me: >> definitions are only introduction to discussions (facilitating the >> development of theory) and should not be taken out of context.<<
the Sandwichman: > Excuse me, then. I had the impression that you were deploying the definition > in order to restrict the discussion along lines that would inevitably lead > to your conclusion. no. I would never do that. Would you, Tom? Me, referring to Tom's analogy between the definition of an excess supply of labor-power and clock time: >> It's ridiculously false analogy to compare a static measure (the excess >> supply of labor-power) with a dynamic process.<< > Your next paragraph would seem to confirm my impression that the intent of > the definition was to exclude alternative explanations. How on earth do you > come to the conclusion that the excess supply of labor power is "static"?! I > suppose you will tell me "it is axiomatic". Definitions are axiomatic (by definition?) -- and there's nothing wrong with axiomatic thinking unless that's all you do. Because the phrase "an excess-supply of labor-power" is definitional, it _doesn't say anything_ about the cause of its existence. It doesn't do anything to help us understand the problem to restate it as "an excess demand for jobs." (Defining inflation as "too much money chasing too few goods," similarly, doesn't explain its existence, since it doesn't explain either the amount of money in circulation or the limits on the supply of good.) Part of the usual definition of "excess supply" in economics is that it refers to a single period; otherwise, for clarity's sake if nothing else, it would be a _persistent_ excess supply of labor-power. Then, the question concerns explaining the persistence, which is what I turned to, as the Sandwichman knows. (The persistence of unemployment doesn't seem to be explained by analogies to clock-time, by the way.) since the Sandwichman refers to but does not quote my next paragraph, I must do so: >> I wasn't referring to unused industrial capacity that exists due to >> over-investment -- though it does exist. That's a key part of the >> non-cyclical part of the US economy's current problems.<< What this says is that I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are persistent problems going beyond merely static problems of aggregate demand (which is what Obaman stimuli are about). This is something I've done before, as Sandwichman knows full well. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
