Re: Jay Hanson's remarks on economists
I think that Caspar Davis's critique of economics (the 10 numbered points in particular) provides one of the more useful ways of probing the issue of whether economists can be relevant to current concerns, and why much of contemporary economics is held in disrepute. I don't necessary buy all of these points, or agree with the specific formulations, but no matter. They are a meaty contribution to the specific train of analysis and aargument, and if chewed over and debated, can probably help lead us both to some generally useful conclusions about reshaping our economies and societies and, specifically, dealinng with the "future of work" which is the core topic and concern of this list. Saul Silverman
Re: Jay Hanson's remarks on economists
At 9:41 AM -0500 11/17/98, Arthur Cordell wrote: >I would guess that if economics would (could?) internalize all >externalities and would stop playing the economic growth game (which I >don't >think is central to economic theory--a theory which deals with the >allocation of scarce resources among competing uses), then Jay Hanson and >company would have less of a problem with economics. I would like to say that while I deplore the invective generated on this issue, I can understand it, and I think it has cleared the air a bit. It has certainly led to some excellent posts by various people and expecially to Jay Hanson's "What Other Way Is There to Live". I think Mr. Hanson has a good mind and a vital message, but I think he would be much more effective if he emphasized the positive as he does so beautifully in that post, rather than the dire and gloomy, as he so often does, even in his public name of "Dieoff". People need to understand the urgent dangers, but I think it is positive visions which inspire them. I hve been thinking of joining the fray since yesterday, and while I feel that I have been largely pre-empted by Mr. Cordell's terse comment which goes close to the heart of the issue, as well as by Tom Lowe, who covers much of my ground, I think there are still a few more things to be said. Jay Hanson's view of economists would not even have been questioned on some lists I am or have been on. The reasons certainly include those raised by Mr. Cordell, but I think there is a bigger issue, real or perceived. It is not just that the economic establishment seems to have no problem with ignoring "externalities" like severe weather and grave damage to the environment and human health, which impose huge economic as well as social costs (not to mention the unfairness of shifting those costs onto the general public or the gigantic distortions they introduce into the allocation of resources), and the obvious limits to growth on a finite and arguably "full" planet-- omissions which are tantamount to engineers' ignoring gravity and windage, and which clearly vitiate any claim that economics is a science. I think the real reason for the widespread hatred of economists is that they have been become the de facto priesthood of the world wide religion of "free market" globalism, based on maximum economic growth. I call it a religion because it (in its dominant orthodox neo-classical form): 1. claims to be based on a scripture (The Wealth of Nations) which is quoted selectively while ignoring its essence- e.g. that a free market cannot exist where there is monopoly of any kind, unequal information, etc.; 2. clings to a rigid dogma, litanized as "lower taxes" and "less government" regardless of the disastrous results for the great majority of people; 3. claims to have brought (or shortly to be bringing) a paradise of global prosperity despite the facts that: a. real wages have been declining for over a quarter century (since 1972), b. the gap between rich and poor, both individuals and nations, is greater than ever before, and increasing rapidly, c. even in that paragon of 'prosperity' the USA, most families must work at at least 2 jobs and not uncommonly 3 or 4 jobs just to pay for the 'necessities' and still private debt is climbing to unprecedented peaks, while diseases related to stress and environmental deterioration soar; 4. continues even now to justify the speculative floods of hot money sloshing around the world bringing poverty, misery and death (by suicide, violence, or starvation) to millions of people; 5. admits to the company of the elect (graduate and especially PhD programs) only those who have demonstrated ideological purity (I have this on good authority, from several people who are currently PhD candidates. There are a few schools where heresy is tolerated or even encouraged, but the vast majority, including all the centers of power and influence, insist on blind orthodoxy); 6. welcomes the role of pundit and advisor to the world which is thrust on it by the corporate media; thus whenever there is news of a government initiative, or indeed almost any kind of news, the priesthood is consulted for its advice, which usually is "lower taxes and less government interference"; 7. has presided over the concentration of corporate wealth and power (which has long since gone past the classical boundary of monopoly i.e. fewer than 10 significant players in an industry, or any one controlling 12% of the market or more) that has made corporations--immortal, inanimate entities, whose paramount duty is the maximization of profit-- the richest and most powerful institutions on the planet-- even as regulation of them is reviled and destroyed; 8. has applauded as "wealth creating" mergers in which assets are stripped, plants closed and workers laid off in massive numbers (sometimes to be hired back as temporary help at half their former wages and no benefits)-- perhaps the greates
Re: Jay Hanson's remarks on economists
I would guess that if economics would (could?) internalize all externalities and would stop playing the economic growth game (which I don't think is central to economic theory--a theory which deals with the allocation of scarce resources among competing uses), then Jay Hanson and company would have less of a problem with economics. -- From: Ed Weick To: Douglas P. Wilson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Jay Hanson's remarks on economists Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 8:28AM -Original Message- From: Douglas P. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 5:45 AM Subject: Jay Hanson's remarks on economists > There is something rather uncivilized in the last few posts from Jay >Hanson, and I don't like it. I'm not an economist, and have no great >respect for the discipline as a whole, but Mr. Hanson's remarks offend >me because they are full of prejudice and seem to be hate literature. >Surely none of us would sit back and calmly accept such remarks about >blacks or jews. On the subject of economics and economists, Jay Hanson has been uncivilized for some time. I've had a great deal of difficulty in understanding it. Many of his postings reveal him to be a highly intelligent person, very concerned about the problems the world faces. One has to give him a great deal of credit for persisting in raising issues that might otherwise get insufficient attention. And yet, in marked contrast, there are his continuing slanders against economics and economists. It is almost as though the very complex problems he has identified and dealt with intelligently must have a single cause, and only one, economists. And it is almost as though economists comprise a single group of robot like beings - those who work for brokerage firms do not differ at all in their day to day concerns from those whose work deals with poverty and inequality. Frankly, as someone who has worked in the field of economics for some decades, I do not feel demeaned by Mr. Hanson. However, I do feel a little sad that he persists in demeaning himself. Ed Weick
Jay Hanson's remarks on economists
At 09:36 AM 11/16/98 -0800, Tom Walker wrote: >I don't agree with everything Jay has to say about economists, but I can see >his point. Just about every evil that has been perpetrated in the world >during our lives has been justified by "economics" (on both sides of the >former iron curtain). What this use of economics as a political blank check >for the high and mighty has to do with the economists' profession is a >rather complex question. Where I would disagree with Jay is in his premise >that economics and economists are the source of the problem. > >By and large the great institutions that confer credentials, honours and >career paths on economists have succumbed to the obsequious waltz by which a >particular current of economic thought and a corresponding current of >political tyranny mutually flatter each other. But no economic school of >thought could have orchestrated the obsequity. It's more a matter of funding >and career opportunities, specializations and an institutional hierarchy >that always feels compelled to put a "moral" face on its crass pursuits. > >In simple terms, it is not the best economists who rise to the top, but the >most ambitious. This is hardly a feature unique to economists or economics. >The Greek tragedians had a word for it -- hubris. For a more modern term, we >might turn sociologist C. Wright Mills' phrase, "professional ideology of >the social pathologists" on its head: a social pathology of the professional >ideologists. > I think the following passage from Chomsky explains how the economics business works and what Jay means: "The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And its generally true of corporations. Its true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. Its dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who dont adjust to that structure, who dont accept it and internalize it (you cant really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who dont do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you dont do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they arent lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on. "If youve read George Orwells Animal Farm which he wrote in the mid-1940s, it was a satire on the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state. It was a big hit. Everybody loved it. Turns out he wrote an introduction to Animal Farm which was suppressed. It only appeared 30 years later. Someone had found it in his papers. The introduction to Animal Farm was about "Literary Censorship in England" and what it says is that obviously this book is ridiculing the Soviet Union and its totalitarian structure. But he said England is not all that different. We dont have the KGB on our neck, but the end result comes out pretty much the same. People who have independent ideas or who think the wrong kind of thoughts are cut out. "He talks a little, only two sentences, about the institutional structure. He asks, why does this happen? Well, one, because the press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public. The other thing he says is that when you go through the elite education system, when you go through the proper schools in Oxford, you learn that there are certain things its not proper to say and there are certain thoughts that are not proper to have. That is the socialization role of elite institutions and if you dont adapt to that, youre usually out. Those two sentences more or less tell the story. "When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, "nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because Im never under any pressure." Which is completely true, but the point is that they wou
Re: Jay Hanson's remarks on economists
I don't agree with everything Jay has to say about economists, but I can see his point. Just about every evil that has been perpetrated in the world during our lives has been justified by "economics" (on both sides of the former iron curtain). What this use of economics as a political blank check for the high and mighty has to do with the economists' profession is a rather complex question. Where I would disagree with Jay is in his premise that economics and economists are the source of the problem. By and large the great institutions that confer credentials, honours and career paths on economists have succumbed to the obsequious waltz by which a particular current of economic thought and a corresponding current of political tyranny mutually flatter each other. But no economic school of thought could have orchestrated the obsequity. It's more a matter of funding and career opportunities, specializations and an institutional hierarchy that always feels compelled to put a "moral" face on its crass pursuits. In simple terms, it is not the best economists who rise to the top, but the most ambitious. This is hardly a feature unique to economists or economics. The Greek tragedians had a word for it -- hubris. For a more modern term, we might turn sociologist C. Wright Mills' phrase, "professional ideology of the social pathologists" on its head: a social pathology of the professional ideologists. Modern economics (including the advocacy of free markets) emerged as a critique of political absolutism. The profession of economics has evolved into an apologist for an even more total form of political absolutism. Therein lies a contradiction. Some of the wisest things said about the world -- including the most trenchant criticisms of the economic conventional wisdom -- have been said by economists. How unprofessional! Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Jay Hanson's remarks on economists
-Original Message- From: Douglas P. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 5:45 AM Subject: Jay Hanson's remarks on economists > There is something rather uncivilized in the last few posts from Jay >Hanson, and I don't like it. I'm not an economist, and have no great >respect for the discipline as a whole, but Mr. Hanson's remarks offend >me because they are full of prejudice and seem to be hate literature. >Surely none of us would sit back and calmly accept such remarks about >blacks or jews. On the subject of economics and economists, Jay Hanson has been uncivilized for some time. I've had a great deal of difficulty in understanding it. Many of his postings reveal him to be a highly intelligent person, very concerned about the problems the world faces. One has to give him a great deal of credit for persisting in raising issues that might otherwise get insufficient attention. And yet, in marked contrast, there are his continuing slanders against economics and economists. It is almost as though the very complex problems he has identified and dealt with intelligently must have a single cause, and only one, economists. And it is almost as though economists comprise a single group of robot like beings - those who work for brokerage firms do not differ at all in their day to day concerns from those whose work deals with poverty and inequality. Frankly, as someone who has worked in the field of economics for some decades, I do not feel demeaned by Mr. Hanson. However, I do feel a little sad that he persists in demeaning himself. Ed Weick
Jay Hanson's remarks on economists
There is something rather uncivilized in the last few posts from Jay Hanson, and I don't like it. I'm not an economist, and have no great respect for the discipline as a whole, but Mr. Hanson's remarks offend me because they are full of prejudice and seem to be hate literature. Surely none of us would sit back and calmly accept such remarks about blacks or jews. Whether Mr. Hanson likes it or not, a great many economists are intelligent and accomplished people who do not deserve such slander. Instead of such blanket condemnation of people based on their profession alone, which accomplishes nothing, I'd like to see some genuine criticism -- something constructive, perhaps. I'm an optimist about society, and I think we will figure out how to make it work. If we do, I expect it will be because of the hard work and careful reasoning of real scholars in many fields, including economics. Though they have probably been wrong in many things (as we all are) most economists are genuine scholars who work hard and reason carefully. I'd like to see some evidence of Mr. Hanson's own reasoning abilities, but all I see is diatribe and invective, prejudice and hatred. dpw Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html
