First another statistic, Keith, that may amuse you. Some 50 years ago, there were 80 academic economic journals. Now, there are 800. Classes will certainly be with us for a long time. Also, there will always be people at the bottom of the wage pyramid. But, why do they have to live at the subsistence level? With the continuing increase over centuries in the power to produce, how come those at the bottom can't find a job that will pay a living wage? Perhaps, because there is a shortage of jobs. But, that would imply that everyone has everything they need, which is ridiculous. As George put it so succinctly, "Why are people looking for jobs? Why aren't jobs looking for people?" Well, there aren't enough jobs. But, as I said, that would imply we all have everything. We want nothing else. You have pinned your flag to status goods. Yet, non-status pork chops and potatoes will always be needed - and better pork chops and better potatoes, along with a myriad other consumer goods we want and may even need. And of course all kinds of services including many of which we can't conceive. I remember walking to a place that was servicing my car. The last mile was along our main thoroughfare - Foothill Blvd. I noticed two shops offering nail services. Then, over the rest of the mile I counted 5 more places that did manicures and I suppose pedicures. I suppose each had their clientele and each offered something that people wanted. I have no idea what services will be wanted in - say - 2020, but I bet there will be lots. And we sure need electricians and plumbers. All in all, there is a reason why there are no jobs for those at the bottom of the heap and you know what I think it is. Harry From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 10:40 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Back cover blurb Harry,
At 13:31 26/11/2010 -0800, you wrote: The problem, Mike, is that you haven't been exposed to good economic theory. I recollect an economic database declaring proudly that it had 90,000 papers available. Yet, modern economists don't know why, even in the richest countries, poverty is ever present. Because it always will be. Because status stratification is in our genes. Because economic text books don't include evolutionary biology (not yet anyway). The evil of our present Western economies is not that there's a gradation between the adult rich and the adult poor but that the children of the poor are not given the same quality of education as the children of the rich. Keith You'll notice how modern economists concentrate almost exclusively on the financial antics of our economy, apparently forgetting that the economy was going over the precipice well before the financial skullduggery became exposed. For many years I've pointed out that not only do the neo-classicals not know why there was a crash -- they didn't even know why we had a boom. I remember Samuelson's remark that any able graduate student if asked could come up with dozens of reasons for a depression. Without doubt, the neo-classicals have hundreds and probably thousands of definitive theories about the mess we are in, many of them contradictory, but this is something that happens when basic and provable concepts are rejected whimsically in favor of more complicated ego-massaging brilliancies. Harry -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Futurework] Re: Back cover blurb 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/ <http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A 0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0> ^^-^^ _______________________________________________ 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
