Cousin, I won't comment on your lengthy remarks re: Hudson Economics, but surely you don't think Ann Coulter got to the top of the best seller list without the artifice of friends and assorted vested cronies purchasing in lump orders? I wonder how many copies the American Spectator and hate radio biggies purchased? I saw her on the Phil Donohue show and she absolutely stumbled in her stunned inability to counter his debate of her book. She has been exposed as a fraud, me thinks. Also, I read the sad story last year of an author who personally purchased his own book in quantity via Amazon, using his own credit card, and then reselling the books later. I think they call that the Darth Vader play in Enronitis, but in his case it was unnecessary greed (unlike Ann Coulter) to push an otherwise interesting book above its naturally rising sales. Yes, greed and novelty, there is unfortunately that link too. Karen
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Evans Harrell Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson Cc: Ed Weick; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is Economics, Hudson? (snip) Not because I didn't like it, in fact I loved it. I would say that this is my favorite post of Keith's of all time. I would give you a Nobel for it but it would have to be shared with the James Burke and his wonderful "Connections" television program. Here in the US we are really more about what I would call a contrary security blanket. In the rest of the world I would assume that expertise would be applauded and that you would go to an expert to solve a problem in the area that they were expert within. Here in the US there is a twist to all of this that must be understood if you are to understand why things are done the way they are. But let you finish first. You said: > Just one final comment. Apart from a relatively few extra genes than > chimps, the supremely significant development of the human species was the > vast enlargement of the frontal lobes of the cortex (our vertical > foreheads). They are *huge* compared with those of other primates. The > primary purpose of the frontal lobes is to deal with novel perceptions. The > frontal lobes have an avidity for novelty. Even while most of the > population of the world may continue to suffer poverty and extreme > deprivation, the economies of the developing countries of the world will > continue to be primarily motivated by the emergence of novelties and not by > the suffering of the rest of the world. And that's a fact that Messrs > Samuelson, Norhaus. Mankiw, Baumol and Binder don't address and never > discuss. Unlike the part I snipped, I think this is just a little too cute. In short I am not going to say much about it except that it ignores too much and endangers your thesis by elevating a biological story that is too glib even for an artist. As you said wonderfully earlier in this post (the snipped part) the definition could be applied to too many other areas for it to work seriously in this one. For example it could explain the Coliseum murders in Rome or the invention of Opera but the real answer is more interesting and complicated than that. But let me go back to the "novelty" or James Burke "connections" theory of motivation. In America it is not so much about "novelty" except in the very idle rich, but about what Americans call "security". Homeland Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc. This could produce a very Anal retentive population that would get little done and could become murderous in its defensiveness. Yes, I know that HAS happened but there is another side to all of this that stops it to some degree. I would call it the "law of reaction." You may not defend yourself until something has already happened. For example, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center on the Mega side but on the Mini side you may not look for someone until you have found a body, or in medicine you may not begin prevention until you have discovered cancer. The excuse to this ignoring of prevention is usually economic. It costs too much. But the reality is that we like the possibility of chance in the midst of all of our retentiveness. "Don't care for it until its broke." Europeans may have marched off to war in WW I because they were bored and had toys but Americans would never do such a thing unless 1. it was economical and 2. it gave us relief at the toilet. Why else would the media push the perfect Anal Retentive Authoress and self-described constitution scholar Anne Coulter to the no. 1 spot on the nytimes book list (Slander) while ignoring world class artist and non-anal Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" who in spite of being ignored has been on the list for 24 months without hype or pushing from the corporate Media. Moore is the compassionate hedonist who asks why something couldn't be planned ahead of time to eleminate the massive loss of jobs in his hometown of Flint Michigan while Coulter in her finishing school manner complains about Moore's complaints while complaining about the liberal media's assault on her rich friends who pay all the taxes and support all of the charities. i.e. not prevention or planning but "reaction". "You can't have it unless we give it to you and we will only give it to you if we get it first." Game theory is the best America can do on the novelty end and it is poor indeed since it is the joy of chess. Ray Evans Harrell
