Abstract
In this paper, I address contemporary attacks on rationalism thanks to Rifkin’s concepts of “extreme productivity” and “zero marginal cost of production” as examples of an ideological twist on genuine economic expressions. The main issue dealt with epistemological issues in the context of the contemporary communication age. It consists to clarify the relation between economic ideas and their relation to reality. To proceed accordingly, I implement a hermeneutic method applied to Rifkin’s discourse. That method is grounded in the scholarly tradition of “the ordinary language philosophy”. Its results proceed to show 2 distinct language games at work: 1- the neoclassical definition of marginal cost and its own logic is distinct from Rifkin’s use of it. 2- Rifkin uses the expression “marginal cost” under the auspices of an ideological discourse on the demise of capitalism. 3- The confusion is based on a systematically deceptive use of scholarly referencing. I conclude by drawing some lessons for the role of a multidisciplinary defense of economic rationality in contemporary discourse.
Highlights
This paper is mainly concerned with the issue of epistemology in economics, i.e., the relation of ideas with reality1
Rifkin operates within the socialist commonwealth, whereby money does not play a role in the economic calculation (MISES, 1990, p. 21)
Since Rifkin is not using the economic valuation of the means of production, namely fixed, variable, and marginal costs, he operates outside economics
Summary
This paper is mainly concerned with the issue of epistemology in economics, i.e., the relation of ideas with reality. The epistemological issue is not strictly within the limit of the economic valuation of the factors of production. Economists are unwilling to engage in defense of economic calculation since this task falls outside their strict professional duties. This leaves a chance for the economic illiterates on price valuations to dominate the market of ideas. We address the epistemological issue to know what it means to undermine the valuation tools of economics (here, the costs of production factors) to generate a public debate on new technologies. To disentangle the issue between unidentified disciplinary limits, as Rifkin’s attack on the role of “near-zero marginal cost of production” in information technology, we use two methods of reasoning sequentially. The following part presents Rifkin’s starting point on the marginal cost of new technology production
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: MISES: Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Law and Economics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
