"In complex thinking we"have to ask what the theory-in-action will be
and how this will be evaluated."
When one Sees, it is very difficult to explain to one who doesn't see,
what they have seen. That's natural Law. Still, I love trying! So,
here I go again. ..lol.
First, to the later part of the statement, Archylas. Individuals will
be self evaluated. They WILL get to this point through a certain
Knowledge that will open up an awareness. By the changes that this
awareness creates, (some physical) will a man (person) be KNOWN.
For example: Let's just say that you had a mule that you wanted to
sell and I wanted to buy it. You told me what you wanted for it; so we
arrange for me to pick him up. When we meet, we load the animal and I
hand to you a small bag. We bid each other fair-well and I leave.
There's no need for me to examine the mule, I know exactly what I got.
You don't have need to look in the bag, you will know the quality of
it's contents. Insurance is included, as in reason. We tend to worry
about the wrong things when we try to find ways to cause such life.
Ascension, one could say, is a process that Is Rule, among other
things. If this wasn't so we could set the requirements and/or
standards. But we don't.
Where's the need for a judge, policeman to take one to him, or a
politician to set any rules? It is the experience of Awareness that
can only be arrived at through a certain KNOWLEDGE. There is no other
way. Moses didn't give this Knowledge to the public. Yeshua spoke it
in Parables to all but his chosen few. And they were all deceased
within 70 years of his departure, and what they had written was cast
to the side, burned, labeled, and forbidden. Solomon did share written
Knowledge with his son, but that they kept, HIDE, and control everyone
else with. But they don't know what the beetle represent, so they have
run out of Oil. They can"t stand in the light, though. That's not a
vampire line, by the way. Light means Truth.
Edward
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:15 PM, gabbydott <gabbydott@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 <atewari2007@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
>> > > > > > 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
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > read more »
>
>
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário