'Pre-capitalist economies were mainly concerned with maintenance; with the cycles of farming, craft, and manufacture; caring for children and caring for the home. ..Much of it was repetitive and much of it was contained in a relationship. Capitalism by contrast introduced linearity into the economy with the idea of cumulative growth, and an economy based on things that are simply used and then disposed...I suggest that in the long view more of our economy will again become circular, concerned with maintenance and sustaining, albeit greatly enriched by knowledge and information....
In the material economy we increasingly aspire to homeostasis and equilibrium, just as we do in our physical bodies. But the world of knowledge..has the potential for limitless growth. Put these ideas together and its easy to see how our ideas of growth may change from "more and bigger" to "again and better", which is already how we think about things such as friendship and pleasure.'
--G. Mulgan.
~
The strange thing is that in the textbooks a market economy is always described without any reference to historical conditions, to power or to culture. In the Robinson-Crusoe model there is no money, no institutions and a very parsimonious notion of both the individual and rationality. In the standard framework time is not taken seriously and we assume agents have perfect knowledge, information. They are the "robots" that Lucas talks about.
The idea that crises might be endemic to the system or that malpractice, corruption, fraud, rent-seeking, imperfect competition, and externalities describe the usual functioning of markets rather than being the exception, is not something that is or can be countenanced.
It is not surprising that welfare economics does not form any part of the economic curriculum any more since we don't want to bring ethical questions of fairness or distribution into the discipline which is, or so its adherents claim, a "science".
A "frictionless" market that produces the "best" results-a "first-best world"- is really an ideological construct. There can be no discussion of the history of ideas (economic thought, for example) or the role of the state (violence) in instituting markets and a market society since that would detract from the assertion that markets are a "natural" system of justice.
There can be no discussion of dispossession (colonial or modern)since, by assumption, we are all supposed to have individual rights (over our labour, at the very least)and only engage in voluntary trades. How these rights emerge or the pattern of their distribution, is not something we are encouraged to question-for good reason.
In short, there must be no discussion of capitalism as a system. Instead, we focus on abstract, ahistorical models and partial inquiries into specialized and disconnected areas of study. There can, therefore, be no question of 'how we got here'.
What strikes you as particularly strange or perverse is that for all the emphasis on autonomy and freedom in a market society it appears that we are, for all purposes, "excellent sheep", accepting whatever desires or lifestyles are created for us by corporations and more than eager to wave our little flags in support of the war machine. If you say "king and country" then why not "blood and soil"?
In the material economy we increasingly aspire to homeostasis and equilibrium, just as we do in our physical bodies. But the world of knowledge..has the potential for limitless growth. Put these ideas together and its easy to see how our ideas of growth may change from "more and bigger" to "again and better", which is already how we think about things such as friendship and pleasure.'
--G. Mulgan.
~
The strange thing is that in the textbooks a market economy is always described without any reference to historical conditions, to power or to culture. In the Robinson-Crusoe model there is no money, no institutions and a very parsimonious notion of both the individual and rationality. In the standard framework time is not taken seriously and we assume agents have perfect knowledge, information. They are the "robots" that Lucas talks about.
The idea that crises might be endemic to the system or that malpractice, corruption, fraud, rent-seeking, imperfect competition, and externalities describe the usual functioning of markets rather than being the exception, is not something that is or can be countenanced.
It is not surprising that welfare economics does not form any part of the economic curriculum any more since we don't want to bring ethical questions of fairness or distribution into the discipline which is, or so its adherents claim, a "science".
A "frictionless" market that produces the "best" results-a "first-best world"- is really an ideological construct. There can be no discussion of the history of ideas (economic thought, for example) or the role of the state (violence) in instituting markets and a market society since that would detract from the assertion that markets are a "natural" system of justice.
There can be no discussion of dispossession (colonial or modern)since, by assumption, we are all supposed to have individual rights (over our labour, at the very least)and only engage in voluntary trades. How these rights emerge or the pattern of their distribution, is not something we are encouraged to question-for good reason.
In short, there must be no discussion of capitalism as a system. Instead, we focus on abstract, ahistorical models and partial inquiries into specialized and disconnected areas of study. There can, therefore, be no question of 'how we got here'.
What strikes you as particularly strange or perverse is that for all the emphasis on autonomy and freedom in a market society it appears that we are, for all purposes, "excellent sheep", accepting whatever desires or lifestyles are created for us by corporations and more than eager to wave our little flags in support of the war machine. If you say "king and country" then why not "blood and soil"?
No comments:
Post a Comment