Best Makeup Products

Science, ideology and economy

Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence contains a chapter entitled The modes of capitalism which is full of revelations Mr. Greenspan acknowledged facts unfortunately. The chapter describes the various forms of capitalism has taken a number of countries, mainly North American and Europe. Of course, that these various forms of capitalism have been implemented in different countries are not new. But what Mr. Greenspan comment is similar to the chapters could not be written on the physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, astronomy, physiology, botany, astronomy, etc., but could easily be written on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even astrology. The fact is that science has not sects, but ideologies do. Of course, economists avoid using the word sect, preferring the school a euphemism to disguise the unscientific nature of the economy. Greenspan modes of capitalism are only sects, and no effort is composed of sects is a science.

Greenspan attempts to explain the existence of these sects began to reveal what may be non-scientific economists. He writes: "For me, the degree of willingness to take risks is ultimately the main defining characteristic that separates the countries in different modes of capitalism. "Mr. Greenspan ranks" the United States as the most "free" major economies "and believes, apparently, that, therefore, Americans are less risk averse than people elsewhere. But it is not a lick, note, Fleck, or grain of evidence to support this belief. Thus, although it may be true that the U.S. is the freest of the major economies, other reasons why there is considerable evidence may be cited as the most likely explanation. The most obvious of these differences in education systems. It may be, for example, that Americans support the liberalization of the economic system, because they are poorly educated and therefore more gullible than people in countries that have better education systems.

There is no doubt that the American educational system is inferior to the education systems in many other countries. Comparisons will be publicized, country by country which consistently show that American students are less competent in many areas of study should not be repeated. But there are many more shining examples of inferior American education. When graduates of some of America's most prestigious universities, such as the current crop of presidential candidates can openly reject developments and when the various branches of national government systematically rewrite scientific studies to conform to the ideology Administration policy, the failure of American education becomes evident. In America, the ideology prevails the truth.

An explanation of the failure of universities, even America's education graduates are not difficult to find. That America has had a long anti-intellectual culture has been well documented. See Richard Hofstadter's Anti-intellectualism in American life, such as the American education system is broken. Local control of primary and secondary schools, often controlled by school-boards composed of educated people who seek to promote personal goals, is a tradition that dates back to the founding of the nation. The composition of state boards is no different, and there are fifty of them. No common standards exist and even state by state comparisons are difficult to do. Then, too, American universities are generally not founded to educate people. They were created to form people for occupations, for they were founded as vocational training rather than educational institutions. After the Civil War creating the Land Grant University system has been designed specifically for vocational training. Consequently, students learn to perform technical, but rarely taught to critically examine the theories from which these techniques were derived. This description characterizes what happens in most professional schools and colleges attached to universities. It characterizes especially our academic departments Graduate economy. A small example, but telling provides anecdotal evidence that supports this point of view and the view that American universities promote truth over ideology is as follows: Gilles Raveaud I think education Commenting Greg Mankiw at Harvard wrote: "Some of the students I had at Harvard over Mankiw described to me in private conversations that" Massive conservative propaganda. One of them told me he thought that Mankiw managed to "indoctrinate an entire generation." In 2003, a protest against such a course then proposed by Professor Marty Feldstein, a former adviser to President Reagan, has led to the creation of an alternative intro economics course, taught by the radical economist Steve Marglin. But then of course Mankiw gives the necessary credits to students, Marglin does not. "Like there is no honor among thieves, there is apparently no honor in universities that make huge donations from capitalists American who earned their fortune by picking the pockets of consumers and employees who would be reluctant to see their ability to continue to choose those pockets limited by some idealistic notion of truth.

Greenspan ignores completely a striking difference between American Continental and education systems. In the American educational system, analytical thinking prevails. Everything is considered in isolation of any the rest. Economic phenomena are discussed as if they had any consequences for society in general. In Europe, however, phenomena are seen as a gestalt. The consequences of changes in a social environment are related to the effects of these changes in other social environments. Considering that American economists think almost exclusively in terms of economic growth, Europeans think in terms of company whole. American economists can always find ways to excuse the human side effects of an economic process, Europeans emphasize the negative consequences for society as being more important than the economic process. This distinction was evident in business circles since the formation of the so-called historical school, and Mr. Greenspan has acknowledged.

But Mr. Greenspan says something else on the economy that is rarely called attention to the illusion of economists working under the economy compared to the real world. When Mr. Greenspan makes risk-taking characteristic of the U.S. economy, it is illusory. Certainly America has its share of risk-takers. If it has more or less risk-takers than other nations is questionable. But risk-taking does not characterize American or any other economy. Economic Risk taking can be considered as a characteristic of entrepreneurs. But entrepreneurs do not suffice to make an economy, if everyone was a contractor, no workers were in place to carry out the business plan. Kurt Wicksell in his Lectures on Political Economy defines although the entrepreneurial process: "He who borrows money at interest is not, as a rule intended to keep, but the exchange at the first opportunity for goods and services by the productive use of which he hopes to be able to acquire not only the equivalent their prices, but a gain. . . . "Although this may be true entrepreneurs, it is not why most people in the economy real today borrow money. When people borrowed to buy houses, cars, appliances, etc., they do not intend to use their purchases so as to create surplus value. In fact, these people are not investing at all. The money they borrow a sunk cost for a place to live, a means of transportation and other uses. And if Americans have become a nation of borrowers, they do not become entrepreneurs take risks. Any economist who thinks the economy in terms of entrepreneurial risk-taking is involved in the illusion self.

Mr. Greenspan is delusional when he wrote creative destruction. Of course, creative destruction does not happen, but not as often as Mr. Greenspan and other economists seem to think. As examples of creative destruction, Mr. Greenspan mentioned the disappearance of the industry due Telegraph the introduction of the telephone, the tin of death when the aluminum has become possible, it relates to the disappearance of the steel industry. While some workers were displaced when the industry replaced the telephone industry telegraph, then the aluminum industry reduces the steel industry. And certainly, these movements can be avoided and no attempt should be made to avoid them. But this is not what is happening in America today. When Fisher-Price relocated making toys in China, not because the Chinese have developed a new technology toy manufacturing. In fact, the Chinese use more technology than would have been used in America for the manufacture of the same toys. When industries offshore their IT related support services, This is not because new technologies have been developed in helpdesk countries relocated. The technology used in offshore locations is exactly the same technology that is used in America or Europe or elsewhere. Thus, even if there is a phenomenon known as creative destruction, what is happening in America today is the sheer destruction. The other half of the thesis of Mr. Shumpeter is totally absent, and Mr. Greenspan is delusional to think otherwise.

Again, Mr. Greenspan wrote, for example, that "in a free society. . . the majority transactions must be voluntary, which, of necessity, requires confidence in the word of those with whom we do business. . . . And "it is remarkable to see how much we trust in the pharmacist who fills the prescription ordered by our physician. "But this is mere illusion. People have not trust the companies they buy. In the case of pharmacists, people buy it because there is no alternative. And do trust nobody pharmaceutical companies that market the medications we are prescribed? If they do, they must be fully ignorant of the revelations that these companies hide from regulators, physicians and consumers of data and side effects, dangers fatal. Do I need to show confidence in Microsoft when I buy one of its operating systems or applications, knowing full well that what I want come are poorly coded programs containing bugs and security holes that Microsoft will try to patch provided by that relentless euphemistically called Service Packs? Trust is something that is not in business, that is why contracts exist and why companies Microsoft themselves as exempt from liability for damages in their contracts. If Mr. Greenspan wants to believe the companies it does business with, it is illusory.

But the unavoidable problem with neoclassical economics classical, that Mr. Greenspan glosses, is its immorality. He writes that, "From Obviously, not all activities undertaken in markets are civilian. Many, though legal, are decidedly unsavory. "But also wrote: "When I was a kid jokes about unscrupulous sellers of used cars have been widespread, but in truth a blatant (Emphasis added) unscrupulous used car salesman is a person who will be bankrupt before long. "Mr. Greenspan fails to recognize that this statement is totally meaningless. It does not say that businessmen are not without scruples, he does not say that competition brings men unscrupulous business bankruptcy, it does not say how much a business man without scruples must be obvious without scruples.

Everyone knows that businessmen regularly break even the most basic moral maxims, as well as any economist who denies it neologising must explain the continued existence and terms such as caveat emptor, a cat in a bag, and let the cat out the bag. In an economy honest, these expressions have no value. In fact, there is absolutely no reason to believe that people in business are more honest than the general population, and there are good reasons to believe that business in a free market promotes crime and vice, which are both the epidemic in the United States. It is no coincidence that when the Soviet Union collapsed and Israel was satisfied by the Reagan Administration to abandon its socialist traditions and market practices were introduced, both the crime and vice emerged as important social problems.

In fact, the market economy institutionalizes immorality, which is proved by the mere fact that dressing is an acceptable practice. Companies employing puffery to market products without flinching, dismiss an employee who is found to have inflated his resume. I do not mean sophisticated philosophies entities such as the categorical imperative of Kant, but these simple maxims contained in the Decalogue and the Golden Rule. These unethical practices of the company are widespread and far-reaching and are at odds with many favorite shots of economists.

Mr. Greenspan said, free material that markets increase welfare to a greater extent than the regulated markets. But tell me, how the marketing of bottled water, which is never tested and whose source is rarely identified, increasing the well-being of people who are snookered into buying it, especially when ordinary tap water is regularly tested, comes from a well-known source, and is much cheaper? In fact, do not reduce welfare, since the money wasted on it could have something that provided a real material benefit? The same questions can be asked on many other products-hamburger McDonald's, Taco Bueno, Taco, Pizza Pizza many providers-the list is endless. But there's more. The Fox affiliate in Dallas regularly executes a function called "Deal or Dud." The chain buys products heavily advertised on television and was tested by viewers ordinary. If a product works as expected, it is called an agreement, otherwise it is called a Dud. From time to time the chain comes with Deals, but the Most products tested are missed. In fact, Greenspan's book is itself a failure. It was not published because the merit of its content, He was released only because of the reputation of its author. The name of Mr. Greenspan on the title page can be compared to other forms of powder eyes. So how the manufacture and marketing of products that do not work to increase the material well-being of consumers? And examine the snakes are sold oils that are classified as dietary supplements? The manufacturers of these products could easily have them double-blind tested to determine their effectiveness. But they do not. Is it because they know that if they did, the products could be sold?

Mr. Greenspan and other economists argue that the results of the free market in the most efficient allocation of capital. But how can anyone claim that the capital spent on products mentioned in the preceding paragraph is allocated effectively? In fact, one could easily argue that it is entirely is lost, as is the capital lost during economic downturns. So anyone who believes that U.S. companies are generally honest are the illusions that the madman who believes he is Napoleon.
Not only is the market economy immoral, there is evidence that could not exist if the immorality have been deleted. In an impressive new book, social consciousness, Michel Glautier whether a care society can not exist in a market economy? His analysis suggests that the recent changes and continue to bring the market economy the achievement of a caring society beyond reach. And the following passage from an abstract of a paper by Andrei Shleifer: Explanations of unethical behavior often neglect the role of competition, as opposed to greed, to ensure its spread. Child labor, corruption, "Excessive executive pay", the manipulation of corporate profits, and business by all universities to promote the conduct complained. When ethical behavior reduces costs, competition drives down prices and income entrepreneurs, and thus reduces their willingness to pay for ethical conduct. Unfortunately, both authors are ambivalent when it comes hard to draw conclusions.

In a rational society, a distinction is made between the scientific enterprise, while keeping in mind that all science is a work in progress, and businesses based on the simple belief. The political system defer to scientists in related fields the old and allow the people to decide what kind of society they prefer in matters of the latter. So, the choice of a economic system ultimately comes down to what kind of society people want not only for themselves but for their descendants in the generations future. Do we really want an economic system that institutionalizes and encourages greed, perversion, crime and vice? Those who answered affirmatively this question should perhaps not 666 tattooed on his forehead.

In the second chapter of The Age of Turbulence, Greenspan wrote that "discovered that some of the Manhattan Project scientists subscribed to a philosophy called logical positivism. . . . The mathematician embraced this creed Stark analysis. . . . The world became a better place, I thought that if people focused exclusively on what was knowable. . . . "Unfortunately, somewhere alone the way, Mr. Greenspan has lost this focus and became an apologist for the free market system, when he "decided to engage in efforts to advance free-market capitalism. "We are all now facing the consequences of his decision.

Sages know the importance of regularly ask themselves if what I believe to be true is false? It is time that our economists start asking this question.
© 2008 John Kozy

About the Author

Retired professor of philosophy and logic who blogs on social, political, and economic issues at http://johnkozy.mindsay.com. Tries to avoid mere opinion and propaganda and emphasizes logic, facts, and evidence. All or any part of his articles can be cited or distributed.

Makeup Case