<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: It’s still hard being a bear: good alternative theory?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/28/it%e2%80%99s-still-hard-being-a-bear-good-alternative-theory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/28/it%e2%80%99s-still-hard-being-a-bear-good-alternative-theory/</link>
	<description>now with extra source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:29:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wayne</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/28/it%e2%80%99s-still-hard-being-a-bear-good-alternative-theory/#comment-39099</link>
		<dc:creator>Wayne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/28/it%e2%80%99s-still-hard-being-a-bear-good-alternative-theory/#comment-39099</guid>
		<description>Steve, in my opinion if you are looking for a model to act as a catchall economic panacea you’ll first have to look towards some long-term social evolution. Technologically and economically we’ve advanced a long way very quickly. But socially, in general we are still a bunch of pretentiously ignorant greedy monkeys with little thought given to helping others. From my experience the more successful you are economically the more likely this will be true of you. The only difference being successful people usually support some others unintentionally by giving them a lift on their coattails. But that is an unintended, self-limiting form of altruism and the more globalised we become the more damaging rampant individual greed becomes to everyone on the globe.

Until our global economic society reaches some type of equilibrium we will be subject to these boom bust greed cycles. That equilibrium can only come about through all productive individuals focusing half their productive energies in altruistic directions, rather than maintaining an overbalancing greed focus. From where I sit the tide of our social progress appears to be receding quickly (granted, that may be because I appear to have taken the moral high ground in this epistle). Without forward social momentum we lose the sustainable level of individual morality that works to bind society together (my guess is you’d need at least a third of your youth focused on progressive pastimes just to cover social self maintenance). Given what is happening to the USD, the US might have peaked already as the world’s lead culture. The mantel of progress could be shifting to other cultures around the globe as we live and breath. But that’s something for future historians to argue over. 

Doesn’t matter how good your economic theories are then. Given enough technological leverage and social saturation, the fundamental greed-based economic model is a model for the destruction of social values/rights and ultimately of society itself. Of course, society is unlikely to fall apart from these pressures under our stewardship. That’s the sort of legacy we will be leaving to those yet to come: we came, we saw, we fucked it up – it’s your world now, you fix it! I bet the lead generations during the decline of the Roman Empire didn’t really care too much about sustaining legacies either; more likely they pursued available hedonistic pleasures more vigorously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve, in my opinion if you are looking for a model to act as a catchall economic panacea you’ll first have to look towards some long-term social evolution. Technologically and economically we’ve advanced a long way very quickly. But socially, in general we are still a bunch of pretentiously ignorant greedy monkeys with little thought given to helping others. From my experience the more successful you are economically the more likely this will be true of you. The only difference being successful people usually support some others unintentionally by giving them a lift on their coattails. But that is an unintended, self-limiting form of altruism and the more globalised we become the more damaging rampant individual greed becomes to everyone on the globe.</p>
<p>Until our global economic society reaches some type of equilibrium we will be subject to these boom bust greed cycles. That equilibrium can only come about through all productive individuals focusing half their productive energies in altruistic directions, rather than maintaining an overbalancing greed focus. From where I sit the tide of our social progress appears to be receding quickly (granted, that may be because I appear to have taken the moral high ground in this epistle). Without forward social momentum we lose the sustainable level of individual morality that works to bind society together (my guess is you’d need at least a third of your youth focused on progressive pastimes just to cover social self maintenance). Given what is happening to the USD, the US might have peaked already as the world’s lead culture. The mantel of progress could be shifting to other cultures around the globe as we live and breath. But that’s something for future historians to argue over. </p>
<p>Doesn’t matter how good your economic theories are then. Given enough technological leverage and social saturation, the fundamental greed-based economic model is a model for the destruction of social values/rights and ultimately of society itself. Of course, society is unlikely to fall apart from these pressures under our stewardship. That’s the sort of legacy we will be leaving to those yet to come: we came, we saw, we fucked it up – it’s your world now, you fix it! I bet the lead generations during the decline of the Roman Empire didn’t really care too much about sustaining legacies either; more likely they pursued available hedonistic pleasures more vigorously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/28/it%e2%80%99s-still-hard-being-a-bear-good-alternative-theory/#comment-39035</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:50:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/28/it%e2%80%99s-still-hard-being-a-bear-good-alternative-theory/#comment-39035</guid>
		<description>Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Models do provide an overly simplified view of the world, but at least it is a perspective. The IS/LM model is taught in Economics classes as is the AD/AS model (the Keynesian Model). Both have extreme assumptions which make them almost unusable in the real world, but they still go someway to trying to explain the relationships between the various elements that make up GDP.
And who says they both can&#039;t be right? Look at Physics. They have two models that work fine. Newtonian Physics and Quantum Physics. Almost conflicting rules but both work. It&#039;s just that they applied differently whether the behaviour is observed at the atomic level or not. They have been searching for a unified theory but have yet to find one. Much like the economist.
I think both Neoclassical Economics and Keynesian Economics will have a role to play in the coming years. Maybe the question is at which part of the business cycle they should be applied? Keynesian in a recession, Neoclassical when we start booming again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Models do provide an overly simplified view of the world, but at least it is a perspective. The IS/LM model is taught in Economics classes as is the AD/AS model (the Keynesian Model). Both have extreme assumptions which make them almost unusable in the real world, but they still go someway to trying to explain the relationships between the various elements that make up GDP.<br />
And who says they both can&#8217;t be right? Look at Physics. They have two models that work fine. Newtonian Physics and Quantum Physics. Almost conflicting rules but both work. It&#8217;s just that they applied differently whether the behaviour is observed at the atomic level or not. They have been searching for a unified theory but have yet to find one. Much like the economist.<br />
I think both Neoclassical Economics and Keynesian Economics will have a role to play in the coming years. Maybe the question is at which part of the business cycle they should be applied? Keynesian in a recession, Neoclassical when we start booming again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 466/476 objects using apc

Served from: www.crikey.com.au @ 2012-02-12 21:30:34 -->
