Which school of economic thought does systemaccounting embrace?

A:

None of them. There is no such thing as Keynesian, Austrian, conservative, or liberal economics. Economics is a science. In science, we measure things to determine what they are (beginning with numbers); not dictate where they should go. In other words, economics is the study of scarce resources and how they are allocated; not where they should be allocated. The only language that economics may be spoken in for the time being is math (an exception exists and will be mentioned at the end).
Studying “scarce resources” requires the student who is interested in referring to a particular fraction of a finite quantity at rest (stored) to speak of this fraction in terms of kgs, tons, gallons, and so on. Also relevant are the distances this resource must travel across a period of time between old and new owners (in km, mi, inches, etc). Therefore, economics is entirely a science because its study requires establishing access to knowledge that refers to how much of this stuff traveled such and such distance—and because we’re most likely interested in “trade”—we must also make known how much traveled in the opposite direction.
At its root, it must be recognized that economics’ rightful place within the tree of knowledge is that of “branch” to the field of physics since it is strictly concerned with measuring how humans negotiate the trade of property when the Law of Conservation is a physically inviolable parameter.
So, if you’re the head of the Econ department at a university, you've just received a new boss :o (kindly begin packing your belongings and move into the appropriate building).
You may now confidently regard all such words as “socialism”, “communism”, “leftist”, and “right-winger” as literary devices that describe nothing scientific or useful because their purpose is to promote gangs rather than knowledge. And if you do come into contact with a PhD who argues for one of them, or that economics is not a science, please understand that they most likely obtained their degree from a thesis advisor who merely agrees with them. People have a tendency to defend their academic degrees at the expense of what is real because they refuse to see all their hard work voided by a consensus fallacy. As a result, a ton of confusion abounds where many people who don’t know what to believe, and plenty of hurt feelings. Don't sweat these things. Now it’s time for you to see and think for yourself, which is why science is such a wonderful gift. Let’s measure and do the math together as we reconcile what we see!
Finally, here comes the exception to the rule stated in the beginning that math may be the only language used when pursuing economics. The English translation for x2+y2=1 is “circle, with radius of one”. Math may be translated into English, or any other language, so long as the resulting translation does not transgress the bounds fixed by its mathematical equivalent. Otherwise, things begin to mutate (sometimes conveniently) and we end up with an enormous monster that devours reason and understanding. Issuing promises of how things will look in the future, as well as the use of metaphor, requires a license that may only be obtained by demonstrating a deep commitment to the literal. How literal? Mathematical.

Was this helpful?