Is it time for a Constitutional Convention for Economists? See [blogs.reuters.com]. Well, Soros says we need more central planning. And, hint, people like him are just the ones to give it to us. We need to be taken care of. And he is willing to do the care taking. For a non-competitive fee. And he will care for us equally. So no one needs to worry about anyone getting more than their fair share just by "acting white." No doubt, Obama will provide us with some smart 27 year old czars to fix all this for us.
Now it’s the Recourse Rule. Well, it seems that every time an analyst figures out “the economic cause” of a problem with the market and sells a solution to conventional wisdom, the government will try to graft the solution into a regulation, as if the combination of economic analysis and legislation can give us long term, “scientific fixes.” Of course, whatever the legislated “solution,” opportunists, like downhill irrigators, will find the leaks. More opportunists will accumulate, the leaks will expand, and a new flood of abuse will burble forth. If we want stability and human dignity rather than snake oil Obama-nanigans and insufferable Big Gov, the precisely wrong way to go for it is to graft 2000 page pieces of comprehensive legislation, to be enforced by innumerable and comprehensively empowered regulatory bodies. Find a simple system of checks and balances that can unleash the vision, initiative, and energy of the people. We need something like a new economic Congress, called to simplify, check, and get government the hell out of our economics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
From A.T. -- http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/579012/579539.html#msg-579539
Re: “Think logically. Scientific method or Hill's Criteria for Causation: [www.drabruzzi.com]”
Well, it is one thing to espouse the scientific method as being “equally valid” for problems of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, perhaps even for fundamental human aspects of consciousness. It is another thing to espouse objective methods as being in themselves “equally valid” for explaining that which may be considerably influenced by subjective aspects, as in how economic goods are individually, subjectively, or culturally valued. Insofar as we strive to find how best to fulfill subjective psychological and sociological needs, I rather doubt there are many, if any, fixed, “scientific” principles. Even so, I certainly agree we can communicate logically in respect of historical experience. Thereby, we can hope to proceed in wisdom towards meaningful and convincing consensus. That is a logical way to proceed towards reconciling self and group fulfillment.
Of course, the temporal adequacy of any such guidance will change with the unfolding and changing consciousness of individuals and how they choose to raise group consciousness. That is, there is no “science” that will lead us to a fixed way to establish a best and permanent state of subjective fulfillment –- economic or otherwise. There are, however, methods for proceeding in wisdom.
Why is a distinction between objective science and subjective social wisdom important? Answer: To pierce the arrogance of elites who wish to overweight their arguments with pretense of “objective science,” even as applied to realms that are, obvious to any thinker, weighted with unfolding levels of changing subjectivity in social tastes and psychological needs. In other words, business regulations and economic formulas that may function reasonably well in one context, society place, or time may be quite inappropriate to another. It is important to call all activists in all social and moral fields of inquiry to account when they pretend too much that their arguments are based in “science” or “natural law,” rather than in experiential analysis and social wisdom.
This is a side excursion, but I point it out because I fear temptation in those elites who think they know best, to try to overawe the votes of all the little people with pretense of “science” -- for which global warming as pretense for justifying outrageously intrusive “cap and trade” schemes of social control is but one example.
There is a need in philosophy to distinguish between that which is a path to scientific discovery and that which is a path to social wisdom. IMHO.
That said, the author’s analysis of the effect of the Recourse Rule seems to me to be very wise indeed.
No matter what occurs in what sequence, it is obvious that the psyche of the Regime is intent on putting all ordinary folk on an equal-footing plantation. To tell that we have too much stifling, governmental intrusion, we may better rely on subjective evaluation of the general moral and psychological health of America than on governmental indices of economic health. As Bob Dylan said, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” Whatever happens in whatever sequence, rest assured that well-connected power elites will generally have superior advance information.
Regardless, even though each subjective human consciousness employs reasoning as it makes choices about what to produce and what to consume, it’s simply not “reasonable” to expect that such process must be entirely explicable in terms of scientific cause and effect. To reach that far is unnecessarily to devalue and disrespect free will. Human dignity ought not be disrespected under the heel of any despot or hireling who feigns expertise, as a matter of science, to “know” what is best. After all, isn’t an important function of economics to try to reconcile the trade that occurs among free agents and entrepreneurs, competing in a marketplace of goods and ideas?
It is not necessary to reason that the free will of each and every trader or group of traders must be amenable of a complete accounting in terms of material causation. Rather, we often change in how we value things (like music) simply because we do, without need or capacity for complete, mechanical explanations.
In hindsight, we pretend to rationalize explanations. But wisdom and humanity are often compromised when prospective applications are mired into ruts fashioned by dead hands of the past, as if explanations that made sense then must be taken, zombie-like, as scientifically and reliably true for guiding the present. Sure, past traditions and wisdom are important. But so is respect for human dignity and freedom, guided by intuitive foresight against opportunistic predators, skilled at exploiting bubbles to be blown by zombies tied too closely to hindsight learning.
Wisdom and vision do not consist in looking for predators only in places that are illuminated by the scientific method. The best course for America would be to clear the jungle of unnecessary governmental regulations and let economic agents compete on the open savannah. But The most profitable course for an individual may be to anticipate the direction of the greedy corrupt by understanding them better than they understand themselves. But only if you can stomach the trip.
From A.T. -- Re: “Under the current legislation being considered, the government will have the capacity to intervene in what they call a "bailout" whenever they see fit, meaning not only at the request of a company.”
It sounds like the purpose of the legislation being considered is to give crony regulators the power to reward political friends and punish political enemies, to the benefit of the corporatist regime. If so, this is not reform, but corruption to the benefit of incumbent progressives. If we want reform, we need to get the progressives out. This afternoon, Beck observed what we have to do if we are to effect real reform in order to rid ourselves of the Progressives who are ruining America. We will not effect real reform with more paper. It boils down to respect for faith, Constitution, and founders (traditional wisdom). It boils down to having moxie enough to say that to be anti-Obama Crime, Inc. (anti-smirking commie) is not to be racist, but to be American.
Re: “… the government will have unprecedented power over private financial companies because like health insurance companies, they are deemed too vital to the nation.”
This is inaccurate because it is missing some prefatory words, to wit: “the Corporatists who own” the government will have unprecedented power, etc. Our problem is not too little regulation by government. Our problem is too much regulation of government by Corporatists, whose hacks write the bills and get appointed to run the regulatory bodies. We are putting Attila (Goldman Sachs) in charge of defending the gold in Fort Knox. The metamorphosis of our system-of-free-enterprise for producing goods into a system-of -crony-enterprise for owning politicians is all but complete. Obama has emerged from a cocoon, not as a beautiful butterfly, but as figurative head of Mothra, the “guardian of the planet” with “no particular concern for humanity.” “Mothra has always been operated mechanically as a wire controlled marionette, remote controlled robotic prop.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothra.)
Mothra may be symbolic of a massive, social-based sickness or fixation shared by Blacks and Jews for needing revenge against “Whitey.” Blacks tend to express this by direct aggression, by requiring Whitey to support them. Jews tend to express this by passive aggression, by subverting Whitey to their financially regulated control. The more Jews can excite animosity against themselves, the more they can justify passive aggression. Acting in concert, many Blacks and Jews mean to reduce the middle class.
Regrettably, the Jewish connection regarding Soros and Goldman Sachs is bound to be reviled, once the fruits of “financial reform" begin to spring forth. Soros and Goldman Sachs will cause net pain for Jews much as Al Sharpton and Rev. Jackson have caused net pain for African-Americans.
To avoid downward spiraling race wars, now is the time when all decent Americans need to get on board for supporting free enterprise against crony capitalism and welfare bribe-based capitalism.
Post a Comment