From: nobody@neva.org (Neva Remailer)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:14:48 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: <<Vitamin B>>(October 28, 1997) The Power of Ecobabble
Message-ID: <199710300204.SAA22887@mail-gw3.pacbell.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

While I know nothing of Bionomics, Professor Krugman's ill-tempered
essay intrigues me.

Robert Hettinga wrote that VitaminB@bionomics.org wrote that Paul
Krugman wrote in Slate:
> Take, for starters, his assertion that "orthodox economics describes
> the 'economy as a machine.' " You might presume from his use of
> quotation marks that this is something an actual economist said, or
> at least that it was the sort of thing that economists routinely
> say. But no economist I know thinks of the economy as being anything
> like a machine--or believes, as Rothschild asserts a bit later, that
> because the economy is like a machine, it is possible to make
> precise predictions.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."  While hard core economists
may not describe the economy as a machine, the popular literature,
such as that found in news stories on "the economy", almost always
uses machine metaphors.  "The economy was in danger of becoming
overheated, so the Fed raised interest rates."

The metaphors which people choose often have powerful political
implications.  After all, if the economy is sort of like a machine,
then it makes sense to have trained professionals who tune that
machine to operate with optimal efficiency.  It is not hard to figure
out why the ruling elite prefers this metaphor to some others that
could be chosen.

For instance, you could say the economy is an elaborate network of
relationships based on trust.  You could say that employment occurs
when two or more people agree to exchange goods or services.

Let's say unemployment figures are up.  If you believe the economy is
like a machine, then you will believe that there should be a central
planning organization like the Fed that should lower interest rates.

If you believe that the unemployment goes down when people form
employment relationships, you may think about ways to remove obstacles
to the formation of these relationships.

Note that the second more reasonable approach does not promote the
interests of a national ruling elite.

> In just the last two years, I've learned that I believe that gross
> domestic product is the sole measure of economic welfare...

In popular economics GDP is used almost exclusively as a measure of
success.  I strongly suspect that when Krugman says he himself does
not believe this, that he has some other set of statistical measures
which he considers to be better measures of success.

If this is the case, then he has completely missed the point.

Such statistical measures are sensible when one accepts that the
purpose of economics is to best instruct the rulers of a society in
their economic policy decisions.  In such a framework, the rulers
decide what is good and then decide how to cause that good to
increase.

The only problem with this is that it neglects to consider the
preferences of individual people.  It is highly unlikely that their
economic behavior is dictated by the authorities for their own best
interest because the authorities have no way of knowing what that best
interest might be.  People have their own beliefs and preferences on
that subject.

For example, a small island nation in the Pacific is highly regarded
as an "economic success".  One of the features of this society is that
government provided or subsidized housing is widely available.  People
who wish to spend their money on having a nice apartment like this.
But, many people may prefer to live in less expensive surroundings and
spend the money they save on other things, or to simply work less.

Krugman supports my theory about his beliefs later when he says:
> But it does not deify the market system, and it even offers a number
> of fairly well-defined ways in which markets can fail, or at least
> could be helped with government intervention. And that, for some
> conservatives, is just not good enough.

We do not see any examples of "market failures" and, indeed, the
people Krugman refers to would probably not see them as failure at
all.

It seems highly likely that Krugman has committed the sin he accuses
the Bionomicists of committing: he doesn't truly understand the
philosophy he is criticizing.


Also interesting is Krugman's obvious discomfiture with people who
would explore the ideas of the Bionomicists.  It may be the case that
the Bionomics crowd does not thoroughly understand classical economics
or evolutionary biology.  This would not be the first time that people
on the fringes of several disciplines came up with new ideas which
transformed the field.  (Take J. Kepler, the professional astrologer.
Kepler had many totally wacked out theories.  He believed completely
in astrology.  He believed the Earth was a living organism and the
tides were related to its breathing.  He believed the orbits of the
planets were distributed in relationship to the Platonic solids.  And,
get this, he believed that the area a planetary radius swept out in
time was constant.)

Obviously, Bionomics might be fraught with errors,
oversimplifications, and misrepresentations.  In spite of this, there
may be ideas that would interest an open minded professional.  Even
Marxists occasionally come up with an interesting observation, after
all.

So, Krugman's hostility to the exploration of ideas strikes me as a
little odd for a professor.  Take his final paragraph for an example:

> Anyway, I guess I won't attend the conference. I would have liked to
> meet Benford; but I couldn't stand to watch the author of _Great Sky
> River_ demeaning himself by consorting with such disreputable
> company.

Somehow I can hear an upper class Victorian mother telling her son:
"You should not be seen with that girl.  She's much too common."

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNFebtJaWtjSmRH/5AQEKUQf7B0XnUn1xwIbIcLFMDUDpL8HEaDb3bclO
syR2QJCvMa4BsjPKHWGRa5pEDNLdXfiQt0bXYZ+9WzVrr18VlAFJ2pqWoxv3PW76
YqDbfhGCwmseo8EzoRen5PEnxkZuNN+KKN92dEaEfj8NJMwBVZ2V5443HlPXxTWA
TXxZIeFYgldndpgIdqFxIc4qnVtrJbsGI1YrzbCNeeTgTKg8d1oZlDVDMbLDGeyx
wyb3hwzTB2wiLiLsTjhlcONEdbu0bwGUu7F3l60+C9JZjn3DWgl/+y562kejfcKP
LgdSplUSc8gFrR3bCFufpyOOGFDgp0keV3SRWOaO8i/N2N+l/XhI3w==
=iy9O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----