not sure if political economists equals political economy .. the latter indicates that the economy is inherently political and linked to the political and social structure of society, as well as value choices ... so-called scientific economists, but as we know, ideologues, have eliminated the 'political', to create the impression that the economy is just some objective value-free functioning that can be modelled etc ... outside of this historical frame, every economist is political in the narrow sense of the word as well, there is no way to have a vision and an understand of the economy, outside of political and social choices On another issue, the issue of labor and employment. While it is undoubtedly true that technology and its productivity eliminates jobs, it is equally true that there are many unmet human and social needs that could be taken up 'as jobs', and have been. The welfare state and mutualism have created a vast array of services that did not exist before while its prosperity has created a vast entertainment complex. Of course, other options would be available, such as shortening the working week. However, to analyse the 2008 meltdown as a result of technological productivity (technology destroying jobs) is in my view profoundly misleading. The joblessness we are experiencing is not a result of a sudden drop in need, but to the many interlocking factors that are part of capitalist crisis and in particular the exhaustion of a Kondratieff wave and a particular economic model. Which does not mean that confronted with unemployment, a reduction of the working week would make economic sense. Joblessness is not an objective result of technology, but a particular, choice-laden expression of an economic crisis. The answer to the crisis is equally political, whether it is 'jobs for all through time reduction', or the choice of very different models such as the basic income etc .. On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
One of the rules of thumb I have used is that if an "economist" does not place the managment of the "community," "niche," or even "commons" central to their ideas of an economic theory and fiscal policy, they are mostly likely "political" 'economists." This is under the pretense of economics appearing to be iconic natural "scientists," very much in the manner of 19th century physics but with the lifting of forms of theoretical modeling of physics and chemistry that are mistaken as evidence of the credibility of economics as a "social physics" to use Emile Durkheim's aspiration.
Further back this takes us into a patch of the history of ideas when it was 'assumed' that doing science was an occupation of the rich and well born. Positing science essentially elevates a hand of of assumptions beyond examination. The ensuing "discourse" lacks an interest in reproducing a bit of the open inductive process by way of a discourse held in common. Are their principles and assumptions concerning the "commons" and the ongoing enclosures?
Pop-economics often operates in a similar manner in that the merit of a policy or practice is validated largely upon various poorly defined values. Some times the effort involved can be huge. I set out to review a pop-level economics book once that after 50 pages of the author's text, I had 15 pages of commentary including the results of following references back to the source to see if the article, piece of legislation, and history match up with the conclusions drawn and 'facts' asserted. For the most part the problems and misappropriation of every thing handy and likely to be persuasive.
The issue comes to be how to sort out the varieties of fraud, in particular when the evidence and substantives offered don't provide much actual validation based upon a scientific discourse based upon match up to details of adequacy, validity, applicability, and reliability. Faith based economics usually runs aground much like proprietary software that is large on the return on investment ratios and then light concern elsewhere. This is also where labor is considered to be simply a commodity and having no conception or concern that economies tend to be demand side driven, not by the supply side.
Pay no attention to the suits behind the corporate curtain.
Tadit Anderson
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:18:28 -0400, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
I do not know whether the following will be of use......personally, I do not have alot of respect for economists but unfortunately they still have great influence in society, politics, and banking http://ideas.repec.org/coupe.html
http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-living-economists/
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/BiosEcon.htm#top
RS.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens