Radical Economics

I heard the announcement last year that economists had discovered that people value a gift given to them more than they would value the money that the gift cost. Would anybody who has actually lived with their eyes open be at all surprised by this result? Of course the value of a gift is far more complex than a simple dollar amount.

For me, the research amounts to final proof that the field of economics is a fantasy world. I'll save for another post any discussion about the false assumption in the US that taxes are bad for productivity. Right now, I want to propose a change in economics. What if we were to look at money as a proxy for time and skill? That's it. Nothing more. Not a substitute for worth. Not a basis for determining any sort of meaning. Just a portable way for people to trade different forms of work for things other people have made.

Of course, this doesn't provide a rational basis for markets. Maybe that's alright, though. Chances are, given that markets are operated by people, and people are basically irrational, markets are fundamentally irrational and chaotic. That fits a lot better with recent history than the pie-in-the-sky concept of the invisible-hand-of-the-market. Of course, I refer here to the idea that economic forces will naturally push decision-makers toward choices that are more efficient and ultimately beneficial for all concerned. The clearest contradiction is in cases like Enron. I guess the invisible hand of the market finally swatted the decision-makers in that one, but it mostly seems to have led to the irrational decision-makers getting rich, while everybody else ends up destitute.

The hardest part for economists to swallow in all this is that if markets are irrational, and money is just a way for people to flexibly barter, most economists would have to find a new way to make a living. Oh, well, that would just be an unavoidable readjustment of a market segment--painful for the few, beneficial for the many.

This I Believe

At church this month (First Unitarian, Rochester) we are being asked by our ministers to clearly define our beliefs. So, here goes for my second or third try:

I believe that there is no destination in life. Any arrivals on the journey are stop-overs. The important thing on the journey is not how much you carry with you, or what your stop-overs look like, but your companions as you travel. Obviously, the human companions are very important--who they are, what they are like, how they treat you and one-another. Their importance in the living of a good life is why it is crucial to pay attention to them and actively appreciate each companion's unique beauty and intrinsic human value.

It is tempting to overlook the importance of my human companions when considering my non-human companions, but both deserve careful consideration and attention. By non-human companions, I don't mean pets or plants--I guess I include them in the human (or nearly so) category. No, I'm thinking of companions like Joy, Happiness, Fear, Greed, Pain, and Sorrow.

I am convinced that pain is unavoidable in life, but I can choose to pretend that it does not travel with me as I go. I believe shying away from pain is what makes me choose fear, greed, hatred or addiction as life companions: they are willing allies in keeping the pain at bay. All of these, in turn, separate people from the joy and happiness they hope to have accompany them on the journey. If I make peace with pain and sorrow, accepting them as reliable companions on the way, I have little need to fall back on the self-destruction implicit in the other four and their ilk. I also open the door of my heart to receive the joy and happiness I might run across amidst the pain that life does hold.

When I can leave behind fear, greed and hatred, then I have the energy and willingness to be generous with people--to be able to help others without concern over what their return to me might be. When I am caught up in denying the pain that lurks in my past, it takes all my energy just to keep that out of my heart and mind.

Politics Always Amazes

As the Democrats tussle with the President over whether his aides will testify under oath, it is mind-boggling to me that the Republicans can keep a straight face while using phrases like "honorable public servants" when claiming there is no need for the aides to be sworn in for testimony. The other good one is "partisan witch hunt." This from the party that tried to impeach the last president for lying about a slimy affair he had. The only way they can possibly avoid being embarrassed by such hypocrisy is if they are totally Machiavellian in their approach--whatever it takes is alright, as long as they remain in power.

Inevitability of Evolution

Sometime recently I realized that evolution is intrinsic in the fabric of life as we know it. Any system that includes self-reproducing entities that can mutate from generation to generation, and also has limited resources necessary for the survival of the various kinds of entities, will spontaneously give rise to an evolutionary process. The scarceness of resources means that if a kind of entity has a member that reproduces in such a way that its offspring reproduce faster or use resources more efficiently or are better able to maintain control over the resources than the original kind of entity are, then the newly mutated kind of entity will grow in population, using up more of the limited resources, eventually leaving no resources for the earlier entity, and so will displace it.

Clearly the mechanics of evolution--mutation rates, genetic structure, anatomy and/or physiology of the entities--are unimportant to the existence of evolution. The only necessary elements are reproduction with occasional mutation and limited resources. Obviously, this does not address the issue of whether some being created everything or when, it simply demonstrates that in our current world, evolution is inevitable because of systematic structure of the biosphere. I will leave arguments in favor of and opposed to evolution as the source of advanced life forms on Earth as an exercise for the reader. ;^)

Hello

Ruminant Natural Philosophy is my new blog about the thoughts that wander through my head on topics from metaphysics to politics, with excursions to educaton and various sciences, especially psychology and child development, and possible outbreaks of fiction and/or humor. 'Ruminant' because I'll be ruminating. 'Philosophy' because I think it is crucial to decide what is important versus what is not. 'Natural' because "natural philosophy" was the name for what we now call science up until a few hundred years ago.

If you feel like commenting, go ahead. If you don't feel like commenting, go ahead. As a reader of Laozi, I am a big fan of non-action, so I am happy to let the rest of the universe do what it is doing while I do what I do.