Caspar Davis:
>So long as economics is based in 'efficiency'- i.e. the maximization of
>return to the wealthy- ahead of equity and environmental
>sustainability; so long as the 'science'of economics 'externalizes'
>most of the real costs while 'internalizing' the natural resources
>which are properly the heritage of all [which is tantamount to a
>physics which is aware of but ignores the second law of
>thermodynamics]; so long as it panders to irresponsible speculators in
>three piece suits while admonishing the dispossessed in stinking
>barrios to "get a job" (to replace the subsistence they rightfully got
>from the Land)- and meanwhile to eat cake or big macs- so long will we
>continue to have "booms" in which the few accumulate vast fortunes
>while the many struggle to pay the rent, even in the "powerful" US
>economy, followed by busts.
>
>The Kondratieff wave is breaking much on schedule. There is nothing new
>under the economic sun, except more ingenious justifications for greed.
Yoiks! You do make economics sound sinful! But I do believe that
you are confusing economics as a science with the subject matter economists
attempt to study. To extend an analogy I've used before, its a little like
blaming geophysicists for an earthquake. You might broaden your perspective
by reading Marx, Veblen and Herman Daly, all good economists.
>While I prefer Tom Walker's explanation, the root of the matter is the
>hubris of the economic priesthood who think the world will respond to
>their formulas regardless of human suffering.
If you are saying that economists are not concerned with human suffering, I
would suggest that you are way off base. I have several books, written by
economists, on my shelves which deal with various aspects of this subject.
And I don't think Tom and I are in disagreement. My posting referred to
what happened in Asia. He adds that what happened in Asia was partly fueled
by investment from the west, which went to Asia because the west did not
offer nearly the same rates of return as Asian capital markets. I say
"partly fueled" because Asian growth was also based on very high domestic
savings rates. I would also note that the large bulk of the savings
generated by advanced western economies was reinvested in those economies.
Even if it grew more sluggishly, the west did not stop growing simply
because Asia was, at the time, growing faster.
Ed Weick
