Ed,
I don’t
think I have ever met a person who thinks things travel in a straight line forever.
Brad has some
interesting friends.
Harry
********************************************
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004
12:40 PM
To: Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
Cc: Keith Hudson;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Two sorts of evolutionary economics (the
paradoxicalrelation of pure theory to reality)
Brad, perfect competition may not be
similar to the belief that objects move in straight lines forever. It's a
normative model that tells us that, in most markets, the greater the degree of
competition, the more efficient the use of society's resources. As I
pointed out previously, much depends on the relationship between firm and
market size. To do some things, firms such as airlines or railroads must
be large in relation to the size of the market in order to achieve economies of
scale (efficiency). Generally, however, competition is the preferred
state, at least in a free enterprise economy. Laws have been passed and
legislative authorities established in order to keep firms from carrying out
anti-competitive practices.
Ø
Ed Weick wrote:
>
> > Brad:
> >
> > > But the modern person who believes objects really
> > > do move in straight lines forever, just like the modern
> > > person who beleves in perfect competition, has a
> > > grossly distorted view of their environment.
> > You can't "believe" in perfect competition, all you can do
is understand
> > it as the ideal state of the market given a number of assumptions.
> [snip]
>
> OK. I was speaking loosely. I meant: But the modern person
> who acts as if objects really do move in straight lines forever,
> just like the modern person who acts as if perfect competition
> was how economic actors actually behave in their society, has a
> grossly distorted view of their environment.
>
> I was "eliding" the relation between belief and action (or,
> as it is scientifically called these days: "behavior").
>
> I think this may have some connection to what I believe
> is a deep structural aspect of human existence: that structures
> which at one level are descripive and taxonomic, at another
> level become normative and voluntative. Example: Heidegger
> defined human existence as "Care". There is a sense in
> which the torturer cares about his or her victim, else
> the torturer would not bother to torture them. But this is
> a very different kind of care from nurturance which the
> recipient would freely choose if given a chance to walk
> away from it without suffering adverse consequences.
>
> Sorry for the imprecision. Conversation is iterative....
>
> Your from the town where former US President Clinton
> has a home (how often he stays there I don't know)....
>
> \brad mccormick
