John Lindauer has written an article in Seeking Alpha discussing the current economic problems in the USA and the rest of the world.
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Economic Growth And Reality
Christine MacDonald has written an article in Alternet exploring the conventional wisdom that economic growth is good. Like many other counter-cultural ideas, there will be a plethora of resistance to the ideas expressed in this piece. Could the economists cited be correct? How do we find out? How about use of reason and evidence? Oh, I forgot, this involves politics.
Can Money Make You Happy?
Bob Frick has written an article in Kiplinger analyzing the relationship of money, and other factors, to happiness.
Economics And Morality
It is this blogger's opinion that, although economics does not function in an ammoral vacuum, society should not enact legislation to disincentivize those who produce the pie from which society feasts. Another example of neither political party having all the answers. Yes, I agree that presently the Repubicans ARE more unreasonable. However, much of our present financial situation has been brought on by the irresponsibility of both parties controlled by their own special interests.
Big Corporations, Lobbyists and Morality
This blogger was reading the Sunday Greensboro News and Record today and found this article by Bloomberg News. Let's see, Tobacco-maker Lorillard (based locally in Greensboro, NC) was facing a government ban on menthol in cigarettes. Since 90% of Lorillard's sales involve menthol cigarettes (Newport brand), the corporation spend $900,000 lobbying the government to stop its effort to ban menthol in cigarettes. An advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March stopped short of recommending an outright ban on menthol cigarettes, and the stock price surged.
Interestingly, the article also mentioned that the 50 corporations that lobby government the most have outperformed the S & P 500 index by an average of 12.4% annually since 2002.
Is there anyone else that has a problem with this situation on multiple levels? Here is a product, menthol cigarettes, that may even be worse on the health and longevity of people than other cigarettes, allowed to be legal, at least in major part, by the lobbying of the major corporation that would be effected by the illegality. This blogger would very much like to hear from conservative-minded people, many who are Christians, who defend this situation.
This blogger remembers the tobacco lobby that was promoting the opinion that tobacco was safe. Many of the people who today are saying that there is no problem with climate change are financially backed by the same people who were involved with the tobacco lobby then (see here). How moral is lobbying by corporations when health issues are involved? Does it comport with "Christian morality?" It certainly does not comport with this blogger's morality.
Interestingly, the article also mentioned that the 50 corporations that lobby government the most have outperformed the S & P 500 index by an average of 12.4% annually since 2002.
Is there anyone else that has a problem with this situation on multiple levels? Here is a product, menthol cigarettes, that may even be worse on the health and longevity of people than other cigarettes, allowed to be legal, at least in major part, by the lobbying of the major corporation that would be effected by the illegality. This blogger would very much like to hear from conservative-minded people, many who are Christians, who defend this situation.
This blogger remembers the tobacco lobby that was promoting the opinion that tobacco was safe. Many of the people who today are saying that there is no problem with climate change are financially backed by the same people who were involved with the tobacco lobby then (see here). How moral is lobbying by corporations when health issues are involved? Does it comport with "Christian morality?" It certainly does not comport with this blogger's morality.
Social Sciences
How should the skeptic look at the social sciences? How are they like the natural sciences? How are they different?
The natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology and medicine, have been colloquially termed the "hard" sciences, as they are perceived as being more scientific, rigid and accurate. The social sciences, such as anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, economics and political science, may use methods resembling those of the natural sciences (quantitative techniques) as tools for understanding society and they may use social critique or symbolic interpretation as well (qualitative techniques). Thus, the social sciences have been colloquially termed the "soft" sciences, as they are perceived as being less scientific, rigid and accurate.
From an analysis of the differences in acceptance of results from these two broad branches of science, a case can be made that there is a greater consensus of expert opinion regarding the issues addressed by the natural sciences as compared to the amount of consensus within the social sciences.
What does the above mean? The less scientifically "hard" the field of study, the greater the chance of a difference of opinion and, thus, the greater the chance that non-evidence based ideology will play a role. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that an individual with an economic or political point of view, for example, would be wise to avoid being too dogmatic, rigid and/or extreme in that view.
It is this blogger's opinion that society would be more peaceful and respectful if individuals would take the above to heart and be more skeptical about their certainty in the areas addressed by the social sciences. Humility, which includes self-understanding and awareness, openness, and perspective taking, can be a virtue.
The natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology and medicine, have been colloquially termed the "hard" sciences, as they are perceived as being more scientific, rigid and accurate. The social sciences, such as anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, economics and political science, may use methods resembling those of the natural sciences (quantitative techniques) as tools for understanding society and they may use social critique or symbolic interpretation as well (qualitative techniques). Thus, the social sciences have been colloquially termed the "soft" sciences, as they are perceived as being less scientific, rigid and accurate.
From an analysis of the differences in acceptance of results from these two broad branches of science, a case can be made that there is a greater consensus of expert opinion regarding the issues addressed by the natural sciences as compared to the amount of consensus within the social sciences.
What does the above mean? The less scientifically "hard" the field of study, the greater the chance of a difference of opinion and, thus, the greater the chance that non-evidence based ideology will play a role. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that an individual with an economic or political point of view, for example, would be wise to avoid being too dogmatic, rigid and/or extreme in that view.
It is this blogger's opinion that society would be more peaceful and respectful if individuals would take the above to heart and be more skeptical about their certainty in the areas addressed by the social sciences. Humility, which includes self-understanding and awareness, openness, and perspective taking, can be a virtue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)