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 through its animal and alpha culture, it
> > > > > was ( eastern ) religion that declared to man :
>
> > > > > " Do not be too concerned with raising power, great wealth and
> > > > > property. Raise enough to raise great virtues, great human beings,
> > > > > instead. " Humanity failed to heed the advice.
>
> > > > > Cut to the beginnings of modern age, with growth of science and East
> > > > > India Company, the economist declared :
>
> > > > > " Create great wealth. That alone serves to raise your greatness.
> > > > > Therein alone
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário