Re: Hyman's Beef

[Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxxx>]

I seem to have difficulty in drawing attention to the validity of the
phrase "Human Wants Are Virtually Infinite" that I presume is the core
model.  You persist in restricting attention to the common assumption
that this core model literally means "scarcity." That the issue you
would restrict attention to is the variation of themes upon that core
model of presumed scarcity.  An I wrong to assert that all economists
believe that "scarcity" is the only condition the human race can ever
experience, no matter now varied their subsequent thoughts are on how to
cope with "scarcity?"

My argument is that the very phrase itself, "Human Wants Are Virtually
Infinite" itself is the issue -- not what follows. Does not that
foundation statement literally mean "Human Wants Are FINITE" if one uses
an economy of words?  For that reason alone, all economists who then
theorize solely on the basis of "scarcity" are using some other
undisclosed foundation for their philosophy, not this purported
foundation statement, this "core model" of purported scarcity, that upon
reflection and analysis, completely discounts the "scarcity" that is
asserted throughout those 800 pages of text.  The very fact of
unemployment indicates that production has far exceeded our "finite"
consumption capabilities ever since unemployment became a problem, for a
century, at least.

Hyman

Bruce R. McFarling wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:12:00 -0500, Hyman Blumenstock
> <hystock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Hyman says: I presumed that the "core model" is that which is expressed
> >as early as page ix of the preface of Professor Heinz Kohler's text,
> >titled "A Note to the Teacher, wherein he states: "....under the main
> >theme of our discipline, the theme of > overcoming > scarcity."  Of
> >what, I earnestly ask.  The only scarcity we know today is of Money, and
> >that is purely imaginary.  Is it common sense?  Or is it venality of the
> >first order.
>
>         But that is the core model of a *school of thought* in economics.
> Obviously, on way that the dominant school of thought reproduces its
> dominance is by institutions that drive dissenting schools of thought
> from the introductory textbooks: introductory textbooks over-represent
> the positions of the dominant school of thought and under-represent the
> positions of dissenting schools.
>
> >That is what I meant as "holy writ," further expressed on page 2 of this
> >almost 800 page text, at the summation statement of the very first
> >paragraph, the strangely obfuscating phrase, "Human wants are virtually
> >infinite."  Am I incorrect on this assumption, especially since another
> >text book authored by the Wonnacutt brothers, Paul and Ronald says
> >essentially the same thing, but substitutes the word "insatiable" for
> >"infinite."  If my criticism is valid even before the main body of the
> >text, then what of the validity of the entire 800 pages of text that
> >follows, no matter how each different professor comes up with as many
> >variations on that theme as there are professors.
>
>         Yes, this *is* what I was responding to.  This *is* what *many*
> economists do, which you have been writing as if *all* economists do,
> and this *is* some of what is criticised by people that are (hold onto
> your hats here folks) are economists. <gasp!>
>         So when I wrote that your remarks should be directed to "those*
> economists who hold these position, and that *not all* economists hold
> these positions, I meant it.  If you draw your picture of what *all*
> eocnomists think based on a reading of introductory textbooks, you are
> building on a false premise that what is included in introductory
> textbooks is an *unbiased* sample of the work of economists.  And
> this is especially relevant with regards to posting on pkt, since
> a majority of Post Keynesians will dispute the adequacy of some,
> much, or most of what is written in introductory textbooks regarding
> macroeconomic theory.  Of course, *how* much is inadequate, and *which*
> aspects are inadequate, is very much a live question for debate.
>
> Virtually,
>
> Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
> ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx