@Karl Smith RE: “Yet, [people] seem unwilling to give up on tribal beliefs. What

http://modeledbehavior.com/2012/05/07/the-ideas-of-economists-and-philosophers/http://modeledbehavior.com/2012/05/07/the-ideas-of-economists-and-philosophers

@Karl Smith

RE: “Yet, [people] seem unwilling to give up on tribal beliefs. What accounts for this?”

And, speaking of facts, what evidence do you have that people ever, under any conditions, cease to act according to their tribal sentiments?

I know you can’t either grasp or accept this, but you’re argument is unscientific.

Your approach redistributes status, power and identity along with money.

The people who care most about losing that status, power and identity are those who are invested in status, power, and identity rather than money.

You are stifled because your VIEW OF MAN IS SUBECT TO THE REDUCTIO ERROR.

So the question is not how you and your SUBSET OF FACTS prevail in order to support your reductio ideology, but given the TOTALITY of facts, how we can implement a coordinated set of policy provisions.

The reason you argue against this is that you, like Krugman and DeLong, are not as interested in prosperity as you are in creating a class of political managers that are the sole possessors of status, power and identity, and the citizens are subjects. That might work in a small state. But it will not work in the american empire.

In other words, you’re proof of the theory. 🙂

But at least you’re honest about the subset of facts, even if you’re dishonest because you ignore the more salient facts: that money is a route to status, power and identity, and that humans desire to consume those three things above all others.

Selective chose of FACTS is not scientific. It’s ideological.