==================== HES POSTING ===================== 
 
Since this is my first posting, I believe it is appropriate for me to say 
that 
my name is Chris Torr and that I am in the Department of Economics at 
the University of South Africa. My interests lie in macroeconomics, 
methodology and the history of economic thought. 
 
The discussion on Polanyi and markets concentrates on whether or not 
markets existed in the past. Anthony Brewer, for example, says that 
while he is not too sure about earlier periods,  "the labour market surely 
dominated long before the nineteenth century in England." Thomas 
Moser, on the other hand points out that "one could say that there were 
several markets in ancient times that do not exist anymore..."  I should 
like 
to combine these two ideas and link the argument to the recent 
discussion on taxonomy. 
 
The link to taxonomy seems obvious enough, since "it all depends" on 
what we mean by markets. If you are a nominalist, you will be happy to 
point to things that you can see (such as rocks) and call them names. 
You may even point to things that you can't see directly (on Mars) and 
still call them rocks. While a committed nominalist would be happy enough 
to make lists of things, he or she would be reluctant to admit the 
existence of universals, such as for example, redness or beauty. A 
pragmatic nominalist might nevertheless acknowledge that universals 
could serve as useful classificatory devices, but would claim that 
classification is arbitary. After we come across a duck-billed platypus 
we may wish to re-evaluate what we understand by a mammal (the 
example is from Kuhn). 
 
The argument on the existence of markets, ancient and modern, is in one 
sense an argument about how we go about classifying things, and 
seems to hark back to the classical distinction between nominalists and 
realists. 
 
When we talk about labour I think we need to distinguish between stocks 
and flows. Those people who have slave markets in mind are talking 
about stocks. Those who have wage earning-individuals in mind are 
talking about flows. When Anthony Brewer says that "the labour market 
surely dominated long before the nineteenth century in England",  the rest 
of his paragraph suggests that he has in mind the market for labour 
services (flows), rather than the notorious middle passage. In what 
follows I shall confine myself to flows. 
 
Whereas in the past there may have been markets for labour services, it 
may be inappropriate to analyse the modern world along such lines. This 
fits in with Thomas Moser's remark that "there were several markets in 
ancient times that do not exist anymore." In other words I am raising the 
question of whether there is anymore such a thing as a labour market. 
This is hardly a novel idea. It was around in 1936 when Keynes 
suggested that the number of people employed did not depend on the 
supply and demand of and for labour. Jan Kregel has implied that there is 
no labour market in the General Theory. Even if there is a labour market in 
the General Theory, it does not determine the level of employment. 
 
In _Macroeconomics after Keynes_, Victoria Chick (page 147) points out 
that the classical demand curve for labour applies to a situation in which 
"the work force is hired anew each day, as in industries where casual 
labour is the rule. Industries where casual labour prevails, where 
employers go every day to the hiring hall for the labour they want, used 
to be not uncommon. They are very uncommon now." In a footnote she 
adds that "Dock workers were the last major example, apart from the 
rather irregular arrangements which still exist to some extent in the 
construction industry." 
 
While it is appropriate in a group such as this to investigate whether or 
not labour markets existed in times gone by, we also need to establish 
what the present position is. In such a quest we need theory to guide us. 
Those who look at the world (ancient and modern) through neo-classical 
spectacles will no doubt view employment through supply and demand 
lenses.  
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]