Comments for Blog Here Now

Comment on Steady State Economics? by Larry

Larry — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:03:43 +0000

Thanks for the link, Andrew. Looks interesting. But could you explain how your critique of the quantity theory of money (or your version of Post Keynesian economics) relates to the apparent imperative for endless economic growth that – as it is currently implemented at least – seems so ecologically destructive?

Comment on Steady State Economics? by Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:35:31 +0000

Steady state economics requires an essentially static population, which in my opinion would require illiberal population policies (think of China’s one child policy). I have no idea whether you are conservative or liberal, but if you want to consider a good alternative to the practical, moral and intellectual bankruptcy of neoclassical economics, have a look at Post Keynesian economics. My own site advocates it:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/

Post Keynesianism uses Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis, which in fact makes a lot of sense of the financial crisis of 2008.

Comment on Steady State Economics? by Noah Te Stroete

Noah Te Stroete — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:46:25 +0000

“I know very little about economics, but since the onset of the Great Recession I’m beginning to wonder if economists trained under the standard paradigm(s) know much more about it.”

Great opening line. Makes me wonder.

Comment on Are We Less Free Than We Were 30 Years Ago? by Jim

Jim — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:51:33 +0000

While we still have a long way to go, we’ve certainly made progress as far as racial, gender and sexual equality is concerned. But overall, as much as I hate to agree with someone like Coburn, I think we have less freedom, less security and more general fear, than our parents did.

Comment on Are We Less Free Than We Were 30 Years Ago? by Larry

Larry — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:55:49 +0000

Since we’re entering philosophical territory that could take us several lifetimes to explore, I think I’ll just let you have the last word on that, Noah.

Comment on Are We Less Free Than We Were 30 Years Ago? by Noah Te Stroete

Noah Te Stroete — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:49:14 +0000

After taking Dr. Cordero’s course on existentialism I was pretty convinced that Sartre had it right, viz. that our values determine our aims and that our values are essentially groundless, leaps of faith as you say. However, in the last year or so I have been thinking more along the lines of moral universalism as an emergent property of human existence.

I know BP values profits and staying in business more than protecting the environment, but I tend to think there is a right and wrong answer to this issue, and I think BP has it wrong (objectively).

Comment on Are We Less Free Than We Were 30 Years Ago? by Larry

Larry — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 06:18:46 +0000

No question about that. But of course, liberals are also willing to restrict freedom for what they conceive to be social goods or necessities. It all comes down to choices of values – and to how many people you can convince to accept one set of values over another. Although I’d like to be a rationalist about ethics, I tend to think that the existentialists were onto something when they viewed values as essentially groundless: leaps of faith, one way or another. Maybe that’s why, as John Rawls thought, the best we can do is to come to some sort of reasonable accommodation with those who differ from us in their basic values. If only everyone could agree about that.

Comment on Are We Less Free Than We Were 30 Years Ago? by Noah Te Stroete

Noah Te Stroete — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 05:46:55 +0000

To be fair I should have said many politicians will say up is down if they think it will get them re-elected. There are unscrupulous liberal and moderate politicians as well, and there are honest conservatives (honest but mostly wrong).

I do hope the bill isn’t amended to prevent too-big-to-fail, but I too wonder if Feingold should just vote for something that’s better than nothing. Feingold might not get as much as he would have if the bill doesn’t pass and the Republicans write their own bill if they take back the House (which I personally don’t think will happen this cycle but you never know).

Funny how conservatives will argue for more government in some cases without recognizing the hypocracy. Less privacy means more government oversight. Also, pro-life conservatives and government commanding people to take their pregnancy to term. That sounds like less freedom to me.

Comment on Are We Less Free Than We Were 30 Years Ago? by Larry

Larry — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:26:45 +0000

Good point, Noah. Of course, just to play devil’s advocate, you are presupposing that a loss of privacy entails a loss of freedom. Maybe in some cases a loss of privacy – if it is necessary to prevent acts of mass murder, for instance – can actually help to insure freedom, on balance. At least that’s what proponents of the patriot act are likely to argue.

By the way, I’ve heard that Feingold is threatening to vote against the financial reform act, at least if it isn’t amended to prevent too-big-to-fail. I admire his commitment to principle, but I wonder if this might not be a classic example of the perfect being the enemy of at least the better…

Comment on Are We Less Free Than We Were 30 Years Ago? by Noah Te Stroete

Noah Te Stroete — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:49:34 +0000

I wonder if corporations and businesses are more free today than they were in 1980. After eight years of pro oil company energy policy and financial and corporate deregulation and tax breaks (which hasn’t been reversed yet to my knowledge), I am surprised to hear Coburn complain about freedom. On the other hand I shouldn’t be that surprised considering conservatives will say up is down if they think it will get them re-elected.

On a different note our freedom of privacy certainly has been compromised since 9/11. The Patriot Act was passed under G.W.B.’s reign. Was Coburn a senator at the time this law was passed? Wasn’t Feingold the only senator to vote against this bill?