> SA wrote: In other words, the important thing is to understand what Karl
> Marx said, not how an economy works. SA
>
> Let's look at wht this implies.
Carrol, you don't lack for philosophical ambition. You seem to believe that if you only pose a sufficient number of Really Deep Questions about What Is An Economy?, then somehow you can prove that (a) the economy doesn't exist and (b) that it can't be understood. Poof! - the economy disappears! (Of course, if the economy doesn't exist, it follows automatically that it can't be understood, but let's ignore that.)
By a similar technique it has also been proved that you can't walk to the bathroom, because first you have to walk half the distance; but before you can do that you have to walk a quarter of the distance; but before that you must walk an eighth of the distance, etc. Let me ask you: Have I succeeded yet in persuading you that you can't walk to the bathroom? No??? But the proof is airtight! See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
Instead of responding directly to your challenge by trying to come up with a definition of the economy that will only provoke an endless round of philosophical hairsplitting, I'll pose some questions that I believe are questions about "the economy"whose answers it would be useful to know. My contention is that if the output of economists can give us any help in answering these questions, then it has helped us in "understanding the economy":
(1) what caused the drop in output and employment that started in 2007-08? (2) if federal spending is cut along the lines now being discussed in Washington , what effect, if any, will it have on the ability of a worker to find a job? (3) what relationship, if any, is there between the huge rise in the prices of oil, wheat, rice, etc., and the Federal Reserve's unusual monetary policies of the past two years?
Now, my contention is that there do exist bodies of research by economists that can help us to answer, or at least come closer to answering, these questions. But since you have no familiarity with these bodies of research, you have no way of really responding to my contention. Therefore, you fall back onto infinitely abstract questions about What Is An Economy?, which you hope can embroil your victim in an unescapable mire of endless philosophizing, which will discursively convey the impression that There Is No Economy and that It Can't Be Understood.
Noam Chomsky, who knows a lot more than I do about physics (which isn't saying anything), once said that modern physics still can't provide answers to apparently simple questions, like, what will be the path of the milk clouds created by pouring milk into a mug of coffee. By your logic, apparently, that means There Is No Physics and Nothing Can Be Understood About Physics, or something like that. With economics the situation is analogous (I said analogous, not similar). Economists can't predict the price of beer a year from now. But they can discover that guaranteeing the short-term liabilities of the financial system in a crisis will prevent a sudden contraction in the effective money supply, which is a major reason why the 30's Depression saw unemployment rise by 20%, instead of the 5% that it rose this time.
I could provide many more examples of such practical knowledge gained through economics. As to whether class forces and political institutions will result in "good" policies (from our POV) actually being implemented - as opposed to being known but unimplemented - is a different question.
SA
> Suppose the conversation involved differing
> opinions on who was the greatest sedond baseman of all time. In that case,
> the important thing is to understand the position of a second baseman rather
> than to understand the fiction of William Faulkner or Marx's critique of
> political economy. Is that correct?
>
> Or take another angle. You think understanding "the economy" is important I
> gather. What is yourevidence that (a) "the economy" exists and (b) that it
> can be understood? Within a hundred years of the day Galileo muttered,
> Nevertheless, it moves, physics and astronomy had been placed on a firm
> foundation that in many ways , despite quantum mechanics and relativity,
> still is essential to understanding our world. Now that's an unfair
> comparison, I admit. Pysics is a rather special field and probably should
> not be regarded as the "model science." Still, like a "trout in the milk
> jar" (Thoreau) it gies one to think. Or take an object of study that some
> have observed is more complicated than the entire universe: the human brain.
> We don't understand it very well at all - but we certainly have a hell of a
> lot more firm knowledge of it than we have of the economy. We can at lleast
> answr the question, "What is the object of study of neuroscience?" We can't
> give an answer to the question, "What is the object of study of economics?"
>
> Look, for two centuries a large number or really brilliant, hard working,
> and honest men and women have labored to "understand" this (non)thing you
> refer to as "the economy." Now let's try a thought experiment. Suppose you
> select a list of the 100 best and best intentioned economists in the world.
> Would you like to turn the government of the U.S. over to that panel? Or
> even to manage the economic policy of the federal government, it being
> understood that Congress could not veto anyof their policies. How about it?
> And incidentally, could they agree on a policy, or would they be the
> traditional herd of cats? And what do we mean when we say "federal economic
> policy"? How much does that cover? Or in attempting to answr that would you
> begin to realize how difficult it is to name the object of study of
> "economics" or "political economy." (The Greek word for economy meant
> management of the household; political economy means management of the
> polis.)
>
> Now it is for most on this lsit highly debatable whether "capitalism"
> exists. It's pretty clear that Jim Blaut did not reallybelieve it existed;
> he wouldn't have been so foolish about history had be believed "capitalism"
> was real and existed. Now some of us, particularly those of us who find the
> work of Brenner and Ellen Meiksins Wood persuasive, believe capitalism
> exists, that it is an entity that, to some extent, can be understood. And
> the economists have never tried to understand it; they have only tried to
> understand some weird entity called "the economy." Of course they have never
> succeeded in that endeavor either: the squabbles among the best of them
> simply go on for ever.
>
> How much of human life does the economy, or the study of the economy,
> included? Actually, I think capitalism includes only a small part of human
> life: it just happens to be the small part that reduces the rest of human
> life tochaos. That is one reason it might be important to understand
> capitalism rather than pursue a will-o-the-wisp called the economy. Or it
> might be important for a few at least to do so.
>
> You might read Albritton's little book on Marx. (His major works sound
> pretty forbidding to me.) It's fun to rea and it explores some of the
> linkages between that entity called capitalism and the rest of human
> activity, including the activity of trying to understand the economy.
>
> Carrol
>
> This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
> http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>