It's physics, right? Well, that'd be my bias. Being honest, of the hard and soft sciences, I'd say mathematics was the most beautiful and psychology the most joyful, if for no other reason than "joy" is not even definable in any other science. But what I want to note here is that while reading Mitchell and Wray's new text "Macroeconomics" I was struck at the very beginning by their reorientation of economics thinking away from being conceived of as "the dismal science". In our modern age we can conceive a near future where economics is also a joyful science.
Mitchell & Wray state the orthodox definition of economics:
Neoclassical Definition of Economics: the study of the allocation of scarce resources among unlimited wants.
My thought was, I guess it was at some time in history up until the mid 20th century, half plausible to use that definition. The plausible half was the scarcity. But it has never at any time in history been true that people have unlimited wants. In awful lot of decent people know the virtues of moderation and contentment without need for deprivation (I would guess a vast majority of the worlds people). So that half of the definition is an inbred degenerate aristocratic conservative fiction. These days economists from even the orthodoxy, like Jeffrey Sachs, will tell you we live in a world of material abundance, not scarcity, and so the essential problem of economics has changed, and hence so has the practical definition. Because there is no reason for grossly inequitable distribution of resources, the modern problem and definition of economics makes it a joyful science:
Modern Definition of Economics: economics is the problem of determining resource usage for a sustainable and prosperous society.
Implicit in this correct definition is the idea that we can choose policies that effect our economics such as to benefit everyone, not just the few who rise to the top in market mechanisms, and the material abundance (surplus production capacity) we have in the world means economics can finally become a joyful science. When there is scarcity it is harrowing to have to decide who misses out, and this is one reason why neoliberalism abnegated the responsibility to care for people and left all such decisions up to soulless market mechanisms. It is just too gut wrenching to have to make decisions that cause suffering yourself, so (if you are a neoliberal) you do even worse and leave it up to markets. Like more cowardly forms of Lady Macbeth, neoliberals outsource their cruelty and try to pretend they do not even need to wash their hands of it.
We no longer have to be so cold hearted. A good book explaining how economics can change away from horrific consequences of market fundamentalism is "The Peoples Republic of Walmart" by Phillips and Rozworksi. It's a good read, I recommend it.
It is scandalous that the orthodox economists have not recognized this paradigm change in the world. They are living (from a physics analogy) in a word of Newtonian physics, while real people are living in a world governed by Quantum mechanics. And in trying to apply their "Newtonian' neoclassical economics to the real world they are the cause of massive austerity and suffering. This has to stop. The economics realists in our age are not the Neoclassical, they are not even the post-Keynesians or Marxists, they are the democratic socialist MMT/MMD economists, who merge social justice with principles of egalitarian principles freedom and monetary dynamics. For an intro see: MMT University and the New MMT Macroeconomics Textbook (youtube)
So why would I argue economics can be a joyful science? It is because with the correct lens onto the world you can see that not only is the problem of poverty solvable now (if only political wills can be changed, which is not energetically nor psychologically impossible), it is a pure joy to be able to give people what they need to live a prosperous and happy life filled with peace and freedom from want and the space and time to be imaginative. No country has yet proven this is possible, but I suspect that is only because most people still live under the mass delusion we live in a world of scarcity. We do not.
It is important to note that ecological problems, such as declining soil fertility, privatization of water resources (which artificially creates scarcity) and climate warming, pose a serious threat which can impose scarcity in a modern civilized world which should be dominated by abundance. But these are more than economic problems, they include political and technological and spiritual solutions (by spiritual I mean, for example, people learning to work not solely for profit motives). So, again, economics could become a science of joy, but we can undermine our own desire for prosperity and happiness by embracing misanthropic outdated political economics.
Lastly, the founders of MMD/MMT are careful to note that MMT is dominated by leftist progressives, yet is morally and ethically and politically neutral. MMD tells us what is possible, but not what is humane and morally consistent with our societal values. I like to unapologtically propagate the myth that leftists champion MMD the most because clearly modern money dynamics is most powerful when in the hands of democratic socialists. I can do this because I believe there is truth in this myth. It just makes no sense at all to use the power of the public purse to enrich the already wealthy, at the same time there is no need on Earth to punish people who seek profits, we just want these folks to realize profit seeking does not benefit society as a whole. So profits that sit idle in bank accounts should be diverted to be used for social good, you do not need to tax these profits unless they are used unproductively to generate financial asset bubbles. Democratic socialism is the broad framework which most naturally suits MMD, we focus on human thriving, not on profits.
Bill Mitchell talks about his new textbook and courses.
