Re: Method

["Harry L. Cook" <hlc710@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I  am amazed and dismayed at the range of responses to the clip about
Ricardo and income distribution as the main economic problem. What we are
talking about is public policy.

Anybody who reads the Wall Street Journal (not the editorials) and other
sources has got to know that our system is heavily biased institutionally in
favor of those at the top, which is what creates the unconscionable income
distribution that we have.  .

This income distribution  did not just happen as a natural event.  It
happened as the result of public policy, which means mainly  the laws and
policies that Congress passed and did not pass, and enforced and did not
enforce.

The whole debate between conservatives and liberals is about what kind of
laws and policies about taxes, social services, the environment, regulation
of business and so on that should and should not be passed and enforced and
this it seems to me is what we should be talking about at least some of the
time.

Everybody, presumably, wants a system of freedom and justice, but  what does
that mean and how do you get it?.  Operationally this pretty much gets down
to  one's concept of the proper economic role of government.  Minimal
according to conservatives and activist according to liberals, but possibly
it would be enlightening, or at least interesting, to discuss the pros and
cons of each side..

                                                                Harry L.
Cook


----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Method


> 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
> > >
>
>