In political economy one basic question theorists tries to answer is:
"What determines the value of a good?" (1)
Answering this question was sort of a initial step old school economics took and depending on how you answered this you would have a completely different "theory". Classics believed it was time you spend on the production of the good. Marx's believed it was the average social time needed to produce that good. Marginalists-Utilitarian and Austrians established the value of a object is in each one's own heads - and thus, is subjective.
The problem I see with ALL of then is that the very initial question does not defines value as a measurable and observable thing that exists in the physical world. Because of that the answers that addresses (1) will come out as a theory that rely on unobservant quantities and thus cannot be studied scientifically.
This is my central argument: theories that addresses (1) cannot be even considered as a attempt to be a scientific theory. They exists solely in the field of philosophical speculation. (2)
This is the reason why the schools of political economics are so reliant on philosophical concepts - Marx's on Hegelian dialectics, Marginalists-Utilitarists on Utility, Austrians on Human Action (which does have natural rights to property as a underlying principle).
My conclusion is that political economy does not try to find how economic reality works. It judges economic reality at the light of a underlying and arbitrary definition of what value is - which is a very cool and important topic by itself but unfortunately the advocates of each political economy treats their view as some sort of universal truth instead of a educated reflection.
So the debate is: Do you agree with (2) ?
One thing that is off-topic but that is bound to come up in the discussion (if it happens) is if mainstream economics have that same weakness.
My opinion is that Keynes was the first thinker I know to avoid (1) by constructing a theory based solely on prices and trade values (prices*quantity) and actually to accept his theory should be subject to empirical verification. He could have been the first economic scientist or at least the first thinker to advocate economic science but I don't know for certain.
The "second wave" neoclassic economics originated from the works of Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow, Gérard Debreu and similar thinkers does happen to avoid (1) in a very spectacular fashion. I'm talking specifically about Debreus's and the other dozen of proofs of the existence of a "utility" based solely on preference relations. This is a fairly complex topic that will surely demand a new thread (in case in anyone is interested in a this rather obscure topic for non-economists that is treated by economists as the stepping stone of the field). Suffice to say utility as employed by mainstream economist these days, by virtue of Debreu's theorem, is nothing but information on preference taken numeric form. It's not a value theory.
Mainstream economic DNA are Keynes national accounting and "second wave" neoclassic choice theory (enhanced by game theory), both safely staying away from (1). My opinion is that mainstream economics is not a real science - but it is a honest attempt in being it, which makes it already more reliable then political economics and far more easy to develop in something greater in the future.
Just look at the title of your question.
"Is political economy actually a branch of philosophy ?"
You basically have 3 separate disciplines all in the same sentence.
Philosophy and economics are two fundamentally different topics, with politics being a possible catch-all in-between, especially in the modern era.
Philosophy may include some manner of economic advice and economics may include a slight tinge of philosophy, but both have totally
separate goals. Add in the prefix "political" and it's just too forgone from pure philosophy to be considered a branch.
"What determines the value of a good?" (1)
Answering this question was sort of a initial step old school economics took and depending on how you answered this you would have a completely different "theory". Classics believed it was time you spend on the production of the good. Marx's believed it was the average social time needed to produce that good. Marginalists-Utilitarian and Austrians established the value of a object is in each one's own heads - and thus, is subjective.
The problem I see with ALL of then is that the very initial question does not defines value as a measurable and observable thing that exists in the physical world. Because of that the answers that addresses (1) will come out as a theory that rely on unobservant quantities and thus cannot be studied scientifically.
This is my central argument: theories that addresses (1) cannot be even considered as a attempt to be a scientific theory. They exists solely in the field of philosophical speculation. (2)
This is the reason why the schools of political economics are so reliant on philosophical concepts - Marx's on Hegelian dialectics, Marginalists-Utilitarists on Utility, Austrians on Human Action (which does have natural rights to property as a underlying principle).
My conclusion is that political economy does not try to find how economic reality works. It judges economic reality at the light of a underlying and arbitrary definition of what value is - which is a very cool and important topic by itself but unfortunately the advocates of each political economy treats their view as some sort of universal truth instead of a educated reflection.
So the debate is: Do you agree with (2) ?
My opinion is that Keynes was the first thinker I know to avoid (1) by constructing a theory based solely on prices and trade values (prices*quantity) and actually to accept his theory should be subject to empirical verification. He could have been the first economic scientist or at least the first thinker to advocate economic science but I don't know for certain.
The "second wave" neoclassic economics originated from the works of Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow, Gérard Debreu and similar thinkers does happen to avoid (1) in a very spectacular fashion. I'm talking specifically about Debreus's and the other dozen of proofs of the existence of a "utility" based solely on preference relations. This is a fairly complex topic that will surely demand a new thread (in case in anyone is interested in a this rather obscure topic for non-economists that is treated by economists as the stepping stone of the field). Suffice to say utility as employed by mainstream economist these days, by virtue of Debreu's theorem, is nothing but information on preference taken numeric form. It's not a value theory.
Mainstream economic DNA are Keynes national accounting and "second wave" neoclassic choice theory (enhanced by game theory), both safely staying away from (1). My opinion is that mainstream economics is not a real science - but it is a honest attempt in being it, which makes it already more reliable then political economics and far more easy to develop in something greater in the future.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Just look at the title of your question.
"Is political economy actually a branch of philosophy ?"
You basically have 3 separate disciplines all in the same sentence.
Philosophy and economics are two fundamentally different topics, with politics being a possible catch-all in-between, especially in the modern era.
Philosophy may include some manner of economic advice and economics may include a slight tinge of philosophy, but both have totally
separate goals. Add in the prefix "political" and it's just too forgone from pure philosophy to be considered a branch.
EDH Decks
RGMarhault Elsdragon (A Touch of Rampage)RG
GWTrostani, Early Bird (Wurm Tribal)GW
RWAgrus Kos, Bumbat Drinkin' BadassRW
RDiaochan, Hateful BeautyR