Pete wrote:
>HARRY (replying to Keith): However, the Classical Political Economists didn't hide behind
>mathematical jargon. They looked at people and particularly at persons.
>And they hypothesized the rules that would apply to all the different
>"drives", "instincts", "genetic propensities". And as you know they
>came up with the two Basic Assumptions of human nature that described
>the behavior of everyone - every single person. You must know them by
>heart, now.
>
>"Man's desires are unlimited."
>
>"Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion."
Which will make their computations as useless as any others which are
not based in systems engineering principles of what is actually
happening feeding back into the model to improve the accuracy of
its parameters. You see, as any sociological study of economists
will tell you, and has been discussed here before (where were you?)
economists more than any other group of people sorted by any
measure, regard people as venal, greedy, contemptible, robots,
"Homo economicus"
I can't help what "economists" say, Pete. Now explain why the two Basic Assumptions relate in any way to venal, greedy, contemptible, robots.
You continued:
I think Ray suggested for these imaginary
creatures, who defy all human virtues in order to act according
to the arbitrary dictates of the economists' dog-eat-dog fantasy
world.
What imaginary creatures are you referring to? For that matter where is this "dog-eat-dog fantasy world". I don't recall it anywhere in what I said. But perhaps you are more perceptive than I. Or, more imaginative.
Real people, by contrast, sometimes actually treasure concepts
like fairness, compassion, and non-material goals.
Where is this denied? I don't understand you.
And each culture
possesses such individuals in different numbers, and values them
to differing degrees. Only a robust engineering structure can hope
to keep up with the vagueries of human nature well enough to
make a functioning economic model which takes this sort of
variable into account.
Sounds like the typical failure of a command economy, no matter how robust its engineering structure. I think you should make a model (if the real thing isn't good enough for you) based on some premise. What is your premise? Or do you have one?
Of course that's what neo-classical economists do all the time - make models.
>There again, you'll recall that the single complicated human being is not
>analyzed in Classical Political Economy. Rather we look at his connection
>with the economic world, which is the way he exerts. The manifest
>indication of the person (no matter how complex) is found in the way he
>exerts.
>
> What other evidence have you?
>
>Once we have people somewhat pinned down, we have to look at the equally
>complicated world - so complicated that it is impossible to think about,
>which doesn't stop people trying.
You won't get people "somewhat pinned down" with any a priori
assumptions.
To "unpin" them, perhaps you had better come up with a couple of exceptions to the Assumptions. Otherwise, regard them as pinned.
You build your engineering structure to be able to
turn on a dime, and reflect the nature of people as you find them.
If the top-down (theory-first) economists had it right, economics
wouldn't be as lame as it is.
I wish you wouldn't keep mixing in the neo-Classicals, the criticism of whom I could probably do better than you (I've perhaps had more practice).
I would think that the two Assumptions are not "top-down" theory. Rather, they are bottom up fact - perhaps, as you say, reflecting "the nature of people as you find them".
That will continue to be the case,
as I've said often before, until economics is absorbed under
systems engineering, at which point the improvement in effectiveness
will develop so fast it'll make your head spin.
Also, perhaps, economics should become a science before being swallowed by systems engineering. However, I fear you are suggesting exactly what you deplored - that is regarding people as robots, susceptible to systems engineering.
Of course that's what many, or most, modern economists practice anyway - system engineering.
Harry
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
