There is an interesting interview here with the anthropologist
David Graeber on the history of barter, money, debt:
“What is Debt? – An Interview with Economic Anthropologist David Graeber,” August 26, 2011.
What stands out is Graeber’s attack on the view that money arose by barter:
Philip Pilkington: … Most economists claim that money was invented to replace the barter system. But you’ve found something quite different, am I correct?
David Graeber: Yes there’s a standard story we’re all taught, a ‘once upon a time’ — it’s a fairy tale.
It really deserves no other introduction: according to this theory all transactions were by barter. “Tell you what, I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow.” Or three arrow-heads for that beaver pelt or what-have-you. This created inconveniences, because maybe your neighbor doesn’t need chickens right now, so you have to invent money.
The story goes back at least to Adam Smith and in its own way it’s the founding myth of economics. Now, I’m an anthropologist and we anthropologists have long known this is a myth simply because if there were places where everyday transactions took the form of: “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow,” we’d have found one or two by now. After all people have been looking since 1776, when the Wealth of Nations first came out. But if you think about it for just a second, it’s hardly surprising that we haven’t found anything.
Think about what they’re saying here – basically: that a bunch of Neolithic farmers in a village somewhere, or Native Americans or whatever, will be engaging in transactions only through the spot trade. So, if your neighbor doesn’t have what you want right now, no big deal. Obviously what would really happen, and this is what anthropologists observe when neighbors do engage in something like exchange with each other, if you want your neighbor’s cow, you’d say, “wow, nice cow” and he’d say “you like it? Take it!” – and now you owe him one. Quite often people don’t even engage in exchange at all – if they were real Iroquois or other Native Americans, for example, all such things would probably be allocated by women’s councils.
So the real question is not how does barter generate some sort of medium of exchange, that then becomes money, but rather, how does that broad sense of ‘I owe you one’ turn into a precise system of measurement – that is: money as a unit of account?
By the time the curtain goes up on the historical record in ancient Mesopotamia, around 3200 BC, it’s already happened. There’s an elaborate system of money of account and complex credit systems. (Money as medium of exchange or as a standardized circulating units of gold, silver, bronze or whatever, only comes much later.)
So really, rather than the standard story – first there’s barter, then money, then finally credit comes out of that – if anything its precisely the other way around. Credit and debt comes first, then coinage emerges thousands of years later and then, when you do find “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow” type of barter systems, it’s usually when there used to be cash markets, but for some reason – as in Russia, for example, in 1998 – the currency collapses or disappears.
It's all religion isn't it. Even money has a 'creation myth'.
ReplyDeleteHow have we let this pseudo-science gain so much power in the world? It explains nothing in the standard dogma.
The story goes back at least to Adam Smith and in its own way it’s the founding myth of economics. Now, I’m an anthropologist and we anthropologists have long known this is a myth simply because if there were places where everyday transactions took the form of: “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow,” we’d have found one or two by now. After all people have been looking since 1776, when the Wealth of Nations first came out. But if you think about it for just a second, it’s hardly surprising that we haven’t found anything.
ReplyDeleteUtter nonsense.
It is not necessary that there exists whole countries that are on spot trade barter in order to prove the theory that money arises from barter. The argument is an appeal to ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. It is no more necessary that there has to exist whole countries on barter in order to prove the theory that money arises from barter, than to claim it is necessary that there has to exist whole countries that use stone wheels in order to prove the theory that 747 aircraft tires have their origins in stone wheels.
So really, rather than the standard story – first there’s barter, then money, then finally credit comes out of that – if anything its precisely the other way around. Credit and debt comes first, then coinage emerges thousands of years later
This is flawed. The author holds (correctly) that barter trade originated before money. He holds that barter originated before money by claiming that at first, people settled their debts by barter, not money. "Here's a cow", and then "I owe you something." That "something" was another good at first, not money. But then he incorrectly concludes that the order barter, money, debt should be reversed, meaning debt, money, barter.
His logic should actually be debt, barter, money.
Trading cows for pigs arose before trading cows and pigs for money. Even if the first exchanges were debt based, where one party gave another party a cow on credit, to be paid back and settled in the future in some other commodity like pigs, then barter still preceded money.
The argument of whether or not debt preceded barter is interesting, but it is irrelevant to the fact that barter preceded money.
Nietzsche, in his essay Genealogy of Morals, argued that debt and credit agreements are the origin of morality.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/genealogyofmorals/section5.rhtml
Major_Freedom:
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that credit is no different than money? It can be used as a placeholder for the exchange of goods (as you describe - goods are traded for X, X is traded for goods, rather than the direct interchange of goods which is the definition of barter), it can be traded or accumulated, it can change value or form over time, and be used in the exercise of power, just like money. How can you honestly argue that it's the same as barter, but then say that money isn't? How is your argument not just solipsism?
Anonymous @ August 30, 2011 11:22 AM:
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that credit is no different than money?
False. Credit is different from money.
Credit is a promise to pay.
Pay what? Money of course. Money IS the payment that settles the credit.
It can be used as a placeholder for the exchange of goods (as you describe - goods are traded for X, X is traded for goods, rather than the direct interchange of goods which is the definition of barter), it can be traded or accumulated, it can change value or form over time, and be used in the exercise of power, just like money.
No, credit does not finalize payment. Money finalized payment. Credit is promise to finalize payment in the future.
How can you honestly argue that it's the same as barter, but then say that money isn't?
I never argued that credit is the same as barter.
How is your argument not just solipsism?
Read and understand my argument, and not misread what I argued, then you won't have to conclude that I argued something I didn't argue.
You want to talk about solipsists? Ask LK why he considers his subjective whims as basis for his ethics, which includes initiating violence against innocent people, as if they are not even real, feeling entities, and reality is all just in LK's depraved mind.
Major_Freedom your claims are nonsensical, but you should actually the read the book where all it is developed to see why backed by real data and a lot of research (if your ideological bias let you get something out of it off course).
ReplyDeleteThere was never trading "cows for pigs" because that's not how debt relations were (and still are!) constructed in pre-money societies. The evolution to money is not through barter, but through institutionalized debt (the natural process was probably quite long and complex, but the process has been replicated artificially by westerns during last centuries several times elsewhere).
The interview is nice, but the book is probably one of the most important books in years.
Major:
ReplyDeleteI have read the book, and can recommend it heartily. Also, having done so, I can tell you that your argument is a bit short-sighted.
First of all, his point is not that commodities never exchanged for commodities before money; rather, that economies are not structured around it. In that respect, everything he said holds. Sure, pure good/good exchange can be observed, but usually in the context of emergency transactions or ceremonial movements of property (which is one of the major bridges to the "gift economy", e.g. the Kwakiutl potlatch and so on).
Indeed, by all accounts, money must be generalized to be "money." If you're admitting that money develops in parallel with a state of generalized economic activity, then you're only making his case for him, since it can be universally demonstrated that debt came first, anyway.
Further, he doesn't just describe economies structured on commodity exchange; he also takes time to examine some cultures that have what he refers to as "human economies," in which goods that we might identify as having the characteristics of money are not designed to trade for things, but rather to rearrange the social relations between people (such as Iriquois wampum, Tiv brass rods, et al).
Also, he does talk about the Nietzsche passage you referenced, and folds it into a discussion larger discussion about morality, incorporating topics such as primordial debt theory and the like. Indeed, that language of morality is often inextricably woven in with the language of debt is a topic he spends a plurality (if not the majority) of the work discussing.
It's a really good book which pulls together an enormous corpus of evidence to make its case. I (a random person on the internet) strongly recommend it.
Leverage:
ReplyDeleteMajor_Freedom your claims are nonsensical
How so?
but you should actually the read the book where all it is developed to see why backed by real data and a lot of research (if your ideological bias let you get something out of it off course).
Economics is not an empirical science. The subject matter of economics is human action, and the history of an entity that acts does not enable one to induce any economics theory from it. History can only be interpreted.
Graeber's own account is inherently illogical.
There was never trading "cows for pigs" because that's not how debt relations were (and still are!) constructed in pre-money societies.
In pre-money societies, all debts must have necessarily been settled with non-monetary commodities, so "cows for pigs" MUST have taken place.
The evolution to money is not through barter, but through institutionalized debt (the natural process was probably quite long and complex, but the process has been replicated artificially by westerns during last centuries several times elsewhere).
Debt was settled through barter before the onset of money. So barter precedes money. Money arises out of barter. Money is that commodity which was used to settle debts more often than other commodities.
The interview is nice, but the book is probably one of the most important books in years.
How can an illogical book be important?
Anonymous @6:49 PM:
ReplyDeleteI have read the book, and can recommend it heartily.
I might check it out, but I'm not anxiously holding my breath.
Also, having done so, I can tell you that your argument is a bit short-sighted.
First of all, his point is not that commodities never exchanged for commodities before money; rather, that economies are not structured around it.
Economies aren't structured. Economies are just the collection of individuals who trades. If individual economic actors exchanged commodities for other commodities, then that IS "the economy being structured around" barter.
My guess is that you can't trace barter exchanges to some decree by a state, so you then claim that the economy was not "structured" around barter, as if some government has to declare "I shall hereby structure the economy around barter."
In that respect, everything he said holds. Sure, pure good/good exchange can be observed, but usually in the context of emergency transactions or ceremonial movements of property (which is one of the major bridges to the "gift economy", e.g. the Kwakiutl potlatch and so on).
It is silly to argue that debts were incurred but never settled, or not almost always settled. Debts incurred were almost always paid back in commodities. It's not necessary that barter be traded spot style before trade can be characterized as barter.
Indeed, by all accounts, money must be generalized to be "money." If you're admitting that money develops in parallel with a state of generalized economic activity, then you're only making his case for him, since it can be universally demonstrated that debt came first, anyway.
My criticism was never over whether debt came first before barter, or debt before money. My argument was always that it is wrong to claim that money came before barter.
Further, he doesn't just describe economies structured on commodity exchange; he also takes time to examine some cultures that have what he refers to as "human economies," in which goods that we might identify as having the characteristics of money are not designed to trade for things, but rather to rearrange the social relations between people (such as Iriquois wampum, Tiv brass rods, et al).
If they are not designed to be traded, then they are not money, so to say "things we might consider as money" is a misnomer.
But it sounds somewhat interesting. Brass rods. OK.
Also, he does talk about the Nietzsche passage you referenced, and folds it into a discussion larger discussion about morality, incorporating topics such as primordial debt theory and the like. Indeed, that language of morality is often inextricably woven in with the language of debt is a topic he spends a plurality (if not the majority) of the work discussing.
I suspected he was influenced by Nietzsche.
It's a really good book which pulls together an enormous corpus of evidence to make its case. I (a random person on the internet) strongly recommend it.
OK, I might check it out.
"Debt was settled through barter before the onset of money. So barter precedes money. Money arises out of barter. Money is that commodity which was used to settle debts more often than other commodities.
ReplyDelete...
How can an illogical book be important?"
Because barter in that context does not mean what do you think it does mean neither takes a homogeneous through societies; the standard economists view and story of bartering has nothing to do to what happened in reality.
"Economics is not an empirical science. The subject matter of economics is human action, and the history of an entity that acts does not enable one to induce any economics theory from it. History can only be interpreted."
First, that has not to be even right (or wrong), because patterns by complex systems can repeat themselves under concrete circumstances; also that definition is based on a series of assumptions and axioms that could be wrong. But considering that it's right: ¿because there aren't right or wrong interpretations?
Here is where the anthropological knowledge of the author does help in elucidating what really is happening behind the scenes, which is far far away of how economists (including "Austrians" like yourself) interpret it. And this is an extremely important fact, if its human action what matters.
First, that has not to be even right (or wrong), because patterns by complex systems can repeat themselves under concrete circumstances
ReplyDeleteYou can't predict when or how it will, because the complex system is composed of individuals who are themselves learning just like the researcher who studies the other individuals is learning.
It is impossible to predict and thus learn what people will learn, how they will learn, where they will learn, before they actually learn it. Einstein could not have predicted his special relativity before he actually discovered it.
For every other human, we too are necessarily binded by the constraints of our own mind. We can't learn today what will learn in the future, or else we will know it all in the present, which means there is no reason for research.
Since our learning is inherently unpredictable through and through, and since our learning influences what we do, and since what we do is the subject of economics, it follows that economics is not a predictive, empirical science like chemistry and physics. Atoms and molecules don't learn over time. They don't act. So inductive logic through empiricism is justified.
The reason why almost all mainstream empiricist economists couldn't predict the housing bubble and collapse, is because they are using a faulty methodology. The reason why so many Austrians could predict it, is because they are using a proper methodology:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1257
also that definition is based on a series of assumptions and axioms that could be wrong.
Certainly it is possible to be wrong in one's assumptions. But that doesn't mean that people can't ever be right. Just like empiricist arguments are improved through empiricism, so too are logical arguments improved through logic.
This may surprise you, but even empiricists presume non-hypothetically true, non-empirical propositions to be valid in the course of their methodology. They utilize them as well. Most just don't fully understand it because they were never taught it.
All empiricists who follow the methodology of hypothesis->data->test->confirm/falsify hypothesis, are presuming a non-empirical assumption in this methodology. That assumption is that truth doesn't change over the course of time. From the time that the hypothesis is made, to the time that a judgment of falsification/confirmation is made, the researcher necessarily presumes the proposition that whatever truth he is trying to find out, that truth did not change over time. This must be the case, because if things did change over the course of time, if truths and laws did change from one moment to the next, then they could not say that a hypothesis has been falsified or confirmed. At best, all they could say is that, OK, things were this way before, now they are this way, things are different, and that's it. They could not say "falsified" or "confirmed" unless the truth of things are supposed to be unchanged over time.
So contrary to empiricism's own pronouncement that there does not exist any a priori, non-hypothetical, non-empirical propositions, they UTILIZE them in their very own methodology!
This is why we Austrians shake our heads at those who attack Austrians for utilizing non-empirical propositions. It's like the kettle calling the pot black.
Statement 1:
ReplyDelete"Since our learning is inherently unpredictable through and through, and since our learning influences what we do, and since what we do is the subject of economics, it follows that economics is not a predictive, empirical science like chemistry and physics. "
Statement 2:
"The reason why almost all mainstream empiricist economists couldn't predict the housing bubble and collapse, is because they are using a faulty methodology. The reason why so many Austrians could predict it, is because they are using a proper methodology"
What a ridiculous contradiction.
You state that economics is not "predictive", yet you go on to claim that Austrians "predicted" the housing bubble and collapse.
Either it is valid to make predictions from economic theory or it isn't. Make up your mind.
You want to talk about solipsists? Ask LK why he considers his subjective whims as basis for his ethics, which includes initiating violence against innocent people, as if they are not even real, feeling entities, and reality is all just in LK's depraved mind.
ReplyDeleteIronically, the only people who could possibly justify Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are the ones who are so self-centered and sociopathic that they either don't realize or don't care that other people are real. "Economic calculation" is the longest and most contrived version of "Not My Problem" in history.
I find social contract theory much easier to justify; I don't consider anyone not doing their part to be innocent, and I don't see any problem with the state initiating force to compel participation.
I'm also an empiricist, so your particular sect of austrianism is "a priori" nonsense anyway. Even Rothbard and Hayek make a token effort at evidence-based economics, for which they are at least worth a look.
Fortunately, an influential majority will never accept your views, so all your windbaggery is for nothing.
"economics is not a predictive, empirical science like chemistry and physics. Atoms and molecules don't learn over time. They don't act. So inductive logic through empiricism is justified."
ReplyDeleteYou false assertion debunked here:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/08/prediction-and-economics.html
Statement 1:
ReplyDelete"Since our learning is inherently unpredictable through and through, and since our learning influences what we do, and since what we do is the subject of economics, it follows that economics is not a predictive, empirical science like chemistry and physics. "
Statement 2:
"The reason why almost all mainstream empiricist economists couldn't predict the housing bubble and collapse, is because they are using a faulty methodology. The reason why so many Austrians could predict it, is because they are using a proper methodology"
What a ridiculous contradiction.
Not at all.
It is not a contradiction to claim that one can predict that malinvestment generated by credit expansion will inevitably require an economic correction at some point in the future, and to also claim that it is flawed methodology to hold that economists can mimic physicists in their methodology of using predictive models.
You state that economics is not "predictive", yet you go on to claim that Austrians "predicted" the housing bubble and collapse.
No, I said that economics is not a predictive, empirical science like chemistry and physics
Either it is valid to make predictions from economic theory or it isn't. Make up your mind.
It is valid to make predictions, it is not valid to make predictions on the basis of mimicking the empiricist methodology of the natural sciences like physics.
Austrians aren't claiming to be able to predict what people will learn, when they will learn it, such that they predict value choices, prices, and when, etc.
It's more like predicting that at some point, someone who is building a home believing there are 50,000 bricks, when in reality there are only 40,000 bricks, is eventually going to result in a bust in the housing project. When they learn this is unpredictable.
For someone who spends inordinate amounts of time trying to criticize Austrian economics, you sure have a deep and profound ignorance of its basic concepts.
"economics is not a predictive, empirical science like chemistry and physics. Atoms and molecules don't learn over time. They don't act. So inductive logic through empiricism is justified."
You false assertion debunked here:
I can safely predict that your nonsense will again be debunked by yours truly. I look forward to correcting you once again.
Anonymous @6:04 AM
ReplyDeleteIronically, the only people who could possibly justify Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are the ones who are so self-centered and sociopathic that they either don't realize or don't care that other people are real. "Economic calculation" is the longest and most contrived version of "Not My Problem" in history.
The shoe is on the other foot. It is precisely you statists who are sociopathic, because you openly advocate for sacrificing innocent people through violence, and yet you feel zero remorse over it. You have no empathy at all for the innocent people that you are calling to be sacrificed through threats of violence, for the sake of others.
I find social contract theory much easier to justify;
It's unjustifiable. How can it be easy to justify?
The Social Contract defined and demolished:
http://www.braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=397
I'm also an empiricist, so your particular sect of austrianism is "a priori" nonsense anyway.
Oh, so you adhere to self-contradictory epistemology as well. Not surprising.
Even Rothbard and Hayek make a token effort at evidence-based economics, for which they are at least worth a look.
Rothbard was not an empiricist. He spoke very much about empirical history, which means he was an economist and an economic historian.
Fortunately, an influential majority will never accept your views, so all your windbaggery is for nothing.
What a pompous claim based on no rational foundation whatsoever. You have no clue what people will think and what they will do tomorrow, let alone thousands or millions of years from now. You're a buffoon.
They could not say "falsified" or "confirmed" unless the truth of things are supposed to be unchanged over time.
ReplyDeleteAs a working scientist, I can tell you that empiricists don't do this. We can't even precisely articulate what "falsified" or "confirmed" even means without the use of models which we know are painfully inaccurate; you may be confusing what scientists think with the publication of experimental results.
Everyone knows that we make unfounded assumptions, but as few as necessary to create useful models with predictive power. There's no ontological validity to the statement that something is unconditionally True For All Time. An essential part of the scientific method is to constantly check that things haven't changed! That's the bread and butter of grad school.
The models upon which assertions and predictions are made are relentlessly under attack, because anyone who finds the tiniest problem will win enormous prestige - the currency of the academy.
Several researchers I know also have PhDs in philosophy of science and take the time to critically examine the largely unstated assumptions that scientists make, and to expose them for the benefit of us all. Still, most of us plebs have read Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Derrida, Foucault, etc. - required in almost every graduate program in any science - so we're not completely naive to the issues.
Really, I'm looking forward to seeing if there's a limit to how wrong you can be.
"You have no empathy at all for the innocent people that you are calling to be sacrificed through threats of violence, for the sake of others."
ReplyDeleteYou are claiming that Keynesians demand the deaths of people? Is this correct?
"You have no empathy at all for the innocent people that you are calling to be sacrificed through threats of violence, for the sake of others."
ReplyDeleteYou are claiming that Keynesians demand the deaths of people? Is this correct?
No, not the deaths. Sacrificed for the good of others includes not only death, but theft, coercion, fraud, and exploitation as well.
To be sacrificed for the sake of others is another way of saying that Keynesians call for some humans to be coercively used as means for the ends of other humans.
Inflation, government spending, these and other Keynesian prescriptions require some humans to be coercively sacrificed, i.e. treated as means, to the ends of others who are to be benefited.
The proof that you need to know that by "sacrifice" I did not imply deaths specifically, is to realize that for the statement "sacrificed through THREATS of violence", one has to be alive in order to be threatened with violence. I didn't say "sacrificed through killing, or murder" etc.
Keynesians are really just somewhat liberalized Marxians. You still carry over the antagonism towards the free market, you still carry over the desire for communist central banking, you still carry over the desire for state planning, although it is somewhat muted down to "essentials" like roads, bridges, dams, and schools, you still carry over with you class warfare ("euthanasia of the rentier", advocating for price inflation and punishing creditors such capitalists, as opposed to advocating for price deflation and punishing debtors such as the state, and advocating for government planning for the benefit of "the working class"), you still carry over with you a gross misunderstanding of the price system, you still carry over with you a desire for a world central bank monopoly (Keynes' "Bancors"), you still carry over with you the notion that financial securities trading is inherently "unproductive" and hence "exploitative"), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
Anonymous @9:31 AM
ReplyDelete"They could not say "falsified" or "confirmed" unless the truth of things are supposed to be unchanged over time."
As a working scientist, I can tell you that empiricists don't do this.
As a former working scientist, I can tell you that you are either lying, or you were not an empiricist scientist.
We can't even precisely articulate what "falsified" or "confirmed" even means without the use of models which we know are painfully inaccurate; you may be confusing what scientists think with the publication of experimental results.
That's what I just said, except you said the same thing in a much more painfully convoluted way. I never claimed that all scientists had 100% certainty in their models. I said that the notions of "falsified" and "confirmed" (as opposed to the logical positivist notions of "refuted" and "verified") themselves presuppose a non-empirical constancy assumption in reality. That the researcher's conclusions of "falsified" and "confirmed" are based on models (theories) that are hypothetical, is totally besides the point I am making here.
Everyone knows that we make unfounded assumptions, but as few as necessary to create useful models with predictive power.
Yes, I realize that you empiricists hold that logic is unfounded and nothing but verbal conventions.
If the assumptions you hold are "unfounded," then it is silly to even claim that you can find truth based on it.
In reality of course, the non-empirical proposition upon which empiricism is based is NOT "unfounded." It is in fact founded on the basis of praxeology.
There's no ontological validity to the statement that something is unconditionally True For All Time.
Is that proposition you made, that one right there, is that true for all time like you are clearly conveying it to be? Are you going to admit that you just contradicted yourself? Or are you going to avoid that blatant self-contradictory claim by retreating and claiming that it is only a hypothesis, meaning you admit that it is possible in principle for there to be propositions that are in fact true for all time?
Good luck on that one, LOL
An essential part of the scientific method is to constantly check that things haven't changed!
By utilizing a method that cannot presume anything else other than no change because of the very nature of the methodology!
That's the bread and butter of grad school.
You remind me of that pony-tailed douchebag in Good Will Hunting.
The models upon which assertions and predictions are made are relentlessly under attack, because anyone who finds the tiniest problem will win enormous prestige - the currency of the academy.
The assertion that empiricism is the only valid epistemology is certainly not under relentless attack by empiricists!
Several researchers I know also have PhDs in philosophy of science and take the time to critically examine the largely unstated assumptions that scientists make, and to expose them for the benefit of us all.
Who? What did they say?
Still, most of us plebs have read Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Derrida, Foucault, etc. - required in almost every graduate program in any science - so we're not completely naive to the issues.
Most of us in GRAAAAAD SKOOL, you know, the ones who are in GRAAAAD SKOOL, are all knowing and don't have to show you arguments for anything.
Really, I'm looking forward to seeing if there's a limit to how wrong you can be.
Hahaha, ironic, since I just exposed you for being so wrong it hurts.
Yes, I realize that you empiricists hold that logic is unfounded and nothing but verbal conventions.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, logic is assumed to be true. Thus, it is unfounded - i.e. not based on empirical evidence.
Is that proposition you made, that one right there, is that true for all time like you are clearly conveying it to be?
Yes, it's one of the unfounded assumptions I mentioned above.
The assertion that empiricism is the only valid epistemology is certainly not under relentless attack by empiricists!
Of course not, otherwise we would be phenomenologists - metaphysics rather than science.
The reason GRAAAD SKOOL is important is because private industry is effectively incapable of doing any original scientific or technological work. The risk is too high, so everyone waits for universities to do that work, which is then commercialized for distribution in the market. Because it's reserved to the commons, there must be a socially acceptable barrier to entry for anyone to be allowed to use those scarce resources, and going through the gauntlet of the academy is how we decided to do that. Once you are in, you shouldn't have to explain trivial ideas, unless it's to train the next generation of scientists. That would be a waste of your money.
Major_Freedom:
ReplyDelete"Economies aren't structured. Economies are just the collection of individuals who trades."
I disagree. Without going into specific problems with the methodological individualist view, this statement evinces a particular sort of excessive reductionism.
What I mean is, different levels of complexity lead to different behaviors that call for different modes of analysis. I am speaking as generally as possible, and would compare this to other varieties of inquiry.
For instance, sociology cannot simply be reduced to "a lot of psychology," nor psychology to neuroscience, neuroscience to general biology, biology to chemistry, or chemistry to physics. Heck, even within physics, you're forced to use entirely different systems for quantum and Newtonian mechanics. Each of these examples work with different levels of complexity, and as such describe different patterns and identify different "behaviors."
So too with the concept of "society" or "the economy" as a broader entity. Aggregates and structures function differently than their constituent parts. So, no, I don't think it's out of line to view an economy as being "structured." Not at all, I'd say.
Anonymous @11:48 AM
ReplyDeleteYes, I realize that you empiricists hold that logic is unfounded and nothing but verbal conventions.
Correct, logic is assumed to be true. Thus, it is unfounded - i.e. not based on empirical evidence.
Logic is known to be true to the rationalist.
The concept "observation", since it cannot itself be observed, is not even an empirical concept.
Observation is thus based on understanding. Understanding is what rationalists refer to when they say a priori knowledge.
"There's no ontological validity to the statement that something is unconditionally True For All Time."
Is that proposition you made, that one right there, is that true for all time like you are clearly conveying it to be?
Yes, it's one of the unfounded assumptions I mentioned above.
Then there is no reason for anyone to adopt it, which means it is possible that there *IS* ontological validity to the statement that something is unconditionally True For All Time.
The assertion that empiricism is the only valid epistemology is certainly not under relentless attack by empiricists!
Of course not, otherwise we would be phenomenologists - metaphysics rather than science.
But you just said prior:
"The models upon which assertions and predictions are made are relentlessly under attack, because anyone who finds the tiniest problem will win enormous prestige - the currency of the academy."
Now you're saying they are not relentlessly under attack?
The reason GRAAAD SKOOL is important is because private industry is effectively incapable of doing any original scientific or technological work.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah, here you are talking about how making observations is so important, and yet there you go making a claim that observations have conclusively refuted time and time again.
The number of scientific and technological discoveries made in the private sector is STAGGERING. For you to make the ridiculously stupid claim that the private sector is incapable of making scientific and technological discoveries, only shows how moronic LK's apologists on this blog really are.
The risk is too high, so everyone waits for universities to do that work, which is then commercialized for distribution in the market.
Yeah, because scientific research was never done and is not currently being done, in privately financed universities and business firms.
You're out of your mind. You're a drinker of Kool-Aid.
Anonymous @7:20 PM
ReplyDeleteMajor_Freedom:
"Economies aren't structured. Economies are just the collection of individuals who trades."
I disagree. Without going into specific problems with the methodological individualist view, this statement evinces a particular sort of excessive reductionism.
No, it is the exact opposite. All economic phenomena is derived from individual action. Problems with methodological individualism? Only to Marxists and other determinists. But they have even bigger problems.
What I mean is, different levels of complexity lead to different behaviors that call for different modes of analysis.
In other words, you're not saying anything, just bloviating.
For instance, sociology cannot simply be reduced to "a lot of psychology," nor psychology to neuroscience, neuroscience to general biology, biology to chemistry, or chemistry to physics. Heck, even within physics, you're forced to use entirely different systems for quantum and Newtonian mechanics. Each of these examples work with different levels of complexity, and as such describe different patterns and identify different "behaviors."
How does any of this contradict a single thing I said?
So too with the concept of "society" or "the economy" as a broader entity. Aggregates and structures function differently than their constituent parts.
They ALL "function" according to individual action.
That action in groups is observed to be different in certain respects than action in isolation, does not compromise the fact that all action in groups is still carried out by individuals, and all of the resulting phenomena are the result of specific individual's ideas, choices, actions, values, and preferences.
So, no, I don't think it's out of line to view an economy as being "structured." Not at all, I'd say.
Individual humans create whatever structure you perceive. You cannot explain the structure in the absence of understanding the individual.
MF:
ReplyDeleteBrevity is the soul of wit. and the mark of an effective troll.
TLDR: TLDR.
Major_Freedom:
ReplyDelete"They ALL "function" according to individual action.
That action in groups is observed to be different in certain respects than action in isolation, does not compromise the fact that all action in groups is still carried out by individuals, and all of the resulting phenomena are the result of specific individual's ideas, choices, actions, values, and preferences."
You've missed my point. Elasticity is the result of particular chemical properties and processes, but that's not how you analyze a game of basketball.
Individual humans create whatever structure you perceive. You cannot explain the structure in the absence of understanding the individual."
"Individual atoms create whatever matter you perceive. You cannot explain the structure in the absence of understanding the atom." See the problem?
Our understanding of Newtonian motion does not derive in any way from our understanding of atomic particles, though it is clear that at times atomic composition can affect macro-scale properties. Our understanding of psychology is not derived wholly from understanding brain chemistry, though there are times when the latter can yield insight.
So too here. Our understanding of macroeconomics is independent of our understanding of individual action, though there are rare cases where the latter can temper the former understanding.
It is not the only (or even the most important) determinant.
Also, people other than Marxists have issues with methodological individualism. The Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu conditions apply particularly to the neoclassical tradition. Steve Keen has written a fair bit on the matter.
Finally, what bigger problems do Marxists have, in your opinion?
But you just said prior:
ReplyDelete"The models upon which assertions and predictions are made are relentlessly under attack, because anyone who finds the tiniest problem will win enormous prestige - the currency of the academy."
Now you're saying they are not relentlessly under attack?
If you were actually a scientist as you claimed, you'd realize that the mathematical models used to describe physical phenomena are not the same as the philosophical foundations for the epistemology of science. The concept of empiricism isn't under attack when theories describing the behavior of the physical world are under attack. The latter category are contained within empiricism proper, and only
operate within it.
The number of scientific and technological discoveries made in the private sector is STAGGERING.
Really? Can you name even one scientific discovery that was made exclusively through private funding?
I was under the impression that most people who have studied ethnological reports of nonliterate tribes have reasoned that money was not used for daily sharing but originated in annual status rituals, such as the Kwakiutl potlatch or the Polynesian "big man" systems; that everyday goods were not priced; that the main forms of nonliterate exchange were Karl Polanyi's first two types, "reciprocity" (among actors with similar status positions in extended family structures) and "centricity" (i.e. simple tribal redistribution); that widespread use of money for exchange was under the idea of the "just price" (i.e. unchanging value); that genuine price exchange originated even later with lone traders BETWEEN systems who realized that the "just prices" for the same goods in different systems were different and could be arbitraged (this is, if I recall correctly, Polanyi's development of Aristotle); and that "barter" is more or less dead last in the developmental sequence, as a back-formation after exchange using money was understood but there is no money around to use.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the claim that "money was invented to replace the barter system" was a classroom heuristic derived from Smith, but I did not realize that anyone actually believed it. I carefully avoided it, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TKcnnWLa-s&list=PLCAE3CA6D964BFC8E&index=13