Saturday, March 31, 2018

Anniversary of Yeshua bin Yusuf dying on a cross.

Today is "Good Friday" for most of established world ruling Christianity. It is indeed the recognition of the single most historically realistically accepted event of the life of this world historical individual, his death on the cross a bit under 2000 years ago. Three of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and John, two of which reportedly observed this as live personal observers (Matthew and John) agree on the final words of this world-historical individual. Those were according to Matthew and Mark (the oldest of the gospels), "Lama lama, Sabacthania," ("My God, why hast thou forsaken me?").  This is , the mother-tongue of Yeshua bin Yusuf, the man who died on a cross just short of 2,000 years ago.

The woosey version of this comes from Luke, not an actual personal observer of this, the single most historically for real event of the life of Yeshua in Yusuf. He claims that when Yeshua died his last words were "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."  But unlike Matthew and John he was not there, so there (and Mark's earliest Gospel) what the eyewitnesses saw is probably what happened.  For better or worse this is one of the most important people who ever lived, and his death is the single event most observed and recorded, and those who were actually there do not have this frankly bs line about forgiving those who made him suffer on the cross. This is the bowdlerized version of what happened that Luke sold to the world based on Paul's revision of what went down, a vision that it is not clear Yeshua bin Yusuf would have accepted.

I have twice visited the generally accepted site of the Crucifixion, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchtre, a very strange place beyond it's containing the most likely location of the most seriously recorded event of the life of the wise Jewish Prophet, Yeshua bin Yusuf.  That just before he "gave up the ghost" as the KJV books of Matthew and Mark and John say, he said in his  mother tongue of Aramaic, "Lama lama, sabachthani," translated into English as "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Well, I appreciate that this is not the standard fare for this blogsite, so I apologize to any and all for my posting this.  But this is how I view what really went down. And as someone who knows about torture personally, well, I have sympathy for this wise person who suffered in a way none of us will.

Barkley Rosser  
   


21 comments:

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Barkley Rosser

The Supreme Being ― which is by logical necessity absolutely indifferent with regard to galaxy, planet, gender, age, race, nation, religion/sect, party, tax bracket ― spoke out of the clouds and handed over these Twelve Economics Commandments:

1. Never cite the Bible or other religious texts in an economic argument.

2. Maintain the strict separation of science and religion under all circumstances.

3. Maintain the strict separation of science and politics under all circumstances.#1

4. Do not dabble in Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Political Science, Philosophy, Theology, Social Philosophy, or any other of the so-called social sciences.

5. Do not believe: prove.

6. Figure out how the actual economic system works and communicate your results in the format of a materially/formally consistent theory.

7. Absolutely refrain from storytelling, metaphors, analogies, narratives, gossip, insinuation, filibuster, sermonizing, propaganda, foretelling, disinformation, and other rhetorical means.

8. Do not apply Methodological Individualism/microfoundations/partial analysis.#2

9. Do not moralize, the subject matter of economics is IS not OUGHT. How the Good Society can be realized has to be determined in the political sphere. See 3.

10. Be, first of all, aware that there is knowledge and opinion, science and non-science, scientific standards/ethics and anything-goes, true and false with nothing in-between. The ethics of science is objectivity, i.e. material and formal consistency. The goal of economics is the true theory.

11. Rest assured that those who violate scientific standards/ethics go to hell and will be tortured in all eternity with the senseless blather of Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and Pluralism.#3

12. Make no mistake: alone scientists will go to heaven. As everyone can easily imagine, the Supreme Being will not share eternity with morons, imbeciles, political agenda pushers, blatherers, trolls, believers, impostors, the bigots of common sense, and failed/fake scientists.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 The strict separation of the scientific realm and the political realm is necessary because politics always and everywhere corrupts science. This point has been made abundantly clear by J. S. Mill: “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.” For details see

Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/12/throw-them-out-orthodox-and-heterodox.html

#2 If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/02/if-it-isnt-macro-axiomatized-it-isnt.html

#3 Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific rubbish
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/07/economics-is-not-science-not-religion.html

Anonymous said...

And what do we have here, a Christian commie ?

Wonders never cease.

Andres said...

What is it about clouds and burning bushes as commandment repositories? I hear my commandments whenever I flush the toilet after doing economics bathroom reading. Here are mine:

1. The Talmud, Bible, Koran and other religious texts were written, for among other reasons, to address economic disagreements. Disagree if you must, but don't disrespect the ideas of your ancestors.

2. While religious believers are irritated when science questions their creation stories, this is nothing compared to how bitchy they get when "positive economics" claiming to be science is used to justify massive economic inequality. God bless them for it.

3. Maintaining the separation of science and politics only results in the scientist becoming the brainwashed slave of the politician.

4. The greatest economists of the past three centuries started out as philosophers, sociologists, businessmen, historians, and politicians who decided to dabble in economics. There is no separation.

5. Proof is for autistic geometry students. When you "prove" a law about economic behavior, individuals will disobey this law if only to show you what they think of your proof.

6. Human beings are irritating creatures. If you make an argument for why they should behave consistently under a given system, they will find some situation to make their behavior inconsistent, if for no other reason than to annoy the economist.

7. Rhetoric and storytelling are the bread and butter of economics, whereas proofs and theorems have practically ruined the profession.

8. Avoid not just methodological individualism, but any other one-directional ontology. Pure structuralism is just as bad. Make your own history, but be aware of others making history around you and adapt to their choices as they adapt to yours.

9. Doing economics while avoiding its political implications is like trying to practice celibacy while still having functioning internal plumbing. There's a reason why celibate priests in ancient religions were often eunuchs; perhaps economists should be likewise.

10. Ah yes, the old Berlin Wall between what is and what should be. As in, "what should be" doesn't determine the "what is" questions you ask and "what is" doesn't influence the "what should be" opinions you take. Or that the questions we ask are not influenced by our beliefs about what should be. Mr. AXEC/E.K-H, tear down this wall.

11. So our choice is either hell in the company of Keynes, Walras, Marx and Menger or heaven with E.K-H? A difficult choice indeed. ;-)

12. Scientists are not the new priesthood. Scientists will get into heaven without conditions only if nuclear weapons, nerve gas, and anthrax among others were created entirely by the morons, political agenda pushers, etc. Remember, the inventors of nuclear weapons, nerve gas, anthrax, etc. were only in the business of asking what is and what is possible, not what should be...




ANC Driver said...

"5. Proof is for autistic geometry students. When you "prove" a law about economic behavior, individuals will disobey this law if only to show you what they think of your proof.
6. Human beings are irritating creatures. If you make an argument for why they should behave consistently under a given system, they will find some situation to make their behavior inconsistent, if for no other reason than to annoy the economist.
7. Rhetoric and storytelling are the bread and butter of economics, whereas proofs and theorems have practically ruined the profession."

I think economics, at least in recent times, has generally got it all backward.

Only those acts which have legal effect (legal relations) account for economic activities. All accounting of assets, liabilities, income and expenses, i.e. stocks and flows, are only accounting those acts which the law recognizes which comes from the laws of property, contract, and taxation. Economic behaviour then is only confined to stocks and flows and the laws which regulate their movement and accumulation. Individuals can choose how much they accumulate, spend etc, but no individual can choose 'not' to treat a stock or flow outside of the laws of property, contract, and taxation. Whilst individuals 'experience' wealth or things differently, the law treats debts or commodities the exact same way irrespective of who is holding it. So there is no need to prove a law about economic behaviour as those laws already exist and are enforced in our courts.

Human behaviour of course does have an effect on society and politics and thus legislation which 'does' effect the laws of property, contract, and taxation and when these laws are passed the effects can increase or decrease inequality etc, but this only proves that the laws of economics are not slaves to human behaviour, it is the other way around. What many economists should be doing (if indeed their primary purpose is aimed at finding a solution to inequality etc) is to first stop calling themselves economists, and second to study the effects of the laws of property, contract, and taxation on relations and the human psyche, both individually and as groups and even nations, because then they can see first what property, contracts and taxation is, and second, how this manifests into all sorts of behaviours which are clearly outside of economics, such as crime, homelessness, poverty, inequality etc which then effects policy, which then effects the laws of property, contract, and taxation.

Instead, we are all going about it the other way around, assuming first of all that property and financial wealth is the be all and end all and the holy grail without first understanding exactly what they are and how they effect humans and relations, and then wondering why we can't find a way to make everyone wealthy!

I totally agree with your #6 point, and this is purely because economists make too many assumptions about what humans are and what they want and need and as a result policies are founded on assumptions.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

For those who decided that I was spouting Christianity, let me note that it is traditional that Christians believe in the Resurrection as well as believing that Yeshua bin Yusuf was the Son of God (and that there is a God). Please note I said nothing about any of those matters, simply the one event that was most publicly observed and recorded, which almost certainly happened. I also note that the name I used, "Yeshua bin Yusuf," was the name he was generally actually called by those who knew him and identifies him as being the son of Yusuf, aka Joseph. So, if anything I have enunciated a non-Christian view.

BTW, indeed I said nothing about economics, although in fact Yeshua bin Yusuf is reported to have made statements related to economics, notably a sympathy for the poor and an opposition to moneylending in the Jewish temple, where he supposedly pushed over the tables of money lenders, an act that may helped motivate those who wanted him dead, which also reportedly happened a few days after that reported action, although note that all this is less certain than the crucifixion itself, the one thing that has been reported by non-Biblical sources, namely Josephus, whatever one thinks of all the traditional Christian theology, about which I have said nothing here.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Regarding "Christian commies," well, the following is from early in the Book of Acts (4:3) just after the crucifixion: "Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, as they had everything in common."

Oh, and Yehsua is also reputed to have said something like: "It is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

He also said nothing about homosexuality or abortion, two obsessions of current US Protestant fundamentalists who also tend to support something like unfettered laissez-faire market capitalism.

I also note, for what it is worth here on western Christianity Easter (nest Sunday for most Orthodox), that like a half century ago when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on April 4, Passover and Easter coincide this year. After all, the reputed Last Supper was a Passover seder, so happy Passover, you all!

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Barkley Rosser

Economics claims since Adam Smith/Karl Marx to be a science. Yet, everybody who has a rough idea of what science is all about and looks closer into the matter comes to the conclusion that economics is a failed science. Economics consists of four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― which are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent.

Economics has until this day produced NOTHING of scientific value. This is the track record: provably false
• profit theory, since 200+ years,
• Walrasian microfoundations (including equilibrium), since 140+ years,
• Keynesian macrofoundations (including I=S/IS-LM), since 80+ years.

Economics needs a Paradigm Shift because the pluralism of false theories is untenable. Heterodoxy is provably false, just as Orthodoxy.#1 Economists do not know until this day how the price- and profit mechanism works. Economic policy guidance has no sound scientific foundation since 200+ years.

Economics is what Feynman called a cargo cult science, economists are failed/fake scientists, the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is a deception of the public.  Economics is one of the worst cases of failure/fraud in the history of modern science.

Gresham’s Law says that bad money crowds good money out of circulation. Something similar holds for economics which has become over the years the venue of incompetent scientists, agenda pushers, cranks, scammers, and useful political idiots.

Two typical exemplars of this species are Barkley Rosser and Andres. Barkley Rosser does until this day not understand the difference between the foundational concepts profit and income, has busily produced peer-reviewed papers but contributed nothing to the advancement of science, and now spreads idiocy/disinformation on economics blogs.#2 His Yusuf post is a case in point. This self-disqualifying post is a good indicator of the vast proportions the accumulated bullshit has grown into in the last 200+ years of “economic sciences”.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/04/the-stupidity-of-heterodoxy-is-life.html

#For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2015/11/failedfake-scientists-cross-references.html

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Andres

You say: “6. Human beings are irritating creatures. If you make an argument for why they should behave consistently under a given system, they will find some situation to make their behavior inconsistent, if for no other reason than to annoy the economist.”

Obviously, you have not realized that economics is a system science and that there are objective systemic laws. It is long known that there is NO such thing as behavioral laws. Exactly for this reason it is sheer madness to build economics on the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization.

The morons of economics do not know what the scientists of all ages knew: “The bifurcation of motion into two fundamentally different types, one for natural motions of non-living objects and another for acts of human volition ... is obviously related to the issue of free will, and demonstrates the strong tendency of scientists in all ages to exempt human behavior from the natural laws of physics, and to regard motions resulting from human actions as original, in the sense that they need not be attributed to other motions.” (Brown)

For details see
Economics is NOT a social science
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/08/economics-is-not-social-science.html

and cross-references NOT a science of behavior
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2015/12/behavior-cross-references.html

and The existence of economic laws and the nonexistence of behavioral laws
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2015/12/the-existence-of-economic-laws-and.html

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Andres said...

The funny thing is that E.K-H and I agree that economics is thus far a mostly failed enterprise as seen by (a) the lack of reality/heroic assumptions of most mainstream analysis, and (b) the lack of a unified heterodox alternative.

But it seems that Egmont's heart's desire is to re-fashion the whole of economics into an axiomatic/deductive structure that would make proud such past luminaries as Euclid, Spinoza, Newton, Von Neumann, and yes, even Samuelson, while also avoiding the trap of microfoundations. Good luck with that.

Social systems change and evolve over time, and so therefore do the "laws" that describe their behavior. To get back to Barkley's original musings, the Roman republic and then empire was not a monolithic, unchanging structure. It evolved over the centuries, in no small part due the spreading image of one hapless dude who was nailed to a cross, which came to symbolize everything that was wrong with the empire as both as state and a social formation.


rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Andres,

The spread of Christianity during the Roman Empire only became important in the later stages of the Rome-based western Roman Empire, especially after 300 CE, with of course its successor, the Byzantine Empire in the east being Christian from its origin until its end in 1453 with the Muslim Ottoman Turkish conquest of Constantinople.

These days I rarely bother replying to Egmont who mostly just repeats himself. I would note, however, although it was not at all part of my original post, which was about the only event in the life of Yeshua bin Yusuf that has been reported on in non-Biblical sources (by Josephus), that even though Egmont does not approve of it, there is a scientific area of study called "the Economics of Religion."

This area indeed studies what various religions have put forth as doctrines regarding economic conduct, and many have, especially Islam, whose founder, the Prophet Muhammed, was a practicing merchant. Islam is known for opposing the use of interest in financial systems. This area of research then studies the degree to which societies have followed through on following these religiously based economic doctrines and how this has worked out. This latter is very much an empirical matter.

As it is, my wife and I have engaged in some of that, with some of our discussions and studies being reported in our textbook, Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy, just out in a third edition from MIT Press, although we have also published journal articles on this topic. We invented an idea that first appeared in the first edition of our textbook back in 1996, the "new traditional economy," which for better or worse has not caught on in a big way, although it gets some attention and traction. The idea is that some current nations are trying to impose religious economic rules and views into their societies while also trying to be "modern" in terms of technology and world trade and so on. While there are others, Muslim countries trying to impose Islamic economic doctrines, such as Iran, have been the most notable of such examples, if not the only ones. A quick bottom line is that they have had trouble doing so in a consistent and thorough manner, without going on at length here.

I would note that the "economics of religion" should be distinguished from "religious economics," the latter not being scientific and amounting to advocating in a normative way the economic doctrines of a particular religion, whether coming from the writings of Islamic economists, or the reported sayings of Confucius or papal encyclicals.

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Andres

It is always a grand spectacle to observe a goldfish brain starting to work and getting into high gear. You just re-discovered behavioral uncertainty: “… we might say that the human factor is the ultimately uncertain and wayward element in social life and in all social institutions.” (Popper, 1960), and change: “Important revolutions have occurred before our time, and since the days of Heraclitus change has been discovered over and over again.” (Popper, 1960)#1

I wonder how long it takes you to discover that the story of “one hapless dude who was nailed to a cross” is fake news since 2000+ years.#2

The true mystery is why the alleged economist Barkley Rosser recycles scientifically long-refuted storytelling on an alleged economics blog. Even goldfishes know by now that the subject matter of economics is the economy and NOTHING else.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 The Synthesis of Economic Law, Evolution, and History
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500696

#2 YouTube, Richard Carrier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WV09Uz9Xoo

Andres said...

Barkley, don't forget that Egmont is often a source of amusement and therefore an asset to these blog comments. So the crucifixion and the social movement that it triggered is fake news, a la Fox News and Facebook Russian trollbots. I nearly snorted my coffee out my nose when I read that. ;-)

If I could disagree on your first point, Christianity was having a perceptible effect on the empire before Constantine converted. A steadily increasing fraction of the population was either converting to Christianity or sympathetic to it despite its steadfast disavowal of the Roman pantheon; that's the only explanation I can see for successive fits of persecution by different emperors (Nero, Severus, Trajan Decius, Diocletian, Galerius) who might have done better to ignore the new movement. I have always seen Constantine's initial conversion (though who knows what he thought by the time he died) as a cynical act of political opportunism, but feel free to prove me wrong.

It is true that religious economics doesn't fully succeed in applying scripture in today's world of modern technology and fluid financial capital. But I still hope that it adapts to the changing world rather than either doubling down or abandoning the battle to secular economists, especially of the libertarian stripe. Incidentally, a pet peeve of mine is the belief that economic thought was immaculately conceived in the 18th century. That belief doesn't bear out a close reading of the various religious texts, not to mention some secular writing in China, India, Arabia, and Greece.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Anders,

You are right that there was a gradually increasing conversions, which triggered the periodic rounds of persecutions. Diocletian carried out the final persecutions around 300, about the time that it became clear the western Roman Empire was on an economic decline, with inflation breaking out seriously. He was the one who initially split the empire, the boundary at what is now Split, Croatia, where his palace is still located.

Constantine did not convert until on his deathbed. He was heavily influenced by his Christian mother, Helen, to not only tolerate Christianity, but to gave it a political favoritism in the empire, both parts of it. However, paganism remained tolerated until late in the 300s when Theodosius imposed Christianity as the state religion after Julian the Apostate attempted to reassert the primacy of paganism. By then the western empire was in serious decline all the way around, with major withdrawals of troops from places like England following the 410 Sack of Rome.

ANC Driver said...

"This area indeed studies what various religions have put forth as doctrines regarding economic conduct, and many have, especially Islam, whose founder, the Prophet Muhammed, was a practicing merchant. Islam is known for opposing the use of interest in financial systems. This area of research then studies the degree to which societies have followed through on following these religiously based economic doctrines and how this has worked out. "

Barkley,
I had an interesting conversation with an Iranian economist a few years ago who I found after doing some research on how Muslims obtain finance for durable's such as houses and cars in western societies, considering that interest is forbidden. As I'm sure you probably already know, at least as far as houses are concerned they operate under a profit-share arrangement with the banks, to which said Iranian economist said is a farce, not because of the concept of profit sharing itself, but because the profit being shared is debt sourced.
So I asked him to explain the concept of usury for me (from a Muslims perspective) and also asked him whether central banks are committing usury (to which he answered yes). We used tomatoes and tomato seeds to describe usury, which went like this:

Two neighbours (h/hold 1&2), each grow and eat tomatoes. Due to a natural disaster of some sort, h/hold 1 loses all his crop, all his seeds and all his tomatoes on hand. He asks his neighbour to assist by lending some tomatoes in order to feed his family, and some seeds in order to produce another crop for next season. The loan of tomatoes for feeding his family is strictly not to be lent at interest and if h/hold 2 was to expect anything in return he would be committing usury. As for the loan of seeds, this must operate under a profit-share arrangement where h/hold 1 agrees to share the fruits of the harvest with the lender, but the lender agrees not to hold anything against h/hold 1 as collateral; i.e. if the crop fails h/hold 2 accepts the loss and walks away - if he doesn't and demands some sort of damages he is committing usury.

cont....

ANC Driver said...

So his point seem to be that usury (other than charging interest for personal loans) is in fact the act of insuring against loss, or put another way, determining an interest rate and profit 'amount' before the event rather than accepting an unknown quantity, and forcing the borrower to pledge something of value in case of loss. By this example, it seems that the whole point of acting under this type of arrangement (profit-share) it is in the interests of the investor to assist and co-operate with the borrower, rather than see the act of lending as purely a numbers and speculative game.

"We invented an idea that first appeared in the first edition of our textbook back in 1996, the "new traditional economy," which for better or worse has not caught on in a big way, although it gets some attention and traction. The idea is that some current nations are trying to impose religious economic rules and views into their societies while also trying to be "modern" in terms of technology and world trade and so on. "

What the conversation with the Iranian economist did for us, and which we've been working on ever since, was to open up the idea that there could exist at least two economic models* operating concurrently, and that if it is tolerated that people have the choice to follow whatever religion they so choose, or not to follow any religion at all, it should also be the case that people also have the choice as to which type of economic model they wish to operate under. The primary question we needed to ask was 'how can two or more economic models operate and co-exist in a way where each model does not 'take from' or 'burden' the other model - how can the models co-exist without co-mingling and stepping on each others toes - is there a way this can be done which benefits the government also?' We see a way where both the capitalist model, which is aimed at financial wealth, and the profit-share model, which is aimed at real wealth, could easily co-exist together within the one community or state, and where by virtue of the one existing the other actually benefits, provided they do not co-mingle resources under management.

Was wondering if you have come across any others who have asked and researched the possibility of this occurring?

* by economic models we mean the legal relations between participants and their respective governments as to what they can and can't do in relation to resources under their control and the potential benefits and burdens thereof; the capitalist model being that the government permits plenty of freedoms and imposes very few limits regarding entrepreneurial pursuits but does not come to the aid of every business that is failing, leaving that to the processes of bankruptcy, i.e. if you want to chase the rewards accept the risks; if we contrast this to say the profit-share economic system we can say the rewards are limited to real wealth (and not financial wealth) and where the risks are limited to natural events

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

ANC Driver,

I suggest you read our book or go look at papers on my website. This is a complicated matter, with their being lots of competing interpretations of what is allowed by Islamic finance, quite aside from how, as you put it, competing systems coexist, which is an ongoing topic of our book and by other comparative economists.

On the matter of Islamic finance, there have been up to 16 different types of financial arrangements called mudarabahs. These vary a lot, with some stricter Islamic economists not accepting some of those arrangements as they seem to "interest-like," with some of those being the sorts more frequently used by Islamic banks precisely because they minimize principal-agent ptoblems that arrive in some of the "more Islamic" profit-sharing types of setups.

Then there is the even deeper challenge put forward by critic Timur Kuran, who argues the "riba," the word usually thought to mean "interest" in the Qur'an, and which is indeed ferociously denounced by the Prophet Muhammed, really means "increase," and originally referred to the practice of creditors doubling the principal of a debt when a debtor falls behind in interest payments. If Kuran is right, then the forbidden practice would be this increasing of principal rather than interest payments as such.

In any case, this gives a bit of an idea of the sorts of debates that are going on, which also sends a warning not to take too seriously an explanation provided by one single Iranian economist. This is a lot more complicated than that.

ANC Driver said...

Thanks Barkley, I shall look into those, however my concern is not as to what is the true or best interpretation as to the meaning, or even intended meaning, of Islamic finance. I am sure as far as the Islamic economist is concerned, his interpretation and thus economic model is one that he would prefer to operate under. The question which would then, or should follow is, does this particular individual then believe he has the right to force his beliefs and economic mode of operation on everyone else?

I am not sure if you have noticed this, but in my years of research and seeing all the 'debates' that are going on as you put it, there is never the question of whether or not different economic models could co-exist, but it is always, what is the best 'one' system which we should force everyone to accept, whether that is globally or as a nation. This always leaves me asking, why is this the limit to everyone's question as to what is the best way to ensure everyone has access to enough resources to live?

But anyway, I do have a question for you. I noticed you used the term 'competing' when referring to my idea of economic models co-existing, a term which I did not use, which leads me to my question. If you were to pick 'any' interpretation of what is allowed by Islamic finance (it doesn't matter which one), or even any other model other than capitalism (again, it doesn't matter which one), and allowed it to co-exist alongside capitalism by the operation of segregating enough resources out of the total pool of resources so that those wanting to operate under the 'other' model could do so, leaving the remaining resources to be competed over by all those wanting to be on the capitalist side, do you think that those on the capitalist side will see the other side as competing against them, and if the answer is yes, what will be their grounds?

If the true motive of capitalists is financial wealth, then any other individual or group which deliberately does not pursue financial wealth should by logic not be in competition with them, unless of course capitalists believe that their system will only ever work properly if it controls every single tangible and intangible resource in the universe. Ironically, our idea of co-existing economic models gets less flack from those of the free-market side and far more from socialists!

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

In China, capitalism and socialism coexist. How do you see that fitting into your perspective?

ANC Driver said...

"In China, capitalism and socialism coexist. How do you see that fitting into your perspective?:

Not sure because I do not know how they are co-existing (which is my fault as I have not studied China in any detail, but having said this I would not know how much of what I am reading is true or not).

I had a conversation with a Barrister once who told me that Australia is completely and utterly socialist because half his salary goes to taxes, which was quite comical to me because this does not stop him from taking the remainder of his income and accumulating financial wealth with it. So this could easily be interpreted to mean that in Australia socialism and capitalism co-exist. But this is not what I mean by co-existence. It was quite obvious this Barrister did not like the fact that half his wages went in taxes and so whatever we want to call this system, it is obvious he is being asked to accept a system against his will. What's more, socialism wants to redistribute the rewards (which are capitalist in nature) that others have taken the risk to accumulate. Maybe socialism is a poor choice of term to use to name one of the models under a co-existence, but I would see a co-existence of models where one is not feeding or relying on the other or visa versa but that they are both self-sustaining on their own, with the obvious exception of the arm of government which all systems have to rely on anyway. But again, I do not know if this is the same as China.

Are you able to elaborate a bit on China? I am quite interested now that you've mentioned it

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Barkley Rosser, Andres, ANC Driver

SURGEON GENERAL'S GAGANOMICS WARNING

The continued production of verbal soap bubbles may result in a hazardous lack of oxygen in the brain and in para-scientific hallucinations which inevitably lead via the Yusuf-Syndrome to total mental breakdown and, in addition, cause incurable cognitive disturbances among unsuspecting economics students and explosive vomiting in the scientific community.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Barkley Rosser said...

Oh, lol, Egmont. The distinctions I have presented here are generally accepted by pretty much all concerned who have paid any serious attention, except for maybe you, who barely studied these matters at all. If anybody is suffering from "incurable cognitive disturbances" and "explosive vomiting" from all this, it is your esteemed self. Sorry that it has such an unpleasant and discombobulating effect on you, but others find it useful and informative. Get better soon, please.

Anders,

I think at this point I am not going to go on further about matters that are thoroughly and deeply discussed in the book cited above. All the best.