The final point Mike makes sums the problem up very well:
Economics will continue to shingle off onto the fog until it bases its
theory on an understanding of the operation of the human brain. But it's
widely opined that the human brain is the most complex thing known to exist
and we're as yet a long way from the kind of understanding that would allow
a theoretical replacement for the wobbly (or Procrustean! [3]) notion of the
"market system".
The social sciences in general may need an understanding of the operation of
the human brain, but as Mike points out, the human brain is immensely complex.
An adequate understanding will likely never be achieved. Nevertheless, as
Arthur points out, decisions affecting the interests of millions of people have
to be made. They simply cannot be made at random. They need some kind of widely
understood and accepted social purpose, and some understanding of how that
purpose can be given support. There may not be a market system, yet pretending
that there is one has had a large and generally beneficial influence on
economic and social behavior.
Ed
________________________________
From: Arthur Cordell <denar...@sympatico.ca>
To: mspen...@tallships.ca; "'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,
EDUCATION'" <futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: ottawadissent...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:45:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Some further thoughts on economists and physicists
Science or not, someone, somewhere, somehow has to make some decisions on
economic policy. So they take the best the theory has to offer, modify it
to suit political realities and make policy.
Not ideal. Not science. But what's the alternative?
-----Original Message-----
From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca
[mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 12:07 AM
To: futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
Cc: ottawadissent...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Futurework] Re: Some further thoughts on economists and physicists
Ed Weick wrote:
> In my opinion, economics, like physics, is a science.
Yes, but it's in an awkward, possibly hopeless position. Physics, from
Newton to Maxwell to Bohr to the present, has been so very successful
because big lumps of stuff do behave predictably and smaller lumps of stuff
-- molecules, atoms, crystal lattices etc. -- do so collectively. Viz.,
large numbers of molecules, treated as a statistical ensemble, are
collectively predictable.
Even though any one molecule may be a deviant -- say, a molecule of protein
may fold in an unusual way -- physicists are have been fortunate that (what
we call) the "laws of physics" emerge more or less magically from the
observation of large numbers molecules.
But as Ed observes,
> People can be assumed to behave in their own interests and to operate
> via the market system, but history has been full of people, mendicant
> monks for example, that have not done that. There may not even be a
> "market system". There are many different types and methods of
> economic interaction depending on whether people are rich or poor,
> geographically concentrated or spread out over large areas, etc.
Molecules don't have minds of their own, can't be deceived, have no
opinions, compulsions or yearnings, do not develop psychopathic personality
disorders nor contrive to conceal such behind social graces. In general,
atoms and molecules aren't themselves aware (in any but a spurious,
anthropomorphically metaphorical sense) of gravity, electrical attraction,
temperature gradients, steric hindrance or any of the other "laws" that
govern their behavior.
And of course, people are deceived and deceive, do have opinions and all the
other qualities mentioned above and in Ed's piece. It follows
-- IMNSHO, follows obviously -- that it is folly to look for laws of
economics that are similar to, say, the laws of thermodynamics.
Yes, in the short run, [1] or locally (fsvo local) or within carefully
chosen parameters (we'll only look, say, at interactions involving a
monetary transaction) or for selected populations or samples of populations
or....whatever, we can treat people as molecules and derive statistics that
approximate their collective behavior.
But in the broad case, no steam engine ever tried, on its own hook, to
outsmart the 2nd law; no electron ever decided that attraction to the
opposite charge, however compelling, was sinful and took holy orders; no
nucleus has ever devoted itself to accumulating and hoarding all the
neutrons on the planet [2]; no pendulum ever decided to experiment with
syncopation because it became bored with the repetitive tedium of sin(t).
Ed again:
> Recently, much of what has happened to the western economy has
> reflected what has gone on behind closed doors on Wall Street or other
> secretive locations. The sub-prime mortgage debacle is an example.
Right. And behind those doors they had, or had on tap, economists and
related financial/economic experts who could tell them how the best minds of
the day understood the system presently to operate. And then they could,
deliberately, calculatedly, devise a strategy to outsmart that system.
Evidence for such efforts appears daily in the language of the biz and
financial pages of major newspapers, not least among such evidence, the
casual reference to biz, finance and economic policy as a "game" and to
investment decisions a "bets" anticipated to be good ones when someone has,
in some sense, outsmarted someone else.
Economics will continue to shingle off onto the fog until it bases its
theory on an understanding of the operation of the human brain. But it's
widely opined that the human brain is the most complex thing known to exist
and we're as yet a long way from the kind of understanding that would allow
a theoretical replacement for the wobbly (or Procrustean! [3]) notion of the
"market system".
> Enough already,
Same.
- Mike
[1] "In the short run", Maxwell's Demon may, in a sense, exist. But it
isn't the basis for a law of mind or enzymatic activity. Keywork
here (infra) is "metastable".
...there may be a quite appreciable interval of time...so
prolonged that we may speak of the active phase of the demon
as metastable. There is no reason to suppose that metastable
demons do not in fact exist: indeed it may be that enzymes are
metastable Maxwell demons....We may regard living organisms,
such as Man himself, in this light. -- Norbert Wiener
[2] The existence of Administratium remains controversial:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/administ.htm
[3] We have plenty of evidence that, given the present sanctity of the
"market" notion rivaling that of the Church in the middle ages,
there is a constant bias/pressure to subject everything to "market
discipline" and, in each case, to ignore, subvert, suppress or
extirpate any aspects that fail to conform to the rubric.
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
mspen...@tallships.ca /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
