Re: reply to Ed Weick re simulation
Well, good luck, afterall, if it turns out to be a valid simulation it will show that whatever the initial conditions, capitalism ends up in crisis... I hope the results will be well publicised and the participants rework the operators until they find successful functions, my guess is that they will end up with something like what Marx proposed... Eva After a few kind words by Pete Vincent, For my part, I found your post excellent ... Ed Weick replied: I, on the other hand, do not. I have seen little evidence that you really know anything about the global economy that you hope to model. I don't, really -- you're right about that, Ed. Who does, though? But I can write a simulator, put data into it, and see what happens. And I can make it all public, so people like yourself can make constructive criticism. If I had to do everything myself and had to find all the mistakes myself, it would be a hopeless task, but I think I can count on a lot input by very sceptical people such as the ones on this mailing list, and perhaps a bit more concrete help too. Later in a more sober mood Ed wrote: Nevertheless, I do feel that the questions I have raised about the simulation that Douglas Wilson is proposing are valid: Is there really something to be simulated? If so, what? Will the proposed simulation lead to a better understanding of economic phenomena? And, do we not already have a considerable understanding of the global impacts of megaphenomena such as population growth and energy resource depletion? ... The only real response I can make to each of these questions is that a good simulation should answer them. I don't know the answers, but I think I can get some answeres, even with only the prototype. Ed wrote: On whether there is something to be simulated, I pointed out in a previous posting that, despite headlines and hype to the contrary, economic activity is still overwhelmingly domestic, not international. This makes me wonder how a "global economy" might be defined for the purposes of simulation. I feel too that, in a global simulation, broad political realities would have to play a central role. How might they be factored in? The first dataset will consist almost entirely of numbers from a variety of sources, and from that I expect to produce what discrete mathematicians call a weighted graph -- not a chart or picture, but a network of nodes or vertices linked by edges. We can then apply connectivity and cutting algorithms to see how well connected the graph is -- I expect more connectivity than Ed would, but that remains to be seen. If broad political realities play a central role, that should be visible in the results. For example, a program called Metis, originally written for balancing the load amongst several processors in a supercomputer can try to divide the graph (or network) into two (or more) parts of approximately equal size making few cuts or cuts of low weight only. In cold war days this probably would probably partition the graph into the well-known East and West blocs, but now, well, who knows? I would suggest that, in a simulation of the kind being proposed, it matters a great deal what kind of overall global world is being assumed, since the nature of that world would determine who provides economic support to whom, who is willing to sell strategic resources to whom, who provides weapons to whom, and other such things. I want to make as few assumptions as possible. I don't want to assume any "kind of overall global world". That should be a result, not an assumption. Which leads me to the issue of whether a model of the "global economy" would really be helpful. In a previous posting I asked what it might tell about whether China might devalue the yuan, knowing full well that it couldn't tell us much. But perhaps it could tell us quite a lot about the consequences of yuan devaluation. ... [much omitted] ... But in doing this, it is probable that we would get down to a level too micro for a global model -- or the global model would have to terribly comprehensive. Initially the model will indeed have to be "terribly comprehensive", and should err on the side of containing too much data, rather than too little. I suggest that we just don't know enough to make a smaller, less comprehensive model. Later, having some results from a simulation based on a lot of data -- tens of thousands of numbers -- it may be possible to simplify, based on what we have learned. Now to the megaphenom stuff - the end of cheap energy, population growth, the concentration of population in unsustainable cities, pollution, the effects of climate change. Here there is both a very great need for simulation and the possibility of doing something useful. But you are no longer dealing with the global economy. You are dealing with
petition against corporate takeover
Hi everyone, This is so important to the small independent bookseller, please take a moment to sign. 1) Please read this, and then 2) copy/ and paste (entire message with these instructions) to a 'new message' and send the petition back with your signature TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED], and 3) CC: to all the people on your mailing list whom you think would be interested, 4) then if you are the 50th, 100th, 150th signature, please e-mail the petition to the AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] . PETITION TO BLOCK BARNES NOBLE ACQUISITION OF INGRAM This petition will be sent to the Congress, Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to block Barnes Noble's proposed acquisition of the Ingram Book Company, the single largest supplier of books to small bookstores across the country. This acquisition, should it be allowed to take place, is just one more example of the large scale corporate consolidation that has infiltrated every corner of our culture. As the desire intensifies to increase bottom line profits, no matter what the other consequences, so does the concentration of power in the book industry. Consumers are left with an environment in which fewer and fewer people are deciding which books get published and ultimately, which books Americans can read and buy. Barnes Noble has already entered into an alliance with the $14 billion media giant, German-owned Bertelsmann AG. Now with Barnes and Noble's proposed acquisition of the billion dollar Ingram Book Company, there can be little doubt that the book industry is falling prey to the same anti-competitive ills that currently plague computer software and other industries. This deal would make independent bookstores virtually dependent upon their largest competitor for their books. (It is as if Burger King and Wendy's had to buy their french fries from McDonald's) We need your help. As a patron of independent booksellers, please sign the petition to help us lobby the government to stop this proposed merger. Please exercise your right as a citizen and tell the government how you feel. We sincerely thank you for your support. 1. Meg Gouraud, Canon City, CO 2. Pat Wiles, Guffey, CO 3. Chris Rivers, Guffey, CO 4. Shiner Antiorio, Asheville. NC 5. Toba Spitzer, Watertown MA 6. Hannah Ashley, Philadelphia, PA 7. Holly Pruett, Portland OR 8. Sandy Polishuk, Portland OR 9. Kathleen Saadat, Portland, OR 10. Kristan Aspen, Portland, OR 11. Melody DeMeritt, San Luis Obispo, CA 1 12. Bob Banner, SLO, CA 13.Alphaa Phoenix, Morrow Bay, CA 14. Daniel Drasin, Sausalito, CA 15. Louis T. Judson, Mill Valley CA 16. Scott Catamas, Bel Air, CA 17. Chris Toussaint, Valley Village, CA 18. Cristina Berio, Agoura Hills, CA 19. Michel Beluet, Valcourt, Quebec, Canada 20. David Burman, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
OECD trying to save its face over MAI-failure (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:18:19 +0100 (CET) From: Erik Wesselius [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OECD trying to save its face over MAI-failure At the OECD press office nobody would ever admit that the "MAI negotiations stopped" or that "MAI at OECD is dead". But the press release that came out last week after the "informal consultation among senior officials responsible for investment policy" which took place last week at OECD headquarters in Paris leaves no doubt: "Negotiations on the MAI are no longer taking place." Erik Wesselius Corporate Europe Observatory - NEWS RELEASE Paris,3 December 1998 Informal Consultations on International Investment An informal consultation among senior officials responsible for investment policy was held on the morning of 3 December 1998, at OECD headquarters in Paris. This meeting followed an earlier consultation on 20 October and a discussion of investment matters at the OECD's Executive Committee in Special Session (ECSS) on 22 October. Negotiations on the MAI are no longer taking place. However, the officials agreed on the importance of multidisciplinary work on investment at OECD. There are a number of important issues on which further analytical work and inter-governmental co-operation are needed. The officials agreed that this work should be carried out in a transparent manner and should involve all OECD members as well as interested non-member countries, including those that participated as observers in the negotiations. The officials reaffirmed the desirability of international rules for investment. The 3 December meeting was preceded by an informal seminar with BIAC, TUAC and other NGOs. The officials found the seminar useful and expressed their desire that this type of dialogue continue. -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/
Re: petition against corporate takeover
PLEASE DELETE THIS. SOMEONE ADDED THIS TO THE ORIGINAL POST. THIS IS A SERIOUS ERROR. PLEASE TELL YOUR FOLKS NOT TO SEND IT BACK TO HOPEDANCE the instructions are clear enough without #2. thanks bob banner publisher of hopedance i've received over 400 of these and i'm simply dumping them since it's a huge error. so please reinform your folks!
