Pedantry: By definition, you decimate your army by killing 10%. If you select 1% of your army and decimate that, then you only kill 0.1%. And it's really not like decimation at all--if someone doesn't fit into the project, their departing the project just improves cohesion. Decimation was intended to terrorize the troops.
"Uncontroversial" is vague and scope-bound. Do you mean uncontroversial among scientists? Uncontroversial among the educated public? Uncontroversial among the greater public at large? I think homeopathy is uncontroversial within at least two of these scopes.
Largely, they do behave the same, but most of this is on the micro scale. Macroeconomics includes things like monetary policy by definition, and most studies of monetary policy study how the policy works in the context of a central banking system. If we had a different monetary system all of that work would be irrelevant.
If you make something up on the spot that supports your political agenda, do you usually suspect that what you made up is false?
No, not at all. See, if it supports your agenda, and your agenda is right, it's probably right too. It's more self-deception than outright lying, because even lying requires you to be honest with yourself.
True, but the body of macroeconomic work largely discusses economies that do exist, and have central banks. Macroeconomics as a field of study would still be relevant, but the body of work already done in it wouldn't.
Much of macroeconomics does study the effects of a central banking system, however. Without a central banking system it's just as valid, it just refers to nothing.
There's currently a project (which was reported on Slashdot months ago) to make a new reference kilogram of a specific element and geometry. From that, they can define the kilogram as a certain number of atoms of a certain element.
Sure, but people are also able to use money to continue life, which means money is a form of wealth, even by your definition. In fact, I'm fairly certain that's what most people use money for. And even in your scenario, if illness were to befall his family or if there was a drought, he would need the money as a backup form of wealth. (This assumes the "resources" you talk about are the ones that can be directly put to use sustaining their lifestyle--if he has to trade them for other necessities, like the rest of us, then he's as stuck with money as we are.)
A mortgaged house you live in, in economist terms, is a liability and not an asset even though the poor have been taught to think this way.
The house itself is an asset. The mortgage is the liability.
A mortgaged house you rent where the rent is greater than the mortgage is an asset with positive cash flow on your financial report.
Yes, and a house whose mortgage is paid off is an asset with zero cash flow and no offsetting liabilities.
Money in hand is a liability because it loses value over time.
Cash money maybe, but invested money gains value over time. And it still isn't a liability--it's an asset, albeit one that changes in value. Please don't use technical terms without knowing what they mean. I think your main mistake is confusing assets with equity--equity is the difference between assets and liabilities, and represents net wealth in a way. So unless you're one of those trendy morons who gets an "interest-only" mortgage (or whatever they call that scam), even paying off your mortgage builds equity and grows your wealth, albeit not as effectively as buying the house cash money.
Creating a society where both parents in traditionally two parent homes (or, lately, one parent homes) are removed from the task of raising the family for pretty much most of the day is not healthy.
I agree with that. But even that isn't comparable to the industrial revolution, because during the industrial revolution even the West had traditional gender roles. If you're going to argue against long hours on those grounds that's fine, but comparing it to the industrial revolution is rather absurd and only serves to obscure that point.
I'm not avoiding his point at all, he's just doing a very poor job of making it. Honestly, my posts are no different from yours--just as you criticize the way in which I was arguing, I'm doing the same to him.
Work is force through distance, and is roughly a form of energy (i.e. you "add" energy to a system by means of work). Impulse is force through time, and is roughly a form of momentum (i.e. you "add" momentum to a system by means of impulse). They usually go together. Look, your understanding of physics is as bad as your understanding of economics--if you want to remain ignorant that's your problem.
If money isn't wealth in your eyes, can I have your money? If you honestly believe money is not a form of wealth, email me (there's a challenge/response setup you'll have to pass through) and we can arrange something. After all, if money isn't wealth, you would be just as wealthy if you gave me all your money as you are now. I think you're trying to say that not all wealth is money. That's more to the point, and quite different from what you've been saying.
My concerns are for the precision of the discourse--they are not for or against any of your conclusions.
Sociopaths aren't angry people who hide their anger well enough not to have any physiological manifestations. (As far as I can tell, that's biologically impossible.) Sociopaths are scarier than that--they're people who can feel completely calm and at ease while harming others in ways an emotional person would describe as "vicious".
Money is not wealth, it's just a way to figure out how to split the pie. Don't agree? Check out some footage of elderly people paying for food with wheelbarrows of money when the USSR fell.
You know, you might have had more of a case if the elderly people were using wheelbarrows of chickens or wheelbarrows of pencil shavings. Just because a certain currency can change drastically in value does not mean it isn't a form of wealth. If it isn't, you're fairly well screwing yourself and others over for not using a barter system instead of a currency system, because otherwise you're trading non-wealth for wealth and vice versa. You have a good point in your post, but "money is not wealth" is just plain absurd (and beside the point, frankly).
Of course, the Tsar Bomba is just a successor to the Tsar Bell (which broke apart and has never been rung) and the Tsar Cannon (which has never been fired). So you have to commend Russia for actually detonating the Tsar Bomba.
Before ESRB and since ESRB there have been better ways for parents to get a decent clue about the content of a game and its suitability to their children. I do not think putting mandatory letter-grades on game boxes is the best solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Pedantry: By definition, you decimate your army by killing 10%. If you select 1% of your army and decimate that, then you only kill 0.1%. And it's really not like decimation at all--if someone doesn't fit into the project, their departing the project just improves cohesion. Decimation was intended to terrorize the troops.
Does the greater public at large read Ars Technica? Do you think homeopathy is controversial among Ars Technica readers?
Non-stick gum is great for older people with dentures and other delicate dental work they don't want to jar loose.
Capitalism wins again?
"Uncontroversial" is vague and scope-bound. Do you mean uncontroversial among scientists? Uncontroversial among the educated public? Uncontroversial among the greater public at large? I think homeopathy is uncontroversial within at least two of these scopes.
Largely, they do behave the same, but most of this is on the micro scale. Macroeconomics includes things like monetary policy by definition, and most studies of monetary policy study how the policy works in the context of a central banking system. If we had a different monetary system all of that work would be irrelevant.
No, not at all. See, if it supports your agenda, and your agenda is right, it's probably right too. It's more self-deception than outright lying, because even lying requires you to be honest with yourself.
True, but the body of macroeconomic work largely discusses economies that do exist, and have central banks. Macroeconomics as a field of study would still be relevant, but the body of work already done in it wouldn't.
Much of macroeconomics does study the effects of a central banking system, however. Without a central banking system it's just as valid, it just refers to nothing.
Second person shooters?
There's currently a project (which was reported on Slashdot months ago) to make a new reference kilogram of a specific element and geometry. From that, they can define the kilogram as a certain number of atoms of a certain element.
Sure, but people are also able to use money to continue life, which means money is a form of wealth, even by your definition. In fact, I'm fairly certain that's what most people use money for. And even in your scenario, if illness were to befall his family or if there was a drought, he would need the money as a backup form of wealth. (This assumes the "resources" you talk about are the ones that can be directly put to use sustaining their lifestyle--if he has to trade them for other necessities, like the rest of us, then he's as stuck with money as we are.)
The house itself is an asset. The mortgage is the liability.
A mortgaged house you rent where the rent is greater than the mortgage is an asset with positive cash flow on your financial report.Yes, and a house whose mortgage is paid off is an asset with zero cash flow and no offsetting liabilities.
Money in hand is a liability because it loses value over time.Cash money maybe, but invested money gains value over time. And it still isn't a liability--it's an asset, albeit one that changes in value. Please don't use technical terms without knowing what they mean. I think your main mistake is confusing assets with equity--equity is the difference between assets and liabilities, and represents net wealth in a way. So unless you're one of those trendy morons who gets an "interest-only" mortgage (or whatever they call that scam), even paying off your mortgage builds equity and grows your wealth, albeit not as effectively as buying the house cash money.
I agree with that. But even that isn't comparable to the industrial revolution, because during the industrial revolution even the West had traditional gender roles. If you're going to argue against long hours on those grounds that's fine, but comparing it to the industrial revolution is rather absurd and only serves to obscure that point.
I'm not avoiding his point at all, he's just doing a very poor job of making it. Honestly, my posts are no different from yours--just as you criticize the way in which I was arguing, I'm doing the same to him.
I'm saying that comparing the treatment of IT workers to the treatment of laborers during the 19th century is absurd.
Work is force through distance, and is roughly a form of energy (i.e. you "add" energy to a system by means of work). Impulse is force through time, and is roughly a form of momentum (i.e. you "add" momentum to a system by means of impulse). They usually go together. Look, your understanding of physics is as bad as your understanding of economics--if you want to remain ignorant that's your problem.
If money isn't wealth in your eyes, can I have your money? If you honestly believe money is not a form of wealth, email me (there's a challenge/response setup you'll have to pass through) and we can arrange something. After all, if money isn't wealth, you would be just as wealthy if you gave me all your money as you are now. I think you're trying to say that not all wealth is money. That's more to the point, and quite different from what you've been saying.
My concerns are for the precision of the discourse--they are not for or against any of your conclusions.
Sociopaths aren't angry people who hide their anger well enough not to have any physiological manifestations. (As far as I can tell, that's biologically impossible.) Sociopaths are scarier than that--they're people who can feel completely calm and at ease while harming others in ways an emotional person would describe as "vicious".
You know, you might have had more of a case if the elderly people were using wheelbarrows of chickens or wheelbarrows of pencil shavings. Just because a certain currency can change drastically in value does not mean it isn't a form of wealth. If it isn't, you're fairly well screwing yourself and others over for not using a barter system instead of a currency system, because otherwise you're trading non-wealth for wealth and vice versa. You have a good point in your post, but "money is not wealth" is just plain absurd (and beside the point, frankly).
Of course, the Tsar Bomba is just a successor to the Tsar Bell (which broke apart and has never been rung) and the Tsar Cannon (which has never been fired). So you have to commend Russia for actually detonating the Tsar Bomba.
For some reason, I'm reminded that I like Coca-Cola. Mmm, Coca-Cola.
Before ESRB and since ESRB there have been better ways for parents to get a decent clue about the content of a game and its suitability to their children. I do not think putting mandatory letter-grades on game boxes is the best solution.
I wonder if when he goes to conferences people say, "Henry, you are just stupid as hell."
I enjoy when people simplistically dismiss areas of real controversy.