Ray,
Interestingly enough, I first began to understand grammar by learning
French, which language, if nothing else, does pay attention to the use of
words.
What you wrote illustrates my point on establishing the meaning of the
words we use. You obviously haven't a clue as to what I was saying, though
as always you write with great flair. You are always good to read.
Yet, when we are trying to think things through, when we are trying to
trace a reasonable path to a worthwhile end, it is vital that we use the
same words to mean the same things.
Obviously, communicating with others is a primary reason for defining our
concepts. However, if we don't get these simple terms straight in our
minds, our own reasoning abilities may be compromised.
On the other hand, in your line of work the language is everything. If
every member of the Magic Circle had a different interpretation of the
musical language they read - or hear from you - what a mess you all would
be in. (I'm sure at times you may think that is happening!)
Any science dealing directly with people has a terrible task. You can't put
people in test tubes and experiment with them as you perhaps can do with
the subjects of other sciences.
You have to observe - and hope you won't mess up the observation by being
part of it. Over generations, the classical thinkers found their basic
concepts and stuck labels on them. Henry George's great advance was not
land-value taxation, but his fine tuning of the basic concepts to make them
mutually exclusive.
If this is not done things can be in more than one classification and it is
impossible to think clearly. As is evidenced by modern economists, not only
by their fuzzy definitions, but by their propensity to add new and more
convoluted terms at the drop of a hat.
This is why, although their as many opinions as there are economists,
no-one really seems to know why we've had this 10 years or so of an
advancing economy. Nor do they know why, last year, it began to get fragile.
Not a clue!
Now we are supposed to "spend ourselves out of recession". Have they
forgotten how to laugh at themselves?
But, I scratched you when I pointed out that politicians take money from
the people and give it to the arts and that it was wrong. So, you pointed
to the fragility of support for the arts. Essentially, you are saying that
it might be stolen money, but it was given in a good cause.
On the other hand, some 79% of the Federal Budget consists of transfer
payments - that is they are taken from one and given to another - that's a
description of a privilege and it's criminal.
So, whatever amount goes to the arts is piddling against the total give-a-way.
On the third hand - but this is getting zen like, The people who will fill
the Magic Circle with enthusiasm are now out there in Mary Worth country.
Don't knock them, We just have to get them from there to here - and it can
be done.
Harry
__________________________________________________
Ray Evans Harrell wrote:
>I'm sorry I got into this. It is so simplistic as to be errant nonsense.
>Harry how can you utter such platitudes? Haven't you ever heard of
>television advertising? We have been dumbing down the market for so long
>with our ads that serious quality is possible only for the leisured.
>
>That is not the case in Milan where the local communist tailor still
>understands the difference between an upbeat and a down beat chord in stark
>contrast to even our "artists" who record many of the hits today. Perhaps
>you can justify this pap but I cannot. It is also surely not the same
>with the former communists who come here to make fools of our audiences and
>earn a little easy cash at our expense. This is embarrasing. I'm not an
>economist but even I can see through this garbage.
>
>Words are complicated Harry unless you know only one meaning and then they
>only seem simple. On the other hand no one seems to know the way out of
>the competition between TV advertisement sitcoms and Eugene O'Neil. Out in
>bible land they still follow the great philosopher Mary Worth. I can
>assure you that those magnificent young people who were sacrificed on
>September 11th were not of that ilk. My students taught some of them and
>they will be missed. I'm wasting my time here.
>
>You have to learn to speak French before you can decide the meaning of the
>sentence. Up until that time, what you want is impossible to know and that
>is what is wrong with your bazaar. Unfortunately there is a great deal of
>difference between the bazaar and today's market in spite of the coneheads
>who run it. Do not answer this!
>
>REH
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Ray Evans Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 12:35 PM
>Subject: Re: Classical Political Appendixes and other etc.s and the other
>Friedman.
>
>
> >
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> > "I'm afraid that it happening is about as likely as Senator Jesse Helms
> > writing an article defining artistic ideals and the way that America could
> > develop a serious economic program for the funding of the arts. In spite
> > of what the supply and demand folks say about such funding, the current
> free
> > market has been an unmitigated failure in such things, indeed in funding
> > anything that derives its motivation from inner quality and exceptional
> > exploration or innovation."
> >
> > HARRY: All you are saying, Ray, is that the free market - decisions made
>by
> > people - follows the wishes of people not to give money to the arts.
> > However, political leaders who are obviously superior to the great
>unwashed
> > outside the Beltway are prepared to give the money of the great unwashed
>to
> > finance artistic things.
> >
> > The free market cannot be a failure. All it does - if it's allowed - is to
> > record the desires of the people, You may not like their decisions (I may
> > not like their decisions) but if we are supposed to be "democratic", we
> > should listen to what people want.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Instead we get Land, Labor, Capital and Wealth. And "Man seeks to
> satisfy
> > his desires with the least exertion." I think Parkinson's Law makes more
> > sense economically and when tied to the Peter Principle more represents
> > Democratic humanity than anything written thus far. PL ("Work expands to
> > fit the time allotted to it." & "People tend to rise to the level of
> > their incompetence." )"
> >
> > HARRY: I like both Parkinson and Peter, but they are discussing corporate
> > politics and not economics at all.
> >
> > The four categories - Land, Labor, Capital, and Wealth - are simply names
> > given to defined concepts. These four concepts cover everything in the
> > universe. It makes possible analysis of people's economic behavior - their
> > relationships and their relationship to the earth.
> >
> > The major problem in discussion is to make sure that all speak the same
> > language - that when anyone uses a term such as Land, or Labor, he is
> > talking about what I mean when I use Land, or Labor.
> >
> > Then, we can talk meaningfully to each other and work toward
>understanding.
> >
> > "Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion" is a description
> > of how Man behaves. It's actually the key to all progress. It's also
> > something formal to be aware of when one studies Man. Mostly, we know it
> > anyway because it's the way we act - and it's the way everyone else we
> > observe acts.
> >
> > Anyway, it makes a great initial Assumption for the study of Classical
> > Political Economy, which above all else is the study of human behavior.
> >
> > Harry
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
