On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:36 PM, GS Chandy <email@example.com> wrote: > Paul A. Tanner III posted Oct 25, 2012 9:51 AM: >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, GS Chandy >> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> > I characterize economics as constituting the dismal >> > non-science nonpareil' >> > >> >> Please do not let conservatism confuse you. >> > 'Conservative economics' does not confuse me at all (though I may - for rhetoric's sake - try to give that impression from time to time). 'Conservative economics' is, I accept, by far the most dismal of all the dismal non-science nonpareils that 'economics' as a whole happens to be. That is not to state that 'non-conservative economics' such as the economics that rule the 'socialist nations' such as Norway, has the needed answers on how we need to operate our personal and societal economics. Even the best of 'socialist economic theories place the human being as the 'lord and master' of the universe, which is a way of thinking out of which we need to grow pdq. > > I don't claim to be an expert at economics, but it should be clear enough that 'economics' as a whole, (whether of the 'conservative' variety or the 'non-conservative' variety), has failed to account properly for our human position in the entire web of life on this planet. > > What we need is really a new 'environmental economics' - a science that I claim is yet to develop. Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, in his 'bio-economics', might have taken the first faltering steps towards defining an environmental economics. Of course, there have been very pretty significant developments post Georgescu-Roegen, such as the Coase Theorem and the Porter Hypothesis (the latter being a somewhat superficial attempt 'to render environmental issues economically attractive in terms of the old economics' [so to speak]). There is now growing a whole new way of looking at the human impact on the planet as a 'cost' to the underlying economics of environment, all of which together may one day come to define a true 'environmental economics'. > > At the most fundamental level, we shall have to define just how the actions/activities we perform as individuals or groups from day to day impact our surrounding environment (and indeed the whole planet's well-being). GDP and other such measures are but very crude expressions of the economics that has to come about if we are to rescue ourselves from the hole we've been digging for ourselves (and for the rest of the planet's inhabitants). > > I do read Paul Krugman's blog fairly regularly. He has sound insights - but these are still in the terms of the 'economics that was' (and still is, as a matter of fact) - not yet in the terms of the 'economics that has to be'. >
I would point out that the 'economics that has to be' would have to incorporate whatever is really true in the 'economics that was' is if to be held to as a true science. True is true, and fact is fact. And people like Krugman are true scientists, never mind the anti-mathematical conservative blather.
> GSC >> >>What you >> say above applies to the nonsense of economic >> conservatism, but not real economic science, which is >> very mathematically based, something that economic >> conservatism utterly rejects, in part because true >> mathematically based economic science such >> conservative silliness such as government being evil >> and taxation and government spending as necessarily >> something that slows down economic growth. >> >> To see that what I'm saying is true, just actually >> look at the most successful economies in history when >> they were the most successful: >> >> The most prosperous times for the US including when >> its prosperity was spread out most evenly were when >> it most closely adhered to true mathematically based >> economic science, during the most liberal, >> progressive, pro-union, big-government years in US >> history, the generation after WWII. (The top tax >> brackets for both regular income and capital gains >> were in the neighborhood of 70% or higher then.) >> >> The richest countries in the world in the past couple >> of decades - in world history in fact - adjusted for >> population are the Scandinavian democracies, with >> their world's highest levels of taxation and social >> welfare, and their vastly intelligently designed >> capitalism, especially Norway. >> >> China has followed most probably the economic model >> of Norway, the richest major country in the world >> adjusted for population. (I say this in part because >> some striking similarities in the economies of the >> two countries: For each, for instance, roughly 1/3 of >> all publicly traded companies are controlled by >> government via ownership of a majority of the stock >> of the companies. And that does not include companies >> their governments totally own.) >> >> These world's most successful countries in terms of >> either per capita nominal GDP or growth even in the >> face of world wide recession follow very much what >> their mathematical economists say. >> >> Read Paul Krugman's blog and see just the tip of the >> iceberg as to the fact that these guys do in fact >> know what they are talking about, and that the proof >> of this is when countries actually truly apply their >> ideas.