[PEN-L:11350] Re: on CEO Pay

["James Michael Craven" <CRAVJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

          The Bowles and Gintis incorporation of power into neoclassical
economics has been repeated by many feminists.  While I do think the results
are at least more interesting than standard neoclassical theory, I have real
problems both with the B & G work and the feminists who use NC models.
          First, however, the positive.  By using the NC model to incorporate
issues of power and diversity and to look at the social critiques of
neoclassical economics (racism, sexism, classism), at least the authors are
addressing issues which are not as trite as those normally found in NC work.

Response: I think part of the problem is when one steps into the
paradigm and argues using some of the bankrupt categories,
mystifications etc of the paradigm, even if it is from a totally
different perspective and is for the purposes of debunking that
paradigm, it still somewhat legitimizes and gives that paradigm some
credibility it doesn't deserve. It is like trying to argue against a
Nazi about the "Jewish Control of the Media or Government" by trying
to show all the non-Jews in strategic positions in Media and
government; it is a futile exercise. Or it is like accepting that
wage rate is a function of MRP of labor and then trying to show how
capitalism depresses the MRPs of the poor and the answer is to
develop a new system in which the MRPs of the poor can be
progressively raised--it is not only buying into creating the
destructive "castles in the sky", it means actually moving into the
castle and doing some joint tenancy with the neoclassicals. Their
math is bankrupt because their analytical approaches, core
assumptions, empistemology (hypothetico-deductivism,
ultra/simplistic reductionism, crude positivism etc), apologetic
intentions, linear unidirectional causality, approaches/tests of
causality, parameters, categories, etc are all fundamentally bankrupt.



          There is currently an ongoing debate within feminist economics as
to whether or not using econometrics by default leads to inaccuracy.  So what
if you add a variable or two to incorporate diversity or power, in effect all
mathematical models must be parsimonious or they will not work.  Why continue
to use a tool which, by its very definition, simplifies economics to a point
of inaccuracy.  Another facet of this argument is that econometrics
respresents the male ideal of mathematical logic.  As such, any use of
econometrics is chauvanist by definition--because it does not admit the
validity of any other type of logic (musical, intuitive, artistic, etc.).


Response: I just don't understand this concept of "the male ideal of
mathematical logic." Is it something in the Y-Chromosome? If one
wants to make the point that capitalist society is patriarchal, that
is absolutely true. If one wants to make the point that the economics
and virtually all other "professions" are male-dominated absolutely
true. If one wants to make the point that those who are using
econometric models to gloss over/mystify/ratify/legitimate all sorts
of forms of oppression including on the basis of gender, race,
social class power differentials etc. that is absolutely true. If one
wants to make the point that many of the economic models, in the
course of abstraction, abstract away most of the real and essential
aspects of economic realities that indeed should be the subject of
analysis, that is true. But the real issue is not so much
quantification vs non-quantification per se, but the quantification
of crap for the purposes of mystifying/ratifying/legitimating a
social order, in the interests of those who rule who happen to be
almost exclusively white males versus evolving meaningful categories,
data bases, data, analytical approaches that can yield not only
meaningful forms/levels of quantification, but forms/levels of
quantification that identify/serve the real interests of the broad
masses of oppressed people--instead of the dominating few. It should
be noted, however, that these dominating few--mostly white males--
also dominate, in addition to children and women of all colors, males
of all colors. It might be also noted that sometimes serving these
dominating males are not only other males of various colors, but also
some women hoping to become like the masters they serve.




          I think the use of neoclassical models is a nice exercise but not
particularly productive for a number of reasons:
1.  The theory has been proven repeatedly to be mathematically incorrect.
 Given that, any use of choice theory implies an acceptance of the use of
theory which does not work.
2.  There are better ways to force the mainstream to debate their own
defective theories.  Doug's book is one example--I think debates where the
mainstream becomes defensive and makes wildly inaccurate attacks on the work
of economists seeking to break the mold is much more productive **and
interesting** than a polite exchange of models.  By placing the debates
within their agenda, what gets discussed is their agenda, not the agenda of
intellectuals seeking to change the world.
3.  I agree with most of the feminist critique, but would add to it.  By
building feminist work in the vision of men who are sexist, one adopts sexism
into the models.  For instance, when women enter traditionally male
occupations, they tend to adopt male attitudes and become sexists themselves.
 It then becomes a fight for those women to maintain the right to continue to
function as feminine.  All things feminine tend to be denigrated in our
society at the same time women are expected to do feminine things.  So, for
instance, women are expected to have manicured nails, but are knocked for
those same nails in blue collar work because it makes them afraid to get
their hands dirty.  It seems to me that using mathematical models which have
been used to prove that women chose to be discriminated against in an attempt
to disprove women's desires for discrimination falls into the same
hypocritical pattern.
4.  The addition of power to econometric models does not accurately reflect
the subtle ways in which power is used in our society.  As with all other
variables, power can only fluctuate within narrowly defined limits in a
mathematical model, and therefore these models do not accurately incorporate
the power they seek to represent

maggie coleman mscoleman@xxxxxxx

Response: I agree with most of this. The problem is not
quantification ver non-quantification, but quantification of what and
in the service of whom. Many drugs, that actually cure real diseases
would not be possible without quantification and modeling. On the
other hand, there are many diseases and lack of drugs to cure them
partially because of models, paradigms and forms/levels of
quantification that serve to mystify/ratify/legitimiate ugly
realities rather than throw light on them and provide avenues for
their removal and total amelioration.

Personally, I do not "debate" neoclassicals, Libertarians, Fascists
and the like as it is a total waste of time; I do seek to reach those
who have not been totally poisoned by them, but I am not interested
in "debates"--polite or otherwise.

                                  Jim Craven

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  James Craven             * " The philosophers have only         *
*  Dept of Economics        * interpreted the world in various     *
*  Clark College            * ways; the point, however, is to      *
*  1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* change it." (Karl Marx)              *
*  Vancouver, Wa. 98663     *                                      *
*  (360) 992-2283           *                                      *
*  jcraven@xxxxxxxxx        *                                      *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *