4 ms·

This, though, raises a question. Why is it that the rise in productivity hasn’t had the effects predicted by Marx and Keynes? Why have our “needs” risen as our

This, though, raises a question. Why is it that the rise in productivity hasn’t had the effects predicted by Marx and Keynes? Why have our “needs” risen as our productive powers have, with the result that the hours we devote to employment haven’t fallen as much as Marx or Keynes forecast? Why is it that so many of us - I count myself fortunate to be a partial exception - haven’t used wealth to free ourselves from alienating labour? There's no deep question here. Only a language game. Like "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there's no one around to hear it?" Step one: replace loaded words like "needs", "wants", "labour", and "employment" with just "utility". EDIT: side note. I used to participate in an alternative money forum and the funny thing about it was the neat division between 2 kinds of people: 1. Those who had a fear/loathing/suspicion of productivity growth. (left) 2. Those who had a fear/loathing/suspicion of macro-economics and the fed. (right) This post is a typical #1 post.

gabrielroth 18y ago
If I'm correctly interpreting your rather elliptical response, it begs the question (in the proper sense): you subsume anything that might be considered valuable into the catch-all category of 'utility,' and then suggest that the present arrangement maximizes 'utility.' The question raised by the original author -- does our economy properly value leisure? -- remains. You can answer 'Yes it does, and the problems you're pointing to aren't problems at all,' but that doesn't make the question a language game.
- davidmathers 18y ago
  you subsume anything that might be considered valuable into the catch-all category of 'utility,' Sort of. There's two issues: 1. Can you draw a distinction between things you "need" and things that are useful to you? "Needs" is just a rough quantification of utility. The problem is that it isn't as useful. What's the opposite of needs? The opposite of utility is disutility. Labour is disutility. 2. It's key when thinking about this kind of stuff to distinguish "employment" or "producing value" from labour. Labour is something you don't want to do. It's disutility. If you want to do it then it isn't labour. Even if you're getting paid. So it clears things up to just say "disutility" instead. and then suggest that the present arrangement maximizes 'utility.' I didn't do that. does our economy properly value leisure? That question is completely meaningless to me. First you have to explain to me how something can have a "proper" value (there's no such concept in my understanding). Second you have to explain how an "economy" can value things and what that means. I only know what it means for people to value things. EDIT: note that my critique is only for the blogger's interpretation of Marx/Keynes. I didn't read the linked Keynes essay but I suspect I doesn't have this kind of error. "Needs" can't rise because they are infinite. They have always been infinite and they will always be infinite.

gabrielroth 18y ago

If I'm correctly interpreting your rather elliptical response, it begs the question (in the proper sense): you subsume anything that might be considered valuable into the catch-all category of 'utility,' and then suggest that the present arrangement maximizes 'utility.' The question raised by the original author -- does our economy properly value leisure? -- remains. You can answer 'Yes it does, and the problems you're pointing to aren't problems at all,' but that doesn't make the question a language game.

davidmathers 18y ago
you subsume anything that might be considered valuable into the catch-all category of 'utility,' Sort of. There's two issues: 1. Can you draw a distinction between things you "need" and things that are useful to you? "Needs" is just a rough quantification of utility. The problem is that it isn't as useful. What's the opposite of needs? The opposite of utility is disutility. Labour is disutility. 2. It's key when thinking about this kind of stuff to distinguish "employment" or "producing value" from labour. Labour is something you don't want to do. It's disutility. If you want to do it then it isn't labour. Even if you're getting paid. So it clears things up to just say "disutility" instead. and then suggest that the present arrangement maximizes 'utility.' I didn't do that. does our economy properly value leisure? That question is completely meaningless to me. First you have to explain to me how something can have a "proper" value (there's no such concept in my understanding). Second you have to explain how an "economy" can value things and what that means. I only know what it means for people to value things. EDIT: note that my critique is only for the blogger's interpretation of Marx/Keynes. I didn't read the linked Keynes essay but I suspect I doesn't have this kind of error. "Needs" can't rise because they are infinite. They have always been infinite and they will always be infinite.