On Mar 18, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> [WS:] That is one possible interpretation, but the theory itself does
> not necessarily postulate this. Its main mechanism is transaction
> cost, so if transaction cost to benefit balance is radically altered,
> a radical change is not only possible but also likely.
> Shane: "Since transaction cost and benefit are psychological
> categories, subjective not objective, unknowable both ex ante and ex
> post, what path dependence seems to amount to is the common-sense
> truism that people are creatures of habit and will always seek first
> to take the path of least resistance. Common-sense truisms can only
> be ignored at one's great peril!
>
> [WS:] Have you actually read anything about this subject, or you are
> just opining on something that you do not like?
>
I've read all your posts on the topic, and you seem quite competent to
explain it.
You might notice that I was endorsing, not attacking, what seemed to
me to be your point.
What I do not like is covering a simple truth with a mass of profound-
seeming verbiage.
I said "Common-sense truisms can only be ignored at one's great peril!"
A little example:
That when things fall they fall toward the biggest thing around (the
earth) is a common-sense truism.
Newton had the genius to formulate it in productively measurable--
mathematical--terms.
"Modern" physicists ignore that common-sense truism by asserting the
opposite: that things fall toward the *smallest* thing conceivable--an
object of infinite density (ie., zero volume) that they therefore call
a black HOLE.
A hole that turns out to be small enough to contain the entire
universe plus the Big Banger himself!
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures."
Herakleitos of Ephesos