Back in the fifties, I did a survey of Canadian Universities. I wanted to know what textbooks they were using for Basic Economics. I must say the selection (I thought) was pretty poor - and in some cases hilarious.
I remember the text used by a McMaster University econ professor (that's in Hamilton, Ontario for non-Canadians). It was his own and he wrote it with only two terms defined in the whole book.
The first was "ilth" (I think originally coined by Ruskin). Ilth was bad wealth he explained. Things like guns and munitions, artillery, and bombs. All of these were ilth.
However, he pointed out, when our "freedom loving nations" are confronted by Goering producing all this ilth, they must willy-nilly produce their own ilth. However, this ilth is called "Necessary Ilth".
So, his unfortunate students faced the world of economics with two defined terms solidly under their belts - Ilth and Necessary Ilth.
There were some others that were fun - but most universities used the standard textbooks, which were often good anecdotal reading but seemed to offer little in the way of science. I recall a book published around then which analyzed 14 American texts used in our most prestigious universities, and was horrified to find that in half of them the term Wealth was used in perfunctory fashion, while in the other half the term was not used at all.
While pointing out that terms may change in a science, the author (E. C. Harwood) pointed out it is strange to change basic terms without coming to some agreement with other members of the profession. Also, it was even more strange when the "Father of the Science" began it with a book entitled the "Wealth of Nations".
However, that was 50 years ago. What is the situation now?
I grabbed three books that were convenient on my shelves. A new Holt High School text, an economics text by Fusfeld from the seventies, and the latest McConnell text which it says is the nation's "best-selling economics textbook".
Other than that one of them brings in "ilth" again - they are very confusing. It would take too long to look at them all, so we will stay with McConnell. His piece about "Theoretical Economics" is acceptable only by beginning students who know little. Under the subhead "Terminology" he refers to laws. principles, theories, and models - then says 'we' will "use these four terms synonymously". (Why waste four words when apparently one will do.)
He follows the "unlimited desires" assumption of Classical Political Economy, but complicates it and makes it less useful. "Society's material wants, that is the material wants of its citizens and institutions are virtually unlimited and insatiable."
His second "fact" (he doesn't call them assumptions) is: "Economic resources - the means of producing goods and services - are limited or scarce." He includes all the Factors of Production in his concept of scarcity.
Apparently, if we are hungry, food must be scarce, so we pick an apple and eat it. This by reducing the number of apples by one should make food even more scarce. Or, are there degrees of scarcity?
I would say that price (or cost) is a factor. There is a scarcity of Rolls-Royce's at $20,000 apiece. There is no scarcity of the cars at $256,000 (sticker price). Economists don't like this argument.
Then, they discover we can't do everything at once. This leads to the incredible discovery that we have to choose between various alternatives.
What happened to scarcity? Now, apparently, we have so much, we can make choices.
Which brings in the nonsense of opportunity cost. This is another biggee and is taught with a straight face to all the embryo economists.
When you choose something, there is something else that is unchosen. The something that you didn't choose, the sacrifice you made, is called the opportunity cost.
I would expect you to choose the something which advantages you most (that which is most desirable). Which implies the thing you didn't choose was not so much advantage to you - was not so desirable.
How can not getting something you didn't want be a cost? It would seem more likely to be a benefit. However, that's the way it is with the neo-Classicals.
We've had a lot of fun with the "invisible hand". Brad still doesn't understand, or doesn't want to because he'd lose some good lines if he did.
Classicals analyzed from the point of view of individuals. If everyone in the community is trading to their benefit, then (as if by an invisible hand) the community would be benefited.
Classical analysis is simple. Labor (human exertion) used Land(Natural Resources) to produce Wealth, probably with the aid of Capital (Products used for more production).
People traded their products and by doing so multiplied the value of their production. When a lot of individuals traded, they formed a community, or a nation - but nothing changed the basics. Perhaps now whole corporations traded with other corporations, but the end result - Wealth - finished in the hands of the people.
The neos don't think this way. They start with the economy and often never arrive at persons. People are almost an afterthought.
This from McConnell:
"Economics is concerned with the efficient allocation of scarce resources to achieve the maximum fulfillment of society's material wants."
This is the opposite of the invisible hand. It says, if the community is doing well, the individuals must also be doing well. Well!
However, whereas the neo-Classicals are concerned with allocating scarce resources efficiently to maximize production, the Classicals are analyzing where that maximized production goes.
McConnel devotes a full quarter-page to "unequal distribution of wealth" - something he does without comment.
The Classicals spend much time on why people are poor, perhaps crystallized in Henry George's question (which you have heard before):
"Why, in spite of the enormous increase in the power to produce, is it so hard to make living?"
The question is still relevant.
Harry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed wrote:
Brad, I know, and have worked with, a lot of Ph.D.'s Most are very good, technically, in their fields, but few of them would be able to meet the criteria you have set out. I have also known other people who are not Ph.D.'s, but who would probably come close to meeting your criteria. One of my mentors, with whom I worked in my thirties, had the equivalent of a grade school education, but had an incredible ability to see through, and explain, how people organized themselves and why they did so. Another person, a friend I run into every once in a while, is now in his late eighties. I believe he finished the equivalent of high school, but never went to university. Nevertheless, he became scientific advisor to the Canadian Minister of Northern Affairs and wrote books on navigation. He was a pioneer arctic aviator. There are others, un Ph.D'd, that would fit your criteria but I won't go into that for the time being.My quarrel with what Keith wrote is that it seemed to deny the effort that each generation has had to put into framing its own understanding of the changing world. The Classical economists put forward their understanding of their world. Though Marx would not have agreed, that understanding may have been appropriate for their time. Current practitioners of the dismal science have to try to understand and explain a very different world, and perhaps a much more complex one. In response to one of my previous postings, Ray Evans Harrell suggested that the difference may be similar to that between Newtonian and quantum physics. That may indeed be a valid analogy. One could argue that the Classicists focused on immutable aspects of human behaviour whereas modern economists have come to recognize that very little in the human experience is immutable and a great deal of it is uncertain and unpredictable. A lot of what the Classicists thought is still relevant today, but to try to explain the economic behaviour of the current and emerging world in purely Classical terms would provide only a very partial explanation. There are economists around today that are every bit as valid as the Classicists, but they have to think differently from them because the world has become a very different place. Regards, Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: Lucky Duckies > Ed Weick wrote: > > Keith: > > > > > >>Indeed, in my view, most present-day "economists" are not economists at > >>all, but only econometricists. They attempt to describe and measure the > >>economy but not to understand it in any fundamental way. All the > >>"economists" we can think of during, roughly, the last century have been > >>either econometricists or economic journalists of greater or lesser > >>brilliance, and have given insights of greater or lesser relevance. None > > > > of > > > >>them actually got to the root of the matter, least of all Keynes who was > >>merely a Bloomsbury, quasi-Fabian elitist. > >> > >>For real economists, we still have to go back to the geniuses of the > >>subject, to those who grappled with economics within the context of the > >>other big issues of the human condition -- of demographics, politics, > >>trade, disease, cultural differences and so on. They were polymaths more > >>than merely economists. We have to skip over many "economists" of the last > >>century who dwelt on, and burnished, one or two facets of the subject and > >>go back to Marx, Ricardo, Malthus, Smith, Say . . . all the way to > >>Aristotle (though there must have been a few before him who have gone > >>unrecorded). Even though some of the true economists of the past may have > >>gone wildly wrongly -- wholly or partially -- it is only these, with both > > > > a > > > >>wide and deep view of economics within the whole field of human activity > >>who can be called true economists. > > > > > > Keith, I have a lot of respect for you, but when I read crap like this, it > > begins to wane pretty quickly! > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > Keith's definition of real economists as more > than mere economists seems to fit in with my definition of a > PhD: > > A PhD should attest that the recipient > has demonstrated love (phil) of wisdom (sophia), > with particular attention to the application of wisdom > to a certain discipline, and concurrently with > concern for the application of that discipline to > the cultivation of wisdom generally. This concern > should manifest itself, among other ways, > as passion for teaching and/or > healing (doctor), facilitated especially through > the means provided by said discipline. > > Mere technical mastery > of a disciplinary field, should be certified > by a MA or MS degree. Such persons should be > permitted to practice what they know how to do but do not > know what to do with, only under supervision of > PhD level persons (see above). > > Professors, in addition to the criteria for PhD, > should also PROFESS wisdom, i.e., effectively publicly speak > for the common good, in particular, speaking out > for truth that either does not yet have a voice > or whose voice has been silenced. > > Those who cannot meet such criteria can acquit > themselves honorably by acknowledging their > limitations and not pretending to be more than > they are. Indeed, since there is no person > whose abilities and powers are unbounded, > this is a virtue which Everyman can practice. > > And, finally, I have learned from some unintending > teachers, that: > > No person can rise so high > that they cannot reach a hand down > to help another person up. > > \brad mccormick > > -- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ > --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
