Is there a contradiction Here?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, in evolutionary process, biology and economics are not two separate disciplines. As I have been trying to explain, not too successfuly, Evolution is not a discipline. It is a description. It attempts to describe how things work, not impose how they should. Thought, to an evolutionist, is not separate from biology. It is a result of the evolutionary process. And it to evolves as different people with diverse thoughts comingle and compete. Abstract theories derive from observing concrete interaction. They are, to a great extent hindsight, in nature, with the hope of predicting the future, or controlling it. So far, most theories have, eventually proved to be either wrong or in need of fixing. You would not APPLY evolutionary economics to the banking crisis. You would try mightily not to interfere. Ergo, evolutionary economics would not nationalize the banks. So now we have another 36% encroachment toward Socialism. I'm getting the drift that it's OK with y'all.

By this description I'd assert that pure evolutionary economics has also proven to be wrong or in need of fixing, due to the biological existentialist nature of man. As a result we have laws and regulation without which there would either be no trade or tremendous inequality.

A bigger stake in Citi isn't a 36% encroachment towards socialism, it's a brief cycle of elevated Government activity intended to keep the economy from listing too far. Our Government, regardless of leadership has operated within bounds on a spectrum agreed to by the American people. At times these bounds are tested and if necessary the course corrected.

By your own rationale evolutionary economics is a method to model behavior rather than impose policy. If that's the case why would you proclaim it's logic should be used as a justification for policy to avoid Government interferance?

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

-spence