| « August 2008 » | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Recently by GT
- Insurance.
- The Next President.
- The mauling of adivasis in Assam.
- Nandigram: What is the problem?
- Gujrat: Knowing is not enough, we need to remember.
- Quo Vadis?
- Transition to democracy -1.
- Not so fast.
- What now?
- Geelani's views?
- So finally ...
- Kaal.
- No Title
- No Title
- Further on in the debate:
- Reply to Masadi continued:
OK, so what you are saying is that preferences of the people should be changed in a way that they are completely aligned within the group. And yes I agree that such preference alignment has been advocated by God, prophets, Marx and Advertisers. If preferences are fully homogenous, as I mentioned in my earlier reply, you are fully correct. I believe that full homogeneity is impossible. What I showed in my note is that, even with a little bit of heterogeneity of preferences you will get into a mess.
I on my part am against preference changes. This is for three reasons: (1) I believe that complete preference alignment is impossible and even with small heterogeneity there would be problems; (2) I am not an expert on changing preferences; (3) I sense ’superiority’ amongst those who advocate that others preferences should be completely changed over all alternatives to get to homogeneity.
add to my favorite ilogs
flag objectionable content
GT
- Interacts: 1198
- iLogs: 11
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 4991
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Oct 22 2005
- Last signin: Aug 29 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list


