Ed Weick wrote:
I would suggest you take it easy on economists and the rest of us. We are
neither meat nor computers, though we are a little of both in addition to
many other things. And most of us are trying to muddle through without too
much lying, cheating, exploitation and self-deception.
Well Ed, I appreciate your disclaimer and I can understand that at the
human level most of you are nice guys, well educated, good manners, decent
grooming, love your wife and children, probably some of you even do
volunteer work, pay your bills on time, belong to a church, don't fall
victim to road rage, have extended medical coverage for your loved ones,
work diligently to take advantage of all your tax deductions and maximize
your investment opportunities. In fact, I believe you are living the life
many of us poorer folks would like to live so in fact your are providing a
role model for the great unwashed to aspire too.
I also believe that when many of you go to work, whether in education or
government or in private industry and just as assiduously produce studies
and papers, give advice, make rules and regulations that protect you and
yours at the expense of me and mine. Now this may not be a fair assessment
and of course we poor must be fair or we are considered unseemly and
demanding. I believe that you advise governments and business on ways to
enrich the rich and deprive the poor. That most of you hate unions and
love the "free market". And I can appreciate the dilemma which includes
your disclaimer that most you are just trying to muddle through etc. And I
know the penalties of telling the truth, being honest, refusing to allow
exploitation and the satisfaction of a little self deception.
Now, obviously I am an idealist. And let's face it, from the bottom of the
heap, it's easy to attack you guys in the middle and on the top. One thing
I sincerely appreciate is that some of you do belong to open lists such as
this one and you do expose yourself to the rantings and reason of people of
different viewpoints. We don't hold any high ground on "rightness" but
then we don't have any power to try it our way either. So, in the best
interests of dialog, let us keep talking and writing and perhaps those who
read both our viewpoints may find a middle ground between the dysfunctional
status quo and the idealistic hopes of the others.
Respectfully
Thomas Lunde
