Change...Why It's Needed And How It Will Be Achieved

[Guest]

There's a very interesting article in this week's TIME magazine explaining how President Obama is using behavioral economics as opposed to neo-classical economics to achieve the changes that were promised.

As the article states, "Neoclassical economics — a University of Chicago specialty — has ruled our world for decades. It's the doctrine that markets know best: when government keeps its hands off free enterprise, capital migrates to its most productive uses and society prospers. But its elegant models rely on a bold assumption: rational decisions by self-interested individuals create efficient markets. Behavioral economics challenged this assumption, and the financial meltdown has just about shattered it; even former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan confessed his Chicago School worldview has been shaken." Clearly, the economic situation that we find ourselves in today is the result of irrational behavior by lots and lots of people, corporations and even governments.

What the article explains is how the group of behavioral economists within the Obama administration plans to achieve the necessary changes to correct the problems caused by the steadfast allegiance to neo-classical economics over the last several decades. There can be no argument that the economic approach of the last 30-40 years hasn't worked. Maybe this new approach--behavioral economics--will work to achieve the changes so obviously needed.

What is interesting is to understand the differences between the two schools of economists and then observe how decisions being made by the government are following the precepts of the "behavioral" school.

Read the entire article at...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889153-1,00.html

[Guest]

The First Shrink (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05dowd.html)
President Obama won over Europe using a psychological finesse that has been missing from American leadership for a long time.

April 5, 2009

[Guest]

"If neoclassical economics wants government to let us alone to do what we want, behavioral economics leaves room for government action to help us do what we would really want if we were rational agents. Unfortunately, the qualities that have crippled Washington in recent years — inertia, denial, allergy to complexity, preference for short-term gratification over long-term planning — are our own flaws writ large. ....

"The government just needs to provide the right rules, incentives and nudges to help us make the right choices. It would be nice if Obama could change our social norms so that green living and healthy eating and financial responsibility would be new ways of keeping up with the Joneses. But it would be enough if he changed Washington's social norms. ...

"If Obama can help us fly from our bad habits, he'll provide the change we need. ...."

Taken from the referenced article, it appears that the overall goal is to convince us we are incompetent to manage ourselves, and that the Obama administration has as its goal to replace our morality, logic, attitudes, aptitudes, actions and beliefs with whatever Pres. Obama and his cronies think are correct and in our best interests. So, the administration's goal seems to be to replace individual freedoms (to include the freedom to fail) with government-imposed sociological slavery (don't have a better term to describe it!).

Perhaps this administration needs to spend some time reading the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and 42 U.S. Code 1981 - Both of which are still the law of the land. Perhaps we should, too.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiii.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html

[Guest]

"If neoclassical economics wants government to let us alone to do what we want, behavioral economics leaves room for government action to help us do what we would really want if we were rational agents. Unfortunately, the qualities that have crippled Washington in recent years — inertia, denial, allergy to complexity, preference for short-term gratification over long-term planning — are our own flaws writ large. ....

"The government just needs to provide the right rules, incentives and nudges to help us make the right choices. It would be nice if Obama could change our social norms so that green living and healthy eating and financial responsibility would be new ways of keeping up with the Joneses. But it would be enough if he changed Washington's social norms. ...

"If Obama can help us fly from our bad habits, he'll provide the change we need. ...."

Taken from the referenced article, it appears that the overall goal is to convince us we are incompetent to manage ourselves, and that the Obama administration has as its goal to replace our morality, logic, attitudes, aptitudes, actions and beliefs with whatever Pres. Obama and his cronies think are correct and in our best interests. So, the administration's goal seems to be to replace individual freedoms (to include the freedom to fail) with government-imposed sociological slavery (don't have a better term to describe it!).

Perhaps this administration needs to spend some time reading the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and 42 U.S. Code 1981 - Both of which are still the law of the land. Perhaps we should, too.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiii.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html

SORRY.... THE LAST ADMINISTRATION WAS DOING WHAT YOU SPEAK OF ABOVE... TAKING OVER ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, DOING WHAT EVER THE HELL THEY THOUGHT WAS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY...REGUARDLESS OF THE CONSTITUTION... ADDING HUNDREDS OF SIGNING STATEMENTS THAT BASICALLY SAY I KNOW BETTER THAN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WROTE THE LEGISLATION..... AND WE WILL NOT ABIDE BY THOSE EXCEPTIONS... :boxing2:

[Guest]

SORRY.... THE LAST ADMINISTRATION WAS DOING WHAT YOU SPEAK OF ABOVE... TAKING OVER ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, DOING WHAT EVER THE HELL THEY THOUGHT WAS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY...REGUARDLESS OF THE CONSTITUTION... ADDING HUNDREDS OF SIGNING STATEMENTS THAT BASICALLY SAY I KNOW BETTER THAN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WROTE THE LEGISLATION..... AND WE WILL NOT ABIDE BY THOSE EXCEPTIONS... :boxing2:

I can't disagree with the "signing statement" comment. I disliked them as well, and whenever the signing statements were judicially challenged, they evaporated.

As far as "taking over all branches of government," there are only three. The Legislature still operated as always, and the Judiciary was as independent as ever.

However, whatever occurred in previous administrations - and that includes ALL prior to the current one - does not provide justification for government-imposed sociological slavery. I'm not a six-year-old, and the Obama administration is not my parent. I don't need anyone in the current - or past or future - administration to tell me what's in my best interest morally, financially, intellectually or any other "ly." That's just justification by them to rob me of my freedoms and personal assets while THEY violate the laws of the land as they attempt to achieve what's in THEIR interest.

The last time I checked the Constitution, Article 2 did not establish a dictatorship, and yet the current administration, with the concurrence of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, is well on its way to try to create one.

[Guest]

There's a very interesting article in this week's TIME magazine explaining how President Obama is using behavioral economics as opposed to neo-classical economics to achieve the changes that were promised.

As the article states, "Neoclassical economics — a University of Chicago specialty — has ruled our world for decades. It's the doctrine that markets know best: when government keeps its hands off free enterprise, capital migrates to its most productive uses and society prospers. But its elegant models rely on a bold assumption: rational decisions by self-interested individuals create efficient markets. Behavioral economics challenged this assumption, and the financial meltdown has just about shattered it; even former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan confessed his Chicago School worldview has been shaken." Clearly, the economic situation that we find ourselves in today is the result of irrational behavior by lots and lots of people, corporations and even governments.

What the article explains is how the group of behavioral economists within the Obama administration plans to achieve the necessary changes to correct the problems caused by the steadfast allegiance to neo-classical economics over the last several decades. There can be no argument that the economic approach of the last 30-40 years hasn't worked. Maybe this new approach--behavioral economics--will work to achieve the changes so obviously needed.

What is interesting is to understand the differences between the two schools of economists and then observe how decisions being made by the government are following the precepts of the "behavioral" school.

Read the entire article at...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889153-1,00.html


I know you think I am nuts, but I read this before and as far as I am concerned it is simply an up to dated Saul Alinsky tactic......

How any american could be happy knowing that there are behavorial folks out there advising the President of The United States how to get the populace to do his bidding is well beyond me as they did in the "get out the vote" campaign. Instead of honest debate, who has the best mind control ????

[Guest]

President Obama won over Europe using a psychological finesse that has been missing from American leadership for a long time.

The reason why he won over Europe is because they know the US government is now run by apologetic pushovers. What competitor / adversary wouldn't be happy with that.

He said he saw a world without nuclear weapons and the USA would take the lead. Wonder how many radical Islamic countries got a laugh out of that one.

Or this one.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obamabow.jpg

There can be no argument that the economic approach of the last 30-40 years hasn't worked.

Do you mean Capitalism?

Not sure what country you live in but I think it's worked pretty well and so does every tom dick and harry that tries to sneak into our country for a better life. Our standard of living is so far above other countries is not even funny.

If you mean the liberal tax and spend, punish the successful and reward failure approach then I would agree.

The only approach that needs changing is the governments fingers approaching our wallets and everything else we own.

[Guest]

To say our system has not worked for the past 30 or 40 years is not true. We have had the most prosperous economy, the highest standard of living, the best life style ever achieved by any generation. More people have attained an ability to retire with substantial income, we are living longer then ever, and we have the best health care (agree it has faults) but still the best in the world. Not sure where you were in the past 30 or 40 years VK, but I grew up very poor on a rural farm, made it through college and the Air Force, and have achieved far more than I ever dreamed possible. Our major problems have only been in the last year with the housing bust which caused the market bust, and was caused by our government meddling in the system. Forcing banks to give loans to people who could never pay them back. So to have you say our system has not worked for 30 or 40 years I reject. We have had the best standard of living in the world. You must have been living on another planet.

[Guest]

...behavioral economics leaves room for government action to help us do what we would really want if we were rational agents. Unfortunately, the qualities that have crippled Washington in recent years — inertia, denial, allergy to complexity, preference for short-term gratification over long-term planning — are our own flaws writ large...

...the administration's goal seems to be to replace individual freedoms (to include the freedom to fail) with government-imposed sociological slavery...


Steve, you got that right. The members of Congress, as well as our business leadership and the public in general seem to have adopted the qualities you describe...(lack of) inertia, denial, allergy to complexity, and preference for short-term gratification, irrational and self-serving behavior to a very high degree. Those seem to be cultural failures, but they sure have had a negative effect when applied to our economy.

So nothwithstanding the simple, clear words of the Constitution, whatever has gotten us to where we are now over the last 30-40 years obviously needs to be changed. Plain old economics (or the "neo-classical" economics described in the article) sure isn't working. If the President's application of "behavioral economics" can get the country thinking straight again, I'm all for it.

And Bucco, I laughed when I saw your interpretation of the subject matter. I knew when I posted the article that somehow you would twist it into another Saul Alinsky theory. Wow! If that's the case, there must be a whole lot more senior members of the administration and the Congress that studied under the wing of Mr. Alinsky. Let's see, he died over 35 years ago--a whole lot of members of Congress would remember fraternity parties a whole lot more than the teachings of Saul Alinsky. But like I said to Steve, if Alinsky's tactics can be used to re-align the cultural mores of the country, I'm all for them.

Clearly something needs to be done, and unless someone can present a better solution to our current problems than doing nothing while holing up with a copy of the Constitution, I'll go along with whatever program might create some needed change.

[Guest]

To say our system has not worked for the past 30 or 40 years is not true....Our major problems have only been in the last year with the housing bust which caused the market bust...

I don't totally disagree I2. Much of the last 30-40 years will be remembered as some pretty good times, times of some pretty significant accomplishment. But it sure seems that the work ethic and moralities of the post-war era and the gray flannel suit generation were slowly replaced by a side towards selfishness, greed, and an erosion of personal morality.

The problem that finally popped within the last year or two wasn't just the result of prior Congresses irrationally pushing for more "affordable housing". Looking at even that problem a little more deeply, what they did was a blatant and self-serving attempt to placate the lower classes so they would re-elect those same members who created the laws you refer to.

The cause of our current situation isn't a few laws which were enacted by Congresses past. Rather, it is the slow and insidious erosion of our cultural mores. That's happened over time and is reflected in everything from the emergence of a drug culture to a President having sex in the oval office to many, many Congressmen "on the take" to Wall Streeters who designed financial products that they knew bore huge amounts of risk, and finally to the public who was perfectly happy to borrow money on a basis that even a high-schooler could see made no sense. It was a simple, long slide into a pretty dark moral place.

The bubble popped a year or so ago. But the cause has been festering for a lot longer. No one President or one administration is going to solve it. It'll take a lot longer than that. I hope as a people that we can get back to what we do remember as some really good times. It seems to me that to accomplish that is going to take a lot of self-examination by all Americans, probably quite a lot of lifestyle-changing, and a whole lot less of the laissez les bons temps rouler! attitude.

[Guest]

I don't totally disagree I2. Much of the last 30-40 years will be remembered as some pretty good times, times of some pretty significant accomplishment. But it sure seems that the work ethic and moralities of the post-war era and the gray flannel suit generation were slowly replaced by a side towards selfishness, greed, and an erosion of personal morality.

The problem that finally popped within the last year or two wasn't just the result of prior Congresses irrationally pushing for more "affordable housing". Looking at even that problem a little more deeply, what they did was a blatant and self-serving attempt to placate the lower classes so they would re-elect those same members who created the laws you refer to.

The cause of our current situation isn't a few laws which were enacted by Congresses past. Rather, it is the slow and insidious erosion of our cultural mores. That's happened over time and is reflected in everything from the emergence of a drug culture to a President having sex in the oval office to many, many Congressmen "on the take" to the public who was perfectly happy to borrow money on a basis that even a high-schooler could see made no sense. It was a simple, long slide into a pretty dark moral place.

The bubble popped a year or so ago. But the cause has been festering for a lot longer. No one President or one administration is going to solve it. It'll take a lot longer than that. I hope as a people that we can get back to what we do remember as some really good times. It seems to me that to accomplish that is going to take a lot of self-examination by all Americans, probably quite a lot of lifestyle-changing, and a whole lot less of the laissez les bons temps rouler! attitude.

I think L2 hit the nail on the head. Additionally, I agree that the mores of the nation have hit sewer-level.

However, from an economic standpoint, there have always been congresspersons on the take, other politicians have sweetheart-dealt all sorts of things, and the economy still grew and grew.

Socio-engineering via economic regulation is simply socialism with a prettier cover - and it has failed everywhere! The remaining socialistic governments rely heavily on either subsidies or blind-eye capitalism (Cuba, China, Vietnam and North Korea epitomize this).

So, to say that the current regime should have the power to socio-engineer away freedoms, negate contracts without judicial action and tell us "what's good for us" is what they say it is - that's utterly ridiculous to me. Get them all out of the way, take the wealth-redistribution straphangers out of the game, and actually LIVE what is written in 42 USC 1981, and this nation will go economically and socially stratospheric in a good way.

Continue policies which rob the few Peters left with money to pay all those Pauls with an entitlement mentality and all we will have in the end is a nation which will be another Iceland - taxed to oblivion, high alcoholism, and broke!

[Guest]

Love the picture you posted, DK, this obviously shows who is the loyal subordinate here. He didn't bow to the Queen of England, only a head nod... oh, but she's a woman. We all know what Muslums think of women and their place in society. Can't change the spots on a leopard! Loved how he said today that he would NEVER wage war with Muslums... scary!

[Guest]

So O wants to get rid of our Nuclear deterrence?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123905870471194735.html :shrug:

[Guest]

Steve, you got that right. The members of Congress, as well as our business leadership and the public in general seem to have adopted the qualities you describe...(lack of) inertia, denial, allergy to complexity, and preference for short-term gratification, irrational and self-serving behavior to a very high degree. Those seem to be cultural failures, but they sure have had a negative effect when applied to our economy.

So nothwithstanding the simple, clear words of the Constitution, whatever has gotten us to where we are now over the last 30-40 years obviously needs to be changed. Plain old economics (or the "neo-classical" economics described in the article) sure isn't working. If the President's application of "behavioral economics" can get the country thinking straight again, I'm all for it.

And Bucco, I laughed when I saw your interpretation of the subject matter. I knew when I posted the article that somehow you would twist it into another Saul Alinsky theory. Wow! If that's the case, there must be a whole lot more senior members of the administration and the Congress that studied under the wing of Mr. Alinsky. Let's see, he died over 35 years ago--a whole lot of members of Congress would remember fraternity parties a whole lot more than the teachings of Saul Alinsky. But like I said to Steve, if Alinsky's tactics can be used to re-align the cultural mores of the country, I'm all for them.

Clearly something needs to be done, and unless someone can present a better solution to our current problems than doing nothing while holing up with a copy of the Constitution, I'll go along with whatever program might create some needed change.

Glad I made you laugh anyway VK, and remember I prefaced my post with "I know you think I am nuts,.." so at least I figured that you would see it that way :)

I suppose I am suffering still from reading so much about President Obama, his background, his friends, his thinking, his idealogy and how he has been able to manipulate people and groupsfor years.

I still have yet to see any evidence to refute my thinking about him. He still makes a chaotic problem...advises us how bad it is, and then rides in with a solution that simply grows the government (and I said that BEFORE the current financial crisis)!!! This is not to say he creates them, simply makes good use of every crisis !!!

Sorry VK...I have promised over and over again that I will come on here and publicly admit my error but have yet to see any thing different that what I predicted before he even was a candidate !!!