MyFox
 

The Tiger's Right Paw

by TigersRightPaw from Columbia, MO

Last Post 32 days, 4 hours Ago


When I hear people speak about human systems in terms of science or nature, I think “no.” The “social sciences” took their name as an homage to the real deal, a quaint way for, say, sociology to sneak in there next to the branches that de-code chromosomes and build rocket ships. Economics is the most aggressive social science. Capitalists claim the system is as natural as evolution and that the free-market is an intricate, self-perfecting coral reef. Hands off.

Evan Newmark of the Wall Street Journal sums up the dominant free-market language: “The laws of capitalism … are unyielding. The strongest companies survive. The weak and infirm die. And the economy moves forward.” Or, sections of the economy are already dead but pretend to be virile and flourishing. It’s like a possum in reverse. Good trick!

Economics is not science; it’s people and money, and the laws are flexible and theoretical. Science is what’s spanning the Rocky Mountains right now. Pine beetles are killing off millions of acres of lodgepoles. They bore through the tree’s bark, scratch a spot for their larvae and lay eggs. Young beetles eat the lodgepole’s nutrients and, to defend themselves from life-threatening sap flows, inject a fungus that stops the movement of liquid and kills the tree. The lodgepole’s lifesaving ally — cold winters — is gone, so eventually the brittle red trees will be swept away by conflagration. Then, LodgePole 2.0 will evolve with its competition in mind, outperform the pine beetle, take back its market share and send the beetles back to the boardroom with weak excuses for investors. 

Economic competition is competition, not Darwinism — which doesn’t factor in human emotions, errors and speculation, Fed statements, holidays and last night’s binge. The notion that the market corrects itself is another mistaken ecological comparison that, as we just found out, applies only to certain sections of the market. Where the market connects with buyers, it is self-correcting. Constant consumer engagement allows products to thrive (iPod) or die (Reebok Pumps), and no matter how attractive the advertisements (Zune) and publicity (XFL), the buyers decide what they want. But, there are no innate guarantees to success — "American Idol" was not genetically engineered to flourish. No one is recommending federal intervention to prop up TV.

Government oversight is required, though, when economics don’t even act like markets. The “toxic” (“Well, gee, there ya go talkin’ about ecology again, Joe”) lending system has played out entirely disconnected from the Friedmanian trust bestowed on the aggregate of buyers. Technically, it’s up to internal regulators to figure out risk, but as Brian Calame told us during a visit to Mizzou last year, he got flack simply for fulfilling his role as New York Times ombudsman. Objectivity in the land of six-figure bonuses is not possible and shouldn’t be expected. The subprime gambling racked up $625 billion in bad loans by ’05. That’s not natural; it’s Chernobyl. “Credit is the air that financial markets breathe, and when the air is poisoned, there’s no place to hide,” writes Charles Morris.

Government regulators keep watch over retail banks, restaurants, bars, schools, streets, forests and just about anywhere else. Economic institutions don't have natural rights that free them from oversight. They'll adapt to operate successfully with the regulation; we can be confident about that. Right now, shipping companies are insisting a coalition of governments protect their coral. Business sharks can't deal with pirates on the high seas.


— Greg

13 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 13
Page 1 of 1
mr_wildflower read my blog view my photos
Nov 30, 2008 | 12:58 PM

The Economy is not healthy........ Too many manipulators at the top and no money left at the bottom....It reminds me of a pyramid.... Our financial state will be a long and hard road to recovering....... Thinking everything is all right is a fairy tale and everybody needs to realize that this economy is in a world of hurt........

Just hope and pray that the recession don't slip into another depression.......

b8kedbeans read my blog
Nov 30, 2008 | 1:23 PM

i am still get in a traffic jam to and from work so i guess the economy is bad.

TigersRightPaw read my blog view my photos
Dec 1, 2008 | 3:48 PM

I will go down with this economy like the captain of a sinking ship

— Greg

JosephThePoet read my blog
Dec 1, 2008 | 9:36 PM

mr_wildflower

Your pyramid scheme allegory is perfect, and the government keeps taking more money from the middle and bottom to pile into the pockets of those on the very top too. The Bush government thinks the financial industries are the economy. He doesn't understand that economies need to exist first for there to be an opportunity or even need for banks to exist.

TigersRightPaw

There are a lot of delusional people who think the capitalist economy is perfect, and that there should be no rules because their god is perfect. Even the proof of the current state of the economy and with what the lack of regulation in the financial industries has done to threaten the economy, those fools still choose to live in their delusional world.

And, as far as Darwinism goes it also is not a science but still simply an unproven theory, no matter how many people choose to worship the theory to support their anti-God philosophy.

TigersRightPaw read my blog view my photos
Dec 1, 2008 | 11:41 PM

I see Darwinism as a scientific theory. You see it differently, Joseph? Darwin believed in God too


— Greg

JosephThePoet read my blog
Dec 2, 2008 | 9:49 AM

Greg
An unproven theory is still an unproven theory whether or not it is claimed as a scientific theory or under a different subject umbrella. It is not proven science. Anyone can make up anything they want and claim that it is a scientific theory, and if people find it promotes their anti-God beliefs they will pick it up and promote and worship it too while claiming it is science to lend support to their claims. People have been trying for decades to create life out of a soup of chemicals that is the beginning of life according to the Darwinism theory, but they have failed. The real science of proven DNA studies gives mathematical proof that the randomness of the Darwinism theory of evolution is, to say the very least, unsound.

And from what I've read, Darwin indicated that he was upset that some people jumped on an uncompleted idea of his and made a religion out of it.

TigersRightPaw read my blog view my photos
Dec 2, 2008 | 11:54 AM

Darwinism is a theory, yes. I didn't realize people treated it like religion. What is Darwinism, anyway?

— Greg

JosephThePoet read my blog
Dec 2, 2008 | 2:34 PM

Greg
Basically it is a theory to explain the creation of life. The theory is that a chemical soup was exposed to certain radiations that caused it to spontaneously become a single celled life form. Then, according to the theory, that life form and maybe others that also spontaneously jumped into existence occasionally spontaneously changed over time to become more and more complex life forms leading to all the life forms that ever existed on the planet.

But anyone who has paid any attention to DNA studies knows that even single celled life forms have a complex DNA structure and that individual sections of the DNA strands must be turned on and off at very specific points of time during its life. Consider just the fact that the chemical soup would have had to at the exact same time spontaneously create a life form that: would have to be able to ingest the chemicals around it for power or absorb radiated energy, and that would need a method of converting the chemicals or energies to a useful form, and to have had a method of using that energy to sustain its life, and to have had a method to expel unwanted chemicals or life functional waste from itself, and to have had a method to block against or defend itself from other chemicals or radiations that would destroy it, and to have had a method to be able to move within its environment to seek out needed chemicals or to protect itself, and that it would also at that exact same time had to have been created with the ability to reproduce so that life would continue. Only a delusional fool would believe that the proven DNA

JosephThePoet read my blog
Dec 2, 2008 | 2:35 PM

Only a delusional fool would believe that the proven DNA data and simple life requirements math factors supports such foolishness.

Darwinism has been forced to be taught in schools as if it is a proven science by the same people who have forced Creationism and everything Godly out of the schools. Those people are against God and use the Darwinism theory as the foundation of their religion that denies the existence of God.

TigersRightPaw read my blog view my photos
Dec 2, 2008 | 7:08 PM

Joseph,

My take on Darwinism is the continuing nature of evolution that takes into account a competition for limited resources such as food, sunlight, nutrients, "spouses," etc.

I look at thoroughbred horses as Darwin in motion: harnessing the "fast" DNA to produce more fast horses in the next generation. I would consider the average-height increase in humans to be Darwinistic as well.

DNA, for sure, plays a huge role in life — which is why stem cells are being used to create tracheas and other body parts, for example.

As far as the beginning of the universe and God, I consider that well above my pay grade, so I keep an open mind to what people want to believe. I agree, though, it seems silly for someone to claim an absolute truth about happenings that took place billions and billions (and billions) of years ago.

Thoughts?
—Greg

JosephThePoet read my blog
Dec 2, 2008 | 9:08 PM

Greg

Don't ignore the full claimed theory to just look at variances within species to pretend the theory makes sense.

Variances in species is not the creation and evolution of all life.

TigersRightPaw read my blog view my photos
Dec 2, 2008 | 9:53 PM

Very true, Joseph. I don't think Darwin took into account the "creation" of life, only its evolution.

— Greg

JosephThePoet read my blog
Dec 3, 2008 | 5:16 PM

Greg

Variances within species can be referred to as evolving, adapting, or simply amplifying an already existing trait. That is why there are darkly black people, white people, and people in between. The same pigment that is in all humans that protects us from the sun's radiation that reaches us became more pronounced in people in the warmer climate where less clothes are worn, and where the concentration of the radiation is greater so the need for it is greater. The gene segment controlling the pigmentation activity in our bodies was needed to be turned on for longer periods of time in some climates, so like a muscle that receives frequent exercise, its ability strengthened. And strong traits are more easily passed on in species.

The Darwinism theory goes beyond the adaptation of species within their genetic limitations to pretend that species become new species.

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




TigersRightPaw

Four University of Missouri School of Journalism students give conservative issues and the Republican Party a fair shake.

Member Since: 9/10/2007