======================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
A comment made in passing by A.J.P.Taylor in "The Trouble Makers" struck me 
as having wider implications for the understanding of economic language: 
 
"It is a mistake to suppose that Cobden relied on materialistic arguments, 
as Palmerston for instance asserted that if an enemy landed on these shores 
Cobden and Bright would make a calculation as to whether it would be 
cheaper to take him in or keep him out. Cobden certainly used the argument 
that war was expensive; and so it is. But the appeal to economics was part 
of the stock-in-trade of the time. Palmerston claimed to be promoting the 
interests of British trade. Even Kossuth appealed to commercial advantage 
when he preached a crusade against Russia in 1851. Essentially Cobden 
appealed to reason, not to material advantage." (page 56) 
 
I'm writing to HES for elaboration, or refutation, of the idea that "the 
appeal to economics was part of the stock-in-trade of the time" (for 
non-economic issues such as national independence, that is; obviously the 
language of economics would be used for more narrowly defined issues of 
trade, investment and so on). 
 
Perhaps I should say a word or two as to why I am making this request. I'm 
interested in the idea that arguments on explicitly political matters were, 
says Taylor, habitually expressed in economic language. After all: 
 
i)  Some today are critical of putting policy choices in the language of, 
say, cost-benefit analysis. If Taylor's remarks are correct, though, might 
we not use contingent valuation (for example) simply as part of our 
"stock-in-trade"--safely use CBA as a metaphor, in other words, without 
implying that policy questions are reducible to economics? 
 
ii) (More tentatively) If Taylor is right that the debates in which Cobden, 
Kossuth and others engaged could be held using economic language whilst 
retaining their political character, why should we be concerned if economic 
questions today are dressed up in the language of, well, physics or 
biology? 
 
Comments, suggestions, references--all would be most welcome. 
 
_________________________________________________________ 
C.N.Gomersall                         [log in to unmask] 
 
http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/economics/nick/nick.html 
_________________________________________________________ 
 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]