🚀 go-pugleaf

James A Hammerton wrote:

> : Neoclassical economics admits to NO objective measures
> :  of human welfare.  Thus, when an economist says "trade
> :   makes people better off", he probably means that trade
> :    makes his own personal finances better off.
> 
> It's more likely that he means that the exchange is mutually
> beneficial. In the local context of the exchange this is correct. The
> knock on effects when applied to a large population however complicate
> the picture/

In general I agree.  However, one gets into definition
of what is "mutually beneficial".  Research shows that
humans are not "rational".# For example, they routinely
fail to make inferences according to  Bayes' Theorem,
which is a formula used to calculate the probability
that a particular event will occur.  People give recently
presented information undue importance, thereby producing
answers that are not rational [Hamm, Ornstein and Ehrlich,
also see Forrester].

#[Here I define rational as: the ability to carefully
  weigh the important, known variables and make that
  decision which is most likely to achieve the desired
  end. See, for example, Ornstein: "Since the mind
  evolved to select a few signals and then dream up a
  semblance, whatever enters our consciousness is
  overemphasized. It does not matter how the information
  enters, whether via a television program, a newspaper
  story, a friend's conversation, a strong emotional
  reaction, a memory�all is overemphasized. We ignore
  other, more compelling evidence, overemphasizing and
  overgeneralizing from the information close at hand
  to produce a rough-and-ready realty."]

In other words, people spend their money on whatever
corporate brainwashing tells them to spend it on.

What's more, Neoclassical Economics is based on the notion
that the overall system is merely the sum of its parts.
Modern systems theory recognizes that "emergent properties"
of systems may be quite different that a sum of its parts.

> : See:
> :  http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page11.htm
> 
> This is quite an interesting page. The genuine progress indicator
> described (GPI) seems to be on the lines of what I've said above. The
> question is why has GPI gone down? It'd be interesting to see which of
> the factors included in it has the most impact.

The spreadsheets are available from:
 Redefining Progress,
 One Kearny Street,
 Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94108
 Phone: 415-781-1191; FAX: 415-781-1198. 

Jay