[RC] Re: Prabhanomics

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

[Based on precedent and technical issues, I presume this was intended  
for the group]

Hi Billy,

On Jul 19, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Avesland at aol.com wrote:
> Excellent summation of your views on economics.

Thank you!

> Have you ever read Gary Becker on microeconomics ? Even at
> small scale, is his view (in common with Friedman and others of the
> so-called Chicago School), we get pretty much the same dynamics
> as at larger scale. Becker is brilliant, by the way, and the one
> member of the Chic school that makes good sense to me.

Nope; still trying to find someone with more than one clue (need  
three to count :-).  Maybe he's it....

> Your formulation still has rough edges. How do you get from
> point A (chi) to point B (rho) ? By magic ? By decree  ? By
> Newton's second law ? Some words of wisdom are needed here
> because this is crucial to the case you are attempting to make.

It is called "price."  Chi must be voluntary.  Rho need not.

In this model, mandated pricing is in fact a good thing, as it pre- 
specifies the reward appropriate for a particular creative 'gift.'

> We might say that a creative urge, or
> even a creative obsession, was most responsible. You identify this
> with a form of love; OK if you want to do so for private purposes.
> But that term is more than a "tough sell" in the marketplace even
> if it might go over quite well in a community of believers. I'll stick
> with "creativity,

Valid points -- that is why I chose the term 'chi'. :-)

> I wish that I had thought of something similar first. Rats. Curses.
> Darn it to heck. Etc.

High praise indeed!  I'm actually rather proud of this -- it is the  
heart of my radical centrist project, and as far as I know nobody  
else has tried to put things together like this.

> Give me a day or two and I will try to say more  -in the context of
> systems thinking and systems issues. Have a good stack of
> print outs ready to analyze. No time to do so, yet, but I'll try to
> make some time for this soon.

Thanks. This does seem like it should be a theorem in General Systems  
Theory, but I don't yet know what the axioms of that would be....

-- Ernie P.



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Billy

> Ernie :
> Excellent summation of your views on economics.
>
> Comments :
> You almost always explain yourself to very good effect when
> you are challenged, or are the subject of sarcasm (elbow in ribs),
> or otherwise need to make something clear that had previously
> been a problem in the group. This may well be true of me also,
> and of any number of others.
>
> Have you ever read Gary Becker on microeconomics ? Even at
> small scale, is his view (in common with Friedman and others of the
> so-called Chicago School), we get pretty much the same dynamics
> as at larger scale. Becker is brilliant, by the way, and the one
> member of the Chic school that makes good sense to me.
>
> Your formulation still has rough edges. How do you get from
> point A (chi) to point B (rho) ? By magic ? By decree  ? By
> Newton's second law ? Some words of wisdom are needed here
> because this is crucial to the case you are attempting to make.
>
> True enough, Edison was not motivated primarily by profit. Nor
> were the Wright brothers. We might say that a creative urge, or
> even a creative obsession, was most responsible. You identify this
> with a form of love; OK if you want to do so for private purposes.
> But that term is more than a "tough sell" in the marketplace even
> if it might go over quite well in a community of believers. I'll stick
> with "creativity," something that may best be motivated by "love"
> of creation, love of self expression, love of achievement, etc.,  
> but it
> seems to me that the term "love" is so value loaded that it is best
> not said in an economic context. We can each have it our way,
> however, there is no fundamental conflict here. Except that.......
>
> I wish that I had thought of something similar first. Rats. Curses.
> Darn it to heck. Etc.
>
> Give me a day or two and I will try to say more  -in the context of
> systems thinking and systems issues. Have a good stack of
> print outs ready to analyze. No time to do so, yet, but I'll try to
> make some time for this soon.
>
> Cheers                                                                 
>            Billy
>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20050719/f3293f5d/attachment-0001.html