The chapter critically examines the intersection of economics and politics, particularly in the context of behavioral economics challenging traditional economic models. Ezrahi highlights Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman’s reception by economists, revealing their discomfort with the implications of irrationality and cognitive biases in economic decision-making. The emergence of behavioral economics threatens the perceived objectivity of economists and their claims to enhance rationality in public affairs. The chapter explores how economists striving for professional objectivity, akin to natural sciences, inadvertently align with political and cultural biases. It contends that economics' influence on politics and policy arises from portraying the market as a natural, objective force detached from political interests. The chapter traces the historical evolution of economics, highlighting its separation from explicit moral and political considerations, leading to a focus on abstract models. It contends that economics wields significant influence, acting as both a check on over politicized governance and a veil concealing political choices. The chapter concludes by advocating for a return to political economics, acknowledging and addressing the political dimensions inherent in economic decisions.

While the financial crisis of 2007–8 has served to focus attention on the language of economics and the financial markets, discourse analysts have long been interested in the language of money. Indeed, because money is a social relation, the raw material available to analysts is almost too rich. I therefore draw attention to work that might not immediately look like “money talk.” I also describe the rich variety of work on metaphors of money, economics and finance of which there is an abundance. This research makes clear the ideological struggles around the representation of money and markets. In particular, it clearly shows the erasure of humans and human agency. These struggles are further illuminated by work informed by CDA and multimodal approaches, particularly in relation to the global financial crisis, austerity and poverty porn. It is important that the ideological baggage carried by contemporary understandings of money and debt are described. Research has gone further in its critique of the origins and effects of these ideologies. Finally, the contribution that applied linguists can make around money and debt is significant. However, in order to make positive interventions that emerge from considered critique, a clear set of values is required. Here, too, recent work in linguistics offers valuable perspectives as it focuses on real people in real pain.