As they said in the Army when confronted by profundity. SOB!
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 9:31 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re: Lucky Duckies > For every economist there is an equal and opposing economist. > > Sheldon's First Law of Economics > > > ...and they are both wrong > Sheldon's Second Law > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 8:37 PM > To: Ed Weick; Brad McCormick, Ed.D. > Cc: Ray Evans Harrell; Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Re: Lucky Duckies > > > Ed, > > Back in the fifties, I did a survey of Canadian Universities. I wanted to > know what textbooks they were using for Basic Economics. I must say the > selection (I thought) was pretty poor - and in some cases hilarious. > > I remember the text used by a McMaster University econ professor (that's in > Hamilton, Ontario for non-Canadians). It was his own and he wrote it with > only two terms defined in the whole book. > > The first was "ilth" (I think originally coined by Ruskin). Ilth was bad > wealth he explained. Things like guns and munitions, artillery, and bombs. > All of these were ilth. > > However, he pointed out, when our "freedom loving nations" are confronted > by Goering producing all this ilth, they must willy-nilly produce their own > ilth. However, this ilth is called "Necessary Ilth". > > So, his unfortunate students faced the world of economics with two defined > terms solidly under their belts - Ilth and Necessary Ilth. > > There were some others that were fun - but most universities used the > standard textbooks, which were often good anecdotal reading but seemed to > offer little in the way of science. I recall a book published around then > which analyzed 14 American texts used in our most prestigious universities, > and was horrified to find that in half of them the term Wealth was used in > perfunctory fashion, while in the other half the term was not used at all. > > While pointing out that terms may change in a science, the author (E. C. > Harwood) pointed out it is strange to change basic terms without coming to > some agreement with other members of the profession. Also, it was even more > strange when the "Father of the Science" began it with a book entitled the > "Wealth of Nations". > > However, that was 50 years ago. What is the situation now? > > I grabbed three books that were convenient on my shelves. A new Holt High > School text, an economics text by Fusfeld from the seventies, and the > latest McConnell text which it says is the nation's "best-selling economics > textbook". > > Other than that one of them brings in "ilth" again - they are very > confusing. It would take too long to look at them all, so we will stay with > McConnell. His piece about "Theoretical Economics" is acceptable only by > beginning students who know little. Under the subhead "Terminology" he > refers to laws. principles, theories, and models - then says 'we' will "use > these four terms synonymously". (Why waste four words when apparently one > will do.) > > He follows the "unlimited desires" assumption of Classical Political > Economy, but complicates it and makes it less useful. "Society's material > wants, that is the material wants of its citizens and institutions are > virtually unlimited and insatiable." > > His second "fact" (he doesn't call them assumptions) is: "Economic > resources - the means of producing goods and services - are limited or > scarce." He includes all the Factors of Production in his concept of > scarcity. > > Apparently, if we are hungry, food must be scarce, so we pick an apple and > eat it. This by reducing the number of apples by one should make food even > more scarce. Or, are there degrees of scarcity? > > I would say that price (or cost) is a factor. There is a scarcity of > Rolls-Royce's at $20,000 apiece. There is no scarcity of the cars at > $256,000 (sticker price). Economists don't like this argument. > > Then, they discover we can't do everything at once. This leads to the > incredible discovery that we have to choose between various alternatives. > > What happened to scarcity? Now, apparently, we have so much, we can make > choices. > > Which brings in the nonsense of opportunity cost. This is another biggee > and is taught with a straight face to all the embryo economists. > > When you choose something, there is something else that is unchosen. The > something that you didn't choose, the sacrifice you made, is called the > opportunity cost. > > I would expect you to choose the something which advantages you most (that > which is most desirable). Which implies the thing you didn't choose was not > so much advantage to you - was not so desirable. > > How can not getting something you didn't want be a cost? It would seem more > likely to be a benefit. However, that's the way it is with the > neo-Classicals. > > We've had a lot of fun with the "invisible hand". Brad still doesn't > understand, or doesn't want to because he'd lose some good lines if he did. > > Classicals analyzed from the point of view of individuals. If everyone in > the community is trading to their benefit, then (as if by an invisible > hand) the community would be benefited. > > Classical analysis is simple. Labor (human exertion) used Land(Natural > Resources) to produce Wealth, probably with the aid of Capital (Products > used for more production). > > People traded their products and by doing so multiplied the value of their > production. When a lot of individuals traded, they formed a community, or a > nation - but nothing changed the basics. Perhaps now whole corporations > traded with other corporations, but the end result - Wealth - finished in > the hands of the people. > > The neos don't think this way. They start with the economy and often never > arrive at persons. People are almost an afterthought. > > This from McConnell: > > "Economics is concerned with the efficient allocation of scarce resources > to achieve the maximum fulfillment of society's material wants." > > This is the opposite of the invisible hand. It says, if the community is > doing well, the individuals must also be doing well. Well! > > However, whereas the neo-Classicals are concerned with allocating scarce > resources efficiently to maximize production, the Classicals are analyzing > where that maximized production goes. > > McConnel devotes a full quarter-page to "unequal distribution of wealth" - > something he does without comment. > > The Classicals spend much time on why people are poor, perhaps crystallized > in Henry George's question (which you have heard before): > > "Why, in spite of the enormous increase in the power to produce, is it so > hard to make living?" > > The question is still relevant. > > Harry > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Ed wrote: > > >Brad, I know, and have worked with, a lot of Ph.D.'s Most are very good, > >technically, in their fields, but few of them would be able to meet the > >criteria you have set out. I have also known other people who are not > >Ph.D.'s, but who would probably come close to meeting your criteria. One > of > >my mentors, with whom I worked in my thirties, had the equivalent of a > grade > >school education, but had an incredible ability to see through, and > explain, > >how people organized themselves and why they did so. Another person, a > >friend I run into every once in a while, is now in his late eighties. I > >believe he finished the equivalent of high school, but never went to > >university. Nevertheless, he became scientific advisor to the Canadian > >Minister of Northern Affairs and wrote books on navigation. He was a > >pioneer arctic aviator. There are others, un Ph.D'd, that would fit your > >criteria but I won't go into that for the time being. > > > >My quarrel with what Keith wrote is that it seemed to deny the effort that > >each generation has had to put into framing its own understanding of the > >changing world. The Classical economists put forward their understanding > of > >their world. Though Marx would not have agreed, that understanding may > have > >been appropriate for their time. Current practitioners of the dismal > >science have to try to understand and explain a very different world, and > >perhaps a much more complex one. In response to one of my previous > >postings, Ray Evans Harrell suggested that the difference may be similar to > >that between Newtonian and quantum physics. That may indeed be a valid > >analogy. One could argue that the Classicists focused on immutable aspects > >of human behaviour whereas modern economists have come to recognize that > >very little in the human experience is immutable and a great deal of it is > >uncertain and unpredictable. > > > >A lot of what the Classicists thought is still relevant today, but to try > to > >explain the economic behaviour of the current and emerging world in purely > >Classical terms would provide only a very partial explanation. There are > >economists around today that are every bit as valid as the Classicists, but > >they have to think differently from them because the world has become a > very > >different place. > > > >Regards, Ed > > > >Ed Weick > >577 Melbourne Ave. > >Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 > >Canada > >Phone (613) 728 4630 > >Fax (613) 728 9382 > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:04 PM > >Subject: Re: Lucky Duckies > > > > > > > Ed Weick wrote: > > > > Keith: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Indeed, in my view, most present-day "economists" are not economists > at > > > >>all, but only econometricists. They attempt to describe and measure > the > > > >>economy but not to understand it in any fundamental way. All the > > > >>"economists" we can think of during, roughly, the last century have > been > > > >>either econometricists or economic journalists of greater or lesser > > > >>brilliance, and have given insights of greater or lesser relevance. > None > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > >>them actually got to the root of the matter, least of all Keynes who > was > > > >>merely a Bloomsbury, quasi-Fabian elitist. > > > >> > > > >>For real economists, we still have to go back to the geniuses of the > > > >>subject, to those who grappled with economics within the context of > the > > > >>other big issues of the human condition -- of demographics, politics, > > > >>trade, disease, cultural differences and so on. They were polymaths > more > > > >>than merely economists. We have to skip over many "economists" of the > >last > > > >>century who dwelt on, and burnished, one or two facets of the subject > >and > > > >>go back to Marx, Ricardo, Malthus, Smith, Say . . . all the way to > > > >>Aristotle (though there must have been a few before him who have gone > > > >>unrecorded). Even though some of the true economists of the past may > >have > > > >>gone wildly wrongly -- wholly or partially -- it is only these, with > >both > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > >>wide and deep view of economics within the whole field of human > activity > > > >>who can be called true economists. > > > > > > > > > > > > Keith, I have a lot of respect for you, but when I read crap like > this, > >it > > > > begins to wane pretty quickly! > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keith's definition of real economists as more > > > than mere economists seems to fit in with my definition of a > > > PhD: > > > > > > A PhD should attest that the recipient > > > has demonstrated love (phil) of wisdom (sophia), > > > with particular attention to the application of wisdom > > > to a certain discipline, and concurrently with > > > concern for the application of that discipline to > > > the cultivation of wisdom generally. This concern > > > should manifest itself, among other ways, > > > as passion for teaching and/or > > > healing (doctor), facilitated especially through > > > the means provided by said discipline. > > > > > > Mere technical mastery > > > of a disciplinary field, should be certified > > > by a MA or MS degree. Such persons should be > > > permitted to practice what they know how to do but do not > > > know what to do with, only under supervision of > > > PhD level persons (see above). > > > > > > Professors, in addition to the criteria for PhD, > > > should also PROFESS wisdom, i.e., effectively publicly speak > > > for the common good, in particular, speaking out > > > for truth that either does not yet have a voice > > > or whose voice has been silenced. > > > > > > Those who cannot meet such criteria can acquit > > > themselves honorably by acknowledging their > > > limitations and not pretending to be more than > > > they are. Indeed, since there is no person > > > whose abilities and powers are unbounded, > > > this is a virtue which Everyman can practice. > > > > > > And, finally, I have learned from some unintending > > > teachers, that: > > > > > > No person can rise so high > > > that they cannot reach a hand down > > > to help another person up. > > > > > > \brad mccormick > > > > > > -- > > > Let your light so shine before men, > > > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > > > > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > > > > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ > > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002 > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
