Skip to main content


I reserve the right to be wrong.

We tend to personify things with no will of their own. I grant you a lot of fish, swimming together for protection, may seem possessed of a shared will. But it just seems that way. The group does not have a mind of its own. For all the group-think in the world, there are no known group-minds.

And so to some examples;


A voluntarily sustained legal fiction. PepsiCo can sue and be sued in turn despite not being a living being. There are a load of buildings and equipment owned by this fiction, and the decisions of the fiction are made by a bunch of appointed individuals.

The bank account may have the company name on it, but that account is handled by a person, ironically someone paid from that same corporate bank account.


Another legal fiction, this time maintained by force of arms and threats. In more recent years the government has introduced some tasty carrots along with its sticks, in particular taxpayer-funded welfare systems, to ensure a large majority of people have skin in the government's game of thrones.


Yeah. Us. By this I mean the arbitrary group you are born into. Generally people's sympathies with regard to group lie with the Nation State. So the state has a central place in creating illusions of a group-mind.


People of a different arbitrary group to your own. The individuals of the other groups become homogenised into some kind of oblivion by the cultural outlook that every person imbibes over their lifetime.


Ah, the personality that is made of all the economic acts by all the people in all the markets within a defined geographical area, generally one nation state, continent, or the world. This fictional phenomenon is the object of study for macroeconomists and most econometricians, neatly rendering those two fields of study equally fictional, and so pointless.

It remains to be seen whether humans will set aside these silly ideas and embrace a more peaceful, inviting, brighter outlook, but I am quietly optimistic that a great enlightenment awaits once we cast off the material shackles of historical consciousness and government.

Not to say we should have no historical consciousness. I merely mean that people, in making their judgements, shall someday no longer be ruled by the expanse of time behind them, but rather by the possibilities ahead.

On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matty demonstrates beyond a doubt that economics is more interesting than watching paint dry!


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …