even Human Rights Watch is a scam???
E. Ward
out that Human Rights Watch is financed by multi-billionaire George Soros,
a top level CIA agent screwing millions of people out of their livelihood,
including taking billions from the UK in currency trading. this is
incredible! anyway, here's the link.
http://www.churchofchomsky.org/caqm.html
good day,
Oliver Kamm
Breathtaking; do you believe there is a crashed UFO at Roswell too?
George Soros is a hedge fund manager, not a 'top level CIA agent'. He
is also a well-known philanthropist of liberal views, hence his
support for Human Rights Watch. So far from 'screwing millions our of
their livelihood', he performed an immensely valuable service by
taking a position in 1992 that assumed UK monetary authorities would
have to allow the pound sterling to float rather than spend billions
attempting to keep it within its allowable bands within the Exchange
Rate Mechanism of the European Monetray System. The UK's economic
performance ever since the pound left the ERM that day has been
exceptionally good, with consistent growth, low inflation and low
unemployment.
I note again the existence of the 'church of Chomsky': I have long
argued that the Chomsky cult is a fundamentalist faith rather than
having anything to do with social scientific inquiry, and I am
confirmed in this by Chomsky's own admirers.
Dan Clore
> I note again the existence of the 'church of Chomsky': I have long
> argued that the Chomsky cult is a fundamentalist faith rather than
> having anything to do with social scientific inquiry, and I am
> confirmed in this by Chomsky's own admirers.
Making fun of your idiotic claims does not constitute
endorsement of them. Incidentally, considering that (as
Andre Breton said) pissing on the altar is just another form
of worship, you would seem to be Pope of that particular
church.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> Breathtaking; do you believe there is a crashed UFO at Roswell too?
> George Soros is a hedge fund manager, not a 'top level CIA agent'. He
> is also a well-known philanthropist of liberal views, hence his
> support for Human Rights Watch. So far from 'screwing millions our of
> their livelihood', he performed an immensely valuable service by
> taking a position in 1992 that assumed UK monetary authorities would
> have to allow the pound sterling to float rather than spend billions
> attempting to keep it within its allowable bands within the Exchange
> Rate Mechanism of the European Monetray System. The UK's economic
> performance ever since the pound left the ERM that day has been
> exceptionally good, with consistent growth, low inflation and low
> unemployment.
What a charming fellow. The following is taken from www.investopedia.com:
Most Famous For: A well respected currency speculator, he once shorted the
British Pound for a one day gain in excess of $1 billion.
Least Famous For: Although not totally responsible, Soros' comments on the
Russian economy contributed to their stocks plunging 12% in the first hour
of trading. Five days later the currency had devalued 25%.
Quoted Saying: "It's not whether you're right or wrong that's important, but
how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're
wrong."
Personally, I think he sounds like an asshole. Currency speculation is
SLEAZY!
Oliver Kamm
> Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> > I note again the existence of the 'church of Chomsky': I have long
> > argued that the Chomsky cult is a fundamentalist faith rather than
> > having anything to do with social scientific inquiry, and I am
> > confirmed in this by Chomsky's own admirers.
>
> Making fun of your idiotic claims does not constitute
> endorsement of them. Incidentally, considering that (as
> Andre Breton said) pissing on the altar is just another form
> of worship, you would seem to be Pope of that particular
> church.
It's always a useful expedient to claim that self-incriminating
remarks should be understood as irony, but Clore's desperate tactic
falls foul of the fact that the self-styled 'Church of Chomsky'
doesn't appear to be aware of my observations in the first place. It
genuinely regards itself as a cult of the elect. And that is very much
the mind-set of the typical Chomsky admirer, who is not generally
well-versed in such fields as history, politics or economics. Have a
look at this ng, for example: words and phrases such as 'faith',
'converted', and 'seen the light' abound. Chomskyism is a
fundamentalist cult eschewing critical method.
Oliver Kamm
A rather typical animadversion for a Chomsky groupie given the quality
and extent of critical thinking and empirical research thereby
evidenced. The final sentence reminds me of the teenage girl stamping
her little foot and screaming 'Kylie is better than Britney!'
Well, let me suggest the following conundrum to you: a British steel
manufacturer wishes to establish a plant in the United States. Having
done its cost-benefit analysis, it decides that it cannot reliably
estimate potential revenues for the plant, because it cannot forecast
exchange rate fluctuations between the pound and the dollar. It is, in
short, exposed to a business risk over which it has no control.
However, if it turns to the financial markets, it can take out a
currency hedging contract. It does this by selling dollars forward for
pounds or by selling dollar futures contracts. This will allow the
steel manufacturer to lock in a pound-dollar exchange rate for a
specified period. It thereby manages its currency risk, and creates
jobs. You obviously dislike the notion of job-creation, and thereby
fit neatly into the anti-working class stance of the Chomskyite
tendency.
Jack Black
>
> Dan Clore:
>
> > Oliver Kamm:
"Although decidedly secular, he is for many of us our rabbi, our
preacher, our rinpoche, our pundit, our imam, our sensei."
-David Barsamian
Noam Chomsky -Propaganda and the Public Mind: Interviews by David
Barsamian- (Cambridge: 2001) p. x
Dan Clore
This is hilarious.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
Looks like the church members better get themselves
straightened out, or they'll end up in fifty different hells
at once.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
Josh Dougherty
I think Mr. Kamm's ignorance of the issues on which he wrote this reply was
a substantial mitigating circumstance. Furthermore, I think that the
risibility of his arguments drew attention to the strength of Dan Clore's
own arguments, and thus has done no damage to them.
Josh
Guilherme C Roschke
> manufacturer wishes to establish a plant in the United States. Having
> done its cost-benefit analysis, it decides that it cannot reliably
> estimate potential revenues for the plant, because it cannot forecast
> exchange rate fluctuations between the pound and the dollar. It is, in
> short, exposed to a business risk over which it has no control.
> However, if it turns to the financial markets, it can take out a
> currency hedging contract. It does this by selling dollars forward for
> pounds or by selling dollar futures contracts. This will allow the
> steel manufacturer to lock in a pound-dollar exchange rate for a
> specified period. It thereby manages its currency risk, and creates
> jobs. You obviously dislike the notion of job-creation, and thereby
> fit neatly into the anti-working class stance of the Chomskyite
> tendency.
is soros a risk manager, or a speculator?
-gr
Oliver Kamm
Again, a useful expedient or a desperate obfuscation according to
taste. Clore flailed in responding to a speculative hypothesis about
Chomsky's admirers, in lieu of having any substantive criticism to
make. On having rather compelling evidence for that hypothesis
presented to him, he attempts a feeble joke. We may draw our own
conclusions about Clore's purchase on political matters.
Oliver Kamm
He's a hedge fund manager. I thought we'd already established that. Do
keep up.
Soros is unusual among hedge fund managers in that his investment
decisions involve taking positions on certain macroeconomic factors.
This type of investing is usually known as 'factor tilt' investing,
and involves managing risk through the control of factor exposures
(i.e. he will take a position on, say, short-term interest rate
changes while restricting his exposure so far as possible to long-term
interest rate changes). Most hedge funds don't take positions on
economic views at all, but aim to make profits out of tiny
discrepancies in the pricing of different classes of asset (known as
arbitrage).
'Speculation', in the sense of a financial position on equities, bonds
or (most usually) foreign exchange is typically what traders do, and
they thereby perform an essential service for the companies that
manage their risk by taking out, e.g., currency hedging contracts.
These traders take on risk in their books that otherwise would be
borne by the companies themselves. In short, the speculators *do* wish
to take on the risk associated with a particular position on, e.g.,
the dollar/sterling exchange rate three months hence; they thereby
enable companies that *do not* wish to take such a risk to hedge their
position. If the so-called 'speculators' didn't exist, then it
wouldn't be possible for the companies to sell their own risk on to
someone else. Hence the investment by my hypothetical steel producer
becomes a more profitable proposition, they establish their plant and
thereby create employment. (Worth noting that of course the risks
bought and sold cancel each other out. Chomsky is fond of declaring
that the forex markets amount to $X trillion, dwarfing the real
economy; he hasn't understood that the *net* value of all these trades
is zero, because where there is a buyer for a particular contract
there is by definition a seller. Financial economics is not Chomsky's
strong point.)
As I have observed, the lack of concern among Chomsky acolytes for
employment (presumably because they have none of their own) is the
most revealing aspect of their privileged status in capitalist
society.
Guilherme C Roschke
> employment (presumably because they have none of their own) is the
> most revealing aspect of their privileged status in capitalist
> society.
having spent time unemployed, i don't see it as a priviledged
status. but i do see negative consequences for employment coming from
currency speculation. also i don't see why currency prices can't be more
closely tied to exports and imports -- ie, actual real value moving
between countries, than to the whims of the 90% some of the cash moving
aroudn that doesn't have much to do with trade.
-gr
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > Personally, I think he sounds like an asshole. Currency speculation is
> > SLEAZY!
>
> A rather typical animadversion for a Chomsky groupie given the quality
> and extent of critical thinking and empirical research thereby
> evidenced. The final sentence reminds me of the teenage girl stamping
> her little foot and screaming 'Kylie is better than Britney!'
Groupie? Huh?
Anyway, about your condundrum below, the only jobs being created (at least
for the Brits) are managerial positions. Big deal.
And, no, I actually do happen to like the idea of job creation (and I
utterly fail to see what the notion has to do with Chomsky). What I am
opposed to is the division of labor decided by people who have demonstrably
placed greed as their top priority.
Do you seriously expect me to believe that when Soros makes a billion
dollars/pounds in a day that the rest of us aren't getting ripped off?
Here's a quote from Soros himself:
"I fight for many causes in my life, but I don't particularly feel like
defending currency speculation. I consider it a necessary evil. I think it
is better than currency restrictions, but a unified [European] currency
would be even better . . . I think that it behooves the authorities to
design a system that does not reward speculators. When speculators profit,
the authorities have failed in some way or another."
And no, Kylie is not better than Britney. Puleeeeze.
GR
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > > is soros a
risk manager, or a speculator?
> >
>
> He's a hedge fund manager. I thought we'd already established that. Do
> keep up.
Just about every publication to have mentioned his name, even the
financials, have called him a speculator. There are countless examples of
Soros shorting a currency. We'll quote a caption from a 1999 BBC article
just to keep Kamm happy: "George Soros: speculator turned investor".
Oliver Kamm
Soros takes positions on macroeconomic factors. That's part, but only part,
of what he does as hedge fund manager. Do you understand this concept? If
not, I will happily explain to you off-list, because I don't think many
other people, even on this ng, will have such difficulty.
Oliver Kamm
"Guilherme C Roschke" <gros...@luminousvoid.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.021113...@unagi.cis.upenn.edu...
> > employment (presumably because they have none of their own) is the
> > most revealing aspect of their privileged status in capitalist
> > society.
>
> having spent time unemployed, i don't see it as a priviledged
> status. but i do see negative consequences for employment coming from
> currency speculation.
Well, in that case I suggest you employ your expertise in financial
economics to explain them rather than assert them dogmatically. And then
stand prepared for me to shoot them down, without your running away as
certain other whipped ng members (Findlay, Teale) do. Go ahead.
also i don't see why currency prices can't be more
> closely tied to exports and imports -- ie, actual real value moving
> between countries, than to the whims of the 90% some of the cash moving
> aroudn that doesn't have much to do with trade.
This is what the zoologist Richard Dawkins, when attacking Creationists,
describes as 'the argument from personal incredulity'. It denotes a complete
ignoramus who hasn't troubled himself with an independent thought in his
life, and it invariably begins with 'it is difficult to see how...' or 'I
don't see why...'.
Think, old bean. Consider a developing country that wants to grow richer. In
order to increase its standard of living, it needs investment. Investment
equals savings, but in this poor country domestic savings are insufficient
to exploit all the investment opportunities that will yield a return in
excess of the cost of capital. Consequently in order to grow it will have to
run a current account deficit, i.e. it will be getting more from the world
economy than it will be contributing to it. In that case it will need to pay
for its imports with foreign capital. Foreign exchange markets allow that to
happen. If you shut down the foreign exchange markets, that funding would
not arise, or would so so at a substantially higher cost, because foreign
investors would need to be compensated for the corresponding reduction in
the liquidity of their assets. Thus, to satisfy your own ignorant prejudice,
you are willing to grind the faces of the world's poor as well as throw
workers on the dole. Only a privileged political illiterate could come up
with that.
Guilherme C Roschke
> > status. but i do see negative consequences for employment coming from
> > currency speculation.
>
> Well, in that case I suggest you employ your expertise in financial
> economics to explain them rather than assert them dogmatically. And then
> stand prepared for me to shoot them down, without your running away as
> certain other whipped ng members (Findlay, Teale) do. Go ahead.
can i just point to currency crises and their effects on
economies?
>
> also i don't see why currency prices can't be more
> > closely tied to exports and imports -- ie, actual real value moving
> > between countries, than to the whims of the 90% some of the cash moving
> > aroudn that doesn't have much to do with trade.
>
> This is what the zoologist Richard Dawkins, when attacking Creationists,
> describes as 'the argument from personal incredulity'. It denotes a complete
> ignoramus who hasn't troubled himself with an independent thought in his
> life, and it invariably begins with 'it is difficult to see how...' or 'I
> don't see why...'.
>
> Think, old bean. Consider a developing country that wants to grow richer. In
> order to increase its standard of living, it needs investment. Investment
> equals savings, but in this poor country domestic savings are insufficient
> to exploit all the investment opportunities that will yield a return in
> excess of the cost of capital. Consequently in order to grow it will have to
> run a current account deficit, i.e. it will be getting more from the world
> economy than it will be contributing to it. In that case it will need to pay
> for its imports with foreign capital. Foreign exchange markets allow that to
> happen. If you shut down the foreign exchange markets, that funding would
> not arise, or would so so at a substantially higher cost, because foreign
> investors would need to be compensated for the corresponding reduction in
> the liquidity of their assets. Thus, to satisfy your own ignorant prejudice,
> you are willing to grind the faces of the world's poor as well as throw
> workers on the dole. Only a privileged political illiterate could come up
> with that.
but i'm not talking about not having foreign exchange markets.
i'm just wondering why there needs to be speculation. the scenario you
described is quite fine and dandy -- money flows are tied to export/import
flows. what the hell does privilege have to do with it?
-gr
Oliver Kamm
>
> "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > > Personally, I think he sounds like an asshole. Currency speculation
is
> > > SLEAZY!
> >
> > A rather typical animadversion for a Chomsky groupie given the quality
> > and extent of critical thinking and empirical research thereby
> > evidenced. The final sentence reminds me of the teenage girl stamping
> > her little foot and screaming 'Kylie is better than Britney!'
>
> Groupie? Huh?
Yes, of course: that is a term aptly denoting your own lack of facility with
even straightforward political and economic concepts, reflecting an
ignorance characteristic of the undergraduate and teenage genuflection to
the linguist (certainly not a historian, political scientist or economist)
Noam Chomsky.
>
> Anyway, about your condundrum below, the only jobs being created (at least
> for the Brits) are managerial positions. Big deal.
See what I mean? No one with even the remotest experience of the world of
work - you know, *trade*, or earning a living - could come up with a
statement as risible as this. Factories need good management, but they don't
exist only on management. What about the American labourers in the
hypothetical who physically manufacture the steel? It's difficult to believe
that someone could be so dim as to overlook them, but you've proved that
it's possible. And of course, what about the increase in wealth in Britain
that this plant generates, in the form of factor income from abroad? Do try
to read something about a subject before demonstrating that you haven't
given a moment's thought to it.
>
> And, no, I actually do happen to like the idea of job creation (and I
> utterly fail to see what the notion has to do with Chomsky).
Arguments from personal incredulity are merely a reflection on you rather
than on the discipline you affect to be speaking about. You have already
admitted that you have overlooked the creation of jobs ('the only jobs being
created are managerial jobs' [sic]) and thus are not exactly in a strong
position to make judgements on the matter.
What I am
> opposed to is the division of labor decided by people who have
demonstrably
> placed greed as their top priority.
>
> Do you seriously expect me to believe that when Soros makes a billion
> dollars/pounds in a day that the rest of us aren't getting ripped off?
Argument from personal incredulity: logical fallacy. But your indignation is
so unintentionally funny that I'd encourage you to persist with it.
Certainly am. The action of the currency markets forced the pound out of an
artificially high exchange rate to the Deutsche Mark. With that action,
British policy-makers were able to target inflation *directly* rather than
shadow the exchange. Under Tinbergen's instruments-targets rule,
policy-makers should have as many policy instruments available as there are
targets. Abandoning the exchange rate instrument meant, ex hypothesi, not
having enough instruments to target inflation, let alone employment. The
performance of the British economy post-1992 compared with pre-1992
demonstrtes the point rather forcefully.
Fortunately for you, my sense of scholarly standards prevents from uttering
the epithet 'D'oh!' at this poiunt.
>
> Here's a quote from Soros himself:
> "I fight for many causes in my life, but I don't particularly feel like
> defending currency speculation. I consider it a necessary evil. I think it
> is better than currency restrictions, but a unified [European] currency
> would be even better . . . I think that it behooves the authorities to
> design a system that does not reward speculators. When speculators profit,
> the authorities have failed in some way or another."
>
Largely disagree with him. There is a case for a unified European currency,
so long as it targets nominal output rather than inflation alone. But
currency speculation is more defensible by far than Soros makes out: it
enables the hypothetical steel company to invest overseas and thereby create
jobs and generate a higher standard of living. This remains true even though
you are, on your admission, blissfully unaware of elementary matters of
political economy.
> And no, Kylie is not better than Britney. Puleeeeze.
>
As I thought: do Mommy and Daddy know you're up this late?
Josh Dougherty
Currency specalation is just rich people shamelessly gambling with the lives
of millions of people. It's a particularly contemptable component of a
completely corrupt and depraved elitist ideology.
Oliver Kamm
> > > having spent time unemployed, i don't see it as a priviledged
> > > status. but i do see negative consequences for employment coming from
> > > currency speculation.
> >
> > Well, in that case I suggest you employ your expertise in financial
> > economics to explain them rather than assert them dogmatically. And then
> > stand prepared for me to shoot them down, without your running away as
> > certain other whipped ng members (Findlay, Teale) do. Go ahead.
>
> can i just point to currency crises and their effects on
> economies?
You can, but you'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you tried anything so
foolish. All the currency crises that you are thinking of (Britain in 92?
South-East Asia in 97-8?) are instances not of *speculation* but of crises
in exchange rate regimes that were either fixed, nearly fixed or intensively
managed. In short, these are appallingly bad examples for you to claim for
the deleterious power of currency speculation: they are more easily
explained as instances where the *controls* on currency speculation produced
a combustible mixture. In the case of the UK, the economic experience ever
since the pound found its own level in currency markets has been an
unalloyed success.
>
> but i'm not talking about not having foreign exchange markets.
> i'm just wondering why there needs to be speculation. the scenario you
> described is quite fine and dandy -- money flows are tied to export/import
> flows. what the hell does privilege have to do with it?
>
And I have explained the point to you carefully. Let me try once more. In
providing foreign direct investment, financial institutions defer
consumption (investment is deferred consumption) and therefore require
compensation for the risk that they run in that investment (e.g. risk of
inflation eroding the real value of the capital). If they cannot readily
trade their investment in, say, an emerging country's sovereign bonds on a
secondary market, then they will require a correspondingly higher risk
premium to compensate them for that lack of liquidity (because it increases
the risk to them of that investment). That premium will be paid by the
*borrower*, i.e. the emerging economy itself, in the form of a higher cost
of capital. Consequently, speculators, by making a market in financial
instruments including foreign exchange, perform a valuable service to the
real economy by prodviding that liquidity. Your insistence that developing
countries pay more for their capital - and thus don't manage to pull
themselves out of poverty for longer - is a sure way of leaving people in
poverty. Do you have no compassion at all for the Third World? The answer
appears to be 'no': the prerogative of the privileged.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
this rest. (Besides, you'll be in over head with the "privilege" debate you
just loose on another branch of this thread).
Just a few refutations, however, on your fallacies and, um, rudeness...see
below.
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message >
> "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > Anyway, about your condundrum below, the only jobs being created (at
least
> > for the Brits) are managerial positions. Big deal.
>
> See what I mean? No one with even the remotest experience of the world of
> work - you know, *trade*, or earning a living - could come up with a
> statement as risible as this. Factories need good management, but they
don't
> exist only on management. What about the American labourers in the
> hypothetical who physically manufacture the steel? It's difficult to
believe
> that someone could be so dim as to overlook them, but you've proved that
> it's possible.
Or you could reread the sentence I wrote.
> > And, no, I actually do happen to like the idea of job creation (and I
> > utterly fail to see what the notion has to do with Chomsky).
>
> Arguments from personal incredulity are merely a reflection on you rather
> than on the discipline you affect to be speaking about. You have already
> admitted that you have overlooked the creation of jobs ('the only jobs
being
> created are managerial jobs' [sic]) [snip]
Dont [sic] me. buddy. I can spell reel good. Managerial.
Oliver Kamm
Ng members will be unsurprised that, as so often with Chomsky
admirers' remarks about politics, history or economics, Dougherty's
contribution to the discussion has no empirical or analytical content
whatsoever but is merely a semi-literate howl of prejudice. This is
not courteous to the ng: he really ought to do some research and
critical thinking before supplying us with his thoughts on such
matters, or he will look - perish the thought - like someone who is
unacquainted with the subject he declaims confidently upon. I
cordially invite him to go back to my own patient explanation of how
currency speculation aids employment and wealth-creation, by enabling
companies to invest in foreign markets without fear of exposure to
unanticipated exchnage rate risk.
Oliver Kamm
> Well, Kamm, you've given me some things to think about here, so I'll let
> this rest.
Much the wisest thing you have contributed to this thread is your
decision to duck out of it.
(Besides, you'll be in over head with the "privilege" debate you
> just loose on another branch of this thread).
Let me explain this one patiently. Chomsky's admirers are heavily
represented, as seems to be the case with this ng, among the
undergraduate and school-age wing of 'radical' (actually, reactionary)
politics. They thus are not acquainted with the world of earning a
living through labour. That is a privileged position. Condemning the
Third World to impoverishment by refusing to allow them access to
foreign capital is a distasteful affectation borne of privilege - I
make no value judgement of course, but merely state this fact as it
is.
>
> Just a few refutations, however, on your fallacies and, um, rudeness...see
> below.
Poor dear; how you've suffered.
>
>
>
> "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message >
>
> > "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > > Anyway, about your condundrum below, the only jobs being created (at
> least
> > > for the Brits) are managerial positions. Big deal.
> >
> > See what I mean? No one with even the remotest experience of the world of
> > work - you know, *trade*, or earning a living - could come up with a
> > statement as risible as this. Factories need good management, but they
> don't
> > exist only on management. What about the American labourers in the
> > hypothetical who physically manufacture the steel? It's difficult to
> believe
> > that someone could be so dim as to overlook them, but you've proved that
> > it's possible.
>
> Or you could reread the sentence I wrote.
Quite: you discounted altogether the creation of jobs in the foreign
market. Whether due to narrow nationalism and insularity, or a simple
inability to think through the issue, is a matter I leave for you to
explain.
>
>
>
> > > And, no, I actually do happen to like the idea of job creation (and I
> > > utterly fail to see what the notion has to do with Chomsky).
> >
> > Arguments from personal incredulity are merely a reflection on you rather
> > than on the discipline you affect to be speaking about. You have already
> > admitted that you have overlooked the creation of jobs ('the only jobs
> being
> > created are managerial jobs' [sic]) [snip]
>
> Dont [sic] me. buddy. I can spell reel good. Managerial.
I wasn't criticising your spelling: I was marvelling at your
conceptual chaos in being unable to see that investment in a new plant
will require labour to make it operate.
johnebravo836
Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:zwzA9.29106$46.21468@fe01...
[snip]
> > Here's a quote from Soros himself:
> > "I fight for many causes in my life, but I don't particularly feel like
> > defending currency speculation. I consider it a necessary evil. I think it
> > is better than currency restrictions, but a unified [European] currency
> > would be even better . . . I think that it behooves the authorities to
> > design a system that does not reward speculators. When speculators profit,
> > the authorities have failed in some way or another."
> >
>
> Largely disagree with him. There is a case for a unified European currency,
> so long as it targets nominal output rather than inflation alone.
I'll confess immediately to being a complete ignoramus about financial
matters, so you'll have to excuse the question, but maybe you can
explain this more fully for me -- I'm afraid I don't follow your remark
here. Isn't his point that where two nations share the same currency,
that eliminates any future currency exchange rate concerns from the
equation?
In other words, I take him to be saying that it's a necessary evil where
investments are made between nations with different currencies, but it
would be preferable to have that issue removed from the picture
entirely. If you lock in some exchange rate for a specified period and
the actual rate becomes less favorable, I take it that the business has
limited its loss, and the currency speculator has, accordingly, absorbed
the difference. On the other hand, if the actual rate becomes more
favorable, then the business doesn't realize all of the profits it would
have made, and the speculator comes away with the difference. If that's
so, then wouldn't it be better if the currency speculation was
unnecessary because there was a shared currency, because then the amount
of profit or loss would reflect more accurately the actual value (or
lack thereof) of the products sold? Or maybe I'm completely missing the
point -- hey, that's definitely possible. ;)
Oliver Kamm
> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> >
> > "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > news:zwzA9.29106$46.21468@fe01...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Here's a quote from Soros himself:
> > > "I fight for many causes in my life, but I don't particularly feel like
> > > defending currency speculation. I consider it a necessary evil. I think it
> > > is better than currency restrictions, but a unified [European] currency
> > > would be even better . . . I think that it behooves the authorities to
> > > design a system that does not reward speculators. When speculators profit,
> > > the authorities have failed in some way or another."
> > >
> >
> > Largely disagree with him. There is a case for a unified European currency,
> > so long as it targets nominal output rather than inflation alone.
>
> I'll confess immediately to being a complete ignoramus about financial
> matters, so you'll have to excuse the question, but maybe you can
> explain this more fully for me -- I'm afraid I don't follow your remark
> here. Isn't his point that where two nations share the same currency,
> that eliminates any future currency exchange rate concerns from the
> equation?
>
> In other words, I take him to be saying that it's a necessary evil where
> investments are made between nations with different currencies, but it
> would be preferable to have that issue removed from the picture
> entirely.
That is indeed his point, and you're justified in raising it. Let me
explain, perhaps more clearly than I managed, the point I was making
in response, because I don't entirely agree with this view.
One of the arguments of advocates of a single European currency is
that it eliminates currency speculation and exchange rate volatility.
It's not the most important argument put by these advocates - others
are that the euro reduces transactions costs and introduces a far
greater degree of pricing transparency - but it is one consideration.
I consider that to be a reasonable case, provided that the European
Central Bank, which of course sets the common interest rates across
the euro area, is careful in adhering to a particular mandate. The
ECB, in common with operationally-independent central banks in other
countries (e.g. the UK and New Zealand), has the mandate of meeting a
particular inflation target.
That is the right stress for central banks to have, given that - as we
know from the painful experience of the 1960s and 1970s - there is no
reliable trade-off between inflation and unemployment, and monetary
policy is too general an instrument to be finely-calibrated to manage
demand and employemtn in the real economy. My own view, however, is
that nonetheless cenral banks in practice probably prefer to have too
low an inflation rate (i.e. below their target range) than too high a
rate, and this poses a potential risk in an economic slowdown. A
modest, low and stable rate of inflation is quite positive for an
economy - for various reasons that we can discuss if of interest.
Consequently my preference would be for central banks to target not
inflation but nominal GDP. That was the point I was making.
On the particular point of Soros's argument, I was saying, however,
that - while your interpretation of what he was saying is correct - I
don't regard it as an especially compelling argument, simply because I
regard currency speculation as less of a cost than he does, and place
greater stress on the potential costs of a common interest rate. I
would regard currcny speculation as helpful to an economy in certtain
circumstances, in ensuring that incompatible policy objectives are
smoked out at an early stage. For example, the UK in 1992 under a
policy of semi-fixed exchange rates could not consistently pursue its
exchange rate target *and* generate economic growth. The market
noticed this contradiction, and forced the then Conservative
government to choose. Soros guessed correctly that the ggovernment
would not pursue exchange rate stability at ANY price, and made a lot
of money in pursuing that bet. Good luck to him, because his actions
caused the British government to abandon its excessively tight
monetary policies, with immense benefit to employment and living
standards.
Because I don't consider currency speculation to be as costly as Soros
does, I don't regard its elimination as being of such a benefit as
Soros is here suggesting. I would stress that currency markets cannot,
absolutely cannot, force a government to adopt any policy that it does
not wish to adopt. All that currency markets can do is to ensure that
the policy objectives that governments pursue have to be consistent
among themselves. It's no good pursuing *both* a single European
currency and a commitment to aiding the price competitiveness of your
exporters, for example: the policy objectives are incompatible, and
the markets will impose a choice. But that is a good thing, because
incompatible policy objectives pursued without check of any kind will
end up impoverishing the working class, as Allende managed to do in
Chile.
DR
Do you have anything else to add on the subject, or are you going to
continue with ad hominem attacks?
Anything of substance to add at all?
I ask strictly for rhetoric's sake.
--
DR
DR
> > straightened out, or they'll end up in fifty different hells
> > at once.
> >
>
> Again, a useful expedient or a desperate obfuscation according to
> taste. Clore flailed in responding to a speculative hypothesis about
> Chomsky's admirers, in lieu of having any substantive criticism to
> make. On having rather compelling evidence for that hypothesis
> presented to him, he attempts a feeble joke. We may draw our own
> conclusions about Clore's purchase on political matters.
???
Insult = Speculative Hypothesis
???
Remarkable.
I note as well that what you accuse him of, you yourself are guilty of
doing.
E.G.
Expedience: You are unable to counter effectively against the present
argument (granted, it can barely be called an argument, but...), so you
attack the arguer.
Desperate Obfuscation: You attempt to draw attention away from any genuine
criticism of a Chomskyite, and make absurd allusions to religion.
--
DR
DR
> A rather typical animadversion for a Chomsky groupie given the quality
> and extent of critical thinking and empirical research thereby
> evidenced. The final sentence reminds me of the teenage girl stamping
> her little foot and screaming 'Kylie is better than Britney!'
And what you say reminds many of us that alluding to the childishness of an
opponent is done even by adults, people who should know better.
> Well, let me suggest the following conundrum to you: a British steel
> manufacturer wishes to establish a plant in the United States. Having
> done its cost-benefit analysis, it decides that it cannot reliably
> estimate potential revenues for the plant, because it cannot forecast
> exchange rate fluctuations between the pound and the dollar. It is, in
> short, exposed to a business risk over which it has no control.
> However, if it turns to the financial markets, it can take out a
> currency hedging contract. It does this by selling dollars forward for
> pounds or by selling dollar futures contracts. This will allow the
> steel manufacturer to lock in a pound-dollar exchange rate for a
> specified period. It thereby manages its currency risk, and creates
> jobs. You obviously dislike the notion of job-creation, and thereby
> fit neatly into the anti-working class stance of the Chomskyite
> tendency.
Your thinking was as follows, AFAICT:
Gabrielle: 'Currency Speculation is SLEAZY.'
You: Provide an artificial example of currency speculation *possibly*
creating jobs.
You: Gather from that Gabrielle is anti-job-creation
and hence: anti-working class.
Just so I'm sure: Is that how the logical steps fit for you?
--
DR
DR
> As I have observed, the lack of concern among Chomsky acolytes for
> employment (presumably because they have none of their own) is the
> most revealing aspect of their privileged status in capitalist
> society.
More ad hominem attacks, I see. Of course, you don't HAVE TO, but don't you
think you would be a little more persuasive if you didn't insult the people
you are talking to? After all, what is your purpose here? To change minds,
or treat people like sh*t?
--
DR
James A. Donald
"Oliver Kamm"
> > As I have observed, the lack of concern among Chomsky
> > acolytes for employment (presumably because they have none
> > of their own) is the most revealing aspect of their
> > privileged status in capitalist society.
"DR"
> More ad hominem attacks, I see.
If someone was to say "We cannot believe Joe's concern for the
poor because he is a child molester", that would be an ad
hominem attack, since the one is not relevant to the other.
I notice that most socialists come from the class that actually
benefited from recently existent socialism, not the class it
was supposed to benefit -- observe for example the total
absence of proletarians among the old Bolsheviks.
That is plausible evidence that socialists intend socialism as
it actually existed, not the socialism that they say that they
intend.
Thus it is not an ad homininem, but relevant evidence.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
hvWGwL7DjoRRwY8/m825TTKDUKC09+2PlCHH6QBc
4QrnHaLt8QiTJeYmTMZuLhXd1na0/WAPRkm0PA2Jx
Joseph Michael Bay
>If someone was to say "We cannot believe Joe's concern for the
>poor because he is a child molester", that would be an ad
>hominem attack, since the one is not relevant to the other.
>I notice that most socialists come from the class that actually
>benefited from recently existent socialism, not the class it
>was supposed to benefit -- observe for example the total
>absence of proletarians among the old Bolsheviks.
>That is plausible evidence that socialists intend socialism as
>it actually existed, not the socialism that they say that they
>intend.
>Thus it is not an ad homininem, but relevant evidence.
It's not an *abusive* ad hominem, but a *circumstantial*
ad hominem, specifically known as Poisoning the Well:
"Of course you'd support oppressive collectivization;
you're from the class that would benefit".
The circumstances may have some relevance to the actual
claim itself but the it's still hardly an argument.
Besides, *Hitler* used circumstantial ad hominem.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ DO NOT PRESS
Ronald J. Bartle
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:40cd7d30.0211...@posting.google.com...news:<AacA9.27073$46.5440@fe01>...> > > Breathtaking; do you believe there is a crashed UFO at Roswell
too?
> > > George Soros is a hedge fund manager, not a 'top level CIA
agent'. He
> > > is also a well-known philanthropist of liberal views, hence his
> > > support for Human Rights Watch. So far from 'screwing millions
our of
> > > their livelihood', he performed an immensely valuable service
by
> > > taking a position in 1992 that assumed UK monetary authorities
would
> > > have to allow the pound sterling to float rather than spend
billions
> > > attempting to keep it within its allowable bands within the
Exchange
> > > Rate Mechanism of the European Monetray System. The UK's
economic
> > > performance ever since the pound left the ERM that day has been
> > > exceptionally good, with consistent growth, low inflation and
low
> > > unemployment.
> >
> > What a charming fellow. The following is taken from
www.investopedia.com:
> > Most Famous For: A well respected currency speculator, he once
shorted the
> > British Pound for a one day gain in excess of $1 billion.
> >
> > Least Famous For: Although not totally responsible, Soros'
comments on the
> > Russian economy contributed to their stocks plunging 12% in the
first hour
> > of trading. Five days later the currency had devalued 25%.
> >
> > Quoted Saying: "It's not whether you're right or wrong that's
important, but
> > how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose
when you're
> > wrong."
> >
> > Personally, I think he sounds like an asshole. Currency
speculation is
> > SLEAZY!
>
quality
> and extent of critical thinking and empirical research thereby
> evidenced. The final sentence reminds me of the teenage girl
stamping
> her little foot and screaming 'Kylie is better than Britney!'
>
steel
> manufacturer wishes to establish a plant in the United States.
Having
> done its cost-benefit analysis, it decides that it cannot reliably
> estimate potential revenues for the plant, because it cannot
forecast
> exchange rate fluctuations between the pound and the dollar. It is,
in
> short, exposed to a business risk over which it has no control.
> However, if it turns to the financial markets, it can take out a
> currency hedging contract. It does this by selling dollars forward
for
> pounds or by selling dollar futures contracts. This will allow the
> steel manufacturer to lock in a pound-dollar exchange rate for a
> specified period. It thereby manages its currency risk, and creates
> jobs.
How do you mean this "would creat jobs" - what you are proposeing
here would at best _shift_ jobs from the UK to the USA - in reality
the steel jobs are not being created in the USA or UK since decades -
they have all been shifted to Asia - not because the currency risks
can be neutralised or not, but because the workforce there is not
organised and so more profitable to exploit.
The limit is comming to all this when less and less of the old
industrial nations populations have sufficient freely disposable
income in order to consume the ever increasing flood of ever cheaper
produced products.
The function of a guy like Sorus is to wipe out the threat of
steadily growing ecconomies where the wokers might traditionally get
organised and reduce profits by shifting the productive abilites to
the higher profit/more exploitative ecconomies.
His actions benefit a) himself b) those reaktionary elements he feels
truely allied with - dont try and kid us this is about creating steel
jobs in the usa - or even shifting them from the UK to the USA!
ron b.
Ronald J. Bartle
When Soros takes a Billion $ profits in a days speculation/hedge-fund
management or whatever.. who produces the real wealth which may at
some stage have to back this Billion. The money has come from
somewhere - at the end of the line it comes from those who supply the
real wealth that the money represents. This Billion when expressed
in real goods and services will come from somewhere - will it come
from individuals like soros or the millions of (in recent decades...)
working people with decreasing nett incomes and less and less social
security?
ron b.
Ronald J. Bartle
Hmmm -strange - I thought we were being told that investment is
coming from the Billions that a guy like Soros makes out of
"nothing?"
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
By your argument it would never be advisable to set up a petroleum
refinery or storage facility because these things are "setting up" an
explosive situation. It is the corperation who succesfully uses such
facilities for decades that are at fault and _not_ the sabateur who
finds a way thru the fence and ignites the whole thing destructively?
hmmm
ron b.
Ronald J. Bartle
-so long as you qualify that by admitting that all these capatalistic
measures are employed in the service of maximizing profit for the few
at the expense of the truely productive many - fine..?
Or are you aregueing here that globalisation and capitalism in
general have the aim of generating _general_ evenly distributed
wealth and well-being? Poooh Baaah!
ron b.
Ronald J. Bartle
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ruobtu0vr9gelqh3l...@4ax.com...
> --
> "Oliver Kamm"
> > > As I have observed, the lack of concern among Chomsky
> > > acolytes for employment (presumably because they have none
> > > of their own) is the most revealing aspect of their
> > > privileged status in capitalist society.
>
> "DR"
> > More ad hominem attacks, I see.
>
> If someone was to say "We cannot believe Joe's concern for the
> poor because he is a child molester", that would be an ad
> hominem attack, since the one is not relevant to the other.
>
> I notice that most socialists come from the class that actually
> benefited from recently existent socialism, not the class it
> was supposed to benefit -- observe for example the total
> absence of proletarians among the old Bolsheviks.
hmmm - does that mean that 100's of 1000's of working folks who had
jobs and a modest well-being under the old socialst systems in
Eastern and Central Europe are now uniformly or in the majority
actaully better off?
Relatively recent German govt. figures didn't even claim such for the
majority of East Germans whose material standard of living -on
average- had fallen considerably since the re-unification.
ron b.
Ronald J. Bartle
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ar4plj$353$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
it's attempt to civilise and focus otherwise fare too emotive and
fruitless lines of debate?
ron b.
Ronald J. Bartle
>and generate a higher standard of living....
_at what hourly rates are these new jobs created compared to the
previously paid hourly rates where the production was done before
exporting the jobs?_ _**who** ends up with a higher standard of
living - Soros himself = impossible - he is already on a different
plantet to the most of us in this respect. Another few Billion could
hardly make a noticable difference to his personal standard of
living.
Oh - the British workers who - theoretically have lost thier jobs
because a British firm intends paying more to perhaps less productive
USA workers in the steel industry. BTW which British steel industry
are you talking abouit - the one that was shifted to s.e. Asia about
30 years ago or...?
But then it is us progressives who are so poorly educated and
understand nothing etc etc.
Sorry - I was forgetting that for a moment.
ron b-
James A. Donald
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:08:32 +0100, "Ronald J. Bartle"
<RBa...@t-online.de> wrote:
> hmmm - does that mean that 100's of 1000's of working folks
> who had jobs and a modest well-being under the old socialst
> systems in Eastern and Central Europe are now uniformly or in
> the majority actaully better off?
That is how they are voting.
Gennady Zyuganov heads a communist/nazi coalition that wants to
return the Soviet Union to the status quo ante -- except for
the economic order. He proposes something more similar to the
economic order of Hitler than the economic order of the recent
past.
From which we may conclude that even the commies do not want
the communism they recently had, rather the want the
authoritarianism and great power status they recently had.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
MnaIOfRKdeOnL+9BGp6oQgeQRbUdO0cCHsfAnyY+
4686qOXtPE+pciHLLF3rK/B8BD5yFaoH2EFsIYTvh
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > If someone was to say "We cannot believe Joe's concern for
> > the poor because he is a child molester", that would be an
> > ad hominem attack, since the one is not relevant to the
> > other.
>
> > I notice that most socialists come from the class that
> > actually benefited from recently existent socialism, not
> > the class it was supposed to benefit -- observe for example
> > the total absence of proletarians among the old Bolsheviks.
> >
> > That is plausible evidence that socialists intend socialism
> > as it actually existed, not the socialism that they say
> > that they intend.
> > Thus it is not an ad homininem, but relevant evidence.
Joseph Michael Bay:
> It's not an *abusive* ad hominem, but a *circumstantial* ad
> hominem, specifically known as Poisoning the Well:
No it is not:
The fallacy of poisoning the well is: 1. Unfavorable
information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2, Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
If the argument was that socialists are rich, and rich people
are evil that would be poisoning the well.
Rather, the argument is that socialists are those who benefited
from existent socialism -- which is a valid argument, not a
fallacy.
Similarly, if the unfavorable information is that A has lied
before, that likewise is not the fallacy of poisoning the well.
Suppose Jones and a preacher are arguing as to whether the
bible is infallible.
The preacher says:
: : "You can believe Jones and the atheistic
: : philosophy he embraces, or you can believe God and
: : his word."
Jones says:
: : "The book of Kings was written up by people subject
: : to the authority of those Kings, which makes it
: : official government propaganda"
Both are presenting unfavorable information about the source,
but the preacher is poisoning the well, and the Jones is not.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
kDBtHil3RqarOuLjO9rz08I/w6cj0jbzmoK4gja
4zGC4rEMF6U6fevjYpR8oav0qW62cjUIOPkuZ2ork
DR
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:ar4plj$353$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> It's not an *abusive* ad hominem, but a *circumstantial*
> ad hominem, specifically known as Poisoning the Well:
>
> "Of course you'd support oppressive collectivization;
> you're from the class that would benefit".
>
> The circumstances may have some relevance to the actual
> claim itself but the it's still hardly an argument.
>
> Besides, *Hitler* used circumstantial ad hominem.
LOL.
--
DR
DR
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:ruobtu0vr9gelqh3l...@4ax.com...
> --
> "Oliver Kamm"
> > > As I have observed, the lack of concern among Chomsky
> > > acolytes for employment (presumably because they have none
> > > of their own) is the most revealing aspect of their
> > > privileged status in capitalist society.
>
> "DR"
> > More ad hominem attacks, I see.
>
> If someone was to say "We cannot believe Joe's concern for the
> poor because he is a child molester", that would be an ad
> hominem attack, since the one is not relevant to the other.
The character of the arguer is never relevant to the argument, unless that
argument is specifically about the character of the arguer.
This, however, was not an argument about the character of the arguer, it was
an argument about George Soros, and it was about money markets,
speculation, etc.
As an example, (a stupid one, I'll admit), imagine a group of child
molesters coming forward with a proposal about school security to a school
board. Although the school board would rightly be suspicious of the origin
of the proposal, ultimately that is irrelevant to whether or not the
proposal is a good one.
Perhaps I erred when I snipped out the piece of your post I was objecting
to. If I had posted the whole thing, you might have remembered that larger
context. If so, I apologize.
--
DR
A quote from infidels.org:
AD HOMINEM:
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there
are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and
justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then
you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:
"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you
abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the
virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is
to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some
other easily criticized person. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have
agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to
accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular
circumstances. For example:
"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you
won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also
be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:
"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're
white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone
is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as
"poisoning the well".
DR
> "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<B6FA9.30222$46.2890@fe01>...
> represented, as seems to be the case with this ng, among the
> undergraduate and school-age wing of 'radical' (actually, reactionary)
> politics. They thus are not acquainted with the world of earning a
> living through labour. That is a privileged position. Condemning the
> Third World to impoverishment by refusing to allow them access to
> foreign capital is a distasteful affectation borne of privilege - I
> make no value judgement of course, but merely state this fact as it
> is.
Having been in the labour force for about sixteen years (not counting
several brief jobs pre-graduation), could you explain to me how the
employment history of others affects the value of MY judgement on Chomsky's
works, and for that matter, the value of the works themselves?
Either way, the followers of a doctrine don't determine the value of said
doctrine.
I'm reminded of an Orwell line (maybe not verbatim):
"Socialists, like Christians are generally the worst advertisements for
their beliefs."
I think it's important to note that in neither case is that relevant to the
doctrines themselves.
> > > Arguments from personal incredulity are merely a reflection on you
rather
> > > than on the discipline you affect to be speaking about. You have
already
> > > admitted that you have overlooked the creation of jobs ('the only jobs
> > being
> > > created are managerial jobs' [sic]) [snip]
> >
> > Dont [sic] me. buddy. I can spell reel good. Managerial.
>
> I wasn't criticising your spelling: I was marvelling at your
> conceptual chaos in being unable to see that investment in a new plant
> will require labour to make it operate.
That is an invalid use of "[sic]" then.
--
DR
James A. Donald
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:54:28 -0600, "DR"<dr...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> The character of the arguer is never relevant to the
> argument, unless that argument is specifically about the
> character of the arguer.
The character of the arguer is frequently relevant: For
example if A has in the past lied about X, and is now claiming
to be an eyewitness of something similar to X.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
HcMqV5Z2EY5Rhi5CTZt05SyTBaWS565AtigNxEuv
45kMuEzWOszZCG9Ba7L/cEVF6GFlW/ngiq9xjbH6C
James A. Donald
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 15:11:11 -0600, "DR"
<dr...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I'm reminded of an Orwell line (maybe not verbatim):
> "Socialists, like Christians are generally the worst
> advertisements for their beliefs."
Actually I think it is. If christians frequently act in an
"unchristian" fashion, this casts reasonable doubt on the truth
of Christianity.
Similarly for the behavior of socialists: For an example of
someone validly arguing from the unsocialist behavior of
socialists to the invalidity of socialism, see "Marxists
apartment, a microcosm of why Marxism does not work"
http://www.theonion.com/onion3842/marxists_apartment.html
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
NBqui11C8qszi2S7XeMLFA4cm3jcrdRTWESOBho2
4xY0GoEX++/S/fWOC2vFPkocieWf26T+qkZ4RrDO2
DR
> --
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:54:28 -0600, "DR"<dr...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > The character of the arguer is never relevant to the
> > argument, unless that argument is specifically about the
> > character of the arguer.
>
> The character of the arguer is frequently relevant: For
> example if A has in the past lied about X, and is now claiming
> to be an eyewitness of something similar to X.
Yes, as I said: '...unless that argument is specifically about the
character of the arguer.'.
With your example:
X says Y is true.
Z says X is not qualified to say that Y is true.
The *basis* of argumentation is establishing the credibility/lack of
credibility of X, i.e. an argument specifically about X's character.
--
DR
Joseph Michael Bay
> --
>James A. Donald:
>> > I notice that most socialists come from the class that
>> > actually benefited from recently existent socialism, not
>> > the class it was supposed to benefit -- observe for example
>> > the total absence of proletarians among the old Bolsheviks.
>> > That is plausible evidence that socialists intend socialism
>> > as it actually existed, not the socialism that they say
>> > that they intend.
>> > Thus it is not an ad homininem, but relevant evidence.
>Joseph Michael Bay:
>> It's not an *abusive* ad hominem, but a *circumstantial* ad
>> hominem, specifically known as Poisoning the Well:
>No it is not:
>The fallacy of poisoning the well is: 1. Unfavorable
>information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
>2, Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
The fallacy of Poisoning the Well is: rejecting a claim
defended by another because of that person's special
circumstances or improper motives or because of a negative
evaluation of that person.
>If the argument was that socialists are rich, and rich people
>are evil that would be poisoning the well.
That's an appeal to motive, specifically ad Lazarum.
>Rather, the argument is that socialists are those who benefited
>from existent socialism -- which is a valid argument, not a
>fallacy.
It may be prudent to be suspicious of a person's claims based
on apparent bias; I think it's always worthwhile to be aware
of bias (or expected bias), but someone's motivation to make
a claim does not invalidate that claim.
However, poisoning the well apparently is normally pre-emptive,
so my characterization of the above fallacy may be in error --
it *is* still a circumstantial ad hominem.
>Similarly, if the unfavorable information is that A has lied
>before, that likewise is not the fallacy of poisoning the well.
That is actually one of the most common examples of
poisoning the well, and the truth or falsehood of the
accusation has nothing to do with it being fallacious.
Joseph Michael Bay
> --
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:54:28 -0600, "DR"<dr...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> The character of the arguer is never relevant to the
>> argument, unless that argument is specifically about the
>> character of the arguer.
>The character of the arguer is frequently relevant: For
>example if A has in the past lied about X, and is now claiming
>to be an eyewitness of something similar to X.
Relevant, maybe. It will (and should) make you suspicious
of A's claims, but it in no way proves the falsehood of what
A is saying now, nor does it alter the logical soundness of
any arguments A makes.
As a stupid example, the boy who cried "wolf" was
actually menaced by one the last time.
Oliver Kamm
No, it's a speculative hypothesis. There is no value judgement at all
attached to my observation that Chomskyites bear the characteristics
of a religious cult. You may supply your own value judgement, and I
have my own, but as a social scientist I do not allow it to intrude
into my analysis.
Oliver Kamm
No ad hominem attacks made in the first place, just a challenging
sociological analysis.
Oliver Kamm
Dear me. Let me try gently to explain a very elementary point. There
is nothing wrong with operating a fixed exchange rate so long as it is
consistently pursued. There is nothing wrong with operating a floating
exchange rate so long as it is consistently pursued. If, however,
government pursues inconsistent policies, financial markets will pick
on that inconsistency. That isn't the 'fault' of financial markets,
it's the fault of policy-makers who imagine they can enjoy a benefit
without cost. Economic policy is about trade-offs. Roschke, who does
not have a strong grasp of finance, thought he would try the trump
card of pointing to exchange rate crises without first having worked
out if the crisis inhered in the market or in the policy regime under
which the market operated. Unfortunately for him, in the case that he
alluded to, it was an inconsistent policy regime. If you'd like to
send me a message off-list, we can go through this.
Oliver Kamm
It really is not courteous to the ng to post stuff like this. I'm
happy to take you through it, but the onus is on you to do some
elementary research first, I would suggest.
No financial economist has ever claimed that returns derive from
'nothing'. What could possibly have led you to conclude otherwise?
Please answer this question, because if I can get to the bottom of it
then it's possible we could save the ng a lot of time by putting a lid
on this type of mailing. Investment returns are, in financial theory,
the reward for taking on risk. 'Risk' and 'return' are the axioms of
finance. Do you understand this? The opportunity that sometimes comes
along for investors is to make a riskless profit, known as arbitrage.
Arbitrage helps the economy by ensuring that scarce capital is
alloacted to its most productive uses. Again, I'll be happy to go
through this with you off-list, but you're just wasting everyone's
time this way.
Oliver Kamm
Groan. Have you torubled to do research into this subject before
posting? If so, your research was not of an extensive kind. What yo
describe as a 'capatalistic' [sic] measure, namely currency hedging,
has nothing specifically to do with the deployment of capital: it is
about the management of risk. Risk management *indirectly* assists
profit-maximisation, by allowing risks to be hedged that otherwise
might militate against a profitable investment's being undertaken, but
it is only indirect. The idea that such a measure is taken at the
expense of the workers - who are, after all, the ones whose jobs are
created and maintained if a company can undertake investment, is just
a prejudice that you haven't thought about or researched, and it's
time you did.
One final howler from you. Globalisation doesn't have an *aim*: it is
merely an application and extension of exchange. It is certainly true
that it raises living standards for the poor, by stimulating
productivity and hence growth. These has been demonstrated by the
empirical work of David Dollar and Aart Kray of the World Bank, who
have found that global poverty is attributable to lack of growth.
Using statistical techniques to isolate the direction of causation,
these analysts find that a 1 per cent increase in per capita growth in
the developing countries causes a 1 per cent rise in the incomes of
the poor.
Dan Clore
Why, of course there is no value judgment involved. Just as
there is no value judgment involved in my observation that
Oliver Kamm bears the characteristics of a purple-assed
baboon.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith
Oliver Kamm
> "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:40cd7d30.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > employment (presumably because they have none of their own) is the
> > most revealing aspect of their privileged status in capitalist
> > society.
>
> think you would be a little more persuasive if you didn't insult the people
> you are talking to? After all, what is your purpose here? To change minds,
> or treat people like sh*t?
No ad hominem attack in the above paragraph - do you even bother to
check the stuff you send here? Again, you might take it as a value
judgement that Chomsky groupies are typically privileged and
undereducated, but I am simply drawing a sociological inference.
Oliver Kamm
In the particular case you're alluding to - Soros's betting against
sterling in September 1992 - the money came from the ability to sell
sterling short, knowing that he would be able to buy it back later at
a lower price. So the outcome was a one-off transfer of wealth from
those who were buying sterling when he was selling. The other party in
that case would have been the Bank of England's Exchange Equalisation
Account. Would you care to have a guess where that money 'comes from'
- or have you been beaten about enough on this already?
Oliver Kamm
> "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:40cd7d30.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:<B6FA9.30222$46.2890@fe01>...
> > Let me explain this one patiently. Chomsky's admirers are heavily
> > represented, as seems to be the case with this ng, among the
> > undergraduate and school-age wing of 'radical' (actually, reactionary)
> > politics. They thus are not acquainted with the world of earning a
> > living through labour. That is a privileged position. Condemning the
> > Third World to impoverishment by refusing to allow them access to
> > foreign capital is a distasteful affectation borne of privilege - I
> > make no value judgement of course, but merely state this fact as it
> > is.
>
> Having been in the labour force for about sixteen years (not counting
> several brief jobs pre-graduation), could you explain to me how the
> employment history of others affects the value of MY judgement on Chomsky's
> works, and for that matter, the value of the works themselves?
Your judgement falls entirely on its own demerits: it is, judging by
the various inanities you've posted here almost entirely devoid of
even the insights that an intelligent newspaper reader would bring to
the party. My sole point is to draw a sociological inference from the
demonstrable contempt for the world of labour and employment evidenced
by Chomsky groupies.
>
> Either way, the followers of a doctrine don't determine the value of said
> doctrine.
>
> I'm reminded of an Orwell line (maybe not verbatim):
> "Socialists, like Christians are generally the worst advertisements for
> their beliefs."
>
> I think it's important to note that in neither case is that relevant to the
> doctrines themselves.
>
> > > > Arguments from personal incredulity are merely a reflection on you
> rather
> > > > than on the discipline you affect to be speaking about. You have
> already
> > > > admitted that you have overlooked the creation of jobs ('the only jobs
> being
> > > > created are managerial jobs' [sic]) [snip]
> > >
> > > Dont [sic] me. buddy. I can spell reel good. Managerial.
> >
> > I wasn't criticising your spelling: I was marvelling at your
> > conceptual chaos in being unable to see that investment in a new plant
> > will require labour to make it operate.
>
> That is an invalid use of "[sic]" then.
You need to look up the meaning of 'sic', then, as well as educate
yourself in finance et al. 'Sic' means 'thus', and is used to indicate
that a passage or word has been written as it is transcribed, not that
there necessarily is a spelling error contained within it. Is there
any subject at all that you know something about?
Jez
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:3DDB9373...@columbia-center.org...
<Snippage>
> Why, of course there is no value judgment involved. Just as
> there is no value judgment involved in my observation that
> Oliver Kamm bears the characteristics of a purple-assed
> baboon.
Hey, don't go insulting baboons !!
--
Ho hum
Jez
Remove NOtSPAM to reply
DR
> > > Again, a useful expedient or a desperate obfuscation according to
> > > taste. Clore flailed in responding to a speculative hypothesis about
> > > Chomsky's admirers, in lieu of having any substantive criticism to
> > > make. On having rather compelling evidence for that hypothesis
> > > presented to him, he attempts a feeble joke. We may draw our own
> > > conclusions about Clore's purchase on political matters.
> > I note as well that what you accuse him of, you yourself are guilty of
> > doing.
> >
> > E.G.
> > Expedience: You are unable to counter effectively against the present
> > argument (granted, it can barely be called an argument, but...), so you
> > attack the arguer.
> > Desperate Obfuscation: You attempt to draw attention away from any
genuine
> > criticism of a Chomskyite, and make absurd allusions to religion.
>
> No, it's a speculative hypothesis. There is no value judgement at all
> attached to my observation that Chomskyites bear the characteristics
> of a religious cult. You may supply your own value judgement, and I
> have my own, but as a social scientist I do not allow it to intrude
> into my analysis.
The desperate obfuscation continues...
--
DR
DR
> > > As I have observed, the lack of concern among Chomsky acolytes for
> > > employment (presumably because they have none of their own) is the
> > > most revealing aspect of their privileged status in capitalist
> > > society.
> >
> > More ad hominem attacks, I see. Of course, you don't HAVE TO, but don't
you
> > think you would be a little more persuasive if you didn't insult the
people
> > you are talking to? After all, what is your purpose here? To change
minds,
> > or treat people like sh*t?
>
> No ad hominem attack in the above paragraph - do you even bother to
> check the stuff you send here? Again, you might take it as a value
> judgement that Chomsky groupies are typically privileged and
> undereducated, but I am simply drawing a sociological inference.
Ugh. Of course it is...
...and of course I do.
To quote from infidels.org:
'A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to
accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular
circumstances. For example:
"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you
won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also
be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:
"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're
white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone
is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as
"poisoning the well".'
--
DR
DR
> Groan. Have you torubled to do research into this subject before
> posting? If so, your research was not of an extensive kind. What yo
> describe as a 'capatalistic' [sic] measure, namely currency hedging,
> has nothing specifically to do with the deployment of capital: it is
> about the management of risk. Risk management *indirectly* assists
> profit-maximisation, by allowing risks to be hedged that otherwise
> might militate against a profitable investment's being undertaken, but
> it is only indirect. The idea that such a measure is taken at the
> expense of the workers - who are, after all, the ones whose jobs are
> created and maintained if a company can undertake investment, is just
> a prejudice that you haven't thought about or researched, and it's
> time you did.
While worker benefit can certainly apply, it seems that capital investment
into existing supply structures is far more prevalent, and I think
typically, more benefit is generally actualized by the finance capitalists
than the workers. The money finance capitalists gain comes from somewhere,
and that somewhere is the actual suppliers. You seem pretty knowledgable
about this subject, but you are unwittingly slanting the value of exchange
rate policy for workers, IMO. There are benefits to both, of course, but
you seem to be painting it out to be one-sided.
> One final howler from you. Globalisation doesn't have an *aim*: it is
> merely an application and extension of exchange. It is certainly true
> that it raises living standards for the poor, by stimulating
> productivity and hence growth. These has been demonstrated by the
Generally true, maybe. Indonesia, AFAIK, would be an example of it's
failure.
S. Korea and Malaysia, too, I would think.
The IMF's globalization techniques certainly did nothing for Indonesia.
"By the time the IMF was finished with Indonesia, over a thousand
shopkeepers were dead (most of them Chinese), 20 percent of the population
was unemployed, and a hundred million people-half the population-were living
on less than one dollar a day." Chalmers Johnson, Blowback
What "certainty" are you talking about?
--
DR
DR
> Your judgement falls entirely on its own demerits: it is, judging by
> the various inanities you've posted here almost entirely devoid of
> even the insights that an intelligent newspaper reader would bring to
> the party. My sole point is to draw a sociological inference from the
> demonstrable contempt for the world of labour and employment evidenced
> by Chomsky groupies.
Whatever. If you are not bright enough to understand what I say, don't
blame me.
> > > > > admitted that you have overlooked the creation of jobs ('the only
jobs
> > being
> > > > > created are managerial jobs' [sic]) [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Dont [sic] me. buddy. I can spell reel good. Managerial.
> > >
> > > I wasn't criticising your spelling: I was marvelling at your
> > > conceptual chaos in being unable to see that investment in a new plant
> > > will require labour to make it operate.
> >
> > That is an invalid use of "[sic]" then.
>
> You need to look up the meaning of 'sic', then, as well as educate
> yourself in finance et al. 'Sic' means 'thus', and is used to indicate
> that a passage or word has been written as it is transcribed, not that
> there necessarily is a spelling error contained within it. Is there
> any subject at all that you know something about?
In which case, you used it invalidly. You said (see above) that "[it's use
was to indicate that you] were marvelling at [his] conceptual chaos"
This is something that you EXPLICITLY SAID. This IS NOT a valid use of
"[sic]", by your own admission.
I will state it again, differently, just so you are sure to understand:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From you:
- You claim that "[sic]" was used to indicate the state of "marvelling at
chaos"
From me:
- I claim that using "[sic]" to indicate the state of "marvelling at chaos"
is an invalid usage.
From you:
- You claim that "[sic]" is used to indicate both "thus" and spelling
errors.
Now, unless you think that "[sic]" indicates the state of "marvelling at
chaos", you have no real logical choice, as far as I can see, to object to
my statement that it IS invalid usage.
<RHETORIC>Is there any subject in which you can apply reason? : )</RHETORIC>
Before sounding off with insults, why don't you first be sure that you
understand what has been written.
--
DR
Robert Vienneau
olive...@tiscali.co.uk (Oliver Kamm) wrote:
> "Ronald J. Bartle" <RBa...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:<ar5lsn$tpq$01$1...@news.t-online.com>...
> In the particular case you're alluding to - Soros's betting against
> sterling in September 1992 - the money came from the ability to sell
> sterling short, knowing that he would be able to buy it back later at
> a lower price. So the outcome was a one-off transfer of wealth from
> those who were buying sterling when he was selling. The other party in
> that case would have been the Bank of England's Exchange Equalisation
> Account. Would you care to have a guess where that money 'comes from'
> - or have you been beaten about enough on this already?
Hey Ollie,
What did John Maynard Keynes have to save about speculation
versus enterprise?
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Oliver Kamm
> In article <40cd7d30.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> olive...@tiscali.co.uk (Oliver Kamm) wrote:
>
> > "Ronald J. Bartle" <RBa...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > news:<ar5lsn$tpq$01$1...@news.t-online.com>...
>
> > In the particular case you're alluding to - Soros's betting against
> > sterling in September 1992 - the money came from the ability to sell
> > sterling short, knowing that he would be able to buy it back later at
> > a lower price. So the outcome was a one-off transfer of wealth from
> > those who were buying sterling when he was selling. The other party in
> > that case would have been the Bank of England's Exchange Equalisation
> > Account. Would you care to have a guess where that money 'comes from'
> > - or have you been beaten about enough on this already?
>
> Hey Ollie,
>
> What did John Maynard Keynes have to save about speculation
> versus enterprise?
He considered that asset markets could deviate substantially from
intrinsic values, but that even so speculation could have beneficial
economic effects.
"While some part of the investment which was going on [in the stock
market boom of the 1920s] ... was doubtless ill judged and unfruitful,
there can, I think, be no doubt that the world was enormously enriched
by the constructions of the quinquennium from 1925 to 1929; its wealth
expanded in the those five years by as much as in any other ten or
twenty years in its history.... A few more quinquennia of equal
activity might, indeed, have brought us near to the economic Eldorado
where all our reasonable needs would be satisified."
"An Economic Analysis of Unemployment" (1931), in Collected Writings,
Volume XII, quoted by Andrei Shleifer in his 1996 Clarendon Lectures
in Economics at Oxford, published as Inefficient Markets: An
Introduction to Behavioral Finance(2000).
Robert Vienneau
I think that the following passage is more accessible:
"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of
enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes
the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital
development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities
of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done."
I intended my use of "speculation" and "enterprise" to be an
allusion to the analysis from which this passage comes.
Oliver Kamm
> I think that the following passage is more accessible:
>
> "Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of
> enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes
> the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital
> development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities
> of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done."
>
> I intended my use of "speculation" and "enterprise" to be an
> allusion to the analysis from which this passage comes.
>
Indeed: the point I was making was that Keynes, who was strongly of
the view that capital markets were not informationally efficient but
were characterised by periodic bouts of animal spirits, nonetheless
saw a valuable role for speculation in, precisely, the development of
enterprise. Shleifer, who also believes stock markets are inefficient
(not least on behavioural grounds: investors' forecasting errors will
not necessarily be independent, and thus might produce overvaluation
or undervaluation depending on the direction of the error), puts it
this way: "When capital markets are not sufficiently developed to
enable the financing of all privately profitable projects, bubbles
play an extremely positive social role. This benefit only becomes
greater when the social return on investment exceeds the private
return."
In short, there is a common view that financial markets are a
'casino', and those who make such a charge often believe they are
thereby making a comment on the presumed destructiveness of
speculative markets. But in fact the premise doesn't generate the
conclusion. (Having some experience of both financial markets and
casinos, I don't happen to accept the premise either.)
Jack Black
>
>(Having some experience of both financial markets and
> casinos, I don't happen to accept the premise either.)
Yes.
I'm sure Warren Buffet makes his portfolio selections
after rolling the dice and chanting, "C'maaawn ... seven!"
<wink>
Ronald J. Bartle
> "Ronald J. Bartle" <RBa...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:<ar5mf4$o6b$04$1...@news.t-online.com>...
> > "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:3dd2f...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > >
> > > "Guilherme C Roschke" <gros...@luminousvoid.net> wrote in
message
> > >
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.02111...@unagi.cis.upenn.edu...
> > > > > > having spent time unemployed, i don't see it as a
priviledged
> > > > > > status. but i do see negative consequences for
employment
> > coming from
> > > > > > currency speculation.
> > > > >
No thanks. When your own arguments are in the public domain - I feel
the comments and questions of others relating to your arguments can
also find thier place in the public domain.
To approach this from a somwhat different angle.
When you contend that "..
> > > In the case of the UK, the economic experience ever
> > > since the pound found its own level in currency markets has
been an
> > > unalloyed success..."
- for whom has it been a success - and in which way?
What role has the "health" of the pound from the viewpoint of a
classical/established ecconomist lessened the increadable
differentials in earnings within the UK, with a few getting
astronomic renumeration and many others left to pick up the crumbs?
Has it hindered or supported the situation where many are working
overly long hours - quite a lot of them at wage/price levels which
put thier nett standard of living way below that of a social security
claimant in the rest of Europe?
ron b.
Ronald J. Bartle
Instead of coming back with this "schoolmasterly" and by implication
rather insulting suggestion that I do some "elementary research
first.." perhaps your good self could take the trouble to note that I
placed the word "nothing?" in inverted commas - providing ample
indication that it was meant in an ironic manner.
I do on the other hand confess that as a Britisher who from a young
age had grown up in a society and culture where irony has a firmly
established place in the toolkit of discussion - that it is quite
hard for me to relate to apparently generally well educated folks who
seem to totally lack the "antenna" needed to grasp the most
elementary points of an ironically framed argument.
It is quite hard for me to think of an alternative vehicle, which can
convey similar point with a equitable poignancy when relating to
folks without this attenuation.
On an unmoderated group the onus is on the author of an article if he
wants to respond to all comments made on it or not. The same applies
to others browsing thru the Ng. They can continue reading an article
or decide to terminate the same.
On the other hand - there seems little room in the concept of the
free and unrestricted flow of opinion and discourse in the
classically functional and historic setting of the (uucp-) news
groups for a single contributor to be striving to "put a lid" on
seriously intended contributions.
If you feel this need so strongly - then of course you have the
option of setting all postings from my address to '/devnull - which
would be sad in a way - because then you will have turned your back
on my own critical input, in a way that leaves you defenceless
against the arguments and suggestions raised.
Investment returns are, in financial theory,
> the reward for taking on risk. 'Risk' and 'return' are the axioms
of
> finance. Do you understand this? The opportunity that sometimes
comes
> along for investors is to make a riskless profit, known as
arbitrage.
> Arbitrage helps the economy by ensuring that scarce capital is
> alloacted to its most productive uses. Again, I'll be happy to go
> through this with you off-list, but you're just wasting everyone's
> time this way.
Perhaps one should make quite clear that I - like some others do not
come to this Ng to provide evidence of, or find a platform to
demonstrate some expert competence in the detail and mechanics of
economies as portrayed by the main-stream of classically educated
professionals.
Far more than this - what many will be seeking here is a chance to
discuss and build on the ideas of folks such as noam-chomsky who take
an alternative and - for many - refreshingly novel minority stand
from a socially critical viewpoint.
It would seem no small assumption on your own part to be making
veritably "proclamations" along the lines of "...but you're just
wasting everyone's time this way!"
Who says?
- Based on which data?
By what authority?
I personally am not suffering from the delusion that I am stood at
the front of a seminar with some expectation of attentive compliance
from those under my control.
r.b.
Ronald J. Bartle
> >
> > "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > > is
soros a
> > risk manager, or a speculator?
> > > >
> > >
> > > He's a hedge fund manager. I thought we'd already established
that. Do
> > > keep up.
> >
> > financials, have called him a speculator. There are countless
examples of
> > Soros shorting a currency. We'll quote a caption from a 1999 BBC
article
> > just to keep Kamm happy: "George Soros: speculator turned
investor".
> >
that
> Soros takes positions on macroeconomic factors. That's part, but
only part,
> of what he does as hedge fund manager. Do you understand this
concept? If
> not, I will happily explain to you off-list, because I don't think
many
> other people, even on this ng, will have such difficulty.
>
Mr. Kamm - you must be an increadably well built individual if you
also practice the same routine methods of responding to comment in
everyday real life.
Again and again I notice on the Ng here at least that your set answer
to anybody takes a line that does not apparently serve the needs of
your _own_ line of argument is to:
a) Insult them ..
b) Ask the person to "..step outside!"
I don't think there are even that many prominent Hells Angels who
would practice this without at least taking a good look at the person
they are stood opposite first?
I wish you an increasingly fruitfull week - full of growing mutual
respect and decency.
cmd. ron bartle
Ronald J. Bartle
> "Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message
news:<CfCA9.3359$Ta6.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > news:mFzA9.29133$46.14538@fe01...
> > >
> > > "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > >
is soros a
> > > risk manager, or a speculator?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > He's a hedge fund manager. I thought we'd already established
that. Do
> > > > keep up.
> > >
> > > Just about every publication to have mentioned his name, even
the
> > > financials, have called him a speculator. There are countless
examples of
> > > Soros shorting a currency. We'll quote a caption from a 1999
BBC article
> > > just to keep Kamm happy: "George Soros: speculator turned
investor".
> >
with the lives
> > of millions of people. It's a particularly contemptable
component of a
> > completely corrupt and depraved elitist ideology.
>
> Ng members will be unsurprised that, as so often with Chomsky
> admirers' remarks about politics, history or economics, Dougherty's
> contribution to the discussion has no empirical or analytical
content
> whatsoever but is merely a semi-literate howl of prejudice.
Mr. Kamm - for the sake of clarity - could you confirm that that word
"howl" is as in "dog" or "wolf?"
<I cross-refer to my earlier comment as too the tone and manner of
your responces.>
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
> "Ronald J. Bartle" <RBa...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:<ar5mp4$ofn$04$1...@news.t-online.com>...
> > "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:40cd7d30.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message
> > news:<CfCA9.3359$Ta6.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > > "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{NOSPAM}cut...@gmx.net> wrote in
message
> > > > news:mFzA9.29133$46.14538@fe01...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > is soros a
> > > > > risk manager, or a speculator?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He's a hedge fund manager. I thought we'd already
established
> > that. Do
> > > > > > keep up.
/ -- /
go back to my own patient explanation of
> > how
> > > currency speculation aids employment and wealth-creation,
> >
> > -so long as you qualify that by admitting that all these
capatalistic
> > measures are employed in the service of maximizing profit for the
few
> > at the expense of the truely productive many - fine..?
> >
> > Or are you aregueing here that globalisation and capitalism in
> > general have the aim of generating _general_ evenly distributed
> > wealth and well-being? Poooh Baaah!
> >
> > ron b.
>
> Groan. Have you torubled to do research into this subject before
> posting? If so, your research was not of an extensive kind. What yo
> describe as a 'capatalistic' [sic] measure, namely currency
hedging,
> has nothing specifically to do with the deployment of capital: it
is
> about the management of risk. Risk management *indirectly* assists
> profit-maximisation,
Quad errat demonstrandum.
- and where does all this extra-maximised profit come from?
- I get the generall impression that you would like to give the
impression of being some kind of acomplished ecconomist. If this is
the case - how come you have such incredable problems with
understanding the most basic concepts of (Ger. Mehrwert) or added
value in the Marxist sence.
My own kid brother studied first at Cambridge and then went on to
become a chartered accountant. I will admit that I was a little
supprised when I saw that one of first volumes of required reading
was "The Capital" by K. Marx. He assured me that no modern
ecconomist would be able to consider his education sufficient without
a good working knowledge of the concepts contained therein.
This is not to say that a person pround to be a conservative or
perhaps even reactionary individual would have to *agree with* the
Marxist precepts as a goal for society. Just understand the
arguments used and the intellectual constructs employed?
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:40cd7d30.0211...@posting.google.com...
Mr. Kamm - in the real world you must be aware that what you would
tend to be "drawing" with your stream of general condescension and
insult would most likely be a good solid punch in the face.
ron b.
Ronald J. Bartle
Could you do me the courtesy of actually answering the questions I
pose and not a "similar sounding" question - in a devious manner of
many proffesional political persons when asked something of real
consequence instead of some ego-polishing irrelevance?
Again - my question was "where does the real wealth - the material
goods and services come from that the Billion in money represents
come from?"
I did not ask - "through how many exchanges from whom to whom has
this real wealth been expropriated when expressed in the form of
money?"
The man makes a few phone calls or adresses his keyboard for a few
minutes and has amassed a nett fiscal gain of a Billion Dollars (or
was it Pounds in this case?) - my question relates to where the real
material goods and or services that will one day have to back up this
Billion for it to be considered "valuta" come from?
The question as to where the real wealth in goods and services comes
from that tends to accumulate in the Bank of England has already been
answered. It comes from millions of decent working people who
consistantly get paid less than the real total value of thier work.
That is what capitalism is all about or....?
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
Is this meant to be taken seriously - the exponential inflation of
the late 1920's where stockmarket values were becomming more and more
detached from any real-world growth in the production of goods and
services - if only contined a few more "quinquennia" would have
somehow provided for "all our resonable needs being satisfied?"
If the author is refering to "all" meaning any wider definition than
a relative handfull of speculative investors - then this could
clearly only happen when the growth in the "nuts and bolts" real
ecconomy was running at some comparable level to that of the "numbers
game" in the stock exchange.
This was clearly not the case and as in the cyclic "corrections" that
have beset run-away stock markets since thier inception - it is
exactly the realisation that the astronomic numbers have lost all
basis in reality that leads to a sudden crash, with the loss of a
relative few fortunes and millions of livelyhoods.
Putting these facts on thier head, as an acrobatic feat might
entertain those who spend thier days in the circus of the stock
markets - but would have little to offer a person interested in the
developments of "real-politik."
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
Having had some experiance of military engagement and construction
sites I must confess that it is no wonder that we appear to come from
different worlds.
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
speculation
> is
> > > > SLEAZY!
> > >
> > > A rather typical animadversion for a Chomsky groupie given the
quality
> > > and extent of critical thinking and empirical research thereby
> > > evidenced. The final sentence reminds me of the teenage girl
stamping
> > > her little foot and screaming 'Kylie is better than Britney!'
> >
> > Groupie? Huh?
>
> Yes, of course: that is a term aptly denoting your own lack of
facility with
> even straightforward political and economic concepts, reflecting an
> ignorance characteristic of the undergraduate and teenage
genuflection to
> the linguist (certainly not a historian, political scientist or
economist)
> Noam Chomsky.
> >
> > Anyway, about your condundrum below, the only jobs being created
(at least
> > for the Brits) are managerial positions. Big deal.
>
> See what I mean? No one with even the remotest experience of the
world of
> work - you know, *trade*, or earning a living - could come up with
a
> statement as risible as this.
Kamm - are you insulting again?
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
> > Well, Kamm, you've given me some things to think about here, so
I'll let
> > this rest.
>
> Much the wisest thing you have contributed to this thread is your
> decision to duck out of it.
>
> (Besides, you'll be in over head with the "privilege" debate you
> > just loose on another branch of this thread).
/ --/
> > >
> > > Arguments from personal incredulity are merely a reflection on
you rather
> > > than on the discipline you affect to be speaking about. You
have already
> > > admitted that you have overlooked the creation of jobs ('the
only jobs
> > being
> > > created are managerial jobs' [sic]) [snip]
> >
> > Dont [sic] me. buddy. I can spell reel good. Managerial.
>
> I wasn't criticising your spelling: I was marvelling at your
> conceptual chaos in being unable to see that investment in a new
plant
> will require labour to make it operate.
Why bother with plant, labour and operations at all Some would
appear to go on and on trying to convince us all that the only really
intelligent thing to do would be to buy and sell on the stock
exchange in a speculative manner - which we all know can bring a
Billion of profits in minutes - long before the first brick of a
factory has been built or a single worker has been employed, let
alone fired again?
Isn't it...?
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
Still not really progessing beyond the insults Kamm?
rb
Ronald J. Bartle
> johnebravo836 <johneb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3DD42EA3...@yahoo.com>...> > > news:zwzA9.29106$46.21468@fe01...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
/ -- /
But that is a good thing, because
> incompatible policy objectives pursued without check of any kind
will
> end up impoverishing the working class, as Allende managed to do in
> Chile.
I am not so sure about wether the democratically elected Allende
helped or detracted from the lot of the local working class... one
would tend to think he must have at least done something in cohorts
with them against American Imperialism. If this was not the case why
should the CIA fund and organise the violent replacement with a man
like Pinnochet who then went over to tortureing and dissaperaring the
working class?
Must admit that it is the first time that I have seen anybody write
much on a Ng against Allende (and by implication for the fascist
regime that replaced him?)
rb
Oliver Kamm
> I am not so sure about wether the democratically elected Allende
> helped or detracted from the lot of the local working class...
In that case you can't have looked very closely, or indeed at all, at
the economic history of modern Chile. Here's a clue: Allende's
economic policies included the brilliant idea (which I guess Allende,
with the economic knowledge of a blancmange, must have assumed no one
had thought of before) of printing money in order to fund social
programmes. This produced an annual inflation rate of more than 300%.
What effect do you think this would have on real (i.e.
inflation-adjusted) wages for the 'local working class'?
one
> would tend to think he must have at least done something in cohorts
> with them against American Imperialism. If this was not the case why
> should the CIA fund and organise the violent replacement with a man
> like Pinnochet who then went over to tortureing and dissaperaring the
> working class?
Still encumbered by recourse to empirical research, I see? If you
would kindly point to the documentary evidence demonstrating CIA
funding and organisation of Pinochet's coup I will happily answer your
question. Go ahead.
>
> Must admit that it is the first time that I have seen anybody write
> much on a Ng against Allende
You should get out more, in that case. Not everyone swallows cliches
and slogans round here.
(and by implication for the fascist
> regime that replaced him?)
Massive fallacy. We've been through this. the fact that I oppose
Allende does not generate the conclusion that I support Pinochet, any
more than my opposition to the Khmer Rouge implies support for
Vietnamese totalitarianism, or my opposition to Nicaragua's dictator
to 1979 implies support for the totalitarian Daniel Ortega.
Oliver Kamm
Eh? Where's the insult in this comment? It's a careful piece of
analysis. You're the one who interprets it as a value judgement.
Oliver Kamm
>
> Is this meant to be taken seriously - the exponential inflation of
> the late 1920's where stockmarket values were becomming more and more
> detached from any real-world growth in the production of goods and
> services - if only contined a few more "quinquennia" would have
> somehow provided for "all our resonable needs being satisfied?"
>
[unsupported dogmatic assertions snipped]
It's usually a sign, when someone uses the word 'clearly' (twice)
without first having considered the evidence for his proposition that
he hasn't given a moment's scrutiny of his thesis, and so it is in
your case.
Have you measured stock market values in 1929 relative to earnings
growth, and assessed market valuations relative to interest rates? I
have. The 1929 crash came about for a number of reasons, but the most
prominent seem to have been these (I draw here on Harold Bierman's
seminal study 'The Great Myths of 1929', Contributions in Economics
and Economic History, Number 118, Greenwood Press, New York, 1991,
pages 176-7):
1. Increase in the discount rate by the Fed from 5% to 6% in August
2. Increase in the persistent gap between the borrowing cost to
finance common stock investments and the dividend yield relative to
the increase in the discount rate
3. Scarcity of new broker loans because of Fed pressure to restrict
loans to finance speculation
4. The Hatry scandal in England, causing a repatriation of funds from
the US
5. Denial to the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston
permission to split its stock
5. Statements by the secretary of the treasury that there was
excessive speculation.
In short, the Great Crash, was a product of political policy, and
specifically of a 'war on speculation', and was not at all inherent in
the market itself.
Oliver Kamm
I suggest you provide a citation, with a verifiable reference, for
these people then. Go ahead.
James A. Donald
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:30:18 +0100, "Ronald J. Bartle"
<RBa...@t-online.de> wrote:
> I do on the other hand confess that as a Britisher who from a
> young age had grown up in a society and culture where irony
> has a firmly established place in the toolkit of discussion -
> that it is quite hard for me to relate to apparently
> generally well educated folks who seem to totally lack the
> "antenna" needed to grasp the most elementary points of an
> ironically framed argument.
Irony commonly fails in print, unless done by a great master,
for example Gibbon. You are not a great master. Add smileys
to tip of your reader as necessary.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
/mzWlcIl1e5s3i4dwnZsZv4t1L7x8T6X/QsxF7u7
4a5a6TG7pCslWMjm5rn+cJR86vE1wlt+olxOT8smH
Desi Pez
> would kindly point to the documentary evidence demonstrating CIA
> funding and organisation of Pinochet's coup I will happily answer your
> question. Go ahead.
Kamm, ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act? Wake up.
"It is the firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a
coup... Please review all our present and possibly new activities to include
propaganda, black operations, surfacing of intelligence or disinformation,
personal contacts, or anything else your imagination can conjure..."
"Eyes only, restricted handling, secret" message. To US station chief,
Santiago. From CIA headquarters. October, 16 1970.
---
Here's a particularly damning memo on CIA attempts to rig the election.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm
---
Here's a CIA memo regarding smuggling tear gas grenades into Chile.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch27-01.htm
---
And this one tells by which date the CIA wants the coup to happen:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm
---
Here's some hand-written notes by Richard Helms describing Nixon's orders.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch26-01.htm
---
But really, let's not be naive. What more do you need than Richard Helm's
no-contest plea to perjury?
Guilherme C Roschke
except he waits till chances are the dice are loaded, and he's the
first to notice.
-gr
Joseph Michael Bay
>Irony commonly fails in print, unless done by a great master,
>for example Gibbon. You are not a great master. Add smileys
>to tip of your reader as necessary.
Maybe you can, but I'm not touching the tip of my reader.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ DO NOT PRESS
Oliver Kamm
As one member of this ng customarily says, ho hum. I asked a
*specific* question, which was for evidence that the US had funded and
organised Pinochet's coup. You haven't provided that; neither has he.
Go ahead and do so. Now.
Lee Rudolph
>>Irony commonly fails in print, unless done by a great master,
>>for example Gibbon. You are not a great master. Add smileys
>>to tip of your reader as necessary.
>
>Maybe you can, but I'm not touching the tip of my reader.
Man'o'man, I used to *love* those regular Readers Digest features.
"Pardon, Your Tip is Showing", "Humor in Plain Clothes", "Life in
These Homeland States". They just don't make'em like that anymore.
Lee Rudolph
nemo
>As one member of this ng customarily says, ho hum. I asked a
>*specific* question, which was for evidence that the US had funded and
>organised Pinochet's coup. You haven't provided that; neither has he.
>Go ahead and do so. Now.
The CIA didn't publish an official detailed account of their misdeeds so that
they could be held accountable? I am shocked and appalled by such laxity!
Who would have thought that a foreign intel agency involved in fomenting a
coup, ousting and murdering the elected leader of a sovereign state, and
installing a military dictator, might operate in a clandestine way and try to
conceal evidence of their involvement?
Regards,
Desi Pez
A scanned image of a note handwritten by Richard Helms gets a "ho hum" from
you? That's quite scholarly of you, Kamm. What a great historian you'd
make. I can see it in bookstores now -- right next to Zinn's "People's
History" we have Kamm's "Forbes 500 History: All That Matters."
Oliver Kamm
> A scanned image of a note handwritten by Richard Helms gets a "ho hum" from
> you? That's quite scholarly of you, Kamm. What a great historian you'd
> make. I can see it in bookstores now -- right next to Zinn's "People's
> History" we have Kamm's "Forbes 500 History: All That Matters."
It certainly does. I asked you for doucmentary evidence for the claim
that the CIA funded and organised the Pinochet coup in 1973. You
haven't done so. So kindly rectify that omission.
Desi Pez
You're a ridiculous waste of time.
Oliver Kamm
No doubt, but the fact remains that I asked for documentary evidence for the
CIA's funding and organising the Pinochet coup of 1973, as stated on this
thread, and you have failed to provide it. Your response above would seem to
indicate that you have no such evidence available (unsurprising, as none
exists). Having intervened in this thread so confidently, would you now
kindly acknowledge that you are unable to provide the evidence I requested?
Desi Pez
I'm not going to play this game, Kamm. Besides you don't really care about
evidence. You propose war with Iraq based on absolutely ZERO evidence.
I'll post the links again for others who might be following this thread and
have half a brain. As for you, you wouldn't know evidence even if it was in
the form of Allan Dulles beating you over the head with a stack of denied
FOIA requests. You stand in support of perjurers, murderers, terrorists,
and dictators in order to maintain your worldview. It sickens me, and I'm
through with this thread.
Reposted Stuff:
Oliver Kamm
"Ronald J. Bartle" <RBa...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:arks85$jj8h1$1...@ID-21003.news.dfncis.de...
you have scant experience of that world.