From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Success or greed? (was Re: Supply-side economics)
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:34:21 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

>
>  pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> |> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>> |> ...
>> |> > Honesty and clarity. Economics is deeply connected to morality, and it
>> |> 
>> |> 	No, it is not.
>> |> 
>> |> 	Economic justifications, however, frequently are.
>> 
>> Economics, is the science of measured aggregate and individual valuing
>> behaviors made by humans.  
>
>	That's not what I learned in my Econ. classes :).
>
>> Valuing is an essential human expression.  Each
>> person has a private value system or morality.  Watching money, we can
>> essentially create a real valued function which allows us to measure one
>> aspect of human behavior -- valuing or morality.  In this sense, economics
>> is the science of human morality.
>
>	Economics *can* incorporate human values.  However, it doesn't
>necessarily *have* to.
>
>	Taking a cab doesn't involve any moral imperatives for me.

It involves making a choice.  You could walk, but maybe you VALUE your
time.  You could drive, but it might be hard to park (TIME VALUE), and it
might be expensive to park.  What choice you make is determined by your
values, what you give and what you get in return.  The INCOME of the
cabbie, reflects your decision.  It would be mindless, if there were no
alternatives.  This is rarely the case.

I call "morality" one's private value system.  

>
>> Self-described "value-free" scientists have a tendency to forget that human
>> behavior is the underlying driving force in all economic expression,
micro or
>> macro. 
>
>	Human behaviour can be a considerable driving force.  But then again,
>it might not be.  It is a considerable force in tax revenues, but pretty much
>is absent from calculations on debt to equity ratios or bond yields.
>
>	There are effects caused by people, and effects inherent in the
>behaviour of people, but the two are not the same.

I'll give you a chance to explain the difference between effects caused by
people and effects inherent in their behaviors.  Maybe you differentiate
between intended and unintended consequences.

>
>> |> > is either disingenuous of simply mistaken to claim that one's economic
>> |> > program is based on scientific principles alone. Even if economics were
>> |> 
>> |> 	Not if your program is merely to make the economy grow, and not to
>> |> reward a certain sector.
>> |>
>>  
>> Growth economics -- i.e. making the economy grow -- IS a morality.
>
>	*Which* one?  The morality of being fruitful?  That's like saying
>growing old is a morality or wanting to live instead of die.  Do trees make a
>moral choice in growing?
>

I'm glad you used the tree analogy, it cuts right to the heart of what I'm
trying to communicate and what you appear not to be hearing.  I don't think
that trees choose growth.  I think trees express treehood, and one
natural symptom of treehood is growth.  I agree with you that it's
completely normal for humans to grow.  The state of normal in humanhood is
associated with growth.  Now Brett, here's the 64 million dollar question:
does this mean that they get taller?  Do their feet get bigger?  How 'bout
their teeth -- do they get sharper?  What does it mean for a human being to
be "growing".  Have you ever heard of psychological growth.  Intellectual
growth?  Maturity?  Peace?  How 'bout Maslow -- ever hear of the pyramid of
ascending values?  I don't know that Maslow got it exactly right, but the
concept seems appropriate.  Ask older people about getting the high-paying
job, or the BMW.  Why do you assume that individual human CONSUMPTION 
will increase linearly as an expression of individual human growth?

I assume that the steadily increasing but oscillating GDP curve IS the
right expression of the natural growth associated with normal human
economics.  If the flower loses its scent, I don't think that it's no
longer a flower.  Why such concern over a quarter or two of DECREASING GDP?
And why the relentless equation between humanity and economics?
Have you perhaps wrongly made the assumption that a linear monotone
increasing GDP curve is the "right" curve.

>> Its practice in this country elevates it to being a full blown ideology, if
>> not a world-view or religion.  A neutral person wouldn't give a shit what
>> the economy did.  Someone who is emotionally and intellectually attached to
>> a particular economic outcome --e.g. growth -- is obviously not (morally)
>> neutral.
>
>	Why would a neutral person not give a shit about the economy?  How the
>economy goes pretty much has an affect on everyone.  Would a neutral person
>ignore traffic signals?

...about what the economy DOES.  How it expresses itself -- GDP up or down.
By definition of neutrality.  "The economy" effects no-one.  Each effects
the economy, which, in aggregate, is a global expression.  Humans cause
economic expressions.  I care very much about humans.  As long as humans
are OK I don't give a shit about GDP.  I think that a neutral person that
wanted to risk death would ignore traffic signals. :)  My "neutral" person
would not judge the goodness of the signal by its color.  He also probably
wouldn't care if red were "stop" or "go".

>
>> At its worst, "economics" is belief-based politics, religious secularism 
>> disguised as science. 
>
>	Ahhh, yet another "secular humanism is a religion".  I should have
>known.
>

I consider a religion to comprehend or incorporate a "world-view".  To the
extent that "secular humanism" participates in this, I would equate them.
However, I will withdraw the word "religion" from the table, since you find
it offensive and seem to automatically close your mind to it.

I re-phrase the statement to:

Practiced badly, "economics" gives rise to belief-based politics,
emotional subjectivism disguised as reason.
>
>	Who said anything about changing rules or power politics?  You're
>making assumptions.
>
>Brett                                                      
>

The implementation of economics is politics.  Politics is for all practical
purposes, power politics.  Are you saying that you don't wish to actually
"implement" growth policies?

Paul Collacchi