Purpose, Econ Sys rev.1 (short)

[MasonC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mason Clark)]

Purpose of the Economic System
Revised Introduction

Thank you for the comments on my "Purpose" essay.

It is very helpful to get such reactions to expose where
my writing is confusing the reader.

The way I am headed is to establish a starting point for
discussion of the economic system.

The proper sequence is:

   1. Purpose
   2. Definition of terms
   3. Statement of axioms (not hypotheses)
   4. Logical deductions (hypotheses as needed)

As to how the design of the system is implemented,
that is quite another matter.

Adam Smith liked the "invisible hand" but warned
repeatedly of the destructive tendencies of that hand.

Karl Marx had other ideas and those who followed his lead,
wrongly implemented a central coerced control system that
was idealistic, inevitably utterly incompetent, and by
design terribly destructive.

But the fact is that we live with some degree of central
coerced control with only an anarchist's hope of bombing
it out of existence into a system even more destructive.

In short: we're stuck with it.

I did not mean to suggest that I thought a "purpose"
absurd, quite the contrary.  And the quoted objections
to the term were, I believe, largely semantic.

The concern about "control" is also managed more
carefully in the following elaboration of the opening
of the essay:

-------- Purpose rev.1 25 Feb. 1995 ---------

       THE PURPOSE OF THE POLITICAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM

A recent inquiry to Internet economic groups and PKT
elicited a variety of suggestions about the "purpose"
of the economic system.

There were objections to the use of "purpose" as a
property of a system:

    A system cannot have a purpose. The purpose of
    the people and institutions is to meet the
    various needs of the people.

    Analogous to the unconscious processes in our
    bodies.  There is no purpose.

    The system was not designed with *a* purpose in
    mind.  It serves the purpose of maximizing the
    welfare of the participants . . . given their
    initial endowments.

These objections would be overcome by replacing

"the purpose of the economic system"

with:

"the purpose of economists in designing an economic system."

The longer phrasing makes it self-evident that a purpose
is needed.  Purpose-less economists would be unemployable.
But it must be admitted that the design of political
economic systems is by politicians, not economists, and
their purposes may be quite different and not the subject
of this essay.

There was an objection to the idea of a "purpose" implying
"a central guiding hand" or "central coerced 'rational'
control".  The objection may be to any attempt to improve
the system by design with a purpose. But the economic laws
in existence and the laws regularly proposed by the
President and by the Congress surely do concern the design
of the economic system and are claimed to have purposes.

"Central coerced 'rational' control" is present to some
degree in all systems from stone-age tribes to today's
complex, money-based economies.  We have become
sensitized to control by the Capitalism vs Socialism
controversy, often more ideological than logical.  Perhaps
by having an explicit purpose we can design more logically.

However, what is intended seemed to be generally understood
so let "purpose of the system" stand; as an abbreviation if
you wish, and as an existing reality.

An explanation of the intention of the word "purpose"
will follow the listing of other responses.  I appreciate
these helpful suggestions and any others the reader may
wish to add.  An analysis of some of the following
suggestions is begun in this essay with the intent of
arriving at a statement of purpose to guide proposals for
changes in the system.

THE ORTHODOX, TEXTBOOK, PURPOSES:

   --- continue ---

Any comments appreciated.

--
|--------------------------------------|
| Mason A. Clark  MasonC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|--------------------------------------|