A marijuana party had a fairly strong presence locally here a few years ago, and it is tempting to vote for such, but I always end up finding that such fringe parties end up inserting something in their rhetoric to reveal underlying political ambitions.
For example, it is insane that cannabis is illegal, but the marijuana party of the US have AIUI gone further to imply that the FDA should be disbanded. Their members sing the song of Internet libertarianism. Now, what was simply me saying "the war on drugs must stop" looks like me supporting a particular political philosophy.
No, Labour received around 35% in 2005 and the Conservatives received just under a percentage point more this year. While this is obviously a slight increase, Labour received over 40% of the votes in 2001 and 1997.
You might be trying to make some argument that the coalition is more representative, even though it has essentially been about Liberal Democrats defecting to Conservativism.
We'd have a more representative House of Commons (which is what really matters), i.e. one comparable to recent parliaments, if there were no coalition and the Liberal Democrats were actually voting according to Liberal Democrat policy, i.e. representing the people who voted for them.
Recall that in British elections there is no such thing as a write-in candidate or other method of giving a non-standard opinion. In particular, it is impossible to differentiate between expressing that you are equally happy (status quo - others may decide on details irrelevant to you) and equally unhappy (impotence - you'd rather something else which is unavailable) with any of the above.
Also, if forced to vote then I would write over every ballot paper, "not participating until voting is no longer compulsory." I have never missed attending the voting booth in general elections since adulthood, and the fact that it is voluntary was a great motivator.
And I feel my decision would be fairly benign. I am far more afraid of the uninformed voter who makes a valid choice because it's the first one on the list, the nicest colour, the most interesting name, it's the party he last saw the name of before entering the booth, or whatever. If you cannot make the decision not to vote and even discourage others also from voting, it's not a democracy.
Yeah, we have the "deposit" problem here, which Thatcher helpfully quadrupled in 1985 (although you get it back with only 5% rather than 12.5% of the vote). Because, of course, in a representative democracy it makes sense that candidates must pay the government in order to have a chance at being elected.
Unless I can vote for whoever I please, and anyone who has sufficient votes can represent me if they so choose, my only option if I don't like the usual suspects is to spoil the ballot paper.
Everything you say is true, but remember to put the blame where lies the control: with the voter who does not abstain, and with the worker who does not strike. To kill the beast, you must stop feeding it.
Google have been lobbying Cameron for certain legal rights to help their business model, and Cameron will incorporate their request in a new draconian copyright proposal which will hinder other business models (and freedom in general).
Freedom of speech is useless without ownership of the presses, where "ownership of the presses" means a lot more than just having a website or a printer - you need the means to get your message heard above the noise. Both sides believe that it is sabotage rather than freedom of speech to steal someone else's presses and use them.
The left (the classical left, not necessarily the US "liberal" left) believe in worker ownership of the means of production. The right believe in ownership through amassing and investment of capital. For an example, to the right the Internet belongs to people who own the individual wires and servers and to whoever the government has sold off its public systems to; to the left, the Internet belongs to the people who put in their labour to improve it, where improvement could include eliminating the worst parts as a factory boss fires corrupt workers.
Each side is being consistent with his morals, but each side tries to use his own moral system to point out the hypocrisy in the other. Almost all political arguments get bogged down in this problem. What is abhorrent to the right in this case is the notion that there can be more than one formulation of the notion of property ownership. Indeed, cultures through space and time have invented many different bases for ownership, and it is only very recently that a great part of the world has begun to forget this.
Perhaps I buy less than you, and from carefully chosen sources? The modern Western consumer is pathologically obsessed with purchasing as much cheap shiny crap as he can, but most time and space has been occupied by a very different sort of purchaser.
Perhaps I haven't provided enough context for "simple": it is ethically and straightforwardly so, i.e. with very few exceptions and requiring a fairly straightforward set of principles. While it may be hard to overcome psychological programming initially, it is a lot easier once you both decide to universally regard adverts as negative and make a conscious decision to be aware of how you might be influenced.
Did you miss the 1980s entirely? It's marginally more subtle today.
There are a lot of responses here which suggest that I am going to subconsciously choose a brand I have heard of even though I don't know why I have heard of it. I consciously think through why I am choosing a particular brand, and while it is possible that I have been taken in by complex, sustained Astroturfing, I am automatically wary when I have heard of something but cannot recall where from. Aren't you?
You are just providing evidence for my assertion: humans lack the ability of truly independent thought. The brain is just another biological organ, and we should have grown out of the two century-old (two millennia, if look beyond the dark ages) philosophical and quasi-religious fantasy of the perfect rational human mind to justify psychological abuses and simplistic rights/responsibility arguments.
...your lack of self-control, willpower, and independent thought makes you buy stuff after seeing an ad.
And because adverts essentially prey on weakness and are almost universally designed to mislead, it is quite simple to set your policy to being discouraged by any ad you see from purchasing from the sponsor.
So, it's advert blocking all the way, and anything which manages to slip through is avoided with extreme prejudice.
Also, don't forget that the real word in recaptcha is always "faeces". Stop doing free work for the biggest polluter of the Internet with adverts.
Google announced they've searched for clues about the upcoming US election using their internal tools
Thank goodness Google has promised not to abuse the information it gathers! I mean, think of the influence and wealth you'd gain by providing the right information to the right powerful people.
Because only Google should be able to collect and process an unholy amount of information about you, the average Internet user, without your (informed) consent.
Google logs and tracking cookies are, in terms of aggregate harm, the most harmful things you'll enjoy when browsing the web.
AFK for a few days. Remember, the first step to solving a problem is to take responsibility - otherwise nothing will change. I'll probably have forgotten about this thread when I return, so have fun! Ta ta.
And once again you make the argument to never invest in anything. That's just sad.
No, I made the argument that the government should not invest in the sense that it should not spend money for the purpose of making money. The proper government is a sink of money for social good, not an investor for economic good. It helps defend you, it helps you stay healthy, it helps you develop and apply your intellectual faculties to improve the lot of humanity. Its activities may help you make money, but it does not exist to make you money.
It is because you think that the government is an investor which can risk the value of investments going down that we are in this mess. It is your very reasoning which has created this mess.
Slaves of men? You know nothing. The truth shall set ye free.
Speaking like that makes you sound silly.
Quite the opposite of what you state - you are the one who would have us slaves to the whims of your market.
Only one of us is suggesting that the government should be subordinate to the market. It's not me.
No academia did not produce the economic theories "we've fucked upon" [...] but rather it was private greed that traded long term stability for short term profit.
And quite intentionally. And using sound theory. But sound theory based on the wrong premises, giving results which don't support the country in the long term, merely make certain individuals very rich. Because of people like you who (claim to) have the faculty to know what's up but insist it's not their responsibility to educate the hoodwinked, investors carried on unchecked.
Doing stupid things like, say, cutting funding to things that make a return on investment because that yield more money now though less in the future.
No, that's nothing like a good explanation of what happened.
A lot like the things you advocate in fact - are you a banker?
An academically minded Cambridge graduate has the misfortune to have shared enough years with future bankers to be better able to recognise one.
You could use it to find some sources - might be a good idea.
No, when I want a reliable academic source I'll use a library or a journal search, thanks.
My maths course (Cambridge) didn't include a history of mathematics, actually, but you'd know that very few institutions do in fact require a history of mathematics if you were actually at one.
Ugh, is a degree for you just about passing what's "required" (to get the piece of paper to get the degree to get the money, my angry slave to economics)?
At school I had an ex-Cambridge history teacher who kept pushing me to apply to Oxbridge precisely because, regardless of the fact that history was not my primary interest, I'd get so much more than just the best pure scientific education if I chose to take advantage of the breadth of resources (vs a London university). He is right. Cambridge has the privilege of historians of mathematics like Jeremy Gray contributing to the HPS department, under whom I did a Masters dissertation.
You do realize that your argument basically says that no money should ever be used for anything, right?
No. My argument asserted that gilt-edged securities are a way of inventing money and, as such, should not be used for routine government expenditure and especially not used as an excuse to get into trillion pound debts.
Don't you even begin to see what I'm trying to say? You're smart; please use that intelligence to temper yourself and to educate others rather than declaring it's not your fault and allowing the problem to continue.
1. "Science" is such a broad term that to say "science makes profit" is like saying "humanity makes profit". Just because some scientific efforts often have high short-term return (e.g. economics) doesn't mean that science is always profitable, or whatever nonsense you're arguing.
2. Academia produced the economic theories we've fucked up upon. Academia has enjoyed the imaginary money enjoyed by applying those theories. Academia should accept its share of the blame.
3. Stop making slaves of men.
4. It tells me everything that you're admitting knowledge "from Google" rather than because you actually studied the mathematics you claim to (which would include history of mathematics, unless you studied at a fourth rate ex-poly). It was better that he made the theoretical, intellectual effort to design the machine - among other contributions to computing - and wasn't sidetracked by having money ploughed into building it. Others could and did concern themselves with building.
5. You're an idiot. It's the money being loaned which has no underlying representation. It doesn't matter what it's applied to - building a statue to Margaret Thatcher or finding a cure for cancer.
Nully: whine more. You're making exactly the same arguments that got us into this mess: that a purpose of government is to make investments for a positive monetary RoI, and that there are certain investments guaranteed to make a positive RoI. The latter is obviously false, with your noted abuses of a certain branch of applied mathematics, economics, being a counterexample. The former is more subtly false: the government should be a limited sink of money for the protection and welfare of the people, not an investment bank. Its achievements are not measured in the money it makes, except to the most self-interested neo-conservative economist, but in the extent to which individual citizens are allowed to flourish physically and mentally. This is measured in anthropological, philosophical and sociological terms, not in economic terms. But you keep making the same naive mistake of thinking that government succeeds when it makes money for the country.
Firstly and thirdly: The term "imaginary money" has been used for centuries, so you're only demonstrating your ignorance by interpreting the term literally. It can take different meanings depending on the context: it's been traditionally used to refer to fiat money by those obsessed with the gold standard, but in less strict terms it refers to money which has no underlying representation in terms of labour market value.
In this case, we refer above all to the UK government issued gilt-edged security. Such bonds were originally only issued to fund war, i.e. emergency (though feel free to argue that some wars so paid for were often not necessary), but now they're used as a way of inventing money for general purposes. Before the index-linked bond, which most UK debt still isn't, we had a second way decorating the invention: through inflation.
Secondly: OK, carry on complaining that it's someone else's problem and that "they" are responsible, not you. The problem won't be solved and you'll continue getting taken advantage of because you're too weak to apply your ability and assume some control. Economics as practiced is applied mathematics, and no matter how correct your moral judgement on how it's practiced, it won't become any less the highly numerate person's job to raise awareness and tackle the people and theories involved in outstanding short-term profiteering. Something about evil prevailing when good men do nothing, eh?
Fourthly: given Hardy's writings, I expect he'd have stopped working had he known the practical applications of his efforts. If you contentedly believe we invested in him for the security/financial benefits of his work, then you believe it was right to lie to and take advantage of a man working in the Platonic tradition.
Fifthly: I don't have any evidence that the government was funding Babbage using bonds. Do you? Also, no, his theoretical work was interesting but I don't think hindsight allows us to say that his completed difference engine would have achieved much. Indeed, having to abandon that spurred him to the more productive intellectual pursuit of designing the more general analytical engine (and then a better difference engine, which by then others were taking the time to build). But I don't expect you to consider detail - surely the best way of keeping a scientist on track is to give him infinite money then leave him alone.
Fifthly: Oxfam it is. But I'm troubled that you consider it "woeful" that I castigated your mocking of serious mental illness. I'm fortunate never to have been locked in an asylum, but that doesn't mean I lightly mock those who suffer mental illness - any more than I mock those in a wheelchair.
You're not reading a word I typed. I can barely believe I share the same discipline as you, but probbly you're some fantasising undergrad who's just bumped up his status.
Firstly, the moron who fucked up is you. You were the one who accepted the non-existent money from the last decade of illusory boom. If you hadn't wanted bankers to behave as they did, you'd have stopped accepting their methods to fund you.
Secondly, bankers are applied mathematicians. We are, unfortunately, especially to blame for allowing such mathematics to be practiced without making the long-term effects clear. We knew more than anyone else what was going on. We lost all this money. This is what happens when you indiscriminately regard science as good and fund research and put your faith in research because of some stupid belief that scientists are gods to be left alone to improve the world.
Thirdly, it's fine to spend money on reasonable theoretical research for its own sake as long as it's not invented government money.
Fourthly, you're entirely missing the argument if you consider C19 mathematics "pointless". And Hardy would have probably have had a breakdown could he have known that his beautiful number-theoretical work was now a tool of security and war.
Fifthly, giving Babbage as an example was rather stupid. The government thought his practical exercise excessive and withdrew funding.
Finally, the wager wasn't to stop you responding, it was a silly exercise to prove that people on the Internet get so worked up that they'll respond even if you give them disincentive. And I'm very slightly richer for it. Give me your address and I'll pay you 10% commission, if you want;-).
How would they know it isn't you making up these AC posts?
Because that's not cricket. How does anyone know anyone's not cheating at anything? Usually it's a matter of trust. Anyway, £10 up, thanks. I've responded to learn, for sport, for money, and now it's to teach.
Your argument is schizophrenic - the government shouldn't invest money in science because that money doesn't exist. But somehow science makes money so we should invest in science for reasons that aren't money related.
Government shouldn't spend money which doesn't exist on non-critical programmes. But government should spend a reasonable amount of money on science when that money is available. And the reason for that spending isn't calculable monetary RoI, but to improve the wisdom and lot of humanity.
Now, this argument is nothing new, having been presented in detail since Plato's notion of philosopher-ruler in Republic. Socrates' explanation to Glaucon of higher mathematical study vs that concerned with "the world of change and decay" is particularly passionate, if rough-edged. It may also be motivating to the budding pure mathematician or theoretical scientist, which you might grow up to be if you get out of this whole science = money thing.
PS: I didn't mod you: AC = no mod points.
OK - though I never said you did;-). But the/. moderation system is such that you can only mod in a thread if you post AC, so you have it backwards.
Yeah, there's also an increase in demand for physical security, more funding for anti-terror tools/research, etc. The western world is currently more scared of nothing than it's been for decades, and IT security "experts" are the latest in a line of technically mediocre conjurers who manage to charge a lot to turn people from feeling scared to feeling slightly less scared while achieving absolutely nothing.
Well, a fiver said I could get you to respond until this evening, and another fiver's coming my way if you respond tomorrow.
Trouble is, I'm hard pressed to decide whether to put the fiver toward my Institute membership, or to just put it in the pot to buy a few shares just before Obama's next announcement on defense spending (worked great last year, my colleagues informed me). To put money toward scientists and engineers who want to advance human knowledge, or to put money toward scientist-mercenaries who - like you - consider science in terms of $ RoI... perhaps I should cancel my membership to the former in case their educational efforts help people evidently at the start of their career such as you.
BTW, the arguments you are looking for are in this post and all children with the same poster name. Don't forget to mod them down whenever you have mod points to express your frustration - it'll make you feel better.
You can't resist me, can you? If I'm the last one to post, you won't be able to sleep at night... you've already admitted to seeing this, like some schoolchild, in terms of who has "won". So, go on, make the last post and win.
Slashdot Mirror
A marijuana party had a fairly strong presence locally here a few years ago, and it is tempting to vote for such, but I always end up finding that such fringe parties end up inserting something in their rhetoric to reveal underlying political ambitions.
For example, it is insane that cannabis is illegal, but the marijuana party of the US have AIUI gone further to imply that the FDA should be disbanded. Their members sing the song of Internet libertarianism. Now, what was simply me saying "the war on drugs must stop" looks like me supporting a particular political philosophy.
No, Labour received around 35% in 2005 and the Conservatives received just under a percentage point more this year. While this is obviously a slight increase, Labour received over 40% of the votes in 2001 and 1997.
You might be trying to make some argument that the coalition is more representative, even though it has essentially been about Liberal Democrats defecting to Conservativism.
We'd have a more representative House of Commons (which is what really matters), i.e. one comparable to recent parliaments, if there were no coalition and the Liberal Democrats were actually voting according to Liberal Democrat policy, i.e. representing the people who voted for them.
How does that solve the problem?
Recall that in British elections there is no such thing as a write-in candidate or other method of giving a non-standard opinion. In particular, it is impossible to differentiate between expressing that you are equally happy (status quo - others may decide on details irrelevant to you) and equally unhappy (impotence - you'd rather something else which is unavailable) with any of the above.
Also, if forced to vote then I would write over every ballot paper, "not participating until voting is no longer compulsory." I have never missed attending the voting booth in general elections since adulthood, and the fact that it is voluntary was a great motivator.
And I feel my decision would be fairly benign. I am far more afraid of the uninformed voter who makes a valid choice because it's the first one on the list, the nicest colour, the most interesting name, it's the party he last saw the name of before entering the booth, or whatever. If you cannot make the decision not to vote and even discourage others also from voting, it's not a democracy.
Yeah, we have the "deposit" problem here, which Thatcher helpfully quadrupled in 1985 (although you get it back with only 5% rather than 12.5% of the vote). Because, of course, in a representative democracy it makes sense that candidates must pay the government in order to have a chance at being elected.
Unless I can vote for whoever I please, and anyone who has sufficient votes can represent me if they so choose, my only option if I don't like the usual suspects is to spoil the ballot paper.
Everything you say is true, but remember to put the blame where lies the control: with the voter who does not abstain, and with the worker who does not strike. To kill the beast, you must stop feeding it.
Google have been lobbying Cameron for certain legal rights to help their business model, and Cameron will incorporate their request in a new draconian copyright proposal which will hinder other business models (and freedom in general).
Freedom of speech is useless without ownership of the presses, where "ownership of the presses" means a lot more than just having a website or a printer - you need the means to get your message heard above the noise. Both sides believe that it is sabotage rather than freedom of speech to steal someone else's presses and use them.
The left (the classical left, not necessarily the US "liberal" left) believe in worker ownership of the means of production. The right believe in ownership through amassing and investment of capital. For an example, to the right the Internet belongs to people who own the individual wires and servers and to whoever the government has sold off its public systems to; to the left, the Internet belongs to the people who put in their labour to improve it, where improvement could include eliminating the worst parts as a factory boss fires corrupt workers.
Each side is being consistent with his morals, but each side tries to use his own moral system to point out the hypocrisy in the other. Almost all political arguments get bogged down in this problem. What is abhorrent to the right in this case is the notion that there can be more than one formulation of the notion of property ownership. Indeed, cultures through space and time have invented many different bases for ownership, and it is only very recently that a great part of the world has begun to forget this.
Yes, and yes.
Perhaps I buy less than you, and from carefully chosen sources? The modern Western consumer is pathologically obsessed with purchasing as much cheap shiny crap as he can, but most time and space has been occupied by a very different sort of purchaser.
Perhaps I haven't provided enough context for "simple": it is ethically and straightforwardly so, i.e. with very few exceptions and requiring a fairly straightforward set of principles. While it may be hard to overcome psychological programming initially, it is a lot easier once you both decide to universally regard adverts as negative and make a conscious decision to be aware of how you might be influenced.
slow shift in progress towards product placement
Did you miss the 1980s entirely? It's marginally more subtle today.
There are a lot of responses here which suggest that I am going to subconsciously choose a brand I have heard of even though I don't know why I have heard of it. I consciously think through why I am choosing a particular brand, and while it is possible that I have been taken in by complex, sustained Astroturfing, I am automatically wary when I have heard of something but cannot recall where from. Aren't you?
You are just providing evidence for my assertion: humans lack the ability of truly independent thought. The brain is just another biological organ, and we should have grown out of the two century-old (two millennia, if look beyond the dark ages) philosophical and quasi-religious fantasy of the perfect rational human mind to justify psychological abuses and simplistic rights/responsibility arguments.
...your lack of self-control, willpower, and independent thought makes you buy stuff after seeing an ad.
And because adverts essentially prey on weakness and are almost universally designed to mislead, it is quite simple to set your policy to being discouraged by any ad you see from purchasing from the sponsor.
So, it's advert blocking all the way, and anything which manages to slip through is avoided with extreme prejudice.
Also, don't forget that the real word in recaptcha is always "faeces". Stop doing free work for the biggest polluter of the Internet with adverts.
Google announced they've searched for clues about the upcoming US election using their internal tools
Thank goodness Google has promised not to abuse the information it gathers! I mean, think of the influence and wealth you'd gain by providing the right information to the right powerful people.
Because only Google should be able to collect and process an unholy amount of information about you, the average Internet user, without your (informed) consent.
Google logs and tracking cookies are, in terms of aggregate harm, the most harmful things you'll enjoy when browsing the web.
AFK for a few days. Remember, the first step to solving a problem is to take responsibility - otherwise nothing will change. I'll probably have forgotten about this thread when I return, so have fun! Ta ta.
And once again you make the argument to never invest in anything. That's just sad.
No, I made the argument that the government should not invest in the sense that it should not spend money for the purpose of making money. The proper government is a sink of money for social good, not an investor for economic good. It helps defend you, it helps you stay healthy, it helps you develop and apply your intellectual faculties to improve the lot of humanity. Its activities may help you make money, but it does not exist to make you money.
It is because you think that the government is an investor which can risk the value of investments going down that we are in this mess. It is your very reasoning which has created this mess.
Slaves of men? You know nothing. The truth shall set ye free.
Speaking like that makes you sound silly.
Quite the opposite of what you state - you are the one who would have us slaves to the whims of your market.
Only one of us is suggesting that the government should be subordinate to the market. It's not me.
No academia did not produce the economic theories "we've fucked upon" [...] but rather it was private greed that traded long term stability for short term profit.
And quite intentionally. And using sound theory. But sound theory based on the wrong premises, giving results which don't support the country in the long term, merely make certain individuals very rich. Because of people like you who (claim to) have the faculty to know what's up but insist it's not their responsibility to educate the hoodwinked, investors carried on unchecked.
Doing stupid things like, say, cutting funding to things that make a return on investment because that yield more money now though less in the future.
No, that's nothing like a good explanation of what happened.
A lot like the things you advocate in fact - are you a banker?
An academically minded Cambridge graduate has the misfortune to have shared enough years with future bankers to be better able to recognise one.
You could use it to find some sources - might be a good idea.
No, when I want a reliable academic source I'll use a library or a journal search, thanks.
My maths course (Cambridge) didn't include a history of mathematics, actually, but you'd know that very few institutions do in fact require a history of mathematics if you were actually at one.
Ugh, is a degree for you just about passing what's "required" (to get the piece of paper to get the degree to get the money, my angry slave to economics)?
At school I had an ex-Cambridge history teacher who kept pushing me to apply to Oxbridge precisely because, regardless of the fact that history was not my primary interest, I'd get so much more than just the best pure scientific education if I chose to take advantage of the breadth of resources (vs a London university). He is right. Cambridge has the privilege of historians of mathematics like Jeremy Gray contributing to the HPS department, under whom I did a Masters dissertation.
You do realize that your argument basically says that no money should ever be used for anything, right?
No. My argument asserted that gilt-edged securities are a way of inventing money and, as such, should not be used for routine government expenditure and especially not used as an excuse to get into trillion pound debts.
Don't you even begin to see what I'm trying to say? You're smart; please use that intelligence to temper yourself and to educate others rather than declaring it's not your fault and allowing the problem to continue.
...and I know what happens if he finds out I've reported it, so I guess I won't now.
You're boring me now. Briefly:
1. "Science" is such a broad term that to say "science makes profit" is like saying "humanity makes profit". Just because some scientific efforts often have high short-term return (e.g. economics) doesn't mean that science is always profitable, or whatever nonsense you're arguing.
2. Academia produced the economic theories we've fucked up upon. Academia has enjoyed the imaginary money enjoyed by applying those theories. Academia should accept its share of the blame.
3. Stop making slaves of men.
4. It tells me everything that you're admitting knowledge "from Google" rather than because you actually studied the mathematics you claim to (which would include history of mathematics, unless you studied at a fourth rate ex-poly). It was better that he made the theoretical, intellectual effort to design the machine - among other contributions to computing - and wasn't sidetracked by having money ploughed into building it. Others could and did concern themselves with building.
5. You're an idiot. It's the money being loaned which has no underlying representation. It doesn't matter what it's applied to - building a statue to Margaret Thatcher or finding a cure for cancer.
Nully: whine more. You're making exactly the same arguments that got us into this mess: that a purpose of government is to make investments for a positive monetary RoI, and that there are certain investments guaranteed to make a positive RoI. The latter is obviously false, with your noted abuses of a certain branch of applied mathematics, economics, being a counterexample. The former is more subtly false: the government should be a limited sink of money for the protection and welfare of the people, not an investment bank. Its achievements are not measured in the money it makes, except to the most self-interested neo-conservative economist, but in the extent to which individual citizens are allowed to flourish physically and mentally. This is measured in anthropological, philosophical and sociological terms, not in economic terms. But you keep making the same naive mistake of thinking that government succeeds when it makes money for the country.
Firstly and thirdly: The term "imaginary money" has been used for centuries, so you're only demonstrating your ignorance by interpreting the term literally. It can take different meanings depending on the context: it's been traditionally used to refer to fiat money by those obsessed with the gold standard, but in less strict terms it refers to money which has no underlying representation in terms of labour market value.
In this case, we refer above all to the UK government issued gilt-edged security. Such bonds were originally only issued to fund war, i.e. emergency (though feel free to argue that some wars so paid for were often not necessary), but now they're used as a way of inventing money for general purposes. Before the index-linked bond, which most UK debt still isn't, we had a second way decorating the invention: through inflation.
Secondly: OK, carry on complaining that it's someone else's problem and that "they" are responsible, not you. The problem won't be solved and you'll continue getting taken advantage of because you're too weak to apply your ability and assume some control. Economics as practiced is applied mathematics, and no matter how correct your moral judgement on how it's practiced, it won't become any less the highly numerate person's job to raise awareness and tackle the people and theories involved in outstanding short-term profiteering. Something about evil prevailing when good men do nothing, eh?
Fourthly: given Hardy's writings, I expect he'd have stopped working had he known the practical applications of his efforts. If you contentedly believe we invested in him for the security/financial benefits of his work, then you believe it was right to lie to and take advantage of a man working in the Platonic tradition.
Fifthly: I don't have any evidence that the government was funding Babbage using bonds. Do you? Also, no, his theoretical work was interesting but I don't think hindsight allows us to say that his completed difference engine would have achieved much. Indeed, having to abandon that spurred him to the more productive intellectual pursuit of designing the more general analytical engine (and then a better difference engine, which by then others were taking the time to build). But I don't expect you to consider detail - surely the best way of keeping a scientist on track is to give him infinite money then leave him alone.
Fifthly: Oxfam it is. But I'm troubled that you consider it "woeful" that I castigated your mocking of serious mental illness. I'm fortunate never to have been locked in an asylum, but that doesn't mean I lightly mock those who suffer mental illness - any more than I mock those in a wheelchair.
You're not reading a word I typed. I can barely believe I share the same discipline as you, but probbly you're some fantasising undergrad who's just bumped up his status.
Firstly, the moron who fucked up is you. You were the one who accepted the non-existent money from the last decade of illusory boom. If you hadn't wanted bankers to behave as they did, you'd have stopped accepting their methods to fund you.
Secondly, bankers are applied mathematicians. We are, unfortunately, especially to blame for allowing such mathematics to be practiced without making the long-term effects clear. We knew more than anyone else what was going on. We lost all this money. This is what happens when you indiscriminately regard science as good and fund research and put your faith in research because of some stupid belief that scientists are gods to be left alone to improve the world.
Thirdly, it's fine to spend money on reasonable theoretical research for its own sake as long as it's not invented government money.
Fourthly, you're entirely missing the argument if you consider C19 mathematics "pointless". And Hardy would have probably have had a breakdown could he have known that his beautiful number-theoretical work was now a tool of security and war.
Fifthly, giving Babbage as an example was rather stupid. The government thought his practical exercise excessive and withdrew funding.
Finally, the wager wasn't to stop you responding, it was a silly exercise to prove that people on the Internet get so worked up that they'll respond even if you give them disincentive. And I'm very slightly richer for it. Give me your address and I'll pay you 10% commission, if you want ;-).
How would they know it isn't you making up these AC posts?
Because that's not cricket. How does anyone know anyone's not cheating at anything? Usually it's a matter of trust. Anyway, £10 up, thanks. I've responded to learn, for sport, for money, and now it's to teach.
Your argument is schizophrenic - the government shouldn't invest money in science because that money doesn't exist. But somehow science makes money so we should invest in science for reasons that aren't money related.
Government shouldn't spend money which doesn't exist on non-critical programmes. But government should spend a reasonable amount of money on science when that money is available. And the reason for that spending isn't calculable monetary RoI, but to improve the wisdom and lot of humanity.
Now, this argument is nothing new, having been presented in detail since Plato's notion of philosopher-ruler in Republic. Socrates' explanation to Glaucon of higher mathematical study vs that concerned with "the world of change and decay" is particularly passionate, if rough-edged. It may also be motivating to the budding pure mathematician or theoretical scientist, which you might grow up to be if you get out of this whole science = money thing.
PS: I didn't mod you: AC = no mod points.
OK - though I never said you did ;-). But the /. moderation system is such that you can only mod in a thread if you post AC, so you have it backwards.
HTH.
Yeah, there's also an increase in demand for physical security, more funding for anti-terror tools/research, etc. The western world is currently more scared of nothing than it's been for decades, and IT security "experts" are the latest in a line of technically mediocre conjurers who manage to charge a lot to turn people from feeling scared to feeling slightly less scared while achieving absolutely nothing.
You know who you are.
Well, a fiver said I could get you to respond until this evening, and another fiver's coming my way if you respond tomorrow.
Trouble is, I'm hard pressed to decide whether to put the fiver toward my Institute membership, or to just put it in the pot to buy a few shares just before Obama's next announcement on defense spending (worked great last year, my colleagues informed me). To put money toward scientists and engineers who want to advance human knowledge, or to put money toward scientist-mercenaries who - like you - consider science in terms of $ RoI... perhaps I should cancel my membership to the former in case their educational efforts help people evidently at the start of their career such as you.
BTW, the arguments you are looking for are in this post and all children with the same poster name. Don't forget to mod them down whenever you have mod points to express your frustration - it'll make you feel better.
You can't resist me, can you? If I'm the last one to post, you won't be able to sleep at night... you've already admitted to seeing this, like some schoolchild, in terms of who has "won". So, go on, make the last post and win.
The fact that you didn't even catch, after me not so subtly pointing it out to you, that Thatcher is a woman
...and you're not a vegetable?
Maybe tomorrow belongs to you, you illiterate bumpkin.