>
> Juan- I don't believe in the axiom "more is always better than less." I believe
> something like "enough" is best.
I do not believe in max/min either: we satisfy wants, if that is what you mean. The reference of "more...less" was related to the need to meassure things, am I being clear?
I also adhere to much of the spirit of
> "appropriate technology," that what is reasonable or workable or best practice in
> one socio-economic, cultural, ecological context may not be so in another context.
> For example, a more labor intensive method of production may be preferable even if a
> more "efficient" less labor-intensive method is available, if the former decreases
> unemployment. Or a less "efficient" technology is preferable if it results in less
> environmental destruction or negative impacts on human health. I could give many
> more examples.
You are heading to something different than what inspired my first post. There is nothing in what you have just stated that is against measures...which was Max's point. By the way, you may have read about capitalists not using the most "efficient" technologies because that may reduce their bargaining power.....
There are different kinds of "economics." Some help us to understand
> the economy, so we can try to contribute to the improvement of the material life of
> human beings. Some have been disastrous for us. Nothing personal against your
> profession. Joan Robinson said "we study economics so as not to be fooled by
> economists." That's why I studied mainstream economics. I studied and study
> alternative approaches to try to find possible solutions to problems. For me, the
> study of economics needs to also be strongly supplemented with the study of other
> things as well. Best, Mat
As a Graduate Student of Political Economy at The American University, I could not agree more.
Cheers
Juan