The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1894-09-14
The Science O. Of Political Economy.

The Science O. Of Political Economy.
If there is one science so-caled which now
engrosses more Of public attention than any
other il is perhaps Political Economy. IL
there is one which is more roundly abused
than all others it is surely the same. If it
were like dynamite, dangerous IN unskilled
hands, the world would have no use for the
much talked of fool killer. Every one now
a-days who has speech to make takes up a
large part Of his time in vocforating the
unoffending science, every one who writes
an article on railroads or banking or finance
or anything else gives great space to the
"scjcncc Of Pot teal Economy.
Has economics really been reduced to o
scencc' 1t is put down in the school cata-
logucs rs a science, we see written in the
backs of the Text books science, and we
hear the politicians say science. 1t really
seems rs if we ought to have good authority
for referring to il as q science, and some
who talk about it great deal are really
pardonable for their talk. Now If they had
really thought of the matter they might not
be so parlonable for their opinions. You
know it is the part of very few to think,
more TO write, and more still TO talk. So
that a very few do The thinking for the
whole community, very few do the think
ing for our government. Ifpolitical economy
is science it is not anything like other sci
enccs. Science is applied to something def
mite, something that is known. Science
does not change, so-called science may, and
often does undergo various changes.
GlisS was i@9pSsons9 5Scps hS per
the sun had spots, when the scieuce Of his
day taught that the sun was ipcorruptable.
But now every one who has looked through
telescope knows that the sun has spots.
The scientists are somewhat like the Judges
who when they overrulc former decision
do not say that it was a Jad iar, but that it
was net trr. Science cannot be false for if
it is false il is not science, but error. Now
if Political Economy is science it is the
most indefinite, the most flexible, the most
confused, the most turtle science that we
know of
One sciicol Of economists tax g their science
and show that we ought ~ ta.c fee trade.
another that We ought to nave high tariff for
protection. One that the government ought
TO owdl everything and the individual moth
ing. the other that the individual ought to
own everything and the government nothing.
Did you ever hear anybody deny that the
square on the hypotamusc i, equal to the
sum of the squares on the other two sides
Did you ever hear of any one 50 ridiculously
stubborn as tc deny the rotundity of the
earth: But il nigh: lie .al that these are
deductions from the science ra.her than
parts of the science itself. Very good. If
political economy has any claim to being
termed n science. Some trace of that claim
ought q be found in its definitions. What of
them. Well, wcal,i.. Ehich IS the very sub
jcct of the science, has no unitor miy acca pt-
ed Specification. 1t has been defined over
and over again, but the latest economists,
while disagrecing very much among them
selves, have all, or most Of them at least,
iounu iau''s OF deiec's "a 'Pe ol"er dehni-
IONS
John Stuart MILL himself. gave very con
iuSeo anu cohhic'lng aehh'tions after saying
'ha' everyone had aSuihc'ently clear idea OF
wea'h' "ca''h mas pecn dlVided INTO ma
'e'''' a"u 'p'nia's'"I og some ana the Ill
vision rejected by others. Some haze said
'h"' in'ci'ec'ua' requirements were wealth,
"h,'' 0'H1FS "a'c rejected such doctrine
WIZ" "'i'S'oh' 'e""'!ohS oi money arc no
less confusing All" Inc learned arei hope