Do you believe any aspects of economics can be better explained with less economic terminology? For example, instead of using the phrase ‘debt monetization’, one says ‘new money used to buy government bonds’. One could argue the latter definition uses economic terms, but it seems more easily understood than the former.
I wonder how many other forum readers do not fully understand the economic terminology used here. One can use an online search engine to find a definition, but using simpler language to express an idea would seem better at persuading people.
Hear hear and clap clap!
I couldn't agree more.
I think there are a few reasons for the obscurities:
1. Phrases originating with the govt. An example is "quantitative easing", which just means "printing money". The govt WANTS what they do to be obscure. Nobody will be outraged by their audacity and theft if they don't even understand what they are doing. And of course, since the govt plays such a huge role in our economy, their vocabulary will tend to be picked up.
2. Phrases originating from Mises' poor command of English. For example, in Human Action, he calls a right triangle [one that has an angle of 90 degrees] a "rectangular triangle." "Apodicitic" is a prime suspect here. He could have found a better word.
3. Economists wanting to impress the world with big words. There are many people who have walked the Earth thinking "The bigger and/or more uncommon the word I use, the more people will think I'm hot stuff." You will notice that the more obnoxious the character, the more awful will be his choice of words. Not going to mention names. You know who you are.
4. Poorly chosen words to describe concepts never considered before. I mean, of course, "praxeology" and "catalectics". Finding the perfect new word is an art in itself. For example, Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper was truly inspired when he invented the word "aerobics". But not everyone can do that.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Explaining economics to beginners is always better with less terminology. Once the terminology is understood, however, it's usually better. "New money used to buy government bonds" is awkward, clunky, and restrictive, not to mention a pain. Debt monetization is elegant. If you want to learn monetary economics, mastering the terminology will ultimately make it easier, not harder.
Sometimes economic terminology can be misleading. I argue here that "market failure" is an example of just that. "Public good" can also be misleading to noneconomists, and "methodological individualism" can generate a lot of pushback before people understand what it means. Trade deficits sound scary before they're understood. I'm sure many more examples of terms that sound misleading could easily be thought of. Ultimately, however, anyone who refuses to learn economics or better understand the ideas because of a few confusing terms probably wasn't going to be persuaded to minarchism or anarcho-capitalism anyway.