Re: Method

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The problem is serious in that there is a tendency of the tail wagging the dog.
Deregulated markets tend to lead income and welath disparity. These results are
the presented as natural data from which theories rationaling them is presented
as being based on "facts".   Then theory is compartmentalized, so that any data
not fitting it is deemed non-sequitur.  When people starve, it is their own
fault of being unemployable because there is plenty of food produced and much is
even dumped in the sea.

There is little normative theorizing to view poverty as uneconomic. Under
neo-classical theory, it is assumed that no one in his/her right mind would work
for the welfare of others. There is no marginal utility in it.

The question is: if this is the best possible system, why are there so many
people ready and willing to kill?  Notice there is no mention in the mainstream
of the economics of terrorism.  The business community appraoch to observing the
anniversary of 9:11 is no commercial advertising for a day.

Henry C.K. Liu

"Harry L. Cook" wrote:

> Economics needs all of the theory and method it can use, but at some point I
> would think that we would like to get to the problems that bedevil society.
> Ricardo said that the principle problem in political economy was the problem
> of income distribution, and I think that it still is, but we never talk
> about it or rarely even mention it.
>                             Harry L. Cook
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Mearman" <ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Method
>
> > Harry,
> >
> > Are you suggesting that theorists don't have method?
> > Surely theory presupposes method? Therefore, it's
> > perfectly appropriate for this list to discuss method,
> > no? To adopt a common tactic on the list, if we don't
> > ever discuss method on the list, aren't we in danger
> > of falling foul of Keynes' criticism of Tinbergen that
> > he was too eager to get on with the job without
> > thinking about whether the job was worth doing (to
> > paraphrase loosely CW XIV); and by extension, that he
> > did so without knowing *how* to get on with this job?
> >
> > Obviously the key is to be clear on method, but not to
> > get stuck there. You can hardly accuse this list of
> > focusing on method: it's very much a theory list IMO.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
> > --- "Harry L. Cook" <hlc710@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Am I incorrect that PKT is exclusively about method
> > > and never beyond that to defining the economic
> > > problem and analyzing it?
> > >                                 Harry L. Cook
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> > http://finance.yahoo.com
> >