Re: WEALTH SPAWNS CORRUPTION (article in Science)

[Ray Evans Harrell]

Steve, thanks for the post.   What I got most from it was that the last paragraph came from a left leaning predisposition.   The other problem I have is with examples of what they are theorizing.   It seems that open markets exist all over the world in various forms and permutations.  The largest market in the pre 1515 world for trade was the one at Tenochtitlan which made Cortez want to own it.   He didn't understand that you couldn't "own" such a thing since the system of the "Great Speaker" was not the same as "King" in his governmental systems although he was a form of Dictator.    On the other hand, I've seen a considerable amount of historical research that states that Democracies tend to decay into Dictatorships with the most famous being Caesar at Rome.   The Democracy at Tenochtitlan also changed, under pressure from the outside armies (with the need for a national defense), into a quasi religious form of Fascism with the life and death of every citizen in the centralized hands of the Great Speaker since the limited resources of the Island demanded rigorous education, pollution control and military might.  A sort of Sparta of the New World.  But the members of the trade guild knows as Pochtecas were found all the way to the Arctic and to Tierra del Fuego in the South.    It seems that any profession can offer a rationale or opinion about why things happen in the universe and therein lies part of the problem.  We can each look at reasons for external situations from our unique professional perspectives.   What I find fallacious is that any one profession holds the keys to the answer in any more than a temporary time bound fashion.    Math is just one of the languages that we use.   It is not the only one.   And I don't believe, based upon the historical experience of my own people, that the Western idea of speculative Capital markets is the only market answer either.   It is just the answer that we have at the moment.   It is poor at handling education, ecology, health care, law and the arts and tolerates a decline in both morality and professional quality when profit becomes the sole arbiter of value.    Communism, especially Cuba's small size version, beats us in education for the masses, health care, and comparitively in the arts as well.   I can't speak for the quality of the Cuban courts while we are better at handling resource distribution and retail through small businesses.    It all seems to be more that small is the answer, maybe both in government and business.   But I don't believe that.   For every answer there is an exception and if there is an exception then the principle doesn't hold.   The issue in the article is to define an objective standard.  Representitives of these same "types" of scientists have tried the same at defining music.   What they have come up with is dreck, garbage.   Computer nonsense that doesn't satisfy even the first of the rules of good art.   That it be true to the time and place from which it is born.  Much less the second which is that it is the best possible quality.    It reminds me of an article on the human voice in Scientific American a few years ago.    Something I do know more about than they did.   They were able to define physical realities but had to admit in the end that they had no way of even beginning to understand what made the difference between a good singer and a bad one.   A decision that voice teacher's make every day. The problem for me is that we have to live in the world that these folks create and often it makes it harder for us to do our work and the future of our work more tenuous.   That is the reason that I prefer to work outside of institutions where these folks hide out. Ray PS. Following is a piece of the first article that I sent to the Magic Circle Board of Advisors last year from John Warfield's essay.   I think it is appropriate, what do you think?   A "trusel" is an idea or a finding that is widely perceived to be true, but which is largely useless (or even of negative value). (The idea that a truth may lack value may be disturbing, but it is true, although it is not a trusel.) A "Magnificent Academic Trusel" is one that has been widely acknowledged for its intellectual content   (explicitly or implicitly), but without a corresponding amount of attention being given to its utility or even to its potential negative value for society. The negative value may come from commission or omission. It may deal with the content of a discipline, with the way a discipline is perceived, with knowledge that cuts across  disciplines, and even with "integrative studies".   from some Magnificent Academic Trusels an essay by John Warfield.         -- Original Message ----- From: Steve Kurtz To: Ray Evans Harrell Cc: FUTUREWORK Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: Re: WEALTH SPAWNS CORRUPTION (article in Science) Hi Ray, The definitions of key terms are to blame. (my understanding) When the article refer to "socialism", they are referring to the strong centrally mandated type, not the small community Israeli Kibbutz. Cuba might be one country that doesn't fit either definition, but they are short of the money necessary for condensation. In a controlled economy (Harry & Keith have already helped explain that capitalism is ALSO a controlled economy), wealth can condense more easily than in a TRUE free trade economy which enables more competition, not monopoly.  The article's mistake is assuming that these actually exist: Liberal economies that maintain free and unrestricted trade are less susceptible. The journalist &/or the physicists are confused/unclear. From my readings there have been scarce few open economies like that beyond tribal or regional ones. (Inuit, native Amer., Aboriginal, Kibbutz, ..) Champions of unrestricted free-market trade, meanwhile, might bear in mind that this is the very condition that generates an unequal Pareto distribution in the first place. It places most of the wealth in the hands of a lucky few. There will probably always be gaps in well-being and power. The losers use the concept of "lucky"; the winners use the facts of smarts & cleverness, and hard work. I'd lay 2:1 that the journalist writing this leans to the left! :-) The study surely is better written, and when I get time, I'll have a look at it. My guess is that central control is key, even if by consent of the governed. Hope this helps. Steve ----------------------------- Steve, I read the article and all the way through I thought that it was saying that socialism was the most likely to accrue the wealth in the hands of one individual i.e. corruption, when the last sentence said the opposite. Could you explain this a little less technically to me? Also when do models fail? When they fly in the face of common sense? Why do some societies like the Scandinavians seem to resist corruption so well while the old Spanish colonies seem to prone to Cronyism. Wasn't Texas and old Spanish colony? But I would appreciate the economics professionals on the list making this a little more clear to me. I'm familiar with Pareto-optimality which is what I have been saying about winners must have losers. But the science article didn't make sense to me. Help? -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.—Kenneth Boulding