Re: Occam's Razor

[Herbert Gintis <gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Mitchell writes:
...lots of stuff deleted...

>so herb, i think you are trying to straddle two paradigms too many times.
>either you are in the superficical world of efficiency-equity trade-offs, or
>you are in the essence world where the two are inextricably linked. your 1970s
>articles which you still think said the right things provided the framework ina
>conceptual sense for scholars to build up more detail about the links.

	You are reading stuff into my statements that aren't there,
Bill. I don't accept the equity-efficiency trade-off (Sam and I have
written lots of stuff on this recently), and there is no such
principle in game theoretic models of the economy. And 'reciprocity'
doesn't mean equality or equal trades or anything of the kind.
Reciprocal altruism means one agent helps another (or refrains from
hurting another) so long as the other returns the action.

Marglin
>for example was a great example which demonstrated clearly that much of the
>organisational changes which n/c say have to occur due to technological
>imperatives and the desire for efficiency (narrow concept) had nothing to do
>with that. the changes were b/c the putting out system was getting ripped off
>by the workers who evaded control.

	I never said that market processes lead to Pareto efficiency.

>.....

>what do you reckon mate?

	I can't elaborate more concerning my dropping of Marxian
theory beyond what Sam Bowles and I wrote in _Democracy and
Capitalism_, Bill.

Herb gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx