An Ode to Apathy
There is wisdom and virtue in knowing thyself, knowing what you understand and what you do not, deciding what you should engage in what you shouldn’t.
Recently, upon the conclusion of a brief but tender moment of reflection, I realised something. With the looming milestone of my 25th birthday approaching, and the permanence of error being more brutal in this day and age than in any other, I realised that I couldn't care less for economics.
Though a bizarre thing to come out of a tender moment of introspection, and perhaps an even more bizarre thing to broadcast on the internet, in this realisation I have found catharsis and a renewed passion for the things I do care about.
I have written about economics before for Bournbrook, but always with a cultural bent. The fact is the same today as it was last year. Which is that I don’t understand the subject. I can only look around me and see things worth maintaining and things worth disregarding. I can talk about the cultural collateral of our economic system, and I may just do, however I could not make an economic argument against economic systems. I don't understand it and probably never will. As such, pretending to understand the finer points of taxation and incentives will only serve to cause public humiliation.
Arguments around economics are dominated by two equally annoying groups. Free market Friedmanites and centrally-planned leftists. Both are effective at allowing their ideas to chip away at the social fabric of our civilisation. Both are very well versed in their respective style of rhetoric and polemic. And both are aggressive with their contrived sources that are obviously produced from intellectual echo chambers. This is a point that I want to dwell on, effective rhetoric placating a genuine vision for the betterment of all and the protection of cultural traditions, well, the few that we still have.
Ask yourself why a figure like Ben Shapiro was so successful at 'owning the libs’. Was it because he had anything with a modicum of value to say? I think not. Shapiro was merely a good rhetorician, who set and sprung easy traps for morons, teenagers, and even moronic teenagers to fall into.
Too easily we are swayed by rhetoric, by a good burn, and by the vacuous spectator sport of public debate. Ideas sound great when wrapped up in a joke, or an insult, or a barrage of cherry-picked data. This is no more blatantly done than in economic discourse.
I see wisdom in restraint, in not being drawn in by the spectacle. There is wisdom and virtue in knowing thyself, knowing what you understand and what you do not, deciding what you should engage in what you shouldn’t. I view things culturally, and I am okay with that. In a strange way, it's good economics, I’m living my life by the sole economic principle that I can rest my hat on, the division of labour.
