Re: Piorot on Madrick

[Ted Winslow <egwinslow@xxxxxxxxxx>]

John M. Legge wrote:

> This a monstrous non-sequitur.
>
> I offer a short obeisance to James Galbraith's work on inequality and
> cop a
> blast on my supposed sins on some completely different topic.  If you
> are
> asserting that Galbraith's research as summarised in "Created Unequal"
> is
> faulty then abuse him, not me.  If you have actually discovered a flaw
> in
> Galbraith's work, I am sure that he would discuss it with you politely
> if
> you drew it to his attention.
>
> If, as seems obvious from your comments, that you haven't read
> Galbraith and
> have no idea what I was writing about then you could do everyone a
> favour
> and keep your remarks to yourself.

I wasn't addressing Galbraith's argument.

I was addressing your suggestion at the end of what I quoted that "not
only is a
uniform wage 'fair', it may be the best approximation to the
economically optimal level" which I took to be another instance of what
I understand you frequently to argue, namely, that "rational
maximization" understood in terms of complexity theory can explain
economic phenomena, such as "a uniform wage," "liquidity preference" and
the basing of expectations of future profits on current profits, and
that such explanations can be "solidly grounded in empirical evidence."

I don't see how what I wrote was a "blast."  It was an argument
addressed to an argument I understand you frequently to be making.  If
you don't in fact make this argument then my own argument is, of course,
based on a false assumption and mistaken and/or it may be mistaken in
some other way.

Wouldn't it be better to indicate how I have misinterpreted you and/or
how the arguments I made were in some other way mistaken?

Ted