> Jay wrote:
> >#1. That the approaching dieoff is the WORST possible outcome, and
> >that the primary goal of governments MUST be to avoid that dieoff.
> >
> >#2. That participants are willing to put everything on the table -- are
> >willing to abandon any "belief" in the face of contrary scientific evidence.
> >This would include the "belief" that the right economic theories can save
> >us.
Yes, everything should be on the table, but the table is finite. Success
requires all the items on the list of necessary items. That includes
right theories in various fields. (impling demise of false theories)
Then, we must IMPLEMENT those ideas, as Doug Hinrichs says. So on the
table are also methods of implementation.
We can not expect to come up with a compete and accurate list of
necessary items. In fact, subjective value differences will make
agreement about the list impossible.
To avoid dieoff we must make some interim list of necessary items. It
would be best to make the list inclusive where there is doubt. By
definition, any subset of the complete list of necessary items would be
insufficient.
Alan McGowen wrote:
> It seems unlikely that academic economics will cease operations in the
> near future. Bringing the Darwinian revolution to economic theory may
> not save us, but at least it would route creationist and religious
> fundamentalist impulses that run rampant in the field today.
>
our theories are under computational resource constraints (including
time pressure)
To avoid DIEOFF (what a great goal) would seem to require academics to
use the old "computational resource" we used to call a brain, and
get-over the PC, blind, market-biased, anti-commie, pro-growth,
pro-venal, navel-worshiping, STUF that too often passes for academic.
Yes, Garbage takes forever to process!
These academic guys are really very smart, but they are held back by the
invisible venal-ideology. They may wake-up soon. Maybe we should scare
them. We are all being goosed by the invisible hand?
Barry Brooks
