James, "efficiency" is one of my targets. What we need is a system
that is readily explicable though. I can 'intercourse the single or
multiple Gaussian copula' with the best - but my report on this and
really any of the maths is that it's broadly a blind and should be
spreadsheeted for public consumption and manipulation. That this
isn't done so that at least the people in this group can readily
understand is a disgrace - and I suspect I could prove fraud is at the
base of this (the blog zerohedge agrees).
My base key would be that position in which people like us could
express what we want as economics. I share Don's suspicion of
'leftie' models. Most now accept the 'soviets' model didn't work and
ended-up as a Soviet version of state capitalism. Figures like Marx
and Henry George were never much to do with much of the Sino-Soviet
experiments anyway, though clown notions of a dictatorship of the
proletariat and false consciousness were unhelpful. Nothing said is
what it means at this level - Thatcher's 'freedom under the law' is
acceptable, yet few of us really have access to law once it has to be
bought with money and influence. The big warning on 'theory' is that
apparently opposite theories have led to a lack of democratic control,
even where voting is reasonably established. In complex thinking we
have to ask what the theory-in-action will be and how this will be
evaluated.
On Dec 29, 6:15 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair. The hazy relationship between rhetoric and motives seem clearest
> to the studious observer of behavior, the speaker or listener can be
> assumed compromised- thus, the colorful process of discussion. :)) The
> universality of the warning is appealing, be vigilant of the speaker,
> listener, and bystander regardless of which position you are standing!
> It applies to all at all times I think.
>
> The power reference is spot on, not toward Allan specifically but
> tying into the culture of greed being the standard. In game theory it
> is stated two actors knowing the rules and game can mutually act in
> their own self interest against the supposed rules (fairness/truth) by
> both lying and NOT naively accepting the rules as presented by a
> common opponent, I'm sure experienced interrogators have solutions for
> that but I think it reduces the environmental attitudes well. In
> natural selection the game is get what (and when) get can, you align
> with cutthroats because they are survivors, if you want to survive,
> until they get canned, sued, or jailed for their sociopathic
> behaviors. As excess negative entropy begins to dry up the system
> falls apart due to excessive exploitation of basic inputs and the
> situation is exacerbated by highly successful "survivors" exploiting
> the failing system the same as when the gravy train was rolling,
> except now more predatory practices are required. In businesses I
> think bad management gets noted by the legal dept and the board cleans
> house starting with someone upper-management (at least that's what I
> hear), mother nature does it by decimating the population.
>
> Where I think Neil is heading is that the game is rigged (caustic
> ecology) by too many bad players on too many levels. The only option
> seems to be a rebuild from the ground up and that includes
> reassessment of the system, to relieve the weight of oligarchy and
> parasitic actors while rejuvinating everything else that didn't fail.
> But getting back to waste... your average American would go nuts at
> just a vague estimate on that reality, but it does set a goal which we
> could reach by major technological, architectural and sociological
> progress.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:22 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's the extent to which what you say is hidden in a pretence of
> >> rational argument Allan, even from the speaker in some cases.
>
> > You English chaps are sooooo polite.
>
> > dj
>
> >> On Dec 28, 7:02 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I think Neil that a basic beliefs give more than reasonable equality and
> >> > freedom.. you are right it is the factionalism that is really the
> >> > problem.. people wanting to use and control others for what ever
> >> > reason.
> >> > Allan
>
> >> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:14 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > That states the issue more or less as I see it rigsy - though I don't
> >> > > do the Xtian thing as religion. It's more that much could be
> >> > > recovered in religion if we could get away from its factionalisms.
> >> > > What gets to me in economics or any form of social science is we seem
> >> > > to forget we are just (or should be) trying to do our best and are
> >> > > making decisions that affect human beings rather than some culture
> >> > > under glass or whatever. I don't want to leap into faith in theory
> >> > > beyond something that retains realistic hope of reasonable equality
> >> > > and freedom for most people.
> >> > > I don't think religion per se can achieve this, but a better
> >> > > understanding of it might help. One can throw up thought experiments
> >> > > - such as whether the unseen tree exists and so on - but people are
> >> > > inclined to forget these are classroom tricks to get some thinking
> >> > > done rather than assertions trees don't exist unless someone observes
> >> > > them. Economists have forgotten their models are thought
> >> > > experiments. Some of the models rely on such stupid notions of human
> >> > > nature as to be risible. Expecting people to behave rationally seems
> >> > > absurd to me given what we know of ourselves as social animals now.
> >> > > What I've seen in a great deal of academic modelling is more or less
> >> > > similar to what Vam (and others) point out as putting something on
> >> > > paper and arguing as though that is all that should be argued when
> >> > > they have, in fact, destroyed context.
>
> >> > > On Dec 28, 5:21 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > There has always been a natural system of economics at work in the
> >> > > > world but it has been distorted- it's chief ruination has been
> >> > > > mankind- resulting in predators given an abnormal rein, false terms
> >> > > > such as meritocracy, patriotism, the greater good, etc. I suppose it
> >> > > > boils down to greed and disregard for others plus having no moral
> >> > > > foundation to act as a check and balance. One can trace wars back to
> >> > > > greed as well as count the off-shoots such as envy, etc. It has
> >> > > > really
> >> > > > plagued lives and pretty much ruined our American experience with
> >> > > > Democracy. So much for Christ at Christmas! Why not just twist the
> >> > > > greeting to "Merry Merchandise!".
>
> >> > > > On Dec 28, 7:07 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > Hidden at the first level of sceptism above is that most cannot
> >> > > > > reach
> >> > > > > competence even in what we might call the glossary terms of
> >> > > > > economics,
> >> > > > > let lone carry the uncertainty needed for reasonable application.
> >> > > > > The
> >> > > > > subject makes itself into an elite discipline without requiring
> >> > > > > its
> >> > > > > elite to submit to a wider notion of the wider evaluation of its
> >> > > > > effects whether intended or not. The main contender for such
> >> > > > > discipline is secular democracy and the will of the people.Lip
> >> > > > > service
> >> > > > > only is pad to this. What is in play is a false ideology of
> >> > > > > "meritocracy
>
> >> > > > > On Dec 28, 5:16 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > Excellent. Thank you.
>
> >> > > > > > Just waiting for Don's comments.
>
> >> > > > > > On Dec 27, 6:18 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > I used to expect my students to be able to think critically so
> >> > > > > > > as
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > be able to tolerate the ambiguity the models should inspire if
> >> > > > > > > they
> >> > > > > > > are not taken as gospel. I'd expect my better students to be
> >> > > > > > > able
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > do more than liturgy - a bit like the following:
>
> >> > > > > > > Ten Principles of Responsible Economics
>
> >> > > > > > > 1) In theory, rational people think at the margin. In
> >> > > reality, these
> >> > > > > > > people are a fiction that exist only in mathematical models
>
> >> > > > > > > You are not a "rational" actor—not in the economic sense of
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > term.
> >> > > > > > > The newcomer to economics, well-intentioned as she is, surely
> >> > > wants to
> >> > > > > > > be rational in the everyday sense. Having learned from her
> >> > > > > > > textbook
> >> > > > > > > that, without qualification, to be rational is to be a
> >> > > self-interested
> >> > > > > > > utility-maximizer, she learns to emulate such behavior. So
> >> > > > > > > begins
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > process of learning to deprecate non-market values—which are
> >> > > > > > > "irrational," after all—and rely exclusively on self-interest
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > justify and understand action. This naive economism's implicit
> >> > > > > > > justification for selfishness is that acting in one's
> >> > > self-interest at
> >> > > > > > > the margin is "only rational." Inside the fictional world of
> >> > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > economic model, this is tautologically true. Outside of it, we
> >> > > still
> >> > > > > > > call that sociopathic greed.
>
> >> > > > > > > 2) In theory, there is no difference between
> >> > > > > > > self-interest
> >> > > and greed.
> >> > > > > > > In reality, economists aren't typically trained in moral
> >> > > > > > > philosophy
>
> >> > > > > > > Spend enough time studying economics, and you might eventually
> >> > > > > > > feel
> >> > > > > > > greed become empty of meaning. You've learned that acting in
> >> > > > > > > your
> >> > > own
> >> > > > > > > self-interest is not only rational but virtuous—it creates
> >> > > > > > > better
> >> > > > > > > outcomes for everyone—and surmised that greed is perhaps
> >> > > > > > > merely an
> >> > > > > > > expression of envy or an atavism from a benighted age of
> >> > > > > > > religious
> >> > > > > > > taboo. You would be wrong. In the real world, greed exists. As
> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > crude
> >> > > > > > > approximation: acting in your own self-interest just means
> >> > > > > > > "not
> >> > > > > > > shooting yourself in the foot." You can think of greed as
> >> > > > > > > shooting
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > other guy in the foot so you can get away with his wallet.
>
> >> > > > > > > 3) In theory, voluntary trade can make everyone better
> >> > > > > > > off. In
> >> > > > > > > reality, it's often not so voluntary, makes some people better
> >> > > > > > > off
> >> > > > > > > while making others worse off, and empowers the beneficiaries
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > make
> >> > > > > > > sure they get to keep their gains
>
> >> > > > > > > "Free market" reforms generally improve aggregate outcomes
> >> > > > > > > while
> >> > > > > > > increasing inequality, so that poverty increases even as
> >> > > > > > > overall
> >> > > > > > > wealth does. Basic economic analysis treats distribution as a
> >> > > > > > > secondary concern—it assumes that once the market maximizes
> >> > > benefits
> >> > > > > > > in the aggregate, the political system can ensure that they'll
> >> > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > redistributed in an
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário