"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Monday, October 29, 2007

Speaking of Dramatic Changes

Via Slashdot, Matthew Chapman of the Washington Post makes the modest suggestion that the presidential candidates have a debate on science. A closed book exam as it were.

The Slashdot discussion seems better than their norm these days, maybe because it is about ideas and not about facts. hmmmm... There's some irony there.

1 comment:

RM Reiss said...

David Brooks, the NY Times mind-controller and savant, also offers advice to the candidates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html

Maybe Brooks' piece answers Chapman. And supplies an explanation as to why a majority of Americans resist belief in evolution, the branch of science that most directly affects one's own sense of meaning in the universe. From Brooks' column, we are a happy bunch:

"Researchers from Pew found that 65 percent of Americans are satisfied over all with their own lives — one of the highest rates of personal satisfaction in the world today."

But the next President shouldn't ask us to change any habits:

"...don’t propose any program that will interfere with the way voters are currently organizing their lives. They don’t want you there."