On 4/7/08, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > but did he present an article that presents an alternative to current > NCE concerning the issues that the Sci-Am article refers to?
I would say a qualified yes, if 1. you take the issue as being, in general, the pseudo-physics of the walrasian general equilibrium model and the inadequacy of such a model to address environmental matters and 2. you take Chapman's theory as the starting point for the development of neoclassical economics in another direction. There's obviously a lot that has to be added. Chapman's theory is not a theory of everything. In particular, I would say there needs to be further development of an argument running from the particularity of labor time to the more general question of the environment. In Accountants and the Price System: the problem of social costs, Donald R. Stabile argued the analysis of the social costs of labor, as outlined in work by J. M. Clark and K.W. Kapp and a corresponding process of social evaluation was key to the evaluation of the social costs related to the environment In other words, you're not going to be able to even think about evaluating environmental costs if your framework for evaluating the social costs of labor is distorted by false assumptions about how market transactions presumably optimize the supply of hours of labor -- when they demonstrably don't. And that's where Chapman comes in. He demonstrated, convincingly, the non-optimality of the market solution. I have to admit that it's still a leap saying the solution to the hours of labour question is the "key" to evaluating social costs of other environmental factors. But it is less of a leap than trying to get there while relying on a demonstrably false model of hours. > > If anyone is > > interested, I can send it to you in a MS Word file. > > > I'd like to see it. I'll send it along -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
