his or her side of an argument. That’s what is being done in all those organizations funded by great wealth and designed to propagandize and obfuscate. Even the name, “think tank,” takes on human character though the primary thinking would more accurately be described as a thought control process. I’m afraid Anat, as well intentioned as she may be, is out numbered by a huge margin. Has her book been reviewed by any of the “serious” news organizations.
yes, they talk about “saving” social security or medicare by changing them so they can’t do the purpose they were designed for.
everything but the name has been changed to protect the innocent.
and, as you point out, we have to “grow the economy” whatever harm we do to real people.
I think to “grow the economy” we help strengthen real people who become real consumers happily
Eggy not if “grow the economy” is narrowly identified with Real GDP and negative inflationary pressure via wage suppression.
Supply Side was sold via metaphors about “rising tides” just as Social Security ‘reform’ was attempted to be sold through “ownership society” and tax cuts on capital gains via “broaden” and “fair”. But in all four cases the metaphor doesn’t pass the utilitarian “Greatest Good for Greatest Numbers” test.
To use your words the only “real people” who “become” or rather ‘stay’ happy consumers are the already wealthy whose assets are by DESIGN sheltered from inflationary pressures caused by the ability of the working class to buy themselves things.
In the course of delivering this growth disproportionately to the wealthy by grossly distorting the relative contribution to productivity of capital vs labor (only one of several such tricks) “income inequality” becomes a desirable feature and goal and not a regrettable bug.
Did you know that poor people today have cell phones, and refrigerators? God help us this has become something to regret among certain Randians AND their enablers in the business press.
The only question is whether you are victim or willing participant in the verbal/rhetorical trickery going on. Stick around, if the former you may well get your eyes opened.
Bruce Web please quit reading with your everyone is attacking me blinders on. I said “I think to “grow the economy” we help strengthen real people who become real consumers happily.” I was talking about myself and other middle-class and poor “real people” who could use some help to strengthen our position by better job, schooling, health, shelter. We are the consumers if you have not noticed. Our grandchildren too need help to progress to responsible
happy people. And yes they will be consumers as we all are.
Eggy I suggest you re-read the main post and try to grasp its thesis.
And then maybe examine some data on share of GDP improvements that has gone to the bottom four quintiles over the last thirty five years or so since the ‘nonsense talkers’ started dominating the policy discussion.
In practice “here to please the economy” precisely means pleasing the “maker/job creater/1%ers” at the cost of sacrificing the needs of those same middle class and poor you now seem to be referring to. (But who were kind of absent from your original comments about petitions and ‘grow the economy’).
Webb I grasp the main thesis, apparently you are example of what they are talking about, unable to understand basic language. Read some progressive material and try to eliminate information from fox and GOP.