Hi
Mike,
Yes, you are right. I should not have accused most
economists of being in denial. I needed to be clearer. What really
bugs me are those economists in the public eye who make normative,
positivistic statements about things that are really subjective matters of
opinion. Both Keynesians and Conservatives do so but I find the
neocons particularly reticent to acknowledge that their anti-government
faith/belief provides the theoretical underpinnings to most of their
positions. I take issue with those economists who portray
themselves as completely scientific and objective. Economists
must make assumptions about the fundamental nature of human
existence. A favourite example is the assumption that human beings are
ration. There are clearly many examples of when this is not true
on at both the individual and societal levels. Nevertheless the
assumption of rationality remain generally accepted. Such assumptions
cannot help but be biased by personal values yet they claim to be
objective.
If you are interested, a few years ago George Soros
wrote an article called "The Capitalist Threat" in Harpers that touches on some
of these issues. I recently re-read the article and was struck by the
continued relevance of much of his argument.
I should be clear that not all economists ignore these
issues. It just seems that the ones who have a voice seem to gloss over
the significant problems that exist within the field. Personally, I think
that you are right about the public reaction to some economic research. I
also feel that in many cases the public prefers to hear that there is a simple
fix for incredibly complex problems. I'm just not
certain that those pulling the levers recognise that the simple
solutions may get them elected but they rarely solve the
problems.
Anyway, that's my $0.02. Now it's time to jump down
from this soapbox.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Michael Redler
Sent: June 20, 2006 11:52 AM
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics - in defence of
Doug wrote: "I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues."
I would agree that there is a detachment but, I'm not sure that it's denial. I mean, denial is a defense mechanism, right? Have they become defensive or do they see a close attachment to moral issues as a leash which keeps their research within current moral boundaries.
I want to be careful not to make blanket statements because some economists may depend on moral issues because it's within the scope of their research. Those who don't include those issues (IMO) have grown accustomed to certain methods and have created their own obstacles in reaching their objective.
Personally, I'm equally interested in the public reaction to economists research. I think the degree by which people interpret research as a call to action is a measure of how our culture submits to fear and hatred....my $.02Mike
Doug Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hi Robert
I'm afraid that I have to disagree your general dismissal of Levitt &
Dubner's book Freakonomics. Not all of the book was particularly gripping
but I thought the book provided ammunition for both the conservative and
liberal camps. The correlation between legalize abortion in the US and the
dramatic decline in some crime rates was controlled for other factors such
as increased police budgets, stiffer penalties, altered policing methods,
etc. yet Levitt was still able to attribute a large majority of the
diminished crime rate to legalized abortion. For me, the argument clincher
was that several states legalized abortion before Roe vs. Wade and those
states had crime rates fall before the rest of the country. The author even
stated that legalize abortion was clearly not the direct cause of a decline
in the crime rate. Rather Levitt proposed that perhaps children who were
not rejected at birth by their parents are more likely behave in a socially
condoned manner.
Nor was all of the research in the book based strictly on correlational
analysis. The section dealing with drug dealers who live with their mothers
was based on evidence obtained from some sociological fieldwork that
recovered a detailed set of accounting books and records used by a MBA grad
turned drug kingpin.
I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state
of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues. That doesn't
necessarily mean that the analytical tools they have developed over the
years cannot be used for good. The burgeoning fields of ecological and true
cost economics are two examples of the application of the statistical
economic tools being used to address some of the issues that concern many
people on this list. I just hope that they hurry up and spread the word a
little faster, actually a lot faster. You may want to check out this link
as a place to start
http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/economists.html
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of robert and
benita rabello
Sent: June 20, 2006 12:38 AM
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics
Darryl McMahon wrote:
>There is an oblique reference to this in the archives. I have just
>finished reading the book, and recommend that people put it on their
>reading lists. (No time like the present to get on your public
>library's waiting list.)
>
>
Yes, I think I'm the one who referenced it. This is one of my
stockbroker sister's favorite books.
>I thoroughly enjoyed the book, even learned a thing or two. I was aware
>of the gun-related items, but I had not previously made the crime rate
>drop connection in the U.S. with Roe vs. Wade.
>
The causal relationships the author mentions are tangential, at
best. I'm sure a correlation can be made with the drop in crime rate
versus GDP too. In fact, I'll bet you could correlate a drop in crime
rate with the introduction of Viagra . . .
>Nice piece of de-spinning work. So many more subjects need more such
>treatment.
>
>
It's a great book for NeoCons.
> From the epilogue:
>"But the fact of the matter is that Freakonomics-style thinking
>simply doesn't traffic in morality. As we suggested near the beginning
>of this book, if morality represents an ideal world, then economics
>represents the actual world.
>
>
If only we had reliable numbers . . . If only we could tabulate how
much it REALLY costs to rape the environment, destroy human life and
elevate the welfare of the wealthy over the welfare of the poor. At its
core, morality IS economics, but the paradigm is upside down.
>"The most likely result of having read this book is a simple one: you
>may find yourself asking a lot of questions. Many of them will lead to
>nothing. But some will produce answers that are interesting, even
>surprising."
>
>
Or entirely stupid. Take your pick!
Sorry Darryl, but I'm simply NOT impressed . . .
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
