[P2P-F] Re.... "Relevant" Economists ... lump of labor

[ideasinc at ee.net]

While I fully agree with your take, I see it as a direct result of  
neo-classical economics (better described as an ideology in no fashion as  
a legitimate science) specifically labor is treated as a commodity  
foremost, not as a participant in the commons also known as an economy. Of  
course the general pandering and the courtier's deference to the amassing  
of unearned "rent" (including the result of the suppression of wages.  
Technologies which diminish the value of labor actually result in the  
reduction of labor's participation in economic life. Krugman is simply a  
well paid courtier who continue to be amply rewarded to spew  
dysinformation with a veneer of liberal buzz words. From this point I  
normally point out the distinctions that place the variety of post John  
Maynard Keynes's associated with functional finance and science based  
economics at the distant margins of proprietary version of the scientific  
commons. Try to ween your self away from regarding Krugman as anything  
other than a high paid toady. Tadit



On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:07:09 -0400, Sandwichman <lumpoflabor at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> And here it comes again. In a
> paper<http://www.aeaweb.org/econwhitepapers/white_papers/David_Autor.pdf>prepared
> for the National Science Foundation, MIT and NBER economist David
> H. Autor and Harvard and NBER economist Lawrence F. Katz wrote:
>
> Leading economists from Paul Samuelson to Paul Krugman have labored to  
> allay
> the fear that technological advances may reduce overall employment,  
> causing
> mass unemployment as workers are displaced by machines. This ‘lump of  
> labor
> fallacy’—positing that there is a fixed amount of work to be done so that
> increased labor productivity reduces employment —is intuitively appealing
> and demonstrably false. Technological improvements create new products  
> and
> services, shifting workers from older to newer activities. Higher
> productivity raises incomes, increasing demand for labor throughout the
> economy. Hence, in the long run technological progress affects the
> composition of jobs not the number of jobs.
>
>
> First of all, Samuelson and Krugman didn't "labor to allay the fear."  
> They
> spouted canned nonsense that was disavowed by "leading economists"  
> nearly a
> century ago. Back in May I wrote Professor Krugman an open
> letter<http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-letter-to-paul-krugman.html>(hard
> copy sent by mail) detailing the discrepancies in the lump of labor
> fallacy claim and asking him to at least respond to the evidence I
> presented. Krugman did not reply.
>
> I will, of course, forward copies of that open letter to Professors Autor
> and Katz -- with no great expectations. Maybe if a half dozen or so list
> members would write to professors Autor [dautor at mit.edu] and Katz [
> lkatz at harvard.edu] demanding that they either retract their demonstrably
> false claims about the alleged fallacy or rebut the evidence presented  
> in my
> letter to Paul Krugman, this could be an instance where shaming the
> perpetrators of a lie could have some good effect.
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Sandwichman <lumpoflabor at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> "The issue comes to be how to sort out the varieties of fraud..."
>>
>> Yes indeed. It seems to be almost a matter of pride among many  
>> economists
>> to recite discredited "free enterprise" slogans as if they were verified
>> economic facts and to studiously ignore major pieces of the economic  
>> theory
>> puzzle that do not accord with those slogans. Even "liberal Keynesians"
>> repeat uncritically the "lump-of-labor fallacy" propaganda of 19th  
>> century
>> anti-union agitators and have never heard of Sydney J. Chapman's
>> painstakingly orthodox (but devastating to free market orthodoxy)  
>> theory of
>> the hours of labour.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:18 AM, <ideasinc at ee.net> 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 <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.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sandwichman
>>
>
>