Re: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:42 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> What exactly do you mean when you say "free markets reliably regulate >> prices"? > > Exactly what I wrote. So, meaningless. Or so broad as to have no useful meaning. > That hardly explains a sudden, huge increase in the price. Oil been coming down for several months now. > You obviously weren't in North Carolina, where stations were out of gas and > prices were the highest in the nation recently (and where my mother was very > happy to own a Prius). I've never been to North Carolina. But I'll bet there were either "price gouging" laws or credible threats to gas stations who charged prices that were said by some to be too high. > But what does that have to do with price regulation, > by market forces or otherwise? The prices coordinate the entire process I described. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
On 11/30/2008 5:30:23 PM, Dan M ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Rob wrote: > > > If physics were anything more than approximate, we would have final > > answers to all our questions. > > How? All physics does is model observations. Models make predictions. And over time models have made predictions with greater accuracy and that cover more situations that previous models failed. Mercury anyone? Models also allow us to re-create phenomena for our own purposes. > Physics was created out of > Natural Philosophy by tabling the question of the reliability of > observations. Which definition of "tabling" are you using here? > > Now, you can use the results of physics as a reliable model of what we > observe when you do metaphysics. But, it is a really really good idea to > not confuse when you are doing physics and when you are doing something > else. Otherwise you can wander off into the aether. :-) > I think the implication of what I wrote before is that for most of us there really isn't much of a difference. I would think it quite different when having a formal discussion. xponent Meta-Physical Conversions Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:42 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > If free markets reliably regulate prices, > > What exactly do you mean when you say "free markets reliably regulate > prices"? Exactly what I wrote. As a corollary, I am suggesting that the spike in oil prices was primarily due to non-market forces. > > I don't think there was any supply shock. But I have little doubt that > demand decreased with the world-wide economic slowdown. That hardly explains a sudden, huge increase in the price. From what I recall from college economics, decreased demand generally depresses prices, all other things being equal. > > One thing I know is that I have reliably been able to fill up my tank > wherever I have been in the US during the last year. Apparently the > market is doing a decent job of coordinating tens of thousands of > people to prospect for oil, extract the oil, transport the oil across > the ocean, refine it to the appropriate regional codes, transport the > gas to the stations, stock the gas, and dispense the gasoline I need > for my car, all without me having to wait in line or search for a gas > station that is not out of gas. That makes me happy. You obviously weren't in North Carolina, where stations were out of gas and prices were the highest in the nation recently (and where my mother was very happy to own a Prius). But what does that have to do with price regulation, by market forces or otherwise? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If free markets reliably regulate prices, What exactly do you mean when you say "free markets reliably regulate prices"? > Surely neither supply nor demand changed much in such a short > time. I don't think there was any supply shock. But I have little doubt that demand decreased with the world-wide economic slowdown. > I suspect that what we've seen in oil, > housing and other bubbles is that we have created a system that amplifies > fear and greed. One thing I know is that I have reliably been able to fill up my tank wherever I have been in the US during the last year. Apparently the market is doing a decent job of coordinating tens of thousands of people to prospect for oil, extract the oil, transport the oil across the ocean, refine it to the appropriate regional codes, transport the gas to the stations, stock the gas, and dispense the gasoline I need for my car, all without me having to wait in line or search for a gas station that is not out of gas. That makes me happy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
Rob wrote: > If physics were anything more than approximate, we would have final > answers to all our questions. How? All physics does is model observations. Physics was created out of Natural Philosophy by tabling the question of the reliability of observations. Now, you can use the results of physics as a reliable model of what we observe when you do metaphysics. But, it is a really really good idea to not confuse when you are doing physics and when you are doing something else. Otherwise you can wander off into the aether. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
On 11/30/2008 2:26:19 AM, Ronn! Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> At 08:25 PM Saturday 11/29/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
>
> >(Although to be fair, classical mechanics does sum up pretty well what
> >we see on our scale.
> It's just right for the wrong reasons, is all. :)
>
>
>
> Why is it "for the wrong reasons"? Some would say that if it leads
> to predictions which match the observations closely enough to be
> useful, it's
> good enough, at least in the limited range of
> observations of interest where it is applicable ("our scale"), and
> matching or not matching observations of reality is all that makes a
> model "right" or "wrong." No one except a theoretical physicist is
> going to devote such huge amounts of computation time to a real world
> problem where classical mechanics gives a good enough answer to
> predict frex whether a building will stand or fall or whether a space
> probe will successfully land on Mars or crash or miss the planet
> entirely . . .
>
Actually, I think you are both right in some respects.
All of our maths concerning physics (to any degree) are no more than
approximations. It just depends on how exact an answer you require to solve
a problem reliably.
If physics were anything more than approximate, we would have final answers
to all our questions.
xponent
Masters Of The Universe Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
At 08:25 PM Saturday 11/29/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
>(Although to be fair, classical mechanics does sum up pretty well what
>we see on our scale. It's just right for the wrong reasons, is all. :)
Why is it "for the wrong reasons"? Some would say that if it leads
to predictions which match the observations closely enough to be
useful, it's good enough, at least in the limited range of
observations of interest where it is applicable ("our scale"), and
matching or not matching observations of reality is all that makes a
model "right" or "wrong." No one except a theoretical physicist is
going to devote such huge amounts of computation time to a real world
problem where classical mechanics gives a good enough answer to
predict frex whether a building will stand or fall or whether a space
probe will successfully land on Mars or crash or miss the planet
entirely . . .
. . . ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
