Occam's razor

[Herbert Gintis <gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Mitchel writes:
>>
>Well, it depends on the standard of explanation one is content with.
>Comprehension of exchange, for example, can be at different levels. let me
>say full comprehension to superficial comprehension. N/c economics bases its
>analysis of the labor-capital exchange on the assumption on principles not
>contrary to those of reciprocal altruism. and IMO they only ever achieve a
>superficial decriptive understanding of the wage form and K-L exchange. Herb
>himself wrote an eloquent article on this in the 1970s. i still like it
>although i suspect that Herb now thinks it a bit passe. There is no
>reciprocity in the capitalist use of the use-value of labour power. this is
>the vertical component of the K-L exchange. the Kist enjoys the use-value of
>the exchange "inside" the deal, while the worker has to wait until day end
>to enjoy the use-value - the wage.
>
	Yes, this is true. I don't want to say that 'economics'
captures all that is important or interesting about the interactions
of agents--the whole gamut of intellectual and artistic pursuits are
relevant to this. The things I want to 'explain' are (a) what
determines the organization of production; (b) to what extent to
issues of efficiency as opposed to distribution come into play in this
determination? (c) are there market failure that lead to the
suppression of forms of firms that are efficient but not compatible
with the current rules of the game in market economies? (d) are there
new rules of the game that would allow other forms of association in
production to emerge without thereby reducing productivity or
efficiency? Etc. Reciprocal altruism is all I believe is necessary to
address these questions fruitfully.

	Do I think my 1970 description passe? Well, I've learned a lot
since then, and I think my formulations today are much more lucid and
fruitful than in 1970, when they were wrapped in a lexicon borrowed
from a tradition in continental philosophy that I don't think is very
useful any more. But I can't say that I think that what I said was in
some way wrong, I guess.

Herb gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx