Harry wrote:
> Ray,
>
> Perhaps you can explain to me why my "land theories" have little
> connection to reality.
As far as I can see, all economic theories have at best a tenuous
connection to reality. Some may be tautological, some share the
bizarre qualities of Ptolemaic epicycles, some have more exceptions
and patches than a creationism that tries to accomodate fossils,
speciation and the rest of scientific observables. But they all seem
to happily sacrifice connection to reality in the pursuit of
theoretical elegance. Economic theorists suffer from Physics Envy.
Land? Everybody needs a place to stand. But we can (or could, when
Brunner's novel was written) all "stand on Zanzibar". For the
present, there's an insuperable requirement for soil to support basic
food requirements. But you're not thinking of elementary physics or
biological energy budgets.
In general, any economic theory is about human behavior, collective
human behavior in particular. But Bernays notwithstanding, people act
individually. As soon as there is an approximately true
generalization about collective human behavior, there will be people
who try to profit from making themselves exceptions to the
generalization. The only way that such economic theories, including
"land theories", can be made true is through coercion or manipulation.
Of course, "all generalizations are false, including this one". Ho
hum.
- 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
