Henwood/Wray on Cranks

["Gregoire de Nowell (ci-devant)" <GN842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There are two issues here.  One is the content-free discourse (I shall name
no names, but am amused to see that many of the cranks know who they are,
though I often wonder about my own status) issue and on it I pass.  I
would like to see a Perelman-style editing of the list but I don't
think it's going to happen.

The other more serious issue is the marginal character of both
Keynes (in economics) and "vulgar materialist" interpretations of politics
(in political "science").  I believe that the two are related.  In essence
an equilibrium theory of the economy in which markets naturally "clear"
(unless interefered with by malevolent forces) goes hand-in-hand with
political theories that emphasize ideology and other structural
factors (I'm thinking of rather specialized international relations
literature, no need to elaborate here) that tend to de-emphasize the
role of oligarchs and oligpolies in determining the structure of the world
we live in.  It is explicit in Marx, and implicit in Keynes, that
political decisions need to be made about economic outcomes.  There
is very little of that in classical theory derived economics and
there are tomes and tomes of political science which ignore the impact
of economic factors in determining national govt behaviors.  Indeed,
Polanyi's classic study, which emphasized that an ideology of the market
"standing alone" developed in parallel with aggressive state interventionism
in order to "make the market work" seems to catch the process nicely.
Hobson--himself a crank who got generous acknowledgement from Keynes--
similarly concluded that when "the market" doesn't work the result
is a political struggle for control of the state apparatus.  For
Hobson the structures that underlay both foreign investment and
foreign policy were the results of attempts by elites to deal with
disequilibria in the "natural" state of the economy.

I think Hobson's study is one of the finest political economy works
of the century, because of the complex presentation of a macroeconomic
model (that was not totally out of whack) with a theory of culture
and an analysis of political coalitions.  I can think of few studies
which rival it.  But he was marginal as an economist and he is marginal
in international relations literature, even though he is still in print
in paperback after a century, which shows a lot of dissenters out there
who retain an interest in his work.  (Well, still in print after 95 years)

I know Doug is critical of Keynes' "radicalism" but the ambivalence of
Keynes' personal views does not mean that a "radical" interpretation of
Keynes is not possible.  I see in Keynes a radical critique of the
dominant structure of production and distribution.  If I had to pair
the economic analysis with a political analysis (which can't be found
in the GT) I would say that the natural "drift" would be along the
lines developed by Hobson: an essentially radical pluralist view of
how a certain nexus of interests (rentier and ancillary investment
institutions and actors) contribute to a suboptimal outcome for
society as a whole.  Whether a "pluralist" radicalism is more or less
effective, or more or less convincing, than a class-based materialist
analysis (Marxism) is not an easy choice to make.  Traditionally
pluralism tends to hold out more hope for reform (Hobson was a
liberal, and a believer in markets) of the existing system whereas
Marxism tends to see a need for said system either to be overthrown
by its most oppressed members OR for the system's evolution to be
driven by its internal contradictions.

In any case, it is perversely logical to me that Keynes should be
marginal in modern economics and Hobson should be marginal in modern
international relastions.  If "the market" is allocating resources
more or less "as it should" then government's role is clearly driven
by other kinds of concerns.  Indeed, Mancur Olson's _Rise and DEcline
of Nations_ is a pretty clear statement the philosophy "that government
governs best which governs least."  Not my view, but consistent with
the notion that government tampering with markets is "an exception"
rather than the rule and that "fixing what's broken" requires restricting
the sphere of government intervention.  Milton Friedman is right to
say that Keynesians "are not economists" in this interpretation.  If
economics means an autonomous self-clearing market and a government
that behaves autonomously from economic interests (the "national
interest") then by definition people concerned with non-self-clearing
markets and concentrations of power that are used by the few to the
detriment of the many are "cranks," which is to say, not economists.

So then we have the issue of the cranks of the cranks, the cranky sphere
or outer periphery of the periphery.  Out there eating locusts and
wild honey are a number of weirdos who perceive elements of what's
"wrong" and have usually accumulated a high degree of personal energy
coupled with a lack of the discipline characteristic of mainstream
discourse inside academe and out.  Very typically American, this is
accompnaied with a high degree of anti-intellecualism (professors
are sloppy, dirty, lazy, stupid, uncaring, etc.) which has more to
do with the fact that when you are on the periphery of the periphery,
the periphery of the core looks "in."  Thus we find that fine intellectuals
who have been relegated to the Albanys, Tennessees, Chico States, etc.,
and who, relative to the power structure which (they know at least)
centers in places like Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton, Chicago, etc.,
are "marginal", appear, however paradoxically, to be the villains
of the giant conspiracy.   It's all a question of where you sit.
The cranks think that by railing at the periphery of the core they
are in fact changing the core.  What WE know already is that our
views, such as they are, have ALREADY gotten us out to the periphery,
and we durst go no further.  But the cranks usally get NO CLOSER
to the core than to the periphery of the core.  You won't find
a Krugman sharing a list with a Blumenstock.  It's only because
WE ALREADY KNOW that we're on the periphery that we figure,
well, what the hell, since we're seen as cranks we might as well
let the cranks
cranks have their piece of the action.  And who knows, every now
and then you might learn something.  I, for example, have been
working on a theory that translates labor theory of value into
thermal caloric nutritional equivalents, where the basic unit of
measurment is the banana split.  I could never have gotten there
without Blumenstock.

Greg Nowell
"on the edge"