Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.
No. The human being is more like an oligarchy or a board. (Or, as one of Carrie Fisher's characters put it, a "committee.") Economics is something like a 30% shareholder. Philosophy, culture, and mental models are something like 40% -- there is no absolute majority shareholder, but culture has a plurality.
Economics can gang up with the base instincts to overwhelm philosophy/ideology/culture, but economics just by itself would be overpowered by philosophy/ideology/culture. The situation here in SF is a great example of this. Ideology causes SF to pass laws and have regulations which work to SF's economic detriment.
Everything started out in the humanities. It's sort of like a primal trunk or root. I think philosophy, history, and art still have a lot to tell us about the human condition. I think some of the key questions to be asked are still waiting to be asked. However, I do think that science will deliver the final answers. (Giving more fodder for additional questions.)
>Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.
Not even this pithy, wrong, six-word statement avoids its grounding in the humanities. Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities.
> Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities
That was absolutely economics on my part.
Not the most PC, but I took a chance.
A disproportionately high number of HN users identify as male. I also noted the users name was Roy, which I'd gander is also disproportionately highly male identifying.
The two combine to create a likelihood I'd bet the house on.
The content of your explanation after the fact does use quantification, but the personalization you originally wrote is pure humanities.
Further, the story you've told about what care went into your six-word comment: also pure humanities.
And let's not overlook the other humanities-based flaw in your six allegedly deeply considered words: if "everything is economics" then why is economics the study of the world using models? By their definition, models fail at being "everything" they model.
Depends on how you define economics. It's the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, which absolutely includes common goods like green space, pedestrian access, and other factors that are becoming even more important parts of city planning.
Even if you look at some of these elements as purely aesthetic or quality of life factors, that's still something economists regularly analyze, even when it might not have traditionally been the case.
