Hi Billy, On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Ernie: > Not sure how relevant this observation is, but some civilizations endure for > millennia. > Really hard to know what it means that classic Chinese civilization lasted > until the era of > Sun Yat Sen, or that Egyptian civilization remained mostly intact until the > Romans, > or no later than Byzantium, or Mesopotamia until the rise of Islam. Not to > mention > India, Ethiopia, or Andean "Indian" civilization. But in all these cases, and > more, > we are talking about really long periods of time.
That's a fair interpretation; I was perhaps being a bit pessimistic. However, one could make the case that in many of these: i) while nominally one culture, civilization periodically broke down and had to be recreated (e.g., China) ii) the culture existed as a fossil long after it stopped growing (e.g., Egypt) > In some cases we know about markets, especially Mesopotamia, with trade > missions > to foreign countries, records of ( primitive ) banking transactions, etc, > etc. Also know > that the economy was "mixed" and featured a good deal of gvt intervention, > which, > like the market itself, could be all for the good, or a mess > > Flexibility, seems to me, was the key to success --viz adaptability, > creative impulse > reinforced by religious values. These days we cannot require religious values > of anyone, > but we still need some equivalent, about which, Adam Smith was right. Markets, > if they are to perform as advertised, need a solid grounding in useful social > values. > Especially since markets, also like gvts, will always need to confront > externalities, > natural disasters, social unrest, effects of war, epidemics, you name it. And > not > excluding good externalities like impact of a new technology or social > invention. > > So, while this shows my bias of long standing, the war that matters most > is the war over values. I don't disagree; my bias is precisely that a philosophical (value) system is a necessary context within which to embed economic and political systems, and neither of those can survive long without the former. -- Ernie P. > > Billy > > ============================================================ > > > In a message dated 4/20/2010 2:27:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > HI Billy, > > On Apr 20, 2010, at 2:04 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > I will say it again, which I think you agree with, that when it comes > > to free speech, libertarians are the gold standard. But when it comes to > > rationality in politics, they simply can't be taken seriously. Or, more > > clinically, > > simply can't be taken seriously except in specific cases where we have > > rational markets and social costs are controlled for. > > What's worrisome to me is that not that the libertarians are wrong (everyone > is, sometimes :-), but that nobody else may be *right*. > > The most sobering insight of systems theory is that systems become more > adaptable by becoming *less* energetically stable. For example, a human > being needs a very specific environment to survive compared to a bacteria. > Similarly, societies built only on subsistence farming can last unchanged for > thousands of years, whereas civilizations typically only endure for hundreds. > > In other words, the very complexity that helps us to do more makes us more > complex, and thus vulnerable to a whole different class of problems. > > This is the terrifying thought: markets may well be irrational, but they are > probably the least irrational thing we can create, and anything we create to > supervise them will ultimately become more irrational. > > In other words, we have two choices: > > a) Live with a system of periodic boom and bust as the market system > naturally destroys and recreates itself (which, correct me if I'm wrong, > happened periodically with great severity in all industrial economies up to > and including the Great Depression). > > b) Create ancillary systems that "dampen out" those cycles, but which > *themselves* are susceptible to larger (and ultimately more devastating) > cycles. > > There is no third option. > > That is, even if we are sufficiently brilliant to create an optimal > philosophical scheme that is designed to keep the market and politics from > destroying each other, all we are doing is setting up a new system that when > *it* fails (as it eventually will), will lead to an ultimately even more > devastating outcome. > > But, what are we to do? You can't really go backwards; no sane human (at > least one with a family) really wants to make ourselves more susceptible to > random external events by living in more primitive circumstances. Even the > Amish don't shun modern medicine. > > And contrary to the libertarian dreams, we can't really freeze development at > a certain stage. We can and should make regulation smarter and leaner, but > we can't go back to the pre-New-Deal America, unless we execute a > dramatically non-libertarian edict to simultaneously shrink all companies, > social organizations, and even educational institutions back to their > previous tiny size. Otherwise, whatever modern-scale institutions left would > end up filling the void. Like it or not, we live in a complex world, and > complex governance (for all its flaws) is the only thing that can handle > it. > > So the only choice left is to go forward, as wisely as we can, yet knowing > that our successes will ultimately become our own downfall. > > Frankly, the Amish may be the best role models -- by being extremely picky > about how much complexity they adopt, they can at least minimize the negative > impact on their own human capacity; and they'd probably be the most viable > communities if the whole modern economy up and died! > > -- Ernie P. > > P.S. Thinking Chris may have made a wise choice in moving to Montana... > > P.P.S. Sorry for the depressing email on a Tuesday, but if we're going to > chastise others for the failure of their systems, we should at least be > honest about the fate of our own > _______________________________________________ > Centroids mailing list: [email protected] > http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com > Archives at > http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Centroids mailing list: [email protected] > http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com > Archives at > http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
