Thanks to Rob Tye for his comments.

It is true that I see a pyramid as a good, but I see goods as imbued with
social and religious significance, rather than just physical. Social groups
imbue goods with significance. A Mercedes Benz has social significance. Some
people have to wear certain brands of clothes, because they have group
significance. A cathedral is something more than its physical state.

As you anticipate, I largely agree with your comments on social order.
Situation-related valuation is conceived in the context of a
'support-bargaining' system in which groups seek to assemble support.
Support has implications of violent capacity, so people will concede to
groups with extensive support. Such groups will establish social ascendancy.
Establishing social ascendancy means that the ideas and concepts of the
ruling group will tend to be adopted across the society. A ruling group like
that of a Pharaoh will ensure that its concept of the importance of a
pyramid is accepted in society at large. The ascendant group will impose on
the rest of society the situation concepts that suit its interests.

These ideas involve a system of 'support-bargaining' and 'money-bargaining'
that is incompatible with neoclassical theory. Neoclassical theory comes to
constitute only an outcome of the 'intellectual support-bargaining' by which
ideas are developed through the assembly of support in theory groups for the
furtherance of their interests. Neoclassical
economists rule in universities just as the Pharaohs ruled in Ancient Egypt!
The problem with Keynes, for me, is that he only modified neoclassical
theory, rather than replacing it.

I hope this makes sense - it is always difficult to encapsulate in a short
comment what is now a fairly extensive theory.

I believe the theory is of particular application in the study of economic
history, since it is easy to understand that economies evolve from situation
to situation. Even so, I am surprised to find myself expounding on the
social dynamic of Ancient Egypt.
Patrick Spread

Just published: www.routledge.com/9780415641128

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rob Tye" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:16 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Fw: [SHOE] Macro Follies

> Patrick Spread writes
>
> <<If the situation is such that a deity will only grant eternal life if
> the
> body of a Pharaoh is interred in a pyramid, then value, to those who see
> the
> situation in that way, lies in construction of a pyramid.>>
>
> This seems to me to explain the matter in a rather too classical, or
> neo-classical a way - treating the pyramid as a good.  It occurs to me
> further, Patrick, that you might not entirely disagree, thus I will spell
> my
> own position out, in the hope of clarification.
>
> I would argue that the primary aim of policy makers in bronze age pyramid
> building societies was the maintenance of the social order, and most
> especially their own privileged position within that social order.  Thus
> it
> would be a mistake to see pyramids primarily as an end or a good.  Pyramid
> building is an activity appropriate to, and underpinning, that social
> order.
> Its role is to reinforce the set of customs and beliefs which allowed the
> transfer of good to take place at that time, which were primarily driven
> by
> religious commands.
>
> The theoretical language within which these matters were discussed in the
> Late Bronze Age was perhaps still remembered in the Guanzi (written down
> around the 4th century BC).  The preferred model there is called
>  "top-down",
> the rather despised alternative "bottom up".  To some extent, it seems to
> me
> "Keynsianism" encompasses some of the theory of prehistoric "top down"
> economics, just as "bottom up" somewhat resembles classical or
> neo-classical
> ideas.
>
> My preferred practical account of Ancient Egypt seem to be the standard
> undergrad text these days:
>
> Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry J. Kemp.
>
> Kemp paints a picture of a great deal of commercial activity taking place,
> goods bought and sold etc, much as we experience today.  But all this
> activity remained subsidiary to the principle distribution system which
> was
> maintained by central authority, according to hierarchical precedents.
> Commercial life then was parasitic on the official custom and command
> system, and looked quite a lot like a modern black market.
>
> A final, perhaps self indulgent thought.  Is the top down economy still
> with
> us today, in the guise of (some aspects of) "Keynsianism"?  In that case,
> are we a mirror image of bronze age society, with top down now rather
> parasitic upon bottom up, rather than the reverse, as it was then?  Is
> that
> what Keynes himself hinted at when wrote of the matter?
>
> Rob Tye, York, UK
>