# NYTimes.com: How Do You Say 'Economic Security'?

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495>\
**Category:** CSG2011\
**Created:** [September 24, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495 "2011-09-24T21:10:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495/1 "2011-09-24T21:10:25Z")

</div>

E-Mail This  
 ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
 ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
[![The New York Times](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/5/553a9b15fc1b5d0aca384f3f88be5c02b28fdcc3.gif)](http://www.nytimes.com/)  
 ![E-mail This](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/3/3f95f03d361d9d1172642fa5fcfe538235b546bd.gif)  
 ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
 ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)

\*\*This page was sent to you by: \*\*  
[marken@mindreadings.com](mailto:marken@mindreadings.com)

Message from sender:  
[From Rick Marken (2011.09.24.1410)] I think this is a very good article that is relevant to this group because the way I say “economic security” is “being in control”. Best Rick  
**OPINION**

> September 24, 2011  
> **[  
> Op-Ed Contributors:  
> How Do You Say ‘Economic Security’?  
> ](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/how-do-you-say-economic-security.html?emc=eta1)**

By THEODORE R. MARMOR and JERRY L. MASHAW

Where politicians once drew on the language of people, family and shared social concern, they now deploy the cold technical idiom of budgetary accounting.

![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
 ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
 ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
 ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)

[Copyright 2011  
 ](http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) [The New York Times Company](http://www.nytco.com/) | [Privacy Policy](http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html)  
 ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Lewitt](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@Martin\_Lewitt](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Lewitt)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2011, 5:34am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495/2 "2011-09-25T05:34:54Z")

</div>

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 24 23:28 MDT]

> E-Mail This  
> ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
> ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
> [![The New York Times](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/5/553a9b15fc1b5d0aca384f3f88be5c02b28fdcc3.gif)](http://www.nytimes.com/)  
> ![E-mail This](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/3/3f95f03d361d9d1172642fa5fcfe538235b546bd.gif)  
> ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)  
> ![](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/94c1f21743953732c88ea2cd829a0abff107abe3.gif)
> 
> ```
> **This page was sent to you by:**
> 
> ```
> 
> Message from sender:  
> [From Rick Marken (2011.09.24.1410)] I think  
> this is a very good article that is relevant to  
> this group because the way I say “economic  
> security” is “being in control”. Best Rick

```
What about "economic security" as used in the article is about

```

“being in control”? There appears to be far more control involved  
in Congress trying to get in control of the budget.

```
"In 1934, the focus was on people, family security and the risks to

```

family economic well-being that we all share. Today, the people have  
disappeared."

```
How have the people disappeared, when the "cuts" in entitlement

```

spending, are only cuts in its growth, and when there are  
practically no poor in the United States today, by the standards of  
living at the time of the 1934. The authors of the article have no  
sense of historical perspective, we don’t “all share” “the risks to  
family economic well being” that they had in 1934.

```
regards,

     Martin

```

> **···**
>
> [marken@mindreadings.com](mailto:marken@mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495/3 "2011-09-25T16:44:41Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2011.09.25.0756 MDT)]

[  
  ![The New York Times](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/5/553a9b15fc1b5d0aca384f3f88be5c02b28fdcc3.gif)  
 ](http://www.nytimes.com/)  
 ![E-mail This](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/3/3f95f03d361d9d1172642fa5fcfe538235b546bd.gif)

> \*\*This page was sent to you by:\*\*marken@mindreadings.com
> 
> Message from sender:
> 
> [From Rick Marken (2011.09.24.1410)] I think this is a very good article  
> that is relevant to this group because the way I say “economic  
> security” is “being in control”. Best Rick

Yes, a very inspiring article, especially since I woke up thinking about  
the same subject – where have the people gone in all these national  
discussions of economics?  
Consequently, I couldn’t agree more when you say “economic  
security” is “being in control.” But I’d like to make that  
more specific – it’s being in control of your own life, not somebody  
else’s. Before my libertarian friends perk up and tell me I’ve finally  
seen the light, I’m not talking about government versus people, but  
people versus people.  
It has seemed more and more to me that economics is not about “the  
economy.” It’s about who gets to control whom. That question, it  
seems to me, is behind every disagreement about how an economy ought to  
be organized, or even how a society ought to be organized. Who gets to  
say how many hours a day you can, or must, work, and how much you get  
paid for it? Who gets to judge the quality of your work and either reward  
or punish you for it as they judge to be appropriate? Who decides what  
laws you have broken and what is to happen to you as a consequence? Who  
decides whether you are a good citizen and may vote, or a bad one? Who  
decides what clothes, if any, you will wear, or what kind of car you can  
buy, or what substances you put into your body, or whether you can die  
when life is too much to cope with?  
In economics, the question is “who gets control of the way things  
are done?” This boils down largely to the question of who gets the  
most money.  
Long ago, perhaps, money was simply a convenient way of providing credit  
for goods supplied or work done. Without it, the same people could  
provide the same goods or do the same work for each other, but the  
impracticalities of a pure barter society or one based simply on good  
will are obvious. You can promise to make me a pair of shoes if I agree  
to read aloud to you every evening for a week, but how do I make sure I  
will actually get the shoes? It would be fine if you would make me the  
shoes because I need them, and if I would read to you because you enjoy  
it so much, but this way of doing things requires that you know exactly  
what I want and when I want it and I know the same about you, and that  
each of us can do it without suffering any negative consequences as a  
result which force us to break the agreement, or provide enough of an  
excuse as soon as we have what we want. It’s much more practical for each  
person to satisfy his or her (or both of their) own desires and  
rely as little as possible on other people doing that right. There are,  
of course, joys of community that require more than one person to  
satisfy, but while that’s more difficult, we can work that out together,  
too, without having to set up an elaborate system of rules that apply  
rigidly to everyone.  
Money is just a way to keep track of who has promised what. If you pay me  
for reading to you, I don’t have to hang around barefoot until you  
finally make me those shoes. Etc. Unfortunately, money is also one of  
those programs supporting principles supporting system concepts that acts  
just like the conveniences of home computing. It allows for fast and easy  
interchanges of vital ideas, goods, and services between people, and by  
providing that very facility, it attracts the scavengers, like bears to  
honey and vultures to carrion. It attracts the hackers whose only thought  
is how to better their own position regardless of what doing that means  
for others. The bear doesn’t care why the bees made the honey; the  
vulture doesn’t care if the lost hiker is really quite dead. If you’re  
hungry, why not eat? The lower levels are working fine but there’s  
something missing upstairs.  
Obviously, if a person can obtain a great deal of money for doing no more  
work than anyone else does, or preferably a great deal less work, that  
hacker can drain buying power out of the system for personal use without  
providing an equal benefit for those from whom the buying power was  
drained. The balance of trade is upset. Furthermore, the possessor of  
large stores of buying power can enlist the aid of those with less of it  
by offering them some of their money back if they will make and enforce  
rules that make the hacker’s position more secure. Simply by lending  
money to those in need, at interest, the hacker can use the stored buying  
power to make the store even greater. Of course it’s the hacker who  
creates a good deal of the need for money, so this is a self-sustaining  
strategy.  
Inevitably, then, control shifts away from the people in general and into  
the hands of the hackers. Once that shift begins, it is self-propagating.  
Money begets money and power begets power. This is a positive feedback  
situation which is stable only at the extremes. Every now and then the  
changes reverse, and go to the opposite extreme, but if that is a low  
point where buying power is threatened, the hackers go into emergency  
mode and start the trend back to their side before the hackees can figure  
out what’s happening. Note that “buying power” means both money  
and using money to obtain power over others.  
The solution to this systemic problem is twofold (at least).  
First, we have to stop admiring hackers, however clever and talented they  
seem. They seem so only to the extent that they appeal to the hacker in  
all of us. We have to stop wanting to become rich, wealthy, happy  
hackers, too, and thus applauding those who have done so and like to brag  
about it. We can still approve of and seek happiness and wealth, but for  
all of us, not just some of us. That’s the only stable state, the only  
possible escape from cycles of boom and bust, tyranny and revolution,  
feast and famine, war and peace.  
Cycles like these are signs of a bug in the system, a design problem.  
Simply trying to put the brakes on will not solve the problem because we  
can’t keep them on forever and they will wear out if we try. Just pushing  
back against the hackers will weaken the pushers and strengthen the  
resisters and make the conflict worse, or bring down the system entirely  
which is to nobody’s advantage (but that of the vultures).  
Second, we have to understand how the system as a whole works. The role  
of money in an economy can be understood by constructing a working model  
without hackers in it, to see what the requirements are for stable  
operation. Once those conditions are known, we can investigate how  
hacking or gaming the system can be made somewhat unprofitable. If you  
stand to lose by trying to gain abnormal buying power, why would you do  
it?  
Third, we have to shift our admiration to people who actually produce  
things and ideas of use to everyone. It’s simply not true that the most  
creative, organized, intelligent, and ambitious people are hackers. If  
anything, the reverse is more likely to be the case, and the hackers  
generally know this: they hire the creative etc. people. Creative people  
will create no matter what their financial status; intelligent people are  
not made stupid by lack of direction from outside. You can’t make anyone  
have newer better ideas by paying more for them. The most you can do by  
hiring smart and capable people is prevent anyone else from benefiting  
from their work through confidentiality agreements and other  
threats.  
Fourth and last for now, we have to accomplish all the required changes  
while maintaining what Hugh Gibbons calls “respect for the will of  
others.” Not necessarily compliance, but respect in the sense of  
admitting that everyone has to direct his or her own life by doing what  
seems to be necessary.  
A hacker is not an evil or stupid person, however often both adjectives  
may seem to apply. The hacker is behaving in a way that seems to  
accomplish certain goals. We have to continue asking “why” a  
little longer than usual.  
Why does a person want a large amount of money? One reason may be simply  
to live better, to fulfill wants long unsatisfied. Perhaps the person  
wants power over other people. Why does the person want that power? Maybe  
because without it, the person can’t get certain other things – freedom  
from control by others, perhaps, or influence over what happens to  
himself, or admiration, or even love and respect. Any why does a person  
want those things? Perhaps – always perhaps, because people differ –  
perhaps because without things like love, respect, influence, and  
freedom, one does not feel like a worthy person, a person deserving of  
the good things in life, who does not feel secure in the present,  
in future life, or, depending on beliefs, in the next life.  
Who knows? We simply have to ask and find out what these people want, and  
try to arrange for them to get it without doing the things tht tend to  
destroy the economy for those at the bottom. Denying them what they want  
is not the answer; the answer lies in finding out what they want and  
making sure, as far as we’re willing, that they can get it without  
thinking they have to control the rest of us.  
I guess there is a fifth point. If a person says “I love you,”  
that is nice to hear and gives a good feeling. But if you say “I’ll  
give you ten dollars if you say ‘I love you’,” the same phrase loses  
all its ability to satisfy. It’s just a way of getting ten dollars and  
you have little reason to think that it’s meant. So just telling a  
recovering hacker that you admire his restraint or courage or honesty or  
ability to play a round of golf under 80 will not make the hacker feel  
satisfied if he or she knows you have an ulterior motive, that you’re  
just trying to help the hacker sober up and would say anything that might  
lead to that end. If you say you admire, approve, appreciate, or  
otherwise give a high grade to something about the hacker, you have to  
actually have those feelings – you must really admire something other  
than wealth, fame, and power. Insincerity is too easy to detect. You must  
actually hope that the hacker gets what he wants – what he _really_  
wants, not just the things that are only a destructive means to a  
seemingly worthy end.

Discovering what a person really wants, and doing what you can to see it  
is obtained, is the only means I can think of that might work. To do that  
you have to change yourself, since you can’t change the other person. I  
think one word for that attitude is love. Is that what that guy in  
Galilee was talking about, or the guy under the Bo tree? Is respect for  
the will of another what we really mean by that four-letter  
word?

Best,

Bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495/4 "2011-09-25T23:23:44Z")

</div>

I think this is an extremely important post and I will ponder it well and fully before responding.

Fred Nickols

![image00115.gif](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/cb27171addc302dcf849237faf5e8cb978f15065.gif)

![yyanimation12.gif](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/1ab451b164aefcdfe1975fc45733bddaf8c0bb88.gif)

> **···**
>
> **From:** Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On Behalf Of** Bill Powers  
> **Sent:** Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:45 AM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: [NYTimes.com](http://NYTimes.com): How Do You Say ‘Economic Security’?
> 
> [From Bill Powers (2011.09.25.0756 MDT)]
> 
> [![Description: The New York Times]()](http://www.nytimes.com/) ![Description: E-mail This]()
> 
> **This page was sent to you by:** [marken@mindreadings.com](mailto:marken@mindreadings.com)
> 
> Message from sender:  
> [From Rick Marken (2011.09.24.1410)] I think this is a very good article that is relevant to this group because the way I say “economic security” is “being in control”. Best Rick
> 
> Yes, a very inspiring article, especially since I woke up thinking about the same subject – where have the people gone in all these national discussions of economics?  
> Consequently, I couldn’t agree more when you say “economic security” is “being in control.” But I’d like to make that more specific – it’s being in control of your own life, not somebody else’s. Before my libertarian friends perk up and tell me I’ve finally seen the light, I’m not talking about government versus people, but people versus people.  
> It has seemed more and more to me that economics is not about “the economy.” It’s about who gets to control whom. That question, it seems to me, is behind every disagreement about how an economy ought to be organized, or even how a society ought to be organized. Who gets to say how many hours a day you can, or must, work, and how much you get paid for it? Who gets to judge the quality of your work and either reward or punish you for it as they judge to be appropriate? Who decides what laws you have broken and what is to happen to you as a consequence? Who decides whether you are a good citizen and may vote, or a bad one? Who decides what clothes, if any, you will wear, or what kind of car you can buy, or what substances you put into your body, or whether you can die when life is too much to cope with?  
> In economics, the question is “who gets control of the way things are done?” This boils down largely to the question of who gets the most money.  
> Long ago, perhaps, money was simply a convenient way of providing credit for goods supplied or work done. Without it, the same people could provide the same goods or do the same work for each other, but the impracticalities of a pure barter society or one based simply on good will are obvious. You can promise to make me a pair of shoes if I agree to read aloud to you every evening for a week, but how do I make sure I will actually get the shoes? It would be fine if you would make me the shoes because I need them, and if I would read to you because you enjoy it so much, but this way of doing things requires that you know exactly what I want and when I want it and I know the same about you, and that each of us can do it without suffering any negative consequences as a result which force us to break the agreement, or provide enough of an excuse as soon as we have what we want. It’s much more practical for each person to satisfy his or her (or both of their) own desires and rely as little as possible on other people doing that right. There are, of course, joys of community that require more than one person to satisfy, but while that’s more difficult, we can work that out together, too, without having to set up an elaborate system of rules that apply rigidly to everyone.  
> Money is just a way to keep track of who has promised what. If you pay me for reading to you, I don’t have to hang around barefoot until you finally make me those shoes. Etc. Unfortunately, money is also one of those programs supporting principles supporting system concepts that acts just like the conveniences of home computing. It allows for fast and easy interchanges of vital ideas, goods, and services between people, and by providing that very facility, it attracts the scavengers, like bears to honey and vultures to carrion. It attracts the hackers whose only thought is how to better their own position regardless of what doing that means for others. The bear doesn’t care why the bees made the honey; the vulture doesn’t care if the lost hiker is really quite dead. If you’re hungry, why not eat? The lower levels are working fine but there’s something missing upstairs.  
> Obviously, if a person can obtain a great deal of money for doing no more work than anyone else does, or preferably a great deal less work, that hacker can drain buying power out of the system for personal use without providing an equal benefit for those from whom the buying power was drained. The balance of trade is upset. Furthermore, the possessor of large stores of buying power can enlist the aid of those with less of it by offering them some of their money back if they will make and enforce rules that make the hacker’s position more secure. Simply by lending money to those in need, at interest, the hacker can use the stored buying power to make the store even greater. Of course it’s the hacker who creates a good deal of the need for money, so this is a self-sustaining strategy.  
> Inevitably, then, control shifts away from the people in general and into the hands of the hackers. Once that shift begins, it is self-propagating. Money begets money and power begets power. This is a positive feedback situation which is stable only at the extremes. Every now and then the changes reverse, and go to the opposite extreme, but if that is a low point where buying power is threatened, the hackers go into emergency mode and start the trend back to their side before the hackees can figure out what’s happening. Note that “buying power” means both money and using money to obtain power over others.  
> The solution to this systemic problem is twofold (at least).  
> First, we have to stop admiring hackers, however clever and talented they seem. They seem so only to the extent that they appeal to the hacker in all of us. We have to stop wanting to become rich, wealthy, happy hackers, too, and thus applauding those who have done so and like to brag about it. We can still approve of and seek happiness and wealth, but for all of us, not just some of us. That’s the only stable state, the only possible escape from cycles of boom and bust, tyranny and revolution, feast and famine, war and peace.  
> Cycles like these are signs of a bug in the system, a design problem. Simply trying to put the brakes on will not solve the problem because we can’t keep them on forever and they will wear out if we try. Just pushing back against the hackers will weaken the pushers and strengthen the resisters and make the conflict worse, or bring down the system entirely which is to nobody’s advantage (but that of the vultures).  
> Second, we have to understand how the system as a whole works. The role of money in an economy can be understood by constructing a working model without hackers in it, to see what the requirements are for stable operation. Once those conditions are known, we can investigate how hacking or gaming the system can be made somewhat unprofitable. If you stand to lose by trying to gain abnormal buying power, why would you do it?  
> Third, we have to shift our admiration to people who actually produce things and ideas of use to everyone. It’s simply not true that the most creative, organized, intelligent, and ambitious people are hackers. If anything, the reverse is more likely to be the case, and the hackers generally know this: they hire the creative etc. people. Creative people will create no matter what their financial status; intelligent people are not made stupid by lack of direction from outside. You can’t make anyone have newer better ideas by paying more for them. The most you can do by hiring smart and capable people is prevent anyone else from benefiting from their work through confidentiality agreements and other threats.  
> Fourth and last for now, we have to accomplish all the required changes while maintaining what Hugh Gibbons calls “respect for the will of others.” Not necessarily compliance, but respect in the sense of admitting that everyone has to direct his or her own life by doing what seems to be necessary.  
> A hacker is not an evil or stupid person, however often both adjectives may seem to apply. The hacker is behaving in a way that seems to accomplish certain goals. We have to continue asking “why” a little longer than usual.  
> Why does a person want a large amount of money? One reason may be simply to live better, to fulfill wants long unsatisfied. Perhaps the person wants power over other people. Why does the person want that power? Maybe because without it, the person can’t get certain other things – freedom from control by others, perhaps, or influence over what happens to himself, or admiration, or even love and respect. Any why does a person want those things? Perhaps – always perhaps, because people differ – perhaps because without things like love, respect, influence, and freedom, one does not feel like a worthy person, a person deserving of the good things in life, who does not feel secure in the present, in future life, or, depending on beliefs, in the next life.  
> Who knows? We simply have to ask and find out what these people want, and try to arrange for them to get it without doing the things tht tend to destroy the economy for those at the bottom. Denying them what they want is not the answer; the answer lies in finding out what they want and making sure, as far as we’re willing, that they can get it without thinking they have to control the rest of us.  
> I guess there is a fifth point. If a person says “I love you,” that is nice to hear and gives a good feeling. But if you say “I’ll give you ten dollars if you say ‘I love you’,” the same phrase loses all its ability to satisfy. It’s just a way of getting ten dollars and you have little reason to think that it’s meant. So just telling a recovering hacker that you admire his restraint or courage or honesty or ability to play a round of golf under 80 will not make the hacker feel satisfied if he or she knows you have an ulterior motive, that you’re just trying to help the hacker sober up and would say anything that might lead to that end. If you say you admire, approve, appreciate, or otherwise give a high grade to something about the hacker, you have to actually have those feelings – you must really admire something other than wealth, fame, and power. Insincerity is too easy to detect. You must actually hope that the hacker gets what he wants – what he _really_ wants, not just the things that are only a destructive means to a seemingly worthy end.
> 
> Discovering what a person really wants, and doing what you can to see it is obtained, is the only means I can think of that might work. To do that you have to change yourself, since you can’t change the other person. I think one word for that attitude is love. Is that what that guy in Galilee was talking about, or the guy under the Bo tree? Is respect for the will of another what we really mean by that four-letter word?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [September 26, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495/5 "2011-09-26T19:30:23Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2011.09.26.1230)]

> Bill Powers (2011.09.25.0756 MDT)–

> Yes, a very inspiring article, especially since I woke up thinking about  
> the same subject – where have the people gone in all these national  
> discussions of economics?
> 
> Consequently, I couldn’t agree more when you say “economic  
> security” is “being in control.” …
> 
> The solution to this systemic problem is twofold (at least).
> 
> First, we have to stop admiring hackers, however clever and talented they  
> seem…
> 
> Second, we have to understand how the system as a whole works…

> Third, we have to shift our admiration to people who actually produce  
> things and ideas of use to everyone. …

> Fourth and last for now, we have to accomplish all the required changes  
> while maintaining what Hugh Gibbons calls “respect for the will of  
> others.” …

I think these things don’t just happen; I think we need leaders who articulate these values so that they become part of the zeitgeist (yes, I believe in zeitgeists;-) I may be wrong but my impression is that before 1980 we had leaders (like FDR, Eisenhower, JFK) who promulgated a zeitgeist where “hackers” (the people rich from manipulating finances) were not admired, we admired people who produced things and ideas and there was far more mutual respect for people with different opinions. I think we also understood the economic system better as well; people knew you had to pay people a decent wage so they could buy the stuff they were producing. There was a greater focus on people than on profits. Greed was still one of the 7 deadly sins. And the economy was remarkably stable until 1980. That’s when the zeitgeist changed precipitously. Suddenly it was the economic hackers who were admired, the people with ideas (that didn’t “pay off”) who were scorned (the saps) and mutual respect disappeared (had to find anyone who loved a liberal anymore;-). And our understanding of the economy turned into a trickle down fantasy where making the rich richer would somehow help everyone else.

I think the central problem now is that the “government is bad” meme, started by Reagan, has infected the US population like a plague. There will always be greedy “hackers” and we used to know that the only thing between them and the rest of us is government regulation. But people now buy into the idea that government regulation (indeed, anything the government does) is bad because it prevents the rich from getting richer so that they can trickle their wealth down to the rest of us. I think the problem we have in this country is that leaders since Reagan have successfully promulgated a system concept that includes the idea that government is bad. Probably a majority of the population has bought into this concept. I think the only hope is for us to get a super charismatic leader who can change the prevailing system concept (zeitgeist) to one that is more like the one you describe with you four points above (the one I believe was far more prevalent prior to 1980). I thought Obama would be that person but he’s not. But he’s working in the context of very racist, reactionary resistance so maybe he’s doing the best possible while avoiding brown shirt violence.

> Discovering what a person really wants, and doing what you can to see it  
> is obtained, is the only means I can think of that might work. To do that  
> you have to change yourself, since you can’t change the other person. I  
> think one word for that attitude is love. Is that what that guy in  
> Galilee was talking about, or the guy under the Bo tree? Is respect for  
> the will of another what we really mean by that four-letter  
> word?

Yes, you are supposed to love your enemies. But that’s tough to do when they are destroying the lives of other people with their greed and lack of respect. I like Jesus’ message of love but I also think it’s important to remember that, even when he comes back, “the government shall be upon his shoulders”; love, but verify;-)

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [September 26, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495/6 "2011-09-26T20:55:01Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2011.09.26.16.52]  
[From Rick Marken (2011.09.26.1230)]

> I like Jesus' message of love but I also think it's important to remember that, even when he comes back, "the government shall be upon his shoulders"; love, but verify;-)

Remember also His economic message: Cast your bread upon the waters and it shall return to you manyfold.

I always thought that message went to the core of effective economics that would produce general wealth.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Lewitt](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@Martin\_Lewitt](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Lewitt)\
**Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 2:57am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495/7 "2011-09-27T02:57:23Z")

</div>

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 26 2038 MDT]

> [From Rick Marken (2011.09.26.1230)]
> 
> > Bill Powers (2011.09.25.0756 MDT)–

> > ```
> > Yes, a very inspiring article, especially since I woke up
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > thinking about  
> > the same subject – where have the people gone in all these  
> > national  
> > discussions of economics?
> > 
> > ```
> > Consequently, I couldn't agree more when you say "economic
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > security" is “being in control.” …

```
This consequence doesn't follow.

```

> > ```
> > The solution to this systemic problem is twofold (at least).
> > 
> > First, we have to stop admiring hackers, however clever and
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > talented they  
> > seem…
> > 
> > ```
> > Second, we have to understand how the system as a whole
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > works…

> > ```
> > Third, we have to shift our admiration to people who
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > actually produce  
> > things and ideas of use to everyone. …

```
Throw away specialization which produces things of use to particular

```

segments?

> > ```
> > Fourth and last for now, we have to accomplish all the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > required changes  
> > while maintaining what Hugh Gibbons calls “respect for the  
> > will of  
> > others.” …

```
Agreed, as long as that "will" is worthy of respect and itself

```

respectful of the will of others.

> ```
> I think these things don't just happen; I think we need
> 
> ```
> 
> leaders who articulate these values so that they become part  
> of the zeitgeist (yes, I believe in zeitgeists;-) I may be  
> wrong but my impression is that before 1980 we had leaders  
> (like FDR, Eisenhower, JFK) who promulgated a zeitgeist where  
> “hackers” (the people rich from manipulating finances) were  
> not admired, we admired people who produced things and ideas  
> and there was far more mutual respect for people with  
> different opinions.

```
You obviously aren't familiar with FDR, he was quite snarky about

```

the opinions of others, and would have been quite at home on many of  
todays most mocking and vulgar progressive blogs. The hackers he  
admired were those who hacked the constitution and our liberties.  
You might want to read “the forgotten man”. He also refused to  
get on board with anti-lynching legislation or coming to the aid of  
European Jewry.

> ```
> I think we also understood the economic system better as
> 
> ```
> 
> well; people knew you had to pay people a decent wage so they  
> could buy the stuff they were producing. There was a greater  
> focus on people than on profits. Greed was still one of the 7  
> deadly sins.

```
And it still is today. The manufacturers are far more admired than

```

the bankers and financiers.

> ```
> And the economy was remarkably stable until 1980. That's
> 
> ```
> 
> when the zeitgeist changed precipitously. Suddenly it was the  
> economic hackers who were admired, the people with ideas (that  
> didn’t “pay off”) who were scorned (the saps) and mutual  
> respect disappeared (had to find anyone who loved a liberal  
> anymore;-).

```
Perhaps you weren't alive for stagflation.

```

> ```
> And our understanding of the economy turned into a trickle
> 
> ```
> 
> down fantasy where making the rich richer would somehow help  
> everyone else.

```
Reagan opposed Fed Chairman Volchers attempt to "break the inflation

```

psychology" by putting the clamps on the economy. Reagan’s supply  
side approach was to “produce our way out” of the inflation He  
understood inflation as too much money chasing too few goods, and  
his solution was to produce more goods. If the economic  
understanding was better then, perhaps it is because it based upon  
first principles rather than the hubris of controlling chaos.

> ```
> I think the central problem now is that the "government is
> 
> ```
> 
> bad" meme, started by Reagan, has infected the US population  
> like a plague.

```
This meme predates the founding of our country.

```

> ```
> There will always be greedy "hackers" and we used to know
> 
> ```
> 
> that the only thing between them and the rest of us is  
> government regulation. But people now buy into the idea that  
> government regulation (indeed, anything the government does)  
> is bad because it prevents the rich from getting richer so  
> that they can trickle their wealth down to the rest of us. I  
> think the problem we have in this country is that leaders  
> since Reagan have successfully promulgated a system concept  
> that includes the idea that government is bad. Probably a  
> majority of the population has bought into this concept. I  
> think the only hope is for us to get a super charismatic  
> leader who can change the prevailing system concept  
> (zeitgeist) to one that is more like the one you describe with  
> you four points above (the one I believe was far more  
> prevalent prior to 1980). I thought Obama would be that person  
> but he’s not. But he’s working in the context of very racist,  
> reactionary resistance so maybe he’s doing the best possible  
> while avoiding brown shirt violence.

```
It was clear that Obama was a racist reactionary populist from the

```

beginning with his black liberation theology and class warfare  
rhetoric. You are playing with fire when you attempt to exploit  
the human vulnerability to personality cults and the left seems  
especially prone to this. It is frightening to see it openly  
embraced by you.

> > ```
> > Discovering what a person really wants, and doing what you
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > can to see it  
> > is obtained, is the only means I can think of that might  
> > work. To do that  
> > you have to change yourself, since you can’t change the  
> > other person. I  
> > think one word for that attitude is love. Is that what that  
> > guy in  
> > Galilee was talking about, or the guy under the Bo tree? Is  
> > respect for  
> > the will of another what we really mean by that four-letter  
> > word?

> ```
> Yes, you are supposed to love your enemies. But that's tough
> 
> ```
> 
> to do when they are destroying the lives of other people with  
> their greed and lack of respect. I like Jesus’ message of  
> love but I also think it’s important to remember that, even  
> when he comes back, “the government shall be upon his  
> shoulders”; love, but verify;-)

```
At least you are skeptical of some personality cults.

-- Martin L

```

> **···**
>
> On 9/26/2011 1:30 PM, Richard Marken wrote:
> 
> > ```
> > Best
> > 
> > Rick
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > 
> > rsmarken@gmail.com
> > 
> > [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)
> > 
> > ```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nytimes-com-how-do-you-say-economic-security/7495/8 "2011-09-27T15:13:57Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (2011.27.0909 MDT)]

Well, I think I agree with most of what you say, Bill, except for one thing. I don’t know that I would unconditionally adopt a position of helping others get what they want. I think I’d first want to know what they want and I would then decide to (a) help, (b) not help or © oppose. If I were in an especially good mood I might try to go up a level or two to find out why they want what they want and maybe help them get that via other means. But the bottom line is that I would in fact judge the “goodness” and the “rightness” of what they’re after.

Fred Nickols

> **···**
>
> **From:** Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On Behalf Of** Bill Powers  
> **Sent:** Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:45 AM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: [NYTimes.com](http://NYTimes.com): How Do You Say ‘Economic Security’?
> 
> [From Bill Powers (2011.09.25.0756 MDT)]
> 
> [![The New York Times](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/apps/emailthis/head_1.gif)](http://www.nytimes.com/) ![E-mail This](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/apps/emailthis/head_2.gif)
> 
> **This page was sent to you by:** [marken@mindreadings.com](mailto:marken@mindreadings.com)
> 
> Message from sender:  
> [From Rick Marken (2011.09.24.1410)] I think this is a very good article that is relevant to this group because the way I say “economic security” is “being in control”. Best Rick
> 
> Yes, a very inspiring article, especially since I woke up thinking about the same subject – where have the people gone in all these national discussions of economics?  
> Consequently, I couldn’t agree more when you say “economic security” is “being in control.” But I’d like to make that more specific – it’s being in control of your own life, not somebody else’s. Before my libertarian friends perk up and tell me I’ve finally seen the light, I’m not talking about government versus people, but people versus people.  
> It has seemed more and more to me that economics is not about “the economy.” It’s about who gets to control whom. That question, it seems to me, is behind every disagreement about how an economy ought to be organized, or even how a society ought to be organized. Who gets to say how many hours a day you can, or must, work, and how much you get paid for it? Who gets to judge the quality of your work and either reward or punish you for it as they judge to be appropriate? Who decides what laws you have broken and what is to happen to you as a consequence? Who decides whether you are a good citizen and may vote, or a bad one? Who decides what clothes, if any, you will wear, or what kind of car you can buy, or what substances you put into your body, or whether you can die when life is too much to cope with?  
> In economics, the question is “who gets control of the way things are done?” This boils down largely to the question of who gets the most money.  
> Long ago, perhaps, money was simply a convenient way of providing credit for goods supplied or work done. Without it, the same people could provide the same goods or do the same work for each other, but the impracticalities of a pure barter society or one based simply on good will are obvious. You can promise to make me a pair of shoes if I agree to read aloud to you every evening for a week, but how do I make sure I will actually get the shoes? It would be fine if you would make me the shoes because I need them, and if I would read to you because you enjoy it so much, but this way of doing things requires that you know exactly what I want and when I want it and I know the same about you, and that each of us can do it without suffering any negative consequences as a result which force us to break the agreement, or provide enough of an excuse as soon as we have what we want. It’s much more practical for each person to satisfy his or her (or both of their) own desires and rely as little as possible on other people doing that right. There are, of course, joys of community that require more than one person to satisfy, but while that’s more difficult, we can work that out together, too, without having to set up an elaborate system of rules that apply rigidly to everyone.  
> Money is just a way to keep track of who has promised what. If you pay me for reading to you, I don’t have to hang around barefoot until you finally make me those shoes. Etc. Unfortunately, money is also one of those programs supporting principles supporting system concepts that acts just like the conveniences of home computing. It allows for fast and easy interchanges of vital ideas, goods, and services between people, and by providing that very facility, it attracts the scavengers, like bears to honey and vultures to carrion. It attracts the hackers whose only thought is how to better their own position regardless of what doing that means for others. The bear doesn’t care why the bees made the honey; the vulture doesn’t care if the lost hiker is really quite dead. If you’re hungry, why not eat? The lower levels are working fine but there’s something missing upstairs.  
> Obviously, if a person can obtain a great deal of money for doing no more work than anyone else does, or preferably a great deal less work, that hacker can drain buying power out of the system for personal use without providing an equal benefit for those from whom the buying power was drained. The balance of trade is upset. Furthermore, the possessor of large stores of buying power can enlist the aid of those with less of it by offering them some of their money back if they will make and enforce rules that make the hacker’s position more secure. Simply by lending money to those in need, at interest, the hacker can use the stored buying power to make the store even greater. Of course it’s the hacker who creates a good deal of the need for money, so this is a self-sustaining strategy.  
> Inevitably, then, control shifts away from the people in general and into the hands of the hackers. Once that shift begins, it is self-propagating. Money begets money and power begets power. This is a positive feedback situation which is stable only at the extremes. Every now and then the changes reverse, and go to the opposite extreme, but if that is a low point where buying power is threatened, the hackers go into emergency mode and start the trend back to their side before the hackees can figure out what’s happening. Note that “buying power” means both money and using money to obtain power over others.  
> The solution to this systemic problem is twofold (at least).  
> First, we have to stop admiring hackers, however clever and talented they seem. They seem so only to the extent that they appeal to the hacker in all of us. We have to stop wanting to become rich, wealthy, happy hackers, too, and thus applauding those who have done so and like to brag about it. We can still approve of and seek happiness and wealth, but for all of us, not just some of us. That’s the only stable state, the only possible escape from cycles of boom and bust, tyranny and revolution, feast and famine, war and peace.  
> Cycles like these are signs of a bug in the system, a design problem. Simply trying to put the brakes on will not solve the problem because we can’t keep them on forever and they will wear out if we try. Just pushing back against the hackers will weaken the pushers and strengthen the resisters and make the conflict worse, or bring down the system entirely which is to nobody’s advantage (but that of the vultures).  
> Second, we have to understand how the system as a whole works. The role of money in an economy can be understood by constructing a working model without hackers in it, to see what the requirements are for stable operation. Once those conditions are known, we can investigate how hacking or gaming the system can be made somewhat unprofitable. If you stand to lose by trying to gain abnormal buying power, why would you do it?  
> Third, we have to shift our admiration to people who actually produce things and ideas of use to everyone. It’s simply not true that the most creative, organized, intelligent, and ambitious people are hackers. If anything, the reverse is more likely to be the case, and the hackers generally know this: they hire the creative etc. people. Creative people will create no matter what their financial status; intelligent people are not made stupid by lack of direction from outside. You can’t make anyone have newer better ideas by paying more for them. The most you can do by hiring smart and capable people is prevent anyone else from benefiting from their work through confidentiality agreements and other threats.  
> Fourth and last for now, we have to accomplish all the required changes while maintaining what Hugh Gibbons calls “respect for the will of others.” Not necessarily compliance, but respect in the sense of admitting that everyone has to direct his or her own life by doing what seems to be necessary.  
> A hacker is not an evil or stupid person, however often both adjectives may seem to apply. The hacker is behaving in a way that seems to accomplish certain goals. We have to continue asking “why” a little longer than usual.  
> Why does a person want a large amount of money? One reason may be simply to live better, to fulfill wants long unsatisfied. Perhaps the person wants power over other people. Why does the person want that power? Maybe because without it, the person can’t get certain other things – freedom from control by others, perhaps, or influence over what happens to himself, or admiration, or even love and respect. Any why does a person want those things? Perhaps – always perhaps, because people differ – perhaps because without things like love, respect, influence, and freedom, one does not feel like a worthy person, a person deserving of the good things in life, who does not feel secure in the present, in future life, or, depending on beliefs, in the next life.  
> Who knows? We simply have to ask and find out what these people want, and try to arrange for them to get it without doing the things tht tend to destroy the economy for those at the bottom. Denying them what they want is not the answer; the answer lies in finding out what they want and making sure, as far as we’re willing, that they can get it without thinking they have to control the rest of us.  
> I guess there is a fifth point. If a person says “I love you,” that is nice to hear and gives a good feeling. But if you say “I’ll give you ten dollars if you say ‘I love you’,” the same phrase loses all its ability to satisfy. It’s just a way of getting ten dollars and you have little reason to think that it’s meant. So just telling a recovering hacker that you admire his restraint or courage or honesty or ability to play a round of golf under 80 will not make the hacker feel satisfied if he or she knows you have an ulterior motive, that you’re just trying to help the hacker sober up and would say anything that might lead to that end. If you say you admire, approve, appreciate, or otherwise give a high grade to something about the hacker, you have to actually have those feelings – you must really admire something other than wealth, fame, and power. Insincerity is too easy to detect. You must actually hope that the hacker gets what he wants – what he _really_ wants, not just the things that are only a destructive means to a seemingly worthy end.
> 
> Discovering what a person really wants, and doing what you can to see it is obtained, is the only means I can think of that might work. To do that you have to change yourself, since you can’t change the other person. I think one word for that attitude is love. Is that what that guy in Galilee was talking about, or the guy under the Bo tree? Is respect for the will of another what we really mean by that four-letter word?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill