Politics, Economics and Government

It ain't what you got, it's the way how you use it.

   Economics, at its root, is the study of what people do with what's available to them. The term originated in Ancient Greece. and referred to a household manager. And well into the 20th Century, high school girls in America took courses in "home economics." (That was back in the day when girls learned typing and shorthand so they could get jobs as secretaries, and boys took shop courses to become carpenters or auto mechanics. And never the twain did switch. Fairness didn't enter into it.)
   In the 19th Century, the academic discipline became known as Political Economics, meaning it dealt with how the polis, or city-state, managed its resources, and it expanded the study from the household level to the regional and national, making it more scholarly.
   Modern economics got its start with the work of Adam Smith, the 18th Century Scottish philosopher whose major effort, The Wealth of Nations, was published in 1776.
   Today, the field continues to expand, as economists look at more and more things that influence what people do with what they've got. The better economists, moreover, base their research, analysis and reports on the Five Ws of journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why. The first four are relatively easy to research and write about. The last, however -- Why -- is just as difficult in academia as it is in news reporting.
   Nonetheless, it's right to keep trying.
   Sometimes, of course, even with the best of intentions, some so-called experts go astray, especially when they start with preconceived notions of what "should be" and proceed to find evidence to prove what they already "know" to be true.

   Logic 101: If the premise is valid and the process correct, the conclusion must be valid. But if the premise is questionable or false, the conclusion may not be valid.
   In Law, there is what's known as the Prosecutor's Fallacy, in which investigators believe up front that a suspect is guilty, and then find the evidence to support that belief. What investigators should do, of course, is to gather all the evidence and then conclude from that who the perpetrator might be.
   Formally, the difference is between inductive logic and deductive logic. In the first, one gathers information, seeks a pattern and then forms an opinion or conclusion. In the second, one starts with a premise (hopefully a valid one), then deduces downward from that to a conclusion.

   Back to economics.
   Academics, as people, are often led off-track by prior beliefs and cultural leanings. Even if they are not, in presenting their conclusions to other academics and to the general public, they must overcome other folks' beliefs and cultural leanings.
   The same applies to journalists and especially to politicians, since they play to the opinions and preferences of voters in order to be re-elected.
   Whether the whole thing is a good system depends partly on your own preconceived notions and beliefs.
   In any case, this is the system we've got, so the choice is to dance with the guy what brung ya, or leave the party. Put another way, if you don't like it, your choice is to change it, learn to live with it, or leave it.

   In ancient times, the highest honor in the tribe was to carry the sacred rune stone during the Solstice Celebration. But to achieve that honor, a warrior first had to kill a venomous reptile that endangered the village. For as it was truly spoken by the Chief Druid: "He who slays the viper hauls the rune."