Subject: Re: If Laggards Rule, Will Universities Collapse?
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Mon 31 Jan 2000 - 04:33:22 MET
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:33:22 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: If Laggards Rule, Will Universities Collapse?
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have gone through the paper on van Mises and I have the following
question:
Mises' conclusion is:
"The policy conclusions implied by the Misesian theory are the diametric
opposite of the current fashion, whether Keynesian or post-Keynesian. If
the government and its banking system are inflating credit, the Misesian
prescription is (a) to stop inflating posthaste, and (b) not to interfere
with the recession-adjustment, not prop up wage rates, prices, consumption
or unsound investments, so as to allow the necessary liquidating process
to do its work as quickly and smoothly as possible. The prescription is
precisely the same if the economy is already in a recession."
re: Inflation: His conclusion is to let the economy drive itself as if
economy alone had answers to management of socioeconomic relationships.
re: Education: Let us translate this conclusion to the field of education.
What should form the context against which learners are to develop their
knowledge, or in general, the context against which knowledge should
develop ? Just reality as it is and the problems that it has? But who is
to tell what reality really is? Maybe this question does not need to be
answered? Will then ever knowledge be a function of conditions other than
those rulled by economy? Who will pay for achievements in social
philosophy if we won't see any direct implications to life? Or maybe
social philosophy should make itself and its applications more visible to
all? But if market still will be the decisive factor between that which is
funded and that which is not, how can we ensure that such a funding
principle is just? If the function of education is to facilitate a broad
understanding, what will happen if economy is made the delimiting factor
of the concept of "broad"?
If we should not limit ourselves to this-or-that alternatives, as the
article suggests, is there truly no middle ground between economy as a
ruling law and welfare as humanitistic principles that economy may in fact
make no romm for?
Ania Lian
ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2
please, keep checking my IFETS-site:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2/lists/ifets/ifets.htm
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue 01 Feb 2000 - 00:32:40 MET