A blogger suggests “ecognorance” as short for economic ignorance.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/9145/not-sure-about-this/
Not sure about this…
Previous post: Chicagoites as confused as ever
Next post: Ethics and the Holidays
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School
{ 16 comments }
But then … what would you call ecological ignorance (which also begins with “eco”), which is where someone is genuinely perplexed as to why anyone would ever object to burning coal?
By the time the term is explained and the confusion over it is partially overcome a whole lot of economics can be made evident. Language is not necessary simplified just because there are fewer total letters.
Economic ignorance is not so bad as a descriptive phrase and its meaning is pretty clear. Ecognorance saves space and time but when very clear terms like capitalism or free market are endlessly twisted around it seems unlikely that starting with a confusing term will serve to improve understanding.
I have to agree with Bruce. This attempt at simplification is definitely not an improvement. I also agree with Silas. A word beginning in eco- implies ecology to me.
What those guys said.
BTW, when are you going to add Bob Murphy’s Free Advice to your outside blogroll?
Perhaps Mises University should award honorary Doctorates in Ecognorance.
This year’s nominees:
Ben Bernanke
Hank Paulsen
Barney Frank
Chuck Schumer
Christopher Dodd
A Masters to
Barack Obama – he’s working on his doctorate
A BA or (BS?) to George W. Bush – he’s a slow learner!
Perhaps an honorary degree for him.
Greenspan should get the very first one!
Unfortunately, every single example on the list of economic fallacies that blogger offers is actually a special case, common here and now. For every single one of them – even Keynesianism – there are special cases where they do work, if not always for the reasons people thought, and sometimes on the stopped clock principle. (Philosophically speaking, Keynesianism is wrong because he called his theory general, which it isn’t.)
How about Backonomy? or Retronomy?
Ignornomics?
I think it is more descriptive in that iGNORANCE connotatively is used more as the absence of knowledge, something that can be forgiven somewhat. But “ignore” connotes a purposeful turning away from the source of the knowledge – a rejection. One is passive the other active.
Ignornomics highlights the purposeful ignoring of basic facts and reality by the Coercers. Perhaps Ecognorant could be used for the economically illiterate turned out by Statist Schools run by Ignornomicists.
What about calling economic ignorance what it really is–Keynesian.
Silas,
Or it also mean ecological ignorance where someone is truly perplexed as to why anyone would object to you living in a house, or apartment. After all, wasn’t wildlife habitat destroyed to give you a place to live, and doesn’t that harm the ecology.
Heck, given our dependence on fossil fuels and the laws of economics your entire existence is harmful to the ecology. Or were you ecoignorant of the fact, you ecoignoramous?
I’m not sure if your ignorance here lies in ecology or economics, so it works both ways.
I figured a flippant comment required a flippant response. People who don’t agree with you on coal aren’t “genuinely perplexed as to why anyone would ever object to burning coal”. They just have different values than you. They value human life a little more that you do.
I forgot Paul Krugman! Perhaps Mises should fund a Nobel Prize in ecognorance.
Brian_Macker: People who disagree with me about coal do not necessarily fail to understand why others would object to coal, but several people in the thread I linked, are definitely in that category.
And if you can’t see how complaints about coal are more well-grounded that complaints about the mere existence of others, then you fall into that category too.
If you have a clear, principled, libertarian theory as to what kinds of pollution are acceptable, then feel free to present it. You’d be a first. In my experience, libertarians aimlessly drift from claiming that no pollution is acceptable, to claiming that all pollution is acceptable, to claiming that certain people who go through a convoluted procedure deserve to pollute. The only thing consistent is that they know that anyone who doesn’t like toxic crap being dumped into their air, must be an evil greenie terrorist.
“And if you can’t see how complaints about coal are more well-grounded that complaints about the mere existence of others, then you fall into that category too.”
Read carefully, it wasn’t an objection to mere existence. Did you miss the reference to fossil fuels, and economic law. In fact, your existence depends, ta da, on burning coal, the very thing you were objecting to. Directly or indirectly. The fact I use coal means that the trees you’d burn instead to keep warm are cheaper.
Now had you said that you were objecting to say, me burning coal and then dumping the coal ash on your property then I might have reacted differently. That’s understandable.
It would also be understandable if you objected to me storing the ash unsafely.
You didn’t say any of that. You said that you objected to “burning coal”.
“but several people in the thread I linked, are definitely in that category.”
Sorry, I’m not going to read through the thread to try to intuit which comments you feel merit this classification. Especially, since I can’t read your mind, nor there’s.
You did use the phrase “someone is genuinely perplexed as to why anyone would ever object to burning coal” That’s pretty extreme language. Is there really any such person? How do you identify them? If they buy one of your arguments do you assume they won’t buy any? I think that requires mind reading, myself.
“If you have a clear, principled, libertarian theory as to what kinds of pollution are acceptable, then feel free to present it. You’d be a first.”
Unfortunately, I’m not a libertarian so that would be like asking a skunk to smell sweet.
“In my experience, libertarians aimlessly drift from claiming that no pollution is acceptable, to claiming that all pollution is acceptable, to claiming that certain people who go through a convoluted procedure deserve to pollute.”
In my experience different libertarians take different positions. I’ve heard the first position that no pollution is acceptable, then it’s a matter of defining pollution. I assume by the last position you are talking about carbon credits, and I’ve heard of individual libertarians who are pro that.
I’ve never heard a libertarian claim that “all pollution is acceptable”. Again you are being flippant, which I will take as license to be flippant myself.
It also seems to be an untruthful claim. You’ve really come across a libertarian who claims all pollution is acceptable? Are you lying? Well I won’t take that as license to lie.
You are also lumping the opinions of different people together as if the were of one mind, instead of criticizing the individual arguments. That too, I won’t take license to do.
“The only thing consistent is that they know that anyone who doesn’t like toxic crap being dumped into their air, must be an evil greenie terrorist.”
You own the air? (I’m being flippant)
Perhaps you can give a clear, principled, non-libertarian theory as to what kinds of pollution are acceptable. I’ll assume that you won’t base this on your ownership of the air.
If you claim that all pollution is unacceptable I want your plans for culling 98% of the worlds population by the morning. Please don’t use any petroleum products, commercial paper, items stored in climate controlled buildings, or building produced utilizing fossil fuels, nor transported by fossil fuels. Nor an y natural products made cheaper due to economy laws. Like you can use natural paper that’s cheaper because we no longer used trees as fuel.
Good luck.
Silas,
I thought that was the pun.
Comments on this entry are closed.