RoR: Forum

Fred:

OK. You believe that anyone on earth actually understands -- as opposed to 'ponders' -- how 'billions of people' act as the entity 'billions of people.' I, on the other hand, question the factual existence of 'billions of people' ever acting as the entity 'billions of people.' I believe that there are 'billions of people' in the world. I don't believe -- because I've never seen evidence of, or even, hypothesized such a factual event as 'billions of people' acting as the entity 'billions of people.' Is there some mystical spiritual interconnection required for that? Some kind of human zeitgeist? Cosmic Karma? A magic sixth sense spirit of some kind, an unseen yet all seeing guiding hand, even it it is expressed as an invisible hand?

Or, equivalent dressed up in economic terms, lipstick on the same old religious nonsense?

You don't need to go 'on and on' with examples; a single one would do.

In what significant way do 'billions of people' act as the entity 'billions of people?' ...and how? I saw not a single example in your response. I'm not looking for trivial examples, like 'we all breathe in and out', or 'we all eat food' or 'we all drink water', etc. Well no shit. Those are trivial banalities, not economic insights. In what way do 'billions of people' act as the entity 'billions of people' in 'the' or any economy?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Billions of people don't act as a single individual agent, how that is attributed to economics I haven't the faintest clue how you even got there. But if you are disputing the notion that we can generalize particular characteristics of human behavior, specifically behavior concerned with "trade", and then examine how certain conditions can influence how that trade looks like, then you really have entered into moonbat territory Fred. If that's the case, leaving aside economics for the moment, how do you even arrive at a philosophy of Objectivism? Objectivism holds that there are certain conditions to reality, and there are certain conditions necessary for human flourishing, among other things the condition of freedom is necessary. But now I can see how you would even object to that, since you can just as easily argue Objectivism is projecting 'billions of people' acting as the entity 'billions of people?'. How ridiculously absurd, and how you don't see that, and how you don't realize you are undermining everything else you believe in astounds me. I might as well give you the rope Fred because you seem to be more than willing to go hang yourself with it. It really seems you have chosen to shut down your mind here.

So, are you saying the act of trading, exchanging value for value, is not just as important to life like 'we all eat food' and 'we all drink water'? Humanity cannot exist without trade. If you object on the grounds that we don't all trade the same thing or in the same way, well no shit! Neither do we all eat the same food! So what is your point? Economics doesn't say we all trade the same things either, but it does say we all trade, and how we trade is effected by the conditions of reality. You think no such examination is possible, which makes me think what you're really getting at is that you're a nihilist. You don't believe in any examination of reality.

You of course don't need to have a college education to examine economic theory. But if you're going to tell someone like me that has a college education in economics that I wasted my four years in college, you better be damn well prepared to have a very convincing and well-informed argument for such a proposition.

(Edited by John Armaos on 7/13, 2:50pm)

Post 61

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 4:32pm

Robert wrote, "yes - there may be billions of persons, but there are no billions of people..." The definition of "people" is "persons who form part of the aggregate of human beings." In other words, "people" is the plural of "person." You wouldn't say that there may be two persons but not two people, would you?

Of course, there cannot be one people (unless you're talking about a specific collective like the American people) any more than there can be one persons. But there can be two people, just as there can be two persons. In the same way, there can be a billion people as well as a billion persons. "People" and "persons" mean essentially the same thing. The term "people" does not negate the individuality of a billion people any more than the term "persons" negates the individuality of a billion persons.

Post 62

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 4:37pm

Not quite - you already admit that persons is the plural of person - as well as say people is the plural of persons... the difference is - one defines the plural in terms of individuals aggregated, the other, long in use thru centuries, as a collective, a 'peas in pod' approach to persons, even if done subliminally...

Post 63

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 5:58pm

Yawn....

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 11:58pm

John:

I'm not sure I understand your question. Billions of people don't act as a single individual agent, how that is attributed to economics I haven't the faintest clue how you even got there.

I was responding to the following assertion by Joe in 51, and now you have the faintest clue how I even got there.

"Understanding how billions of people acting in their own perceived interests in a system of trade does not smuggle in any assumptions that government should somehow control this "economy" as if it were a machine."

The context was my assertion that the field of economics has largely been abused for politics.

I was asking for evidence of 'understanding' -- as opposed to pondering -- of how 'billions of people' act. It is an example of the kind of heady hubris usually reserved for 3am dorm arguments.

Forgive me or not, but at most, even in economics, all I ever see is assertions of models that forever include the caveat "acts as if." Not 'acts.'

For the third time(who is counting? This is about economics...)I will state that there are many economic arguments I find reasonable, disciplined, and well thought out. The assertion that any of them include an understanding of how 'billions of people' act as the entity 'billions of people' is not among those, or at least, is waiting for a single example of the entity 'billions of people' acting as anything, understood or not, except in the most trivial and banal sense. As in, a billion people live and breath and eat.

I mean, with that kind of thinking, before long, we're pondering Malthus and referring to the source of the dismal science-- what I like to call THE "SCIENCE" BEHIND WHY MANKINDS ONLY HOPE IS A GLOBAL TOTALITARIAN BEE COLONY.

FIRST THEOREM: "THE DISMAL THEOREM"

If the only ultimate check on the growth of population is misery, then the population will grow until it is miserable enough to stop its growth.

SECOND THEOREM: "THE UTTERLY DISMAL THEOREM"

This theorem states that any technical improvement can only relieve misery for a while, for so long as misery is the only check on population, the [technical] improvement will enable population to grow, and will soon enable more people to live in misery than before. The final result of [technical] improvements, therefore, is to increase the equilibrium population which is to increase the sum total of human misery.

THIRD THEOREM: "THE MODERATELY CHEERFUL FORM OF THE DISMAL THEOREM

Fortunately it is not too difficult to restate the Dismal Theorem in a moderately cheerful form, which states that if something else, other than misery and starvation, can be found which will keep a prosperous population in check, the population does not have to grow until it is miserable and starves, and it can be stably prosperous.

This is my favorite line from a fellow tribesman who shares my last name: "The final result of [technical] improvements, therefore, is to increase the equilibrium population which is to increase the sum total of human misery."

Clearly, these 'theorums' explain all the overcrowded misery in Bangladesh: way too many technical improvements. Every day, people wake up in places like that and thank their lucky stars they are as far away from Rt 128 and/or Silicon Valley as humanly possible, where all the overcrowded misery is a result of these theorums.

In this instance, I'm glad my grandfather changed his name.

God help us naked sweaty apes if we ever develop fusion; can you imagine the sum total of all that misery?

Gee, you folks are right. I see no sign at all of the above 'theorums' running loose in our politics. That guy Axelrod and his boss are all about jobs, jobs and even more jobs.

regards,
Fred

Post 65

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 11:49am

Fred, I was waiting to hear the Malthusian theory be brought up as evidence against the efficacy of Economics.

So let's see, a now thoroughly discredited theory that economists have abandoned a LONG time ago, is now used as a means to discredit the science of economics. A theory when brought up today in contemporary economics courses in college as an example of bad economic thinking, is used by Fred, as evidence of a field of study unworthy of study and higher education. I see, you're right Fred, I totally wasted four years of college!

I suppose I could also bring up the fallacious Heliocentric models as evidence Astronomy is just a bunch of crock. If SOME astronomer got it wrong at one time in the past, I suppose I might as well conclude they have it wrong now.

Any more ridiculously horrible arguments Fred?

(Edited by John Armaos on 7/14, 11:54am)

Post 66

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 12:08pm

Fred:

"Understanding how billions of people acting in their own perceived interests in a system of trade does not smuggle in any assumptions that government should somehow control this "economy" as if it were a machine."

The context was my assertion that the field of economics has largely been abused for politics.

I was asking for evidence of 'understanding' -- as opposed to pondering -- of how 'billions of people' act. It is an example of the kind of heady hubris usually reserved for 3am dorm arguments.

Fred, what you're saying, again, is that we cannot generalize particular human behaviors, specifically here trade, and come up with how that behavior is affected by the conditions of reality. For example, why do product substitutions occur? Why do prices fall and rise? Why are there shortages, and surpluses? To you, NONE of these questions can be answered because it presupposes "understanding" how billions of people act. It never occurs to you STILL that the conditions of reality ARE what they ARE, and these conditions effect your ability to allocate resources, no matter what kind of person you are. The laws of economics governing supply and demand do not change because you are an Indian, a woman, or enjoy posting on philosophy forums. That kind of identification doesn't matter. What is the SAME for everyone is that they need resources, they need to trade, and they are faced with the reality of allocating those resources.

Post 67

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 1:56pm

John:

This is all very reassuring. I was concerned, for a moment, that the 1992 Earth Summit, in Rio, was a reflection of modern Malthusian thought, and that Time's cover story then, "Rich vs. Poor", was a political summation of a movement once again thinking it was safe to peek out in the light of day, so soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall. I had no idea that victory over the Malthusians had long been unilaterally declared, and their 'sustainable growth' repackaged spawn weren't presently crawling all over DC. Maybe you are right, because after all, they -tell- us, using words, that they are focused like a laser beam on "jobs, jobs, jobs." Never just "jobs, jobs" or even "jobs" but always "jobs, jobs, jobs."

So surely, they are all about growth.

You know, our pro-growth, modern policymakers, freshly enlightened as they are by the slam-dunk of economic arguments.

I guess, when half or more of America is waiting for the POTUS to show up with the new magic Green economy, its clear he means Green, and there is no Malthusian influence in any of that, why, fringe nonsense.

After all; Malthusian thought has been thoroughly discredited in the halls of economic science.

Hell of a job. That's quite a war dance you are throwing yourself. Give yourself a huge high five ... while the termites are eating our lunch.

Those Malthusian quotes were not from Boston University trained economists. They were from a Harvard University trained PHD Physicist across the river, a modern era Ivy League trained 'scientist,' trained at one of those inbred choke points I've been ranting about.

I'd hope that you reasonable Boston University trained economists would do a better job of beating those Harvard trained pinheads to the halls of state.

So, how is that working out? Not that anyone is keeping score.

Post 68

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 2:31pm

John:

To you, NONE of these questions can be answered because it presupposes "understanding" how billions of people act.

I've long ago in this discussion accepted the fact that this may be way too subtle a point in 2010, but NO. I don't accept that a pondering of why any of those things occur require anything remotely like an 'understanding' of 'how billions of people act' as the entity 'billions of people.'

"Billions of people", an entity, does not act as 'an it', and cannot be understood as 'an it.' OTOH, their agregate effect in our economies can be thought of
as if' those were 'an it', but in fact, people act billions of times, a billion people do not act "as an it."

It is a political bias to continuously regard the aggregate behaviors, plural, of a plurality of individuals as 'an it' with 'a behavior.' A theoretician, quietly sitting at his desk, is free to mentally aggregate their behaviors, and model them "as if" they were 'an it', but those that do the doing do no such thing.

As well, it serves only a political purpose to encourage us to think only in singular terms, through a singular prism.

The folly of making judgments based on 'the average depth of a stream' are too obvious to detail, or should be. Folks who do that are going to get their hair wet.

It doesn't improve our economic understanding to regard the actions of 'billions of people' as 'an it.' To the contrary, it leads us away from understanding what is.

It shapes only our political instruction, and it has, for decades, long before you and I were born.

Post 69

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 2:35pm

John:

An 'it', for example, could ponder the actual implementation of the following:

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[1]:
� It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people�whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth�is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights�among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however�as our industrial economy expanded�these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. �Necessitous men are not free men.�[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all�regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Is that true? Have you accepted those self-evident economic truths, or any such Second Bill of Rights?

Because those selling us the 'it' of what 'billions of people' do have.

Post 70

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 2:58pm

I don't accept that a pondering of why any of those things occur require anything remotely like an 'understanding' of 'how billions of people act' as the entity 'billions of people.'

Perhaps I need to clarify my yawn.

Nobody said "entity of 'billions of people'". That's not economics. That's your own skewed view which is dominated by ideology instead of facts. You are wrong. Not just a little. You are breathtakingly wrong. Your understanding of economics is completely flawed, as is your dismissal of it. And you are continuing to pretend that all views labelled economics are the same. My view here is that if you want to be honest about the topic, you'll refrain from sloppy and misleading thinking. But if you don't really care about the facts and just rant so you can feel superior, I would expect you to continue with the nonsense. Not expecting any pleasant surprises here.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, any discussion of philosophy could be slandered the same way by taking the worst stuff out there "Whoah....dude...what if...like...we don't really exist man." "Whoah....cool....hand me that joint, will ya?". My temptation is to treat you the same, and every time you talk I'll slander you by suggesting you believe things that other people do. I notice here you're talking about politics. Clearly you are a statist who worships government intervention. Yay! Isn't that fun. Even talking about political views clearly is an excuse to rationalize your desire to inflict violence on others. Wonderful! I feel so superior to you right now!

Post 71

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 3:26pm

Yeah I'm done with this crap. You clearly are not interested in any kind of honest inquiry Fred. The fact that you are now quoting the butchering of economic science by FDR and Harvard Physicists and trying to pass if off as a a justifiable condemnation of economics as a science proves to me you are unwilling to realize what you said was completely wrong. For every false economic theory, for every politicization of an economic model, I can equally point out the same instances in the physical sciences as well (Global Warming, Creationism, Heliocentric models..) You have nothing to say for these examples. When you are asked to justify your position when other sciences suffer the same thing, your response? "But look at this example of politicization! Look at this wrong theory that was formulated almost a century ago!" I mean really, you are just as guilty of politicization as the people and science you purport to condemn. I don't know why I should waste my time, you obviously don't care.

I don't think I wasted my time in college, but it appears you made a waste of yours.

Post 72

Thursday, July 15, 2010 - 10:10am

John:

I can equally point out the same instances in the physical sciences as well (Global Warming, Creationism, Heliocentric models..) You have nothing to say for these examples.

I'd say you are right, those are excellent examples of the politicization of science, much to the detriment of us all.

Feynman said it best in his 1974 CalTech graduation speech.

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

regards,
Fred

Post 73

Thursday, July 15, 2010 - 10:29am

Joe:

But if you don't really care about the facts and just rant so you can feel superior

I sincerely apologize if anything I've written came across like that. Not my intent to claim superiority in anything.

Tone is hard to convey, except by exceptional writers. I am not an exceptional writer, I do not always accurately convey tone, and in fact, might seldom accurately convey tone.

I am -- and have been -- as critical of the politicization of science and engineering as I have been economics.

This medium is a little like communicating underwater. I do employ hyperbole. I do exaggerate for effect. I do write with a hamfisted crayon. I do ramble and rant. I am often wrong based on my personal incomplete sampling of reality. Mea culpa. But, I do not intend, ever, to insult anyone here-- especially here-- or leglift anything over anybody.

If I've been doing that, then it is a sign that I should slow down.

regards,
Fred

Post 74

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 12:30pm

April 27, 2010: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Congress that failing to curb federal budget deficits would do "great damage" to the U.S. economy in the long run.

July 22, 2010: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Thursday that the fragile economy needs government stimulus spending to strengthen the recovery and help reduce unemployment.

Bernanke image.

Post 75

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 7:24am

"The old bogeyman of deflation has re-emerged as a worry for the U.S. economy. Here's something else to fret about: After studying more than a decade of deflation in Japan, economists have slowly realized they have no idea how it works."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704249004575384944103200032.html

"Other economists argue the problem isn't banks' willingness to lend, but rather weak demand because of the recession.

Mark Thoma, economics professor at the University of Oregon, said short of Bernanke's facetious suggestion back in 2003 that the Fed should drop money from helicopters, getting people spending again is beyond Fed's control.

"It's easy to choke off demand," he said. "But you can create all the incentives to spend you want, and it won't necessarily work."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/20/news/economy/fed_deflation/?postversion=2010072110

Nagging suspicion: It is cumulative fatigue at being alternatively jerked around between being 'easily choked' -- who is being 'easily choked' by whom, the age old question of politics -- and being not so easily 'incentified to spend' -- that has severely broken the real engines of our economies.

Parasites and carcass carvers, prodding the beast with their sticks and levers and whips and chains, are wondering why it no longer energetically struggles to build itself. They can't believe that their 'easily choking/prodding' of the beast is having no impact, and continue to 'easily choke/prod' the beast, using OPM...

I say, fuck the parasites and carcass carvers and easy chokers/prodders. When the nation figures it out and cleanses itself of its currently dysfunctional political over-class(including the GOP), the beast might come back to life.

Until then, we are all pointlessly waiting for this 'run the economy' nonsense to actually work. Welcome to the Grey Economies of Waiting.

Post 76

Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 8:04am

After studying more than a decade of deflation in Japan, economists have slowly realized they have no idea how it works.

Which makes sense to me, if the answer is pointing to the possibility that the emperor has no clothes.

(I don't mean Emperor Akihito.)

Flat Earther's were also slow to give up the gig.

1] This makes no sense.
2] It can't be our religion, because it is the True Religion.
3] Go to 1] and repeat.

Come back in ten years...still at it.

regards,
Fred

Post 77

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 9:35am

In the short run, however, the outlook for Social Security continued to deteriorate. �Benefit payments are expected to exceed tax revenue for the first time this year, six years earlier than was projected last year,� said Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

But, close enough to 'run the economy.'

Gov't cheerleaders = totally random number generators.

Post 78

Monday, August 9, 2010 - 1:28pm