Re: finite world/resource depletion

["Robyn Miller" <lady-r@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
> From: Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT   <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: finite world/resource depletion
> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 3:39 AM
>
> So long as you guys keep your minds among the elves and fairies of
> fantasy land, your ramblings are totally worthless.
>
> The Real World of Real Wealth, is Land, Labor and Production -- tangible
> things.  Money is totally imaginary, represented by ledger entries, or
> pieces of paper or other material such as Gold, that have no intrinsic
> value (Gold as something to repair teeth or make jewelry, and paper
> documents, perhaps might double as toilet tissue, its value enhanced for
> that purpose if made of lowest quality paper) that is supposed to
> REPRESENT Real Wealth, that has to be exchanged in the

Hyman,

Although still a humble undergraduate, I have to say that your
gasrointestinal analysis of the economy has been perplexing me for some
time (the so called, IN-COME, OUT-COME model that you so repetitively
espouse).  Economics is a *social* science and money has been a part of the
set of economic institutions humans in Western societies have been dealing
with for quite some time.  The behavior we exhibit relative to the economic
institutions that permeate our lives is a large part of what economics
examines.  It also, by neccessity, examines the dynamic interactions
between the institutions themselves, and toccasionally even tries to
quantify the consequences of the status quo (environmental depletion,
persistent poverty etc.) Money and banks and financial markets and paid
labor and  etc. etc. are some of the most fascinating and omnipresent of
such economic institutions. Econ journals are filled with examinations of
the conditions under which we will work for money, the conditions under
which we will part with money, the conditions the conditions under which we
will spend or save our money, the conditions under which we will "risk" our
money on uncertain investments etc. Journals are also populated with
articles which, based these findings about basic human economic behavior
will propose how government should behave in order to promote certain
outcomes.  Although some economists investigate comparative or alternative
*systems,* much of economics merely goes about trying to explain the
incredible variety of behaviors that humans, under whatever system is
current at the moment, tend to exhibit as they attempt to create fulfilling
lives for themselves and try to acquire the goods and services that they
percieve will contribute to this fulfillment.

This is just like any other social science (ie. political science or
sociology).  In political science we generally assume there *are* sovereign
nations with national governments, some type of legal system, ususally a
military, various agencies specializing in various things,  and some way
understanding the political behavior of citizens and major political
actors.   Sociology also assumes certain common social relations (ie.
marriage/ parenthood, employers/employees, teachers/students, justice
systems/criminals etc. etc.) in much of its research.  The fundamental
things that such research exposes about human behavior sheds considerable
light on the so-called "nature of the beast" with which we are dealing and
then helps us as we try to evolve new and better  social/political/economic
institutions (which take this nature into account as we learn more about
it. )

Much of what you propose is not consistent with what we think we know about
human nature.  Other things are just reinforcing the definitions that you
oppose.  For instance, your example about humans being willing to pay for
air when someone has a firm grip on their throat is just an example (not a
refutation) of the idea that scarcity, even if temporary, gives value to
things that under less scarce circumstances would be valueless.

Nothing I have read in economics books or journals (so far at least) has
implied that *anything* has intrinsic economic value under any and all
conditions - so I am not sure with what suppesed "Doctine" you are arguing.
 The physical requirements of the body and the value that the body places
on things like food and air are more in the purview of biology than
economics.  How we behave in response to the scarcity of certain things we
desire, and the dynamic workings/interactions of the institutions we have
devoloped to facilitate our acquisition of the various things we need and
want are primarily what economists study.

Even the shifting of paradigms, changing of definitions/models, altering of
instituitions, manipulating of human habit etc - which seems to be what you
are proposing, is usually approched by economists in ways that take into
account what various social sciences have already learned about human
nature and what the  momentum of hisory, precedent and custom have placed
in our way in the way of political, social, legal and economic
institutions.

Can we please leave the workings of the digestive tract to the
gastroenterologists and get on with thinking about better ways to study the
economics that relate to current systems&structures and the *improving* of
those systems based on what social science has taught us about human nature
(as well as ideas of justice derived from philosophy and political/legal
thought).


 Robyn M.