First, I suspect that someone may react against me here in Norway grandly
prescribing the break-up of the U.S. .Take my opinions and speculations
for what they are worth. That said, some further remarks.
Michael Lichter replies to me:
the U.S. isn't a bunch of cobbled-together set of
Hi pen-ners,
would anyone be able to point me in the right direction for recent
literature on the following keywords: sales tax services sector;
looking for discussion of above based in tax reform to possibly
include expanding sales tax to a broad-based taxing of the services
sector, hopefully
After posting a message about the near-tautology and non-
falsifiable character of the "rationality" assumption in
economics, I stumbled on a prima facie case of economic
IRrationality that indicates that maybe the "rationality"
assumption is falsifiable:
at the campus stamp machine last year,
I must register a disagreement with Jim Devine on the question of rationality
in neoclassical economics. I DO think their view is non-tautological.
Rationality is generally defined as adherence to Von Neuman/Morgenstern (or
Friedman/Savage) expected utility, where the decision-maker selects the
On Tue, 10 Jan 1995, D Shniad wrote:
Brezhinsky was on the CBC last week, railing against the outrageous
position being taken by Clinton and the Stat4e Department, which have
been comparing Yeltsin's role as akin to that of Lincoln (as a
nationa saver).
Sounds weird, but it's hard to
three points on positivism:
1. the Marxist Rudolf Hilferding was (to my mind) a positivist,
with his distinction between "Marxism as a science" and "socialism
as a moral committment."
2. I think this goes to the heart of positivism: the positivists
think that there's a clear distinction between
On Tue, 10 Jan 1995, Jim Devine wrote:
Jim argues in the following that the economist's notion of rationality is
tautological, so lacking in empirical content, so lacking in normative
force. There's a long-standing] debate about this in philosophy which I
might briefly summarize here.
Carl
In spite of this, IMO, they should not today be
fusioned without the consent of a clear majority in both countries,
expressed in a referendum after a democratic and informed discussion.
For once, Trond, I disagree with you. At least, I think the Taiwan issue
is not so clear cut.
The question
Broome and others have pointed out, very much as Jim argues, that it's
always possible to redefine options in ways that can save the rationality
hypothesis, even in the face of the aporia Peter mentions below. In order
therefore for the hypothesis to "have any bite", as Broome puts it, there
Probably all the Canadian comrades already know about this...
From: "Sara Tompson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: clinic and privacy stuff
X-Comment: N.O.W. Choice list
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kelly Bert Manning)
Subject: Canadian Government Computer Abuse
Organization: The National Capital
Last I heard, the Maori were content with staying put in New Zealand rather
than undertaking an expansionist expedition over 5,000 miles to Taiwan :).
Of course, many Maori too would like their turangawaewae ("place to stand") by
regaining sovereignty over what they call Aotearoa.
Cheers,
The great Devine one opines:
This year, with the postal rate increase,
people pay 35 cents to get a 32-cent stamp.
The change shows up not as three one-cent
stamps, but as a three-cent stamp, which
currently is one of the most useful stamps
around, since it fills
Kevin Quinn lays out what makes sense (to me) very well.
There's a trade-off in assertions of individual rationality.
One can imagine the possibility of a totally tautological
concept of rationality: John Wayne Gacy, say, has a preference
for inconsistent behavior, since he likes spontaneity,
On Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:56:16 -0800 Justin Schwartz said:
(first quoting me)
2. I think this goes to the heart of positivism: the positivists
think that there's a clear distinction between "fact" and "value,"
so it's possible to be "value free" in one's science. The positivists
think that one
I think that a lot of economists play a disingenuous game:
they take a non-tautological version of rationality, i.e.,
one that assumes that people are atomistically individualistic
with fixed tastes -- and all sorts of convenient ideological
overtones, since this sociopathic behavior is seen as
The discussion over economists and rationality reminded me of something
I've been wanting to ask the economists on the list. Is the study of
complexity/chaos making any headway in mainstream economics these days?
I've read a bit of the work on complexity going on in the study of
biology, and it
Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 10:49:15 -0800
From: La Mujer Obrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Your letter
URGENT LETTER
FROM
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY
IN MEXICO, USA
601 N. Cotton Street, #A103
El Paso, Texas 79902
Dear PEN,
Several people have pointed out a bit of unintentional
futurism in my post giving a reference on methodology. To
the point: the year is 1988, not 1998. I have NO confidence
in my ability (or anybody else's) to predict publications
on methodology (or anything else) into the
The discussion over economists and rationality reminded me of something
I've been wanting to ask the economists on the list. Is the study of
complexity/chaos making any headway in mainstream economics these days?
Read _The Economy as a Complex System_, a proceedings volume from the Santa
Fe
19 matches
Mail list logo
