Tom Walker writes:>I sense, Jim, that you and I basically agree about
the empirical and methodological issues regarding productivity. Where we
differ, perhaps, in is what I consider to be the urgency of the excluded
and largely unexamined "remainder". You mention Q/LP as an "effort to
get _some idea_ of what's going on." I agree but caution that "some
idea" all too readily calcifies into "the idea".
>Let's say that at one point "some idea" describes 50% of the phenomenon
and 75% of what drives change. At that point some idea gives a pretty
good picture. Then let's say at a later date some idea describes 40% of
the phenomenon but only 25% of what's driving change. At that later
point some idea has become more of an obstacle to understanding than an
aid.<
so we need to think critically. so what's new?
I wrote:
>> all I would say is that _all else equal_ speed-up _leads to_
productivity gains.
>>I don't know why the the idea that speed up leads to productivity
gains expresses the metaphor "the economy is a machine." If anything, it
reinforces the point that the economy involves social relations of
domination.<<
>The easiest way to test the "economy is a machine metaphor" is to
propose another metaphor. Let's say "the economy is a discourse" (not
economics, but the economy). Under rules of discourse, there may well be
circumstances in which a greater intensity and/or duration of messages
contributes to increased understanding or meaning. Obviously, there are
other circumstances where the proliferation of messages detracts from
understanding. <
so the folks who slave away producing Nikes for dollars a day under poor
conditions are engaging in discourse?
JD
