Traditional Economics Failed. Here’s a New Blueprint.

Sep 2013
45,633
36,736
On a hill
#1
Politics in democracy can be understood many ways, but on one level it is the expression of where people believe their self-interest lies— that is to say, “what is good for me?” Even when voters vote according to primal affinities or fears rather than economic advantage (as Thomas Frank, in What’s the Matter With Kansas?, lamented of poor whites who vote Republican), it is because they’ve come to define self-interest more in terms of those primal identities than in terms of dollars and cents.

This is not proof of the stupidity of such voters. It is proof of the malleability and multidimensionality of self-interest. While the degree to which human beings pursue that which they think is good for them has not and will probably never change, what they believe is good for them can change and from time to time has, radically.

We assert a simple proposition: that fundamental shifts in popular understanding of how the world works necessarily produce fundamental shifts in our conception of self-interest, which in turn necessarily produce fundamental shifts in how we think to order our societies.

snip

Today, most of the public is unaware that we are in the midst of a moment of new understanding. In recent decades, a revolution has taken place in our scientific and mathematical understanding of the systemic nature of the world we inhabit.

–We used to understand the world as stable and predictable, and now we see that it is unstable and inherently impossible to predict.

–We used to assume that what you do in one place has little or no effect on what happens in another place, but now we understand that small differences in initial choices can cascade into huge variations in ultimate consequences.

–We used to assume that people are primarily rational, and now we see that they are primarily emotional.

Now, consider: how might these new shifts in understanding affect our sense of who we are and what is good for us?

Traditional Economics Failed. Here's a New Blueprint. - Evonomics
 
Likes: 3 people
Sep 2013
45,633
36,736
On a hill
#2
A clearer understanding of how evolutionary forces work in complex adaptive human society shows that cooperation is the true foundation of prosperity (as does a full reading Adam Smith’s lesser-known masterpiece A Theory of Moral Sentiments). Competition properly understood—in nature or in business—is between groups of cooperators. Groups that know how to cooperate—whose members attend to social and emotional skills like empathy—defeat those that do not. That’s because only cooperation can create symbiotic, nonzero outcomes. And those nonzero outcomes, borne and propelled by ever-increasing trust and cooperation, create a feedback loop of ever-increasing economic growth and social health.

snip

True self-interest is mutual interest. The best way to improve your likelihood of surviving and thriving is to make sure those around you survive and thrive. Notwithstanding American mythology about selfishness making the world go round, humans have in fact evolved—have been selected—to look out for others in their group and, in so doing, to look out for self.
These are exactly why universal, single payer health insurance, and tuition free public college and university for those who quality are essential if we are to continue to thrive as a nation.
 
Likes: 2 people
Feb 2011
11,977
8,313
The greatest place on Earth California
#3
"There is nothing that can better deserve our patronage than science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness"
--George Washington, address to congress, January 8, 1790
 
Likes: 4 people
Oct 2013
6,902
4,430
Ohio
#4
Politics in democracy can be understood many ways, but on one level it is the expression of where people believe their self-interest lies— that is to say, “what is good for me?” Even when voters vote according to primal affinities or fears rather than economic advantage (as Thomas Frank, in What’s the Matter With Kansas?, lamented of poor whites who vote Republican), it is because they’ve come to define self-interest more in terms of those primal identities than in terms of dollars and cents.

This is not proof of the stupidity of such voters. It is proof of the malleability and multidimensionality of self-interest. While the degree to which human beings pursue that which they think is good for them has not and will probably never change, what they believe is good for them can change and from time to time has, radically.

We assert a simple proposition: that fundamental shifts in popular understanding of how the world works necessarily produce fundamental shifts in our conception of self-interest, which in turn necessarily produce fundamental shifts in how we think to order our societies.

snip

Today, most of the public is unaware that we are in the midst of a moment of new understanding. In recent decades, a revolution has taken place in our scientific and mathematical understanding of the systemic nature of the world we inhabit.

–We used to understand the world as stable and predictable, and now we see that it is unstable and inherently impossible to predict.

–We used to assume that what you do in one place has little or no effect on what happens in another place, but now we understand that small differences in initial choices can cascade into huge variations in ultimate consequences.

–We used to assume that people are primarily rational, and now we see that they are primarily emotional.

Now, consider: how might these new shifts in understanding affect our sense of who we are and what is good for us?

Traditional Economics Failed. Here's a New Blueprint. - Evonomics
It's a fairly long article and QUITE deep. Basically.. there's several here who won't get it at all.

It's WELL worth it,even if you need to read it twice.
 
Likes: 2 people
Feb 2016
64
11
at home
#5
It's a fairly long article and QUITE deep. Basically.. there's several here who won't get it at all.

It's WELL worth it,even if you need to read it twice.
This is NOT a deep article, nor an economically impressive one. This sounds like some kind of New Age economic mysticism, complete with incense and other funny smelling smoke.
 
Nov 2014
33,363
8,650
TN
#6
only blueprint you need,

1. Don't Borrow money except to buy a home,
2. the mortgage on your home should be a fixed rate 15 year mortgage
3. The payment should not be more 25% of your monthly income
4. Pay off the mortgage as quickly as possible. (pay 1/12 of your payment toward the principle each month you will pay off the mortgage in 8-9 years depending on interest rate).
5. Save money every payperiod ~15%
6. Give 5-10% Minimum to charities.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,812
6,499
#7
The problem with the OP is it's myopic. The long term picture must be the foundation of any rational system.

A secular nation would laugh in the face of borrowing huge sums to give people free stuff.

A secular nation would laugh in the face of borrowing a trillion dollars to prop up an incompetent law professor.

We are not a secular nation.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
76,482
67,494
So. Md.
#8
only blueprint you need,

1. Don't Borrow money except to buy a home,
2. the mortgage on your home should be a fixed rate 15 year mortgage
3. The payment should not be more 25% of your monthly income
4. Pay off the mortgage as quickly as possible. (pay 1/12 of your payment toward the principle each month you will pay off the mortgage in 8-9 years depending on interest rate).
5. Save money every payperiod ~15%
6. Give 5-10% Minimum to charities.
That's lovely for the individual. The OP is about society as a whole.
 
Likes: 3 people

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
76,482
67,494
So. Md.
#9
The problem with the OP is it's myopic. The long term picture must be the foundation of any rational system.

A secular nation would laugh in the face of borrowing huge sums to give people free stuff.

A secular nation would laugh in the face of borrowing a trillion dollars to prop up an incompetent law professor.

We are not a secular nation.
The authors of the article disagree with you about the long term picture.

Efficient → Effective

The metaphors of the Enlightenment, taken to scale during the Industrial Age, led us to conceptualize markets as running with “machine-like efficiency” and frictionless alignment of supply and demand. But in fact, complex systems are tuned not for efficiency but for effectiveness— not for perfect solutions but for adaptive, resilient, good-enough solutions. This, as Rafe Sagarin depicts in the interdisciplinary survey Natural Security, is how nature works. It is how social and economic systems work too. Evolution relentlessly churns out effective, good-enough-for-now solutions in an ever-changing landscape of challenges. Effectiveness is often inefficient, usually messy, and always short-lived, such that a system that works for one era may not work for another.
Predictive → Adaptive

In the old Enlightenment and the machine age that followed, inputs were assumed to predict outputs. In the second Enlightenment, once we recognize that the laws that govern the world are laws of complex systems, we must trade the story of inputs and predictability for a story of influence and ever-shifting adaptation. In complex human societies, individuals act and adapt to changing circumstances; their adaptations in turn influence the next round of action, and so on. This picture of how neither risks nor outcomes can be fully anticipated makes flexibility and resilience more valuable at every scale of decision-making.
 
Likes: 2 people