European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

... is the far left edge of permitted economic thinking in the USA.

Permitted, or allowed to be published in the corporate controlled media? Or is that what you're saying?

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 09:48:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not just the corporate controlled media - he is considered the final word on the "progressive" blogs.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:01:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And Krugman even (rightly) complains that he's locked out of the policy debate for being too radical (ahem).

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:02:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What did he do now?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:00:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/growth-and-jobs/

GDP growth and employment growth are tied together in the most stupid way.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:04:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't call

the scatterplot of annual growth versus annual changes in the unemployment rate over the past 60 years

"the most stupid way". At least he's using empirical data.

He's implicitly arguing for a larger stimulus.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:19:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Finance has gone from 3% to 7% of US GDP. Obviously, growing GDP is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to improve employment. Health costs are considered part of GDP - reducing US expenditures on insurance company overhead would reduce GDP, but make it cheaper to employ people .. and so on. GDP is really a measure that makes sense only to people who confuse finance with economy.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I give you all this.

However, even the popular press, leaving aside Krugman's own writing, frequently refers to the distinction between "finance" 's roaring actiitites and what is called "the real economy", that is, where actual tangible goods get manufactured, distributed and sold---as I think they're right to do.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:31:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Correlation is not causation but all Krugman is doing is arguing in various ways that you need a larger fiscal stimulus as a fraction of GDP to get US economy out of the hole.

He's also pointing out that 3.5% GDP growth may technically get you out of the conventionally-defined "recession" but unemployment is still way too high. In a later post he argues that you'd need about a decade at 3.5% GDP growth to get back to "full employment" and that the Fed would (by virtue of another of those "most stupid" linear regressions) have to keep interest rates at zero for 6 years.

So you agree with Krugman that "GDP is growing, big fucking deal". You're just annoyed at the arguments he uses.

But he needs to consider his audience, too. It's only a NYT blog. Have you seen the kinds of things he labels with a "(wonkish)" warning?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:31:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Krugman makes me mad (4.00 / 3)

I think GDP growing is a false issue. The question is not whether the GDP grows but where investment goes and who controls it - how GDP is constituted. It seems obvious to me that a $Xbillion contribution to GDP from wind power will have a very different impact than $Xbillion from a mix of military spending and finance - both on the economy and on the balance of power in the country.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree whole-heartedly. And if Krugman would dispute any of that, I am very much mistaken. You make a very valid and important point. But, to be fair, while it's more than a shame and a disgrace that "mainstream economics" is woefully (sandalously, even) late in giving this point its well-deserved due, there are economists who have made the very objection you raise. Unfortunately, in MBA schools, as I've read them described, those economists might as well never have lived, worked or published.

The "West" is the "dominant" social order, not the worthy or respectable one.

Now what do we do?

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:53:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Krugman makes me mad (4.00 / 3)

rootless2:

I think GDP growing is a false issue.

BUt you will have noticed all the serious people busily looking for green shoots so they can stop fretting about the economy. GDP growth allows them to claim there's nothing to see here and move along.

This has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with politics. Like economics.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:59:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Employment in manufacturing fell by 51,000 in September. Over the past 3
months, job losses have averaged 53,000 per month, compared with an average
monthly loss of 161,000 from October to June. Employment in manufacturing
has contracted by 2.1 million since the onset of the recession.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

That's in the US. And it comes after this
The manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy has experienced substantial job losses since 2000. During the recession of 2001 and its immediate aftermath, employment in the manufacturing sector fell by about 2.9 million jobs, or 17 percent. Even after overall employment began to improve in 2004, the decline in manufacturing employment persisted. By the end of 2007, with the slowing of economic growth, employment in the sector had edged down further, by half a million jobs. And, as of November 2008, employment in manufacturing had fallen yet again, by slightly more than 600,000 jobs.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=194

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:24:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but GDP growth and stock market indices are the indicators serious people look at.

Unemployment statistics are for pinkos.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:43:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

rootless2:

The question is not whether the GDP grows but where investment goes and who controls it - how GDP is constituted.

I believe Krugman had a couple of blog posts in which he looked at the "multiplier" impact of various forms of stimulus spending.

It is clear that the composition of the GDP matters, he's not denying that.

But at this point in the US (and European) political debate, after too little stimulus spent on the wrong things governments are already fretting over government deficits and tightening fiscal policy while still in the middle of the recession.

So public debate is at a much more basic level than where you want to take it. Krugman has his job cut for him just trying to argue that just because GDP is up doesn't mean the recession is over, let alone trying to argue GDP composition.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, that's a point - Roubini just joined into the chorus of complaint about easy money.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:20:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

easy money IS a problem (4.00 / 3)

it could have been tolerated had it been used for smart things (ie investment in public infrastructure) instead of being blown on bailing out the rich, but it is a problem. Has been, was at the root of the crisis, and cannot be the solution.

But now, not only we've blown our best chance at stimulus by debt, we've blown all chances of actually changing the system. Debt is only propping up everything that'w wrong in the system, while doing very little for the rest of us.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 12:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When should the Fed raise rates? (even more wonkish)

Have some Krugman:

... In other words, even with a really strong recovery (which almost nobody expects), the Fed should keep rates on hold for at least two years.
Bear in mind that I'm using entirely standard, conventional analysis here. It's the people saying that the Fed should start tightening in the near future who are inventing some kind of new, unspecified framework to justify their views.

So, Jérôme, what is your new unspecified framework?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is how the money is spent. Given how it's mostly wasted, it's a devil if you do / devil if you don't situation anyway.

We'll have a bigger crisis down the road, and I'm not even sure which route will bring it faster, and whether fast or slow is better in the end.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An inflationary bias is the price we pay for avoiding deep depressions, sez Minsky.

But if we botch it we may have both depression and inflation at the same time, I guess.

Fasten your seatbelt.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We could have a US$ collapse and continuing, if not accelerating asset deflation. In what order I have no sense, but that is MY fear. We could possibly mitigate against this by 90% taxation of financial sector compensation above, say $1 million/year, as that is, to me, the most obvious path for newly created TARP and other US$s to leak out into the general economy. The Fed's brilliant plan to sop up excess liquidity, exercising the options to force the banks to re-purchase the assets it swapped for new money, will likely still be a detonator for most institutions with which it is exercised. If I am wrong, I would like to know why.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: easy money IS a problem (4.00 / 3)

You're not wrong.

But what if the vampire squid decides to move itself offshore to - say - China, leaving the US a stinking used-up husk?

Will the vampire squid care?

I suspect not. Admittedly Chinese pols seem a little sharper and more realistic than US pols. But at the same time, an understanding is always possible.

This isn't solely a US problem - it's a global one. It needs a global solution. Tinkering with a national economy, even a big one, isn't going to fix it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 06:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is how the money is spent.

That's the key.

And it's not going to change as long as Neo-Classical Economics is the accepted Epistemological/Praxis system. The money will be spent according to that framework.

Acknowledgment of the failure of NCE is slowly spreading among intellectuals. The feeling "this isn't working, we've got to do something different" is rapidly spreading in the general populace. The problem is the lack of a solid alternative to NCE.

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ATinNM:

The problem is the lack of a solid alternative to NCE.

The problem is that any alternative is likely to be neutered and grafted onto the decaying corpse of NCE. This is what the "neoclassical synthesis" did to Keynes.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:41:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Intellectually, NCE is a mess. It's based on counter-factual axioms, dubious math-to-reality mapping, and uninformed of any findings of just about any discipline one cares to name made in the last 40 years. It doesn't even hold itself. They've never been able to hook their macro-economic theory led policy prescriptions to micro-economic activity. And over time it's clear their macro-economic theory led policy prescriptions have brought us to the brink of economic catastrophe.

Based on this, I would counter-claim any alternative capable of being grafted back to NCE isn't solid.

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 02:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: easy money IS a problem (none / 1)

Seems that monetary, fiscal and economic policy must all be considered together to get us out of this mess. It matters what we spend, to what ends we spend and what tax and other revenue policies we put in place to assure that the deficit spending can be repaid. Meanwhile, as James K. Gailbraith noted on Bill Moyer's October 30th Journal, official policy seems to be to attempt to recreate the status quo ante 2007. Absent some technology such as "Orbital Mind Control Lasers" this will fail, as confidence has been broken beyond the ability of pretense to repair.

Too many people who count see the current policy as one of creating money that is an obligation on future taxes and giving it to the crooks who got us here without any meaningful restrictions. Even, or perhaps especially, the beneficiaries of this "policy" are too smart to want to hold any of the debt long term. Much further down this path and the US Govt. is in a debt trap from which the only exits are clawbacks or debt repudiation.

It is as though we have been robbed at gunpoint and not just suffered the loss of our cash and goods, but forced to obligate all of our future earnings to the benefit of the thieves and then finding these obligations upheld by the courts of the land. The current financial "policy" is the fruit of the capture of the US Government by the US financial sector. The process is just sufficiently subtle and confusing as to be incomprehensible to a great number of people, and, as it involves economics and finance, most don't even want to attempt to understand.

An angry and confused public is easily manipulated, so we should now expect to see demagoguery instead of leadership in the political arena. It could get very ugly very quickly. Just this afternoon I heard someone on a Christian station describing chaos in the future and emphasizing how it was the obligation of believers to insure that events during this pivotal time went "according to God's Plan. That is sure to help.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 08:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have we blown our best chance? To me the capture of the governments by Finance by 2007 was so profound that any change of regime is going to require a long series of small steps away. That is to say, I don't disagree that we've wasted most of the money, but politically, I don't see that there was much alternative.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I suspect Jérôme agrees that governments have run as big a deficit as we could afford so we should start fiscal tightening.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why don't you tell us where (and by whose work) "the far left edge of permitted economic thinking in the USA" ought to be located?

Amartya Sen? Joseph Stiglitz? E. F. Schumacher? farther still? E.P. Thompson?

Who and where is it to be best found?

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:01:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

All those folks have more interesting things to say than Krugman - although I've never thought of Thompson as an economist. Even people like Dean Baker and Robert Kuttner seem over the edge - and Stiglitz is only used to make very simplistic points.

But I also think there is a paucity of good modern left wing economics thinking - or if not, I don't know where to find it. Schumacher, for example, is more than a little dated.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

E.P. Thompson wasn't an economist by formal training.

Edward Palmer Thompson (February 3, 1924, Oxford - August 28, 1993, Worcester), was an English historian, writer, socialist and peace campaigner. He is probably best known today for his historical work on the British radical movements in the late-18th and early-19th centuries, in particular his sociological work The Making of the English Working Class (1963).

but his thought and work all depended on Left-wing economic and political analysis. Hence....

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

E.P. Thompson wasn't an economist by formal training.

Neither was Keynes.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why is Schumacher dated?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:24:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dated is perhaps the wrong term. What I wanted to indicate was that there didn't seem to be anyone building on that framework currently.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:15:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There are some people in Ecological Economics who go in that general direction. I should have the opportunity to listen to a lecture and take part in a workshop with Prof. D.W. Bromley sometime next week.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 12:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm reading Minsky's Stabilizing an Unstable Economy (1986). I think it's really good and not for the reasons he's being hyped lately.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I gather that you're an economist with advanced education--thus, an expert in a field where, of course, though it's lamentable in my opinion, has a bewildering and unjustifiable diversity of professional opinion. [On that score, I posted a link to an article I thought was excellent which ran on the opinion pages of the Financial Times by Paul de Grauwe, "Economics in Crisis: It's Time for a Profound Revamp"
here it is referenced at his own website's pages:
http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/ew/academic/intecon/Degrauwe/PDG-papers/FT_articles/FT%202009%2007.htm ]

There's also interesting thinking coming from Jacques Généreux, of the IESP, (Paris "Sciences Po").

But, to go on, I get the impression that you're something of a Marxist (in the best economic sense of that). Is that the case?

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:27:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not an economist or a marxist or a capitalist.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:34:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great! I'm glad we got that part straightened out.

I'm also very ready to recognize that brilliant people can critique the likes of Krugman without need for an advanced degree in economics. As Migeru pointed out, Keynes became a brilliant economist with no more than a single course under his belt. But, then, he was a rare genius. And now that I know you're not an avowed Marxist, I don't mind telling you that in my opinion, Marx wasn't a similarly rare genius. Keynes (not to mention Russell) considered him muddle-headed and I happen to agree with that veiw.

So, ain't there anyone for you other than "Anybody but Krugman" ?

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:40:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, as I said, people from Sen to Dean Baker strike me as more informative. To me, economics is a means, not a goal.

by rootless2 (redacted) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:47:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

" To me, economics is a means, not a goal."

You're a classical liberal in the best and truest sense, then; your views reflect the genius that was Bentham's (and others). I still don't see why the fellow whose major text had as its sub-title, "Economics as though people mattered" (that is, Small Is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher, is so "dated". Conventional economics, still dazzled by Adam Smith's Mickey Mouse theories, haven't even caught up with (the flawed but brilliant) work of Bentham.

I wish you were in charge of the MBA curricula at every prestigious U.S. college and university which grants that degree.

Ir really recommend for you the book I'm currently reading,

La nouvelle raison du monde : Essai sur la société néolibérale (pb)

It echos much of the way you veiw things and offers a very good historical account of the thinkers who blazed this trail.

It is truly brilliant--my personal view. However, that view isn't universally shared; at Amazon's website, there's a critical review by one reader who insists that, if you're having trouble getting to sleep, this book is the sure-fire cure for you. For my part, I've had no trouble reading it in bed until 2 and 3 a.m. without noticing the time passing. But that's just me, huh?

Link:

http://www.amazon.fr/nouvelle-raison-monde-soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9-n%C3%A9olib%C3%A9rale/dp/2707156825/ref =sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257177558&sr=8-1

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Could I suggest checking out Steve Keen's DebtWatch?
Steve is a self described Post-Keynesian and a student of Minsky who is doing good work to develop economic models that are dynamic in nature. These have the potential to obviate the entire obnoxious body of Neo-Classical Economics by rendering their beloved "equilibrium analysis" obviously obsolete.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:45:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Keynes became a brilliant economist with no more than a single course under his belt.

Um, and a PhD in mathematics...

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:00:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, yeah, that. Well, he was all goofy for finding the Holy Grail in probability theory. As it turned out, that honor went (or goes, depending on one's place in the story) to Benoit Mandelbrot for having recognized what maybe should have been appreciated sooner by clever people:

In probability, there are "dice" and other similarly fixed-outcome random events and, on the other hand, "reality", nature's events, which have absolutely nothing to do with predictable random occurences such as can be observed in the roll of dice. Thus, the risk-analysis of the high-powered investment finance world is just so much Hocus-Pocus bullshit. But, if one ignores that aspect, one can pull down bonuses in the multi-millions of dollars with only a knowledge of financial mathematics available in books such as The Concepts and Practice of Mathematical Finance (Mathematics, Finance and Risk) (Hardcover)
by Mark S. Joshi. http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Practice-Mathematical-Finance-Mathematics/dp/0521514088/ref=sr_1_4?ie =UTF8&s=books&qid=1257178411&sr=1-4 ]

I'm neither that talented in math nor that unscrupulous. Though, perhaps if I were that talented in math, I'd then have to face the temptation to be that unscrupulous. As it is, it's not an issue.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why are you attributing this to Mandelbrot?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:45:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because, (so I thought) until he came along, people thought probability was a phenomenon which resembled the behavior of n total possible event outcomes, divided by the number of desirable outcomes considered---and that, in nature, for example, this same reasoning can be properly applied to the frequency of naturally-occurring "thangs," but there, (as with economic markets, unless Jim Simons has done better than cracking the "Da Vinci Code" and found the way to reliably predict market behavior---and maybe he has: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/medallion_fund_hits_jackpot_ILxBLAQd0fc9ZK4AFWSqlM) there, the same things don't apply at all. (for an example from everyday life, take airline crash probabilities---do the recorded rates of accidents tell us anything of use in predicting present or future probability of accidents? It seems to me that they don't; and that's because one cannot apply the same reasonig to the liklihood of outcomes that one would use in calculating the probability of rolls of dice.

If someone made these points before his work, I'm ignorant of them. And, in that case, my apologies and shame on me. Mandelbrot refers to others, yes, Gauss, Euler, and others, more than I can now recall.

Who's your candidate for this distinction?

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:58:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The philosophy of probability theory was not so simple before he came around, nor did the fact that he came around change it.

But he attributes these things to himself, I suppose, and you read him and his fans (such as Taleb, who has a profitable mutual fandom relation with Mandelbrot)...

Have you heard of the interpretations of probability by Von Mises, de Finetti or Jeffreys, just to name a few nonstandard (nonfrequentist) ones?

Also, note that the axiomatics of probability theory (of which there are at least three standard ones and at least one non-standard one that I'm aware of, all of them equivalent to each other in the theorems they enable) are agnostic on matters of philosophical interpretation.

I've already said I might write a diary on Quantum ontology. Don't tell me I also have to write a review of the interpretation of probability theory.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've already said I might write a diary on Quantum ontology. Don't tell me I also have to write a review of the interpretation of probability theory.

A diary on the interpretation of probability theory would be nice.

Then a diary on the different Set Theories, fully explaining each one, how they differ, why ZF Set Theory was chosen, the problems with ZF Set Theory, the influence of Bourbaki on Set Theory, and a final paragraph on the potential of Category Theory to replace Set Theory as the Foundation of Mathematics.

In your spare time a solid, broadly applicable and valid definition of Number would be nice.

:-)

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ATinNM:

Then a diary on the different Set Theories, fully explaining each one, how they differ, why ZF Set Theory was chosen, the problems with ZF Set Theory, the influence of Bourbaki on Set Theory, and a final paragraph on the potential of Category Theory to replace Set Theory as the Foundation of Mathematics.

You could start with Eric Schechter's Handbook of Analysis and its foundations.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:24:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the reference.

Seriously.

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is an excellent book.

Seriously.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mandelbrot's contribution.... (none / 0)

"Have you heard of the interpretations of probability by Von Mises, de Finetti or Jeffreys, just to name a few nonstandard (nonfrequentist) ones?"

No. I've never heard of de Finetti or Jeffreys at all.

"Don't tell me I also have to write a review of the interpretation of probability theory."

I would never tell you to do that! But since you mentioned it....

"But he attributes these things to himself, I suppose, and you read him and his fans (such as Taleb, who has a profitable mutual fandom relation with Mandelbrot)..."

That's about it, yes. I have a very hard time imagining that Mandelbrot, whose writings as far as I've read them (popular writings, not technical work) aren't sparing in giving credit to others' work, would have failed to mention any debt he owed to others in this regard. I don't for a moment doubt that others have made contributions on which he based his work. I won't say categorically that he attributes to himself as an original idea that between the realms of probability which concern finite outcomes of randomly-occurring events on one hand and, on the other hand, the predictive possibilities in the probability of natural dynamic processes, things such as weather, crowd behavior, there is a stark division, and that what applies in the former does not apply in the latter, but, that is the impression I got from reading him. [Nor do I claim that this is a clear or very accurate summary description of the main point, or that I'm capable of providing that. However, I gathered that his whole career, as he relates it, was the gradual discovery of such a stark difference in character between a probability theory which applied to the world of numbers and a wild, so far unpredictable character of other natural physical phenomena---and how, moreover, that awareness was stubbornly refused, rejected and discounted in mainstream academic work. That's the impression I got. It might be mistaken. Nothing I've read in Mandelbrot leads me to suspect that he'd take undeserved credit for others' work.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 03:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have a very hard time imagining that Mandelbrot, whose writings as far as I've read them (popular writings, not technical work) aren't sparing in giving credit to others' work, would have failed to mention any debt he owed to others in this regard.

He's very selective in giving credit, just like everyone else.

He's also not omniscient so he doesn't have to be aware of everything that went before.

Nothing I've read in Mandelbrot leads me to suspect that he'd take undeserved credit for others' work.

But he'll exaggerate the importance of his own work, just like everyone else.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:07:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mandelbrot's contribution.... (none / 1)

You'll excuse me for saying this, but if you've never heard of a Jeffreys' Prior you should refrain from pontificating about the interpretation of probability theory.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"You'll excuse me for saying this, but if you've never heard of a Jeffreys' Prior you should refrain from pontificating about the interpretation of probability theory."

You mean more than that, of course. Your point is more that, until and unless I have a useful understanding of this, "Jeffrey's Prior", I should refrain from pontificating about the interpretation of probability theory, right?

Should I, by the same token, also understand you to mean that I should drop any suggestion that Mandelbrot probably would have given whatever credit is due to Jeffreys in favor of the view that he didn't give that credit? I don't mind at all if that's so. I'm not here to cheat Jeffreys out of his due and I'm no more a particular partisan of Mandelbrot than any other laborer in his field (provided that I'm aware of him or her); nor am I trying to pretend that I have any expert's knowledge of the details of the underlying math.

If I know about Mandelbrot at all, it's only because I read a popular book by him. I wasn't aware of Jeffreys because I'm not a specialist and have never come across any popularization of his work by himself or anyone else. You're very right to gather from that that there is a world of knowledge involved with which I have no acquaintance at all. But, I missed where I claimed to have that; and, while you're scolding me on it, why not point to a popular work that's within my grasp if there is one. And, if you know of none, you could have said,

"Unfortunately, there's no popular work I know of which sets out Jeffreys contributions and thus you'd only know of them via someone else's work."

Next time I have it handy, I'll check the index of the books I have by Mandelbrot for a reference to Jeffrey.

And, yeah, I'll excuse you for saying that. But only if you'll also excuse me for pontificating. Okay? We're in something of your field here. I'm commenting as an interested but non-expert observer. You should understand that that is the case in all of my comments.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:55:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you could have said,
"Unfortunately, there's no popular work I know of which sets out Jeffreys contributions and thus you'd only know of them via someone else's work."

No, actually, I might have referred you to Jeffrey's own book, Theory of Probability. Given that you implied that you've been able to read Keynes' General Theory I can't see why you couldn't read Jeffreys and would need a popularization.

And I'm not saying that Mandelbrot owes anything specifically to Jeffreys or to anyone else, but you did paraphrase Mandelbrot's view that before he came along all there was was naïve frequentism. Which is why I said

The philosophy of probability theory was not so simple before he came around, nor did the fact that he came around change it.

and illustrated the multiplicity of interpretations by a bit of name-dropping (bad form, I admit)

Have you heard of the interpretations of probability by Von Mises, de Finetti or Jeffreys, just to name a few nonstandard (nonfrequentist) ones?

But seriously, Jeffreys is taken to be the originator of modern Bayesianism, and any overview of the philosophy of probability that doesn't include Bayesianism (such aks your paraphrase of Mandelbrot) has to be flawed.

only if you'll also excuse me for pontificating. Okay? We're in something of your field here. I'm commenting as an interested but non-expert observer.

You don't seem to see a difference between interested non-expert commentary and pontification, or else I mistook your non-expert commentary as pontification. There is quite a bit more wrong with this comment than I'm really in the mood for picking apart, and the tone is more authoritative than commentary.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 09:21:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"You don't seem to see a difference between interested non-expert commentary and pontification, or else I mistook your non-expert commentary as pontification. There is quite a bit more wrong with this comment than I'm really in the mood for picking apart, and the tone is more authoritative than commentary."

I think that it's some of both of those. Re-reading what I wrote in the light of your objections here, I see that indeed, there's some, (and that's "some" too much) which is very fairly objectionable as pontification on my part. So, I grant you that and ask, sincerely, for your pardon for it.

There's very much Keynes' The General Theory which is quite accessible to someone who doesn't know higher math. It's true that where there are formulae, I'd certainly not understand more than a word-description of their significance--that is, the formula alone wouldn't necessarily make sense to me. But all or nearly all of the main gist of his theory's basic arguments could, would, and, as far as I read them or about them, do.

"But seriously, Jeffreys is taken to be the originator of modern Bayesianism, and any overview of the philosophy of probability that doesn't include Bayesianism (such aks your paraphrase of Mandelbrot) has to be flawed."

Okay. At this point, without having looked further at Mandelbrot's references in his book, I'd say that this is very likely my fault rather than his. But, even if it is his "fault", as I say, I have no special affection that would preclude me recognizing it if he'd given short-shrift to someone such as Jeffreys.

I'm sorry to have pontificated and, from your position, that's the way I'd have viewed what I wrote, too. Maybe I can do better at curbing that. What I said went way beyond the bounds of what I had any right to imply I knew. And I can see that I did imply it, and improperly so.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:03:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mandelbrot's contribution.... (none / 1)

The important question is 'Why are all being held at gunpoint in a casino?' - not 'How should we be counting the cards?'

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 09:18:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True, but not germane to this here subthread.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 09:23:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mandelbrot's contribution.... (none / 1)

LOL!! Whatever that means, I love the imagery!!

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It could be partly a reference to Keynes' when the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done (from The General Theory).

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I bet you're right. And though I'd heard this, I didn't think of it.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Does "casino capitalism" ring a bell?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:29:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Joshi's is a good book, for its subject matter.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:46:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mea culpa... (none / 0)

Okay, I have a confession to make here, and it's shameful!

In fact, I've never heard of Keynes having either earned a Ph.D. in mathematics or of his having been awarded one an honorary degree. I thought that you must know better than I did. I'm not an expert on Keynes. But, I never should have pretended to know that there was a math Ph.D. in his credentials. When I got home, I looked through Skidelsky's biography (in vols. 1 & 2) and could find no mention. In Wikipedia, there's also no mention. All of which I find very odd if JMK had such a degree.

So, anyway, if it's he and not his father, (who also studied math, but who also, AFAIA, never got a Ph.D. in it) that you meant, I would like to know when and where JMK was awarded his math Ph.D.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 03:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He did get an M.A. from Cambridge. But, if I recall correctly, all that was needed to get such a degree was to have a B.A. from them, wait a certain amount of time, and pay the appropriate fee.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 04:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this could be entirely correct, I have no idea:

"But, if I recall correctly, all that was needed to get such a degree was to have a B.A. from them, wait a certain amount of time, and pay the appropriate fee."

The thing is, I find it just incredible that this credential would go completely unmentioned by Skidelsky, who covers Keynes' education with its shifts and changes of course. Nowhere have I ever seen, read or heard, JMK, Ph.D., while I have heard applied his other tiles, viz, "Lord Keynes" and just about every other variety of title due to him.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 07:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mea culpa... (none / 1)

An M.A. is not a Ph.D. anyway. Skidelsky probably didn't mention the M.A. because he knew how meaningless it is

The universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin award Master's degrees to BAs without further examination, where seven years after matriculation have passed, and (in some but not all cases) upon payment of a nominal fee. It is commonplace for recipients of the degree to have graduated several years previously and to have had little official contact with the university or academic life since then. The only real significance of these degrees is that they historically conferred voting rights in University elections, it was seen as the point at which one became eligible to teach at the University and certain other privileges e.g. the right to dine at the holder's college's high table. They still do confer some restricted and rarely used voting rights

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:50:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I should buy myself one of those. Actually, I'm not 100% sure Dublin still does those. There was talk of dumping them.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not having paid the fee meant I didn't get mine.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 09:13:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

gk:

The only real significance of these degrees is that they historically conferred voting rights in University elections, it was seen as the point at which one became eligible to teach at the University and certain other privileges e.g. the right to dine at the holder's college's high table.

Keynes lived in happier times when you didn't need a PhD for that.

Hence I assume he did have one.

It is, in fact, puzzling to me why his monograph Treatise on Probability was not submitted as a PhD dissertation.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 09:28:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mea culpa... (none / 1)

Thanks! that's very interesting and clears the issue up.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:08:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

rootless2:

Schumacher, for example, is more than a little dated.

dated? more like ahead of his time.
a phrase i take to mean the time a majority of thinking people were ready to take him seriously

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 06:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, for starters, ET is a good place. It's why I come here.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And this entire discussion is damn good.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 12:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have you seen the thread on neoclassic economics deep down in ChrisCook's diary?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 12:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only as it's gone by in Recent Comments... have to read it properly.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 01:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and, while I'm at it,

Your point is a good one. In general, (in too many ways to enumerate) the nation is badly lost, socially, culturally, politically, economically, and hardly least, morally and spiritually (they're not exactly the same things!) etc.

To a great degree, these are all in part related to a high-tech-driven television/internet culture which eschews real extensive reading and thought.

Your lament is rooted in that, too. So I wonder: how would you attack this massive and deeply-rooted problem? I inveigh against television, for example. It is simply death to critical thinking. And the most common objection I get is from very bright people who assure me that they watch television with discriminating taste and judgement and, thus, almost entirely escape its harmful influences.

They actually believe this.

So, what would you suggest?

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:13:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

To a great degree, these are all in part related to a high-tech-driven television/internet culture which eschews real extensive reading and thought.
Your lament is rooted in that, too. So I wonder: how would you attack this massive and deeply-rooted problem? I inveigh against television, for example. It is simply death to critical thinking. And the most common objection I get is from very bright people who assure me that they watch television with discriminating taste and judgement and, thus, almost entirely escape its harmful influences.

i believe this...

tv is a medium, a vessel, what you put into and take out of it is up to you.

what i really hear you saying is that tv is full of shit, and that people ahve forgotten how to build long deep states of concentration, so they skitter around the surface of things, and ignore many facets of their own native intelligence.

...but i'm probably projecting.

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 at 06:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since I sit around with my smart wifey, both on the Internet, for the interpersonal capabilities, but both having a remote for the TiVo, and absolutely blast the two hundred channels, mining for content, and come away with a high EROI of commentary and dialogues, I have to take exception to your comment. I sort of thought you'd go off on how only smart people should be allowed to watch, and with that I'd concur. I just haven't figured out why a nation of mostly sheep is a bad thing... the EROI on educating sheep is pretty low. And they're so CUTE on the internet.

To align culture with our nature is our purpose.

by ormondotvos (ormond no spam lmi net no spam) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 04:24:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

heh

what would they do? where would they go?

they are safely parked and quietly consuming energy, what more do you want?

apples growing on pear trees?

can you imagine how much valium it would take to replace it?

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 07:07:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"I sort of thought you'd go off on how only smart people should be allowed to watch, and with that I'd concur. I just haven't figured out why a nation of mostly sheep is a bad thing... the EROI on educating sheep is pretty low. And they're so CUTE on the internet."

I suppose you're joking there. I don't know what "E" Return on Investment refers to, either, unless it's "entertainment" but, if so, then I still don't understand the point you are trying to make with it.

I'm also not advocating enforced behavior. Instead, I urge that people come to understand that television is extemely deleterious and that, like smoking, for their own good, they'd be far better off to eliminate it from their habits. But that requires a great and sustained campaign---just the sort of thing that was necessary to put a dent in people's common perceptions about smoking tobacco.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:10:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"what i really hear you saying is that tv is full of shit, and that people ahve forgotten how to build long deep states of concentration, so they skitter around the surface of things, and ignore many facets of their own native intelligence."

That's part of it but too simplified a version of what I think. There's much more involved than television's "content" alone. It's also the medium itself which is the issue. I'm thinking of writing more about my views--as others have informed them--in a separate diary-thingy.

Part of what I'll have to say will respond to your comment, "tv is a medium, a vessel, what you put into and take out of it is up to you." I don't agree at all with that but to explain why I don't requires more time and space than makes sense to put into a single reply-post.

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:03:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What I really want to hear is an examination of how writing destroyed civilization.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:07:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Harold Innis, "A Plea for time"

The flexibility of an oral tradition enabled the Greeks to work out a balance between the demands of concepts of space and time in a city state. In the reforms of Cleisthenes control over time was wrested from religion and placed at the disposal of the state. The results of a balanced society were evident in the defeat of the Persians and the flowering of Greek culture in the fifth century. But such a balance was not long maintained. The spread of writing in the latter part of the century accentuated strains which destroyed Greek civilization.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 08:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]