There are two senses that I strongly appreciate from Trust. The first, and more social, is the fact that it is beautiful to have relationships where Trust is ubicuos. Because we love, we trust.
However, there is another dimension of Trust which I really like: the concept. The concept of Trust is so special, that require to have very sharp thougths, in order of being able to take some ideas clara. However, when more you think about the concept of trust, you have the feeling that it is always something incomplete, that require to be described.
I have been working out the concept, using vulnerability and confidence to make it clear. Confidence is faith in a person or thing that is capable. Vulnerability is the state of a person or thing denoting that it is possible to earth it.
lunes, noviembre 13, 2006
jueves, noviembre 02, 2006
Objectivity in Social Science according to Max Weber
I just read the 1904 "Objectivity of Social Science and Social Policy". I get from the reading a set of interesting ideas.There is no such a thing as objectivity. The best that we can get is a frame that give us values to understand reality. There is a kind of objective order of basic concepts. This order is objective. With this order, and the subjectivity of our values, we make social science.This idea has a conflict. If my interpretation is right, Weber is saying that an ontology in social science is objective. Although useful for comunicating, an ontology doesn't seem to be the most objective concept that we can produce.However, after a second read, I have a new idea and let me cite Weber,"The conclusion which follows from the above is that an "objective" analysis of cultural events, which proceeds according to the thesis that the ideal of science is the reduction of empirical reality of "laws," is meaningless. It is not meaningless, as is often maintained, because cultural or psychic events for instance are "objectively" less governed by laws. It is meaningless for a number of other reasons. Firstly, because the knowledge of social laws is not knowledge of social reality but is rather one of the various aids used by our minds for attaining this end; secondly, because knowledge of cultural events is inconceivable except on a basis of the significance which the concrete constellations of reality have for us in certain individual concrete situations"Things are now more clear!
Laissez-faire
strongly suggest to read this Keynes' article to anyone that is interesting in understand the state of mind at the beginning of the ninteen century, related to individualism and laissez-faire.Keynes, links Hume, Paley, Burke, Rousseau, Godwin, Malthus, Cobbett, Huskisson, Bentham, Coleridge, Darwin (yes the father of evolutionism) and the Bishop of Oxford to explain that state of affair.Beautiful, really beautiful."I do not know which makes a man more conservative -to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past"In a clear sense, economists furnished the scientific bases of individualism and laissez-faire.This article is important to understand Keynes. As any clever man, Keynes accept the dangerous of dealing with gray area, without jumping to blacks and white.
Individualism, Capitalism, Keynes and BIEN!
Individualism, has been the main source to explain the efficiency of "the invisible hand", which lead to the foundations of Capitalism (Notice that efficiency does not mean, equality of income).Keynes, in chapter 24 of The General Theory, announce the mechanism that would lead to the end of "Capitalism",
it would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital. [...] I see, therefore, the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work.If I am not wrong, Keynes thought that the capital would never change. In other words, that there is not technological change that increase the diversity of capitals, making the 'new type of capital' scarce.I am not sure, whether Keynes prediction will eventually work. However, it seems to be that there are organizations that are thinking about alternatives to the pure individualism. It seems to be that there is altruism around and it is possible to coordinate it in order to obtain 'efficient and well distribuited' results.BIEN, is an alternative way to think about the distribution. Take a look at it, and have a thought.
it would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital. [...] I see, therefore, the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work.If I am not wrong, Keynes thought that the capital would never change. In other words, that there is not technological change that increase the diversity of capitals, making the 'new type of capital' scarce.I am not sure, whether Keynes prediction will eventually work. However, it seems to be that there are organizations that are thinking about alternatives to the pure individualism. It seems to be that there is altruism around and it is possible to coordinate it in order to obtain 'efficient and well distribuited' results.BIEN, is an alternative way to think about the distribution. Take a look at it, and have a thought.
Small Things
I want to make a point which I would like to work it out. Of course, together with my Keynes journey.The small things that make the world better. I would define, the small things that change the world as things that from an standard macroeconomic point of view, could be considered not important.I am wondering whether these small things that change the world are interesting to be considered or not.Let me develop one. The University of Kuopio has been promoting Health, Environment and Well-being. Days ago, an interesting program has been implemented in a city in argentina, Balcarce to improve the health (particularly hearth related) of the population. The program, (This is the news in spanish) impact all the population of the city.Does this program contribute to the Sustainable Development of the city? Does the program increase the employment in the city? Does it reduces inequality?The first question deal with a big problem: Sustainable Development. Second and Third questions deal with more traditional problems in the school of economics.
Keynes, Keynes, and more...
I am during these days reading Keynes. I will read The General Theory, and play around with his ideas. We will see what I obtain.John Myrand Keynes was born the 5 June 1883 in Cambridge. (What a nice place to be born and to be an economist!) He died 21 April 1946.Here is a nice links with his biography http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Keynes.htmlBy the way, he lived both world wars, he was alife at the same time than Ludwig Wittgenstein (1890-1951), may be he was aware of historical results or debates as Hilbert’s problems, Russell and Withehead Principia Mathematica or Einstein (1879 - 1955) Relativity Theory.I assume that the amount of information difussed among the universities was neither high nor extremly specialized at those times.So, is not obvious that he was influencied by all (and a lot of more) of these results. However, those were good times in the science literature!
Publishing myself…
Ok, I will try this “pure web” strategy to publish information about my self. I am starting to enjoy it!
By the way, I really think that one of the most interesting concept to play around in science (social and natural) is “self-reference”. There is an uncountable number of interesting “hits” in science that can be trace out up to “self-reference”. For instance: Göedel’s Impossibility, almost any paradox in logic, Universal Computation, Innovations, etc…
So, I am doing a kind of self-reference (far less complex than my conscious) when I create this blog-web-page. What I have in my mind up to now, is quite standard and it seems to be determined by things that I have seen around and by conversations with friends.
I also choose english as the language to publish what I am writing. No doubt, this is a serious limitation. However, I hope that the re-reading of my mistakes will help me to improve… or the fun that people will make about my mistakes, will also help
Anyway, let’s start!
By the way, I really think that one of the most interesting concept to play around in science (social and natural) is “self-reference”. There is an uncountable number of interesting “hits” in science that can be trace out up to “self-reference”. For instance: Göedel’s Impossibility, almost any paradox in logic, Universal Computation, Innovations, etc…
So, I am doing a kind of self-reference (far less complex than my conscious) when I create this blog-web-page. What I have in my mind up to now, is quite standard and it seems to be determined by things that I have seen around and by conversations with friends.
I also choose english as the language to publish what I am writing. No doubt, this is a serious limitation. However, I hope that the re-reading of my mistakes will help me to improve… or the fun that people will make about my mistakes, will also help
Anyway, let’s start!
Self and the Unconscious
Freud was born 150 years ago. The concept of the self, which is the attractor of this blog, is strongly related to the unconscious. I found my self in trouble to elaborate a definition of the unconscious, however the concept is useful in the exploration of the self (and the self-organization). For an economist, the unconscious could be the state variable, that condition the behavior of the system in the long run. An individual is unware about its unconscious and he develops through years. A social system sometimes is unware about its state variables, until they shows up as constraint for the development of the system. In this sense, state variables are observed through their effects or consequences on variables that change our everyday life. Social Science is the conscious mind of society.
Individuals and society develop themself when they have the chance of looking at themself.
Individuals and society develop themself when they have the chance of looking at themself.
Elements of the self
Most dictionaries, agree at describing the self as the union of elements that constitute the individuality and identity of something.
However there are many interesting differences in the use of the concept. For instance, think in what do we mean when we say, self-organization, self-induced, self-knowledge, self-control or self-construction. What are the differences between these concepts and what do they have in common?
All of them have an entity with borders. Within the borders, there is the “self”. You would easily agree that it is not possible the existence of an entity within borders without what is outside of the limits.
Another characteristics that distinguish the previous concepts is “action”. There is a self doing an action. The self organizes, controls, knowledges, induces, etc…
Now a simple question come out from the commons: Why the entity within borders do an action? I can’t give an answer to this question without thinking in what is outside of the borders. If I take into account what is outside the borders many answers jump to my fingers. But if that is the case, the self is not alone. (I am thinking here in the beauty of the self-doing something)
Let me describe one example that come out of this short deconstruction. If I study self-organization, what should be my guide? If the system self-organize to an external event, there are two elements. First, the principle that coordinate the entity to organize itself and the different type of external event. Of course, far more interesting the first element.
It suggest to me, that an entity has a very stable dynamic equilibria. If you try to move it out of the equilibrium, the entity adjust the system to return to another equilibria, which if functional with what is outside the borders.
I should try to build up very simple machines with the capacity to self-organize to something.
However there are many interesting differences in the use of the concept. For instance, think in what do we mean when we say, self-organization, self-induced, self-knowledge, self-control or self-construction. What are the differences between these concepts and what do they have in common?
All of them have an entity with borders. Within the borders, there is the “self”. You would easily agree that it is not possible the existence of an entity within borders without what is outside of the limits.
Another characteristics that distinguish the previous concepts is “action”. There is a self doing an action. The self organizes, controls, knowledges, induces, etc…
Now a simple question come out from the commons: Why the entity within borders do an action? I can’t give an answer to this question without thinking in what is outside of the borders. If I take into account what is outside the borders many answers jump to my fingers. But if that is the case, the self is not alone. (I am thinking here in the beauty of the self-doing something)
Let me describe one example that come out of this short deconstruction. If I study self-organization, what should be my guide? If the system self-organize to an external event, there are two elements. First, the principle that coordinate the entity to organize itself and the different type of external event. Of course, far more interesting the first element.
It suggest to me, that an entity has a very stable dynamic equilibria. If you try to move it out of the equilibrium, the entity adjust the system to return to another equilibria, which if functional with what is outside the borders.
I should try to build up very simple machines with the capacity to self-organize to something.
domingo, septiembre 24, 2006
INE - Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas
El INE - Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas, proporciona información relacionada a volúmenes de operación de los supermercados en Chile que es valiosa para tenerse en cuenta.
Cualquier trabajo a realizarse, debería tener en cuenta estos datos.
Cualquier trabajo a realizarse, debería tener en cuenta estos datos.
miércoles, septiembre 20, 2006
El efecto de los supermercados en precios hortícolas
Este es una tesis presentada en la Universidad de Chile.
La característica interesante de este trabajo, es que presenta la capacidad de monopsonio que tienen las grandes cadenas.
Es importante tener en cuenta este efecto sobre la formación de precios en los productores, que los pequeños locales no lo tenían.
Esta capacidad de negociación de las grandes cadenas, hace que los precios para los productores sean mas bajos. ¿Esta reducción de precios, se transfiere a los consumidores? ¿Existe suficiente competencia para que esto sea asi?
Por otro lado, se aumentan los incentivos para que los productores se coordinen en la formación de grupos que permitan aumentar su poder de negociación. El resultado final que se puede intuir de estas observaciones, es la agregación de las empresas en todas las fases. ¿Es esto asi en la realidad?
La característica interesante de este trabajo, es que presenta la capacidad de monopsonio que tienen las grandes cadenas.
Es importante tener en cuenta este efecto sobre la formación de precios en los productores, que los pequeños locales no lo tenían.
Esta capacidad de negociación de las grandes cadenas, hace que los precios para los productores sean mas bajos. ¿Esta reducción de precios, se transfiere a los consumidores? ¿Existe suficiente competencia para que esto sea asi?
Por otro lado, se aumentan los incentivos para que los productores se coordinen en la formación de grupos que permitan aumentar su poder de negociación. El resultado final que se puede intuir de estas observaciones, es la agregación de las empresas en todas las fases. ¿Es esto asi en la realidad?
domingo, septiembre 10, 2006
¿Pueden los retailers ser monopolios?
Una característica que se esta difundiendo a través de todos los países es la concentración de la distribución de productos de alimentación. Las grandes cadenas de supermercados, en algunos casos internacionales, son comunes en todos los países desarrollado.
¿Cuánto poder de monopolio o monopsonio ejercen? La respuesta no es simple.
¿Cuánto poder de monopolio o monopsonio ejercen? La respuesta no es simple.
About Computation...
Computation is one of the most beautiful concept I have had the chance to think about. The more I think about it, the more I find interesting implications.
Of course, in science computation matter!
I went through Copeland article, which lead you to think about the ubiquous definition of computation. In another words, is it everything a computation?
Copeland suggests that everything is suceptible of having a computational interpretation. Which is not the same than saying that everything is a computation.
To interpret an entity as a computation we have to make a model, where we specify a machine and the labeling that link entity and machine.
Of course, in science computation matter!
I went through Copeland article, which lead you to think about the ubiquous definition of computation. In another words, is it everything a computation?
Copeland suggests that everything is suceptible of having a computational interpretation. Which is not the same than saying that everything is a computation.
To interpret an entity as a computation we have to make a model, where we specify a machine and the labeling that link entity and machine.
sábado, septiembre 09, 2006
Wittgenstein and Sraffa
Good ideas, come from everywhere. I can't help thinking about convesations between great men on our story. Reading an interesting article by Sen (2003) "Sraffa, Wittgenstein, and Gramsci", I discover the influence of Sraffa on Wittgenstein.
The later Wittgenstein, was influenced by "the anthropological way of looking at philosophical problems", and there is (one of) the source of "language game". Sraffa, at time, was influenced by Gramsci. Gramsci, although highly original, was influenced by Marx. Gramsci was a founding member of the Communist Party in Italy.
Therefore, from the Wittgenstein of the first world war where the language defines the limits of what we can say, there were many changes. I can imagine the live during the first WW. Let me guess that the horrible results from the first WW, prepare Wittgenstein mind to "the anthropological way". Gramsci and Sraffa were at the right time, to give birth at the concept of "language games".
Just speculations, but this is way I like blooging... :)
The later Wittgenstein, was influenced by "the anthropological way of looking at philosophical problems", and there is (one of) the source of "language game". Sraffa, at time, was influenced by Gramsci. Gramsci, although highly original, was influenced by Marx. Gramsci was a founding member of the Communist Party in Italy.
Therefore, from the Wittgenstein of the first world war where the language defines the limits of what we can say, there were many changes. I can imagine the live during the first WW. Let me guess that the horrible results from the first WW, prepare Wittgenstein mind to "the anthropological way". Gramsci and Sraffa were at the right time, to give birth at the concept of "language games".
Just speculations, but this is way I like blooging... :)
domingo, enero 15, 2006
If there is no objectivity, there is no science?
This is the feeling that I get from reading Weber and Hayek.
In "The facts of Social Sciences" Hayek says that the concept that we define in social science are abstraction from all the physical properties of the objects. Moreover, the concepts are teleologicals.
Weber on the other hand, says that there is a set of values that frame any interpretation that we make from reality.
Both claims seems to be against the objectivity in social science. So, if there is no objectivity, there is no science?
I think that this question is a sofism that could catch us in a trap. In social science the objectivity is not the same than in natural science.
My intuition lead my thougts toward the question: Is this kind of objectivity, the one mentioned by Weber and Hayek, the unique one?
Let me put it in this way. Someone with a scientific education in economics will do better economic than someone without education in the topic? If the answer is yes, I am tempted to say that there is some accumulated knowledge, that we can produce in economics, in such a systematic way that we can latter on give to students.
This does not guarantee that is the best knowledge, the objective and absolute one, however its allows us to say that there is a certain structure of reference that we are able to make up.
This is not an answer to my original question, however it is an interesting place to keep searching.
In "The facts of Social Sciences" Hayek says that the concept that we define in social science are abstraction from all the physical properties of the objects. Moreover, the concepts are teleologicals.
Weber on the other hand, says that there is a set of values that frame any interpretation that we make from reality.
Both claims seems to be against the objectivity in social science. So, if there is no objectivity, there is no science?
I think that this question is a sofism that could catch us in a trap. In social science the objectivity is not the same than in natural science.
My intuition lead my thougts toward the question: Is this kind of objectivity, the one mentioned by Weber and Hayek, the unique one?
Let me put it in this way. Someone with a scientific education in economics will do better economic than someone without education in the topic? If the answer is yes, I am tempted to say that there is some accumulated knowledge, that we can produce in economics, in such a systematic way that we can latter on give to students.
This does not guarantee that is the best knowledge, the objective and absolute one, however its allows us to say that there is a certain structure of reference that we are able to make up.
This is not an answer to my original question, however it is an interesting place to keep searching.
viernes, enero 13, 2006
The Nature and Philosophy of Science
This link, The Nature and Philosophy of Science, offer a synthesis of the problems related to Philosoph of Science. You can go in there from Baconian Inductivism through Newtonian hpothetico-deductivism and Popperian Falsasionism until the Duhem-Quine problem.
The paper also develop the intuition about why do we need Shaping Principles to observe data. We need criterium to select theories and that is the role of the Shaping Principles. Indeed the problems with how we interpret data are multiple and the paper present some of them.
Although the paper focus on natural science, there is an interesting link between the "Shaping Principles" and the "value-judgemnt" by Weber. Both play the same role: they help to select a theory.
Althought many times the author gives his opinion, without helping to improve the presentation, I still think that this is a good introductory paper, and I strongly recommend it!
The paper also develop the intuition about why do we need Shaping Principles to observe data. We need criterium to select theories and that is the role of the Shaping Principles. Indeed the problems with how we interpret data are multiple and the paper present some of them.
Although the paper focus on natural science, there is an interesting link between the "Shaping Principles" and the "value-judgemnt" by Weber. Both play the same role: they help to select a theory.
Althought many times the author gives his opinion, without helping to improve the presentation, I still think that this is a good introductory paper, and I strongly recommend it!
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)