I've begun to rethink all of these folks and their stories about numbers.
The issue of competency and personal mastery is far beyond the simplicity of
numbers.   Jefferson's quote about government simply speaks to the fact that
he and others could not comprehend the resolution of complexity in mastering
the art of government.   The problem is not to have less of something but to
be able to control virtuosically more, thus reducing complexity in numerical
values to zero.   To have less to work with isn't gaining competency but is
the realm of poverty.   I've become convinced that the only people who
really knew what they were talking about in the 18th and 19th centuries were
Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, Mahler and the students in the great
music studios, etc.   Wars have not been fought over the value of artistic
virtuosity but they have been fought over the Art of politics.   It would be
good if someone learned how to DO politics before they try to tell people
how much there should be. IMHO.

REH

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandwichman
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:00 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: [Futurework] Political arithmetic

The wealth of nations implies some sort of political arithmetic - the
calculation either of an immense sum or of some descriptive ratio, a
distribution or per capita allotment. Adam Smith referred to "the
distribution of the necessities of life." Benjamin Franklin pondered a
four-hour working day that had been "computed by some political
arithmetician." Thomas Jefferson's friend, the Marquis de Chastellux
proposed a formula for ascertaining public happiness, which Jefferson
summed up as a cautionary tale: "If we can prevent government from
wasting the labors of the people under the pretence of taking care of
them, they must become happy."

Would an alternative vision of the good society evince a similar
fascination with numbers? I will argue here that it must, if only out
of strategic and transitional necessity. The outline of the kind of
reckoning required was already implied in Chastellux's and Franklin's
speculations and has been a recurrent, if dissident and subterranean,
theme in political economy since the earliest days. Even Adam Smith
somewhat ambivalently upheld "ease of body and peace of mind" as "what
constitutes the real happiness of human life."

But how does one measure ease of body and peace of mind? We will get
to the question of how presently, but first I would like to explain
why it is crucial to calculate it, not merely to exalt it...

http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/p/time-on-ledger-social-accounting-f
or.html

-- 
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

Reply via email to