Yes I think that was the distinction I was trying to get at, or could have been better expressed. Capitalism does not want too much instability. It does not want micro-managment but it wants greater social control of core systems. It will want the intelligentsia of financial services better monitored with a better balance of positive and negative feedback mechanisms.
Mechanisms although fuzzy may still be useful to them, and I think I recall seeing an argument somewhere that fuzzy systems may in some ways be more useful. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "raghu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Progressive Economics" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Complexity theory and unpredictability Re: [Pen-l] GreenspanFinds "Flaw"! | On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > This is an uterly qualitative change in the progress of political | > consciousness in recognising capitalism as a highly complex social system, | > which now needs, if not social ownership, a greatly heightened degree of | > social control. | > | | | I am not sure that there is anything new about the | economy-as-complex-system observation. In fact Hayekians commonly use | that observation to argue against socialism: the economy is so complex | that no central authority can possibly plan and allocate resources | efficiently. And there is something to that argument. But it is really | only a very narrow argument against excessive micromanagement rather | than against socialism as a whole. | -raghu. | | -- | You will pay for your sins. If you already have please disregard this message. | _______________________________________________ | pen-l mailing list | [email protected] | https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
