On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:36 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We rely on markets to be regulatory mechanisms, feedback loops
that reward the efficient and penalize the inefficient.
What an egotistical
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Williams
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:40 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of a system is not the same as what it produces.
If it were, buying a word processor would make you a novelist.
More egotism. Everyone in the markets must do what Nick wants them to do!
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is where you differ with 96% of people. Most people don't worry about
the purity of the economic system. They worry about their lives and the
lives of the other people in the nation and the world.
I am not worried about the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Williams
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:15 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, as members of that society, we on Brin-L choose to debate what is best.
That's not egotism.
Of course debating is not egotism. But saying that everyone
participating in a market must serve the purpose you want them to
serve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Williams
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:24 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of a system is not the same as what it produces.
If it were, buying a word processor would make you a novelist.
More egotism. Everyone in
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I was asking simple questions about techniques. Discussions between
people on a paper, results, etc. depend on agreement on techniques for
evaluation. I asked whether you agreed on a few essential techniques of
empirical
- Original Message -
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I was
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM, xponentrob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The rest of us are laughing too, but for different reasons I'm sure.
I certainly am, without even checking all the references.
xponent
Myth-Adventure Maru
rob
___
John Williams wandered around the point:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's not the point being argued. You see, all but a few people
understand
that money is a placeholder; it is a social construct. Numbers in a
computer or pieces of paper with
John Williams wrote:
No, you were rambling on with nonsense, failing to address a single
argument in the Higg's paper.
Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion. But, I have two
obvious comments on the Higgs paper.
First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from
First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from the depression
under FDR is falsified by historical data. 33-37 was the best rebound
since yearly records were kept. (1880).
Whoops, that should be `1870. And, with the Civil War and all, one really
needs to go back to before 1860
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion.
You do like trying to impose your rules on others, don't you.
First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from the depression
under FDR is falsified by
http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/
excerpt:
The best thing you can say about libertarians is that, because their
views derive from abstract theory, they tend to be principled and
rigorous in their logic. Those outside of government at places like
the CATO Institute and Reason magazine are just as
You are just trying to rationalize taking wealth from others
because you think you know how to spend it better than they do.
As it happens, I think I do know how better to spend some peoples money
than they do themselves.
If that's someone's only objection to taxation then they can rest
17 matches
Mail list logo
