"Calculation is crucial because it embodies one of the two basic questions for an economy (the other being how to maintain high employment without risk of excessive inflation)." Previously I have had little exposure to how an economist thinks. This post educated me.
Years ago, I read THE WORLDLY PHILOSOPHERS without absorbing much more than the chapter titles, some of which I still remember (savage Veblen, inexorable Marx etc.). I get the failure of the ever more numerous workers to take over from the ever fewe rcapitalists; as Heilbroner himself wrote (in the NYRB), "capitalism" is so resourceful that maybe it will even figure out how to avoid global environmental catastrophe (aka warming). FDR an earlier instance of such resourcefulness.
I'm thinking I'll switch at least temporarily from reading one sort of fun book (typically ancient & academic history) to another, probably less fun, about your subject. The university library here can circulate Samuelson's ECONOMICS from 1985. Otherwise I wouldn't know where to start, and will appreciate a suggestion or two. Thanks!
Heilbroner is one of the best books to read and the worst guide to how economics is presently taught and practiced. There is such a wide range of options it's hard to decide what to suggest. These days I'm delving into political economy, Marx and his predecessors. Otherwise Keynes's and Joan Robinson's essays are fun, and the recent biography of Keynes by Zach Carter is a swell account.
I read Zachary D. Carter's THE PRICE OF PEACE on your recommendation, for which I thank you. First thing to say, I much enjoyed reading it.
I'd always had the much simplified view of Keynes ("distorted" probably a better description), as an advocate of deficit spending to stem unemployment and budget balancing to build the treasury back up. Now I understand better (or so I hope!) about public works and a robust safety net as his preferred engines towards the betterment of the population at large. That's not dismal science!
Good points Max. Recent work on participatory socialism is not convincing to me. I was just here in Cleveland at a urban garden store that has a restaurant in the back with a band playing.
Most people want to be able to go into their job and do a good job and then come home and have some fun and they don’t have much time for committee work to decide how to produce a better widget. We’re lucky if we have time to participate in a union or in a faculty Senate, but to try to govern organizations through some kind of participatory Democratic process is probably a mistake. You would end up having enterprises pitted against each other and real chaos. Plus, there would be all kinds of petty conflict within the organization itself.
There was one good article on the monthly review a long time ago. that made the contention that computerization could’ve saved state socialism, as it would be possible to do all sorts of things like ascertaining market demand, polling people about consumer choices, and so forth.
It’s enough to ask people to participate Democratically in the election of their government representatives.
There would always be what amount to public data on the purchase of large ticket items like cars because they end up having to be registered in the name of the owner so this would permit a great deal of accurate planning based upon actual purchases. I really like how you’re thinking through Harrington and I think this is what we really need to do which is to continue to rethink and revise are thinking about what the meaning of Democratic Socialism is.
No that isn't the way planning works. To determine the correct number of cars to produce, the planner must know what individuals expect to purchase in the future.
You mean my plan to find the 60s era Volkswagen bus into which I put a corvair engine and took a half dozen people, including my now wife to a demonstration in Washington in May 1972? Only the market knows for sure. Yes, you are correct. I’m a bit weak on economic concepts. I better stick to my sociology and social work.
Splendidly clear and forthright
Maybe we stick to surplus
No mas profits
Take the edge off the gig
By removing economic rents arbitrage and other surplus suck out
Thr market imperfections ie not all pricing is price taking by suppliers are buyers
The market exchange rate
remains
the base of commodity production
Even if a gosplan admintets a list price vector on evetything produced above ground
List price vectors
exists to be worked around
Ownership is best defined by where the surplus goes
So just know where it's going and how to move it to the people
In particular the people actually doing the work
An administrave apparatus.?
Automation of the bureafactories is foreseeable
Technical review stuff
Of course class struggle must abound
Health sector has wicked guidification
"Calculation is crucial because it embodies one of the two basic questions for an economy (the other being how to maintain high employment without risk of excessive inflation)." Previously I have had little exposure to how an economist thinks. This post educated me.
Years ago, I read THE WORLDLY PHILOSOPHERS without absorbing much more than the chapter titles, some of which I still remember (savage Veblen, inexorable Marx etc.). I get the failure of the ever more numerous workers to take over from the ever fewe rcapitalists; as Heilbroner himself wrote (in the NYRB), "capitalism" is so resourceful that maybe it will even figure out how to avoid global environmental catastrophe (aka warming). FDR an earlier instance of such resourcefulness.
I'm thinking I'll switch at least temporarily from reading one sort of fun book (typically ancient & academic history) to another, probably less fun, about your subject. The university library here can circulate Samuelson's ECONOMICS from 1985. Otherwise I wouldn't know where to start, and will appreciate a suggestion or two. Thanks!
Heilbroner is one of the best books to read and the worst guide to how economics is presently taught and practiced. There is such a wide range of options it's hard to decide what to suggest. These days I'm delving into political economy, Marx and his predecessors. Otherwise Keynes's and Joan Robinson's essays are fun, and the recent biography of Keynes by Zach Carter is a swell account.
I read Zachary D. Carter's THE PRICE OF PEACE on your recommendation, for which I thank you. First thing to say, I much enjoyed reading it.
I'd always had the much simplified view of Keynes ("distorted" probably a better description), as an advocate of deficit spending to stem unemployment and budget balancing to build the treasury back up. Now I understand better (or so I hope!) about public works and a robust safety net as his preferred engines towards the betterment of the population at large. That's not dismal science!
Most striking thing to me in the book is how flexible Keynes was in shifting his stances in light of new circumstances and political changes.
Good points Max. Recent work on participatory socialism is not convincing to me. I was just here in Cleveland at a urban garden store that has a restaurant in the back with a band playing.
Most people want to be able to go into their job and do a good job and then come home and have some fun and they don’t have much time for committee work to decide how to produce a better widget. We’re lucky if we have time to participate in a union or in a faculty Senate, but to try to govern organizations through some kind of participatory Democratic process is probably a mistake. You would end up having enterprises pitted against each other and real chaos. Plus, there would be all kinds of petty conflict within the organization itself.
There was one good article on the monthly review a long time ago. that made the contention that computerization could’ve saved state socialism, as it would be possible to do all sorts of things like ascertaining market demand, polling people about consumer choices, and so forth.
It’s enough to ask people to participate Democratically in the election of their government representatives.
I'm inclined to agree, as I indicated. Though I ought to do more reading from those with a contrary perspective.
We can barely get people to respond to the Census. How many will provide the most personal details on their consumption habits.
There would always be what amount to public data on the purchase of large ticket items like cars because they end up having to be registered in the name of the owner so this would permit a great deal of accurate planning based upon actual purchases. I really like how you’re thinking through Harrington and I think this is what we really need to do which is to continue to rethink and revise are thinking about what the meaning of Democratic Socialism is.
No that isn't the way planning works. To determine the correct number of cars to produce, the planner must know what individuals expect to purchase in the future.
You mean my plan to find the 60s era Volkswagen bus into which I put a corvair engine and took a half dozen people, including my now wife to a demonstration in Washington in May 1972? Only the market knows for sure. Yes, you are correct. I’m a bit weak on economic concepts. I better stick to my sociology and social work.
Corporate plans can be co ordinated and regulated by an apparatus
Care like new dealers can be recruited
Then purged as the wheel turns ?
Of course
This is the class struggles MO !
This is protraction in action
A spiral
Choice join or go Buddhist
Gosplan
Is a treasure chest
And the Deng reforms
Another treasure chest
The social plan
Firm agented product markets dialectic
Will continue obviously
Big question
a monster project movement
Calling for social pricing of. Corporate commodities
Maybe
Like colander lerners map apparatus with micro market feet
Participation thru Mobilization
On the job sites
Can't abuse the finite time and spirit
Of the wage class
Yes
An apparatus must emerge
Bottom up to launch
but in time
More or less consolidated
And operating systems
daily duties
top down
and only
Occasionally bottom up
Let's do it and see