And here it comes again. In <a href="http://www.aeaweb.org/econwhitepapers/white_papers/David_Autor.pdf">a paper</a>
prepared for the National Science Foundation, MIT and NBER economist
David H. Autor and Harvard and NBER economist Lawrence F. Katz wrote: <br>
<blockquote>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. </blockquote><br>
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<a href="http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-letter-to-paul-krugman.html"> open letter</a>
(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.<br>
<br>
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 [<a href="mailto:dautor@mit.edu">dautor@mit.edu</a>] and Katz
[<a href="mailto:lkatz@harvard.edu">lkatz@harvard.edu</a>] 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.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Sandwichman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lumpoflabor@gmail.com">lumpoflabor@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">"The issue comes to be how to sort out the varieties of fraud..."<br><br>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.<div>
<div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:18 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ideasinc@ee.net" target="_blank">ideasinc@ee.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
One of the rules of thumb I have used is that if an "economist" does not<br>
place the managment of the "community," "niche," or even "commons" central<br>
to their ideas of an economic theory and fiscal policy, they are mostly<br>
likely "political" 'economists." This is under the pretense of economics<br>
appearing to be iconic natural "scientists," very much in the manner of<br>
19th century physics but with the lifting of forms of theoretical modeling<br>
of physics and chemistry that are mistaken as evidence of the credibility<br>
of economics as a "social physics" to use Emile Durkheim's aspiration.<br>
<br>
Further back this takes us into a patch of the history of ideas when it<br>
was 'assumed' that doing science was an occupation of the rich and well<br>
born. Positing science essentially elevates a hand of of assumptions<br>
beyond examination. The ensuing "discourse" lacks an interest in<br>
reproducing a bit of the open inductive process by way of a discourse held<br>
in common. Are their principles and assumptions concerning the "commons"<br>
and the ongoing enclosures?<br>
<br>
Pop-economics often operates in a similar manner in that the merit of a<br>
policy or practice is validated largely upon various poorly defined<br>
values. Some times the effort involved can be huge. I set out to review a<br>
pop-level economics book once that after 50 pages of the author's text, I<br>
had 15 pages of commentary including the results of following references<br>
back to the source to see if the article, piece of legislation, and<br>
history match up with the conclusions drawn and 'facts' asserted. For the<br>
most part the problems and misappropriation of every thing handy and<br>
likely to be persuasive.<br>
<br>
The issue comes to be how to sort out the varieties of fraud, in<br>
particular when the evidence and substantives offered don't provide much<br>
actual validation based upon a scientific discourse based upon match up to<br>
details of adequacy, validity, applicability, and reliability. Faith based<br>
economics usually runs aground much like proprietary software that is<br>
large on the return on investment ratios and then light concern<br>
elsewhere. This is also where labor is considered to be simply a commodity<br>
and having no conception or concern that economies tend to be demand side<br>
driven, not by the supply side.<br>
<br>
Pay no attention to the suits behind the corporate curtain.<br>
<br>
<br>
Tadit Anderson<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:18:28 -0400, robert searle <<a href="mailto:dharao4@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank">dharao4@yahoo.co.uk</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> I do not know whether the following will be of use......personally, I<br>
> do not have alot of respect for economists but unfortunately they still<br>
> have great influence in society, politics, and banking<br>
> <a href="http://ideas.repec.org/coupe.html" target="_blank">http://ideas.repec.org/coupe.html</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-living-economists/" target="_blank">http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-living-economists/</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/BiosEcon.htm#top" target="_blank">http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/BiosEcon.htm#top</a><br>
><br>
> RS.<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div></div><font color="#888888">-- <br>Sandwichman<br>
<div style="padding:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;overflow:hidden;word-wrap:break-word;color:black;font-size:10px;text-align:left;line-height:130%">
</div>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sandwichman<br>
<div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>