I regard the expertise issue in economics as a form of censorship. / Archytas
Thank you, Archytas, for being "inclusive".... about expertise as a barrier.... but to a certain extent, expertise is also a requisite...Let's face it "ontologically" (by which I mean to say, as a matter of plain "fact"), "one" is better off asking an "expert" ( who definitely has a good chance at having the correct answer) than asking just a layman whose prospects of a probable (as in probability) successful diagnosis is.... less. So, I add that expertise also comes (or "should") with an "ethical" "professional" responsibility.... Can the "system" be turned more toward the "ethical".../ how.....More Sheriffs?....More Hangings? ... More Sheriff Hangings? On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 5:08:14 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > I can explain the hoarding in a more complex way. In history, people used > to hoard silver pennies. These days money is hoarded in stock markets, > bonds and property. This system might be OK, but has become a Ponzi > scheme. The returns from hoarding have been exceeding that from productive > investment like building factories or sowing seeds. This is largely > because banks do the investment. The issues seem much more connected with > social epistemology than economics or finance. In Nominal's terms, we have > forgotten what real is in nearly all economic discussion. I regard the > expertise issue in economics as a form of censorship. > > On Tuesday, 10 June 2014 16:13:42 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >> >> Hi Archytas.... >> >> >> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2090845-belmont-stakes-2014-breaking-down-most-shocking-results-from-third-jewel >> >> The #9 horse at Belmont came in "fourth", a tie with the #1 pick and >> prospective Triple Crown winner (who lost it), California Chrome... well so >> much for 9 being a lucky number.... it deems my luck goes up to #4, (HAR >> HAR HAR HAR)..... >> >> As for the rest of your post.... economics is not my area... it is yours. >> That's to say, the best I can do is ask you questions or for explanations. >> ... which I am quite willing to do, if you don't mind being the "brain >> trust" and ferreting out the... numbers and such.... >> >> Hoarding.... that's the main problem that I've been able to latch on to >> with any conviction about money... I saw it long ago... but most recently >> it has been spotlighted and demonstrated "economically" by a fellow named >> Picketty, I've been informed. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty >> I think that the general observation is valid... there is a lot of money >> in the hands of (90%) rich people that is being largely "hoarded" and is >> not being placed into circulation to create jobs, form businesses, spread >> about for general "economic" growth (as differentiated from, perhaps, >> "monetary" profit). >> What do you think of my thinking... Archytas.... and what can be done at >> any levels to try to rectify matters? >> >> >> On Saturday, June 7, 2014 5:20:47 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>> >>> Statistics have been reminding more of an old theme of ours Nom - >>> censorship. We have a '9' connection by the way - it was my best position >>> in rugby. As far as I can tell, scientists use numbers on a pretty fair >>> basis, at least until they become functionaries of business. Much of the >>> rest of number use strikes me as rhetoric connected with the abuse of >>> power. Numbers are often thrown about in argument that is really about >>> metaphor and myth. The censorship element seems to be that you can only >>> take part in the debates with the number skills, with such issues as why we >>> should allow those 'with the numbers' control and even restrict >>> participation on this basis. >>> >>> We seem to have lost any grip we may have had on convention. Money, foe >>> Aristotle, was a convention because we could choose to ignore it tomorrow. >>> These days, we know money (97%) of it is brought into being by banks >>> lending it at interest. We also know this doesn't have to be the case and >>> government could issue it debt-free. Government, of course, could be us or >>> a genuinely representative embodied form of us. There is some prattle >>> about on this called positive money or Modern Monetary Theory. I'm not >>> much concerned with the literature as the ideas have been around a long >>> time. The principle is really that we have ceded control of organising >>> capacity for no real reason. I currently think the mainstream insane and >>> don't know how to get the heresy across. >>> >>> The reasoning here is that we can do sensible stuff, like building green >>> energy capacity, or a new work ethic not related to fear of poverty and >>> real poverty. Numbers become lies in a virtual system with such as >>> unemployment at 6.8% but one in six men of working age with no job. This >>> is going on when we have technology (and real statistical method on >>> samples) that could let us report on what we are actually doing. Years >>> back, when we did the footslog version of what could now be online, we >>> found unemployment in Woking (leafy, well-to-do England) at 18% and 58% in >>> Govan (crap Glasgow). So what's the role of bullshit numbers in preventing >>> 'practical data'? A nominal problem ... >>> >>> On Saturday, 7 June 2014 17:33:37 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_of_Nine >>>> >>>> The gal had a rough time of it, the gentleman in me thinks (don't know >>>> why) that she deserved better..... >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Christie >>>> >>>> reminded me of Julie Christie...... >>>> >>>> This"numbers" discussion gets into the distinction between the >>>> "representational language" and the "thing represented".....in >>>> Mathematics, >>>> as in most all other "language" systems... people have a tendency to get >>>> caught up in the "language-formal" seeming connections between the >>>> numbers, >>>> and forget about the actual work that they (numbers) are supposed to be >>>> doing in tracking the behavior of the "things", themselves.... hence you >>>> get "statisticians" ( mostly in the "social" or "human" sciences) who look >>>> for "number trends" or formulas that could "logically" be extrapolated as >>>> "predictive" of certain results.....Like in economics.....sometimes the >>>> "formulas" aren't all that "sound"... other times, the "things" being >>>> counted just don't "behave" as expected, for their own reasons.....which >>>> the "math practitioner" did not take into account.... >>>> >>>> I think you and I are in pretty much agreement, Archytas... >>>> >>>> Odds.... on a horse race.... >>>> >>>> >>>> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2088263-belmont-stakes-odds-2014-final-predictions-on-latest-vegas-betting-lines >>>> >>>> Maybe I'll get "lucky" on No. 9...... >>>> >>>> On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:12:26 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The answer can be found here Nominal - >>>>> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/Digitsum0.htm - though we await, >>>>> in baited breath, for you to tell us what this has to do with the price >>>>> of >>>>> fish. Were you once 8 of 9 and hence on top of Seven (lucky man)? >>>>> >>>>> I have been thinking of late on the relations between anarchism and >>>>> science; specifically why economics is such obfuscatory rot. Anarchy at >>>>> its best seeks to remove mystification, and though science gets into >>>>> equations and numbers that get tough, these let us do things like firing >>>>> a >>>>> complex catapult build to Mars. Economics just seems to be a system that >>>>> tell us we can't do this and that because money will be screwed and >>>>> should >>>>> shut up when we can't talk in numbers and approved bible language. >>>>> Perhaps >>>>> endlessly repeating sums that add up to 9 will turn one economist? >>>>> Unless >>>>> one needs the initial condition of nominal9? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, 5 June 2014 23:17:44 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> examples: >>>>>> >>>>>> 9x1=9...9+0=9 >>>>>> 9x2=18...1+8=9anrchu >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 9x3=27...2+7=9 >>>>>> 9x4=36...3+6=9 >>>>>> >>>>>> etc. .... ad infinitum (?)though >>>>>> >>>>>> Is 9.... "nominal" number (?) .... HAR >>>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
