Re: Depoliticisisng economics

["michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@xxxxxx>]

At 13:46 10/01/2006, Julio wrote:
> Michael,
>
> > 'where's the beef?' What exactly
> > are you finding in the development of that theory that, for example,
> > will help us to understand capital? And, what will help us to
> > understand what's necessary to go beyond capital?
>
> There are tons of stuff in today's economics that go *beyond capital*.
>  As an illustration, here's an idea sketched in my "best"
> stream-of-consciousness mode:
>
> In Marx's times, the notion of uncertainty had not yet been explicitly
> incorporated in economic analysis.  In Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, or
> even Mill, there are passages that suggest implicit (rough) notions of
> uncertainty -- but little indicating they had a clue of its
> political-economy implications.

snip

>   In
> economic analysis, Arrow and von Neuman and Morgestern proposed ways
> to deal with uncertainty in mapping economic actions to wellbeing --
> and there's little that can be done in economics without a systematic
> way to map actions to wellbeing in an uncertain world.  How, for
> instance, can we build socialism without having some way to anticipate
> the impact of our individual and collective actions on social welfare
> in the face of uncertainty?

        If I understand Julio's point, it seems a bit similar to one
made in the past by Lange and also by Meek, suggesting that
neoclassical theory would have more relevance in a socialist society.
So, too, having an understanding of the effects of decisions in the
context of uncertainty would be especially important when we consider
the impact of individual and collective actions within socialism---
presumably because unintended consequences might discredit the new
society in a way in which they do not do so for capitalism. Would
that be why the new advances in understanding decision-making under
conditions of uncertainty are seen as especially important for socialism?
        The point that immediately comes to mind, though, is that
the uncertainty in an atomistic world where people are separated by
markets and have the incentive to hide their intentions (even if
deigning to cooperate on occasion) is not the same as the uncertainty
that would exist where there are social institutions being developed
to facilitate the exchange of information and thus the reduction of
uncertainty. Ie., if we are assuming the societies are the same
except for the ownership of capital, it makes for a pretty
unappealing conception of that better world. Now, perhaps this
current literature on uncertainty (which I don't follow) helps to
reveal the costs of an atomistic society but I suspect it would
require a lot more than what people are doing-- ie., a conception of
a counterfactual alternative (which is to say, the vision of a
socialist society).
        cheers,
        michael
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
Caracas, Venezuela
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724