On Feb 2, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Eubulides wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 6:40 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Dysboulides wrote:
>>
>>> I call on all error theorists to turn to rubbish the sophomoric
>>> use of
>>> "moral hazard." The economics profession would do well to spend a
>>> fewyears studying what's happened in metaethics; unfortunately the
>>> academic/policy wonk dol is not going to come to terms with nihilism
>>> any time soon. That'll tie 'em up in knots. And we'll get the next
>>> crisis even sooner. Let's be efficient in bringing on monetary
>>> doom, ok?
>>
>> Could you sometimes write as if you weren't just sharing a private
>> joke
>> with yourself?
The primary meaning of "moral" is *pertaining to "mores,"* the accepted ways of behavior within a group. The Greenspan/Clinton/ Bernanke/Bush/Obama "put" changed the mores of the banking establishment from rejection of wildly speculative behavior to enthusiastic acceptance. It created [the grandmother of all] *moral* hazards. It is indeed sub-sophomoric to "metaethicize" the term "moral hazard" into a meaning entirely alien to its relevant usage.
Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
"L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce qu'on y a apporté."
Bardo Thodol