War of Paradigms

[Herbert Gintis <gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Mitchell writes:
>
>Mitchell (referring to an earlier work) concludes that it makes no logical
>sense to discuss two aspects of efficiency...[referring to Gordon's (1976)
>quantitative/qualititative distinction]......, each of which belongs to a
>separate and conflicting paradigm. Methodological consistency requires that
>neo-Marxists scrap the concept of quantitative efficiency ...[defined by
>Gordon as the greatest possible useful physical output from a given set of
>physical inputs"]....
>...[and much more...]

	Thanks for the elucidation.
>
>SO Herb, that is what i think it is. You then ask a related question:
>
>>	What is a 'surplus world'?
>
>To which i reply, it is obvious. And i guess what you are saying is that
>basic concepts like surplus value are meaningless to you now. In which case
>you would surely not identify any notion of capitalist efficiency. in which
>case i am curious as to how a few mails ago you can still say your 1970s
>article on K-L exchanges which was built on the distinction b/tw labour
>power and labour was STILL RIGHT.

	It can be translated into the statement at labor effort is not
subject to contract. This becomes amenable to treatment as a repeated
game between employer and worker--a repeated principal-agent problem.
.....
>You then raised the all important issue.
>
>>	How would you do things differently? That is, what economic
>>institutions populate your alternative?
>
>64 million dollar question. first, are you agreeing with the last paragraph
>denoted >> which appeared in my last mail? if you are not agreeing with it,
>why not say so and argue against it, rather than ask me what alternative
>there is. yes it is important to have some map of another plan. but first we
>have to work out whether your faith in the market place as an excellent
>governance mechanism is based on your rejection of my criticisms summarised
>above, or a resolution that you see my points as valid and important, but
>you see no other alternative, and like Paul Davidson, you hope for a
>civilised outcome to emerge from intervention (the supplementary governance).
>
	I don't remember your last mail--it bit the bit bucket. Sorry.

Herb gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx