Understanding Power, the indispensible chomsky

[theBruiser500]

So, I read Hegemony or Survival and it was great. Read 9/11, and am starting Understanding Power now. I have to say, I love him. It makes me think of poker a little bit because Chomsky is being objective about all of these issues he talks about, like his truism that whatever standward is applied to another country has to be applied to us too. It all seems very logical to me, and intelligent.

yay chomsky

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
It all seems very logical to me, and intelligent.


[/ QUOTE ]

The intelligent thing to realize and understand is that people are not logical nor are their institutions.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

One conceptual proiblem I have with parts of Chomsky's worldview is that he seems to view power as a zero-sum game; i.e., gaining power, in Chomsky's view, seems always to be at the expense of someone else. But this is not the way the world works; some power is gained at others' expense, but other power is gained by both or all parties.

For instance: mutually beneficial trade, or everyone benefitting from scientific, technological or agricultural advances. Or everyone benefitting because people learned it was important to wash one's hands before eating or performing surgery. Or a growing economy lifting all boats--and the fact that the poor today in developed countries have a higher life expectancy and higher standard of living than did the rich in times past.

There are many examples of people increasing their power, and not every example is at others' expense. Working from the (perhaps unspoken) presumption that power is always exploitative or hegemonic in nature is to see the world in a very inaccurate manner.

Of course, exploitation and hegemony do exist. But viewing those as the central or sole themes of the human condition, and of economics, is the sort of fallacious thinking that gave rise to communism in the first place (along with other immediate conditions). And communism, as history has shown, is among the least workable methods of economic or human organization.

[theBruiser500]

MMMMM, i think i have the same problem - tell me if we're thinking about the same thing here. chomsky says we support very repressive governemnts abroad so we can somehow exploit the country. i haven't seen him go into detail yet about how exactly we exploit them. and the main thing i don't get about this is that i view a lot of this as non-zero sum too, intuitively it seems more profitable to me to try and make all countries prosper and trade with them then as opposed to keeping them down and exploiting them.

[GWB]

This thread is a waste of bandwidth.

How gullible some people are.

[Zeno]

M,

I recently read the following and instantly thought of Noam Chomsky


"The very suggestion that the intellectual has a distinctive capacity for mischief, however, leads to the consideration that his piety [feelings of moral significance], by itself, is not enough. He may live for ideas, as I have said, but something must prevent him from living for one idea, from becoming obsessive or grotesque. Although there have been zealots whom we may still regard as intellectuals, zealotry is a defect of the breed and not of the essence. When one’s concern for ideas, no matter how dedicated and sincere, reduces them to the service of some central limited preconception or some wholly external end, intellect gets swallowed by fanaticism. If there is anything more dangerous to the life of the mind than having no independent commitment to ideas, it is having an excess of commitment to some special and constricting idea. The effect is as observable in politics as in theology: the intellectual function can be overwhelmed by an excess of piety expended within too contracted a frame of reference. " - Richard Hofstadter, Anti-intellectualism in American Life.

Thoughts/comments?

-Zeno

[J_V]

Chomsky is great at identifying the problems and lousy at solving them. I believe a lot of these "thinkers" get pigeon-holed into a belief that they must defend for years.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


How gullible some people are.

[/ QUOTE ]

As evidenced by their elected officials.

[MMMMMM]

Yes. Chomsky however if confronted with such reasoning would likely go off on an exposition about vague "hegemony", backed by specific examples--but that still wouldn't answer the matter of it being most profitable to trade with growing, prosperous countries (which therefore have more to offer).

[MMMMMM]

I surmise that intellectuals sometimes get trapped by fixation with a certain idea, because for them that idea has a hidden psychological resonance or hidden emotional payoff attached to it. The same might often be said for why non-intellectuals become fixated or fanatical about something. One might guess that intellectuals would the better be able to resist such seductions, but such might not be the case.

The ego is a quirky thing. Many people cling desperately to certain ideas in order to protect their own egos because the ego fears for its life, so to speak. This can be seen in lesser degree when people merely loathe the realizing or the admitting that they were wrong about something.

[Cyrus]

"Chomsky says [the United States] supports very repressive governemnts abroad so [it] can somehow exploit the country. I haven't seen him go into detail yet about how exactly we exploit them. And the main thing I don't get about this is that I view a lot of this as non-zero sum too, intuitively it seems more profitable to me to try and make all countries prosper and trade with them then as opposed to keeping them down and exploiting them."

This is not the subject of Chomsky's books. Chomsky considers the exploitation to be a fact and moves on to its analysis.

For an overview of America's economic relations to the rest of the world, there's an abundance of data around, including the net.

As to the evaluation and analysis of the economic relationships between advanced economies and backward economies, one would have to get into books of political economy. Just "Forbes" or "The New Left Review" won't suffice.

Let me add this tidbit: An economy's "strength" is judged always relatively, i.e. in comparison to others. (This is usually the rule in all evaluations of strength, e.g. weight lifters', poker players', etc.) If all economies would rise to the same level of "strength", how could the U.S. be said to have a "strong economy"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to label it an "average economy"?

[MMMMMM]

"Let me add this tidbit: An economy's "strength" is judged always relatively, i.e. in comparison to others. (This is usually the rule in all evaluations of strength, e.g. weight lifters', poker players', etc.) If all economies would rise to the same level of "strength", how could the U.S. be said to have a "strong economy"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to label it an "average economy"?"


Come on, Cyrus, this is really boneheaded.

In your scenario: If all economies stagnated under, say, less than 1% GDP growth, that is a very different picture than if all countries enjoyed GDP growth of, say, 5%.

Or maybe all countries could be trapped in a worldwide recession, eh?--with negative growth--as compared to all countries having modest, positive growth.

In some of the above scenarios, all countries would have weak economies; in other scenarios, all countries would have strong economies.

Economies are NOT only measured relative to each other; they are measured relative to their rates of growth (positive or negative) and other factors.

[Cyrus]

"This is really boneheaded."

Without fail, every time you open your posts with something like that, you follow it up with some major whoppers. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"In your scenario: If all economies stagnated under, say, less than 1% GDP growth ... "

Hold it, dufus. Who said anything about "economies stagnating"? Did you even read the post?

"Economies are NOT only measured relative to each other; they are measured relative to their rates of growth (positive or negative) and other factors."

Whopper time! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Let us repeat this pearl of wisdom so that it sinks in well: You just said, in your usual precise manner that Economies are not measured against each other but "against their rates of growth." Brilliant.

I mean to say, utter rubbish! Whoa there, Grasshopper. Whose rate of growth?? Their own? The other economies'? But you just said...

Listen, we are talking about the strength of an economy here. Assuming that the measure of the strength of an economy is the rate of growth of its GNP (this is writing precisely, brother, and not your slop), an economy is judged as "strong" or "weak" when compared with other economies or with an arbitrary standard of growth.

I know, I know, it's tough to understand but do try yer best, this is only a little more complicated than a post by yer pal Wogga. If, hypothesizing, ALL economies grew at x% per year, without exception, including the United States', then we could not say that the US economy is "strong" (or "weak") and be accurate. We would have to say it is an "average" economy if we'd want to be precise.

This, mind ya, was a simple rhetorical question, posed in order to make the audience appreciate the inherent antagonism between national economies, as opposed to the facile non-zero-sum aphorisms of turbo-capitalism's apostles. It was a mere introduction. And you didn't manage to get even past that without getting silly. Tsk tsk.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not the subject of Chomsky's books. Chomsky considers the exploitation to be a fact and moves on to its analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I see from his writing. First of all, I think he does talk about why we do it, he says because it is good for the business interests and politicians in our country but doesn't go into any depth. Second though, if he didn't explain why that is the US's stance, don't you think that is something he would need to adress?

And when you say "moves on to analysis," I'm not really clear what you mean. Do you mean, he just gives details about what sort of exploitation occured?

[ QUOTE ]
For an overview of America's economic relations to the rest of the world, there's an abundance of data around, including the net.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any recommendations?

[ QUOTE ]

Let me add this tidbit: An economy's "strength" is judged always relatively, i.e. in comparison to others. (This is usually the rule in all evaluations of strength, e.g. weight lifters', poker players', etc.) If all economies would rise to the same level of "strength", how could the U.S. be said to have a "strong economy"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to label it an "average economy"?

[/ QUOTE ]

If all economies were rising, then the US would be rising so relative to the other economies the US would still be strong. Plus, if other economies were rising it would make it a lot more likely that the US would rise. And also, part of what I'm asking is how does it help to be stronger than other countries, where specifically does the advantage of this exploitation come from.

[MMMMMM]

How you can manage to so confuse objective strength with relative strength is beyond me.

If you have a room full of people with pneumonia, you have a room full of sick people. They may each be about as healthy as each other but they are still all sick. Their actual sickness does not change just because they are all at about the same level of health or disease. On the flip side if they are all Olympic athletes chances are that they are all very healthy.

There are two ways of measuring: absolute and relative. Don't confuse the two. Economies can be measured as weak or strong in actual terms. They can also be compared in terms of strength relative to each other.

An economy can have positive or negative growth. If it has negative growth for two or more consecutive quarters I believe that defines a recession. So it is possible to imagine a scenario where the world's economies all suffer under severe recession (weak) or all enjoy high positive growth (strong).

[Gamblor]

If, hypothesizing, ALL economies grew at x% per year, without exception, including the United States', then we could not say that the US economy is "strong" (or "weak") and be accurate. We would have to say it is an "average" economy if we'd want to be precise.

Economics is not a zero sum game. If all worldwide economies are creating wealth, increasing standards of living, in other words, expanding the Production Possibility Frontier then ALL economies are considered strong. If they are all increasing by the same amount, they also may all be considered average as well.

If GDP, the standard measure of economic growth (measured as either Aggregate Output or Net Exports + Investment + Government Spending + Consumption is a positive number for all countries than all countries are growing, irrespective of whatever relevant deficits/surpluses with each other.

Why? Because everybody is better off. This means that the worldwide economy (and assuming the above case, each individual economy), is strong.

Conclusion: The strength or weakness of an economy is not measured vis-a-vis other economies. It is measured relative to itself, at some arbitrary point in the past. The way we control this experiment is by choosing the same point for two different economies, and then you can compare the relative strengths of those two economies.

[Cyrus]

Seems you need a thorough shake-up to become coherent. Decent post - but you're still way too ignorant of the subject at hand. Well, don't mind that too much, it's all relative. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

PS Your cue to post a platitude about the magic of capitalism and the invisible hand of the market. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Seems you need a thorough shake-up to become coherent. Decent post -

[/ QUOTE ]

..and cyrus throws in the towel once again!


-iL douchebag

MMMMMM, remind me never to piss you off. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Cyrus]

Apparently you understood nothing. Or less than nothing, no mean feat!

"Cyrus throws in the towel once again!"

1. How can saying that MMMMMMM has been incoherent in all his posts except the last one be translated as "throwing in the towel"? Someone here has not been paying attention.

2. When did I "throw the towel in" before? Someone here has been making up stories in his mind.

"MMMMMM, remind me never to piss you off."

After you wipe your tongue (and disinfect it too), you mind want to take a look at
MMMMMM at his Sunday best (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1005980&page=28&view= expanded&sb=6&o=14&fpart=#1005980). Someone here has been wasting his kiss-ass abilities on the wrong person.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me add this tidbit: An economy's "strength" is judged always relatively, i.e. in comparison to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just plain wrong.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus if you were to ever learn to admit when you are wrong or misgiven you'd be dangerous.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me add this tidbit: An economy's "strength" is judged always relatively, i.e. in comparison to others.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, Adios, it is just plain wrong--and moreover, it is OBVIOUSLY wrong--so let's see if Cyrus will for once admit he was wrong.

He hasn't done it yet in five years though, so I'm not holding my breath.

LOSER SAYS WHAT? LOL!!!

[Cyrus]

It is wrong because it is incomplete. And this is why I tried to be more precise in this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1010598&page=31&view= expanded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1). It's in this thread too.

Here's my claim: An economy is judged as "strong" or "weak" when compared with other economies or with an arbitrary standard of growth. (Emphasis in the original.)

Now, this was supposed to be a starting block towards discussing whether truly the world's economies (not to speak of a national economy) is like a non-zero sum game, i.e. if the individual earnings/standard of living of each member can rise equally for everybody. Interesting questions could be posed along this line, such as

- If everybody profits, where does the added value come from?
- Could be that the rise in earnings/s.o.l. are an inter-generational process, i.e. one generation's deferred earnings are the next generation's additional earnings, roughly speaking?
- If the rise in earnings/s.o.l. are not equal in absolute (or percentage) terms, can we truly say that we have achieved economy-wide (or world-wide) parity in "strength"? (This was the original and very intriguing premise of the thread.)

Since nothing can come out of nothing, if we may borrow a basic law of physics (when a total of E amount of energy enters a closed system, you cannot have more than E energy coming out), there has to be a catch -- which will not be explained by voodoo such as "the magical hand of the free market", etc.

But we seem to be stuck on the starting line because short-sighted folks like MMMMMM (the Douchebag is a distraction) don't want to proceed beyond the kindergarten stuff. So be it.

[MMMMMM]

"Now, this was supposed to be a starting block towards discussing whether truly the world's economies (not to speak of a national economy) is like a non-zero sum game, i.e. if the individual earnings/standard of living of each member can rise equally for everybody...

- If everybody profits, where does the added value come from?

...But where did this increase come from? We know from Physics that nothing can come out of nothing, and that the total energy coming out of a system cannot exceed that going in."


Two Tribes:


The Green Tribe are great agriculturalists, having invented the three-pronged plough. They are also expert plough-makers.

The Orange Tribe are great tailors and seamstresses. They also invented the loom, and are expert loom-makers.

One day their paths cross, and instead of fighting, they each see the other has something they both want. So they decide to start trading crops for clothes.

The Green Tribe is soon better clothed, and the Orange Tribe is soon better fed. Their overall standards of living have increased.

After a couple of years of trade, they realize that they
would improve their well-being even more if they were to trade ploughs and looms as well, since they don't really live right next to each other, and transporting all those goods takes a lot of time and resources.

So the Two Tribes begin trading ploughs for looms, which suits the expert plough-makers and loom-makers just fine. The Two Tribes become even better clothed and better fed, and with much less effort now. Their overall standards of living, their richness, their means of production, and their leisure time, have all increased again.

"But where did that increase come from? But what about Physics?"

Lol. Lolololol.

[Cyrus]

"Two Tribes: The Green Tribe are ..."

Oh, boy. Listen M: There's always a very simple answer to every question.

And that answer is usually wrong.

Have a nice day. /images/graemlins/cool.gif



(And by the way your mom called, she's picking you up one hour later. You can play with the toys at the Finance Room.)

[MMMMMM]

Jeez Cyrus.

First you doubt that economics is not a zero-sum game. Then you assert that the ONLY way a country's economic strength can be measured is by comparing it to the economic strength of other countries, which is a patently false assertion, as Adios pointed out. Then you appear befuddled at the prospect that two or more parties can both be enriched by their mutual trade, or think it is irrelevant or too simplistic. Then you suppose that laws of Physics are somehow opposed to all parties being enriched.

If you and others utilize resources more effectively, you all get richer. If you have an invention that saves time, that enriches. If the world is smart enough to use the wheel, everybody just got richer than before the world was using the wheel. It isn't that they all suddenly have more gold or silver, but that they now utilize wood (or metal or composites) more effectively as wheels than as sticks or lumps lying around on the ground.

I should think that Adios' remark that "this is just plain wrong" should at least have given you pause.

You raised the matter of Physics. The Two Tribes example shows clearly how your Laws of Physics questions don't apply to economics in the sense you seem to think it does. The point is that utilizing resources more effectively can and does enrich all parties. No material thing is brought into the system, yet knowledge is enough to make sand into silicon chips of great value.

Is there any point in discussing things with someone who is incapable of admitting he was wrong?

[Cyrus]

I already know the futility of having a constructive discussion with you, having witnessed the incredible ignorance displayed by you when, for example, discussing things with Chirs Alger - not just an ignorance on some various subjects (a misdemeanor, if an infaction at all) but a deeply held and constantly practiced ignorance of basic rules of logic and debate. You might grow up to be many things in your life, man, but a learned debater, well, it ain't gonna happen, not before the sun dies.

I'll sign off from this thread with a little list of where you have got again (for the umpteenth time!) things completely wrong.

"You doubt that economics is not a zero-sum game."

I doubt that there is no conflict between classes in a society and that ALL nations in the world can have consistently strong economies. I believe that there is no such thing as infinite growth and that there are classes in society, which are involved in a mostly non-zero sum game. Or, at the outside, that they do not partake in any "total" gains, in any eauitable way imaginable. Trickle-down theory is crap for me.

But the point is that you have totally misunderstood.

"You assert that the ONLY way a country's economic strength can be measured is by comparing it to the economic strength of other countries, which is a patently false assertion, as Adios pointed out."

Your mind is having temporary zonk-outs. How else can I explain that you ignore the answer when it's only two posts above yours! (I already wrote that my first statement was incorrect because it was incomplete and I completed it in my very response (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1013693&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1) to Adios. Then I moved on or tried to get things moving on, to what the original question was --- about Noam Chomsky's assertions on capitalist economies.)

You are simply tilting after your usual windmills. Tilt away, son.

"You appear befuddled at the prospect that two or more parties can both be enriched by their mutual trade, or think it is irrelevant or too simplistic."

It's not simplistic, it does not prove anything of general application. But since you have problems with simple descriptions, try this: A transaction between a buyer and a seller of a stock in the stock exchange is always a win/win proposition?

"You suppose that laws of Physics are somehow opposed to all parties being enriched."

Yes, and I made sure (just to warn nincompoops who were sure to get it totally wrong! /images/graemlins/cool.gif) that this refers to closed systems, while we human interact with nature. If this is too complicated for you, let me make it even more so /images/graemlins/cool.gif : Human inteligence can add value. That should make human advancement in, say, technology a non-zero sum game, yes? Or no maybe? (Think before you answer. /images/graemlins/cool.gif That would be the day..)




And you have the nerve to ask me to admit I'm wrong. Hah. Try stand-up. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

I thought you were referring to my post, not yours, being wrong because it was incomplete. My error, but not too surprising since your entire thread has been devoted to arguing nonsense for the most part.

[Cyrus]

Take up stand-up.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

Get a clue.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
..and cyrus throws in the towel once again!

[/ QUOTE ]

He's right. Cyrus responded with a happily glib insult and ran out the backdoor as fast as he could, hoping it would work and nobody would notice.

Sorry bro, bad move and you got called on it.

I don't know you or the other guy, but you screwed the pooch on that one.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion: The strength or weakness of an economy is not measured vis-a-vis other economies. It is measured relative to itself, at some arbitrary point in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Middle Flower Kingdom certainly thought so. China, that is. Japan too. Both wound up with European gunboats in their harbors showing them they were wrong. China wound up with quite a few military excursions into its interior to back up the point.

[Cyrus]

"Cyrus responded with a happily glib insult and ran out the backdoor as fast as he could, hoping it would work and nobody would notice. Sorry bro, bad move and you got called on it."

Would I be still posting if I wanted to "run out the backdoor" and "hope no one would notice"? Sorry -- but no.

But, yes, I accept that is has been my fault (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!) that I imagined there could ever be some honest and constructive discussion, among disagreeing parties nonetheless, on the questions that Bruiser posed. That I fully accept! It has been a lesson.

..As to the insults, I resent the singular! I tried my best to describe the attitude show by MMMMMM and iL Douchebag as accurately as possible. Which amounts to quite a lot of necessary invective. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Thanks for the note anyway, bro.

[Cyrus]

Israeli Ministry of Education and Culture > "The strength or weakness of an economy is not measured vis-a-vis other economies. It is measured relative to itself, at some arbitrary point in the past."

Blarg > "The Middle Flower Kingdom certainly thought so. China, that is. Japan too. Both wound up with European gunboats in their harbors showing them they were wrong. China wound up with quite a few military excursions into its interior to back up the point."

Hmmm.

You are making too much sense for this thread. Just wanted to let you know. Take it like a friendly warning, given I take my leave.

..And notice, please, I'm leaving through the front door. /images/graemlins/cool.gif (No valet tipping though.)

[ QUOTE ]
He's right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

iL Douchebag,

I admit that your above post shows you at your most coherent.

I guess this admission amounts to me "throwing in the towel" again. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Stay healthy,

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

It's Sunday, so what the hell...

"How you can manage to so confuse objective strength with relative strength is beyond me."

How you can manage to confuse absolute with relative is beyond me.

"If you have a room full of people with pneumonia, you have a room full of sick people."

Not unless you compare them with people from the outside! If [censored] sapiens had a life expectancy of two days and were all, as a matter of natural status, full of pneumonia parasites, how would you call those people in the room? Sick? Whole phyla would then have to be called 'sick'...

"Economies can be measured as weak or strong in actual terms. They can also be compared in terms of strength relative to each other."

This is, very roughly, correct (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1013693&page=31&view= expanded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1) and this is why I wrote tha you are startting to be coherent! (A compliment that was considered an act of "surrender" by Douchebag for some reason!)

This, by the way, should be the starting point (or a jump off to a new thread) about whether growth (and growth only) should be used to characterize an economy's strength. I do not think it should, although this is the nomenclature.

"It is possible to imagine a scenario where the world's economies all suffer under severe recession (weak) or all enjoy high positive growth (strong)."

"All", as in "a hundred percent"? I would have trouble imagining either scenario. This is as hypothetical as the spherical cow.

(Otherwise, Marx would be vindicated!)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you have a room full of people with pneumonia, you have a room full of sick people."

Not unless you compare them with people from the outside!

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, the above is totally moronic.

Let's say the entire world--every last person--came down with bubonic plague next month. According to your theory, you couldn't call anyone "sick", because there would be
nobody outside to compare them to. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

But you CAN compare them to their previous states, and so correctly call them all sick--or does that not penetrate the granite?

Likewise economies may be compared to their previous states, not just to other current economies.

As Jimbo put it, you simply have no clue. If the entire world contracted hemorragic fever tomorrow, according to Cyrus nobody could be called sick.

[Cyrus]

"Let's say the entire world--every last person--came down with bubonic plague next month. According to your theory, you couldn't call anyone "sick", because there would be nobody outside to compare him or her to.

But you CAN compare them to their previous states, and so correctly call them all sick. Likewise economies."

Exactly. And this is actually what I'm getting at.

We are evaluating and measuring according to a standard. If in your example, [censored] sapiens is a being that carries the plague virus with him since birth, then there is no point in calling him "sick" (it'd be [censored] sapiens' healthy status!). It’s because this is not the natural status of Man, that we call him sick.

The female praying mantis insect devours (or tries to devour) its hapless male partner right after coitus. Would that make the praying mantis a killer insect? The process of sexual intercourse in Man (and all its paraphernalia) has evolved into the modern status (last hundred thousand years'). Our "missionary position" standard is "abnormal" compared to the other primates' --- and most other milk-sucking beings. It's not of course.

Suppose, our Lord, in all His wisdom, had ordained that Man too, as praying mantis (and other of His creatures), would also have the Female eating the Male after coitus. Would not our whole history and society have been different? Would we condemn to death, as killers, those Devouring Females?

But in economies, the discussion takes an altogether more complex form! There is no "natural status" or anything about economy in the New Testament... All things staying the same, for instance, the population change should dictate the change in an economy. (But this happens only in "spherical cows" territory.) Then, there's innovation and added value. Then the issue of inter-generational transfer of wealth. (The immigrants to America live a hard life all their life so that the next generation can live better. The first generation of, say, Russians ,after 1917, live in poverty just so that the next generation can live in ...wrong example!)

Although the precipice around relativism is abysmal, this does not mean that we should not be able to look the sun (us) in the face and realize/comprehend/accept that our poor labels are just that. The best we can do though.

--Cyrus