Text messaging

[belgareth]

This is an interesting

article about text messaging.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1230516058-qKni4hWzN52Z6yyrkRM2z

Q

[DrSmellThis]

Hi Bel.

Not being a member

of the NYT, what was the main point of the article, please? I text frequently.

THanks in advance

[belgareth]

The main point is that it costs

virtually nothing to transmit text messages. As a matter of fact, since they are on a control channel that has to be

open anyway, the cost is nothing at all. Several carriers are being sued over price fixing for text messgaing right

now.

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks! That's very

interesting. Seems like a good, contemporary example of pricing that has nothing to do with direct cost.

I love

to hear about predatory capitalism (or misuse/abuse of the markets somehow) in all its forms, because I'm always

trying to get my mind around it to form better economic beliefs.

[belgareth]

I don't know if I'd call it

predatory but I do feel people should know what they are paying for. A basic principle of economics is to charge

whatever the market will bear. But when the market is aware of over-pricing it gives them an incentive to shop the

prices and tends to force the market down. While not explicit, there were some hints about price fixing between the

cariers as well and that is unacceptable.

You have to remember that I am a capitalist that has discovered the

benefit of charging less for better. My techs are swamped while some major competitors, charging almost 50%

more, are bemoaning the slowdown. Gee, I wonder why?

[DrSmellThis]

I

don't know if I'd call it predatory but I do feel people should know what they are paying for. A basic principle

of economics is to charge whatever the market will bear. But when the market is aware of over-pricing it gives them

an incentive to shop the prices and tends to force the market down. While not explicit, there were some hints about

price fixing between the cariers as well and that is unacceptable.

You have to remember that I am a capitalist

that has discovered the benefit of charging less for better. My techs are swamped while some major competitors,

charging almost 50% more, are bemoaning the slowdown. Gee, I wonder why?I know. I questioned my use of

that word, but left it in for lack of good words to describe what happens around the edges, so to speak, of

capitalism.

I'm glad your pricing strategy has been successful for you. You have to aim your approach at the

people who are your likely customers.

I've typically worked on a sliding scale, based on ability to pay; while

limiting a certain percentage of what I do to pro bono (Cher and Cher alike, I always say. Yuk Yuk.) work.

That works well for me in my line of work, where ethical considerations always ultimately "trump" (no pun intended)

capitalist ones, though capitalist factors are up there to be sure. For example, if a kid is thinking of self harm,

you treat first and -- if necessary -- think of compensation later. I guess that means I'm not really a capitalist,

per se.

[idesign]

Capitalism is funny, it'll both

allow and demand different pricing structures.

Doc, your altruism is evident both in the field of work you've

chosen and in the way you choose to give when giving seems socially responsible.

Bel's business, as far as I

understand it, is kind of a service commodity, allowing for reduced rates in the interest of higher volume,

maintaining both income and growth.

My business involves both product and service, and I'll typically have only

10-12 clients in a year, sometimes less. Most are wealthy, and I've spent as long as 2 years with a client on a

single project. In this environment pricing becomes an art form, as each job (and client) has its own unique

requirements. Naturally I want to make as much money as I can, but still be fair and not gouge for the sake of

money.

A word that I like, and do business by, is "value". I provide a high level of product and service at a

high cost, but never has a client had anything but 100% satisfaction with the work I do.

Having said all

that, a huge corporate entity such as a cellular provider, or a car company, are limited and controlled by strict

market and stockholder demands. A corporation has to perform for the stockholders, and its only when the consumer

is ignorant that they're taken advantage of. Thanks to Bel's post, I started looking at what I'm being charged

for certain Int'l text messages. I found a much better deal with little effort. Not only text, but voice as

well.

I'm intrigued by Doc's comment about what happens around the "fringes" of capitalism. Thinking about it,

capitalism (in its perfect expression) is not so much an economic "system" or "theory" as it is what happens when

people are free to trade without gov't intervention. If that's true, then what happens within capitalism is

nothing more or less that what happens in a free society. There will be those who rape, pillage and plunder as well

as those who give, nurture and lift up those less fortunate.

Small business truly drives our economy, and few

things give me greater pleasure than writing payroll checks, esp. when they've had a productive week.

In a way,

financially speaking, capitalism is the perfect expression of the individual. For the purpose of this thread, I

guess that a large corporation is more of a profit machine than individual, and hence the need for consumer

information, and, as a last resort, gov't regulation.

[DrSmellThis]

Idesign, capitalism is a lot

of things, and is a construct with an enormous amount of substance around and within it.

For example, it is a

system and theory of government, a particular way of doing things instead of another.

It is also a belief system

or systems. But as an "ism" or belief system, it competes with other "isms", values, and belief systems.

It can

be used for a variety of purposes here, including a moral philosophy (e.g, when "maximizing (shareholder) wealth",

is the driving force behind a person's (or artificial person's) every decision.)

On the scale of collectivism

versus individualism, to use an example within the known world of competing ideological belief systems, capitalism

is at one far end of the scale. So it's not as if it is some neutral lack of ideology. It is possible for it to be

quite the opposite.

It is also a specific set of practices in a particular society or community. As such, and in

our society, capitalism is very complex and multifaceted, because as you illustrate, corporate capitalism, with its

artificial persons, writing of legislation, effect on world culture, effect on society and the planet, and power

centers, is quite a difficult system to wrap yourself around conceptually. The common resources that are in limited

supply, as well as being the sustainence of life on a planet (land, water, air, oil, vegitation, and how these

interact), are what is at stake in the process of competition.

Also, you have situations where people in

practice have varying degrees of practical freedom to direct their purchases.

This is well known in the cases of

utilities, health care, and other crucial goods and services, for example.

You have situations where businesses

of different sizes have differing abilities to compete, depending on certain structures. You have antitrust

legislation, labor concerns, environmental concerns, and gee whiz it gets complicated.

There are even

psychologies behind capitalism, such as the producer/consumer model of persons, where a person's worth and life's

meaning are determined by how much she or he produces and consumes, and wherein the forces of society push persons

toward greater expenditure of all their life and personal resources, and time, toward those ends. There are a myriad

of implications behind such a psychology, of course.

Any economics is laden with a philosophy, a politics, a

psychology, a biology (e.g., the biological idea that humans are independent, self-sufficient creatures), and even a

geology (e.g., the idea that this particular planet's resources are limitless, and therefore neutral units of

competition and acquisition; a related idea being that perpetual growth is a be all and end all goal, or reliable

value.).

To make things even trickier for us, there is not just one "capitalism" within any of these realms. And

there are types and varieties, such as corporatism, a specific type which played a role in Mussolini's

economics.

This is why I am just trying to get some concepts together to put capitalism in context. so far I

haven't succeded, but plan on picking up The Wealth of Nations and some Marx, to try to familiarize myself with the

history of economic thought. I am embarrassed I haven't read Smith, in particular. At least I've been exposed to

Marx in secondary sources while studying philosophy.

[idesign]

Thoughtful post Doc, and I agree

on most points. My initial idea was mostly drawing a basic line in the sand between freedom to trade and controls

restricting trade.

I think you'll agree that all economics depend on exchange of goods, and the value any person

places on those goods. Interfere with that basic exchange, and you interfere with natural law, or "state of

nature".

Anything which interferes with that natural "free" state is political economy, which your post

accurately describes. Social constructs and psychologies etc are purely understandings and interpretations of what

happens in a natural world. In any understanding of political economics, it amounts to how you interpret how and

why men behave as they do, economically in this case. Different capitalisms are just differences in how men

interpret the allowances you gain in a free trade environment. Some trade fairly, others not.

In my thinking

I'm intrigued by the very same variances in the capitalist idea as you. I do, however, stick to my thought that

capitalism is ultimately based on freedom, and will prosper or fall in any society that accepts, rejects or

willingly bastardizes its fundamental freedom.

Now for the good stuff. Marx and Adam Smith are, in my mind, like

Rosie O'Donnell and Wm Buckley. You know which compares to whom, or something like that. There's just no basis

for Marx's theory of Labor Pricing, either intellectually or in modern experience.

Interestingly, Marx is

usually required social science reading in most academic venues, while A.Smith is mostly read in pure economics

courses.

Here's why. Labor is useless without a market, and markets are not created by laborers.

[DrSmellThis]

Thoughtful post Doc, and I agree on most points. My initial idea was mostly drawing a basic

line in the sand between freedom to trade and controls restricting trade.

I think you'll agree that all

economics depend on exchange of goods, and the value any person places on those goods. Interfere with that basic

exchange, and you interfere with natural law, or "state of nature".

Anything which interferes with that natural

"free" state is political economy, which your post accurately describes. Social constructs and psychologies etc are

purely understandings and interpretations of what happens in a natural world. In any understanding of political

economics, it amounts to how you interpret how and why men behave as they do, economically in this case. Different

capitalisms are just differences in how men interpret the allowances you gain in a free trade environment. Some

trade fairly, others not.

In my thinking I'm intrigued by the very same variances in the capitalist idea as you.

I do, however, stick to my thought that capitalism is ultimately based on freedom, and will prosper or fall in any

society that accepts, rejects or willingly bastardizes its fundamental freedom.

Now for the good stuff. Marx and

Adam Smith are, in my mind, like Rosie O'Donnell and Wm Buckley. You know which compares to whom, or something

like that. There's just no basis for Marx's theory of Labor Pricing, either intellectually or in modern

experience.

Interestingly, Marx is usually required social science reading in most academic venues, while A.Smith

is mostly read in pure economics courses.

Here's why. Labor is useless without a market, and markets are not

created by laborers.Hi, idesign.

Thanks for making me think about this stuff more. I'm at a bit of a

disadvantage momentarily; as my serious thoughts on the field of economics are very much still forming. So I'll try

to keep this post at a basic level consistent with where I am currently, and add more developed thoughts as

necessary and possible.

* If you had said that within orthodox capitalistic theory that economics was all about

the exchange of goods, I'd have agreed. This is a specific theory driven definition of economics. If you are going

to consider more than one strict version of one theory, however, this definition suffers. Econ definitely involves

the exchange of goods, but not only.

So there is no way I am going to define "economics" reductionistically; as

the exchange of goods. That would be reducing humans and society to something less than they are, in order to make

them fit an ideology.

Specifically, we would be reducing a human being to the sum total of what he or she

produces (and by implication, consumes) in terms of a specific commodity produced, and specific commodities

consumed. This definition puts us at risk for embodying the same type of miserable dehumanization that Marx

deplored, and subjects us to the brunt of Marx's best critiques. So it is unnecessary; and unwise, intellectually

speaking.

As regards everyday human beings, economics is more fundamentally, and holistically, about persons

trying to find a somewhat sustainable role; within a particular society, community, and natural environment;

in the context of a shared collective goal of survival; and the fullfillment of persons' talents, interests, and

the community's needs; as well as the thriving of the natural environment within which the concerns of any

economics are defined, and only within which that any person's survival needs might be fulfilled.

I should

expand that to add that a particular society or community also has a specific role to play in a larger environment,

ultimately on the planetary level. But even here, on a colllective level, what a community offers the planet

economically, and means to the planet, is much more than just a specific commodity it produces. This is not an

ideology, but just an everyday reality.

Or say, within a family, a father's real "economic" ("economics" as

defined by everyday humanity rather than classical textbooks) role is about more than the salary he makes, just to

flesh this more holistic mindset out a bit more. If you replace the human father with his salary from cutting a

metal part for a widget or whatever, you will see that the value of the trade is not equal, to say the least. The

failure within society to understand this, as fathers left their homes and communities in the early industrial age,

for the assembly lines in the next town over; is what led to the devaluing of fatherly wisdom in our society, the

disintegration of community cohesiveness, and the disintegration of fathers' roles in society and families. (such

as fathers' traditional role as moral educators). How does one calculate the "cost" (again, in the most real and

most holistic possible terms) to the planet, of fathers abandoning their historical roles within their communities

and families? In the most real possible everyday terms, what would be the "economic" benefits of restoring that

fatherly role within our culture? That difficult question is an example of the kinds of questions considered within

a broader vision of economics.

In my opinion, people will eventually be forced to consider economics more

holistically as their lives are reduced in quality more and more. Things are not getting any better any time soon,

with no change of direction. I know that for me, money or salary means less than nothing, (meaning I'd TRADE

everything I've ever had or will ever have for what is more important) compared to everything else that is

important in life, allowing for brute survival needs. But I think you can also be forced into thinking that way, and

that here in the real world, many of us already are so forced.

Within this broader, more holistic picture, a

person is much more than the sum total of commodities he or she produces and consumes. (The current hegemony of the

deeply disturbing reductionistic psychology and vision of humans is precisely one of the problems with capitalism as

practiced, as noted in my last post.)

So this allows us to incorporate real scientific findings about real

humans, real societies, and real planets, for example; without sucking the life out of all of it. It keeps us from

giving ourselves a lobotomy before the enquiry even begins (Garbage in, garbage out.).

Economics is originally

about a two way interaction between a person and that context, but also about the other myriad interactions among

the elements of that context.

* The "state of nature" idea in economics has always been based on contentious

enlightenment philosophy, and not so much empirical data. Some religions also picked up the idea from Aquinas (who

got it from Aristotle, complete with all the well known scientific shortcomings of Aristotelianism, through no fault

of Aristotle or Aquinas.) and enlightenment philosophy too.

Now the whole concept seems to have been kidnapped

by political ideology and religion, to the detriment of scientific thinking.

That is where, psychologically, it

gets in trouble.

There is no way that the individualism and biological picture of nature within "strict or

purist capitalism" (leaving this vague for now) would be supported by the empirical data.

The idea that the

"state of nature" is essentially individualistic individuals competing with each other and exchanging goods is

certainly not based in any remotely credible psychology, for example.

It is the ideological "tail" wagging the

"dog" of economics.

Economics, like psychology, and other sciences, ultimately fails when not based solidly and

empirically in the whole lives of whole people, living everyday in their whole bio-psycho-social-environmental

context.

* Regarding Marx, we often paint charicatures of economic thinkers for ideological reasons. Nowhere is

this more true than in the case of Marx, at least in conservative rhetorical circles in England and the US. Pretty

much everywhere else he is deeply respected, and infinitely moreso than Rosie and William F combined.

Same goes

for Adam Smith, of course. The wonderful interplay between intellects and ideas in the history of economics is what

makes the field interesting, at least for me.

By most all accounts, Marx is one of the seminal economic thinkers

in history, and wrote the seminal historical critique of capitalism. I'm not going to let some taboo around him for

being a "radical communist", (or being falsely identified with Stalinism) or whatever, keep me from appreciating his

insights. I think we ignore his critique of capitalism at our peril, at the least.

More specifically, within the

field of philosophy, my consistent sense was definitely that Marx is currently perceived, widely, as brilliant in

his critique; but as lacking in the concrete solutions department. So far, I agree with that entirely mainstream

image of him within the field.

His critique of capitalism seems mostly dead on, at least in general. He seems to

have also predicted a lot of the events within the history of capitalism -- again, at least in

general.

Obviously, Marx is required reading in more settings because his work is broader in scope, across

fields. Though Smith was a moral philosopher originally, most of his influence -- and it was beyond huge -- was in

economics and politics.

Regarding Marx's importance, You can even say that in a sense, and literally, the world

was split in half, half under the influence of Smith, and half more under the influence of Marx. So objectively

speaking, Marx was a great, world changing, history changing economist. You cannot get a degree in econ without some

mastery of Marx.

* What specifically is it about the value of labor and labor pricing ideas that you disagree so

strongly with; apparently finding it, like Marx, entirely without merit or redeeming value? Marx himself very

pointedly distinguished between the labor value and the exchange, market value of goods, even as he felt that labor

value is extremely important. So I'm not entirely clear on your critique. As a caveat, here we have ultimately to

be careful also to distinguish between economic value of labor as applied to a specific item, the real "economic"

value of a real person and all of their work to a particular society, and the exchange value of a specific item a

person produces. Again, this is just to say we have to be careful not to use a dehumanizing, empirically unnatural

definition of economics.

I'm going to delay writing too much on labor value issues, until we can make it more

specific.

Seems to me that the labor value concept in general has been extremely useful for understanding what

happens in real life. Even Smith used the concept a lot, or something very close to it, from what I gather. Again,

here I am speaking of the general concepts at this point, not, say, whether the numbers in some model square up with

particular events in a particular setting, over a particular time frame.

Labor value seems these days to be

closely related to the minimum wage, as technology, the forces of large capital, specialization and the like have

pushed labor value down to its theoretical floor. Conversely, I think part of Marx's idea was that workers deserved

to share in the fruits of their labor more than at a minimal, sustainence level (which the minimum wage does not

even approach!); indeed, even that an economy cannot function over time, if labor does not benefit from the fruits

of its own labor.

We have continued to produce at record levels in the world and historically, while real

standards of living, and real wages have dropped steadily since the sixties. So there is little incentive for

workers to produce, historically speaking, except for fear of death. Further, workers cannot afford to buy the goods

that workers produce, as their minimum wages are used up entirely to survive, while resulting in even more debt

(since a minimum wage is not a living wage) and zero savings (as a nation we now save less than zero dollars per

capita per year, if I am not mistaken.). Individuals will never pay back the debt, or even the interest on it. But

ultimately what happens to individuals, and to the least of us, happens to all of us, as our national debt reaches

ten trillion.

Meanwhile wealth has been concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the number of

millionaires has grown logarithmically; as capitalism and monopolization have marched forward. Conversely there has

so far been much incentive for the major capitalists to aquire more and more capital. But even this last vestige of

prosperity within a capitalist economy fails eventually, according to Marx.

Although the verdict of history is

still out, I think you are seeing a Marxian failure of the economy now, as the major capitalists are finally failing

themselves, with the desent of the middle class into poverty, and the desent of the impoverished into desperation.

As people lose their homes and people are trapped in indentured servitude indefinitely, to pay off their debts and

interest, financial CEOs have made record salaries and record current bonuses. But finally, even the richest and

most powerful capitalists are experiencing failure, due to their unacknowledged dependence on the failing prosperity

of the people; and we now scramble to bail out the financial industry. This is right out of Marx. The same should

prove true in other crucial industries, such as energy (though we have yet to see what will happens long term to big

oil) and health care (where record profits and CEO salaries are now showing some signs of vulnerability, as one in

five goes without health care coverage).

Marx predicted it all and more, quite accurately. That is not to say

there isn't more to the world's failing economy. There is more to economics than Smith and Marx.

* As regards

freedom, That is a big discussion unto itself. I think when we resolve these other issues, the issue of freedom

becomes very different. What do we mean by "freedom"? Is it absolute, unstructured individualistic freedom -- naked,

momentary self interest? Should mutual, individualistic selfishness, similar to what Smith endorsed (and here I am

likely to disagree with myself somewhat as I form a more complete picture of Smith.), really be institutionalized

and legislated as the best of all possible solutions?

Isn't the idea of institutionalizing selfishness

everywhere as the whole basis for your society -- the stereotypical Smithian utopia -- just flat out wrong on its

face? Isn't it just logical to assume there is a better solution? I mean, people just aren't naturally selfish at

their core. They just are not, which is why we bother to characterize some people as more selfish. Of course, we

could also dig up endless psychological studies showing as much.

So if people aren't essentially selfish, why

should their institutions and societies be? In other words, why should all their cooperative efforts be? Doesn't

that potentially violate "natural law"? (in this modern case, the findings of science). Isn't that an artificial

and ultimately inferior way of doing things?

Is this Smithian selfishness -- and he did literally use that term

-- really some sacred value we should all strive to be ideologically pure in our adherance to?

Ironically, Marx

saw capitalism as a necessary, albeit immature and selfish historical step. He just didn't see it as the be all and

end all for a society.

Are there more and less mature images of "freedom"? Is not our freedom whatever we as a

species choose to do from this point onward?

[idesign]

To say that one understands

economics is like saying one understands why black holes aren't white, or where does the wind go after it shreds

your umbrella, or why is there an Oprah. A little Keynes, a little Smith, then, throw in a Marxist, chop up a few

supply-siders and stir in gallons of politicians to make a perfect hash out of it all. Remove politics from

economics and all you have is a few charts and formulas that you can't remember, mostly because you were copping

glances at the cleavage of that freshman beside you and wondering if you had enough money in your pocket to buy her

a cherry float. Econmics 101. Unlimited desire meets limited resources. If there is anything that can create

unlimited desire its a large breasted coed, and if there is anything which motivates that desire its means, to

achieve. That's why we work.

And it really is that simple (see, I do get it). We want things, and we take the

necessary measures to get them. Now, at this point I can get philosophical and say that groping a freshman is

immoral, and your pocket change achieves a higher value by, say, buying ME a cherry float. After all, I let your

buddy crash on my couch last week and fed him pizza, and I think that as a provider of general welfare I deserve

some of your resources. And if I don't get that cherry float, I'll see to it you don't get into that fraternity.

Hmmmm... decisions decisions. Take the girl, or take the leveraged extortioner? (nothing is free, not even

sleeping on empty pizza boxes). Now you can see why I don't have a lot of reverence for philosophy when its shoves

its way into economics. It does little besides try to impose guilt trips on my natural desire to dispose of my

resources as I please. And its always touching you for 25%. And philosophy doesn't pay very well, which leads

me too...

Why do we work? Why do we flip burgers? Why do we put in 60 hrs/week to start up a business hoping to

see a profit in the next year or two? Fot the benefit of others? I've yet to experience a Denny's cook wave to

me from the kitchen and yell out "I hope you enjoy the eggs I made for you, and in your honor I'm donating my

day's pay to the charity of your choice"! When was the last time you heard a philosophy professor say something

like "no, really, tenure is not for me, give it to someone less deserving".

I use the term philosopher loosely,

and blend it with politics, which are unavoidable, and generally come up with ideology. Shoot me, but poetic

license needs some room to operate. Sure, ideology is the bastard child of philosophy's ugly sister, but its what

we have to work with.

Now, backtracking to cleavage, self-interest drives almost all of our purely economic

decisions. I won't call it selfishness (I think Smith did) because it has negative connotations. But there's a

helluva lotta negative economic activity out there, so we can move back and forth between self-interest (not a bad

thing on its own) and selfishness (greed, corruption, abuse of economic power). What Smith understood is that there

is a beneficial by-product from economic self-interest, namely production of goods and services for profit. Profits

for one, goods for another. I don't work for the benefit of all society, I work for enough money to get that buxom

coed into my car next Friday night.

Its the exact same principle that Marx MISunderstood. If you remove the

direct and timely benefit of labor from the labororer, he has no incentive to produce anything, save for perhaps a

black market. Under any Marxist (communist, totalitarian etc) economy, the black market thrives because desire

meets supply directly, unencumbered by the inefficiencies of the latest Five Year Plan for the Perpetuation of the

Ideological Construct. What Marx misunderstood was that labor is not noble, its necessary. Any man can produce

something, by and large. What he produces, whether its ditches dug, houses built or businesses managed, is subject

to value; how much is it worth to someone.

What we canNOT do is assign arbitrary values to a given work.

That's done by philosophers, politicians and ideologues. Bad on them.

"From each according to their ability, to

each according to their need." A pre-electronic age soundbite if ever I heard one. Breaking it down, the obvious

flaw is that it begs a definition, and then a subjective ruling. "Need" Who's going to decide what I "need"?

Indeed, why is "need" even the determining factor of my economic life? What if I have what I need and want to move

on to wants? Who's going to run my life? Anyone who states that they will supply the "needs" of the people will

also tell you they know what's best for you, and it usually ends up being what's best for them, the ruling elite.

Historically, such a system creates more need than it can hope to provide.

What Marx and his ilk have done is

take the money AND the girl. Mankind is, by nature, internally motivated to work, create, build, produce, and they

want to see something at the end of the day. "My hands (brain, personality, skills, ability) did this, and now I

have my reward." When you take away the freedom to reap those rewards, you take away incentive and motivation.

Rather than elevate labor to a higher purpose or plane, labor is reduced to "make-work" activities to be shunned for

its monotonous "reward", to some vague and meaningless concept of "the people". Its been proven time and time

again in real world experience.

I'm sometimes struck how the sloganeering of collectivist systems resembles

the chants of liberal politics in this country. An intellectually bankrupt ideology needs public appeal I suppose,

to those who'll listen but not think.

A sad legacy of the former Soviet system is that it ruined not only many

cultures, but in addition the effects of those decades are seemingly impossible to overcome now that "freedom" has

arrived. The psychological damage to whole societies has left countries unable to move from the stagnant mentality

created by authoritarian control. Generations of suppressed motivation and desire has crushed the "collective"

until they have no concept of self rule. The authoritarian control over the minutia of every life has left in its

wake social zombies, among whom pure self-interest is reflexive, as they've been taught by not having their most

basic needs met. Such a system causes societies to regress to lower and lower levels of human behavior. Of course

these statements do not reflect on individuals, only the net result within that society/culture.

Yes, economics

are inseparable from politics, philosophy and ideology. I believe that to the extent that the opportunity to

produce profitably is encumbered by any system of control or restriction, the less free any individual becomes. I

also believe that philosophers, politicians and ideologues use economics as a way to further authoritarian goals.

Marx's critique of capitalism was prescient, but his alternative stands reason on its head.

I reserve the

right to expand further on these thoughts. Its just too darned complex, as Doc noted.

[belgareth]

Ah! But I do know where the

wind goes and why black holes are black. I do not claim to understand more than the basics of economics though. The

one thing I do know is that despite all it's shortcomings capitalism has survived and thrive for ten thousand

years. To say it is unfair is not reasonable because there is no uniform or objective measure of fair to go by. That

some win and others lose in a rather darwinian fashion is simply a fact of life and cannot be legislated away. Every

attempt to do so has eventually failed, without exception. And the current effort in the US is going to fail as

well. Left well enough alone, capitalism works and results in the fewest hurt in the long term.

[idesign]

Bel, you and Doc are each

smarter and better educated than I am so you understand various things better, at least academically. I can only

observe and report.

I couldn't care less about black holes, but I would be interested in where the wind goes,

and will it pay for a new umbrella? Or is it in the bailout plan?

[belgareth]

Black holes are far more

interesting than economics, frankly, and the wind is no more than an expression of rotational forces and pressure

differentials. Regardless of that, you do a good job of reporting what you see more clearly than many better

educated than any of us.