Before I address your points, I want to say this is one of the most fruitful discussions we have had and perhaps gets closest to what the key issues are that separate us, explain why I am not a socialist, etc.
>> IMHO, I answered this already, but let's give another answer. The >> question is about the ability of the "political actors" [such as >> Reagan or Schwarzenegger ;-) ] to "make better predictions and >> decisions than the academic economists." I have three points: >> >> 1) I can almost guarantee that after the fact, it will turn out that >> the political actors will often make the wrong decisions, not just for >> the nation as a whole but even for their own political-economic >> careers. This is not just because of the incompleteness of >> information, the uncertainty of the future, the complexity of the >> reality they face, and their personal incompetence, but also due to >> old-fashioned venality. Fine. Personally, I doubt incompetence and venality have much to do with it. I assume most politicians are generally well-intentioned people doing the best they can.. >> >> 2) Unfortunately, we have no choice. The interconnectedness of our >> socioeconomic system makes decision-making for the collectivity (such >> as the nation as a whole) not only absolutely necessary but also >> unavoidable: the decision not to do anything is just as much a >> decision to do something. So even if we see politicians make the >> ever-fashionable "let business [especially campaign contributors] >> decide what we should do" decision, it's still a collective decision >> and (following point 1) most likely to be wrong. Yes, choices have to be made. You say that it is necessary that choices be made "collectively," which you then equate to "politicial." However, I think you are making a fundamental assumption by equating collective with political, which I think goes to the heart of the issue. >> 3) These conclusions also apply to so-called microeconomic actors such >> as individual businesses, because they make decisions that affect our >> collective fate, whether they know it or not. A business follows the >> profit motive to mine coal and sell it to us to burn. This has a >> collective impact in encouraging global warming with all its >> accompanying disasters. Businessfolks are just as much politicians as >> are the officially-recognized political actors. And in fact, they >> spend a lot of time and money politicking (e.g., to convince people >> that clean coal can exist and that it's okay to take the tops off >> mountains). This is not just due to externalities (such as pollution & >> mountain destruction) but due to the fact that the work processes they >> organize involve miniature versions of the coercive state for those >> people they hire. You prove too much with this thinking. If businessfolks are simply politicians, you have no good reason to prefer decisionmaking by poliiticans rather than businessfolks. And you can't beg the question by pointing to decisions of businesses that have collective effects you don't like, since you appear to agree that politicians are no more likely to make correct policy decisions than people in other institutions. >> >> Feminists used to say (and still should say) that "the personal is >> political." We should also say that business is political. Politics is >> not just something that happens in specific institutions in society >> (the state) but also something that occurs whenever there exist >> potential and actual conflicts between people. Except in the totally >> isolated and individualized lives of the hermits, politics happens in >> all institutions in society. Again, you prove too much. If we define every potential and actual conflict as politics, then effectively everything is politics, and you have no way explaining why "political" decisions should be made by those in government institions as opposed to business instituions, family institutions, etc. >> Unlike group-think, the _imposition_ of consensus involves hierarchy >> (as in academia and corporate business). Socialism, at last as I see >> it, involves democratic rule from below. One wag summarized the nature >> of socialism as being "the right to fire your boss." This undermines >> and ultimately destroys the top-down imposition of consensus. >> >> With this kind of socialism, we'd likely see a lot of group-think, but >> not the same kind of top-down imposition of consensus. But once the >> problem of group-think (among peers) is recognized, however, it turns >> out that there are democratic ways to oppose it. Nice theory, no evidence in the real world that it is practical, stable or produces better decisionmaking measured by any matrix you can come up with. Ultimately, you are left to defend such socialism (lack of hierarchy, etc.) as an end in itself, regardless of its consequences. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Even though humor is my middle name, I always forget >> how e-mail strips away the subtle signs of emotional content, so that >> jokes are missed if not highlighted by smileys. In addition, there's >> the amazing fact that every lawyer on this list is consistently poor >> at communicating. That is really funny. >> As I said above (point 2), centralized economic decision-making cannot >> be avoided when we're talking about an interconnected socioeconomic >> system. It may easily be wrong and often is so (point 1). The key >> thing is to hold the political decision-makers (including the >> businesses) responsible to the populace (the principle of democratic >> sovereignty). The fundamental issue. You equate "collective" with "political" with "centralized." But these are not A=A=A terms. I agree they we do and must make "collective" decisions, but I see no reasons such decisions must be made in political instituions or centralized ways. For instance, should we switch from incandescent to fluorescent lightbulbs? We can say it is a "collective" decision, in the sense that it is a decision that affects every person in society and must be made by every person. However, is it necessary that the "collective" decision be made "politically" in a "centralized" manner? If we permit people to choose between bulbs, is that any less a "collective" decision because the individual decisions are not made politically in a centralized manner? I think it is properly characterized a collective decision, so I would say that collective and politicial decisonmaking are not the same, but political/centralized decisionmaking is a subset of collective decisionm! aking. This is the fundamental issue because if you can accept the idea that collective decisions can made either politically/centralized or in other institutioins (business, family, indivdual, etc.), we go back to what I think you have admitted -- there is absolutely no reason to believe that collective decisionmaking in political institutions will result in better decisionmaking than collective decisionmaking in any other institution, whether business, family, individual. >> >> We the people may of course make a lot of mistakes even when we >> actually have democratic control over the government and other >> political institutions (including businesses). But we can learn from >> our mistakes, especially if we don't have politicians (who elevate >> themselves above us and try to avoid responsibility) to blame. You have no evidence or theory why actors in political instituions make less mistakes or learn from their mistakes better than actors in other institutions. >> It's true however, that I haven't been involved in running a business >> (except the business of living). I _have_ been an employee and know a >> thing or two about how businesses are run from that perspective. >> >> But your barb reminds me of the standard political hack's claim that >> his or her opponent has never "made a payroll" or "run a business" -- >> as if government would be run better if it followed "business >> principles."[*] Bush and Blagojevich have proven that to be a silly >> and wrong criterion for judging politicians. In any event, such >> personal barbs seem irrelevant to the issues at hand. You cannot really understand business and businesspeople until you are an employer and deal with the reality that people's lives depend on you. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
