Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Success or greed? (was Re: Supply-side economics)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:47:19 EST
 <1992Sep9.140737.3998@desire.wright.edu> <183466@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <183466@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>>  pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	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.  

	It is value-free to me.  If walking is too far, and I have no car, then
taxi.  (Or bus.)

	If I'm thirsty, get something to drink.

	There are choices that do not involve value decisions.

>>> 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.

	As a group, people can not be said to have moral behaviour.  You can't
say 100 people did X, obviously it was a moral decision.
	Maybe some of them did, and others did not.  But you can't know that. 
To rely on that assumption gets you in the same perdicament as relying on human
behaviour to not get mugged.
	As a group, you can say that people don't go around beating each other
up (whether for moral reasons or because of physical limitations or lack of
desire or...), but there are exceptions that can cost you dearly.
	Similarly, for some people buying food involves moral choices, and for
others it does not.

	Which cola sells the most is an effect caused by people, but it is not
an inherent effect of people's behaviour.  Faced with choice A and B, people
will not always choose A because morals dictate that they will.

>>> |> > 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 don't.  You seem to be assuming that all people accept some kind of
spiritual influence in their lives.  You are, in effect, trying to sell Heaven
(or Hell) to an atheist.

> 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?

	Why have faster/safer/more efficient cars? Isn't what we have *good
enough*?  That's the rub: what is *enough*?

> 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.

	I make no assumptions about what is "right".  That's for society to
decide.  For *me*, an economy that allows everyone who wants a job the
opportunity to get one, or at least have the skills to get one is "right".  And
for me the best way to do that is to have an expanding economy.  One of the
signals of such a beast is an increasing GDP, but it's not a sufficient
condition.
	A moral view?  Not to me.  It's simply a logical view.

>>> 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".

	As long as it is consistent :).

	But as I mentioned earlier, you're trying to sell religion to an
atheist.  I simply do not believe that humans must have/use a moral template to
determine their actions.

>>> 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.

	No, but it does raise some flags.

> I re-phrase the statement to:
> 
> Practiced badly, "economics" gives rise to belief-based politics,
> emotional subjectivism disguised as reason.

	Ok, sure.  But what have I been saying that falls under that
description?

>>	Who said anything about changing rules or power politics?  You're
>>making assumptions.
> 
> 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?

	Not unless that's what people want.  It's not an ego thing, if society
decides that living in grass huts is optimal, fine.  If someone else says the
same thing I am, and gets credit for this great "new" economic theory, fine.  I
don't even say that what I am saying is new.  In fact mostly the opposite.  By
exploring what has worked before, you find common elements and attempt to
implement them again.
	"What works" for me is determined by logic, and not a moral structure. 
Logically slave empires are not feasible.  Morally most people would also
reject the slave empire.  But I'm not looking for moral correctness.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ