Is there a contradiction Here?

[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.

[detbuch]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Joe]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Joe

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.

[detbuch]

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.

[Tagger]

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 ?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Tagger

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 ?

Let's see. Chrysler needed money, borrowed it, payed it back. Chrysler needs money again, massive amount this time, gets a loan again . . . Sounds like the good old Capitalistic system at work. Business needs capital, bank lends it . . . Oh . . .BANK DOESN'T LEND IT . . . because Chrysler is not credit worthy . . . GOVERNMENT LOANS IT . . . Capitalism????

I suppose if things don't go "well?" the LOAN will be a GIFT and Chrysler will fold as it should if it hasn't learned how to compete. Competition is a key element of Evolution. Competing, winning, losing, integrating, going in new directions, transforming, becoming new, better, and so on.

If it goes well, then maybe the banks are stupid for not seizing the opportunity to make a profit by lending the bick bucks to Chrysler. Maybe the banks, if they're that stupid, should fold. The Government can be our bank. Would that be a subtle way to nationalize the banks?

[Tagger]

Yea ,, The bank has its hand out too ..

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Tagger

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 ?

Also, The 1979 Chrysler bail-out was not a Government loan. Chrysler was forced by the Gov. to get loans from commercial creditors which would be guaranteed by the Federal Government. And the creditors were forced by the "Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act of 1979" to make concessions as well--Chrysler was able to pay off more than $600 million of the 1.5 billion in loans at 30 cents on the dollar. Also, Chrysler was allowed to convert nearly $700 million of debts into a special class of preferred stock that payed no dividends and were unredeemable for several years. Despite the loan guarantees, Chrysler still reduced its work force by 50%, which many at the time, including some Dems, complained was as large a number or larger than if the company was forced into bankruptcy. And many at the time were saying that we all "became involuntary and uncompensated partner in a company whose future is still in doubt." So 30 years later Chrysler's future is still in doubt and it is asking for 10 times or more dollars DIRECTLY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.