I hope you know what your conclusion is. To me it seems utterly opaque.
So much for simplicity.
On Sep 13, 2005, at 12:00 AM, Marshall Ambros wrote:
>> We can agree that attempts to control markets can wreck capitalist
>> economies, or not generate wealth, or that Bolshevik planning was a
>> disaster, but the fact is that control of markets is present in
>> capitalist systems to a large degree, in their social systems of law,
>> regulation, and the like. These are not the result of 'spontaneous
>> order'. And this seems to imply that planning is somehow banished
>> from thought. But the factor of planning is always a player in
>> multiple forms of discourse, it being merely the case that planning
>> very large economies has historically failed by comparison with the
>> less planned capitalist variety.
> There are certain parallels between economics and genetics. For the
> most part it is a good idea to pay attention to similarities, because,
> as Darwin found, they might lead to a wicked cool conclusion. The
> essay "Evolution and Economics" was an ungainly voyage into
> ridiculously complicated and convoluted thought, and as some
> philosophy has done, beat the living crap out of reality. Let us say
> simply that an organism is complex, and that each structure in the
> organism affects a process, and that each process affects, directly or
> indirectly, every other process and therefor the probability of life.
> Now let us say simply that an economy is complex, and that each law of
> the economy affects a process, and that each process affects, directly
> or indirectly, every other process and the probability of LIFE. It is
> the small change of one structure which, due to the complexity, the
> interactive nature of the organism (and economy), precipitates a
> change. I'm sure your all familiar with the definition of evolution so
> let me cut to the chase. It matters not whether the change came about
> due to the communication of synapses in Alan Greenspan's brain, or the
> random mutation of a gene. Wrong mutation: the system dies. I'm sure
> Alan could tell you that. We may be 'in control' of our economic
> monster, but who ARE we, a bunch of genes, hmm? Economics is a
> second-stage evolution. For all I care ID proponents can present the
> theory of IM (Intelligent Mutation). I think I might present the
> theory of Intelligent Greenspan (he knows too much to be human). We
> still evolved from apes.