Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Complex argument

Indeed, Vam!

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Vam <atewari2007@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
>> > > > > > > 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
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »