[no subject]

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:44:14 -0500, Hyman Blumenstock
<hystock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I may have well presumed wrongly that that phrase based on about human
>wants being "infinite" or "insatiable" was universally accepted. I
>certainly appreciate your patience.

>Perhaps I should ask instead a seemingly negative but perhaps more
>positive question.

>Is there any school of economic thought that is based on this?
>"Is not the Post Agrarian era one wherein at long last, practical,
>fulfillable human wants (not pie-in-the-sky wants) are potentially
>met (if we just set our minds to doing the possible) as fully as
>the entire population of the earth could each individually, expect
>to cope with?"

        I do not know whether there are any schools of
thought that are based upon that.  It is, after all, a
statement about the state of the economy, not a statement
about how to study the state of the economy.
        However, there are a number of schools of thought
that might be able to entertain the question of whether
the economy is in this state, as mainstream economics
cannot.  Post Keynesian economics is one (see, for
example, Keynes letter to 'our grandchildren');
Institutionalist economics is another (see the article
in the JEI that I referred to earlier this week).
neo-Ricardian economics may be able to consider the
question.  I'm not sure about neo-Schumpeterian
economics, but depending on the model of economic
order that underlies the model of innovations
disrupting economic order, it may well.  Some
approaches to ecological economics may be able
to answer the question, but you might not like
their premises about what "practical, fulfillable"
human wants are.  Some arguing a hard-line ecological
economics will argue that 'practical, fulfillable' human
wants require us to reduce our population to a level that
leaves more room for the rest of the life on this planet.
But there is no reason to equate limits and scarcity:
if there are limits, and we live within the limits, there
is no reason for the things we use to be scarce.

>Would not then the very title of the discipline,
>"Economics, the Science of Scarcity" have to be
>appropriately changed?

        Has anyone on this list except you
ever said that Economics *is* the Science of
Scarcity?  The problem is that people's views
on what Economics *is not*, does not pin them
down on what they think Economics *is*.  Just
because people do *not* think that Economics
is the Science of Scarcity, does not imply that
they think it is the Science of Abundance.
Automatically choosing the opposite does not
work if the original definition was in the wrong
terms in the first place.


> That has been the theme of all my messages.
> You indicate that there are some schools of
> economic thought along these lines, do you not,
> as you indicate that I am in error in not being
> aware of them?

        It is not *being* aware of them, it is
participating in a Post Keynesian list without
making an effort to find out what Post Keynesian
economics is.  Countless references have been
provided on the list since the time that you
started posting messages on these themes, and
you don't show any sign of following any of them
up (I'm not saying that you haven't followed
any of them up, just that your messages haven't
betrayed any sign of doing so).  I do not know
of any schools of thought organised around these
lines but, as I've written above, there are a
number within which the question might be pursued.
But its not possible to pursue questions like
these by discussing on a mailing list alone.  It
requires reading some of the basic ideas of the
school.
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Ourimbah, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx