Yo Bill:
|
| Hi Bob,
|
| I think you're well versed in the history of economic theories, but I'm
| having a hard time understanding how theories woven around how the way
| things used to be apply to a world completely transformed by electronics,
| machines and communications, where information and IP rule the roost and
| productivity gains are competely off the charts.
I hear that all the time. But there is nothing about improved
communications, electronic innovation, and productivity gains that changes
one iota of the nature of and causes of wealth per se. Mediums of exchange
may change; that which consumers value may change. The "subjective theory of
value" holds true however you define these terms, because it is not
dependent on such "factors of production," as the old Marxian ideology was.
WRT truth: If something is true, it is always true. If something is
perceived as false that once seemed true, either it wasn't a "first truth"
in the first place (i.e., was false), or the perceiver is deceiving himself.
Now, plenty of things that seemed true, really weren't true. The earth being
flat, for instance.
Until somebody articulates in some intelligible way how precisely modern
manifestations of wealth and economic activity alter the nature of economic
laws at a fundamental level (most of what I here is just hype which,
denuded, is easily explained in light of modern economic science), I am not
obligated to discard what I know and change my opinion, as it were,
fundamentally.
|
| I guess there is solace to those who need to cling to something they
| believe they can stand on, but I'm looking at a whole new ballgame.
There are people who always think they're "looking at a whole new ballgame"
but usually they are people who have not taken the time to appreciate the
knowledge that has come before them - they think they're seeing something
new, or that they uniquely see the world correctly, and every thinker who
came before them are just farts in the wind, when in fact, there is nothing
new under the sun, and their enthusiasm is misplaced. They are usually in
awe of things the great thinkers of the past got over long before they
developed their philosophies and took the time to share them with posterity.
| We
| cannot stop the flow of communications (aka information), and that alone
| is transforming the world into a very small - and different - place than
| envisioned by people who lived before the change.
I never once advocated that we should "stop the flow of communication" and
the fact that you mention this means you misunderstand my view. What I'm
*for* is people interpreting information better in light of a correct
understanding of the nature of things. But to that end, all I can do is
share my opinion, and vote for like-minded folk (if there are any!).
|
| At some point these topics converge, and we find ourselves looking at root
| philosophies.
This is true. "Primary truths or first principles," as Hamilton called them
in Federalist #31. It's hands down my favorite:
"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first
principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend. These contain
an internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection or combination,
commands the assent of the mind. Where it produces not this effect, it must
proceed either from some disorder in the organs of perception, or from the
influence of strong passion, or prejudice, or interest... Men, upon too many
occasions, do not give their own understandings fair play; but, yielding to
some untoward bias, they confuse themselves with words and confound
themselves with subtleties."
| Are we looking to bring about a peaceful, stable world that
| is ready to take on the challenge of the universe around us, or are we to
| remain stuck in survival-of-the-fittest mode?
I'm looking to create a free Republic that cares first for the prosperity of
its citizens, protects their rights and freedoms, and allows them to live in
peace in a world that frequently goes off the deep end. I guess we want the
same thing, but my scope is less ambitious and therefore (to my way of
thinking) more attainable. Fixing ALL the problems of THE WHOLE world is
simply a fantasy, until and unless all the nations of the world decide to
adopt our Constitution, and join us in division of labor under that
Constitution.
WRT "survival of the fittest," which you lament: Until you find a way to
halt evolution (short of extinguishing all life), good luck trying to put a
stop to natural selection.
It's like trying to stop gravity or the laws governing the movement of the
stars in the heavens.
- Bob
P.S. - I much prefer discussions on "first principles" over political topics
de jure. But they do make for more ponderous posts... ;-)
|
|
| Bill
|
| > Thanks!
| >
| > I'm sure I bored everybody else though...
| >
| > - Bob
|
|
| --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
| multipart/alternative
| text/plain (text body -- kept)
| text/html
| ---
|
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2004 Bob Calco |
|
