proletarianpoet:

The common practice has become to separate the various fields of study from each other, making economics seem like some sort of lofty abstract mathematical study or history appear to be an arcane and esoteric field. The reality is that history and economics are not metaphysical studies or ancient conjuring, but involve actual people, whose flesh and blood made up the actions. The macro study must be understood in terms of the micro study. For people like me, as there is no separation between the political and the social, there is also no separation between the economic and the historical. In fact, there can be no dichotomy between any of these aspects without causing a severe skewing in understanding. The human and natural elements should always serve as the foundation of these studies. We often hear obscure phrases, for instance that the American Civil War was due to economic causes, but what those causes entailed for the people involved is not as often discussed. If it is, it is made to seem disconnected from economics, as moral issues so often are, when in truth morality and economics are closely tied. This is the sort of unified theory of history that I attempt to work from.

The difference between economic and social policy is that social policy can be based off of different axiomatic truths. People can have different goal cultures. Ultimately, with economic policy, everyone’s goal is to increase the wealth of a particular society. And ultimately, there is a best way to do that.

With economic politics, there is an ultimate truth. That is the difference. It doesn’t matter if it seems better for a policy to work one way or another, ultimately one policy will stimulate the most growth, and that is the best policy. 

(Source: mechanistdreams)