Einherjar86
Active Member
I appreciate the comparison. I know nothing about biochemistry and enzymes, so I don't dispute that description.
I am skeptical though of how well that describes complex social relations like those between labor and wages, employees and employers. Put simply, I think it's possible that what we perceive as a convergent equilibrium is only a retrospective interpretation of oppositional forces. I don't think there's any structural balance or center of gravity, so to speak, toward which these forces converge, which implies that economic systems are deterministic and teleological. When we talk about economics we're talking about nonlinear chaotic systems with multiple attractors in which very small changes can effect large consequences. If there could possibly be any hypothetical center of gravity, it would always be in motion, which renders it practically nonexistent. There might be some theoretical center to its machinations, but if the center is always moving then it loses its stabilizing power. We can't predict the balance, we can only point to any given moment within the wage-labor relation after the fact, and say "the balance was there."
I realize this is all theoretical, but the premise of an equilibrium between wages and labor is nothing but theoretical, i.e. virtual. We can't point to it or predict it.
I am skeptical though of how well that describes complex social relations like those between labor and wages, employees and employers. Put simply, I think it's possible that what we perceive as a convergent equilibrium is only a retrospective interpretation of oppositional forces. I don't think there's any structural balance or center of gravity, so to speak, toward which these forces converge, which implies that economic systems are deterministic and teleological. When we talk about economics we're talking about nonlinear chaotic systems with multiple attractors in which very small changes can effect large consequences. If there could possibly be any hypothetical center of gravity, it would always be in motion, which renders it practically nonexistent. There might be some theoretical center to its machinations, but if the center is always moving then it loses its stabilizing power. We can't predict the balance, we can only point to any given moment within the wage-labor relation after the fact, and say "the balance was there."
I realize this is all theoretical, but the premise of an equilibrium between wages and labor is nothing but theoretical, i.e. virtual. We can't point to it or predict it.
