At 09:55 9/12/97 -0800, Barry Brooks wrote:
>> Jay wrote:
>> >#1. That the approaching dieoff is the WORST possible outcome, and
>> >that the primary goal of governments MUST be to avoid that dieoff.
>> >
>> >#2. That participants are willing to put everything on the table -- are
>> >willing to abandon any "belief" in the face of contrary scientific
evidence.
>> >This would include the "belief" that the right economic theories can save
>> >us.
>
>Yes, everything should be on the table, but the table is finite. Success
>requires all the items on the list of necessary items. That includes
>right theories in various fields. (impling demise of false theories)
>Then, we must IMPLEMENT those ideas, as Doug Hinrichs says. So on the
>table are also methods of implementation.
They say that even if no battle-plan survives contact with the enemy,
no enemy survives contact without a battle-plan. Effective economic theories
are nowhere near enough to save us, and there are probably a lot of economic
mistakes that we can survive ... *but* there are certain mistakes that can
help
bury us.
A crucial one is in mistaking the built-in answers of a theory with
the conclusions that the theory puts at stake. We will never be able to use
economic theories that have viability as an original premise to ask questions
about whether something will leave us 'viable enough'. And the premise of
viability is built into most mainstream economic theories, so that if we
rely on them for questions of viability, the answer will be premise-based
rather than observation-based.
Virtually,
Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
