questionable beauty

Economists using mathematical expressions to decorate arguments about the perfection of market systems may believe that their work is beautiful. Outsiders see instantly that it isn’t. Quite apart from the messy problems and ugly realities of the economic world (capitalist or otherwise), no one with a sense of aesthetics would take the clumsy algebra of a typical professional economics article as a work of beauty. The main purpose of the math is not to clarify, or to charm, but to intimidate. And the tactic is effective. An idea that would come across as simpleminded in English can be made “impressive looking” with a sufficient string of Greek symbols. A complaint about the argument can be deflected, most easily, on the ground that the complainer must not understand the math.

(Galbraith, James K., 2014: The End of Normal. The Great Crisis and the Future of Growth; New York et altera: Simon & Schuster: 67)

 

But it being identified as not being an economist may also be perceived as praise.

 

Economics and the redefinition of human experience

To analyze the world in this way, requires, in effect, the redefinition of human experience into a special language. That language must have a vocabulary limited to those concepts that can be dealt with inside the model. To accept these restrictions is to be an economist. Any refusal to shed the larger perspective – a stubborn insistence on bringing a broader set of facts or a different range of theory to bear – identifies one as “not an economist.” In this way, the economists need only talk to one another. Enclosed carefully in their monastery, they can speak their code, establish their status and rankings and hierarchies, and persuade themselves and one another of their intellectual and professional merit.

(Galbraith, James K., 2014: The End of Normal. The Great Crisis and the Future of Growth; New York et altera: Simon & Schuster: 64)

 

Well, this is just another, and better formulated reflection of what I presented …