Economism: A Modern Religion

By -
Fascinatingly, The Independent Institute has published a book, The New Holy Wars, acknowledging the religious nature of much that passes for economic science. From the summary: "Also, economists typically assume that psychological stress caused by an economic transition to a more efficient allocation of resources is negligible and not worth factoring in."

This was Karl Polanyi's great point: He acknowledged the ability of unfettered markets to produce goods and services, but also claimed that they produced change at a pace with which human beings just could not keep up. Unfettered markets will produce loads of stuff while destroying society and our natural setting in the process.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy9:57 PM

    Unfettered markets will produce loads of stuff while destroying society and our natural setting in the process.

    Are you saying that, or Polanyi? And does "unfettered" mean "unfettered by state regulation," or "unfettered by anything except narrow pecuniary motives"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:05 PM

    1) Polanyi said, but I am suspicious he is right. (At this point just suspicious.)

    2) The fetters could be things like an ethos that makes companies very unlikely to, e.g., lay someone off. But K. Polanyi definitely sees a role for government regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Samson Corwell9:07 PM

    I'm not clear on what you mean "religious nature"? Do you mean something like a false pretense of value neutrality?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more