Re: The paradigm issue

[IPGmail@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/8/99 rshakes@globalnet.co.uk writes:

> Regarding various tasks, does conventional
>  economics or binary economics have the better view of who or what 
physically
>  creates the wealth?

Why is this question important?  The assumption is that incomes *should* 
reflect contributions in terms of "who or what physically creates the 
wealth," and that in a free market incomes WILL reflect "who or what 
physically creates the wealth," but I can see no reason why the latter should 
be so.  Unless you can defend the proposition that free market distributions 
will reflect relative productiveness, or give an alternative way of measuring 
relative productiveness, this concept is useless.

Let me add that I think there are a lot of valuable ideas in the whole 
complex of those that Kelso advocated as "binary economics."  But he thought 
"productiveness" was the most important of them, while I'd argue that it is 
the most useless.  If we could dispose of it, his other ideas would get a 
more sympathetic hearing.

Alan Zundel
Institute for the Public Good
http://www.publicgood.org