tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post974841132251730274..comments2024-03-12T22:19:32.339-04:00Comments on The New Arthurian Economics: Noah Smith and the Value of FinanceThe Arthurianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-70487405359121929272013-02-02T10:14:34.849-05:002013-02-02T10:14:34.849-05:00You are correct Art. Social evolution, that which ...You are correct Art. Social evolution, that which we humans do after we become human and form groups, is certainly a natural aspect of our human-ness, but I think the fact that strong individuals always emerge must be understood as MORE THAN natural. People do acquire the ability to shape things and influence other people via their ideas and the stories they tell to communicate their ideas. Sure these all emerge from natural processes (I dont think ANYTHING is supernatural) but I think to simply call these things natural is to fall for Blankfeins "We are doing gods work" fallacy.<br /><br />The truth is EVERYTHING on this planet; every created item, every human idea and human institution is natural but humans have developed ways to get more than their natural share, so to speak. <br /><br /> Lions and their prey have reached an equilibrium and both have adapted to changes of the other as life has moved on. Kenyan lions today are different in very subtle and some not so subtle ways from Kenyan lions of 1000 years ago but no lion ever figured out a way to get a gazelle without hunting for it, without having to do some running. If one did figure out a way to get gazelles without running, it would be natural per se but the game would now be fundamentally different than it was. The possibility would exist that that lion might be stupid enough to sit there and just kill gazzelles for fun. He might get real fat and lazy and eventually, as other lions died off from not getting enough gazelles, he might also die off. He might run out of gazelles and his trick might not work on cape buffalos or Impalas, and now he has forgotten how to run and hunt.<br /><br />We have the ability to fundamentally change our world to where we cant survive in it. And we have people who are arrogant enough to believe that is not possible and many are our "leaders".<br /><br />This is all over and above biologic evolution although our brains are a product of biologic evolution.<br /><br />Ideas come from brains, brains come from biology but some ideas will wind up ending biology as we know it.<br /><br />There are good ideas and bad ideas. There is healthy distribution and un healthy distribution.<br /><br />I'm talking too much now aren't I?<br /><br />Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-10046017595212685842013-02-02T09:04:02.200-05:002013-02-02T09:04:02.200-05:00Greg: "UUUUGH! That was tough to read."
...Greg: "UUUUGH! That was tough to read."<br /><br />I had the same reaction to Noah's post. My post here was a sort of knee-jerk reaction, as opposed to my usual lethargic writing. Kinda like "UUUUGH" but in more words.<br /><br />Not sure about this. You say: <b>"I hate it when guys appeal to evolution in situations where their is obvious "design". These relationships didnt just evolve or happen, they were selected by powerful people. These are choices humans made not some unbiased force like natural selection."</b><br /><br />I think I take a step back from that view, and see "powerful people" as part of the evolutionary process. I think the whole of human existence -- since the rise of the first civilization, anyway -- is a Toynbee cycle of rising and falling concentration of wealth. Powerful people play a central role.<br /><br />Agreed, about the evolution of money.<br /><br />And you may be right about "pure evolution in the biological sense". But then, I need a word.<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-35424608203433661152013-02-02T08:45:30.319-05:002013-02-02T08:45:30.319-05:00Greg, ya got me grinnin. You wrote: "But isnt...Greg, ya got me grinnin. You wrote: <b>"But isnt it also true of finance or banks? Banks dont create anything, they facilitate as well."</b><br /><br />Check out <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6KFH_GMD1Cc/UQ0W9iUaXzI/AAAAAAAAHXo/Y-YW9Sr0tn8/s1600/Posts%2Bfor%2Btoday%2Band%2Btomorrow.JPG" rel="nofollow">this image</a> of my posts for today and tomorrow, from Blogger.<br /><br />Post for tomorrow: The Factor of Facilitation.<br /><br />You and I think much alike.<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-53993712239914065882013-02-02T08:25:00.934-05:002013-02-02T08:25:00.934-05:00And about the question "How much value does f...And about the question "How much value does finance create?"<br /><br />Its time, I think, for those of us so inclined, to use one of the "other sides" more effective critiques of public intervention on themselves. It is often said (correctly I might add) that govt creates nothing. They are a facilitator and they can only redistribute that which is already present. We can quibble a bit about the true nature of some of our public investments of the past but I do agree with most of the sentiment of that statement. But isnt it also true of finance or banks? Banks dont create anything, they facilitate as well. The only difference is cost and public/private support for the ventures. What is the cost of finance?........ Interest. What is the cost of govt?...... Taxes. <br /><br />Both institutions provide ways for a polity to try something new or augment something current and grow its size. There are times when one or the other is better used. Here's a rub though. Interest from finance is always collected by and for the benefit of a very small minority whereas taxes, in a society like most western societies, are recycled and used for public benefit to a large extent.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-45503083775323645792013-02-02T08:09:43.798-05:002013-02-02T08:09:43.798-05:00UUUUGH! That was tough to read. I didnt get throug...UUUUGH! That was tough to read. I didnt get through the whole post. I have enjoyed some of Noahs stuff before but this is just a trash piece from a financial status quo apologist.<br /><br />I hate it when guys appeal to evolution in situations where their is obvious "design". These relationships didnt just evolve or happen, they were selected by powerful people. These are choices humans made not some unbiased force like natural selection. <br /><br />Not that there arent some useful ways to view our economic history using evolutionary models, there are. But they would be better applied I think if we look at how money systems over time have evolved away from pure gold backed currencies and pure private banking to modern nation state currencies with coordinated Central Banking and Treasuries.<br /><br />Of course the reason we evolved to these types of money systems is because it benefitted many of the powerful people. It did help our society at large as well but the primary goal was not the little people. It was not pure evolution in the biological sense it was the next in the series of ideas to preserve power for those who were prone to losing some of theirs in times of financial upheaval.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.com