autism and exchange-value

["Brian Milani" <bmilani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

	I'm Brian,  a new PEN list reader in Toronto.  Apologies for some
digression--I've just gotten caught up reading  the last week's digests.
I'm certainly not opposed to pomo-bashing, but my greater concern
is the economic autism discusssion.
	Without wanting to diminish major differences between
schools of economics (and the importance of the content of
the various tendenies), I think a big reason why there is such
a feeling that economics itself is disembodied is the profession's
overwhelming preoccupation with exchange-value as opposed
to use-value.  That is, economics tends to be more concerned with
manipulating money than figuring out what the most efficient way
of providing food, of making things, of utilizing resources, of
developing communities, of providing for people's real needs.
	For the left, it's reflected in its overwhelming focus on
the distribution of wealth, rather than on considering the very
nature of wealth.
	I think that as economic development (at least potentially)
involves more cultural production, knowledge, etc., strictly
quantitative criteria of wealth become less and less relevant.
Qualitative wealth (what real "use-value" would be today) I don't
think can be spun-off so easily from quantitative wealth creation.
	I suspect that, until the left gets a bit more concerned
with really looking at the most efficient and regenerative ways of
satisfying peoples needs and using Nature's materials, both the
left and economics will be viewed by many as irrelevant to real
life.  Emphasizing a redefinition of wealth, as well as its
redistriibution,
is some thing truly radical progressive movements have always done,
at least implicitly.  Today, however, I think it needs to be a bit more
explicit.


Brian Milani
Eco-Materials Project, Toronto
Green Economics Website
http://www.greeneconomics.net