Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA01054 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:17:16 GMT Message-Id: <200012150017.AAA01054@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Errors-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org To: CAMREC list members <email@example.com> From: the Campaign for Real Economics <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:06:51 -0600 Subject: Re: CAMREC: Egalitarianism in a world of power-law distributions
At 03:03 PM 12/14/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Didier Sornette (UCLA?)
UCLA is correct.
>As to the synthesis you speak of that should be
>"pretty simple" in terms of evolutionary approaches
>(not social darwinist or sociobiology) to economics:
>diversity (should go together with inequality) ->
>selection according to characteristics of
>socio-economic system -> adaptation; change triggers
>new cycle, overall result sth like progress based on
>differences the process of which is associated by
>necessity with different income/wealth.
I'm not sure I catch your meaning.
Here is my guess:
Diversity measured against chaotic selection measures produce system
adaptation over time (gene pools adapt, monetary pools adapt?)
> then comes a
>welfare evaluation trying to figure out optimal rates
>of change and/or diversity values and you are done.
Welfare, that's easy to agree upon in general, hard to agree upon in
detail. Long term welfare? Short term welfare? The majorities
welfare? The minorities welfare? We all favor ecological protections, but
few willingly agree to specific restrictions ecological protections require.
How would you describe 'welfare evalutation'?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 00:17:17 GMT