social science production (was: Dark Sides of 'Solidarity'?)

Max B. Sawicky maxsaw at cpcug.org
Sun May 10 11:16:19 PDT 1998



> . . .
> As long as you recognize that in this form of economist-speak
> "technological" means "anything other than demand for goods or the supply
> of factors of production," little harm is done--but of course not
> one op-ed
> writer in 100 realizes that economists have an... elastic definition of
> "technological."

If this "economist-speak" is shorthand, it is a very strange type. "Unexplained residual" or "caused by other or (God help us) unknown factors" would be consistent with economic terminology and, as H. Kissinger would say, have the added advantage of being true.

Which goes back to your claim of enforced analytical standards.

The ideology of the word 'technology' -- something exogenous, apolitical, amoral, inexorable, and always having the potential for good is obvious.

If I am depressed because my boss wants to fire me, my wife is perpetually regretful she didn't marry someone else, my dog has just died, and my daughter is going out with deadbeats, I could attribute my condition to menopause and uphold the high analytical standards of academic mainstream economists, present company excepted. That would be an elastic definition too.

Cheers,

MBS



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list