Do economics and morals have anything in common?
Immortalist
what we are told, but it is a fallacy. Every product is made up of
only three things: First, there are raw materials such as oil,
plastics, steel, rubber, glass, paper, and wood. Second, there is
knowledge, the know-how to build a sports car, a computer, or a mobile
phone from all this plastic, steel, rubber, and glass. Third, there is
the set of conditions that enable a company to bring together the raw
materials and knowledge. These production conditions-that is, laws,
regulations, and a country's unwritten traditions-make up the real
difference.
The Asian and Western countries buy resources from the same dealers,
at similar prices. The know-how mostly comes from the Western
countries, whether legally or illegally. The key difference, though,
is the values of each country.
The third component consists of more than just a worker's salary. It
includes not only Western values such as the worker's benefits, coffee
breaks, separate bathrooms for men and women, holiday pay, sick pay,
overtime pay, a Christmas bonus, unemployment insurance, and pension
benefits, but also the health and safety regulations that protect the
workers. Western values also include the protection of the
environment, clean air, clean water, and proper housing, as well as
the way children are treated: as children, not as working slaves.
Children are sent to school, not down a coal mine. These values, which
are documented thousands of times over in collective wage agreements,
company agreements, laws, company regulations, and, to some extent,
international treaties, are what make the difference in today's world
economy.
The Chinese have no significant natural resources today. They haven't
invented anything meaningful since gunpowder and paper money long ago.
Their rise is not technology driven. They owe their rise to clever
politicians, an astonishing feat of strength by ordinary people, and a
generous underbidding of Western standards. It would be nice if this
were polemics, but it is nothing but the truth. The Chinese ignore
Western intellectual property rights and they forbid independent trade
unions. Their biggest advantage at present is an endless supply of
very cheap labor and a political system that undermines Western
regulations. They pay only low costs for environmental protection,
they pay nearly nothing for a pension system, and they have very poor
standards of health and safety in the workplace. They are willing to
do everything for less. So, economics and morals are strongly
connected, but in a different way than many of us thought.
Today we can buy a washing machine made by Whirlpool, General
Electric, or Miele that includes a piece of the welfare state. Or we
can buy a Chinese brand that comes directly from the Yangtze Delta and
has no built-in social welfare costs. If we order a car that comes
with the whole social package, it will be made by Ford in Detroit and
cost an additional $1,600. It would be cheaper to buy a car from the
Hyundai dealer next door. In doing so we reduce our cost of buying a
car, but that lower price comes at the cost of our own well-being. We
pay less, but we lose more. The real cost of buying a cheaper, Asian-
made car is more than just the sticker price. We pay less in the shop,
but the economy as a whole suffers, and in the end even the individual
pays an additional price.
We paid less for the car, but the tax bill goes up. In fact, for years
the American form of increasing taxes has been to eliminate services.
The bill for an import boom that is not offset by an export boom comes
in two parts, only on of which is paid at the cash register. There is
a relationship between the rising import penetration and the
increasing national deficit, as well as between Middle America's love
of cheap foreign products and the collapse of the bridge over the
Mississippi in Minneapolis. While the consumers create wealth abroad,
the government budgets at home are written mostly in red ink.
The War for Wealth: The True Story of
Globalization, or Why the Flat World
is Broken by Gabor Steingart
http://www.amazon.com/War-Wealth-Story-Globalization-Broken/dp/0071545964
bigfl...@gmail.com
> Economics and morals have nothing in common.
No need for the usual elaboration. Economics is the catalyst for
developing moral fortitude.
BOfL
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Feb 5, 10:43 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Economics and morals have nothing in common.
>
Liberalism and morals have nothing in common.
> No need for the usual elaboration. Economics is the catalyst for
> developing moral fortitude.
>
> BOfL
>
--
*Anarcissie*
> Economics and morals have nothing in common. This statement is often
> what we are told, but it is a fallacy....
Morals are about values, and economics is about values.
tooly
wrote:
I highly disagree. Economics is called the dismal science because it
ratifies most jungle law...ie the 'natural dynamics of competition'
that results in the greatest economic efficiency [and minimized lost
resource]. Whatever moral protections the west has installed in it's
systems are purely humanitarian in scope and mostly against good
economic theory. There might be some rational argument where morale
and productivity are connected.
There is the area of 'public goods and bads' however. These are
driven more by pragmatic need than 'moral value' however. I think
there has been a campaign however to create a moral equivalency toward
our environment in our schools.
Arindam Banerjee
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hkg6kf$885$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Morals are about rightness, and economics is about worth.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
M Purcell
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hkg6kf$885$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> > Immortalist quoted:
>
> >> Economics and morals have nothing in common. This statement is often
> >> what we are told, but it is a fallacy....
>
> > Morals are about values, and economics is about values.
>
> Morals are about rightness, and economics is about worth.
Both depend on what we value but I doubt numeric values can be
assigned in morality.
Rod Speed
> Immortalist quoted
Different values, stupid.
Rod Speed
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Economics and morals have nothing in common.
>> No need for the usual elaboration. Economics is the catalyst for developing moral fortitude.
> I highly disagree. Economics is called the dismal
> science because it ratifies most jungle law...
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science
> ie the 'natural dynamics of competition' that results in the
> greatest economic efficiency [and minimized lost resource].
> Whatever moral protections the west has installed
> in it's systems are purely humanitarian in scope
Utterly mangled all over again.
> and mostly against good economic theory.
In spades. Most obviously with the provisions against insider trading etc.
> There might be some rational argument where morale and productivity are connected.
Morale aint morals, stupid.
> There is the area of 'public goods and bads' however. These
> are driven more by pragmatic need than 'moral value' however.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> I think there has been a campaign however to create
> a moral equivalency toward our environment in our schools.
Utterly mangled all over again.
Zerkon
> Economics and morals have nothing in common. This statement is often
> what we are told, but it is a fallacy. Every product is made up of only
> three things:
If morality then every product is made of two things only: work and the
social consequences of that work. If morality all transient aspects
should be cut away to find what is consistent and independent of all
specific economic systems.
Work is or 'gives' purpose, life and meaning to the individual and the
society. Salary and money come way after these and neither can be
perfectly equated since they are wide (if not 'wild') variables.
> The Chinese have no significant natural resources today.
> They haven't invented anything meaningful since gunpowder and paper
> money long ago. Their rise is not technology driven.
Taking these absurdities as is, it seems this guy does not really 'get'
what is happening. The brave new industrial hierarchy is burning out. The
older world, China and India as two examples, are reinventing themselves
outside the Rome to England Western models of dominance which was
essentially built on cheap labor and imperial warfare. The US is still a
child of England here. The US lost it's dominate position with advent of
the transistor. Most of what he has said about China was said about Japan
not too long ago.
The word 'meaningful' is the culture clash. Does technology constitute
the essence of meaning or is meaning found in something else? In fact it
is in something else according to base American orthodoxy.
Shrikeback
It's like a pun or something.
Anarcissie
<89910418-ac1b-41f7...@k2g2000pro.google
groups.com>,
M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
It's not hard to assign numbers to morals at least in
some cases. One can use money. Pose a series of
choices between a moral response to some situation, and
a immoral one, which differ in monetary cost or reward.
This is reflected in a famous but sexist joke whose
punch line is "We have already agreed what you are;
we're just arguing about the price."
Anarcissie
<4571c482-4f76-4eb1...@k5g2000pra.google
groups.com>,
Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're in good company! Your view lacks Rod's
blunt, succinct, mainstream-is-God simplicity,
however. Fortunately he and his tavern are in
Australia, where they belong. (Or if they're not,
they should be.)
But I think you all may be wrong. As I recall
there was some enthusiasm a few years ago for
examining seemingly non-economic behaviors using the
framework and sometimes tools of economics. For
instance, someone wrote a paper showing that, for a
destitute female desiring to have children, it is most
advantageous to have them as young as possible. This
explained "babies having babies", the phenomenon of
destitute teen-age girls becoming mothers in
apparently great numbers, so reprehensible to the
middle and upper classes. The young women were
responding rationally to their circumstances, as an
economic analysis reveals.
Certain political groups liked this analysis quite a
bit because it seemed to suggest that the way to
reduce such behaviors was to punish them, that is, not
give the mothers more Welfare if they had more
children. This somewhat oversimplified the issue.
Again, it is not hard to see economics at work: we
have saving money by not giving it to the poor,
the gratification derived from punishing the poor for
being poor, and the comfort of oversimplifying
a problem and thus not having to think about it
much, all of which must have seemed to some
well worth whatever costs were involved in
maintaining things as they were.
So it seems a quasi-economic analysis can also be
applied to moral issues. Indeed, it is a wonder the
angels of economics have not rushed in to fill the
analytical vacuum.
Rod Speed
> M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote
>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote
>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Immortalist quoted
>>>>> Economics and morals have nothing in common. This
>>>>> statement is often what we are told, but it is a fallacy....
>>>> Morals are about values, and economics is about values.
>>> Morals are about rightness, and economics is about worth.
>> Both depend on what we value but I doubt numeric values can be assigned in morality.
> It's not hard to assign numbers to morals at least in some cases.
Corse it is. And its only stupid bean counters that are stupid enough to even try doing that.
> One can use money.
Like hell you can on any real moral issue.
> Pose a series of choices between a moral response to some situation,
> and a immoral one, which differ in monetary cost or reward.
All that is doing is wanking with a calculator, not assigning meaningful numbers to morals.
> This is reflected in a famous but sexist joke whose punch line is "We
> have already agreed what you are; we're just arguing about the price."
Like hell it is. Thats not morals, thats just judgements.
Rod Speed
> Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>> Economics and morals have nothing in common. This
>>>> statement is often what we are told, but it is a fallacy....
>>> Morals are about values, and economics is about values.
>> It's like a pun or something.
> You're in good company! Your view lacks Rod's blunt,
> succinct, mainstream-is-God simplicity, however.
> Fortunately he and his tavern are in Australia, where
> they belong. (Or if they're not, they should be.)
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> But I think you all may be wrong.
Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of rational thought.
> As I recall there was some enthusiasm a few years ago
> for examining seemingly non-economic behaviors using
> the framework and sometimes tools of economics.
Only by fools/academic wankers.
> For instance, someone wrote a paper showing that,
> for a destitute female desiring to have children, it is
> most advantageous to have them as young as possible.
And only fools like you actually bought that shit.
> This explained "babies having babies", the phenomenon
> of destitute teen-age girls becoming mothers in
> apparently great numbers, so reprehensible to the
> middle and upper classes. The young women were
> responding rationally to their circumstances, as an
> economic analysis reveals.
Like hell it did. ALL that is happening with those is stupid cows
fucking without any thought to the consequences of that fucking.
> Certain political groups liked this analysis quite a bit
> because it seemed to suggest that the way to reduce
> such behaviors was to punish them, that is, not give
> the mothers more Welfare if they had more children.
Trouble with that line is that hardly anyone
is prepared to let the kids starve etc.
> This somewhat oversimplified the issue.
Just a tad.
> Again, it is not hard to see economics at work: we
> have saving money by not giving it to the poor, the
> gratification derived from punishing the poor
> for being poor,
The poor arent being punished and they arent being penalised
for being poor either, they are being penalised for having kids
and expecting the welfare system to pay for them.
> and the comfort of oversimplifying a problem
Thats all that stupids can ever do, they dont have anything
viable between their ears to grasp complexity with.
> and thus not having to think about it much, all of which
> must have seemed to some well worth whatever
> costs were involved in maintaining things as they were.
Another academic wank.
> So it seems a quasi-economic analysis can also be applied to moral issues.
Only to fools.
> Indeed, it is a wonder the angels of economics
No such animal.
> have not rushed in to fill the analytical vacuum.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie wrote
>
> > Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote
tooly
> tooly wrote
>
> > <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>> Economics and morals have nothing in common.
> >> No need for the usual elaboration. Economics is the catalyst for developing moral fortitude.
> > I highly disagree. Economics is called the dismal
> > science because it ratifies most jungle law...
>
>
> > ie the 'natural dynamics of competition' that results in the
> > greatest economic efficiency [and minimized lost resource].
> > Whatever moral protections the west has installed
> > in it's systems are purely humanitarian in scope
>
> Utterly mangled all over again.
>
> > and mostly against good economic theory.
>
> In spades. Most obviously with the provisions against insider trading etc.
>
> > There might be some rational argument where morale and productivity are connected.
>
> Morale aint morals, stupid.
>
> > There is the area of 'public goods and bads' however. These
> > are driven more by pragmatic need than 'moral value' however.
>
> Utterly mangled all over again.
>
> > I think there has been a campaign however to create
> > a moral equivalency toward our environment in our schools.
>
> Utterly mangled all over again.
I stand by all this...and try to ignore Rod Speed's troll positioning
here on the NG's.
""The controversies on Malthus and the 'Population Principle',
'Preventative Check' and so forth, with which the public ear has been
deafened for a long while, are indeed sufficiently mournful. Dreary,
stolid, dismal, without hope for this world or the next, is all that
of the preventative check and the denial of the preventative check.""
We devise humanitarian principle with which to justify a better world
and civilization being an essential escape from 'jungle law'...but
economic reality and the identities it rests upon, often undermine
those principles for sake of 'efficiency'. Humanitarianism...say
something so simple as minimum wages for example...runs directly
against RATIONAL resource management and must always be balanced as an
expenditure we can 'tolerate' [why welfare states can only work to a
point before it becomes too inefficient and economic loss is too
great]. Historical orgins of language are good to know, but it is
even more valuable to know the contemporary and popular usage as any
'lingo' has evolved to become.
Rod Speed
>> Nope.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science
>> Morale aint morals, stupid.
You can stand on your head for all the difference it ever makes.
> and try to ignore Rod Speed's troll positioning here on the NG's.
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> ""The controversies on Malthus and the 'Population Principle',
> 'Preventative Check' and so forth, with which the public ear has been
> deafened for a long while, are indeed sufficiently mournful. Dreary,
> stolid, dismal, without hope for this world or the next, is all that
> of the preventative check and the denial of the preventative check.""
> We devise humanitarian principle with which to justify a better
> world and civilization being an essential escape from 'jungle law'...
Utterly mangled all over again.
> but economic reality and the identities it rests upon,
> often undermine those principles for sake of 'efficiency'.
And you get to like that or lump it.
> Humanitarianism...say something so simple as minimum wages for example...
Thats not humanitarianism.
> runs directly against RATIONAL resource management
Utterly mangled all over again.
> and must always be balanced as an expenditure we can
> 'tolerate' [why welfare states can only work to a point before
> it becomes too inefficient and economic loss is too great].
Utterly mangled all over again.
Scandinavia does fine economically with a hell
of a lot more welfare than the US has ever had.
> Historical orgins of language are good to know, but it
> is even more valuable to know the contemporary and
> popular usage as any 'lingo' has evolved to become.
Yes, but irrelevant to your original shit.
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's put it this way. If you are an ecnomic advisor to a policymaker
[say the prez], your job is to refrain from all 'moralism' and justify
your conclusions purely from an economic point of view. Just as a
lawyer is taught to refrain from normative thinking to eshew bias and
his ability to represent 'only' the law for his client, the economist
is like in kind, taught to 'only' consider the economic impact sans
any human value that it might intersect.
Economically speaking, it might be 'better' to kick old people, no
longer productive, out of the teepee into the winter snow to save the
resources they take up for sake of the tribe's survival etc. It is
not the economist's job to have an opinion if this 'right' or
'wrong'...but only if it 'efficient'. As far as trying to connect
'moral value and worth' as some connectivity to economic value and
worth, the latter is purely based in market behavior. The associatve
stretch gets weak and vague in logic from there IMHO, to relate market
behavior to depict how humans 'value' things from a moral view.
Rod Speed
> tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>> Nope.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science
>>> Morale aint morals, stupid.
> Let's put it this way.
Didnt help.
> If you are an ecnomic advisor to a policymaker [say the prez],
> your job is to refrain from all 'moralism' and justify your
> conclusions purely from an economic point of view.
Yes.
> Just as a lawyer is taught to refrain from normative thinking
> to eshew bias and his ability to represent 'only' the law for his
> client, the economist is like in kind, taught to 'only' consider the
> economic impact sans any human value that it might intersect.
Irrelevant to what the policy maker has to consider.
> Economically speaking, it might be 'better' to kick old people, no
> longer productive, out of the teepee into the winter snow to save
> the resources they take up for sake of the tribe's survival etc.
Yes, but any policy maker that matters knows that thats electorally unsellable.
And even the economist realises that even during a great depression, things arent that desperate either.
> It is not the economist's job to have an opinion
> if this 'right' or 'wrong'...but only if it 'efficient'.
Wrong again. Any economist that has a clue realises what is politically feasible.
Its just a tad unlikely that any prez will buy a policy that involves gassing
the surplus and unemployable kids of the dregs of society for example
even tho that would certainly be an efficient way to deal with them.
> As far as trying to connect 'moral value and worth' as some connectivity
> to economic value and worth, the latter is purely based in market behavior.
Like hell it is.
> The associatve stretch gets weak and vague in logic from there IMHO,
Its always been that, regardless of your hairy opinions.
> to relate market behavior to depict how humans 'value' things from a moral view.
And that is a complete wank.
Anarcissie
> ...
> Let's put it this way. If you are an ecnomic advisor to a policymaker
> [say the prez], your job is to refrain from all 'moralism' and justify
> your conclusions purely from an economic point of view. Just as a
> lawyer is taught to refrain from normative thinking to eshew bias and
> his ability to represent 'only' the law for his client, the economist
> is like in kind, taught to 'only' consider the economic impact sans
> any human value that it might intersect.
> Economically speaking, it might be 'better' to kick old people, no
> longer productive, out of the teepee into the winter snow to save the
> resources they take up for sake of the tribe's survival etc. It is
> not the economist's job to have an opinion if this 'right' or
> 'wrong'...but only if it 'efficient'. As far as trying to connect
> 'moral value and worth' as some connectivity to economic value and
> worth, the latter is purely based in market behavior. The associatve
> stretch gets weak and vague in logic from there IMHO, to relate market
> behavior to depict how humans 'value' things from a moral view.
The economist can't escape from moral choices in
the way you describe. Morals are values: some actions
are better, more preferable, than others. If, for
instance, you decide to kick old people out in the
snow, you have weighed the value of maintaining the
old people in the balance with whatever it costs to
maintain them and found them wanting. The decision
might have gone the other way.
Economics is not a separate universe. It is a way of
looking at things, a method of analysis. If it is
applied to practical matters then it can't possibly
escape moral inputs and outputs -- except of course for
nihilists, who get off the hook because they don't
acknowledge any external moral framework.
If you want to attach numbers to moral values, as I
mentioned previously, it is not hard to do: find out
how much people will pay for the difference between a
moral act or situation and an immoral act or situation.
This number might vary a lot in an individual, but so
does the amount he's willing to pay for potatoes. Over
a large population one might come up with surprisingly
stable figures.
Rod Speed
> tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> Let's put it this way. If you are an ecnomic advisor to a
>> policymaker [say the prez], your job is to refrain from all
>> 'moralism' and justify your conclusions purely from an economic
>> point of view. Just as a lawyer is taught to refrain from normative
>> thinking to eshew bias and his ability to represent 'only' the law
>> for his client, the economist is like in kind, taught to 'only'
>> consider the economic impact sans any human value that it might
>> intersect.
>> Economically speaking, it might be 'better' to kick old people, no
>> longer productive, out of the teepee into the winter snow to save the
>> resources they take up for sake of the tribe's survival etc. It is
>> not the economist's job to have an opinion if this 'right' or
>> 'wrong'...but only if it 'efficient'. As far as trying to connect
>> 'moral value and worth' as some connectivity to economic value and
>> worth, the latter is purely based in market behavior. The associatve
>> stretch gets weak and vague in logic from there IMHO, to relate
>> market behavior to depict how humans 'value' things from a moral view.
> The economist can't escape from moral choices in the way you describe.
Yes, or more strictly the policy makers cant.
Economists are never that, just advisors to the real policy makers at most.
> Morals are values:
Yes.
> some actions are better, more preferable, than others.
Yes, but that aint morals, thats choices.
> If, for instance, you decide to kick old people out in
> the snow, you have weighed the value of maintaining
> the old people in the balance with whatever it costs
> to maintain them and found them wanting.
Yes, but that aint morals, again, that is choices and
the rationale behind the various choices available.
> The decision might have gone the other way.
Yes, just like with any choice.
> Economics is not a separate universe.
Yes, but that does not mean economics has anything in common with morals.
> It is a way of looking at things, a method of analysis.
Yes, and morals isnt.
> If it is applied to practical matters then it can't
> possibly escape moral inputs and outputs
Yes, but thats just the environment that economics has to allow for.
> -- except of course for nihilists, who get off the hook because
> they don't acknowledge any external moral framework.
Even that is arguable, they just have a different moral framework.
> If you want to attach numbers to moral values,
Not even possible.
> as I mentioned previously, it is not hard to do:
Wrong, as always. It is indeed impossible to attach a value to a human life etc.
> find out how much people will pay for the difference between
> a moral act or situation and an immoral act or situation.
Not even possible to do that with that choice of kicking the geriatrics
out in the snow when they have passed their useby date.
Or even with what it costs to get a premature birth
to survive, or even the lifetime cost of doing that
compared with just shrugging and letting it die etc.
> This number might vary a lot in an individual, but so
> does the amount he's willing to pay for potatoes.
Irrelevant to whether that is putting a value on morals.
> Over a large population one might come up with surprisingly stable figures.
Not a chance, most obviously with the value of a human life.
Life is quite cheap in war, valued more highly in peace time etc.
Arindam Banerjee
"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:89910418-ac1b-41f7...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 9:32 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hkg6kf$885$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> > Immortalist quoted:
>
> >> Economics and morals have nothing in common. This statement is often
> >> what we are told, but it is a fallacy....
>
> > Morals are about values, and economics is about values.
>
> Morals are about rightness, and economics is about worth.
Both depend on what we value
AB: How relativistic! The values of a criminal and the values of the saint
are there no doubt, and they are different.
but I doubt numeric values can be
assigned in morality.
AB: The numeric value of ten comes to mind.
*Anarcissie*
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
Ha ha. I've explained how moral conflicts can be
evaluated economically, indeed, financially.
Arindam Banerjee
AB: So long as we first of all agree that money equates to worth: you may in
some particular case relate a moral conflict as resulting from perceptions
of real or unreal worth.
obBook: Kautilya (or Chanakya's) Arthashastra. Artha loosely means wealth
or money; but in the deeper sense it means meaning or worth.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> Economics and morals have nothing in common. This statement is often
> > > >> what we are told, but it is a fallacy....
>
> > > > Morals are about values, and economics is about values.
>
> > > Morals are about rightness, and economics is about worth.
>
> > Both depend on what we value
>
> > AB: How relativistic! The values of a criminal and the values of the saint
> > are there no doubt, and they are different.
>
> > but I doubt numeric values can be
> > assigned in morality.
>
> > AB: The numeric value of ten comes to mind.
>
> Ha ha. I've explained how moral conflicts can be
> evaluated economically, indeed, financially.
>
> AB: So long as we first of all agree that money equates to worth: you may in
> some particular case relate a moral conflict as resulting from perceptions
> of real or unreal worth.
>
> obBook: Kautilya (or Chanakya's) Arthashastra. Artha loosely means wealth
> or money; but in the deeper sense it means meaning or worth.
One way of measuring values when they seem to be
incommensurable is to set them in precedence order.
Money does not equate to worth, but a particular sum
of money may equate to a particular moral value. For
instance, you may think it is morally valuable to give
help to Haitian earthquake victims and may think you
know of a reliable method for doing so. In that case,
the amount of money you give is equal to your
evaluation of the Haitians' moral claim on you.
No doubt some moral (or other) values may not be
subject to this method. Perhaps you would not take
a billion dollars for one of your children, indeed, one
of your dogs or even one of your house plants. But
a good many of them, like one's moral obligation to
the Haitians, can be evaluated down to the penny.
Of course this penny itself has a different value for
each person, because, at least for working-class
people in the short term, money is strongly related
to labor, and the costs and rewards of labor vary
from one person to the next. But, if we want to,
we can account for that by using simple
statistical methods on sufficiently large populations.
We could take the amount of money donated to
Haiti and divide it by the number of Americans who
have independent access to money and come up
with some kind of average moral evaluation of the
Haitian claims on Americans.
The idea that morals and economics exist in
separate hermetically sealed realms is
absurd. Economics is about the production and
distribution of value. Morals, morality, are a
set of values. If the latter have no connection
with the former, than either the economics are
imaginary or the morals are imaginary.
Bappa
>
> - Show quoted text -
As I said, one cannot argue with a value-breathing relativist if one
is an absolutist.
*Anarcissie*
Relativism, unless it is relatively relative, is
absolutely paradoxical.
Rod Speed
Nope, because what you actually give is also determined
by how much disposable money you have available as well.
> No doubt some moral (or other) values may not be
> subject to this method. Perhaps you would not take
> a billion dollars for one of your children, indeed, one
> of your dogs or even one of your house plants. But
> a good many of them, like one's moral obligation to
> the Haitians, can be evaluated down to the penny.
Like hell they can. Even when you have plenty of
disposable money, how much you actually give is
never that precisely determined and all you ever
do is pluck some round number out of the air etc.
> Of course this penny itself has a different value for each
> person, because, at least for working-class people in
> the short term, money is strongly related to labor,
Only in your pathetic little academic fantasyland.
> and the costs and rewards of labor vary from one person to the next.
A hell of a lot of the time they dont.
> But, if we want to, we can account for that by using simple
> statistical methods on sufficiently large populations.
Only in your pathetic little academic fantasyland.
> We could take the amount of money donated to
> Haiti and divide it by the number of Americans who
> have independent access to money and come up
> with some kind of average moral evaluation of the
> Haitian claims on Americans.
Only in your pathetic little academic fantasyland.
> The idea that morals and economics exist in
> separate hermetically sealed realms is absurd.
So is your shit above in spades.
> Economics is about the production and distribution of value.
Only in your pathetic little academic fantasyland.
> Morals, morality, are a set of values.
Different meanings of that word, stupid.
> If the latter have no connection with the former, than either
> the economics are imaginary or the morals are imaginary.
Only in your pathetic little academic fantasyland.
Les Cargill
>
> The idea that morals and economics exist in
> separate hermetically sealed realms is
> absurd. Economics is about the production and
> distribution of value. Morals, morality, are a
> set of values. If the latter have no connection
> with the former, than either the economics are
> imaginary or the morals are imaginary.
>
The stance you decry is idealism. It's the source of
a lot of trouble in the world.
Things get a lot better when we can measure things
and feed the measurements back. You can't measure
what the liar* in your head tells you.
*our brains are designed to make up data when it's missing.
It's very evolutionarily useful, but it gets in the way
some times.
Thom Hartmann was on CSPAN last night. He was involved in
a conference to "free Tibet".
The ... micurating contest between the Tibetans and the Chinese
began with a misunderstanding over the meaning of a politically
charged wedding.
The Tibetans thought it was a trading agreement.
The Chinese thought it was a "merger". This happened a *long*
time ago.
In play was the idea of an embargo of China to
put pressure on the Chinese. The Dalai Lama asked
"would this cause anyone to be harmed?"
The principal proponent said "yes, people would die."
The Dalai Lama then said "It's not worth it. If one child
died, then it would all be in vain."
There is a remarkable level of quantification in that. Note
the use of the word "one".
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human." -
Robert H. Heinlein.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
>
> As I said, one cannot argue with a value-breathing relativist if one
> is an absolutist.
Maybe the problem is college (and I mean this quite seriously) - when
you get to doing differential equations, you tend to throw the constants
away.
This is similarly reflected in dealing with chaotic systems - you tend
to accept the existing state, and analyze based on perturbation. Seems
much like the same thing.
I really like the phrase "value-breathing relativist". I think
the whole idea of chosen values being some sort of eigenvector
for someone living in an alternate universe appalling.
--
Les Cargill
*Anarcissie*
I like it too, but I don't know what it means. Can you explain,
or is it poetry -- as in "A poem should not mean, but be"?
Les Cargill
No. What the F use would a teabgging sumbitch have for poetry?
Poetry is personal.
Here is a sample:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
--Rudyard Kipling
--
Les cargill
Les Cargill
No. What the F use would a teabgging sumbitch have for poetry?
Bappa
Nothing paradoxical about opportunism or accident, the relativist's
domain.
Bappa
> Bappa wrote:
>
> > As I said, one cannot argue with a value-breathing relativist if one
> > is an absolutist.
>
> Maybe the problem is college (and I mean this quite seriously) - when
> you get to doing differential equations, you tend to throw the constants
> away.
Not if you study engineering, as I did. And so apply the solutions to
practical purposes.
> This is similarly reflected in dealing with chaotic systems - you tend
> to accept the existing state, and analyze based on perturbation.
That is one way, of course. Very useful, to find out the
sensitivities for prioritization.
However, that is a rather dumb method. And slow, in the old days.
Better for efficiency and accuracy it is to find the closed-form
equations, the solutions to the differential equations that is. As
you probably know, they did a lot of that prior to computer number-
crunching.
.
Seems
> much like the same thing.
If you mean that the relativist finds a solution blindly, and the
absolutist bases his solution upon irrefutable absolute criteria.
Irrefutable means based upon acknowledged facts and sound logic.
> I really like the phrase "value-breathing relativist". I think
> the whole idea of chosen values being some sort of eigenvector
> for someone living in an alternate universe appalling.
I fully agree. The absolutist does not always have the answers but he
knows what he cannot know. To strive for the best results in terms of
truth, goodness and beauty is the principle for the high-minded
absolutist. This is opposed to condoning or justifying all differing
and subjective positions, with a view to equating them on the
relativist plane.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
Arindam Banerjee
They screwed the ancient Indian civilisation thoroughly.
The invincible Bhishma (Devavrata) conquered them, as he wanted their
princess Gandhari to marry the blind prince Dhritarashtra, his nephew.
The brothers and father of Gandhari objected. For they knew what Gandhari
would do, in that case.
To get their permission, Bhishma imprisoned and starved them all to death
save one. Shakuni.
Shakuni's mission was to destroy the enemy, the arrogant Indians who had
done this to them.
Gandhari covered her eyes with a blindfold, to share her husband's fate.
They had a hundred sons and a daughter, and the sons all perished in the
battle of Kurukshetra. They had not been brought up too well by their blind
mother, who could not notice their faults. The battle was artfully fomented
by Shakuni, using his skill with the dice.
India has not recovered from that battle, to this day.
It does not pay to mess with Afghans.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
Note: I said all this very long ago, in usenet, when the Bushling was
intending to invade Afghanistan. Naturally, no one listened. Dunno what
lesson on economics we can learn from this, save that that war did not help
the economy, society, polity, etc.
"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4B70E9B...@comcast.net...
*Anarcissie*
Those a relatively relative; it is when the relativist
approaches the absolute that he gets in trouble.
*Anarcissie*
Indeed, a relativist might have many problems in
Afghanistan.
Michael Price
Everybody has problems in Afghanistan. The solution is generally to
leave.
Rod Speed
The Talibums didnt except when the US showed up.
> The solution is generally to leave.
The british lost every single individual bar one, quite literally, when they tried that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War#Destruction_of_Elphinstone.27s_army
*Anarcissie*
The U.S. has helicopters, though, which they put to
good use when they got tired of Saigon one day.
Rod Speed
>>>> Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> Anarcissie wrote
>>>>> Here is a sample:
>>>>> --Rudyard Kipling
Yes, I didnt say that the same thing would happen to the US today, I JUST rubbed
his nose in the fact that leaving was not the solution for the british that time.
Arindam Banerjee
AB: Indeed, if he cannot find some opportunistic way out. Which he usually
does. Like talking irrelevancies, making accusations, whining loudly,
agitating for the heck of it, depending upon the other parties' good nature,
etc.
Les Cargill
> On Feb 9, 2:08 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Bappa wrote:
>>
>>> As I said, one cannot argue with a value-breathing relativist if one
>>> is an absolutist.
>> Maybe the problem is college (and I mean this quite seriously) - when
>> you get to doing differential equations, you tend to throw the constants
>> away.
>
> Not if you study engineering, as I did. And so apply the solutions to
> practical purposes.
>
Yes, but what minority actually does that? There's actually a
rant from one of the Car talk guys - who has a PhD in MechE from MIT -
and he realized he's never actually used calculus.
If you're doing certain kinds of electronics, *maybe*. Of if you're
an economist - although those are just models, and the constants may be
fungible, too.
I know the physics guys throw constants away all the time.
>> This is similarly reflected in dealing with chaotic systems - you tend
>> to accept the existing state, and analyze based on perturbation.
>
> That is one way, of course. Very useful, to find out the
> sensitivities for prioritization.
>
> However, that is a rather dumb method. And slow, in the old days.
> Better for efficiency and accuracy it is to find the closed-form
> equations,
If you can develop them. I work in software, and sometimes it's the
only way. There *should* be "differential equations" for software, but
the economics don't support it well.
> the solutions to the differential equations that is. As
> you probably know, they did a lot of that prior to computer number-
> crunching.
>
Yessir.
> .
>
> Seems
>> much like the same thing.
>
> If you mean that the relativist finds a solution blindly, and the
> absolutist bases his solution upon irrefutable absolute criteria.
> Irrefutable means based upon acknowledged facts and sound logic.
>
No, I'm just trying to find an example which maps roughly to
relativism vs. absolutism.
>> I really like the phrase "value-breathing relativist". I think
>> the whole idea of chosen values being some sort of eigenvector
>> for someone living in an alternate universe appalling.
>
> I fully agree. The absolutist does not always have the answers but he
> knows what he cannot know.
I think we mostly switch between modes.
> To strive for the best results in terms of
> truth, goodness and beauty is the principle for the high-minded
> absolutist. This is opposed to condoning or justifying all differing
> and subjective positions, with a view to equating them on the
> relativist plane.
Well, I think a lot of the relativist stuff is nothing more
than error. I think it's *literally* making a shibboleth of
"relativity" into something it should not be.
But SFA culture goes, we're advancing rapidly on the front of
history and archeology.
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
--
Les Cargill
Arindam Banerjee
> Bappa wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2:08 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Bappa wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I said, one cannot argue with a value-breathing relativist if one
>>>> is an absolutist.
>>> Maybe the problem is college (and I mean this quite seriously) - when
>>> you get to doing differential equations, you tend to throw the constants
>>> away.
>>
>> Not if you study engineering, as I did. And so apply the solutions to
>> practical purposes.
>>
>
> Yes, but what minority actually does that?
You stike a very raw wound here, friend Cargill.
In all practical situations involving not just companies, but nations, the
minority involved numerically equates to just one.
The poor devil of the researcher-developer-tester, working on paper,
computers, test sites, and finally coming up with the magic drawing that
makes billions.
And after the drawing is released, no one in mnagement at any rate cares a
hoot about the theories involved.
The poor devil is sacked, and the bastards rule by and after sucking his
blood.
Such is life.
> There's actually a
> rant from one of the Car talk guys - who has a PhD in MechE from MIT -
> and he realized he's never actually used calculus.
And to think, the MIT Radiation Lab Research Reports were much more than the
Bible to us poor devils in the thirdworld, trying hard to get a clue of how
antennas really work!
No wonder the US has gone down so much.
> If you're doing certain kinds of electronics, *maybe*.
It is like this. 99% engineers read the specs in the manuals, and order the
parts, put them together and test them. They don't have to work hard to
develop anything from scratch, improve the basics of the stuff they are
putting together, etc. But to make something that does not exist work to
specs, or modify it to work better, calls for deep knowledge. And that puts
you in the minority of one. For very few people who have degrees have a
clue as to what calculas really is all about - they just pass somehow.
Still less are there people who know how to put calculas to use in practical
situations. Really, if you think about it, most formulas that are now
hardwired practically in say excel result from the equations from the
solutions of first and second order differential equations. When the
solutions are there, all you need to do is to put in the parameters, then
why should you know anything about how they were obtained? Such curiosity
is not welcome; in fact, the whole educational system is against people
getting smart. Like, when I explained how the Geometric Progression formula
(used blindly, the derivation was not there in the textbook) to my daughter,
she was very impressed. How neat, how cool! They are really trying their
best to make children as dumb as possible. The result is, there is
absolutely no real talent around, just hardworking copiers and fakes.
Terrible. Just look at young people like Rudd or Obama who have power -
they have no basic knowledge of anything, for entire generations have been
educated badly. They do not know how to think for themselves. They have no
capacity for original thought - they can use their cleverness by quoting
some good lines from here and there. Such a wide scale mental atrophy is
the direct result of anti-Neitzsche ideology! We must all be sensitive
anti-heroes, though that won't stop us from gobbling up the planet!
Of if you're
> an economist - although those are just models, and the constants may be
> fungible, too.
Don't talk about economists, please! Talking of models, my work on queuing
theory prompted me to convert my super account to cash before the great fall
of shares, and so I saved myself a lot of grief! Made a bit, actually.
Heh-heh, all that fundamental stuff I was talking about did help after all.
Comparing rates of rise, with the response function of a complex system
about to crash, gave some clue to me.
I do have a very niftly software that plots a lot of nonlinear charts on an
excel sheet. Used that to predict call centre performances, when I was
working for Telstra. Worked well for me, at any rate.
> I know the physics guys throw constants away all the time.
Physicists, economists, politicians, CEOs, supermodels, pop stars... what
use they have for constants? They are all immoral or at best amoral
relativists.
>>> This is similarly reflected in dealing with chaotic systems - you tend
>>> to accept the existing state, and analyze based on perturbation.
>>
>> That is one way, of course. Very useful, to find out the
>> sensitivities for prioritization.
>>
>> However, that is a rather dumb method. And slow, in the old days.
>> Better for efficiency and accuracy it is to find the closed-form
>> equations,
>
> If you can develop them. I work in software, and sometimes it's the
> only way. There *should* be "differential equations" for software, but
> the economics don't support it well.
>
>> the solutions to the differential equations that is. As
>> you probably know, they did a lot of that prior to computer number-
>> crunching.
>>
>
> Yessir.
>
>> .
>>
>> Seems
>>> much like the same thing.
>>
>> If you mean that the relativist finds a solution blindly, and the
>> absolutist bases his solution upon irrefutable absolute criteria.
>> Irrefutable means based upon acknowledged facts and sound logic.
>>
>
> No, I'm just trying to find an example which maps roughly to
> relativism vs. absolutism.
There are so many, mate. Perhaps the most basic one is whether you should
be loyal to your wife or husband. The relativist will take about freedom,
choice, free will and then make an ideology such as Marxism or feminism
which will tell you so what if you promised to be loyal, you can be
otherwise as such and such is true from this or that point of view. The
absolutist will say that because I promised him or her so, I will keep my
promise.
>>> I really like the phrase "value-breathing relativist". I think
>>> the whole idea of chosen values being some sort of eigenvector
>>> for someone living in an alternate universe appalling.
>>
>> I fully agree. The absolutist does not always have the answers but he
>> knows what he cannot know.
>
> I think we mostly switch between modes.
That would make you a relativist, or a compromisng and hopefully regretful
about that absolutist.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Coffee's For Closers
anarc...@gmail.com says...
> If you want to attach numbers to moral values, as I
> mentioned previously, it is not hard to do: find out
> how much people will pay for the difference between a
> moral act or situation and an immoral act or situation.
> This number might vary a lot in an individual, but so
> does the amount he's willing to pay for potatoes. Over
> a large population one might come up with surprisingly
> stable figures.
There isn't any universal agreement on what constitutes a "moral"
or "immoral" act.
There are plenty of people out there who think it is "immoral"
for someone else to have more money than them (including someone
who worked harder.)
There are people who think that, refusing to give them something,
is morally equivalent to stealing from them.
For many, many people, the difference between "moral" and
"immoral" is entirely about what is convenient for them
personally. Whether they did or didn't get what they wanted,
regardless of earning it or not. Or whether they felt
emotionally insecure about something.
And it is all regardless of any reasonable authoriTAH to tell
other people what to do.
And many people with those types of attitudes will feel morally
righteous about "defending" themselves against the above-
described "immoral" situations.
They may "defend" themselves individually, like trying to
sabotage an acquaintance who is doing better financially,
socially, etc. Or they may appeal to gubmint authoriTAH. Or
to childish social pressure.
Anyway, the economic value of morality could be different for
individuals:
1. "Stealing is immoral, so I wouldn't steal one dollar.
However, if I had a chance to steal one million dollars, I would
be overcome by greed, and would do the immoral thing for that
price."
That sounds like what you were talking about.
However, plenty of people have perspectives like...
2. "It is immoral that Jane Schmoe has more money than me. Since
I don't benefit from that immorality, and actually feel bad, the
value of that immoral situation is negative. Taking her
"surplus" dollars away will correct the immorality, and will be a
profit for me. Even just preventing her from earning that money,
will correct the immorality, without any cost to me."
3. "It is immoral that Sally Smith has more control over her life
than I do. I would not be willing to pay any money to continue
that immoral situation. But I would be willing to take some
amount of effort to suppress her self-control. And I would be
willing to have the gubmint spend some money to suppress her."
Is taking drugs immoral? Are certain consenting adult sex acts
immoral? The different groups on both sides of those questions
spend large amounts of money in support of their moral
judgements.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Michael Price
They left in the first place because if they had stayed they'd have
died. So getting one out actually was a superior solution to whatever
you have. The only problem with their plan was they should have left
earlier.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Poetry is personal.
>>>>>>> Here is a sample:
Wrong, as always.
> So getting one out actually was a superior solution to whatever you have.
Wrong, as always.
> The only problem with their plan was they should have left earlier.
They would have got the same result even if they had done.