Is there a contradiction Here?
 

If the left is against Intelligent Design and for Evolution, why is it against evolutionary (Darwinian) economics? If Capitalism is evolutionary economics, is UNBRIDLED Capitalism unbridled evolution? Can evolution be bridled? Can it fit into a planned economy? Can it fit into the grand, intelligent design of a massive stimulus plan?

because they believe as we evolve, we get dumber and need them to take care of us.

Apples and oranges. good come back Jim... :D

I like pithy answers. Yours was so brief that it went over my uninformed head. Could you please educate me about the apples and oranges differences?

I also like Jim's comback. I hope it implied that the "them" who we need to take care of us also get dumber as they evolve--the dumb taking care of the dumber.

Darwinian economics shares a name and 'survival of the fittest' mentality as Darwinian evolution, I wasn't disputing that. Comparing the debate between ID and evolution with the do nothing vs stimulus debate seemed like a very odd connection to make, to me. Thats why I felt it was apples and oranges.

I see what you mean. But I'm still perplexed by the fear of the very process that brought us to this point (avoided the phrase "created us"). It seems we keep trying to rein that proccess in. And all our efforts seem more like bombardments on the tissue of what we are at any given evolutionary moment, from which point evolution just busts out in new and unexpected directions, often worse than where it was going before we tried to fix it. As we keep tinkering at its edges, trying to make it nicer, more equitably habitable for everybody and everything (e. g. saving all species and cultures from extinction, keeping the temperature at the same minute range forever) are we trying to stop the process? That's what seems contradictory to me. Is the Stimulus Package an attempt to stimulate Capitalism or an attempt to check it? Or is it an attempt to further evolve into Socialism? Doing nothing is a misnomer. Doing nothing is more evolutionary than "stimulating" the economy. The market evolves and corrects. "Stimulating," especially with several permanent wealth transfer programs, at the least, interferes with market evolution, at most, it transforms it into something else, perhaps better, usually worse. And, to me, the worse would be an attempt to keep creeping toward Utopia--that grand, intelligent design.

I'm quite surprised that RIROCKHOUND didn't proclaim your argument invalid because of it's circular nature.

He really hates circular arguments you know.

-spence

I proclaimed it illogical. Apples and oranges is a science tech term for that, didn't you know :D

Darwinian econ. not only shares the name but is an economic theory BASED on Darwinian Evolution. It answers the problem of Neo-Classical Economics nicely by using the evolutionary process and explains why government planning such as the Stimulus Bill are actually a hinderance to market evolution. Throughout some discussions of evolutionary economics versus planned or regulated economies, the concept of Intelligent Design IS actually compared to regulation and government planning. The connection is not that odd to those who mull these issues. Which is why I didn't understand your apples and oranges comment. I didn't want to bring up the debate between ID and Evolution, I just wondered why left leaning politicians who claim to espouse Evolution eschew it when it comes to economics and revert to what more closely resembles Intelligent Design, the nemesis.

There is a certain circularity when you contradict yourself. If you continually say one thing and do another, your hypocrisy can tend to circle around your persona like a noose around your neck.

DET;
Spence is baiting me. he has a long standing place here as being an ass :D It's about the third time he's posted the RIRockhound hates circular logic threads...
but since he is a friend, and happens to originate from Iowa, we end up giving him enough %$%$%$%$ about his fishing that it is all even...

There's an aphorism I've heard that I like to use called "apples and oranges".

Since when do left leaning politicians believe that the basis from our economic system was created by a God?

If anything they'd believe it's a product of Man and has been synthesized by Man. Perhaps those on the far left would believe if it's a product of Man then there is an intrinsic higher power in the form of the village. But even they would still consider the system a tool for the survival of the village (like a grist mill) made by and for Man, rather than a seemly innocous element (like a stream or dust-bunny) which plays a critical part in the grand scheme.

-spence

Left leaning politicians generally, rather than believing our economic system was created by God, play god when they try to "fix it." Which is why I'm asking if there is a contradiction here. Our economic system is, purportedly, Capitalism. And they, purportedly, "believe?" in Evolution (mandate that it be taught in schools, not ID). Capitalism is an evolved "system." And it continues to evolve. Capitalism IS Evolutionary Economics. And there IS a fairly new term being bruited about in economic disscussions--Intelligent Design Economics. Granted, it's a spinoff from the ID/Evolution debate. It's a, perhaps snide, way to refer to planned or regulated economies. IT'S NOT MY TERM. I'M NOT COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES. There has been for a long time a debate between planned and evolutionary economic systems. The planned ones come and go, the evolutionary ones continue to evolve, usually with interruptions by planners. Darwinian economics and Darwinian evolution are not just related by the name. The economic process is just a part of the whole evolutionary process. So, if you're a legislator all stoked up by evolution, why don't you have the balls to let it work? Why would you pass the greatest planned, anti-capitalist bill in American history?

BTW, Evolution, and Evolutionary Economics, is not just that predatory sounding "survival of the fittest." Evolutionary Economics, when it works (evolves) in its best, most efficient way, does so for the good of ALL in the "village."

Like your suit!

And here is the issue. ALL politicians, regardless of idiology or party, play God in respect to trying to "fix" the system.

The Right - denies they're manipulating the system because it violates their beliefs, but they know it's necessary to keep the economy running so they have no choice.

The Left - goes out of their way to proclaim how they're manipulating the system for the good of us all, but they know that taken too far it's not sustainable in the end.

Hence reality, and a well functioning society is ultimately owned by the Middle. The irony is that the Middle has no real power or authority.

It's a Zegna 15milmil15 double breasted, peak lapel, Prince of Wales check. I took the photos for my mother who wanted to see some recent pictures of me. Funny though, I've never had the suit tailored and have been trying to sell it online. Retail is about $2700 and I scored a sweet deal. That being said I don't have enough opportunities aside from weddings and to really wear it. And like all of us, I could use the cash.

-spence

[B]THE [B] pre-requisite for the political class is some degree (for some, too much) of a lust for power. Not only does power corrupt . . . etc. it provides that opportunity to have a god-like control. Republicans, no less. But the right is now irrelevant. So talking about them would either be about revenge, or sour grapes, or maybe a fading afterglow. What we, in the middle, have at hand, is scary. The middle has had the power of the vote. But that is years away, and the middle seems to have tipped ever more to the left so the God-like power may not be checked by the vote for a while. Meanwhile, we in the middle have had an even GREATER power--the MARKET. It has been our diversity of desires and needs to which the Market responds and evolves that has made US Godlike (in a pantheistic way) in the evolutionary Capitalistic system which we have enjoyed. We have been the Titans whom the Olympians are about to defeat. Though, both the right and left may like to play God, at least the right prefers to do it in the Arena of Capitalism. At least more so than the left, though George Bush may have put a dent in that faith. Rahm Emanuel said that a crisis should not be wasted--use it to pass what the middle wouldn't let you do in better times. And its massive victory may have provided the left-wing thrust against capitalism a mighty blow. Mighty enough to capture that permanent 51% and growing populace who will be dependent on it. We in the middle may become, rather than the engine of evolutionary economic forces, a bound Prometheus waiting, hopefully, to be released.

Been a long time since I've had need of a suit. Like most fine things, I admire from a distance.

You should see Spences Brioni waders.

"Economics of Stealing" lesson on 60 Minutes this Sunday
 

Courtesy of Whitmans own Harry Markopoulis whose extensive interview will be seen on the show Sunday night. I was talking with Harry a couple of days ago, and he said that he had to go to the SEC offices in N.Y.C. the other day. The SEC head of that was waiting for him in the lobby of the building to tear him a new backside until he saw the 60 mintues crew with him. Then the underachiever took off like the wuss he is.

Harry was there to give the SEC two more validatated Ponzi schemes he and his employees documented. Two more are coming out next week on top of the two he turned in the other day.

Did you know that the banks we are bailing out banks (Bank of America, for one) that have been hiding money in off-shore banks that they created just so the banks can avoid paying taxes for themselves and thier rich clients? Our new treasury secretary, Mr. Geitner, was asked at a Boston Financial Club meeting a couple of years ago about the Bank of America having/owning an off-shore bank where they hid this money, and Geitners response, as he was the key-note speaker, was that they don't have any accounts or own any banks like that because the blow to the banks reputation would cripple them. That was a few years ago. So having Geitner as Sec. of the Treasury is just more of the same at the worse possible time. He is also the person who had charge of overseeing the flow of bundled mortgages money while working at the SEC. And he doesn't pay his own taxes as we all know. So this guy seems to be complicit in the original crime and coverup, the newly discovered crimes and quite possbly the subsequent coverup, so how is this going to benefit us, the people who always paid our taxes. We are being screwed three-times over on this. I wonder exactly what he has been watching the past several years. Probably his own bottom line.

Nah, just Simms...but don't worry, everything is always color coordinated.

I do have a few Brioni dress shirts. Nice, but the cut isn't the best for me. I don't think I could afford a Brioni suit even at massive discount.

We're talking over 4K retail.

-spence

Evolutionary economics .. Let nature takes its course ? Unfortunately Unbridled economics can never work due to human nature of robbing , stealing , lieing , skimming , nepitism, greed . That sounds harsh but true. The stimulus is just a correction for all the massive corruption . In a perfect world it would not be neccessary .. Doing nothing would make the poor pay for the above mentioned rich peoples crimes .. Its like fishing .. When the marine bioligist talk Biomass and effects of commercial fishing .. Then a mention of bi catch .. They say quotas alot .. Nobody ever puts a number on Poaching ..Like everything is on the up and up ,when we all know it isn't .. Your economic theories are good and should work if everyone is honest .. how's those apples .. flame on ...

Perhaps the most well reasoned post in the thread :claps:

-spence

Nature will always take its course. The biggest lie is that you can replace it with abstract theory. We keep recreating Frankenstein. Evolution is misunderstood. It is NOT merely survival of the fittest. Nothing survives alone. Evolution is the constant interaction of everything. The total interaction is constantly evolving anew. The processs is amoral. Evolution as theory is merely an attempt to describe the process. Economy in its broadest sense is "the functional arrangement of elements within a structure or system." Those elements that cooperate in a symbiotic way are most likely to survive, evolving all along when interacting with new elements. Rogue elements pose a threat because they are unable to integrate. Though they disrupt, they do not survive. The robbing, stealing, lying . . . are survival tactics that disalow integration and contribute to the evolutionary process by giving cooperating elements opportunities to evolve defensive and offensive methods. In our small human portion of the natural order, the robbing, stealing, lying . . . will occur NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM WE CHOOSE TO ABIDE, nor what BILL WE PASS. If they are inherent in human nature, you can bet there is plenty of robbing, stealing, lying goin on in that there stimulus. Evolutionary Economics is simply what happens when diverse people learn how to function together in a profitable way, to "be fruitful and multiply." It is a bottom-up process. What retards it is top-down pressure to act in prescribed ways. The "experts" cannot know how to coordinate the infinite variables in a community of 300,000,000 people. At best, Government can provide the "infrastructure" for the process to evolve less painfully. At worst, it can put road blocks in the way of evolving toward that "more perfect union." If the Stimulus was an honest piece of work it would tend only to infrastructure stuff and not be full of the permanent Government DEPENDENCE crap that will ony "stimulate" more votes by the needy in the future. Whew . . . lemme get outta here before I burn up or choke on the smoke . . . a nice juicy apple might help . . .

Stimulus ,, I'm sure there are great minds plotting to get at that money .. How about the portion of the Stimulus to save the banks . Is that ok ? or let nature take its course there too ..

There's a lot of mixing in your interpretation of evolution as it applies to biology and economics. It's apples and oranges, or two separate disciplines, whichever you prefer. Government, democracy, regulation, economy, law, justice - what are they if not the manifestation of abstract theory?

Even free market purists - who are at odds with the Obama Administration on most issues - agree that we should have done and continue to what we can to keep our banking system from being nationalized. The Obama Administration does not want to nationalize the banks. If we had applied the principles of evolutionary economics to the banking crisis, most economists believe we'd have a socialized banking system. Instead, we have a 36% stake in Citigroup - there's a big difference there.

I've been getting a barrage of offers from the five banks that I've dealt with to loan me up to the max of my credit line. Been getting those offers before the "crisis" and during it. I'm not wealthy, just have good credit. And the rates they offer me are very attractive. They have been consistently ranging from as low as 2.99% fixed before the "crash" to 4.99% for a year after it. If they need saving, where are they getting the money to loan to me?

Actually, in evolutionary process, biology and economics are not two separate disciplines. As I have been trying to explain, not too successfuly, Evolution is not a discipline. It is a description. It attempts to describe how things work, not impose how they should. Thought, to an evolutionist, is not separate from biology. It is a result of the evolutionary process. And it to evolves as different people with diverse thoughts comingle and compete. Abstract theories derive from observing concrete interaction. They are, to a great extent hindsight, in nature, with the hope of predicting the future, or controlling it. So far, most theories have, eventually proved to be either wrong or in need of fixing. You would not APPLY evolutionary economics to the banking crisis. You would try mightily not to interfere. Ergo, evolutionary economics would not nationalize the banks. So now we have another 36% encroachment toward Socialism. I'm getting the drift that it's OK with y'all.

By this description I'd assert that pure evolutionary economics has also proven to be wrong or in need of fixing, due to the biological existentialist nature of man. As a result we have laws and regulation without which there would either be no trade or tremendous inequality.

A bigger stake in Citi isn't a 36% encroachment towards socialism, it's a brief cycle of elevated Government activity intended to keep the economy from listing too far. Our Government, regardless of leadership has operated within bounds on a spectrum agreed to by the American people. At times these bounds are tested and if necessary the course corrected.

By your own rationale evolutionary economics is a method to model behavior rather than impose policy. If that's the case why would you proclaim it's logic should be used as a justification for policy to avoid Government interferance?

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

-spence

I wrote that economics and biology were disciplines, not economics and evolution.

Propping up banks in the short term and then evaluating them as to their degree of solvency makes better sense than allowing solvent banks to become a casualty of widespread panic.

If the banks fail, the government has to step in as the nation cannot function without a banking system. A partial government stake in a bank is small step toward socialism, nationalizing the banking system is a giant step. There's no piece of the sh_t pie we've baked that tastes good, but given a choice I'd like a small piece, please.

In the first sentence of my reply I said that economics and biology were not separate disciplines to an evolutionist. Then went on about evolution, taking it to be understood that any discussion of evolution applied to evolutionary economics.

As for the sh_t pie, I'd rather pass on it, fire the cook and hire a new one.

Indeed, like all "theories" evolutionary economics may prove to be wrong. But not yet. So--to my original Q--is it a contradiction to espouse Evolution while denying ID, but then revert to massive top-down designed economic policies not evolutionary ones? Please don't say apples and oranges again after all my flaming attempts to show that biological evolution and evolutionary economics are part of the SAME process . . . I beg of you . . . pleaase pretty please . . . it would SO hurt my head. As far as I know, economic evolution is a result of and in turn a PROMOTER of trade, and the only things that ever STOPPED or LIMITED trade were laws and regulations. And, quite often, if not usually, tremendous inequality HAS existed between major trade partners.

A bigger stake in Citi, in GM, in Chrysler, even more than before in the "welfare" (i.e. control of) the populace, in the banking industry, in mandates to the states receiving money that will have to be continued by the states after money is spent . . . nooo . . . that's not encroaching towards Socialism. Just temporary. Nice try.

Your next to last paragraph took time to understand. Am not sure I fully grasp it yet. I don't know what I've said to even imply that economic evolution is a method to "model behavior." I have painstakingly tried to explain that it is a RESULT of behavior--the constant interaction of a population resulting in ever-changing behaviours--cultural, generational, social, economic, political, on and on. What is the difference, anyway, between modeling behavior and imposing policy? It seems that imposing policy models behavior. What you encourage you get more of. What you discourage you get less of. Tax policy is especially good for that. Tax at higher and higher rates commodities like cigarettess, gasoline, porn, etc. and you can gradually discourage their use, right? (Gee, wonder why that might not apply to taxing people above $75,000 at higher rates. Maybe we want to reduce that number too? Too many "rich" folk around here. Not fair. Oh, but if we get rid of them, then the rest of us would have to pay . . .darn.)

Gosh, when we have to JUSTIFY policy to avoid government interference, I'd say Socialism has its hand close to our b___s and is ready to squeeeeze.

All that money to bail out Chrysler the last time was all paid back . Are the bail outs of the Auto Industry loans ? Gifts ? .. How much of the Stimulus will we recoup later if things go well ? Or is it all gifts ?