> Welcome back, Tom. I have occasionally wondered what became of > you. :-)
Hi Mike. Thanks. > 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 The other lexical or semantic difficulty with the lump is that the labor in it refers to employment -- or the demand for labor -- while in ordinary usage the word "labor" usually refers to the supply, either individual or aggregate. The rhetorical success of the claim owes everything to alliteration and repetition and nothing to coherence or comprehension. > Can we infer that your book is an entering wedge to that end? I do indeed hope my book is an entering wedge in the reform of political economic thought. I take on the notion of the rational economic actor, "economic man," which in itself is not novel but I also offer an alternative, "the wayfarer," who is at least as conceptually parsimonious as Homo ec. but much better grounded both empirically and in the narrative tradition. One hopeful sign is the award of the Swedish Bank Prize to Elinor Ostrom, whose analysis of the management of common pool resources plays a key role in my rejoinder to the lump of labor fallacy claim. I'll leave that as a teaser for now because I have to finish getting ready for work. -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
