(November 13, 2014 at 7:33 am)Brian37 Wrote: His own. This is the problem with the word "economics" it still boils down to humans making justifications to get at resources. There is more than one POV on the subject, which means the best policy is to accept different desires, accept inequity to a point but keep the economy mixed but ultimately balanced and not lopsided. No one should want a nanny state like North Korea, or Stalin's Russia, but to say that business is moral "just because" is also bullshit. There is not one aspect of society that is not money driven. Nations bring in money by selling to the global market, including our foes. Political parties bring in money to keep power, including our foes. Religious institutions bring in money, including our foes.
When people say "My numbers work", I won't argue that they don't. The part they don't want to see is "FOR WHO". Money works for Saudi Arabia's Royal Family. Money works for China's communist style capitalism. Money worked for billionaire Gadaffi for a while.
Somehow Haywood thinks because we are a more open market one class knows what is best for the rest of us. Money doesn't automatically equal morality, anymore than belonging to a religion makes one automatically moral. Everything is run by humans and no aspect of society should have the right to dictate economics in a pluralistic society.
A couple of things.
First, I never have said, "My numbers work". I have no idea where you are getting that from.
Second. I do believe in something called "crowd wisdom" or "widsom of the crowds". If your curious about it you can google it...there is plenty of information and evidence for it online. I remember in 2008 when Obama was elected discussing the results with my liberal friend. I told him that given my faith in crowd wisdom....I had to acknowledge that Obama was likely the better person to be president than McCain.
Obama's performance has crushed my belief in Crowd Wisdom.
