Tom who?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Spencer" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:10 AM Subject: [Futurework] Re: Hello again, I'm Back! > > Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> After a hiatus of -- what? -- seven years or so I've resubscribed. > > > Welcome back, Tom. I have occasionally wondered what became of > you. :-) > > There's a -- what's the right word? "Lexical" I guess -- There's a > lexical difficulty with much of your work on the "lump of labor > fallacy" that is typified by your exchange with Ruth Lea. Even once I > got your idea straight, I kept stumbling. What you're talking about > is not the lump of labor fallacy but the "lump-of-labor-fallacy > fallacy". > > Well, that's just over the top for readability. Maybe "lump-of-labor- > fallacy libel" (in parallel with the locution "blood libel") might be > bearable. > >> An institutional infrastructure has been built up, particularly in >> North America, that makes any simple case for working less somewhat >> obsolete. > > The institutional infrastructure has evolved to the point that radical > (or even modest but effective) reform of *anything* is virtually > impossible. Did I say "evolved"? Better "guided evolution" (q.v.). > Any time I get a peep hole into the inner workings of the > "infrastructure" -- the intermediary metabolism that maintains it and > guides its evolution, I have an overwhelming fulmination of conspiracy > theory. A prime example was a peep into the working of the national > building code. Representatives of manufacturers, builders, insurers > and other industries sit on the committee that writes and amends the > code. It was immediately apparent that they were all there, > individually and collectively, to protect their markets and > externalize their liabilities. Protection of home owners and the > public good was a minor side issue. > > Regrettably, I've never had a peep hole, at any meaningful level, into > those parts of the infrastructure, the inner workings of of which > eventuate in labor and wage policy. > >> There is a way forward, I believe, but it doesn't involve proposing >> "rational policies" and submitting them for evaluation by a highly >> resistant policy framework. That way forward involves a >> thorough-going reform of political economic thought, from the ground >> up.... > > Can we infer that your book is an entering wedge to that end? > > - Mike > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. > /V\ > [email protected] /( )\ > http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
