It's just the view of someone who's spent a lot of time doing one thing, and mistakenly believes in a greater importance of the subject than it truly warrants.
You will see the same thing with nerds who spend all their time playing D&D and think real life can be explained by it.
Nothing more.
Crazy Frenchee Law!
ding!Grudge wrote:As a holder of a masters degree in cognitive science I do disagree with the notion that economics is at the center of human behaviour.
However, economics students often see themselves as the center around which the world rotates, but if that has to do with the properties of the field of economics or with the kind of people who are attracted by that field of science I will leave unsaid. But I bet that the all encompassing field of economics provides some kind of theory to explain that.
That being said, I don't agree with the idea that macroeconomics is a good basis on which to make realistic decisions regarding policy, to the disregard of the micro scale.
I understand your point - that this distinction is the reason there is so much confusion and talking past one another on the subject - and I agree.
But I think economics solely on the macro scale is only good for theory and research. In practice, applying only macroeconomic standards subverts the constitution of our country. We are a nation of, by and for the people, and we are a Democratic Republic before we are a Capitalist society.
Our entire legal system is based on protection of the rights of every man; so to defer to economic standards and practices when they conflict with human rights (instead of vice-versa), is to give our economy precedence over our human rights - because either way, it comes down to which standards you would remain faithful to.
So are we talking theory or reality? Because I am a proponent of the free market in theory, and I think in reality it is nearly always a good standard to apply to economic issues.
But I refuse to justify things in free market parlance when there are human rights issues involved. If people's rights are being trampled on, there is no economic explanation that will justify abuses.
I also believe that all human beings are endowed with human rights -- and companies and corporations are NOT entitled to those rights. No company has the "right" to do anything - they exist because humans create them, and any putting any company's interests over other people is nothing but glorified mob rule, IMHO.
Sorry, started rambling a little there. =\
edit: In short, I think free market economics is an ideology, like neoconservatism or any other. Like any ideology, if you apply it wholesale to any situation without taking into account the reality of its consequences, and see it as an end in itself, you risk losing sight of the reason it was created in the first place: to improve the human condition.
I understand your point - that this distinction is the reason there is so much confusion and talking past one another on the subject - and I agree.
But I think economics solely on the macro scale is only good for theory and research. In practice, applying only macroeconomic standards subverts the constitution of our country. We are a nation of, by and for the people, and we are a Democratic Republic before we are a Capitalist society.
Our entire legal system is based on protection of the rights of every man; so to defer to economic standards and practices when they conflict with human rights (instead of vice-versa), is to give our economy precedence over our human rights - because either way, it comes down to which standards you would remain faithful to.
So are we talking theory or reality? Because I am a proponent of the free market in theory, and I think in reality it is nearly always a good standard to apply to economic issues.
But I refuse to justify things in free market parlance when there are human rights issues involved. If people's rights are being trampled on, there is no economic explanation that will justify abuses.
I also believe that all human beings are endowed with human rights -- and companies and corporations are NOT entitled to those rights. No company has the "right" to do anything - they exist because humans create them, and any putting any company's interests over other people is nothing but glorified mob rule, IMHO.
Sorry, started rambling a little there. =\
edit: In short, I think free market economics is an ideology, like neoconservatism or any other. Like any ideology, if you apply it wholesale to any situation without taking into account the reality of its consequences, and see it as an end in itself, you risk losing sight of the reason it was created in the first place: to improve the human condition.
Last edited by R00k on Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
menkent wrote:meh, foo's right. he's too dumb to realize/admit how dumb he is. too much Ayn Rand or something.
plained wrote:its funny how people who actually belive they are "better" automatically console/convice thenselves that people that who dont agree,
dont understand.
common and tidy how youve got yourself coverd from ego hits :icon19:
Thick, solid and tight in all the right places.
