HomeDespre ECTAEventsPolitica editorialaTrimite un articolParteneri / link-uri utileArchiveAbonamentContact

ISSN 1841-8678   (print)
ISSN 1844-0029   (online)


Archive ECTAP

Note: for the period 1994-2003 the archive of the magazine will not be available online

Supplements ECTAP

If you cannot open the pdf file you need Adobe Reader.
download Adobe Reader

Creative Commons License

Theoretical and Applied Economics
No. 7 / 2014 (596)

Two words

„The theoretical approach stems from studying the map and not the texture of the natural lay of economicity.”

Just like in psychology, in Economics cognition has drastic limitations, with most of them bordering on the ridiculous. For instance, in the economic environment, as opposed to other domains, it is impossible to accurately pinpoint the cause of a phenomenon. Being a complex system, it is impossible to determine the conditionalities between the elements. It is impossible to describe the real links between the various impulses and the quality of the consequences, and the links between the motivations of the action and the contents of the concrete answers.

The chain of impossibilities is truly infinite. It is, in practice, a pronounced fragility of economic theories on matters of consistency. The exit from this epistemic dead-end hasn’t been bestowed yet with a recipe in concordance with the status of a science that has been exposed to the judgements of historical contexts.

Economic theory has constructed an intellectual model of knowledge with elements of cognitive uncertainty. This epistemic handicap comes largely from the excessive simplification which Economics resorts to in its theoretical constructs. The simplification deals with and produces epi-phenomena, while the useful gain of knowledge ought to come from an approach focused on real phenomena. The argumentation supports - often credibly so - the theoretical ideas, but it does not reflect the true behaviour of concrete things.

This has led to the creation of an even worse sort of impossibility: the explicative models bear too little resemblance to reality. The theoretical approach thus stems from studying the map and not the texture of the natural lay of economicity.

This shortcoming is tentatively being substituted through the invention of regularity. In Economics however, the explanations revolve within the spectrum of linear dependencies. The reversed negative links and the essentiality of the influences from within a dynamic and volatile context are both but a marginal object for economic analyses. Learning as an ineffable function, which determines the configuration of the economic system, is being disregarded by Economics. The complexity of the influences between the components of the system and the dynamics of the consequences are mentioned only as a footnote by the methods dealing with epi-phenomena.

The most frequent error is that a simple correlation among quantifiable factors is being considered as the cause of a trend. In Economics, the temporal dimension is perceived as a reasonable way for identifying the prior event with the cause, and the ulterior event with the consequence.

This pattern of understanding comes from the dichotomously structured thought, where the dialectical method provides Economics with the accessible arsenal for the false identification of the cause. The factorial perspective on the nature of economicity is formulated in terms of adversity. The temptation of alterity is negatively marked by simulating the contradiction. Almost without exception, the theoretical experience of economists has been structured on explaining the link between the two elements, which are more often than not in contradiction with each other. The economists’ conceptual dyad represents the reflex of the insistence in accumulating the Aristotelian perspective on cognition. The described states have either a “yes” or “no” relevance. Economics has been used to an organon apt to provide understanding for categorically opposable states.

The bivalent and sequential binary arrangements of the episodes when exercising the roles imposed by the transactional subjectivity, show up as apparent types of conditionings which help with the operation, but place the trend into the noise. The linear determinism is accepted as the structuring pattern of the cognitive approach, while the choice of significations is radically simplified between two nominations, almost always ideologically decanted.

As an offshoot, the solutions to the problems are being judged in the alternative manner of “on the one hand, on the other hand”.

The materialistic fixation of economic thought has developed the conceptual- lization of correlations which point to extreme consequences. The antinomy is seen by Economics as the source of functionality. When something happens to rise, something else needs to come down. The mechanics of transactions and the entire logic of the market demand the natural repetition of gain and loss. The cyclicity expresses a pattern of economic growth and recession. The profound rationality of economicity comes from the principle of the complementarity of the acts of will. If all men do the same thing at the same time, the economic action will be blocked.

From this conceptual perspective emerged the propensity towards equilibrium. The radiant paths of this vision have led to the disciplines which develop techniques and instruments in which a part of the economic activity must correspond, either in value or in quantity and always nominally, to the antinomic part. Economics has failed in accounting for the inflows and outflows of money. Wealth is replaced by money. The Great Economics has been demoted to the double-entry bookkeeping of the motivations and answers of the human nature.

The obsession to simplify the object of study to two terms which are condemned to exist in opposition has fertilized the land of austerity. Economics’ function as a social science has been minimalized, breaking the balance of progress. The fundamental relationship of economicity is formulated in terms of compensating resources. Labour cheapens, the result of capital exploitation rises. Thus, speculation has liquefied the foundation of wealth in the search for abundant work.

By its nature, the dialectic is fulfilled alternatively: Yes/No.


Two words
Marin Dinu

Open acces




The Economicity. The Epistemic Landscape, Marin Dinu, 2016


ISSN 1841-8678 (ediția print) / ISSN 1844-0029 (ediția online)
© Copyright Asociația Generală a Economiștilor din România (AGER) / General Association of Economists From Romania  (GAER)
Redacția: 010702, București, Calea Griviței nr. 21, sector 1, E-mail:

© 2006-2021 AGER