> Take finance, for instance. This is a field concerned with understanding how people with money invest it.
Actual finance is mostly concerned with pure money management, agnostic of the entity holding the money. If it's not a person, company or administrative body it's probably a mixture of those.
> [...] it also assumes substantial inequalities of income and wealth.
This is not true. For the most part it assumes that there is some need to allocate capital. Whether it is from a pension fund, an evil dictator or the Red Cross is mostly only a concern regarding specific constrains like regulation, objectives, etc.
> The greater the inequalities within any given society, the greater the interest in finance, as well as the market in luxury yachts.
No. The more capital to allocate, the greater the interest in allocating it. An economy with a greater financialization therefore requires a greater amount of financial knowledge and services. One can argue that such developments might be bad - completely fine. It is however awfully inaccurate to describe financial services as Veblen goods (luxury stuff where demand increases with price).
I like the general attitude of the article and I believe that there might be some benefit in questioning the study of management. I just do not like beating strawmen.
Actual finance is mostly concerned with pure money management, agnostic of the entity holding the money. If it's not a person, company or administrative body it's probably a mixture of those.
> [...] it also assumes substantial inequalities of income and wealth.
This is not true. For the most part it assumes that there is some need to allocate capital. Whether it is from a pension fund, an evil dictator or the Red Cross is mostly only a concern regarding specific constrains like regulation, objectives, etc.
> The greater the inequalities within any given society, the greater the interest in finance, as well as the market in luxury yachts.
No. The more capital to allocate, the greater the interest in allocating it. An economy with a greater financialization therefore requires a greater amount of financial knowledge and services. One can argue that such developments might be bad - completely fine. It is however awfully inaccurate to describe financial services as Veblen goods (luxury stuff where demand increases with price).
I like the general attitude of the article and I believe that there might be some benefit in questioning the study of management. I just do not like beating strawmen.