Thread View: sci.econ
4 messages
4 total messages
Started by Fabrizio J Bonsignore
Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:43
A note on "Christian economics"
Author: Fabrizio J Bonsignore
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:43
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:43
29 lines
2740 bytes
2740 bytes
In some other post there is a theory of underdevelopment based on the concept of envy, which can be expressed through several mathematical paradigms to lead to the idea that in the presence of envy (predatry competition), the path of production reaches a local maximum instead of a global maximum permanently. This idea can lead to the idea of using the seven sins as the basis of economic theory for similar theories. However, circumstances are different. Greed can be assimilated in current theory under propensity to save, and its effects depend on the efficiency of the banking system. Laziness (sloth), has the obvious effect od generating less income and product, and can be approximated wityh upward bending supply curves. Lust, on the other side, invokes the idea of overpopulation, and the naive idea that with moer people there is a smaller product to distribute, unless the creation of wealth is taken into account. Pride can have an effect similar to that of envy if it leads to the waste of productiove deals because of the pride of one of the parts (the contrary of envy, would be, with similar results). Gluttony can just be approximated as an increase demand for food. And anger, givern to the extreme,. means war, which has mixed effects on the economy, though individually it can lead only to less production, though hardly as an extended phenomenon (unless it leads to war, like the Nazi Germany). Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
Re: A note on "Christian economics"
Author: Fabrizio J Bonsignore
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:33
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:33
19 lines
2586 bytes
2586 bytes
On the effect of sloth, in the individual it would mean an upward bending labor supply curve, bending upwards at a low wage level. he more sloth, the lower th wage. On the whole it would mean a lower level of product and low prices/wages; economic agents would be maximizing spare time rather than productive time. Should sloth be a characteristic of the population sanctioned by society, it would be debatable whether this society could be considered "poor", since agents would be maximizing one of their preferences, i.e., spare time. The Protestant ethic and Christian ethic in general favors then a product maximization strategy, or a low preference for spare time among all economic agents. THe wage at which the labor supply curve bends upward would be rather high, which means that in societies following this kind of ethic as a goal wages, prices and product would tend to be high, and even at high levels of wage the labor supply would have a positive slope. In developed, Christian economies an upward bending supply curve would be hardly seen or estimate in models. For other cultures it could be different. This difference can be measured econometrically. Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
Re: A note on "Christian economics"
Author: Fabrizio J Bonsignore
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 06:52
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 06:52
10 lines
2003 bytes
2003 bytes
[From the last comments it may be advanced the hypothesis that if the propensity ot work (laziness) is a cultural variable determining the supply of labor over the sum of individuals, then all societies, for homogeneous cultural values, experiment *approximately* the same level of welfare. That is, differences in product are actually discounted by propensity to work (cultural sloth) and are the same, the same way that we discount variables to amke them real. Product is the same for homogeneous cultures in terms of real sloth.] Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
Re: A note on "Christian economics"
Author: The Trucker
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:15
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:15
25 lines
2568 bytes
2568 bytes
"Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> wrote in message news:1112683963.973688.135280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > [From the last comments it may be advanced the hypothesis that if the > propensity ot work (laziness) is a cultural variable determining the > supply of labor over the sum of individuals, then all societies, for > homogeneous cultural values, experiment *approximately* the same level > of welfare. That is, differences in product are actually discounted by > propensity to work (cultural sloth) and are the same, the same way that > we discount variables to amke them real. Product is the same for > homogeneous cultures in terms of real sloth.] > > Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore What absolute nonsense! You may well be discussing morals and/or religious beliefs, but you are not discussing economics. What a person or a society might do with their free time (their freedom) is not a morality. Whether they lie in the sun and look at the women go by or spend the time education themselves and creating things of value to the society is not at issue except for the fact that their PRODUCTIVE efforts in NEW things will increase the freedom of others both now and in the future. Throwing fundamentalism and magical crapola at it is counterproductive to the actual science of economics.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads