I appreciate cordiality as much as the next guy. I wasn't complaining, just comenting. Also, deceiving oneself is cathartic. All I have to do is shave and comb my hair to think I look pretty damn good looking my bathroom mirror. It's a self-esteem booster.
dj
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
Don does this mean you do not like our afternoon tea?I don't mind it when people vent their frustration and anger but we are among friends, because I am irritated by the corruption within politics and the Bankster segment of society does that mean I have to rude to people who like me and I count among my friends?Or is being polite an irritant when you want to be angry? Why most of the time you are very polite.Allan
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:04 AM, 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 AllanLife is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário