Response to Larry,
O.k. I exxagerate. Far be it from me to deny the significance of major
events like the Great Depression.
The question is though, how is the Great Depression to be interpreted?
I would see it as a failure of the market. but you could see it as a
failure of the govt - sponsored Dawes-Young plans, i.e. an effort to
subsidise Germany out of its reparations/inflation/warcosts problems. In
other word, the fact means nothing without a theoretical context. It is
that context I dispute (really).
Foucault says some interesting things somrwhere about the <event> as
distinct from the <fact> - can anyone help with that?
the whole business of market signals arises like this:
the market is as Peter says a 'mystical' process ( this derives from
Adam Smith - the metaphor itself, the invisible hand, derives from
mediaeval theocracy).
It is an article of faith that the market achieves progress - ( come to
think of it how come a Foucault list is discussing somethig so
absolutely teleological?)
The question then arises, how does this progress come about?
hayek says, through 'spontaneous order'and god only knows what he meant
by that.some kind of Darwininan nonsense.
Schumpeter says, through the activities of the entrepreneur.
The Chicago/Virginaia school and others, say, by the action of market
signals upon comsumers and sellers in other words, by the successive
attainment of 'market equilibrium'.
I think 'market equilibrium' may be just a cover for Hegelian
dualisms. Could we talk about the 'dialectic of the market', do you
think?
cheers,
Nesta
O.k. I exxagerate. Far be it from me to deny the significance of major
events like the Great Depression.
The question is though, how is the Great Depression to be interpreted?
I would see it as a failure of the market. but you could see it as a
failure of the govt - sponsored Dawes-Young plans, i.e. an effort to
subsidise Germany out of its reparations/inflation/warcosts problems. In
other word, the fact means nothing without a theoretical context. It is
that context I dispute (really).
Foucault says some interesting things somrwhere about the <event> as
distinct from the <fact> - can anyone help with that?
the whole business of market signals arises like this:
the market is as Peter says a 'mystical' process ( this derives from
Adam Smith - the metaphor itself, the invisible hand, derives from
mediaeval theocracy).
It is an article of faith that the market achieves progress - ( come to
think of it how come a Foucault list is discussing somethig so
absolutely teleological?)
The question then arises, how does this progress come about?
hayek says, through 'spontaneous order'and god only knows what he meant
by that.some kind of Darwininan nonsense.
Schumpeter says, through the activities of the entrepreneur.
The Chicago/Virginaia school and others, say, by the action of market
signals upon comsumers and sellers in other words, by the successive
attainment of 'market equilibrium'.
I think 'market equilibrium' may be just a cover for Hegelian
dualisms. Could we talk about the 'dialectic of the market', do you
think?
cheers,
Nesta