Touche WmTrevor,
what we call reality is of course not phenomenal, it's ideological.

I don't know why it's called "economics", SM, since it only recognises capitalist economics; it ought to be called "theology".

"...Which no doubt only applies to other people".

Good point. It is a constant worry that one is merely venting prejudice or some vested interest or psychological need etc.
Hence the vital necessity of reflection. But it could well be we're incapable of objective thought. If it is possible it would suggest there is an idealistic centre or realm.

Always nice jousting with you (and your mentor : ).

SM accuses those of us who beg to differ from his rigidly inflexible worldview as ignorant of economics because our supposed 'ideal person' (a strawman, if ever there was one) ‘never has existed and never will’.

The following statement "I enjoyed doing economics primarily for its rigour in the study of the motivation of people in groups and the extrapolation of this into demand for goods, production, innovation, etc, and the success it had in predicting behaviour" merely confirms Herb Thompson's argument from 1997, that neoclassical economics produces 'ignorance squared', given its basis in unreal (and unfalsifiable - thus unscientific) - assumptions, to wit:

"The 'rational' consumer of the mainstream economist is a working assumption that was meant to free economists from dependence on psychology...The dilemma is that the assumption of rationality as intertemporally optimising is often confused with, and regularly presented as, real, purposive behaviour. In fact, the living consumer in historical time routinely makes decisions in undefined contexts. They muddle through, they adapt, they copy, they try what worked in the past, they gamble, they take uncalculated risks, they engage in costly altruistic activities, and regularly make unpredictable, even unexplainable, decisions..."

Further, the ‘mathematical rigour’ of neoclassics which SM recalls so fondly, simply serves to mask a blatantly ideological project of class power:

“Neoclassical economics has represented, for two hundred years, the political self-representation of autonomous, self-subsistent, and self-interest-optimising individuals. The populist works of Friedman (1962) in Capitalism and Freedom, or the more adrenalin-pumping stuff of Ayn Rand (1952 and 1957) in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged provide adroit examples of the ideological and political content in the grasp of the "Invisible Hand". It is here where the connection between promoting ignorance-squared and ideological construction is entwined.”

For those of a critical and reflective bent, see here for the full, peer-reviewed article - http://www1.aucegypt.edu/faculty/thompson/herbtea/articles/jie2.html

.

Economies should be shaped to suit man - Comments ...

.

"CAP" ON INCOMES -

Though France's highest court rejected as non-constitutional recent legislation to introduce what may be interpreted as a "cap" of € 1 million ($Aus 1.3 million) on incomes by applying a 75% tax rate on income in excess of that amount, President Hollande is determined to push the legislation through.

The US put a similar "cap" on income during the 1950s -1960s by applying a 91% marginal tax rate. It was gradually reduced but remained about 70% higher than the marginal rates of France and Germany for many years. It is now down to 35%.

The UK applied a marginal tax rate of just under 100% during the 1940s -1950s and again from 1975 - 1980. France has had the highest marginal tax rate of all nations since 1980. It currently stands at 50%.

Australia's marginal tax rate is 45%.


ASSET ACCUMULATION -

Most "economists" would probably agree that non-productive or "sleeping" assets are bad for the economy.

With this in mind, I strongly recommend reading, or re-reading, Glen Coulton's article published on OLO on 6 February 2012, entitled "Is the Ellis Defence moral ? ".

Nationalisation by the Commonwealth Government of the Roman Catholic Church Trust Property's assets and recycling them into the economy on an equitable basis would have a beneficial effect for the economy and allow the Catholic Church to concentrate on its mission which the institution, itself, defines as "spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity ".

It does not need to accumulate "sleeping" assets and huge, non-productive wealth in order to do that.

Here is the link to Coulton's article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13207

.

Nick, Squeers,

I gather from your responses that neither of you have any training in economics. I took the time to read some of the articles by Herb Thomson, and some others critical of "neoclassical economics", and his work and those of his ilk are living proof that if you look hard enough you will find someone that supports any viewpoint.

Many of his criticisms of economics have some validity, but Herb and others draw a very long bow to reach their conclusions. One of their arguments is that the economically rational man does not exist. No serious economist has claimed that he does. This model represents what most or sufficient people will do in a situation. For example, two petrol stations open, one selling petrol at $1 per litre, and one at $1.05 /l. The rational man would always go to the first station, but in reality some don't for various reasons. However, most/sufficient will do so to justify the model. (Squeers this works for capitalists, socialists or even nirvanians.) The model human that Eisenstein is trying to portray that would be happy in his nirvana has yet to evolve.

The other criticism that most of the economic models are not all inclusive is also pretty feeble, especially when many of these other values (such as environmental) are difficult to quantify. Those using these simpler models are perfectly aware that there will be errors, but prefer to be 90% correct than guessing.

Herb, and others like him think that what they say is revolutionary, but in reality, they are only tinkering on the fringes.

SM,

It's either "full throttle capitalism" or "misguided notions of nirvana" with you, isn't it....

There is room for some middle ground.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/10/small-is-beautiful-economic-idea

Gee Shadow, I found your comment as an economic expert interesting. I didn't know that training in economics made a person a know-all. I majored in economics and I certainly don't feel that I know everything like you.

Your comment was: "Those using these simpler models are perfectly aware that there will be errors, but prefer to be 90% correct than guessing." So 90% correct is enough, eh? Where does the cut-off point for guessing click in?

So if Israel decides to drop a nuke on Iran because it's 90% sure that it is trying to make a nuke that's fine with you, is it?

Better read your economic textbooks again, methinks!