Sorry. But..
I've found that the plethora of Econ Theories (seems every Prof. loves a Different one) reminds of the hoary Rulez for Latin declensions -- and much too often each theory is stated didactically:
as. if. its exact-application possessed the regularity/reproducibility of say, a funnel-sort algorithm(?)
And they don't.
Possess any regularity, despite the multiple-qualifiers and oft vague [referents] for the newest buzz-words introduced.
As different as Jung VS Maslow (VS Wilhelm Wundt, who may have started the whole panoply of psych theorists.)
Since no wide-scale 'experiments' are possible, too-many thousands of hand-crafted words are created, then embraced and ...
are seen eventually to have had an expiration-date. Usually missed by the acolytes. Will these folks ever get it Right?
F=MA still works and pretty-likely will continue to.
Who wants to memorize the koans of some Windoze model, knowing fershure that all the menus will have even cutesier labels
..in the Next version?
..hence my inferences.
Simpler version, if orthogonal
The entire concept of wealth is manifestly a psychological concept and only can it become ~~ 'quantification-via-some-greed-coefficient' -?- in order to give an artificial Quantity to that greed.
And all the rest is obfuscation, where someone imagines this ever could become some Exact Science of Something.
Mayhap societies could do something about where wealth fits into a life worth the living ... in English, hopefully very-good English [or any other human language].
But the numbers will always be fantastical chimeras , evading the actual matters worth exploring.
So they don't Get Explored.
Pity, that.
