Well let me apologize. I mean that. I regretted my asinine reply as soon as I hit the send button. But your replies have also been flip. I have no excuse except that I was annoyed, but I also think I was annoyed at the perceived flipness of your replies.
I specifically stated the question as a question about mathematical models, and this specific mathematical model. You instead choose to ignore the question and restate it as something that is about a "cloak" for what the authors are really after. Yes, "ideology" is a slippery concept, but "cloak" for determinism is simply another way of stating that you believe that the authors are justifying their ideological committments of the inevitably of wealth distribution with the use of a physical model.
But let me state again, I was trying to state a counterfactual about society and mathematical models. Perhaps I failed to state that counterfactual in a interesting or coherent way. Maybe it is useless. But instead of dealing with what I was trying to get at you used the authors "cloak" as your "cloak" for not even seeing what I am saying.
Jerry
___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/