Not really

Post #164,249 by orion 7/13/04 3:41:48 PM Reply	Not really but what part of the Economics I cited were wrong? You've obviously made a reference to a fictational movie, while I am citing what one learns with a college education. So which one wins, the fact or the fiction? I ask you to stick to the issues, if I am wrong, show me why I am wrong and please provide details. Don't go off and hodgepoge me with illrelavant things, please. *"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* [link\|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268\|I am from District 268].
Post #164,304 by broomberg 7/13/04 8:00:41 PM Reply	It is a matter of tunnel vision You proved again and again that to are very good at absorbing and regurgitating facts and points of view. While I may consider you crazy, I've never doubted your intellect. But you tend to apply a fixed point of view without allowing for alternative reasoning. So you will hammer on it, but it is meaningless in the context of the discussion. In this one, I agree with Ben. There are alternative motivations that have nothing to do with economics of the Saudis as a whole, no NO economic theory, even if it is correct, can explain their actions.
Post #164,313 by ben_tilly 7/13/04 8:17:51 PM Reply	Ironically, I disagree with you... There are alternative motivations that have nothing to do with economics of the Saudis as a whole, no NO economic theory, even if it is correct, can explain their actions. Economics has well-established ways to model non-financial incentives that people value. A simplistic one is to assign a dollar-equivalent. For instance one could assign a dollar value based on the current value of Saudi investments, an estimated value of managing to remain in power, and an extremely large estimated value of remaining alive. Now the economic model that we have for the Saudis will show a desire to walk the tightrope until their lives come under serious risk, at which point they'll bail. The example may seem silly, but similar types of analysis are frequently done by economists who are trying to apply economics to public policy questions about things like the environment. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #164,316 by broomberg 7/13/04 8:34:40 PM Reply	Figures But assigning numbers just to force fit a model is the height of bullshit. It's no longer an "economic" model.
Post #164,318 by ben_tilly 7/13/04 8:53:25 PM Reply	Depends how you define economics Generally the professionals define it more broadly than the general public would. You can get a sample of different alternatives from [link\|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&oi=defmore&q=define:economics\|http://www.google.co...=define:economics] Of those the one that is closest to what I was taught when I took economics is, Economics is the study of how men and society end up choosing, with or without the use of money, to employ scarce productive resources that could have alternative uses, to produce various commodities and distribute them for consumption, now or in the future, among various people and groups in society. It analyzes the costs and benefits of improving patterns of resource allocation. Accounting for non-monetary considerations by assigning monetary equivalents is just an accounting trick. With this definition, doing so doesn't take you out of the realm of economic theory. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #164,320 by ChrisR 7/13/04 9:02:35 PM Reply	The economic/philosophy term of "Utility" comes to mind. Money is but one way to measure utility. Many economists (especially the Monetarists) think it's the only reliable gauge. Of course, the concept of money is also very fluid: M1, M2, M3, .... in banking terms, but then there's soft money like stocks, bonds, loans of various sorts... and failing that there's always barter (an ineffecient form of money).
Post #164,322 by ben_tilly 7/13/04 9:13:52 PM Reply	Exactly It's often ridiculous to think that way, but economists really try to when they tackle complex issues. Sadly enough, when things are complex enough that regular intuition fails, the ridiculous way is sometimes also the best way that we have to think about things. :-/ Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #164,321 by Ashton 7/13/04 9:09:24 PM Reply	Sadly, I find your disagreement implicitly supports -the notion that- there is ANY SENSE what-so-ever! to a materialistic culture's manic efforts to PUT NUMBERS on.. Everything willy-nilly, including the fucking ineffable 1) Believe in 'god'? 47 points 2) Believe in God? 53 points 3) Believe in a 'personal'-'god'? 56 points 4) Believe not in {yada}? -37 points per each variation 5) Believe in belief? .. 6) Believe in stupid multiple-choice questions? .. Do I gots ta quote Einstein re math/reality One More Time? [Or variants from the Prose Masters?] (That Econ carries this farce right into its spreadsheets is - perhaps all one needs to Know, in order to rank Econ a tad below 20th century newspaper 'astrologer' readouts.) Fie on thee, who hast not the excuse of even Disc-world special-ignorance. -66.63 points. (We at ETS measure our IQs to 4 significant figures, thankyouverymuch cha cha)
Post #164,820 by orion 7/16/04 11:59:42 PM Reply	All I ever asked was for real proof that the alternative reasoning was true. Show me the facts, the hard evidence, the proof of the alternative reasoning. All I've seen so far are unconvincing conspiracy theories, in fact that is all F911 really is, a conspiracy theory. Let us use some logic here. If George W. Bush is guilty of what the other posters are saying here, and what Moore said in F911, he would be impeached, correct? There would be credible evidence that Bush did wrong, and thus should be removed from power. Yet this never happened. Logically since it never happened, there cannot be any credible evidence to back up the claims. Hence, those other posters are guilty of what I have been accused of. Lying, manipulating, story telling, etc. To paraphrase Ashton's words Your lies are of the Microsofian level and boring to boot, you all suffer from an inferiority complex. I hold it in my views that the posts made here against Bush are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, to put it bluntly, bullshit. History repeats itself, Salem Witch-hunts, McCarthyism, now Moorism which some call Hatriotism. You can all speculate, assume, and gossip as much as you want, but until you can produce any credible evidence that leads to the impeachment of George W. Bush, I ask you nicely to STFU. *"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* [link\|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268\|I am from District 268].
Post #164,875 by broomberg 7/17/04 3:18:31 PM Reply	Hehe. Impeach Bush? With a Republican Congress? Here is a another area where your blinders won't let you see anything other than the silly little argument such as: If George W. Bush is guilty of what the other posters are saying here, and what Moore said in F911, he would be impeached, correct? I accept that Moore's film is filled with hyperbole. It is a propaganda film. So what? The man hears God tell him what to do and he does it. He has stated this publicly several times. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer\|http://www.washingto...?language=printer] President Bush had told him this: " God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." HE IS INSANE. If someone with a lot less money and connections said the same thing, they would be locked up for the protection of themselves and others. Instead, this guy orders the armed forces to go kill people and to die for his beliefs. But no, he will never be impeached. Political reality won't allow for that. So you setup a straw man. It is a bullshit argument. As least right now you seem lucid enought that I'm not worried about sending you off to kill yourself. Welcome back to the world of semi-competency.
Post #164,910 by ben_tilly 7/17/04 10:31:00 PM Reply	Logic is the path from assumptions to conclusion Your basic assumption is that a President who acts badly will be impeached. I firmly disagree with this assumption. In a point in time where you have hard-line Republicans in control (even if by small margins) of Congress, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, it would take truly extraordinary evidence to start impeachment proceedings against the President. Furthermore it is not at all clear that it is an impeachable offence to have a President who is motivated by a desire to maintain a relationship that historically has been of great benefit to the USA. As for your requested facts and hard evidence, you're setting a double standard. Your theories, even when they contradict available evidence, do not require facts. Anyone else's theories must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. As I pointed out in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=164279\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=164279], your theory has yet to be reconciled to the fact that the man who arranged for 9/11 to happen was funded by Saudi oil money, and the majority of the hijackers were Saudi citizens. Explaining that is easy - but you need to have a model of Saudi Arabian behaviour that is more complex than their being a rational actor out for their own economic best interest. Of course that simplistic model is exactly what your theory is based on. And right now you're rejecting the complication that I offered, which is that the leaders of Saudi Arabia are trying to balance the internal forces that they need to satisfy to remain in charge of Saudi Arabia, and thereby continue generating oil profit, and the value of investments that are external to Saudi Arabia. This is a fairly reasonable complication. It doesn't even contradict your theory of human behavior - they are still motivated by their own economic self-interest. However by being put in a more complex situation, they are forced to play a balancing act where, though they wouldn't intentionally destroy the US economy, could make a serious mistake. You haven't offered any evidence against this hypothesis. You have igored evidence for it. As far as I can tell, you haven't shown enough interest to read up on the Wahabi faith. You haven't seen it important to comment on how extreme the religious laws in Saudi Arabia are. These are signs of the internal forces that I mentioned. People who believe in beheading a girl for flirting with a guy are unlikely to have warm fuzzies for the USA. People like that who're given money could well act against US interests. Yet Saudi Arabia gives money to people who're exactly like that - in fact they run the state religion! If you wish to reject my hypothesis that these religious extremists have political influence in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi leaders need to placate them to continue profiting from oil, then I'd like an alternate explanation of why the Saudi government gives them substantial sums of money. A fact that is easy to verify if you wish to. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #164,928 by Ashton 7/18/04 5:40:02 AM Reply	Verily I say, thou hast the Patience of Job.. or was that Steve Jobs, when remonstrating with The Beast (about what 'intellectual property theft' might mean, in practice). Surely a similar chasm?
Post #164,822 by orion 7/17/04 12:17:41 AM Reply	I consider that a cmplement in a way I also consider myself crazy, and I am working with my Doctor and Social Worker to see what I can do about that. I found, as far as college goes, that I have a John Nash complex working for me. My memory and concentration problems make it hard to understand the material, but my schitzoaffective disorder kicks in and my alter ego "Orion" helps me out. I start having racing thoughts that give me the answers to the questions thrown at me. Vary rarely is a case like this a good thing. So far it has earned me a 3.9 GPA, and my instructors tell me if I can improve my grammar and English I might be able to get some papers published. I found I am a nonmainstream economist, perhaps a neoclassical. I am alreading coming up with theories, like one that shows a relationship to outsourcing and the price of gas and oil. As we grow the economies of China, Russia, India, etc, they consume more oil and gas, hence driving up prices slightly. Apparently outsourcing is a factor, not the only one mind you, but can account for a small price raise of the gas and oil increases. Hence I found a downside to outsourcing. Economics was not meant as a true science, nor do I claim it to be so. Adam Smith was a philosopher, to me, economics is more of a social science. I suppose one could call it a pseduo-science. Economics is more than about money values, it is about resources, government involvement in the economy, supply and demand, unemployment (which is a social problem, by the way), human behavior, it even has a pollitical aspect to it, and more. Models are used, and in a way, this is how science enters the economics study I quote J. M. Keys, "Economics is the science of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of chosing models which are relevant to the contemporary world." Perhaps if Mr. Keys is correct, economics is part science and part art. I had asked for a scientific alternative to economics, yet I do not believe one was given. Until we invent one, we shall continue to use economics in our world. I never claimed to be an expert at economics, in fact I said I was talking from a college level course in economics. So far I have only earned a 96%, but the economics class is half over. *"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* [link\|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268\|I am from District 268].
Post #164,856 by broomberg 7/17/04 12:19:16 PM Reply	Enjoy [link\|http://www.un-official.com/GWH/GoodWillS.html\|http://www.un-offici...WH/GoodWillS.html] Search for this string: "Hey, I'm the last guy to want to talk"
Post #164,887 by n3jja 7/17/04 5:15:24 PM Reply	BTW "What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element" Leelu said that line, not Corbin Dallas.

Welcome to IWETHEY!