"Infinite Wants"

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

1.  Keynes' GT is not based on the theory that human wants
are "infinite."

2.  One of the major themes in the General Theory is the
reverse of that thesis.  It is phrased thus: "the decreasing
marginal propensity to consume."  What that means is that
wants DO get fulfilled (for individuals) and that they
cut consumption accordingly (resulting in "savings").

3.  The decrease in consumption (caused by the
decreasing marginal propensity to consume) causes producers
to perceive a decrease in "aggregate demand."  In response
to that, they cut back in investment.

4.  When they cut back in investment, as a response to
the decrease in aggregate demand, unemployment rises.
This leads to "unnecessary scarcity."  The GT mounts
a sophisticated attack on major capitalist investment
institutions precisely with the intent of demonstrating
that because human consumption is not infinite (the
decreasing marginal propensity to consume) and because
distribution (given the state of our society) depends
primarily on jobs,  that
something needs to be done to prevent a crisis in
access to resources (food is one, but Keynes more often
talks about housing, since even in the 1930s the
masses of indigent were more often fed than housed).

Such is a skeletal outline of the theory.  In fact,
key elements of it can be found in some major textbooks
under the thesis "the paradox of thrift" which can
be found in the textbook of textbooks, Samuelson's
Principles of Economics.  The cartoon version is that
when people save there it causes a decrease in
aggregate consumption.  I'm afraid that the textbook
does not phrase the tendency towards thrift as a
reflection of "finite wants" but certainly savings
are the result of finite consumption needs, as
detrermined by the famous formula:

Savings=Income - Consumption

5.  Moreover, Keynes virtually launches (so nearly as
I can tell this is a solo achievement) the critique of
money as "non-neutral" which is to say that it is a
major part of "the problem."


So, what invites ridicule:

1.  Coming on to a forum and accusing people of beliefs
they do not hold;
2.  Failing to make the time and effort to understand
the vocabulary and underlying motives of what has
been, in many cases, careers lasting decades;
3.  Accusing people who believe that poverty, maldistribution,
and te economic system have gone seriously awry, and who
as a result of that belief have often seen their career
options limited (for failing to join the general celebration
about the glories of the market) of being ass-kissing
sycophants of "the system"
4. Generally carrying on and shrieking so loud that the
import and meaning of what is being posted every day
fails to penetrate; failing to see after months on a list
where the repeated theme of conversation is the misunderstanding
and deformation of the single greatest mind of 20th century
economic thought has resulted in a massive intellectual
fraud (called "neoclassical economics" or "monetarism") which
leaves millions, or billions, destitute the world over;
5. Execrating possible friends as enemies;
6. It would be as if some eco-freak
driven mad by the rape of the environment were to attack
a man who is tinkering under the hood of a car.  "You and
your kind (there is someone else tinkering along with him)
are nothing but ass-kissing servants of the automobile age
and fail to see the destrution you're causing!  You
mechanics are the reason for the massive degradation of the
environment!  You're criminals!"  Next to the mechanics
on the ground is a book titled "The Potential for
Mass Transit and Environmentally Friendly Automobiles."
Under the hood of the car the mechanics are saying
"There are some pretty serious design flaws here.  If
we have to stick with cars like this maybe things
can be improved with exhaust gas recirclation and
catalytic converters.  With greater effort we could
convert this baby to methanol or natural gas.  Even
better might be if we could start with a radically
new design."  Meanwhile dansing around them the
eco-freak shouts: "You're mechanics!  You're
frauds!  You're destroying the environment!  I
know all about you!  You're the agents of
General Motors!"  And needless to say this gentleman
never bothers to look at the aformentioned book
nor to listen hard to what's being said under the
hood.

Needless to say even if the guys under the hood
agree on what the best thing to do with the
automobile is, they may not be able to persuade
Detroit and its engineers to go along.  Because
they are not in fact in Detroit in the design
rooms.  They are people peering at an engine and
finding many things wrong.  But it is
annoying and distracting for them to be accused
of being Detroit gas guzzling designers, wholly
irrelevant to what they are doing, and not
a very great tribute to the perceptivity of the
individual dansing and screaming around the car.

greg nowell