> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:55 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 a
On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:40 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Folks: unless you want more like this -- and see above, it's all
>> there
>> is -- don't feed the troll.
>
> The problem with feeding the troll is that once you start, i
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks: unless you want more like this -- and see above, it's all there
> is -- don't feed the troll.
The problem with feeding the troll is that once you start, it is hard
to stop. Much like our government bailing out the fina
On Dec 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, John Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion.
>>>
>>> You do like trying to impose your rules on others, don't you.
>>
>> Actually, they aren't my rules.
>
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Hah! Money is no longer on the gold standard and is completely and
>> totally a social contract dependent on the whims of societies and
>> markets and the fiat of governments.
>
> Libertarians pretend that all would be well wh
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion.
>>
>> You do like trying to impose your rules on others, don't you.
>
> Actually, they aren't my rules.
Don't like to take responsibility for your actions, huh?
> Hah! Money is no longer on the gold standard and is completely and
> totally a social contract dependent on the whims of societies and
> markets and the fiat of governments.
Yup. And, if you looked at gold, it has bounced up and down, like all the
other commodities. In 2008 dollars here
> > Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion.
>
> You do like trying to impose your rules on others, don't you.
Actually, they aren't my rules. The rules I was proposing were the general
rules of experimental inquiry that I have learned.
I have also observed that folks who foll
Max Battcher wrote:
>
> (I think the
> analogy between economics and electricity is particularly useful and
> perhaps under-explored. I'd love to see more economists use circuit
> diagrams...)
>
Probably because electricity is too deterministic, and economics is too
random. OTOH, economy has
> You are just trying to rationalize taking wealth from others
> because you think you know how to spend it better than they do.
As it happens, I think I do know how better to spend some peoples money
than they do themselves.
If that's someone's only objection to taxation then they can rest
assu
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion.
You do like trying to impose your rules on others, don't you.
> First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from the depression
> under FDR is falsified by his
> First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from the depression
> under FDR is falsified by historical data. 33-37 was the best rebound
> since yearly records were kept. (1880).
Whoops, that should be `1870. And, with the Civil War and all, one really
needs to go back to before 1860
John Williams wrote:
>
> No, you were rambling on with nonsense, failing to address a single
> argument in the Higg's paper.
Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion. But, I have two
obvious comments on the Higgs paper.
First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound fr
John Williams wandered around the point:
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > That's not the point being argued. You see, all but a few people
> understand
> > that money is a placeholder; it is a social construct. Numbers in a
> > computer or pieces of
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM, xponentrob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The rest of us are laughing too, but for different reasons I'm sure.
I certainly am, without even checking all the references.
>
>
>
> xponent
> Myth-Adventure Maru
> rob
>
> _
- Original Message -
From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I was asking simple questions about techniques. Discussions between
> people on a paper, results, etc. depend on agreement on techniques for
> evaluation. I asked whether you agreed on a few essential techniques of
> empiric
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The purpose of a system is not the same as what it produces.
> > If it were, buying a word processor would make you a novelist.
>
> More egotism.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Williams
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:24 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 a
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, as members of that society, we on Brin-L choose to debate what is best.
> That's not egotism.
Of course debating is not egotism. But saying that everyone
participating in a market must serve the purpose you want them to
serve
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Williams
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:15 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is where you differ with 96% of people. Most people don't worry about
> the purity of the economic system. They worry about their lives and the
> lives of the other people in the nation and the world.
I am not worried about
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The purpose of a system is not the same as what it produces.
> If it were, buying a word processor would make you a novelist.
More egotism. Everyone in the markets must do what Nick wants them to do!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Williams
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:40 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 a
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:36 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > We rely on markets to be regulatory mechanisms, feedback loops
> > that reward the efficient and penalize the inefficient.
>
> What an egotistic
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Euan Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I still have to build something with my understanding and it doesn't
>>> help for people to keep saying 'let it sort itse
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We rely on markets to be regulatory mechanisms, feedback loops
> that reward the efficient and penalize the inefficient.
What an egotistical statement. Why not say that you would like markets
to do what you want them to do
John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Euan Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I still have to build something with my understanding and it doesn't
>> help for people to keep saying 'let it sort itself out' because hammers,
>> wood and nails won't, no matter how much I will valu
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> But your statement above is not particularly insightful either. To say
> that the market failed is either wrong or meaningless. The market is
> made up of many participants each trying to achieve their own goals.
> The ma
At 03:28 PM Sunday 12/7/2008, John Williams wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Euan Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I still have to build something with my understanding and it doesn't
> > help for people to keep saying 'let it sort itself out' because hammers,
> > wood and nails won't,
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Euan Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still have to build something with my understanding and it doesn't
> help for people to keep saying 'let it sort itself out' because hammers,
> wood and nails won't, no matter how much I will value the house,
> construct on
> To say that the market failed is either wrong or meaningless.
If I understand this correctly it was meant that markets can't fail in
the same way physics isn't failing if you fall to your death having
driven off a cliff.
However a person saying the 'markets failed' isn't unnecessarily
claiming
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 7:28 AM
> > To: Brin List
> > Subject: RE: Financial institution fallout
> >
> >
> > Yeah. I've been watching this unroll. Though to my shock and horror, I've
> > actually been seeing some of Rand's vill
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, Rand's hero's are in line there too. :-) They are heroes in her
> book because they are successful. In reality, the private market failed,
> and needs the government...even according to its bible.
I've never read Ayn R
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I saw an interesting article from the bastion of free enterprise
> publication, the WSJ, at
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122852289752684407.html
>
> Thus, the funds managers who
> were prudent ether were converted or lost th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Pat Mathews
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 7:28 AM
> To: Brin List
> Subject: RE: Financial institution fallout
>
>
> Yeah. I've been watching this unroll. Tho
livejournal.com/
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Financial institution fallout
> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:51:20 -0600
>
> I saw an interesting article from the bastion of free enterprise
> publication, the WSJ, at
>
> http://online
I saw an interesting article from the bastion of free enterprise
publication, the WSJ, at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122852289752684407.html
It has some interesting analysisand it doesn't seem good.
What I find interesting is that it seems to be a balanced analysis, not a
polemic for
38 matches
Mail list logo
