[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NAFTA, Capitalism and Alternatives, Debate, VIII/1
Replying to the Horacio/Harry debate, let me add in my two cents. Again,
with my little knowledge of life I think that Horacio is technically correct
but swerves around the point. Economic theory "can" explain everything in
terms of utility--what something is worth is what they will give up for it--
and it is probably true that most serious economists recognize the fallacy
of using GNP and such eroneous measures to define "growth" and "well-being",
but since multitudes of economic studies FAIL to realize these things he
misses the point, and Harry is right. Economics as it is used IS flawed.
Because the problem is that, at the high level of economic theory that Horacio
is talking about it has no practical utility itself. Ultimately it comes
down to a process of hypothesizing about HOW MUCH person x will exchange
for something they value, be it speed in a car, family harmony, love, etc.
Because hypothetically these thing COULD be measured, but not in the real world
under every conceivable circumstance (or even under a limited set of
conceivable circumstances). Thus, ecenomic practice is limited to looking at
exchange values that already exist--i.e. the market place--even if economic
theory recognizes that what is TRUELY valuable is the utility or USE VALUE
of these things. And this use value, except perhaps under the hypothetical
state of "perfect capitalism" (where everything is exchange and every
conceivable value has an exchange value regulated by the market without the
hindrance of monopolists, government regulators, cultural regulators, etc. etc.
etc.) cannot possibly be accurately gauged.
I hope this makes sense. By the way, I never thought the term
"campesino" was patronizing. I find it more useful than the term "peasant"
in mexico not only because it is a Mexican term itself, but because it
seems to encompass the social reality of Mexican rural life more
accurately. Maybe that is just the fantasy of the gabacho, but it seems to
me that "campesino" encompases both small farmers as well as landless rural
workers and ejido members, whereas "peasant" carries the negative connoctation
to cultural backweardness. "Its just the peasants revolting again, my dear"
seems a deprecating judgement that implies a backward state of feudalism,
etc.
john cross