Yes, you've got the wrong John Rae, Harry, AND the wrong century! On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Harry Pollard <[email protected]>wrote:
> Incidentally, Tom, Canadian economist John Rae died in 1972. > > > > Henry George’s ‘Progress and Poverty’ appeared in 1979. > > > > I’m not sure how Rae could have libeled Henry George. > > > > Unless it is some other John Rae. > > > > Harry > > > > ****************************** > > Henry George School of Los Angeles > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > (818) 352-4141 > > ****************************** > > > > *From:* Sandwichman [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, January 08, 2011 4:02 PM > *To:* [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, > EDUCATION > > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] A Robot Stole My Job > > > > 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 > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
