Tommy

“According to the liberal theory entrepreneurs earn profit because they combine productive factors in the most economic manner. By seeking profit for themselves they also increase the efficiency of the productive system. According to Veblen, however, entrepreneurs may also earn profit by thwarting production. They can do this in virtue of certain institutional devices. In a sense, Veblen’s theory is, of course diametrically opposed to liberal theory. Yet, his premises are the same: he, too, thinks of an ideal economy which would maximize production if there were no interventions, although ‘interventions’ in his model may be caused by entrepreneurs. Veblen’s criticism is of the kind which can easily be understood by a liberal economist. It is merely a question of deciding what is an ‘intervention’ and what is ‘free’ or ‘natural’. His criticism does not reject the general presuppositions of liberal theory. A liberal can remain inside the boundaries of his theory when he tries to refute Veblen.”
― Gunnar Myrdal, Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory

“Labor-saving devices, led by the computer, are encouraging more production and more unemployment. Automation may thus be classified as both asset and liability. It can eliminate a great deal of dull, monotonous labor, but if unrelieved idleness is the end result, the cure may be worse than the disease. The evidence strongly indicates that man is a working animal—in the sense of needing an activity that involves hand and brain, and that makes sense to him.”
― Stuart Chase, The Most Probable World:

“Natives” of course are always immoral, but racial renegades and drop-outs must be downright polymorphous-perverse. The Buccaneers were buggers, the Maroons and Mountain Men were miscegenists, the “Jukes and Kallikaks” indulged in fornication and incest (leading to mutations such as polydactyly), the children ran around naked and masturbated openly, etc., etc. Reverting to a “state of Nature” paradoxically seems to allow for the practice of every “unnatural” act; or so it would appear if we believe the Puritans and Eugenicists. And since many people in repressed moralistic racist societies secretly desire exactly these licentious acts, they project them outwards onto the marginalized, and thereby convince themselves that they themselves remain civilized and pure. And in fact some marginalized communities do really reject consensus morality — the pirates certainly did! — and no doubt actually act out some of civilization’s repressed desires. (Wouldn’t you?) Becoming “wild” is always an erotic act, an act of nakedness.”
― Hakim Bey, TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone

“Common sense alone reveals the essential problem that economic theory ignores. Just imagine what would become of a firm that develops computer software or a new pharmaceutical if its product were priced at the cost of making another copy of its program! Bankruptcy would be certain.

To prevent such bankruptcy, we grant developers of software or pharmaceuticals protection through copyrights or patents, which limit competition. Because of the longstanding use of these monopolistic arrangements, we readily accept that they are consistent with the principles of free competition. In fact, they are not.

More and more, the existence of sunk costs makes industry resemble a software industry without the protection of copyrights or patents. For example, airline bankruptcies have become almost commonplace. Like the railroads of the nineteenth century or the software developer of the twentieth, an airline commits an enormous investment in an industry where the cost of servicing another customer is minimal. As competition drives prices down toward this level, the firm becomes unable to meet its financial commitments.

Economic theory as it stands today is irrelevant to understanding this process. Economists may employ scientific tools, such as mathematics and statistics, but they apply them in a context that is questionable at best. Economics purports to be scientific because it grounds its ideology on a rigorous theoretical foundation, but this foundation rests on wildly unrealistic assumptions.”
― Michael Perelman, The End of Economics