EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
It’s the Economists Stupid
Economists like to think they are scientists but for the most part, aware of it or not, they are shilling for the powers that be. We won’t get out of this mess, until we call them on their shell game, broaden our thinking about how and for whom the economy works and take matters into our own hands.
What makes economists think they are doing science? Well, economists collect data and test their theories against objective real-world facts. They ask how well their models predict outcomes. They portray themselves as disinterested, as simply providing policy makers with facts; it is the policy makers who make normative judgments concerning policy – who gets the tax break; who gets fired; who gets fed. If you or I criticize their methods we are written off as unscientific, having an agenda, somehow weak minded.
Scratch the surface of this façade and it quickly crumbles. Economists rely on theories riddled with normative judgments – more is better, work is a disutility, it is rational to be self-interested – and with ways of viewing the world that skew their vision – we act independently, we are rational, labor is a resource.
Because economists’ theories, with all their implicit judgments and viewpoints, inform their way of seeing the world, the data they take to be an objective measure against which to test their theory is not objective at all. It is, itself, defined by the theory it is used to test. There is no objective measure, somehow defined outside of theory for theorists, economic or otherwise, to test their theories. Nor can economists, any more than soothsayers, predict the future. What is most surprising is not that economists think they are doing science, but that they have so little curiosity about what it means to do science. These observations on the problems associated with scientific method are more than 50 years old.
Don’t think I’m saying that one cannot do economics at all, only that any number of approaches to economics, be it institutional, feminist, Marxist or ecological, is possible. Each theory defines the economy differently, describes human behavior differently, and comes to different conclusions about what to do. One cannot claim as mainstream economists do, that only their approach is correct; only their approach produces a rational view of the world. That’s pure hubris. Hubris got us into this mess and it’s unlikely to get us out.
So it’s curious when a well-known economist decides to change camps. I am thinking of Richard Posner, the well-regarded Chicago school economists who recently declared he is now a Keynesian. Mostly when economic theory goes awry, economists blame everything except the theory – the data was faulty, an exogenous shock. Rarely does someone have the courage and honesty to consider he might have been wrong, all along, to think that markets are self-correcting. So let’s applaud Posner and for the time being put aside all the harm he and his cohorts have wreaked, at home and abroad, by insisting that markets self-regulate – a position that Posner has now, after thirty years of war on the working class, concluded is false. Let’s not ask, either, why the breakdown of the world economic system has yielded only one such convert.
The question I have for Posner is this: Which Keynes are you lining up behind - Keynes the conservative or Keynes the radical? Keynes the conservative sees the irrationality inherent in financial markets and protects the wealthy classes by insulating the real economy from this irrationality. Keynes the conservative protects capitalism from the actions of the real radicals – those who would throw open the door to even greater market excess in order to prove, once and for all, that economic collapse is not due to too little intervention but too much. Keynes the conservative would cringe at the Supreme Court’s decision, to treat corporations as persons, to flood the political system with even more corporate dollars to undo regulation. Keynes the conservative knows that without such intervention, and at least a veneer of legitimacy, the capitalist system is doomed.
I doubt very much that Posner is lining up behind Keynes the radical. Keynes the radical sees the irrationality inherent in financial markets and seeks to socializes wealth to prevent workers from being thrown out hungry into the streets. Keynes the radical believes that rationality results not from ‘independent’ profit-making decisions of corporations but from analysis and debate that produces policies that promote the common good. Keynes the radical considers the economic prospects of our grandchildren.
But Keynes the radical was no radical. Keynes the radical had no faith in the ability of working people to take charge of their economic fate. Keynes, even Keynes the radical, was all top down. All white bread. All patriarchy. All stuffed shirt. We’ve been there and done that haven’t we? Good for Posner for renouncing the blind faith that got us all in this mess. But even Keynes the radical can’t save us now.
The scientific community, I mean the real one, has its own problems with objectivity, but most scientists agree that we have to act very quickly to avoid catastrophic climate change. Throwing the door wide open to corporate dominance of politics is irrational – the legal equivalent of the final scene from Thelma and Louise only, this time, the straight white men are driving and you and I are on board. Someone has to get their foot on the brake and grab the wheel.
Howard Zinn’s gone. Gone, now, just when we need him the most. But his whole life he has been pointing us in the right direction. Don’t be impressed by the men in suits. Don’t listen to the pseudo-scientific babble of the high priests of the economy. Take things in your own hands, work for what’s right, make a bold move in the direction of the common good. It’s you and me who have to get up front and grab the wheel. We have to do it now – we have no time to waste.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

123 Comments so far
Show AllIn view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court bestowing personhood on corporations, how can we even expect that things will change? My belief is that the President, Congress, and our Supreme Court aren't even interested in pursuing any change for the betterment of the citizens of the U.S. (who are as insignificant as ants)! They're pursuing a different track that involves the permanent installation of corporations as the ONLY citizens of the United States that matter and for only whom Congress should be legislating! Wealth and position are the only important assets for these "new" citizens!
We have been headed in that direction since candidate Reagan first stole Carter's debate papers and illegally made deals with the Iranians. It was not that difficult to see coming. I even made a career change because of it in the mid-80s. Now the US is perfectly positioned to create a world consistent with the darkest visions of SciFi writers of the 20th Century.
You "even made a career change in the mid 80s" and I even got a vasectomy in the mid 80s, realizing that a post-Reagan world would not be fit for human habitation (or habitation by many other living things). I wish we hadn't been right.
Economists' theories and conclusions are based on the interests of whoever signs their paycheck.
Economics has not yet developed a scientific theory because its theorists only offer apologias for existing social arrangements -- or had too little science to rely upon in the first place. Adam Smith posited that labor is the source of all value, a notion endorsed also by Karl Marx -- but if labor is the fundamental characteristic, it must be governed by the laws of thermodynamics, the second of which would prohibit the concept of profits. These laws were promulgated by Lord Kelvin in 1850-51 and not indisputably proved until 1900 with the work of Max Planck. Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and Karl Marx died in 1883. In this regard I always offer these links:
http://www.eco.uni-heidelberg.de/ng-oeoe/research/papers/Faber%20et%20al%20AEE%201998.pdf
http://www.eco.uni-heidelberg.de/ng-oeoe/research/papers/JPEE_Introduction.pdf
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/jointprod.pdf
http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/themes/3Second%20sessions%20panel/1Indicators/Friend%20A%20Degrowth%20Paris%20april%202008%20presentation.pdf
But what binds all these views of economy is the concept of "property," a legal construct that considers a sandwich, a deli shop, a bakery, a bank, a brokerage as all being identical items with identical "rights" for their "owners." It is to protect this delusion that Justice is blind; she sees all property as identical in law. But it is property that creates unequality in society that sustains the prospect of inequality before the law. A scientific economics must address the legal issues of property, drawing distinctions among the various kinds -- necessarily rejecting outright the centerpeice of conservative ideology: that property should be inviolate.
"it must be governed by the laws of thermodynamics, the second of which would prohibit the concept of profits"
Could you expand on this further? I don't understand it.
Thanks
Cheers.
The second law of thermodynamics states that it is impossible to derive more energy (labor) from a system than was input. If more labor is being derived from a system than was input, it implies that others are also making unattributed and unrecognized inputs; they are therefore victims of the systems and the profits arise not from the transaction itself but from the victims of the transactions.
The only offset to this rule is the effect created by the sun in its radiance to grow vegetation and creating secondary effects, predominantly in wind and tides. The greatest degree of victimization is borne by the mute victims without civil rights: the animals whose habitat is continually taken by capitalist society far beyond the ranges claimed by pre-capitalist societies. Other victims include villagers world-wide, workers, customers, suppliers, and the public ... I guess that pretty much takes in everyone except those who own intangible properties that extract profits -- which could not be done without the support of the state for their "property rights," a support for which they expect the public to pay and not themselves.
thank you for this post, classact...
Marx and Smith seem to ignore Human Intellect and it's role in creating wealth, if you are correctly stating what they have said.
Human intellect can increase the efficiency of transactions, but it cannot turn transactions into over-energy deliverance of surpluses.
See my other post about "value". I am sure that plays a role in profit. If you are saying there is no free lunch, I agree, but matter and enrgy take different forms of order and these are valued differently.
Yes, both Smith and Marx used the term "value." A "market" prescribes the "value," however, participation in the market is in diminishing capacity for those without the universal, i.e. monopoly, commodity: money. (It is the state, of course, who must create this monopoly commodity in order to prevent counterfeiting, as the US discovered in the Jacksonian era.) The animals who bear the brunt of all expansion have no traffic at all in the market except as commodities; the villagers have only a minimal contact with the market except as they are deprived of their villages and turned into laborers (a process on-going throughout the world since the English Civil War and the establishment of the concept of "property" on behalf of the gentry and their successors); the workers from a diminished and passive capacity; and the employers from an active determination of the monetary price they wish.
"Yes, both Smith and Marx used the term "value.""
OK then.
"A "market" prescribes the "value," "
Don't you mean *price*? Value changes depending on the individual. That is, there is a competing subjective theory of value.
This is an equivocation on the word "value." Smith begins from an abstraction regarding barter where peaches and pears would apply as value for exchange. It is when money is made the universal commodity, as Marx observed, that value becomes price when it is the universal intercessor in exchange.
Never mind money, in a simple example of bartering with fruit: We each *value* apples and pears equally. We each would also most value an equal number of each. I have ten of one, you have ten of the other. We each gain *value* by a simple trade of five for five. We are both better off after the swap.
This is all value in the sense of our own tastes and sensibilities, no need for any thermodynamics.
Value may change depending on the individual, but when stripped down to essentials, and under certain conditions, value need not be all that subjective. There are certain fundamental requirements such as food, clothing and shelter, etc. In India, for example, people in the cities get paid several times more than what a farmer in the village earns, and the city people can claim that they produce greater value. Because everything is monetized, they are able to buy food on the cheap (relative to their income), and enjoy luxuries, whereas a food-producing farmer can barely survive, because the value of what he produces is determined by others.
But what if the farmers are in a position to organize and say they demand a higher price (higher value), or even that they simply want to be left alone? Then the government's role will be exposed - where it takes resources from the villages and concentrates in the cities, while pretending that it's a fair exchange. That this is an unfair exchange is not acknowledged by those who control the power, and the villagers are probably not thinking along these lines either. They just want relief from their immediate problems.
I think it should be possible to show that the latest gadget which costs a couple of hundred dollars is of less value than a day's worth of food for a person - under the right conditions. And when these conditions are clearly defined, taking the finite nature of resources into account, then the "price" of a golf course, for example, in a place of limited water supply and limited farmland will be far, far higher than what the elite pay for its use currently.
When you look at individual transactions and assume that both parties agree to the transaction and that there is no coercion, then by definition both parties receive greater value as a result of how they value the assets/money/commodity differently from each other. Otherwise they would not have engaged in the transaction.
Good point. In the Indian context I used as an example, coercion is easy to show as very much part of the transaction. The pricing of what farmers produce gets decided in the "market" controlled by the elite. They can decide what gets imported, and they can also decide what they exchange in return for this import. What gets exchanged could be a natural resource or something produced using this natural resource. Except, technically, the resource belongs to all the people (as per the earlier law, which is being changed in bits and pieces, so ownership is slowly privatized). And the proceeds from exploiting these resource reach only a small number of people through well-controlled systems of exchange.
Coercion also takes a more direct form - where farmers are essentially evicted from their farmland, because that land is needed for some other activity, and the "compensation" paid to them is NOT accepted by the farmers as fair. This has happened in China, too. Since coercion happens in these cases in the present day, it's easy to see them as they happen. However, imagine the situation several decades from now - where the farmers thus evicted from their land are reduced to survival mode, where the value of whatever they produce - through physical labor - becomes even less, relatively speaking. And imagine also, that the descendants of these farmers do not know the history - about what happened to their parents or grandparents who were thrown out of their land. Not knowing the history, I think they are more likely to accept when someone says that what they produce is obviously of little value. Accepting that, they may even go along with a transaction with no "apparent" coercion - because they are only experiencing the effects of a coercion that clearly happened in the past.
Coercion can take place at some point in time, and the advantages and disadvantages as a result to the two parties involved (and their descendants), can get solidified and institutionalized, defended by law. In such a situation, the advantaged party (whose affiliates also control the market and the means of exchange) may feel he is somehow more productive and more gifted, and the other party is somehow lazy or less productive. There will be exceptions. Some from the disadvantaged class will manage to rise in life - which will be used as proof that the others from his class are not working hard enough or smart enough.
My point is that it's easy to fudge historical facts too, and say there is no coercion in the present day.
"Good point."
Thank you, and thank you for your response.
"In the Indian context I used as an example, coercion is easy to show as very much part of the transaction. The pricing of what farmers produce gets decided in the "market" controlled by the elite."
In such an example my tendency is to look closer and see why. I usually start with political leadership that fails the people because it is such a common occurance. Think of countries where payment bribes are routine. Remember too India has a caste system. And I wonder how the view and uphold contracts.
"Coercion also takes a more direct form - where farmers are essentially evicted from their farmland, because that land is needed for some other activity, and the "compensation" paid to them is NOT accepted by the farmers as fair. This has happened in China, too."
Political leadership that fails the people.
"My point is that it's easy to fudge historical facts too, and say there is no coercion in the present day."
Well, you don't hear me saying that, I was talking about a theoretical situation. Even in the best case it's not perfect.
Really. This clapped out post modernist attempt at applying the laws of physics to human behaviour has been debunked so many times and so well I wonder that you have the chutzpa to post such nonsense at all.
Your use of scientific terms might intimidate an arts graduate and make you feel smart and beyond criticism but is doesn't impress me.
Try reading "Fashionable Nonsense"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense
and "The Limits to Entropy: the Continuing Misuse of Thermodynamics in Environmental and Marxist theory"
2008, Science & Society v. 72, No.1, 43-62.
http://www.redandgreen.org/Documents/Limits%20to%20entropy%20final.htm
If you had visited the links I listed, you would have seen that my position is not based on that of Georgescu-Roegen. The Science & Society article is a political attack based on simplistic readings of ecological economics by association with Malthus. It is a political piece that does not parse the applicability of the science. My approach is based on the recent book Joint Production and Responsibility in Ecological Economics by Malte Michael Faber, Johannes Schiller, neither of whom take Georgescu-Roegen's approach and certainly hold no truck with Malthus. Your rejection of a scientific approach might impress arts graduates, but I am learning better myself.
Would you consider the possibility that there could be a genuine attempt to use the laws of physics (including thermodynamics) precisely to expose the fraud perpetrated by the current capitalist system? Or any system that attempts to fudge numbers by using *other* theories that are even less defensible? Personally, I think the best way (that I have found) to call the bluff of the economists and the free-market profiteers is by the use of physics, and even engineering principles. They can also be used as a basis to construct a more equitable and sustainable system or society. I don't want to enter into a lengthy argument here, except to point out that it could be a mistake to brush off any attempts to use physics or thermodynamics while discussing economic systems. These laws do not leave much room for obfuscation or fudging of numbers, and they don't permit the avoidance of natural laws - such as the finite nature of certain resources and the finite rate of certain processes (such as photosynthesis) - something that routinely takes place in the field of economics. Not only in economics, but these laws can be used to call the BS by politicians talking about jobs, green industries and so on - by forcing them to face numbers, instead of words.
I think physics can help explain a *part* of economics, but what about how different people value things differently? And what physics would explain the "rational" or "irrational" behaviour of those in the market? Those are areas you can fudge and I don't think there is any escaping that.
jakenewton, you can still use physics and physical limits to corner people into admitting that they consider some people as more deserving than others. Since it would then be a mental concept and not a physical reality, there may not be much that physics can do - which is what leads to different people valuing things differently. In a resource-constrained world, physics can be used to expose the exploitation done in the name of king, country, religion, etc. At least then it will be out in the open. It HAST TO BE - if there is an open debate.
At that point, a line will be clearly drawn - between those that think equitable sharing of resources is a desirable thing, and leaving a sustainable world for our children and grandchildren should be a priority, etc., and those who will essentially have to say, might makes right, winner takes all and makes the rules, short-term profit outweighs considerations of sustainability, and that some are more deserving than the majority. Physics cannot change their minds - but it can be used to draw this line. If you are in a ship with limited supplies, including fresh water, and a crew (+passengers) of a certain size, the only way that supplies can be used unequally is if there is a general agreement, and where this unequal 'sharing' is not life-threatening. Even a die-hard capitalist and free-marketeer will think twice before taking too much for himself, if he wants to make it to the shore safely
What people do with this exposure is a different matter. There too, physics can be of help - even right down to individual action, including non-violent, spirituality-based action, but I'll leave that for some other occasion :)
"they consider some people as more deserving than others."
*I* "admit" it's often the case, depends on what you are talking about though.
I'm simply talking about a world of finite resources. You can often get away with saying "some are more deserving" when you are on land - a big enough land, and you can even take what belongs to another, and still get away with it. But not in a small island, and certainly not in a ship - unless there are clearly two classes of people. But then it will be in the open. The situation today is that it's possible to pretend that it's a democracy, and people are not accepting the reality of finite resources - even ordinary people. This is a form of fudging, too. My hope is that physics can help remove this kind of an illusion and bring facts in the open, force people to think and act like they are in a ship with limited supplies, and where piracy (taking from other ships) is not an option anymore.
It is in the open nature of the ship or island example where you will notice the situation where someone doesn't pull their own weight. Maybe physics can be used to expose the case of those who are genuinely lazy and help inform us of whether they are equally deserving. I'm not at all saying that those who are lacking are always lazy of course.
Sure, that should be possible too. Everything will be in the open. Even the value of that produced by supposedly more productive people. The community will decide what is valuable and how much, and who gets to starve to death because he doesn't produce enough of value :)
See: Spaceship Earth:
http://tinyurl.com/db83kc
>>In 1965 Adlai Stevenson made a speech to the UN in which he said "We travel together, passengers on a little space ship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil". The following year, Spaceship Earth became the title of a book by a friend of Stevenson's, the internationally influential economist Barbara Ward.<<
Gary
"It is certainly no solution to evict the poor, replacing their squalid housing with much more expensive buildings which the original tenants can’t afford to reoccupy. Our society adopts many such superficial palliatives. Because yesterday’s negatives are moved out of sight from their familiar locations many persons are willing to pretend to themselves that the problems have been solved. I feel that one of the reasons why we are struggling inadequately today is that we reckon our costs on too shortsighted a basis and are later overwhelmed with the unexpected costs brought about by our shortsightedness."
-- R Buckminister Fuller, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1969)
In case the URL is cut off try http://tinyurl.com/ye732ou or hit reply to get full URL.
Gary
“The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters.”
-- unknown
In classic capitalistic economics there were four inputs to production; labor, land (natural resources) capital and entrepreneurship. The input of labor received wages, the input of land received rents, the input of capital received interest and the input of entrepreneurship received profits.
Entrepreneurship was differentiated from labor in that labor was completely unskilled and one worker could be plugged into the duties of another worker with no change in output, while entrepreneurship was the intellectual organization of the various inputs most efficiently which generated profits when compaired to other enterprises that were less efficiently organized.
"entrepreneurship was the intellectual organization of the various inputs most efficiently which generated profits when compaired to other enterprises that were less efficiently organized."
Right, labor has to be directed towards some useful goal. Can't just dig holes everywhere and expect to get paid for it.
Just to be clear: solar input is not an exception to the 2nd Law. The sun's radiant energy is simply the source of nearly all energy in the Earth's systems. (A certain amount, relatively tiny, comes from processes inside the Earth.) We use this energy in myriad ways, and in every case we lose some of the input to heat (i.e. entropy). You always get less out than you put in, in terms of useful work.
But the thrust of this comment is right on. The only means of profit is to co-opt someone else's energy, and there will always be a diminishing return which requires further exploitation in order to maintain profit levels. This is a version of Marx's insights into the contradictions of capitalism, which should be painfully obvious by now -- even to an economist!
"You always get less out than you put in, in terms of useful work.
"
But it's of a different order, an order that is *valued* differently.
It is true that Marx took over from Smith & Ricardo the concept of labor value, but, unlike them, he deployed the concept in a way that fits in with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Marx argued that profits result from "surplus value," that is, value added to products by uncompensated labor. This is precisely what "exploitation" consists in: not all of the work that wage laborers do is covered by their wage; a portion is pure slavery. A complicated argument about "necessary" and "unnecessary" labor time informs Marx's analysis. But the point is: the hours that go into a making a product are reflected in its value, but some of that value is expropriated by the capitalist (when the thing is sold) as pure profit. What goes in ("input") is the same as what comes out ("output"), only the wage form and the price mechanism obscures this dynamic. Niether Smith nor Ricardo had an inkling of what Marx called "the secret of surplus value."
Of course, Marx's theory is controversial, but it does offer a credible account of "exploitation" and it does so in a way that does not violate the 2nd law.
"What goes in ("input") is the same as what comes out ("output"), "
Only when quantified by the most simple of means. Your statement does not account for the dramatic changes in the form from input to output.
Marx converts into a scientific-sounding formula the notion that it is unfair to profit by skimming off the productivity of others.
Thing is, he doesn't make an ethical or anthropological or sociological argument. His "surplus labor" argument is Physics-flavored, and thus, his epistomology is as pseudo-scientific as any other Modern school of Economics.
And equally messianic.
Sorry, but your "authoritative" account of the second law illustrates how physics is as nominal as economics. To what the second law comes is the analytic assumption of a universe of finite content (conservation of energy), and ability of any state of this fixed content to occur only once (the second law of thermodynamics). Economists assume infinite content (the substitution effect and abstraction), and ability of any state of this unfixed content to occur more than once (value). Both conceptions are definitional. Neither is objective, since their identity is a function of presuppositions--the parameters of the "experiment." Distinction between "hard" natural science, and "soft" social science, is a function of the unstated presupposition in social science of human free will. Otherwise, distinction between natural and social science is spurious. Methodologies of environmental biology and sociology are effectively indistinguishable. Methodologies of paleontology and human history are effectively indistinguishable. Methodologies of theoretical physics ("natural philosophy") and philosophy are effectively indistinguishable.
There are many strong renderings of the second law of thermodynamics, I just chose an easy version for the point of the argument. For the point of your argument a wording could be chosen that states that the product of a given reaction cannot be immediately used as an input to that reaction. Physics is that to which philosophy must ultimately adapt.
Relative to “Physics is that to which philosophy must ultimately adapt,” we have, Richard Feynman,
"It is also possible that scientific theories, because of the nature of scientific method, cannot specify the whole meaning of their concepts. There may be, and likely is, an irreducible metaphysical element to all physical concepts," [John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin, Richard Feynman, A Life in Science (Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997), http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm.]
and Werner Heisenberg,
"the difficulty of separating the subject and objective aspects of the world. Many of the abstractions that are characteristic of modern theoretical physics are to be found discussed in the philosophy of past centuries. At that time these abstractions could be disregarded as mere mental exercises by those scientists whose only concern was with reality, but today we are compelled by the refinements of experimental art to consider them seriously." [Werner Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, trans. Carl Eckart and F. C. Hoyt (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1949) 65.]
Sorry, you’re out of step with the physicists.
And behind them all, we have Kurt Godel, who finds that no sufficiently robust system can fully and rigorously define its own terms. This, however, deals with meaning and not with the objects themselves.
In the quantum world (or through the quantum world as machines to exploit it are developed) the rules are very different. One wishes for strawberry ice cream, holds out one's cone, and it is filled with strawberry ice cream. Good luck, though, on getting your strawberry ice cream particle by particle ... because of one's inability to rigorously define strawberry ice cream.
Relevant to your comment, "This, however, deals with meaning and not with the objects themselves," Gödel asserts,
"Classes and concepts may, however, also be conceived as real objects, namely classes as ‘pluralities of things’ or as structures consisting of a plurality of things and concepts as the properties and relations of things existing independently of our definitions and constructions.
It seems to me that the assumption of such objects is quite as legitimate as the assumption of physical bodies and there is quite as much reason to believe in their existence." [Kurt Gödel, “Russell’s Mathematical Logic,” in The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp (Harper & Row: New York, 1963) 137.]
Left unclear is the location of these "real objects." Most plausibly he would concur with,
"We might describe Kant’s theory as a conceptualistic theory, since he holds that the objects of geometrical knowledge are real but have their reality only within the mind." [Stephen F. Barker, Philosophy of Mathematics (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964) 31.]
Now, either this "reality" is genetic as Kant would have it, or nominal as David Hilbert would have it. Considering the Cantor, Russell, and Buralli-Forti paradoxes, most mathematicians settle for it being nominal. As nominal, it is constituted in axiomatic theory. Advocates of the Copenhagen Variation incorporate this in quantum theory, concluding no explanation of data is possible independently of the experimental context. Declaring, "God does not play dice [statistics] with the universe," Einstein rejects this. Alternative Variations of quantum theory then attempt to provide such a "substance," but only in a hypothetical expression. Relevant to this entire enterprise, however, as indicated by the hypothetical character of alternate Quantum Variations, is the nominal character of physics.
This introduces a basic flaw in your depiction of social and natural science, a flaw philosophers of science have been investigating since at least the 1960s. Science is a social activity populated by human beings. If social scientific results are unnecessary, and physical scientific results are necessary, then an unnecessary entity produces necessary results. Probability of this is one in infinity. Unlikely as so, explanation requires a metaphysic to explain it. Advocates of a "soft" social science and "hard" natural science have provided no such metaphysic, leaving the distinction implausible.
Axioms must be expressive of physical reality or they must fail in the long run. One could nominally express "magic" as being the source of all phenomena, but its numeric correspondences would not be falsifiable. The statistical issue of quantum physics may not be relevant here because in larger physics, reliable, falsifiable results are obtained without reference to the states of the particles. I introduced no matter whatever regarding social sciences, but in this area statistical results are known to be reliable, advertisers use them constantly without regard to whether some are repelled by a particular message with full certainty that a statistical result will be obtained. Humans, too, are in an indeterminate state until they encounter some phenomena that compels a particular state from them. No person is indispensable it is said, therefore unnecessary, yet they produce the necessities of life, so there is no correlation between necessary and unnecessary properties.
Here's your problem with verification,
"I propose to say that a statement is indirectly verifiable if it satisfies the following conditions: first, that in conjunction with certain other premises it entails one or more directly verifiable statements which are not deducible from these other premises alone; and secondly, that these other premises do not include any statement that is not either analytic, or directly verifiable, or capable of being independently established as indirectly verifiable. . . . I confess, however, that it now seems to me unlikely that any metaphysician would yield to a claim of this kind; and although I should still defend the use of the criterion of verifiability as a methodological principle, I realize that for the effective elimination of metaphysics it needs to be supported by detailed analyses of particular metaphysical arguments." [A. J. Ayer, “The Principle of Verification,” in Classics of Analytic Philosophy, ed. Robert R. Ammerman (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), 129, italics mine.]
Importantly, Ayer never provides the requisite "detailed analyses of particular metaphysical arguments." This is because verification conditions are constituent of the axioms of any conceptual scheme. Being so, religion can be as verified on its verification conditions as any science you propose, including physics and, sadly, economics.
Where economics fails is indicated in the following passage:
“Different sciences have various explanations for why people do what they do. . . . Economists . . . argue that if we want an analysis that’s simple enough to apply to policy problems, . . . heavy psychological explanations are likely to get us mixed up. At least to start with, we need an easier underlying psychological foundation. And economists have one—self-interest. People do what they do because it’s in their self-interest.” [David Colander, Microeconomics, sixth edition (Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006), 188.]
Accepting “heavy psychological explanations . . . get us mixed up” because considering more variables than the “easier underlying psychological foundation” of economics, it is difficult to understand how economic resolution of “policy problems” can be successful since considering fewer variables than apparently more accurate “heavy psychological explanations,” they must fail more often than not. This is a variation of assuming while behaving unnecessarily as a society, natural scientists discover necessary truths. Probability of the effect from the cause being null but one, the assertion is implausible.
The "self interest" paradigm is a tautology because people act against their interests all the time, and not always altruistically. (What's the matter with Kansas?) Perception of the self is different than the self and we have to fall back into the Buddha's observation that the self is conditional and cannot be determined by reference to anything else. The verification matter comes back to the post about Godel I made above. Language cannot validate its own axioms of meaning, as such ... no two persons are actually speaking the same language, yet communication appears to happen anyway, so long as we agree to avoid the self-referential hall of mirrors.
"The "self interest" paradigm is a tautology because people act against their interests all the time, and not always altruistically. "
Don't we all know that already? When we ask why people bought or sold company xyz today, and ask if they were rational or irrational, or whether they did or did not "correctly" consider if the transaction was "right" for them, isn't the answer "all of the above in some mix that will likely be different tomorrow"?
Alright, ClassAct, it's time to bring out the big guns. Colander integrates all of this discussion into perfect harmony, where after asserting, “People do what they do because it’s in their self-interest,” [David Colander, Microeconomics, sixth edition (Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006), 188.] he explains,
“In all known economies, coordination has involved some type of coercion—limiting people’s wants and increasing the amount of work individuals are willing to do to fulfill those wants. The reality is that many people would rather play than help solve society’s problems.” [Colander, 5.]
Now where in this erudition can you find any inconsistency?
As for your siren call to a discussion of language, let us call a halt. Layout of this blog site is such that replies are becoming increasingly elongated, and if you get me discussing language, my responses will be no more than a letter wide.
All anthropologists I know of would dispute Dr. Colander's description of "all known economies." Remember the movie "The Emerald Forest"? When asked why he does not make the boy do as his extra-tribal father wishes, the chief says, "If I make a man do what he does not want, I will not be chief for very long."
"Adam Smith posited that labor is the source of all value, a notion endorsed also by Karl Marx "
Are you sure they said *value*? Value tends to be a question of subjectivity. I like apples, you like pears.
BTW, weren't you and I talking about fiat vs. commodity money in depth about a year ago?
ClassAct, I know it's tempting for many people (including me) to invoke thermodynamics to explain many things :) But I just wanted to throw in a word of caution before this particular thread grows too long, with possible misconceptions. The second law itself can be stated in several different ways, but it's important to declare or acknowledge something as a closed system or as an open system, to avoid confusion and error. So, when you treat the Earth as an open system receiving energy from the Sun, then you don't have to call that input as an "exception", but something to be consciously accounted in our calculations.
If "Adam Smith posited that labor is the source of all value" as you mention, then again, that statement is *incomplete* - if he is referring to only human labor. Although a farmer creates value by preparing the soil, planting, watering, etc., there is obviously additional work done by the microbes, the nearby trees, earthworms, bees, etc., and of course the primary input is sunlight. So, saying that labor is the source of value falls into the capitalist trap - where labor is treated as an input and where everything is assigned a monetary value. Yes, such simplifications are necessary to decide who gets paid how much and what price to charge for a product - but it is a major simplification.
It is however an important factor to keep in mind when challenging the existing system. If labor is a primary factor in creating value, then obviously the compensation for various workers - right up to the CEO - has to be proportional to the value they create, and this is where a lot of fudging of numbers takes place. How do you apportion the value for the work of a marketing guy versus a production worker or a manager or a CEO? Just citing the marketplace - such as the availability of "talent" is once again a form of fudging. If a CEO is deemed so valuable simply because you cannot find someone with similar "qualifications", it should be questioned - by getting back to the basics - about what exactly the CEO is doing to be paid so much. And that is where you run into the concepts of property and profits. CEOs are paid so much precisely because they maximize the profits to the shareholders. But if you treat a corporation as a system, then profits are actually a form of "loss" - from the point of view of the consumer, as well as a worker, unless these profits are shared with the workers. Once again, the consumer will have to pay extra - to cover for this profit. (We need to distinguish between salary and profit - a distinction conveniently and too often omitted in arguments by the capitalists. In the health insurance industry especially, there can be NO room for profits, beyond salaries for those who work; any "surplus" should be used to reduce the risk premium, and not siphoned off as "profit")
One way to challenge the existing system is by voluntarily creating a cooperative system to produce competing products at a cheaper price. Here again, it will be necessary to expose all the "externalities" - things for which the current capitalists DO NOT pay - such as environmental pollution, military expenditure (which is precisely what allows them to get oil and other resources on the cheap), use of public resources - including the atmosphere and the waterways - as a sink to dump the waste products, etc. If it can be made a truly level playing field where such "externalities" have a cost, and if a corporation still creates superior products, then I think we should not grudge them making a profit. Even in the past - several centuries ago - a trader, such as those who used the silk route - putting in enormous labor and taking great risks, who buys some things not available back home, and selling things at a profit - did not threaten the stability of a society. How much profit he is allowed to make - now, that is the question. That is not difficult to address that question, if we get back to the basics. Anyway, I just thought I'd jump in a bit here.