This is a partial reply to Wes Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whose material
a still have a lot of trouble with. Perhaps it's a case of the pot
calling the kettle black, Mr. Burt, but I still find most of what you
write incomprehensible. However there is at least a part of one
sentence that I think I understand enough to disagree with:
> ... my reason for hammering on this need for a
> widely accepted graphical frame of reference capable of intergrating the many
> lines of inquiry leading to Globalization and the Good Society.
I sometimes use graphs or charts myself and generally prefer to see
some in any technical material I read. But they can be misleading,
sometimes intentionally. I can't help but wonder if you like such
diagrams because they are useful means of communication, or because
they are misleadingly biased towards your own theory. Not knowing
exactly what your theory is, I have trouble assessing the diagrams
you are so dependent on.
But your sentence does include the expression "widely accepted" which
sounds appealing. Is there any chance that the "graphical frame of
reference" you mentioned will be widely accepted?
Having looked over your various diagrams I have to say "NO" because
the "graphical frame of reference" seems to be hopelessly entanged
with your particular theory. To be widely accepted as a means of
communicating ideas a graphical representation has to be capable of
expressing all the other theories people have. Could someone with a
very different theory use a diagram like yours to present it?
Probably not.
Perhaps you should make the attempt yourself to represent the theories
of others in the framework you prefer. Better yet, represent your
theory and the theories of others in ANY frame of reference, so they
are at least comparable.
Generally a theory carries along with it some facts, or supposed
facts. I'd like to know what facts your theory depends on. You
mention, for example, the interest on the national debt, and then
go on to treat it as a constant percentage of the debt (over time).
Is that a fair assumption, a reasonable simplification of reality,
or is it something your theory depends on?
Suppose the interest rate was declining each year, instead of
remaining constant -- would that make your theory less plausible,
leave it invariant, or make it even more likely to be right?
I'd like to know that about ALL the numbers you quote. In other
words, I'd like some kind of sensitivity analysis done.
I am quite willing to do that analysis for you, if I can figure out
what you are trying to say. That would be easier if you could
express your views in equations instead of diagrams. I suppose I
could just look at the lines on the diagrams and convert them to
equations myself, but I'm not completely sure what all the lines
represent. (And that is AFTER having read your explanation of what
the diagrams and the lines on them represent).
You characterize your complicated argument as "sixth grade arithmetic".
I remember getting an "A" is sixth grade arithmetic, and I've done a
lot of math since then, yet I find your argument hard to follow.
Maybe a bit of ninth grade algebra would help. I'm quite willing to
work with you in this matter, but I still can't follow what you are saying.
Perhaps someone else on one of these mailing lists could explain
things to me. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind trying one more time, Mr. Burt.
It may be yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black, but
I'd strongly recommend:
--- don't quote what anybody says about anything, just state your views
--- use short sentences and short paragraphs
--- say what you are going to say, then say it, then say what you said
--- clearly distinguish premises from conclusions.
I break all of those rules quite often myself, but usually end up
regreting it. Clarity is worth the extra trouble it takes.
There are a few lines I think I understand in your last paragraph:
> A solution of the global problematic may be closer than we realize. If the
> Clinton administration's "Earned Income Tax Credit" and the Blair
> administration's "Working Families Tax Credit" should happen to be
> implemented at anything above 20% of each country's per capita GNP ...
> ... the other nations would soon follow suite, just to remain competitive.
Almost everyone else I know thinks that such schemes to divert money
to the less fortunate people in a country will make that country LESS
competitive. Some countries (my own, for example, Canada) find that
an acceptable trade-off, within reason. Others, particularly the ones
who happen to have surging economies these days, are much more
reluctant to put their prosperity at risk.
That is usually justified by the old "trickle-down" argument that the
poor people in a more economically-successful country are better off
than those in a kinder but less successful one. They might have a
point there, I don't know. I hope some of this economic simulation
stuff I'm doing will help to decide that question.
You conclude that paragraph by saying
> ... And the public would never need to know that it had a UBI.
A great many people, especially republicans and right-wing talk-show hosts
will insist on keeping the public informed in this matter. The public
might not "need to know", but they would be told, over and over and
over again.
I hope you don't take my comments too personally, Mr. Burt. I've come
to suspect that you may be right about a few things, and I might even
be willing to admit that, if I could just be sure I understand what
your are saying.
dpw
Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html
http://www.SocialTechnology.org/index.html
