Some quick replies [reply] inserted below. ---------------------------------
Date : Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:10:00 -0400 Bill, My comments are in CAPs below:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:00:15 -0500 "William B. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wes, I've inserted some comments below:
From : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject : Re: offlist request, my offlist reply, WSB Date : Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:16:23 -0400 Bill,
I have wondered what I could contribute to your discussion of Say's Law or Kirchhoff's Law's with out finding an answer.
Why not find out by starting the inquiry on list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which is un moderated, does not have to much traffic, and to which we are both subscribed.
Lists Debt and [EMAIL PROTECTED] never distribute my posts, although I do receive their posts. --------------------------------- They cut me off a long time ago.
I am not subscribed to list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, can't handle the volume of chatter.
MY MISTAKE. I AM SUBSCRIBED, BUT IT IS OFF MY COPY LIST. NO POINT IN POSTING IF THEY ARE NOT DISTRIBUTED. [reply] Everybody already gets them, I am sure. I am trying to "shape" the archive so it is a resource. A dialog like this would be perfect for posting in that it would represent a dialog with the list subscribers.
--------------------------------- It has disintegrated. I don't think you'll see much chatter now.
Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> all seem to be open and reliable for such a discussion.
Of course, I am firmly of the opinion that "The Optimum Policy" (TOP) is the only topic of discussion which is worth discussing, but that topic is anathema to all mail list subscribers on the Internet. --------------------------------- Wes, the topic is not anathema, it's just that your manner of presentation is so irritating. And that you cross post. I get seven or eight copies every time you post.
i POST TO SEVEN AND ONLY FIVE DISTRIBUTE. PERHAPS YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED MORE THAN ONCE TO SOME LISTS? [reply] That's probably the case.
But then, You knew that when you replied to W. Curtiss Priest's message of 30 June 2003, Subject: Re: a cohesive group {was Fw: [SOCIAL CREDIT, A MATTER OF INTEREST], as follows:
Curtiss writes: 2. Mr. Ryan must come to grips with his need to "control" conversations and/or dissipate the discussion into minutia. -----------------------
[reply] Not minutia but key elements. Many of those who style themselves "social crediters" are in disagreement with Douglas on the key elements. I know, Curtiss, you don't believe in moderation and don't moderate your own lists, but this is a moderated list. I've not forwarded a great number of messages from people who just want to toot their own horns. For example, from Wes Burt, who regularly cross-posts the same message to multiple lists that he has repeatedly posted for several years with only slight variation. As soon as I didn't forward his latest slight variation he un subscribed--which should tell us he never intended to engage in a dialog but simply toot his own horn with the one note he has tooted for years. He is not the least bit interested in reading the messages that are posted by others. Not "control" but direct; I am trying to direct the conversation back to Douglas. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ End your reply to Curtiss ~~~~~~~~~
In my last note to Wally, I gave Douglas credit for being on the side of the Angles as far as his A + B theory was concerned. But now I notice a new burst of writing and conferences on a "National Dividend, or Universal Income Guaranteed, which may keep Mr. Douglas spinning in his grave for a few more years.
looking forward to the discussion of why Kirchhoff's Laws do not mandate the "Zero Sum Solution" taught at MIT. --------------------------------- What do you mean by the "'Zero Sum Solution' taught at MIT"?
TWO BOOKS BY LESTER C. THUROW, GORDON Y. BILLARD PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT AT MIT: THE ZERO-SUM SOCIETY, 1980, AND THE ZERO-SUM SOLUTION, 1982. TWO CLASSICS IN DEFENSE OF THE STATUS QUO. [reply] Then I take it you do not concur with the "zero sum" concept. But that's the concept embedded in Say's law.
You related Say's law with Kirchhoff's current law. Please describe how they relate.
KIRCHOFF'S LAWS ARE RULES FOR WRITING VALID EQUATIONS OF MOTION FOR THE FLOW OF FLUID, MONEY, OR OTHER INCOMPRESSIBLE MATERIAL THROUGH A NETWORK: [reply] Only through a circuit point, not a component or circuit. It moreover only applies to purely DC electrical--as opposed to electronic-- circuits--or comparable circuits that are more generally fluidic.
Think of a fluidic circuit, such as a pipeline from well-head to refinery. The pipeline contains a volume which is forever a subtrahend from circuit flow. But we disregard it because over time it becomes an ever decreasing percentage of total system flow. It is a "constant" that we factor out of our equations. The flow rate of inputs to the theoretically perfect pipeline will always equal the flow rate of outputs. But if the volume contained within the pipeline is a dynamic variable that equality cannot be the case. If the volume contained within the pipeline is increasing because the dimensions of the pipeline are increasing--length and diameter--the rate of flow into the pipeline will always *exceed* the rate of flow exiting. In such cases circuit "points" become "components." If we graph the inputs and outputs respectively on the same chart against time, we will see that the curves are most definitely not superimposed. That is because they have different determinants.
1, THE SUM OF POTENTIAL DROPS AROUND A CLOSED LOOP MUST EQUAL ZERO.
2, THE SUM OF FLOWS IN OR OUT OF A NODE, PLUS THE CHANGE OF INVENTORY WITHIN THE NODE, MUST EQUAL ZERO.
SAY'S LAW RELATES TO THE SECOND OF KIRCHOFF'S LAWS, BUT MAKES NO MENTION OF CHANGES IN INVENTORY WITHIN THE NODE, OR ENTERPRISE. NOR DOES SAY EXAMINE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MACRO MAGNITUDES OVER THE GEOGRAPHY OR POPULATIONS CONCERNED WITH THE MACRO MAGNITUDES, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. [reply] The enterprise is not a "node" but what in circuit theory we call a "nodality" or component.
---original message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: offlist Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:10:00 -0400
Bill, My comments are in CAPs below:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:00:15 -0500 "William B. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wes, I've inserted some comments below: > > > From : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject : Re: offlist request, my offlist reply, WSB > Date : Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:16:23 -0400 > Bill, > > I have wondered what I could contribute to your discussion > of Say's Law or Kirchhoff's Law's with out finding an answer. > > Why not find out by starting the inquiry on list > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which is un moderated, does not have > to much traffic, and to which we are both subscribed. > > Lists Debt and [EMAIL PROTECTED] never distribute my > posts, although I do receive their posts. > --------------------------------- > They cut me off a long time ago. > > > I am not subscribed to list > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, can't handle the volume of chatter.
MY MISTAKE. I AM SUBSCRIBED, BUT IT IS OFF MY COPY LIST. NO POINT IN POSTING IF THEY ARE NOT DISTRIBUTED. > --------------------------------- > It has disintegrated. I don't think you'll see much chatter now. > > > Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> all seem > to be open and reliable for such a discussion. > > Of course, I am firmly of the opinion that "The Optimum > Policy" (TOP) is the only topic of discussion which is worth > discussing, but that topic is anathema to all mail list > subscribers on the Internet. > --------------------------------- > Wes, the topic is not anathema, it's just that your manner of > presentation is so irritating. And that you cross post. I get > seven > or eight copies every time you post. > i POST TO SEVEN AND ONLY FIVE DISTRIBUTE. PERHAPS YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED MORE THAN ONCE TO SOME LISTS?
> But then, You knew that when > you replied to W. Curtiss Priest's message of 30 June 2003, > Subject: Re: a cohesive group {was Fw: [SOCIAL CREDIT, > A MATTER OF INTEREST], as follows: > > Curtiss writes: > 2. Mr. Ryan must come to grips with his need to > "control" conversations and/or dissipate the > discussion into minutia. > ----------------------- > > [reply] Not minutia but key elements. Many of those > who style themselves "social crediters" are in > disagreement with Douglas on the key elements. I > know, Curtiss, you don't believe in moderation and > don't moderate your own lists, but this is a > moderated list. I've not forwarded a great number of > messages from people who just want to toot their own > horns. For example, from Wes Burt, who regularly > cross-posts the same message to multiple lists that > he has repeatedly posted for several years with only > slight variation. As soon as I didn't forward his > latest slight variation he un subscribed--which should > tell us he never intended to engage in a dialog but > simply toot his own horn with the one note he has > tooted for years. He is not the least bit interested > in reading the messages that are posted by others. > Not "control" but direct; I am trying to direct the > conversation back to Douglas. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ End your reply to Curtiss ~~~~~~~~~ > > In my last note to Wally, I gave Douglas credit for > being on the side of the Angles as far as his A + B > theory was concerned. But now I notice a new burst > of writing and conferences on a "National Dividend, > or Universal Income Guaranteed, which may keep > Mr. Douglas spinning in his grave for a few more years. > > looking forward to the discussion of why Kirchhoff's > Laws do not mandate the "Zero Sum Solution" taught > at MIT. > --------------------------------- > What do you mean by the "'Zero Sum Solution' taught > at MIT"? > TWO BOOKS BY LESTER C. THUROW, GORDON Y. BILLARD PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT AT MIT: THE ZERO-SUM SOCIETY, 1980, AND THE ZERO-SUM SOLUTION, 1982. TWO CLASSICS IN DEFENSE OF THE STATUS QUO.
> You related Say's law with Kirchhoff's current law. Please > describe how they relate. > KIRCHOFF'S LAWS ARE RULES FOR WRITING VALID EQUATIONS OF MOTION FOR THE FLOW OF FLUID, MONEY, OR OTHER INCOMPRESSIBLE MATERIAL THROUGH A NETWORK:
1, THE SUM OF POTENTIAL DROPS AROUND A CLOSED LOOP MUST EQUAL ZERO.
2, THE SUM OF FLOWS IN OR OUT OF A NODE, PLUS THE CHANGE OF INVENTORY WITHIN THE NODE, MUST EQUAL ZERO.
SAY'S LAW RELATES TO THE SECOND OF KIRCHOFF'S LAWS, BUT MAKES NO MENTION OF CHANGES IN INVENTORY WITHIN THE NODE, OR ENTERPRISE. NOR DOES SAY EXAMINE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MACRO MAGNITUDES OVER THE GEOGRAPHY OR POPULATIONS CONCERNED WITH THE MACRO MAGNITUDES, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
REGARDS,
WES
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
