Re: A Capable Age
Hi Vivian, First of all, congratulations on an excellent paper (FWers: accessible from Vivian's posting of 4 March). It needs a more considered response than I can give it, or have time to give it, but here are a few comments. On point 2, I would suggest that young people leave their local communities and home towns for the cities not only because they are looking for better job opportunities but because they want to meet other young people and to share in the exciting activities that they have seen on TV. We no longer have the traditional initiation rites for young people in our communities, welcoming them into adulthood. The nearest alternative they have is to head for the big cities and find some space or status there. Those who ask young people of 15 or 16 years of age in English villages about their lives come up with the same answer repeatedly: We are bored. It's only when they are a few years older -- if they still remain in the village -- that they will say: There are no jobs. There are very few examples in developed countries where this effect may be clearly seen because local communities are nearly always bereft of jobs. However, there are some interesting clues -- for example, the Old Amish in America and the kibbutzim in Israel. In the latter case, the young people are conscripted into the army and so have to leave their kibbutz anyway. In the former case, the significiant exodus into the cities is voluntary. However, in both cases, when the young people are a little older and want to settle down and raise a family they return to the support of their community, availability of grandparents, etc. In both cases, there are jobs for them, of course. The only reason I have for saying this is that this trend is probably unstoppable. Anyway, this brings us back to the main problem. Later on you mention another feature of the New Zealand economy -- the lack of trade/vocational skills. This is something that we suffer from too. It is very difficult to find good plumbers, carpenters, electricians and so forth. When you have found one and want to use him again you find that he's so busy that he can't come for weeks. Like you in New Zealand with your Modern Apprenticeship schemes, it has become fashionable in England recently to promote vocational subjects in schools. (The problem here is that our centralised educational state system has already crammed the syllabus with so many other, apparently important, subjects, that some will have to be dropped.) When I was involved with the Jobs for Coventry Foundation in the early 80s we discovered that the unemployed youngsters who came to us after 12 years of schooling not only had a low level of literacy and numeracy, but were also inept at quite basic skills. For example, many of the boys had no idea how to hold and use a saw or hammer nails! They needed weeks of basic training before they could transfer into our training units where real job-skills were taught. We have a particular problem in England because, for century-old historical reasons, and quite unlike countries such as America and Germany, there is a strong prejudice against jobs where you get your hands dirty. Nevertheless, the same deficiency in basic skills seems to be fairly widespread in most developed countries -- and this also seems to be the case in New Zealand from what you say. Because of my experience in Jobs for Coventry and then, subsequently, in starting the Job Society in England -- both of which turned out to be deeply disappointing (despite exertions which were considerably more than I've ever had to make in starting two businesses since then) -- I've thought long and hard about the problem of youth unemployment. I've slowly come to the conclusion since being on FW list that the only answer lies in a reformation of the typical school system that's found in developed countries. In particular, we need a well-rounded education of all the basic mental and physical skills at an early an age as possible. We also need schools which can adapt to the local culture (particularly in our underclass housing estates). In short, we need to allow experimentation and competition between different sorts of school. We also need to be able to introduce skilled tradesmen and others with practical skills into our schools and avoid rigid entry qualifications for teachers. It seems to me that the only way this can be done is to introduce school vouchers so that parents can choose the type of school -- state or private -- that they think will be best for their children. This, of course, meets with fierce resistance from teaching unions and the educational bureaucracies, but early indications from the few experiments in America suggest that this is a promising way forward. For example, Cleveland awarded 4,456 school vouchers to children between 5 and 14 and 66% of the parents say they are very satisfied with the quality of the schools they chose compared with 30% of the parents without
Re: A Capable Age
Keith, The Chase Manhattan Bank wanted to recruit more minority and disadvantaged young people to work in their bank They found they were completely unequipped for any kind of job They introduced a 6 week crash course to prepare them for the jobs On average, they found that the kids gained two grades in that six weeks Harry __ Keith wrote: Hi Vivian, First of all, congratulations on an excellent paper (FWers: accessible from Vivian's posting of 4 March) It needs a more considered response than I can give it, or have time to give it, but here are a few comments On point 2, I would suggest that young people leave their local communities and home towns for the cities not only because they are looking for better job opportunities but because they want to meet other young people and to share in the exciting activities that they have seen on TV We no longer have the traditional initiation rites for young people in our communities, welcoming them into adulthood The nearest alternative they have is to head for the big cities and find some space or status there Those who ask young people of 15 or 16 years of age in English villages about their lives come up with the same answer repeatedly: We are bored It's only when they are a few years older -- if they still remain in the village -- that they will say: There are no jobs There are very few examples in developed countries where this effect may be clearly seen because local communities are nearly always bereft of jobs However, there are some interesting clues -- for example, the Old Amish in America and the kibbutzim in Israel In the latter case, the young people are conscripted into the army and so have to leave their kibbutz anyway In the former case, the significiant exodus into the cities is voluntary However, in both cases, when the young people are a little older and want to settle down and raise a family they return to the support of their community, availability of grandparents, etc In both cases, there are jobs for them, of course The only reason I have for saying this is that this trend is probably unstoppable Anyway, this brings us back to the main problem Later on you mention another feature of the New Zealand economy -- the lack of trade/vocational skills This is something that we suffer from too It is very difficult to find good plumbers, carpenters, electricians and so forth When you have found one and want to use him again you find that he's so busy that he can't come for weeks Like you in New Zealand with your Modern Apprenticeship schemes, it has become fashionable in England recently to promote vocational subjects in schools (The problem here is that our centralised educational state system has already crammed the syllabus with so many other, apparently important, subjects, that some will have to be dropped) When I was involved with the Jobs for Coventry Foundation in the early 80s we discovered that the unemployed youngsters who came to us after 12 years of schooling not only had a low level of literacy and numeracy, but were also inept at quite basic skills For example, many of the boys had no idea how to hold and use a saw or hammer nails! They needed weeks of basic training before they could transfer into our training units where real job-skills were taught We have a particular problem in England because, for century-old historical reasons, and quite unlike countries such as America and Germany, there is a strong prejudice against jobs where you get your hands dirty Nevertheless, the same deficiency in basic skills seems to be fairly widespread in most developed countries -- and this also seems to be the case in New Zealand from what you say Because of my experience in Jobs for Coventry and then, subsequently, in starting the Job Society in England -- both of which turned out to be deeply disappointing (despite exertions which were considerably more than I've ever had to make in starting two businesses since then) -- I've thought long and hard about the problem of youth unemployment I've slowly come to the conclusion since being on FW list that the only answer lies in a reformation of the typical school system that's found in developed countries In particular, we need a well-rounded education of all the basic mental and physical skills at an early an age as possible We also need schools which can adapt to the local culture (particularly in our underclass housing estates) In short, we need to allow experimentation and competition between different sorts of school We also need to be able to introduce skilled tradesmen and others with practical skills into our schools and avoid rigid entry qualifications for teachers It seems to me that the only way this can be done is to introduce school vouchers so that parents can choose the type of school -- state or private -- that they think will be best for their children This, of course, meets with fierce resistance from teaching unions and the educational
'Mud, Brawn and Brain' (was : A Capable Age)
Title: 'Mud, Brawn and Brain' (was : A Capable Age) At 9:20 AM + 2002/03/04, Keith Hudson wrote: We have a particular problem in England because, for century-old historical reasons, and quite unlike countries such as America and Germany, there is a strong prejudice against jobs where you get your hands dirty. Nevertheless, the same deficiency in basic skills seems to be fairly widespread in most developed countries -- and this also seems to be the case in New Zealand from what you say. Hi Keith, The strong prejudice about getting your hands dirty is alive and thriving in the colonies too! This is linked to the arrogance of 'city slickers' towards 'country bumpkins'. I've taught in schools where kids, who had to do chores on farms in the morning before going to school, were laughed at because of the faint odour of cow manure. These are kids who know how to birth and care for animals, plant and harvest crops, fix machinery, drive tractors and operate machinery. What do the city kids know? skate boarding, hanging out at malls... Schools add to this prejudice. Academic courses leading to university are held in much greater esteem than tech courses.'Dummies' take tech courses. Below I am copying an article that was written by the editor of our local newspaper. He left his position at my university as an English professor to become a newspaper journalist. Mud, brawn and brain MUD! FOR TWO years, 50 hours a week, I lived with that shout. My job was to answer it promptly or, better still, to work so as not to have Mud! shouted at all. As a laborer for a masonry contractor I was paid - handsomely, I thought - to make sure that the bricklayers kept laying bricks. So keeping them constantly supplied with mortar, or mud as it is called in the trade, was my reason for being during the working day. An empty mud board (the plywood square on which I put the mud) meant I failed. And if the bossman or foreman saw the empty board, or noticed a bricklayer waiting with an empty trowel, I caught hell. I resented the scolding. I also like my job and took pride in it. So I learned to do what every good masonry laborer must: anticipate, think ahead, plan. To make sure the bricklayers I looked after kept laying bricks, I had to keep constant track of their mud supply. This not only meant making sure that they always had a fresh shovel of it on their mud boards. A bricklayer hates nothing worse than bad mud, or mud that he cannot smoothly spread with his trowel. So the mud had to be just right. And there were so many ways it could go wrong. The mud could have been badly mixed to begin with. The laborer at the mud mixer could have put in wrong measures of sand, water or mortar mix (or Portland cement and quick lime, if we used another mud recipe). The resulting batch, which I either got in a wheelbarrow, or had hoisted up to me on the scaffold in a metal box could be too wet or not wet enough. The sloppy stuff was the worst. What is this soupy shit? I would hear. Then I would echo this mild reproach (there were far more aggressive and vulgar variations) to the mixer man. If the mud was so wet as to be unworkable, so that it slid off the trowel. I might have to mix more cement in it to stiffen it up, all under the glare of an indignant bricklayer, whose every waiting gesture scowled Hurry up! Hard mud, mixed without enough water or dried out by sun and wind, also required my attention. It didn't take me long to learn that putting a shovel of mortar on a dry board made the wood suck the moisture out of the mix. So my first job before the bricklayers even arrived was to wet down the boards. A wet board also eased the resistance of the trowel. My pail of water was also a necessity to freshen up dried-out mud, a pretty constant problem on hot summer days. How much to put on the boards also needed steady attention. You didn't load up the boards close to coffee, lunch and quitting times, otherwise it would dry out or go to waste. Then there is the ever-present upward climb, course by course of blocks or bricks, of every masonry structure. As the wall is built up, so the mud supply must move upward. Beginning the first courses near the foundation, or on the floor of the scaffold, the mud boards had to be raised up on blocks or piles of bricks. No bricklayer likes to stoop more than he has to. Different bricklayers might insist that you raise their boards extra high. A board loaded with shovel-fulls of mud is heavy and awkward to lift and hold, sometimes needing extra help to place supporting bricks underneath. So again, you had to anticipate raising up the boards when they were nearly empty. And mud is but one concern of the masonry laborer. He must also make sure that there are adequate supplies of blocks or bricks, carefully stacked for use. Other materials like reinforcing wire and brick ties must be ready at hand. Scaffold planks and foot planks need to be moved
Fwd: Let's Return to Responsible Capitalism
Might this plea be being made by 'benefactors' of the good old capitalist days? (ie the shrinking middle class?) Brian McAndrews http://wwwcommondreamsorg/views02/0304-03htm
RE: Let's Return to Responsible Capitalism
Let's return to responsible government. Responsible capitalism will follow. Arthur -Original Message- From: Brian McAndrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: Let's Return to Responsible Capitalism Might this plea be being made by 'benefactors' of the good old capitalist days? (i.e. the shrinking middle class?) Brian McAndrews http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0304-03.htm
RE: Crazy European Union
Arthur, I think George would vent his spleen. He was a fine free trader - writing perhaps one of the best books on free trade ever written (Protection of Free Trade). However, at the end of PFT he points out that the benefits of moving barriers between peoples do not reach those people - but show themselves in the form of higher Land Rents. (As do advances in the productive arts, whether by technological progress, or by improvement in the quality of labor.) In this he was a Ricardian embracing the Iron Laws of Rent and Wages - the tendency of General Level wages (the lowest) to fall to a level that will give but a bare living. The modern political-economic policy to deal with this continuing poverty is to tax the ill-gotten gains and return them to the General Level in welfare of some kind. That's a laugh, as you well know. A statistic that amused me (well, not really) was published by Time during Johnson's War of Poverty. They pointed out that more Income Tax money was collected from those below the poverty line than was the entire budget of the Office of Economic Opportunity (the War machine). A major problem with any economy is land speculation. Ricardo missed this. He assumed a steady movement of labor to poorer and poorer land, where *with the same exertion* labor would get a lower and lower return. But, what if large amounts of better land were grabbed by speculators and held fenced, but unused (or underused) against an eventual higher speculative profit? The movement to poorer land and lower wages would be accelerated. Although there would be plenty of vacant and underused land about, it's unavailability would send land prices higher and higher. This is the collectible market characteristic, I've mentioned before. Well, George had a pretty good way to handle the problem. He suggested a land-value tax would collect revenue while conforming to Smith's Canons of Taxation. He pointed out that the machinery for assessment and collection was already in place, so collection would be easy. If improvement taxation was ended and land-value was fully collected, there would be two effects. One, when people were no longer penalized for good housing, there would be more good housing. Two, when the full Rent of land was collected, speculative land would be released, and speculative land prices would fall. As land value now accounts for 50-70% of the price of housing, there would be (for example) an immediate halving in the price of housing. Also, as land would become readily available for builders - the actual cost of putting up a house would drop. We could stop bleating and wringing our hands about the lack of affordable housing. By comparison with the economic effects of taxing land, the revenue aspects, though pretty good, pale into insignificance. As I've mentioned before, I told Georgists that it's better to collect rent (tax land) and throw it in the sea - than not collect it at all. That shook a lot of them! George's elegant way of handling a basic problem is perhaps why a letter from 8 Nobel economists was sent to the President of Russia suggesting he use George's land value taxation to handle their emerging land problem. So, why aren't George's ideas adopted worldwide? Well, there is a problem. Collecting Economic Rent, (land value taxation) is a direct attack on the most privileged members of every community. The new darling of the left wing, Stiglitz, who happens to be a free trader, recommended for the IMF radical land reform, an attack at the heart of 'landlordism', on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant's crops. However, he added that this is a more delicate subject. As he reminded us If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda. That, in a large nutshell, is why tariffs on imported lumber bares no resemblance to a land-value tax. Harry ___ Arthur wrote: I wonder..what would Henry George say to this. Perhaps increasing the price of our lumber is a kind of land tax, a tax upon which we could raise revenues. Hmmm. arthur -Original Message- From: Brian McAndrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:46 PM To: Harry Pollard Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Crazy European Union Harry, Canada needs you to stop the bully tactics being used by the US (for the 4th time!) re softwood lumber. The US says we sell our lumber too cheaply in the US even though the US construction industry loves our prices. Don't let them impose tariffs on us. Hopefully, Brian
RE: Crazy European Union
My point was that increasing the stumpage value of Canadian lumber, taken from Crown land, could be considered a land tax. The difference between last years value and this year's value represents the increased demand for the product and a windfall gain. That gain can be taxed. Assuming of course that markets work in this area. I don't know how lumber is priced now. Is the stumpage value held constant? Or is it allowed to drift upward with increased demand? If the latter, then to the extent that the increased price of the lumber is going to the tax department, it is a kind of Georgian outcome. If stumpage fees are constant. Well, they shouldn't be. They should be allowed to rise. arthur -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 1:18 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Crazy European Union Arthur, I think George would vent his spleen. He was a fine free trader - writing perhaps one of the best books on free trade ever written (Protection of Free Trade). However, at the end of PFT he points out that the benefits of moving barriers between peoples do not reach those people - but show themselves in the form of higher Land Rents. (As do advances in the productive arts, whether by technological progress, or by improvement in the quality of labor.) In this he was a Ricardian embracing the Iron Laws of Rent and Wages - the tendency of General Level wages (the lowest) to fall to a level that will give but a bare living. The modern political-economic policy to deal with this continuing poverty is to tax the ill-gotten gains and return them to the General Level in welfare of some kind. That's a laugh, as you well know. A statistic that amused me (well, not really) was published by Time during Johnson's War of Poverty. They pointed out that more Income Tax money was collected from those below the poverty line than was the entire budget of the Office of Economic Opportunity (the War machine). A major problem with any economy is land speculation. Ricardo missed this. He assumed a steady movement of labor to poorer and poorer land, where *with the same exertion* labor would get a lower and lower return. But, what if large amounts of better land were grabbed by speculators and held fenced, but unused (or underused) against an eventual higher speculative profit? The movement to poorer land and lower wages would be accelerated. Although there would be plenty of vacant and underused land about, it's unavailability would send land prices higher and higher. This is the collectible market characteristic, I've mentioned before. Well, George had a pretty good way to handle the problem. He suggested a land-value tax would collect revenue while conforming to Smith's Canons of Taxation. He pointed out that the machinery for assessment and collection was already in place, so collection would be easy. If improvement taxation was ended and land-value was fully collected, there would be two effects. One, when people were no longer penalized for good housing, there would be more good housing. Two, when the full Rent of land was collected, speculative land would be released, and speculative land prices would fall. As land value now accounts for 50-70% of the price of housing, there would be (for example) an immediate halving in the price of housing. Also, as land would become readily available for builders - the actual cost of putting up a house would drop. We could stop bleating and wringing our hands about the lack of affordable housing. By comparison with the economic effects of taxing land, the revenue aspects, though pretty good, pale into insignificance. As I've mentioned before, I told Georgists that it's better to collect rent (tax land) and throw it in the sea - than not collect it at all. That shook a lot of them! George's elegant way of handling a basic problem is perhaps why a letter from 8 Nobel economists was sent to the President of Russia suggesting he use George's land value taxation to handle their emerging land problem. So, why aren't George's ideas adopted worldwide? Well, there is a problem. Collecting Economic Rent, (land value taxation) is a direct attack on the most privileged members of every community. The new darling of the left wing, Stiglitz, who happens to be a free trader, recommended for the IMF radical land reform, an attack at the heart of 'landlordism', on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant's crops. However, he added that this is a more delicate subject. As he reminded us If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda. That, in a large nutshell, is why tariffs on imported lumber bares no resemblance to a land-value tax. Harry ___ Arthur wrote:
Re: Crazy European Union
Arthur said: . If stumpage fees are constant. Well, they shouldn't be. They should be allowed to rise. I've always wondered why the most conservative capitalists amongst us are so against charging competitive rents for their cattle ranches that use public lands to graze their herds.The same is true for the mining companies who get land for a song and then make billions taking advantage of a law that we can't seem to repeal that was from the Presidency of Grant in the 1860s. As if the dollar was the same at that time as now.In Picher, Oklahoma and Salamanca New York they pressured the Quapaw and Seneca to give 99 year leases for almost nothing and when the lease came due not too long ago all hell broke loose as the homeowners couldn't stand those injuns charging a going rate for the rents on their lands.Capitalists too often sound like other religions who complain that the problem is that we never have really tried capitalism or the Free Market. They sound like Fundamentalists who claim that their Jesus is not the same Messiah that the Pope worships. The implication is that we should try their flavor of Messiah even though the old flavor committed rape and genocide using the same stories. REH
Re: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded Economics)
Hi Keith: Just catching up on some old postings of yours and trying to make some comments. Your phrase, how economics can be used as a science. and the following phrase predictions made with a high degree of confidence:, are an assumption. Economics has not been able to develop a replicatible economy. There is no duplication of the experiment - therefore, economics remains at the most a theorm - a possibility that the study can eventually made into an experiment that is replicatble and therefore passes the scientific criteria. But not yet. Edifices built on false assumptions often lead to wrong conclusions which usually negate any possiblity of predictability. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde on 2/1/02 1:21 AM, Keith Hudson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Harry and Arthur, For the time being, let me take just one strand from your (HP's) latest mail and attempt to show how economics can be used as a science. This will never make the whole story at all times as we (HP and KH) both agree -- human nature is also involved -- but the overall structure over the longer term ought to be scientifically analysable *and* predictions made with a high degree of confidence:
Re: conference
Hi Mike: I thought this was a great rebuttal to Harry's assumptions. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde on 2/1/02 11:05 PM, Mike Spencer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gail wrote: gail There is, however, so much confusion in this conference between gail work and employment... And Harry replied: Gail, The reason for all production is wages. Sometimes, people seem to forget it. And you sneer at at Pete for mentioning a functioning economic model? That assertion is an economic model all by itself. I haven't had any wages for -- lessee, maybe 25 years. No salary and I'm not independently wealthy. Perhaps lots of folks would say I'm a slacker for taking on neither the work ethic in the form of waged employment nor the obligations of a good consumer but I've produced lots of stuff, both physical and intangiblez, in that time. For a few of your posts there I began to think you were down a pint but now you're even capitalizing the word Assumption when you refer again and again to your ex cathedra doctrine of the infinitely lazy infinite acquisitor: ...come up with a couple of exceptions to the Assumptions. There are, just approximately, an infinite number of observations of human behavior that are sufficiently valid to form the basis of discussion and I'll grant that status to your two Assumptions (sic) but not, by a very long shot, that of laws of human behavior. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Ameican Psychiatric Association is full of sets of usefully valid observations of human behavior. Here's an exercise: For each of the entries in the DSM under Personality disorders, assess whether or not persons meeting the relevant diagnostic criteria would enthusiastically embrace your two Assumptions or not. We'll have a meaningful, scientific grasp of human behavior when we establish reproducible correlates between neural activity and organization and consciousness -- a detailed explication of what is often called the mind-body problem. It will not come soon. Marvin Minsky has been quoted as having advised a student interested in the subject to forego it on the grounds that the real discoveries were sufficiently far in the future that the student's career could not possibly be a stellar one. In my only slightly humble opinion, many of our contemporary great minds have shingled off into the fog on this. Others, such as neurologist Gerald Edelman and mathematician Stuart Kauffman have developed intrigueing insights, albeit ones that also indicate how far we are from a deep understanding of the matter. While I find the mind-body problem (There is no problem: minds are what brains do. -- Minsky) one of the most practicaly challenging and theoretically interesting questions extant, I don't think I want to live in a world where we understand it well enough to make from it an applied science in the hands of those powerful enough to pay for the RD. That sounds to me like technology of the ultimate totalitarian fiefdom. It is marginally better today, to the extent that the powerful manipulators base their efforts on bogus formulations that humans everywhere are able to prove false again and again. We get our clothes from the tailor - or from Penny's or Marks and Sparks We get our meat from the butcher and our produce from the greengrocer. We get our milk from the milkman. Isn't this more sensible than keeping two cows - one to slaughter - growing 17 different vegetable, running up tee-shirts on the sewing machine, and spending a couple of weeks producing an ill-fitting suit? Only if you don't know how to grow a tomato or have an earthworm phobia; if you think trace hormonal contamination of milk is a non-issue or you haven't the skills to to make things you need that suit you better than the rubbish most vendors offer. Or if -- well, there are *lots* of other ifs. Jeez, Harry, it's more complicated than that. *Everything* is more complicated than that, for most values of that. What I said was that we don't try to analyze the single complicated human ... Now that's a problem, isn't it? To make the kind of generalizatons you do, you have to treat people as simplified economic units and construct a model in which they're the components. We can see what a person does. As an economic scientist, or as a lay person, I can see how someone behaves. If all the persons whose behavior you have an opportunity to observe behave in accordance with your two Assumptions, you need a better class of friends and you need to get out more. - Mike
Re: Economics
Title: Re: Economics Hi Ed: Thanks for your welcoming note. I might add that I think the arts missed a gifted writer, still time though, you have an ability to write with clarity. As I am on my hobby horse for awhile and scrutinizing the innards of the concept of economics, I will ask if you will elaborate on the following statement: Real world issues don¹t often come in a way that make the tools of economics directly applicable. Mostly they come as very difficult questions. Now it would seem to me, simple minded layman that I am - that if reality and theory don't fit, it's highly probable the theory is wrong. Reality is an awful hard thing to argue against. Now, wouldn't it be 'rational' for the 'science' of Economics to test the theories it teaches in the amphitheatre of reality and that it is highly irrational to continue to teach theory that rarely can be applied in the real world? With great respect: Thomas Lunde on 2/1/02 8:19 AM, Ed Weick at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote The list has see considerable discussion of the nature of economics recently. I haven¹t been able to participate because I¹ve been busy on other things, though I¹ve tried to read some of the material. The problem in at least some of the postings is a failure to distinguish between economics as something that is taught in the classroom and economics as one must use it as a practitioner. In the classroom, economists are taught macro and micro economics. They encounter economic thinkers of the past the physiocrats, the classicists, Marx, neoclassicists, Keynesians. They encounter self-interest, rational choice, and welfare theory. Some of this is presented algebraically, some geometrically, and some as words. All of this is well and good because it makes young minds work. The intent, as I understood it when a student, is not to learn about the real world, but to learn how economists imagined the world, and still imagine it. When one gets out of the classroom, and even before, one encounters the real world, where real issues must be resolved with real answers. As an economist in the Canadian public service, I was never able to satisfy my superiors by drawing indifference curves or citing the iron law of wages. What they demanded of me was short, snappy and well reasoned answers, something they could use to move a particular issue forward. Undoubtedly, what I had learned in the classroom helped because it had sharpened my ability to think rationally and provide helpful, if not necessarily correct, responses. That, in my opinion, was the real value of what I had been exposed to as a student. I still don¹t know if what my professors taught me was right, wrong or relevant. All I know is that it helped to make me a useful thinker. Real world issues don¹t often come in a way that make the tools of economics directly applicable. Mostly they come as very difficult questions. For example, why has Argentina had to repudiate its debt and why is it now in a deep recession? Classroom economics can provide some insights into this, but if I really had to provide an answer, I would consult someone with several years of experience in international finance and monetary policy someone who knew the turf, so to speak. I would also search out people who knew about the history and culture of Argentina, because I suspect that what has happened there is far larger than something that economists or monetary experts can deal with. One aspect of globalization and mass communication is that issues now come thick and fast and from all over the place. Rather than discreet and separable events, they pound in on us as a babble of noise. Here again the specific content of the individual bits and pieces learned in the classroom may be of little use. Drawing indifference curves would not be very helpful and one probably wouldn¹t have time to draw them anyhow. Yet I would maintain that the fact that one had to use those bits and pieces as tools to try to sort things out in the imaginary world of the classroom was helpful. It helped one to learn how to pick apart the various strands of the noise and to rank or sequence them in ways important to finding real world solutions. So, to end this, I would suggest that we not get too hung up on the nature of something like economics as a received body of thought or theory. Certainly, one should not hesitate to question its premises. But to me the important question is whether what one learned in academe has helped one to think and solve problems. Even though I have not drawn a single indifference curve since leaving the classroom, I would answer this in the affirmative. Ed Weick
FW: [Elias] BWD - Economy
At the risk of rising the ire of some readers, I am going to repost from another List that I belong to. A talented writer has started a satirical, insightful, inner knowledge literay effort which she calls The Bent Wheat Daily and as the muse strikes her, she writes mini essays in which she changes the meanings of words to show deeper meanings. I call it right brain thinking. I ask your indulgence for awhile in allowing me to post a few of the most relevant and insight editions of The Bent Wheat Daily. If, after a few postings, you feel this inappropriate, then of course I will refrain. If, however you feel compelled to comment, I will be passing your remarks back to the Editor of The Bent Wheat Daily and her loyal staff of insane reporters. They will investigate your comments and probably reply, though you can never depend on right brain information to be what you think it should. Read, Enjoy, Thomas Lunde The Bent Wheat Daily Post Serial January 30, 2002 Economy What is the economy, and why do we feel we have to stimulate it? Like constantly giving it electroshocks to keep it alive. I would define war as an electroshock. I always thought economy was thrifty or careful management of resources. And yet each time we attempt to stimulate the economy with war, we seem to throw those same precious resources out the window. We don¹t carefully manage them at all. I like the old way to stimulate the economy, where I recognize my movement, and become efficient in the process, thereby saving my own energy. And isn¹t it curious that our governmental economy is based on energy? I already know how to utilize energy to its most maximum efficiency. How not to give away my own personal resources, but rather to utilize them for my own benefit. I already know how not to waste energy in the form of guilt and worry, and in the process found an unlimited supply to draw from. If we are stimulating the economy by learning how to best manage personal resources, then what is with the exercise in destruction? Give me that bomb, and I¹ll make it into a hat-rack.
Re: The Science of Fairness
Regarding Keith's idea: Quote: the mechanistic aspect will not be sufficiently analysable or understood until we have a currency system that has constant purchasing-parity across all countries. This can be either one world-wide currency of known and constant value (that is, a dependable human unit and also a truly scientific unit of measurement) or the frictionless exchange of individual currencies (that is, national currencies not being interfered with by politicians or central banks Thomas: Let me throw an idea in the pot and see how it cooks. From memory, I seem to recall the the length of metre was determined as a fraction of the circumference of the Earth at the Equator rather than using someones hand or foot. The idea being that if there was ever questions about the length of the metre someone was using we could go to some source that is almost immutable and re-determine what the exact length of a metre should be. Now what if the value of currency was determined in a similar manner. We obviously can't use something physical like gold ( as it is an uncontrolable variable due to new discoveries) and while I was reflecting on this, these thoughts occured. Given that the world was open to a set of standards used by everyone in determining two things. One, a nations population. Two an economic unit similar but better designed than the gross national product. And that if the population was divided into the GDP a number representing a ratio would be forthcoming. If some fraction of that number was used to determine the basic economic unit of each nation, then a value could be established for every currency. As these would be big numbers, change would probably not be rapid, establishing each individual currency's value for a reasonable length of time. My question to the more mathmatically endowed members of the list is: (a) Is it possible? (b) Would it be a relevant way to establish value that is relevant to trade? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde on 2/3/02 11:59 PM, Charles Brass at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith You commented in part in this post that no-one has yet countered your argument that the mechanistic aspect will not be sufficiently analysable or understood until we have a currency system that has constant purchasing-parity across all countries. This can be either one world-wide currency of known and constant value (that is, a dependable human unit and also a truly scientific unit of measurement) or the frictionless exchange of individual currencies (that is, national currencies not being interfered with by politicians or central banks I have not replied before to the rest of this thread, but I would like to comment on this particular point. While it may be true that such a currency is needed, it is inconceiveable that such a currency could exist in isolation. The true value in the world simply cannot be captured in any one currency. A system of parallel currencies, perhaps with a frictionless one at the top - such as proposed in various places by Bernard Lietaer is conceivable, but only if we can develop the necessary community currencies to make it really work. regards Charles Brass Chairman Future of Work Foundation phone:61 3 9459 0244 fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield3078 www.fowf.com.au the mission of the Future of Work Foundation is: to engage all Australians in creating a better future for work
Re: FW What future for poorer folks?
Hi Ed: You are enlarging my area of discontent here Ed, soon the only people left that I can relate too will be those on this list - ah well, there could be worse fates for me. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde on 2/17/02 4:34 AM, Ed Weick at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very evocative essay Sally. I feel that my essay calling for Accountants to rule rather than economists is in good company. Hi Thomas, I recall that in your longer piece a few days ago you praised accountants but wanted to boil economists in oil. Perhaps they should both be boiled. Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron, was educated as an economist, while Arthur Anderson, the firm that helped maintain the Enron lie is loaded with accountants. Accountants don't necessarily mean accountability. Ed Weick
Re: Hollow swops
Hi Keith: It is not the crooks that are important - though all of us would like to see someone get their comeuppance. Rather it is a system that has been degenerating since the last great purge - whenever that was I think these are the signs of a system malfunction and there will come a time when the system will be repaired - whether the repair is a patch job, a remodeling or an overhaul remains to be seen. Lateral flows of information and exposure need to be backed up by independent media ie government, for all private media is or probably will be biased in some manner. It has already happened in the Stats Can (or the equivalent in other countries) has to considered accurate and unbiased for it to be used/useful. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde on 2/14/02 12:27 AM, Keith Hudson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This supports my view -- and what I think is an unstoppable trend -- that all information that concerns individuals and businesses which transact with the public must be placed automatically in the public domain. The lateral transmission of information and the consequent exposure of bad practice is a far more effective deterrent than government legislation and regulation -- although necessary for moral and exemplary reasons. Unfortunately government action is nearly always after the event and able to be evaded by even cleverer crooks. Keith Hudson __ ?Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.? John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Re: It doesn't bother me either
Title: Re: It doesn't bother me either on 2/19/02 8:49 PM, Harry Pollard at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ray, Why do all these great immigrants come to the USA? Harry Hi Harry: Personally, I think they come out ignorance. There is a cliche that has become an archetype to quote ol Marshal McCluhan. The cliche is that the US is the land of opportunity. Rather. the truth may be 'the US was the land of opportunity'. With a population of 300 million and growing - the observation and constantly stated position of Steve Kurtz is - that there is a critical place where overpopulation will eliminate or degrade that potential for everyone. The continuing and ongoing increase in population in many parts of the world creates our future. And that future is looking increasingly bleak to any but those focused on money. Money often made by destroying the infrastructure of natural systems. Many of the immigrants come from countries that are the future of the US. Used up, burnt out, overpopulated, under governed - and so like passengers on the Titantic, they are fighting for a place within the few lifeboats left on the planet - not realizing that the lifeboat is overcrowded already and that the safety they believe they will attain is just a step away from collapsing. Ray, in one of his notes used the phrase in regards to Unemployment Insurance - tough love. Well, I think many peoples of the world have been going through tough love for a very long time - and like a slum landlord, the US has been making sure that it continues - for others. My belief, what goes around comes around. So, my answer to the question you posed Ray is simple. They come believing there is still a seat for them in the lifeboat. I wonder. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Ray wrote: (REH) Maybe you mean to set a context for what you are saying and if that is the case then I apologize but you state things as if they are laws and they aren't. Well, I've set a context for those one or two games I've described so far. As for their being laws, I haven't said that. Remember that I've said that games theory experiments are repeateable, cross cultural and that they are saying something valuable *only within the context of the experimental parameters*. They're not valid otherwise. As if refers to the tone of what you state. I read it as very certain, almost didactic. I do the same but I take credit for being didactic about my own experience and history. We can have parallels but we are each different. (REH) As for the Games? Game theorists set the rules for the game biasing the outcome by the words they use for the rules. Math serves to eliminate the ambiguity of reality. The problem with ambiguity is that it is the root of creativity and change. That is the flaw IMHO. Not at all. The theorists set the parameters of the experiments. They don't know the 'rules' and they don't set them. They are often surprised by the results. In fact, most of those that are published in the literature are surprises -- or else they wouldn't be worth publishing. Rule: Mathematics. A standard method or procedure for solving a class of problems. American Heritage Dict. Surprise has nothing to do with it. They prescribe the rules of the game, not so for the players. Everyone is surprised by who wins at football. (REH) I published Free Rider Game studies on this list from George Mason University four years ago that made the same points but asked embarrasing economic questions. The answer was a deafening silence. Intriguing! I think I was 'resting' from FW list then -- as actors say -- when I was setting up my business. If you can fish these up from your archives and give me references I'd be most interested. I don't have the archive but it was Robert Sugden writing. You might try the internet or George Mason University. (REH) Game theory seems to be useful in examining the structures of such things but it also is severely limited in its Societal application thus far. Remember Enron. Exactly what I've been saying several times. The conditions have to be specified and the parallels with real life clearly established. But games theory is having many useful things to say about circumstances when the public don't meekly do what the authorities (or the marketing departments of corporations) expect them to do. I agree as an approach but not THE approach as many game theorists seem comfortable to assert as well as doing such things as assigning their approach to Nuclear warfare which effects us all. Such over specialization arrogantly applied to the real world reminds me of the scientific experiments of Dr. Mengele who took the Yellow Fever experiments of Walter Reed (who got Army Privates to volunteer to be bitten by mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever,) to a new level. (Yes the same Walter Reed as in the major Army Hospital in Washington, D.C.) Can you imagine the uproar if they opened those
Re: Leading a horse to water (was Joe Stiglitz on world trade)
Hi Keith: Well, if you and I had - had the bad luck to be born in one of those countries, but the good luck to get enough education to find out how our country has been exploited and screwed - and we were 20 years old, I venture we might be riding in the same jeep with our machine guns. I like what Claire Short is saying - though this is the first I have heard her name. Giving aid to corrupt governments is similar to setting up Welfare Depts to administer welfare - most of the money goes to the adminstrators rather than the poor. Using my memory - what is left of it - I remember reading some American studies about welfare in the Chicago area in which the levels of adminstration took up the majority of money allotted to welfare by legislature. In other words, the middle class got the welfare money in terms of jobs while the poor got the rules and regulations that made their lives miserable and very little money. It's not welfare that is the problem in my opinion. In British Columbia where I am now living - we have (memory here) about 250,000 children, mentally handicaped, seniors, welfare mothers (terrible phrase) and people dislocated by change and government policy. The interesting fact in the paper a week or so ago was that over 10,000 people a month are going on Welfare, while 10,000 people a month are leaving Welfare. The real problem is that the welfare system is taking care of many people who are never going to find work in a competitive, technological society because of age, handicaps, or are young children and that those people should be in other more permenant and better funded programs. The welfare system would then be used as the floor of survival by displaced workers until they can find a way to bounce back into the system. The great duplicity of governments is that they espouse economic theories that do not create full employment while blaming those unemployed for their failure. It should also be noted that a system such as Canada which has had an unemployment rate of 7-9% for most of the last 20 years as part of government economic policy creates a situation at the bottom in which if I am on welfare, and I get a job, someone else loses a job - net gain - zero. Brillant thinking from the economists. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde What is Claire Short saying? She is saying that all government aid to underdeveloped countries must now be applied at the lowest possible level. She would scrap all government aid except that which is spent on local health projects and schools. She's not getting all her own way because a lot of government aid is still unfortunately tied to projects that are useful to businesses in the donor country, but her policy is gradually becoming influential. Good local schools and health clinics, while desirable and essential, expose a larger problem -- that is, the subsequent eruption of an articulate and often-angry young generation (such as we now see in Palestine, or Nepal, or Pakistan, for example) who want to see far more reforms in their country. So we're back to the problem that the World Bank faces. How do you encourage the culture of trust within a recipient country which enables economic development to take place? Keith __ ?Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.? John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
