From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Oct 20 2002 - 00:22:05 MDT
Robert writes
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, spike66 wrote:
>
> > Our current economic system was not so much designed
> > as it evolved...
Exactly.
> > As abundance increases, as a direct
> > result of humans creating wealth as a byproduct of
> > our labor and brains, our economic system evolves to
> > be ever better adapted to the world in which it
> > exists. Attempts at designing economic systems
> > have led to such horrific abominations as communism
> > and totalitarianism. May economic systems be left
> > to evolve, hands off.
That's precisely the case, too.
> Spike, while I generally agree with you here, I think you
> *may* want to think about the "fickleness" of the masses.
>
> Right now there is a real concrete trend away from investment
> in the stock market and VC funds in general. The government
> (on the other hand) made a huge boost in funds in healthtech
> over the last decade and is still pushing boosts in funds for
> nanotech.
Those of us extremely skeptical of the wisdom of central planning
are also very skeptical of other ways in which the government
"maximizes" certain outputs of the economy.
> So the public sector is picking up the slack while the private
> sector is running scared. I've got no arguments with your
> perspective on socialism, communism, totalitarianism, etc.
>
> *But* you do need to devote more thought to whether *if*
> engineered economic systems can be optimal...
The default assumption I endorse is that it's still
too complicated---and will probably always be too
complicated---for "engineered" solution. The reason
that it will *never* be practical, and I do know how
strong a word "never" is, is that the very elements
about which the planning is to be done, i.e., human
or other beings, are themselves too complex to predict.
> The "freedom of the proletariat" perspective may not
> work *if* the proletariat is undereducated with respect
> to what can best help their cause.
And some of us are saying that no one knows what
will best help their (or our) cause, and that
history shows the great power of freedom to
succeed where engineering has failed.
> After all the proletariat presumably would prefer to
> watch "Friends" than consider what threats they might
> be facing or read a difficult article on technological
> innovation from Science or Nature.
Unlike some people, I seldom believe in axioms. However,
Axiom #1 has to be: there is no accounting for taste.
For all you know, the very most productive member of some
nano-team goes home and relaxes watching "Friends". We
don't know. We can't know. What we do know is that that
individual must have the freedom to buy what he or she
wants to buy, so that they remain properly motivated.
> There is a balance to strike between long term and short
> term investments. (Wouldn't everyone like to have a
> replacement heart that costs $200?) Private capital
> can only place those bets on 3-5 year time horizons.
Yes, in the 80's and early 90's everyone used this
argument to show how greedy western economies---with
their focus on short term results---would never be
able to match Japan. Because in Japan, they were
very wise (much wiser than mere market-mechanisms)
and so could look ahead for the long term.
> Government capital can look much further down the road
> (and should do so for the good of its citizens). After
> all, "I" as a citizen of "20" would desire that my
> government use my tax dollars to look out for my
> interests at "40" or "60".
That would be fine, but it's too complex, for the
aforementioned reasons.
> I don't believe that one can claim any "Western" democratic
> system is the "best" system if one takes into account these
> factors. We are in unexplored economic territory.
There is a reason that it's unexplored. It's too difficult
for all the geniuses and all the computer simulations and
programs that thousands and thousands of economists around
the world have tried.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:40 MST