For a terrific study of the relation between economic sybernetics and
modern economics, see Mirowski's new book, Machine Dreams.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 03:25:17PM -0000, Davies, Daniel wrote:
> Well this is in Ellman's book which you recommended earlier ("Soviet
> Planning Today"). It's the difference between "economic cybernetics" and
> "political economy" as set out by the Central Economic Mathematical
> Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The first of these is what you
> learn in business school -- operations research, etc, etc and, as
> Kantorovich et al proved, can in general be derived without making any
> assumptions about values or preferences, as the outcome of a maximisation
> problem in control engineering.
>
> The second of these is what you have to learn to parrot in the approved
> manner, or you won't be allowed into business school. It's the question of
> what kind of thing goes into your model; whether you're going to assume that
> wage labour is a cost to be minimised, and whether you're going to measure
> your output by reference to monotonic, independent, transitive etc utility
> functions.
>
> The confusion between cybernetics and political economy (economics as
> engineering and economics as politics) is responsible for a lot of problems
> on both sides of (for example) the planning debate (Stalin was of the
> opinion that cybernetics was intrinsically bourgeois and beleived that plans
> should be made on the basis of purely political-economy considerations, with
> predictably disastrous consequences), and the issues dealt with in value
> theory economics are right on the cusp of the two approaches. But I
> disagree with you that Marx didn't think that the LTV was basically a
> statement about political economy (in the sense used above) and think that
> those people are correct who believe that to confine the importance of the
> LTV to technical discussions about the production and allocation of goods
> under capitalism is to reduce Marx to the status of a "minor Ricardian".
>
> cheers
>
> dd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:22310] Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism
>
>
> Well, you know better than I. But they don't teach marxian value theory
> either, and the USSR's early attempt to use what it thought was that theory
> as a planning tool was a disaster. So, anyway, maybe if Daniel was right, we
>
> don't need a value theory at all. jks
>
> >
> > >Oskar Lange used say that Marxian economics is the economics of
> >capitalism
> > >and neoclassical economics is the economics of socialism. If you want to
> >do
> >
> > >monetary and fiscal policy, design an antitrust regime, figure out the
> > >impact of opening new oilfields on existing transportation options, make
> >a
> > >plan for your own enterprise, you use subjectivist theory. They teach it
> >in
> >
> > >B school cause it works in short and medium term. I don't have to prove
> >it:
> >
> > >the proof is in the practice.
> >
> >I don't agree with this, and I've been to business school. The
> >subjectivist
> >value theory of neoclassical economics is the von Neumann/Morgenstern
> >axioms, and they are completely orthogonal to the economics you learn at
> >business school (you learn them quite thoroughly in an economics degree,
> >but
> >that's not the same thing). At business school, you learn in detail the
> >parts of economics which are not dependent on a value theory and are more
> >properly part of what one used to call "operations research", plus you
> >learn
> >a bit of kiddies' (often surprisingly heterodox) macroeconomics under the
> >title of "International Financial System" or some such.
> >
> >Think about it this way; almost the only module which is compulsory in
> >every
> >MBA at every business school is Marketing, and there is still, after about
> >150 years of trying, no decent classical or neoclassical theory of the
> >advertising industry. Subjectivist value theory is honoured much more in
> >the ignoring than the observance.
> >
> >dd
> >
> >
> >___________________________________________________
> >Email Disclaimer
> >
> >This communication is for the attention of the
> >named recipient only and should not be passed
> >on to any other person. Information relating to
> >any company or security, is for information
> >purposes only and should not be interpreted as
> >a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.
> >The information on which this communication is based
> >has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable,
> >but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
> >All expressions of opinion are subject to change
> >without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments,
> >are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes.
> >___________________________________________________
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Email Disclaimer
>
> This communication is for the attention of the
> named recipient only and should not be passed
> on to any other person. Information relating to
> any company or security, is for information
> purposes only and should not be interpreted as
> a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.
> The information on which this communication is based
> has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable,
> but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
> All expressions of opinion are subject to change
> without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments,
> are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes.
> ___________________________________________________
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
