Is there a contradiction Here?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Tagger

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 ...

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 . . .

[Tagger]

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 ..

[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

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 ..

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?