At 21:02 24/09/2011, Sandwichman wrote:
---->
(S) Yes, I would like to expand on that but it'll be more than a
tad. I'm researching/writing something fairly comprehensive 'as we
speak'. The issue, as I see it has to do with what is commonly
referred to as "market failure" and the moral hazard that can result
from attempts to correct such inefficiencies and inequities through
government intervention. Or put it this way, the invisible hand of
the market doesn't necessarily lead to an beneficent result but
attempts by the state to fix the problems are not fool-proof (or,
more to the point, game-proof) either.
As someone who has made his livelihood in several different ways --
sometimes beneficially, sometimes disastrously -- I would say that
one can vary rarely game the market. Governmental cliques can for a
while (and also those who have bribed them) but even then the market
will finally have its say. Usually rudely and suddenly. As for
gaming the state, well, millions are doing so in England right now.
Just to take one example: under the last Labour government
(1997-2010) the number of those on Incapacity Benefit rose from 1.5
million to 2.5 million. The present Coalition government is now
setting about medically re-assessing all those who have longer than
three or four years to retirement age. During pilot projects in
Burnley and Aberdeen, 30% of existing claimants were found to be fit
to work immediately, a further 39% were found to be fit to work with
extra help. The remaining 31% were found to be unable to work, and
will carry on getting unconditional support.
(S) If you can game the state as readily as you can game the market,
what's the solution? Well, maybe "solution" is taking things a bit
too far, too fast. Before we start talking about solutions, it's
important to get a grasp of how the question has been wrongly framed
by focusing on the "incidentals": sparks from locomotives that start
fires in woods or rabbits that overrun the neighboring squire's
country estate.
The founding instance of "market failure" occurs not in those
incidental, which might be of concern to the gentry but in work,
unemployment and working conditions. I'll just mention in passing
that Marx analyzed these so-called market failures as
contradictions. But leaving Marx aside, the pioneers of neoclassical
analysis ALSO analyzed the same so-called contradictions as market
failures. Nothing incidental about them.
To glide from work, unemployment and the hours of labor to ravaging
rabbits and locomotive sparks (I'm not kidding!) is to adopt an
Aesopian evasiveness that requires some explanation. Ever ask an
Englishwoman if she would like a cup of tea? Better ask three times.
It is rude to say yes the first time. (what say you, Keith?).
I don't know about cups of tea but I've always found that
Englishwomen respond with alacrity.
(S) These Cambridge neoclassical economists, having once broached
the idea that the conventional employers' perspective on work was
unsatisfactory, were reluctant to press the issue. Instead, they
figured they could examine the theoretical issues by talking about
sparks and coneys (rabbits); lighthouse, chimney-smoke and
laundry.-- just as sex education can be winsomely bowdlerized as
"the birds and bees."
But I digress. Sydney J. Chapman's 1909 theory of the hours of labor
blasted a gaping chasm right into the heart of the classical notion
of the market as a "system of natural liberty" channeling
self-interest into social utility. Chapman didn't supply the
solution to the problem but he identified the problem. Pigou and the
Pigovian then tradition went off on a tangent, changed the subject
and eventually lost the thread of the argument.
I think all previous theories of labour are now invalid due to
increasing automation and specialization. Whereas in pre-industrial
times the two previous 'systems' needed close on 100% participation
we're nearer to 50% already (IMO) with the other 50% either on
no-work or make-work. This is already a major problem in the advanced
countries for both the production market and the welfare state. The
production market will be able to adjust by means of increasingly
versatile customization but I can't see how the welfare state can
unless by increased taxation and/or work sharing (at least not with
our present atrociously poor educational system for the majority).
Keith
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
