In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 04 2014 03:41 bookwyrm wrote: It's because they are part of that pathetically deluded species of humans who believe that is possible to understand the world with math.
If it is indeed impossible to understand the world, it would be through maths. Sadly, understanding the world is even less likely than students of the humanities understanding maths. And that is unlikely indeed.
Only philosophy can "understand" anything actually. That's one of the reason why economy is heavily criticized, it completly forgot its basis and barely ever discuss with its foundation. It lost itself in a certain theorical conceptualization of man, society, economy, value, good or interest, that are supposed to be true everything equal - out of any historical context.
while that is good whitedog the problem of abstraction is always with economics given the complexity of the system in question. it becomes a probleml when a certain effort at 'getting more real' leads to the opposite in practice. the obvious example being microeconomic foundations in linear algebra based equilibrium macro.
On November 04 2014 07:07 oneofthem wrote: while that is good whitedog the problem of abstraction is always with economics given the complexity of the system in question. it becomes a probleml when a certain effort at 'getting more real' leads to the opposite in practice. the obvious example being microeconomic foundations in linear algebra based equilibrium macro.
i'll recommend stuff by tony lawson on this topic.
I don't need to hear any economist on this subject really (altho I will listen your video), I'm perfectly clear on the problem, and it's an epistemological problem. In fact I even agree with M. Friedman's epistemology to a certain point, but not with its lack of epistemology when he was taking political stands. Models are a necessity, and have value, and create knowledge. And the assumption on which the models are based have no need to be grounded in empirical data is valable. But the results of models have very weak actual applications in terms of actual policies because reality is always defined by a context that you cannot "sature" (in Derrida's term). Social "reasonning" is not popperian, because the assertion that one can deduce out of a specific model or empirical study is always linked to the context in which the assertion has been made and the theory that has been used to study reality. Or to say it in another way, the complexity that you refer to is impossible to surpass.
In every other social science, this fact that historical context is impossible to completly define, "sature" or exhaust, ended with various models, all having completly different assumption on the behavior of actors, assumptions that are in complete opposition of one another but that all have value in producing certain knowledge on certain field. It is both a disease for social sciences, as they will never have the stability of other kind of science, and a blessing as they will always be "young" as Weber put it.
But in economy, there is only one theory, one set of assumption/hypothesis, mainly based on methodological individualism and micreconomy, even more since the desire to find microeconomic foundation to macroeconomy. When people say that the problem of economy is that it function with models that are not grounded in reality, they don't understand that it's not a flaw but its normal nature, as reality is impossible to completly define. But the existence of a unique theory is very detrimental, and makes it plenty useless in many situations, hence the reason why Marx and Keynes are never quoted during growth and always brought back during crisis : they're the only one that think differently and that are sorta okay to quote.
i have a more critical view of the agency models epistemically speaking, but perhaps a more favorable view of them (in some ideal form) as a matter of predictive functionality or policy guide. but yes, economics is itself a part of the dynamic it studies. a single strain will be devastated by unexpected events (and given the sorry state of the ontological basis of the modeling and the lack of empirical penetration during non-crisis, unexpected events will happen) partly because its dominance inspires false confidence.
monoculture is even worse in economics than farming
On November 04 2014 07:31 oneofthem wrote: i have a more critical view of the agency models epistemically speaking, but perhaps a more favorable view of them (in some ideal form) as a matter of predictive functionality or policy guide. but yes, economics is itself a part of the dynamic it studies. a single strain will be devastated by unexpected events (and given the sorry state of the ontological basis of the modeling and the lack of empirical penetration during non-crisis, unexpected events will happen) partly because its dominance inspires false confidence.
monoculture is even worse in economics than farming
Yeah that's a good way to put it
Everytime I need to mark papers I end up posting in here...
It doesn't harm the environment but you don't want to suggest it's sustainable.... uhhhh....?
^ The first and second 'it' refer to different things.
The first 'it' is my original point on growing standards of living in the US. In this case 'it' does not harm the environment because 'it' is not accompanied by more pollution or more stresses on the environment.
The second 'it' was in response to WhiteDog making, what I assume to be (his English is a bit broken), a more general statement on resource use and economic activity.
On November 04 2014 03:35 bookwyrm wrote:but i would rather have seen the entire thing collapse than do what we did. As it is, I'm just wasting my youth waiting for the next crisis. what's the point in making life plans when you know the entire system is built on lies and air castles? Let's just let the damn thing crash and get on with doing whatever comes next.
Just because you see the pattern the future will likely follow doesn't mean you can't enjoy the decline! Heck, we may get a few more decades of more or less of the same.
that mentality of wiating for crisis puts some sort of marxist narrative of inevitable capitalist collapse above actually facing up to the reality of the situation. there will be no cataclysmic crisis providing easy excuse to banish le capitalists. for all the problems we have the world is still growing, and most worst off people are better off now than they were 40 years ago.
nevertheless if automation does what it does there may be some real crisis down the road. the key marxist insight is that ownership matters, and this will come to a fore if the fruits of automation are cordoned off into real serious rent/markup powers.
automation induced unemployment doesn't go hand in hand with a marxist narrative? crisis are a thing of the past, but crisis will likely happen in the future? i guess i am misreading you.
since when has automation ever lead to lasting unemployment? Increase in production has always lead to people just doing something else, that's why the service sector is so big today, the productivity hasn't increased as heavily as in industry or agriculture.
Well if it has never happened before I'd say the burden of proof is on you or you're going to sound like a Jehova's witness member announcing that the world is going to end for the dozenth time.
I'm all for talking about the flaws of our system, but if all you can do is scream "we have the truth, join our group or you will be doomed" then you really do sound like some kind of religious cult leader.
On November 04 2014 11:25 nunez wrote: automation induced unemployment doesn't go hand in hand with a marxist narrative? crisis are a thing of the past, but crisis will likely happen in the future? i guess i am misreading you.
technology leading to less labor input for a certain output is nothing new. i think more efficiency is always good, at least when employed well. the problem with the automation wave, as opposed to industrialization, is that industrialization is complementary to labor, requiring massive mobilization of the labor force in fact, while automation is substituting capital in labor's place. and this is within the simple labor and capital model. a better way of putting things would be, it is substituting technology and organization in place of both capital and labor. automated systems of production are not only labor effiicent but they are also extensive, requirng a lot of logistics and management infrastructure. this requirement is, besides the potential patent stuff, a barrier to entry, and create rent for the holder of this network.
recent studies on the increasing weight of mark-up, at least give credence to this worry. large corporations are generally in control over both the resource and network effect needed to take advantage of automation, but also can beat down potential competitors. if corporate profits become detached from labor and capital (re-investment in real economy is low, at least for companies on the public market), then that is a problem. this sort of economy will make fixed inputs more valuable, and accelerate inequality patterns.
the general wisdom of 'in the long run, people will find stuff to do' may work itself out eventually, but during the transition phase if a lot of accumulation is going on without involving much of the population or even capital, there's going to be problems.
This is an online board that exists because people make a living from playing video games on the internet and other people make a living from commentating on it. If that is a viable career path then I don't think we have a problem. Also productivity increases way slower than it did in the past. Societies survived when single machines replaced hundreds of workers over night, I think we're going to survive a robot that cleans toilets.
a long run solution does not necessarily prevent a short run crisis. i'm not predicting crisis anyway, just pointing to the next nearest threat. it's all conditional and nobody knows what will happen.
industrialization adjustment was also policy dependent. if england etc were run like bangladesh or some other labor camp condition, we might never have moved out of that situation. or if the wealth created from industrialization was always wasted in wars, same disastrous results.
this is from soemone who says, the nerds will save us. i think technology is a part of the solution. but in the interest of being charitable and fair i should point out the potential challenge associated with automation. the solution will still be one driven by technology, probably more efficient supply chains, smaller scale production lines and whatnot leading to more product lines. basically a big worldwide appstore for stuff.
btw on the topic of luddites. it is not impossible to imagine that some form of luddites really did suffer a great deal in the short term, (or when they were alive.) it is just that we take the progress and forget the suffering, something that is harder to do in present time for present sufferers.
i still don't see contradicting of a marxist narrative.
technology, organization, monopoly power, and growing unemployment are accounted for in marx's analysis afaik, and your description of automation induced turbulance seems very compatible.
unless i can see that, your post is absurd. maybe a true belieber can correct me. it might also beacuse you are using all these fancy econ terms that have zero semantic for me (barrier to entry, weigth of mark-up, patent stuff, rent).
technology iz definitely part of ze final zolution, oneofzem.
marxist narrative portrays inevitable, long run collapse of capitalism. the orthodox marxist idea anyway. historical materialism or whatever. scientific marxism?
that post was like two posts jammed into one. not very consistent in scope.
EPT
