A tree that was once considered a weed was found to have cancer fighting properties. But would the tree not be scarce under socialism?
Socialism might do a better job of protecting and enhancing the supply of trees, but the trees are limited relative to human (as well as market) needs. Much scarcity is market induced, but I don't think all. The case for uncertainty being a product of markets seems more questionable. Markets do create extra uncertainty, of course. A socialist worker would not fear unemployment -- at least in a rational socialist society. On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:51:18AM -0800, Michael Nuwer wrote: > Earlier this year Michael Lebowitz wrote the comment > quoted below in relation to a discussion about new > advances in decision-making under conditions of > uncertainty. This paragraph is, to my mind, quite a > jewel. In these few words I have found an important > insight about a topic which I've thought about, but > obviously, have not correctly understood. > > In the Grundrisse (and elsewhere) Marx points out that > money and capital are historically specific; that > these concept, or economic categories, do not have a > natural existence. Perhaps the same can be said about > uncertainty and incomplete information; that these > concepts are also historically specific; that they are > not "in nature." Marx taught me that capitalism > creates its own scarcity; that scarcity is not an > economic problem imposed by nature. Perhaps the same > can also be said about uncertainty and incomplete > information; capitalism also creates these, they are > not economic problems imposed by nature. They are > historically specific. > > Would anyone here have reading suggestions on this > topic? I have much to learn (or re-lean). > > From: "michael a. lebowitz" > Subject: Re: Depoliticisisng economics > Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:41:37 -0400 > > The point that immediately comes to mind ... though, > is that the uncertainty in an atomistic world where > people are separated by markets and have the incentive > to hide their intentions (even if deigning to > cooperate on occasion) is not the same as the > uncertainty that would exist where there are social > institutions being developed to facilitate the > exchange of information and thus the reduction of > uncertainty. Ie., if we are assuming the societies are > the same except for the ownership of capital, it makes > for a pretty unappealing conception of that better > world. Now, perhaps this current literature on > uncertainty (which I don't follow) helps to reveal the > costs of an atomistic society but I suspect it would > require a lot more than what people are doing-- ie., a > conception of a counterfactual alternative (which is > to say, the vision of a socialist society). > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
