As for Shrub's policy, it is a hands-off business knows best approach which seems to me derived from the assumptions of neo-classical econ.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> eric dorkin wrote:
>
> >If the Shrub started to make policy based on the
> >position of Saturn, then you might have to. For
> >crying out loud, we are still arguing over
> evolution.
>
> How much does Shrub justify policy on the basis of
> neoclassical econ?
> It's all about rewarding his friends - clearcut the
> national forests,
> break unions, cut wages, drill in ANWR, cut the
> taxes of
> centimillionaires, etc. Insofar as they use any
> theory to justify it,
> it's bastard supply-side-ism, with a few supply and
> demand curves
> thrown in for people who remember Econ 101. The Fed
> makes policy on
> the basis of instinct, anecdote, and their judgment
> of the balance of
> class forces.
>
> Neoclassical econ is more interesting as an ideology
> (as is
> astrology). It obviously has so little to do with
> the real world, the
> real question is what purposes its preposterous
> theories serve. If it
> were more relevant to policy than it is, then the
> chair of the CEA
> would be an important figure in the government
> instead of a largely
> useless figurehead. And so what if neoclassical
> economics has no
> explanation of profit. Bourgeois society has a
> couple - the reward
> for risk-taking and the source of investment funds.
>
> I suppose if I were an actual economist I wouldn't
> enjoy the luxury
> of dismissing the whole enterprise rudely. But I'm
> not, so I do.
>
> Doug
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com