On Dec 29, 5:07 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> lol- think of the money you are saving from trotting off to some
> shrink to weedle some self-esteem!
>
> On Dec 29, 11:43 am, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I appreciate cordiality as much as the next guy. I wasn't complaining, just
> > comenting. Also, deceiving oneself is cathartic. All I have to do is shave
> > and comb my hair to think I look pretty damn good looking my bathroom
> > mirror. It's a self-esteem booster.
>
> > dj
>
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Don does this mean you do not like our afternoon tea?
>
> > > I *don't mind it when people vent their frustration and an*ger but we
> > > are among friends, because I am irritated by the corruption within politics
> > > and the Bankster segment of society does that mean I have to rude to
> > > people who like me and I count among my friends?
>
> > > Or is being polite an irritant when you want to be angry? Why most of the
> > > time you are very polite.
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:04 AM, 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 equitable way. But as we've been
> > >>> learning all
> > >>> > > too
> > >>> > > > > > > well, with greater wealth comes greater control over the
> > >>> political
> > >>> > > > > > > system.
>
> > >>> > > > > > > 4) In theory, markets are usually a good way to organize
> > >>> > > economic
> > >>> > > > > > > activity. In reality, "markets in everything" has a way of
> > >>> sliding
> > >>> > > > > > > into "everything into markets"
>
> > >>> > > > > > > There's a difference between thinking about a real-world
> > >>> > > interaction
> > >>> > > > > > > as if it were a market—market analysis—and transforming that
> > >>> real
> > >>> > > > > > > interaction into an actual market—marketization. The latter
> > >>> is a
> > >>> > > > > > > natural seduction once you've gained some facility with the
> > >>> former,
> > >>> > > > > > > and some people seem to reflexively think organizing any
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correction: "wheedling"- weedle is for a lazy gardener...
Assinar:
Postar comentários (Atom)
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário