Originally Posted by Onion Eater

It is my thread and I don't care about Kropotkin, Gould or the Prisoner's dilemma. I was talking about GE Theory.

Originally Posted by Onion Eater

I know that you are Scucca and I suspect that you are Steve Reglar. You have quoted Reglar and Yunker repeatedly at this and other forums, including Debate Politics. I asked you there to reconcile these two men's positions and you disappeared.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to reply here?

Or do you prefer to criticize my references, as is your custom when you are unable to refute someone?

Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory

Steve Reglar (2005) writes:

"As a tool of capitalist hegemony the doctrine of general equilibrium is very useful. It assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible, because the market is part of human nature and the most efficient form of economic organization. The theory, therefore, has a role in legitimizing capitalist hegemony."

A tool of capitalist hegemony? My, what harsh language! One can almost visualize GE theorists visiting smoke-filled rooms to accept bribes from their cigar-puffing benefactors. Indeed, Post-Autistic economists, after observing the word “axiomatic” in the title of my book (Aguilar, 1999), dismissed it out-of-hand, denouncing me as a bought-and-paid-for stooge of Big Business. Apparently, just that one word was enough to convince them of this about me.

But before we dismiss this talk of an epistemological approach being a “tool” of Big Business to “legitimize” their obviously anti-social behavior, let us at least see if the socialists are consistent. James Yunker (2007) writes:

"This article evaluates the performance of contemporary capitalism relative to that of a hypothetical alternative designated 'profit-oriented market socialism.' In most respects, profit-oriented market socialism would closely mimic contemporary market capitalism. The major difference would be that most profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend proportional to household wage and salary income rather than in proportion to household financial assets. The basis of the comparison is a small-scale but comprehensive computable general equilibrium model."

Here we read that GE Theory is not a tool of capitalist hegemony, but a tool of profit-oriented market socialism, that is, publicly-owned business enterprises (e.g. Fannie, Freddie, AIG, etc.) that mimic contemporary market capitalism. And it is not a “tool” in the sense of legitimizing the socialists (presumably, their legitimacy is derived from emotional appeals of the “Gosh, there sure are a lot of poor people – darn capitalists!” variety), but a tool in the literal sense of defining a software model.

Well, which is it? Reglar thinks that GE Theory "assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible." Yunker sees GE Theory as the basis for a central planner to "mimic contemporary market capitalism" while retaining for himself the authority to distribute the social dividend – hardly a "little role in economic life."

Read the rest of the paper at Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory.

Originally Posted by Onion Eater

I wait for Scucca/Rever to justify his repeatedly invoking these two mutually inconsistent visions of socialism. Slippery fellow!

Originally Posted by Onion Eater

The fact is, you just don't like capitalists and will say anything, as long as it is anti-capitalist.

Originally Posted by grassroots1

This seems to sum up the feud you apparently have with Reiver, and while it may have some basis...