4 ms·
Non-hierarchical (or rather non-explicit) models are even more open to corruption.
by rmah 10y ago
Non-hierarchical (or rather non-explicit) models are even more open to corruption.
- mandelbrotwurst 10y agoWould you mind elaborating on that?
- afarrell 10y agoIt is partially a reference to http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoNot necessarily. Conventional economic theories fail to make a useful practical distinction between value creation and resource/wealth enclosure and monopolisation. (This is deliberate - you need to know about Henry George to understand why.) An updated scientific economics would highlight that distinction instead of attempting to obfuscate it. I suspect it's harder to be corrupt if you're generating real social value, and relatively easy to be corrupt when you're simply appropriating value tokens.
- tomcam 10y agoNot following. Can you reduce it to chimp level for slowpokes like me?
- cinquemb 10y agoI think this is what they were referring to[0] in part: "Mason Gaffney, an American economist and a major Georgist critic of neoclassical economics, argued that neoclassical economics was designed and promoted by landowners and their hired economists to divert attention from George's extremely popular philosophy that since land and resources are provided by nature, and their value is given by society, land value – rather than labor or capital – should provide the tax base to fund government and its expenditures.[90]" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Socialization_of_land_and_natural_resource_rents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Socialization_of_...
- tomcam 10y agoHad no idea. Thanks
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]