[updated 6-22-11 below]
Escher On Edge
(8-29-10)US in perspective?
(Obliquity?)
Follow up from Bib Leo File.(Interesting)
[Log-in prevented me from posting this comment (at INET...) which I save here.]
Michael your comment on "free market" and "freedom" begs definition. Words are often taken out of context or provide context, but my comment might be better framed as "problematic" or hitting the nail on the head. A "free market" will always be defined by some powers, and that does not imply that "freedom" exists. "Freedom" will always existed in the context of(relation to) other forces, market or no. This is not to provoke or confound, but may just be paraphrasing your intent, as I seem to find in your conclusion. The need for providing... an equation for the real world, or rather for economics which is yet to reflect the real world and thereby address the "myopia of share ownership". Hint to self: regards dymamics of "free market" regulating power. Back to the drawing board?[Now I just may review the interview and two comments before "provoking". Earlier, I caught the lede of a "related video" by a grad student about getting economists out into the real world, but I have been unable to find it @inet...]
[Provocative thought two: Companies should not be run in the interest of the owners. i.e. maximizing value for share holders Correlated provocation: what about the costs to the economy?]
[6-22-11(cont){italics above denote changes} PT1: There is no such thing as a "free market". Myth of "market objectivity". Myth2: "Free Trade does not make countries richer".]
[6-22-11 Comment submitted and extended here and here meanwhile regarding the golden rule .]
[Footnote on "Hi Ate" US i.e. Taleb and Kay (in the context of politics/economics being connected but having different objectives)] O K ? Navigational Models. Again, what is the point?]
No comments:
Post a Comment