Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All right, then let me suggest the logical conclusion. You disagree both with progressives and with those who are calling themselves "conservatives" these days. Your beliefs and attitudes generally fit the dictionary definition of "conservative": a defender of tradition and someone distrustful of radical change (of any kind). Since you are a conservative, and you disagree with those who are calling themselves "conservatives" these days, is it not a logical conclusion that they are NOT conservatives?

All of these labels are fuzzy and can have different meanings to different people. Clearly by your definition, the Tea Party is not conservative and I am. Fine.

No matter how you label me or them, I still have to decide who to vote for. Who is better and who is worse? The labels are only marginally helpful in doing that.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

All of these labels are fuzzy and can have different meanings to different people. Clearly by your definition, the Tea Party is not conservative and I am. Fine.

No matter how you label me or them, I still have to decide who to vote for. Who is better and who is worse? The labels are only marginally helpful in doing that.

True. But take it one step further. The labels are only important as a convenience. The important thing is that these are people you do not agree with. In fact, my thought is that the people you probably come closest to agreeing with are the conservative Democrats, people such as Ben Nelson and (although he's not a Democrat) Joe Lieberman. Or for that matter, Obama in terms of his governance (not his rhetoric).

Set aside voting for the moment. Consider the proposals that have come out of the House since last January, including:

Replacing Medicare with a voucher system for private insurance
A balanced budget amendment
Cutting top marginal tax rates to 25%
Ending or defunding enforcement for environmental regulations, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
Amending the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage

Those are just off the top of my head. How much of that would meet your approval?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

True. But take it one step further. The labels are only important as a convenience. The important thing is that these are people you do not agree with. In fact, my thought is that the people you probably come closest to agreeing with are the conservative Democrats, people such as Ben Nelson and (although he's not a Democrat) Joe Lieberman. Or for that matter, Obama in terms of his governance (not his rhetoric).

Set aside voting for the moment. Consider the proposals that have come out of the House since last January, including:

Replacing Medicare with a voucher system for private insurance

In favor but would prefer single payer if that were an option. Basic reason to be in favor is to protect solvency in the future.

A balanced budget amendment

Tough one. Depends a lot on the language but probably against.

Cutting top marginal tax rates to 25%

In favor if it meant ending all deductions.

Ending or defunding enforcement for environmental regulations, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act

Against.

Amending the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage

Against

Those are just off the top of my head. How much of that would meet your approval?

Keep in mind I voted for Bush twice and then Obama.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Replacing Medicare with a voucher system for private insurance

In favor but would prefer single payer if that were an option. Basic reason to be in favor is to protect solvency in the future.

Isn't Medicare single-payer? If that is your preference, why would you be in favor of replacing it with a voucher system?

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot....-resolves.html





Yea, let's cut the deficit, balance the budget and get back on the gold standard... and see if we can beat those historic dudes with bigger depressions! Ye-haw!

What an amazing graph. The High and the Awakening were the eras of economic and political self-restraint. Unique in our history since 1860 in fact. But as the song says. . .it's all over now. Wow. I have to say Bill Clinton looks awfully good on that graph too--better than LBJ when you factor out the war.

James is absolutely right that the Democrats didn't pass enough with their majority, although the Republicans didn't help any by making everything in the Senate take so long, which was their intention. That article we've all been reading by the retired Republican staffer did let the proverbial cat out of the bag. Make the government unworkable and then run against the awful government. So mature! Reminds me of what the SDS did to universities way back when.

Understanding gang mentality and why people join them

A gang mentality allows the individuals who are members to feel invincible, larger in importance and strengthened by the sheer volume of their number. The banding together of individuals who may alone be weak and ineffective becomes a collective force with a singular purpose, usually reprehensible, to exert their presence en masse. The mentality behind this is simple - in matters of violence or coercion gang rule cannot be defeated by a lone person or unorganized group. The overwhelming effect of the pressure exerted by gangs is not just in the areas of violence, it has a significant psychological impact on society in general and the community affected specifically...

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Just a thought. Only ignorant idiots manage to take what otherwise would be a legitimate comparison to one characteristic of Hitler into an OMG YOU'VE INVOKED HITLER type drama that raises everyones hackles.

I saw where Brian was coming from. That you didn't speaks to your inability to even debate on any kind of logical basis.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Comeon Suj. Summer is snotty and argumentative. This is not news, and the fact that many see it is not an example of gang mentality ... which you know all too well.

Yeah, but with me as part of the "gang," she has some difficulty acknowledging knowing it. Old story.

Thanks, The Rani. You helped me learn something.

.........
........
........
........

Originally Posted by The Rani

The best part was when Brian assumed it was all about HIM. I had no idea who was in the "gang," didn't even read that far back. LOL!

LOL

Originally Posted by Galen

I have read translations of Buddhist material and have come away with the impression that I was reading a scientific paper.

You are not the only one!

I am greatly amused by how the Right is going apoplectic over Jimmy Hoffa's remarks.

Apparently getting the pro-Labor vote out is "union thuggery" to those idiots.

Keep giving them hell, Jimmy!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Ah, postulating the zombie apocalypse, again?

Actually, I don't really see the hungry, thirsty city hordes etc ... what I see is people slowly getting hungrier and hungrier as the costs of food and energy go up, and hungry people filling in with food grown at home. We did it in World War II; the Russians did it throughout the Communist era and probably still do (Justin? Can you speak to this?) I know - the Apocalypse is a lot more sexy. But a slow racheting downwards is probably what we'll get.

Quite the contrary actually. Simply extending a proven model of historic human behavior out past a hypothetical "crash." People only tend to work together so far as the resources are there to support the basic needs of the group. If one assumes a given society will crash at some future point one has to recognize that cities (or any area with high population density like California) are entirely dependent on outside resources for survival. If the limited resource is food or water then you can guarantee all of those civilized city-folk will rapidly turn to theft and eventually violence. Now in all fairness, this behavior is not human specific. It's not a human thing, it's a nature thing.

As this particular discussion was California, I can assure you that the population in that region is completely unsustainable. In any sort of societal crash or resource crunch it is not a place anyone will want to be near. More rural areas however (and especially in the north where the winter climate is more harsh) is where you will tend to see more cooperation which is what I believe you are referring to. The resources are far greater for subsistence living; there are fewer people. People living in those areas will see a slower decline.

Resource limitations (which the human race is just beginning to bump up against) will create a push towards increasingly smaller groups and will be the inverse of what the recent years of abundant resource exploitation brought. Instead of local communities moving towards states, states moving towards nation-states and nation-states moving towards a global state, you will begin to see the breakdown of global and nation-states into ever-smaller communities. There probably is a point of equilibrium reached where things balance out (city-states perhaps) and human culture hovers just above or below subsistence living. It is not a bad future really. It's just that getting from here to there is going to be a very ugly business.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Isn't Medicare single-payer? If that is your preference, why would you be in favor of replacing it with a voucher system?

In an economic sense, Medicare as insurance for the elderly pours more gasoline on the fire. The fire is the fee for service system. Simply adding more money to it does not bend the cost curve. We are headed on a path for collapse. We need another way but the only way I see to get there is single payer. I suspect you are worried about universal coverage more than insolvency. For me it is the opposite. Show me how to solve the solvency issue and don't tell me we just need to raise taxes on the wealthy. There is more to it than that. Universal coverage does no one any good if the system is bankrupt.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

1. ACA
2. Dodd-Frank
3. Stimulus

These were major pieces of legislation passed with little or in the case of ACA with no Republican votes at all. That the democrats could not pass what you define as progressive is not the republicans fault. They had 60 votes for pete's sake. They could not agree. The Republicans especially in the house were just complainers.

James50

None of these is really a Progressive piece of legislation. At most, they are compromises. The ACA is a copy of the Mitt Romney plan. Dodd-Frank has no teeth, and is not likely to gain any through the rule-making process. The Stimulus was about 35% of what was needed and focused on tax cuts and subsidies.

Didi I miss something?

Originally Posted by The Rani

You have a fondness for telling me what I know or don't know, and also for calling me "Suj."
I think that both are really rude.

I expect I'll continue the former, but will conceed that one's name is his or hers alone, so I'll stick to Rani in the future.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Math has very little to do with economics, except as statistics about people. Economics is a study in human behavior, subject to all the uncertainties and inaccuracies of any such subject.

You are confusing modeling with processing. Modeling human behavior mathematically is actually quite easy (albeit very tedious). You brain does it every day. Scientists of course call it "modeling" but you will know it by another word: Empathy. The problem is that increasing complexity and variability creates an exponential increase in power needed to process the equation. Computer technology has not advanced that far. It may at some future point. Current computer architecture probably lacks the capability but quantum computer architectures (if we ever get them to work) could certainly run these sorts of simulations.

To explain it another way, here is a simple Computer Science 101 exercise. Imagine that you are attempting to give instructions to a robot how to turn 90 degrees to the right and walk out of a door. This is something you do every day and it is not particularly difficult to model, but stop and think about it for a moment. You cannot simply tell the robot to "turn right." A robot does not know what this means. You must first define "turn right" in a way that the robot can process. Literally you must tell it which joints move, how far, for how long. Again this is not hard to define, simply tedious due to its complexity. This complexity requires certain processing abilities.

Everything can be broken down mathematically (including human behavior) Eric because everything is mathematical. There is a mathematical equation that perfectly defines the tree in your back yard and even one that defines your behavior, your family's behavior, your neighbor's behavior, your car, your street, the earth, the solar system, galaxy and the universe from super-massive black holes to the atoms in your body. The shortcoming we have generating answers for these equations is not found within the model but within the process.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You are confusing modeling with processing. Modeling human behavior mathematically is actually quite easy (albeit very tedious). You brain does it every day. Scientists of course call it "modeling" but you will know it by another word: Empathy. The problem is that increasing complexity and variability creates an exponential increase in power needed to process the equation. Computer technology has not advanced that far. It may at some future point. Current computer architecture probably lacks the capability but quantum computer architectures (if we ever get them to work) could certainly run these sorts of simulations.

To explain it another way, here is a simple Computer Science 101 exercise. Imagine that you are attempting to give instructions to a robot how to turn 90 degrees to the right and walk out of a door. This is something you do every day and it is not particularly difficult to model, but stop and think about it for a moment. You cannot simply tell the robot to "turn right." A robot does not know what this means. You must first define "turn right" in a way that the robot can process. Literally you must tell it which joints move, how far, for how long. Again this is not hard to define, simply tedious due to its complexity. This complexity requires certain processing abilities.

Everything can be broken down mathematically (including human behavior) Eric because everything is mathematical. There is a mathematical equation that perfectly defines the tree in your back yard and even one that defines your behavior, your family's behavior, your neighbor's behavior, your car, your street, the earth, the solar system, galaxy and the universe from super-massive black holes to the atoms in your body. The shortcoming we have generating answers for these equations is not found within the model but within the process.

I believe that Eric's spiritual-philosophical views lead him to reject any notion that the human mind can be analyzed mathematically.

I'm the opposite, but I still happen to reject Austrian School economics because IMO it is based on faulty and intentionally-biased assumptions. I reject Friedmanite Neo-Classical economics for the same reason. Humans are not rational utility-maximizers. Humans do not have infinite wants, advertisers CREATE unnecessary wants (*hears Friedmanites whine and about about me "making assuptions what wants are neccesary...*).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This may be a problem in southern CA, dependent on the Colorado River; but on the other hand, what if states like Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada join the blue state nation? Or what if southern CA joined the red state nation, for that matter?

Or what happens when folks in Colorado decide they don't like California diverting their water for agricultural purposes? Survival won't be a red or blue thing Eric. I know that will be a disappointment for some...

Limited water resources for the southwest will be a gigantic issue going forward and I do not envy anyone living in those areas should it ever come to a head. I consider myself very fortunate to live in an area with ample water resources. I even have access to a fresh water spring that only 3 people on this entire planet know the location of.

Originally Posted by Odin

I believe that Eric's spiritual-philosophical views lead him to reject any notion that the human mind can be analyzed mathematically.

I'm the opposite, but I still happen to reject Austrian School economics because IMO it is based on faulty and intentionally-biased assumptions. I reject Friedmanite Neo-Classical economics for the same reason.

He can reject it if he wishes though I would find that position rather ironic as he also happens to be of the belief that human behavior can be analyzed based on the position of the planets.

Presidential debate among Republicans:

1. Newt Gingrich showed himself as slick as he was in the 1990s, but he is the equivalent of a baseball team deep in the cellar of a division that starts playing well after it is twenty games out with thirty to play. He did not become relevant again; it's just too late for that. His only chance is if he is a choice made in the proverbial smoke-filled room.

2. Jon Huntsman looked and sounded reasonable. Of course that is not enough for the Republican Party. He could be setting himself up for 2016 after an Obama landslide, his best hope for ever becoming President.

3. Rick Santorum proved irrelevant. The pink tie? Who gave him that idea?

4. Ron Paul has some agenda other than winning the Presidency -- like getting influence within the Republican Party.

5. Michele Bachmann has probably been knocked out. If she can't hold her own in contrast to fellow Republicans, and can't deal with the hard questions of Chris Matthews (yes, he is tough and biased, but everyone faced him) and looked like a little-league batter who has faced Justin Verlander three times and looked bad on all nine pitches that formed three strikeouts. She has a Congressional seat to defend, and you can be sure that the Democrats have her figuratively targeted. Her health will not be the issue.

6. Herman Cain showed why business executives and tycoons fail as Presidential candidates. Everything boils down to "what is good for business", but government is much more than the facilitation of commerce and industry.

7. Rick Perry showed himself a right-wing purist... he surely won over the Tea Party types who now have much enthusiasm and power. Confronted on whether there could have been any miscarriages of justice in the application of the death penalty in Texas he showed no doubt. More significantly, he asserted that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, denied the significance of poverty in Texas, and denied climate change.

8. Mitt Romney will win what remains of relative moderates within the GOP.

So it boils down to Perry vs. Romney in the primaries.

Originally Posted by James50

That the democrats could not pass what you define as progressive is not the republicans fault.

Not much; it's because the Democrats are not all progressive, while the Republicans ARE all regressive.

The problems in this country are mostly due to the weakness of the Left in this country.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You are confusing modeling with processing. Modeling human behavior mathematically is actually quite easy (albeit very tedious). You brain does it every day. Scientists of course call it "modeling" but you will know it by another word: Empathy. The problem is that increasing complexity and variability creates an exponential increase in power needed to process the equation. Computer technology has not advanced that far. It may at some future point. Current computer architecture probably lacks the capability but quantum computer architectures (if we ever get them to work) could certainly run these sorts of simulations.

To explain it another way, here is a simple Computer Science 101 exercise. Imagine that you are attempting to give instructions to a robot how to turn 90 degrees to the right and walk out of a door. This is something you do every day and it is not particularly difficult to model, but stop and think about it for a moment. You cannot simply tell the robot to "turn right." A robot does not know what this means. You must first define "turn right" in a way that the robot can process. Literally you must tell it which joints move, how far, for how long. Again this is not hard to define, simply tedious due to its complexity. This complexity requires certain processing abilities.

Everything can be broken down mathematically (including human behavior) Eric because everything is mathematical. There is a mathematical equation that perfectly defines the tree in your back yard and even one that defines your behavior, your family's behavior, your neighbor's behavior, your car, your street, the earth, the solar system, galaxy and the universe from super-massive black holes to the atoms in your body. The shortcoming we have generating answers for these equations is not found within the model but within the process.

This point of view you and Galen raise is more of a philosophical question, maybe not resolvable on this thread; that would be a long "process!" Obviously I don't see the world in the same way as you or Galen, as you both are quite outspoken to point out. There is truth in what you say, that the world is mathematical; but in my view that is only one of several perspectives on reality, and not sufficient in itself. Numbers are at bottom just symbols based on a view of the world as separate things, unless it describes instead the rhythms of life. To understand where mathematics fits in, you need to throw over the conventional materialist metaphysics, which I'm not sure either of you have done, and look to the Pythagorean and Hermetic traditions. But clearly humans cannot ever be understood as robots, because robots are programmed machines, and humans are free creative spirits. And no model however complex can ever be the same as the subject of the model, just as no map is sufficient to describe the territory it pictures.

The real issue Galen's post brings up, is that economics cannot be entirely or even mostly mathematical, because economics is about human behavior and the human factor. Humans can be studied and modelled, including mathematically, but you can't understand humans from the standpoint of mathematics or materialist metaphysics alone. Brian Rush pointed out that such models are only correct to the extent they correspond to the "real world" which we know empirically. My point (and others here too I believe) is that this "real world" consists mostly of free human spiritual beings and their behavior, (though often addicted rather than free behavior), in interaction with others and with the environment. Galen pointed out the limits of calculating the economy. So economics cannot be a centrally planned model, nor a model that proves laissez faire either (Social Darwinism has been used to justify both). It can only create models of human behavior using all kinds of knowledge, and not just one kind.

It is interesting that two "libertarians" are arguing here for a materialist point of view which denies free will and seeks to explain human behavior instead as a cause-effect mechanical or mathematical process. The real "freedom" is not found in such "libertarian" theories like those of Mises and Ayn Rand, or in other such justifications for "free" unregulated and untaxed misbehavior by businessmen; but instead in a process leading to spiritual liberation such as Buddha pointed towards. As I understood it you and/or Galen have some interest in Buddhism. And there are authors who have written about Buddhist economics.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Or what happens when folks in Colorado decide they don't like California diverting their water for agricultural purposes? Survival won't be a red or blue thing Eric. I know that will be a disappointment for some...

You do have a cogent point there Copperfield (and your last post was good too, even if not in agreement with me). The red/blue divide won't answer the shortage of water in many places that is looming. Of course, global warming IS an issue causing some of this shortage; an issue which blue states address, and red states do not, and that's one major reason for the divide between us. But all over The West, it is true that too many people have come to areas whose resources cannot really support them.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

He can reject it if he wishes though I would find that position rather ironic as he also happens to be of the belief that human behavior can be analyzed based on the position of the planets.

Yes: Hermetic, Pythagorean, organic, holographic; not mechanical/deterministic. Numbers are rhythms and music, not things, and so is all the universe.

Here is a video that goes into this perspective a bit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This point (Copperfield) and Galen raise is more of a philosophical question, maybe not resolvable on this thread; that would be a long "process!" Obviously I don't see the world in the same way as (C & G), as you both are quite outspoken to point out. There is truth (to some extent) in ... that the world is mathematical; but in my view that is only one of several perspectives on reality, and not sufficient in itself. Numbers are at bottom just symbols based on a view of the world as separate things, unless it describes instead the rhythms of life. To understand where mathematics fits in, you need to throw over the conventional materialist metaphysics, which I'm not sure either of you have done, and look to the Pythagorean and Hermetic traditions. But clearly humans cannot ever be understood as robots, because robots are programmed machines, and humans are free creative spirits. And no model however complex can ever be the same as the subject of the model, just as no map is sufficient to describe the territory it pictures.

It would be offensive in the extreme to see people as robots except as participants in activities on a very large scale, as in traffic flow. Certain economic theories (of course Marxism is most blatant, but Rand/Mises libertarianism has the potential for much the same) have the potential of failing to recognize the quirky behavior of persons. Sometimes that quirky behavior can make huge changes in the behavior of us all. Economics cannot predict technological changes or cultural activity.

The real issue Galen's post brings up, is that economics cannot be entirely or even mostly mathematical, because economics is about human behavior and the human factor. Humans can be studied and modelled, including mathematically, but you can't understand humans from the standpoint of mathematics or materialist metaphysics alone. Brian Rush pointed out that such models are only correct to the extent they correspond to the "real world" which we know empirically. My point (and others here too I believe) is that this "real world" consists mostly of free human spiritual beings and their behavior, (though often addicted rather than free behavior), in interaction with others and with the environment. Galen pointed out the limits of calculating the economy. So economics cannot be a centrally planned model, nor a model that proves laissez faire either (Social Darwinism has been used to justify both). It can only create models of human behavior using all kinds of knowledge, and not just one kind.

Some things can be, but they are on the very low level of predictable response -- like reflexively removing a finger from an item too hot to handle. Geographical reality explains far more -- that an artist in Greenland is not going to paint scenes that resemble the South of France, and that people aren't going to raise rice in Alberta.

It is interesting that two "libertarians" are arguing here for a materialist point of view which denies free will and seeks to explain human behavior instead as a cause-effect mechanical or mathematical process. The real "freedom" is not found in such "libertarian" theories like those of Mises and Ayn Rand, or in other such justifications for "free" unregulated and untaxed misbehavior by businessmen; but instead in a process leading to spiritual liberation such as Buddha pointed towards. As I understood it you and/or Galen have some interest in Buddhism. And there are authors who have written about Buddhist economics.

Worth noting: no political system has ever been inspired largely by libertarian purists on economics. Nobody can be sure, any more than anyone could be sure of Marxism before 1917, that a political philosophy relying heavily upon Rand or Mises will not degenerate into some novel sort of tyranny. Libertarian purism requires suspension of judgment of the results of its imposition, and if it leads to results characteristic of feudal bondage for those 'incompetent' to thrive within the system, then such is the fault of the incompetent ones. Nobody can be sure. Socialism has been tested in various forms of communal living from monasteries to kibbutzim through various planned communities that reject private ownership of much of the productive resources. It could be that the most successful of communal arrangements have people of common heritage or confession... and are free of bureaucracy and the lust for status symbols. (It is also arguable that the Old Order Amish, who are not socialists, succeed at some measure of economic equity within their community because of a lack of bureaucracy and the irrelevance of blatant status symbols).

Marxism-Leninism never precluded bureaucracy any more than did capitalism at any stage; if anything what most find objectionable about American capitalism is the excessive rewards to bureaucrats that manifest themselves in flagrant 'status symbols' -- vacation houses, luxury marques of vehicles, high-priced jewelry, antiques, high-priced liquor, and lavish restaurants much as attracted the nomenklatura of a "socialist" state.

Oh yes -- something on Buddhist economics for your perusal:

http://laszlo-zsolnai.net/sites/defa...0corrected.pdf