[P2P-F] Re.... "Relevant" Economists for the P2P Foundation...

Fri Sep 16 16:18:09 CEST 2011

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 <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>  
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.
>
>