Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe
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.
|
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.