Re the sig, may I assume that the spelling and grammer Nazis of whom you speak gather up inept writers and place them in trucks that will gas them to death in time for their arrival at a crematorium where their bodies are burned after any teeth with gold fillings have been extracted? Perhaps Nazi is not the ideal term for this crusade of yours. Since the real ones killed most of my family, using them to bolster a campaign in support of sloppy and ambiguous writing is an idea that I find puzzling at best, especially coming from someone as clear and eloquent as yourself.
This may not be all bad but I don't advise any holding of breath. We have some insightful comments, yet judging by the scores, the moderators know nothing about economics or monetary policy. This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that it is not generally taught. The accepted belief system for most citizens is that money came from God or the Big Bang and as populations grow and society becomes more complex, we have to do more and more with a fixed amount of money, necessitating a sort of social, economic and environmental triage. What makes this silly model even sadder is the implicit assumption in all discussions of cost, that money once spent is simply gone. This is clearly contrary to everyday experience, yet we as a species simply don't often make these connections without serious study once a belief system is established and widely held. Sorry guys, but it is a fact that when the human resources, raw materials and infrasructure are available, then claims of a government being unable to afford something it purports to want or that the citizens want, is nothing more than Orwellian doublespeak meaning "We don't want to do that." The struggle to get by in a world of limited money helps keep people off the backs of the unelected real government that detests and fears democracy. Who has not noticed how infrequently the elected government does what was promised in the election campaign? Look into this or struggle, fight or pray for more money. When can we move on? The choice is up to us.
You're a good man Simon, and we're on the same side. I have a few quibbles, however. Less Nobel Prize winners? That does rather suggest that they are measured by weight or volume. Surely we are not there yet. How about fewer Nobel Prize winners? Even I can understand that.
Economics a science? Equations do not a science make. It's a sincere undertaking by some economists but for many others it's voodoo used to justify the self-serving political decisions of their employers. These are the people comfortable with poisoning air, water, and soil because they did not pay for them, so they have no value that appears on a balance sheet and thus no value at all. The term for these irrelevancies is "externality". Still think it's science?
The current account deficit is a serious problem but not a huge crisis like multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis may soon become. We are encouraged to think of money as a precious non-renewable resource that makes human life on earth possible. If or when we spend it all, we all die. Obviously not. It's merely an invention of man, basically bookkeeping. We might make a huge mess of our finances but ultimately, our fate and quality of life depend on how we use our skills and resources, not solely on an abstract, comparatively recent phenomenon like money. If you are interested in money you might check out Michael Rowbotham. He is a schoolteacher and an all-around nice young man who has this stuff down pretty well so I don't have to go on about it and confuse everyone.
As for the atheist fanatics, I suspect that the whole lot of them could have tea in a phone booth and still leave room for Superman to put on his tights.
When I saw the correct usage of begging the question I nearly fell off my chair. If I'm not dreaming, then thank you for making my day with your very intelligent contribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Re the sig, may I assume that the spelling and grammer Nazis of whom you speak gather up inept writers and place them in trucks that will gas them to death in time for their arrival at a crematorium where their bodies are burned after any teeth with gold fillings have been extracted? Perhaps Nazi is not the ideal term for this crusade of yours. Since the real ones killed most of my family, using them to bolster a campaign in support of sloppy and ambiguous writing is an idea that I find puzzling at best, especially coming from someone as clear and eloquent as yourself.
This may not be all bad but I don't advise any holding of breath. We have some insightful comments, yet judging by the scores, the moderators know nothing about economics or monetary policy. This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that it is not generally taught. The accepted belief system for most citizens is that money came from God or the Big Bang and as populations grow and society becomes more complex, we have to do more and more with a fixed amount of money, necessitating a sort of social, economic and environmental triage. What makes this silly model even sadder is the implicit assumption in all discussions of cost, that money once spent is simply gone. This is clearly contrary to everyday experience, yet we as a species simply don't often make these connections without serious study once a belief system is established and widely held. Sorry guys, but it is a fact that when the human resources, raw materials and infrasructure are available, then claims of a government being unable to afford something it purports to want or that the citizens want, is nothing more than Orwellian doublespeak meaning "We don't want to do that." The struggle to get by in a world of limited money helps keep people off the backs of the unelected real government that detests and fears democracy. Who has not noticed how infrequently the elected government does what was promised in the election campaign? Look into this or struggle, fight or pray for more money. When can we move on? The choice is up to us.
You're a good man Simon, and we're on the same side. I have a few quibbles, however. Less Nobel Prize winners? That does rather suggest that they are measured by weight or volume. Surely we are not there yet. How about fewer Nobel Prize winners? Even I can understand that.
Economics a science? Equations do not a science make. It's a sincere undertaking by some economists but for many others it's voodoo used to justify the self-serving political decisions of their employers. These are the people comfortable with poisoning air, water, and soil because they did not pay for them, so they have no value that appears on a balance sheet and thus no value at all. The term for these irrelevancies is "externality". Still think it's science?
The current account deficit is a serious problem but not a huge crisis like multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis may soon become. We are encouraged to think of money as a precious non-renewable resource that makes human life on earth possible. If or when we spend it all, we all die. Obviously not. It's merely an invention of man, basically bookkeeping. We might make a huge mess of our finances but ultimately, our fate and quality of life depend on how we use our skills and resources, not solely on an abstract, comparatively recent phenomenon like money. If you are interested in money you might check out Michael Rowbotham. He is a schoolteacher and an all-around nice young man who has this stuff down pretty well so I don't have to go on about it and confuse everyone.
As for the atheist fanatics, I suspect that the whole lot of them could have tea in a phone booth and still leave room for Superman to put on his tights.
Be well, fellow Slashdotters, and stay involved.
When I saw the correct usage of begging the question I nearly fell off my chair. If I'm not dreaming, then thank you for making my day with your very intelligent contribution.
God bless you. I'm glad someone else cares.