Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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
|
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.