On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Of course for the simplification to actually help in understanding > reality, it must be chosen intentionally for that purpose and not simply > for the purpose of confirming a predisposition. In my blog post, "Fallacy > vs. Fallacy," I look at an instance where researchers have performed a > "simplification" that isn't useful for understanding reality (I explain > why) but that gives them an elevated and illusory sense of certainty about > the meaning of their results. > > http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.ca/2014/01/fallacy-vs-fallacy.html > > Sure and I understand why you spend the effort you do on this issue. Lump-of-labor is a straw man. When economists don't want to deal with an actual argument for improving workers lives, they find accusing those pushing to improve conditions in the working class of being guilty of "the lump of labor fallacy". But I'm just point out that the theory that people are constantly falsely accused of holding may actually be a useful one use. That is if you use lump-of-labor as a way of analyzing the effects of a policy, especially during certain types of recession, it will give you prediction that is pretty damn good. Carrol is fond of quoting that saying about vulgar Marxism being right about 90% of the time. I'd say that during recessions, especially liquidity traps, the lump-of-labor fallacy will yield valid predictions about 90% of the time. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
