Re: CAMREC: Egalitarianism in a world of power-law distributions

From: the Campaign for Real Economics (camrec@mmu.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2000 - 16:20:11 GMT

  • Next message: the Campaign for Real Economics: "Re: CAMREC: Egalitarianism in a world of power-law distributions"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA03329 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:27:12 GMT
    Message-Id: <200012151627.QAA03329@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk>
    Errors-To: b.edmonds@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: camrec@mmu.ac.uk
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    To: CAMREC list members <camrec@mmu.ac.uk>
    From: the Campaign for Real Economics <camrec@mmu.ac.uk>
    Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:20:11 -0600
    Subject: Re: CAMREC: Egalitarianism in a world of power-law  distributions
    

    Carl,
    At 06:49 PM 12/14/00 -0800, you wrote:
    >the thing
    >about evolution is that there is a fairly stable
    >"environment" and some entities changing (or not) in
    >it, and maybe from time too time a disruptive change
    >in the enviroment (which is evolving at low rate as
    >well).

    Allusions to a (possible prerequisite) 'fairly stable environment' seem
    problematic when discussing evolutionary dynamics. I'd rather allude to a
    slowly evolving 'agents' or 'networks' in a chaotic
    environment. Everything is changing except the speed of light.

    > > Welfare, that's easy to agree upon in general, hard
    > > to agree upon in
    > > detail.
    >
    >Sure, just pick one - lot's of discussion necessity +
    >lot's of papers ;-))) <snip>
    >We economists usually don't make these decisions
    >-that's up to politicians/voters ;-)

    A decision to rely on politicians/voters is still a decision. :-)

    I probably should apologize. Bringing up egalitarianism is essentially a
    request for a conversation on 'welfare' and here I am joking around as if
    I'm above the semantic quagmire.

    It seems very difficult to scientifically define (parameterize?) welfare,
    but there is no question that advocating welfare policies motivates
    voters. Egalitarianism is a fairly safe way to appeal to a majority of
    voters. Ecological stability has a broad appeal, though the details prove
    difficult for voters.

    One might say that economists won't take econophysics seriously until
    voters take econophysics seriously. Classical physicists didn't take
    quantum mechanics seriously until the atomic bomb caught the voter's attention.

    BTW, what is Stauffer's relexitivity?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 16:27:14 GMT