you wish to see in the world." It was a gift from someone who
sometimes understands me more than I do, perhaps due to compassion.
Thanks Allan, funny how some times it seems like time is a weight, it
has always been like that for me.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know there are a lot of problems in the world,, it seems to me the only
> way one can change it is become the person you want the world to be like, I
> know I fail miserabley some times but that is not an excuse..
> Allan
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:15 AM, James Lynch <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Fair. The hazy relationship between rhetoric and motives seem clearest
>> to the studious observer of behavior, the speaker or listener can be
>> assumed compromised- thus, the colorful process of discussion. :)) The
>> universality of the warning is appealing, be vigilant of the speaker,
>> listener, and bystander regardless of which position you are standing!
>> It applies to all at all times I think.
>>
>> The power reference is spot on, not toward Allan specifically but
>> tying into the culture of greed being the standard. In game theory it
>> is stated two actors knowing the rules and game can mutually act in
>> their own self interest against the supposed rules (fairness/truth) by
>> both lying and NOT naively accepting the rules as presented by a
>> common opponent, I'm sure experienced interrogators have solutions for
>> that but I think it reduces the environmental attitudes well. In
>> natural selection the game is get what (and when) get can, you align
>> with cutthroats because they are survivors, if you want to survive,
>> until they get canned, sued, or jailed for their sociopathic
>> behaviors. As excess negative entropy begins to dry up the system
>> falls apart due to excessive exploitation of basic inputs and the
>> situation is exacerbated by highly successful "survivors" exploiting
>> the failing system the same as when the gravy train was rolling,
>> except now more predatory practices are required. In businesses I
>> think bad management gets noted by the legal dept and the board cleans
>> house starting with someone upper-management (at least that's what I
>> hear), mother nature does it by decimating the population.
>>
>> Where I think Neil is heading is that the game is rigged (caustic
>> ecology) by too many bad players on too many levels. The only option
>> seems to be a rebuild from the ground up and that includes
>> reassessment of the system, to relieve the weight of oligarchy and
>> parasitic actors while rejuvinating everything else that didn't fail.
>> But getting back to waste... your average American would go nuts at
>> just a vague estimate on that reality, but it does set a goal which we
>> could reach by major technological, architectural and sociological
>> progress.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Don Johnson <dajohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:22 PM, archytas <nwterry@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
>> >> > > > > > > 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
>> >> >
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > read more »
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>
>
>
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário