Harry, It's not a matter of dismissing your two assumptions but of dissecting them. "Man's desires are unlimited" sounds superficially plausible. The burden of proof for an assertion, however, is not on those who would question it but on those who make the assertion. Nevertheless, it is easy to find an exception to the first assumption. Man dies; desiring stops. Desires are indeed limited by the time in which one can do the desiring. Time is the constraint. Unless time is limitless, desires are limited.
O.K., now I have come up with one exception to your assumption even though the burden of proof is still incumbent upon YOU to demonstrate the truth of your assertion. How do I know that man dies? Observation. I suppose you could say, "how do you know that desires stop when man dies?" Well, I don't, actually. But, as I said, it's you who have to meet the burden of proof about your assumptions. Of course there are other ideological treasures buried in your "unlimited desires" premise. The primary one is the assumption that the desires man has are necessarily for commodities exchanged on the market or for things commodities can substitute for. The desire to be loved can be fulfilled by the purchase of cosmetics, a new convertible or the right brand of lite beer... etc. Can you substantiate your tacit assumption of substitutability? To ask the question is to answer it in the negative. The past couple of weeks I have been engaged in intensive readings in "classical political economy". Not Henry George but John McCulloch, Col. Torrens and a chorus of acolytes whose stock in trade was trumpeting the scientific truths of "political economy". On any given question, the Truth (with a capital "T") seems to have at least two definitive forms, which are the opposite of each other. For example, on the question of unemployment, the Irish nationalist, Daniel O'Connell, speaking in the House of Commons on the 13th of February 1838, asserted that LOWER WAGES was the cure for unemployment (and consequently for low wages!). This was a scientific Truth demonstrated by the laws of political economy. Yet Henry Martyn, whose Considerations upon the East India Trade preceded Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations by three quarters of a century and in some respects surpassed it, says that competition will ensure that labor costs can be abated (by trade, mechanization etc.) without abating labor's wages. "Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion." Perhaps. But what about man's desires FOR exertion. Does IRON MAN also seek to satisfy his desires with least exertion? Is that why he cycles, swims and runs hard to get back to where he started from? The sense of the sentence breaks down if we can observe a desire that is also an exertion. For that matter, do not all desires exhibit some degree of exertion? Wouldn't the best "least exertion" solution then be to have fewer desires? Is not the desire to be free of desire still a desire? These are not trivial objections to your two assumptions, Harry. Don't dismiss them. They are very useful. You said to deny the assumptions all one needed to do is come up with one exception. I've done that. But that's more exertion than I should have done because 1. the burden of proof was on you, not me and 2. because I am confident that my demonstration will not satisfy my desire to persuade you that your assumptions are inherently flawed. Tom On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Harry Pollard <[email protected]>wrote: > Sandwichman, > > > > I marked this then was overcome with computer problems and the holiday > season. Please excuse the delay. > > > > Just one point concerning your dismissal of “aphorisms”. > > > > Classical Political Economy begins with two assumptions – as do all > sciences begin with assumptions. Bertrand Russell sagely suggested that two > assumptions are better than sixteen. I suppose the more assumptions you > have, the greater risk of error. > > > > The two major assumptions of all sciences may be; > > > > “There is an order in the universe.” > > > > “The mind of Man can discover that order.” > > > > The two assumptions of Political Economy are: > > > > “Man’s desires are unlimited.” > > > > “Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion.” > > > > Arthur asked where these assumptions came from. I replied “observation”. > > > > The first tells us why Man acts, the second describes why we advance. > > > > To deny the assumptions, all one need do is come up with exceptions – one > exception. > > > > Interestingly, the first suggests there can be no such thing as > unemployment. Yet, most of contemporary economic discussion seems to assume > that unemployment is inevitable and we must find work for people. > > > > Yet, the second suggests that we don’t want work (we want the results). > Therefore, > the present policies to find “work” for people are peculiar, to say the > least. It also explains why so much of the welfare state is shot through > and through with essentially criminal activity. (One of the Republican > points in the new Congress is that $100 billion in criminal extravagance > could be recovered from Medicare alone.) > > > > Anyway, those two assumptions begin the study of Political Economy (which > has little to do with politics, by the way). > > > > Don’t dismiss them. They are very useful. > > > > Harry > > > > ****************************** > > Henry George School of Los Angeles > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > (818) 352-4141 > > ****************************** > > > > *From:* Sandwichman [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, December 24, 2010 9:36 AM > > *To:* Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > *Cc:* Arthur Cordell; [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] A Robot Stole My Job > > > > Economics can provide useful tools for thinking about issues but those > tools can also be misused and transformed into ready-made answers that > enable us to avoid thinking about issues. One of the tell-tale danger signs > that this is happening is when an analytical perspective gets reduced to an > aphorism and the aphorism becomes an article of faith. "People's desires are > insatiable." "Automation creates more jobs than it destroys." "The amount of > work is not fixed." > > People's desires are indeed "insatiable" but not necessarily for things > produced and traded in the market. To a certain extent, material goods can > be substituted for spiritual desires. For example, war can be substituted > for piety. But those substitutions are often pathological. There is indeed a > limit to how much we can poison ourselves. Death. > > Automation creates more jobs... perhaps. but to paraphrase H.L. Mencken > "which jobs? and in what order?" It is instructive to trace the origins of > the aphorisms. The "creates more jobs than it destroys" cliche appears to > originate in the 1930s. The first sighting I can locate states, "science > creates many times more jobs than it destroys." It's in the proceedings of > the annual convention of the Association of Life Insurance Presidents. The > full statement reads, "The mere fact that all European countries now support > four times the population that they had, or could in any way have supported > in 1800, is proof enough that in the long run science creates many times > more jobs than it destroys.." Uhmmm. Raise your hands all those who believe > that quadrupling the population is still a good ides. See what I mean? > Context counts. > > The amount of work is not fixed? Is that a theoretical truth or an > empirical one? U.S employment in September 2010 was 200,000 less than it was > in December 1999. Does that mean the fact is a fallacy? Bill McBride at > Calculated Risk says its a "lump of labor fallacy" to think that older > people remaining in the workforce past retirement take jobs that might > otherwise employ young, unemployed people. What's the history of the fallacy > claim? I have commented in an open letter to Bill McBride in "Older > Workers and the PHONY Lump of Labor > Fallacy<http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2010/12/older-workers-and-phony-lump-of-labor.html>" > at Ecological Headstand. > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Keith Hudson < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > But we're already fast entering a different situation. The cost of energy > (as a proportion of personal expenditure) is now rising remorselessly, there > have been no uniquely new consumer goods for the past 30 years or so, and > automation is now biting into mass employment (and thus also forcing down > average real wages for the past 30 years). We (in the West) are now becoming > as securely locked into our present urbanized way of life with all its > limitations as all well-developed agricultural cultures were locked into > theirs in Eurasia and Central America. > > > -- > Sandwichman > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
