'Human Events', eh?

Post #333,857 by Ashton 10/8/10 6:08:44 AM Reply	'Human Events', eh? And quoted as-if any sort of credible source. You and My Gramma have more in common than (even) I suspected. I had thought that The Shadow was the main force which ..could cloud men's minds because: The Shadow Knows ..what evil l u r k s in the human mind. [Really: it's in his very Intro.] But it appears that the entire assiduous-study of the hoary, dysfunctional / incapable-of-prediction body of work called Econ: really challenges his assertion. (You don't have to make this stuff/conjecture up ... Human Events specializes in that very thing.) As it did in days of yore, when the Birchers were young and irresponsible. Now, they're Old and ... My Gramma's dead. So, they still have a lot in common with her: You can't get more Reactionary than post-demise. Carrion.
Post #333,871 by beepster 10/8/10 10:01:02 AM Reply	Ah, I see I post 3 articles, all saying essentially the same thing, you see one you don't like and make all sorts of inference. Figures. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,041 by Ashton 10/12/10 1:41:48 AM Reply	Sorry. But.. I've found that the plethora of Econ Theories (seems every Prof. loves a Different one) reminds of the hoary Rulez for Latin declensions -- and much too often each theory is stated didactically: as. if. its exact-application possessed the regularity/reproducibility of say, a funnel-sort algorithm(?) And they don't. Possess any regularity, despite the multiple-qualifiers and oft vague [referents] for the newest buzz-words introduced. As different as Jung VS Maslow (VS Wilhelm Wundt, who may have started the whole panoply of psych theorists.) Since no wide-scale 'experiments' are possible, too-many thousands of hand-crafted words are created, then embraced and ... are seen eventually to have had an expiration-date. Usually missed by the acolytes. Will these folks ever get it Right? F=MA still works and pretty-likely will continue to. Who wants to memorize the koans of some Windoze model, knowing fershure that all the menus will have even cutesier labels ..in the Next version? ..hence my inferences. Simpler version, if orthogonal The entire concept of wealth is manifestly a psychological concept and only can it become ~~ 'quantification-via-some-greed-coefficient' -?- in order to give an artificial Quantity to that greed. And all the rest is obfuscation, where someone imagines this ever could become some Exact ScienceÂ of Something. Mayhap societies could do something about where wealth fits into a life worth the living ... in English, hopefully very-good English [or any other human language]. But the numbers will always be fantastical chimeras , evading the actual matters worth exploring. So they don't Get Explored. Pity, that.
Post #334,086 by boxley 10/12/10 8:47:39 AM Reply	latin rules are quite clear, econ isnt http://www.math.ohio...d/lang/latin.html Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!