chimps genetically - to do with the complexity of the Y chromosome and
its influence on sperm production. I tend to hold to such distinction
and its irrelevance to public equality.
I believe, like Vam, that answers can come from more participatory
democracy. I also believe that merely asserting this is no answer at
all. One can too easily imagine Obama or Palin making the statement.
Or some half-assed Bolshevik. Just as allowing people to amass wealth
allows them to amass power, the demos can also be scripted power that
can be as bad. It's a mistake to make this into a 'faith choice'
issue. The usual academic turn at this point is to notions of social
contract.
On Dec 30, 2:54 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a feeling that this character, Vam, has usurped all the space
> that is there... so that no one else may now be allowed entry !
>
> Well, fkrs, there is no limiot to space if you did not know ! So, get
> over that excuse.
>
> Also I might have taken this conversation into an area you might not
> be as comfortable.
> Hell, in that case, have the balls to say so !
> Females may forgive, not because I used the term but because I do not
> know of the term to draw you all in the same order. I hold absolutely
> no distinction between genders, if you would believe.
>
> On Dec 30, 8:36 am, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Indeed, Vam!
>
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Gabby... Hunger everywhere is wrong. There is enough food on this
> > > planet to feed everyone. But the economics has not made it possible.
> > > Even when the law declares...
>
> > > Yes, the Supreme Court here ordered the Govt to distribute excess food
> > > grains in its silos among the hungry ! But the Minister simply said, "
> > > It is not possible."
>
> > > And no one was booked, can ever be booked, for causing hunger !
>
> > > Rigs... Neil is speaking of the same thing... we all are.
> > > ... how to take control of at least the critical aspects of our lives.
>
> > > I wish people here could extend this discussion, in thought and idea,
> > > and... among other things, become more free, more happy, more self -
> > > empowered. So that they end up doing things in that light. Often,
> > > almost always, they do not.
>
> > > I believe Edward is speaking of the same thing... action in the light
> > > of knowledge. Not mere emotions, which economics of the day exploits.
> > > And so is Allan, when he uses his " beliefs " for making decisions.
>
> > > We are all trying to take more control of our lives.
> > > And, bringing it on this platform is BEAUTIFUL.
>
> > > On Dec 30, 1:15 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> If the law is not the law but an ass, it explains why in truth there is no
> > >> one to blame. If the law is the law than you know it is being set up by
> > >> men. The same is true for economics. And you would eventually find someone
> > >> to blame.
>
> > >> As for your seeds metaphor, it is no coincidence that the children's
> > >> interests are not visible in this specific court room or market place. They
> > >> are not to be held accountable for what they cannot oversee yet. There are
> > >> proofs for that, which have been accepted as such.
>
> > >> As for the limitation of science and objectivity, you are right. If one
> > >> could get all peer reviewers from the past, the present and the future
> > >> together in one room discussing each theory properly, then we'd have it! ;)
>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > "... trees don't exist unless someone observes them."
>
> > >> > That's the limitation of science and objectivity. That's why the law
> > >> > is an ass. That's how predatory economics has clear toehold in
> > >> > society. They all get away because there is no crime committed unless
> > >> > one is caught or there are effects to show here and now !
>
> > >> > How is one to establish and measure crimes that are seeded... for
> > >> > which there are no observers, no complaints... for which there are no
> > >> > laws... or for which laws can be extended or interpreted to exclude
> > >> > them !
>
> > >> > The truth is : There trees galore that are invisible now... in the
> > >> > seeds, which will sprout months, years, decades and centuries later !
> > >> > Without admitting this fact, we can never hope to tackle climate
> > >> > issues, environment and sustainability problems. There is no one
> > >> > specific to blame. Much ( e.g. emissions ) is approved and admissible
> > >> > as of now, and is not a crime. And, the effects are invariably long -
> > >> > term, so there are no objective proofs here and now.
>
> > >> > Try presenting theories and results of studies and research in a court
> > >> > of law... and they will either be unconvincing or simply countered
> > >> > with another of the same !
>
> > >> > On Dec 28, 11:14 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário