is something like this - The Market may not even exist as a tangible
entity, it may simply be a figment of the economists' imaginations; a
metaphysical/theological positing of equilibrium and harmony – a
religious-like belief that somewhere out there is a Godlike Hidden
Hand that ensures benevolence; in short: a primitive belief that real
science did away with years ago - (this from Naked Capitalism blog) -
with my feeling being there is a need to go further in religious
deconstruction of the economic subject.
Much academic prose is just a snide version of ad hom. I broadly
agree dignity is earned - but in the complexity of this some will not
let you earn it and others have it in gift (with its own obligations a
lot of the time). The mass accumulations by a tiny few do not seem
earned to me,but stolen from our general interactions of work.
On Dec 18, 1:39 am, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So here's your thesis:
>
> 'What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
> as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> coercion to get us to play its games.'
>
> I'm guessing you're referring to consumerism here? I'm not buying it and
> here's why. If economics is the study of how humans buy, sell, produce and
> trade and the effects of different methods of doing this micro and
> macrowise then the objective is to come up with a system that promotes the
> best chances for overall improvement of EVERYBODY. Or at least the most
> possible. The goal should be(dangerous word, i know) advancement.
> Improvement. Not stagnation. Or stagflation as the case might be. As far as
> I understand it there is no 'new' economics. Our studies have given us a
> fairly broad idea of the effects of different kinds of taxes and
> regulations. The mostly economic illiterate folks in Congress look for the
> quick fix or the kick back with no understanding or concern about
> unintended consequences. Folks are naturally going to look out for
> themselves and their family first. It is to be expected.
>
> The major flaw, the fly in the ointment as it were, I see in most all
> "alternative" economies is the assumption that folks won't mind working for
> free or worse, carrying the biggest load and yet sharing equally. It never
> quite works out like that no matter how many times a country tries it. The
> winners live in the best houses, drive the best cars and in communist
> countries they all 'work' for the government. Their kids wear the best
> clothes(mostly blackmarket no doubt) and get the best educations all on the
> dime of the butchers and bakers and candlestick makers. I don't see this as
> a religious situation I see it as a justice situation. If I'm giving you
> quid I damn sure expect my quo.
>
> Nobody wants dirty water and dirty air so regulation is required and
> desirable but we still must have an organized and visible path to
> improvement for the most amount of people or there's no incentive. This
> obviously means some will be left out and will require charity to survive
> OR will get off their collective asses and find something constructive to
> do. Dignity is earned; not bequeathed. Those truly needy few with physical
> and mental disabilities should be cared for and will be. If the disability
> is laziness then I have no compassion at all. Others will, of course, so
> the clueless will still be taken care of by those who see it as their duty.
> Religious folks mostly incidentally. I do see the relationship between
> charity and religion.
>
> Sorry if I'm way off topic here and sorry I'm flooding you with my already
> well publicized beliefs. I have no examples of the arguments you're looking
> for Neil. If the purpose of an argument is to belittle your interlocutor
> instead of resolving the disagreement then I suppose avoiding ad homs is
> counterproductive. Otherwise I try to stick with the formula if I can.
>
> Here's a link to a short piece on the relationship between globalwarmism
> and religion. I know your standing on the matter but maybe reading this
> guy's method of comparing the two will give some ideas for your piece. Luck
> with that Neil.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020393560457706618376131...
>
> dj
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > While I was sailing I met a man who owned according to his wife 17
> > companies, Even though he wanted to be a cruising sailor like me it was
> > more important that the people he employed had jobs than for him to live
> > his dream.
>
> > Now that man I respect and in a way I am envious of the mans beliefs and
> > courage.
> > Allan
>
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That is true Molly we have need to put it some where,, I think the
> >> question is when does it become a religion.
> >> Allan
>
> >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Also, beyond the math part of economics we have personal integrity. In
> >>> olden days of yore when the handshake was the bond integrity and word of
> >>> mouth reputation dictated success in growing your business. These days
> >>> lawyers and contracts seem to have replaced integrity for the most part.
> >>> Even so, in going into business with someone and even in signing a contract
> >>> you are, in effect, having "faith" that the other party will comply. So
> >>> maybe there's a connection here with religion. I'm currently reading
> >>> "Titan", John D. Rockefeller's bio. He felt it his duty, his calling if you
> >>> will, to make as much money and give as much money away as he possibly
> >>> could. For him, economics was definitely religious. He felt himself
> >>> obviously favored by God because of his successes.
>
> >>> Economics as a science has always been a bit of a tough sell to me. Same
> >>> with psychology. Too many human variables to botch the experiments.
>
> >>> dj
>
> >>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Wish I had seen this earlier I'm getting off soon and don't have time
> >>>> to do any research until tonight. I'm not sure about a relationship between
> >>>> religion and economics but I definitely see one between religion and
> >>>> business. Historically we tend to trust those that share our beliefs over
> >>>> those that don't. So Jews favor Jews and protestants favor protestants and
> >>>> so on. I believe the Koran even stipulates giving favoritism to Muslims in
> >>>> owning land, slaves and paying taxes and so forth. Apostates are reviled.
>
> >>>> I'm pretty sure this is not what you're talking about though. I'm
> >>>> interested to see what others have to say.
>
> >>>> dj
>
> >>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:00 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one example
> >>>>> of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy. More
> >>>>> recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what kind of
> >>>>> argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One form of
> >>>>> argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep divisions. Ad
> >>>>> hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a conference
> >>>>> based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally malevolent
> >>>>> influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom - that
> >>>>> general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice (there
> >>>>> are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as atheists
> >>>>> being immoral).
> >>>>> The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a digest
> >>>>> might be as follows:
>
> >>>>> Dialogue types:
> >>>>> Dialogue Type Initial Situation Participant's Goal Goal
> >>>>> of Dialogue
> >>>>> Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party
> >>>>> Resolve Issue
> >>>>> Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
> >>>>> Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis
> >>>>> Support Hypothesis
> >>>>> Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests Settle
> >>>>> Issue
> >>>>> Information Need Information Acquire Information
> >>>>> Exchange Information
> >>>>> Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions Decide
> >>>>> What to Do
> >>>>> Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal Deep
> >>>>> Conflict
>
> >>>>> What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
> >>>>> 1.an account of the principles of communication which argumentative
> >>>>> exchange depends upon;
> >>>>> 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which argument
> >>>>> may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate and
> >>>>> inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference between
> >>>>> scientific discussion and negotiation);
> >>>>> 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be
> >>>>> said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a
> >>>>> logical consequence of another;
> >>>>> 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of argument and
> >>>>> analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need to be
> >>>>> distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the simplest
> >>>>> typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally different
> >>>>> kinds of argument);
> >>>>> 6. an account of good argument which specifies general criteria for
> >>>>> deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
> >>>>> definitions of positive argument schema which define good patterns of
> >>>>> reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks against
> >>>>> the person; etc.);
> >>>>> 7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
> >>>>> cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
> >>>>> 8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
> >>>>> rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
> >>>>> 9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
> >>>>> arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
>
> >>>>> Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
> >>>>> Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
>
> >>>>> What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
> >>>>> as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> >>>>> coercion to get us to play its games. I actually believe this but
> >>>>> want to do more than just assert the position. I'm not concerned to
> >>>>> dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
> >>>>> "economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
>
> >>>>> In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
> >>>>> fellowship. My contention is that economics works in the same way -
> >>>>> under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied. The driving
> >>>>> question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
> >>>>> a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário