Harry,
At 18:25 20/09/2011, you wrote:
(HP) I would argue - without disagreeing - that
this is yet another example of "survival of the
fittest". Species act in a certain way because
it is the best route to survival.
Perhaps 'survival of the fittest' is better said
as 'it is the fittest who survive'. A way
species die is when environment conditions change and the species cannot adapt.
The word "fittest" has taken on so many negative
connotations that I tend in my own thinking to
use terms like "apt-ness" and "appropriate-ness".
"Fittest" is perhaps the best term to use when
thinking of the more physical and brutal types of
competition that goes on between two different
species -- a predator and its prey.
(HP) With regard to mating it is without doubt
the female who makes choices, though generations
of males think they are doing the choosing!
This is the other type of evolutionary selection.
This goes on within a species, where the choice
is much more subtle than just brawn or fleetness
of foot. The female is looking for several
desirable qualities in the male. She wants him to
stand by her in the years of raising children.
Besides fitness in the physical sense (good
health mainly) she's looking for dependability,
equability of temperament, trustworthyness and
other qualities. Other things being equal,
though, she'll choose a higher ranking male than others.
(HP) An advantage of our brains is that we can
react to environmental changes -- either changing
ourselves, or changing the environment.
Yes, indeed. We're the most versatile of any
species. We can't change our basic instincts,
though -- only relatively minor cultural
variations. Rank ordering, for example, occurs in
almost all 3,000 or 4,000 mammalian species so
the mutations involved would have been laid down
very early in the 70 or 80 million years of
mammalian evolution. So this instinct, and the
sexual selection arising from it, is pretty deep.
Even in oppressive agri-cultures such as Islam
and Hinduism, where girls are not themselves
allowed to select, the parents will generally
choose a higher ranking male, even if they have to save hard for a dowry.
Keith
Harry
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Keith Hudson
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> 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 cant argue
with Cornell professor Robert Franks
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:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
todays Sunday Business section of the New York
Times
(<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html>
Darwin, The Market Whiz). And another excerpt
from the book was recently published by the
Cornell Alumni Magazine
(<http://cornellalumnimagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1172&Itemid=9>
Starve the Beast).
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, thats
impossible. Well 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.
Thats the bad news. The good news is that
theres 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 alchemists 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
Smiths 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
<http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Economy-Liberty-Competition-Common/dp/0691153191/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313029443&sr=1-1>here.
Ive 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 youre
concerned about the paralysis gripping our
political process, I hope youll give The
Darwin Economy a look. Its first chapter is
posted on Princetons website
<http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9509.pdf>here,
and theres lots more information about it on
the books Facebook page
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Darwin-Economy-by-Robert-H-Frank/199724936731171?sfrm>here.
All good wishes,
Bob
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/>http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
--
******************
Henry George School
of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Tujunga CA 90243
(818) 352-4141
******************
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
