Corporate accountability
Ron Peterson
: Once again Hyman is comparing companies to totalitarian governments.
: The problem is that companies make every employee accountable. Even
: the CEO, CTO, CIO, and CFOs are held accountable...by stockholders. No
: one in a company has the power and ability to act as a totalitarian
: government might. They cannot kill others, torture them in to silence,
: starve them in to submission, or force them in to labor. A company is
: not a big commune running on people's dedication to each other's well
: being. People work because they are paid for performance. People work
: because they are rewarded for their time and dedication. They are
: rewarded with a paycheck, benefits, and yes Hyman, even self-esteem.
Stockholders have very little effect on management decisions. Many
companies have most of their stock held by mutual funds whose managers
aren't critical of corporate management. Corporate management of
smaller companies usually has effective control of their company
and can receive excessive pay. Many corporate takeovers are
sweetheart deals for management shortchanging the stockholders.
Ron
scott_davidson
Let me see if I've got this right.
States = lots of potential to do very bad things
corporations = what a nice bunch of people! how lovely, aren't they
wonderful!
BTW, is this supposed to be profound in any way?
Scott
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Allan
of making profits, and are held accountable for that by shareholders in
various different ways. It never ceases to amaze me when people try to
assign "other" motivations to corporate actions. Wal Mart spends a lot of
time and money extolling their virtues as a "good corporate citizen". The
reason they do that is increase profits.
They don't want an uprising from the local business community when they move
into your town and run the locally owned shops out of business. They want
the community to embrace them as a benefactor. While some may consider this
a deceitful practice, the end result is that the community now has a wider
variety of products available at lower prices provided by a business that
spends a lot of time and money keeping good community relations. The only
losers are the small business owners that couldn't compete on a level
playing field.
Allan
--
I made $126.03 last month just by surfing the web.
Join me at http://www.alladvantage.com/
Use my referral ID: EBX 663
"Ron Peterson" <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:387b48ab$0$29...@news.execpc.com...
Hyman Blumenstock
Ron Peterson wrote:
>
> mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Once again Hyman is comparing companies to totalitarian governments.
> : The problem is that companies make every employee accountable. Even
> : the CEO, CTO, CIO, and CFOs are held accountable...by stockholders. No
> : one in a company has the power and ability to act as a totalitarian
> : government might. They cannot kill others, torture them in to silence,
> : starve them in to submission, or force them in to labor. A company is
> : not a big commune running on people's dedication to each other's well
> : being. People work because they are paid for performance. People work
> : because they are rewarded for their time and dedication. They are
> : rewarded with a paycheck, benefits, and yes Hyman, even self-esteem.
>
> Stockholders have very little effect on management decisions. Many
> companies have most of their stock held by mutual funds whose managers
> aren't critical of corporate management. Corporate management of
> smaller companies usually has effective control of their company
> and can receive excessive pay. Many corporate takeovers are
> sweetheart deals for management shortchanging the stockholders.
Fine! So long as everyone makes out at no one else's
expense. He who doesn't make out, is one who is reduced to
asking, "Where is my next meal to come from?" Is there
anyone like that mentioned here, even with "shortchanging"
of the stockholders? Who has what quantity of Money is
totally irrelevant so long as everyone has his full support
and the opportunity to perform whatever is his specialty for
his pure pleasure.
HB
>
> Ron
Hyman Blumenstock
scott_davidson wrote:
>
> In article <387b48ab$0$29...@news.execpc.com>, ro...@earth.execpc.com
> > Ron
>
> Let me see if I've got this right.
> States = lots of potential to do very bad things
> corporations = what a nice bunch of people! how lovely, aren't they
> wonderful!
>
> BTW, is this supposed to be profound in any way?
>
> Scott
Why not profound? It will take a bit of thought. It has
been the case that most States have tried to manage a scarce
food supply, and have had to resort to totalitarianism.
People were forced to remain with the group having
practically nowhere else to escape to, like we Yanks escaped
from good old 18th century Britain.
Corporations have usually been well endowed with everything,
including the means of adequate food access for its
personnel. If they ran into trouble, lacking the police
powers of the State, and a military force, they could not
nor even desire to hold on to their personnel as stringently
as any State can, and so they were free to leave, if not
dumped unceremoniously anyhow. Then those personnel were
free to stand in breadlines as in the Great Depression, if
you want to call that "freedom."
But the basic format of State and Corporation are identical
in form. With abundance, we should by now have been formed
into USA Inc., or Great Britain, Inc., with no one left
outside in the cold, everyone fully supported just for
being, and eventually WorldWide Inc. as the technology for
assuring abundance is spread out over the entire world.
HB
scott_davidson
<hys...@home.com> wrote:
> scott_davidson wrote:
> >
> > In article <387b48ab$0$29...@news.execpc.com>,
> ro...@earth.execpc.com
> > Let me see if I've got this right.
Sorry you missed it, but I was being sarcastic. I can't stand the
simple headed approach of the US right that equates good with
everything corporate and bad with anything to do with the state.
Scott
Hyman Blumenstock
Allan wrote:
>
> Corporations are very accountable. They are designed solely for the purpose
> of making profits, and are held accountable for that by shareholders in
> various different ways. It never ceases to amaze me when people try to
> assign "other" motivations to corporate actions. Wal Mart spends a lot of
> time and money extolling their virtues as a "good corporate citizen". The
> reason they do that is increase profits.
That's a very terribly warped concept. Reason? First
"profit" literally meant "eating," as againt "non profit"
not eating. People then grouped into families to make that
effort more effective, including having as many children as
farm hands were needed, for the survival of all on the
"profits" elicited from the soil. How much "profit" in
terms of Food does anyone need? Simply what he can
healthfully eat until his belly is full, and then there is
no further room for anymore "profit."
Your concept is terribly warped because the economic
fraternity have managed to shift our natural obsession with
"profit" from meaning Food to meaning "money," a totally
fictional device that resides only in never-never land. That
masks the REAL intent of groups of people, no longer having
to produce Food since Food became a "drug on the market" a
century ago. By making money as scarce as Food had been,
Food is still hard to come by because one now needs that
"medium of exchange" in order to get that abundant Food.
Break through that mask of intent and note that the function
of automobile companies is to make automobiles, not "food
profit" because the employees have to be assured of a decent
meal a priori before they can function effectively in
producing the product. Money profit is something out of the
mists of never-never land, that is utterly meaningless,
except in effectively destroying our civilization.
>
> They don't want an uprising from the local business community when they move
> into your town and run the locally owned shops out of business. They want
> the community to embrace them as a benefactor. While some may consider this
> a deceitful practice, the end result is that the community now has a wider
> variety of products available at lower prices provided by a business that
> spends a lot of time and money keeping good community relations. The only
> losers are the small business owners that couldn't compete on a level
> playing field.
But consider the bright side. They effectively bring GDP to
the consumer. Why not everyone not needed in producing and
distributing those GDP commodities, be retrained into other
professions, all in a decent job at whatever is their
particular expertise that they can joyfully pursue, at a
decent salary until that utter nonsense of Money fades away,
using for now Deficit Spending to pretend the funds out of
never-never land. There a host of jobs needing doing that
we are not doing because of the pretense of insufficient
funding, and the misnomer of "taxpayer's money" to put a
drag on anything we might want to do.
HB
>
> Allan
>
> --
> I made $126.03 last month just by surfing the web.
> Join me at http://www.alladvantage.com/
> Use my referral ID: EBX 663
>
> "Ron Peterson" <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
> news:387b48ab$0$29...@news.execpc.com...
Allan
Let me quote you from 1/10/2000:
"Don't address me and I won't feel impelled to address you. It would be a
waste of time and effort."
I see you can't hold up your end of the agreement as you keep bringing up
your inane "food" arguments. You are pathetically predictable. As I've said,
you do make some good points, but when you continually spout the same
rhetoric in response to every question, it rapidly loses meaning....
Allan
--
I made $126.03 last month just by surfing the web.
Join me at http://www.alladvantage.com/
Use my referral ID: EBX 663
"Hyman Blumenstock" <hys...@home.com> wrote in message
news:387CD3E7...@home.com...
Hyman Blumenstock
I'm sorry I missed it too. Makes me feel unobservant. But,
as you may note, all the big mouths on this forum speak only
in extreme terms, and let you know instantly where they
stand. Nothing subtle. I'm sure you've seen one of our
more youthful debaters (a sage of 20, who probably still
wonders why so often his bed cover rises up like a tent, but
_knows_ economics,) Adam, who is adding quite a few new
words to the English language. I've also gotten similar
language from economics professors from MIT, apparently a
much more earthier school than others.
HB
Thomas Sauve
You, alone, are proposing a completely new and revised study of economics
that you seem to think nobody has ever thought up before, and is correct.
Firstly, I'd consider it pretty egocentric that you feel you have a solution
that nullifies 200 years of study by some of the brightest people of our
day, like Smith, Keynes, Barrow, Landsburg, Friedman, Bils, etc. These
people were just as intelligent as you (if not more, I don't know how
intelligent you are), and they didn't accept your answer as the final
solution. Why? Because they looked deeper, and they understood certain
things about human nature and how economics works within a society to
realize that they have to account for more things.
Secondly, your ideas are by no means unique. I can personally assure you
that the very questions you are raising about food, prices, and the sort
have been thoroughly discussed before in economics. I've actually taken
part in discussions on very similiar ideas several times. And I can also
assure you that they way you think of things is not the complete picture.
Hundreds of thousands of economists over hundreds of years have tested
economic thought and re-tested it (and still re-testing it to this day), and
they have come up with certain theories about human nature that seem to
hold, and they've shown how your ideas just don't work (or aren't complete).
In addition, economists have their own equations (like your F=MA) that prove
why food alone is not what determines prices.
Please, PLEASE... for your own well-being and your own reputation...
understand economics before you go and propose a new system of doing things.
Each of your points you've raised have already been discussed and debated.
So why don't you read and see why your ideas don't work in our society (or
why they're too simplistic)?
Like the natural sciences, the social sciences have built up on years of
theory and evidence. I could propose that the stars are actually beings on
other planets shining powerful flashlights back at us.... and I'd be doing
what you're doing now. So far, you haven't shown that you have a concrete
grasp of basic economic theories, let alone the more advanced theories.
Why, exactly are indifference curves incorrect? Specifically explain to me
why the price of this computer I'm typing on was close to $2000, and not
free (assuming food is free, or practically free)? Why is Welfare Economics
incorrect? And why is Microeconomics incorrect, for that matter? And I'd
like to hear plain economic thought, not philosophical mumbo-jumbo about
profit equalling eating, and how babies know economics when they're born and
hungry. If you said that to a professional, he'd just laugh...
Sorry to be so hostile, but it's getting annoying...
Tom
p.s. the reason why many people here are ignoring you or calling you a
conspirator is because what you're proposing goes against the very nature of
their being and the very nature of their understanding of life. That itself
should tell you something is incorrect with you thinking. The fact that
nobody here (and we are the people in society who you are trying to
describe) believes that you are correct should tell you that you don't have
a solid understand of human nature (seeing how we are all humans here, or at
least I hope so :)
Hyman Blumenstock wrote in message <387CD3E7...@home.com>...
Thomas Sauve
Okay, last time to try to reason with you... (I just can't resist :)
Assuming that you're argument is that since food is what keeps us alive
(along with water and air), if food is free, then the products and services
we buy should also be free, since the person who produced the product or
service was fed with free food. This is the simplistic version of your
argument, right?
Again, you are not looking at the whole picture...
If this is true, then when I go into a restaurant, how come the waiters (and
waitresses, let's not be sexist) get paid? They are adequately fed (again,
assuming that food is free and nobody is hungry), but yet each hour they get
a wage (plus tips, but let's ignore the tips for now). What we're paying
the waiter for is not his next meal, but a service that he provides for us.
We are paying for the luxury of being served a meal instead of cooking it
ourselves. The reason why he requests payment for his services is because
he is being inconvenienced with the burden of working and providing his
special services. He would much rather be lying in bed, watching TV,
playing outside, talking with friends at a local bar, or whatever. But he
has an ability that people request: he can serve meals well. We gladly pay
the restaurant for this service which he can provide. We pay money for the
ability to be waited on. He is perfectly well fed, we are perfectly well
fed. Everyone has all their *needs* fulfilled (not necessarily wants
fulfilled, but NEEDS), but yet the service this waiter provides costs money
because he is being inconvenienced with providing his skill.
Same for consultants. They have a special knowledge that supposively not
many people have. I have a business problem (or technology problem, etc),
and I am willing to pay this person for his service because he as a special
skill that I lack. I need him to do some work. So, in order to entice him
to help me (and in order to persuade him to help me instead of having more
leisure time, or more fun outdoors, or playing more games, or anything else
he's rather be doing instead of assisting me), I have to compensate him for
his assistance. Both of us are perfectly fine when it comes to food, but
that doesn't change the fact that he has something that I want, and I have
to compensate the guy for giving me my request.
Same with buying clothing. I have to pay real money for my clothing because
I have to find a person who is able to make the clothes I want. I'm sure
there are many people out there that can make clothing better than I, so in
order to have the luxury of having my clothes made by that someone else
(someone better than I at making 'em), I pay the company that I buy my
clothes from. In turn, that company has to pay it's worker for their
special skill at making clothes, properly operating the machinery (which not
many people can do), and distributing the clothes so I can get to them
easily. If I refuse to pay money for my pants, that means that I, myself,
has to raise my own sheep, learn how to properly make cloth, and then
understand how to transform that into pants. I've left out the details
because I have absolutely no clue how clothes are really made. That's why I
pay an individual for their special skill at making clothing for me. Those
people took the time to learn how clothing is made, and therefore, I have to
compensate them for their time and effort (time which they would much rather
spend doing other things), and today that compensation is usually in the
form of money.
I could go on forever....
My point is: In all these examples, everyone involved with the processes
above was perfectly fed with free food. And yet, I always have to
compensate an individual for their time and effort in producing the good or
service (time which they would most certainly perfer spending with their
family or friends, or at play or at leisure). The fact that the person
prefers not to work (and would rather partake in leisurely activities) means
that in order for me to entice that person to do something for me means that
I have to give them something in return for their labor and skills. And the
most accepted payment is money (no matter how fake you claim money is, they
will still generally accept it as payment -- at least I will...). So when
you pay for the computer you are using, you are paying the skills that only
certain people have in constructing the circuity, the time and effort and
skill it takes for a person to find the metals that make up the parts, the
scarce machine that helps assemble the parts, the skills that a worker has
to have in order to operate that machine, and the inconvience you place on
those workers who would rather be spending time doing other things.
All economics....
Tom
Hyman Blumenstock wrote in message <387D51CB...@home.com>...
>
>
>Allan wrote:
>>
>> Hyman,
>>
>> Let me quote you from 1/10/2000:
>>
>> "Don't address me and I won't feel impelled to address you. It would be
a
>> waste of time and effort."
>>
>> I see you can't hold up your end of the agreement as you keep bringing up
>> your inane "food" arguments. You are pathetically predictable. As I've
said,
>> you do make some good points, but when you continually spout the same
>> rhetoric in response to every question, it rapidly loses meaning....
>
>If the answer is logical and true, how can it be anything
>else? You havn't come up with any other answer to explain
>it.
Bill Anderson
>
> Allan wrote:
> >
> > Hyman,
> >
> > Let me quote you from 1/10/2000:
> >
> > "Don't address me and I won't feel impelled to address you. It would be a
> > waste of time and effort."
> >
> > I see you can't hold up your end of the agreement as you keep bringing up
> > your inane "food" arguments. You are pathetically predictable. As I've said,
> > you do make some good points, but when you continually spout the same
> > rhetoric in response to every question, it rapidly loses meaning....
>
> else? You havn't come up with any other answer to explain
> it.
>
> HB
An answer can be logical true, but false.
But, your posts are hardly logical, or true.
A post of 5 lines does not require the remaing dozens of lines left
uncommented upon to be left at the end.
--
In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are
usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks.
-- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900
Hyman Blumenstock
Allan wrote:
>
> Hyman,
>
> Let me quote you from 1/10/2000:
>
> "Don't address me and I won't feel impelled to address you. It would be a
> waste of time and effort."
>
> I see you can't hold up your end of the agreement as you keep bringing up
> your inane "food" arguments. You are pathetically predictable. As I've said,
> you do make some good points, but when you continually spout the same
> rhetoric in response to every question, it rapidly loses meaning....
If the answer is logical and true, how can it be anything
else? You havn't come up with any other answer to explain
it.
HB
mnegl...@my-deja.com
ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) wrote:
> mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Once again Hyman is comparing companies to totalitarian governments.
> : The problem is that companies make every employee accountable. Even
> : the CEO, CTO, CIO, and CFOs are held accountable...by
stockholders. No
> : one in a company has the power and ability to act as a totalitarian
> : government might. They cannot kill others, torture them in to
silence,
> : starve them in to submission, or force them in to labor. A company
is
> : not a big commune running on people's dedication to each other's
well
> : being. People work because they are paid for performance. People
work
> : because they are rewarded for their time and dedication. They are
> : rewarded with a paycheck, benefits, and yes Hyman, even self-esteem.
>
> Stockholders have very little effect on management decisions. Many
For one thing, you are forgetting the BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The board
elects and fires CEOs. And they meet, make decisions, and create rules
that the company/CEO must live by. The board may micro manage the
company if it so desires.
For another, a common stockholder may have little influence. Or he/she
may have great influence. A stockholder may be involved with every
major decision of the company or he/she may not have any say what-so-
ever. But EVERY CEO of EVERY public company is concerned with the
company's stock price. And a dropping price will endanger any CEO's
job.
> companies have most of their stock held by mutual funds whose managers
> aren't critical of corporate management. Corporate management of
> smaller companies usually has effective control of their company
> and can receive excessive pay. Many corporate takeovers are
> sweetheart deals for management shortchanging the stockholders.
That is about the dumbest statement I have ever read. You can't take
over a company without BUYING it from the stockholders. In fact the
board of directors is usually (depends on the company) involved in
every purchase or sale of other companies.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mnegl...@my-deja.com
scott_davidson <contact_sc...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> In article <387BD065...@home.com>, Hyman Blumenstock
> <hys...@home.com> wrote:
> > scott_davidson wrote:
> > >
The average Joe holds more contempt for a business than a government.
Don't be foolish.
My point was that, whenever possible, it is far better to distribute
power among a large number of people, (in this case businesses), then
it is to concentrate power within a central government.
Hyman Blumenstock
I am very susceptible to dismay at finding myself wrong
about anything, and would cringe in a corner trying to hide
if that were the case. It took many years of thought to
come up with the conclusions I'm presenting, particularly to
a body of professionals who have an entirely different
version of things. As to my intellectual background, I've
been classified in high school in an IQ test given to
everyone, that I thought was rather simple, as having a
score of 186, with 100 the norm. I assure that I didn't
cheat on that test. Further, I've been a professional
engineer, an attorney at law, patent attorney, commercial
aircraft pilot, all requring some modicum of analytic
capability, with the unique requirements of determining true
invention a special, unusual form of thought.
As to why I'm blessed with this acquisition of knowledge and
conclusion when I hated to write, and I even now don't have
adequate skills at presenting something that would
immediately click in everyone's mind. All I know is how to
bluntly present facts, that I realize now strikes at the
very essence of people's conclusions, particularly those who
have spent a great deal of their father's money in attaining
their PhD's and put in a tremendous amount of effort in "by
rote" study. And here I am exposing myself to actual
ridicule from people who would know economic theory better,
but so far, I've always seemed to get in the last logical
word, with professionals and professors of the subject
avoiding issues and resorting to ad hominems, a clear
indication of failure on their part.
Thomas Sauve wrote:
>
> According to your ideas, the whole system of economics is incorrect, right?
> You, alone, are proposing a completely new and revised study of economics
> that you seem to think nobody has ever thought up before, and is correct.
No. It is not completely new. The human race has evolved
presumably from an "every man for himself" origin, to
forming ever larger cooperative groups wherein competition
within is not acceptable. I include the family as the first
such groups, wherein the goal of everyone was the welfare of
the group first, and their own welfare second if there was a
conflict. Even wolves have been reported to follow this
behavior. The military also follows this doctrine, as
"Saving Private Ryan" graphically demonstrates. A modern
version of this cooperative, non competitive grouping is the
interior operation of any well run corporation, supposed to
be a capitalstic bastion --- but only on the outside where
there still remains the competitive jungle.
> Firstly, I'd consider it pretty egocentric that you feel you have a solution
> that nullifies 200 years of study by some of the brightest people of our
> day, like Smith, Keynes, Barrow, Landsburg, Friedman, Bils, etc. These
> people were just as intelligent as you (if not more, I don't know how
> intelligent you are), and they didn't accept your answer as the final
> solution. Why? Because they looked deeper, and they understood certain
> things about human nature and how economics works within a society to
> realize that they have to account for more things.
That's a rather vague statement on "human nature." If we
try to determine what the economist really thinks is human
nature as taught in the typical textbook we would find only
the drive for Security therein, exemplified by the demand of
"earn a living or die" the pleasantness or unpleasantness of
whatever work was to be done completely irrelevant.
Completely ignored is the work of Maslow, who had come up
with a five level hierarchy of human needs, only some
defined as Security, while others deserve a separate
classification as Self Esteem. Had he lived much beyond his
initial concept, I'm certain he would have boiled it down to
two, Security, and Self Esteem, together comprising
"Motivation" in the similar to the Real Science equation,
"Achievement is Proportional to Motivation, and Inversely
Proportional to Frustration.
As I said, Security is the only concern of Doctrinaire
Economics. Self Esteem is completely ignored, and therein
lies a gross error. I've put together the equation above
describing human behavior that is analgous to the profoundly
simple ones that have assured continuing success in the Real
Sciences, on the premise that the human being is a part of
the same nature as what the Real Sciences deal with, rather
than being apart from that nature, as the Social Sciences
arrogantly presume.
As to those economic sages you cite, I believe that they are
all victims of an insidious concept of the Social Sciences,
that the Real Sciences have never accepted. That all there
is to know has already been written down someplace by
someone, and that there is nothing new to learn. Can you
imagine say, an electronic problem with a microchip. Can
you imagine consulting Tom Edison's (the father of
electricity) writings to help resolve that problem? Every
problem of the Real Sciences are resolved by new and
original thinking, with the premise that once anything is
reduced to a writing, it is immediately obsolete as it
promotes a new original thought for an improvement.
>
> Secondly, your ideas are by no means unique. I can personally assure you
> that the very questions you are raising about food, prices, and the sort
> have been thoroughly discussed before in economics. I've actually taken
> part in discussions on very similiar ideas several times. And I can also
> assure you that they way you think of things is not the complete picture.
> Hundreds of thousands of economists over hundreds of years have tested
> economic thought and re-tested it (and still re-testing it to this day), and
> they have come up with certain theories about human nature that seem to
> hold, and they've shown how your ideas just don't work (or aren't complete).
> In addition, economists have their own equations (like your F=MA) that prove
> why food alone is not what determines prices.
What you say here makes a presumption that the Agrarian era
of some millions of years, and the Post-Agrarian era display
a continuum of thought and theory. If there actually were a
continuum, why the virtually same condition of society and
misery of people practically identical down during that
period of recorded history, including the Bible. What
happened about a mere century ago that Food, a chronically
scarce item, called the "staff of life," that means the
Security we are all required by Doctrinaire Economics to
"earn," the very meaning of the "profit" sought down through
the ages, had suddenly had its Supply meet Demand? Don't you
think that this is a significant break in that continuum?
Food that had been scarce since time began suddenly becoming
abundant -- a "drug on the market?"
The function of marketplace, barter, and money during times
of Food scarcity, served a negative purpose. To deny access
to those deemed least entitled for the simple reason of
there just not being enough. Marx, one of your own,
suggested a more humane means of distribution, that
essentially was to share what little there was, as a close
knit family would do under similar circumstances. For that
minor deviation from doctrine, holy writ, he was and is
still roundly ostracized. In any event, that would have
required a much greater degree of altruism than the human
race has ever known, and any attempt at following Marx's
suggestion failed because Food among those who professed to
try it was still scarce, and everyone grabbed only for
himself.
To avoid that suddenly appearing break in the continuum of
scarce food passing the point of adequate food, wherein
price traditionally in a no longer free market, was
determined by how far Supply was from meeting Demand. Around
1888, a headline "Excess Grain Dumped Into Lake Michigan"
signalled the advent of abundance. After futilely trying to
restore scarcity by deliberate destruction, plus subsidies
to farmers not to grow anymore, it was decided to becloud
that break in the continuum by switching everyone's age old
obsession with now abundant Food, to the phantom Money, once
only a surrogate for Food, to being the object of obsession
itself, and Food denigrated into the realm of nothingness.
> Please, PLEASE... for your own well-being and your own reputation...
> understand economics before you go and propose a new system of doing things.
> Each of your points you've raised have already been discussed and debated.
> So why don't you read and see why your ideas don't work in our society (or
> why they're too simplistic)?
What you are asking me to do is analagous to asking the
Mafia of the 30s how to live a moral life, without any
incentive on their part to also live a moral life. As I've
pointed out, my ideas do work, not because I proposed them,
but they were naturally implemented as the only way to
produce the high tech things we enjoy today. And those
goodies result only from the momentum of our society, with
ever growing efficiency of production suddenly swept through
that break in the continuum a century or so ago, created the
Industrial Revolution with surplus labor already dumped from
their food production jobs, while the Economic fraternity
desperately tried to restore status quo, and their
justification for existing -- trying to resolve Economic
problems.
All I'm suggesting is to continue to merge into ever larger
groups, rethink that theories behind the Anti Trust
movement, and become, as soon as possible, one entity here,
USA Inc, with not one person left out in the jungle any
more. In fact the jungle of competition that generates
human misery, crime, violence, war, slaughter would become
history.
>
> Like the natural sciences, the social sciences have built up on years of
> theory and evidence. I could propose that the stars are actually beings on
> other planets shining powerful flashlights back at us.... and I'd be doing
> what you're doing now. So far, you haven't shown that you have a concrete
> grasp of basic economic theories, let alone the more advanced theories.
> Why, exactly are indifference curves incorrect? Specifically explain to me
> why the price of this computer I'm typing on was close to $2000, and not
> free (assuming food is free, or practically free)? Why is Welfare Economics
> incorrect? And why is Microeconomics incorrect, for that matter? And I'd
> like to hear plain economic thought, not philosophical mumbo-jumbo about
> profit equalling eating, and how babies know economics when they're born and
> hungry. If you said that to a professional, he'd just laugh...
>
> Sorry to be so hostile, but it's getting annoying...
I'm sorry it is annoying. To hear a propositioned girl
continue to say "No" is just as annoying, I'm sure, but the
proper premise is not to let annoyance overcome good sense.
But in your last paragraph you are apparently refusing to
look again at how Economics (management of the house)
originated during the Agrarian era, and was cleverly shifted
during the Post-Agrarian era into the highly complex theory
of today. What happened then, was not considered over
simplified then, as it is alleged now, that recalling those
ancient beginnings are over simplified under today's over
complication into a pseudo science.
I seem to get people upset in even defining the word
"income" into what ought to obvious, to mean precisely what
"comes in" to the human body. But that definition has been
changed the last century to mean "what (phantom) money comes
into one's possession." Forgotten is that ones "living" can
only happen after he eats, and that the Money he gets is
intended to purchase that food.
How did one "profit" during the Agrarian era? He could eat
more than he did before he "profited."
And then there is that foundation statement of every
economics text I've seen, "Human Wants (why not a more
practical Needs) Are Virtually Infinite." The last two words
seem to be able to accomodate a more efficiently worded
statement meaning the same thing, but giving a totally
opposite impression. Does not Virtually Infinite mean
precisely, Finite? If it does, then the rest of the usual
800 page textbook becomes a non sequiteur that presumes that
"Virtually Infinite" means "Infinite" rather than "Finite."
It is terribly hard to read any further writings after such
a statement and take them seriously. I can't, though young
students whose parents go to great financial lengths to put
them through school, plus all the hard work it all entails,
plus the prestigious position of Doctrinaire Economists who
advise Presidents and Kings, would discourage any thought
that Economics might be totally invalid.
>
> Tom
>
> p.s. the reason why many people here are ignoring you or calling you a
> conspirator is because what you're proposing goes against the very nature of
> their being and the very nature of their understanding of life. That itself
> should tell you something is incorrect with you thinking. The fact that
> nobody here (and we are the people in society who you are trying to
> describe) believes that you are correct should tell you that you don't have
> a solid understand of human nature (seeing how we are all humans here, or at
> least I hope so :)
It has happened before, as with the Alchemists and Flat
Earthers that vast quantities of people had firm beliefs
that were later proved to be wrong. Here is another case,
except that where those former beliefs were not a threat to
the welfare of the human race, this is certainly a deadly
threat, as indicated in <http://dieoff.org>. Do you doubt
that reference?
Ideally, it would behoove a current economist to present all
this, and take the lead in avoidance of that holocaust
predicted. It could well mean a Nobel prize of greater
merit than any such prize awarded before.
HB
Hyman Blumenstock
Thomas Sauve wrote:
>
> Hyman,
>
> Okay, last time to try to reason with you... (I just can't resist :)
I am delighted.
>
> Assuming that you're argument is that since food is what keeps us alive
> (along with water and air), if food is free, then the products and services
> we buy should also be free, since the person who produced the product or
> service was fed with free food. This is the simplistic version of your
> argument, right?
>
> Again, you are not looking at the whole picture...
The whole picture, that answers all your examples below is
simply that we have had our ancient obsession for adequate
Food switched, that has a natural limitation in what
quantity will satiate us. I don't have to tell you, I'm
sure, to test it in a buffet style restaurant, to see if you
can eat forever for the nominal price of admission we are
charged today. You are theoretically free to do so, but
must leave after a platefull or two, stuffed to the gills,
hoping you won't get sick and disgorge it all.
What has been done to us, is the clever shift of our ancient
Food obsession, without which life cannot exist, to a
phantom concept of Money, that fascinates us even when we've
eaten our fill. I'm sure you do know of that ongoing
contest monitored by Forbes magazine on who has the most
money, far beyond his Food needs, for which Money was
invented in the first place during the Food scarce Agrarian
era.
>
> If this is true, then when I go into a restaurant, how come the waiters (and
> waitresses, let's not be sexist) get paid? They are adequately fed (again,
> assuming that food is free and nobody is hungry), but yet each hour they get
> a wage (plus tips, but let's ignore the tips for now). What we're paying
> the waiter for is not his next meal, but a service that he provides for us.
> We are paying for the luxury of being served a meal instead of cooking it
> ourselves. The reason why he requests payment for his services is because
> he is being inconvenienced with the burden of working and providing his
> special services. He would much rather be lying in bed, watching TV,
> playing outside, talking with friends at a local bar, or whatever. But he
> has an ability that people request: he can serve meals well. We gladly pay
> the restaurant for this service which he can provide. We pay money for the
> ability to be waited on. He is perfectly well fed, we are perfectly well
> fed. Everyone has all their *needs* fulfilled (not necessarily wants
> fulfilled, but NEEDS), but yet the service this waiter provides costs money
> because he is being inconvenienced with providing his skill.
Money, money, money, money -- there is no point of
satiation. Only in the things we need buy, Food and GDP --
and as massive a bank account, stocks, bonds, whatever can
be turned into Money which can be converted into things we
don't need, and would likely never find the capacity or time
to consume or use. And the picayune form of Self Esteem, the
childish claim that "I have more lollipops than you have, so
there, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa."
Same for everything else you cite. And that is all
"economics," something that is destroying our civilization,
as predicted in (have you looked at it yet?),
<http://dieoff.org>.
Hyman Blumenstock
Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> >
> > Allan wrote:
> > >
> > > Hyman,
> > >
> > > Let me quote you from 1/10/2000:
> > >
> > > "Don't address me and I won't feel impelled to address you. It would be a
> > > waste of time and effort."
> > >
> > > I see you can't hold up your end of the agreement as you keep bringing up
> > > your inane "food" arguments. You are pathetically predictable. As I've said,
> > > you do make some good points, but when you continually spout the same
> > > rhetoric in response to every question, it rapidly loses meaning....
> >
> > If the answer is logical and true, how can it be anything
> > else? You havn't come up with any other answer to explain
> > it.
> >
> > HB
>
> An answer can be logical true, but false.
>
> But, your posts are hardly logical, or true.
>
> A post of 5 lines does not require the remaing dozens of lines left
> uncommented upon to be left at the end.
Saying it's so doesn't make it so. What specifically are you
talking about.
HB
Hyman Blumenstock
The only reason governments are in disrepute, while
corporations are not, is because of the existence of
politics, bad management. Get rid of politics, and the size
will be irrelevant.
HB
Thomas Sauve
points. Everything else I've metioned, I still stick by (and I think you
should take the time to understand), but it would be just a waste of my time
to keep arguing...
>As to why I'm blessed with this acquisition of knowledge and
>conclusion when I hated to write, and I even now don't have
>adequate skills at presenting something that would
>immediately click in everyone's mind. All I know is how to
>bluntly present facts, that I realize now strikes at the
>very essence of people's conclusions, particularly those who
>have spent a great deal of their father's money in attaining
>their PhD's and put in a tremendous amount of effort in "by
>rote" study. And here I am exposing myself to actual
>ridicule from people who would know economic theory better,
>but so far, I've always seemed to get in the last logical
>word, with professionals and professors of the subject
>avoiding issues and resorting to ad hominems, a clear
>indication of failure on their part.
Again, this last part is showing your arrogance. Just because you get the
last word in doesn't mean you're correct. Like me, many people are just
getting tired with arguing with someone who doesn't seem to grasp certain
principles and ideas. You're like the Energizer Bunny, and we just can't
keep tossing the ball back to your field. It gets tiresome to keep arguing
with you. When economists don't respond to your last comment most likely
means that s/he has given up on trying to explain economics to you. To
people who have spent their lives studying the subject, it's quite clear how
wants are infinite, or how food play a miniscule part in lives, or how money
is commonly used in transactions (they've all *personally* proven these
things themselves). I'm not saying that you should refute these things now
(please don't), I'm just trying to explain to you that most people have
other things they want to do rather than debate basic, basic principles with
someone who seems as though they never opened a textbook before.
>It has happened before, as with the Alchemists and Flat
>Earthers that vast quantities of people had firm beliefs
>that were later proved to be wrong. Here is another case,
>except that where those former beliefs were not a threat to
>the welfare of the human race, this is certainly a deadly
>threat, as indicated in <http://dieoff.org>. Do you doubt
>that reference?
>
No, this is completely different. What you are doing is trying to explain
how human nature works. That's what much of economics is, explaining how a
rational society, in general, thinks and acts (and then economics goes
further to study how resources are allocated among the members of the
society). When I say that most rational people would prefer more material
goods rather than less, that is an economic principle that most people in
society would agree with. You can go out into the world and ask people if
they'd prefer another $10 or not, or it they'd prefer another vehicle or
another compact disc. Most people would prefer more goods and services
because that is what people are like. And I'm confident that most people in
this group would agree. Then economics has sucessfully decribed how the
majority of rational people in our society think (in that respect, at
least). You are also trying to decribe how human nature works. If you go
up to people and explain to them your ideas (like this newgroup, for
instance), then they should agree with you and say that is how they conduct
their lives. However, we have clearly seen that most people he don't agree
with you, and they say that their lives and spending habit are different.
The vast majority of people have not agreed with you and how you explain
what their spending habits are like. Hence, you are just incorrect. If you
cannot get anyone here to agree with you on people's preferences (or their
preferences), then somewhere you went astray. You have to get a theory
that, when well explained (and we all know how deeply and thoroughly you
explain your thoughts) people will say, "oh yeah... that makes sense. I do
that quite often..." That has yet to happen, so I claim that you have don't
have an idea that explains human nature. Economic theory now does that,
we've all tested it and seen how it conforms with people's preferences.
It's your job to come up with an idea that the vast majority of rational
people in this group will agree with and say that is how their thoughts work
(like "I would prefer to have more money and things than less", or "I have
like to allocate my budget between good X and good Y").
This is not like disproving a scientific fact (like "Flat Earthers"), but
this is how people act and feel. And since everyone is different, you have
to come up with something that describes the average person in a rational
society. You can't claim that you are correct in you assesment because
everyone here is incorrect in their preferences. The exact opposite is what
I'm trying to get at. You are incorrect because everyone here is correct in
his or her preferences. Got it?
>Ideally, it would behoove a current economist to present all
>this, and take the lead in avoidance of that holocaust
>predicted. It could well mean a Nobel prize of greater
>merit than any such prize awarded before.
I'm fairly confident that some economist, somewhere in this world has
examined the data on that web page. I have, and I know that there's a whole
study devoted to that subject (like Fair Allocation, Regulation of Economic
Activity, and Economic Growth and Development). It's been examined and
studied and dissected by many, many people, both politicians and economists.
Tom
Ron Peterson
: For one thing, you are forgetting the BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The board
: elects and fires CEOs. And they meet, make decisions, and create rules
: that the company/CEO must live by. The board may micro manage the
: company if it so desires.
The board of directors isn't looking after the interests of the small
shareholder.
: For another, a common stockholder may have little influence. Or he/she
: may have great influence. A stockholder may be involved with every
: major decision of the company or he/she may not have any say what-so-
: ever. But EVERY CEO of EVERY public company is concerned with the
: company's stock price. And a dropping price will endanger any CEO's
: job.
The CEO should be concerned with the future earnings of the company.
The stock price issue is a red herring, and well run companies
realize that.
: That is about the dumbest statement I have ever read. You can't take
: over a company without BUYING it from the stockholders. In fact the
: board of directors is usually (depends on the company) involved in
: every purchase or sale of other companies.
If I own 51 percent of a company, I can buy the rest at a discount
to its real value.
Ron
mne...@my-deja.com
People are political.
As far as your solution, doesn't it seem just the smallest bit
simplistic to claim that we will eliminate bad management and solve all
our problems? Don't you think there is a reason that "bad management"
exists other than the absence of Hyman Blumenstock from government?
It is because government necessarily lacks accountability. A
government can't possibly be accountable to the people because
democracy can't exist. A bold statement you say? A democracy would
have every person vote on every decision that the government makes.
This would quite literally be impossible. Only a representative
democracy can exist. And the larger a government becomes, the less
direct control its people have over its functions.
It is bad enough that some people would like to place more authority
with the naturally inefficient government. It is far worse that you
would like to give it supreme control and expect that "better
management" will keep it in line.
Management involves control over a group, derived from some form of
authority. When you create Hyman's government, there is only one
source of power and its interests become the only authority. No matter
how you may lay down guidelines for this government, it does not have
to follow them because it becomes the ONLY authority. The problem
emerges. You now must rely on the goodwill of this supreme authority
to act for the full benefit of society.
Forget that such a command economy can never efficiently distribute
resources or engineer their use. Forget that a system that provides a
free standard of living will take away every incentive to work. Forget
that you would require every person to produce goods and services for
nothing in return. Forget that you would have to force all freedom and
property loving people to convert to your system. Forget that the only
practical way to accomplish this would be to force them with the threat
of violence.
Forget all these things but remember one: you can't create a better
totalitarian government. There are no "guidelines" for totalitarian
governments because there is no law except for that created by the ego
of the supreme leader.
In article <387D9A9A...@home.com>,
Hyman Blumenstock <hys...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry you missed it, but I was being sarcastic. I can't stand the
> > > simple headed approach of the US right that equates good with
> > > everything corporate and bad with anything to do with the state.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > My point was that, whenever possible, it is far better to distribute
> > power among a large number of people, (in this case businesses),
then
> > it is to concentrate power within a central government.
>
> The only reason governments are in disrepute, while
> corporations are not, is because of the existence of
> politics, bad management. Get rid of politics, and the size
> will be irrelevant.
mne...@my-deja.com
ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) wrote:
> mnegl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> : For one thing, you are forgetting the BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The board
> : elects and fires CEOs. And they meet, make decisions, and create
rules
> : that the company/CEO must live by. The board may micro manage the
> : company if it so desires.
>
> The board of directors isn't looking after the interests of the small
> shareholder.
Nope, the board of directors is looking after the interests of
themselves. But since their interests are the same as other
stockholders, they are still acting in the best interests of
stockholders.
> : For another, a common stockholder may have little influence. Or
he/she
> : may have great influence. A stockholder may be involved with every
> : major decision of the company or he/she may not have any say what-
so-
> : ever. But EVERY CEO of EVERY public company is concerned with the
> : company's stock price. And a dropping price will endanger any CEO's
> : job.
>
> The CEO should be concerned with the future earnings of the company.
> The stock price issue is a red herring, and well run companies
> realize that.
No market is perfect, but a stock price is the market's perception of
the future of a company. You really think everyone else is an idiot
don't you?
> : That is about the dumbest statement I have ever read. You can't
take
> : over a company without BUYING it from the stockholders. In fact the
> : board of directors is usually (depends on the company) involved in
> : every purchase or sale of other companies.
>
> If I own 51 percent of a company, I can buy the rest at a discount
> to its real value.
If you own 51 percent of a company you can do a lot of things. That is
why you pay a PREMIUM to become a majority stockholder. The last
shares of stock a person purchases before gaining control of a company
are always more expensive. There is an extra price attached to owning
a majority share of a company.
You don't buy the rest of a company's stock at a discount. You buy the
control of a company at a premium.
Or do you really believe that minority stockholders suddenly decide to
start selling their stock below any relevant company valuation simply
because one interest now has a majority share?
Hyman Blumenstock
Thomas Sauve wrote:
>
> I don't know why I keep debating with you, but let me comment on two of your
> points. Everything else I've metioned, I still stick by (and I think you
> should take the time to understand), but it would be just a waste of my time
> to keep arguing...
I really hate to offend anyone, particularly someone like
you who displays a great deal of patience with an
accompanying good nature.
But you say nothing of Maslow's theories, his six level
hierarchy of human wants that I have reduced to just the two
that I believe make up "Motivation," Security (all that
Economics seems to be concerned with) and Self Esteem. The
following is out of Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia:
MOTIVATION,
cause of an organism's behavior, or the reason that an
organism carries out some activity. In a human being,
motivation involves both conscious and unconscious drives.
Psychological theories must account for a "primary" level of
motivation to satisfy basic needs, such as those for food,
oxygen, and water, and for a "secondary" level of motivation
to fulfill social needs such as companionship and
achievement. The primary needs must be satisfied before an
organism can attend to secondary drives.
The American psychologist Abraham Maslow devised a six-level
hierarchy of motives that, according to his theory,
determine human behavior. Maslow ranks human needs as
follows: (1) physiological; (2) security and safety; (3)
love and feelings of belonging; (4) competence, prestige,
and esteem; (5) self-fulfillment; and (6) curiosity and the
need to understand. No single theory of motivation has been
universally accepted, but a direc-tion is evident. Formerly,
many psychologists stressed the reduction of stimulation to
its lowest possible level. An organism was thought to pursue
that behavior most likely to bring about this desired state
of no stimulation. Many human physiological systems do in
fact operate in this manner. Recent cognitive theories of
motivation, however, portray humans seeking to optimize
rather than minimize stimulation and are thus better able to
account for exploratory behavior, the need for variety,
aesthetic reactions, and curiosity.
See also Behaviorism ; Psychology . For further information
on this topic, see ~Biblio. Psychology .
Do you condemn his also?
As I've mentioned before, the textbook is the last place to
access the latest thinking on anything. The textbook is
nothing but a collection of old ideas that could constantly
stand to be reviewed for validity. That is the way of the
Real Sciences. The Social Sciences have fallen into a trap
with the presumption that everything there is to know has
already been written down somewheres. One has only to
locate it and read it to be brought up to par. Except that
there has never been a success noted in any application of
the Social Sciences, that speaks a world about its validity.
But not with a clear, open mind unpersuaded by habit,
ingrained concepts never examined for validity but just
tacitly accepted, peer pressure, and sheer force of numbers
of those who have accepted.
HB
>
> Tom
Hyman Blumenstock
making up some philosophy that you credit with me.
Let's start from scratch again. We all are born to seek a
living, that for millions of years, was an adequate food
supply. When Food became abundant, we had our natural
obsession with enough Food, switched to a phantom called
Money, that was forcibly done to maintain the process of
"exchange." Never mind the reasons at this point. The
result is that now everyone is obsessed with the pursuit of
ever more Money under an arrangement that keeps Money in as
scarce supply as Food, now abundant, had once been. So
nothing really changed, except the object of our natural
pursuit to not the pursuit of a phantom object.
Politicians, just like most other people, are inclined to
let Quality and Service go by the wayside to insure
maximizing their acquisition of Money.
All I'm suggesting is to satisfy everyone's hunger for Money
until they hate it, so that people who would naturally
rather do whatever would make them look good, like being
known for Quality and Service, would not feel they have to
compromise it in order just to make more money. Compromising
Quality and Service is the thrust of "politics."
However, no matter how much money anyone acquires, at a
certain point, he could not put any greater dent in our
supply of things than Nature would allow due to his
naturally limited capacity to consume, or use. Wouldn't
that answer all your objections, because Politics would
naturally evaporate then?
HB
Ron Peterson
: I sentence you to memorizing Michael Jensen's "Eclipse
: of the Public Corporation". Takeovers are sweetheart
: deals for management? Gee, and to think that
: management wastes so much time with defenses and poison
: pills. Takeovers are a punishment for squandering
: stockholder money. Quite simply, the bidder realizes
: that the company has been investing horribly and can be
: worth more as numerous separate entities.
I supposed I should have qualified my statement with 'friendly'.
Poison pills aren't in place to protect the stockholders.
Ron
Ron Peterson
: Nope, the board of directors is looking after the interests of
: themselves. But since their interests are the same as other
: stockholders, they are still acting in the best interests of
: stockholders.
The board of directors is usually paid a fee. If they want to
keep receiving that fee, they cave in to management demands.
: No market is perfect, but a stock price is the market's perception of
: the future of a company. You really think everyone else is an idiot
: don't you?
The stock price is the market's perception of the future of the
stock price. I don't recall insulting the intelligence of anybody.
: If you own 51 percent of a company you can do a lot of things. That is
: why you pay a PREMIUM to become a majority stockholder. The last
: shares of stock a person purchases before gaining control of a company
: are always more expensive. There is an extra price attached to owning
: a majority share of a company.
: You don't buy the rest of a company's stock at a discount. You buy the
: control of a company at a premium.
: Or do you really believe that minority stockholders suddenly decide to
: start selling their stock below any relevant company valuation simply
: because one interest now has a majority share?
That's what the financial analysts are always claiming. (e.g. Ford)
Ron
TOMofSNJ
Ron Peterson <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in article
<387ebd30$0$13...@news.execpc.com>...
> mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> : Nope, the board of directors is looking after the interests of
> : themselves. But since their interests are the same as other
> : stockholders, they are still acting in the best interests of
> : stockholders.
>
> The board of directors is usually paid a fee. If they want to
> keep receiving that fee, they cave in to management demands.
Al Dunlop was one of the first the started paying the board in future
stock value. That was caused the ruin of several companies. Sunbeam is a
basket case because the management and board were only interested in their
personal wealth. They dumped Dunlop but it is not sure if they did soon
enough.
Why have an outside board if all they do is rubber stamp the management?
laurie corzett
Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> Let's start from scratch again. We all are born to seek a
> living, that for millions of years, was an adequate food
> supply.
An adequate supply of food is a nice start, but even back in the beginning of
humankind was far from enough for a "living." Even if granting that water and
air are ubiquitously plentiful (not necessarily the truth), there's still the
need for protection from the environment: shelter/clothing, weapons against
predators, tools to manufacture these. Then, as humans are wont, we have
wants beyond bare subsistence -- toys, decorative objects, status symbols,
educational tools -- even in a primitive society. And even in primitive
societies there were methods of exchange beyond basic barter, some form of
money.
Now, I totally agree that money is a shared fiction -- no intrinsic value.
But it is a SHARED fiction -- we agree to give it an agreed upon value as a
basis of exchange, because it is more convenient than true barter. In fact,
these days we are drifting out of a money economy into a credit economy, more
easily tracked with these lovely computer toys we have developed.
As you point out, we as humans have been able to develop agriculture to the
point where there is no true scarcity of food -- just problems with
distribution. And we really should, because we would all be better off, find
good solutions to these problems of distribution so that everyone can get
enough food for basic health needs. But then there are all those other things
we need/want -- and there is nothing wrong with needing/wanting those things,
or putting out the effort to obtain them. Of course, we would all be happier
if the efforts we needed to put out to obtain our things were also efforts
that gave a sense of satisfaction in themselves. Some people are lucky/smart
enough to have put themselves into positions where they do enjoy the work they
do to earn their living. Many people suffer through lives of quiet
desperation just trying to "put bread on the table." And, probably that
suffering is unnecessary. With a little thought and a lot less
cynicism/meanness/laziness (whatever) we probably could and should develop
better means of suiting people to their jobs and suiting jobs to the people
who perform them -- without having to give up one iota of the "things" that we
want/need/work to obtain.
mne...@my-deja.com
ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) wrote:
> mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> : Nope, the board of directors is looking after the interests of
> : themselves. But since their interests are the same as other
> : stockholders, they are still acting in the best interests of
> : stockholders.
>
> The board of directors is usually paid a fee. If they want to
> keep receiving that fee, they cave in to management demands.
The board of director pays management, not the other way around. Any
fee that the board might be paid is determined by either the board or
stockholders. But management has no such authority over board members.
> : No market is perfect, but a stock price is the market's perception
of
> : the future of a company. You really think everyone else is an idiot
> : don't you?
>
> The stock price is the market's perception of the future of the
> stock price. I don't recall insulting the intelligence of anybody.
You imply that minority holders in companies are idiots. Only an idiot
would hold his security when he knows it will soon drop in value. You
imply that many or most stockholders do just that.
> : If you own 51 percent of a company you can do a lot of things.
That is
> : why you pay a PREMIUM to become a majority stockholder. The last
> : shares of stock a person purchases before gaining control of a
company
> : are always more expensive. There is an extra price attached to
owning
> : a majority share of a company.
>
> : You don't buy the rest of a company's stock at a discount. You buy
the
> : control of a company at a premium.
>
> : Or do you really believe that minority stockholders suddenly decide
to
> : start selling their stock below any relevant company valuation
simply
> : because one interest now has a majority share?
>
> That's what the financial analysts are always claiming. (e.g. Ford)
More evidence that you think minority stockholders are idiots:
You just claimed that these people often sell their securities below
any relevant valuation simply because one party has majority control.
They are then UNDERVALUING their stock.
You are confusing the absence of a buying premium with a drop in value.
When a single party attempts to take majority control of a company, the
stock price rises. The price the party pays for the final shares of
stock can be double or more in price after the purchase attempt
begins. These last stocks sell at a premium. The purchaser pays an
extra charge to take control of the company. The cost of control can
be very expensive. After majority control is secured however, the
stock price will drop to reflect the market's perception of the
company's valuation. The value of the company did not necessarily rise
or drop during the sale.
Hyman Blumenstock
As I keep emphasizing, it is Air, Water and Food that is
prime. If these were supplied freely to anyone just because
he exists, then everything else you cite that we could
possibly want is there for the doing and distribution, just
as freely. That's because everything else is derived from
Food, in that no producer can produce anything else, unless
he had been fed first. Then our pleasures will stem not
from working to acquire the support of everything, but in
using everything as an appropriate tool in doing things
beyond mere supply, but in achieving unimagined miracles
thereafter. But as yet, Doctrinaire Econonmic insists that
we don't do anything by there practice of curtailing the
supply of Money.
HB
Don Dale
> As to why I'm blessed with this acquisition of knowledge and
> conclusion when I hated to write, and I even now don't have
> adequate skills at presenting something that would
> immediately click in everyone's mind. All I know is how to
> bluntly present facts, that I realize now strikes at the
> very essence of people's conclusions, particularly those who
> have spent a great deal of their father's money in attaining
> their PhD's and put in a tremendous amount of effort in "by
> rote" study. And here I am exposing myself to actual
> ridicule from people who would know economic theory better,
> but so far, I've always seemed to get in the last logical
> word, with professionals and professors of the subject
> avoiding issues and resorting to ad hominems, a clear
> indication of failure on their part.
Hello, Hyman.
Imagine for a moment the following circumstance: An individual responds to
every one of your posts with the statement, "You're wrong, you fool, because
the moon is made of green cheese!"
Now, you might try to patiently explain to this individual that the bulk of
the available empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that the moon is
not made of green cheese, and moreover that the question of what the moon is
made of has little bearing on the subject you were discussing. But what if
this individual, over a long series of posts, showed absolutely no
comprehension of your patient and reasoned replies, and simply kept
insisting over and over that the moon is, in fact, made of green cheese, and
that this made your arguments invalid. After a while, you might begin to
simply ignore this individual, trusting that all who read usenet will
recognize his posts as self-evidently ridiculous.
Now, examine this same circumstance from the perspective of this unnamed,
hypothetical individual. This individual is utterly convinced that the moon
is made of green cheese, and that this fact "strikes at the very esence of
people's conclusions." This individual might very well misinterpret your
lack of response to his posts as evidence that he has managed to "get in the
last logical word."
With your extensive training as a Physical Scientist, Hyman, I'm sure you'll
agree that this hypothesis fully explains the available empirical evidence
concerning your posts to usenet, and others' responses to your posts.
Best,
Don
Steve Conover,Sr
> Imagine for a moment the following circumstance: An individual responds to
> every one of your posts with the statement, "You're wrong, you fool, because
> the moon is made of green cheese!"
>
Don,
Good post.
There's only one problem: It's blue cheese, not green cheese, as
I recall.
I wrote an article about it.
"Interest Rates and the Blue Cheese Moon"
http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/CrowdOut.htm
:-)
-- Steve
---------------------------------------
Steve Conover
email: Xs...@home.net
(lose the X)
website: http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/
---------------------------------------
Bill Anderson
>
> Bill Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hyman,
> > > >
> > > > Let me quote you from 1/10/2000:
> > > >
> > > > "Don't address me and I won't feel impelled to address you. It would be a
> > > > waste of time and effort."
> > > >
> > > > I see you can't hold up your end of the agreement as you keep bringing up
> > > > your inane "food" arguments. You are pathetically predictable. As I've said,
> > > > you do make some good points, but when you continually spout the same
> > > > rhetoric in response to every question, it rapidly loses meaning....
> > >
> > > If the answer is logical and true, how can it be anything
> > > else? You havn't come up with any other answer to explain
> > > it.
> > >
> > > HB
> >
> >
> > But, your posts are hardly logical, or true.
> >
> > A post of 5 lines does not require the remaing dozens of lines left
> > uncommented upon to be left at the end.
>
> Saying it's so doesn't make it so. What specifically are you
> talking about.
I have told you before. and I have put the actual logic right here in
usenet for you to see, when you asked.
In fatc, it was in one of my very first post to you. Remeber, the thread
where you repeatedly insisted I was saying something I did not. Your
response was that it must've been 'text book logic', thus you didn't
agree. You never demonstrate any logic that is not circular. You
continue to avoid logic like a gazelle avoiding a lion; desperately.
Neither have you even attempted to dispute the logic I provided (saying
you don't like it is not refutation). You consistently fail to provide
even so much as informal logic when requested, preferring to instead
attack the person questioning you. You specifically commit the error (or
fallacy) of oversimplification. When this is pointed out, rather than
deal with the statement, you respind with accusing the questioner of
'overcompexification'. Again, a direct avoidance of logic and proper
argumentation/debate.
You consistently refuse to show any rationale or proofs of your claims.
You simply restate them, and attack the questioner. Again, avoiding
logic.
Ron Peterson
: The board of director pays management, not the other way around. Any
: fee that the board might be paid is determined by either the board or
: stockholders. But management has no such authority over board members.
The board of directors spends very little time working on details
of company operations. Most of the information is controlled by
management.
: You imply that minority holders in companies are idiots. Only an idiot
: would hold his security when he knows it will soon drop in value. You
: imply that many or most stockholders do just that.
Most stockholders don't know when the stock will drop in value. When
people invest they work with incomplete information, but that doesn't
imply they are idiots.
: You just claimed that these people often sell their securities below
: any relevant valuation simply because one party has majority control.
: They are then UNDERVALUING their stock.
Management can buy the the company from investors at a price reduced
form the intrinsic value. They don't always do that.
Small investors are at a disadvantage, but that doesn't mean they
shouldn't invest. Informix is a recent example where earnings
were inflated to mislead the public about the value of their
shares.
Ron
Hyman Blumenstock
Don Dale wrote:
>
> Hyman Blumenstock <hys...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:387D796D...@home.com...
> > As to why I'm blessed with this acquisition of knowledge and
> > conclusion when I hated to write, and I even now don't have
> > adequate skills at presenting something that would
> > immediately click in everyone's mind. All I know is how to
> > bluntly present facts, that I realize now strikes at the
> > very essence of people's conclusions, particularly those who
> > have spent a great deal of their father's money in attaining
> > their PhD's and put in a tremendous amount of effort in "by
> > rote" study. And here I am exposing myself to actual
> > ridicule from people who would know economic theory better,
> > but so far, I've always seemed to get in the last logical
> > word, with professionals and professors of the subject
> > avoiding issues and resorting to ad hominems, a clear
> > indication of failure on their part.
I do love a rational discussion.
>
> Hello, Hyman.
>
> Imagine for a moment the following circumstance: An individual responds to
> every one of your posts with the statement, "You're wrong, you fool, because
> the moon is made of green cheese!"
>
> Now, you might try to patiently explain to this individual that the bulk of
> the available empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that the moon is
> not made of green cheese, and moreover that the question of what the moon is
> made of has little bearing on the subject you were discussing. But what if
> this individual, over a long series of posts, showed absolutely no
> comprehension of your patient and reasoned replies, and simply kept
> insisting over and over that the moon is, in fact, made of green cheese, and
> that this made your arguments invalid. After a while, you might begin to
> simply ignore this individual, trusting that all who read usenet will
> recognize his posts as self-evidently ridiculous.
>
> Now, examine this same circumstance from the perspective of this unnamed,
> hypothetical individual. This individual is utterly convinced that the moon
> is made of green cheese, and that this fact "strikes at the very esence of
> people's conclusions." This individual might very well misinterpret your
> lack of response to his posts as evidence that he has managed to "get in the
> last logical word."
>
> With your extensive training as a Physical Scientist, Hyman, I'm sure you'll
> agree that this hypothesis fully explains the available empirical evidence
> concerning your posts to usenet, and others' responses to your posts.
>
> Best,
>
> Don
An excellent argument. But, of course, whether or not the
moon etc., is not the subject at hand. Further, everyone
really knows that the moon is not made of green cheese, and
an assumption is made that anyone who bucks a lot of people
with the same idea must certainly be wrong. That the
greater number of people agreeing on anything must certainly
make that "anything" true.
Take another analogy. Say it is Columbus trying to persuade
the entire body of millions of Flat Earthers to finance his
proposed trip around a round world. They all scoff at him,
call him idiot who would fall off the edge, and their money
would certainly go down the drain with him. How does the
present body of experts on this forum take this thought,
inasmuch I'm sure that without exception everyone here knows
the earth is really round?
That vast numbers of people believing a fallacy will not
change it towards the truth one iota. I doubt that Columbus
would get his financing. However, such a condition would
not endanger the welfare of mankind one bit as does this
almost universal reliance upon Doctrinaire Economic
Philosophy as being totally valid. Do you find my insistent
reference to <http://dieoff.org> a false reference? Have
you seen the devastingly corroborating evidence assembled
and presented by the National Geographic?
Perhaps I misconstued what was the actual subject because
perhaps, there is a radical misunderstanding of what exactly
is the issue -- like that discussion among three people I
mentioned, wherein one says, "Gosh it's windy out," the
second replies, "No, it's Thursday," and the third one pops
up with, "So am I. Let's get a drink." Sounds like a
thoroughly satisfying discussion with a happy ending. The
controversy over what is the meaning of "communism" deserves
attention, and my asking what ought to be the name for a
"community of commicants, communicating in a communal
setting?" How about "communism?"
Please point out where I went astray. I thought the subject
was "Economics." And that according to the reference books,
economics is derived from the Greek "oikos" house and
"nemein" management.
Assuming it is economics, as the title of one of the NGs
uses that very word, the entire history of the Agrarian era
seemed to be mostly of small groups, families, mostly
farmers, that would seem consistent with the title of the
era being Agrarian. That a major factor of that era was
consistent hunger among most people, who sought "income"
that one coming up unfamiliar with any existing
philosophies, would presume would be what "comes in" to the
confines of the human body. That the human body is the
"house" that's being "managed" by the discipline of
economics.
What is the essence of "life" that must "come in" to assure
avoidance of death. Is it not a triumviate of things? Air,
Water and Food? Immediate reference to Clothing and Shelter
seems logically to fall to a less stringent plane than where
that triumvirate is located. That's so, because these other
things are required as a life saving measure only under
certain special conditions such as when the climate is far
off from a tropical temperature.
If the subject is indeed Economics, perhaps you can explain
that foundation statement: "Human Wants (why not a more
practical Needs?) is Virtually Infinite." Meaning
literally, with an economy of words: "Human Wants Are
Finite." If then, Supply can Meet Demand, how does the rest
of the Economic text, obvously based on Supply never Meeting
Demand, jusify its existence?
How about the fact that taxation during the Agrarian era was
in terms of Food most of the millions of years of its
existence? That form of taxation seems most logical for the
transference of Food to those in public service no longer
able to produce their own. How does this justify Money
taxation of any form, when again, the bottom line is still
the Food essential to life, and now very few people produce
Food. Only large corporate food producers. If to be
consistent with the Money and Price system, would it not
make infinitely more sense then to seek, for revenue
calculated to support government personnel and whomever they
do business with in the government's interest, from the only
legal Money sources we've established, the Federal Reserve
and Deficit Spending?
I think a new economics text is called for. Perhaps it
ought to titled, as a follow on to Professor Heinz Kohler's
textbook called "Economics, the Science of Scarcity" as
"Economics 2, the Science of Abundance."
Ideally, I would think that whomever of the Economic
fraternity wrote such a text, would go down in history as
one of the most famous men of history, outshadowing every
last person who had won a Nobel Peace Prize.
HB
Don Dale
> An excellent argument. But, of course, whether or not the
> moon etc., is not the subject at hand. Further, everyone
> really knows that the moon is not made of green cheese, and
> an assumption is made that anyone who bucks a lot of people
> with the same idea must certainly be wrong. That the
> greater number of people agreeing on anything must certainly
> make that "anything" true.
I was in no way appealing to an argument from intimidation. I was simply
offering an alternative hypothesis to your assertion that your logic has
carried the day at every turn on this forum.
> That vast numbers of people believing a fallacy will not
> change it towards the truth one iota. I doubt that Columbus
> would get his financing. However, such a condition would
> not endanger the welfare of mankind one bit as does this
> almost universal reliance upon Doctrinaire Economic
> Philosophy as being totally valid. Do you find my insistent
> reference to <http://dieoff.org> a false reference?
Yes, I do. Jay Hanson is a well-known Net-crank. Until quite recently, he
was a regular poster to sci.econ. Other individuals, including Chris Auld,
Ed Flaherty, Markku Stenborg, and myself, from time to time took up the
tedious, elementary task of refuting his every argument point by point. He
has been thoroughly debunked a dozen times over.
> Please point out where I went astray. I thought the subject
> was "Economics." And that according to the reference books,
> economics is derived from the Greek "oikos" house and
> "nemein" management.
I really don't understand your appeals to etymology. Are you a flower
stalk? Am I a valley?
> If the subject is indeed Economics, perhaps you can explain
> that foundation statement: "Human Wants (why not a more
> practical Needs?) is Virtually Infinite." Meaning
> literally, with an economy of words: "Human Wants Are
> Finite." If then, Supply can Meet Demand, how does the rest
> of the Economic text, obvously based on Supply never Meeting
> Demand, jusify its existence?
It's not at all clear that "the rest of the Economic text" is at all
"obvously [sic] based on Supply never Meeting Demand". Indeed, any
introductory microeconomics text will have a lengthy discussion of market
equilibrium.
> How about the fact that taxation during the Agrarian era was
> in terms of Food most of the millions of years of its
> existence? That form of taxation seems most logical for the
> transference of Food to those in public service no longer
> able to produce their own.
Please elucidate that logic, if you don't mind.
> I think a new economics text is called for. Perhaps it
> ought to titled, as a follow on to Professor Heinz Kohler's
> textbook called "Economics, the Science of Scarcity" as
> "Economics 2, the Science of Abundance."
>
> Ideally, I would think that whomever of the Economic
> fraternity wrote such a text, would go down in history as
> one of the most famous men of history, outshadowing every
> last person who had won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Well, clearly you have it all figured out. What are you waiting for?
Don
mnegl...@my-deja.com
"The board of directors is usually paid a fee. If they want to keep
receiving that fee, they cave in to management demands."
Then my reply:
> : The board of director pays management, not the other way around.
Any
> : fee that the board might be paid is determined by either the board
or
> : stockholders. But management has no such authority over board
members.
Then your's:
> The board of directors spends very little time working on details
> of company operations. Most of the information is controlled by
> management.
You have shifted from your original point. You claimed that management
has some form of authority, derived from its ability to revoke a fee it
pays the board. This is wrong. So why are you now discussing
information disclosure?
> : You imply that minority holders in companies are idiots. Only an
idiot
> : would hold his security when he knows it will soon drop in value.
You
> : imply that many or most stockholders do just that.
>
> Most stockholders don't know when the stock will drop in value. When
> people invest they work with incomplete information, but that doesn't
> imply they are idiots.
No, that does not imply that they are idiots. But claiming that
minority holders will sell their equity at a discount, for no reason
other than a transfer of ownership, is foolish. They sell when they
think the value will drop, when they need cash, when they find a better
opportunity, etc... So the only other way that management can buy
shares at a discount is to fool investors in to thinking that their
stock value will drop or remain stagnant.
Any attempt to "fool" investors in to thinking the company is
undervalued in order to purchase more stock in a company is illegal.
Its called insider trading. And its monitored very closely by the SEC.
No matter how corrupt you may think corporate America is, trying to
purchase stock at a discount through such insider trading is very
difficult to do. And it is nearly impossible for a majority owner or
senior manager to do such a thing.
> : You just claimed that these people often sell their securities below
> : any relevant valuation simply because one party has majority
control.
> : They are then UNDERVALUING their stock.
>
> Management can buy the the company from investors at a price reduced
> form the intrinsic value. They don't always do that.
See above.
> Small investors are at a disadvantage, but that doesn't mean they
> shouldn't invest. Informix is a recent example where earnings
> were inflated to mislead the public about the value of their
> shares.
>
> Ron
>
Hyman Blumenstock
Don Dale wrote:
>
> "Hyman Blumenstock" <hys...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:38810F37...@home.com...
> > An excellent argument. But, of course, whether or not the
> > moon etc., is not the subject at hand. Further, everyone
> > really knows that the moon is not made of green cheese, and
> > an assumption is made that anyone who bucks a lot of people
> > with the same idea must certainly be wrong. That the
> > greater number of people agreeing on anything must certainly
> > make that "anything" true.
>
> I was in no way appealing to an argument from intimidation. I was simply
> offering an alternative hypothesis to your assertion that your logic has
> carried the day at every turn on this forum.
Obviously it hasn't. But it seems that an objective question
that I raise is too often met with a subjective response
taken right out of the text. Within the Real Sciences,
proofs or rebuttals are derived never from any text, but
from laboratory results or other physical observations. It
is presumed that once something is reduced to writing, it is
immediately obsolete as the next thought would be for an
improvement.
>
> > That vast numbers of people believing a fallacy will not
> > change it towards the truth one iota. I doubt that Columbus
> > would get his financing. However, such a condition would
> > not endanger the welfare of mankind one bit as does this
> > almost universal reliance upon Doctrinaire Economic
> > Philosophy as being totally valid. Do you find my insistent
> > reference to <http://dieoff.org> a false reference?
>
> Yes, I do. Jay Hanson is a well-known Net-crank. Until quite recently, he
> was a regular poster to sci.econ. Other individuals, including Chris Auld,
> Ed Flaherty, Markku Stenborg, and myself, from time to time took up the
> tedious, elementary task of refuting his every argument point by point. He
> has been thoroughly debunked a dozen times over.
I can't see any fallacy in Jay Hanson's presentation. I'd
like to see some. However, a completely different source, i
believe, National Geographic presented a report on the
condition of the earth's resources a couple of weeks ago,
that is even more horrifying than Hanson's. It likened the
effect of recent human civilization with the impact of an
asteroid large enough to kill billions of people. It went
into detail on the extinction already of countless species
of animal and plant life, the ravaging of the oceans supply
of fish, all for money profit.
>
> > Please point out where I went astray. I thought the subject
> > was "Economics." And that according to the reference books,
> > economics is derived from the Greek "oikos" house and
> > "nemein" management.
>
> I really don't understand your appeals to etymology. Are you a flower
> stalk? Am I a valley?
Come on. Neither my name, nor yours, usually derived from
some occupation or other activity of an ancestor of the name
bearer, apply to describing us both as human beings, both us
with the Motivational elements of Security and Self Esteem.
That these latter are not likely to be identical in further
detail for both of us, does not compromise one iota this
simplistic definition of any human being in any era, of any
economic level, of any area. This type of simplistic
definition is the secret of success within the Real
Sciences, and could likewise create success within the
Social Sciences in the final resolution of social problems.
>
> > If the subject is indeed Economics, perhaps you can explain
> > that foundation statement: "Human Wants (why not a more
> > practical Needs?) is Virtually Infinite." Meaning
> > literally, with an economy of words: "Human Wants Are
> > Finite." If then, Supply can Meet Demand, how does the rest
> > of the Economic text, obvously based on Supply never Meeting
> > Demand, jusify its existence?
>
> It's not at all clear that "the rest of the Economic text" is at all
> "obvously [sic] based on Supply never Meeting Demand". Indeed, any
> introductory microeconomics text will have a lengthy discussion of market
> equilibrium.
I believe that the very existence of an advertising
industry, massive make and waste work (financial industry)
rampant unemployment despite rigged reports to the contrary,
welfare programs, even such a minor detail as overlarge
dinner plates served in restaurants, etc. would indicate
that Supply has already far exeeded Demand. In that case,
why an overcomplicated "exchange" routine that creates
problems for us all, manifest in continuing misery, crime,
violence, war and slaughter, instead of just interfacing
one's requirements with the supply.
>
> > How about the fact that taxation during the Agrarian era was
> > in terms of Food most of the millions of years of its
> > existence? That form of taxation seems most logical for the
> > transference of Food to those in public service no longer
> > able to produce their own.
>
> Please elucidate that logic, if you don't mind.
I had thought that it would be obvious. That's how little I
know today about what runs in people's minds who have
devoted their entire existence to acceptance of Doctrinaire
Economics. I pictured the age old Agrarian era as an era of
people, one step up from the animal world that still today
has to hunt food in a food scarce environment. That with
cultivation, the human race has applied a superior
intelligence to create even more food for itself than just
foraging in the forest like other animals. That also
intelligently forming more complicated and extensive
communities, that management had to become more formalized
and remote. People appointed to those tasks could not any
longer grow their own food, so taxation had to be initiated
whereby food had to be provided for those in government.
This, I believe, makes sense.
However, though we obviously have shifted from direct
obsession with Food that characterizes all of life,
including animal life, into a new obsession with a phantom
medium of exchange, the end result is the same. Adequate
access to the food supply. Now that food is so abundant as
to constitute a "drug on the market" then the feeding of
those in public service ought to no more a matter of concern
than breathing has been, so long as air is just as abundant.
That ought to raise the question, what is the function of
money taxation, when the only function of taxation
heretofore had been for no other purpose than to feed those
in public service?
Now that everyone can have full and free access to the food
supply, and literal starvation is virtually unheard of, what
for is this rigamarole of money taxation? What useful
purpose does it serve? Even we insist that money must flow
as revenue, what logic insists that money shall flow from
the last place one would think of as a practical money
source, the "taxpayer" while we have established official,
bottomless reservoirs of Money such as the Federal Reserve,
and even Deficit Spending to override the need for any
pressure upon the chairman of an organization not directly
under our control?
>
> > I think a new economics text is called for. Perhaps it
> > ought to titled, as a follow on to Professor Heinz Kohler's
> > textbook called "Economics, the Science of Scarcity" as
> > "Economics 2, the Science of Abundance."
> >
> > Ideally, I would think that whomever of the Economic
> > fraternity wrote such a text, would go down in history as
> > one of the most famous men of history, outshadowing every
> > last person who had won a Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> Well, clearly you have it all figured out. What are you waiting for?
In view of all the flack I've received, charged with being
ill read, (an essential to unfettered analysis of any
problem) don't you think it far more practical for someone
already in the profession with a standing therein, to
propose such a change? It would bring in eventually the
granddaddy of Nobel prizes, with a monumental place in
history no one else has ever achieved. Of course, what
happened to one economist, Marx, who deviated only slightly
from doctrine, might be scary, but he was too little and too
soon, about 40 years too soon, before Food became abundant
and terminated the Agrarian era.
HB
>
> Don
Don Dale
> > > That vast numbers of people believing a fallacy will not
> > > change it towards the truth one iota. I doubt that Columbus
> > > would get his financing. However, such a condition would
> > > not endanger the welfare of mankind one bit as does this
> > > almost universal reliance upon Doctrinaire Economic
> > > Philosophy as being totally valid. Do you find my insistent
> > > reference to <http://dieoff.org> a false reference?
> >
> > Yes, I do. Jay Hanson is a well-known Net-crank. Until quite recently,
he
> > was a regular poster to sci.econ. Other individuals, including Chris
Auld,
> > Ed Flaherty, Markku Stenborg, and myself, from time to time took up the
> > tedious, elementary task of refuting his every argument point by point.
He
> > has been thoroughly debunked a dozen times over.
>
> I can't see any fallacy in Jay Hanson's presentation.
Here, Hyman, we begin to get to the heart of the matter. That you cannot
see any fallacy in Jay's rants is only the tip of the iceberg. That you
cite him as an authority without understanding that his Chicken Little
arguments of scarcity and a new Stone Age directly contradict your own
Panglossian views of unbounded plenty is substantial evidence that your grip
on reality and command of logic are tenuous indeed. In other words: Jay is
wrong. But if Jay is right, you are wrong.
> I believe that the very existence of an advertising
> industry, massive make and waste work (financial industry)
> rampant unemployment despite rigged reports to the contrary,
> welfare programs, even such a minor detail as overlarge
> dinner plates served in restaurants, etc. would indicate
> that Supply has already far exeeded Demand.
You entirely misunderstand the very ideas of supply and demand. Please read
an introductory economics text; I'll be happy to help you through it.
> In view of all the flack I've received, charged with being
> ill read, (an essential to unfettered analysis of any
> problem) don't you think it far more practical for someone
> already in the profession with a standing therein, to
> propose such a change?
But here is your problem: Everyone in the profession, and indeed every human
with any command of logic and grasp of reality whatsoever, recognizes your
ideas as ridiculous. Your views of history and anthropology are
(charitably) inaccurate. Your conclusions do not even follow from your
premises, never mind that your premises are false. Are you really so
arrogant as to remain convinced that you alone have solved problems that
have occupied some of the world's greatest minds throughout history?
Something to think about: Money has existed for at least a thousand years.
Don
Hyman Blumenstock
Don Dale wrote:
>
> "Hyman Blumenstock" <hys...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3881E50F...@home.com...
> > > > That vast numbers of people believing a fallacy will not
> > > > change it towards the truth one iota. I doubt that Columbus
> > > > would get his financing. However, such a condition would
> > > > not endanger the welfare of mankind one bit as does this
> > > > almost universal reliance upon Doctrinaire Economic
> > > > Philosophy as being totally valid. Do you find my insistent
> > > > reference to <http://dieoff.org> a false reference?
> > >
> > > Yes, I do. Jay Hanson is a well-known Net-crank. Until quite recently,
> he
> > > was a regular poster to sci.econ. Other individuals, including Chris
> Auld,
> > > Ed Flaherty, Markku Stenborg, and myself, from time to time took up the
> > > tedious, elementary task of refuting his every argument point by point.
> He
> > > has been thoroughly debunked a dozen times over.
> >
> > I can't see any fallacy in Jay Hanson's presentation.
>
> Here, Hyman, we begin to get to the heart of the matter. That you cannot
> see any fallacy in Jay's rants is only the tip of the iceberg. That you
> cite him as an authority without understanding that his Chicken Little
> arguments of scarcity and a new Stone Age directly contradict your own
> Panglossian views of unbounded plenty is substantial evidence that your grip
> on reality and command of logic are tenuous indeed. In other words: Jay is
> wrong. But if Jay is right, you are wrong.
There must be something wrong with the English language, or
some gross difference in what each of us understand of the
meanings of words, that creates the alleged logic of your
rebuttal. I never said nor meant "unbounded plenty."
What I said was, though limited, with careful use and
replenishment as we went along, there was more than enough
for everyone for all time, or at least for the forseeable
future. That with the gross wastage and destruction of
resources without minimal or no thought of replenishment,
that is the result of the wild pursuit of an imaginary holy
grail -- Money, what else can happen but what Hanson
predicts? And his dire predictions are supported by a
seperate source, National Geographic.
>
> > I believe that the very existence of an advertising
> > industry, massive make and waste work (financial industry)
> > rampant unemployment despite rigged reports to the contrary,
> > welfare programs, even such a minor detail as overlarge
> > dinner plates served in restaurants, etc. would indicate
> > that Supply has already far exeeded Demand.
>
> You entirely misunderstand the very ideas of supply and demand. Please read
> an introductory economics text; I'll be happy to help you through it.
I've read and reread introductory economics texts. I've
quoted the common statement among all of them, "Human Wants
Are Virtually Infinite" and can't help but wonder what was
the intent of that statement. As careful thought about it
boils it down for economy of words to "Human Needs Are
Finite." However, the careless reader, intent upon pleasing
the teacher, will go along with the interpretation that will
get him an A and a PhD. Help me through this.
>
> > In view of all the flack I've received, charged with being
> > ill read, (an essential to unfettered analysis of any
> > problem) don't you think it far more practical for someone
> > already in the profession with a standing therein, to
> > propose such a change?
>
> But here is your problem: Everyone in the profession, and indeed every human
> with any command of logic and grasp of reality whatsoever, recognizes your
> ideas as ridiculous.
That I can certainly understand. After much expenditure
both of money and effort in taking that course towards a
doctorate, anyone would hope that any ideas that would make
it all a waste ought to be ridiculous.
> Your views of history and anthropology are
> (charitably) inaccurate. Your conclusions do not even follow from your
> premises, never mind that your premises are false. Are you really so
> arrogant as to remain convinced that you alone have solved problems that
> have occupied some of the world's greatest minds throughout history?
It would certainly be unusual. However the "greatest minds"
(in intelligence and analysis) are not necessarily
functioning at full throttle if certain basic presumptions
are not carefully evaluated first for validity. Like running
a high powered automobile engineered for high octane
gasoline being driven with diesel fuel.
>
> Something to think about: Money has existed for at least a thousand years.
So has the Agrarian era -- even longer, say millions of
years. But is there not a significant difference between
the Agrarian era and the modern Post-Agrarian era? Perhaps
that significant difference would make Money obsolete.
Because the Agrarian era required "exchange" to determine
who would _not_ share in the scarce supply, while with an
abundant supply, no one need do without a sufficiency.
Therefore, why maintain "exchange?"
HB
>
> Don
Ray
This much is clear.
Nobody who has read more than one of your posts would have any problem
believing that you see no problems with Hanson.
BTW, the moon is made of green cheese, hence your argument is invalid.
Don Dale
I see. What, then, is the difference between "more than enough for
everyone" and "unbounded plenty"?
> That with the gross wastage and destruction of
> resources without minimal or no thought of replenishment,
> that is the result of the wild pursuit of an imaginary holy
> grail -- Money, what else can happen but what Hanson
> predicts?
Hyman, Jay's central policy prescription is immediate reduction of all
production and consumption activity to 1/10 their current levels. How, pray
tell, is this consistent with "more than enough for everyone"?
> I've read and reread introductory economics texts. I've
> quoted the common statement among all of them, "Human Wants
> Are Virtually Infinite" and can't help but wonder what was
> the intent of that statement. As careful thought about it
> boils it down for economy of words to "Human Needs Are
> Finite." However, the careless reader, intent upon pleasing
> the teacher, will go along with the interpretation that will
> get him an A and a PhD. Help me through this.
> >
> > > In view of all the flack I've received, charged with being
> > > ill read, (an essential to unfettered analysis of any
> > > problem) don't you think it far more practical for someone
> > > already in the profession with a standing therein, to
> > > propose such a change?
> >
> > But here is your problem: Everyone in the profession, and indeed every
human
> > with any command of logic and grasp of reality whatsoever, recognizes
your
> > ideas as ridiculous.
>
> That I can certainly understand. After much expenditure
> both of money and effort in taking that course towards a
> doctorate, anyone would hope that any ideas that would make
> it all a waste ought to be ridiculous.
No, the incentives are all for innovation. As you've pointed out,
revolutionary ideas get you Nobel prizes. They also get you cushy tenured
positions at prestigious universities and big research grants. But only if
they make sense. Yours doesn't.
> > Something to think about: Money has existed for at least a thousand
years.
>
> So has the Agrarian era -- even longer, say millions of
> years. But is there not a significant difference between
> the Agrarian era and the modern Post-Agrarian era? Perhaps
> that significant difference would make Money obsolete.
> Because the Agrarian era required "exchange" to determine
> who would _not_ share in the scarce supply, while with an
> abundant supply, no one need do without a sufficiency.
> Therefore, why maintain "exchange?"
Because the supply of all sorts of things is far from abundant. People want
more. Perhaps the basic needs (however defined) of most people in the
industrialized world are satisfied, insofar as starvation is uncommon. But
people want more than a full belly. They spend 1/3 of their waking hours
working, frequently in unpleasant occupations, because they want more than a
full belly. Clean water. Better food. A more secure dwelling. Safer
streets. More functional or fashionable clothing. Furniture. A phone. A
car. A nicer car. A TV. A bigger TV. A computer. A better computer. An
internet connection. A faster internet connection. A better education for
their children. Better health care. Even those who have more than most --
they still want more. More time to spend with their families. More time to
engage in interesting discussions. More time to seek spritual
enlightenment. More time to relax and enjoy the company of friends. More.
I agree that the living standards of much of humanity are better than ever
before in history. But we still live in a world of scarcity. Resources are
scarce. Time is scarce. Perhaps one day technology will advance to the
point that every desire of every individual can be instantly met. But that
is not the world we live in. That is a world that exists only in the minds
of bad science fiction writers.
Don
Hyman Blumenstock
Ahh! I see. The essence of Doctrinaire Economics that
insists the Supply MUST always be less than Demand. You,
and most everyone else believes that it is "wants" that must
be supplied, when as practical matter it is "needs" of which
we each can consume only a couple pounds of food per day
(exact number irrelevant, but finite). We have an average
waking time of at most 16 hours, during which we not only
take the time to feed ourselves, but to do things, if we
don't waste any time.
In any given day, what things can we do in the time allotted
to us by Mother Nature? An infinite number of things in the
finite time? Or much of it moving the body from here to
there, using only one automobile or less (try to drive more
than one), and then perhaps doing something else perhaps
with some high tech tool, or nothing but entertain
ourselves. Can you make a list of all the drain upon our
resources doing that? Even multiplied by the entire
population of a finite (agreed?) number of people. I think
if you toted all this up here in the most well supplied
nation, you will have to come up with "more than enough."
If you think not, say what we are lacking. No. Money is
purely imaginery and any lack of that is purely contrived.
"Unbounded plenty" is an impossibility, as no one really
knows, or has experienced anything that can be called
'infinity."
> > That with the gross wastage and destruction of
> > resources without minimal or no thought of replenishment,
> > that is the result of the wild pursuit of an imaginary holy
> > grail -- Money, what else can happen but what Hanson
> > predicts?
>
> Hyman, Jay's central policy prescription is immediate reduction of all
> production and consumption activity to 1/10 their current levels. How, pray
> tell, is this consistent with "more than enough for everyone"?
What I take seriously is Jay's exposition of destruction of
the earth's resources that is taking place. Do you dispute
that? Why. However, I've seen nothing in his exposition of
a viable fix. That's another issue. I don't agree with what
you say is his fix above. I've suggested a viable fix.
I'm not surprised. Marx's revolutionary idea of just sharing
during a time of genuine scarcity got him in a mess of
trouble, didn't it. And then there's holy writ as taught by
rote, where if there is a "revolutionary idea" it had better
not conflict with any foundation statement in the early
pages of the textbook. Anyone who had been persuaded to
spend tens of thousands bucks, learning Doctrinaire
Economics, plus all the time and effort put in to recite
back enough accurately to gain a PhD, is not likely to want
to hear that his time and money was totally wasted,
particularly as that means going back to square one with a
couple of decades of one's life wasted.
>
> > > Something to think about: Money has existed for at least a thousand
> years.
> >
> > So has the Agrarian era -- even longer, say millions of
> > years. But is there not a significant difference between
> > the Agrarian era and the modern Post-Agrarian era? Perhaps
> > that significant difference would make Money obsolete.
> > Because the Agrarian era required "exchange" to determine
> > who would _not_ share in the scarce supply, while with an
> > abundant supply, no one need do without a sufficiency.
> > Therefore, why maintain "exchange?"
>
> Because the supply of all sorts of things is far from abundant. People want
> more. Perhaps the basic needs (however defined) of most people in the
> industrialized world are satisfied, insofar as starvation is uncommon. But
> people want more than a full belly. They spend 1/3 of their waking hours
> working, frequently in unpleasant occupations, because they want more than a
> full belly. Clean water. Better food. A more secure dwelling. Safer
> streets. More functional or fashionable clothing. Furniture. A phone. A
> car. A nicer car. A TV. A bigger TV. A computer. A better computer. An
> internet connection. A faster internet connection. A better education for
> their children. Better health care. Even those who have more than most --
> they still want more. More time to spend with their families. More time to
> engage in interesting discussions. More time to seek spritual
> enlightenment. More time to relax and enjoy the company of friends. More.
Is this what "virtually infinite" means? Except, with word
economy, "virtually infinite" means "finite" doesn't it? If
Demand is therefore "finite" have we not reached that
"finite" quantity yet in Supply? The very fact of
unemployment alone indicates that.
You can recite this list of things for hundreds of pages,
yet all these items are abundant enough to supply every last
person with "more than enough." Many more things can be
produced by a large group working in parallel with each
others than a smaller group. But the key is efficiency of
production, a condition that has exceeded 100% for the last
century. That is evidenced by such simple signals as
unemployment, make and waste work, an advertising industry
etc.
>
> I agree that the living standards of much of humanity are better than ever
> before in history. But we still live in a world of scarcity. Resources are
> scarce. Time is scarce. Perhaps one day technology will advance to the
> point that every desire of every individual can be instantly met. But that
> is not the world we live in. That is a world that exists only in the minds
> of bad science fiction writers.
Your conclusion is based entirely upon wishful thinking,
considering all the time, effort and expense of attaining
your current position. If you really believe it, I suppose
you can't be condemned for that. However, if you take the
trouble to analyze it, you will join a substantial number of
ex economists who just cannot, in good conscience, continue
to lie to themselves with such utter falsehood. We had it
made the instant the Agrarian era terminated, but the
profession could not abide accepting a fait accompli of
their assignment, and deliberately created the ongoing spate
of Economic problems for their own self aggrandizement.
There's going to have to be a lot of soul searching for us
to avoid Jay's holocaust.
HB
>
> Don
Hyman Blumenstock
Ray wrote:
>
> In article <3881E50F...@home.com>, Hyman Blumenstock
> <hys...@home.com> wrote:
> > I can't see any fallacy in Jay Hanson's presentation.
>
> This much is clear.
>
> Nobody who has read more than one of your posts would have any problem
> believing that you see no problems with Hanson.
>
> BTW, the moon is made of green cheese, hence your argument is invalid.
But yet you cannot cite any fallacy in Hanson's presentation
of the destruction of the earth's resources. Can you? Like,
no, the oceans are still full of fish. No, the atmosphere is
in pristine condition and getting better. No, the forests
are being restored instead of cut down.
HB
Thomas Sauve
>Is this what "virtually infinite" means? Except, with word
>economy, "virtually infinite" means "finite" doesn't it? If
>Demand is therefore "finite" have we not reached that
>"finite" quantity yet in Supply? The very fact of
>unemployment alone indicates that.
Well, I have a textbook before me that says "We assume that more of any
particular good X during some period of time is preferred to less". So,
that's means that human wants are never satisfied (And I know what I'm
talking about when I say this too...). Which do you trust? A quote which
you picked up (and then you never read the rest of the accompanying text, or
so you claim) and twisted around, or a well-though out explaination of the
economic theory (which I, along with many other people, presented).
I would also say that if you were to quote someone, and then analyze the
person's words, it would be best to ask that person if this is what s/he
meant. "Human needs are finite", meaning humans will stop wanting after a
certain amount is obtained... is that what the author meant in his or her
definition? Most people here would say no. I suggest you e-mail the author
and present the ideas you presented here before you twist his definition...
I'm serious with this. I would be terribly insulted if someone, like
yourself, used my words to convey a different meaning than what I intended.
What the author is saying (at least I think he is) is that mathematically,
it is shown that humans want an infinite amount of stuff that they like.
However, since we cannot reach infinity, we are limited only to consume as
much as we can get our hands on. We will want as much as we can get, which
can lead to ad infinitum. You will never, never be able to satiate human
desires, not nearly with the vast amount of supply we have now, not ever.
You will never ever be able to say that someone is satisfied with what they
have, never. That's what the person means by "human wants are virtually
infinite". From there, your whole argument of food falls apart.
Additionally (paradoxically), if you distrust economics so much, then why
are you quoting from one of "our" books?
Tom
Don Dale
>
(same old stuff)
Hyman, I tried. I had a little bit of time, and I tried to help you. Now,
I see that my efforts are futile. I'll be terminating our correspondence
now.
Don
Hyman Blumenstock
Thomas Sauve wrote:
>
> >Is this what "virtually infinite" means? Except, with word
> >economy, "virtually infinite" means "finite" doesn't it? If
> >Demand is therefore "finite" have we not reached that
> >"finite" quantity yet in Supply? The very fact of
> >unemployment alone indicates that.
>
> Well, I have a textbook before me that says "We assume that more of any
> particular good X during some period of time is preferred to less". So,
> that's means that human wants are never satisfied (And I know what I'm
> talking about when I say this too...). Which do you trust? A quote which
> you picked up (and then you never read the rest of the accompanying text, or
> so you claim) and twisted around, or a well-though out explaination of the
> economic theory (which I, along with many other people, presented).
"We _assume_ ...?" A very important "good" is Food. The
current trend of buffet style restaurants are a case in
point. I _assume_ you've eaten in them. There is no point
wherein the restaurateur forbids you to take anymore. While
hungry, it might seem that the "want" to eat can last
forever. Yet after a couple of heaping plates, and that
there is no further cost, we regret that our "want" to eat
even more, had better be put aside, or risk illness and
obesity.
>
> I would also say that if you were to quote someone, and then analyze the
> person's words, it would be best to ask that person if this is what s/he
> meant. "Human needs are finite", meaning humans will stop wanting after a
> certain amount is obtained... is that what the author meant in his or her
> definition? Most people here would say no. I suggest you e-mail the author
> and present the ideas you presented here before you twist his definition...
> I'm serious with this. I would be terribly insulted if someone, like
> yourself, used my words to convey a different meaning than what I intended.
What difference what the entire world of people say in the
face of empirical reality == like the earth is flat. I
would presume myself, whom I believe I know quite well, as a
good example. As much as I might like anything, like
chocolate ice cream -- after a certain point-- regretfully,
I'd say, "take it away." Or an example, even for young
studs fixated on sex. That scene in "Little Big Man" after
his Indian girl friend asks him, Dustin Hoffman, to take
care of her four cousins who had not yet experienced sex --
at the third one, while their all giggling away , he says
wearily -- "let me get some sleep." A good lesson for a kid
too greedy for anything is to stuff it in his gills. How
about MONEEEEEYYYY??? Gates appeared to be so cured of
craving more that he has father trying to get rid of what he
has.
>
> What the author is saying (at least I think he is) is that mathematically,
> it is shown that humans want an infinite amount of stuff that they like.
> However, since we cannot reach infinity, we are limited only to consume as
> much as we can get our hands on. We will want as much as we can get, which
> can lead to ad infinitum. You will never, never be able to satiate human
> desires, not nearly with the vast amount of supply we have now, not ever.
> You will never ever be able to say that someone is satisfied with what they
> have, never. That's what the person means by "human wants are virtually
> infinite". From there, your whole argument of food falls apart.
In view of my examples? What falls apart?
>
> Additionally (paradoxically), if you distrust economics so much, then why
> are you quoting from one of "our" books?
It's not a matter of "trust" or "distrust." It is obvious
that the entire subject is way out in left field. I really
don't think that I have to explain it to you. You have the
intellect to see it. I'm beginning to discover that it is
only a minor scam among major scams.
HB
> Tom
Thomas Sauve
Hyman Blumenstock wrote in message <38854CE9...@home.com>...
>
>
>Thomas Sauve wrote:
>>
>> >Is this what "virtually infinite" means? Except, with word
>> >economy, "virtually infinite" means "finite" doesn't it? If
>> >Demand is therefore "finite" have we not reached that
>> >"finite" quantity yet in Supply? The very fact of
>> >unemployment alone indicates that.
>>
No, no... you're missing an important part (again, you'd understand all this
if you'd take the time to read an economics book rather than criticize it).
In my quote, there's the phrase "during some period of time". Of course I
cannot possibly have twenty pairs of shoes over the next two minutes. Over
time (and overall), I'd get greater utility with having more shoes than
less. And, over time, I'd prefer to have more money than less. Mr. Gates
must still prefer to have more money than less, because last I checked, his
investements were earning interest. The fact that he is giving his money to
his family (or friends, or whoever) is also very clearly explained by
economics: He get's a certain amount of satisfaction (aka utility) from
sharing his wealth. He still craves more because he is still earning more
than he is giving (just like I still crave money, even though I donate to
the National Arbor Day Foundation. I get a certain amount of utility by
giving my money to something I prefer. I still get lots of money, and I
like it. And I certainly would not give too much away because I use my
money to buy things that I want.). Donations are Mr. Gates' preferences,
and he's entitled to that. But I don't think he's going to limit himself
and his income by donation all that much to charity. He's still a greedy
man (no offense to him).
You're obsessed with food when you shouldn't be. I admit, in one sitting a
person cannot physically eat a whole herd of cows. But we're looking at
this idea over time. Overall, I'd prefer to have more food than less Same
with sex. Overall, I'd certainly prefer more sex than less. But this is
getting kinda raunchy...
Tom
Hyman Blumenstock
the way to stay on your good side.
HB
Don Dale wrote:
>
> "Hyman Blumenstock" <hys...@home.com> wrote in message
Hyman Blumenstock
I've read them. I had to take economics courses as part of
my engineering and law curriculum. I still look at them to
try to find the logic everyone says exists therein.
> In my quote, there's the phrase "during some period of time". Of course I
> cannot possibly have twenty pairs of shoes over the next two minutes. Over
> time (and overall), I'd get greater utility with having more shoes than
> less.
A lifetime of 80 years only comprises about 960 months,
definitely a finite number. How many pairs of shoes will a
person need during that lifetime? Say at six months per
pair, even allowing several pairs for changing off daily.
Perhaps about 200 pairs during his lifetime. Hardly
anywhere near infinity. Even if he has a fetish about
shoes, they take up valuable closet space. We would just
need a certain level of manufacturing to produce them and
maintain the supply as old ones are discarded, and
preferably recycled. Infinity is so remote as to be
impossible even to contemplate.
> And, over time, I'd prefer to have more money than less. Mr. Gates
> must still prefer to have more money than less, because last I checked, his
> investements were earning interest. The fact that he is giving his money to
> his family (or friends, or whoever) is also very clearly explained by
> economics: He get's a certain amount of satisfaction (aka utility) from
> sharing his wealth. He still craves more because he is still earning more
> than he is giving (just like I still crave money, even though I donate to
> the National Arbor Day Foundation. I get a certain amount of utility by
> giving my money to something I prefer. I still get lots of money, and I
> like it. And I certainly would not give too much away because I use my
> money to buy things that I want.). Donations are Mr. Gates' preferences,
> and he's entitled to that. But I don't think he's going to limit himself
> and his income by donation all that much to charity. He's still a greedy
> man (no offense to him).
I believe his current accumulation is automatic.
>
> You're obsessed with food when you shouldn't be. I admit, in one sitting a
> person cannot physically eat a whole herd of cows. But we're looking at
> this idea over time. Overall, I'd prefer to have more food than less Same
> with sex. Overall, I'd certainly prefer more sex than less. But this is
> getting kinda raunchy...
As far as "obsession" is concerned, I don't think we even
have to be aware of it. You probably don't think of
breathing unless you have some trauma affecting it. It will
suddenly come to mind that you, as we all are, are obsessed
with Air, if someone grabs you by the throat and squeezes.
In Tokyo, not too long ago, people suddenly realized their
obsession with Air when pollution got so bad that a new
economic commodity was born. Canisters of breathable air.
Likewise with Water and Food, but in lessening urgency. The
test, is whether life can continue or not if that
"obsession" is not satisfied early enough. Clothing and
shelter don't have that urgency unless there is some other
condition demanding it.
HB
Thomas Sauve
>my engineering and law curriculum. I still look at them to
>try to find the logic everyone says exists therein.
I'm getting too tired of repeating stuff that an economics journal explains.
I'm sorry that you fail to see the truth, but an intelligent journal or book
explains these ideas much better than I possible could. I suggest you read
because a culmination of hundreds of years of research by hundreds of
thousands of intelligent people are in those journals. You are just one
person who doesn't even understand the theories he's trying to refute.
Tom
mne...@my-deja.com
In article <cl7h4.2554$Sd1.1...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>,
"Don Dale" <da...@nospam.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Hyman, I tried. I had a little bit of time, and I tried to help
you. Now,
> I see that my efforts are futile. I'll be terminating our
correspondence
> now.
>
> Don
>
>
Robert Vienneau
> I'm getting too tired of repeating stuff that an economics journal
> explains.
> I'm sorry that you fail to see the truth, but an intelligent journal or
> book
> explains these ideas much better than I possible could. I suggest you
> read
> because a culmination of hundreds of years of research by hundreds of
> thousands of intelligent people are in those journals. You are just one
> person who doesn't even understand the theories he's trying to refute.
Tom,
I hope he doesn't take offense, but I often find Hyman's posts crankish,
myself. However...
I hope you realize "hundreds of years" and "hundreds of thousands" is
hyperbole. It's also argument by authority, that is, not to be taken
seriously.
Should Hyman avoid reading the _Journal of Economic Issues_
(where a community of researchers attempts to build on the work of
Thorstein Veblen, John R. Commons, Wesley C. Mitchell, John M. Clark,
Clarence Ayres, John Kenneth Galbraith, etc.)? Should he study up
on stone age economics, a subject where some researchers think
typical societies did not encourage members to always want more?
Should he read about those experimental economists who have
apparently falsified some subset of a combination of the axioms of
utility and probability theory? Should he look at the history of
utility theory and its origins in Bentham's philosophy, an imitation
of 19th century physics, and introspection associated with a
pre-Freudian philosophy in which a person's mind is supposed to
be transparent to themselves? What should he make of the failure
of economists to probe the conservation laws taken aboard utility
theory by imitating 19th century mechanics?
I'm not an economist. I read a lot. I grew up in Rochester, NY.
What do you think is causing the low snowfall in Rochester this
season?
--
r a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom,
v c p or virtue, are found in proportion to the
i s e power or wealth of a man is a question fit
e . . perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
n m c hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming
@ a o to reasonable and free men in search of the
d e m truth.
r -- Rousseau
Hyman Blumenstock
mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> It seems that more and more people are forced to do this every day.
Which says absolutely nothing about right or wrong on the
issues. It appears that minds are made up, and no degree of
logic will change that.
HB
Hyman Blumenstock
How about pretending you're a highly intelligent alien
visitor from someplace in outer space, who has discovered
these apparently intelligent creatures occupying this third
planet from the sun, From a completely unbiased mind, he
tries to figure out what makes them tick. Do you think he
would do better or worse if he were to read all those
references you cite?
To such an uncluttered mind, he would see that survival
requires ingestion of Air, Water and Food, unconditionally.
He would see that the economics practiced here insists upon
making Food hard to get, maintaining human misery, crime,
violence, war and slaughter. He would suggest two
procedures. If food is scarce, he would suggest sharing
it. If food were abundant, just distribute freely as freely
as air and water have always been distributed.
So therefore, the refusal to allow any bias into one's mind
by not reading any writings of any alleged sages on this
subject, none of whom has demonstrated any viable procedure
of success, makes one a crank?
>
> I'm not an economist. I read a lot. I grew up in Rochester, NY.
If an economist is someone who can resolve economic
problems, then it would appear that there never had been
economists on this world.
HB
Thomas Sauve
>
> season?
Hi,
To answer your question, I'd love it if he read up on all those things
(including the theories that are generally accepted in today's society).
I'd love it if I had the time to read up on all those misguided theories
and disproved ideas. Personally, I think it would help me understand
economics more. To be able to see what people thought, and then
understand why those thoughts were incorrect. And then to see why the
correct theories have been generally accepted. It would certainly make me
(and hyman, if he did it) more sage in economics. I think it's pretty
clear that nobody can just enter a science without understanding as much
as possible. An alien coming from outerspace would certainly have no idea
how our society operates and how our minds and psychology works. That
alien had sure better start reading up on economics and human desires
before s/he starts dictacting how society works. I won't go into the
natural sciences and claim to have a solution to growing old (I'd make
myself look a little foolish...)
Well, the way I figure it, the more a person reads up on a subject, the
more s/he will understand those ideas (like yourself, for instance).
Now, about the weather. My God! it's cold. Not much snow, but I'm
freezing here. Eh, only another four months of this cold weather
though... :)
Tom
Bill Anderson
>
> mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > It seems that more and more people are forced to do this every day.
>
> Which says absolutely nothing about right or wrong on the
> issues. It appears that minds are made up, and no degree of
> logic will change that.
Agreed. and the mind in question happens to be yours.
Bill Anderson
>
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> >
> > "Thomas Sauve" <ts0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
> >
> visitor from someplace in outer space, who has discovered
> these apparently intelligent creatures occupying this third
> planet from the sun, From a completely unbiased mind, he
> tries to figure out what makes them tick. Do you think he
> would do better or worse if he were to read all those
> references you cite?
>
> To such an uncluttered mind, he would see that survival
You make several unfounded (again) assumptions. You _assume_ this entity
would think like you.
Another Fallacy,
> requires ingestion of Air, Water and Food, unconditionally.
> He would see that the economics practiced here insists upon
> making Food hard to get, maintaining human misery, crime,
> violence, war and slaughter. He would suggest two
> procedures. If food is scarce, he would suggest sharing
> it. If food were abundant, just distribute freely as freely
> as air and water have always been distributed.
See above.
> So therefore, the refusal to allow any bias into one's mind
> by not reading any writings of any alleged sages on this
> subject, none of whom has demonstrated any viable procedure
> of success, makes one a crank?
Intentionally labelling a subject biased and not reading _is_ being
biased.
> >
> > I'm not an economist. I read a lot. I grew up in Rochester, NY.
>
> If an economist is someone who can resolve economic
> problems, then it would appear that there never had been
> economists on this world.
>
> HB
> >
> > What do you think is causing the low snowfall in Rochester this
> > season?
> >
> > --
> > r a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom,
> > v c p or virtue, are found in proportion to the
> > i s e power or wealth of a man is a question fit
> > e . . perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
> > n m c hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming
> > @ a o to reasonable and free men in search of the
> > d e m truth.
> > r -- Rousseau
--
Hyman Blumenstock
Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> >
> > mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that more and more people are forced to do this every day.
> >
> > Which says absolutely nothing about right or wrong on the
> > issues. It appears that minds are made up, and no degree of
> > logic will change that.
>
> Agreed. and the mind in question happens to be yours.
If objective logic comes to a certain conclusion, no matter
how the issue is approached, it stands to reason that this
is it.
However, if one's mind is made up solely because other
people say so, that is the last approach to be taken for
rectitude.
Instead of snidely making personal comments, why not show
the error of my points. Failing that, while making snide
remarks doesn't dast any glory on your intellect.
HB
Hyman Blumenstock
Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> >
You are totally out of your mind. The problem is dirt
simple. Like someone standing next to a stream of pure
water coming up with a problem of thirst. and he says to
himself, "What should I do?" Do we need extensive texts
written by erudite scholars for the answer? Like someone
about to release a ball on a hill and observers of your ilk
saying, "I wonder what will happen." Here is the problem of
hungry people. There is a continually replenished store of
Food. The economic question that takes 800 pages of
doctrinaire economics is, "What should be done to get people
fed?" A vast overcomplicated system is developed that has
so many flaws built in that it never gets done. The best
answer is to just deliver the food to where people can reach
out to get it, and salvage the paper the economic texts
wasted in being printed.
> Another Fallacy,
>
> > requires ingestion of Air, Water and Food, unconditionally.
> > He would see that the economics practiced here insists upon
> > making Food hard to get, maintaining human misery, crime,
> > violence, war and slaughter. He would suggest two
> > procedures. If food is scarce, he would suggest sharing
> > it. If food were abundant, just distribute freely as freely
> > as air and water have always been distributed.
>
> See above.
See what above?
>
> > So therefore, the refusal to allow any bias into one's mind
> > by not reading any writings of any alleged sages on this
> > subject, none of whom has demonstrated any viable procedure
> > of success, makes one a crank?
>
> Intentionally labelling a subject biased and not reading _is_ being
> biased.
I'm eternally biased towards success. There has never been
even one success within the Social sciences(oxymoron),
especially one of such repute as Economics.
HB
>
> > >
> > > I'm not an economist. I read a lot. I grew up in Rochester, NY.
> >
> > If an economist is someone who can resolve economic
> > problems, then it would appear that there never had been
> > economists on this world.
> >
> > HB
> > >
> > > What do you think is causing the low snowfall in Rochester this
> > > season?
> > >
> > > --
> > > r a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom,
> > > v c p or virtue, are found in proportion to the
> > > i s e power or wealth of a man is a question fit
> > > e . . perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
> > > n m c hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming
> > > @ a o to reasonable and free men in search of the
> > > d e m truth.
> > > r -- Rousseau
>
Bill Anderson
>
> Bill Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It seems that more and more people are forced to do this every day.
> > >
> > > Which says absolutely nothing about right or wrong on the
> > > issues. It appears that minds are made up, and no degree of
> > > logic will change that.
> >
> > Agreed. and the mind in question happens to be yours.
>
> If objective logic comes to a certain conclusion, no matter
> how the issue is approached, it stands to reason that this
> is it.
If that logic is shown incomplete, incorrect, false, the conclusion
likewise must be reconsidered.
> However, if one's mind is made up solely because other
> people say so, that is the last approach to be taken for
> rectitude.
>
> Instead of snidely making personal comments, why not show
> the error of my points.
I have.
You ignore them.
Hyman Blumenstock
into.
HB
Bill Anderson
>
> You've given me nothing but platitudes to sink my teeth
> into.
Wrong, I gave you specific logic, which you dismissed as 'TextBook
Logic', your words.
Are you now saying textbook logic is nothing but platitudes?
You are consitently making appeals to emotion, rather than a good
argument. You present circular logic, and make ad hominems upon anyone
who shows your logic is fallacious.
Hyman Blumenstock
Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> >
> > You've given me nothing but platitudes to sink my teeth
> > into.
>
> Wrong, I gave you specific logic, which you dismissed as 'TextBook
> Logic', your words.
>
> Are you now saying textbook logic is nothing but platitudes?
Exactly!!! All of the logic any textbook is based upon a
deliberately misleading foundation statement, "Human Wants
Are Virtually Infinite." People reading that without mature
reflection will presume that Supply can never meet Demand.
On that premise, anything thereafter is a platitude. Mature
reflection will reveal what ought to be obvious, "wants" of
most people can range from the usual well adjusted person to
not having the time nor capacity to consume or use or do
everything he would like to do, to the patently absurd of
wanting 100s of Mercedes parked in his garage attached to
his 100,000 sq ft home. "Needs" present a practical problem
of limited things that can be effectively consumed or used,
given the individuals limited capacity and limited time
available out of the 24 hours per day.
>
> You are consitently making appeals to emotion, rather than a good
> argument. You present circular logic, and make ad hominems upon anyone
> who shows your logic is fallacious.
Never. Though I can't guarantee that no one will become
emotional about discovering that he has been laboring on
fallacious presumptions that he cannot back up with good
logic. Ad hominems are no more than reply precisely in
kind, as a demonstration that I had been inflicted with an
uncalled for ad hominem.
HB
Bill Anderson
>
> Bill Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> > >
> > > You've given me nothing but platitudes to sink my teeth
> > > into.
> >
> > Wrong, I gave you specific logic, which you dismissed as 'TextBook
> > Logic', your words.
> >
> > Are you now saying textbook logic is nothing but platitudes?
>
> Exactly!!! All of the logic any textbook is based upon a
> deliberately misleading foundation statement, "Human Wants
> Are Virtually Infinite."
Oh really? Never have I once seen a *Logic* book even make that claim.
Perhaps you can provide a specific example of a *LOGIC* book doing so?
Perhaps you are confused. You seem to be so concerned about that phrase
you are now claiming that _logic_, which predates _any_ textbooks on
economics by several centuries, are based entirely upon it.
Hymen, perhaps you have made a simple, yet emotional mistake. It is
either that, or you are deliberately lying. I have several books on
logic, both formal and informal. _None_ of them even contain that
phrase, which is from an _economics_ book, and out of context at that.
And, since you said 'any textbook', perhaps you can show me where my
Physics textbooks, my math textbooks, astronomy, computer science, etc.
textbooks even _contain_ that phrase, let alon claim it as a
'foundational statement'.
I had to read your claim several times, as I could not believe you made
that claim. But, you did, and now, either back it up, or admit you are
wrong, as you claim to do.
> People reading that without mature
> reflection will presume that Supply can never meet Demand.
People reading that are not reading a book on logic, but rather one on
economics, and also reading serveral other premises, that you either
failed to read, or fail to remember and/or understand.
> On that premise, anything thereafter is a platitude. Mature
> reflection will reveal what ought to be obvious, "wants" of
> most people can range from the usual well adjusted person to
> not having the time nor capacity to consume or use or do
> everything he would like to do, to the patently absurd of
> wanting 100s of Mercedes parked in his garage attached to
> his 100,000 sq ft home. "Needs" present a practical problem
> of limited things that can be effectively consumed or used,
> given the individuals limited capacity and limited time
> available out of the 24 hours per day.
> >
> > You are consitently making appeals to emotion, rather than a good
> > argument. You present circular logic, and make ad hominems upon anyone
> > who shows your logic is fallacious.
>
> Never. Though I can't guarantee that no one will become
> emotional about discovering that he has been laboring on
> fallacious presumptions that he cannot back up with good
> logic. Ad hominems are no more than reply precisely in
> kind, as a demonstration that I had been inflicted with an
> uncalled for ad hominem.
Well, as close as you could get to an ad hominem in my initial responses
to you (which can be found from http://www.deja.com) was my remark about
technocracy, which you have thanked me for referencing (BTW, how has
your experience been with them?). Yet, you resorted to ad hominems very
quickly when I provided a logical analysis of your argument, at your
request., that showed logical errors and fallacies.
In fact, my original response contained only the techncracy reference,
whereupon you immediately made ad hominems, and repeatedly insisted I
was making all sorts of statements. I do note that not once did you
admit you were wrong in that I did not make those statements. Did you
not aslo make a claim here recently tyhat you are 'mortified' when
someone shows you to be in error, but still 'own up' to it? I have a
specific, and verifiable example of you not doing so. It is also a
specific and verifiable example of you avoiding the logic, and resorting
to emotional appeals and ad hominems. In fact, to quote you exactly,
after I pointed out your ad hominems: "Never mind the ad hominems, stick
to the issue." To be fair, at one time, you did state in response to a
specific cite regarding your emotional attack on your opponent "If I did
so, the I apologize." While it is noteworthy, it is also not an
admission or realization that you did so.
Dennis O'Dea
>Exactly!!! All of the logic any textbook is based upon a
>deliberately misleading foundation statement, "Human Wants
>reflection will presume that Supply can never meet Demand.
>reflection will reveal what ought to be obvious, "wants" of
>most people can range from the usual well adjusted person to
>not having the time nor capacity to consume or use or do
>everything he would like to do, to the patently absurd of
>wanting 100s of Mercedes parked in his garage attached to
>his 100,000 sq ft home. "Needs" present a practical problem
>of limited things that can be effectively consumed or used,
>given the individuals limited capacity and limited time
>available out of the 24 hours per day.
>>
makes the problem smaller and easier to deal with, however, you still have
to deal with that fact that "needs" is subject to interpretation, and that
introduces a whole new level of complexity. Besides, it doesn't accurately
represent how the real world actually works. Analysing peoples Wants
subject to a budjet contraint, however, much more accurately models the real
world and allows use to analyse the market. There is nothing in this about
"Supple never meeting Demand. Situations of disequilibrium are a certain
case of analysis, not the basis of it.
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has
simply nothing to do" -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Dennis O'Dea
Indie Kid
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~dcodea/
1900
Bill Anderson
>
> Bill Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Anderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You've given me nothing but platitudes to sink my teeth
> > > > > into.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong, I gave you specific logic, which you dismissed as 'TextBook
> > > > Logic', your words.
> > > >
> > > > Are you now saying textbook logic is nothing but platitudes?
> > >
> > > Exactly!!! All of the logic any textbook is based upon a
> > > deliberately misleading foundation statement, "Human Wants
> > > Are Virtually Infinite."
> >
> > Oh really? Never have I once seen a *Logic* book even make that claim.
> > Perhaps you can provide a specific example of a *LOGIC* book doing so?
> > Perhaps you are confused. You seem to be so concerned about that phrase
> > you are now claiming that _logic_, which predates _any_ textbooks on
> > economics by several centuries, are based entirely upon it.
>
> comment any way you choose. The only textbook under
> discussion was a typical Economics textbook. Or if you are
> sincere in your remarks, you seem to have an awfully
> constricted mind.
No, you said 'any textbook'. My original posts (need I provide the
specific deja URLs for you?) were regarding logic, not economics. I
provided a specifc set of modus ponens arguments which you dismissed as
'textbook logic'. The phrase textbook logic specifically refers to a
textbook of logic.
> >
> > Hymen, perhaps you have made a simple, yet emotional mistake. It is
> > either that, or you are deliberately lying. I have several books on
> > logic, both formal and informal. _None_ of them even contain that
> > phrase, which is from an _economics_ book, and out of context at that.
>
> Perhaps your computer is dropping a byte or two here and
> there giving you the wrong impression about what my comments
> mean.
So, you truly cannot admit when you made a mistake. I offered you an
opportunity to say something like 'oops, I left out a word there'. You
instead chose to make ad hominem attacks on me, and now my computer
(which almost undoubtedly drops less information than yours given that
you are using Windows98).
> > And, since you said 'any textbook', perhaps you can show me where my
> > Physics textbooks, my math textbooks, astronomy, computer science, etc.
> > textbooks even _contain_ that phrase, let alon claim it as a
> > 'foundational statement'.
>
> The very fact of that phrase, "Human Wants Are Virtually
> Infinite" is so obviously an economic term, that you are
> becoming a complete pain in the ass, or are too dense to see
> clearly enough.
The phrase 'any textbook' is so obviouls a phrase to mean _any_
textbook. Or are you redefining the word 'any' for your own use.
> >
> > I had to read your claim several times, as I could not believe you made
> > that claim. But, you did, and now, either back it up, or admit you are
> > wrong, as you claim to do.
>
> Wrong about what? It is you who are wrong, either on the
> issue or off it, as you are attempting to be.
The above claim. Unlike you, Hymen, I do not clip arguments to make them
suit my claims better.
> >
> > > People reading that without mature
> > > reflection will presume that Supply can never meet Demand.
> >
> > People reading that are not reading a book on logic, but rather one on
> > economics, and also reading serveral other premises, that you either
> > failed to read, or fail to remember and/or understand.
>
> It is apparent that you don't know what you are talking
> about. I certainly don't know what you are talking about,
> except that you are desperately confused.
Really? Am I so confused as to state that if you are reading your pet
phrase about needs and infinity _not_ being in a textbook on logic, then
perhaps you would rather believe the opposite? If that is true, the you
should look a lot closer to home fo rthe confusion you see before you.
> That is a heroic attempt to completely avoid the issue of
> this forum -- validity or not of economic philosophy.
>
> Stop wasting the time of all of us.
>
As expected. You are so mortified that you made a mistake you are
unwilling to admit it.
QED
dav...@my-deja.com
> Exactly!!! All of the logic any textbook is based upon a
> deliberately misleading foundation statement, "Human Wants
> Are Virtually Infinite."
This statement is incorrect. Only some of the logic of price theory
stems from the notion of human insatiability. For example, the
theory of the supply curve does not depend on this assumption.
> People reading that without mature reflection will presume that
> Supply can never meet Demand.
You would have a greater chance to persuade readers of your case if you
used terminology accurately. I don't think you have supply and demand
functions in mind with this statement. (Unless, of course, you want to
propose a model of perpetual disequilibrium.)
> Mature reflection will reveal what ought to be obvious, "wants"
> of most people can range from the usual well adjusted person to
> not having the time nor capacity to consume or use or do
> everything he would like to do
In other words, scarcity matters to this person. There exist market
outcomes that would make this person happier (the usual person would
prefer to work less).
> to the patently absurd of wanting 100s of Mercedes parked in his
> garage attached to his 100,000 sq ft home.
Economists have studied the demand for cars. Many of these studies rely
on the assumption that agents will buy at most one car in a calendar
year. See Bresnahan (1987) and Berry, Levinsohn, and Pakes (1995).
There are many other applications of discrete choice models that have
cropped up in the last five years. Berry (1994) outlines the theory.
None of this work contradicts price theory, however. With time, this
method may find its way into textbooks on price theory, at least those
with a more empirical bent.
> "Needs" present a practical problem of limited things that can be
> effectively consumed or used, given the individuals limited capacity
> and limited time available out of the 24 hours per day.
Scarcity strikes again. I'm not sure how you think the study of market
demand would be enhanced by constructing a two-tier hierarchy between
"needs" and "wants", especially since "wants" nests "needs".
The presumption of insatiable wants leads to the two fundamental welfare
theorems (that all equilibria are Pareto efficient and vice versa).
Insatiable wants is required to ensure you couldn't redistribute
purchasing power from agents who don't value it at the margin to those
that do. It also provides the interpretation of a demand curve as a
marginal valuation schedule.
If you discard this assumption, you are still a long, long way from
refuting the tools of price theory or proving the case that some other
organizational system is both feasible and preferable to free markets.
Your critique would be more relevant if it attacked the idea that wants
are insatiable at any level of income rather than the idea that some
goods exhibit satiability. The former idea supports the theorem that
markets are efficient. The latter is simply a textbook model of the
demand for some goods. The fact that my demand curve for polio vaccine
(or food) is perfectly inelastic is irrelevant. Also, as a matter of
fact, the notion of perfectly inelastic demand is often presented in the
same textbooks you criticize, and it is inconsistent with the assumption
that more of this good is preferred to less.
--Dave
dav...@my-deja.com
Hyman Blumenstock
Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> >
> > Bill Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You've given me nothing but platitudes to sink my teeth
> > > > into.
> > >
> > > Wrong, I gave you specific logic, which you dismissed as 'TextBook
> > > Logic', your words.
> > >
> > > Are you now saying textbook logic is nothing but platitudes?
> >
> > Exactly!!! All of the logic any textbook is based upon a
> > deliberately misleading foundation statement, "Human Wants
> > Are Virtually Infinite."
>
> Oh really? Never have I once seen a *Logic* book even make that claim.
> Perhaps you can provide a specific example of a *LOGIC* book doing so?
> Perhaps you are confused. You seem to be so concerned about that phrase
> you are now claiming that _logic_, which predates _any_ textbooks on
> economics by several centuries, are based entirely upon it.
You have a juvenile picayune penchant to twisting any
comment any way you choose. The only textbook under
discussion was a typical Economics textbook. Or if you are
sincere in your remarks, you seem to have an awfully
constricted mind.
>
> Hymen, perhaps you have made a simple, yet emotional mistake. It is
> either that, or you are deliberately lying. I have several books on
> logic, both formal and informal. _None_ of them even contain that
> phrase, which is from an _economics_ book, and out of context at that.
Perhaps your computer is dropping a byte or two here and
there giving you the wrong impression about what my comments
mean.
>
> And, since you said 'any textbook', perhaps you can show me where my
> Physics textbooks, my math textbooks, astronomy, computer science, etc.
> textbooks even _contain_ that phrase, let alon claim it as a
> 'foundational statement'.
The very fact of that phrase, "Human Wants Are Virtually
Infinite" is so obviously an economic term, that you are
becoming a complete pain in the ass, or are too dense to see
clearly enough.
>
> I had to read your claim several times, as I could not believe you made
> that claim. But, you did, and now, either back it up, or admit you are
> wrong, as you claim to do.
Wrong about what? It is you who are wrong, either on the
issue or off it, as you are attempting to be.
>
> > People reading that without mature
> > reflection will presume that Supply can never meet Demand.
>
> People reading that are not reading a book on logic, but rather one on
> economics, and also reading serveral other premises, that you either
> failed to read, or fail to remember and/or understand.
It is apparent that you don't know what you are talking
about. I certainly don't know what you are talking about,
except that you are desperately confused.
>
That is a heroic attempt to completely avoid the issue of
this forum -- validity or not of economic philosophy.
Stop wasting the time of all of us.
NG
Hyman Blumenstock
dav...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Exactly!!! All of the logic any textbook is based upon a
> > deliberately misleading foundation statement, "Human Wants
> > Are Virtually Infinite."
>
> This statement is incorrect. Only some of the logic of price theory
> stems from the notion of human insatiability. For example, the
> theory of the supply curve does not depend on this assumption.
The entire subject as presented formally in the economics
text is far out of line. Firstly, the subject is basically
Food, as that is the only one of the three essences of life
that was scarce enough to demand the attention of
professional economists on how to distribute it. Everything
else, from clothing and shelter down is on a much lesser
plane in that the absence of anything else is not
necessarily a threat to life.
During the entire Agrarian era, there never was enough food
to feed the entire population, giving the false impression
that it could never be done. The sudden, unexpected advent
of Food abundance presented a crisis to Doctrinaire
Economists at the time. Food became abundant because Demand
for Food is not at all infinite, not even virtually
infinite. Wants could seem so then because hunger was a
daily problem for virtually everyone. Demand, contrary to
Doctrinaire belief is fixed. That is that the demand for
Food is a quantity easily determined by quantifying the
individual fixed quantity of "bellyful" for the average
person. Is is practically an identity for every last person
on earth, and easily calculated quite accurately, no matter
the person, the culture, the era, the level of austerity,
the quantity of people, or whatever. The math involved is no
more complex than 3rd grade multiplication. You don't need
graphs, all you need is a simple ledger.
By inventing Money and transforming it into its modern
format and has done the world a distinct disservice and
promises us ruination unless we snap out of it.
>
> > People reading that without mature reflection will presume that
> > Supply can never meet Demand.
>
> You would have a greater chance to persuade readers of your case if you
> used terminology accurately. I don't think you have supply and demand
> functions in mind with this statement. (Unless, of course, you want to
> propose a model of perpetual disequilibrium.)
How can there be disequilibrium when Demand is fixed and
Supply exceeds it in spades. What else is there besides
Food, that had been scarce since time began, and is now
abundant for the last century. Of course Air and Water are
more critical to life, in that one dies that much sooner
without those, but Food is just as deadly in its absence,
while the human race has been fortunate in the Economic
profession not taking Air and Water under its control.
Clothing and Shelter, and nothing else guarantees death in
its absence. Everything else produced is a definite and
positive derivative of Food, because nothing can be produced
except by a person who had eaten first.
>
> > Mature reflection will reveal what ought to be obvious, "wants"
> > of most people can range from the usual well adjusted person to
> > not having the time nor capacity to consume or use or do
> > everything he would like to do
>
> In other words, scarcity matters to this person. There exist market
> outcomes that would make this person happier (the usual person would
> prefer to work less).
Anyone in a crap job would prefer to work less. Why should
anyone be inflicted with a crap job -- even one he might
like but be hounded by the central theme of Economic
philosophy, "Earn a Living or Die."
>
> > to the patently absurd of wanting 100s of Mercedes parked in his
> > garage attached to his 100,000 sq ft home.
>
> Economists have studied the demand for cars. Many of these studies rely
> on the assumption that agents will buy at most one car in a calendar
> year. See Bresnahan (1987) and Berry, Levinsohn, and Pakes (1995).
> There are many other applications of discrete choice models that have
> cropped up in the last five years. Berry (1994) outlines the theory.
Totally irrelevant, because Food is the only central issue,
and cars are derived from an adequate food supply.
>
> None of this work contradicts price theory, however. With time, this
> method may find its way into textbooks on price theory, at least those
> with a more empirical bent.
What can be more empirical than my point of view. A
population of human bellyies, needing food enough to make a
"bellyful" three times a day, an adequate source of Food,
and the matchup of the two. No more strategy or
intellectual prowess needed than asking a two year old kid,
to "bring the bread to the table, honey." Once that's done,
everything we can imagine in our wildest dreams becomes
possible. "Cost" becomes a myth.
>
> > "Needs" present a practical problem of limited things that can be
> > effectively consumed or used, given the individuals limited capacity
> > and limited time available out of the 24 hours per day.
>
> Scarcity strikes again. I'm not sure how you think the study of market
> demand would be enhanced by constructing a two-tier hierarchy between
> "needs" and "wants", especially since "wants" nests "needs".
Yes indeed. Wants tend to be highly impractical unless
merged with Needs.
>
> The presumption of insatiable wants leads to the two fundamental welfare
> theorems (that all equilibria are Pareto efficient and vice versa).
> Insatiable wants is required to ensure you couldn't redistribute
> purchasing power from agents who don't value it at the margin to those
> that do. It also provides the interpretation of a demand curve as a
> marginal valuation schedule.
All of which is totally divorced from practical reality.
> If you discard this assumption, you are still a long, long way from
> refuting the tools of price theory or proving the case that some other
> organizational system is both feasible and preferable to free markets.
Yes. The very successful distribution of supplies and goods
from the corporate stockroom is a case in point. The salary
check's real purpose is to supplement what happens to not be
stocked by the stockroom.
>
> Your critique would be more relevant if it attacked the idea that wants
> are insatiable at any level of income rather than the idea that some
> goods exhibit satiability. The former idea supports the theorem that
> markets are efficient. The latter is simply a textbook model of the
> demand for some goods. The fact that my demand curve for polio vaccine
> (or food) is perfectly inelastic is irrelevant. Also, as a matter of
> fact, the notion of perfectly inelastic demand is often presented in the
> same textbooks you criticize, and it is inconsistent with the assumption
> that more of this good is preferred to less.
As I keep repeating, the crux of economics is solely the
availability of Food versus the absolutely fixed demand, of
three bellyfulls per day per person. Everything else is
thereafter "free of cost," being fully prepaid upon just the
satiation of hunger. If there happens to be less than
needed, then more effort in producing is the key. A
competent supply department will anticipate any such
shortages and prevent them from happening.
HB
David Lloyd-Jones
"Bill Anderson" <bill.a...@libc.org> wrote in message
news:388A7606...@libc.org...
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> > You've given me nothing but platitudes to sink my teeth
> > into.
> Wrong, I gave you specific logic, which you dismissed as 'TextBook
> Logic', your words.
> Are you now saying textbook logic is nothing but platitudes?
Bill,
Perfectly reasonable answer, but nothing to do with this newsgroup.
I have killfiled Hyman, who is a perpetual news abuser, and I am thinking
about killfiling anybody who replies to him in public, except in a newsgroup
relevant to his concerns -- if such a thing exists. If you really want to
chat with the guy, use e-mail, please.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Dennis O'Dea" <dco...@students.wisc.edu> wrote
> This is true, applying economic thinking only to "needs":rather than
"wants"
> makes the problem smaller and easier to deal with, however, you still have
> to deal with that fact that "needs" is subject to interpretation, and that
> introduces a whole new level of complexity.
<snips>
> --
> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
> statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has
> simply nothing to do" -Ralph Waldo Emerson
I think the second sentence of Emerson's, above, is simply incorrect. Ol'
Waldo simply couldn't resist the tide sweeping him forward to a pair of
balanced phrases. This means you are unwise to use it as a reason for
adopting a deliberate inconsistency. Make up your mind: is it "smaller and
easier to deal with" or does it have "a whole new level of complexity"?
Great souls agree: a sentence asserting both has to be false.
-dlj.
Hyman Blumenstock
"Gosh it's windy out." Response, "No it's Thursday." Follow
up, "So am I. Let's get a drink."
Who is to blame for any misunderstanding here? And so what?
Unless some earth shaking tragedy will result because of
misunderstanding, what difference does it make who said
what. The central point is what was meant. In view of the
fact that my sole emphasis is on Doctrinaire Economics, how
can you possibly mistake what textbooks I'm referring to.
It is becoming apparent that you are attempting to create a
filibuster because you can't abide with the logic I present.
FILIBUSTER,
in legislative procedure, term denoting the means employed
by members of a legislative assembly to delay or prevent
action on a measure to which they are opposed. Such means
may include the introduction of dilatory motions,
intentional absence from the assembly in order to prevent
the existence of a quorum, or the presentation of abnormally
long, often meaningless speeches. In the U.S. Senate,
filibusters are used when a minority of senators oppose some
legislative measure but do not have sufficient votes to
defeat the bill. Thus, it has sometimes been argued that
filibusters protect minority rights. Lengthy delays in
voting in the Senate, however, can be detrimental to the
rights of the majority.
The use of the filibuster in the Senate has been somewhat
restricted by the adoption of regulations relating to
cloture (q.v.) . A cloture rule, adopted by the Senate in
1917, was amended in 1949, 1959, and 1975. The latest ruling
requires the vote of three-fifths of the full Senate
membership to end debate. Despite these rules, filibusters
have occurred on numerous occasions. The longest
uninterrupted filibustering speech ever recorded in the
Senate was made by Sen. Strom Thurmond (1902- ) of South
Carolina in August 1957, when he spoke for 24 hours and 18
minutes in opposition to a civil rights measure. The longest
filibuster since the first cloture rule was adopted by the
Senate took place in 1964, when a group of southern senators
led by Russell Long (1918- ) of Louisiana managed to extend
the debate on the Civil Rights Act for 74 days.
HB
Ray
Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
> "Thomas Sauve" <ts0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'm getting too tired of repeating stuff that an economics journal
> > explains.
> > I'm sorry that you fail to see the truth, but an intelligent journal or
> > book
> > explains these ideas much better than I possible could. I suggest you
> > read
> > because a culmination of hundreds of years of research by hundreds of
> > thousands of intelligent people are in those journals. You are just one
> > person who doesn't even understand the theories he's trying to refute.
>
> Tom,
>
> I hope he doesn't take offense, but I often find Hyman's posts crankish,
> myself. However...
>
> I hope you realize "hundreds of years" and "hundreds of thousands" is
> hyperbole. It's also argument by authority, that is, not to be taken
> seriously.
Sorry, it's not argument by authority. This is no different than
somebody who comes in and claims that heavy things fall faster than light
things. And continue to do so ad nausium. The appropriate reply is "Go
read any of the fundamental books on the subject. They all say the same
thing and they all say you are wrong."
Karl Smith
know if what you're saying is quite right. If I have skimmed over the posts
effectively then you're saying something to the effect of "The earth's resources are
in danger of depletion."
This is probably not the case. You see it is possible to buy future resources.
You can buy it directly in the case of futures contracts, or you can buy reserves,
or you could buy the resources necessary to create future resources (Land for
forests, for ex). Now if say oil (any resource really but this is easy) was going to
run out, then anyone who owns oil in the future will be able to command a very high
price for it.
Therefore, people have an incentive to invest in oil reserves now. In fact they
have an incentive to hold some of the production back so that they will be the only
ones left with oil in the future. As they do that, the supply of current oil will be
restricted. This will raise the price of oil.
Therefore, if oil is going to be depleted the price should start rising. In
fact the way the math works out the price should rise smoothly right up until this
crisis day we're predicting. However, we don't observe this.
Now with semi-public goods, say fish in the ocean for example, there is a
problem because no single person or group of people is guaranteed to get the fish
later if they stop fishing now. However, there are private fish alternatives. If
fish were becoming scare then we should see a rise in the price of fish
alternatives. Unless of course fish alternatives we so numerous the decline in fish
did not effect the price. In which case from an economic stand point it doesn't
really matter.
Karl Smith
Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
You seem to be misinterperting Demand. When we say "Human wants are Infinite"
it goes like this. Say a car cost absolutely nothing, not just nothing in
terms of dollars, but in terms of time to buy or even knowing that someone
else has to go without a car. How many cars would you want then. Or even
better how many trips to the Moon or Mars would you buy. Or wouldn't you like
to have a sypmphony orchestra play for you whenever you want. Remember it
costs nothing, even in terms of their time. Or wouldn't you like to buy 25
hours in a day if you could. Or wouldn't you like to know if there's life on
other planets. You could have a million scientists work around the clock on
the problem.
See what keeps us from getting those things is scarcity. Time is scare,
material resources are scarce, knowledge is scarce. That's what we mean. Now
the amount you actually choose to consume has to do with how much all of these
things will cost you. The less they cost the more you will consume.
In addition the more those things cost the more people will supply. Somewhere
in the middle the two meet. Thats the equilbrium we observe.
Karl Smith
Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
This is not so simple. Who is going to deliever the food. Who is going to give
up their food to do this. Are you? Are you delievering food right now. If not then
why are you letting all of these people die. I say this not to call you immoral but
simply to point out that the question is not so simple.
You talked before about the distinction between needs and wants. Really, you are
just giving a special status to the one particular want, the want to stay alive.
Your probably mean more than that since I don't think you mean just enough food to
keep your heart pumping, but still it's just a want. Now, virtually everyone we
observe (although not all) has this want. That's probably just an observational
bias since most of the people who didn't have this want are dead, and therefore
unobservable.
If you really want to come at it objectively you should give all wants equal status
a priori.. It is only the 'intensity', (read, first derivative of satisfaction with
respect to the good) that matters.
Bill Anderson
>
> > "Thomas Sauve" <ts0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm getting too tired of repeating stuff that an economics journal
> > > explains.
> > > I'm sorry that you fail to see the truth, but an intelligent journal or
> > > book
> > > explains these ideas much better than I possible could. I suggest you
> > > read
> > > because a culmination of hundreds of years of research by hundreds of
> > > thousands of intelligent people are in those journals. You are just one
> > > person who doesn't even understand the theories he's trying to refute.
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > I hope he doesn't take offense, but I often find Hyman's posts crankish,
> > myself. However...
> >
> > I hope you realize "hundreds of years" and "hundreds of thousands" is
> > hyperbole. It's also argument by authority, that is, not to be taken
> > seriously.
>
> somebody who comes in and claims that heavy things fall faster than light
> things. And continue to do so ad nausium. The appropriate reply is "Go
> read any of the fundamental books on the subject. They all say the same
> thing and they all say you are wrong."
You are correct, it is not argument by authority, it is argumentum ad
populum. ;)
"Since all these people also say it, it must be true."
Hyman Blumenstock
Yours is a brilliant analysis showing great depth of
thought. However you are running far afield from the essence
of Economics, that is basically, absurdly simple. Far
simpler than what it has been blown up to be in Doctrinaire
thought.
Remember where Doctrinaire Economics originated. It was an
attempt to make an overblown discipline out of the simple
requirement that Mother Nature imposes upon all living
creatures, including the human race. What do living
creatures unburdened with too great an intelligence do to
pass their time day in and day out? They seek food. Basic
economics is simply how they make out with a perennially
scarce food supply. How they survive. There are only two
elements to the equation. The supply of food, almost
invariably scarce, on the one hand, and their demand for
food, usually and historically exceeding supply, on the
other hand.
The human race is just another one of Nature's creatures.
However, we have gained greatly in intellectual capacity.
That intellectual capacity attempted to make some orderly
sense out of this natural condition, and therefore came the
evolution of formal Economic thought. Economics, (management
of the house) formulated methods of distribution of scarce
food supplies so that those deemed least entitled would have
no access to the community's food supply. Money was
invented to act as a "ticket of access" to the food supply.
Altruism, essential to Marx's thesis of sharing, is a human
condition that is all too rare. However, when there is
enough Food to supply demand fully, then altruism becomes
inessential, as there is no longer any reason for anyone to
compromise his Security for anyone else's benefit.
Parallel to Economic development, the technology of Food
production also developed until a previously unheard of
situation occurred just about a century ago, never before
experienced ay Mother Nature's creatures, unanticipated by
Doctrinaire Economists, though imagined to have been the
nature of the Garden of Eden. Food became abundant, so that
at last, Supply exceeded Demand -- for Food. As soon as
that happened, all that work and development of Doctrinaire
Economics became moot. Why bother with any complex methods
of distribution whose function was essentially based upon
whom to deny access to the food supply? There was no longer
any need for that. But, there was also no longer any need
for economists, as economic problems were now capable of
being easily resolved.
It is obvious that the thrust of your argument is to insist
that Doctrinaire Economics still maintained some validity,
and to maintain the denial of Food to some of the people,
though there is certainly more than enough. You are trying
to bring in "scarcities" of other things to try to maintain
the ideology of Supply always being less than Demand.
It is not I who is misinterpreting demand. The only
"demand" of significance is the one that assured
continuation of life, literally, and that is one of the
triumvirate of the essences of life, Air, Water and Food,
that has been traditionally scarce. It is Food, for which an
entire era, the Agrarian era has been named. Nothing else
will guarantee death in its absence, except with an extra
condition imposed, as absence of one of these three will by
itself. The origin and meaning of "cost" had been then
concern over the dent in the food supply of that labor
required for some project or other, that "cost" being
reduction of the food supply enough to affect the free
access to food by whomever is contemplating the project. It
has never really changed its intrinsic meaning, though much
beclouded by modern rhetoric about it.
The only logical conclusion then, is that as soon as Food
became abundant, the need for any more than a minor
management function, not requiring any talent near PhD
level, is required. Everything we need to progress without
any Doctrinaire Economic input is already in place and
functioning. Without Doctrinaire Economic intervention,
manifest by a deliberate scarcity of funding, a great deal
of current restriction to progress will be eliminated and we
can surge forward into a future of blinding brilliance of
achievement. The entire Economic fraternity would do us all
and themselves a major favor if they would just realize
these facts, a fait accompli of their function of managing a
scarce Food supply, and shift their attention to the Real
Sciences where there is limitless opportunity for discovery
and achievement.
HB
Hyman Blumenstock
I see where you're coming from. Is your profession
economist?
Everything is already in place and funtioning quite
satisfactorily for the relatively advantaged. The only
problem is the deliberate lack of sufficient money in
everyone's hands. All needed is to get that money
distributed. An excellent approach would be for the
government to fund the private sector to create enough jobs
for everyone now unoccupied, and evenually all those in make
and waste work. There's a heap of work needing to be done in
restoring everything, replanting, fixing, space programs,
pursuit of knowledge, pursuit of the arts, anything. It can
all be funded with deficit spending, or more practically,
getting it all from
Hyman Blumenstock
Karl Smith wrote:
>
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> snip
>
> This is not so simple. Who is going to deliever the food. Who is going to give
> up their food to do this. Are you? Are you delievering food right now. If not then
> why are you letting all of these people die. I say this not to call you immoral but
> simply to point out that the question is not so simple.
>
> You talked before about the distinction between needs and wants. Really, you are
> just giving a special status to the one particular want, the want to stay alive.
> Your probably mean more than that since I don't think you mean just enough food to
> keep your heart pumping, but still it's just a want. Now, virtually everyone we
> observe (although not all) has this want. That's probably just an observational
> bias since most of the people who didn't have this want are dead, and therefore
> unobservable.
I think there is a vast difference between some "want" that
will mean certain death without it, versus some "want" where
you can't get a Mercedes, but might have to settle for
Peugeot. I would think that life or death "wants"
particularly Air, Water and Food, all of these rather
mundane things in Doctrinaire Economics, really override all
other things in importance. That as a practical matter,
there's no reason to slaughter anyone else if you happen not
to be able to satisfy your "wants" on anything else. Like
we deal now with library books and roadways, we do share
them without too much ill will, arising out of not having
sole use of these things.
>
> If you really want to come at it objectively you should give all wants equal status
> a priori.. It is only the 'intensity', (read, first derivative of satisfaction with
> respect to the good) that matters.
Haven't I done so?
HB
nip