A Conservative view of Government.

[Glorious Leader]

I don't own any property.

I'm sure you do but you was a general term.

[Total Crica]

I'm sure you do but you was a general term.

Nope. Not even a drivers license. I own nothing. Everything I use is not owned by me. It has my name on none of it. Unless you consider my body private property? HEH

[Glorious Leader]

Nope. Not even a drivers license. I own nothing. Everything I use is not owned by me. It has my name on none of it.

Right you're just some wandering vagrant on the internet in favor of capitalist property rights. It's really irrelevant either way. The 'You" was a very general term. The reality is it's not "we" in the sense that theirs some shared agreement, if you asked people when they agreed to capitalist property rights they'd probably look at you funny as no agreement was ever made. Nor was it made in the past either. It was just forced. Through violence. No agreement required.

[Total Crica]

Right you're just some wandering vagrant on the internet in favor of capitalist property rights. It's really irrelevant either way. The 'You" was a very general term.

Nope. I am a wife. I am not in favor of property rights. I am a realist that understands how life works. That doesn't mean I am in favor of how it works.

[NED funded]

People are biologically driven before all else.

Economically driven does not mean that they seek only money, just that they maximise utility. Utility is not necesarily money, but in most cases is refered as such. If you don't find job, you move to look for another job or settle for a lower paying job. If people were not economically driven they would choose to starve to death rather than find work.

[Glorious Leader]

Nope. I am a wife. I am not in favor of property rights. I am a realist that understands how life works. That doesn't mean I am in favor of how it works.

Again irellevant. You seem to avoid talking the points. Getting that post count up? Bored housewife? Couple glasses of wine maybe?

[Nadiru]

Economically driven does not mean that they seek only money, just that they maximise utility. Utility is not necesarily money, but in most cases is refered as such. If you don't find job, you move to look for another job or settle for a lower paying job. If people were not economically driven they would choose to starve to death rather than find work.

People are economically driven within certain bounds, but the existence of the homo economicus actor which validates most contemporary economic models has yet to be proven.

[Theodarzna]

Economically driven does not mean that they seek only money, just that they maximise utility. Utility is not necesarily money, but in most cases is refered as such. If you don't find job, you move to look for another job or settle for a lower paying job. If people were not economically driven they would choose to starve to death rather than find work.

People act in ways to survive, pursue sex, eventually breed. They act in certain ways because we have circumscribed them by law to put negative pressure on others. But considering the negative fertility of our Neo-Liberal run technocracies, I suspect creating functional and lasting societies is not something Neo-Liberalism aims to accomplish.

[Total Crica]

Again irrelevant. You seem to avoid talking the points. Getting that post count up? Bored housewife? Couple glasses of wine maybe?

You stated something about me that was untrue, so I corrected you. Not bored at all. I enjoy chatting. Wine tastes bad to me, so I don't drink it.

[Theodarzna]

People are economically driven within certain bounds, but the existence of the homo economicus actor which validates most contemporary economic models has yet to be proven.

Amen to that.

[NED funded]

People act in ways to survive, pursue sex, eventually breed. They act in certain ways because we have circumscribed them by law to put negative pressure on others. But considering the negative fertility of our Neo-Liberal run technocracies, I suspect creating functional and lasting societies is not something Neo-Liberalism aims to accomplish.

You saying they do not act economically is in essence saying that people in general are idiots, you are a aware of that right?

[Glorious Leader]

People act in ways to survive, pursue sex, eventually breed. They act in certain ways because we have circumscribed them by law to put negative pressure on others. But considering the negative fertility of our Neo-Liberal run technocracies, I suspect creating functional and lasting societies is not something Neo-Liberalism aims to accomplish.

Of course not. It's goal was largely to undermine collectivism in favor of rampant individualism.

[Theodarzna]

You saying they do not act economically is in essence saying that people in general are idiots, you are a aware of that right?

Idiots would be your phrasing, not mine. People act as are inclined to act.

The idiot is probably someone in the Austrian school of economics who thought they could just draft up the perfect society on paper and tell people to follow it and assume it was going to work out as planned.

[Glorious Leader]

You saying they do not act economically is in essence saying that people in general are idiots, you are a aware of that right?

It's really not. It's saying that for one thing people are approximating and not necessarily calculating. That they make decisions based on limited information. They are not perfect actors with perfect knowledge and predictive ability as the current economic models suggest. They are not necessarily always maximizing utility. They act for a variety of reasons.

[Theodarzna]

Of course not. It's goal was largely to undermine collectivism in favor of rampant individualism.

I have a bleak vision of the future, primarily if the West is just a bunch of technocracies run by economists. Especially since China and Singapore are run by engineers and scientists, I think that battle is one the west will lose.

[Nadiru]

It's really not. It's saying that for one thing people are approximating and not necessarily calculating. That they make decisions based on limited information. They are not perfect actors with perfect knowledge and predictive ability as the current economic models suggest. They are not necessarily always maximizing utility. They act for a variety of reasons.

There's the other side of things, as well: Most people are indeed too stupid to act rationally even a plurality of the time, and this is necessarily the case because education is imperfect and the IQ bell curve is generally agreed to exist.

[NED funded]

Idiots would be your phrasing, not mine. People act as are inclined to act.

The idiot is probably someone in the Austrian school of economics who thought they could just draft up the perfect society on paper and tell people to follow it and assume it was going to work out as planned.

It is. Maximising utility is taking the best action given certain information. If one is told money or love, if he had sufficient money to live comfortable enough with sufficient money enough and at the same time was desperate for love, if he chose love that would be utility maximising.

[Nadiru]

I have a bleak vision of the future, primarily if the West is just a bunch of technocracies run by economists. Especially since China and Singapore are run by engineers and scientists, I think that battle is one the west will lose.

I don't think people really understand how fucked China is in the medium-term. The East is probably not going to implode but I'd expect a series of Lost Decades from China as it pushes to deleverage its financial system. The irony is that for all the hoopla of China being run by engineers and scientists, they're still bound by the same sort of regulatory capture that exists here in the US, because politics functions the same way for every subset of people, not just Westerners.

[Glorious Leader]

There's the other side of things, as well: Most people are indeed too stupid to act rationally even a plurality of the time, and this is necessarily the case because education is imperfect and the IQ bell curve is generally agreed to exist.

I mean it's arguing semantics. I wouldn't say they're stupid per se but that they simple don't always make the most rational decisions or act as utility maximizing actors for a host of reasons including ignorance. The economists are idiots though. And most economists who have the sense to recognize how absurd some of the assumptions underlying the basic premises of the neo classical synthesis (and worse the chicago boys and austrian clowns) will basically tell you economists are stupid. Steve Keen loves to ridicule them.

[Theodarzna]

It is. Maximising utility is taking the best action given certain information. If one is told money or love, if he had sufficient money to live comfortable enough with sufficient money enough and at the same time was desperate for love, if he chose love that would be utility maximising.

Humans are not rational actors, or acting with perfect information, People approximate, they don't necessarily calculate. And emotion, instinct ect override rational thought regularly, indeed emotion is how we sort thoughts into segments. We are also subject to culture, group think, group dynamics, status and status seeking ect.

A pure economist looking at the atomized individual is completely foolish in trying to manage society, which is probably why he more than anyone else should not be doing it.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think people really understand how fucked China is in the medium-term. The East is probably not going to implode but I'd expect a series of Lost Decades from China as it pushes to deleverage its financial system. The irony is that for all the hoopla of China being run by engineers and scientists, they're still bound by the same sort of regulatory capture that exists here in the US, because politics functions the same way for every subset of people, not just Westerners.

I disagree with Technocracy in general. I expect it as a system to always fail in the end and ultimately just be a tool for a power clique's political ambitions.