Harry, MY points are inadequate? You don't seem to grasp that the burden of proof rests with YOU, Harry. I'm glad you concede that desires are not necessarily for commodities, in which case those desires are external to any study of political economy. Remember this is POLITICAL economy you're talking about. Not political in the sense of parties or elections but in the sense of the Polis, the city or public sphere.
But look, I'm not really interested in arguing these assumptions with you. My original point was about the difference between the use of assumptions such as these as analytical tools and their rote recitation as articles of faith. You seem to be arguing that they must be accepted as articles of faith rather than as tools of analysis. What I'm saying is that even though your two assumptions may be useful as analytical assumptions, they cease to be scientific when they are merely asserted as dogmatic Truth. You seem not to care that people who are equally insistent as you on the absolute Truth of the two assertions come to diametrically opposed positions. Trust me, Harry, characters like John Rae who devoted a lot of energy to dismissing and even libeling Henry George would have no trouble embracing your two eternal Truths. So who's your daddy? Henry George or John Rae? Tom On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Harry Pollard <[email protected]>wrote: > Sorry about that, Sandwichman, but your points are inadequate. > > > > The Science of Political Economy is the study of the Nature, Production and > Distribution of Wealth. > > > > Dead people don’t produce anything so they are not part of the study. I > strongly suspect that they also don’t much desire. > > > > You suggest that unlimited desires implies the exchange of commodities. > Yet, there is no such implication. There is no restriction on desires. In > fact, the only desire we can be pretty sure applies to every one is the > desire for survival. That surely comes first or you might become a corpse – > which is outside our study. > > > > Of course people commit suicide which is their desire at the time, but when > the succeed they are no longer part of our study. > > > > So, you might desire to be loved, or you might want to go for a walk in the > park. Very desirable things, but if you want to survive not the first things > you think of. It is likely you provide yourself with a hierarchy of desire, > with the most wanted, obtainable with the least exertion, at the top. > > > > I suppose at the top are food, clothing, and shelter. > > > > However, if you have a science that deals with dead people – OK. My science > deals with the living. > > > > With regard to least exertion, IRON MAN is a good example. The one who wins > – or even completes the harrowing test is the one who best conserves his > exertion. > > > > A friend of mine doing an Iron Man, was confronted by heavy currents and > even after several tries couldn’t complete the first leg, whereupon he was > too exhausted to do much else. If he could have minimized his exertion in > the sea, he would have sprung on to his bike and zoomed away. Athletes are > well aware of the need to conserve exertion. > > > > You are in good company. I had a knockdown, drag out, confrontation with > Friedrich > von Hayek on this very point. > > > > You should have read Progress and Poverty rather than those other books. > > > > Henry George spent a lot of his book pointing to errors in the existing > Political Economy – particularly with errors of definition.. He positively > destroyed the assertions of Malthus. This was done to clear the decks for > his more rigorous Political Economy. > > > > With regard to athletics, the less exertion the better if one wishes to > accomplish something. With regard to a desire for exertion, the exertion is > merely a way to achieve something else. > > > > I notice the ads for losing weight (a desire) do not try to sell more > exertion. In fact, some even offer a plan that requires no exertion! This is > a selling point even as it seems peculiar. But it strikes a chord with > people who seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion. > > > > Do you deliberately exert more when you want something? Or, do you try to > accomplish your desire with the least exertion? > > > > If you want a table and can make a table with two hours exertion, do you > deliberately find ways to spend 4 hours of exertion in making the same > table? I don’t think so. > > > > As I said, this second assumption illustrates the path to all progress. > > > > They are a useful beginning to the study of human production and > distribution. I should make the point that distribution doesn’t refer to > carrying production around. It refers to who gets production, that is how > production is distributed among those who do the producing. > > > > Harry > > > > ****************************** > > Henry George School of Los Angeles > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > (818) 352-4141 > > ****************************** > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sandwichman > *Sent:* Saturday, January 08, 2011 12:46 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] A Robot Stole My Job > > > > 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 > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
