But isn't improving it, from electoral to participatory, the way
forward ?
It will happen, but not without a war of beliefs and convictions. It's
happening right now in the Indian Parliament, on the matter of
instituting an Ombudsman that directly addresses citizen complaints
against corruption, acts of omission and commission, and against non -
performance and non - delivery of services by the state... against ALL
entrenched powers in politics, biz, bureaucracy and the media !
I am sure more will follow... especially in economics, banking, etc.
On Dec 28, 6:35 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm struck by the lack of thought we give to well known problems with
> democracy, particularly that it is easy for power interests to pervert
> and the role of accumulated money in this.
>
> On Dec 28, 1:07 pm, 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 activity as
> > > > an actual market would be an improvement over the status quo. We can
> > > > think of these people as blowtorch-wielding pyromaniac children
> > > > playing in a barn, but they are not, of course, actually blowtorch-
> > > > wielding pyromaniac children playing in a barn.
>
> > > > 5) In theory, market models assume that the existing distribution of
> > > > wealth is just. In reality, poor people exist
>
> > > > Hiding in plain sight in many marketization proposals is something of
> > > > a dirty little secret: When you apply an idealized market model to the
> > > > messiness of reality, some people, those without enough purchasing
> > > > power to enter the market in the first place, will have to go without
> > > > in the name of efficiency. Famine, thirst, and lack of access to
> > > > education can be effective market solutions.
>
> > > > 6) In theory, people respond to incentives. In reality, different
> > > > people respond differently to different incentives, and not always the
> > > > way you hoped for
>
> > > > "Pay for performance" is sold as "more money for better results" but
> > > > typically results in "gaming the metrics to get that cash money now."
> > > > The people who respond best to monetary incentives are the people who
> > > > value money the most, not necessarily the people who value education
> > > > or innovation or whatever you'd like them to value the most. Such
> > > > incentive schemes also tend to result in sacrificing long-term or
> > > > substantive success in favor of superficial short-term gain.
>
> > > > 7) In theory, governments can sometimes improve market outcomes. In
> > > > reality, sometimes sometimes means often
>
> > > > Real markets are always imperfect and intrinsically tend toward
> > > > monopoly, a market failure. Introductory textbooks make note of such
> > > > market failures, but typically only in a way that makes them seem like
> > > > outliers. They are in fact the norm.
>
> > > > 8) In theory, there's a distinction between "positive" and "normative"
> > > > economics. In reality, the positive is at once fictional and normative
> > > > in effect
>
> > > > Ostensibly, "positive" economics refers to the description of economic
> > > > reality—the "is" questions–while normative economics deals with policy
> > > > prescriptions—the "ought" questions. But in the context of
> > > > neoclassical economics, the only reality we have access to is a set of
> > > > rather crude idealizations—in a sense, we study the reality of a
> > > > fiction—and since studying positive economics clearly has an effect on
> > > > people's behavioral patterns, it is de facto normative.
>
> > > > 9) In theory, models are just aids to reasoning—the map is not the
> > > > territory. In reality, it's just so easy to reify
>
> > > > Many lesser economists have a habit of justifying the strong modeling
> > > > assumptions of economics by claiming they're "generally true" or
> > > > excusing them with a wave of the hand and a "well, there are always
> > > > exceptions, right?" This is a telltale marker of someone who takes his
> > > > models too literally. Properly understood, the toy models of economics
> > > > are tools for organizing thought, testing intuition, and generating
> > > > sets of hypotheses to be tested against data—not objective
> > > > descriptions of reality.
>
> > > > 10) In theory, economics is a science. In reality, economics is a
> > > > science the way Ayn Rand is a literary luminary
>
> > > > To casually label economics a science is at best aspirational, at
> > > > worst manipulative, at a minimum misleading. At the introductory
> > > > level, the issue at stake is less one of methodology than of how
> > > > deferential the layperson or novice should be to the authority of
> > > > expert or policy entrepreneur appeal to economic theory. Skepticism is
> > > > always a virtue. When evaluating claims based on simple economic
> > > > models, it's self-defense.
>
> > > > I would reward such scepticism with good marks - but more importantly
> > > > try to help the unease of the quest of thinking for yourself. There
> > > > is a point at which one needs to understand this form of scepticism is
> > > > not relativism but about openness to and respect for evidence and
> > > > other points of view. Most students can't get this far - and there is
> > > > a long way to go to the kind of informal and defeasible logic that
> > > > justifies the position. The 10 points here are from a US student.
> > > > It's some way after this that an understanding of how much that is not
> > > > fact is maintained as such through religious habituation in thought.
> > > > The big question becomes how we differentiate dogma from reasoned
> > > > action.
>
> > > > On Dec 26, 12:00 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I must confess I am among them that do not know though I know there is a
> > > > > connection between religion and economics,, I have never really been able
> > > > > to express it with clarity.
> > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > So here's something... notwithstanding everything else in the
> > > > > > background.
>
> > > > > > Historically, coming of age
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário