Having observed in the field the activities of smaller mammals
(ungulates), it is not so much that the fought-over female chooses as
that the conquering males takes.
D.
On 9/19/2011 12:10 PM, Keith Hudson wrote:
Arthur,
Well, I'm obviously pleased that at least one economist (and an
eminent one, too) has grasped the essential point that rank order is
the main determinant of evolution within a (mammalian) species. The
(very simple) basic principle is that of quality control by which the
losers tend not to get chosen by the females for sexual partnership
and thus tend not to pass their particular blend of gene variations
onwards. The more gifted in a group tend to obtain more sex than the
others and thus their own particular blend of genes tends to predominate.
Where I think Robert Franks is wrong about his taxation ideas is owed
to another economist, Fred Hirsch. In his day he was regarded as
future Nobel Prize winner but he died tragically young. His only book,
*/Social Limits to Growth/*, however, is still re-printed today.
Hirsch points out that the most highly regarded status goods (he calls
them positional goods) such as houses in beautiful countryside
settings and luxury ocean-going yachts are in relatively slim supply
compared with lesser goods and mass goods. Thus there will never be
any shortage of a sufficient number of billionaires who will be
competing fiercely for the very highest status goods, whatever they
may cost. No amount of progressive consumption taxation will prevent
this competition. In fact, progressive taxation will only enhance the
status, and hence the attractiveness, of the most expensive high-grade
goods. They won't lose their attractiveness, as Franks maintains.
But, essentially, Robert Franks is correct in brining evolutionary
studies into economics. He's done a lot better in drawing wider
attention to the importance of status than I have in the past few
years on this list! Yes, Charles Darwin will go down in longer term
history as being nearer the mark than Adam Smith. But then, some of
Adam Smith's ideas were anticipated by Greek philosophers such as
Xenophon well over two thousand years ago.
Keith
At 17:28 19/09/2011, you wrote:
As a Ph d economist from Cornell University (adviser was Alfred E.
Kahn) I sure can't argue with Cornell professor Robert Frank's
ideas. (I note that he co-authored a book with Ben Bernanke...so
perhaps his ideas will have traction)
I think though that Keith H. will have something to say about how
status is hard wired in humans and if we give up something in one
pecking order game, we will have to substitute something else in an
another pecking order game.
Arthur
*From:* [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ray Harrell
*Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2011 12:16 AM
*To:* 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
*Subject:* [Futurework] FW: The Darwin Economy
Bob is a member of our Board of Advisors. I like his work. Both
his articles and the Winner Take All Society.
REH
*From:* Robert Frank [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:28 PM
*To:* Robert Frank
*Subject:* The Darwin Economy
I hope this note finds you well.
I write to let you know that my new book, /The Darwin Economy:
Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good/, will be published by
Princeton University Press this Wednesday, September 21, as the lead
title on its fall list. An essay excerpted from the book was
published in today's Sunday Business section//of the /New York Times/
("Darwin, The Market Whiz"
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html>).
And another excerpt from the book was recently published by the
/Cornell Alumni Magazine/ ("Starve the Beast"
<http://cornellalumnimagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1172&Itemid=9>).
I was moved to write this book by feelings of despair about our
impoverished political/economic debate. With a solid majority in the
House and enough votes to block legislation in the Senate,
Republicans have vowed to balance the federal budget with spending
cuts alone. But as anyone familiar with the numbers knows, that's
impossible. We'll also need new revenues. Yet Republicans on the
Congressional budget supercommittee have all signed a formal pledge
never to approve increased taxes under any circumstances. And in a
recent debate, Republican presidential candidates all said they would
reject any proposal that had even one dollar of tax increases for
every ten dollars of spending cuts. An economic train-wreck looms.
That's the bad news. The good news is that there's a painless way to
avert it. In /The Darwin Economy/, I describe simple steps could
liberate literally trillions of dollars in additional resources each
yearenough not just to balance the budget but also to restore our
crumbling infrastructure. No painful sacrifices would be required.
No cherished freedoms would be threatened. Just a few unintrusive
changes in the tax code would suffice.
These bold claims, inspired by insights of Charles Darwin, evoke the
alchemist's promise to transform lead into gold. But they rest on
sound logic and compelling evidence.
Darwin understood that individual and group interests sometimes
coincide, as in Adam Smith's Invisible-Hand theory. But he also
understood that group interests often conflict sharply with
individual interests, and that in those cases, individual interests
trump. In ways that non-human animals cannot, we can act
collectively to curb the enormous waste that often results from such
conflicts. And therein lies the way forward.
The policies I propose rest on a simple, uncontroversial
observationthat the forces driving luxury consumption are strongly
context-dependent. When the rich all build larger mansions, they
succeed only in raising the bar that defines how big a mansion they
feel they need. Simple changes in the tax code could cause
across-the-board reductions in luxury spending whose effects would be
similar to those of parallel cutbacks in weapons spending caused by
military arms control agreements. Such agreements also create new
resources out of thin air, by enabling rival nations to spend more on
domestic services without jeopardizing their national security.
Implausible though my claim might sound on first hearing, many
respected economists (including the two I admire mostTom Schelling
and Will Baumol) have endorsed my arguments. For example, Baumol, a
past president of the American Economic Association, wrote that the
book's "message is my only hope for a rational economic future."
Amazon.com has compiled long list of other endorsements here
<http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Economy-Liberty-Competition-Common/dp/0691153191/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313029443&sr=1-1>.
I've been at this long enough to know better than to expect that any
single book will make much difference. But conversations about
change have to start somewhere, and if you're concerned about the
paralysis gripping our political process, I hope you'll give /The
Darwin Economy/ a look. Its first chapter is posted on Princeton's
website here <http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9509.pdf>, and
there's lots more information about it on the book's Facebook page
here
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Darwin-Economy-by-Robert-H-Frank/199724936731171?sfrm>.
All good wishes,
Bob
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
