Quoting Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 10:30 PM -0400 4/21/01, Faustine wrote:
> >
> >Even if you don't, there are few things more useful than building up a
> common
> >terminology to use when trying to talk to (and learn from) people who
> really
> >know what's going on. You know, 'reading the background material'.
>
> I haven't found Samuelson's textbook useful for any of the
> interesting discussions of markets, black markets, offshore havens,
> alternative currencies, etc. in the past 25-30 years I've been
> talking about this stuff with people. Including with economists on
> mailing lists, and in person, and at conferences. Fact is, Samuelson
> is not a good source for these issues. And as James Donald noted, any
> of the basic ideas are also presented in the works of folks like
> David Friedman.
I never said he was a great source for these specific issues. I never even said
you couldn't eventually get the basic ideas in Friedman. What I am saying is
that if reading technical stuff in an econ textbook--(any textbook, doesn't
have to be Samuelson) helps you be able to know good analysis from junk
analysis, it's a good thing.
Dont misunderstand me: you can certainly disagree with good analysis. But
calling junk analysis valid just because you agree with its premises is
dangerous and counterproductive. I'd rather do what I can to avoid it.
> But, the issues is really about the "allocation of scarce resources,"
> Econ 1.
Sure this is a serious issue, but people have more time resources than they
think they do. Everything you ever do has its opportunity costs, but once we
really think about how we're choosing to spend our time, most everybody can cut
out some dead wood somewhere. If you can't answer both 'Are you enjoying it?'
and 'are you really getting something out of it?' then why bother. If you judge
that the payoff lacks in comparison to something else, then flush it. The only
thing that matters is that you thought about it first...
> Which reading list approach is more efficient:
>
> * Tim's reading list: A dozen or so readable books which members of
> the list really should be familiar with. To wit, Vinge, Card,
> Friedman, Stephenson, some Rand, some Heinlein, maybe some special
> interest excursions into Axelrod, Hofstadter, etc.
>
> * Faustine's reading list: Samuelson's textbook for econ majors,
> similar textbooks in physics and math, presumably. (Faustine's
> arguments apply to other fields: before mentioning the physics of
> chips, for example, and what this may mean for cryptography, read
> Sze's "Physics of Semiconductor Devices" and be sure to worth through
> the problems. After all, being able to calculate band-bending in an
> arsenic-doped substrate is crucial for discussing trends in computer
> technology!)
> We have both presented our approaches. Readers can choose whichever
> approach they prefer.
Woah there, back up jack: I never offer a counter-reading list for this group.
First of all, because I wouldn't presume to say I know more than you about
cypherpunk and what you're trying to do here. It's your sandbox, man. I came
here to play, not to lay turds in it.
But would you or would you not agree that people here ought to read 'Applied
Cryptography'? Functioning as something of a Crypto 101?
And if so, surely it isnt too far a jump to seeing the value in comparable
books for other technical subjects AS technical subjects, separate from their
idoelogical value or lack thereof. Oh, say, for instance, I dont know, to
choose an example completely at random, economics.
> >I just think it's important to get beyond the Libertarian Buzzword
> Bingo syndrome. If that's not where people are at, fine.
>
> Thanks for the gratuitous compliment.
You're welcome!!
~Faustine.
****
'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and
reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
