🚀 go-pugleaf

Alternatives to Homo Oeconomicus

This is linked to... other posts on economics. Oops! It looks like a
CIA agent wants to get rid of ALL people who know ME so that I cannot
use my identity and THEREFORE ***HE*** can keep my contributions and
rewards thereof! Therefore they say this is not mine, not all of it is
mine, etc. While I keep the whole two year period writing and showing
how it links together and asking for my hard drive, please, etc. But
this is informed by the same people of the visitors center. I dont know
whio thery are, who is sponsoring them. They keep talkingo f the sons
(real sons I assume now) of Fox and Bush. they know of my music only?
Easy to steal, but the rest? So I cannot have a normal life because
some people dont accept their mediocrity? WHat about Belinda? And the
rest of my aquaintances? It is wacko what it s being done to me. I just
keep struggling. I ***KNOW*** there is plot behind to steal what the
OTHER, whoever he is, cannot produce! This is the path to
underdevelopment, the theory of envy... and they are using the
Leprechauns method... I tried to warn, but sequestered... As far as I
was more or less informed today, it is now Operation Nightingale. First
it was SNAFU and I didnt understand. Then Operation hummingbird then...
I dont remember. How do I solve this? It is a problem of communication,
I have been unablet o communicate with the people who is being lied to.
ANd I no longer know the lies. Paniagua was mentioned, a public
relationist...

From:  Fabrizio J. Bonsignore - view profile
Date:  Fri, Jan 25 2002 4:26 am
Email:   fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1011950783 17000 127.0.0.1 (25 Jan 2002
09:26:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jan 2002 09:26:23 GMT
Status: RO

Can anybody point me to alternative models to homo oeconomicus? Thanx.



 From:  The Second - view profile
Date:  Fri, Jan 25 2002 11:26 am
Email:   thesecondb...@mail.com (The Second)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Status: R

Your question is so open that I lack the knowledge to answer it. But
it gives me an occasion to vent to the newsgroup an idea of mine that
I have very close at heart.


In the last 10-15 years models of behavioral economics have been
cropping up like mushrooms, now we have so much that it is difficult
to keep up.
On the other hand nobody even attempted (to my knowledge, I would be
glad to be proven wrong) to come up with an alternative framework, to
unify all these behavioral glitches. To say it in the language of the
original poster, nobody has even attempted to come up with an
alternative model of homo economicus (well, Gilboa and Schmeidler are
convinced that they have it with their Case-Based Decision Theory, no
comment).
I think that there is A LOT to be learnt from a new unifying framewok,
because it is clear that these glitches studied by behavioral
economists have deep interactions (e.g. how procrastination a la
Rabin-O'Dougerty interacts with self-image a la Benabou-Tirole?)


On a related but distinct points, we have to find a way to put
priorities on these blessed behavioral models. Some effects matter
more than others in their impact on the quantities economists have
been interested (market structure, prices, savings...). So that's
another reason why having a unifying framework would be good.


On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:26:22 GMT, fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

J. Bonsignore) wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: posting.google.com 1011950783 17000 127.0.0.1 (25 Jan 2002 09:26:23 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jan 2002 09:26:23 GMT
>Status: RO

>Can anybody point me to alternative models to homo oeconomicus? Thanx.




 From:  Fabrizio J. Bonsignore - view profile
Date:  Sat, Jan 26 2002 12:32 pm
Email:   fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012066349 27690 127.0.0.1 (26 Jan 2002
17:32:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jan 2002 17:32:29 GMT
Status: R

Most welcomed was the second posting, indeed! Behavioural economics is
not my interest, though are not anomallies the signal that point the
paths to new theories? Yet, a mere collection of (perceived as)
isolated facts does not make a science. I'm acquainted with case based
reasoning, evidential reasoning and other schemes from the field of
cognitive systems, but they are not the kind of model I'm inquirying
about. The initial intuition is that we can enrich the homo
oeconomicus view of Humanity in some way so that it would yield
results more consistent with chronic under-development or economic
policy ineffectiveness. But yes, such a model may unify otherwise
unrelated facts, leaving core economics unchanged; may bring economic
theory nearer to 'real reality' and solve many minor paradoxes.
Anyway, it's healthy to question foundations every now and then, if
only to reassert their soundness or necessity. Few people I've asked
actually identify themselves with homo oeconomicus and many fight the
whole notion altogether, yet we have to argument giving for granted
the model is relevant and valid. Rather tough sometimes, I'd say. Any
more ideas for directions to look at or who might support an
independent reasercher on the theme?



 From:  Koen Robeys - view profile
Date:  Sat, Jan 26 2002 2:43 pm
Email:   "Koen Robeys" <koen.robeys...@skynet.be>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be
Status: R

"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote



> Can anybody point me to alternative models to homo oeconomicus? Thanx.


What exactly do you mean by a "homo oeconomics model"? My guess would
be it
means the view that human behavior is best understood from an economic
point
of view. In that case you would be looking for different kinds of
anthropology. Or you might mean alternative models *within* economics,
and
then my guess is wrong (in which case I have no clue of what you're
talking
about).

Cheers, Koen



 From:  micron5 - view profile
Date:  Sat, Jan 26 2002 3:32 pm
Email:   "micron5" <micr...@telusplanet.net>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


[moderator's note - not sure what this has to do with the
assumption of the "rational individual" but what the heck - ak]

"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote in message
news:768f7623.0201260932.75d4b0e2@posting.google.com...



> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012066349 27690 127.0.0.1 (26 Jan 2002
17:32:29 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jan 2002 17:32:29 GMT
> Status: R
>Any
> more ideas for directions to look at or who might support an
> independent reasercher on the theme?


http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/seeingPCW.html

Chapter 2. The Naked Emperor lays out in clear terms a lay person can
easily
understand precisely how capitalism is 100 percent the reverse of --
and in
opposition to -- the market economy envisioned by Adam Smith, "the
father of
modern economics".
The theory of the market economy traces back to the Scottish economist
Adam
Smith (1723-1790) and the publication of Inquiry into the Nature and
Causes
of the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Considered by many to be the most
influential economics book ever written, it articulates the powerful
and
wonderfully democratic ideal of a self-organizing economy that creates
an
equitable and socially optimal allocation of a society's productive
resources through the interaction of small buyers and sellers making
decisions based on their individual needs and interests.
Market theory, as articulated by Smith and those who subsequently
elaborated
on his ideas, developed into an elegant and coherent intellectual
construction grounded in carefully articulated assumptions regarding
the
conditions under which such self-organizing processes would indeed lead
to
socially optimal outcomes. For exampled,
Buyers and sellers must be too small to influence the market price.
Complete information must be available to all participants and there
can be
no trade secrets.
Sellers must bear the full cost of the products they sell and pass them
on
in the sale price.
Investment capital must remain within national borders and trade
between
countries must be balanced.
Savings must be invested in the creation of productive capital.
There is, however, a critical problem, as international financier
George
Soros has observed: "Economic theory is an axiomatic system: as long as
the
basic assumptions hold, the conclusions follow. But when we examine the

assumptions closely, we find that they do not apply to the real world."

Herein lies the catch: the conditions of what we currently call a
capitalist
economy directly contradict the assumptions of market theory in every
instance.[9]
One of the false myths ideologues of capitalism use to promote the song
of
money is that capitalism is simply a fulfillment and realization of the

principles of a market economy as defined by Adam Smith.
I want to focus here for a moment on the the central importance of an
ethical culture to an efficient market. One of capitalism's many myths
is
the idea that by some wondrous mechanism the market automatically turns

personal greed into a public good. Why? Because Adam Smith said so. In
truth, the market has no such mechanism and furthermore Adam Smith
never
said it did. . . . Adam Smith also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments

which is exactly about the foundations of an ethical culture which he
clearly assumed was the cultural backdrop of the market he was writing
about. Efficient market function absolutely depends on a culture of
trust
and mutual responsibility. To emphasize this fact, I refer in my
forthcoming
book, The Post-Corporate World, to the mindful market in order to
underscore
the importance to efficient market function of an ethical culture that
encourages individuals to act with mindfulness of both their personal
needs
and the needs of the larger whole of the community, and the society,
and the
planet.[10]
"Business/Economics" is the topic categorization on the back cover of
The
Post-Corporate World. David Korten's background has given him a wealth
of
experience in this arena.
Trained in economics, organization theory, and business strategy with
M.B.A.
and Ph. D. degrees from the Stanford University Graduate School of
Business
[he has] over thirty-five years of experience in preeminent business,
academic, and international development institutions as well as in
contemporary citizen action organizations.[11]



 From:  micron5 - view profile
Date:  Mon, Jan 28 2002 12:40 am
Email:   "micron5" <micr...@telusplanet.net>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:40:47 MST
Status: R


"micron5" <micr...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message


news:enE48.6131$M3.1142417@news1.telusplanet.net...


> [moderator's note - not sure what this has to do with the
> assumption of the "rational individual" but what the heck - ak]


Thank you.  What constitutes rationality could be
a discussion in itself.

dp




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote in message
> news:768f7623.0201260932.75d4b0e2@posting.google.com...
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012066349 27690 127.0.0.1 (26 Jan 2002
> 17:32:29 GMT)
> > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jan 2002 17:32:29 GMT
> > Status: R
> >Any
> > more ideas for directions to look at or who might support an
> > independent reasercher on the theme?


> http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/seeingPCW.html


> Chapter 2. The Naked Emperor lays out in clear terms a lay person can
easily
> understand precisely how capitalism is 100 percent the reverse of -- and
in
> opposition to -- the market economy envisioned by Adam Smith, "the father
of
> modern economics".
> The theory of the market economy traces back to the Scottish economist
Adam
> Smith (1723-1790) and the publication of Inquiry into the Nature and
Causes
> of the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Considered by many to be the most
> influential economics book ever written, it articulates the powerful and
> wonderfully democratic ideal of a self-organizing economy that creates an
> equitable and socially optimal allocation of a society's productive
> resources through the interaction of small buyers and sellers making
> decisions based on their individual needs and interests.
> Market theory, as articulated by Smith and those who subsequently
elaborated
> on his ideas, developed into an elegant and coherent intellectual
> construction grounded in carefully articulated assumptions regarding the
> conditions under which such self-organizing processes would indeed lead to
> socially optimal outcomes. For exampled,
> Buyers and sellers must be too small to influence the market price.
> Complete information must be available to all participants and there can
be
> no trade secrets.
> Sellers must bear the full cost of the products they sell and pass them on
> in the sale price.
> Investment capital must remain within national borders and trade between
> countries must be balanced.
> Savings must be invested in the creation of productive capital.
> There is, however, a critical problem, as international financier George
> Soros has observed: "Economic theory is an axiomatic system: as long as
the
> basic assumptions hold, the conclusions follow. But when we examine the
> assumptions closely, we find that they do not apply to the real world."
> Herein lies the catch: the conditions of what we currently call a
capitalist
> economy directly contradict the assumptions of market theory in every
> instance.[9]
> One of the false myths ideologues of capitalism use to promote the song of
> money is that capitalism is simply a fulfillment and realization of the
> principles of a market economy as defined by Adam Smith.
> I want to focus here for a moment on the the central importance of an
> ethical culture to an efficient market. One of capitalism's many myths is
> the idea that by some wondrous mechanism the market automatically turns
> personal greed into a public good. Why? Because Adam Smith said so. In
> truth, the market has no such mechanism and furthermore Adam Smith never
> said it did. . . . Adam Smith also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments
> which is exactly about the foundations of an ethical culture which he
> clearly assumed was the cultural backdrop of the market he was writing
> about. Efficient market function absolutely depends on a culture of trust
> and mutual responsibility. To emphasize this fact, I refer in my
forthcoming
> book, The Post-Corporate World, to the mindful market in order to
underscore
> the importance to efficient market function of an ethical culture that
> encourages individuals to act with mindfulness of both their personal
needs
> and the needs of the larger whole of the community, and the society, and
the
> planet.[10]
> "Business/Economics" is the topic categorization on the back cover of The
> Post-Corporate World. David Korten's background has given him a wealth of
> experience in this arena.
> Trained in economics, organization theory, and business strategy with
M.B.A.
> and Ph. D. degrees from the Stanford University Graduate School of
Business
> [he has] over thirty-five years of experience in preeminent business,
> academic, and international development institutions as well as in
> contemporary citizen action organizations.[11]




 From:  Robert Vienneau - view profile
Date:  Mon, Jan 28 2002 3:44 pm
Email:   Robert Vienneau <r...@see.sig.com>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


In article <768f7623.0201260932.75d4b...@posting.google.com>,
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:


> Any
> more ideas for directions to look at or who might support an
> independent reasercher on the theme?


Notice William Hummel's post of today titled "Money and Irrationality".

That is a popular presentation of some ideas in which I think you
might be interested.

--
Try
http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
r           c                                          .../Keynes.html
 v         s a           Whether strength of body or of mind, or
wisdom, or
  i       m   p          virtue, are found in proportion to the power
or wealth
   e     a     e         of a man is a question fit perhaps to be
discussed by
    n   e       .        slaves in the hearing of their masters, but
highly
[moderator's note - I presume the author is referring to a sci.econ
post - ak]



 From:  Fabrizio J. Bonsignore - view profile
Date:  Tues, Jan 29 2002 7:32 am
Email:   fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012307541 18878 127.0.0.1 (29 Jan 2002
12:32:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jan 2002 12:32:21 GMT
Status: R



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"Koen Robeys" <koen.robeys...@skynet.be> wrote in message
<news:3c530709$0$33507$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>...
> X-Complaints-To: a...@skynet.be
> Status: R

> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote


> > Can anybody point me to alternative models to homo oeconomicus? Thanx.


> What exactly do you mean by a "homo oeconomics model"? My guess would be it
> means the view that human behavior is best understood from an economic point
> of view. In that case you would be looking for different kinds of
> anthropology. Or you might mean alternative models *within* economics, and
> then my guess is wrong (in which case I have no clue of what you're talking
> about).


> Cheers, Koen



The question was phrased rather openly to avoid putting into it more
than necessary in order to facilitate lateral thinking, but I did mean
models *within* economics. Yet, you saw the question from the
_outside_ as it were, where the economic point of view can be
separated from how people actually behave. There are non-human animal
behaviour explanations from an economic viewpoint, v.g. optimum
nurturing time and evolutionary stable strategies, so it seems
economic thinking has a greater scope than human affairs and stands up
by itself. Physical and computing systems tend to perform economically
at efficient levels, ones by nature, the others by design. So we would
be having a general reality model being applied to the most
interesting case, humans, and holding, but it may be missing
altogether what makes humans a special case, even though it serves
perfectly to explain the human-only phenomena brought out by this
hypothetical human-only characteristic.

For homo economicus I understand the self-interested utility
maximizing individual exhibiting rational preferences. It would be
nice to have a comparative study detailing present and past ethnical
societies solutions to their resources problem, to see how well they
conform to this model, though adequate data may be scarce and hard to
gather. Economic thinking is historically a western development and is
subtly biased by western culture, so homo economicus may well be an
adequate way to model how westerners act on average, but a poor model
for other societies as anthropology reveals them. Almost every time
some behaviour pattern is presented as 'normal', an ethnic study will
show a culture where the opposite is normal. How would a capital
accumulation scenario be modified if say forest exploitation is
governed by ritual rules instead of rational value/profit maximizing
goals? Following ritual may increase utility for tribe's members, but
observable quantities and patterns would still diverge from expected
by econom(etr)ic analysis. Should be treated as a special case, a
glitch, the result of unincluded unobservable variables or a hint to
research other approaches? Such behaviours may lie at the core of
chronic underdevelopment, with economic policy failures being a
natural consequence.


London School of Economics Anthropology Department, monographies:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/anthropology/monographlist.htm
A text on economics of antiquity:
http://members.tripod.com/~sondmor/index-html


I received an email proposing homo sociologus and homo irrationalis.
Homo sociologus is more specific than homo economicus and the kind of
man model that would arouse from anthropology. Homo economicus exists
without reference to others, hence the multiple Robinson Crusoe
examples, while homo sociologus loses meaning without considering the
existence of other homini. But what if homo sociologus is actually the
right model to begin with and homo economicus is in fact a more
general model? Scientific models should be simple, but not simpler
than they must be to explain their chunk of reality.


Homo economicus depicts a strictly locally determined behaviour
leading to self-organizing global phenomena, but is the development of
language what *allows* us to introduce global state into individual
decisions; many discrepancies may be rooted in this kind of
*contamination of decisions*. As derived from homo economicus,
(competitive) markets assume only a very basic symbolic capacity and
little more for actors to participate, a reason why commerce is, after
war and slavery, the first kind of interaction societies engage in
when first meeting, but being successful in the market is more a
matter of flexible strategic behaviour. Homo economicus is monolithic
and crystalline, while homo sociologus might allow several equivalent
flavors to choose from. In such case, economic policy would be more a
matter of public education than an issue of monetary control (fixed
growth rate) and public finance (balanced budget), having as goal
changing a society's culture as to make individuals conform with a
more suitable (economically successful) behavioural model (not to be
confused with human capital growth by skills learning, though that
issue should be integral to such policies). So perhaps an alternative
to homo economicus is precisely *homo economicus sociabilis*.


Now, homo irrationalis is a completely different story. Modeling
irrationality by means of rational tools is at least paradoxical. But
rational models hold when applied to animal behaviour, so animals may
prove to be actually *more* rational than humans from an economic
point of view! Animals act in strict self-interested
gene-spreading-maximizing behaviour, while humans engage sometimes in
self-destructive altruistic behaviour. Irrationality may be approached
relaxing the transitive preferences condition and in other ways as
well; another thread asks how utility functions change with time, and
irrationality can be introduced within such dynamics (a thermodynamic
model *could* prove useful). Perhaps what we need is *homo economicus
temporalis irrationalis*, though tractability is a relevant issue,
too.


If current frameworks are overly general, then Economics needs the
equivalent to the newtonian physics revolution, having jumped right
into general relativity theory from the beginning (no wonder the
public feels dizzy!). Alternative models should get economic analysis
nearer to perceived reality, like endogenous growth theory. A new homo
economicus model should be readily expressed through toons and
drawings (math & graphs), so it is to be expected it will arise within
economics and not elsewhere. Also, alternative models may be
susceptible to research with computing tools like emulations or
searching algorithms like ga or gp, and could be highly relevant to
such things as nanotechonology design and robotic control. Ideally,
new homo oeconomicus should be an encompassing unique model with
special cases, as I see it.


Comments and objections are warmly welcomed.


Homo economicus sociabilis temporalis irrationalis, anyone?


(sorry for the bit of self-promotion but my credentials won't get me
the dark cubicle in a library I'm looking for without doing some
personal questioning and having someone speak for me, if need be;
moderator: edit this, if you wish  d|:)



 From:  Fabrizio J. Bonsignore - view profile
Date:  Tues, Jan 29 2002 9:59 am
Email:   fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012316375 22663 127.0.0.1 (29 Jan 2002
14:59:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jan 2002 14:59:35 GMT
Status: R


"micron5" <micr...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
<news:zv558.13889$M3.2447874@news1.telusplanet.net>...
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:40:47 MST
> Status: R

> "micron5" <micr...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:enE48.6131$M3.1142417@news1.telusplanet.net...
> > [moderator's note - not sure what this has to do with the
> > assumption of the "rational individual" but what the heck - ak]


> Thank you.  What constitutes rationality could be
> a discussion in itself.


> dp



An understanding of rationality is at the core of the issues I'm
raising. Economics' rationality is different from philosophical
rationality (cognition) and has the limited sense of consistency of
preferences and preferring more to less. But I doubt we can find
animal examples that would fail to exhibit such characteristics;
inconsistencies in behaviour would be ironed out by selective
pressure. So it may be that either the rationality notion of homo
economicus needs to be expanded (including learning, communication,
foresighting, doubt or uncertainty), or it is not as central a factor
as has been assumed. Actually, rational man is often equated to
economic actor, specially if successful.

(snip)



> > Soros has observed: "Economic theory is an axiomatic system: as long as
>  the
> > basic assumptions hold, the conclusions follow. But when we examine the
> > assumptions closely, we find that they do not apply to the real world."


The same is true of non-euclidean geometry, though it happens to be
the *true* framework of the universe under relativity, with euclidean
geometry a special case. Assumptions may delineate not reality but the
*essence* of reality. What really counts is that theory be falsifiable
and verifiable empirically. Einstein had a lot to say about scientific
imagination and directly jumping to principles as starting point of
theory, in contrast to painfully gather data and proceeding
inductively. To condition assumptions to faithfully reflect reality is
like expecting knowledge (episteme) to be always in agreement with
opinion (doxa). But of course, obvious axioms make things easier for
the layman.


> > Herein lies the catch: the conditions of what we currently call a
>  capitalist
> > economy directly contradict the assumptions of market theory in every
> > instance.[9]


I always understood capitalism as the ideology that promotes (free)
markets and individual freedom of (economic) action, though of course
the author may prove me wrong. Unfortunately, there is no definition
of capitalism in the extract, so it cannot be discussed here (I guess
we'll all have to buy the book). Superficially, I fail to see the
contradiction, even with the hints.


> > One of the false myths ideologues of capitalism use to promote the song of
> > money is that capitalism is simply a fulfillment and realization of the
> > principles of a market economy as defined by Adam Smith.


Surely economies (and technology) have changed since Adam Smith... Are
people always subject to monetary illusion?


> > I want to focus here for a moment on the the central importance of an
> > ethical culture to an efficient market. One of capitalism's many myths is


This agrees with my thoughts. For instance, here in Mexico the
publishing editorial industry looks no different from other
countries', but you can't sell an idea to an editor and have an
advanced payment contract: you need a fully written volume editors can
chop at leisure before you see any money, unless, perhaps, if you are
already a known (to sell) author. This amounts to a vicious circle for
would-be entrepreneurial authors, who must assume the initial
investment to write the book, facing more uncertainty than needed (the
editorial house can be seen as a pool among known autors and new
authors). The general feeling is one of mistrust, linked to the
inability of the (corrupted) legal system to enforce laws with some
certainty (it's easy to flee with advanced payments and never be
convicted)... The challenge is to introduce that kind of *ethical*
considerations formally into the analysis.


> > the idea that by some wondrous mechanism the market automatically turns
> > personal greed into a public good. Why? Because Adam Smith said so. In


Never seen such an *ad baculum* fallacy in any self-organizing systems
text, yet.


> > about. Efficient market function absolutely depends on a culture of trust
> > and mutual responsibility.


May be what underdeveloped countries lack? But then the failure comes
not from capitalist ideologues, but from inability to perform
adequately within free markets: 'Many concur, but few are chosen'. I
visited the site and found the life part more a religious position
than a rational conclusion. If rampant capitalism has been the
dominant ideology, I fail to see how to 'create a world in which life
can flourish and prosper we must replace ... capitalism', when the
pressing concern is human overpopulation. Humanitarian catastrophies
occur in countries where capitalism has been unable to find solid
footing. There *may* be an alternative to capitalism the way the
author puts it, but then there *may* be an alternative for free
markets too, if some of the nanotechnologists' speculations turn true.
If we can have a fog composed of self-constructing, self-reproducing,
self-repairing, minuscule robots able to coalesce into any material or
artifact on will, where does that live the *scarce* part from the
resources problem once the initial stock of robots is in place? What
would remain to be allocated by markets?

The robot fog page:
http://discuss.foresight.org/~pcm/nano/rutgers/Ufog.html


 <|,>



 From:  Koen Robeys - view profile
Date:  Tues, Jan 29 2002 4:45 pm
Email:   "Koen Robeys" <koen.robeys...@skynet.be>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote

Snippings. To be quite honest, I think I *don't* have a clue of what
you're
talking about. Still, one point.



> For homo economicus I understand the self-interested utility
> maximizing individual exhibiting rational preferences. It would be
> nice to have a comparative study detailing present and past ethnical
> societies solutions to their resources problem, to see how well they
> conform to this model, though adequate data may be scarce and hard to
> gather.


To me, it looks like quite a few people, out of economics, have
produced
anthropology's that did look at human behavior in such a way the
resource
problem is only a means to a completely different end. "History is
driven by
religion" (Arnold Toynbee) or "History is driven by the pleasure
principle"
(Freud, maybe?) or "by power" (say: Nietzsche).

A case where history is again drive by religion is contemporary René
Girard.
I could elaborate some, if you like, though it may be difficult to show
in a
few paragraphs he has a rather consistent view on how economy is a
minor
factor in human history. It may not be what you're looking for, and it
may
be wrong anyway, and you would probably find it boring in the first
place.


Cheers, Koen



 From:  micron5 - view profile
Date:  Tues, Jan 29 2002 5:42 pm
Email:   "micron5" <micr...@telusplanet.net>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote in message
news:768f7623.0201290659.7255bfb0@posting.google.com...


> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012316375 22663 127.0.0.1 (29 Jan 2002
14:59:35 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jan 2002 14:59:35 GMT
> Status: R


snip of some good points for brevity.


> If rampant capitalism has been the
> dominant ideology, I fail to see how to 'create a world in which life
> can flourish and prosper we must replace ... capitalism', when the
> pressing concern is human overpopulation.


One possible explanation is that capitalism as it
now exists cannot provide an adequate standard
of living for countries where the non-immigrant
population is still increasing.  That is, a better
economic system could provide enough sense
of security so that the population of other countries
would stabilize or decline, as they have in the
'developed' countries (sans immigration).
The suboptimal system we now have can
arguably only provide this for a small portion
of the earth's population.


>Humanitarian catastrophies
> occur in countries where capitalism has been unable to find solid
> footing.


I don't wish to get bogged down in semantics,
but those who described communism as really
being state capitalism were correct I think.  At
least communism as it was practiced in the
U.S.S.R. and elsewhere.  It has to do with the
method of money issuance.


>There *may* be an alternative to capitalism the way the
> author puts it, but then there *may* be an alternative for free
> markets too, if some of the nanotechnologists' speculations turn true.
> If we can have a fog composed of self-constructing, self-reproducing,
> self-repairing, minuscule robots able to coalesce into any material or
> artifact on will, where does that live the *scarce* part from the
> resources problem once the initial stock of robots is in place? What
> would remain to be allocated by markets?


One answer given to this question by a futurist was
attention.  That is, what part of someone's time would
they spend on you.  This would depend on how they
valued the interaction of course.

Perhaps this link will help you a bit in your quest
for alternative views of economics.


http://www.csls.ca/pdf/aniel.pdf


dp



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> The robot fog page:
> http://discuss.foresight.org/~pcm/nano/rutgers/Ufog.html


>  <|,>




 From:  Gordon D. Pusch - view profile
Date:  Tues, Jan 29 2002 11:18 pm
Email:   gdpu...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"Koen Robeys" <koen.robeys...@skynet.be> writes:
> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote

> Snippings. To be quite honest, I think I *don't* have a clue of what you're
> talking about. Still, one point.


>> For homo economicus I understand the self-interested utility
>> maximizing individual exhibiting rational preferences. It would be
>> nice to have a comparative study detailing present and past ethnical
>> societies solutions to their resources problem, to see how well they
>> conform to this model, though adequate data may be scarce and hard to
>> gather.


> To me, it looks like quite a few people, out of economics, have produced
> anthropology's that did look at human behavior in such a way the resource
> problem is only a means to a completely different end. "History is driven
> by religion" (Arnold Toynbee) or "History is driven by the pleasure
> principle" (Freud, maybe?) or "by power" (say: Nietzsche).



[...]

It is characteristic of human nature to oversimplify things by focusing

on a single facet of a problem and then attempting to convince
themselves
it represents the entire diamond. Real human beings are driven by a
complex
multiplicity of conflicting factors --- and money, power, pleasure, and

religious dogmas are merely a few of them. To attempt to reduce all
human
behavior to only _one_ of these factors is quite myopic --- and
unfortunately,
all too common.


-- Gordon D. Pusch


perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//;
print;'



 From:  Fabrizio J. Bonsignore - view profile
Date:  Wed, Jan 30 2002 6:01 am
Email:   fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Robert Vienneau <r...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
<news:rvien-2CA154.15444528012002@news.dreamscape.com>...
> In article <768f7623.0201260932.75d4b...@posting.google.com>,
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:

> > Any
> > more ideas for directions to look at or who might support an
> > independent reasercher on the theme?


> Notice William Hummel's post of today titled "Money and Irrationality".
> That is a popular presentation of some ideas in which I think you
> might be interested.


> --
> Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
> r           c                                          .../Keynes.html
>  v         s a           Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
>   i       m   p          virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
>    e     a     e         of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
>     n   e       .        slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
> [moderator's note - I presume the author is referring to a sci.econ
> post - ak]



Thanks for the lead, it certainly is kin thought, though I'll need
some time to think it over.

  d'|:),



 From:  Fabrizio J. Bonsignore - view profile
Date:  Wed, Jan 30 2002 6:46 am
Email:   fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


gdpu...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message
<news:gielk8mpyp.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>...



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> "Koen Robeys" <koen.robeys...@skynet.be> writes:

> > "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote


> > Snippings. To be quite honest, I think I *don't* have a clue of what you're
> > talking about. Still, one point.


> >> For homo economicus I understand the self-interested utility
> >> maximizing individual exhibiting rational preferences. It would be
> >> nice to have a comparative study detailing present and past ethnical
> >> societies solutions to their resources problem, to see how well they
> >> conform to this model, though adequate data may be scarce and hard to
> >> gather.


> > To me, it looks like quite a few people, out of economics, have produced
> > anthropology's that did look at human behavior in such a way the resource
> > problem is only a means to a completely different end. "History is driven
> > by religion" (Arnold Toynbee) or "History is driven by the pleasure
> > principle" (Freud, maybe?) or "by power" (say: Nietzsche).
> [...]


> It is characteristic of human nature to oversimplify things by focusing
> on a single facet of a problem and then attempting to convince themselves
> it represents the entire diamond. Real human beings are driven by a complex
> multiplicity of conflicting factors --- and money, power, pleasure, and
> religious dogmas are merely a few of them. To attempt to reduce all human
> behavior to only _one_ of these factors is quite myopic --- and unfortunately,
> all too common.


> -- Gordon D. Pusch


> perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'



Reality is ultimately chaotic while science attempts to find the
islands of order amidst chaos. But is a matter of intellectual honesty
to work on adequate models; too simple, and conclusions are
meaningless, too complex and they become intractable (for the tools of
the epoch, if not for ever). Reality will always be 'treasoned' by
science.

Truly Economics looks myopic compared to technological achievements,
despite its mathematization, but it too looks like it has the power to
overcome its deficiencies. Most people are not as complex as it seems,
actually people can be driven in any direction by the sheer power of
money; many act like one-track-minds.


Its true that religion is the *only* concern for so many that it's
really scaring. It has been the single most important consideration
for most of history, having shaped the life of many more humans than
any other ideology, be it social or scientific. The Rene Girard is a
very good lead; religion certainly imposes external constraints on the
homo oeconomicus model.



 From:  Helen Marsh - view profile
Date:  Tues, Jan 29 2002 11:43 pm
Email:   "Helen Marsh" <hgma...@xtra.co.nz>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Hi - I'm new here - may I join in?
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote in message
news:768f7623.0201290432.64ae2778@posting.google.com...

> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012307541 18878 127.0.0.1 (29 Jan 2002
12:32:21 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jan 2002 12:32:21 GMT
> Status: R

> "Koen Robeys" <koen.robeys...@skynet.be> wrote in message



<news:3c530709$0$33507$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>...



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > X-Complaints-To: a...@skynet.be
> > Status: R

> > "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" <fbonsign...@beethoven.com> wrote


> > > Can anybody point me to alternative models to homo oeconomicus? Thanx.
> For homo economicus I understand the self-interested utility
> maximizing individual exhibiting rational preferences. It would be
> nice to have a comparative study detailing present and past ethnical
> societies solutions to their resources problem, to see how well they
> conform to this model, though adequate data may be scarce and hard to
> gather. Economic thinking is historically a western development and is
> subtly biased by western culture, so homo economicus may well be an
> adequate way to model how westerners act on average, but a poor model
> for other societies as anthropology reveals them. Almost every time
> some behaviour pattern is presented as 'normal', an ethnic study will
> show a culture where the opposite is normal. How would a capital
> accumulation scenario be modified if say forest exploitation is
> governed by ritual rules instead of rational value/profit maximizing
> goals? Following ritual may increase utility for tribe's members, but
> observable quantities and patterns would still diverge from expected
> by econom(etr)ic analysis.



Exactly - I don't see the need for an alternative to homo oeconomicus:
I
always assume that preferences take into account myriad
social/ethical/religious/ritual etc. issues not to mention the
information
cost idea - it may be costly to me to accurately determine my own
preferences. The problem is to get the full possibilites of the model
incorporated into the more quantitative parts of the discipline and
policy
advise areas.

I have some problems with 'stable' preferences but assume that the need
to
assume these is on a par with "all other things being equal" - it means
that
they are stable for the period we are considering and for the purposes
of
determining what is optimal at a particular point in time.


The important part of the theory to me is the idea that
actions/decisions
reveal preferences. What it all means to me is that we accept that
(mental
incapacity aside) people are better off making their own mistakes than
they
are having someone else decide what is 'good' for them.


snip



> Homo economicus depicts a strictly locally determined behaviour
> leading to self-organizing global phenomena


OK - I could rename the concept I understand as homo economicus as homo

sociologus and accept a sub-category homo economicus - these would be
individuals who are only interested in material values, goods,
services?,
and money not any kind of ethics or culture? Their preferences are only

determined by physical attributes and whether they are color blind?
Fashion
is obviously a sociological construct. I know many whose theory seems
to
assume such an individual - no I'm not sure most have fashion and snob
value
in their theory - anyway I know few whose behaviour would place them in
that
group.

snip


>In such case, economic policy would be more a
> matter of public education than an issue of monetary control (fixed
> growth rate) and public finance (balanced budget), having as goal
> changing a society's culture as to make individuals conform with a
> more suitable (economically successful) behavioural model (not to be
> confused with human capital growth by skills learning, though that
> issue should be integral to such policies).


Yes - public education to inform of consequences but are you also
imagining
changing preferences. How do you define economically successful?

Helen Marsh



 From:  David Friedman - view profile
Date:  Wed, Jan 30 2002 1:20 pm
Email:   David Friedman <d...@best.com>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


For one attempt to think about an alternative, motivated by modern work

in evolutionary psychology, see my draft webbed at:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/econ_and_evol_psych/economics_...

evol_psych.html


--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/



 From:  Koen Robeys - view profile
Date:  Wed, Jan 30 2002 1:05 pm
Email:   "Koen Robeys" <koen.robeys...@skynet.be>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdpu...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote



> > To me, it looks like quite a few people, out of economics, have produced
> > anthropology's that did look at human behavior in such a way the
resource
> > problem is only a means to a completely different end. "History is
driven
> > by religion" (Arnold Toynbee) or "History is driven by the pleasure
> > principle" (Freud, maybe?) or "by power" (say: Nietzsche).

> It is characteristic of human nature to oversimplify things by focusing
> on a single facet of a problem and then attempting to convince themselves
> it represents the entire diamond.



Exactly my opinion as well (including the diamond!). Now imagine that
my
opinion of "homo economicus" is/was that it is just one more in the
previous
list ("History is driven by economic considerations; say: Marx"). In
that
case you take "economy" to mean some rather limited terrain of human
behavior, and you make it, well, too important. And still in that case,
you
might want to compare with the findings of Freud, Nietzsche, Girard,
and I
forgot my favorite: evolutionary theory.

But maybe "homo economicus" is meant to be broader? Maybe it means you
won't
be able to avoid the "resources problem", no matter how hard you follow
any
religion? In that case you would need to have some economic model of
whatever kind of society you have, and the question would become which
of
different possible models you apply. And in this case, my possible
contribution would be paticularly limited.


Ciaooooooo, Koen



 From:  Bob M - view profile
Date:  Wed, Jan 30 2002 5:36 pm
Email:   Bob M <x...@xyz.xyz>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


I found your analysis interesting and it raised a question about
payment
systems.  If the territorial instinct causes humans to place a high
value on
objects in hand (coffee mugs in your essay) then an advantage of an
advanced
payment system is the abstraction from objects that it provides.  In a
barter
economy, willingness to trade could be impeded because any object in
hand for
bartering takes on a territorial value.  Commodity money would still
have
some territorial value because of attraction to the coins as objects.
A
stack of currency has a little territorial value, a check probably
less, and
a credit card has almost none since it is returned after the
transaction.


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

David Friedman wrote:
> For one attempt to think about an alternative, motivated by modern work
> in evolutionary psychology, see my draft webbed at:

> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/econ_and_evol_psych/economics_...
> evol_psych.html


> --
> David Friedman
> www.daviddfriedman.com/




 From:  David Friedman - view profile
Date:  Thurs, Jan 31 2002 1:52 pm
Email:   d...@best.com (David Friedman)
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author



Bob M <x...@xyz.xyz> wrote in message
<news:3C58756D.35D4971E@xyz.xyz>...
> I found your analysis interesting and it raised a question about payment
> systems.  If the territorial instinct causes humans to place a high value on
> objects in hand (coffee mugs in your essay) then an advantage of an advanced
> payment system is the abstraction from objects that it provides.  In a barter
> economy, willingness to trade could be impeded because any object in hand for
> bartering takes on a territorial value.  Commodity money would still have
> some territorial value because of attraction to the coins as objects.  A
> stack of currency has a little territorial value, a check probably less, and
> a credit card has almost none since it is returned after the transaction.


Interesting point. It hadn't occurred to me; I don't know if it is
mentioned in the literature stemming from the coffee mug experiment
and similar work.


 From:  Grinch - view profile
Date:  Fri, Feb 1 2002 10:59 am
Email:   Grinch <oldna...@mindspring.com>
Groups:   sci.econ
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:20:26 GMT, David Friedman <d...@best.com>
wrote:


>For one attempt to think about an alternative, motivated by modern work
>in evolutionary psychology, see my draft webbed at:

>http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/econ_and_evol_psych/economics_...



The discussion of "just price" and the like brings to mind a quote
from an article in the science section of last week's NY Times that
touched on a related subject -- "fairness" and distribution in
hunter-gatherer societies....

~~
"'Hunter-gatherer societies are scrupulously egalitarian, but not
harmoniously so,' said Dr. Herbert Gintis of the University of
Massachusetts ... 'They are violently egalitarian.'"


~~
>From "The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless",
1/22/02.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/social/22CHEA.html



 From:  Grinch - view profile
Date:  Thurs, Jan 31 2002 6:12 pm
Email:   Grinch <oldna...@mindspring.com>
Groups:   sci.econ, sci.econ.research
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:20:26 GMT, David Friedman <d...@best.com>
wrote:


>For one attempt to think about an alternative, motivated by modern work
>in evolutionary psychology, see my draft webbed at:

>http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/econ_and_evol_psych/economics_...



The discussion of "just price" and the like brings to mind a quote
from an article in the science section of last week's NY Times that
touched on a related subject -- "fairness" and distribution in
hunter-gatherer societies....

~~


"'Hunter-gatherer societies are scrupulously egalitarian, but not
harmoniously so,' said Dr. Herbert Gintis of the University of
Massachusetts ... 'They are violently egalitarian.'"


~~
>From "The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless",
1/22/02.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/social/22CHEA.html



 From:  Grinch - view profile
Date:  Mon, Mar 18 2002 3:48 pm
Email:   Grinch <oldna...@mindspring.com>
Groups:   sci.econ
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


The alternative to the "invisible hand" of self-interest isn't
necessarily altruism...


~~
Economists chance upon irrational behaviour


ADAM SMITH famously argued that an invisible hand of self-interest
guides markets to beneficial results. Today, rational and unemotional
agents, rather than altruistic angels or envious demons, lie at the
centre of most equation-choked economic theories.


But a new paper, "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others'
Incomes?", in the February issue of Annales d'Economie et de
Statistique, suggests that Smith should have paid more heed to another
hand: the one that cuts down tall poppies.


Daniel Zizzo of Oxford University and Andrew Oswald of Warwick
University crafted a series of experiments in which groups of four
people were given nearly equal sums of money. The four had to gamble
with their new wealth in random, computerised bets; two came out each
time with more cash, and two with less. Richer or poorer, each was
then given the chance to spend his money to reduce the take of his
fellow subjects. There was no prospect that this would make him any
richer. Indeed, it would cost him anywhere from two to 25 cents for
every dollar destroyed that belonged to his fellow players.


Economic man would surely never spend his money merely to hurt others,
while leaving himself poorer? The professors were shocked to find that
even at the price of 25 cents for every dollar burnt, 62% of the
participants paid for the privilege of impoverishing their peers. What
accounts for this?


One answer could be the players' sense of fairness. Another, of
course, could be envy or Schadenfreude. The poor souls who lose some
of their initial wealth like to burn the undeserving who receive a
lot. No surprise to novelists. But the idea that man is a social
animal, more concerned with relative rank and status than with
absolute well-being, sits awkwardly with economics.


Even the rich winners in the experiment like to see others taken down
a peg: they destroy the wealth of rich and poor alike. The authors
speculate that the plutocrats expect the plebeians, out of jealousy,
to destroy their wealth. Pre-emptive retaliation preserves their rank.
Nothing irrational about that.
~~~
>From The Economist, 4/12/2002


How much of politics does that explain?


---
"'Hunter-gatherer societies are scrupulously egalitarian, but not
harmoniously so,' said Dr. Herbert Gintis of the University of
Massachusetts ... 'They are violently egalitarian.'"



 From:  cpw - view profile
Date:  Mon, Mar 18 2002 4:44 pm
Email:   c...@ragwind.localdomain.net
Groups:   sci.econ
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author



Grinch <oldna...@mindspring.com> writes:
> The alternative to the "invisible hand" of self-interest isn't
> necessarily altruism...

> ~~
> Economists chance upon irrational behaviour



   ...<snip>...
 a new paper, "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others'



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Incomes?", in the February issue of Annales d'Economie et de
> Statistique,
   ...<snip>...
> Daniel Zizzo of Oxford University and Andrew Oswald of Warwick
> University crafted a series of experiments in which groups of four
> people were given nearly equal sums of money. The four had to gamble
> with their new wealth in random, computerised bets; two came out each
> time with more cash, and two with less. Richer or poorer, each was
> then given the chance to spend his money to reduce the take of his
> fellow subjects. There was no prospect that this would make him any
> richer. Indeed, it would cost him anywhere from two to 25 cents for
> every dollar destroyed that belonged to his fellow players.

> Economic man would surely never spend his money merely to hurt others,
> while leaving himself poorer? The professors were shocked to find that
> even at the price of 25 cents for every dollar burnt, 62% of the
> participants paid for the privilege of impoverishing their peers. What
> accounts for this?


   ...<snip>...
> From The Economist, 4/12/2002


> How much of politics does that explain?


> ---
> "'Hunter-gatherer societies are scrupulously egalitarian, but not
> harmoniously so,' said Dr. Herbert Gintis of the University of
> Massachusetts ... 'They are violently egalitarian.'"



  And I think the behavior makes sense in a hunter-gatherer setting.
The guy who is prospering may be competing against you for limited
food later on. If human behavior was shaped by that kind of environment

it makes sense.  I'm actually kind of glad to see that it was 62%
instead of 100%.  Some parts of human 'progress' are due to the 62%,
but other parts are due to that more altruistic 38%.

--
Replace ragwind.localdomain with rahul for a working email address



 From:  Mike Coburn - view profile
Date:  Tues, Mar 19 2002 1:44 am
Email:   Mike Coburn <mik...@gte.net>
Groups:   sci.econ
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Grinch wrote:

> The alternative to the "invisible hand" of self-interest isn't
> necessarily altruism...


> ~~
> Economists chance upon irrational behaviour


> ADAM SMITH famously argued that an invisible hand of self-interest
> guides markets to beneficial results. Today, rational and unemotional
> agents, rather than altruistic angels or envious demons, lie at the
> centre of most equation-choked economic theories.


> But a new paper, "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others'
> Incomes?", in the February issue of Annales d'Economie et de
> Statistique, suggests that Smith should have paid more heed to another
> hand: the one that cuts down tall poppies.


> Daniel Zizzo of Oxford University and Andrew Oswald of Warwick
> University crafted a series of experiments in which groups of four
> people were given nearly equal sums of money. The four had to gamble
> with their new wealth in random, computerised bets; two came out each
> time with more cash, and two with less. Richer or poorer, each was
> then given the chance to spend his money to reduce the take of his
> fellow subjects. There was no prospect that this would make him any
> richer. Indeed, it would cost him anywhere from two to 25 cents for
> every dollar destroyed that belonged to his fellow players.


> Economic man would surely never spend his money merely to hurt others,
> while leaving himself poorer? The professors were shocked to find that
> even at the price of 25 cents for every dollar burnt, 62% of the
> participants paid for the privilege of impoverishing their peers. What
> accounts for this?



I wonder if there was any attempt to determine __*WHICH*__ 62% did
the buyouts.  Your insinuation that the top X% will be made "poorer"
by destroying the quantity of money is a typical Republican
misdirection.  If it only costs the boys at the top 25 cents to
remove $1.25 from the economy leaving the lower part totally
impoverished and willing to kiss ass all day long for a loaf
of bread then the Republicans have succeeded marvelously.


> One answer could be the players' sense of fairness.


Nope!

 Another, of



> course, could be envy or Schadenfreude.


Nope!

 The poor souls who lose some



> of their initial wealth like to burn the undeserving who receive a
> lot.


How presumptuous of you.


> No surprise to novelists.


So.....  Nobody ever said _they_ were very bright.


> But the idea that man is a social
> animal, more concerned with relative rank and status than with
> absolute well-being, sits awkwardly with economics.


Not with Republican economics!  The Republicans want all of what
was the middle class working their butts out in the fields with
all of the imported Mexicans. The rich sit on the porch and drink
a cool drink and talk about how unfair the tax system is and
how the bean pickers should be paying more of it.  It's called
deflation, and those that have all the money are more than
happy with it.  They even try to invent "wars" so they can
lend more money to the government.


> Even the rich winners in the experiment like to see others taken down
> a peg: they destroy the wealth of rich and poor alike. The authors
> speculate that the plutocrats expect the plebeians, out of jealousy,
> to destroy their wealth. Pre-emptive retaliation preserves their rank.
> Nothing irrational about that.


There is absolutely NOTHING irrational about rich people wanting
LESS money in circulation, and a lot more guns and enforcers.

--
Mike Coburn


"It's the tax system, stupid.  No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both." -- Mike Coburn


"Rentier:  A person who has a fixed income from land,
bonds, etc." -- Webster's dictionary. 

 

End of messages