[From Rick Marken (2007.07.09.0930)]
Here's a remarkable quote that was in Paul Krugman's column today:
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we
know now that it is bad economics." F.D.R. in 1937
I guess "we" stopped knowing that at some point. I'd say in the early 1980s.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Rick Marken (2007.07.09.0930)]
Here's a remarkable quote that was in Paul Krugman's column today:
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we
know now that it is bad economics." F.D.R. in 1937I guess "we" stopped knowing that at some point. I'd say in the early 1980s.
Argument from authority?
--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
[From Rick Marken (2007.07.09.0950)]
Richard Kennaway writes:
>Rick Marken (2007.07.09.0930)]
>
>Here's a remarkable quote that was in Paul Krugman's column today:
>
>"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we
>know now that it is bad economics." F.D.R. in 1937
>
>I guess "we" stopped knowing that at some point. I'd say in the early 1980s.Argument from authority?
No. Just an interesting historical observation. I personally agree
with FDR's sentiments; heedless self-interest is immoral from my point
of view. I wish more people felt that way too but there is certainly
no way to convince people of that if they don't want to set that
reference on their own. I think there is also data that shows that
heedless self interest is, indeed, bad economics. But that depends on
what one considers bad economics. Krugman quoted FDR in the context of
the single payer health care issue. The data shows that single payer
systems (which Krugman and I see as oriented toward wise common rather
than heedless self interest) produce much better outcomes for far less
than a private insurance system. That seems like good economics to me.
But it might seem like bad economics to private insurers for whom good
economics is huge profits.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Rick Marken (2007.07.09.0950)]
No. Just an interesting historical observation. I personally agree
with FDR's sentiments; heedless self-interest is immoral from my point
of view. I wish more people felt that way too but there is certainly
no way to convince people of that if they don't want to set that
reference on their own. I think there is also data that shows that
heedless self interest is, indeed, bad economics. But that depends on
what one considers bad economics. Krugman quoted FDR in the context of
the single payer health care issue. The data shows that single payer
systems (which Krugman and I see as oriented toward wise common rather
than heedless self interest) produce much better outcomes for far less
than a private insurance system. That seems like good economics to me.
But it might seem like bad economics to private insurers for whom good
economics is huge profits.
There's a false dichotomy there. What about "wise self-interest"? Who gets to decide what is "heedless" and what is "wise"? Is a person heedless if they aren't heeding your idea of what they should be doing, and wise if they do?
To quote one economist's definition, "economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the assumption that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way to achieve them" In the light of that, where is the bad economics? (I can't get at Krugman's article.)
--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
[From Rick Marken
(2007.07.09.0950)]No. Just an interesting historical observation. I personally agree
with FDR’s sentiments; heedless self-interest is immoral from my
pointof view.
[From Bill Powers (2007.07.09.1120 MDT)]
Richard Kennaway (2007.07.09) –
There’s a false
dichotomy there. What about “wise self-interest”? Who
gets to decide what is “heedless” and what is
“wise”? Is a person heedless if they aren’t heeding your
idea of what they should be doing, and wise if they
do?
That’s the rub with morality. Morality is just a principle you’re trying
to make universal by pointing to some objective reason or some authority,
like God, who enforces it.
To quote one
economist’s definition, “economics is that way of understanding
behavior that starts from the assumption that people have objectives and
tend to choose the correct way to achieve them” In the light of
that, where is the bad economics? (I can’t get at Krugman’s
article.)
According to that definition there is no bad economics. But who says
people choose the “correct” way to achieve their goals? Is that
any better than saying they choose the “moral” way? The
implication is that someone knows what the correct way is – otherwise,
how do we judge whether people choose the correct way or some incredibly
dumb way that would wreck everything if everyone did it? It all comes
down to what theory you believe, and promote.
I agree with you that the key word is “heedless.” What is not
being heeded by a person pursuing heedless self-interest? I suggest is it
the actual long-term interest of that same person. What is wrong with
refusing to pay for the education of the children of illegal immigrants?
Short-term, paying for something you don’t have to pay for is against
your self-interest. But in the long run, who would you rather have
running loose in your society: a bunch of ignorant, poor, desperate
people, or a bunch of highly-educated, well-off, contented people?
Heeless self-interest is simply stupid self-interest, an inability to see
what your short-term goals will get you in the long run. Morality doesn’t
come into it.
Best.
Bill P.
–
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk,
http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
–
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:
269.10.2/891 - Release Date: 7/8/2007 6:32 PM–
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:
269.10.2/891 - Release Date: 7/8/2007 6:32 PM
[From Rick Marken (2007.07.09.1045)]
There's a false dichotomy there. What about "wise self-interest"?
Who gets to decide what is "heedless" and what is "wise"?
Actually, I do;-) Though no one has to agree. I think of "heedless
self interest" as self-interest that ignores the effects of one's
actions on others. Increasing profits by denying coverage is what I
would call heedless self interest.
(I can't get at Krugman's article.)
I e-mailed you a copy.
Best
Rick
On 7/9/07, Richard Kennaway <jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com
(BTW, do these manually typed headers actually help anyone? All email comes with From: and Date: headers. I know of no other mailing list, that has ever used manual headers. I have decided to stop typing them. If anyone is actually inconvenienced by this, let me know.)
[From Bill Powers (2007.07.09.1120 MDT)]
Richard Kennaway (2007.07.09) --
To quote one economist's definition, "economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the assumption that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way to achieve them" In the light of that, where is the bad economics? (I can't get at Krugman's article.)
According to that definition there is no bad economics. But who says people choose the "correct" way to achieve their goals? Is that any better than saying they choose the "moral" way?
Yes. The correct way to achieve a goal is to take actions that will actually achieve it. The assumption in the quote is that people are, in fact, generally competent to choose actions that will be effective in achieving their goals. Or to put it another way, they are control systems that do in fact control.
I agree with you that the key word is "heedless." What is not being heeded by a person pursuing heedless self-interest? I suggest is it the actual long-term interest of that same person. What is wrong with refusing to pay for the education of the children of illegal immigrants?
If you're an illegal immigrant, registering your children with the state schooling system might get you discovered and deported. This would be a good reason for not doing so.
Short-term, paying for something you don't have to pay for is against your self-interest. But in the long run, who would you rather have running loose in your society: a bunch of ignorant, poor, desperate people, or a bunch of highly-educated, well-off, contented people?
This is another false dichotomy. What do those two alternatives have to do with the alternatives of letting people decide what and whose education to pay for, and taking their money and deciding yourself? No, just call those people "heedless" and yourself "wise" and magically, any need to demonstrate that they are, in fact, being heedless and that your proposed measures will, in fact, produce better results goes away. And everyone opposing the measures can be dismissed as just another heedless person, not wise enough to grasp your superior wisdom.
Heeless self-interest is simply stupid self-interest, an inability to see what your short-term goals will get you in the long run.
What is the cure for that, though? The usual cure offered is for other people to take charge of the heedless -- that is, the people that the other opeople think heedless -- and make them do what the other people think they ought to be doing.
Call it "heedless" or call it "unable to think in the long term", it's just name-calling either way.
--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
(BTW, do these manually typed
headers actually help anyone? All email comes with From: and Date:
headers. I know of no other mailing list, that has ever used manual
headers. I have decided to stop typing them. If anyone is
actually inconvenienced by this, let me know.)
Yes. The correct way to
achieve a goal is to take actions that will actually achieve it.
The assumption in the quote is that people are, in fact, generally
competent to choose actions that will be effective in achieving their
goals. Or to put it another way, they are control systems that do
in fact control.I agree with you that the key
word is “heedless.” What is not being heeded by a person
pursuing heedless self-interest? I suggest is it the actual long-term
interest of that same person. What is wrong with refusing to pay for the
education of the children of illegal immigrants?If you’re an illegal immigrant, registering your children with the state
schooling system might get you discovered and deported. This would
be a good reason for not doing so.Short-term, paying for something
you don’t have to pay for is against your self-interest. But in the long
run, who would you rather have running loose in your society: a bunch of
ignorant, poor, desperate people, or a bunch of highly-educated,
well-off, contented people?This is another false dichotomy. What do those two alternatives
have to do with the alternatives of letting people decide what and whose
education to pay for, and taking their money and deciding
yourself?
No, just call those people
“heedless” and yourself “wise” and magically, any
need to demonstrate that they are, in fact, being heedless and that your
proposed measures will, in fact, produce better results goes
away.
And everyone opposing the
measures can be dismissed as just another heedless person, not wise
enough to grasp your superior wisdom.Heeless self-interest is simply
stupid self-interest, an inability to see what your short-term goals will
get you in the long run.What is the cure for that, though? The usual cure offered is for
other people to take charge of the heedless – that is, the people that
the other opeople think heedless – and make them do what the other
people think they ought to be doing.
Call it “heedless” or
call it “unable to think in the long term”, it’s just
name-calling either way.
[From Bill Powers (2007.07.10.0740 MDT)]
At 10:29 AM 7/10/2007 +0100, you wrote:
The main thing it actually does for me is to make it easy to indicate in
my reply the author and time-date of the post to which I’m replying: I
just delete the opening [From and the closing ]. I was thinking
originally that this would make it easy to search for CSG posts in an
archive: the “[From” never appears in a header. And it’s
definitely not easy to find the date and author in headers.
So your thesis is that everyone actually does achieve the economic goals
they would like to achieve? I know that multiverses are big in the news
these days, but which universe are you talking about? Is this the
universe where people are poor because they just lack the character to
get off their lazy backsides and find a job?
That would be a good reason for a migrant worker not to register a child.
How does that apply to my example of not wanting to spend money providing
education to the children of migrant workers? I was trying to give an
example of what I consider to be heedless self interest.
If those who don’t want to pay succeed in blocking effective action, then
there will be no benefit for anyone.
The problem is that there are more children of migrant workers than I can
pay to educate by myself, and educating just a few of them wouldn’t help.
This requires a community effort if it’s to have any significant effect.
So I would like to persuade as many people as I can that it is in the
long-term best interest of all of us to educate them, or at least to find
out if that will improve matters. Your useful point could be handled by
including a provision that children not be registered in a way that
allows identifying their immigration status.
I think I’m entitled to make my argument as effectively as I can. I’ll do
that whether or not you agree I’m entitled. I say that not paying for
their education is an example of heedless self-interest, because it
mistakes short-term self-interest for long-term. If I can persuade you
that this is true, you will join me in pushing to establish education for
these people.
You raise, by implication, the problem of how a libertarian handles cases
in which community efforts are supported by a majority but not by
everyone who would benefit from them. If I could persuade a majority that
it would be in our self-interest to educate children of migrant workers,
I claim that the result would be a better life for everyone, not just the
migrant workers. But the job has to be complete if it isn’t to fail, so
we would probably need tax money. Does the libertarian position say that
no individual should be forced to pay a tax to support a program that the
individual objects to?
I can see that this would work if there were a way to confine any
benefits to whose who paid to bring them about. Then there would be no
freeloaders who say they object in principle but actually are just
looking for an advantage for themselves that they don’t have to pay for
(let some other sucker pay for the snowplowing).
Well of course. I don’t argue for things I don’t think I’m right about,
and I don’t criticize others for things I don’t think they’re wrong
about. Apparently you follow the same policy.
As you’re dismissing me from your position of greater wisdom?
Well, I wouldn’t advocate starting any program of this sort without
finding out first if it would really work. Start with one city or small
region, so the cost would be hardly noticeable (freezing the
registrations, of course, to keep from becoming a magnet). Keep track of
what happens. Then decide whether to expand the program. Deciding what to
do about the freeloaders is a different problem, which we can figure out
after we know whether the proposed benefit actually occurs. You’re the
one who raised the possibility of forcing them to comply. I prefer
shaming them into doing it, or just figuring out how to keep them from
benefiting, so maybe next time they’ll think differently.
So you’re calling me a name-caller?
Best,
Bill P. :-))
Oh, all right then:
[From Richard Kennaway (2007.07.10.1807 BST)]
[From Bill Powers (2007.07.10.0740 MDT)]
Yes. The correct way to achieve a goal is to take actions that will actually achieve it. The assumption in the quote is that people are, in fact, generally competent to choose actions that will be effective in achieving their goals. Or to put it another way, they are control systems that do in fact control.
So your thesis is that everyone actually does achieve the economic goals they would like to achieve?
No more than yours is that everyone actually does control the things they try to control. But on the whole they generally do, and the opposite assumption, that people don't control things, is not a basis for understanding human behaviour.
If you're an illegal immigrant, registering your children with the state schooling system might get you discovered and deported. This would be a good reason for not doing so.
That would be a good reason for a migrant worker not to register a child. How does that apply to my example of not wanting to spend money providing education to the children of migrant workers? I was trying to give an example of what I consider to be heedless self interest.
I thought it was the workers themselves who were being characterised as heedless, by not wanting to spend money providing education for their own children. But it seems to be everyone else.
The problem is that there are more children of migrant workers than I can pay to educate by myself, and educating just a few of them wouldn't help. This requires a community effort if it's to have any significant effect. So I would like to persuade as many people as I can that it is in the long-term best interest of all of us to educate them, or at least to find out if that will improve matters. Your useful point could be handled by including a provision that children not be registered in a way that allows identifying their immigration status.
Why specifically illegal immigrants? Is there some measure currently before Congress that makes this an issue of the moment? Their illegality is the main burden they suffer under. Any government scheme to provide anything for them is going to be difficult for them to take advantage of, whatever supposed guarantees of anonymity are provided. What they need first of all is legal status. Then one would be able to see just what other support, if any, they need.
However, since legalising them would be against the interests of the people who employ them (and who have the votes), I don't expect it to happen.
I think I'm entitled to make my argument as effectively as I can. I'll do that whether or not you agree I'm entitled.
Eh? I didn't say anything about entitlement.
I say that not paying for their education is an example of heedless self-interest, because it mistakes short-term self-interest for long-term. If I can persuade you that this is true, you will join me in pushing to establish education for these people.
I don't have a say in the US educational system. On the other hand, if I persuade you...?
You raise, by implication, the problem of how a libertarian handles cases in which community efforts are supported by a majority but not by everyone who would benefit from them.
That is indeed a problem, for goods whose primary benefit can be obtained while paying nothing for them. But education is not such a good. Its benefits accrue mostly to the person being educated, and after them, to their families. That is sufficient motivation for people to seek education for themselves and their children. The history of US immigration is of people scrambling up the ladder as fast as they could, for their own benefit. Why should I presume that other people will be too heedless to educate themselves? That everyone also benefits from each others' education is a bonus, not a problem.
Some people may be too poor to buy education; for these, yes, taxation is one possibility. Charities are another. But do you not have both of these already, or is all education private education in the US?
What is the cure for that, though? The usual cure offered is for other people to take charge of the heedless -- that is, the people that the other opeople think heedless -- and make them do what the other people think they ought to be doing.
Well, I wouldn't advocate starting any program of this sort without finding out first if it would really work.
Then (as always) you're a step ahead of most people.
----
I see from Krugman's article (thanks, Rick, for sending it) that he's just reporting on Michael Moore's latest film, "Sicko". I know nothing about the film, but previous knowledge of Moore's work gives me no confidence that his film is a substantial contribution to the debate on the US health system. I'nm sure there's a substantial debate to be had, but I'm not looking to Moore for information.
--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
So your thesis is that everyone
actually does achieve the economic goals they would like to
achieve?No more than yours is that everyone actually does control the things they
try to control. But on the whole they generally do, and the
opposite assumption, that people don’t control things, is not a basis for
understanding human behaviour.
[From Bill Powers (2007.07.10.1130 MDT)]
Richard Kennaway (2007.07.10.1807 BST) –
Do I detect the presence of “have faith in the market” behind
this? I don’t really follow what your point is here.
If you’re an
illegal immigrant, registering your children with the state schooling
system might get you discovered and deported. This would be a good
reason for not doing so.That would be a good reason for a migrant worker not to register a child.
How does that apply to my example of not wanting to spend money providing
education to the children of migrant workers? I was trying to give an
example of what I consider to be heedless self
interest.I thought it was the workers themselves who were being characterised as
heedless, by not wanting to spend money providing education for their own
children. But it seems to be everyone
else.
Sorry, no, I didn’t make myself clear. I was referring to the attitude
here in the States that we shouldn’t provide any social or humanitarian
services such as education, health care, or enforcement of minimum wage
laws for people who are here illegally, because they are lawbreakers and
therefore deserve everything that happens to them (and their families).
The generally-agreed estimate is that there are eleven millions of them
right now. That’s a lot of misery to ignore, but some people seem to find
it easy.
I don’t think there’s much question of an illegal migrant worker
“choosing” not to spend money providing education for his or
her children. At $2 per hour, minus whatever fraction can be sent home to
other dependents, the only remaining choice is whether to eat or not.
Health insurance? Laugh here _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Of course we have our own lower tier of perfectly legal citizens in much
the same situation. What is it, 34 million people with no health
insurance? It’s just amazing to me how this can go on. This is not
enlightened self-interest on the part of the “haves.” It’s
self-destructive short-sightedness.
Why specifically
illegal immigrants? Is there some measure currently before Congress
that makes this an issue of the moment? Their illegality is the
main burden they suffer under. Any government scheme to provide
anything for them is going to be difficult for them to take advantage of,
whatever supposed guarantees of anonymity are provided. What they
need first of all is legal status. Then one would be able to see
just what other support, if any, they need.
Of course. Legal status would fix many problems, but even legal citizens
are having trouble managing. And whatever the causes, people are
suffering. Do we have to wait for the final complete solution before we
do anything about that?
However, since
legalising them would be against the interests of the people who employ
them (and who have the votes), I don’t expect it to
happen.
Right, and in the meantime, what do we do? Let them eat cake?
You raise, by
implication, the problem of how a libertarian handles cases in which
community efforts are supported by a majority but not by everyone who
would benefit from them.That is indeed a problem, for goods whose primary benefit can be obtained
while paying nothing for them. But education is not such a
good. Its benefits accrue mostly to the person being educated, and
after them, to their families.
I strongly disagree with this. Sure, the immediate benefits accrue to the
person being educated. Why not? But the result of having these benefits
is that the person does not have to get them in some other way, such as
robbing and killing and cheating and vandalizing and all those other
symptoms of a life gone sour. That is an inevitable benefit to everyone
else. People want to live and they don’t want to be miserable. They want
to live as well as the next guy, and be respected, too. They will do
pretty much anything they have to do to stay alive and get those other
benefits as well. People don’t control behavior; they control
consequences by varying their behavior as necessary. Where have you heard
that before?
That is
sufficient motivation for people to seek education for themselves and
their children. The history of US immigration is of people
scrambling up the ladder as fast as they could, for their own
benefit. Why should I presume that other people will be too
heedless to educate themselves? That everyone also benefits from
each others’ education is a bonus, not a
problem.
The heedlessness of which I spoke was that of people who are rich and
comfortable and get no pleasure out of helping anyone else be the same
way. They’re probably very unsure of themselves, and feel that anything
they give away just helps the enemy and hurts themselves. They’re the
ones who preach the glories of competition, as long as they’re
winning.
Heedlessness is not a choice people make. It’s more like a disease.
Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, “Hey, I know, I’m going to
be heedless today.” This applies to rich and poor alike. They become
organized as they are through trial and error and interaction with the
physical and social world. We don’t need to be concerned about punishing
or rewarding them into being otherwise, because the only punishments that
matter are already being suffered, and the only rewards they want are
what they’re already trying, unsuccessfully, to get. It’s the rewards
they want and the punishments they’re trying to avoid that account for
their present behavior, right? So if we want to see them behaving
differently, we have to help them discover what has gone wrong and how to
fix it. And in the meantime, we’re not just going to sit around and watch
them suffer, are we? Although that seems to be what a lot of TV is about.
Watching people suffer sells a lot of product.
Some people may be
too poor to buy education; for these, yes, taxation is one
possibility. Charities are another. But do you not have both
of these already, or is all education private education in the
US?
Illegal aliens, if some factions in Congress get their way, will be
denied education, health care, and welfare support such as food stamps.
It’s not just a question of being poor (we do have a universal education
system, for what it’s worth, and a sketchy welfare system). What I’m
going on about is the people we’re denying that to because they aren’t
here legally. The final solution is always near at hand, and getting more
tempting by the year: extermination.
This does not get us anywhere, does it? Back to cleaning the stables with
a toothbrush.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2007.07.10.1210)]
Bill Powers (2007.07.10.1130 MDT)--
Richard Kennaway (2007.07.10.1807 BST) --
> But education is not such a good. Its
> benefits accrue mostly to the person being educated, and after
> them, to their families.
I strongly disagree with this.
Me too. Besides the points you make about education producing people
who can make a living without robbing and killing and cheating (a nice
RAND report showed that the cost of pre-school education is paid back
in spades by the benefit of lower adult crime rates for low income
kids who have had access to such education) there is also the benefit
of having an educated workforce, resulting in a more productive
society and a generally improved standard of living. Evidence for this
is the effects of the GI Bill, which was passed in 1944. I just read
about the GI Bill on its anniversary (June 22) and it made me weep for
what my country has become since then.
The GI Bill paid returning GIs for a college education. The cost of
the Bill was quite high for the time -- something like $6 billion --
and, of course, it was strongly opposed by the same selfish free
marketers who are now running the country. Fortunately, back then the
free marketers were in the minority and the bill passed. The result
was that the proportion of the population with a college education
went from something like 5% to 40% and the US experienced the greatest
period of sustained real economic growth in its history. The $6
billion dollar investment paid itself back many fold. Of course, that
was at a time when a majority of the public actually believed that
"heedless self-interest was not only bad morals but bad economics."
Nowadays, the prevailing attitude in the US seems to be just the
opposite: heedless self-interest is good morally and economically.
It's just depressing.
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Richard Kenanway (2007.07.13.1756 BST)]
[From Bill Powers (2007.07.10.1130 MDT)]
Do I detect the presence of "have faith in the market" behind this? I don't really follow what your point is here.
The point is that economics is the study of how people make choices, and that the basic assumption is that people are generally competent to make their own choices. Making those choices for them by force according to someone else's idea of what their interests are is a poor way of achieving results (so poor, as another economist remarks, that only small children and governments try it). That includes both rich and poor people.
However, since legalising them would be against the interests of the people who employ them (and who have the votes), I don't expect it to happen.
Right, and in the meantime, what do we do? Let them eat cake?
Get the elephant out of the drawing room before setting traps for the mice? First, legalise immigration. Trying to get government servies to people who cannot risk contact with the government is an absurdity so obvious that the only reason to suggest it is that a lot of people want to keep them illegal.
The economic motive for doing so is that illegal immigrants, because of their position, can be paid less, and worked longer hours in poorer conditions. You may think it evil and wrong to treat them like that, but the fact, is, that is what happens. (That motivation is also a reason that rounding them up and disposing of them isn't going to happen. Their employers want them to be there, and want them to be illegal.)
That is indeed a problem, for goods whose primary benefit can be obtained while paying nothing for them. But education is not such a good. Its benefits accrue mostly to the person being educated, and after them, to their families.
I strongly disagree with this. Sure, the immediate benefits accrue to the person being educated. Why not? But the result of having these benefits is that the person does not have to get them in some other way, such as robbing and killing and cheating and vandalizing and all those other symptoms of a life gone sour. That is an inevitable benefit to everyone else.
That is an inevitable benefit to *everyone*, including the people acquiring an education. But those people, in addition, directly benefit from their own education. They get more from their education than I do. I get to not be around poor, uneducated criminals; they also get to not be poor, uneducated criminals.
People want to live and they don't want to be miserable. They want to live as well as the next guy, and be respected, too. They will do pretty much anything they have to do to stay alive and get those other benefits as well. People don't control behavior; they control consequences by varying their behavior as necessary. Where have you heard that before?
When I said that people make choices [of their behaviours] in their own interests [desired consequences]?
The heedlessness of which I spoke was that of people who are rich and comfortable and get no pleasure out of helping anyone else be the same way. They're probably very unsure of themselves, and feel that anything they give away just helps the enemy and hurts themselves. They're the ones who preach the glories of competition, as long as they're winning.
One might just as well say that it's easy to preach the evils of competition, as long as you're losing.
I don't see any way forward on any social issue that does not come down to people trying to persuade each other by argument and evidence. Short-circuiting the process by getting the government on your side and making the opposition knuckle under may be very tempting, but the more contentious the issue, the less chance it has of working -- because the opposition will vary their behaviours as necessary to obtain their desired perceptions. Force only works when the opposition can be crushed. If the opposition is the people who have all the money, imagining it is just a fantasy.
It's a hard row to hoe, as you know from a lifetime of trying to get people to understand PCT. But it's the only game there is.
--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
[From Rick Marken (2007.07.14.1015)]
Richard Kennaway (2007.07.13.1756 BST)--
The point is that economics is the study of how people make choices,
If so, I think that's a terrible mistake. It should be about how
people collectively control for what they want and need.
and that the basic assumption is that people are generally competent
to make their own choices.
Yes, people are certainly capable of making their own choices (which I
take to mean setting their own references for the the states of their
perceptions). But they are not always able to get their perceptions to
match those references. This could be a result of lack of skill, the
presence of internal conflict or insuperable disturbance (like
invasion by a foreign power). Making choices is just one part of the
process of control. Economics should deal with the who process.
Making those choices for them by force
according to someone else's idea of what their interests are is a
poor way of achieving results (so poor, as another economist remarks,
that only small children and governments try it). That includes both
rich and poor people.
This is certainly true. But that's not the way I see government
working, at least not a nominally representative government like yours
(and like mine used to be). I see government as a way for a group of
individuals to collectively control more effectively at the state
level, by regulating businesses and providing common services (roads,
parks, healthcare, fire and police protection). A government is (or
should be) a consensual management system, consented to by the
governed, that is. To the extent that the government rules at the
pleasure of the government, it is actually more "free" than the
management system of a corporation, where the employees have little
say over that "government". Do free market economists object to
management structures, by laws and the enforcement thereof in
businesses? Why do free market economists consider governments (even
democratically elected one) to be the coercive threat and not
business management structures.
Get the elephant out of the drawing room before setting traps for the
mice? First, legalise immigration.
It already is legal.
The economic motive for doing so is that illegal immigrants, because
of their position, can be paid less, and worked longer hours in
poorer conditions.
You got it. The problem in the US is caused by businesses who hire
these people in preference to citizens. The problem is also caused by
the unregulated free market economy of Mexico which has resulted in
huge poverty rates, making it worthwhile for people to risk life and
limb to come to the US where a far less free market economy can
provide them with a better income. Actually, now that I think about
it, if the US keeps on its course towards a completely free market,
it's economy will become like that of Mexico's and it will no longer
be attractive for Mexicans to come to the US; everyone will be running
to Canada. So maybe making the US completely free market is the answer
to the US immigration problem;-)
I don't see any way forward on any social issue that does not come
down to people trying to persuade each other by argument and
evidence.
I certainly agree with that.
Short-circuiting the process by getting the government on
your side and making the opposition knuckle under may be very
tempting
I see good government as an aspect of "the people", I think trying to
persuade each other by argument includes trying to persuade the
government. I would like to persuade the government (and that means
persuading people who vote to determine the people who are the
government) to expand the current single payer healthcare system in
the US (called Medicare) to everyone, not just the elderly. Given that
I live in a country where nearly 50% of the people voted, voluntarily,
for an obvious idiot like G. W. Bush, I am not optimistic about this
coming about in the near future, but I think the potential good that
can result from this kind of cooperative effort is worth the probable
disappointment.
Force only works when
the opposition can be crushed. If the opposition is the people who
have all the money, imagining it is just a fantasy.
I completely agree. Changes in collective agreements, like the change
to single payer healthcare, have to be brought about by persuation,
not force. And this will be particularly difficult because the people
who have all the money -- the insurance and pharmaceutical industries
-- are going to fight it tooth and nail. But force will certainly not
work. One just has to hope that people will eventually see the light.
That does seem to happen in the US when things get bad enough -- as
during the depression. Then once us liberals have fixed things up
pretty well, everyone forgets why things are going so well and they go
right back to the free market fantasies.
The tragedy of liberalism is that the reason it fails is because it
works so well.
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com
(BTW, do these manually typed headers actually help anyone? All email comes with From: and Date: headers. I know of no other mailing list, that has ever used manual headers. I have decided to stop typing them. If anyone is actually inconvenienced by this, let me know.)
I'm letting you know -- emphatically (without a typed header).
Martin