Re: [Pen-l] The Irrelevance of Workers In Economic Theory

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My reference was to a much more superficial problem.  Economists can theoretically 
measure transactions via prices, but how can you measure labor?  Economists do 
sometimes attempt to measure aggregates of human capital by statistical inference, 
but they are pretty lame.  Certainly nobody can measure the human capital of 
individuals.  Even in sports, where there are quantative measurements, coaches talk 
about intangibles.


On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Les Schaffer wrote:
>
> are you implying that there are potentially interesting mathematical and 
> modeling problems related to a study of labor? what is the "impossible 
> quantification"?
>
> re/ utility: was this more or less an attempt to copy at least the outlook 
> of lagrangian and hamiltonian methods from physics?
>
> i still remember the set of lectures in grad school where we were 
> introduced to the details of these methods: the most boring part of grad 
> school [**]. but i remember it because i remember thinking how stupid was 
> this notion that "nature took the path of least action". but as physicists 
> and applied mathematicians we had little interest in the quasi-religious 
> aspects of the theory. and i always thought the nail was put to coffin when 
> my teach showed us the problem of the "second variation"  ... it turns out 
> these "least"  principles are not necessarily strictly maxima or minima ... 
> nature, it appears, does not abhor saddle points. when i saw that, i knew 
> the whole teleological thing was a crock of beans. in fact, i was sitting 
> here trying to remember the name "least action" because i have been trained 
> to think of it as a "stationarity principle".  equivalence of Lagrange's 
> equations with Newton's formulation of mechanics requires only 
> stationarity, extremism need not apply.
>
> of course, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian techniques went on to conquer 
> physics. but not because of their maximization properties, but because they 
> exhibited deep transformational characteristics.
>
> Les
>
>
>
> [**] Feynman, in his famous Lectures on Physics, attempts to make something 
> of this minimization, and its the  least interesting aspect of his book. 
> ok, i am biased.
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l