tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post8567540444485895990..comments2024-02-10T12:12:06.028+00:00Comments on The Real Blog: The supplicant stateDavid Boylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11410159311875228620noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-55225109698883651442008-03-11T11:24:00.000+00:002008-03-11T11:24:00.000+00:00I suppose Tristan should answer for himself, but I...I suppose Tristan should answer for himself, but I think reductionism has a bad press.<BR/><BR/>In a sense any body of thought will be reductionist when applied to any real world phenomenon. That is not to say they belittle the phenomenon, just that they understand some things about it and not others.<BR/><BR/>So we understand more by being physicists and philosophers and lovers as well as economists - and we would understand less by not being any of those things.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>By the way David, I would like your feedback on this:<BR/><BR/>http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-issue-is-not-faith-schools-but-freedom-of-conscience-2301.htmlJoe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-84575171145987783252008-03-11T10:07:00.000+00:002008-03-11T10:07:00.000+00:00Joe, I think your remark that there is nobody in t...Joe, I think your remark that there is nobody in the party trying to create a society of supplicant consumers is right. But the context here is the debate about public services, and there are assumptions - both from the market wing and their opponents - that human beings aspire to no more than this passive role. That's what I'm criticising.<BR/><BR/>I ventured further into the reductionism that economics sometimes suggests because of Tristan's peculiar idea that there are no disticntions between human relationships and economic ones. When my wife accepts payment from mew for picking up the children from school, or kissing me at night, I will begin to suspect he is right - but not before.David Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410159311875228620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-85652985848094681892008-03-10T11:29:00.000+00:002008-03-10T11:29:00.000+00:00David, I think you're talking somewhat at cross pu...David, I think you're talking somewhat at cross purposes with Tristan here. I don't think economics is trying to measure "value" in a broad sense of the word, at all. And therefore it isn't trying to measure it with money.<BR/><BR/>I do not see the division in the party you describe. I have met nobody advocating a society of supplicant consumers.<BR/><BR/>I think it quite bizarre if, as soon as we demand a better surgeon or a better breakfast cereal, to say that we are defining ourselves in some narrow impersonal way. Demanding better surgeons and breakfast cereals is a good thing to do, but not the only thing to do, and not something that diminishes in any way the richness of our relationships with other people. Right? <BR/><BR/>Agree with your criticism of Simon btw.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-34747492027436370042008-03-10T10:15:00.000+00:002008-03-10T10:15:00.000+00:00Tristan, I don't think your right. Economics desc...Tristan, I don't think your right. Economics describes some aspects of human interaction very well, but is useless - and makes fatuous assumptions - about other aspects. Because economists only have one tool (money) with which to measure value, and any glimpse at the real world suggests that this is only one element of the complexity of being human.David Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410159311875228620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-49472231585298236792008-03-10T09:23:00.000+00:002008-03-10T09:23:00.000+00:00I don't buy this distinction between human relatio...I don't buy this distinction between human relationships and economic relationships.<BR/><BR/>To me, economics is the science of human relationships.<BR/>It describes how human cooperation and freedom to act can enable us to attain what we want as individuals, whether that be spiritual gain or to be a consumer.<BR/><BR/>True, it cannot hope to detail every aspect of human life. Economics cannot tell you how to live your life, but it is a tool for analysing human behaviour and society.<BR/><BR/>This of course is no idealised homo oeconomicus of abstract theory, it is the human of reality who acts on many different impulses and values, not just price of goods.<BR/><BR/>The Liberal takes this analysis and seeks to work out how prosperity and well being can be most enhanced for all and discovers the answer is limited government and personal freedom and voluntary society.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who thinks of humans as passive consumers must not even understand themselves, but anyone who thinks that economics is about passive consumption doesn't understand anything of the broader scope of economics.Tristanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395992764678278326noreply@blogger.com