From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 09:57:15 EDT
> Wolffs argument could equally well be taken to prove the impossibility > of engineering design. The circumstances determining the exact behaviour > of a car or aircraft are also innumerable, but that does not itself > prevent there being progress in the efficiency of machines. Hi Paul C, You raise a legitimate objection, especially since Wolff's critique concerned both the macro and *micro* levels of analysis. Another everyday calculation of efficiency is the calculation of possible benefits of investing in alternative forms of constant fixed capital. E.g. suppose a firm is planning on purchasing a new form of machinery and must decide among five different (but perhaps related) types. Even though they would have to make assumptions about variables that can not be known ex ante with certainty (such as the level of economic activity in the macroeconomy over the different 'lifetimes' of the machinery; whether workers will go on strike at some point during the years that the machinery is utilized; whether the financial market and access to credit will bust, etc.) firms will generally attempt to calculate the most efficient technology before they decide which one to purchase. I.e. even though they recognize that there is uncertainty, they still must attempt to make these calculations, don't they? They certainly don't throw their hands up in the air and say that this is "unknowable". As individual workers we can't (ordinarily) calculate with certainty whether we will or will not die today. Yet, we act today as if we will live tomorrow. To be paralyzed by fear of the unknowable would truly be an inefficient use of our lives! Further musings on efficiency: Insofar as design is concerned, there are different measures of _what_ is considered to be efficient. E.g. most yacht designers have a bias towards maximizing *speed*. I.e. subject to the other design criteria established by the client (and the designer), what is judged to be 'efficient is speed on the water. Yet, clearly there are alternative measures of efficiency: e.g. minimization of 'labor' input (so, for instance, a large boat could be sailed 'efficiently' by 1 person instead of a large crew even though speed wouldn't be maximized; those who advance this criteria might view the standard view of efficiency as inefficient since there are wasted 'inputs', i.e. unnecessary crew) or minimization of circulating capital resources in relation to output (so, for instance, one boat might be considered to be more efficient if it had a more _energy_ efficient form of propulsion). So, a discussion of the maximization of efficiency should lead to the questions "maximization of what?" and "maximization for whom?". In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 05 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT