Ed,
Like others, I enjoyed your essay.
However, it reminds
me of those people who say: "It's all right in theory but it doesn't work in
practice." If it doesn't work, then you must change the theory.
No, I don't think so. One
simply has to recognize whether one is working with theory or real world
phenomena. Theory is essentially made up of "what ifs" -- e.g. "If man's
desires were unlimited, what would follow from that?" or "Under these
circumstances (premises), and if people were rational (assumption), how would
they then behave?" In the real world, the questions are more of the
nature of "Now what are these circumstances and behaviours really all
about, and what are people doing to change them?"
I would suggest
that theoretically based approach can be useful in the solution of
practical problems. For example, if you manage to get some insights into
a practical problem, you can then pose questions about it, such as "I think I
see what these peoples' circumstances are and what are they trying to
do about them. Let's assume they were rational maximizers and
had complete (perfect) knowledge. How would they then behave?" You
could then perhaps come up with solutions that enable a more rational
approach to a set of circumstances.
But, what if the theory is rock solid - even to approaching a law? What
if you can find no exceptions, which establishes it as a law?
I don't think there are any
absolutes to human behaviour, except perhaps that people must eat and
procreate or perish.
Then perhaps you should check out the
practice.
The first Assumption: "That Man's desires are unlimited." is
easily accepted. But, if it were true, then there would be no involuntary
unemployment.
I don't agree that this is as
accepted as you seem to think, at least not in a material sense. Recall
the story of the Buddhist monk who broke his begging bowl to attain true
freedom. Besides, I really don't see why everyone with "unlimited
desires" should be able to find a job. I know people with less than
unlimited desires who have recently been laid off in the high tech
sector. Some people, being masochists, might crave the punishment of
involuntary unemployment. There are all kinds of
possibilities.
Unlimited desires can never be satisfied - not if everyone works seven
days a week every week of the year.
Yet, we have involuntary
unemployment. People who want jobs can't find them. As Henry George said, "Why
are people looking for jobs, why aren't jobs looking for people?"
He
generally came up with a great way of saying important things.
Well, yes, I would concede
that Henry George said some great things. However, I believe that Keynes
and some more recent economists had somewhat better insights into why modern
industrial economies do not operate at full
employment.
[Snip]
I know that what is taught today without question or criticism is not
what you learned back then, Ed. But, though the skills you developed have
certainly stood you in good stead - I doubt that the theoretical bits stood up
to the test of the years.
And that's awful
Harry, you have to concede that
things move on. While I'm not sure that people operate out of unlimited
desires, I do believe that they operate out of a lot of curiosity. In
physics, people like Bohr, Heisenberg and Einstein greatly altered the
Newtonian view of the universe without denying the value of what Newton had to
say. So too in the social sciences. What the classical economists
said is still highly valued, but we have moved on over the past century and a
half. New problems have arisen, requiring new ways of looking at
things. It may be that very little of what people thought over the
past hundred years or now think will stand the test of time, but that may
not be very important. What is important is whether current and
inherited thought is helpful to the solution of current and emerging
problems. In my previous posting I said that I believe that what I
learned in the classroom was helpful in that regard. You may not agree,
but that's how I see it.
I might add one more thing that I
believe to be very important. This is recognizing all thought, even
great thought such as that of the classical economists, as being relative to a
particular set of social circumstances and a particular period of social
evolution. The classicists could not see into the future and could
therefore not be aware of the kinds of circumstances which bedevil us.
Similarly, though we can take stabs at what it might be, we can't foresee what
will bedevil people a century or two into our future. All we can know is
that if we proclaim anything affecting humanity or its behaviour as a "law"
that will stand for all time, we are risking the loss of all
humility.
Ed
Weick
