morals and econ
Daniel S Burnstein
classical economics. Consider what has been stated by Adam Smith and
others many times: that self interest is what motivates people and ipso
facto the economy. Fortunately, our subscribing to our own interests in
economic decision-making strengthens the economy by driving competitive
markets and expanding industry and technology. Furthermore, in a
repeated game (represented by the actions of agents in the economy)
morals equal vulnerability. Perhaps that's why they were expelled in the
first place and not simply excluded for the sake of the formation of a
purely clinical model of our world.
--
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: "Injecting" morals into economics is a moot point in terms of
: others many times: that self interest is what motivates people and ipso
: facto the economy. Fortunately, our subscribing to our own interests in
: economic decision-making strengthens the economy by driving competitive
: morals equal vulnerability. Perhaps that's why they were expelled in the
: first place and not simply excluded for the sake of the formation of a
: purely clinical model of our world.
Are you not aware of Adam Smith's position as a Professor of Moral
Philosophy? Or his book, THE THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS, published in
1759?
We won't even get into the Institutionalists who taught at your
university late last century, early this century, or both.
You may want to obtain a good text on the history of economic thought.
--
Buddy Kilpatrick
Markku Stenborg
dsb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu writes:
> "Injecting" morals into economics is a moot point in terms of
>classical economics. Consider what has been stated by Adam Smith and
Hmm... Adam Smith was a prof. of Moral Philosophy, not an economists, and
considered his work to be Moral Philisophy.
>others many times: that self interest is what motivates people and ipso
>facto the economy. Fortunately, our subscribing to our own interests in
>economic decision-making strengthens the economy by driving competitive
>markets and expanding industry and technology. Furthermore, in a
>repeated game (represented by the actions of agents in the economy)
>morals equal vulnerability. Perhaps that's why they were expelled in the
I'm totally lost? In repeated game, even with agent's who are solely
motivated by self-interest, typically, we can reach any (individually
rational) Pareto-optimum. How come then "morals equal vulnerability"? We
get to first-best w/o "morals".
>first place and not simply excluded for the sake of the formation of a
>purely clinical model of our world.
Actually, Econ is quiet on morals, other than it lets decision-makers
themsleves figure out what their values, morals, preferences, etc., are.
*Given* these values, Econ can predict outcomes, give advice, ...
Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
Take my advice, I have no use for it
Key fingerprint = 0C D5 B6 5D E8 9E 01 C0 4C 8F 7A 60 A9 A7 BA B1
Jay Hanson
-> >first place and not simply excluded for the sake of the formation of a
-> >purely clinical model of our world.
->
-> Actually, Econ is quiet on morals, other than it lets decision-makers
-> themsleves figure out what their values, morals, preferences, etc., are.
-> *Given* these values, Econ can predict outcomes, give advice, ...
It is IMPOSSIBLE for one to be silent on morals.
A moral theory of "whatever happens is ok" sounds
a lot like Eichmann's "I was just doing my job."
Too many economics-trained humans seem to have
exchanged morality (or their critical-thinking
facility) for a diploma.
Jay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC POLICY IS NOT "SCIENCE" -- IT IS "POLITICS".
This is because costs and benefits are different in "kind" and
they accrue to "different" individuals (e.g., profits for the
rich and cancer for the poor). Those who make statements about
public policy are engaging in politics. Jay Hanson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Turpin
In article <317DC7...@ilhawaii.net>,
Really? Perhaps Hanson will tell us the moral implications
of the Pythagorean theorem. I had always considered this
a very good example of something that is silent on morals,
but no doubt, Hanson will explain how it is otherwise.
> A moral theory of "whatever happens is ok" sounds
> a lot like Eichmann's "I was just doing my job."
*Any* moral theory -- whether "whatever happens is ok" or
"whatever happens is bad" or something in between -- is an
expression of morals, and does NOT constitute being "silent on
morals." This is a matter of very simple logic. Perhaps it
is simple logic that we should discuss, rather than morals.
Russell
--
I don't care if a soldier is straight,
as long as he can shoot straight. -- Barry Goldwater
Jay Hanson
-> In article <317DC7...@ilhawaii.net>,
-> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
-> > It is IMPOSSIBLE for one to be silent on morals.
->
-> Really? Perhaps Hanson will tell us the moral implications
-> of the Pythagorean theorem. I had always considered this
-> a very good example of something that is silent on morals,
-> but no doubt, Hanson will explain how it is otherwise.
I meant with respect to normative statements in general.
Specifically, I am referring to the economist's comments
on public policy.
-> > A moral theory of "whatever happens is ok" sounds
-> > a lot like Eichmann's "I was just doing my job."
->
-> *Any* moral theory -- whether "whatever happens is ok" or
-> "whatever happens is bad" or something in between -- is an
-> expression of morals, and does NOT constitute being "silent on
-> morals." This is a matter of very simple logic. Perhaps it
-> is simple logic that we should discuss, rather than morals.
Since economists are certainly not silent about public
policy, it follows that economists certainly are not
silent on morals. This then raises the question
concerning the morals taught to economists as part and
parcel of their training regime -- either explicitly
or implicitly.
Thus far, the only moral theory identified by the
economists who have claimed that "free trade is good
for most people", seems to be "whatever happens is ok".
I assume that the this particular moral theory is
explicitly taught to economists as Adam Smith's famous
"Invisible Hand". Moreover, as I have said before, this
"whatever happens is ok" moral theory bears a striking
resemblance to Eichmann's "I was just doing my job."
Jay
---
EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE ECONOMY
(but were afraid to ask):
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
Russell Turpin
In article <317F25...@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> Since economists are certainly not silent about public
> policy, it follows that economists certainly are not
No, this does NOT follow. One can make positive (non-moral)
statements about public policy. For example, one can say
that a proposed law will raise interest rates. Such a
claim is factually correct or mistaken, but it says nothing
about whether higher interest rates or good or bad.
This is an opportune time to curtail another likely error in this
discussion. Very clearly, economists as individuals *do* express
moral views, as do physicists, chemists, biologists, and
ecologists. No scientist's beliefs and no scientist's writings
are solely an expression of their technical work. Another way of
putting this is to say that no one is solely a scientist.
Every scientist has moral views, BUT a scientist's moral views
are NOT part of science! One economist may believe that
capitalism is good. A second may believe that capitalism is bad.
Neither of these beliefs are ECONOMIC beliefs. (But whether or
not a particular policy will raise interest rates is a positive
question and an economic question.) The distinction between
positive and normative views is a logical distinction critical to
all sciences. Whether nuclear power is good or bad is NOT a
physics issue. Physics can address only positive questions,
e.g., how much energy is released during fission, what byproducts
result, and how they transmute over time.
> ... This then raises the question concerning the morals taught
> to economists as part and parcel of their training regime --
> either explicitly or implicitly.
Since Hanson's first claim is wrong, nothing follows from it.
Hopefully, economists are taught to distinguish between
positive issues, which economics might address, from normative
issues, which it cannot address. This seems to be something
that Hanson has not learned.
> Thus far, the only moral theory identified by the economists
> who have claimed that "free trade is good for most people",
> seems to be "whatever happens is ok".
It "seems to be" this way to Hanson, because he is confused on
these matters.
Jay Hanson
> In article <317F25...@ilhawaii.net>,
> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> > Since economists are certainly not silent about public
> > policy, it follows that economists certainly are not
> > silent on morals. ...
>
> No, this does NOT follow. One can make positive (non-moral)
> statements about public policy. For example, one can say
> that a proposed law will raise interest rates. Such a
> claim is factually correct or mistaken, but it says nothing
> about whether higher interest rates or good or bad.
Look Turpin, I don't know what fantasy land you are
living in (perhaps you are a hired goon for industry).
Economists are making normative statements ALL THE TIME.
The explicit Invisible Hand theory is constantly being
reenforced with references to the GDP. Moreover, the
value-laden language of economics "goods and services"
"welfare-maximizing" is propaganda par excellence.
This economic snake oil is what keeps the elite in power.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Moral theory is TAUGHT as part and parcel of economics:
"Second, any restriction on the market can disrupt
mutually beneficial trades, thus reducing the
potential welfare of traders. The imposition of
tariffs on imports is a reasonably good example.
Such tariffs increase the price of imports and
encourage consumers to look for domestic substances
which are more costly to produce. Whenever anything
is more costly, more resources are used and more
in the way of other goods and services must be
given up, implying a reduction in welfare." [p. 113]
MODERN POLITICAL ECONOMY: An Introduction to Economics
Richard B. McKenzie and Gordon Tullock, McGraw-Hill, 1978
[Oddly enough, welfare is not defined. <G>]
Jay Hanson
Jay Hanson wrote:
> Economists are making normative statements ALL THE TIME.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FREE TO CHOOSE
by Milton and Rose Friedman
(reviewed by Roy A. Childs, Jr., December 1991)
This new edition of Free to Choose celebrates the tenth
anniversary of what has, by now, become a modern classic.
Classics ordinarily don't get established that quickly, but Free
to Choose was an exception.
Not only was it the first full-length popular treatment of
Milton Friedman's economic and political philosophy--far more
accessible than the pathbreaking Capitalism and Freedom which
deserves equal celebration--but by piggybacking on Friedman's
ten-hour television series of the same name, first broadcast in
1980, it became a mammoth international bestseller virtually
overnight, and has had a major impact on the tumultuous world
events of the past ten years.
Free to Choose was translated and read from China to Eastern
Europe, from Britain and the U.S. to Latim America--and its
influence is to be found everywhere.
In the early 1980s, it seemed Utopian and unrealistic, but as
the Friedmans point out in their new foreword, world events have
rushed ahead with such speed and violence that it seems like a
practical blueprint for change today. In chapter after chapter
the Friedmans demolish the case for the Welfare State and Social
Democracy, and make out the argument for individual freedom and
free market capitalism. We learn how the market provides for
human needs, why government controls promore tyranny, how
monetary authorities produced the Great Depression and modern
inflation, the flaws in public education and the rest of the
Welfare State, the contradictions in the notion of coercive
"equality," protection for the consumer, the worker, and others
in a free society--and why the tide is turning (written ten
years ago!)
This is a great book--rediscover it today!
Markku Stenborg
In article <317DC7...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
>Markku Stenborg wrote:
[snip]
>-> Actually, Econ is quiet on morals, other than it lets decision-makers
>-> themsleves figure out what their values, morals, preferences, etc., are.
>-> *Given* these values, Econ can predict outcomes, give advice, ...
>
>It is IMPOSSIBLE for one to be silent on morals.
Umm, let's see:
Wasn't that quiet?
The point is the difference b/w positive and normative -- what does
exist, how things happen to be vs. what should exist, how things should
be. For instance, in Biology, they probably don't condemn foxes for their
cruelty to hares, or genes for their self-serving behavior.
>A moral theory of "whatever happens is ok" sounds
>a lot like Eichmann's "I was just doing my job."
Well, this is not equal to being quiet on morality, this is a moral
theory.
>Too many economics-trained humans seem to have
>exchanged morality (or their critical-thinking
>facility) for a diploma.
How about some reading comprehension, try to read real slowly what I've
written above. Should I retype it, I could do it r e a l s l o w i
f i t h e l p s .
>Jay
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
> PUBLIC POLICY IS NOT "SCIENCE" -- IT IS "POLITICS".
> This is because costs and benefits are different in "kind" and
> they accrue to "different" individuals (e.g., profits for the
> rich and cancer for the poor). Those who make statements about
> public policy are engaging in politics. Jay Hanson
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
Another expression of muddling positive and normative. Be in compfort,
bro, we all perfectly understand the confusions particular to your sect.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Russell Turpin (tur...@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
: -*--------
: In article <317F25...@ilhawaii.net>,
: Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
: > Since economists are certainly not silent about public
: > policy, it follows that economists certainly are not
: > silent on morals. ...
: No, this does NOT follow. One can make positive (non-moral)
: statements about public policy. For example, one can say
: that a proposed law will raise interest rates. Such a
: claim is factually correct or mistaken, but it says nothing
: about whether higher interest rates or good or bad.
True.
: This is an opportune time to curtail another likely error in this
: discussion. Very clearly, economists as individuals *do* express
: moral views, as do physicists, chemists, biologists, and
: ecologists. No scientist's beliefs and no scientist's writings
: are solely an expression of their technical work. Another way of
: putting this is to say that no one is solely a scientist.
True.
: Every scientist has moral views, BUT a scientist's moral views
: are NOT part of science! One economist may believe that
: capitalism is good. A second may believe that capitalism is bad.
: Neither of these beliefs are ECONOMIC beliefs. (But whether or
: not a particular policy will raise interest rates is a positive
: question and an economic question.) The distinction between
: positive and normative views is a logical distinction critical to
: all sciences. Whether nuclear power is good or bad is NOT a
: physics issue. Physics can address only positive questions,
: e.g., how much energy is released during fission, what byproducts
: result, and how they transmute over time.
This is an answer that one would expect from a dyed-in-the-wool neoclassical
economist, particularly a utilitarian. Heterodox economists from Institutionalists
to Austrians would disagree with this analysis. They would argue that you simply
cannot separate positive from normative in cases that really matter - economics is
a social science and not a physical science. Then there are those of the
institutionalist school, who believe that neoclassical economics is primarily a
corruption of neoclassical physics (See Mirowski's MORE HEAT THAN LIGHT).
--
Buddy Kilpatrick
The Institute of Public Policy
George Mason University
Jay Hanson
Russell Turpin wrote:
-> If Jay Hanson had bothered to read the second paragraph of my
-> post (instead of stopping at the first), he would have seen that
-> I explicitly said as much. If an economist's analysis is
-> adequately precise to separate her (positive) economic views from
-> from her political views, there is no problem in her espousing
-> both, even in the same article. But if she confounds them and is
-> unable to separate the two, then her economics is worthless.
Facts do NOT speak for themselves.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Our political views are based on our values and
derive from our moral theories (or more accurately
from the moral theories implicit in our society).
Our values motivate us in everything we do. For
example, we may value political freedom, justice,
mercy, vengeance, leisure, money, etc.
Our values derive from the "social reality" we find
ourselves a part of. (See: Berger & Luckann,
THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5)
To return to your example of economic analysis, one
cites or studies that which one values. In other words,
economists cite "trade numbers" or "inflation numbers"
instead of "birth defects" because either they or their
employers value them more.
It is impossible to separate our values from our actions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The moral theory built into neoclassical economics is
Smith's Invisible Hand -- "whatever happens is ok" --
including the anticipated crash and die-off.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Time is running out!
We must explicitly value life over death.
We must start DIRECTING humanity toward some kind of
sustainable future - NOW!
Jay
..............................
A SPECIES OF SUPERDETRITOVORES:
"It was thus becoming apparent that nature must, in the not
far distant future, institute bankruptcy proceedings
against industrial civilization, and perhaps against the
standing crop of human flesh, just as nature had done many
times to other detritus-consuming species following their
exuberant expansion in response to the savings deposits
their ecosystems had accumulated before they got the
opportunity to begin the drawdown... Having become a
species of superdetritovores, mankind was destined not
merely for succession, but for crash." [p. 172, 173]
OVERSHOOT by Catton, 1982, University of Illinois Press,
800-545-4703, Fax 217-244-8082
Jay Hanson
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
-> Russell Turpin (tur...@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
-> : -*--------
-> : In article <317F25...@ilhawaii.net>,-> : > Since economists are certainly not silent about public
-> : > policy, it follows that economists certainly are not
-> : > silent on morals. ...
->
-> : No, this does NOT follow. One can make positive (non-moral)
-> : statements about public policy. For example, one can say
-> : that a proposed law will raise interest rates. Such a
-> : claim is factually correct or mistaken, but it says nothing
-> : about whether higher interest rates or good or bad.
->
-> True.
You are wrong Henry. Read my response to Turpin.
Jay
Jay Hanson
Markku Stenborg wrote:
-> In article <317DC7...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson,
jha...@ilhawaii.net
-> writes:
-> >Markku Stenborg wrote:
->
-> [snip]
->
-> >-> Actually, Econ is quiet on morals, other than it lets
decision-makers
-> >-> themsleves figure out what their values, morals, preferences,
etc., are.
-> >-> *Given* these values, Econ can predict outcomes, give advice, ...
-> >
-> >It is IMPOSSIBLE for one to be silent on morals.
->
-> Umm, let's see:
->
-> Wasn't that quiet?
Russell Turpin
-*-------
I wrote:
>> Every scientist has moral views, BUT a scientist's moral views
>> are NOT part of science! One economist may believe that
>> capitalism is good. A second may believe that capitalism is bad.
>> Neither of these beliefs are ECONOMIC beliefs. (But whether or
>> not a particular policy will raise interest rates is a positive
>> question and an economic question.) The distinction between
>> positive and normative views is a logical distinction critical to
>> all sciences. Whether nuclear power is good or bad is NOT a
>> physics issue. Physics can address only positive questions,
>> e.g., how much energy is released during fission, what byproducts
>> result, and how they transmute over time.
In article <4lp74q$c...@portal.gmu.edu>,
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. <hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
> This is an answer that one would expect from a dyed-in-the-wool
> neoclassical economist, particularly a utilitarian. Heterodox
> economists from Institutionalists to Austrians would disagree
> with this analysis. They would argue that you simply cannot
> separate positive from normative in cases that really matter ...
The failure to do so reflects logical error, relevant to
economics only to the extent that such "heterodox economists" are
confused. For what it is worth, the Austrian economists had no
such confusion. I have no idea about the Institutionalists.
> ... economics is a social science and not a physical science. ...
If it is to count as any kind of science, it must be sufficiently
precise in its analysis not to confound positive and normative
claims. Such precision, because it concerns only what one
claims, is required whether one is studying stars, butterflies,
or emotions. (Lumping economics in with social science is almost
an admission of defeat. Judging from various books that come
from them and that receive awards in their fields, the various
social "sciences" aren't.)
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <317F74...@ilhawaii.net>,
If Jay Hanson had bothered to read the second paragraph of my
post (instead of stopping at the first), he would have seen that
I explicitly said as much. If an economist's analysis is
adequately precise to separate her (positive) economic views from
from her political views, there is no problem in her espousing
both, even in the same article. But if she confounds them and is
unable to separate the two, then her economics is worthless.
Russell
Russell Turpin
-*------
In article <317F6E...@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> Moral theory is TAUGHT as part and parcel of economics ...
How many economics courses has Hanson taken?
> MODERN POLITICAL ECONOMY: An Introduction to Economics
> Richard B. McKenzie and Gordon Tullock, McGraw-Hill, 1978
>
> [Oddly enough, welfare is not defined. <G>]
Given Hanson's proven reading deficits, his claims about what
a book does or doesn't do are worthless.
Russell Turpin
-*--------
In article <318064...@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> To return to your example of economic analysis, one
> cites or studies that which one values. In other words,
> economists cite "trade numbers" or "inflation numbers"
> instead of "birth defects" because either they or their
> employers value them more.
I have no idea how to address the incoherence in the above. How
does one value numbers? Or if Hanson means that economists value
trade more than they value birth defects, well, of course! Most
economists view birth defects negatively. Or if Hanson means
... well, who knows what Hanson means. When (if) he figures out
something coherent to say on this topic, we can return to it.
> Our values derive from the "social reality" we find
> ourselves a part of. (See: Berger & Luckann,
> THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
> Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5)
I am generally leary of books with stupid titles.
> We must start DIRECTING humanity toward some kind of
> sustainable future - NOW!
There is considerable conflict between Hanson's eagerness to save
humanity from the dreadful future he believes is now our fate,
and his desire to conflate facts, morals, and social
constructions. Why should his readers believe that his warnings
have a factual basis, rather than thinking that Hanson merely
likes the social role of chicken little? To claim otherwise, he
must resort to discussion of facts separate from his morals, but
-- oh dear -- he has been arguing that's impossible! And even if
we are approaching some dire future, that is no problem, we'll
just to get together and socially construct a different reality!
The future can only be dire if there is a reality that resists
our social constructions and if there are facts that are
independent of our desires and moral theories. Unwittingly,
Hanson has removed all basis for any concern about the
environment. I wish him well in his world, though I have no idea
what that world looks like.
Markku Stenborg
In article <317F25...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
>Russell Turpin wrote:
[snip]
>Since economists are certainly not silent about public
>policy, it follows that economists certainly are not
>silent on morals. This then raises the question
Once again: Not all issues with respect to public policy are issues of
morality. This shouldn't be news to you, but there are some distictions
b/w "positive" and "normative". Hence, the implication above is clearly
moronic, to put it nicely.
>concerning the morals taught to economists as part and
>parcel of their training regime -- either explicitly
>or implicitly.
Don't know about others, but as my undergrad training, I had enough Phil.
classes, including Ethics, to get a B.Sc in Phil. All of this in vain, I
should've just asked you instead <g>.
>Thus far, the only moral theory identified by the
>economists who have claimed that "free trade is good
>for most people", seems to be "whatever happens is ok".
No. Typically, the moral theory in Econ is: Lets allow the citizens have
what ever values or value systems they happen to have, and let's not
impose our own views to them. This in striking unresemblence to your
infidel religion.
Should you be interested [can safely assume you're not?] in the issues
and not just in yelling out your bigotry and ignorance, I could give you
some references on Econ and Ethics.
>I assume that the this particular moral theory is
>explicitly taught to economists as Adam Smith's famous
>"Invisible Hand". Moreover, as I have said before, this
It might be of interest to you that Adam Smith was a prof. of Moral Phil,
and not really an economist, and considered his work to Moral Phil. You
might want to read his treatise on moral theory ("Theory of Moral
Sentiments", or something to that effect), and see for your self, or even
actually see what he said in "Wealth of Nations", should you not be
afraid of polluting yourself.
>"whatever happens is ok" moral theory bears a striking
>resemblance to Eichmann's "I was just doing my job."
Jay Hanson
Russell Turpin wrote:
-> In article <318064...@ilhawaii.net>,-> > To return to your example of economic analysis, one
-> > cites or studies that which one values. In other words,
-> > economists cite "trade numbers" or "inflation numbers"
-> > instead of "birth defects" because either they or their
-> > employers value them more.
->
-> I have no idea how to address the incoherence in the above. How
-> does one value numbers? Or if Hanson means that economists value
-> trade more than they value birth defects, well, of course! Most
-> economists view birth defects negatively. Or if Hanson means
-> ... well, who knows what Hanson means. When (if) he figures out
-> something coherent to say on this topic, we can return to it.
Why do economists cite trade numbers instead of statistics
on birth defects? BECAUSE THEY VALUE THEM MORE!
-> > Our values derive from the "social reality" we find
-> > ourselves a part of. (See: Berger & Luckann,
-> > THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
-> > Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5)
->
-> I am generally leary of books with stupid titles.
You would do well to stay away from this one.
This book will dump all of your "beliefs" into the toilet.
-> There is considerable conflict between Hanson's eagerness to save
-> humanity from the dreadful future he believes is now our fate,
-> and his desire to conflate facts, morals, and social
-> constructions. Why should his readers believe that his warnings
-> have a factual basis, rather than thinking that Hanson merely
-> likes the social role of chicken little? To claim otherwise, he
-> must resort to discussion of facts separate from his morals, but
-> -- oh dear -- he has been arguing that's impossible! And even if
-> we are approaching some dire future, that is no problem, we'll
-> just to get together and socially construct a different reality!
-> The future can only be dire if there is a reality that resists
-> our social constructions and if there are facts that are
-> independent of our desires and moral theories. Unwittingly,
-> Hanson has removed all basis for any concern about the
-> environment. I wish him well in his world, though I have no idea
-> what that world looks like.
Gee, I see your problem. <G>
Jay Hanson
Markku Stenborg wrote:
> >Since economists are certainly not silent about public
> >policy, it follows that economists certainly are not
> >silent on morals. This then raises the question
>
> Once again: Not all issues with respect to public policy are issues of
> morality. This shouldn't be news to you, but there are some distictions
> b/w "positive" and "normative". Hence, the implication above is clearly
> moronic, to put it nicely.
Here it is again: Facts do NOT speak for themselves.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What things we study and measure are based on our values,
and these values derive from our moral theories (or more
accurately from the moral theories implicit in our society).
For example, economists cite "trade numbers" or "inflation
numbers" instead of "birth defects" because either they or
their employers value them more.
Our values motivate us in everything we do. For example,
we may value political freedom, justice, mercy, vengeance,
leisure, money, etc.
It is impossible to separate our values from our actions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Economists are explicitly taught the "Invisible Hand" moral
theory. INVISIBLE MORAL theory may be characterized as
"Whatever happens is ok as long as individuals act in their
own personal self-interest". Moreover, INVISIBLE MORAL
theory is constantly reenforced by references to its
measure, the GDP.
Economists reject the notion of an explicit measure of
welfare because it runs counter to INVISIBLE MORAL theory.
Normative economic pronouncements are usually aimed at
increasing economic growth, as measured by the GDP.
This is justified by appeal to INVISIBLE MORAL theory.
Most economists apparently can not "get" the fact that
economic activity is killing the planet because is runs
counter to INVISIBLE MORAL theory.
The modern economy is a "reification" that was designed
to keep the elites in political power. There is nothing
"value-free" about it.
Jay
--------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Luckmann, THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5
"Reification is the apprehension of human phenomena as if they
were things, that is, in non-human or possibly supra-human
terms. Another way of saying this is that reification is
the apprehension of the products as if they something else
than human products -- such as facts of nature, results of
cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will. Reification
implies that man is capable of forgetting his own authorship
of the human world, and further, that the dialectic between
man, the producer, and his products is lost to consciousness.
The reified world is, by definition, a dehumanized world. It
is experienced by man as a strange facticity, an opus alienum
over which he has no control rather than as the opus proprium
of his own productive activity." [p. 89]
This book takes you step by step through the process of
constructing "social reality" and complete with institutions
to "legitimize" that reality.
Mason A. Clark
Morals and Economics
I'll skip the re-display of previous posts. Saves bandwidth
they tell me.
Physics, perhaps the hardest of all hard sciences, mixes in
morals in two ways.
1. The choice of research is made with little or no
consideration of what it's moral consequences might be.
This is mixing morals with physics. To not consider morals
in any human planning is a moral decision.
2. Physicists have in some cases used their authority,
their power, to influence policy. The famous letter that
Einstein was induced to write to F.D.R., recommending the
development of the A-bomb is the most famous case.
Economist are the same, but more so. Unlike physics, by
it's nature, it is impossible to keep morals out of the
theory. You may dispute this. OK. But points (1) and
(2) still apply.
1. The choice of what research to do is a moral decision.
Economists who do not consider the morals of their research
direction are making a moral decision. To say nothing of
the assumptions, axioms, they elect to adopt.
2. Economists, both by the body of their currently
established theory and by their personal activities,
influence policy. And their influence is more pervasive in
politics than that of perhaps any other field of study.
That this influence is loaded with moral considerations, it
is impossible to believe that anyone can possibly doubt.
Mason Clark
Russell Turpin
-*------
In article <3180DA...@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> Why do economists cite trade numbers instead of statistics
> on birth defects? BECAUSE THEY VALUE THEM MORE!
As before, I would hope so! Trade numbers are at least
useful and informative. Birth defects are a significant
problem. Let me join with all economists in saying:
More trade numbers! Fewer birth defects!
Russell
(Still ready to discuss this further when Hanson manages
to say something coherent on the topic, but not holding
his breath.)
Russell Turpin
-*------
In article <3180D8...@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> Berger & Luckmann, THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
> Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5
>
> "Reification is the apprehension of human phenomena as if they
> were things, that is, in non-human or possibly supra-human
> terms. Another way of saying this is that reification is
> the apprehension of the products as if they something else
> than human products -- such as facts of nature, results of
>
> This book takes you step by step through the process of
> constructing "social reality" and complete with institutions
> to "legitimize" that reality.
Hee, hee, hee.
I think Hanson is now ready for Derrida!
The funny thing about all the lit crit folks who have been
espousing this stuff for the past few decades is that they
patronize the airlines. You would think by now they would
have deconstructed gravity, Bernoulli's "laws," and all
the rest of it, and reconstructed these "laws" so that they
could zip back and forth just by clicking their heels
and repeating their destination three times. "I want to go
to Paris. I want to go to Paris. I want to go to Paris.
Damn it, Toto, Belinda lied!"
Russell
Mason A. Clark
On 27 Apr 1996 11:39:55 -0500, tur...@cs.utexas.edu (Russell
Turpin) wrote:
> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> > Berger & Luckmann, THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
> > Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5
> >
> > "Reification is the apprehension of human phenomena as if they
> > were things, that is, in non-human or possibly supra-human
> > terms. Another way of saying this is that reification is
> > the apprehension of the products as if they something else
> > than human products -- such as facts of nature, results of
> > cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will. ..."
Russell Turpin says "hee hee hee" to this.
Question: Are the following listed ideas "facts of nature,
results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will"?
1. Private property
2. The desirability of perpetual growth of the GDP
3. Zero unemployment, except for friction
4. The invisible hand
5. The certainity of magnanimous results from (4)
6. Poverty as a motivation
7. Great wealth as a motivation
8. Price determination by the law of supply and demand
I'm sure you can add to the list and any contributions will
be appreciated. I not for a moment suggesting all "no" or
all "yes" answers on this list. I'm asking because I am
not certain about some and fear the answers to others.
Mason Clark
rv...@dreamscape.com
Russell Turpin writes:
>> "Reification is the apprehension of human phenomena as if they
>> were things, that is, in non-human or possibly supra-human
>> terms. Another way of saying this is that reification is
>> the apprehension of the products as if they something else
>> than human products -- such as facts of nature, results of
>> cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will. ..."
>>
>> This book takes you step by step through the process of
>> constructing "social reality" and complete with institutions
>> to "legitimize" that reality.
>
>Hee, hee, hee.
>
>I think Hanson is now ready for Derrida!
>
>The funny thing about all the lit crit folks who have been
>espousing this stuff for the past few decades is that they
>patronize the airlines...
These sort of ideas date back more than a few decades and
in areas other than "lit crit."
Robert Vienneau Whether strength of body or of mind, or
rv...@future.dreamscape.com wisdom, or virtue, are always found...in
proportion to the power or wealth of a man
[is] a question fit perhaps to be discussed
by slaves in the hearing of their masters,
but highly unbecoming to reasonable and
free men in search of the truth.
-- Rousseau
Jay Hanson
Russell Turpin wrote:
-> In article <3180DA...@ilhawaii.net>,
-> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
-> > Why do economists cite trade numbers instead of statistics
-> > on birth defects? BECAUSE THEY VALUE THEM MORE!
->
-> As before, I would hope so! Trade numbers are at least
-> useful and informative. Birth defects are a significant
-> problem. Let me join with all economists in saying:
-> More trade numbers! Fewer birth defects!
Statistics on birth defects would be MORE
useful and informative than trade numbers
if you were working to reduce the occurrence
of birth defects. It is a value judgement.
Jay
Jay Hanson
Russell Turpin wrote:
> In article <3180D8...@ilhawaii.net>,
> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> > Berger & Luckmann, THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
> > Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5
> >
> > were things, that is, in non-human or possibly supra-human
> > terms. Another way of saying this is that reification is
> > the apprehension of the products as if they something else
> > than human products -- such as facts of nature, results of
> > cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will. ..."
> >
> > This book takes you step by step through the process of
> > constructing "social reality" and complete with institutions
> > to "legitimize" that reality.
>
> Hee, hee, hee.
>
> I think Hanson is now ready for Derrida!
Here is a another good book on how elites jerk
the working class around:
---------------------------------------------------------
POLITICS -- WHO GETS WHAT, WHEN, HOW
by Harold Dwight Lasswell, 1902-78. NYC: Whittlesey House (McGraw-
Hill), 1936; 264 pp, bibliographic notes, index. LC call # JA73 L3.
--reviewed 1996 03 26 by Dale Wharton, Montreal <4...@dale.cam.org>
CHANGES in society's value patterns are what political analysts study.
Typical values are income, deference, and safety.* At any one moment a
few members of a community--those with influence--have the most of
each value. Those few are the elite. To preserve its advantage, an
elite works symbols, controls supplies, and applies violence. It stirs
people with images of the common destiny. The masses revere the
symbols, the elite stands righteous, unafraid. Thus the few draw not
only applause but also taxes, work, and patriotic gore from the many.
* Years after he wrote this book Professor Lasswell fixed on a list
of eight key values. He took it that everyone seeks: 1, power (a part
in making choices for one's groups, starting with the family);
2, wealth (income); 3, enlightenment (understanding, insight);
4, well-being (safety, health, fun); 5, respect (deference, approval,
notice); 6, skill (competence at work and play); 7, affection (love,
friendship); and 8, rectitude (conscience).
Symbols Countries of Western European civilisation divide their
wealth unfairly. Who cares? "Systems of life which confer
special benefits on the other fellow [go on so long as] the masses are
moved by faith and the elites are inspired by self-confidence....The
individualism of [Western] society, like the communism of a socialized
state, must be [drummed in] from nursery to grave. In the United
States...personal achievement and personal [duty are praised] from the
very beginning" (p 30). Mass media and neighbourhood gossip stress
themes of money (itself a symbol) and of personal responsibility for
failure or success. In this world of rival human particles, the idea
of collective accountability may only confuse victims of injustice.
Supplies To allot, withhold, or even destroy goods is part of elite
strategies of attack and defence. "There may be sabotage or
shutdown; strike, boycott, blacklist, noncooperation; rationing,
pricing, bribing" or a mixture (p 76). Unlike rationing, pricing can
hide the ones who actually control supplies. (Prices may be set by the
"invisible hand" of the market or by price control officials.)
During a depression, people "can be reduced to droves of...beasts,
concerned with crusts, overresponsive to pats and kicks alike" (p 83).
Concessions by the elite may include social legislation such as old
age pensions. Lasswell suggests reasons why the property system has
survived crises so far. In 1929 "There was no outburst of moral
revulsion because all the time there had been a...suspicion that
success was [owing to] luck, smartness, and [sham]....easy-going
toleration of mutual fraud is a major trait of [US] society....[Also,
capitalism's swings seem] to generate psychological safeguards during
expansion which preserve it during collapse" (p 92f).
Violence Specialists include guards, watchmen, and police as well as
army, navy, and air forces. The author warns of the
strength and dangers of the love of cruelty. Violence as a deliberate
means of influence depends on the developing context. Success requires
balance with psychologic and social factors and propaganda. Lasswell
cites the principle of security that counsels conserving loyalty
among specialists throughout violent events. "Hence the Soviet army
trains those who come from the families of workers [and the] German
army depends mainly on the sturdy and loyal peasantry...for military
duty [against domestic] industrial and urban disturbances" (p 72).
Revolutions During the industrial era, two upheavals have changed
the class makeup of elites by catastrophic violence. The
elites then adopted new ruling vocabularies. "In each case a language
of protest, long a utopian hope, became the language of an established
order, an ideology. [It reworked] vowels and consonants" (p 156).
France, 1789: A modern social formation--commercial and industrial
capitalists--arose and swept away the monarchy and aristocracy. It
replaced the divine right of kings with the rights of man. It aspired
to "universal manhood suffrage, church disestablishment, relative
freedom of [speech], supremacy of parliament over the executive, and
abolition of legal discriminations among classes" (p 157).
Russia, 1917: The country's monarch, aristocracy, and plutocracy fell
before workers and peasants. The rights of man gave way to the
proletarian dictatorship. A new regime embraced all organised social
life. It nationalised banks and insurance companies, large-scale
industry, mines, water transport, railroads. It decreed relative
equality of money income. It repudiated the Czar's foreign debts,
confiscated foreign investments in private industry, and conducted all
foreign trade. With time, the control of affairs settled on "a single
political party which assumed a monopoly of legality" (p 159).
Lasswell identified with middle income skill groups: small farmers,
small businessmen, low-salaried intellectuals, and skilled workers who
battled each other over the years. They shared a sense of moral worth
for self-discipline, having sacrificed to acquire know-how (a basis
for mutual esteem among mechanics, thinkers, and entrepreneurs). They
might have demanded "use of the taxing power to eliminate immoderate
incomes. Had they [faced] the fact that America was run by a single
party system, they might have ceased to divide a potential majority of
ballots between the Republican and Democratic wings..." (p 176).
__
Harold Lasswell at 34 may startle readers with his plain talk. The son
of a preacher and a schoolmarm in Donnellson IL, he enrolled at age 16
in University of Chicago. Phi Beta Kappa selected him (an honour for
scholars). He taught at Chicago and Yale. Previous books: PROPAGANDA
TECHNIQUE IN THE WORLD WAR (1927--his dissertation), PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
AND POLITICS (1930), WORLD POLITICS AND PERSONAL INSECURITY (1935--a
more formal version of the present work). From 1939 to 1946 Lasswell
directed war communications research at the Library of Congress. ###
# Bibliographic database fields (input to addbib programme):
%A Harold Dwight Lasswell
%C New York
%D 1936
%I Whittlesey House (division of McGraw-Hill Book Company)
%K political science
%O Peter Smith, Publisher, has offered a reprint, ISBN 0-8446-1277-4 \
price USD21.75
%P ix, 264 p
%T Politics--who gets what, when, how
Edward C. Wood
mas...@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
[snip}
Question: Are the following listed ideas "facts of nature,
results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will"?
1. Private property
2. The desirability of perpetual growth of the GDP
3. Zero unemployment, except for friction
4. The invisible hand
5. The certainity of magnanimous results from (4)
6. Poverty as a motivation
7. Great wealth as a motivation
8. Price determination by the law of supply and demand
I'm sure you can add to the list and any contributions will
be appreciated. I not for a moment suggesting all "no" or
all "yes" answers on this list. I'm asking because I am
not certain about some and fear the answers to others.
Mason Clark
My answers:
1. Private property is an institution that has evolved
over a very long time. Its antecedents are in pre-
history. Its modern expression is based on custom
and tradition; some of it made explicit in common and
statute law. Physical (Cosmic?) laws are indifferent
to it. It has no divine sanction. Nevertheless,
prudence requires caution in tinkering with it; the
consequences are not easily foreseen.
2. The desirability of perpetual growth of the GDP.
'Perpetual' is a very long time; only a fool would
hold that growth in perpetuity is either possible or
desirable. There is room for argument about whether
GDP growth is desirable _now_. To me, the facts
suggest that limiting population growth is much more
important.
3. Zero unemployment, except for friction. We don't have
this now, NAIRU as friction to the contrary
notwithstanding. We could have it. We could install a
negative feedback that would ensure it. However, one
element would offend the left, another element would
offend the right, so we might blunder into it by 2096.
4. The invisible hand. Adam Smith's self-regulating
economy with production driven by need and managed by
greed, is, to paraphrase Churchill's remark about
democracy, the worst system possible except for all
the others.
5. The certainty of magnanimous (!) results from 4. It
needs a little help. What won't work is replacing it
with a bureaucrat's authority.
6. Poverty as a motivation. With or without resignation?
There must be a path out of it that can be followed
with effort and a little luck. Then it is the need
driver.
7. Great wealth as motivation. I wouldn't know.
8. Price determination by the law of supply and demand.
Obviously most prices aren't set by an auction on the
spot. The rate of supply is somehow matched to the
rate of demand. The process isn't simple.
Regards; Ed
Edward C. Wood
ew...@ix.netcom.com
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <318306...@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> Statistics on birth defects would be MORE useful and informative
> than trade numbers if you were working to reduce the occurrence
Absolutely. Now Hanson should ponder hard on three questions.
(1) What if someone is working on something else? (2) Should
*everyone* work on reducing the occurrence of birth defects?
(3) If someone is a housepainter, does that mean that that
person views painting a house as more important than preventing
a birth defect?
Yes, these are trivial questions. Once Hanson figures out
their answers, he will understand why no one credits his
attempts to infer an economist's scale of value.
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <31830a3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Mason A. Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Question: Are the following listed ideas "facts of nature,
> results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will"?
>
> 1. Private property
Only sentences can express facts. Private property is a
concept, not a truth assertion. Similar comments apply
to the rest of Mason's list.
Markku Stenborg
In article <318064...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
>Russell Turpin wrote:
[snip]
>Facts do NOT speak for themselves.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So? It is my understanding that nobody has claimed they do. The minimum
requirement is that facts must be interpreted.
>Our political views are based on our values and
>derive from our moral theories (or more accurately
>from the moral theories implicit in our society).
>
>Our values motivate us in everything we do. For
>example, we may value political freedom, justice,
>mercy, vengeance, leisure, money, etc.
True.
>Our values derive from the "social reality" we find
>ourselves a part of. (See: Berger & Luckann,
Among other things.
> THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
> Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5)
>
>To return to your example of economic analysis, one
>cites or studies that which one values. In other words,
>economists cite "trade numbers" or "inflation numbers"
>instead of "birth defects" because either they or their
>employers value them more.
What is this? Now, which one youse guys value birth defects? Raise yer
hands! Why didn't I see any hands?
>It is impossible to separate our values from our actions.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At least partially true. Should you know anything about Econ, you'd know
that this statement is in no conflict w/ Econ. Should you quit yelling
for a sec, and read some of replies, you'd noticed my explanations of the
fundamental assumptions in Econ, the consequece of which is that actions
chosen or not chosen reveal the underlying values (and constraints).
>The moral theory built into neoclassical economics is
>Smith's Invisible Hand -- "whatever happens is ok" --
No. *If* there is any built-in moral theory in Econ, it is pretty much
the opposite to "Invisble Hand", and especially to your misunderstanding
of it: most of what happens as a consequence of the interaction b/w
selfish humas is not OK *by their own standards*.
>including the anticipated crash and die-off.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Time is running out!
Yeah, right. Bro, your credibility is next to nada now-a-days. I suspect
your knowledge in other areas is as dismal as your knowledge of Econ.
None of this lieing and yelling serves your purposes, whatever they may
be.
>We must explicitly value life over death.
>We must start DIRECTING humanity toward some kind of
> sustainable future - NOW!
>
>Jay
>..............................
>A SPECIES OF SUPERDETRITOVORES:
> "It was thus becoming apparent that nature must, in the not
> far distant future, institute bankruptcy proceedings
> against industrial civilization, and perhaps against the
> standing crop of human flesh, just as nature had done many
> times to other detritus-consuming species following their
> exuberant expansion in response to the savings deposits
> their ecosystems had accumulated before they got the
> opportunity to begin the drawdown... Having become a
> species of superdetritovores, mankind was destined not
> merely for succession, but for crash." [p. 172, 173]
>
> OVERSHOOT by Catton, 1982, University of Illinois Press,
> 800-545-4703, Fax 217-244-8082
Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
Markku Stenborg
In article <3180D8...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
>Markku Stenborg wrote:
[snip]
>Our values motivate us in everything we do. For example,
>we may value political freedom, justice, mercy, vengeance,
>leisure, money, etc.
This is why Econ starts w/ an assumption that humans have some values
over variety of things, some of which you mention above. Also, they face
constraints that prohibit each of them simultaneously reaching all
his/her goals. The point is then to find some means to balance all the
goodies such that the best possible state of affairs is reached, as
measured by the values of individual or society in question.
>It is impossible to separate our values from our actions.
Econ does not separate valus from actions; actually, Econ says that
actions indicate the underlying values.
>Economists are explicitly taught the "Invisible Hand" moral
>theory. INVISIBLE MORAL theory may be characterized as
>"Whatever happens is ok as long as individuals act in their
>own personal self-interest". Moreover, INVISIBLE MORAL
No, individuals acting in their own personal self-interest *rarely*
results in OK situation according to Econ.
>theory is constantly reenforced by references to its
>measure, the GDP.
>
>Economists reject the notion of an explicit measure of
>welfare because it runs counter to INVISIBLE MORAL theory.
Excactly the opposite. Economists think a lot about explicit measures of
welfare.
>Normative economic pronouncements are usually aimed at
>increasing economic growth, as measured by the GDP.
>This is justified by appeal to INVISIBLE MORAL theory.
No.
>Most economists apparently can not "get" the fact that
>economic activity is killing the planet because is runs
>counter to INVISIBLE MORAL theory.
It is definitely not the economic activity that is killing the planet.
Economic activity *might* be killing the planet if *all* the humans had
really short time horizon, would *only* care about their own income or
wealth, and would not care at all about their off-spring.
>The modern economy is a "reification" that was designed
>to keep the elites in political power. There is nothing
>"value-free" about it.
And this invention of yours is related to Economics by what venue?
[snip]
Mason A. Clark
On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 07:09:10 GMT, mas...@ix.netcom.com
(Mason A. Clark) wrote:
Russell Turpin pointed out a problem with the list, so I
have expanded the question:
Question: Are the following listed ideas "facts of nature,
results of cosmic laws, manifestations of divine will;"
or concepts with origins in nature, cosmic laws, or divine
will?
Gary G. Nelson
mas...@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>Question: Are the following listed ideas "facts of nature,
>results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will"?
>
> 1. Private property
>
> 2. The desirability of perpetual growth of the GDP
>
> 3. Zero unemployment, except for friction
>
> 4. The invisible hand
>
> 5. The certainity of magnanimous results from (4)
>
> 6. Poverty as a motivation
>
> 7. Great wealth as a motivation
>
> 8. Price determination by the law of supply and demand
>
This started as an issue of "reification", which was defined to be one
of the categories repeated above. But there is clearly another
category, called emergence that is, I believe, well understood within
the theory of self-organizing systems. I suggest that (1), (4) and
(8) above are emergent phenomena. These would be structural frameworks
of interaction that are in a recursive relation with those interactions.
This specifically avoids implications of strict causality from the
human-interaction scale, but also imposition from some meta-scale. It
carries none of the implications of the reification categories.
One may go farther to relate the other phenomena in the list to the
emergence of, in this case, attributes of the market. But motivations
are stated in ways that reflect the context back into individual
actions.
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <31844ffc...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Mason A. Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Russell Turpin pointed out a problem with the list, so I
> have expanded the question:
>
Ideas are ideas. They are not facts of nature. Again, if one
wants to express a fact, it needs the form of a truth assertion.
Concepts such as "the invisible hand" cannot express a fact; the
form is not correct. Note also the modality! Goodness
assertions -- such as the magnamity of some result -- also need
not apply. Let me offer some examples:
Caesar conquered Gaul.
The earth orbits the sun.
Ford is an American manufacturer of automobiles.
Whether Clark's list of ideas result from cosmic law or divine
will depends, I suppose, on one's understanding of these.
According to many who promulgate these notions, everything,
including human ideas, result from them. (This does get
Christian theologists into other conundrums, but that is a topic
for another newsgroup.)
Jay Hanson
Russell Turpin wrote:
-> In article <318306...@ilhawaii.net>,
-> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
-> > Statistics on birth defects would be MORE useful and informative
-> > than trade numbers if you were working to reduce the occurrence
-> > of birth defects. ...
->
-> Absolutely. Now Hanson should ponder hard on three questions.
-> (1) What if someone is working on something else? (2) Should
-> *everyone* work on reducing the occurrence of birth defects?
I think the number of people working on a specific project
probably is mostly determined by the funding, which in turn
depends upon the values of society.
Suppose that only children of the rich got birth defects
instead of children of the poor?
I am certain TV would mobilize public support for a "war
on birth defects".
-> (3) If someone is a housepainter, does that mean that that
-> person views painting a house as more important than preventing
-> a birth defect?
Yes. Ask any economist. <G>
Jay Hanson
Markku Stenborg wrote:
-> >Most economists apparently can not "get" the fact that
-> >economic activity is killing the planet because is runs
-> >counter to INVISIBLE MORAL theory.
->
-> It is definitely not the economic activity that is killing the planet.
-> Economic activity *might* be killing the planet if *all* the humans
had
-> really short time horizon, would *only* care about their own income or
-> wealth, and would not care at all about their off-spring.
I think that it is time for you to read something about the
relationship of economic activity to the material world:
[BTY, I am going off-line at the end of the week, so perhaps
you could just visit my www site for your education. I have
over 30 files of information that is obviously new to you.
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/ ]
=============================================================
systemsCRASH 12/17/95
by Jay Hanson
The following graphic projects global population growth to the
year 2080. The numbers are from the U.N and assume functional
life-support systems:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
PROJECTED GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH Billions
__>|11
You are here----------------+ _ - ~~~~ |10
(gradual economic decline) | _-~ |9
| _ -~ |8
Overpopulation begins V _ -~ |7
(unsustainability) | _-~ |6
V _- ~ |5
====== _-~ [---- projected by U.N. ----]|4
_-~ ***** |3
____ ---~ ^ |2
-- ~~~~~~ | |1
--|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
|
Massive environmental destruction
& loss of species begin around 1970.
[ Source: http://www.rahul.net/iti/kzpg/world-curve.html ]
HOWEVER, there is now good scientific evidence that our life-
support systems are dis-integrating under the impacts of our
economic system.
What follows are three different sources -- using three
different methods and data sets -- that suggest massive human
die-off will follow worldwide systems crash sometime around
the years 2020 to 2030.
#1___________________________________________________________
Meadows, et al. project a "business as usual" scenario that
see our major systems crashing around year 2030. Remember,
these are worldwide systems -- there is no place to hide.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"In Scenario 1 the world society proceeds along its historical
path as long as possible without major policy change. Technology
advances in agriculture, industry, and social services according
to established patterns. There is no extraordinary effort to
abate pollution or conserve resources. The simulated world tries
to bring all people through the demographic transition and into
an industrial and then post-industrial economy. This world
acquires widespread health care and birth control as the service
sector grows; it applies more agricultural inputs and gets
higher yields as the agricultural sector grows; it emits more
pollutants and demands more nonrenewable resources as the
industrial sector grows.
"The global population in Scenario 1 rises from 1.6 billion in
the simulated year 1900 to over 5 billion in the simulated
year 1990 and over 6 billion in the year 2000. Total
industrial output expands by a factor of 20 between 1900 and
1990. Between 1900 and 1990 only 20% of the earth's total
stock of nonrenewable resources is used; 80% of these
resources remain in 1990. Pollution in that simulated year has
just begun to rise noticeably. Average consumer goods per
capita in 1990 is at a value of 1968-$260 per person per year
-- a useful number to remember for comparison in future runs.
Life expectancy is increasing, services and goods per capita
are increasing, food production is increasing. But major
changes are just ahead.
"In this scenario the growth of the economy stops and reverses
because of a combination of limits. Just after the simulated
year 2000 pollution rises high enough to begin to affect
seriously the fertility of the land. (This could happen in
the 'real world' through contamination by heavy metals or
persistent chemicals, through climate change, or through
increased levels of ultraviolet radiation from a diminished
ozone layer.) Land fertility has declined a total of only 5%
between 1970 and 2000, but it is degrading at 4.5% per year in
2010 and 12% per year in 2040. At the same time land erosion
increases. Total food production begins to fall after 2015.
That causes the economy to shift more investment into the
agriculture sector to maintain output. But agriculture has to
compete for investment with a resource sector that is also
beginning to sense some limits.
"In 1990 the nonrenewable resources remaining in the ground would
have lasted 110 years at the 1990 consumption rates. No
serious resource limits were in evidence. But by 2020 the
remaining resources constituted only a 30-year supply. Why did
this shortage arise so fast? Because exponential growth
increases consumption and lowers resources. Between 1990 and
2020 population increases by 50% and industrial output grows by
85%. The nonrenewable resource use rate doubles. During the
first two decades of the simulated twenty-first century, the
rising population and industrial plant in Scenario 1 use as
many nonrenewable resources as the global economy used in the
entire century before. So many resources are used that much
more capital and energy are required to find, extract, and
refine what remains.
"As both food and nonrenewable resources become harder to obtain
in this simulated world, capital is diverted to producing more
of them. That leaves less output to be invested in basic
capital growth.
"Finally investment cannot keep up with depreciation (this is
physical investment and depreciation, not monetary). The
economy cannot stop putting its capital into the agriculture
and resource sectors; if it did the scarcity of food,
materials, and fuels would restrict production still more. So
the industrial capital plant begins to decline, taking with it
the service and agricultural sectors, which have become
dependent upon industrial inputs. For a short time the
situation is especially serious, because the population keeps
rising, due to the lags inherent in the age structure and in
the process of social adjustment. Finally population too
begins to decrease, as the death rate is driven upward by lack
of food and health services." [p.p.132-134]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH WITH LIFE-SUPPORT COLLAPSE Billions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |11
You are here----------------+ |10
| _ |9
| _ -|~~-_ |8
V _ -~ | ~ - _ |7
_-~ | ~ _ |6
_- ~ | ~_|5
_-~ | |4
_-~ | |3
____ ---~ Massive human die-off begins. |2
-- ~~~~~~ (GIGADEATH) |1
--|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
[P. 133, Meadows, et al., BEYOND THE LIMITS;
Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992. 800-639-4099,
603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576; ISBN 0-930031-62-8]
BEYOND THE LIMITS is an update to the Club of Rome's 1972
LIMITS TO GROWTH and is endorsed by Jan Tinbergen.
Tinbergen shared the first Nobel Prize for Economics in 1969.
[For a good history of this issue, see:
Neurath, FROM MALTHUS TO THE CLUB OF ROME AND BACK;
M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 1994; ISBN 1-56324-408-X
For a detailed book about the Club of Rome itself, see:
Moll: FROM SCARCITY TO SUSTAINABILITY; Peter Lang, 1995.]
It is interesting to note the latest ozone depletion and
global warming data was not available to the models.
Perhaps the models would now project crash even sooner?
#2___________________________________________________________
My second reference is from Worldwatch and concerns that
fact that there will simply not be enough food on the planet
to feed humanity by year 2030.
For example, consider the worldwide collapse of the fisheries:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fishery Declines of more than 100,000 tons, Peak year to l992
Species Peak | Peak | 1992
Year | Catch | Catch | Decline | Change
|(. . . million tons . . )|(percent)
Pacific herring 1964 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.5 | -71
Atlantic herring 1966 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 2.6 | -63
Atlantic cod 1968 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 2.7 | -69
Southern African pilchard 1968 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 1.6 | -94
Haddock 1969 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | -80
Peruvian anchovy* 1970 | 13.1 | 5.5 | 7.6 | -58
Polar cod 1971 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.33 | -94
Cape hake 1972 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | -82
Silver hoke 1973 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 0.38 | -88
Greater yellow croaker 1974 | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.16 | -80
Atlantic redfish 1976 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | -57
Cape horse mackerel 1977 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | -43
Chub mackerel 1978 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 2.5 | -74
Blue whiting 1980 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | -55
South American pilchard 1985 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 3.4 | -52
Alaska pollock 1986 | 6.8 | 5.0 | 1.8 | -26
North Pacific hake 1987 | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.24 | -80
Japanese pilchard 1988 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 2.9 | -54
TOTALS: | 51.48 | 21.77 | 29.71 | -58
Source FAO.
* The catch of the Peruvian anchovy hit a low of 94,000 tons
in 1994, less than one percent of the 1970 level, before
climbing up to the 1992 level.
From NET LOSS, p.p. 14-15, 1994. (Worldwatch Paper # 120)
Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20036 , Tel: 202/452-1999
Fax: 202/296-7365, E-mail: ww...@igc.apc.org
- - - - - - - - - -
WHO WILL FEED CHINA?
by Lester R Brown & Worldwatch
[The following is a clip from a Worldwatch book review.]
Farmers also often lose in the competition for land.
During the five years since 1990, the diversion of cropland to
nonfarm uses has offset gains in land productivity, preventing
any growth in the grain harvest. When Japan went through the
stage of development that China is now entering, cropland
losses overrode gains in land productivity, leading to a 32
percent decline in the grain harvest between 1960 and 1994.
"If China is to avoid a similar decline in grain
production, it must either do a better job than Japan has done
of protecting its cropland," says Brown, "or it must raise
land productivity much faster than Japan did. Both will be
difficult."
If China is able to somehow outperform Japan and hold
the decline in production to, say, only one fifth by 2030,
then, assuming no further improvements in diet, population
growth alone would push grain imports up to 200 million tons
in 2030, an amount roughly equal to this year's world grain
exports.
If China continues moving up the food chain, raising its
total grain use from just under 300 kilograms per person at
present to 400 kilograms in the year 2030, roughly the same
as that of Taiwan, or half the 800 kilograms consumed in the
United States, it will need to import some 369 million tons of
grain in 2030.
Can China afford to import massive quantities of grain?,
the author asks. The answer is, "Yes." China's trade surplus
with the United States alone of nearly $30 billion in 1994
was sufficient to buy all grain exported by all exporting
countries last year.
Brown says the more difficult question is, "Who can
supply grain on this scale?" The answer is, "No one." If
China's rapid industrialization continues, its import demand
will soon overwhelm the export capacity of the United States
and other grain-exporting countries. In addition to China,
more than 100 countries depend on the United States for grain,
including many others whose needs are also rising rapidly.
"With its grain imports climbing, China's rising grain
prices are now becoming the world's rising grain prices. As
the slack goes out of the world food economy, China's land
scarcity will become everyone's land scarcity," says Brown.
"As irrigation water losses force it to import more grain, its
water scarcity will become the world's water scarcity."
See also: FULL HOUSE and THE LAST OASIS by Worldwatch;
DWELLERS IN THE LAND, by Kirkpatrick Sale, 1991,
New Society Pub. 800-253-3605 ISBN 0-86571-225-5
OVERSHOOT by Catton, 1982, University of Illinois Press,
800-545-4703, Fax 217-244-8082 ISBN 0-252-00988-6
- - - - - - - - - -
SAN ANTONIO, Tex., Feb 6, 1996 (Reuter) - A "truly monumental"
turnaround in Chinese grain trade caused China to become a net
importer of feed grains in 1994 and will push purchases up
more than 450 percent to 17.6 million tonnes by 2004, the U.S.
Feed Grains Council said in its 10-year Outlook Report. Three
major factors were said to be primarily responsible for
China's switch in its export-import balance -- a drop in
China's grain production in 1994, expanding grain consumption,
and a hoarding of grain by individuals and local governments.
Demand in China is strong for both food grains and meat
proteins and is increasing rapidly, said the report. Growth in
consumption is expected to outpace any increases in yield and
production, and population growth will continue to generate
"significant new demand," the report said. China's expanding
economy wil continue to fuel demand for improved diets and
more livestock and dairy products that require additional feed
grains to produce. Pork production is seen rising 45 percent
in the next ten years, it said.
REUTER
- - - - - - - - - -
BEYOND OIL forecasts that a major consequence of our oil
vulnerability is that between 2007 and 2025 the US will cease
to be a food exporter, due primarily to rising domestic demand,
topsoil loss, food production inefficiencies, and shortages of
costly petroleum used in agriculture -- to say nothing of feared
climate change problems.
BEYOND OIL, by Gever, et al., 1991, Univ. Press of Colorado,
800-268-6044 or 303-530-5337 ISBN 0-87081-242-4
- - - - - - - - - -
From: Cunews <cun...@cornell.edu>
Contact: Roger Segelken; (607) 255-9736; hr...@cornell.edu
BALTIMORE -- If humans can't control the explosive population
growth in the coming century, disease and starvation will do
it, Cornell University ecologists have concluded from an
analysis of Earth's dwindling resources.
A grim future -- without enough arable land, water and energy
to grow food for 12 billion people -- is all but inevitable
and all too soon, a worried David Pimentel today (Feb. 9) told
an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
session on "How Many People Can the Earth Support?"
"Environmentally sound agricultural technologies will not be
sufficient to ensure adequate food supplies for future
generations unless the growth of human population is
simultaneously curtailed," the Cornell professor of ecology
said, speaking for researchers who produced the report,
"Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and
Environment."
The "optimum population" that the Earth can support with a
comfortable standard of living is less than 2 billion,
including fewer than 200 million people in the United States,
the Cornell scientist noted. But if the world population
reaches 12 billion, as it is predicted to in 50 years, as many
as 3 billion people will be malnourished and vulnerable to
disease, the Cornell analysis of resources determined. The
planet's agricultural future -- with declining productivity of
cropland -- can be seen in China today, Pimentel suggested.
China now has only 0.08 hectare (ha) of cropland per capita,
compared to the worldwide average of 0.27 ha per capita and
the 0.5 ha per capita considered minimal for the diverse diet
currently available to residents of the United States and
Europe. Nearly one-third of the world's cropland has been
abandoned during the past 40 years because erosion makes it
unproductive, he said.
Competition for dwindling supplies of clean water is
intensifying, too, the Cornell ecologists concluded.
Agricultural production consumes more fresh water than any
other human activity -- about 87 percent -- and 40 percent of
the world's people live in regions that directly compete for
water that is being consumed faster than it is replenished.
Further, water shortages exacerbate disease problems, the
ecologists' analysis pointed out. About 90 percent of the
diseases in developing countries result from a lack of clean
water. Worldwide, about 4 billion cases of disease are
contracted from water each year and approximately 6 million
people die from water-borne disease, Pimentel said. "When
people are sick with diarrhea, malaria or other serious
disease, anywhere from 5 to 20 percent of their food intake is
lost to stress of the disease," he said.
Prices of fossil fuels will rise as the world's supplies are
depleted. While the United States can afford to import more
petroleum when its reserves are exhausted in the next 15 to 20
years, developing countries cannot, Pimentel said. "Already,
the high price of imported fossil fuel makes it difficult, if
not impossible, for poor farmers to power irrigation and
provide for fertilizers and pesticides," he said. The
analysis was conducted by Pimentel, professor of entomology
and of ecology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
at Cornell; Xuewen Huang, a visiting scholar in the
agriculture college; Ana Cordova, a graduate student in the
agriculture college; and Marcia Pimentel, a researcher in
Cornell's Division of Nutritional Sciences.
The ecologists pointed to two alarming trends: At the same
time that world population is growing geometrically, the per
capita availability of grains, which make up 80 percent of the
world's food, has been declining for the past 15 years. Food
exports from the few countries that now have resources to
produce surpluses will cease when every morsel is needed to
feed their growing populations, the ecologists predicted. That
will cause economic discomfort for the United States, which
counts on food exports to help its balance of payments. But
the real pain will wrack nations that can't grow enough,
Pimentel said. "When global biological and physical limits to
domestic food production are reached, food importation will
no longer be a viable option for any country," he said. "At
that point, food importation for the rich can only be
sustained by starvation of the powerless poor."
EDITORS: David Pimentel can be reached at (607) 255-2212.
Cornell University News Service
840 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-255-4206 phone
607-257-6397 fax
cun...@cornell.edu
http://www.news.cornell.edu
- - - - - - - - - -
Furthermore, There is also a well-known relationship between
environmental scarcities and violent conflict. World War III?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THE COMING ANARCHY
by Robert Kaplan
"The cities of West Africa at night are some of the unsafest
places in the world. Streets are unlit; the police often
lack gasoline for their vehicles; armed burglars,
carjackers, and muggers proliferate. `The government in
Sierra Leone has no writ after dark,' says a foreign
resident, shrugging. When I was in the capital, Freetown,
last September, eight men armed with AK-47s broke into the
house of an American man. They tied him up and stole
everything of value. Forget Miami: direct flights between
the United States and the Murtala Muhammed Airport, in
neighboring Nigeria's largest city, Lagos, have been
suspended by order of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation
because of ineffective security at the terminal and its
environs. A State Department report cited the airport for
'extortion by law-enforcement and immigration officials.'
This is one of the few times that the U.S. government has
embargoed a foreign airport for reasons that are linked
purely to crime. In Abidjan, effectively the capital of the
Cote d'Ivoire, or Ivory Coast, restaurants have
stick-and-gun-wielding guards who walk you the fifteen feet
or so between your car and the entrance, giving you an
eerie taste of what American cities might be like in the
future. An Italian ambassador was killed by gunfire when
robbers invaded an Abidjan restaurant. The family of the
Nigerian ambassador was tied up and robbed at gunpoint in
the ambassador's residence. After university students in
the Ivory Coast caught bandits who had been plaguing their
dorms, they executed them by hanging tires around their
necks and setting the tires on fire. In one instance
Ivorian policemen stood by and watched the 'necklacings,'
afraid to intervene. Each time I went to the Abidjan bus
terminal, groups of young men with restless, scanning eyes
surrounded my taxi, putting their hands all over the
windows, demanding 'tips' for carrying my luggage even
though I had only a rucksack. In cities in six West African
countries I saw similar young men everywhere -- hordes of
them. They were like loose molecules in a very unstable
social fluid, a fluid that was clearly on the verge of
igniting."
A PREMONITION OF THE FUTURE
"West Africa is becoming THE symbol of worldwide demographic,
environmental, and societal stress, in which criminal
anarchy emerges as the real `strategic' danger. Disease,
overpopulation, unprovoked crime, scarcity of resources,
refugee migrations, the increasing erosion of nation-states
and international borders, and the empowerment of private
armies, security firms, and international drug cartels are
now most tellingly demonstrated through a West African
prism. West Africa provides an appropriate introduction to
the issues, often extremely unpleasant to discuss, that
will soon confront our civilization. ..."
THE COMING ANARCHY, by Robert Kaplan, in the Feb 1994
Atlantic Monthly. For back issues send $7 to: The Atlantic,
Back Issues, 200 North 12th St., Newark, NJ. 07107
http://www2.theAtlantic.com/atlantic/xchg/circ/back.htm
Also see: Thomas Homer-Dixon, Jeffrey Boutwell, and George
Rathjens, "Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict,"
Scientific American, February 1993; and from Homer-Dixon,
"Environmental Scarcity and Global Security" Headline
Series (New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1993).
http://www.fsk.ethz.ch/fsk/encop/enc_ftx.html
gopher://gopher.aaas.org/11/.activities/.int/.sis/.epsl
#3___________________________________________________________
My third reference posits approximately the same time frame
"before destroying the functional integrity of the
ecosphere". In this case, the underlying studies were
scientific analyses of the global carbon cycle.
And remember folks, when the ecosphere goes, everything goes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL:
THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY
from the International Society for Ecological Economics
http://kabir.umd.edu/ISEE/ISEEhome.html
HOW CLOSE TO PRACTICAL LIMITS?
"There is accumulating evidence that humanity my soon have to
confront the real carrying capacity constraints. For
example, nearly 40% of terrestrial net primary productivity
(photosynthesis) is already being used ("appropriated") by
humans, one species among millions, and this fraction is
steadily increasing (Vitousek et al. 1986). If we take
this percentage as an index of the human carrying capacity
of the earth and assume that a growing economy could come
to appropriate 80% of photosynthetic production before
destroying the functional integrity of the ecosphere, the
earth will effectively go from half to completely full
within the next doubling period -- currently about 35 years
(Daly 1991).
"The significance of this unprecedented convergence of
economic scale with that of the ecosphere is not generally
appreciated in the current debate on sustainable
development. Because the human impact on critical functions
of the ecosphere is not uniform "effective fullness" may
actually occur may actually occur well before the next
doubling of human activity. (Liebig's law reminds us that
is takes only a single critical limiting factor to constrain
the entire system.) Indeed, data presented in this chapter
suggests that long-term human carrying capacity may already
have been at less than the present 40% preemption of
photosynthesis. If so, even current consumption (throughput)
cannot be sustained indefinitely, and further material
growth can be purchased only with accelerated depletion of
remaining natural capital stocks.
"This conundrum can be illustrated another way by extrapolation
from our ecological footprint data. If the entire world
population of 5.6 billion were to use productive land at
the rate of our Vancouver/Lower Fraser Valley example, the
total requirement would be 28.5 billion ha. In fact, the
total land area of Earth is only just over 13 billion ha, of
which only 8.8 billion ha is productive cropland, pasture,
or forest. The immediate implications are two-fold: first,
as already stressed, the citizens of wealthy industrial
countries unconsciously appropriate far more than their
share of global carrying capacity; second, we would
require an additional "two Earths," assuming present
technology and efficiency levels, to provide for the present
world population at Canadian's ecological standard of
living. In short, there may simply not be enough natural
capital around to satisfy current development assumptions.
The difference between the anticipated ecological footprint
of the human enterprise and the available land/natural
capital base is a measure "sustainability gap" confronting
humankind." [p. 383]
A CAUTIONARY NOTE
"We admittedly make no allowance for potentially large
efficiency gains or technological advances. Even at
carrying capacity, further economic growth is possible (but
not necessarily desirable) if resource consumption and
waste production continue to decline per unit GDP (Jacobs
1991). We should not, however, rely exclusively on this
conventional rationale. New technologies require decades to
achieve the market penetration needed to significantly
influence negative ecological trends. Moreover,there is no
assurance that savings will not simply be directed into
alternative forms of consumption. Efficiency improvements
may actually increase rather than decrease resource
consumption (Saunders 1992). We are already at the limit in
a world of rising material expectations in which the human
population is increasing by 94 million people per year. The
minimal food-land requirements alone each year for this
number of new people is 18,800,000 ha (at 5 people/ha, the
current average productivity of world agriculture) -- the
equivalent of all cropland in France." [p. 386]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL, ISBN 1-55963-316-6
PUBLISHED BY:
The International Society for Ecological Economics
http://kabir.umd.edu/ISEE/ISEEhome.html and
Island Press -- 1994 http://www.islandpress.com
1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164
EDITED BY:
AnnMari Jansson, Monica Hammer,
Carl Folke, and Robert Costanza
The quoted text was taken from chapter # 20 which was by:
William E. Rees and Mathis Wackernagel
The University of British Columbia
School of Community and Regional Planning
6333 Memorial Road
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z2
REFERENCES:
Daly, H. 1986. Comments on "Population Growth and Economic
Development." Population and Development
Review 12: 583-585
------- 1990. Sustainable development: from concept and
theory towards operational principles.
Population and Development Review (special
issue 1990) (Also published in Daly, H. 1991.
Steady State Economics. 2d, ed. Washington,
DC: Island Press)
--------1991. From empty world economics to full world
economics: recognizing an historic turning
point in economic development. In
Environmentally Sustainable Development:
Building on Brundtland, eds. R. Goodland, H.
Daly, and S. El Serafy. Washington DC: The
World Bank
--------1991. Steady State Economics. 2d, ed. Washington,
DC: Island Press
Vitousek, P., P. Ehrlich, A. Ehrlich, and P. Matson, 1986.
Human appropriation of the products of
photosynthesis. BioScience 36: 368-74
See also: http://newciv.org/worldtrans/whole/warning.html
- - - - - - -
WHAT IS NPP?
[ Posted by Alan McGowen <amcg...@hposl02.cup.hp.com>
to ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS <ecol...@csf.colorado.edu> ]
Net primary production. It's the photosynthetic production
of plants minus what they use for their own life processes
-- so it's the amount of food left over for everything else.
Think of it as the GNP of an ecosystem.
Let's look at some numbers.
NPP (Pg/yr)
(1 Pg = 10^15g)
Total terrestrial NPP ["terrestrial" means "on land",
i.e. this doesn't include marine NPP.] 132
NPP used
Consumed by humans 0.8
Consumed by domestic animals 2.2
Wood used by humans 2.4
Total 5.2
(4% of total)
NPP dominated
Croplands (1) 15
Converted pastures (1) 10
Tree plantations (1) 2.6
Human-occupied lands (1) 0.4
Consumed from little-managed
ecosystems (2) 3
Land clearing 10
Total 41
(31% of total)
NPP lost to human activity
Decreased NPP of cropland vs.
natural systems (3) 10
Desertification 4.3
Human-occupied areas 2.6
Total 17
(together with the NPP dominated,
39% of total potential NPP)
(1) This includes the total NPP of wholly human-dominated
ecosystems.
(2) This category includes wood harvested and forage
consumed by domestic animals on little-managed systems,
and anthropogenic fires.
(3) This accounts for a decrease (on average) in the NPP
of crop systems compared to the natural systems they
replace, due primarily to the substitution of annuals for
perennials. If we follow Olson et al. (1983) and assume
that cropland NPP is equal to or above that of natural
systems, this component of loss dissappears but is
replaced by an equivalent amount of cropland NPP
dominated by humanity.
[From Vitousek et al., 1986, quoted in Vitousek, 1994.]
"NPP dominated" refers to NPP of human-dominated systems.
These are areas that function in wholly different ways
as a result of human use and human-caused land use change.
Refs.
Olson, J. S., J. A. Watts, and A. J. Allison. 1983.
Carbon in live vegetation of major world ecosystems.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
USA.
Vitousek, P. M., P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and P. A.
Matson. 1986. Human appropriation of the products of
photosynthesis. BioScience 36:368-373.
Vitousek, P. M. 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and
global change (MacArthur award lecture). Ecology 75(7),
pp. 1861-1876.
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net>
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/index.html
****************************************************************
Please copy and reprint or crosspost this article as much as
you can. Be sure to include the BRAIN FOOD invitation in the
article. This article and others are archived at gopher or
ftp: csf.colorado.edu
Please join my new BRAIN FOOD mailing list. The initial
purpose of this list is to distribute my essays and ideas, and
receive feedback from my readers. I expect that there will be
no more than one mailing each month or so.
My work is dedicated to the Common Good of our species and to
the stewardship of all of God's beautiful creation. My essays
may be freely reprinted and my ideas may be incorporated into
other works without credit.
The major themes on this list are "systems" and "philosophy".
Subtopics may relate to specific disciplines such as politics,
economics, theology, and ecology.
This is not the type of list where subscribers can enter into
a dialog with the entire list -- at least not to begin with.
This is a manual list that I am running from my home. If this
list develops as I hope it will, I will convert it into
a regular automatic list.
To join this free list, send :
"subscribe BRAIN FOOD" to jha...@ilhawaii.net
[You will get no acknowledgement. If you are already on
my list, there is no need to re-subscribe.]
Jay
Jay Hanson
Markku Stenborg wrote:
-> >The moral theory built into neoclassical economics is
-> >Smith's Invisible Hand -- "whatever happens is ok" --
->
-> No. *If* there is any built-in moral theory in Econ, it is pretty much
-> the opposite to "Invisble Hand", and especially to your misunderstanding
-> of it: most of what happens as a consequence of the interaction b/w
-> selfish humas is not OK *by their own standards*.
This is very interesting. You say that according to econ theory,
most humans feel that most of their transactions are "not OK"?
I haven't heard this before. Would you elaborate (and of course,
please cite you sources)?
Russell Turpin
-*------
Hanson:
>>> Statistics on birth defects would be MORE useful and informative
Turpin:
>> Absolutely. Now Hanson should ponder hard on three questions.
>> (1) What if someone is working on something else? (2) Should
>> *everyone* work on reducing the occurrence of birth defects?
Hanson:
> I think the number of people working on a specific project
> probably is mostly determined by the funding, which in turn
> depends upon the values of society.
Hanson didn't answer the question. In *his* view, applying
his *own* values, does he think everyone should work on
reducing the occurrence of birth defects? Admittedly, this
is a stupid question, but it goes straight to the heart of
Hanson's deconstruction of economics.
Turpin:
>> (3) If someone is a housepainter, does that mean that that
>> person views painting a house as more important than preventing
>> a birth defect?
Hanson:
> Yes. Ask any economist. <G>
The curious thing is that an economist would almost certainly
answer: no. Hanson would realize this if he bothered to learn
anything at all about economics. The one thing economists know
quite well is this: it pays to specialize. In order to feel that
her work is good, a house painter doesn't need to believe that
painting houses is more important than preventing birth defects,
only that some amount of painting houses is needed in the mix
of things that are done.
JOELKIN
From: "Gary G. Nelson" <gne...@mitre.org>:
""
This started as an issue of "reification", which was defined to be one
of the categories repeated above. But there is clearly another
category, called emergence that is, I believe, well understood within
the theory of self-organizing systems. I suggest that (1), (4) and
(8) above are emergent phenomena. These would be structural frameworks
of interaction that are in a recursive relation with those interactions.
This specifically avoids implications of strict causality from the
human-interaction scale, but also imposition from some meta-scale. It
carries none of the implications of the reification categories.
One may go farther to relate the other phenomena in the list to the
emergence of, in this case, attributes of the market. But motivations
are stated in ways that reflect the context back into individual
actions.
""
HUH?
Mason A. Clark
On 29 Apr 1996 09:39:37 -0500, tur...@cs.utexas.edu (Russell
Turpin) wrote:
> -*-------
> In article <31844ffc...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> Mason A. Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Russell Turpin pointed out a problem with the list, so I
> > have expanded the question:
> >
> > Question: Are the following listed ideas "facts of nature,
> > results of cosmic laws, manifestations of divine will;" ...
Russell did not quote the expanded question. I had expanded
it in response to his previous correct complaint:
Recall that this started with the concept of reification. I
won't reprint the thread. Put it this way, are the concepts
represented by the phrases I listed a result of reification
or are they intrinsic in the cosmos? Sheeez, I wish people
would read meanings and not quibble so much over semantics.
-------------------
On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 07:09:10 GMT, mas...@ix.netcom.com
(Mason A. Clark) wrote:
Question: Are the following listed ideas "facts of nature,
results of cosmic laws, manifestations of divine will;"
or concepts with origins in nature, cosmic laws, or divine
will?
1. Private property
2. The desirability of perpetual growth of the GDP
3. Zero unemployment, except for friction
4. The invisible hand
5. The certainity of magnanimous results from (4)
6. Poverty as a motivation
7. Great wealth as a motivation
8. Price determination by the law of supply and demand
I'm sure you can add to the list and any contributions will
be appreciated. I not for a moment suggesting all "no" or
all "yes" answers on this list. I'm asking because I am
not certain about some and fear the answers to others.
Mason Clark
Maybe the difficulty is that people don't want to deal with
challenges, when their well-molded thinking depends on
certain assumed truths. So I'll get no responses to this
list. oh, well
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <31853bfa...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,> Russell did not quote the expanded question. ... Put it this
> way, are the concepts represented by the phrases I listed a
I will rephrase my response. There is no such thing as a concept
that is "intrinsic in the cosmos." All concepts are the result
of human invention (assuming for purpose of argument that there
are no extraterrestrials, gods, or other thinkers). "Intrinsic
in the cosmos" is a somewhat fuzzy notion, and I can imagine it
being extended to include concepts that are a human invention. I
trust, though, that my meaning is clear. It is a rejection of
the Platonic view that concepts are "out there," and that people
form concepts by somehow latching onto these already existing
conceptual things "out there."
Jay Hanson
Russell Turpin wrote:
> Hanson:
> > I think the number of people working on a specific project
> > probably is mostly determined by the funding, which in turn
> > depends upon the values of society.
>
> Hanson didn't answer the question. In *his* view, applying
> his *own* values, does he think everyone should work on
> reducing the occurrence of birth defects? Admittedly, this
> is a stupid question, but it goes straight to the heart of
> Hanson's deconstruction of economics.
Of course I don't think EVERYONE should work on reducing
the number of birth defects. So What? Do you think
ANYONE should work on reducing the number of birth
defects? If so, how many and tell us how you know that
you are right?
Actually, don't try to answer the above questions. I
just asked them to show you that they -- like yours --
are pointless. Remember, this debate started with Turpin
arguing that econ was "value-free". I countered that
it is impossible to remove values from our actions.
What I what trying to show Turpin was that how much a
society spends trying to minimize "birth defects" depends
upon its values. Whether or not we wink at corrupt
politics, depends upon our values. Whether or not we
rip each other's guts out in business, depends upon our
values.
The modern economy is a "reification" designed to keep
the elites in power. Values supporting the economy are
promulgated by economists and the media ALL DAY LONG.
(See how the elites manipulate symbols below.)
There is nothing value-free about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jay
Markku Stenborg
In article <318459...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
[snipped unseasonably mild reply by Jay]
>-> (3) If someone is a housepainter, does that mean that that
>-> person views painting a house as more important than preventing
>-> a birth defect?
>
>Yes. Ask any economist. <G>
This economist answers: No, this does not mean that the person views
painting a house as more important than preventing a birth defect. For
those of you who actually might care, it is the good ole comparative
advantage and marginal values again.
You know, Jay, you can afford to relax; your lack of knowledge of Econ as
well as general ignorance is well-enough documented by now.
Markku Stenborg
In article <31845F...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
>Markku Stenborg wrote:
>
>-> >The moral theory built into neoclassical economics is
>-> >Smith's Invisible Hand -- "whatever happens is ok" --
>->
>-> No. *If* there is any built-in moral theory in Econ, it is pretty much
>-> the opposite to "Invisble Hand", and especially to your misunderstanding
>-> of it: most of what happens as a consequence of the interaction b/w
>-> selfish humas is not OK *by their own standards*.
>
>This is very interesting. You say that according to econ theory,
>most humans feel that most of their transactions are "not OK"?
No, voluntary transactions must be OK, why else would they be
participating. What I meant was that selfish humans rarely end in Pareto
optimum, ie, there would be outcomes preferred by all that are not
reached b/c of "selfishness" (in the sense that not everybody's
preferences are perfectly aligned).
One of the special (albeit important) cases where "selfishness" has no
negative consequences -- we get a Pareto optimum -- is the Arrow-Debreu
GE theory from 50s, the case of perfect competition. Actually, it turns
out that the outcomes under competition and cooperation are equivalent.
This is the so-called "Core Equivalence Theorem" (for instance,
Hildenbrand and Kirman (1988) Equilibrium Analysis" is nice though grad
level exposition).
>I haven't heard this before. Would you elaborate (and of course,
>please cite you sources)?
Take any Intro or Intermediate Micro textbook, and look for "Welfare
Economics", "Market Failure", "Public Economics", "Social Welfare",
"Externalities", ...
Russell Turpin
-*--------
In article <3184D6...@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> ... Remember, this debate started with Turpin arguing that
> econ was "value-free". I countered that it is impossible
> to remove values from our actions.
Well, no, that is NOT what I asserted, and Hanson's response was
and remains irrelevant to what I did assert. Hanson adamantly
repeats claims that NO ONE has argued against, because they are
obvious to all concerned. In particular, no one doubts (a) that
one's values and actions are related, or (b) that people's values
determine what they research.
The difference between Hanson and his respondents concern the
nature of these relationships, not their presence. The fact that
Hanson so grossly misrepresents the disagreement shows that he is
not listening.
The main issue of has been whether economic claims are positive
or normative. Hanson should note that this issue is independent
of what motivates people to research econonmics. This
independence is true for any field of research. Suppose someone
spends years investigating a particular species of red ant, and
discovers that "this species of red ant nests only in one species
of tree" (truth claim). A critic might point out that this
researcher obviously places great *personal* importance in the
red ant (true), perhaps more than the critic thinks is justified
(arguable). But:
1) This has nothing to do with whether the researcher's
claim is correct. (The claim stands independent of the
motivation behind the research.)
2) The researcher's claim itself has no moral content.
(Note that the researcher's claim and the researcher's
actions are different subjects.)
3) Neither the researcher's claim nor his actions mean
that the researcher thinks red ant study is more
important than attempting to reduce birth defects.
(There are many reasons behind an individual's work.)
I started this thread making the first two assertions, with
regard to empirical research generally, and economics
specifically. Hanson vehemently and repeatedly objected, but
most of his comments have been irrelevant for the reasons I
describe above. I later asserted (3) with regard to trade
numbers and birth defects, but only because Hanson, in trying to
rebut (1) and (2), claimed that economists value trade numbers
more than (decreasing?) birth defects. (Does Hanson think that
entomologists studying red ants value ants more than people? Or
do different rules apply to entomologists than apply to
economists?)
Jay Hanson
Markku Stenborg wrote:
-> >This is very interesting. You say that according to econ theory,
-> >most humans feel that most of their transactions are "not OK"?
->
-> No, voluntary transactions must be OK, why else would they be
-> participating. What I meant was that selfish humans rarely end in Pareto
-> optimum, ie, there would be outcomes preferred by all that are not
-> reached b/c of "selfishness" (in the sense that not everybody's
-> preferences are perfectly aligned).
"selfish humans rarely end in Pareto optimum"? This is science?
How does one quantify "selfish"? There is, of course, empirical
data to support this assertion. Isn't there?
-> >I haven't heard this before. Would you elaborate (and of course,
-> >please cite you sources)?
->
-> Take any Intro or Intermediate Micro textbook, and look for "Welfare
-> Economics", "Market Failure", "Public Economics", "Social Welfare",
-> "Externalities", ...
Markku you have apperently missed the whole point in this exercise.
The point is that the theories in your texbooks are based on false
assumptions (and alchemy). If follows that conclusions such as
"selfish humans rarely end in Pareto optimum", which derive from
false assumptions, are questionable at best and propaganda at worst.
Why can't you see that?
David Lloyd-Jones
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>Markku you have apperently missed the whole point in this exercise.
Jay,
I think that for someone whose whole aim in life seems to be making a
fool of himself in front of economists to lecture them on "the whole
point" seems to me to show a blind ignorance of the fact that this aim
has already been achieved.
>The point is that the theories in your texbooks are based on false
>assumptions (and alchemy).
Since when did assumptions have to be true? If they were true we
wouldn't call them "assumptions" now, would we? Assumptions are,
however, an extremely useful tool of analysis if chosen with
sufficient informed care. Alchemy we leave to the New Age folks at
Colorado State.
> If follows that conclusions such as
>"selfish humans rarely end in Pareto optimum", which derive from
>false assumptions, are questionable at best and propaganda at worst.
Markku's comment here is clearly an example of informed opinion, not a
reasoned syllogism from assumptions. This you would understand if you
knew enough economics to understand what he is saying. Whether or not
you agree with it depends on how close is acceptable to you.
Plutocrats like yourself traditionally have an extreme latitude on
the question.
>Why can't you see that?
Jay,
Given the venom and contempt which you attempt to display around here,
and the sour and unpleasant net personality which you in fact do
display, nobody would believe you if you posted that two and two made
four, until they had checked it on their own fingers.
-dlj.
Jay Hanson
Russell Turpin wrote:
-> I started this thread making the first two assertions, with
-> regard to empirical research generally, and economics
-> specifically. Hanson vehemently and repeatedly objected, but
I started this thread claiming that economics is not
"value-free". As I have shown, over and over, economics
is not "value-free" either in design or action.
I have compared Eichmann's claim of "just doing his job",
without concern for his victims, to economists advocating
"more of the same", without concern for capitalism's victims.
One of the starkest pieces of evidence of Eichmann-like morals
among economists was an internal memo written by the World Bank's
chief economist, Lawrence Summers. He stated: "I think the
economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the
lowest wage country is impeccable...because foregone earnings
from increased morbidity" are low. He adds that "the underpopulated
countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted; their air quality is
probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles...."
(The Economist, Feb. 8, 1992).
These cold-blooded economic calculations expose a global system
of economic homocide where human lives are viewed only as
footnotes to the capitalist market. [I do not have this
particular issue of the Economist, but have seen several
references to this and believe the cites to be true.]
A clip from one of my essays:
===========================
== Justifiable homicide? ==
===========================
It has been said that more people have been killed because of
religion than any other cause. This is certainly true when one
considers Industrial Religion. For example, cigarette smoking
causes about 435,000 American deaths each year. During the last
40 years, roughly 17 million Americans have been killed by
tobacco smoke while tobacco companies have pocketed something
like a thousand billion dollars.*77 Tobacco company apologists
will argue that the victims willingly lined up for the slaughter.
However, if advertising alters one's judgment and interferes with
free will, weren't the tobacco companies the proximate cause of
most of those deaths? If there were no cigarette advertising or
manufacturing, how many victims would have died?
There are many other deadly economic interests besides tobacco:
"We are a culture that assumes the benefits of progress. We
still look to new machines, new chemicals, and new techniques as
the primary means to improve our condition -- despite the fact
that they are harming us in increasing numbers: In 1900, cancer
accounted for only three percent of the total deaths in the
United States. Since the introduction of thousands of new
chemicals beginning in the 1940s -- pesticides, herbicides,
radiation, artificial hormones, food additives, toxic wastes,
industrial chemicals, and toxic building materials -- one in
three Americans contracts the disease."*78
The petrochemical industry discharges roughly 200 million tons of
hazardous wastes into our environment each year. Since about
1988, publications of the scientific mainstream have emphasized
that chemicals are causing reproductive and immune system damage
in wildlife, laboratory animals and humans. Recently, it has
been learned that many common industrial chemicals mimic hormones
and thus interfere with the fundamental cell chemistry of birds,
fish and mammals (remember that we humans are mammals).*79
A report published by the National Research Council titled,
Environmental Neurotoxicity, said "There is convincing evidence
that chemicals in the environment can alter the function of the
nervous system." The report suggested that chemical exposures
may be responsible for some degenerative brain disorders such as
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Lou Gehrig's
disease.*80 We have no way of calculating the millions of
cancers, birth defects, and other crippling conditions that have
been caused by the 70,000 different chemicals now in commercial
use.
In Making Peace with the Planet, Barry Commoner argues that our
current practice of environmental protection is a return to the
medieval approach to disease, when illness and death were
regarded as a debt that must be paid for original sin. Today,
this medieval philosophy is recast in a modern form: some level
of pollution and some risk to health are the unavoidable prices
that must be paid for the material benefits of modern technology.
For example, here is Time magazine's response to the appalling
deaths in the chemical accident in Bhopal India:
"The citizens of Bhopal lived near the Union Carbide plant
because they sought to live there. The plant provided jobs, and
pesticide [provided] more food. Bhopal was a modern parable of
the risks and rewards originally engendered by the industrial
Revolution . . . . There is no avoiding that hazard, and no
point in trying; one only trusts that the gods of the machines
will give a good deal more than they take away. . . ."*81
Like the medieval priests who accepted the Black Death as the
"will of God," Time says that the reason more than five thousand
people were killed, and thousands more were blinded and maimed
was because the victims owed it to the gods of the machines! How
touching! Time ends with a prayer to the gods of the machines
that the economic good will somehow outweigh the human tragedy!
Did Time consider the possibility that the economic good accrued
to different individuals than those who had been forced to pay
the debt? Does it make any difference if 99% of the people pay
the costs while only 1% of the people get the benefits? When
economists calculate cost/benefit ratios, do they just throw all
the poor people into one big pot -- like so many pounds of meat?
Were those people who were killed, blinded and maimed asked if
the economic benefits outweighed the costs? Will the deformed
babies born to Bhopal mothers be considered an economic benefit
because of the staggering medical costs?
At an October 1992 news conference, Vladimir Pokrovsky, head of
the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, shocked the world: "We
have doomed ourselves for the next 25 years." He added: "The new
generation is entering adult life unhealthy. The Soviet economy
was developed at the expense of the population's health." Data
released by the Academy show that 11 percent of Russian infants
are suffering from birth defects and 55 percent of the school-age
children suffer heath problems. The Academy also reported that
the increase in illness and early death among those aged 25-40
was particularly distressing.*82
Economists have developed several ingenious ways of solving
financial dilemmas that involve killing people (remember that
economists "abolished the moral problem"). Placing a dollar
value on human life means that untimely death is rational and
quantified. Thus, the economic cyborgs can kill legally (a new
meaning to justifiable homicide). This raises many fascinating
questions: are rich people worth more than poor, are whites
worth more than blacks, are young worth more than old, men
worth more than women, is there a discount for cripples, are
economists worth more than housewives? It is clear that there
are enough calculations here to generate a lot more economic
benefits by employing a whole army of economists for quite some
time. Can we use these additional economic benefits to kill a few
more people? Wait a minute -- doesn't that presuppose that
people are the property of the state -- isn't that fascism?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To the Party, "power is not a means to an end; it is the end in
itself. To the Party, power means the capacity to inflict
unlimited pain and suffering on another human being." For the
Party, power creates reality, it creates truth.
-- George Orwell, 1984
Mason A. Clark
On 30 Apr 1996 11:29:50 -0500, tur...@cs.utexas.edu (Russell
Turpin) wrote, in a contest with Hanson regarding the
objectivity of economic theory:
> -*--------
> In article <3184D6...@ilhawaii.net>,
> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> > ... Remember, this debate started with Turpin arguing that
> > econ was "value-free". I countered that it is impossible
> > to remove values from our actions.
>
> Well, no, that is NOT what I asserted, and Hanson's response was
> and remains irrelevant to what I did assert.
-----------snip
> Suppose someone
> spends years investigating a particular species of red ant, and
> discovers that "this species of red ant nests only in one species
> of tree" (truth claim).
--------snip
> 1) This has nothing to do with whether the researcher's
> claim is correct. (The claim stands independent of the
> motivation behind the research.)
>
> 2) The researcher's claim itself has no moral content.
> (Note that the researcher's claim and the researcher's
> actions are different subjects.)
>
------snip
> I started this thread making the first two assertions, with
> regard to empirical research generally, and economics
> specifically.
Now, my problem with the first two assertions is that they
do not apply to any economic theory I've heard of, though
some may come closer than others.
Following the red ant analogy: The red ant researcher was
doing his research in a greenhouse in Disney's Fantasy Land,
his model of the world. His objective report that this
species of red ant nests only in jujuberry trees, is
correct and objective. But the report is useless in the
real world.
Is such a report, published in the real world, objective or
subjective? Surely it is subjective because it is based on
his personal, biased understanding of what constitutes the
real world, a false understanding in this instance. There
is today NO objective economic theory. All current economic
theory has a subjective foundation. Arguably this is
inherent in the field of study and economists need not
apologize for it. But they should not be denying it.
There can by objective econometrics, the reporting of
factual data, without theorizing. But the selection of WHAT
to report is subjective and this is significant if the
thoughtful, prejudiced selection of factual data is used for
a policy-influencing purpose. Subjectivity enters because
of the underlying, subjective theory.
Mason Clark
Mason A. Clark
> Given the venom and contempt which you attempt to display around here,
> and the sour and unpleasant net personality which you in fact do
> display, nobody would believe you if you posted that two and two made
> four, until they had checked it on their own fingers.
>
> -dlj.
>
My God, the ultimate irony achieved, and in my lifetime.
I surrender the field to David Lloyd-Jones.
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <3186695e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> doing his research in a greenhouse in Disney's Fantasy Land,
> his model of the world. His objective report that this
> species of red ant nests only in jujuberry trees, is
> correct and objective. But the report is useless in the
> real world.
I fail to see the relevance of this analogy. It would be
apt of economists studied only artificially constrained
economies -- say, of students in econ classes working with
monopoly money. But clearly, economists study real-world
economies.
> ... But the selection of WHAT to report is subjective
> and this is significant if the thoughtful, prejudiced
> selection of factual data is used for a policy-influencing
> purpose. ...
Here, the analogy is to the red ant researcher observing nesting
place, rather than, say, mating patterns or how red ants
coordinate their legs to perambulate. Clark is right that there
*are* significant issues, in both biology and economics, in
choosing what questions to explore. I would point, however, that
a criticism of either field on these grounds requires extensive
knowledge of the range of questions that the fields have
explored.
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <318632...@ilhawaii.net>,> "value-free". ...
A statement that, as Hanson uses it, is so vague as to be
meaningless. In the meantime, Hanson does not address my
two claims, to which he formerly objected, and which,
unlike his meanderings, are relevant to much of the
implications Hanson would draw. And he has also left
behind his absurd claim that everyone who does not work
on decreasing birth defects therefore insufficiently
values the importance of doing this.
Ah, well. Back to the Hanson cartoon show ...
> I have compared Eichmann's claim of "just doing his job",
> without concern for his victims, to economists advocating
> "more of the same", without concern for capitalism's victims.
Economists do not all advocate the same thing. Virtually all
advocate changes from the way things are now. Hanson
clearly does not know what they advocate.
Jay Hanson
Russell Turpin wrote:
> In article <318632...@ilhawaii.net>,
> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> > I started this thread claiming that economics is not
> > "value-free". ...
>
> A statement that, as Hanson uses it, is so vague as to be
> meaningless. In the meantime, Hanson does not address my
Then let's try to be a little more specific. According
to your own morals, do you feel that it is ok to give
corporations (machines) the license to kill your kids
for profit (larger numbers)?
Consider my essay when answering:
Jay
Jay Hanson
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
-> >The point is that the theories in your texbooks are based on false
-> >assumptions (and alchemy).
->
-> Since when did assumptions have to be true? If they were true we
-> wouldn't call them "assumptions" now, would we? Assumptions are,
-> however, an extremely useful tool of analysis if chosen with
-> sufficient informed care. Alchemy we leave to the New Age folks at
-> Colorado State.
Wanna bet? Read:
MONEY AND MAGIC: A Critique of the Modern Economy
in the Light of Goethe's FAUST, Hans Cristoph Binswanger;
The Univ Chicago Press, 1994; ISBN 0-226-05185-4
-> > If follows that conclusions such
as
-> >"selfish humans rarely end in Pareto optimum", which derive from
-> >false assumptions, are questionable at best and propaganda at worst.
->
-> Markku's comment here is clearly an example of informed opinion, not a
-> reasoned syllogism from assumptions. This you would understand if you
-> knew enough economics to understand what he is saying. Whether or not
-> you agree with it depends on how close is acceptable to you.
Markku's comment is either an example of unsupportable propaganda
designed to keep the elites in power or childish stupidity. Take
your pick.
->Given the venom and contempt which you attempt to display around here,
->and the sour and unpleasant net personality which you in fact do
I really hate to rain on your parade, but at least I am not
advocating economic homicide.
As our society disintegrates in the coming century, and gang rape
and ethnic cleansing becomes one of the most unpleasant economic
"externalities" of all. Perhaps you will still be able to convince
your kids that economics was "value-free", and "I was just doing
my job", but I really doubt it.
Jay
---
In 1942, Stauffenberg had a picture of Hitler in his room. Asked
how this is possible, he replied: so that everyone can see the
disproportions of this face that one has to reject as soon as
one looks at it. The question arises: why did he not see that
in 1933? Why did he, in 1933, march as en officer at the head
of a parade, full of enthusiasm for this great popular movement?
Why did the generals, from 1933 on, accept rearmament, step by
step, from Hitler's hands in the conviction of acting in the
national interest? They identify the interest of their army, of
Germany, with National Socialism. This is what Hannah Arendt
wants to bring out. Why? Because she speaks in her reportage
about Eichmann's conscience -- one main topic of the trial. In
order to comprehend this conscience of Eichmann's she has to
refer to the world around him and asks about conscience in
Germany. And here she is indeed provocatively radical. She
wants to demonstrate the following: in the world around
Eichmann conscience had become uncertain; indeed in many
respects it is open to doubt whether conscience in this Germany
had not generally been lost -- at least that which the world had
called conscience up to then. This is a very provocative
statement in light of the fact that there were some magnificent
and in their way admirable individuals such as Ludwig
Beck, Julius Leber and others! But it is her basic thesis that
is decisive here. And here she goes so far as to state: this
other Germany was also drawn into the uncertainty of conscience,
for up to the very end this other Germany did not consider as
absolute the demand for unconditional surrender but had
continued to hope -- indeed had originally demanded -- that
unconditional surrender would no longer be necessary once
another state had arisen out of the freedom of the German
conspiracy and Hitler had been destroyed. They did not
understand that at that time the Allies saw Germany necessarily
as a whole because the German people devoted their whole
strength and all their skill [to the war effort] so that Hitler
almost conquered Europe and the rest of the world, and
tremendous efforts were necessary on the part of the rest of the
world, and great sacrifices by the Anglo-Saxons, French and
others, in order to destroy in its very core what had become a
danger for all of humanity, and in any case meant the end for
Germany. It simply never occurred to these conspirators that
the Allies could not but identify this collaboration of the
power and of the fighting capacity on the part of this huge
[German] army with Hitler. They believed they could dissociate
themselves from him simply by going their own way. For Hannah
Arendt this was, as she remarks in an aside, a totally unclear
standpoint, i.e., one where conscience did not even come close
to the simple, definite fundamentals of human conscience as
such. [p.p. 514-515]
Now, however, Hannah Arendt goes further and tries to understand
Eichmann as much as possible with the means at her disposal,
i.e., his own testimony and the rather sparse reports from
earlier days. While the people in Jerusalem expect an evil
demon, she liberates herself completely from all such
preconceptions and realistically poses herself the following
task: He is a human being, I must try to see to what extent I
can understand him. She finds out in the process that originally
Eichmann did not in his own mind subscribe to the mass murder,
indeed such a violent solution was, as he says, alien to him.
She now proceeds to show -- and this was criticized as an error on
her part -- how Eichmann's conscience changed in the course of
four weeks. His obedience toward the greatest man of his time
who had proved himself to be just that by emerging from the
lower strata of society to become the leader of a gigantic
empire, necessitated Eichmann's realignment of his conscience.
For Hannah Arendt, the ultimate decisive factor in Eichmann's
turnabout of conscience was his participation in the Wannsee
Conference. There he saw to his great astonishment -- as he said in
Jerusalem -- that all these respectable personages (he had the
greatest respect for bourgeois society) not only agreed as a
matter of course but followed his remarks eagerly and
enthusiastically. Therefore he was convinced he must be doing
the right thing. He emphasized (in Jerusalem) that no one
contradicted him, neither priest nor politician nor one of the
bureaucrats -- no one. This confirmed Eichmann in the turnabout of
his conscience. Hannah Arendt believes she proved this turnabout
because of the fact that Eichmann had rerouted the first
deportation to the East, which was scheduled to go to Riga, to
Minsk instead. He knew that in Riga all deportees would be
killed immediately. Because he ordered this rerouting on his own
initiative, he had great trouble with the people in Minsk.
Himmler himself had to square matters. Here Hannah Arendt sees
the last slight stirrings of his conscience. As far as he was
able he tried not to send the people to their death. -- The matter
sounds dubious, not sufficiently plausible really to prove this
turnabout of conscience. The proof lies in fact only in
Eichmann's testimony in Jerusalem. He had forgotten what really
occurred at that time and it was proved only in retrospect,
albeit through documents.
Hannah Arendt proceeds step by step in this matter, intending to
understand Eichmann: how does he get to be that way? Thus there
comes into being a picture of Eichmann with which Hannah Arendt
obviously is dissatisfied: a man who, being thoughtless, does
not realize what he is in fact doing. Eichmann stands revealed
as a banal figure. This self-denouement of banality defies the
expectation of an evil demon to such an extent that it was an
offense to all who believed that only a devil could have
murdered the Jews. Hannah Arendt sees the horror in just this
fact. It is much easier to fall victim to a devil or to a
sinister historical law than to such banality on the part of a
human being whom, in the final analysis, I must consider to be a
clown and who can gain control under such circumstances. She
states that, after all, the whole phenomenon of National
Socialism was not demonic in character, that there could rise up
from the totally commonplace, undemonic, quasi out of the gutter
what then was to dominate all Germans and beyond that an
infinity of people. The totally unremarkable nature of those who
exercised this power, from Hitler downward, is something so
frightening that one resists strongly having to deny all
demonism. But it is just this banality that can rule the world.
This is what one refuses to accept. Hannah Arendt judges
according to this point of view the niveau, i.e., the spiritual
level of the person. To maintain the total lack of niveau of
this phenomenon, this is an insult to the Jews, to the Germans,
indeed beyond them to many others. [p.p. 517-518]
KARL JASPERS: Basic Philosophical Writings,
Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Pepper; Humanities Press,1994;
ISBN 0-391-03871-0
Mason A. Clark
David Lloyd-Jones was quoted as having written:
> Since when did assumptions have to be true? If they were true we
What is an "assumption?" Is it the same as an "axiom," as
someone here suggested.
If an assumption is not true, should the conclusions be
given any weight? Should they be accepted as ultimate
Truth?
If it is not necessary for assumptions (axioms?) to be true,
is there any logical reason for requiring the subsequent
logic to be true, i.e., correct?
If I calculate the path of a missile, assuming no air
friction, I don't expect to hit the target. The assumption
is useful in a preliminary exercise, but I don't declare the
result to be unchallengable Truth.
Establishment economics makes assumptions which may not
represent the real world. The conclusions are then
represented to be Truth and all challenges are put down to
vile ignorance.
Perhaps worse in its insiduousness is the practice of not
reporting the assumptions, perhaps being unaware of them.
At least, in doing dirty physics, the physicist publishes
the assumptions used to make a clean problem, e.g. the
assumption of no friction. Economists should emulate.
Mason Clark
Markku Stenborg
In article <3185AE...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
>Markku Stenborg wrote:
[snip]
>Markku you have apperently missed the whole point in this exercise.
>
>The point is that the theories in your texbooks are based on false
>assumptions (and alchemy). If follows that conclusions such as
Please tell which of the assumptions are false? Or, how about even
describing what the assumptions are?
Didn't think so.
>"selfish humans rarely end in Pareto optimum", which derive from
>false assumptions, are questionable at best and propaganda at worst.
Eh? All assumptions are false, to a degree, they wouldn't be assumptions
if they weren't, they'd be facts, propositions, theorems, and like.
>Why can't you see that?
I've done permanent damage to my soul by actually studying Econ before
expressing my views on it?
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <318632...@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>>> I started this thread claiming that economics is not
>>> "value-free". ...
I responded:
>> A statement that, as Hanson uses it, is so vague as to be
>> meaningless. In the meantime, Hanson does not address my
Hanson:
> Consider my essay ...
I am happy to let Hanson's essay stand as the final evidence
of my claim.
David Lloyd-Jones
mas...@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>At least, in doing dirty physics, the physicist publishes
>the assumptions used to make a clean problem, e.g. the
>assumption of no friction. Economists should emulate.
And the evidence for this putative superiority of physicists' practice
is... ?
-dlj.
Jay Hanson
Markku Stenborg wrote:
>
> In article <3185AE...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
> writes:
> >Markku Stenborg wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Markku you have apperently missed the whole point in this exercise.
> >
> >The point is that the theories in your texbooks are based on false
> >assumptions (and alchemy). If follows that conclusions such as
>
> Please tell which of the assumptions are false? Or, how about even
> describing what the assumptions are?
I will answer you in two posts to make it easier to follow.
First, here are some clippings from a good book. I am
extracting only the paragraph headings. Anyone who is
interested in the mythology that underlies neoclassical
economics and science, should read it.
ENERGY AND THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY, John Peet;
Island Press, 1992. http://www.islandpress.com
Phone: 800-828-1302 or 707-983-6432; FAX: 707-983-6164
ENERGY AND THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY, John Peet;
Island Press, 1992. http://www.islandpress.com
Phone: 800-828-1302 or 707-983-6432; FAX: 707-983-6164
MYTHS OF THE POLITICAL-ECONOMIC WORLD VIEW
THE MEANING OF MYTHS
MYTHS OF THE WORLD VIEW
The Myth of Unlimited Resources
The Prime Myth
The Myth of Divine Authority
MYTHS OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR
The Myth of Primacy of the Individual
The Myth of Rational Behavior
The Myth of Bounded Rationality
The Myth of Freedom
The Myth of Universal Property Rights
The Myth of the Free Market
The Myth of Utility
The Myth of Value
Money Fetishism
The Myth of Discounting
The Myth of the Invisible Hand
The Myth of Competition
The Myth of Efficiency
The Myth of Stability
The Myth of Substitution
MYTHS OF MARKET FAILURE
THE MYTH OF ENERGY AS COMMODITY
THE MYTH OF ENVIRONMENT AS COMMODITY
PROBLEMS IN ECONOMICS
The Myth of Objectivity in Economics
THE PLACE OF ECONOMICS
A WIDER PERSPECTIVE FOR ECONOMICS
MYTHS OF SCIENCE AND ENERGY
THE MYTH OF LINEARITY
THE MYTH OF SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY
THE MYTH OF THE TECHNICAL FIX
THE MYTH OF CHEAP ENERGY
THE MYTH OF RENEWABILITY
THE MYTH OF SUSTAINABILITY OF INDUSTRIALIZED SOCIETY
THE PLACE OF SCIENCE
Jay
Jay Hanson
Markku Stenborg wrote:
> >"selfish humans rarely end in Pareto optimum", which derive from
> >false assumptions, are questionable at best and propaganda at worst.
>
> Eh? All assumptions are false, to a degree, they wouldn't be assumptions
> if they weren't, they'd be facts, propositions, theorems, and like.
Markku they are a lot of folks who do strange things but don't
call it science. If an assumption is popperian false or impossible
(such as a perpetual motion machine) respectable scientists drop
the falsified assumption and move on. However economists defend
their assumptions to the death, which makes economics something
other than respectable science (you see how much respect I have
for economists). In fact, the more one scrathces economics, the
more convinced one becomes that "economics is just politics in
disguise". (Henderson)
I suppose that there may be something strange about the training
economists recieve that makes them incapable of critical thinking.
Here is a short essay by Daly, see if you get anything out of it:
===============================================================
VALUING THE EARTH: Economics, Ecology, Ethics
Herman E. Daly and Kenneth N. Townsend (1993) -- MIT Press
[p. 267]
Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem by Herman E. Daly
Impossibility statements are the very foundation of science. It
is impossible to: travel faster than the speed of light;
create or destroy matter-energy; build a perpetual motion
machine, etc. By respecting impossibility theorems we avoid
wasting resources on projects that are bound to fail.
Therefore economists should be very interested in impossibility
theorems, especially the one to be demonstrated here, namely
that it is impossible for the world economy to grow its way out
of poverty and environmental degradation. In other words,
sustainable growth is impossible.
In its physical dimensions the economy is an open subsystem of
the earth ecosystem, which is finite, nongrowing, and
materially closed. As the economic subsystem grows it
incorporates an ever greater proportion of the total ecosystem
into itself and must reach a limit at 100 percent, if not
before. Therefore its growth is not sustainable. The term
"sustainable growth" when applied to the economy is a bad
oxymoron -- self-contradictory as prose, and unevocative as
poetry.
Challenging the Economic Oxymoron
Economists will complain that growth in GNP is a mixture of
quantitative and qualitative increase and therefore not
strictly subject to physical laws. They have a point.
Precisely because quantitative and qualitative change are very
different it is best to keep them separate and call them by the
different names already provided in the dictionary. To grow
means "to increase naturally in size by the addition of
material through assimilation or accretion." To develop means
"to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring
gradually to a fuller, greater, or better state." When
something grows it gets bigger. When something develops it
gets different. The earth ecosystem develops (evolves), but
does not grow. Its subsystem, the economy, must eventually
stop growing, but can continue to develop. The term
"sustainable development" therefore makes sense for the
economy, but only if it is understood as "development without
growth" -- i.e., qualitative improvement of a physical economic
base that is maintained in a steady state by a throughput of
matter-energy that is within the regenerative and assimilative
capacities of the ecosystem. Currently the term "sustainable
development" is used as a synonym for the oxymoronic
"sustainable growth." It must be saved from this perdition.
Politically it is very difficult to admit that growth, with its
almost religious connotations of ultimate goodness, must be
limited. But it is precisely the nonsustainability of growth
that gives urgency to the concept of sustainable development.
The earth will not tolerate the doubling of even one grain of
wheat 64 times, yet in the past two centuries we have developed
a culture dependent on exponential growth for its economic
stability (Hubbert, 1976). Sustainable development is a
cultural adaptation made by society as it becomes aware of the
emerging necessity of nongrowth. Even "green growth" is not
sustainable. There is a limit to the population of trees the
earth can support, just as there is a limit to the populations
of humans and of automobiles. To delude ourselves into
believing that growth is still possible and desirable if only
we label it "sustainable" or color it "green" will just delay
the inevitable transition and make it more painful.
Limits to Growth?
If the economy cannot grow forever then by how much can it
grow? Can it grow by enough to give everyone in the world
today a standard of per capita resource use equal to that of
the average American? That would turn out to be a factor of
seven,*l a figure that is neatly bracketed by the Brundtland
Commission's call (Brundtland et al., 1987) for the expansion
of the world economy by a factor of five to ten. The problem
is that even expansion by a factor of four is impossible if
Vitousek et al. (1986, pp. 368-373) are correct in their
calculation that the human economy currently preempts
one-fourth of the global net primary product of photosynthesis
(NPP). We cannot go beyond 100 percent, and it is unlikely that
we will increase NPP since the historical tendency up to now
is for economic growth to reduce global photosynthesis. Since
land-based ecosystems are the more relevant, and we preempt 40
percent of land-based NPP, even the factor of four is an
overestimate. Also, reaching 100 percent is unrealistic since
we are incapable of bringing under direct human management all
the species that make up the ecosystems upon which we depend.
Furthermore it is ridiculous to urge the preservation of
biodiversity without being willing to halt the economic growth
that requires human takeover of places in the sun occupied by
other species.
If growth up to the factor of five to ten recommended by the
Brundtland Commission is impossible, then what about just
sustaining the present scale -- i.e., zero net growth? Every
day we read about stress-induced feedbacks from the ecosystem
to the economy, such as greenhouse buildup, ozone layer
depletion, acid rain, etc., which constitute evidence that even
the present scale is unsustainable. How then can people keep
on talking about "sustainable growth" when: (a) the present
scale of the economy shows clear signs of unsustainability,
(b) multiplying that scale by a factor of five to ten as
recommended by the Brundtland Commission would move us from
unsustainability to imminent collapse, and (c) the concept
itself is logically self-contradictory in a finite, nongrowing
ecosystem? Yet sustainable growth is the buzz word of our
time. Occasionally it becomes truly ludicrous, as when writers
gravely speak of "sustainable growth in the rate of increase of
economic activity." Not only must we grow forever, we must
accelerate forever! This is hollow political verbiage, totally
disconnected from logical and physical first principles.
Alleviating Poverty, Not Angelizing GNP
The important question is the one that the Brundtland
Commission leads up to, but does not really face: How far can
we alleviate poverty by development without growth? I suspect
that the answer will be a significant amount, but less than
half. One reason for this belief is that if the five- to
tenfold expansion is really going to be for the sake of the
poor, then it will have to consist of things needed by the
poor -- food, clothing, shelter -- not information services.
Basic goods have an irreducible physical dimension and their
expansion will require growth rather than development, although
development via improved efficiency will help. In other words,
the reduction in resource content per dollar of GNP observed in
some rich countries in recent years cannot be heralded as
severing the link between economic expansion and the
environment, as some have claimed. Angelized GNP will not
feed the poor. Sustainable development must be development
without growth -- but with population control and wealth
redistribution -- if it is to be a serious attack on poverty.
In the minds of many people, growth has become synonymous with
increase in wealth. They say that we must have growth to be
rich enough to afford the cost of cleaning up and curing
poverty. That all problems are easier to solve if we are
richer is not in dispute. What is at issue is whether growth
at the present margin really makes us richer. There is
evidence that in the US it now makes us poorer by increasing
costs faster than it increases benefits (Daly and Cobb, 1989,
appendix). In other words we appear to have grown beyond the
optimal scale.
Defining the Optimal Scale
The concept of an optimal scale of the aggregate economy
relative to the ecosystem is totally absent from current
macroeconomic theory. The aggregate economy is assumed to grow
forever. Microeconomics, which is almost entirely devoted to
establishing the optimal scale of each microlevel activity by
equating costs and benefits at the margin, has neglected to
inquire if there is not also an optimal scale for the
aggregate of all micro activities. A given scale (the product
of population times per capita resource use) constitutes a
given throughput of resources and thus a given load on the
environment, and can consist of many people each consuming
little, or fewer people each consuming correspondingly more.
An economy in sustainable development adapts and improves in
knowledge, organization, technical efficiency, and wisdom; and
it does this without assimilating or accreting, beyond some
point, an ever greater percentage of the matter-energy of the
ecosystem into itself, but rather stops at a scale at which the
remaining ecosystem (the environment) can continue to function
and renew itself year after year. The nongrowing economy is
not static -- it is being continually maintained and renewed
as environment.
What policies are implied by the goal of sustainable
development, as here defined? Both optimists and pessimists
should be able to agree on the following policy for the US
(sustainable development should begin with the industrialized
countries). Strive to hold throughput constant at present
levels (or reduced truly sustainable levels) by taxing resource
extraction, especially energy, very heavily. Seek to raise
most public revenue from such resource severance taxes, and
compensate (achieve revenue neutrality) by reducing the income
tax, especially on the lower end of the income distribution,
perhaps even financing a negative income tax at the very low
end. Optimists who believe that resource efficiency can
increase by a factor of ten should welcome this policy, which
raises resource prices considerably and would give powerful
incentive to just those technological advances in which they
have so much faith. Pessimists who lack that technological
faith will nevertheless be happy to see restrictions placed on
the size of the already unsustainable throughput. The
pessimists are protected against their worst fears; the
optimists are encouraged to pursue their fondest dreams. If
the pessimists are proven wrong and the enormous increase in
efficiency actually happens, then they cannot complain. They
got what they most wanted, plus an unexpected bonus. The
optimists, for their part, can hardly object to a policy that
not only allows but gives a strong incentive to the very
technical progress on which their optimism is based. If they
are proved wrong at least they should be glad that the
throughput-induced rate of environmental destruction has been
slowed. Also severance taxes are harder to avoid than income
taxes and do not reduce incentives to work.
At the project level there are some additional policy
guidelines for sustainable development. Renewable resources
should be exploited in a manner such that:
(1) harvesting rates do not exceed regeneration rates; and
(2) waste emissions do not exceed the renewable assimilative
capacity of the local environment.
Balancing Nonrenewable and Renewable Resources.
Nonrenewable resources should be depleted at a rate equal to
the rate of creation of renewable substitutes. Projects based
on exploitation of nonrenewable resources should be paired with
projects that develop renewable substitutes. The net rents
from the nonrenewable extraction should be separated into an
income component and a capital liquidation component. The
capital component would be invested each year in building up a
renewable substitute. The separation is made such that by the
time the nonrenewable is exhausted, the substitute renewable
asset will have been built up by investment and natural growth
to the point where its sustainable yield is equal to the income
component. The income component will have thereby become
perpetual, thus justifying the name "income," which is by
definition the maximum available for consumption while
maintaining capital intact. It has been shown (El Serafy,
1989, pp. 10-18) how this division of rents into capital and
income depends upon: (1) the discount rate (rate of growth of
the renewable substitute); and (2) the life expectancy of the
nonrenewable resource (reserves divided by annual depletion).
The faster the biological growth of the renewable substitute
and the longer the life expectancy of the nonrenewable, the
greater will be the income component and the less the capital
set-aside. "Substitute" here should be interpreted broadly to
include any systemic adaptation that allows the economy to
adjust the depletion of the nonrenewable resource in a way
that maintains future income at a given level (e.g., recycling
in the case of minerals). Rates of return for the paired
projects should be calculated on the basis of their income
component only.
However, before these operational steps toward sustainable
development can get a fair hearing, we must first take the
conceptual and political step of abandoning the
thought-stopping slogan of "sustainable growth."
Note
*1. Consider the following back-of-the-envelope calculation,
based on the crude estimate that the US currently uses 1/3 of
annual world resource flows (derived from National Commission
on Materials Policy, 1973). Let R be current world resource
consumption. Then R13 is current US resource consumption, and
R/3 divided by 250 million is present per capita US resource
consumption. Current world per capita resource consumption
would be R divided by 5.3 billion. For future world per capita
resource consumption to equal present US per capita
consumption, assuming constant population, R must increase by
some multiple, call it M. Then M times R divided by 5.3
billion must equal R/3 divided by 250 million. Solving for M
gives 7. World resource flows must increase sevenfold if all
people are to consume resources at the present US average.
But even the sevenfold increase is a gross underestimate of the
increase in environmental impact, for two reasons. First,
because the calculation is in terms of current flows only with
no allowance for the increase in accumulated stocks of capital
goods necessary to process and transform the greater flow of
resources into final products. Some notion of the magnitude of
the extra stocks needed comes from Harrison Brown's estimate
that the "standing crop" of industrial metals already embodied
in the existing stock of artifacts in the ten richest nations
would require more than 60 years' production of these metals
at 1970 rates. Second, because the sevenfold increase of net
usable minerals and energy will require a much greater increase
in gross resource flows, since we must mine ever less
accessible deposits and lower grade ores. It is the gross flow
that provokes environmental impact.
References
Brundtland, G. H., et al. 1987. Our Common Future: Report of
the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Daly, H. E., and J. B. Cobb, Jr. 1989. For the Common Good:
Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment and
a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press.
El Serafy, S. 1989. "The Proper Calculation of Income from
Depletable Natural Resources." In Y. J. Ahmad, S. El Serafy,
and E. Lutz, eds., Environmental Accounting for Sustainable
Development, a UNEP-World Bank Symposium. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
Hubbert, M. King. 1976. "Exponential Growth as a Transient
Phenomenon in Human History." In Margaret A. Storm, ed.,
Societal Issues: Scientific Viewpoints. New York: American
Institute of Physics. (Reprinted in this volume.)
National Commission on Materials Policy. 1973. Material Needs
and the Environment Today and Tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: US
Government Printing Office
Vitousek, Peter M., Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and
Pamela A. Matson. 1986. "Human Appropriation of the Products
of Photosynthesis." BioScience 34. (6 May).
===============================================================
VALUING THE EARTH: Economics, Ecology, Ethics
Herman E. Daly and Kenneth N. Townsend (1993) -- MIT Press
To order this book call MIT Press 800-356-0343 or 617-253-2884
===============================================================
Chris Auld
mas...@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
>If an assumption is not true, should the conclusions be
>given any weight? Should they be accepted as ultimate
>Truth?
There is a huge literature on economic methodology. Please
read some of it.
>Perhaps worse in its insiduousness is the practice of not
>reporting the assumptions, perhaps being unaware of them.
Mason, have you ever actually read one word of one paper in
a peer-reviewed economics journal?
--
Chris Auld Department of Economics
Internet: au...@qed.econ.queensu.ca Queen's University
Office: (613)545-2264 Kingston, ON K7L 3N6
Markku Stenborg
In article <318729...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
>>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>-> >The point is that the theories in your texbooks are based on false
>-> >assumptions (and alchemy).
Actually, in your rantings, there rarely seems to be a point.
>-> Since when did assumptions have to be true? If they were true we
>-> wouldn't call them "assumptions" now, would we? Assumptions are,
>-> however, an extremely useful tool of analysis if chosen with
>-> sufficient informed care. Alchemy we leave to the New Age folks at
>-> Colorado State.
And to your sect.
>Wanna bet? Read:
> MONEY AND MAGIC: A Critique of the Modern Economy
> in the Light of Goethe's FAUST, Hans Cristoph Binswanger;
> The Univ Chicago Press, 1994; ISBN 0-226-05185-4
>
>-> > If follows that conclusions such
>as
>-> >"selfish humans rarely end in Pareto optimum", which derive from
>-> >false assumptions, are questionable at best and propaganda at worst.
>->
>-> Markku's comment here is clearly an example of informed opinion, not a
>-> reasoned syllogism from assumptions. This you would understand if you
>-> knew enough economics to understand what he is saying. Whether or not
>-> you agree with it depends on how close is acceptable to you.
>
>Markku's comment is either an example of unsupportable propaganda
>designed to keep the elites in power or childish stupidity. Take
>your pick.
My comment had nothing to do with keeping elites in power, as it must
then be obvious that it was childish stupidity. Right.
>->Given the venom and contempt which you attempt to display around here,
>->and the sour and unpleasant net personality which you in fact do
>
>I really hate to rain on your parade, but at least I am not
>advocating economic homicide.
No, you're advocating ignorance, lieing, eco-nut religion,
>As our society disintegrates in the coming century, and gang rape
>and ethnic cleansing becomes one of the most unpleasant economic
Are these new special fields in Econ: Econ of Gang Rapes and Econ of
Ethinic Cleansing.
>"externalities" of all. Perhaps you will still be able to convince
>your kids that economics was "value-free", and "I was just doing
You truly are free of all things valuable; the only value in these
ramblings is that they make it obvious to anyone that you are proud of
your ignorance.
>my job", but I really doubt it.
I'm not doing my job, I'm fooling on the 'Net. And I doubt you can
convince anyone that 1 plus 1 makes 2.
[snip]
Jay Hanson
Markku Stenborg wrote:
> >Markku's comment is either an example of unsupportable propaganda
> >designed to keep the elites in power or childish stupidity. Take
> >your pick.
>
> then be obvious that it was childish stupidity. Right.
FINALLY! We Agree! (Unless of course, you are a corporate
goon hired to spread disinformation. <G>)
> >->Given the venom and contempt which you attempt to display around here,
> >->and the sour and unpleasant net personality which you in fact do
> >
> >I really hate to rain on your parade, but at least I am not
> >advocating economic homicide.
>
> No, you're advocating ignorance, lieing, eco-nut religion,
Now now, Markku you are the religious fanatic --
Industrial Religion:
-------------------------
THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION revised 12/29/65
by Jay Hanson
To those who followed Columbus and Cortez, the New World
truly seemed incredible because of the natural endowments.
The land often announced itself with a heavy scent miles out
into the ocean. Giovanni da Verrazano in 1524 smelled the
cedars of the East Coast a hundred leagues out. The men of
Henry Hudson's Half Moon were temporarily disarmed by the
fragrance of the New Jersey shore, while ships running
farther up the coast occasionally swam through large beds of
floating flowers. Wherever they came inland they found a
rich riot of color and sound, of game and luxuriant
vegetation. Had they been other than they were, they might
have written a new mythology here. As it was, they took
inventory.
-- Frederick Turner
As the new century rises like a wave on the horizon, we sense
that we are not going to be able to ride this one out, that
uncontrollable currents will pull us to the bottom and tear us
apart. We have good reason to be frightened because we are in
the midst of a "paradigm shift"; a tidal wave of change that
threatens to overwhelm and annihilate us.
This new century brings with it dangers and challenges that we
can scarcely imagine. Human society has experienced paradigm
shifts in the past, but nothing compared to what is yet to come.
For 14 centuries, Ptolemy's astronomical theory (that
everything in the universe revolved around the Earth) was taught
as religious dogma throughout Western Christendom. But, Copernicus
changed all that and caused tremendous controversy in religion,
philosophy, and social theory by proving mathematically that the
Earth moves around the Sun.
The implications of Copernicus' ideas were devastating for the
Catholic Church. No longer was the Earth the center of the
universe. In fact, man might not have a special place in
creation at all! This was heresy on a grand scale. The medieval
churchmen even refused to peer into a telescope to "see for
themselves" because doing so meant defeat for their current
religious dogma.
Before Copernicus' time, knowledge was based on "authority"
(reading scriptures or philosophical tracts). In contrast, the
new knowledge was "empirical" (by scientific observation and
experiment). Ultimately of course, science defeated religious
dogma. The Copernican revolution successfully challenged ancient
authority and caused a paradigm shift in our entire conception of
the universe.
If we substitute "Industrial Religion" for Catholicism,
"ecology" for Copernicus' astronomy, and "Growthmen" for churchmen,
we can see that a parallel situation exists today.
In the 16th century, Martin Luther established a new form of
Christianity that ultimately came to regard work as the only way
to obtain love and approval. But behind the Christian face arose
a new secret religion that actually directs the character of
modern society. At the center of Industrial Religion is fear of
powerful male authorities, cultivation of the sense of guilt
for disobedience, and dissolution of community by promoting
hyperindividuality and mutual antagonism. The "sacred" in
Industrial Religion is work, property, profit and power.
Industrial Religion is incompatible with genuine Christianity
in that it reduces people to servants of the economy. The most
aggressive and ruthless are rewarded with even more power and
riches. Industrial Religion was destined to fail from the very
beginning because it actively destroys its own premises (both
morally and physically) by encouraging its members to dominate
and exploit each other and nature.
Evidence that Industrial Religion is failing, ipso facto, is
everywhere: desertification, topsoil loss, falling water
tables, filling garbage dumps, ozone depletion, global warming,
human sperm decline, rising cancer rates, loss of biodiversity,
collapsing ocean fisheries, depletion of oil, nuclear waste,
300,000 to 400,000 polluted ground water sites, pesticide-
resistant pests, antibiotic-resistant disease, billions of
people in the Third World planning to industrialize; social
problems such as jobless futures, the national debt, crack
babies, declining SAT scores, skyrocketing teenage pregnancy,
violence and suicide . . .
Growthmen are today's equivalent of the medieval churchmen.
They refuse to look at the scientific evidence and "see for
themselves", because once again, it means the defeat of their
current religious dogma; it means that they must give up their
faith that the problems caused by growth can be cured by more of
the cause.
There is however, one big difference between yesterday's
churchmen and today's Growthmen. Growthmen carry the collective
responsibility for the deaths of billions of lives as once-civil
societies gradually disintegrate into insurrection, chaos, and
oblivion.
[References are located at:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page2.htm ]
Jay
---
"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in
the lowest wage country is impeccable...because foregone earnings
from increased morbidity" are low. He adds that "the underpopulated
countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted; their air quality is
probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles...."
--World Bank's chief economist, Lawrence Summers
The Economist, Feb. 8, 1992
These cold-blooded economic calculations expose a global system of
destruction where national borders and human lives are viewed only
as a footnote to the capitalist market.
Internaut Capt Jack
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>-> >The point is that the theories in your texbooks are based on false
>-> >assumptions (and alchemy).
>-
>Wanna bet? Read:
> MONEY AND MAGIC: A Critique of the Modern Economy
> in the Light of Goethe's FAUST, Hans Cristoph Binswanger;
> The Univ Chicago Press, 1994; ISBN 0-226-05185-4
Has anyone ever noticed that the liberals have a problem with facts.
Here they even go so far to claim that a science, recognised by the
Nobel foundation, is in fact alchemy. This science disproves all their
emotion based opinions, so they claim it is false. This is the apitomy
of liberal arrogance, and why we have such economically unsound
programs as Social Security, Welfare, Medi-care, Tax and Spend,
Deficits, falling wages, etc etc. There is an entire field out there
that studies the issues being discussed in this news group. Millions
of man/woman hours are spent syudying them, and to presume that just
because you can find one liberal who is as niave as you are that wrote
a book that suports your emotion based opinion, you can discredit the
entire science is irresponsible to say the least. Have you ever seen
an atom? Any yet you believe it exists, don't you? I will take the
opinion of the Nobel scientists over some liberal's opinion anyday.
Just because economics disproves every liberal opinion you hold, does
not mean you are right, and economics is wrong. It just means you are
too confident in your emotions/opinions.
Jay Hanson
Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
> >Wanna bet? Read:
> > MONEY AND MAGIC: A Critique of the Modern Economy
> > in the Light of Goethe's FAUST, Hans Cristoph Binswanger;
> > The Univ Chicago Press, 1994; ISBN 0-226-05185-4
>
> Here they even go so far to claim that a science, recognised by the
> Nobel foundation, is in fact alchemy. This science disproves all their
> emotion based opinions, so they claim it is false. This is the apitomy
Capt Jack ole boy, you are locked in denial. The truth of
what we have done is simply too horrible for you to take in.
This so-called science doesn't "disprove", it "proselytizes".
According to the economist Lester Thurow, free-market theory
extends far beyond the realm of conventional economics:
"It is, in short . . . also a political philosophy, often
becoming something approaching a religion." 42
Concerning the so-called "science" in this dicipline, he says:
"No other discipline attempts to make the world act as it
thinks the world should act. But of course what Homo sapiens
does and what Homo oeconomicus should do are often quite
different. That, however, does not make the basic model
wrong, as it would in every other discipline. It just means
that actions must be taken to bend Homo sapiens into
conformity with Homo oeconomicus. So, instead of adjusting
theory to reality, reality is adjusted to theory." 44
> a book that suports your emotion based opinion, you can discredit the
> entire science is irresponsible to say the least. Have you ever seen
I didn't discredit economics, it did that on its own. <G>
> an atom? Any yet you believe it exists, don't you? I will take the
> opinion of the Nobel scientists over some liberal's opinion anyday.
> Just because economics disproves every liberal opinion you hold, does
> not mean you are right, and economics is wrong. It just means you are
> too confident in your emotions/opinions.
What's a liberal? Anyone who doesn't agree with your politics?
But, if you are enchanted by Noble prize winners, here is what
a hundred of them have to say about the economy:
----------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD SCIENTISTS' WARNING TO HUMANITY
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision
course. Human activities inflict harsh and often
irreversible damage on the environment and on critical
resources. If not checked, many of our current practices
put at serious risk the future that we wish for human
society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter
the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in
the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if
we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring
about.
THE ENVIRONMENT
The environment is suffering critical stress:
The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with
enhanced ultra-violet radiation at the earth's surface,
which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air
pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are
already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and
crops.
Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water
supplies endangers food production and other essential
human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface
waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80
countries, containing 40% of the world's population.
Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further
limits the supply.
Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe,
particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of
the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at
or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some
fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers
carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also
carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock
waste -- some of it toxic
Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive
Land abandonment, is a widespread byproduct of current
practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since
1945, 11% of the earth's vegetated surface has been
degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined
-- and per capita food production in many parts of the
world is decreasing.
Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and
temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At
present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in
a few years and most of the tropical rain forest will be
gone before the end of the next century. With them will
go large numbers of plant and animal species.
Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may
reach one third of all species now living, is especially
serious. We are losing the potential they hold for
providing medicinal and other benefits, and the
contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives
to the robustness of the world's biological systems and
to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself.
Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of
centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose
additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the
atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide
released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation,
may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global
warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects
ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential
risks are very great.
Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web
of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted
by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could
trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable
collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions
and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.
Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot
excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat
POPULATION
The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and
destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food
and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing
numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching
many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices
which damage the environment, in both developed and
underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the
risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond
repair.
Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth
put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any
efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt
the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits
to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world
population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion,
while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total
could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4
billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five
lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in
ten suffers serious malnutrition.
No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance
to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the
prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
WARNING
We the undersigned, senior members of the world's
scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies
ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and
the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be
avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be
irretrievably mutilated.
WHAT WE MUST DO
Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed
simultaneously:
1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under
control to restore and protect the integrity of the
earth's systems we depend on.
We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to
more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut
greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air
and water. Priority must be given to the development of
energy sources matched to third world needs -- small scale
and relatively easy to implement.
We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of
agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and
marine plant and animal species.
2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more
effectively.
We must give high priority to efficient use of energy,
water, and other materials, including expansion of
conservation and recycling.
3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only
if all nations recognize that it requires improved
social and economic conditions, and the adoption of
effective, voluntary family planning.
4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.
5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women
control over their own reproductive decisions.
The developed nations are the largest polluters in the
world today. They must greatly reduce their
overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources
and the global environment. The developed nations have the
obligation to provide aid and support to developing
nations, because only the developed nations have the
financial resources and the technical skills for these
tasks.
Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but
enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not,
we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from
injury when global biological systems are damaged. No
nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce
resources. In addition, environmental and economic
instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable
consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.
Developing nations must realize that environmental damage
is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts
to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go
unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in
spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest,
leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.
Success in this global endeavor will require a great
reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to
the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1
trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks
and should be diverted to the new challenges.
A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards
discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and
for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited
capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its
fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This
ethic must motivate a great movement, convince reluctant
leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples
themselves to effect the needed changes.
The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message
will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help
of many.
We require the help of the world community of scientists
-- natural, social, economic, political;
We require the help of the world's business and industrial
leaders;
We require the help of the worlds religious leaders; and
We require the help of the world's peoples.
We call on all to join us in this task.
==========================================================
PROMINENT INDIVIDUALS AMONG MORE THAN 1,500 SIGNATORIES
_Anatole Abragam, Physicist; Fmr. Member, Pontifical Academy
of Sciences; France
_Carlos Aguirre President, Academy of Sciences, Bolivia
_Walter Alvarez Geologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Viqar Uddin Ammad, Chemist, Pakistani & Third World
Academies, Pakistan
_Claude Allegre, Geophysicist, Crafoord Prize, France
_Michael Alpers Epidemiologist, Inst. of Med. Research, Papua
New Guinea
_Anne Anastasi, Psychologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Philip Anderson, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Christian Anfinsen, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_How Ghee Ang, Chemist, Third World Academy, Singapore
_Werner Arber, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Switzerland
_Mary Ellen Avery, Pediatrician, National Medal of Science,
USA
_Julius Axelrod, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Michael Atiyah, Mathematician; President, Royal Society;
Great Britain
_Howard Bachrach, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_John Backus, Computer Scientist, National Medal of Science,
USA
_Achmad Baiquni, Physicist, Indonesian & Third World
Academies, Indonesia
_David Baltimore, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_H. A. Barker, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Francisco J. Barrantes, Biophysicist, Third World Academy,
Argentina
_David Bates, Physicist, Royal Irish Academy, Ireland
_Alan Battersby, Chemist, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great
Britain
_Baruj Benacerraf, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Georg Bednorz, Nobel laureate, Physics; Switzerland
_Germot Bergold, Inst. Venezolano de Investigaciones
Cientificas, Venezuela
_Sune Bergstrom, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Sweden
_Daniel Bes, Physicist, Argentinean & Third World Academies,
Argentina
_Hans Bethe, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Arthur Birch Chemist, Australian Academy of Science,
Australia
_Michael Bishop, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Konrad Bloch, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Nicholaas Bloembergen, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_David Mervyn Blow, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great Britain
_Baruch Blumberg, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Bert Bolin, Meteorologist, Tyler Prize, Sweden
_Norman Borlaug, Agricultural Scientist, Nobel laureate,
Peace; USA & Mexico
_Frederick Bormann, Forest Ecologist; Past President,
Ecological Soc. of Amer.; USA
_Raoul Bott, Mathematician, National Medal of Science, USA
_Ronald Breslow, Chemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Ricardo Bressani, Inst. of Nutrition, Guatemalan & Third
World Academies, Guatemala
_Hermann Bruck, Astronomer, Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
Great Britain
_Gerardo Budowski, Natural Resources, Univ. Para La Paz,
Costa Rica
_E. Margaret Burbidge, Astronomer, National Medal of
Science, USA
_Robert Burris, Biochemist, Wolf Prize in Agriculture, USA
_Glenn Burton, Geneticist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Adolph Butenandt, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Fmr.
President, Max Planck Inst.; Germany
_Sergio Cabrera, Biologist, Univ. de Chile, Chile
_Paulo C. Campos, Medical scientist, Philippine & Third
World Academies, Philippines
_Ennio Candotti, Physicist; President, Brazilian Soc. Adv.
of Science; Brazil
_Henri Cartan, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, France
_Carlos Chagas, Biologist; Univ. de Rio de Janeiro; Fmr.
President, Pontifical Academy of Sciences; Brazil
_Sivaramakrishna Chandrasekhar, Center for Liquid Crystal
Research, India
_Georges Charpak, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
_Joseph Chatt, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great Britain
_Shiing-Shen Chern, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, China & USA
_Christopher Chetsanga, Biochemist, Affican & Third World
Academies, Zimbabwe
_Morris Cohen, Engineering, National Medal of Science, USA
_Stanley Cohen, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Stanley N. Cohen, Geneticist, Wolf Prize in Medicine, USA
_Mildred Cohn, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_E. J. Corey, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, USA
_John Cornforth, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Hector Croxatto, Physiologist, Pontifical & Third World
Academies, Chile
_Paul Crutzen, Chemist, Tyler Prize, Germany
_Partha Dasgupta, Economist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Jean Dausset, Nobel laureate, Medicine; France
_Ogulande Robert Davidson, Univ. Res. & Dev. Serv., African
Acad., Sierra Leone
_Margaret Davis, Ecologist, National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_Luis D'Croz, Limnologist, Univ. de Panama, Panama
_Gerard Debreu, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
_Johann Deisenhofer, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany &
USA
_Frederica de Laguna, Anthropologist, National Academy of
Sciences, USA
_Paul-Yves Denis, Geographer, Academy of Sciences, Canada
_Pierre Deligne, Mathematician, Crafoord Prize, France
_Frank Dixon, Pathologist, Lasker Award, USA
_Johanna Dobereiner, Biologist, First Sec., Brazilian
Academy of Sci.; Pontifical & Third World Academies,
Brazil
_Joseph Doob, Mathematician, National Medal of Science, USA
_Renato Dulbecco, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Heneri Dzinotyiweyi, Mathematician, African & Third World
Academies, Zimbabwe
_Manfred Eigen, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany
_Samuel Eilenberg, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, USA
_Mahdi Elmandjra, Economist; Vice President, African Academy
of Sciences; Morocco
_Paul Ehrlich, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Thomas Eisner, Biologist, Tyler Prize, USA
_Mohammed T. El-Ashry, Environmental scientist, Third World
Academy, Egypt & USA
_Gertrude Elion, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Aina Elvius, Astronomer, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_K. O. Emery, Oceanographer, National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_Paul Erdos, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, Hungary
_Richard Ernst, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Switzerland
_Vittorio Ersparmer, Pharmacologist, Accademia Nazionale dei
Lincei, Italy
_Sandra Faber, Astronomer, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Nina Federoff, Embryologist, National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_Herman Feshbach, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Inga Fischer-Hjalmars, Biologist, Royal Academy of
Sciences, Sweden
_Michael Ellis Fisher, Physicist, Wolf Prize in Physics,
Great Britain & USA
_Val Fitch, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Daflinn Follesdal, President, Norwegian Academy of Science;
Norway
_William Fowler, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Otto Frankel, Geneticist, Australian Academy of Sciences,
Australia
_Herbert Friedman, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Jerome Friedman, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Konstantin V. Frolov Engineer; Vice President, Russian
Academy of Sciences; Russia
_Kenichi Fukui, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Japan
_Madhav Gadgil, Ecologist, National Science Academy, India
_Mary Gaillard, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences. USA
_Carleton Gajdusek, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Robert Gallo, Research Scientist, Lasker Award, USA
_Rodrigo Gamez ,Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Costa
Rica
_Antonio Garcia-Bellido, Biologist, Univ. Auto. Madrid,
Royal Society, Spain
_Leopoldo Garcia-Collin, Physicist, Latin American & Third
World Academies, Mexico
_Percy Garnham, Royal Society & Pontifical Academy, Great
Britain
_Richard Garwin, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Georgii Georgiev, Biologist, Lenin Prize, Russia
_Humam Bishara Ghassib, Physicist, Third World Academy,
Jordan
_Ricardo Giacconi, Astronomer, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Eleanor J. Gibson, Psychologist, National Medal of Science,
USA
_Marvin Goldberger, Physicist; Fmr. President, Calif. Inst.
of Tech., USA
_Maurice Goldhaber, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Donald Glaser, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Sheldon Glashow, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_James Gowans, Wolf Prize in Medicine, France
_Roger Green, Anthropologist, Royal Society, New Zealand
_Peter Greenwood, Ichthyologist, Royal Society, Great
Britain
_Edward Goldberg, Chemist, Tyler Prize, USA
_Coluthur Gopolan, Nutrition Foundation of India, Indian &
Third World Academies, India
_Stephen Jay Gould, Paleontologist, Author, Harvard Univ.,
USA
_Roger Guillemin, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Herbert Gutowsky, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, USA
_Erwin Hahn, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Gonzalo Halffter, Ecologist, Inst. Pol. Nac. ,Mexico
_Kerstin Hall, Endocrinologist, Royal Academy of Sciences,
Sweden
_Mohammed Ahmed Hamdan, Mathematician, Third World, Academy,
Jordan
_Adnan Hamoui, Mathematician, Third World, Academy, Kuwait
_A. M. Harun-ar Rashid, Physicist; Sec., Bangladesh, Academy
of Sci., Bangladesh
_Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Physicist; Exec. Sec., Third World
Academy of Sciences; Sudan & Italy
_Ahmed Hassanli, Chemist, African Academy of Sciences,
Tanzania & Kenya
_Herbert Hauptman, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_Stephen Hawking, Mathematician, Wolf Prize in Physics,
Great Britain
_Elizabeth Hay, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Dudley Herschbach, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, USA
_Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Canada
_Antony Hewish, Nobel laureate, Physics; Great Britain
_George Hitchings, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great
Britain
_Roald Hoffman, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_Robert Holley, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Nick Holonyak, Electrical Engineer, National Medal of
Science, USA
_Lars Hormander, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, Sweden
_Dorothy Horstmann, Epidemiologist, National Academy of
Sciences, USA
_John Houghton, Meteorologist; Chairman, Science Working
Group, IPCC; Great Britain
_Sarah Hrdy, Anthropologist, National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_Kenneth Hsu, Geologist, Third World Academy, China &
Switzerland
_Kun Huang, Physicist, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
_Hiroshi Inose, Electrical Engineer; Vice President,
Engineering Academy; Japan
_Turner T. Isoun, Pathologist, African Academy of Sciences,
Nigeria
_Francois Jacob, Nobel laureate, Medicine; France
_Carl-Olof Jacobson Zoologist; Sec-Gen., Royal Academy of
Sciences; Sweden
_Dorothea Jameson, Psychologist, National Academy of
Sciences, USA
_Daniel Janzen, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Cecilia Jarlskog, Physicist, Royal Academy of Sciences,
Sweden
_Louise Johnson, Biophysicist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Harold Johnston, Chemist, Tyler Prize, USA
_Victor A. Kabanov, Chemist, Lenin Prize in Science, Russia
_Jerome Karle, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Robert Kates, Geographer, National Medal of Science, USA
_Frederick I. B. Kayanja, Vice-Chnclr., Mbarara Univ., Third
World Academy, Uganda
_Joseph Keller, Mathematician, National Medal of Science,
USA
_Henry Kendall, Nobel laureate, Physics; Chairman, Union of
Concerned Scientists; USA
_John Kendrew, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Elisabeth Kessler, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_Maung-U Khin, Pediatrician, Third World Academy, Myamnar &
USA
_Gurdev Khush, Agronomist, International Rice Institute,
Indian Natl. Sci. Academy, India & Philippines
_Susan Kieffer, Geologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Klaus von Klitzing, Nobel laureate, Physics; Germany
_Aaron Klug, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, Great Britain
_E. F. Knipling, Agricultural Researcher, National Medal of
Science, USA
_Walter Kohn, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Janos Kornai, Economist, Hungarian Academy of Science,
Hungary
_Aderemi Kuku, Mathematician, African & Third World Acads.,
Nigeria
_Ikuo Kushiro, Geologist, Japan Academy, Japan
_Devendra Lal, Geophysicist, National Science Academy, India
_Gerardo Lamas-Muller, Biologist, Museo de Historia Natural,
Peru
_Torvard Laurent, Physiological chemist; President, Royal
Academy of Sciences; Sweden
_Leon Lederman, Nobel laureate, Physics; Chr., Amer. Assn.
Adv. Sci.; USA
_Sang Soo Lee, Physicist, Korean & Third World Academies,
Rep. of Korea
_Yuan T. Lee, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_Susan Leeman PharmacologistX National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_Jean Marie Lehn, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; France
_Wassily Leontief, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Luna Leopold, Geologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Louis Leprince-Ringuet, Physicist, French & Pontifical
Academies, France
_Vladilen Letokhov, Physicist, Lenin Prize in Science,
Russia
_Rita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA & Italy
_Li Chang-lin, Environmental Sciences, Fudan University,
China
_Shan Tao Liao, Mathematician, Chinese & Third World
Academies, China
_William Lipscomb, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Jane Lubchenco, Zoologist; President-Elect, Ecological Soc.
of Amer.; USA
_Christopher Magazda, Limnologist, African Academy of
Sciences, Zimbabwe
_Lydia Phindile Makhubu, Chemist, Third World & African
Academies, Swaziland
_Khursheed Ahmad Malik, Microbiologist, Pakistan & Third
World Academies, Pakistan & Germany
_Lynn Margulis, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Paul Marks, Oncologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_George Martine, Inst. for Study of Society, Population, &
Nature; Brazil
_Frederico Mayor, Biochemist; Dir. Gen., UNESCO, Spain &
France Ernst Mayr, Zoologist, National Medal of Science,
USA
_Maclyn McCarty, Wolf Prize in Medicine, USA
_James McConnell, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
Ireland
_Digby McLaren, Past President, Royal Society of Canada;
Canada
_James Meade, Nobel laureate, Economics; Great Britain
_Jerrold Meinwald, Chemistry, Tyler Prize, USA
_M. G. K Menon, Physicist; President, International Council
of Scientific Unions; India
_Gennady Mesiatz, Physicist; Vice President, Russian Academy
of Sciences; Russia
_Jan Michalski, Biologist, Polish Academy of Science, Poland
_Hartmut Michel, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany
_Brenda Milner, Neurologist, Academy of Sciences, Canada
_Cesar Milstein, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Argentina & Great
Britain
_Franco Modigliani, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Andrei Monin, Oceanologist, State Prize, Russia
_Marcos Moshinsky, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, Mexico
_Nevill Mott, Nobel laureate, Physics; Great Britain
_Teruaki Mukaiyama, Chemist, Japan Academy, Japan
_Walter Munk, Geophysicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Anne Murray, Ethnographer, Royal Academy of Sciences,
Sweden
_Joseph Murray, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Noreen Murray, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Lawrence Mysak, Meteorologist; Vice President, Academy of
Science, Royal Society of Canada; Canada
_Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, Astrophysicist, Indian & Third
World Academies, India
_Anwar Nasim, Biologist, Third World Academy, Saudi Arabia
_Kim Nasmyth, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain &
Austria
_James Neel, Geneticist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Louis Neel, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
_Yuval Ne'eman, Physicist, Natl. Acad. of Sci. & Humanities,
Israel
_Oleg M. Nefedov, Chemist; Vice President, Russian Academy
of Sciences; Russia
_Erwin Neher, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Germany
_Marshall Nirenberg, Biochemist; Nobel laureate, Medicine;
USA
_Yasutomi Nishizuka, Biochemist, Lasker Award, Japan
_John S. Nkoma, Physicist, Third World Academy, Botswana
_Paul Nchoji Nkvvi, Anthropologist, African Academy,
Cameroon
_Howard Odum, Ecologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Bede Nwoye Okigbo, Agricultural Scientist; Dir., U.N. Unv.
Pgm. Natrl. Res. in Afr.; Nigeria & Kenya
_Ayub Khan Ommaya, Neurobiologist, Third World Academy,
Pakistan & USA
_Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Physicist, Fmr. Pres., Nigerian
Acad. of Sciences, Nigeria & Great Britain
_Mary Jane Osborn, Microbiologist, National Academy of
Scientists, USA
_Yuri Ossipyan, Physicist; Vice President, Russian Academy
of Sciences; Russia
_Autzr Singh Paintal, Physiologist, Fmr. President, Indian
National Science Academy, India
_George Pake, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_George Palade, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Mary Lou Pardue, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate, Chemistry & Pence, USA
_Barbara Pearse, Molecular Biologist, Royal Society, Great
Britain
_Muhammed Abed Peerally, Biologist, Third World Academy,
Mauritius
_Manuel Peimbert, Astronomer, Univ. Nac. Aut. de Mexico,
Mexico
_Roger Penrose, Mathematician, Wolf Prize in Physics, Great
Britain
_John Philip, Agricultural Science, Australian Academy of
Science, Australia
_Lilian Pickford, Physiologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_John R. Pierce, Electrical Engineer, National Medal of
Science, USA
_John Polanyi, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Canada
_George Porter, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Ilya Prigogine, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Belgium
_Giampietro Puppi, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, Italy
_Edward Purcell, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Atta ur-Rahman, Chemist, Pakistani & Third World Academies,
Pakistan
_G. N. Ramachandran, Mathematician, Inst. of Science, India
_Tiruppattur Ramakrishnan, Physicist, Indian & Third World
Academies, India
_Chintamani Rao, Inst. of Science, Indian and Pontifical
Academies, India
_Eduardo Rapoport, Ecologist, Third World Academy, Argentina
_Marianne Rasmuson, Geneticist, Royal Academy of Sciences,
Sweden
_Peter Raven, Director, Missouri Botanical Garden; National
Academy of Sciences, USA
_Martin Rees, Astronomer, Royal Society & Pontifical
Academy, Great Britain
_Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, Anthropologist, Columbian &
Third World Academies, Columbia
_Tadeus Reichstein, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Switzerland
_Frederick Reines, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Alexander Rich, Biologist, National & Pontifical Academies,
USA
_Burton Richter, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Ralph Riley, Wolf Prize in Agriculture, Great Britain
_Claude Rimington, Inst. for Cancer Research, Norwegian
Academy of Science, Norway
_Gustavo Rivas Mijares, Engineer; Fmr. President, Academy of
Sciences, Venezuela
_Frederick Robbins, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Wendell Roelofs, Entomologist, National Medal of Science,
USA
_Betty Roots, Zoologist, Academy of Sciences, Canada
_Miriam Rothschild, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Sherwood Rowland, Chemist; President, American Association
for the Advancement of Science; USA
_Janet Rowley, Physician, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Carlo Rubbia, Nobel laureate, Physics, Italy & Switzerland
_Vera Rubin, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Yuri Rudenko, Energy Research Inst., State Prize laureate,
Russia
_Elizabeth Russell, Jackson Laboratory, National Academy of
Sciences, USA
_Albert Sabin, Virologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Carl Sagan, Astrophysicist & Author, USA
_Roald Sagdeev, Physicist, Russian & Pontifical Academies,
Russia & USA
_Ruth Sager, Geneticist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Farrokh Saidi, Surgeon, Third World Academy, Iran
_Abdus Salam, Nobel laureate, Physics; President, Third
World Academy of Sciences, Pakistan & Italy
_Frederick Sanger, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Jose Sarukhan, Biologist, Third World Academy, Mexico
_Berta Scharrer,Neuroscientist, National Medal of Science,
USA
_Richard Schultes, Botanist, Tyler Prize, USA
_Melvin Schwartz, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Julian Schwinger, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Glenn Seaborg, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Michael Sela, Weizmann Inst., Pontifical Academy of
Science, Israel
_Arne Semb-Johansson, Entomologist, Norwegian Academy of
Science, Norway
_Salimuzzaman Siddiqui, Chemist, Pontifical & Third World
Academies, Pakistan
_Kai Siegbahn, Nobel laureate, Physics; Sweden
_Thomas Silou, Biochemist, African Academy of Sciences,
Congo
_Herbert Simon, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Alexej Sitenko, Physicist, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences,
Ukraine
_Jens Skou, Biophysicist, Royal Academy of Sciences,
Denmark
_Charles Slack, Agricultural Science, Royal Society, New
Zealand
_George Snell, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Roger Sperry, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Alexander Spirin, Biologistn Lenin Prize, Russia
_Earl Stadtman, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Thressa Stadtman, Biochemist, National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_Ledyard Stebbins, Geneticist, National Medal of Science,
USA
_Jack Steinberger, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA &
Switzerland
_Janos Szentgothai, Fmr. President, Hungarian Academy of
Sciences; Hungary
_Tan Jia-zhen, Geneticist, Shanghai Univ., China
_Andrezej Tarkowski, Embryologist, Polish [text missing]
_Valentine Telegdi, Wolf Prize in Physics, Switzerland
_Kirthi Tennakone, Physicist, Third World Academy, Sri Lanka
_Walter Thirring, Physicist, Austrian & Pontifical Academies,
Austria
_Donnall Thomas, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Jan Tinbergen, Nobel laureate, Economics; Netherlands
_Samuel C. C. Ting, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_James Tobin, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Alexander Todd, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Susumu Tonegawa, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Japan & USA
_Cheng Kui Tseng, Oceanologist, Chinese & Third World
Academies, China
_Hans Tuppy, Biochemist, Austrian & Pontifical Academies,
Austria
_James Van Allen, Physicist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Simon van der Meer, Nobel laureate, Physics; Netherlands &
Switzerland
_John Vane, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Great Britain
_Harold Varmus, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Martha Vaughan, Biochemist, National Academy of Sciences,
USA
_George Wald, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Henrik Wallgren, Zoologist, Society of Science & Letters,
Finland
_E. T. S. Walton, Nobel laureate, Physics, Ireland
_Prawase Wasi, Hematologist, Third World Academy, Thailand
_Gerald Wasserburg, Geophysicist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_James Watson, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Victor Weisskopf, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Thomas Weller, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Diter von Wettstein, Physiologist, Royal Academy of
Sciences, Denmark
_Fred Whipple, Astronomer, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Gilbert White, Geographer, Tyler Prize, USA
_Torsten Wiesel, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Jerome Wiesner, Physicist, Fmr. President, Mass. Inst. of
Tech., USA
_Maurice Wilkins, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Great Britain
_Geoffrey Wilkinson, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great
Britain
_Richard Willems, Geneticist, Estonian Biocentre, Estonia
_Edward O. Wilson, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Lawrence A. Wilson, Agricultural Science, Third World
Academy, Trinidad
_Evelyn Witkin, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Yang Fujia, Physicist, Chinese & Third World Academies,
China
_Alexander L. Yanshin, Geologist, Karpinsky Gold Medal,
Russia
_Yongyuth Yuthavong, Biochemist; Director, National Sci. &
Tech. Devl. Agency, Thailand
_Zhao Zhong-xian, Physicist, Chinese & Third World
Academies, China
_Zhou Guang-zhao, Physicist; President, Chinese Academy of
Sciences;, China
_Solly ZuckerInan, Zoologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
=========================================================
Over 1,500 members of national, regional, and international
science academies have signed the Warning. Sixtynine
nations from all parts of Earth are represented, including
each of the twelve most populous nations and the nineteen
largest economic powers. The full list includes a majority
of the Nobel laureates in the sciences. Awards and
institutional affiliations are listed for the purpose of
identification only. The Nobel Prize in medicine is for
physiology or medicine.
=========================================================
Union of Concerned Scientists, 96 Church Street,
Cambridge, Mass 02238-9105, USA
u...@igc.apc.org
http://www.ucsusa.org/
Phone - 617-547-5552 Fax - 617-864-9405
[Warning issued on November 18, 1992,
transcribed by Jay Hanson -- apologies for any typos]
Markku Stenborg
In article <3188C9...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
writes:
>Markku Stenborg wrote:
>
>> >Markku's comment is either an example of unsupportable propaganda
>> >designed to keep the elites in power or childish stupidity. Take
>> >your pick.
>>
>> My comment had nothing to do with keeping elites in power, as it must
>> then be obvious that it was childish stupidity. Right.
>
>FINALLY! We Agree! (Unless of course, you are a corporate
Yes, it is naive of me to try to conduct rational dicussion in Jay's
presence.
>goon hired to spread disinformation. <G>)
No. Though, any of youse guys know any filthy rich corporations who'd be
ready, willing and able to negotiate a deal?
>> >->Given the venom and contempt which you attempt to display around here,
>> >->and the sour and unpleasant net personality which you in fact do
>> >
>> >I really hate to rain on your parade, but at least I am not
>> >advocating economic homicide.
>>
>> No, you're advocating ignorance, lieing, eco-nut religion,
>
>Now now, Markku you are the religious fanatic --
>Industrial Religion:
[The usual mindless ramblings deleted]
Now, where have I advocated, explicitly or implicitly, anything remotely
connected to your silly inventions? Other than first educating myself on
Econ, and only then expressing my views on its contents etc.?
Mason A. Clark
> Anyone who is
> interested in the mythology that underlies neoclassical
> economics and science, should read it.
Jay's post raises a question: Is anyone on sci.econ
interested in the foundation ideas of economics, myth or
otherwise?
If so, can you post information or references on them?
Mason Clark
Mason A. Clark
Seems like a dumb question. The evidence is a voluminous
body of work by physicists and by economists.
My assertion is that examination of these bodies of work
will reveal that the physicists almost always reveal
explicitly, if it is not obvious, what assumptions they are
making. This is necessary so that others can replicate the
experiment or critique the theory. The evidence lies in
the fact of consensus.
On the other hand, most economists in their work do not
even know, much less reveal, what their assumptions are.
The evidence for this lies in the lack of consensus, not
only as to the conclusions, but as to the assumptions
underlying the work.
How many "schools" of physics are there? There are
specialities: classical, quantum, relativity, atomic,
nuclear, particle; experimental, theoretical. And there
is a continuous flow of propositions and challenges leading
to consensus. But "schools?"
How many "schools" of economics are there? Sets of
hard-working scholars who disagree? I won't waste
bits and bytes here with a list. Get a Marxian, a Hayekian,
and a Keynesian in the same room and watch the fur fly.
Actually, with one person from each economic "school," the
room would be a bit crowded. Filled with evidence.
Mason Clark
Mason A. Clark
On 1 May 1996 09:31:14 GMT, Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
wrote, defending his precious "economic science" from the
nipping of Jay Hanson and others:
>
> Please tell which of the assumptions are false? Or, how about even
> describing what the assumptions are?
>
book by a Mr. Peet. I have the chapter and plan to make
more of it available here.
>
> I've done permanent damage to my soul by actually studying Econ before
> expressing my views on it?
>
> Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
Yes, as a matter of fact. Because most economics
departments do not warn their students of the quick sand on
which the science of economics is built, the students become
unwittingly indoctrinated in the economic "laws" as
God-given Truths. The majority of them never recover.
There is more than ample evidence here on sci.econ.
Mason Clark
Markku Stenborg
In article <3187e34d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Mason A. Clark,
>
>What is an "assumption?" Is it the same as an "axiom," as
>someone here suggested.
Pretty much.
>If an assumption is not true, should the conclusions be
>given any weight? Should they be accepted as ultimate
>Truth?
If we know something to be true, there's no reason to assume it; you
could merely state the fact. We use assumptions we believe are sort of
"close enough" to "truth" (what ever that is) or "resonable
approximations of reality", where "close enough" obviosly depends on
topic we want to attack.
>If it is not necessary for assumptions (axioms?) to be true,
>is there any logical reason for requiring the subsequent
>logic to be true, i.e., correct?
Yes. Should the assumptions be "true" or "close enough", by using logic,
the implication -- the result derived from assumptions -- is true. The
implication can be true even if the assumptions are false. [Reminder: "A"
=> "B "is logically equivalent to "Not-A" and "B"].
>If I calculate the path of a missile, assuming no air
>friction, I don't expect to hit the target. The assumption
>is useful in a preliminary exercise, but I don't declare the
>result to be unchallengable Truth.
>
>Establishment economics makes assumptions which may not
>represent the real world. The conclusions are then
>represented to be Truth and all challenges are put down to
>vile ignorance.
Not really. The ones that are caught using bad assumptions are privately
ridiculed; should they try to hide the assumptions, they are ridiculed
publicly. You might want to take look at the AER, and see the section
"shorter papers" for polite version of this. Or any journal and article
that has the magical word "Comment" on it.
>Perhaps worse in its insiduousness is the practice of not
>reporting the assumptions, perhaps being unaware of them.
No, bro. Should you take a look at some of those loathable establishment
Econ periodicals, you'd find something along these lines.
Assumption 1. [blah blah blah]
Assumption 2. [blah blah blah]
...
Assumption N. [blah blah blah]
Proposition: Assume Assumptions 1 through N. Then [yakaty yak] follows.
Proof: [stuff that is hard for Barbie] QED.
>At least, in doing dirty physics, the physicist publishes
>the assumptions used to make a clean problem, e.g. the
>assumption of no friction. Economists should emulate.
Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
Robert Vienneau
In article <4mat3g$n...@knot.queensu.ca>, au...@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) wrote:
> mas...@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
>
> >If an assumption is not true, should the conclusions be
> >given any weight? Should they be accepted as ultimate
> >Truth?
>
> There is a huge literature on economic methodology. Please
> read some of it.
On the other hand, Chris Auld has told me to ignore what I may have
gotten out of the literature on economic methodology. I guess you're
only supposed to read some of the literature, and the right selection
at that.
--
Robert Vienneau Whether strength of body or of mind, or
rv...@dreamscape.com wisdom, or virtue, are always found...in
proportion to the power or wealth of a
Try my Mac econ simulation man is a question fit perhaps to be
game, Bukharin, at discussed by slaves in the hearing of
ftp://csf.colorado.edu/ their masters, but highly unbecoming
econ/authors/ to reasonable and free men in search
Vienneau.Robert of the truth. -- Rousseau
Scott Susin
Markku Stenborg (mar...@utu.fi) wrote:
: In article <3187e34d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Mason A. Clark,
: mas...@ix.netcom.com writes:
: >If it is not necessary for assumptions (axioms?) to be true,
: >is there any logical reason for requiring the subsequent
: >logic to be true, i.e., correct?
: Yes. Should the assumptions be "true" or "close enough", by using logic,
: the implication -- the result derived from assumptions -- is true. The
: implication can be true even if the assumptions are false. [Reminder: "A"
: => "B "is logically equivalent to "Not-A" and "B"].
You mis-typed here. A->B is not logically equivalent to Not-A and B.
Counterexample: A and B are both true.
I was going to correct this, but perhaps I'll leave that to Mason and Jay.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin "Time makes more converts than
Department of Economics Reason"
U.C. Berkeley Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_
Chris Auld
rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>On the other hand, Chris Auld has told me to ignore what I may have
>gotten out of the literature on economic methodology. I guess you're
>only supposed to read some of the literature, and the right selection
>at that.
Rob, could you please quote the post where I said this? Please note
that challenging your interpretation of some article or idea is not
even remotely similar to telling you to "ignore" anything. I trust
you will retract the remark and apologize for the insinuation in the
second sentence if you are unable to provide such a quote.
Victor Yodaiken
In article <4mcfrh$o...@ankka.csc.fi>, Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi> wrote:
>Yes. Should the assumptions be "true" or "close enough", by using logic,
>the implication -- the result derived from assumptions -- is true.
If the deductive methods are sound.
>The
>implication can be true even if the assumptions are false. [Reminder: "A"
>=> "B "is logically equivalent to "Not-A" and "B"].
Want to try again?
A->B == (NOT A) OR B
in other words A implies B if whenever A is true it follows
that B is also true. If A is false, the implication is "trivially"
true.
JOELKIN
I'm no expert in methodology but here
are my thoughts. Modern neo-classical economics
is more or less guided by logical postiveism a
la popper. The famous application of postivism
to economics (and a nice analogies to
methodologies in physics) is Milton Frediman's
article (mid fiftes---any body have the
citation?). I suggest that before going off on
the deep end and critiquing economics as
"religon" people should read this article, its
accessible to anyone with a modicum of interest
in the subject of methodologly.
Postivism is not without its critics, the most
famous being Imer Laktos, whose notions of
methodology of science are considered to be must
modern and firmest...my quess is people such as
donald (soon to danelle after the sex change)
mccloskey are the most famous neo-classical
economist working on applying laktos's method of
sceintific appriasal to economics...
Thrid the methodenstrich of the 19th century
between historical and classical economists
resulted in the neo-classical school adopting as
a relativent criteria for truth known as
"hypothetical truths". Keynes (the famous guys
father) was the 19th guru of economic
methodology and he argued that economic laws are
really working hypothesis which, until proven
wrong, are to be considered the truth---but they
are NOT laws in the sense of physical laws such
as gravity, etc.....
forth, stating assumptions every time one makes
economic cliams is an inefficent
method of communicating. We have academic
disiplines, with their own vocabaulary,
assumptions, etc. that are unspoken. By not
discussing assumptions constitlntly, one can get
to heart of the matter. As a neo-classical
economist--if you want to argue with me about
demand curves etc., i will presume that we
are talking about homogenous products, supplied
in a perfectly competitive market, bought by
consumers who maximize utility which is
aprroximated by a money metric measure, and all
other prices are constant. That's a mouthful to
state each time i want to say "demand curves
slope down." If I was talking to a marxist then
I would feel it is incombant on me, if i'm have
afruitful disccusion, to familrize myself with
marxist assumptions, hypothesis, and emprical
results. Then I could argue on the merits of
each system of thought and it's ability to
explain relvant facts [oh no not another thread
about facts please] a lot of the posters in
this newsgroups appear to have a woefully
inadequet grasp of basic neo-classical
arguments....
Finally, yes finally, for those who think that
physicists are the paragon of science, and have
such pure methodolgy I direct your attention to
the disicpline of cosomologly, quatuam mechanics
(string theory, etc.....). Currently notions
such as the big bang, inflation theories ,
infinitly expanding/ contracting universes, etc.
are rife with constrovesy and oposing
camps....you get some phyisicists in a room from
each point of view and
you will defintly see the shit hit the black
hole. Furthermore, more estoric fields in
physics test their theroies on computer
simulations simply beacause they cannot actually
measure the phenoman they wish to explain
empirically...therefor it is important that they
state their assumptions clearly, becasue they
are trying predict things which they can't even
see....at least economists can get reasonablly
good data on prices, quantites, and god fobide,
birth defects.......so those of you who worship
at the feet of "god does'nt play dice" Einstein,
need to read some of hisenberg's work on quantum
mechanics (were he argues for such things as
probablistic existance....i.e. god plays dice)
before you indite economics for being in
diserary.
Finally, no really, ALL knowlegde is relative,
and hypothtical, nothing, nothing, absolutly
nothing, not even mathematics (read whitehead)
can be founded on a system of beliefs which is
independent of our experince. Thus their can be
not absolute, not self referential truths. This
is the modern contribution of theories of
scientific endevour, and economics has always
endeveored to follow these tentenets through
such devices as econometerics
Just had to blow off some steam.......good day.
JOELKIN
Mason A. Clark
On 2 May 1996 17:58:08 GMT, au...@qed.uucp (Chris Auld)
wrote:
> >Perhaps worse in its insiduousness is the practice of not
> >reporting the assumptions, perhaps being unaware of them.
>
> Mason, have you ever actually read one word of one paper in
> a peer-reviewed economics journal?
>
I think this reaction, express by Chris and others, is
reasonable.
Here's the problem: the "assumptions" to which I refer are
not those which Markku describes in the econ journals:
>No, bro. Should you take a look at some of those loathable establishment
>Econ periodicals, you'd find something along these lines.
>
>Assumption 1. [blah blah blah]
>Assumption 2. [blah blah blah]
>...
>Assumption N. [blah blah blah]
>
>Proposition: Assume Assumptions 1 through N. Then [yakaty yak] follows.
>Proof: [stuff that is hard for Barbie] QED.
The assumption I and many others call into question are much
more foundational; implicit assumptions which underlie all
work in economics; which are not mentioned in papers in the
establishment economics journals -- there is no need to.
I want do in now. Gotta go play GO. But I must post here
sections, if not all, of Peet's collection of "myths." I
can't do it as well as he has done. You will
be annoyed of course, but we'll survive.
Mason Clark to be continued
Neil Hepburn
joe...@aol.com (JOELKIN) wrote:
>snip
>
Well put!
Neil Hepburn
Economics, Faculty of Arts
Red Deer College
e-mail: nhep...@agt.net
Robert Vienneau
In article <4mgap7$o...@knot.queensu.ca>, au...@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) wrote:
> rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
> >On the other hand, Chris Auld has told me to ignore what I may have
> >gotten out of the literature on economic methodology. I guess you're
> >only supposed to read some of the literature, and the right selection
> >at that.
> Rob, could you please quote the post where I said this? Please note
> that challenging your interpretation of some article or idea is not
> even remotely similar to telling you to "ignore" anything. I trust
> you will retract the remark and apologize for the insinuation in the
> second sentence if you are unable to provide such a quote.
I think the above a fair interpretation of your attitude and a fair
inference from some of your remarks. By the way, I do not think of
most of what I read in economics as centered on economic methodology.
And what's Chris complaining about? We know from Klamer and Colander's
survey that knowledge of the literature is not encouraged in furthering
one's career in mainstream economics.
On 12 April 1996, in article <4klvkq$a...@knot.queensu.ca> in the
thread "Re: The Axiomatics of Free Trade," Chris Auld wrote:
CA> My argument is that general equilibrium theory is not
CA> nearly as important to the day to day work of economists as interested
CA> bystanders, such as philosophers of science and Rob Vienneau, often
CA> suppose.
On 8 April 1996, in article <4kbn9k$4...@knot.queensu.ca> in the same
thread, Chris Auld wrote:
CA> Papers
CA> that use GE to develop an argument (as opposed to the prototypical n-good
CA> model that forms the cornerstone of debate in much of the methodological
CA> literature) are not rendered pointless by the possible existence of
CA> multiple equilibria and similar considerations.
Certainly Chris disagrees with the basis of what he claims is central to
the literature on economic methodology.
--
Markku Stenborg
In article <4mgc34$7...@agate.berkeley.edu> Scott Susin,
ssu...@emily11.Berkeley.EDU writes:
[snip]
>You mis-typed here. A->B is not logically equivalent to Not-A and B.
>Counterexample: A and B are both true.
Ooops, meant to type Not-A OR B.
Markku Stenborg
In article <318bb028...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Mason A. Clark,
mas...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>> >Perhaps worse in its insiduousness is the practice of not
>> >reporting the assumptions, perhaps being unaware of them.
[snip]
>>No, bro. Should you take a look at some of those loathable establishment
>>Econ periodicals, you'd find something along these lines.
>>
>>Assumption 1. [blah blah blah]
>>Assumption 2. [blah blah blah]
>>...
>>Assumption N. [blah blah blah]
>>
>>Proposition: Assume Assumptions 1 through N. Then [yakaty yak] follows.
>>Proof: [stuff that is hard for Barbie] QED.
>
>The assumption I and many others call into question are much
>more foundational; implicit assumptions which underlie all
>work in economics; which are not mentioned in papers in the
>establishment economics journals -- there is no need to.
The assumption being?
>I want do in now. Gotta go play GO. But I must post here
>sections, if not all, of Peet's collection of "myths." I
>can't do it as well as he has done. You will
>be annoyed of course, but we'll survive.
Eh?
Markku Stenborg
In article <318a629...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Mason A. Clark,
mas...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>On 1 May 1996 09:31:14 GMT, Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
>wrote, defending his precious "economic science" from the
>nipping of Jay Hanson and others:
>>
>> Please tell which of the assumptions are false? Or, how about even
>> describing what the assumptions are?
>>
>Jay has posted here the section headings of a chapter of a
>book by a Mr. Peet. I have the chapter and plan to make
>more of it available here.
In other words, you don't have a clue?
>> I've done permanent damage to my soul by actually studying Econ before
>> expressing my views on it?
>>
>> Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact. Because most economics
>departments do not warn their students of the quick sand on
>which the science of economics is built, the students become
And "the quick sand on which the science of economics is built" is?
>unwittingly indoctrinated in the economic "laws" as
The "laws" being?
>God-given Truths. The majority of them never recover.
>There is more than ample evidence here on sci.econ.
Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <4mgmar$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, JOELKIN <joe...@aol.com> wrote:
> ... Modern neo-classical economics is more or less guided by
> logical postiveism a la popper. ...
Popper was a *critic* of logical positivism. Were you
perhaps thinking of Carnap?
> Finally, yes finally, for those who think that
> physicists are the paragon of science, and have
> such pure methodolgy I direct your attention to
> the disicpline of cosomologly, quatuam mechanics
> (string theory, etc.....). Currently notions
> such as the big bang, inflation theories ,
> infinitly expanding/ contracting universes, etc.
> are rife with constrovesy and oposing
> camps....you get some phyisicists in a room from
> each point of view and you will defintly see the
> shit hit the black hole. ...
Which is perfectly consistent with Popper's description
of science, to take one example.
> ... Furthermore, more estoric fields in physics test
> their theroies on computer simulations simply beacause
> they cannot actually measure the phenoman they wish to
> explain empirically...
Huh? I am aware of broad use of computers in physics,
mostly to calculate *from* theories. But I know of no use
that fits this description.
> Just had to blow off some steam.......good day.
Blow off steam all you want, but do us a favor and learn what
you are talking about before expounding on it in public.
Russell
--
I don't care if a soldier is straight,
as long as he can shoot straight. -- Barry Goldwater
Chris Auld
rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>In article <4mgap7$o...@knot.queensu.ca>, au...@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) wrote:
>> rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>> >On the other hand, Chris Auld has told me to ignore what I may have
>> >gotten out of the literature on economic methodology. I guess you're
>> >only supposed to read some of the literature, and the right selection
>> >at that.
>> Rob, could you please quote the post where I said this? Please note
>> that challenging your interpretation of some article or idea is not
>> even remotely similar to telling you to "ignore" anything.
>I think the above a fair interpretation of your attitude and a fair
>inference from some of your remarks.
In other words, that's not what I said, nor is it a "fair inference" from
what I said. Indeed, my remarks on the overemphasis on abstract GE models
in _some_ of the methodological literature are not original to me, many
other writers _within_ the methodological literature have made the same
observation. In short, Rob's accusation is simply unfounded; in typically
graceless Vienneau style, he refuses to retract it.
>By the way, I do not think of
>most of what I read in economics as centered on economic methodology.
No kidding.
Robert Vienneau
In article <4mimrn$c...@knot.queensu.ca>, Chris Auld writes:
> rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
> >In article <4mgap7$o...@knot.queensu.ca>, au...@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) wrote:
> >> rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>
> >> >On the other hand, Chris Auld has told me to ignore what I may have
> >> >gotten out of the literature on economic methodology. I guess you're
> >> >only supposed to read some of the literature, and the right selection
> >> >at that.
>
> >> Rob, could you please quote the post where I said this? Please note
> >> that challenging your interpretation of some article or idea is not
> >> even remotely similar to telling you to "ignore" anything.
>
> >I think the above a fair interpretation of your attitude and a fair
> >inference from some of your remarks.
>
> In other words, that's not what I said, nor is it a "fair inference" from
> what I said.
How do you get that? As a matter of logic, ( p and q ) implies q. In this
case, p is "the above [is] a fair interpretation of your attitude." q
is "the above [is]...a fair inference from some of your remarks." So "nor
is it a 'fair inference' from what I said" is not a restatement of my
sentence "in other words," but a direct contradiction.
> Indeed, my remarks on the overemphasis on abstract GE models
> in _some_ of the methodological literature are not original to me, many
> other writers _within_ the methodological literature have made the same
> observation.
This does not contravene my statement. Note both of us have used the
word "some."
> In short, Rob's accusation is simply unfounded; in typically
> graceless Vienneau style, he refuses to retract it.
I think you are getting way too worked up.
> >By the way, I do not think of
> >most of what I read in economics as centered on economic methodology.
>
> No kidding.
If statements like that fit your personal standards of etiquette,
you really cannot complain about my statements here.
A test for you: who is Stephen Toulmin and how does he fit in with my
remarks on the "Economics as Science: Rhetoric or Reality" thread?
JOELKIN
>>>JoelKin said
>>> ... Modern neo-classical economics is more or less guided by
>>tur...@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) said
>>Popper was a *critic* of logical positivism. Were you
>>perhaps thinking of Carnap?
You sir are correct: I said in the introduction that I was no
expert in methodology...what I meant to say is that most neo-
classical methodology is guided by a version of empirical
falsification which indeed Popper is the most familiar proponent,
and as you point out emerged from his critique of the vienna
school.
> Finally, yes finally, for those who think that
> physicists are the paragon of science, and have
> such pure methodology I direct your attention to
> the discipline of cosmology, quantum mechanics
> (string theory, etc.....). Currently notions
> such as the big bang, inflation theories ,
> infinitely expanding/ contracting universes, etc.
> are rife with controversy and opposing
> camps....you get some physicists in a room from
> each point of view and you will defiantly see the
> shift hit the black hole. ...
>>Which is perfectly consistent with Popper's description
>>of science, to take one example.
And which I feel is perfectly normal as well. My point in citing
this material is simply to disabuse some posters of the belief
that certain sciences are more "pure" in terms of
methodology...Physics, because it deals with physical rather than
behavioral phenomena may be able to assert a more legitimate
claim to observe "laws" in action, but the methodology that they
use to investigate these laws are no purer than those economists,
in fact its the same. However, even the universal physical laws
are called into question when some (tenured, main stream, i think
the guy is a harvard) argue that alternative universes, which are
predicted to exist, may have different "laws" than those of our
own...(the source for these examples is a recent (last six months
or so) issue of either SCIENCE or SCIENTIFIC AMERICA).
> ... Furthermore, more esoteric fields in physics test
> their theories on computer simulations simply because
> they cannot actually measure the phenomena they wish to
> explain empirically...
>>Huh? I am aware of broad use of computers in physics,
>>mostly to calculate *from* theories. But I know of no use
>>that fits this description.
I point your attention to something known as the Hubble Constant.
This is a predicted universal constant (i don't know what it
relates to) which cannot be empirically verified because the data
necessary cannot be collected with the current state of
technology...However, several researchers (see above) have built
mathematical models which,when run through simulations produce
the expected constant value. While I certainly believe this is a
valid way to go about things, I still am a skeptic. If the
results can't be falsified with empirical evidence I would take
it with a two grains of salt, if it could be falsified I would
take it with a grain of salt.
> Just had to blow off some steam.......good day.
>>Blow off steam all you want, but do us a favor and learn what
>>you are talking about before expounding on it in public.
>>Russell
Gee, I'm glad there is at least one person who knows what he's
talking about.
Robert Vienneau
In article <4mgm9u$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, joe...@aol.com (JOELKIN) wrote:
> ...Modern neo-classical economics
> is more or less guided by logical postiveism a
> la popper.
Popper was not a logical positivist. Many mistakenly read his
ideas on falsification as just a twist on positivism, though.
Some, e.g. McCloskey, have questioned whether economists
live up to their claims to be guided by positivism.
> The famous application of postivism
> to economics (and a nice analogies to
> methodologies in physics) is Milton Frediman's
> article (mid fiftes---any body have the
> citation?). I suggest that before going off on
> the deep end and critiquing economics as
> "religon" people should read this article, its
> accessible to anyone with a modicum of interest
> in the subject of methodologly.
Certainly those wanting to discuss economic methodology
should read Friedman. However, since that essay is
routinely cited for support for many conflicting views
on methodology, perhaps it has problems.
> Postivism is not without its critics, the most
> famous being Imer Laktos, whose notions of
> methodology of science are considered to be must
> modern and firmest...
Imre Lakatos (sp?) was certainly a critic of positivism
and of Popper. But he was a student of Popper as
well. I like his _Proofs and Refutations_, but he
is not the latest word on the methodology of science.
> my quess is people such as
> donald (soon to danelle after the sex change)
> mccloskey are the most famous neo-classical
> economist working on applying laktos's method of
> sceintific appriasal to economics...
I thought McCloskey was said to have written into
town on a Davidson - Donald Davidson, that is.
McCloskey probably did not consider himself to
have been following Lakatos.
I nominate earlier E. Roy Weintraub as a famous
economist applying Lakatos's method to appraise
the scientific status of neoclassical economics.
I cannot comment on John Neville Keynes. It is
ironic that some Austrians have ended up something
like Institutionalists.
Certainly serious cross-paradigm discussions require
participants to try to understand the other's literature.
Perhaps Biology, not Physics, should be the envy of
economists. Maybe that would improve economics.
> Finally, no really, ALL knowlegde is relative,
> and hypothtical, nothing, nothing, absolutly
> nothing, not even mathematics (read whitehead)
> can be founded on a system of beliefs which is
> independent of our experince.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure one can express what you want
to say in language. I haven't read Whitehead alone, but I do
find Wittgenstein intriguing on mathematics. (Some think he
was incompetent on Godel.) If every time we put two apples,
oranges, sticks, whatever together with three more, counted
and came up with varying answers, that would be the end of
sums.
David W. Shaw
Congratulations for hitting the nail on the head. You made a comment about putting a
Marxist, Keynsian,and others in the same room and watching the fur fly. That is the
whole point of why economics is not a science. If I put a Soviet chemist, an American
chemist, etc, in the same room, would the fur fly? Why not. Because they have
scientific models to prove that chemistry is the same in China, Russia and America. Most
people including economists have not yet sorted out the difference between economics as
a science and the politics with getting a project off the ground. True economics is
only a bunch of math and computer models. Nothing more. The "Political Economy" of the
1800's is still around. The simple truth is that the modeling techniques should be
identical in Russia, China, Japan and America. The politics is of course different. My
home page at http://home.aol.com/DWSHAW goes into what I consider the correct math and
computer model for economics. Input-output analysis is the basis for the complete math
model of the economy.
The most serious problem is that the leading American economists have not produced
anything for 30 years. We are following the senile old men into real problems.
Korean economist have changed their economy ito a 9.9% growth rate. America only grows
at 3%. Which economists are better? Yet, who wins the Nobel Prizes. I consider the
only American economist worth a Nobel Prize to be Wassily Leontief (1973). The others
are idiots that could not create a 10% growth rate if their lives depended on it.
David
JOELKIN
[snip]
>>Perhaps Biology, not Physics, should be the envy of
>>economists. Maybe that would improve economics.
What was one of the books Darwin read and re-read in the months directly
before his first writings on natural selection and selection mechniscms?
Of all things he was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations---economists
and biologists have been carrying on a, perhaps unconcious, disscussion
for over 150 years now. Recently it has come in to the open with the (i
believe) mis-guided applications of path dependency issues (e.g. beta vs.
vhs, qwerty vs. dovark, etc.....) However, for one of the most influential
applications of biological methaphors used in economics get a copy of
Armen Alchian's 1950 article, "Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic
Theory, vol 58, Journal of Political Economy, pgs. 211-221. It is a
brillant and fundemental piece of work.....
Mark Witte
Here's something you might find interesting.
In Darwin's autobiography, he wrote, "In October 1838, that is
fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read
for amusement Malthus on _Population_, and being well prepared to appreciate
the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on, from long-continued
observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that
under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved
and unfavorable ones to be destroyed."
Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the theory of evolution,
also acknowledged his indebtedness to Malthus.
Chris Auld
rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>> >> rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>> >> >On the other hand, Chris Auld has told me to ignore what I may have
>> >> >gotten out of the literature on economic methodology. I guess you're
>> >> >only supposed to read some of the literature, and the right selection
>> >> >at that.
>> what I said.
>How do you get that? As a matter of logic, ( p and q ) implies q. In this
>case, p is "the above [is] a fair interpretation of your attitude." q
>is "the above [is]...a fair inference from some of your remarks." So "nor
>is it a 'fair inference' from what I said" is not a restatement of my
>sentence "in other words," but a direct contradiction.
The "in other words" is sarcastic, Rob. It means I don't believe your
explanation is credible.
>> Indeed, my remarks on the overemphasis on abstract GE models
>> in _some_ of the methodological literature are not original to me, many
>> other writers _within_ the methodological literature have made the same
>> observation.
>This does not contravene my statement. Note both of us have used the
>word "some."
Actually, Rob's claim is that I told him to "ignore what he may gotten out
of the literature on methodology." Of course, I never made such a remark.
In the context of a discussion about Rob's strange views of what
constitutes neoclassical economics, I did suggest that he, not unlike some
of the methodological literature, places far too much emphasis on general
equilibrium. As I've noted, this idea is not original to me, see, for
instance, chapter 16 of McCloskey's _Knowledge and Persuasion in
Economics_ ("It is particularly mistaken to focus on general equilibrium
as the Theory of scientific economics, as do many methodologists and even
many economists when thinking about methodology.") Unless Rob wants to
claim that McCloskey (and others) is similarly telling him to "ignore what
he may have gotten" out of the literature, he should simply retract his
unfounded slander.
>> >By the way, I do not think of
>> >most of what I read in economics as centered on economic methodology.
>>
>> No kidding.
>
>If statements like that fit your personal standards of etiquette,
>you really cannot complain about my statements here.
I apologize for resorting to Vienneau-like methods (he has a habit of
simply insulting people and bowing out of conversations).
>A test for you: who is Stephen Toulmin and how does he fit in with my
>remarks on the "Economics as Science: Rhetoric or Reality" thread?
Toulmin is a philosopher whose work I have not read, so I will have to
leave it to Rob to fill us in on his mysterious connection.
A simple challenge for Rob: find a recent copy of the _JPE_, the _AER_,
_Econometrica_, _JET_, or any other top journal in which more than three
papers are toppled by the sorts of Sraffian criticisms Rob is fond of,
under the assumption that the criticism is, in fact, correct. (When I
noted that none of the papers in the most recent _AER_ stand or fall on
any of the points that Rob thinks signal the "Death of Neoclassical
Economics," Rob referred to the argument as a "logical fallacy" without
explanation and refused to discuss the issue further.)
John B. O'Donnell
Since this thread is titled "Assumptions" I hope I am not too far out of bounds asking
this about Milton Friedman's monetary theory. As I understand his arguments he accepts
the quantity theory of money (i.e. dQ/dM=0) assumption (as do I) that changes in money
supply does nothing but change prices. Yet his monetary policy proposal (Constant growth
rate of money supply) requires that dQ/dM not equal zero. Is it fair to say that this
greatly respected (by me among others) has fallen on his own cognitive disonance?
A hypothetical example may serve to demonstrate the fallacy of his proposed monetary
policy:
Let us supose the money supply (by whatever measure) is held to a constant growth rate.
Then allow a slight dip in production/economic activity. This leads to a slight increase
in inflation. This leads to further decline in economic activity , etc. Eventually,
people start losing faith in the currency and turn to barter for many of their
transactions which leads to a further decline in the need for money and a further
increase in inflation, etc. The essential point -- if dQ/dm=0 then the only valid way to
maintain the value of money is to adjust the supply in response to the value of money,
again by whatever standard.
Countering the false asumptions that imply either a little inflation is a good thing,
that increased money supply is neccessary for economic growth, or that there is a
substantial time lag between the creation/destruction of money and its effect on money
value would take more than this initial query.
Comments?
-- J.B. O'D.
Robert Vienneau
Chris Auld writes:
[...]
> In the context of a discussion about Rob's strange views of what
> constitutes neoclassical economics, I did suggest that he, not unlike some
> of the methodological literature, places far too much emphasis on general
> equilibrium.
Of course Chris, your characterization of my views as "strange" is
not meant to be read as insulting. Right?
I place emphasis on having a coherent theory of value and distribution.
[McCloskey quote deleted]
> >A test for you: who is Stephen Toulmin and how does he fit in with my
> >remarks on the "Economics as Science: Rhetoric or Reality" thread?
>
> Toulmin is a philosopher whose work I have not read, so I will have to
> leave it to Rob to fill us in on his mysterious connection.
Correct, Toulmin is a philosopher. He wrote on the philosophy of
science and introduced Wittgenstein-like themes into the subject. You'll
remember I suggested in that thread if I wanted to explicitly talk
about Sraffa there, I would have done so through his influence on
Wittgenstein.
My suggestion is that if one wants to talk knowledgably on the "scientific"
methodology of economics, one is better off with a good science background
and a knowledge of the philosophy of science and historians of science.
I still don't think substantive issues can and should be settled by
appeals to "Methodology."
> A simple challenge for Rob: find a recent copy of the _JPE_, the _AER_,
> _Econometrica_, _JET_, or any other top journal in which more than three
> papers are toppled by the sorts of Sraffian criticisms Rob is fond of,
> under the assumption that the criticism is, in fact, correct.
I don't have convenient access to reference libraries during the summer
months, which I gather start now.
However, any papers that use a one-good model, use an aggregate production
function, or set the marginal product of "capital" equal to the rate
of interest are all vulnerable to direct Sraffian criticism. Although I'm
no expert, I suggest that allows us to discard macroeconomics following
Lucas, Solovian growth theory, and the "new growth theory." (That may
be a little strong.) Can you find three recent papers in the union
of those areas?
> (When I
> noted that none of the papers in the most recent _AER_ stand or fall on
> any of the points that Rob thinks signal the "Death of Neoclassical
> Economics," Rob referred to the argument as a "logical fallacy" without
> explanation and refused to discuss the issue further.)
And I expressed exasperation at your continual distortion of posts
and refusal to discuss matters of substance.
You tell me Sraffa is irrelevant to such-and-such, I agree it's not
directly obvious. How does that justify you in continuing to write as
if optimizing behavior yields well-behaved supply and demand relationships
in the labor market? How does that justify continuing logical fallacies in
macroeconomics?
What you don't seem to accept is that Sraffa provides a new thinking
cap that throws everything in a new light. For example, here are
some surprising connections:
1.) Consider the multitude of equilibrium concepts now available. Sraffians
claim that a major cause of this trend was the inability to properly
treat capital in extending supply and demand theories to the long run.
Having this many concepts is a sign of a breakdown in mainstream
economics. See:
Murray Milgate, "Equilibrium: Development of the Concept," _The New
Palgrave: The Invisible Hand_ 1989.
2) Sraffians have rediscovered a logic of Classical theory that can be
formalized quite differently than Neoclassical economics. Thus, when
in your interchange, Victor says wages are governed by supply and
demand, I need not read him as talking about well-behaved functions.
I can say, "Well, suppose he means this in the sense of Adam Smith?"
3) That B. Rosser, Jr. book I previously referenced is a survey of the
discontinuous, bifurcations, complex dynamics, chaos, etc. Rosser states
he was inspired to follow this line of thought by the Cambridge Capital
Controversy. For example, read Pasinetti's debate with Solow on the
rate of return where Pasinetti argues that a continuous wage-rate of
profits frontier need not be associated with a continous variation in
the value of capital with the rate of profits. Another important piece
connecting Sraffa to complex dynamics (although beyond me) is:
Richard Goodwin, "Swinging along the Turnpike with von Neumann and
Sraffa," _Cambridge Journal of Economics_, 1986.
Sraffa notoriously claimed his analysis did not require any assumptions
on returns to scale. The Cambridge economist Nicky Kaldor emphasized
increasing returns, which he traced back through Allyn Young to Adam
Smith's emphasis on the division of labor. When Arrow published his
"learning by doing" paper, Kaldor welcomed him to the bands of heretics.
Pasinetti also emphasizes progress in economic development in:
Luigi L. Pasinetti, _Structural Economic Dynamics: A Theory of
the Economic Consequences of Human Learning_, 1993.
Some of those building on Sraffa, especially Goodwin and Sylos Labini,
also draw on Schumpeter, another economist interested in development.
Notice increasing returns, non-equilibrium behavior, complex dynamics -
are you sure I cannot claim the Santa Fe Institute as a parallel innovation
in economics that Sraffians can welcome?
4) Sraffians claim that both Leontief and von Neumann's growth model
were Classical in inspiration, not Neoclassical. Some have traced back
these ideas to German discussions on a surplus-based approach to economics:
Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori, _Theory of Production: A Long-Period
Analysis_, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
5) Some have drawn connections between Sraffa and environmental economics:
R. England, "Production, Distribution and Environmental Quality: Mr.
Sraffa Reinterpreted as an Ecologist," _Kyklos, 1986.
Bertram Schefold, _Mr. Sraffa on Joint Production and Other Essays_,
Unwin Hyman, 1989.
6) Finally, a methodological criticism of mainstream stream economics is
available in
D. Hausmann (?), _The Separate and Inexact Science of Economics_, ??
This book does not emphasize general equilibrium analysis, is not centered
on capital theory, and does not even contain an index on Sraffa. Yet,
look at H.'s earlier book on capital theory, especially the Cambridge
Capital Theory. Observe the discussion of the Mill's phrase "the
separate and inexact science of economics." I think he's got Sraffa
exactly right here, and it's not a broad stretch to say his later book
is inspired by Sraffa. Yet it's aim is more about all those sorts of
papers to which Chris says Sraffianism is irrelevant.
If none of this is relevant to the mainstream literature, worse
luck to the mainstream. I suspect it is relevant.
Chris Auld
rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>However, any papers that use a one-good model, use an aggregate production
>function, or set the marginal product of "capital" equal to the rate
>of interest are all vulnerable to direct Sraffian criticism.
If the most telling Sraffian criticisms are simply aggregation issues,
then Sraffian economics is hardly a compelling attack. One can find a
discussion of why one-good models have problems in standard, neoclassical
micro texts. Aggregate production functions are a modeling technique
appropriate as a rough approximation in some contexts, again, one can find
direct neoclassical criticism of such aggregate concepts. Finally, the
marginal product of capital will equal the interest rate if capital is a
homogeneous good, if it's not, once again we need not resort to Sraffian
economics to find fault. All of these techniques are basically modeling
_assumptions_, so we are back to the methodological issues Rob thinks
are irrelevant.
My challenge, amended to disallow techniques which are well known _within_
the neoclassical literature to be problematic, stands.
>> (When I
>> noted that none of the papers in the most recent _AER_ stand or fall on
>> any of the points that Rob thinks signal the "Death of Neoclassical
>> Economics," Rob referred to the argument as a "logical fallacy" without
>> explanation and refused to discuss the issue further.)
>And I expressed exasperation at your continual distortion of posts
>and refusal to discuss matters of substance.
From my perspective, of course, it is Rob who continually distorts posts
and ignores substantive points. For instance, his response to my point
that most neoclassical papers would not be felled even _if_ every Sraffian
critique is true was a rambling and irrelevant discourse about long-run
equilibria. When I pointed out that he had not, in fact, addressed the
issue I expounded on at length in several posts, Rob claimed I was spewing
"nonsense" and refused to continue the discussion. I don't have any idea
which "matters of substance" Rob thinks I'm refusing to discuss, on the
other hand, I have repeatedly made many points about the conclusions Rob
draws which Rob steadfastly refuses to address.
>What you don't seem to accept is that Sraffa provides a new thinking
>cap that throws everything in a new light. For example, here are
>some surprising connections:
I don't doubt that Sraffian economics has some insights. I do doubt that
anything Rob or Sraffian economists have come up with foretells the "Death
of Neoclassical Economics." I also reject Rob's implication that relaxing
assumptions made for technical reasons makes a paper Sraffian. Further, I
contend that Rob fails to appreciate the breadth of neoclassical
economics, which is why his claims of its impending collapse ring so
hollow.
>6) Finally, a methodological criticism of mainstream stream economics is
>available in
>
> D. Hausmann (?), _The Separate and Inexact Science of Economics_, ??
>
>This book does not emphasize general equilibrium analysis,
Again from McCloskey's _Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics_:
"The mistake is that conventional Methodologists such as Rosenberg or
Hausman [or Vienneau -CA] do not look at the whole of economics. They
have not examined what economists do on the job [...] They have studied
the most highbrow parts of economics, such as abstract general equilibrium
theory [...] Hausman's book _The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics_
is a case in point."
It seems that Rob's appraisal of Hausman forms telling evidence of my
metacriticism of Rob's arguments: Rob simply does not know what economics
is all about. In particular, he confuses a very small and abstract
portion of economic theory for all of economic research, which, in
particular, denigrates empirical research. I previously listed a number
of topics that are of interest to economists which are not even vaguely
addressed by Sraffian criticism, Rob's response was to wonder about the
relevance of my query. This confusion about what constitutes
"neoclassical economics" meshes with Rob's previous assertions that
neoclassical economics became dominant because of luck and ideology; in
fact, it rose to dominance simply because it's very useful and flexible.
To give one more example: my own research deals with modeling and
measuring behavioural response to the HIV epidemic. What would a Sraffian
version of this work look like?
Dan Parker
Jay
I have read some of your posts on sci.econ and agree with them although
I do not have a lot of knowledge in this area. However, since a lot of
people do not take the trouble to read, I am putting similiar sentiments
into a video format. Are you interested in collaborating on the
project. I do not have formal economics training but have video
experience and skills
I am making a documentary that deals with the transistion from the
industrial age to the information (rational?) age. Relevant to this is
the extent that institutions changed during the transition from the
agricultural to industrial age. During this transition,
capitalism,communism and socialism were all invented as were the
economic systems that went with them. Why should a change of similiar
magnitude not take place today? It's certainly not because the present
system is adequate.
I am looking at the effects of money created at compound interest on
concentration of wealth (and what this is causing). Another area of
discussion will deal with the effects of automation on labour
requirements. Research material includes
Post Capitalist Society by Peter Drucker
The Fifth Discipline (systems theory, organizational stuff) P. Senge
Principia Cybernetica Project - on web
Various Literature from groups regarding the debt as virus. (ie. it has
been set up so it cannot be paid off)
Some of Alvin Toffler's ideas from Powershift and Third Wave.
Moral Philosophy etc. etc.
An interesting connection is that one of the economic papers quotes
Norbert Wiener, (profound humanist, father of cybernetics, studied
effects of cybernation on future employment prospects) as saying I "see
no future for our society unless Social Credit principles are
incorporated". Notice the word principles as I think much of the A and
B theorum of Socred founder C.H. Douglas had been discredited, or in the
case of Buckminster Fuller, evolved.
I am breaking the documentary into sections about 10 min long and
setting up transitions so that non-linear or partial viewing can be made
possible in an interactive format. (I am digitizing all the footage for
non-linear editing anyways). If cable TV is adapted for the internet, I
will have an alternate distribution channel.
Sincerely
Dan Parker
rv...@dreamscape.com
Chris Auld writes a series of non sequiturs:
>rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>
>>However, any papers that use a one-good model, use an aggregate production
>>function, or set the marginal product of "capital" equal to the rate
>>of interest are all vulnerable to direct Sraffian criticism.
>
>If the most telling Sraffian criticisms are simply aggregation issues,
>then Sraffian economics is hardly a compelling attack. One can find a
>discussion of why one-good models have problems in standard, neoclassical
>micro texts.
Chris continues to write myths about the Cambridge Capital Controversy.
He asks me where the neoclassical literature goes wrong from a Sraffian
perspective, and so I tell him the most obvious and well-accepted
criticisms. This hardly means that I think that these criticisms are
all Sraffa had to say, as the remainder of my post made clear. The fact
that some neoclassical textbooks discuss related problems is hardly a
defense. In fact, I have regularly cited the work of Franklin Fisher
myself. How can it be a defense of neoclassical economics to say the work
of neoclassical laureates is on theoretically weak grounds?
But, as I have stated many times the critical issues in the CCC were
not consumed by aggregation questions. Walras, Wicksell, and Marshall
never had coherent capital theories. They were all aware of their
problems. Here we are nearly a century later and neoclassical theory
still does not have an accepted theory of why property income receives
interest. This has ramifications throughout economic theory, not just
in questions of aggregation. One way of expressing this, often said
about Joan Robinson's critique, is that the question is one of the
meaning of capital, not its measurement.
Although capital problems extend back to at least Ricardo, Sraffians
think there are reasons why Classical theory can address these problems
better than Neoclassical theory. This could be read as a major theme
of Sraffa's book and has certainly been explained numerous times by
Garegnani.
> Aggregate production functions are a modeling technique
>appropriate as a rough approximation in some contexts, again, one can find
>direct neoclassical criticism of such aggregate concepts. Finally, the
>marginal product of capital will equal the interest rate if capital is a
>homogeneous good, if it's not, once again we need not resort to Sraffian
>economics to find fault. All of these techniques are basically modeling
>_assumptions_, so we are back to the methodological issues Rob thinks
>are irrelevant.
Well, perhaps Chris should explain these weaknesses to some of his
fellow neoclassical economists. (I assume Chris meant the marginal
product of capital will equal the interest rate if it's homogeneous
with the consumption good.) Here's a Sraffa quote from Corfu Conference
to think about:
One should emphasize the distinction between two types of measurement.
First, there was the one in which the statisticians were mainly
interested. Second, there was measurement in theory. The statisticians'
measures were only approximate and provided a suitable field for work
in solving index number problems. The theoretical measures required
absolute precision. Any imperfections in these theoretical measures
were not merely upsetting, but knocked down the whole theoretical
basis. One could measure capital in pounds or dollars and introduce
this into a production function. The definition in this case must be
absolutely water-tight, for with a given quantity of capital one had
a certain rate of interest so that the quantity of capital was an
essential part of the mechanism. One therefore had to keep the definition
of capital separate from the needs of statistical measurement, which
was quite different. The work of J. B. Clark, Bohm-Bawerk and others
was intended to produce pure definitions of capital, as required by
their theories, not as a guide to actual measurement. If we found
contradictions, then these pointed to defects in the theory, and an
inability to define measures of capital accurately. It was on this -
the chief failing of capital theory - that we should concentrate, rather
than on problems of measurement.
Chris apparently does not accept this. In the "free trade" thread, the
yardstick for his measure of productivity, the value of output divided
by labor hours, varies in theory with wages. This must have some influence
on how to formulate his nonexistent "theory" that productivity drives
wages. Yet he seems to want to treat a statistical regularity, or a
discussion of whether Elizabeth was a happier woman but not a better queen
than Victoria, as if he were doing calculus.
In my introductory Physics class we assumed sin(x) = x in modeling a
pendulum. In a more advanced class I learned the errors implied by that
approach and how to form a better approximation. Somehow we managed
to discuss all this without ever discussing "Science" or "Methodology."
>My challenge, amended to disallow techniques which are well known _within_
>the neoclassical literature to be problematic, stands.
So the neoclassical literature admits all their work is problematic - or
at least any I might bring up? E.g. they know the errors of treating
depreciation as a physically given constant, of assuming that land
can be ordered from high rent to low rent land based on technically defined
measures of fertility, of regarding dimishing rates of substitution in
both utility theory and production as natural laws, of treating wages as
determined by supply and demand within the labor market, and of regarding
marginal productivity as a theory of distribution. I hope Chris noted that
the supposedly empirical literature I directed Mark Witte to was not about
capital theory per se, but economic geography.
But with Chris' proviso, nobody can attack neoclassical theory. It seems
a weird defense though.
[...]
>I don't doubt that Sraffian economics has some insights. I do doubt that
>anything Rob or Sraffian economists have come up with foretells the "Death
>of Neoclassical Economics." I also reject Rob's implication that relaxing
>assumptions made for technical reasons makes a paper Sraffian.
And you wonder why I think you write nonsense? Where do I say that? Do
you mean specific assumptions?
>Further, I
>contend that Rob fails to appreciate the breadth of neoclassical
>economics, which is why his claims of its impending collapse ring so
>hollow.
I keep on telling you that a restructuring of economics need not lead
to every idea or theory being rejected. But such a restructing will probably
lead to a lot of theory being rejected or regarded in a new light. My standard
example, assuming a Sraffian paradigm shift, is the work of Joe Bain and P.
Sylos Labini. I don't know much about them, but I hardly doubt anybody
has argued the superiority of Sylos Labini over Bain because he a Sraffian.
So why do you keep bringing up literature you claim irrelevant to Sraffianism?
(Actually I think the sort of paradigm shift that might follow from taking
Sraffa seriously is more along the lines of where Geoff Hodgson is going.)
[...]
>> D. Hausmann (?), _The Separate and Inexact Science of Economics_, ??
>>
>>This book does not emphasize general equilibrium analysis,
>
>Again from McCloskey's _Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics_:
>
>"The mistake is that conventional Methodologists such as Rosenberg or
> Hausman [or Vienneau -CA] do not look at the whole of economics. They
> have not examined what economists do on the job [...] They have studied
> the most highbrow parts of economics, such as abstract general equilibrium
> theory [...] Hausman's book _The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics_
> is a case in point."
>
>It seems that Rob's appraisal of Hausman forms telling evidence of my
>metacriticism of Rob's arguments: Rob simply does not know what economics
>is all about.
McCloskey's disagreement of what Hausman's book is about hardly justifies
you in concluding that I think all of economics is general equilibrium
analysis. In fact, I don't even consider Sraffa to have dealt primarily
with GE, unless you consider Ricardo's _Principles_ to be GE (as
Morishima does). Hausman discusses empirical tests by pyschologists
showing systematic irrationalities in *individual* behavior. Depending
on whether a choice is presented as a bet or a payment for a lottery
ticket, a single individual will respond differently. For many, one
can even set up a series of transactions which will systematically
funnel money from the individual being tested. Hausman discusses
the reactions of economists to these findings and their implications for
utility theory's (lack of) empirical basis. How is this a highbrow part of
economics or centered on GE theory?
And, by the way, what does McCloskey say about Sraffa?
Chris concludes with continuing irrelevancies and non sequiturs:
>In particular, he confuses a very small and abstract
>portion of economic theory for all of economic research, which, in
>particular, denigrates empirical research. I previously listed a number
>of topics that are of interest to economists which are not even vaguely
>addressed by Sraffian criticism, Rob's response was to wonder about the
>relevance of my query. This confusion about what constitutes
>"neoclassical economics" meshes with Rob's previous assertions that
>neoclassical economics became dominant because of luck and ideology; in
>fact, it rose to dominance simply because it's very useful and flexible.
You want to explain why earlier marginal theories did not get the reception
of the founding three in the 1870s?
>To give one more example: my own research deals with modeling and
>measuring behavioural response to the HIV epidemic. What would a Sraffian
>version of this work look like?
Robert Vienneau Whether strength of body or of mind, or
rv...@future.dreamscape.com wisdom, or virtue, are always found...in
proportion to the power or wealth of a man
[is] a question fit perhaps to be discussed
by slaves in the hearing of their masters,
but highly unbecoming to reasonable and
free men in search of the truth.
-- Rousseau
Chris Auld
rv...@dreamscape.com writes:
>Chris Auld writes a series of non sequiturs:
Good ol' Rob Vienneau. Graceful as always.
>>If the most telling Sraffian criticisms are simply aggregation issues,
>>then Sraffian economics is hardly a compelling attack. One can find a
>>discussion of why one-good models have problems in standard, neoclassical
>>micro texts.
>myself. How can it be a defense of neoclassical economics to say the work
>of neoclassical laureates is on theoretically weak grounds?
Rob tells us elsewhere he believes methodological issues are irrelevant to
the "substantial" issues he wishes to discuss, yet the discussion clearly
revolves around methodology. Here, Rob does not understand why false
assumptions -- one good, homogeneous labour or capital, well behaved
aggregate production functions -- are made in some neoclassical models.
There is nothing more "weak" about these assumptions than there is in
assuming, say, infinite lived agents, so the thrust of Rob's supposedly
fatal criticisms of the neoclassical paradigm are methodological and are
simply challenging assumptions (as he's presented them here, anyways).
One can find a discussion of aggregation issues, and hence, in particular,
problems with modern approaches to macroeconomics, in any advanced micro
text. As I have tried, vainly, to explain to Rob many times, it is
perfectly consistent to claim that two _contradictory_ models can _both_
give some insights into the operation of the economy.
[ Lengthy musings on capital theory deleted. ]
>In my introductory Physics class we assumed sin(x) = x in modeling a
>pendulum. In a more advanced class I learned the errors implied by that
>approach and how to form a better approximation. Somehow we managed
>to discuss all this without ever discussing "Science" or "Methodology."
Yet this is a methodological issue. I haven't discussed the "scientific"
status or lack thereof of economics at all, I am trying to point out that
the best modeling technique is not necessarily the one with the most
realistic assumptions. In particular, a model does not become worthless
when it is noted that it may have aggregation problems, such as the
assumption of homogeneous goods or factors.
>>My challenge, amended to disallow techniques which are well known _within_
>>the neoclassical literature to be problematic, stands.
>So the neoclassical literature admits all their work is problematic - or
>at least any I might bring up?
I am asking Rob to find some neoclassical papers which are brought down by
a Sraffian criticism which is not an attack on an assumption. The
"problematic" aspects Rob refers to are well-known within neoclassical
economics to be just that; Rob is doing nothing more interesting than
someone loudly proclaiming the impending "death of neoclassical economics"
because monopoly power exists in some sectors, or there are more than two
countries in the world, or people actually have finite lives, or there is
more than one person in the country, and so on.
>But with Chris' proviso, nobody can attack neoclassical theory. It seems
>a weird defense though.
Of course people can attack neoclassical theory: they can point out its
empirical failings and suggest modeling methods that perform better.
This seems to be precisely the opposite of Sraffian criticisms, which
have no empirical content.
>>of Neoclassical Economics." I also reject Rob's implication that relaxing
>>assumptions made for technical reasons makes a paper Sraffian.
>And you wonder why I think you write nonsense? Where do I say that? Do
>you mean specific assumptions?
I was referring to Rob's assertion that a new "Sraffian" paradigm would
involve, amongst other things, the relaxation of the assumption that
stochastic processes are ergodic, which is a purely technical assumption.
Rob's claiming of the Sante Fe Institute as "Sraffian" would also seem to
suggest that he believes non-standard assumptions make research
"Sraffian."
>I keep on telling you that a restructuring of economics need not lead
>to every idea or theory being rejected.
This is the first I've heard of it! One can only wonder why Rob insists
on melodramatic proclamations such as "The Death of Neoclassical Economic"
and "The End of Neoclassical Economics" if only some subset of neoclassical
theory is to be removed in the New Order. Rob seems to only be able to
discuss capital theory as a real problem within neoclassical economics,
so it would seem that the bulk of the neoclassical literature would, as
I've been arguing at length over a series of posts, stand unfettered (in
particular, the logical cornerstone of neoclassical economics, that
economic phenomena are best modeled as the result of interactions between
rational agents, seems completely untouched by any of Rob's arguments). I
have changed the subject line to reflect Rob's admission.
>But such a restructing will probably
>lead to a lot of theory being rejected or regarded in a new light. My standard
>example, assuming a Sraffian paradigm shift, is the work of Joe Bain and P.
>Sylos Labini. I don't know much about them, but I hardly doubt anybody
>has argued the superiority of Sylos Labini over Bain because he a Sraffian.
I have no idea what relevance this has. I'm away from my references, but
isn't Joe Bain the old school IO fellow? What on earth is Rob talking
about?
>McCloskey's disagreement of what Hausman's book is about hardly justifies
>you in concluding that I think all of economics is general equilibrium
>analysis. In fact, I don't even consider Sraffa to have dealt primarily
>with GE, unless you consider Ricardo's _Principles_ to be GE (as
>Morishima does). Hausman discusses empirical tests by pyschologists
>showing systematic irrationalities in *individual* behavior. Depending
>on whether a choice is presented as a bet or a payment for a lottery
>ticket, a single individual will respond differently. For many, one
>can even set up a series of transactions which will systematically
>funnel money from the individual being tested. Hausman discusses
>the reactions of economists to these findings and their implications for
>utility theory's (lack of) empirical basis. How is this a highbrow part of
>economics or centered on GE theory?
McCloskey emphasizes the point that Hausman places far too much emphasis
on experimental economics, since that field is one which nominally
resembles traditional science in that designed experiments may be
performed. The assumption that agents are _expected_ utility maximizers
is, once again, a technical assumption (we require a rule mapping
stochastic outcomes to the real line), making this a methodological issue.
The observation from experiment that people violate this assumption does
not mean that expected utility maximization is necessarily a bad
assumption (indeed, Rob gives us one reason to believe that people
violating the assumption will tend to learn quickly in cases where it
matters -- they become "money pumps"). There is also a considerable
literature on alternate ways of modeling behaviour under risk; I'm sure
that if this literature were to produce a tractable framework which can be
shown to perform better than expected utility maximization in other
modeling contexts, neoclassical economists will embrace it. Utility (not
expected) maximization is, however, a Lakatosian "core" assumption of
neoclassical economics. As such, it is not in and itself subject to
falsification, as it's purpose is to derive predictions which are
themselves subject to falsification.
>And, by the way, what does McCloskey say about Sraffa?
As far as I know, he's said nothing about Sraffa.
>>relevance of my query. This confusion about what constitutes
>>"neoclassical economics" meshes with Rob's previous assertions that
>>neoclassical economics became dominant because of luck and ideology; in
>>fact, it rose to dominance simply because it's very useful and flexible.
>You want to explain why earlier marginal theories did not get the reception
>of the founding three in the 1870s?
No, that would be irrelevant. A paradigm does not flourish for a century
because of events amongst a handful of men at its inception.
Markku Stenborg
In article <v01530500adb54dd610dd@[206.64.128.157]> ,
rv...@dreamscape.com writes:
>Chris Auld writes a series of non sequiturs:
>>rv...@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) writes:
[snip; I'll pass the rest of the parts of rvien's sermon to others]
>I keep on telling you that a restructuring of economics need not lead
>to every idea or theory being rejected. But such a restructing will probably
So, neoclassical is not dead then?
>lead to a lot of theory being rejected or regarded in a new light. My standard
>example, assuming a Sraffian paradigm shift, is the work of Joe Bain and P.
>Sylos Labini. I don't know much about them, but I hardly doubt anybody
>has argued the superiority of Sylos Labini over Bain because he a Sraffian.
>So why do you keep bringing up literature you claim irrelevant to Sraffianism?
>(Actually I think the sort of paradigm shift that might follow from taking
>Sraffa seriously is more along the lines of where Geoff Hodgson is going.)
Joe Bain? The olde school IO guy? You're saying he was Sraffian?
[snip]
>McCloskey's disagreement of what Hausman's book is about hardly justifies
>you in concluding that I think all of economics is general equilibrium
>analysis. In fact, I don't even consider Sraffa to have dealt primarily
>with GE, unless you consider Ricardo's _Principles_ to be GE (as
>Morishima does). Hausman discusses empirical tests by pyschologists
>showing systematic irrationalities in *individual* behavior. Depending
>on whether a choice is presented as a bet or a payment for a lottery
>ticket, a single individual will respond differently. For many, one
>can even set up a series of transactions which will systematically
>funnel money from the individual being tested. Hausman discusses
>the reactions of economists to these findings and their implications for
>utility theory's (lack of) empirical basis. How is this a highbrow part of
>economics or centered on GE theory?
These findings in no way cast doubt for "utility theory's (lack of)
empirical basis", other than for strict form of expected utility. This
states that utility is linear in probabilities. All these emprical
findings suggest that utility is systematically non-linear in
probabilities, at least in some cases, which is a completely different
issue than "utility theory's (lack of) empirical basis". Or "death of NC
Econ".
[snip]