Joseph Heath's 'Filthy Lucre'

Well the author of the book is wrong about public power vs private. The evidence across N. America and two countries is that public power is always cheaper on average than private. And deregulation is proven to be a failed market gimmick.

I read the "Rebel Sell", and then I looked at "The Efficient Society".  The problem with that was he described the advance in the well being of the Canadian working class as strictly a function of increased effiency, without mentioning labour struggles or unions at all.  The resulting shock to his credibility made reading his work make my skin crawl.  He expends a huge amount of effort in justifying the status quo.

I have reordered the books from the library for another go.  I'll have them both in about 3 weeks.

BTW Stephen, I still owe you that work on why effiency follows wages.  I started procrastinating when I got one scenario done.

I read nothing in the linked article which substantiated Heath's claims of sympathy or "self-identification" with the left.

His analysis is devoid of any recognition of class, and utterly ignores history. His claim that the left is without answers in the midst of economic crisis is particularly disingenuous; he ignores the consolidation of media ownership and the constant reiteration of TINA (there is no alternative) through their bullhorns.

The earlier question, SG:

"I would expect that consideration of environmental "externalities" has not crept into the philosophical mix in the intervening third of a century...or has it Stephen? Could you give us a hint at the possibility of that breakthrough before I begin searching for the book?"

He makes some nice points about the philosophical ignorance of economists: their ignorance of the existence of different models of rationality and the presuppositions necessarily inherent in any and all of them

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Well, some of those reflect the fact that he doesn't know everything about how economists work*. But the stuff he does know is in the book and is well-written.

eta*: I think you mean that part about economists using only one model and not knowing what to do when it fails. That's most emphatically not the case: revisting assumptions and diagnosing model failure is what we do.

I thought that, too, when I read it. But the whole thing makes sense if you take "models" in a broader sense. I'm not convinced that's what he's saying - but it's what I think he should be saying!

(I was also referring to what he says about the delusion that one is practicing some "pure science", without substantive political or moral presuppositions.)

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Again, I think that's a very crude caricature. Moreover, he makes it very clear that when you apply your morality at the wrong level, bad things happen:

Quote:

[O]ften what happens is that people apply their moral intuitions at kind of the wrong level. There's nothing wrong with having a reaction to first-order results that the market generates, but often people try to correct the problems by directly intervening at the first-order level.

Why "moreover"? I don't see that what he says about not applying your morality at the wrong level is inconsistent with the argument (or statements) you are disputing. 

p.s. I have to go now so I'll have to let you have the last word for awhile, assuming you yourself are still here. 

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Somewhere in there is an implication that economists are amoral, but that's clearly wrong - which would be screamingly obvious to anyone who had ever read what economsts write. (A recurring problem is that too many people have formed their opinions about economics and economists based on what non-economists say about us.) What may be different about how we work is we apply our morality to outcomes, not to the assumptions that we make about how the world works. Wishful thinking is not usually a way of advancing our understanding.

No, no, no! ARghh. I am beginning to suspect that you don't understand the critique    But I really do have to go now ..... I'll be back. 

Stephen:

 "I don't quite know what you mean. Pollution externalities (pollution costs are borne by everyone; the gains go to only the polluter) have always been an integral part of environmental economics."

Pollution cleanup, Stephen, adds to the GDP which, for economists, is a "good", a positive feature. Growth is "good", always, even on a finite planet Earth. Even cleaning up the Tar Sands operations after the destruction of the Mackenzie watershed and acid rain destruction downwind in Saskatcheway. All this will add to the GDP and will be an economic "good".

 From which comes a second question: How does economics come to terms with the need to end growth of the economy - and does your author break ground here?

We need to turn production and consumption habits around very quickly now, Stephen. Does your philosopher-economist enter into that discussion?

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Somewhere in there is an implication that economists are amoral, but that's clearly wrong - which would be screamingly obvious to anyone who had ever read what economsts write.

Agreed. What I have discerned is not an absence of morals, but rather the too frequent exchanging of one set for another.

Quote:

(A recurring problem is that too many people have formed their opinions about economics and economists based on what non-economists say about us.)

That's an interesting argument from authority. If economists can't convince non-economists of the soundness and social value of their work, then perhaps they should invest in the purchase of a mirror.

Quote:

What may be different about how we work is we apply our morality to outcomes, not to the assumptions that we make about how the world works. Wishful thinking is not usually a way of advancing our understanding.

Interesting dichotomy between "how the world works" and "morality". For some of us, our morality is not "wishful thinking", nor is it some freely chosen and just as freely discarded set of values or "beliefs", but rather a way of life which emerges from the actual physical and social conditions into which we are born. How, then, does an economist conceptually set one's morality to the side while examining "how the world works"? Of course, if one's beliefs conflict with one's observations, it is observed reality that must prevail. But your neat divorce of the two, in the stage of investigation and analysis, brings me back to my first point.

Well I said I would get back and I will.

I have started this book.  Already though I am losing faith that there is much of value in the book having already huge holes in the arguments and at least one factual error.

In the introduction Heath tries to make the case that from an economic standpoint recycling paper is in fact bad for the planet.  He states that the trees used in pulp and paper are a cash crop - presumably like wheat - and that recycling causes a disincentive to re-plant.  He misses the fundamental point that trees are not simply in fields, they are in forests.  Forest ecosystems are dependent upon those trees.  Many of the best suited trees for pulp and paper are in vast tracks of land in northern areas.  There is already a massive economic discinsentive to re-plant because the area seems so big and could never be used up.  A falsehood, but one that persists. 

In the end his argument is very unconvincing and ignores all but the dollar and cents arguments all to prevelant in what he thinks he is critiquing and has been through out the book so far.  His introductory bit about lung cancer is frankly stupid and ignores the reality of the costs of carrying for someone with lung cancer and the horrible way in which you die with lung cancer essentially drowning in your own bodies fluids as if that had no 'cost'

I have yet to finish the book, but already I found one factual area in an area I guess I could be considered a bit of an expert.  The book makes the claim that agricultural cooperatives, such as say a diary one, buy under market value from their farmer members and then make up the difference through dividends.  He specificially uses dairy as an example.   In the supply managed Canadian context this is completely unfactual.  Under Canada's system of supply management in dairy, chicken and eggs farmer cooperatives, like everyone else must meet a certain floor price.  The success of cooperatives comes from farmers being able, by pooling their capital and basically signing non-compete agreeements with each other through the co-opt are able to capture a greater share of the food retail dollar.  Instead of passing on the profits beyond thier farmgate farmer cooperatives eliminate the parisite middle-men that are responsible for most of increases we see in food costs.

Any discussion around agriculture in the Canadian context that doesn't include supply management as a fundemental part of that discusssion is worthless and will end up being completely wrong.  As well and discussion of agriculture in the Canadian context that leaves out issues like captive supply and market strangleholds is also missing wide of the mark.

I agree with his fundamental assertion that people should be far more economically literate, but on the whole I find his arguments around specific fallicies unconvincing and consumed by an orthodoxy that does not exist outside the confines of books and classrooms.   It is still however, worth the read if only to point out that even something that is well written and entertaining and preports to be accessible economics can still be grounded in so much claptrap as to make the real understanding of economic forces no easier.

Anyway I made the promise to get back and have done so. 

Ta ta

He can't see the forests for the trees eh, chaps?  Good start.