It’s time to discuss and debate macroeconomics in concrete terms. Enough with the –isms.
We have some very bright people here on BB, both in terms of knowledge and analytical insight. And yet, more often than not, ad-hoc discussions and derailments on this topic deteriorate into either-or arguments riddled with false dichotomies and spackled with –isms.
Making the effort to use concrete terms rather than –isms makes discussion more productive in a number of ways:
- it focuses conversation on real-life matters rather than philosophical differences
- it’s less prone to misunderstandings based on differing definitions of more abstract terminology
- it allows for more nuanced views (example: ‘I think a higher tax rate should be applied to income from [X] but not from [Y]’ or ‘Countries above 200M population would be better off adopting [X] economic policy and here’s why’)
- it allows you to express views that may invoke more than one type of –ism
- it allows you to express your views without apprehension of being labeled an ideologue
- it offers far more learning opportunities for those who don’t know much about economics or its history
Community-based threads, having no time limit, serve this latter function especially well. So debate, explain, or ponder, just keep the discussion educational.
