« my news... | Main | wedding lists: a socio-economic solution »

June 19, 2009

Comments

Bruce Davis

We can rant some more on this next week but I am starting to get some interest in a similar line of argument (even got a laugh out of some bankers on Tuesday when saying that oikonomics was what we did before economists got hold of it) from some cross party lobbyists/politicos.

The question I guess is whether we end up moving backwards to a pre-nietzschean conservative morality or whether a call for real transparency (in the face of the ubiquitous 'black box' approach to information plastered across all newspapers today) might prompt the emergence of new models of morality that avoids such a retreat and allows us to react to events/situations (and stay free).

RickWaghorn

Very interesting if you apply all of the above to the workings of the Google mind...

'All manner of organisational forms and practices can then be justified in terms of some abstract concept of efficiency, even when they appear to stray drastically from the ideal of 'fair', transparent market exchange...

You ever run Google AdSense.. ;)

pete

Will wrote:
"...it strikes me that the only thing we can be sure of is that our dominant concept of economic freedom will undergo a transformation."

Can you promise me that? Absolutely promise me that? *Purlease* ?

Will Davies

Pete - I don't think it's an unrealistic claim. Capitalism depends on a concept of human freedom to survive, that much is clear. But this vision is constantly mutating, especially at times of crisis.

The comments to this entry are closed.

-