Harry,
Your second assumption: "Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least
exertion." is not true! And it certainly doesn't explain progress.
If you mean that most people tend whenever possible to being passive rather
than active, it's true enough.
But energy-saving methods don't happen automatically unless they're simple
and routine. Significant savings (and progress generally) only occur when
innovative minds spend time thinking about possibilities. Even then, they
might require much further energy spent in experimentation and development
before final success is assured.
The classical economists were not aware of neuroscience, in particular of
the frontal lobes of our brain which, in some individuals, spend a vast
amount of time and energy (brain matter being a large consumer of blood
sugar and oxygen) in strenuous activity to find answers to problems. So in
today's world there's a fourth factor of production:
Land, labour, capital + innovation
Then again the classical economists were not aware of evolutionary biology,
in particular of one of the strongest instincts of all (besides food and
sex). This is the desire for status (particularly in males). And because of
status aspirations some individuals take on leadership and others yield to
them.
So we have a fifth factor of production which, if absent, means that
otherwise there'd be no progress either. Thus:
Land, labour, capital + innovation + management
It's no use saying that innovation and management are aspects of labour
because they weren't -- at least as classsical economists understood and
used the term "labour". They were only thinking of labour as muscular
effort, because that was the only energy available in pre-industrial times.
(There was, of course, energy supplied by pack or draught animals and
ships' sails -- but the concept of energy in such varied forms wasn't known
to classical economists either.)
Hats off to the classical economists, of course. but they hadn't reached
the end of the story as we understand economics today.
Keith
At 09:06 26/05/2010 -0700, you wrote:
The two Basic Assumptions of Classical Political Economy are:
"Man's desires are unlimited."
"Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion."
The first assumption explains why Man exerts, the second explains why there
is progress.
(For the sake of political correctness, I use 'People' in my courses rather
than Man!)
Your point is not well taken. It is a quibble. Getting a greater return for
less exertion is the hallmark of economic progress. Doing something this way
rather than that way is the way we have hauled ourselves up from our
beginnings.
So, you invest some exertion in seeking in order to save a lot more exertion
later.
How do I know this Assumption is valid?
Because this is the way you and I behave.
Harry
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandwichman
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:52 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Conservative take: EU A coalition of
irresponsibility
"People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion."
Except the phrase is inherently contradictory. Seek is more exertion than
not seek.
On 5/22/10, Harry Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> "People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion."
>
> --- Or how Classical Economics begin.
>
> Harry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve
> Kurtz
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:50 AM
> To: Futurework
> Subject: [Futurework] Conservative take: EU A coalition of
> irresponsibility
>
> There is a predisposition to conserve calories - offload work/effort
> onto machines, draft animals, other people. Survival and reproduction
> favored conserving extra food, fuel, water (yes, in caves) and saving
> ones energy/strength. Those who had insufficient reserves had
> decreased chances of passing genes fwd. As surpluses of food from
> agriculture permitted leisure, the game changed. The hierarchy of
> hunter/protector did (as Chris
> thinks) branch out into warlords, landlords, traders, politicians...
>
> =======================================
> Please: this is not my exact position. It is a conservative pundit.
>
> Steve
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010
> 051404
> 279.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
--
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
