Re: Science and Ideals.

- Original Message - From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>If I moved to the US >> (which I wouldn't) part of the deal I would strike with the government >> would >> be to accept say bans on short selling of stick if the government decided >> that was a good idea, > > What if "the

Re: Science and Ideals.

> Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that > governments are "consenting partners" too. That just ain't so. As has been observed Government is force. and there's sweet F.A negotiation between it, its agents and the citizens it bends to its will. Force generally is not

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 23/09/2008, at 10:26 AM, Dan M wrote: > > Other posters have pointed out the fact that "best suited" is > dependant on > the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc. > Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there > is no > teleology in evoluti

Re: Meltdown

On 23/09/2008, at 1:27 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: > The general SEC requirement had been to limit it to 12X. An > exception was > made in 2004 for 5 companies - Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear > Stearns, and > Morgan Stanley. None of which exist today in the form they did five years ago. D'oh.

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 23/09/2008, at 10:26 AM, Dan M wrote: > > Other posters have pointed out the fact that "best suited" is > dependant on > the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc. > Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there > is no > teleology in evoluti

Re: Science and Ideals.

> Maybe I am in the minority, but I have never felt the government is > opressing me, or forcing me to do things I don't want to do, and I reckon I > get fair recompence for paying my taxes & obeying the law. It is not required for a government to be oppresive for it to be true that you do not

Re: Science and Ideals.

From: "Euan Ritchie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that >> governments are "consenting partners" too. > > That just ain't so. As has been observed Government is force. and > there's sweet F.A negotiation between it, its agents and the citizen

Re: Science and Ideals.

Wayne Eddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Another part of the deal (there would of course be thousands of parts) > would be assurances that I would not become a slave after I emigrated (I > believe the American constitution would spell that out). Since the American constitution can be amended, that wou

Re: Science and Ideals.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:06 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > You seem to be talking about an odd sort of consent. You will consent > to do any new thing that "the government" decides to tell you to do, as > long as it is not too many things. In case it is not clear, the examples >

Re: Science and Ideals.

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus. I said nothing about consensus. Now that you've mentioned that you post nonsense if you don't have enough caffeine, I don't know when to take your posts seriously. __

Re: Science and Ideals.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:14 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus. > > I said nothing about consensus. Now that you've mentioned that you > post nonsense if you don't have enough caffeine, I don

Re: Science and Ideals.

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes, you said nothing about consensus. That is exactly why I brought it up. You seem to have confused me with someone else. You get confused a lot, don't you? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/bri

Re: Science and Ideals.

>I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as >they are elected by legal democratic means. >Nick Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnett To: Killer Bs (David Brin e

Re: Science and Ideals.

Olin Elliott wrote> > >> I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, >> so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. > > Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. > This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush

Re: Science and Ideals.

Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Let me guess Nick's response: I see some confusion about elected versus selected by a vote. Let's debate which is better. Or perhaps we could all vote on a rule about which language we may use. __

Re: Science and Ideals.

Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not > democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the > electoral college, and not by the people. Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular preference, instead of 5

Re: Science and Ideals.

John Williams wrote: > >> This is a myth. He (Hitler) was elected by the parliament, which >> is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected >> by the electoral college, and not by the people. > > Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular > preference, instead of

Re: Science and Ideals.

Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have no fsking idea what you are trolling about. That makes two of us! I'm having a good day if I understand more that 50% of what I am trolling about. > OTOH, Bush II was _accepted_ by 75% of the USA voters - only > 25% voted against him. 26%, you didn

Re: Science and Ideals.

>This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not >democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the >electoral college, and not by the people. >Alberto Monteiro Hmmm ... I'm no expert on German History, so I'll take your word for it. Still, being elected by Parliamen

Trolling

> > I have no fsking idea what you are trolling about. > That makes two of us! I'm having a good day if I > understand more that 50% of what I am trolling about. Trolling is Internet slang is someone who posts controversial, irrelevant or off-topic messages in online community discussion forums,

statistics...

> > OTOH, Bush II was _accepted_ by 75% of the USA voters > - only 25% voted against him. are you saying that 75% of those eligible to vote, including those who boycotted or were apathetic? jon "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." __

UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections

UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections A Film by David Earnhardt Exposes how American voters were cheated during the 2004 and 2006 elections and why it will likely happen again in 2008. Trailer: "Powerful and persuasive..." - Howard Z

Re: Trolling

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Trolling is Internet slang is someone who posts controversial, irrelevant or > off-topic messages in online community discussion forums, or chat rooms, with > the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response, or to > deliberately disrupt no

Teleology

> > Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him > stating that there > > is no teleology in evolution. which is why I am an atheist... > If I did, I was paraphrasing much greater thinkers than I. > But yes. > Evolution is a drunken walk. Or a moth in a disco. > Charlie. Teleology: 1. T

Re: Science and Ideals.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My point was simply that being chosen by Democratic means does not mean > that a leader is fit to rule, or that he has any respect for Democratic > process. If there isn't a reasonable correlation there, then democracy

Trolling

> > Trolling is Internet slang is someone who posts > controversial, irrelevant or > > off-topic messages in on line community discussion > forums, or chat rooms, with > > the intention of provoking other users into an > emotional response, or to > > deliberately disrupt normal on-topic discussi

Re: Science and Ideals.

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If there isn't a reasonable correlation there, then democracy is in trouble. > Perhaps so. Or perhaps people place too much faith in politicians and government, and would be better off reducing their power and scope. ___

RE: Meltdown

> > If I read > > correctly, and I multi-sourced this, there was a short period that > companies > > couldn't sell short term paper; in other words companies with big assets > > couldn't get loans for a day or two that were a fraction of their > assets. > > Not all companies...mainly the compa

Re: Meltdown

Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Now, you can argue that Sears and Ford are questionable, but GE? The point > is that the liquidity of the market was drying up. And, at No, the liquidity of the market was not drying up. Interest rates went up. As they should. As they should have long ago if there

RE: Meltdown

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Williams > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:58 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Meltdown > > Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The natural tendency of business

Re: Meltdown

Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of AIG knew > that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. LOL! Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too? > At that point, _everything_ becomes questionable. GE having to pay nearly > dou

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 24/09/2008, at 3:11 AM, Olin Elliott wrote: >> I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so >> long as >> they are elected by legal democratic means. > >> Nick > > Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. > > Olin Kind of. Was horse-trading in the parliam

Re: Teleology

On 24/09/2008, at 4:27 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: >>> Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him >> stating that there >>> is no teleology in evolution. > > which is why I am an atheist... > >> If I did, I was paraphrasing much greater thinkers than I. >> But yes. >> Evolution is a drunken w

Re: Meltdown

On 24/09/2008, at 6:40 AM, John Williams wrote: > Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of >> AIG knew >> that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. > > LOL! Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too? Instead of mocking

Re: Meltdown

On 24/09/2008, at 6:21 AM, Dan M wrote: > > The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of AIG > knew > that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. That sounds implausible. Someone knew. It's what level they were at and what they choose to do with the kno

Re: Science and Ideals.

> I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as > they are elected by legal democratic means. I doubt very much anyone ever asked you (who had the will and power to change it) if it was okay that you were governed by the system in place. And absent that you haven't

Re: Meltdown

Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Instead of mocking, why don't you try EXPLAINING. Instead of telling other people what you think they should do, why don't YOU explain whatever you believe needs explaining? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mail

RE: Meltdown

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Williams > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:40 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Meltdown > > Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The problem was that no-one (inc

Re: Science and Ideals.

> Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. While initially true it is inaccurate to claim he took power democratically. His party was elected to a significant proportion of government but the position of authority he abused was bestowed by presidential executive fiat. ___

Re: Meltdown

Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That's > what the interest rate measures...the willingness of folks to buy GE notes. Gee, really? It couldn't possibly be just a little more complicated than that? > A rational > market wouldn't change GE's interest rate that quickly Again, really? Either you are s

Re: Science and Ideals.

>> This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not >> democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the >> electoral college, and not by the people. > > Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular > preference, instead of 50.1%? Sounds like a robust sy

Re: Meltdown

> The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of AIG knew > that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. Bubbles and > panics are part of the nature of the market. You can repeat your mantra of > free markets are perfect until you are blue in the face, but AI

Re: Science and Ideals.

Euan Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That combination of economic depression and exploitable militarism is > something to worry about, really quite topical. I agree. I think it is scary. > Although a problematic example it does give on pause to wonder about the > situation where a democratic elec

Re: Teleology

On 23 Sep 2008, at 23:13, Charlie Bell wrote: > > Yes, most of us know what teleology is. Why did you post a > definitition of teleology in response to my descriptions of evolution > as non-teleological? He was repulsing a windmill full of strawmen? Mixed metaphor Maru -- William T Goodall

Re: Meltdown

Euan Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > It amazes me (was this AIG or Fanny and Freddie, I forget) that they > went to ask for some 30 Billion but on a couple of days investigation it > turned out to be more like 70 Billion was needed to meet their obligations. > > The management of the relevant c

RE: Meltdown

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:28 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Meltdown > > > On 24/09/2008, at 6:21 AM, Dan M wrote: > > > > The problem was th

Re: Science and Ideals.

>> it does give on pause to wonder about the >> situation where a democratic election may place people to whom democracy >> is disposable in power. I guess it's a string argument for rigid >> Constitutional rule. > I'm not sure how rigid constitutional rule would be able to stop a determined > le

Re: Meltdown

Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But, my understanding is that the bundling has become so > layered and convoluted that folks really didn't understand what was > happening in real time. With the amount of leverage that exists, a > perfectly reasonable looking position can fall apart quickly. Yes, a

Re: Meltdown

Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com - Original Message From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:52:33 PM Subject: Re: Meltdown Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Meltdown

At 03:40 PM Tuesday 9/23/2008, John Williams wrote: >Just a thought, but you might inspire a bit more confidence in your marks >if you spent a little time learning about how markets and regulation actually >work and a little less repeating cliched-jokes that were corny when my >grandfather was you

Re: Science and Ideals.

At 05:35 PM Tuesday 9/23/2008, Euan Ritchie wrote: > > I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as > > they are elected by legal democratic means. > >I doubt very much anyone ever asked you (who had the will and power to >change it) if it was okay that you were gove

Re: Science and Ideals.

At 03:36 AM Tuesday 9/23/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote: >You can't trade away your right to trade something (slaves say) in exchange >for Citizenship, and then expect to be able to sell slaves anyway anymore >than you can trade your cow to one person for a horse and the same cow to a >second person for

Re: Meltdown

Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: John Williams > Gee, really? It couldn't possibly be just a little more complicated than that? > > Me: > There are more factors, Yes, that is what I was referring to. > but in the short-term money market, not that many, really. Surely the laws of

Re: Meltdown

Dan M wrote: > The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of AIG knew > that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. Bubbles and > panics are part of the nature of the market. You can repeat your mantra of > free markets are perfect until you are blue in the

Re: Meltdown

On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:00 PM, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > Dan M wrote: >> The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of >> AIG knew >> that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. >> Bubbles and >> panics are part of the nature of the market. You can repeat

Re: Meltdown

Dan M wrote: > "Oh, the irrationality." Why would people be reluctant to by one day notes > from GE. Does any sane person think GE will go belly up _tomorrow?_ That's > what the interest rate measures...the willingness of folks to buy GE notes. > All of a sudden, buyers dried up. That's a measu

Re: Meltdown

On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:00 PM, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > Now, most decent spreadsheet programs will not let you get away with > this circular reference, but an unregulated market can. Essentially, > it > all came down to a shell game where everyone was insuring each others > risks, and then convin

Re: Meltdown

Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Now, most decent spreadsheet programs will not let you get away with > this circular reference, but an unregulated market can. Essentially, it > all came down to a shell game where everyone was insuring each others > risks, and then convincing themselves

Re: Meltdown

- Original Message From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:48:12 PM Subject: Re: Meltdown Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: John Williams > Gee, really? It couldn't possibly be just a little mo

Some random thoughts on Wall St. and the meltdown

1. Something definitely happened, but I doubt anyone knows exactly what, as yet. 2. It is almost certainly not as dire as Paulson and Bernanke are trying to make it sound. The world won't come to an end if we take the time to think things through. 3. Anyone who trusts what this administration

Re: Meltdown

Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But > such a stampede could cause lots of otherwise fine companies to go under, > which > would cause still more companies to go under, and so on, > It's hard to imagine _anything_ worth the risk of going > through that when interventions can prevent it.

Re: Meltdown

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:52 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Sure, the government was largely responsible for creating a huge home price > bubble and encouraging a bunch of bad loans to con-artists and people who > had no business getting the loans, but that is not the problem. T

Re: Meltdown

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Now, you have these fund managers. All of them are worried. They've just > seen several things happen that they've never seen before. They know that > there are still securities on a lot of balance sheets that have

Re: Meltdown

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I'm all for reducing the size and market interference... of > greed. I'm not sure how to do that other than via some sort of political > process. You want to impose your ideals on the rest of us and destroy one of the main drivers of innovation and growth? You'

Re: Meltdown

- Original Message From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:16:58 PM Subject: Re: Meltdown Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But > such a stampede could cause lots of otherwise fine companies to go un

Re: Meltdown

So I have two simple questions for you. What do you think the odds of such a collapse occurring are? 1% 5%? Whatever number you pick - what do you think should be done to lessen that risk? Nothing? If so, do you not buy health insurance? Best, Gautam I hate replying to m own post, but I

Re: Meltdown

Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, I say I'd go to astronomers, and astrophysicists, and aerospace > engineers. And I'd find the best ones in the world. Why haven't you? > OK, your argument, just to be clear, is that you don't know anything about > finance. It is? > You have no e

Re: Meltdown

- Original Message From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:15:33 AM Subject: Re: Meltdown Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, I say I'd go to astronomers, and astrophysicists, and aerospace > e

Re: Meltdown

Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Again, you know nothing about me, Ah, so you are saying everything you have written today is nonsense. Not much point in me replying to your nonsense anymore. This will be the last email, then. > It's not my job to educate you. Heh, good one. I have data,

McCain Loses His Head

I'd like to say that I appreciate the civil tone Guatam has maintained in the recent "Wall Street Meltdown" thread. I'm not sure he's right, I'm not sure if anyone is. One thing I'm pretty sure is true is that many of those people that in good times both in the government and the private sector w

Re: Some random thoughts on Wall St. and the meltdown

Kevin said: > 6. Most people who have never studied physics would be unlikely to > pontificate on the subject. Most people who have never studied > economics > not only will pontificate on the subject, but will explain to you in > terms that suggest you are an idiot, why they are right and you a

Re: Some random thoughts on Wall St. and the meltdown

> 5. People who have never read Adam Smith are probably not qualified to > discuss what he said. And almost nobody has ever read Adam Smith. Even > most economists have never gotten around to it. They especially never seem to read the bits about the neccesity of regulation. > 6. Most people wh