Individualism, Capitalism, Keynes and BIEN!

Individualism, has been the main source to explain the efficiency of "the invisible hand", which lead to the foundations of Capitalism (Notice that efficiency does not mean, equality of income).



Keynes, in chapter 24 of The General Theory, announce the mechanism that would lead to the end of "Capitalism",

it would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital. [...] I see, therefore, the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work.

If I am not wrong, Keynes thought that the capital would never change. In other words, that there is not technological change that increase the diversity of capitals, making the 'new type of capital' scarce.



I am not sure, whether Keynes prediction will eventually work. However, it seems to be that there are organizations that are thinking about alternatives to the pure individualism. It seems to be that there is altruism around and it is possible to coordinate it in order to obtain 'efficient and well distribuited' results.



BIEN, is an alternative way to think about the distribution. Take a look at it, and have a thought.

Laissez-faire

I strongly suggest to read this Keynes' article to anyone that is interesting in understand the state of mind at the beginning of the ninteen century, related to individualism and laissez-faire.



Keynes, links Hume, Paley, Burke, Rousseau, Godwin, Malthus, Cobbett, Huskisson, Bentham, Coleridge, Darwin (yes the father of evolutionism) and the Bishop of Oxford to explain that state of affair.

Beautiful, really beautiful.



"I do not know which makes a man more conservative -to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past"



In a clear sense, economists furnished the scientific bases of individualism and laissez-faire.



This article is important to understand Keynes. As any clever man, Keynes accept the dangerous of dealing with gray area, without jumping to blacks and white.

Small Things

I want to make a point which I would like to work it out. Of course, together with my Keynes journey.

The small things that make the world better. I would define, the small things that change the world as things that from an standard macroeconomic point of view, could be considered not important.

I am wondering whether these small things that change the world are interesting to be considered or not.

Let me develop one. The University of Kuopio has been promoting Health, Environment and Well-being. Days ago, an interesting program has been implemented in a city in argentina, Balcarce to improve the health (particularly hearth related) of the population. The program, (This is the news in spanish) impact all the population of the city.

Does this program contribute to the Sustainable Development of the city? Does the program increase the employment in the city? Does it reduces inequality?

The first question deal with a big problem: Sustainable Development. Second and Third questions deal with more traditional problems in the school of economics.

Introduction

I am during these days reading Keynes. I will read The General Theory, and play around with his ideas. We will see what I obtain.

John Myrand Keynes was born the 5 June 1883 in Cambridge. (What a nice place to be born and to be an economist!) He died 21 April 1946.Here is a nice links with his biography http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Keynes.html

By the way, he lived both world wars, he was alife at the same time than Ludwig Wittgenstein (1890-1951), may be he was aware of historical results or debates as Hilbert’s problems, Russell and Withehead Principia Mathematica or Einstein (1879 - 1955) Relativity Theory.

I assume that the amount of information difussed among the universities was neither high nor extremly specialized at those times.

So, is not obvious that he was influencied by all (and a lot of more) of these results. However, those were good times in the science literature!

Wittgenstein and others

This links mention an interesting search by Hayek, to see whether Wittgenstein and Keynes exchange letters.

p29



This is a links to a book where there are letters written by Wittgenstein to: Russell, Moore, Keynes, Ramsey and Pietro Sraffa. Guuuauuu!!! what a nice team!

p29

Language and Philosophy

What is the relation between Language and Philosophy? Why the language seems to be at the root of Wittgenstein work?

In PI Wittgenstein introduces the idea of language-game. In a language-game there are rules that we simply follow and eventually entangled us in them.

Let me cite him in PI

124. Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in

the end only describe it.

Language is where we are entangled and the work of the philosopher is to describe such a complexity. Not to solve it.



Around language, in Wittgenstein opera, are concepts as: proposition, thought, meaning, logic, rules.

I am not interesting here at finding out my answers... but Wittgensteing ones. As I do not know them, I better stay quiet... but confussed. :)

Ludwig Wittgenstein [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I found this link interesting to me, as a beginner. It has many interesing comments.



Ludwig Wittgenstein [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]: "And these pictures can only serve to describe what we are to do, not justify it"

About Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations

There are big differenes between these two books.

Tractatus (T) is written by someone who really believes that he understood the problem. I feel that there is an strong formalization of "life" through the language. This initially really caught me. I found it very interesting, this triggered my desire of reading Wittgenstein.

However, now that I am reading Philosophical Investigations (PI) there is in the middle a huge change. This is not an original claim about Wittgenstein work, however I am happy because I feel it.

Doing a paralell, I feel as if (T) were mathematics without impossibility results (before Godel), whereas (PI) is the result of matematicians (I should say Wittgenstein) accepting that there are impossibility results, and therefore re-writing (T).

Introduction

I have been reading for a while some works by Ludwig Wittgenstein. I first read Tractactus Logico-Philosophicus. After this, I went on The Blue and Brown Books and now I am reading Philosophical Investigations.

I am quite sure that I did not understand, neither all of them nor each of them. (How could I say that after reading him?) However, after reading the books I feel that I should adopt a very active role to improve my understanding.

This blogg is a personal try to develop a better understanding of Wittgenstein work.

During the first time, I will only express what I obtain from the pure Wittgensteinian readings. In this first phase, the suggested links will be only to his biography and contexts.

If by any chance happens that you arrived to this blogg, you should know that I am not an expert.

This is just a blogg about Ludwig Wittgenstein, posting information without any particular order.

Objectivity in Social Science according to Max Weber

I just read the 1904 "Objectivity of Social Science and Social Policy". I get from the reading a set of interesting ideas.

There is no such a thing as objectivity. The best that we can get is a frame that give us values to understand reality. There is a kind of objective order of basic concepts. This order is objective. With this order, and the subjectivity of our values, we make social science.

This idea has a conflict. If my interpretation is right, Weber is saying that an ontology in social science is objective. Although useful for comunicating, an ontology doesn't seem to be the most objective concept that we can produce.

However, after a second read, I have a new idea and let me cite Weber,
"The conclusion which follows from the above is that an "objective" analysis of cultural events, which proceeds according to the thesis that the ideal of science is the reduction of empirical reality of "laws," is meaningless. It is not meaningless, as is often maintained, because cultural or psychic events for instance are "objectively" less governed by laws. It is meaningless for a number of other reasons. Firstly, because the knowledge of social laws is not knowledge of social reality but is rather one of the various aids used by our minds for attaining this end; secondly, because knowledge of cultural events is inconceivable except on a basis of the significance which the concrete constellations of reality have for us in certain individual concrete situations"

Things are now more clear!