Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek

[Atilla]

Atilla,

Good grief man...pick one, any-one of your numerous examples will suffice, give me a few days to research it, and I'll come back to you on it.

jog on
duc

Hi Duc,

No need as I get the gist of your arguments and life is too short.

Your economic theory is reasonable enough within the boundaries of discussing the subject matter. I too can argue a point until the cows come home. I can almost imagine your response using the classical economic theory in batting away anything thrown at you. Heard it all before. What a marvellous world we live in as all those smart economists can explain why we do what we do when we do.

Once upon a time they told me vertical / horizontal integration is great stuff. Had the charts and lines to go with it. Acquisition and Mergers all over the place.

50 years down the line, consultants will preach to you that one must concentrate on core business and outsource everything you can because specialists can do that for you at a much lower price. Charts and lines and ABC flow charts all over the wall. Great stuff I'll buy some of that too. :cheesy:

Go figure. :idea:

Don't mean to be - big headed, but I feel you are where I was in my 20s thinking I knew it all. Since going past 40 I realise I don't know much at all and what I have been tought in my degree is a load of tosh to be honest. University didn't take the rough edges off either. Only opened my eyes to the rubbish that would be thrown at me. Perhaps best aspect was - that lifes experience and studies allows one to discern and question what is theory and what is practice. The two do not tally up either.

Here is something for you to reflect on. Governments are not monopolies unless you live in a fascist or communist state. We live in a democracy so your model of government should really be based on oligopolistic pricing model and behaviour - should it not? :idea:

But hey your original assumptions are incorrect so conclusions are all false so I'm stupefied as to what the big deal about monopoly pricing which doesn't exist in government anyhow?


Oh well that's it from me. I shall continue to follow thread with great interest and will contribute at various stages. Back to work this week so time is precious...


Bon voyage

 

[ducati998]

When punched in the nose and sent flying, at that very time, and for an interval of time, I would not be engaged in any purposeful activity of my own choice, I would be subject to someone else's intent.

Prior to being punched, you were moving towards an end, acting with purpose. You were punched. Your original choice, or means to an end, is ended via intervention. You will make another choice, based on your value rankings, as to what you will do. This choice will be made psychologically, which I agree we cannot be privy to, we can only observe the chosen action, when it is put into physical action.

Incidentally, when was the last time apart from a film, that you have seen anyone sent "flying" from a punch?

I'm engaged in an activity that could not be called a voluntary one from my perspective.

Prior to being punched, you were. After being punched, you will again. The interim of time from when you are punched, to your chosen reaction, is the period of time under discussion. You will in that interim, act psychologically in deciding what action to choose. We as observers can only see the physical action, we are not privy to the psychological process.

You have to understand, that when you use the word voluntary, and the word choice, implicit in that is that is that it is conscious and under the person's control. If it is not, it ceases being a choice.

Covered, see above.

If the doctor hits my knee and causes a reflex, that is not a choice, the reflex is not a choice. It's an involuntary reflex.

That is true. It is also true that I have chosen to "relax" and allow the testing of the reflex. I could just as easily contract antagonistic muscle groups to overide the reflex arc. The motor neurones originating in the cortex, synapse upon the interneurones in the spinal cord that complete the reflex arc.

Through choice, I can override the reflex. Of course this goes for a variety of other functions, heart-rate etc.

These words have meaning. Currently you have been using 'choice' as a set of all possible things that could occur consciously physically, subconsciously or not occur etc.

Excepting cellular function, or lower, yes I have, as it pertains to choosing actions.

This is not really appropriate for a proper debate, as it dilutes the meaning of the word, and if these words have no real meaning, we can't conclude anything from them and it becomes a word game. And not only that, but it leads to paradoxes and logical inconsistencies (see the last in bold)

Your argument doesn't hold.

Ok, the other issue then - it does not follow that because there is a time constraint a choice must be made now. It might follow that a choice needs to be made before the time constraint or .... (fill in something here).
I will die without food after x days. I have a time constraint there or I will die (the or else part is important), but I don't need to make any choices with regard to that constraint now, or for quite some time.

You have either completely misunderstood my meaning, or have chosen to misrepresent my meaning. Let's assume the former.

Time is a reality because I have to choose between going to the beach, or racing a motorcycle around a track. I cannot do both "at the same time." Thus I choose one to do now, and thus I value one higher than the other.

When I say "now" that may mean in a couple of hours/days/etc, because right "now" I choose to eat lunch, while mulling my future choice.

In effect, the constraint is irrelevant to me right now, but it will be relevant in the future. Another person is say mentally unwell, and doesn't want to eat, and is willing to die. In a way they aren't even subject to the constraint at all, and a third person is in a coma and has others to make that choice for them. Later on the coma victim wakes up from the coma and continues everyday life, and yet there's a large vacuum of time in which he wasn't acting purposefully. You may think this is splitting hairs, but this is the purpose of a counter example, it's allowed to be unusual, and it shows the statement you made to be false.

Your examples, are examples of individuals who through pathology, have had their ability to think, reason, experience inputs, etc, altered. They are no longer individuals who think without impairment, or possibly at all.

As such, yes they display an inability to act purposefully. They are "different" to individuals who have, and function with unimpaired cognitive processes, and without intervention from other individuals, would likely die.

Death, removes them from the pool of individuals. It underlines the fact that "normal" cognitive processes are compatible with life, the abnormal, the pathological, are flawed, are different, and are not compatible with life.

If you intend to reduce the argument again to, NOT making a choice now is making a choice, not obeying the constraint is obeying the constraint and making a choice, and not having any influence on the situation like the coma victim is making some absurd choice, then again you're using choice to mean everything possible.

Which I'm not.

Now just as a quick demonstration of the logical inconsistency you've created with this, when you use the word 'choice' like that:

Ok, let's work through it.

In order for there to be a choice, there must be some things to choose from.

True.

So let C be the set of all possible choices I can choose from.

True.

I am a human and act purposefully, so i decide to choose something NOT in C.

Which is what? As per your definition above, if it is "possible" then it must be included in the set.

Only if it is "impossible" would it be outside the set. Impossible being the ability to conceive of a "thing" outside of the set of choices, through the construct of our minds.

According to you, this is a choice,

Incorrect.

It is you stating that.

so it should be in C, because C is the list of all choices, but by definition it doesn't belong to C, so we have a contradiction.

Created by you.

If you try to resolve that contradiction by suggesting that I cannot choose something that is NOT in C, then you've taken away my right to choose and therefore by definition I wouldn't be making a voluntary choice at that time. Either way, your statement falls down.

Incorrect.

If I choose something impossible, say, flying, unaided from the top of a tall building, I will be able to exercise that choice, but will likely die, or enter your coma state.

Choosing, something, anything, doesn't actually mean that you can achieve your choice, but there is nothing stopping you from choosing it. It would therefore be included in the set of choices.

"Anything" can be included in the set of choices. The means to achieve that end may well not be available to secure that end, but, you can still choose it.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Hi Duc,

No need as I get the gist of your arguments and life is too short.

Indeed.

Your economic theory is reasonable enough within the boundaries of discussing the subject matter.

Well I'll take that as progress.

I too can argue a point until the cows come home.

You are confusing "argument" with voicing your "opinion."

I can almost imagine your response using the classical economic theory in batting away anything thrown at you. Heard it all before. What a marvellous world we live in as all those smart economists can explain why we do what we do when we do.

Hmmmm.

Once upon a time they told me vertical / horizontal integration is great stuff. Had the charts and lines to go with it. Acquisition and Mergers all over the place.

50 years down the line, consultants will preach to you that one must concentrate on core business and outsource everything you can because specialists can do that for you at a much lower price. Charts and lines and ABC flow charts all over the wall. Great stuff I'll buy some of that too. :cheesy:

Go figure. :idea:

Traditional positivist approach.

Don't mean to be - big headed, but I feel you are where I was in my 20s thinking I knew it all.

Really, and you know me, my background etc?

Since going past 40 I realise I don't know much at all and what I have been tought in my degree is a load of tosh to be honest.

Indeed

University didn't take the rough edges off either. Only opened my eyes to the rubbish that would be thrown at me. Perhaps best aspect was - that lifes experience and studies allows one to discern and question what is theory and what is practice. The two do not tally up either.

What have you been "studying?"

Here is something for you to reflect on. Governments are not monopolies unless you live in a fascist or communist state.

Incorrect.

We live in a democracy so your model of government should really be based on oligopolistic pricing model and behaviour - should it not? :idea:

As we live under a monopoly government, it would rather waste my time.

But hey your original assumptions are incorrect so conclusions are all false so I'm stupefied as to what the big deal about monopoly pricing which doesn't exist in government anyhow?

When you prove there is a "competing" government in "where-ever" we'll talk. As to monopoly pricing, obviously you just don't get it at all, as demonstrated by your above comments.

Oh well that's it from me. I shall continue to follow thread with great interest and will contribute at various stages. Back to work this week so time is precious...


Bon voyage

jog on
duc

 

[Atilla]

Indeed.





Well I'll take that as progress.




You are confusing "argument" with voicing your "opinion."





Hmmmm.





Traditional positivist approach.





Really, and you know me, my background etc?




Indeed





What have you been "studying?"





Incorrect.




As we live under a monopoly government, it would rather waste my time.

As monopoly pricing and behaviour does not apply to a political government surely this is waste of time?

When you prove there is a "competing" government in "where-ever" we'll talk. As to monopoly pricing, obviously you just don't get it at all, as demonstrated by your above comments.



jog on
duc

However, even with your amazing assumptions - "true economist that you are :cheesy:" do you not think Liberals in alliance with Conservatives are not exactly a monopoly government???

Rich tea biscuit anyone?

 

[Shakone]

Prior to being punched, you were moving towards an end, acting with purpose. You were punched. Your original choice, or means to an end, is ended via intervention. You will make another choice, based on your value rankings, as to what you will do. This choice will be made psychologically, which I agree we cannot be privy to, we can only observe the chosen action, when it is put into physical action.

Yes but there will be a time interval, a time when I am not choosing to do something voluntarily. After that I will choose again, but it won't be a voluntary choice at every moment of time. That was the point.

Covered, see above.

Not covered at all.

Your examples, are examples of individuals who through pathology, have had their ability to think, reason, experience inputs, etc, altered. They are no longer individuals who think without impairment, or possibly at all.

As such, yes they display an inability to act purposefully. They are "different" to individuals who have, and function with unimpaired cognitive processes, and without intervention from other individuals, would likely die.

Death, removes them from the pool of individuals. It underlines the fact that "normal" cognitive processes are compatible with life, the abnormal, the pathological, are flawed, are different, and are not compatible with life....As such, yes they display an inability to act purposefully

Irrelevant what type of people, they are humans and were considered in your model. It's a counterexample, that shows that your statement regarding humans is false for some humans and some circumstances. Incidentally, the coma victim does not get removed from the 'pool' quickly but has a happy life after 'waking up'. And anyway, we all get removed from the pool sooner or later. So your theory would now only apply to some people, some of the time. As we agreed, only one counterexample is needed, and it's been given. You cannot reframe the assumptions half way through the argument, you must go back to the beginning, redefine your assumptions. The fact you have to do this so early into the theory, indicates it is not well thought out. Out of interest you mention people as having had their ability to think, reason, experience inputs, etc, altered, as being the 'problem' here. I would suggest this is the majority of the world. Who hasn't had their ability to reason altered by education, by other people, experience etc.? Is your ability to reason the same as when you were 2 years old, or has it been altered?

You've accepted the counterexample as demonstrating humans who do not conform to your idea

As such, yes they display an inability to act purposefully

So back to the drawing board for the theory. It's the all of the people all of the time requirement that gets your argument into a mess in my view, and the 'choice' part of things, which isn't clearly defined.



Back to logic. So, I choose "that which is defined by not being in the set C". Clearly defined is it not? I have the concept in mind, it is clear. I don't see why I can't choose this. You seem to say no I can't achieve that. But like you said

Choosing, something, anything, doesn't actually mean that you can achieve your choice

You seem to be in a muddle. You can't have it both ways, either I can choose what is in my mind and I want or I can't. Pick one side. If I can choose what I want then I choose the statement above. If I can't choose what I wish, this means whatever resulting choice (if there is one) is not my voluntary or intended choice.

You also say

Only if it is "impossible" would it be outside the set.

So there are things outside the set C? Then I choose one of them.




As Atilla, I think I might bow out of the thread here for now. It is quite difficult to debate a logical proof, when you don't seem to realise what a proof entails, have a different understanding of logic and change the assumptions or definitions part way through the proof. I appreciate also the difficulty in communication on issues like this, which is neither your nor my fault.

Thanks for the interesting debate. As it stands though, for me, it's not a proof of anything. It's a shame though, I had hoped to get more into the meat of your theory.

 

[ducati998]

Yes but there will be a time interval, a time when I am not choosing to do something voluntarily. After that I will choose again, but it won't be a voluntary choice at every moment of time. That was the point.

Incorrect.

As already stated, the punched individual will be considering his next choice. That in itself is an action, which is a choice.

Irrelevant what type of people, they are humans and were considered in your model.

You are making an enormous assumption here, without proving its truth: viz. that they are "human." I am already hinting that when the "mind" is diseased, or, no longer functioning cognitively, there is a body of argument that denies them classification as "human."

If that is the case, then my argument is valid, and holds.

It's a counterexample, that shows that your statement regarding humans is false for some humans and some circumstances.

If it is proven that they are "human," if not, your "counterexample" which rests on your assumption, is invalid.

Incidentally, the coma victim does not get removed from the 'pool' quickly but has a happy life after 'waking up'.

If cognitive function is regained, and humanity is regained, then, the coma victim regains the ability to choose and act.

And anyway, we all get removed from the pool sooner or later. So your theory would now only apply to some people, some of the time.

Are you still a "person" when you are dead? Another assumption on your part, unproven.

As we agreed, only one counterexample is needed, and it's been given.

It has been asserted, certainly, but remains very far from proven.

You cannot reframe the assumptions half way through the argument, you must go back to the beginning, redefine your assumptions.

Indeed. And I have yet to do so.

The fact you have to do this so early into the theory, indicates it is not well thought out.

Well to this point, your counterarguments rely on assumptions that leave much to be desired in being considered valid.

Out of interest you mention people as having had their ability to think, reason, experience inputs, etc, altered, as being the 'problem' here. I would suggest this is the majority of the world. Who hasn't had their ability to reason altered by education, by other people, experience etc.? Is your ability to reason the same as when you were 2 years old, or has it been altered?

Through "pathology" and/or loss of "consciousness" both a far cry from your examples. However "babies" are an interesting example.

You've accepted the counterexample as demonstrating humans who do not conform to your idea

But not the idea that they are "human" and therefore even part of my pool.

So back to the drawing board for the theory. It's the all of the people all of the time requirement that gets your argument into a mess in my view, and the 'choice' part of things, which isn't clearly defined.

While that is always possible, your counterexamples are not valid.

Back to logic. So, I choose "that which is defined by not being in the set C". Clearly defined is it not? I have the concept in mind, it is clear. I don't see why I can't choose this. You seem to say no I can't achieve that. But like you said
You seem to be in a muddle. You can't have it both ways, either I can choose what is in my mind and I want or I can't. Pick one side. If I can choose what I want then I choose the statement above. If I can't choose what I wish, this means whatever resulting choice (if there is one) is not my voluntary or intended choice.

Again you misrepresent my argument.

I stated that "anything" that is "conceivable" in the human mind [possible] is in the set.

"Anything" that is "impossible" to conceive, is not. You can never "choose" something of which you cannot conceive.

Therefore, again, your assertion is invalid.

You also say

So there are things outside the set C? Then I choose one of them.

Which you can't.

As Atilla, I think I might bow out of the thread here for now. It is quite difficult to debate a logical proof, when you don't seem to realise what a proof entails,

And your use of "assumptions" qualifies you in this regard?

have a different understanding of logic and change the assumptions or definitions part way through the proof. I appreciate also the difficulty in communication on issues like this, which is neither your nor my fault.

Certainly, when every "word" used comes under critical examination, it takes a lot of time to move forward.

Thanks for the interesting debate. As it stands though, for me, it's not a proof of anything. It's a shame though, I had hoped to get more into the meat of your theory.

Well actually so had I, but, as is usual in philosophical discussions, it takes a very long time to progress anything.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

However, even with your amazing assumptions - "true economist that you are :cheesy:" do you not think Liberals in alliance with Conservatives are not exactly a monopoly government???

Of course they are.

Unless things have changed dramatically since I left. I assume there is still only 1 House of Lords/Commons/Civil Service/Local governments.

That there is not a competing government, that I can become a citizen of, and abide to different laws, use a different money, pay no taxes to my chosen government etc, while still residing in the UK, London say?

If not, then you have a government monopoly.

jog on
duc

 

[Shakone]

Ducati, when you use the word 'human' to mean a subset of the what is generally considered human, then you have changed the definition midway through the argument. Maybe not in your mind, but to everyone else. If you had meant this at the beginning, then you should have said so. Why? Because it's a non-standard definition you're using. I think that most that read what you wrote would not interpret the word human in the way that you have now said it means. The onus is on you to convince for a proof, not for someone else to guess what you might mean and make your proof for you. And since you have unconventional definitions of things as seemingly basic as the word human, then of course every word is going to be an issue.


Basically though, I feel it is a wasted effort to use the words that you use in making your case. Your version of 'human', is clearly not a dictionary definition, nor is your idea about 'choice' since it has no complement, i.e. not choosing. Therefore rather than make statements using these words unconventionally, why not set your theory out in a manner like this:

There is a subset of the human population on earth that I am going to consider in my theory. I define this subset to be those for whom it is impossible to do anything other than make 'choices' - where a choice can be anything one can conceive, whether a conscious or unconscious thought - at every moment of time. I assume that there is a time constraint on each of these individuals. This time constraint is such that...

and so on. It's clear what the assumptions are, and how terms are defined. Just my opinion.

 

[ducati998]

Ducati, when you use the word 'human' to mean a subset of the what is generally considered human, then you have changed the definition midway through the argument.

Not at all. However when you challenge every word, then I have to go back and define each word. That will in some instances create a "surprise" for some, but it is not changing the definition, it is clarifying the definition, when that definition is challenged.

Maybe not in your mind, but to everyone else.

Again an assumption. "Everyone else," really?

If you had meant this at the beginning, then you should have said so. Why? Because it's a non-standard definition you're using.

Non-standard to whom? To economists, possibly, to philosophers, unlikely. To the "general public," probably.

I think that most that read what you wrote would not interpret the word human in the way that you have now said it means.

Probably.

The onus is on you to convince for a proof, not for someone else to guess what you might mean and make your proof for you.

Incorrect.

The onus, rests with you.

And since you have unconventional definitions of things as seemingly basic as the word human, then of course every word is going to be an issue.

Your challenges mandated clarification. You have made assertions, without any argument: it is now for you to prove those assertions. You opened the can of worms.

Basically though, I feel it is a wasted effort to use the words that you use in making your case. Your version of 'human', is clearly not a dictionary definition,

Accepted.

nor is your idea about 'choice' since it has no complement, i.e. not choosing. Therefore rather than make statements using these words unconventionally, why not set your theory out in a manner like this:

"Not choosing" is a choice. By the law of contradiction, this proves my assertion.

There is a subset of the human population on earth that I am going to consider in my theory. I define this subset to be those for whom it is impossible to do anything other than make 'choices' - where a choice can be anything one can conceive, whether a conscious or unconscious thought - at every moment of time. I assume that there is a time constraint on each of these individuals. This time constraint is such that...

and so on. It's clear what the assumptions are, and how terms are defined. Just my opinion.

But, I don't subscribe to your "sub-set." I am not seeking to prove the particular, but the universal.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

LV,

In the case of a country defending itself from an aggressor, none of that
provides an answer as to why a fiat system is adopted in times of war.
That is what I am driving at, the UK for instance in WW2 sold most of its gold
and ditched the gold standard in favour of fiat, simply to pay its war bills.
What other option is there to finance defence?
Defence of a country from an aggressor does not involve empire building or population control.
In those circumstances, there is no other choice.

That is the weakness of the gold standard I refer to.

There are obviously two other options: debt [ii] government savings.

Debt is raised from the public through selling debt instruments. Savings is more controversial in that it implies a surplus, which implies over-taxation.

Inflation is simply a way to expropriate the population of their property, without too many realizing that they are being robbed.

I have been looking at the origins of both WWI/WWII in relation to the above question, which is why I have taken some time to answer your straightforward question.

jog on
duc

 

[Shakone]

Incorrect.

The onus, rests with you.

Oh dear. No. Like I said, you don't understand proof and what it entails. Therefore you are unlikely to ever prove anything. A proof must establish something beyond doubt within its assumptions. As I said, it is not for someone else to establish it for you, or guess for you. Otherwise, I have just proven string theory. Hooray. Maybe in 50 years someone else will come up with the evidence, but I've proven it now, haven't I, because in my mind it is clear. The onus is on everyone else to realise the truth of it. This how you think? Don't be so ridiculous. Wait a minute...I've just proven the Grand unified Theory, fill in the details for me would you ducati, I have a press conference to announce my proof.

Words have definitions. They perhaps 'mean' different things to each of us, there's no reason why my idea of blue is the same as yours. But in order to communicate, we attempt to give definitions to things, not just our individual idea. When giving definitions to words, we have something called a dictionary, which is very handy. It helps to standardise - to some degree - words. It is not an economists dictionary, not a philosophers dictionary, and if those groups would like to use 'jargon' they may, but they should be aware it is jargon and non-standard.

Human, defn: 1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

NOT a member of H.sapiens that makes choices every moment, not one that has no 'diseases' of the mind, not what you say.

In the end, if you persist in the way you have, neither understanding what a proof entails or realising that you are using terms in a non-standard way, you will prove nothing to others who do understand. You may prove to yourself all you wish. But what is your purpose in this discourse? To prove to me is it not? Then you have failed> That much can't be debated, you have failed. You can either accept that you have failed because your theory is wrong, or because you lack the ability to communicate it effectively, or you consider me to lack the intellect to understand it. Any of those are fine with me, I have to be interviewed by Brian Cox now, he's staggered by my new proofs.

 

[Liquid validity]

LV,



There are obviously two other options: debt [ii] government savings.
1/ In the case of the UK, selling gold reserves could be
classed as govt. savings by another name. UK also did that during WW2

Debt is raised from the public through selling debt instruments. Savings is more controversial in that it implies a surplus, which implies over-taxation.

Inflation is simply a way to expropriate the population of their property, without too many realizing that they are being robbed.
2/ Exactly, and thats why that is pretty much the option always taken.

I have been looking at the origins of both WWI/WWII in relation to the above question, which is why I have taken some time to answer your straightforward question.

jog on
duc

I agree, it is a simple answer, ditching gold standard and adopting fiat,
thus doing exactly what you mention above my point 2 reply.
Fiat is the easiest way to finance short term economy shock events.
Whether or not its the best way with a more long term view is, as ever open to debate,
personally I'm not opening that can of worms - no simple answer.

 

[ducati998]

Oh dear. No. Like I said, you don't understand proof and what it entails. Therefore you are unlikely to ever prove anything. A proof must establish something beyond doubt within its assumptions.

Which is what I have done so far. None of your objections are valid. You raised the issue of what is "human."

Irrelevant what type of people, they are humans and were considered in your model. It's a counterexample, that shows that your statement regarding humans is false for some humans and some circumstances. I

You assumed that "coma" "things" are human. I dispute that. It is for you to prove that they are, and must therefore be included in my set of "humans," which also applies to a pathology that prevents cognition.

See the highlighted section, that was your "assumption" and it is incorrect: on a definition of what is human and [ii] what I considered in my model.

As I said, it is not for someone else to establish it for you, or guess for you. Otherwise, I have just proven string theory. Hooray. Maybe in 50 years someone else will come up with the evidence, but I've proven it now, haven't I, because in my mind it is clear. The onus is on everyone else to realise the truth of it. This how you think? Don't be so ridiculous. Wait a minute...I've just proven the Grand unified Theory, fill in the details for me would you ducati, I have a press conference to announce my proof.

Sarcasm hardly counts as anything, certainly not an argument.

Words have definitions. They perhaps 'mean' different things to each of us, there's no reason why my idea of blue is the same as yours. But in order to communicate, we attempt to give definitions to things, not just our individual idea.

Accepted.

When giving definitions to words, we have something called a dictionary, which is very handy. It helps to standardise - to some degree - words. It is not an economists dictionary, not a philosophers dictionary, and if those groups would like to use 'jargon' they may, but they should be aware it is jargon and non-standard.

Accepted. If we are proceeding according to logic, which we are attempting, then we are using philosophical jargon by definition.

Human, defn: 1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

NOT a member of H.sapiens that makes choices every moment, not one that has no 'diseases' of the mind, not what you say.

As already stated, due to the nature of the discussion, we are progressing with philosophical definitions.

In the end, if you persist in the way you have, neither understanding what a proof entails or realising that you are using terms in a non-standard way, you will prove nothing to others who do understand.

I think we both understand what is required of a proof. We simply are arguing the constituents of the propositions. That we are using terms in non-standard ways is, or seems to be unavoidable, given that unless every micro-increment of time is accounted for, [as an example] you claim an invalid argument. That of course will lead to extreme hairsplitting, which is where we are currently.

You may prove to yourself all you wish. But what is your purpose in this discourse? To prove to me is it not? Then you have failed> That much can't be debated, you have failed.

Incorrect.

It is either correct, or incorrect. The theory [theorem] is either true, or false. The propositions attempt to prove that truth or falseness, cognitively. To prove it to you, is not necessary for a truth statement. I am obviously responding to you, as you engaged, and challenged the validity of my arguments. To date, you have not invalidated my propositions. The current issue is "what is human" which is still underway.

You can either accept that you have failed because your theory is wrong, or because you lack the ability to communicate it effectively, or you consider me to lack the intellect to understand it.

Only the highlighted condition is necessary, the rest are irrelevancies.



jog on
duc

 

[Atilla]

Of course they are.

Unless things have changed dramatically since I left. I assume there is still only 1 House of Lords/Commons/Civil Service/Local governments.

That there is not a competing government, that I can become a citizen of, and abide to different laws, use a different money, pay no taxes to my chosen government etc, while still residing in the UK, London say?

If not, then you have a government monopoly.

jog on
duc

Well clearly we are still living in wonderland with your cherry picked set of assumptions.


1. assume there is still only 1 House of Lords - yes but there are good many little firms operating in that House of Lords. Do they really agree on any one thing. Let's have a vote. No need it's a monopoly. I object me Lord. Sod off it's time for afternoon tea. Price decided whilst you were asleep...
2. /Commons - similarly good many little companies operating in that environment too and they are affiliated to a third conglomerate (ie Labour)
3. /Civil Service/ - you are getting desperate now. They are independent of the Little companies and Firms that operate in the industry. Let's call them FedEx as they deliver on the request packages.

4. Local governments. Same applies as above many operators in reaching any verdict.

This monopoly you talk of in Government is a lot of nonsense ofcourse.

Still waiting for this universal economic conclusion and the suspense is heightening now. Makings of a good Bollywood movie...

 

[Atilla]

LV,



There are obviously two other options: debt [ii] government savings.

Debt is raised from the public through selling debt instruments. Savings is more controversial in that it implies a surplus, which implies over-taxation.

Inflation is simply a way to expropriate the population of their property, without too many realizing that they are being robbed.

In a perfect economy with so many inflation headlines one has full information on the level of inflation. Thus, as per the invisible hand one adjusts ones spending patterns and portfolio of assets to make the best out of inflation. The consumer buys assets that maintain value. Surely. Firms gain greater profit. Buy factors of production and inputs at time t and sell in time t+1. Unions strike for more pay. Firms cough up from their higher priced items and profits - which workers can subsequently in t+2 now afford. Hey presto system balances again.



I have been looking at the origins of both WWI/WWII in relation to the above question, which is why I have taken some time to answer your straightforward question.

jog on
duc

When you say expropriate are you suggesting the monopoly government owns, takes over your property. How is it that all other things in the economy quite happy to adjust and live within the universal law of economics but inflation does not.

How does classical economist deal with inflation? I'm sure you've heard of expectations theory? Here's one for you. I think you'll appreciate this as it is up your path.


Expectations Theory Professor of economics walking with young student on campus. Student sees £10 note on path.

Student: "Look sir somebody's dropped a £10 note."

Professor: "Don't be silly lad. If there was £10 note on the path somebody would have already picked it up by now."

 

[Shakone]

Ducati, we don't need to use Philosophical jargon, we can just use words. Besides, your definition of 'human' is not philosophical jargon, it's ducati jargon. If you use Ducati jargon and I use Shakone jargon, we'll get nowhere, which is where we have reached so far Jargon is more likely to confuse things, and already has. Speak plainly. Use words with their common definition, and when your definition differs significantly, then explain how so.

Which is what I have done so far. None of your objections are valid. You raised the issue of what is "human."

An opinion. One I don't share.

You assumed that "coma" "things" are human. I dispute that.

Humans as they are commonly defined and living on this earth are different from your definition of 'humans'. I accept that. Lets call your definition Humons to make things distinct. Humons make choices every moment, and people in comas who later wake up are not Humons, at least not while they are in a coma, nor are people with mental diseases. This is fine, it's your definition. Your theory from this point forward applies to Humons, and not to humans as science defines them or as is commonly defined. Humons is a subset of the humans on the earth. This is not hair-splitting, this is key. Do you know of any Humons that are not human beings (as commonly defined) and part of the population of earth? But we have human beings (as commonly defined) on the earth that you don't consider Humons, so this should obviously be a proper subset. I don't see why you wish to argue with something you've already agreed with in principle.

Your theory can perhaps apply 'universally' to Humons.

Please continue and outline your full theory on Humons. I think it better that you layout the entire argument, but it is your choice.

 

[ducati998]

Ducati, we don't need to use Philosophical jargon, we can just use words.

Possibly, but unlikely, we are arguing philosophical ideas.

Besides, your definition of 'human' is not philosophical jargon, it's ducati jargon.

Hardly, simply consider monism, dualism, idealism, physicalism, materialism, to name but a few.

If you use Ducati jargon and I use Shakone jargon, we'll get nowhere, which is where we have reached so far

Which, if I was, I would agree with. That however, is not the case.

Humans as they are commonly defined and living on this earth are different from your definition of 'humans'. I accept that.

Of course, you only have to look at the examples above to see that there are many definitions and ideas on what it means to be "human." The Turing Test is another example.

Lets call your definition Humons to make things distinct. Humons make choices every moment, and people in comas who later wake up are not Humons, at least not while they are in a coma, nor are people with mental diseases. This is fine, it's your definition. Your theory from this point forward applies to Humons, and not to humans as science defines them or as is commonly defined.

Science, however is not in agreement is it?

Humons is a subset of the humans on the earth. This is not hair-splitting, this is key.

The argument that I am progressing concerns humans. To qualify as human, "it" must be able to engage in rational argumentation.

Do you know of any Humons that are not human beings (as commonly defined) and part of the population of earth? But we have human beings (as commonly defined) on the earth that you don't consider Humons, so this should obviously be a proper subset. I don't see why you wish to argue with something you've already agreed with in principle.

This is your word and idea. I have no connection with it at all.

Your theory can perhaps apply 'universally' to Humons.

My theory relates to humans.

Please continue and outline your full theory on Humons. I think it better that you layout the entire argument, but it is your choice.

As already stated, only when the propositions already advanced and accepted as proven can any advancement continue. To continue, the last proposition must be a truth statement, otherwise, the logical progression is an error, and not true.

So to establish the definition of what constitutes "human:"

"Humans have to be capable of rational argumentation."

To deny the truth and validity of this, is itself an argument, which, invokes the law of contradiction, making it a true statement.

The "coma" patient cannot engage in rational argumentation. Pathologically afflicted minds to the degree that they cannot fulfill the requirement, are excluded, animals [as far as we know] cannot fulfill the requirements, the same being true for plants etc.

This definition, obviously rests on a "dualistic" understanding, where it is the "mind" that makes us human.

jog on
duc

 

[Martinghoul]

Sorry, I have been absent, but it's been a busy few days... I shall catch up.

 

[ducati998]

Well clearly we are still living in wonderland with your cherry picked set of assumptions.

"Cherry picked." So when talking about government monopoly, and its existence, or lack thereof, I should choose golf courses and motorcycles as an example?

"Assumptions." So the institutions mentioned, don't actually exist?

1. assume there is still only 1 House of Lords - yes but there are good many little firms operating in that House of Lords. Do they really agree on any one thing. Let's have a vote. No need it's a monopoly. I object me Lord. Sod off it's time for afternoon tea. Price decided whilst you were asleep...
2. /Commons - similarly good many little companies operating in that environment too and they are affiliated to a third conglomerate (ie Labour)
3. /Civil Service/ - you are getting desperate now. They are independent of the Little companies and Firms that operate in the industry. Let's call them FedEx as they deliver on the request packages.

4. Local governments. Same applies as above many operators in reaching any verdict.

This monopoly you talk of in Government is a lot of nonsense ofcourse.

You seem really confused with regard to the "institution" of government, and individual actors that come and go within that institution. The individual actors, are unimportant in this context.

What is important is the institution, which, is of course composed of individuals, who come and go, yet, the institution grows ever larger, and more powerful, due to the absence of any competition to impede its monopoly.

Market competition, viz. a non-monopoly condition, requires that if I don't like your government, I don't have to purchase your product. I can abstain entirely, or purchase a substitute.

Think that exists in the UK?

Still waiting for this universal economic conclusion and the suspense is heightening now. Makings of a good Bollywood movie...

Whatever for? You're still trying to come to terms with basic definitions.

jog on
duc

 

[Atilla]

"Cherry picked." So when talking about government monopoly, and its existence, or lack thereof, I should choose golf courses and motorcycles as an example?

Why not? I could raise some analogies for you if pushed. Not sure how useful it would be though. Why not look at Government in light of political decision making which is what it is and economics as allocating factors of production in optimal numbers etc etc ...

"Assumptions." So the institutions mentioned, don't actually exist? Did I say they didn't exist? I was trying to show you that there is a complex arrangement of rules in the decision making process. Not exactly what I would call a monopoly. Where or how do they restrict supply and price as per your assumptions in monopolistic behaviour.

So you take one aspect - "no competing alternative" and that is sufficient validation for equal like for like comparison with monopolistic behaviour?

You take up much space but don't give any ground in your lateral thinking. But you can't because, I would put to you that your narrow view of explaining and leading the reader down a chosen path of darkness to enlightenment at the end rests on a very dictatorial and finite limited perspective?




You seem really confused with regard to the "institution" of government, and individual actors that come and go within that institution. The individual actors, are unimportant in this context.

Parties can change rules if they wanted to. Boris could scrap congestion charging but having talked it to death considered it's not so bad after all and let's bring in Chelsea to the party. Red Ken's idea perhaps not so bad after all.

What is important is the institution, which, is of course composed of individuals, who come and go, yet, the institution grows ever larger, and more powerful, due to the absence of any competition to impede its monopoly.

Market competition, viz. a non-monopoly condition, requires that if I don't like your government, I don't have to purchase your product. I can abstain entirely, or purchase a substitute.

Think that exists in the UK?

Ofcourse it does







Whatever for? You're still trying to come to terms with basic definitions.

jog on
duc

I'm afraid decisions that are made are driven by many other totally different set of reasons, considerations, factors, ambitions and costs in government compared to that in monopolies.

Yes - if you don't like my government you can leave the country and subject to market entry rules, go and live elsewhere. You do have a choice! However, just as in your argument you are also obliged to consider the rights of others.

If you do not like sterling convert your money Euros, Dollars or Gold. You do have a choice.

If you don't want to pay so much tax don't earn so much money.

If you earn so much money you can consider leaving to one of these destinations to make your pennies go longer. The 10 Best Corporate Tax Havens In The World - Business Insider

If you don't like the rules of government, you can setup your own party, get votess, raise funds and challenge the competition. Nobody is stopping you. Raise your manifesto for small government. Walk on marches. Stand up on your soap box and raise awareness. Free market is everywhere.

I thought CV had some nice ideas for small government and I endorse those views. Or at least most of them anyhow.

Get one going and I'll join your party too if it good logical financial sense to me.



Anyhow, I do wish you'd get to the point though. What is your suggestion about government? I'll assume (hoping it is safe to) that you are against one government. So your point is;

1. That we don't need any
2. That we need 2 or 3
3. We need many we can choose from