Re: finite world/resource depletion

[Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robyn: I have a couple of lovely granddaughters still not far beyond the
toddler age, and I wouldn't tell them any of this yet, until they get a
bit older. They still love stories about princesses and angels and Santa
Claus.  But I believe that you have graduated beyond that point.
Economic Philosophers have laden their philosophy with all these
fairyland garments to lull grown up people, thoroughly mystified by all
that pseudo intellectual economic jargon, into failing to recognize
those very mundane basics of economics, that are precisely of the earthy
character I present.  Why?  Because to do so means the continuation of a
philosophy that ought to have been discarded into the history books a
century ago, along with that entire profession charged with resolving
Social Problems, as Social Problems would at long last be resolved.
Name one Social Problem that has not originated with Food scarcity
during the Agrarian era, and Money scarcity since.  Is the phrase
"Agrarian Era" too earthy for you?  Do you know what it means, and how
people survived during those times, and what precisely did "survival"
consist of, and what else was there beyond that?

Robyn Miller wrote:
>
> 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.

Where do you think the phrase "income" originated, if not of Food
introduced into the body literally through the mouth?  Sure, we now
apply that word to Money, originally invented to act as a surrogate for
Food during the Agrarian Era, and that as "income" to legally called
"artificial persons" such as corporate groups.  Until the end of the
Agrarian Era, there were very few "artificial persons."  Do you think it
appropriate to distort the original meaning of words into relatively
meaningless concepts?  The "out go" example is to show how utterly
ridiculous is the notion of "in come" that is all that Doctrinaire
Economic Philosophy is all about, that takes 800 textbook pages to
discuss when all it really involves is nothing more than feeding the
entire population. That requires no PhD's in anything.  It only requires
a bookkeeping function to keep track of inventory and distribution,
literally, of the least critical "staff of life," Food.  Once that's
done, there is nothing within any economics text that's worth
considering any further. Absolutely nothing.


>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.

There you go, fascinated like my little granddaughters with the glowing
robes and stage lit countenances of the fairies that are created out of
whole cloth by the Doctrinaire philosophers, that is ALL they are
interested in.  This is supposed to be a Science, which if a valid
Science, then must look at what lies underneath all those robes.  You
will find there a simple human being, made of flesh and blood, each with
simple needs of "in come" of Air, Water and Food, and downstream of that
"in come" an "out go" which is quite evident as we have to bring up a
baby to being trained out of diapers to be self sufficient in that
respect.

You will find at that level of understanding that human Motivation is
absurdly simple, on the one hand a need for Security, a feeling that one
can easily cope with whatever his environment will present him, and on
the other hand, an equally important sense of Self Esteem, that his very
existence is at least a promising potential of being of value to
mankind.

Your Social Sciences refuse to allow this simple concept as it demeans
their self aggrandizing position of being the arbiters and directors of
human endeavors.  They prefer instead to over complicate their view of
the human race so that for 5 billion people, there are 5 billion
different philosophies and of course, NEVER a promise of resolving
readily resolvable Social Problems.

> 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. )

Again, you're dealing with the fancy garments rather than the essence of
the problem.  How come Maslow is not treated with the same intensity for
that Self Esteem factor as Hayek and Samuelson and a host of others are
treated for the Security factor?  How come that deadly threat to all of
us from childhood on, "Earn a Living" or (unvoiced but obvious), "Earn a
death," that is the foundation of Economic Philosophy.  And just how
would you define the word "living" and its origin?
>
> 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.

Come now.  Let us not be obtuse.  List in order of criticality these
items.  Air, Water and Food.  Can these be withheld from anyone and may
he yet live?  Will not one die in moments without Air, in days without
Water, and in 2 months without Food, unconditionally?  Is not Economic
Philosophy concerned ONLY with Food scarcity, (otherwise, there would
not likely even be a human race) and now a deliberately contrived Money
scarcity because they have falied to restore the Food scarcity of the
Agrarian era?  As do too many economists, they list other things in
scarce supply as a rationale for Scarcity economics, but nothing else
can exist without enough Food for those who would produce them.  In any
event, are you suggesting that so long as Air is abundant it is
valueless?  Is that a desirable condition that ought to be created,
valuable Air?
How about scarce library books, roadways, public facilities, doorway
spaces, a host of things?  Are they life threatening in their scarcity,
or do we not time and place share the use of these things?
>
> 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.

Great!  This is what I'd like to see and what I suggest.  That is all
there is to "Income" and if left to the existing suppliers and
bookkeepers, what do we need of the Social Scientist, and the entire
Financial Industry, as it is Scarce Food alone that is the entire
foundation of Economics, the Science of Scarcity, all 800 pages of
textbook, and the progenesis of every Social Problem you can name, even
the tragedy of Princess Diana.

>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.

I find myself under such a condition, stepping back and saying, "After
You Sir," or wait my turn in the checkout line, which might remain
necessary in a Moneyless society for the inventory management problem.
A great deal of unnecessary scarcity of things we might have in more
abundance today is the result of deliberate curtailment of funding for
no good reason at all, as "funding" is meant to get "wherewithal" into
the hands of human being who will use it to get his groceries.
>
> 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.

The human race lived in logical simplicity for ages until the Social
Sciences deliberatley warped all those simplicities into today's
horrible warping of concepts, for the sole, self-aggrandizing purpose of
maintaining status quo of their position.  They have trained you and all
others to believe that the warped concepts of today are
aboriginal simplicities the human race met in its original sojourn on
earth.

> 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).

BUT THAT IS ALL THAT ECONOMICS IS ABOUT AND WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN. THE
FEEDING OF THE HUMAN RACE. Economics of Scarcity (of what else but
Food)is a discipline that has outlived its usefullness at the end of the
Agrarian era a century ago. Every bit of human misery since then, all
the crime, violence and WAR can be laid on the doorstep of Doctrinaire
Economics.  Don't let the rote learning forced into every student's mind
lead you astray, unless you are comfortable in becoming a sheep like
robot subservient to the evil ministrations of whomever started this
self perpetuating line of thought a century ago. If you had some Real
Science understanding, you would note the utter futility of original
thought in this cartoon like posture I suggest.  Imagine every Social
Scientist ever existing, standing shoulder to shoulder in a closed
circle, and in unison and harmony shouting, "It is so because HE said
it's so," while all point to the right (in conservative times) or to the
left (in liberal times).  Is that what give certitude to your beliefs?
In the Real Sciences, no one's words are turned to for reinforcement of
logic.  Only trying it out.  Is it any wonder at the continual, abject
failure of the Social Sciences, while the Real Sciences rack up success
after success?

Hyman
>
>
>  Robyn M.