> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:52 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Liberal Capitalist Fundamentalism > > On 4/13/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > So, how is the general consensus of economists a reflection of > > fundamentalism? Is there an example you can provide of a new theory > that > > has been well verified experimentally that has been rejected because it > > conflicts with old theories? > > > I don't know what you think I was talking about, but it certainly had > little > or nothing to do with any consensus of non-ideological economists, who > tend > to be among the best critics of our systems. > > I was referring to the non-scholarly idea that the market is *the* bottom > line for many issues, that our political-economic system is as good as it > gets, it only needs further adoption and refinement, but no fundamental > changes.
Well, I don't think it really has to go that far. A system that claims no more than the best representation we've seen so far is all that is fundamentally claimed. Well, it is well recognized that economics are not the only motivating factor for human decisions. The last two elections, with church attendance being a far better guide to the voting pattern of whites than income, is an example of this. An unprecedented fraction of lower income people voted for Republicans because they better identify Republicans on social issues. So, I'd certainly agree that economics isn't everything. But, I know Gautam has argued that with me on a number of time, teasing me about being a Marxist for overemphasizing the importance of economics in human decision making. It's also been seen in support for things like Medicaid....from people who did not expect to be on Medicaid themselves...So, people can act altruistically too. But, as those who work with church charities know, combating hunger, or massive destruction, like that seen in New Orleans, cannot simply be the responsibility of charity. > I believe that networks, in the many meanings of that word, are already > demonstrating the incompleteness of economic fundamentalism as it exists > in the western world today. If it is fundamentalism, then it has to be in opposition to a concrete system, not the view that is still hazy. If you think that the present understanding of politics and economics is inherently flawed, and that there are concrete empirical examples of this, then I'd be interested in seeing them. What I've seen many times before are general outlines that people see of future paradigm shifts. The first one was the one we grew up with....when "the times, they are a changing." While change did happen, the present doesn't match the '60s vision I remember reading and hearing. You seem to be talking about such a change that the very ideas of politics science, sociology, and economics as organizations of understanding of human systems will fall by the wayside. I know that you thought the internet would bring revolutionary change. Things have changed, I can now work from hope doing hi-tech stuff and interact quickly with customers around the nation (and world if I had customers outside of the US). News has changed in that people tend to go to sites of like minded people on the net for their "unbiased" news, so we are more Balkanized than we use to be. The news cycle is shorter now, and rumors get out much more effectively than every before....and true or not they have impact. But, I don't see this in the same paradigm shift fashion that you seem to. I think I told you, I read Kuhn way before he was cool, and misquoted everywhere. In my field, there have been two real paradigm shifts in 2500+ years. Since Kuhn's book, I've seen a number of claims to paradigm shifts, that were overblown, to put it mildly. So, I'm skeptical about the tremendous shift you are arguing for. But, I think that's the proper attitude towards arguments for future shifts of this kind. In my field, fundamental changes, such as dropping a mechanistic view of the universe and accepting the demise of local realism took a great deal of evidence. To use Kuhn's example, it's like tearing apart your whole machine shop and starting all over, instead of building what you need in the present shop. As a regular habit, it would bankrupt you. There are times when it is required, but the high price that is paid for rebuilding the entire machine shop means that a tremendous case needs to be built for it. In particular, if you accuse folks who keep the old paradigm of fundamentalism, then the standards become very high....akin to sticking with old physics after the A-bomb went off. So, I'm really curious. How does networking form the basis for a new paradigm that is so clearly correct, that those who look at things in the more traditional way are fundamentalists? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
