Michael wrote about an "historical economic principle" in the "law of
comparative advantage." I'm intrigued by this notion. Further along in his
observations, he writes about the "complexity/emergence approach" which can
viably account for a place for the "less favored."
How can we answer those who would say that these principles are just that;
that one view of statistics (facts are perhaps difficult to come by for this
gordion problem) supports a behavioral disdain, as it were, for theory in the
face of increasing poverty, famine, internecine strife, overpopulation, etc.
etc.
Such a view would point to its "supporting statistics" as proof that the
conundrum remains IN REALITY just that.
It's a difficult matter to consider, at best.
Thanks, Mike, for your thoughts on this one.
Best,
-- Barry Mallis bmallis@markem.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>