Just as "natural history" in Victorian times was formative in the development of botany, zoology, biology and evolutionary theory, the traditional description of economics as dealing with the "Nature, the Production, and the Distribution of Wealth" shows that it still at an early stage of understanding.
We can only move towards economics being regarded as a science when we start to examine the *causes* of economics and trade. Why did the whole business start in the first place? If we were able to trace back the history of every single item of consumer goods -- however trivial it may seem to us today -- we will discover that, in every case (apart from food), it first made its appearance as a item desired for its enhancement of status. Status, as in every social mammal sepcies, is the means by which selection is made for sexual activity, the strongest of our instincts apart from eating, and for its only slightly lesser byproduct -- though still valuable -- of social inclusion with the group or community.
Today, the whole world of politics and business, is in a dither. Economists can give us no guidance of where we're heading. Unfortunately, the classical economists can give us no guidance. Major figures though they were, they had not yet started to ask the Why question.
Until we do so -- and in my view appreciate that economic activity is mainly driven by new consumer goods bought for status only -- then we can make no sensible forecasts of just where modern society in developed countries is heading. Until we do, economics will remain as a purely descriptive activity -- as at the 'beetle collection stage' of the biological sciences 200 years ago or, to change the metaphor, the various economic nostrums that are prescribed today are no better than the weird variety of medicines that doctors gave to their patients 200 years ago before medical science started looking for causes of diseases.
Keith
At 23:00 12/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Arthur,
Wouldn't you know it?
You almost repeated - word for word - what Henry George said in
1878.
Great minds think alike!
It's the reason why Classical Political Economy is described as
"The Science that deals with the Nature, the Production, and the
Distribution of Wealth.
That "Distribution" bit is the essence of Political Economy.
Would that modern economists would start thinking about why the
distribution is so unfair, instead of devising ways to patch the
system by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
Harry
********************************************
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
We have "solved" the production problem but can't seem to deal
with the issue of distribution.
Arthur
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:15 PM
To: 'Brad McCormick, Ed.D.'; 'Ed Weick'
Cc: 'futurework'
Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
Brad,
We are discussing these problems in a society where the power to
produce has reached unbelievable proportions (After many have
been thrown out of work, the industries they left behind are
actually producing more. Productivity hasn't fallen even though
there are far fewer workers employed.)
Why these "problems"?
Harry
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
