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

[Michel Bauwens]

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, <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
>



-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110922/c3718206/attachment.htm