[completedit]

Capital, equilibrium, exogoneous, endogenous, dynamic, stochastic, factor endowments, returns to capital and labour, Heterogenous, the business cycle, the list goes on. Why can't economists just use ordinary language to describe economic phenomena?

[kowloon]

Originally Posted by completedit

Capital, equilibrium, exogoneous, endogenous, dynamic, stochastic, factor endowments, returns to capital and labour, Heterogenous, the business cycle, the list goes on. Why can't economists just use much more suitable terms to describe economic phenomena?

Dig into tech, science, medicine, any form of maths and you'll find jargon. I've seen equilibrium, exo/endogeneous , dynamic and stochastic in Chemistry, biology and maths.

So they're just borrowing existing terms that they think best describe what they're talking about.

It's acronyms that are made up to sound good as acronyms and not as the most sensible name for something that get up my back, and the military seem to be the best at doing that.

[Mike Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by completedit

Capital, equilibrium, exogoneous, endogenous, dynamic, stochastic, factor endowments, returns to capital and labour, Heterogenous, the business cycle, the list goes on. Why can't economists just use ordinary language to describe economic phenomena?

Jargons adds value to non-sense.

[Pasteur.]

Originally Posted by Mike Foxtrot

Jargons adds value to non-sense.

Muddys the waters too

Leaves you about half a dozen outs if you're wrong

[Wanderer78]

Originally Posted by completedit

Capital, equilibrium, exogoneous, endogenous, dynamic, stochastic, factor endowments, returns to capital and labour, Heterogenous, the business cycle, the list goes on. Why can't economists just use ordinary language to describe economic phenomena?

...and sadly, a lot of these terms are completely meaningless in reality such as equilibrium etc