Darwin the Economist

[Paul J Gans]

The NYTimes business section today has a book review that deals
with, among other things, Darwin the Economist (sort of). The
article is well worth reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html

(Not recommended for ultra-right wing folks and Tea Party members.)

The review is by Robert H. Frank, a professor of economics at Cornell
and shows an interesting relationship between some of Darwin's ideas
and economics. Frank has written a book called "The Darwin Economy".

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:38:11 +0000, Paul J Gans wrote:

> The NYTimes business section today has a book review that deals with,
> among other things, Darwin the Economist (sort of). The article is well
> worth reading.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html
>
> (Not recommended for ultra-right wing folks and Tea Party members.)

I disagree, strongly. I would *especially* recommend it to them. Not that
they'll like it, but still. Thanks.

<snip>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________
/ If I am elected no one will ever have \
\ to do their laundry again! /
---------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Schenck]

The article notes that Milton Friedman not only approved the idea of
a progressive consumption tax, but that he recommended it specifically
during dubyadubyaII. Friedman is fairly popular in the Tea Party,
which, it should be noted, /is/ a populist party, afterall. Hitting
big spenders might actually resonate with them.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <a3dccd0f-2e10-4796...@z41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

Schenck <schen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The article notes that Milton Friedman not only approved the idea of
>a progressive consumption tax, but that he recommended it specifically
>during dubyadubyaII. Friedman is fairly popular in the Tea Party,
>which, it should be noted, /is/ a populist party, afterall. Hitting
>big spenders might actually resonate with them.

The tea party calls them "job creators" doesn't want them taxed at all.
The tea party only wants to raise the tax on poor people.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[Steven L.]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:j55krj$6r5$1...@reader1.panix.com:

The article is a bunch of baloney.

If anything, the history of life on earth is a powerful argument for a
laissez-faire economy.

Every creature pursues its self-interest.
And that has led to enormous variety and diversity of life on Earth.

It was only external forces like meteorites from outer space that
disrupted that balance.

It's odd that atheistic supporters of the ToE look at life on Earth as
self-balancing and self-creating (no deity needed)--while maintaining
that we need a Deity (in the form of an all-powerful government) to rule
over the interactions between human creatures.

No we don't.

The government should stay the hell out of private economic choice to
the greatest extent possible.

And Obama is still toast.





-- Steven L.

[hersheyh]

On Monday, September 19, 2011 9:37:00 AM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:j55krj$6r5$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> > The NYTimes business section today has a book review that deals
> > with, among other things, Darwin the Economist (sort of). The
> > article is well worth reading.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html
> >
> > (Not recommended for ultra-right wing folks and Tea Party members.)
> >
> > The review is by Robert H. Frank, a professor of economics at Cornell
> > and shows an interesting relationship between some of Darwin's ideas
> > and economics. Frank has written a book called "The Darwin Economy".
>
> The article is a bunch of baloney.
>
> If anything, the history of life on earth is a powerful argument for a
> laissez-faire economy.

An economy where 99% of the participants go extinct.

> Every creature pursues its self-interest.
> And that has led to enormous variety and diversity of life on Earth.

But, as was pointed out, not always in useful ways or even ways that, ultimately, are useful to the winners. Certainly not always in the most efficient or cost-effective ways. Nature works, but one would have to be a fool not to recognize that it is gloriously wasteful and short-sighted. In fact, evolution is not even short-sighted. Evolution is a hind-sighted mechanism and can only adapt the next generation to the environment faced by the past generation. Luckily, many changes occur slowly enough so that such a mechanism works most of the time. It fails when environments change rapidly or becomes degraded from over-exploitation (say, by exponential population growth or depletion of, say, phosphorus).

> It was only external forces like meteorites from outer space that
> disrupted that balance.

Yep. Rapid change.

>
> It's odd that atheistic supporters of the ToE look at life on Earth as
> self-balancing and self-creating (no deity needed)--while maintaining
> that we need a Deity (in the form of an all-powerful government) to rule
> over the interactions between human creatures.
>
> No we don't.

I agree. But, unlike mindless animals who act without forethought and suffer the consequences of their lack of foresight, humans can and do adapt their environments to future problems it can foresee. Or they can blindly pretend the future will be solved by every individual doing what was fine and worked in the past.

>
> The government should stay the hell out of private economic choice to
> the greatest extent possible.

With such an attitude, we would not have had a postal system, modern manufacturing (the earliest U.S. government insisted on building rifles with standardized parts rather than relying on artisnal blacksmiths) the telegraph (Morse was granted a government contract to build the first telegraph wire), much less a railroad system, interstate highway system, the internet, the land-grant universities, the us weather service, agricultural extension, and public schools. Not to say that government always gets it right, of course. But the U.S. government has been integral to the success of businesses in the U.S., including, right from the start, using regulation and monies to encourage U.S. manufacture, and to prevent the problems that arise from monopoly -- despoilation, greed, exploitation.

> And Obama is still toast.
>

Regardless, the anarchist's idea of no government interference in our lives results in Somalia, not Utopia.
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.

[Ernest Major]

In message <kcidnYNLfuQS2OrT...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes

>
>
>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:j55krj$6r5$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
>> The NYTimes business section today has a book review that deals
>> with, among other things, Darwin the Economist (sort of). The
>> article is well worth reading.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html
>>
>> (Not recommended for ultra-right wing folks and Tea Party members.)
>>
>> The review is by Robert H. Frank, a professor of economics at Cornell
>> and shows an interesting relationship between some of Darwin's ideas
>> and economics. Frank has written a book called "The Darwin Economy".
>
>The article is a bunch of baloney.

Regardless of the qualify of the article (I wasn't particularly
impressed), your grounds for rejection are a bunch of baloney.

>
>If anything, the history of life on earth is a powerful argument for a
>laissez-faire economy.
>
>Every creature pursues its self-interest.
>And that has led to enormous variety and diversity of life on Earth.

You're first bad assumption is that evolution produces the best of all
possible worlds. That is not the case - evolution is a meliorising
process, not an optimising process.

You can look at evolutionary game theory. The evolutionarily stable
strategy does not necessarily reduce in the best possible results for
members of the population; it is even possible that the best possible
result under an evolutionarily stable strategy is worse that the worse
possible result under an optimum strategy.

>
>It was only external forces like meteorites from outer space that
>disrupted that balance.

This claim turns out not to be true. The current mass extinction is not
being driven by external forces. And it is generally believed that
others were caused increases biologically generated increases in oxygen
levels.

>
>It's odd that atheistic supporters of the ToE look at life on Earth as
>self-balancing and self-creating (no deity needed)--while maintaining
>that we need a Deity (in the form of an all-powerful government) to
>rule over the interactions between human creatures.
>
>No we don't.

And your second mistake is to ignore that humans are social animals, and
pursue self-interest in co-operation with other humans. And we create
institutions to promote co-operation on scales larger than can be
achieved individually - without them we'd still be hunter-gatherers.
Institutions are good servants and bad masters, so we want to keep a
rein on institutions, but governments ("all-powerful government" is a
strawman; and for that matter "atheistic"[1] is an ad-hominem - and you
had been doing so well at keeping your anti-atheist bigotry under
control) are not uniquely evil.

>
>The government should stay the hell out of private economic choice to
>the greatest extent possible.

That would be contrary to the US constitution; the government has a duty
to promote the general welfare.

>
>And Obama is still toast.
>

Obama has been a disappointment. However which Republican hopefuls do
you endorse as a superior alternatives?

[1] An atheist is defined as someone who disagrees with you, any more
than it is someone who disagrees with Ray Martinez or Tony Pagano.
--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:37:00 +0000, "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:j55krj$6r5$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
>> The NYTimes business section today has a book review that deals
>> with, among other things, Darwin the Economist (sort of). The
>> article is well worth reading.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html
>>
>> (Not recommended for ultra-right wing folks and Tea Party members.)
>>
>> The review is by Robert H. Frank, a professor of economics at Cornell
>> and shows an interesting relationship between some of Darwin's ideas
>> and economics. Frank has written a book called "The Darwin Economy".
>
>The article is a bunch of baloney.
>
>If anything, the history of life on earth is a powerful argument for a
>laissez-faire economy.
>
>Every creature pursues its self-interest.
>And that has led to enormous variety and diversity of life on Earth.
>
>It was only external forces like meteorites from outer space that
>disrupted that balance.

The way I see it, the Cretaceous demonstrates how entrenched
monopolies (dinosaurs) supressed innovative startups (mammals), and it
took an outside agency (meteor) to impose a level playing field
(anti-trust).

Isn't it great how we can see the same history and come up with
totally different meanings?

>It's odd that atheistic supporters of the ToE look at life on Earth as
>self-balancing and self-creating (no deity needed)--while maintaining
>that we need a Deity (in the form of an all-powerful government) to rule
>over the interactions between human creatures.

Not all-powerful, just more powerful than those already in power.

>No we don't.
>
>The government should stay the hell out of private economic choice to
>the greatest extent possible.

That would be no government at all. I didn't know you supported
anarchy.

>And Obama is still toast.

Only if we can hold our collective nose long enough to vote for the
Republican nominee in the general election.

[David Hare-Scott]

I have no dog in the fight as far as Obama goes but your comparison of
evolution and human society suggest that you don't understand either. The
analogy between ecology to a laissez faire economy is particularly weak. A
classic example of ideology trampling all over reality.

David

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:30:34 -0400, jillery wrote:
<snip>

>>The government should stay the hell out of private economic choice to
>>the greatest extent possible.
>
>
> That would be no government at all. I didn't know you supported
> anarchy.

A common misconception. The right-wing opposes government interference
in *their* business, but are usually strong proponents of government
interfering in *other* peoples business, especially any business between
the sheets.

>>And Obama is still toast.

I'll have mine with Filet Americain, please, with pepper and some
onions on the side...

> Only if we can hold our collective nose long enough to vote for the
> Republican nominee in the general election.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________
< ... I see TOILET SEATS ... >
----------------------------
\
\

[Arkalen]

Indeed, one of the most significant advances in evolutionary history has
been an ultra-extreme push into altruism : multicellularity.

Social insects aren't quite that extreme but they're very successful too.

We're even less social than that, but our social nature is an important
part of our evolution and our current success.

Evolution doesn't have an ideology. In some circumstances altruism can
arise, and coordinated groups are often more successful than
individuals, but Evolution doesn't care about the rights of the
individual vs the rights of the group.

We, however, do. Because we're a species that's both social and
individualistic, and finding a way to balance these things both from a
moral standpoint and a pragmatic one is difficult. Understanding
evolution can help with that, by helping us better understand ourselves
and seeing what kinds of systems work in other organisms, but evolution
doesn't in itself offer an answer to the question.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:08:08 +0000 (UTC), Kleuskes & Moos
<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:30:34 -0400, jillery wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>The government should stay the hell out of private economic choice to
>>>the greatest extent possible.
>>
>>
>> That would be no government at all. I didn't know you supported
>> anarchy.
>
>A common misconception. The right-wing opposes government interference
>in *their* business, but are usually strong proponents of government
>interfering in *other* peoples business, especially any business between
>the sheets.

You illustrate a common cognitive disconnect among those who strongly
follow political ideologies, that their slogans don't match their
behavior.