Pat Gunning writes to John Medaille: "If so, we can begin with a discussion of what economics is about, as Mises conceives it and as it was understood (if only partly so) by the older economists -- e.g., classical economists like Adam Smith. Roughly, but not exactly, speaking, I have in mind such things as self interest, the invisible hand, specialization, competition, and social utility. I maintain that the subject matter of economics so conceived is economic interaction -- how people act under the conditions of a market economy -- private property rights, free enterprise, and the use of money. (It is also about how people act when these conditions are only partly present and when some sort of government policy alters the conditions that would otherwise be present. But the study of economic interaction under these conditions comes later. The starting point is the study of economic interaction, as defined.) So the first point we must establish is whether you agree that the study of this subject is worthwhile. If we can agree on this, we can go on to deal with the issue of the meaning of action and of how to build an epistemological basis of studying it." That seems to say, "Concede my major point before we begin, and abandon your positions, then we can talk." (My paraphrasing.) Below are some lists of matters that Veblen and other institutionalists have found to be important, other than "self interest, the invisible hand, specialization, competition, and social utility". Veblen showed how much of our consumer "needs" are just "competitive emulation," and "conspicuous consumption" - self-validating efforts to keep up with the Jones's in an endless, fruitless spiral of waste. Veblen stressed that mankind is social, custom-bound, and less than rational, not like the robotic and calculating "pleasure-maximizing machines" of Edgeworth. Veblen discussed things like: tradition, ceremony, symbolism, hypocrisy, advertising, cosmetics, customs, emulation, team spirit, the family, the clan, the military band (fighting, not musical) social standing, folkways and mores, fads and fashions, group values, image, "vicarious leisure," cults, credulity, frauds, ethnic loyalties, personal ornamentation - the stuff of real life. He did this from the perspective of an academic insider, who knew perfectly well what socially correct authorities like Clark, Edgeworth, Pareto, and Marshall were trying to say. They could not blow him off as someone who just didn't get it. He got it, all right, but he didn't buy it. There's a world of difference. Another economist to take that view was to be Keynes, who stressed the "animal spirits" of investors as a cause of boom or bust. Veblen disagreed with the neo-classical assumption that each individual is independent, autonomous, and endogenously motivated. He saw mankind organized into "institutions," like the following: family, village, church, nation, bar, party, hunt club, country club, lodge, corporation, union, police force, bureau, branch of military service, college, class, and alumni, estate, trust, sporting teams and fans, club, coop, cartel, professional association, etc., each with its own internal logic, loyalties, values and structure. On top of all those lesser loyalties is the international comity of property, which dominates our academies, churches, think-tanks, courts, legislatures, administrators, armed forces, vocabularies, and minds. Mason Gaffney