Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Oh yes -- something on Buddhist economics for your perusal:

http://laszlo-zsolnai.net/sites/defa...0corrected.pdf

Excellent find! And not entirely non-mathematical!

"Happiness research convincingly shows that not material wealth but the richness of
personal relationships determines happiness. Not things but people make people
happy. (Lane, R. E. 1998) Western economics tries to provide people with happiness
by supplying enormous quantity of things. But what people need are caring
relationships and generous love...."

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You are confusing modeling with processing. Modeling human behavior mathematically is actually quite easy (albeit very tedious). You brain does it every day. Scientists of course call it "modeling" but you will know it by another word: Empathy. The problem is that increasing complexity and variability creates an exponential increase in power needed to process the equation. Computer technology has not advanced that far. It may at some future point. Current computer architecture probably lacks the capability but quantum computer architectures (if we ever get them to work) could certainly run these sorts of simulations.

To explain it another way, here is a simple Computer Science 101 exercise. Imagine that you are attempting to give instructions to a robot how to turn 90 degrees to the right and walk out of a door. This is something you do every day and it is not particularly difficult to model, but stop and think about it for a moment. You cannot simply tell the robot to "turn right." A robot does not know what this means. You must first define "turn right" in a way that the robot can process. Literally you must tell it which joints move, how far, for how long. Again this is not hard to define, simply tedious due to its complexity. This complexity requires certain processing abilities.

Everything can be broken down mathematically (including human behavior) Eric because everything is mathematical. There is a mathematical equation that perfectly defines the tree in your back yard and even one that defines your behavior, your family's behavior, your neighbor's behavior, your car, your street, the earth, the solar system, galaxy and the universe from super-massive black holes to the atoms in your body. The shortcoming we have generating answers for these equations is not found within the model but within the process.

Very good, you have a good grasp modeling not only how it can be used but of some of it limitations.

What Eric the Obtuse doesn't know, because he can't be bothered to learn anything on the subject, is that is biological evolution has been modeled successfully. The same features that occur in real biological evolution show up in these simulations which is big help since biological evolution is a very slow process. All you need is to identify the parts of the system and its operators and you have an algebra suitable for analyzing and implementing a simulation.

In considering a market economy as an evolutionary system all I have to do is identify the parts of the economy that map to the algebra used in defining evolution. I don't even need to assume that people are rational because the process of evolution will weed out unsuccessful enterprises and activities. We see this in real life all of the time with various business entities. I also know that economies are self-organizing systems because of this essay which shows that there is no one person or business entity know how to make a pencil. This tells me that I am dealing with a self organizing system since I can not identify a central point of control which in most systems is very easy to identify. It was the Socialist Calculation Problem by Mises that allowed me to map an economic system to the same algebra used in evolution.

Eliminate the selection process and the whole thing falls apart and even worse mischief will ensue.

Originally Posted by The Rani

My name is mine, but my thoughts belongs to you?
I find it amazing that someone who claims to be interested in improving manners can say stuff like this.

Not quite. I'm merely saying that comments that seem to have a hidden agenda can be questioned. You do it yourself on this very board. Do you always take things at face value? Of course not. I'm not questoning your right to question my intent either. After all, intent is hidden, and may be at odds with appearances.

BTW, I don't claim omniscience. I can be wrong, and am often enough. We all share that trait. We're human.

Originally Posted by Galen

In considering a market economy as an evolutionary system all I have to do is identify the parts of the economy that map to the algebra used in defining evolution.

That's almost correct. What you have to do is identify them CORRECTLY. Also, it would help to understand that evolution isn't a mystical process. The main driver involved in it, and the only one that transfers to economics (as an economy has no genes, and therefore cannot have genetic mutation or genetic drift), is natural selection. So what you really need to do is identify what it is that is selected.

Your view of economics is premised on the idea that the individual is what is being selected, and all that matters is the contest of individuals for economic success. But what if natural selection happens on a larger scale, pitting one society against another? In that case, interference in the struggles among individuals, when such interference strengthens the economy society-wide (as can be shown to be true), works as an evolution enhancer.

I am going to add something here that you won't like: I see a marked similarity between yourself and Eric. Both of you are rationalists in the classic epistemological sense: you believe that truth can be derived from self-evident first principles by valid reasoning, without a need for verification of those assumptions against observed reality. Outside of pure mathematics, I don't believe that rationalism works very well, and am a committed empiricist myself. The strongest arguments against your position are empirical: you are wrong, because the world observably does not work the way you say; predictions can be made on the basis of what you say and observed clearly not to be true. That would be the final argument, end of story, with any empiricist. With you, it might not be.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's almost correct. What you have to do is identify them CORRECTLY. Also, it would help to understand that evolution isn't a mystical process. The main driver involved in it, and the only one that transfers to economics (as an economy has no genes, and therefore cannot have genetic mutation or genetic drift), is natural selection. So what you really need to do is identify what it is that is selected.

Your view of economics is premised on the idea that the individual is what is being selected, and all that matters is the contest of individuals for economic success. But what if natural selection happens on a larger scale, pitting one society against another? In that case, interference in the struggles among individuals, when such interference strengthens the economy society-wide (as can be shown to be true), works as an evolution enhancer.

I am going to add something here that you won't like: I see a marked similarity between yourself and Eric. Both of you are rationalists in the classic epistemological sense: you believe that truth can be derived from self-evident first principles by valid reasoning, without a need for verification of those assumptions against observed reality. Outside of pure mathematics, I don't believe that rationalism works very well, and am a committed empiricist myself. The strongest arguments against your position are empirical: you are wrong, because the world observably does not work the way you say; predictions can be made on the basis of what you say and observed clearly not to be true. That would be the final argument, end of story, with any empiricist. With you, it might not be.

Logic only works as well as the assumptions given to it, garbage in means garbage out.

Originally Posted by Odin

Logic only works as well as the assumptions given to it, garbage in means garbage out.

Right now, this is probably the hottest thread on the forum. If I may blow off a little steam, I get very annoyed at people taking advantage of that to start long, complicated arguments about things like their favorite economic model that have nothing to do with the 2012 election. We have threads where these discussions would be more relevant--and where people would be free not to read them.

Just my opinion, of course.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The whole "I AM IGNORING YOU" stuff is silly. It's what people do when they can't "win," but they desperately want the other person to think that they have been "defeated."
If they really really want the other person to feel bad, they tell them how much everyone else hates them too.
What is this, grade school?

Wow, how did I miss this.

Okay for the record. Why did she get ignored.

I gave this Panglossian Obamaphile poster the scenerio posted below as a possible outcome to our current political condition:


I'll tell you what summer.
Projections are often off base and I hope this one is, but I'll tell you what.

A year and a half from now in March 2013 when President elect Rick Perry sits down with Majority Leader McConnell and House Speaker Boehner to finalize a grand deal that replaces the income tax with a national sales tax that starts a dollar one of spending and has no rebates for the poor. And the only debate is how to craft the wording in the new Labor Act that virtually the ends right of workers to organize and strike.

Then you can tell me how smart it was for ex President Obama to ignore his base and surrender everytime he was supposed to be negoiating to make the future better.

And all she could come up with was some nonstatement about me being happy.
She either did not have the ability to give me a coherent answer or else she doesn't respect others enough to try. Either way, life goes on. I have two jobs, on one of them I'm helping negioate a contract that may put up to 7 currently unemployed people to work. I don't usually talk shop here, but my point is that my plate is full and I have no time for fools who can not or will not at least try to engage intellegently.

But as I said above life goes on.

To which I'll add that for me, the ignore list has nothing to do with winning or losing. Rather, it has to do with the fact that we are participating in an open-to-everyone forum, for fun (I'm not getting paid to be here, are you?) and sometimes interactions become unpleasant due to the way some people behave towards others.

I don't care that Summer reflexively defends Obama. I don't agree with that, but there are other people here that I disagree with more but am happy to discuss ideas with. What I do care about is that she consistently insults others (to the point, insults me) in a shallow fashion, implying or outright saying that I am some sort of liberal demi-racist who doesn't get it. It's impossible to engage her in any kind of rational discussion. It always comes down to throwing spitwads. I have better things to do than that.

Actually, looking at my ignore list, most of those on it lean to the left. The only exception I see is Glick. It really has nothing to do with people's ideas.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, looking at my ignore list, most of those on it lean to the left. The only exception I see is Glick. It really has nothing to do with people's ideas.

Indeed, one of the main reasons I participate in places like this is to exchange different ideas; maybe someone can make me see something in a way I hadn't thought of, in a way that makes sense, in a way that forces me to reexamine my beliefs. (And maybe if I'm talking to someone with an open mind, I can do the same in return.) Participating in a circle-jerk echo chamber is of no interest to me. I tend to tune out those with extremely low signal-to-noise ratio and those who are excessively rude and combative. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Ah, postulating the zombie apocalypse, again?

Actually, I don't really see the hungry, thirsty city hordes etc ... what I see is people slowly getting hungrier and hungrier as the costs of food and energy go up, and hungry people filling in with food grown at home. We did it in World War II; the Russians did it throughout the Communist era and probably still do (Justin? Can you speak to this?) I know - the Apocalypse is a lot more sexy. But a slow racheting downwards is probably what we'll get.

I also don't think the Libertarians get their zombie fantasy of shooting from their bunkers the urban hungry hordes trying to steal their stores of food. I think society will limp along somewhat as this MMT blogger suggests -

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com...you-have-lost/

You never will know what you have lost

...there is something insidious, essentially invisible, that happens when federal spending is reduced. The absence of benefits sneaks up on us, like the butterfly killer that leaves no clue, until one day there are no butterflies. You never will know how your life and America’s future will be affected by:

1. Reduced federal support for education. What child genius will not grow to invent the cancer cure or the unlimited, pollution-free fuel or the food that does not require farming? How many great scientists and artists and builders will not be created? You never will know.

2. Reduced federal support for health services. How many future leaders will not live to fulfil their potential? How much suffering will result? Which of your own relatives will die prematurely or live nonproductive lives? What preventable “black death” next will scourge the human race? You never will know.

3. Reduced police/military support. How many soldiers will die from inadequate equipment? How many civilians will be murdered for the lack of a cop-on-the-beat? How many investors will be cheated because federal agencies did not have the funds for proper supervision? You never will know.

4. Reduced aid to the poor. How many children will poverty turn to crime? How many great minds will be dulled by starvation before making their contribution to America and the world? How much of America’s potential will be lost to homelessness or to the struggle for bare existence? You never will know.

The list goes on and on: The lame who might have walked. The blind who might have seen. The children who might have given to America. The tornados and hurricanes and earthquakes that might have been foreseen or stopped. The money that investors might have saved. The inventions never invented. The recessions and depressions that might have been avoided. The wars that might have been won or prevented. The life-saving drugs that might have been developed. The people who might not have died too soon. The beauty never created. The ideas lost. The better world that might have been. You never will know.

And we trade all this potential for the reality of a meaner, uglier, less elegant life, especially for the lower classes, who will be affected most by deficit reduction, though we all will be affected. What a waste, given the tools we’ve been given, that we intentionally should deprive ourselves and our children and our grandchildren of the benefits a society can offer, and instead retreat toward the days of hardscrabble anarchy.

What have we lost? What will we lose tomorrow? You never will know.

Rodger Malcolm

As the author notes, all of this is avoidable should our society finally grasp the "gift of a Monetarily Sovereign government, the most brilliant form of government financing ever created."

No, instead we have folks fantasying about the equivalent of zombies coming to steal their food from their heavily-armed bunkers. I would suggest to them a little volunteer time at a local food bank - if that doesn't turn them around, they'll at least profit from witnessing how their prey - families, mostly women and children - move so as to incorporate that gained knowledge into their fantasy gun sights.

For others, the key is not to make the mistake of Clarice Starling (played by the talented Jody Foster in the movie) - don't venture out and see why the lambs are becoming silent.

Apocalyptic GOP Is Dragging Us Into a Civil War

Had a friend send me this article by former Republican staffer Mike Lofgren under the subject line, "Informative reading for tonight's Republican showcase." I'm probably late in seeing it, but Lofgren's piece raises fascinating and terrifying questions about the future of our political system and the increasing possibility that we are headed toward something like a civil war, or a constitutional crisis.

Lofgren, in describing the reasons for his defection from the Republican party, describes a Republican camp that increasingly acts not like a traditional peacetime political organization, but more like an apocalyptic cult or one of the authoritarian movements from early 20th century European history.

In particular, the insane decision to turn the once-routine procedure of raising the debt ceiling (Lofgren notes it was done 87 times since WWII) into a political crisis revealed that the GOP party mainstream had sunk to the level of terrorism – holding our economic system hostage in exchange for political concessions.

This was a form of violence, and a serious escalation even from the days of George W. Bush, when the party was mostly limited in its willingness to use human beings as pawns in homicidal ploys for political power. Bush and Rove were willing to sacrifice Iraqi lives, and the lives of American servicemen, for oil and votes. But this current crew of Republicans shook canisters of kerosene over the entire American population and threatened to light a match if it didn't get what it wanted.

As Lofgren notes, this was insurrectionary, revolutionary behavior. Only the massive scale of the gambit prevented it from being easily identified as terrorism and criminal blackmail. If in exchange for not defaulting on our debt Boehner, Hensarling, Cantor and the rest of them had asked for a billion dollars worth of gold bullion deposited in Swiss bank accounts, or the release of a dozen Baader-Meinhofs from German prisons, it could hardly have been much different from what they actually did.

I think most Americans can agree that reducing the public debt is a goal we can all share – and in the old days of thirty or forty years ago, when congress operated on a more collegial model that involved members from opposing parties getting together on weekends to achieve reasonable compromises over golf and highballs, the Rs and Ds could have found a way to press forward with reasonable deficit reduction plans without pushing us all to the edge of a cliff.

But for the new GOP, compromise of any kind defeats their central purpose, which is political totale krieg. This party's entire reason for being is conflict and aggression. There is no underlying patriotic instinct to find middle ground with the rest of us, because the party doesn't have a vision for society that includes anyone outside the tent.

I've always been queasy about piling on against the Republicans because it's intellectually too easy; I also worry a lot that the habit pundits have of choosing sides and simply beating on the other party contributes to the extremist tone of the culture war.

But the time is coming when we are all going to be forced to literally take sides in a political conflict far more serious and extreme than we're used to imagining. The situation is such a tinderbox now that all it will take is some prominent politician to openly acknowledge the fact of a cultural/civil war for the real craziness to begin.

Reading Lofgren's piece, and a piece by John Judis of the New Republic, makes one realize that we came pretty close to real chaos in that debt ceiling debate. Had Obama invoked emergency powers to raise the debt limit unilaterally – and I think he had good reasons to do that – we might have had a revolt on our hands.

Most people aren't thinking about this because we're so accustomed to thinking of America as a stable, conservative place where politics is not a life-or-death affair but more something that people like to argue about over dinner, as entertainment almost. But it's headed in another, more twisted direction. I'm beginning to wonder if this election season is going to be one none of us ever forget – a 1968 on crack. Anyway, I hope I'm wrong, and I hope everyone reads this Lofgren piece, which is a rare piece of insider insight.

Originally Posted by Galen

Very good, you have a good grasp modeling not only how it can be used but of some of it limitations.

What Eric the Obtuse doesn't know, because he can't be bothered to learn anything on the subject, is that is biological evolution has been modeled successfully. The same features that occur in real biological evolution show up in these simulations which is big help since biological evolution is a very slow process. All you need is to identify the parts of the system and its operators and you have an algebra suitable for analyzing and implementing a simulation.

In considering a market economy as an evolutionary system all I have to do is identify the parts of the economy that map to the algebra used in defining evolution. I don't even need to assume that people are rational because the process of evolution will weed out unsuccessful enterprises and activities. We see this in real life all of the time with various business entities. I also know that economies are self-organizing systems because of this essay which shows that there is no one person or business entity know how to make a pencil. This tells me that I am dealing with a self organizing system since I can not identify a central point of control which in most systems is very easy to identify. It was the Socialist Calculation Problem by Mises that allowed me to map an economic system to the same algebra used in evolution.

Eliminate the selection process and the whole thing falls apart and even worse mischief will ensue.

Wow, such efficency! Germany could have used you back in the late 1930s.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, such efficency! Germany could have used you back in the late 1930s.

Ah, yes -- it's never complete without a direct comparison to Nazi ideology.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, such efficency! Germany could have used you back in the late 1930s.

That was uncalled for.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Excellent find! And not entirely non-mathematical!

"Happiness research convincingly shows that not material wealth but the richness of
personal relationships determines happiness. Not things but people make people
happy. (Lane, R. E. 1998) Western economics tries to provide people with happiness
by supplying enormous quantity of things. But what people need are caring
relationships and generous love...."

Sustainable happiness is one of the most reliable indicators of a wholesome life. Material gain and indulgence can never form a satisfying surrogate. "Successful" people have committed suicide (for reasons other than health -- such as a diagnosis of terminal cancer, or losing a spouse) or died of alcoholism or drug use. At one time, the occupations most vulnerable to suicide were physicians and dentists, two professional groups that live near the economic apex. People who can see their lives getting better see solutions for their personal distress.

Material success is not enough, especially when it seems capricious. Winning the Super Megabucks Lottery rarely solves every winner's life. I am not sure that those born into extreme wealth are happier than those who have struggled for everything that they have. That's not to say that poverty is happiness; gross need is misery because it forces stark choices (as in, pay the rent or deal with a toothache).

We have an economic order that seeks to intensify extremes of wealth and deprivation as supposed incentives for... whatever those incentives are for. I can only imagine what sorts of resentments arise within our supposed elite when the "blended" family consists of some executive and his trophy wife, a wife roughly the same age as the oldest son who likely harbors some resentment of a half-sibling nearly young enough to be a child. Not surprisingly that son plans to get an MBA to continue living the only "Good Life" that he knows -- one of material indulgence that medieval kings would envy and one of enforcing fear among subordinates. Just imagine what life run by people who feel entitled to class privilege yet are full of hurt feelings is like. Unhappy people don't foster happiness in others.

We have reached the point in which we will need to scale back consumption, most notably of fossil fuels... but also farmland for urban sprawl. The world does not need to look like Interstate 80 between Sacramento and Vallejo -- a swath of tract developments and box stores all new and insipid, replacing what used to be there.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Presidential debate among Republicans:

1. Newt Gingrich showed himself as slick as he was in the 1990s, but he is the equivalent of a baseball team deep in the cellar of a division that starts playing well after it is twenty games out with thirty to play. He did not become relevant again; it's just too late for that. His only chance is if he is a choice made in the proverbial smoke-filled room.

2. Jon Huntsman looked and sounded reasonable. Of course that is not enough for the Republican Party. He could be setting himself up for 2016 after an Obama landslide, his best hope for ever becoming President.

3. Rick Santorum proved irrelevant. The pink tie? Who gave him that idea?

4. Ron Paul has some agenda other than winning the Presidency -- like getting influence within the Republican Party.

5. Michele Bachmann has probably been knocked out. If she can't hold her own in contrast to fellow Republicans, and can't deal with the hard questions of Chris Matthews (yes, he is tough and biased, but everyone faced him) and looked like a little-league batter who has faced Justin Verlander three times and looked bad on all nine pitches that formed three strikeouts. She has a Congressional seat to defend, and you can be sure that the Democrats have her figuratively targeted. Her health will not be the issue.

6. Herman Cain showed why business executives and tycoons fail as Presidential candidates. Everything boils down to "what is good for business", but government is much more than the facilitation of commerce and industry.

7. Rick Perry showed himself a right-wing purist... he surely won over the Tea Party types who now have much enthusiasm and power. Confronted on whether there could have been any miscarriages of justice in the application of the death penalty in Texas he showed no doubt. More significantly, he asserted that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, denied the significance of poverty in Texas, and denied climate change.

8. Mitt Romney will win what remains of relative moderates within the GOP.

So it boils down to Perry vs. Romney in the primaries.

Some good analysis. I'm mostly in agreement.

Bachmann was nearly invisible last night. It's basically a 2-man race - Perry, Romney. The others are there to be fodder for jokes - except for Huntsman who is all about setting up for 2016.

Perry is a dead man walking with his SS stance - could you imagine him in Florida? He may even have a problem in Iowa with that electorate being older.

From a political standpoint, I was kind of hoping Perry's nuttiness would be swept under the rug with the focus on Obamascare and Romney trying to be a better t-bagger. If Perry makes it to the nominee, it will be a lot of fun but in the end Obama sweeps him.

However, the "Village GOP" is working hard to make sure Perry's un-electability becomes the meme; Rove, McCain's machine, even Scarborough, are actively trashing Perry - he doesn't help when he's running his campaign as if it was limited to the TX Panhandle crowd of SS Ponzi Schemers and climate change deniers - what next, in the next debate, he's going to talk about the Trilateral Commission conspiracy? Nope, Perry's zombie status will now become increasingly conventional wisdom from here on out.

You could see on his face how happy and relieved Romney was to finally reach a stopping point on his travel toward nutty land. He now can push back against the t-bagger craziness of Ponzi schemer and anti-science crowd and still appeal to the majority on the Right. It's possible the t-baggers will take their marbles and go 3rd-party but that's a risk Romney will take over becoming unelectable in the general if he had to continue to drift to magic pony land.

From a non-political standpoint, I'm intrigued by the eventual Romney nomination. What would be interesting is if he wins it based on being the guardian of SS. The scenario I find interesting is that he beats Obama and has to then juggle, as President, protecting SS in the context of the likely elimination (i.e. "tax cut extension") of the payroll tax. I think this could bring about the epiphany in the Nation’s collective understanding that the fed govt doesn't need tax revenue (nor, debt financing) to spend - and that includes spending for SS [Note - some minimal level of fed taxation is needed to keep everyone using dollars and greater taxation may be needed down the road to manage inflation should the economy start to roar - if we were so lucky].

I've come to believe that the resolution of this 4T centers on the collective comprehension of what a fiat currency in the hands of a monetarily- sovereign govt can do to bring about sustained full employment and price stabilization. As only Nixon could go to China, maybe it will take a corporate elitist GOP President to bring the country around and breakthrough the false belief system that is currently destroying us.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Sustainable happiness is one of the most reliable indicators of a wholesome life. Material gain and indulgence can never form a satisfying surrogate.

A slightly different perspective on the same thing:

Money is the most important thing in the world, if you have no money. If you do have money enough to meet your needs and a bit more, then other things become more important than getting more money.

If you have plenty of money and money is still the most important thing in the world, then something is wrong.

Originally Posted by Odin

That was uncalled for.

yea, that's what Neville Chamberlain said as well.

Originally Posted by playwrite

yea, that's what Neville Chamberlain said as well.

Playwrite, it really was uncalled for. It was also factually bullshit. There is almost no similarity at all between the Social Darwinism/Laissez-Faire economy that Galen seems to want and what the Nazis did. You were engaging in tarbrushing and namecalling of the worst, stupidest, most boneheaded variety. Galen's ideas open themselves to plenty of criticism but when you toss mud at them so obviously without spending even a few seconds thinking first, just grabbing at the most damning association you can think of without bothering to consider whether it makes any sense, you are not contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Playwrite, it really was uncalled for. It was also factually bullshit. There is almost no similarity at all between the Social Darwinism/Laissez-Faire economy that Galen seems to want and what the Nazis did. You were engaging in tarbrushing and namecalling of the worst, stupidest, most boneheaded variety. Galen's ideas open themselves to plenty of criticism but when you toss mud at them so obviously without spending even a few seconds thinking first, just grabbing at the most damning association you can think of without bothering to consider whether it makes any sense, you are not contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion.

Oh, you didn't realize that I'm a few chapters ahead in Galen's book when he tells us where the "losers" in his Darwinian fantasy are suppose to go. Perhaps he doesn't have the cajones to bring up the ovens, but many of his losers that look through the garbage to feed their kids might just perfer that ultimate solution.

Am I now one of the Lefties that earn an ignore?

Originally Posted by Galen

Very good, you have a good grasp modeling not only how it can be used but of some of it limitations.

What Eric the Obtuse doesn't know, because he can't be bothered to learn anything on the subject, is that biological evolution has been modeled successfully. The same features that occur in real biological evolution show up in these simulations which is big help since biological evolution is a very slow process. All you need is to identify the parts of the system and its operators and you have an algebra suitable for analyzing and implementing a simulation.

That would not be "learning" anything, but conforming to your ideology. Which I am too "obtuse" to do.

In considering a market economy as an evolutionary system all I have to do is identify the parts of the economy that map to the algebra used in defining evolution. I don't even need to assume that people are rational because the process of evolution will weed out unsuccessful enterprises and activities. We see this in real life all of the time with various business entities. I also know that economies are self-organizing systems because of this essay which shows that there is no one person or business entity (that knows) how to make a pencil. This tells me that I am dealing with a self organizing system since I can not identify a central point of control which in most systems is very easy to identify. It was the Socialist Calculation Problem by Mises that allowed me to map an economic system to the same algebra used in evolution.

Eliminate the selection process and the whole thing falls apart and even worse mischief will ensue.

A "self-organizing" process implies there is some conscious direction involved, not merely a mechanical process.

If (like me) you look at all evolution as, in part, a conscious process, or if you look upon human evolution only as such, in either case a model of mechanical natural selection alone will not describe evolution of human economies. It has a partial application only, because (fortunately) there is also a conscious process of choice of the good going on, by groups as well as individuals. In a free market there is failure and selection, but a free market is an ideal condition that does not exist. There is always regulation and organization by society. On the other hand, an ideal condition in which everything is centrally planned, also does not exist. Utopian dreams in either direction are doomed to fail.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Perhaps he doesn't have the cajones to bring up the ovens

Nice projection there.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Right now, this is probably the hottest thread on the forum. If I may blow off a little steam, I get very annoyed at people taking advantage of that to start long, complicated arguments about things like their favorite economic model that have nothing to do with the 2012 election. We have threads where these discussions would be more relevant--and where people would be free not to read them.

Just my opinion, of course.

I understand. The fact is also that, these days, most politics revolves around our ideologies of economics, especially the right-wing trickle-down or social-darwinian theories like Galen's, which are the prime issue and are at the root of all the debates and all the candidate's proposals in the election. So while it might be nice if people in this thread focused on who said and did what and who is winning and such, it probably won't happen.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Am I now one of the Lefties that earn an ignore?

Nah, I reserve that for those who give me the kind of treatment you routinely give others. I'm selfish that way.

Did we build death camps in the Gilded Age? Were the death camps under Nazi rule for society's economic losers, or were they for categories arbitrarily declared societal enemies? Did the Nazis implement a dog-eat-dog Social Darwinist economy, or a mixed capitalist-socialist economy with private ownership but heavy regulation? Did they narrow or widen income gaps? Did they increase or decrease access to good-paying jobs?

The evils of Nazi Germany were simply nothing at all like those that would result from Galen's proposals. They were a completely different category of evil altogether. The bad things that happened under Hitler would not happen in the type of world Galen is looking for. At the same time, the bad things that would happen in that world did not happen in Nazi Germany. And you are full of shit.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A slightly different perspective on the same thing:

Money is the most important thing in the world, if you have no money. If you do have money enough to meet your needs and a bit more, then other things become more important than getting more money.

If you have plenty of money and money is still the most important thing in the world, then something is wrong.

There, I think we are more in agreement.