I’ve tried and failed so many times to educate myself on economic theories but I usually get stuck at the very basic assumptions (presented as fact) that form the foundation they’re built upon. What can I say–I’m a skeptic, I have to question everything. Shrug.

Likewise. That’s we like you…and Mushtaq But don’t let him off easy with the blanket support for industrialization without the same level of consideration for how the costs are born out

I routinely gritch about how I couldn’t do economics until I left the U.S. – it’s still hard to deal with a lot of the assumptions of neoclassical theory, but when it’s not presented as fact but just as assumptions for the purpose of understanding the implications of a hypothetical situation, it’s easier – especially when there are other alternatives to consider as well. You should also take a look at Barbara Harriss White’s Working India – she does economic anthropology.

I agree. For me the question is how to make up your mind about industrialization (as opposed to growth, which is not the same thing at all) and what it means, with its attendant violence, potentially more wealth per head, effects on power distribution, interaction with social structure, etc. I’ve come to the conclusion that, for now, I think people ought to be encouraged to develop democratic processes that allow them to come to a decision themselves aboutu what their goals are – though this likely flies in the face of the most effective strategies for industrialization. But I think I’m not in a position to make a choice for someone else about this issue.

On an aside – I felt very similarly to you – largely because American economics – at least what’s available in pop culture – is horseshit. Most Americans who read could probably articulate the ideas of neoclassical economics pretty effectively because its state ideology. try this guy – who also argues that there are specific solutions that people need to adopt, though he doesn’t drop the assumption that industrialization is a necessary thing (an argument that’s very tenable in my mind, even though I’m not willing to make it). But he does it with attention to specificities and the conditions of poorer countries (focusing on South Asia) rather than assuming that there are magic market fairies who will wave their wands and create magical productivitity growth and increases in standards of living with no consequences, forever.

how do you address (or how do you think others should be empowered to on their own to address) mass poverty in the contemporary world?

I hate to say this because I despise religion but I would address this problem with (cringe) religious-kind of metaphysical reconfiguring of our notions of our individual selves. I think that we can agree on the objective reality that we are all tiny bits of a singularity, that we are all in this together, that there’s enough to go around if we’d just look out for one another and stop being greeedy.

I’m pretty frickin’ smart (says my mother) and I’ve tried and tried but so much economic theory just doesn’t make sense to me. It’s built on questionable suppositions that are presented and accepted as unshakable givens. It’s built on a faith akin to religious dogma. Like why do we value gold and diamonds? Because they’re scarce? Because they don’t decompose? I think all the best stuff in life will form a rotting putrid heap one day…before it’s transformed into a fragrant lily and then eaten by a mouse whose turds will fertilize a wheat stalk and on and on and on. Eff a diamond and its perfection.

Maybe it’s because I have nothing to lose and no great responsibilities (no children, parents are still fine), but who really cares if this economic system melts down? Why does this signal the end of the world? People need food, water, clothing, shelter, medicine. Let’s tear up the parking lots and plant corn.

Getting back to your question, though, I don’t believe in one solution to any given problem. There might even be a time and place where cold calculated capitalism is the best solution, there might be other problems that are best solved by centralized authoritarianism, and still others that are best addressed through non-heirarchical consensus…

I think the notion that there’s “one solution that fits all problems” might be the biggest problem, yet. That’s kind of what I was getting at in questioning Vinod’s formula. That formula might be right at some times in some situations, but to apply it across the board (and impose it on unwilling people) is wrong and short-sighted.

As the Zapatistas say, “One no, many yeses.”

I’m not making a case to stop exploring ways to makes sense of and explain the world. I’m all for that. What I find laughable are the hubris-laden claims of objectivity and attempts to force nature (with its infinite variables) into a concise, finite mathematical mold. Human reason has its limits. The Enlightenment has been over for centuries. Let’s employ science and reason to mitigate our impact and find ways to live in balanced harmony with the natural order. Enough of this “BIGGER BETTER FASTER MORE!” line of thinking–it’s built on the false assumptions that economic growth at all costs is conceivable, possible, sustainable, and good for everybody.

Okay, I misunderstood where you fell in your reaction to the orthodoxies laid out by Vinod et al. I think, though, that once you accept the idea that the dominating impulse is flawed (among other nasty things), you’re still left with a pretty severe problem – how do you address (or how do you think others should be empowered to on their own to address) mass poverty in the contemporary world? If we don’t attempt a positive answer to one of these two questions, the people who are most screwed will end up reliant on the ideas of the people who are most intererested (directly or indirectly) in screwing them over – the ideas you’re rejecting.

Where I disagree is that we don’t need to explore the ways in which it’s difficult to capture, which stories are more or less close to describing effectively that objective reality than others and what parts of them are important, and to reject the “truth” equivalence of all stories.

I’m not making a case to stop exploring ways to makes sense of and explain the world. I’m all for that. What I find laughable are the hubris-laden claims of objectivity and attempts to force nature (with its infinite variables) into a concise, finite mathematical mold.

Human reason has its limits. The Enlightenment has been over for centuries.

Let’s employ science and reason to mitigate our impact and find ways to live in balanced harmony with the natural order. Enough of this “BIGGER BETTER FASTER MORE!” line of thinking–it’s built on the false assumptions that economic growth at all costs is conceivable, possible, sustainable, and good for everybody.

Sarah Palin who says that it doesn’t matter what caused global warming

The minorities did it.

Dr. Amonymous, No. 10 captures what I wanted to say much better than I did. Hopefully there is some empirical evidence then unsubstantiated theories.

That’s fine, but it bears directly on the issue that Harbeer raised and that I commented upon as well. Why are particular models adopted? Why are some ways of thinking pursued and not others, some factors emphasized and not others? Why does Friedman become popular at a particular time and a particular place, whereas Marx is popular somewhere else? Why do certain people gravitate towards or against certain types of modelling? The process of producing economic ‘knowledge’ models itself after the natural sciences and its less precise or honest adherents make similar claims to objectivity (sometimes stronger ones), but in practice, without looking at the politics and economics of the study of economics (including models), you can’t understand why particular models prosper and decline or why the idea of “the model” exists in the first place. Nehruvian ‘socialism’ and Manmohan Singh’s ‘liberalism’ are both products of a particular time and place and class background and all that.

I know, very abstruse – but for now, I would simply say that Immanuel Wallerstein’s Unthinking Social Science is an interesting take on these issues and worth taking a look at.

That’s my point, exactly. You (and the school of thought you cite) think up equations to compute and put a price tag on “objective reality” but fail to factor in your subjective point of departure. Objectivity is impossible. You simply cannot plug anything and everything into an equation and compute its proper monetary value at any given (past/present/future) moment. Not yet, at least. “Objective reality” is much bigger than our ability to comprehend it. Even with our collective, cumulative body of knowledge, nature will always be bigger than us. Always.

I agree with your basic premise that “objective reality” is impossible to capture. Where I disagree is that we don’t need to explore the ways in which it’s difficult to capture, which stories are more or less close to describing effectively that objective reality than others and what parts of them are important, and to reject the “truth” equivalence of all stories. Otherwise, you leave the terrain open to people who will submit any explanation for any phenomenon without any regard for whether or not it’s accurate – people like Sarah Palin who says that it doesn’t matter what caused global warming or people who advocate that intelligent design and evolution are equivalently accurate. In other words, if you ignore the power dynamics and epistemological issues of knowledge production by swinging entirely to the “respect the mystery” side, you give up your claim to be able to call out lies, misstatements, and abuses of power that can have severely damaging effects not just for understanding, but for politics – for attempts to impact the world. And that, as we know, is the point of Marxism

There’s no equation

That’s my point, exactly. You (and the school of thought you cite) think up equations to compute and put a price tag on “objective reality” but fail to factor in your subjective point of departure. Objectivity is impossible. You simply cannot plug anything and everything into an equation and compute its proper monetary value at any given (past/present/future) moment. Not yet, at least. “Objective reality” is much bigger than our ability to comprehend it. Even with our collective, cumulative body of knowledge, nature will always be bigger than us. Always.

(I’m an avowed atheist, so don’t think I’m anti-science or something because I’m not. I’m talking more general-like. I’m talking about a different way of looking at the world and myself.)

We are small.

Respect the mystery.

It is bigger than you. It is cold, irrational, and whimsically breaks its own laws when it wants.