the USA- rightfully so- but it got me thinking how much of our lives/
realities are out of our control whether we are talking about
politics, legal system, medicine, privacy and so on. Really, I feel
our reliance on technology is both progressive and regressive. What
monarch ever had such spies? And unfortunately, humanity still moves
in a herd-like fashion.
On Dec 29, 4:33 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For some people beliefs are not a pretense for me it is the foundation and
> guidelines I use to make decisions. Also to form newer ideas and concepts.
>
> Now that does not mean I accept everything different religions try
> despartly to convince you as truth. When people try to convince me that
> fantasy stories carry deep spiritual meaning, I can listen politely
> hoping they may actually havsometing interesting to say.. but that
> doesn't mean I believe them
>
> Each person must follow their beliefs no matter what they are based off of.
> On occasion people will say something I personally find of great value.
> The mystical pearl of great price.
> Allan
> On Dec 28, 2011 8:22 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.
>
> > 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
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário