The anthropic principle, evolution and economics.

I don't think so in that I think economics is a science... and all tessie has done is polute it with his politics. I'm trying to talk about the science of it, as removed from it in terms of politics as I can make it. So it seemed to me you were trying to say you think that the entire potato is crap politics, which is why it seems we're not sayign the same thing.

Of course economics has a political aspect to it as policies are formed to implement it, but IMO, this policy must appreciate the reality of how the underlying systems behave... prior to applying the policies to implement it as to fail in doing so will inherently render the systems less efficient and as such, squander potentially valuable resources.

That is why tessies attempted dodge (paraphrasing):

"oh so you don't want to discuss anything can actually be applied"

... or whatever the shit he said is simply false IMO. "it takes time to move something from here to right over there (oh yeah muthafuckah, I'm gonna kick your fuckin deriere yeha yeyah. you broke rules, so now I pull out all your pubic hayahah hayaya eh ayare. (pardon, it was a (n AD) D moment))" is exactly applicable when in the context of economics.

Perhaps it was never presented to you properly. IMO, economics is the science of logistics, closely related to operations research in that sense. It studies systems that attempt to allocate resources to meet the demands placed on those systems by its components.

Then again, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Does the paragraph above seem political to you? If so then in your context your point holds, it's a bunch of political horseshit. I look at it as queues, distribution systems, etc. so to me it seems that isn't political.

To me, it seems that my opening post was steeped in an attempt to study the system... whereas tessie has let his bleeding heart spew on my thread. I should say however that it looks as if it weren't for his participation, this thread wouldn't have any legs at all. Perhaps that would be a good thing, I suppose that depends on how you looks at it. I suppose that's cool with me in that if nothing else there has been somewhat interesting interaction. Goddamn I'm fucking rambling again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fuzzy wuzz was all buzzy

Easy enough:

• The common theme has to do with efficiency. It's all about choices.

"Implies," Gendanken, is still an internalization insofar as your perception is concerned. To start with the basics--

--and then move on to the next level--

Some more on the context of myth in terms of scarcity°:

And here we run up against what had delayed me so terribly, the pursuit of the smallest reference. In the end, should it ever be of any use to you, I've actually transcribed the entire introduction to Jean Markale's The Celts. It is in his discussion of "Myth and History," in essentially framing the confines of his later examination, that he made some interesting notes that have, over time, worn away the confines of what I call "myth," with the effect of laying bare the skeletons of myths I always thought were quiet, decent neighbors who kept their lawns nicely and didn't bother anybody. I'll do what I can to keep the excerpt ... tolerable.

And hopefully, therein, you can find some context on myth.

In plain English? At some point, the abstract scarcity of economics is defined by the apparent fact of differentiation within the Universe. As Wes reiterates:

• It means "takes an effort to come by", even if that effort is so miniscule to seem automatic like breathing.
• A resource is not scarce if I can think of it, it appears immediately before me and that is the entire deal.

That second point especially, from earlier in the topic, not only draws an arbitrary line for not being scarce (thought is still an expenditure of resources), but does so in order to maintain the necessity of differentiation.

And to me that seems to make the abstract scarcity rather inapplicable in any practical sense, and reserved entirely to abstraction.

Which leads us to a point that Wes finds contentious, so I'll step off here and attempt to address a number of things from your post from so long ago that I haven't touched in the next round.

However, just to touch temptingly on one of them:

I won't, but in the same breath I dare you to make it relevant. Now ... before you rush off to do that, though--petroleum, the obvious one, is still a matter of politics and choices--let's put that one beside another of yours:

Judging by history, both ancient and modern, it will take an act of will to keep us on the planet for too long.

I point to pre-Columbian Europe. There was fierce competition for wealth going on according to some silly notion that there was only so much of it to go around. The philosophical discussions of economy started to work around this, and I figured Adam Smith would be a good milestone to mark that period, but apparently he's irrelevant to economics. But we're in a period where we create wealth, not fight over a pittance. The world has already learned that lesson once with geography, and as a CATO link I posted earlier in the topic suggests, we're going to learn it again in terms of our estimates of resource availability. And we're going to blow ourselves up long before we tap the planet's resources. We might ruin them--e.g. water--but the planet and its resources will most likely outlast us unless we get off the rock at some point. And when we do, we will have the knowledge to manage our growth to meet the opportunities presented by the resource abundance available to our will. Humanity evolves. (Which is the purpose of raising interplanetary and interstellar considerations to begin with. Just to point to a pattern. A very human pattern.)

Oh, yes, and it's probably a good thing I'm genetically predisposed against losing my hair. Or so I'm told, but I can't remember what the merit of such a claim is.

It's not so much that my head is big, but rather that it's fertile - you should see me grow hair.°
____________________

° context of myth in terms of scarcity - Remember that we're discussing here the context of the idea of myth. While it's nice to see the myth turn up in universities, it's true that I have no idea who Salvador Ferret Ferret is, aside from the author of a nearly-manic piece. Same with Roedy Green. I include the quote from the Lappes because F.M. Lappe is one of the authors of "Beyond the Myth of Scarcity," and seems to be one of the primary proponents of the term, though he works largely with issues of food distribution, and it would be unfair to automatically carry over his ideas into the realm of, say, petroleum without some consideration of how those ideas apply. These quotes are intended largely. Notice how the authors (excepting Lappe) focus directly on choices. ("result of a definition," "a certain irony" and "the role of the rich," I admit I wouldn't know what short bit to quote from Ferret; nor Green--the issue is thematic to the quotes.)

° grow hair - Let's see who the first to jump on the obvious one is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's enough to deal with there ... I'm sorry to take the whole thing as a block, but . . . .

The big catch comes when we look at the "globalized world dying to be just like us." I don't argue the numbers, but rather the necessity of the outcome. Yes, this is the way it will go, but who says this path is right?

This is where the ideas of demand, desire, and need come in. Demand in economic terms is defined by desire, and ignores need.

"Dying to be like us" is apt enough to be a bumper sticker; overconsumption, resource mismanagement--which in itself constitutes a choice to not utilize available resources . . . we need not cut out all extraneous desires by any means; desire is the sweetness that makes any dose of life go down better. But from the economic paradigms we recognize, the utmost expression of human efficiency is a system which depends on accumulation for the sake of accumulation and gives no regard to necessity except to demand a certain portion of the population exist arbitrarily without access to certain resources--e.g. live in poverty.

Two billion people live in this world without access to clean drinking water. This isn't because there's not enough water on the planet, and it's not even because "so much of the water is polluted." Certainly, pollution is problematic, but there are places in the world where the choices people have made in matters political have resulted in the elected failure to extend resource utilization (e.g. water technologies) into the region.

Michael Moore, in Dude, Where's My Country? puts out a wild and nearly irresponsible dialogue about petroleum, but buried within the rhetoric is a litany of products that depend on petroleum not just for the components of their manufacture (e.g. lubrication, fuel) but as ingredients to the product itself:

Some of that stuff we can get elsewhere. But we choose the fastest way, the cheapest way (an almost mythical measure in itself).

Additionally, there seems to be some gap existing insofar as how we move from the abstract scarcity that defines itself according to differentiation in the Universe and the scarcity that means some kid in Appalachia, or even in Seattle, goes hungry tonight. I would call it a difference of opinion, but we haven't yet moved the discussion to the point where those opinions come into play.
____________________

• Moore, Michael. Dude, Where's My Country? New York: Warner Books, 2003.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tess and Wesmorris:

I've got about 10 minutes before I must leave here so only know that I have at least read this and only if

One- I am not ridiculed for ill-skill in this field.
Two- referred to as princess (fuck you Tess)

Will I be more than willing to come back and post a reply.

Game?

 

"Demand in economic terms is defined by desire, and ignores need."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What?

"demand" doesn't give a shit about anything. it's just recognition that someone wants something. laws and the conscience of the individual establish the difference between want and need. you're still talking politics.

 

gendy, just post your shit for chrissake.

 

The fundamental goal of economics is not the most efficient allocation of resources but rather the establishment of a civilised and sustainable society. Granted, a great deal of economics deals with the allocation of resources for the sake of efficiency but an equal amount deals with issues of equity and the establishment of a just and fair society.

Yes, market forces and price are the best means to determine how resources should be used, but naked, unfettered competition will often lead to undesirable results:

1. In every society there is a need for so-called public goods -- eg, defence, law enforcement, roads, etc. Many of these goods do not offer a clear or quantifiable return in the short run and thus won't be provided by private enterprise.

2. Unfettered capital flowing in and out of countries can give bring down entire economies and thus societies -- eg, the currency crisis of the 1990s. (In a world with perfect and complete information, the problem mightn't exist but this isn't the case.) Without intervention from bodies such as the IMF countries could collapse into anarchy.

3. The philosophy of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- taken to the extreme cannot sustain a free, democratic society. Over time, as history has shown, the less fortunate will revolt and the government must then choose between suppressing the revolution by violent means or reforming their social and economic policies along the lines of John Rawl's social contract -- ie, the welfare state.

So, in conclusion, economics is not essentially about "the strong surviving".

 

Disagree:

The fundamental goal of economics is to describe systems of resources and how they can be / are allocated. The issue of whether or not a society can be civilized or sustainable is political in nature. Using the science of economics can help you determine if your society is sustainable. Determining if your society is civilized? Economics cannot help you there. Regardless, as a science, economics does not have an "active goal". The goal is descriptive, to create a tool for understanding something. "economics" does not care if you are fed or not.

I'd say if there were a myth regarding economics (as T keeps insisting), it is that it has "goals" other than to provide a tool for understanding and those provided it by individuals or organizations. Obviously, I think those goals belong to the realm of politics. It seems to me that it's important to be able to distinguish where the line between politics and economics lies.

Anything often leads to undesirable results, depending on your perspective eh? Naked, unfettered competition is naturally the most efficient means by which to distribute resources, but depending on your perspective, you might not like the results (as if you are not willing to murder, maim, etc. to obtain resources you'll likely die).

Governments set up the laws the govern resource allocation. Economic analysis can tell you if they're doing a good job or not based on your desired profit function.

Well if the governments laws suck or they cannot enforce them... there is a natural conclusion. Oh and of course if you run a system under constraints described by X and then X changed drastically in a very short time, you destabalize the whole thing.

Perhaps the myth is thinking of our resource exchange system as "the economy". Actually maybe that's fine, but we have to realize that this "economy" is shaped by "politics" and though the two are related, but very different things. Politics is an economic control system.. but not the actual economics. Politics represents the contraints we intentionally add to the economic system. Allocation of resources already has contraints, regardless of policies. I suppose that's why I'm so adamant about keeping them separate. Who owns the drilling rig, or what happens to the oil still doesn't effect that you still have to have somewhere to put it, it still takes x time to draw it out, blah blah. Those rates etc, interact with all the other rates based on supply and demand within a system, all of which act naturally to shape and constrain the system - perhaps rather brutally without political considerations. Humans don't generally like brutality, so we law it up.

I mean, we could discuss the economic system of a bee-hive right? How could we affect the "sustainability" or if it is "civilized"?

That's why you syphon off a base level of comfort/aid for them as I've condoned a number of times in this thread.

Don't you think that depends on how you look at it? For instance, if you take the system into consideration, then it is essentially about the strong surviving. You set up a system, and those who best adapt to it, thrive within it. That's what I mean by "the strong survive".

 

Yes, a lot of economics is about understanding how things work -- eg, microeconomics, game theory, experimental economics (the new frontier) -- but equally there is much in economics that is about identifying and (artificially) fixing or preventing problems.

Consider game theory, a field in microeconomics, and the phenomenon of Nash equilibrium. Here, there are some situations involving a group of rational economic beings in which a Nash equilibrium is not the best outcome for the group. That is to say, it is possible for rational, self interested beings, motivated only by maximising their utility, to decide or act in such a way that every person in the group is not as well off as he or she could be.

On economics and political science, in many respects the two are intertwined. Indeed, in the days of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the subject was known as "political economy".

Economists often start out with a political goal and then formulate a set of economic policies. c.f. the work of the neoclassicals vs the neokeynesians

If you were to read grad economics at say Chicago instead of say Harvard you would advocate a different set of economic policies.

 

Fair enough, I do tend to split hairs as I think it's important to separate the art from the science. I'm tempted to do it now, but the practicality of your point is taken and compels me to stop that.

Yeah I keep forgetting what that is. I knew one time but forgot.

Okay I looked it up. I'm not sure, maybe I know why this is true. I'll give it a go below.

Well, I think it's the subjectivity of value, or "utility" (maybe you have a specific definition of 'utility' in mind that I'm unaware of, which precludes subjectivity) that makes the above true. If you're happy knowing you screwed me over, perhaps that's an aspect of value or utility that is not accounted for eh? I realize it is not easy to account for. I do have some ideas though. Couldn't you gather a bunch of statistical data and model accordingly? Yeah okay it would get complicated fast.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

Well, I won't argue with you about that. I definately think it's fair to say they're deeply intertwined.

That makes sense, given that the goals of economics must be political in nature.

Maybe.

 

For game theory, yes. Statistical analysis of decision making is going on in a new field called experimental economics -- a bunch of people sitting in a computer lab making decisions in response to the decisions of others (similar to a group psychology experiment). Results of the experiments are collected, repeated and then analysed in regression and similar statistical tests. In fact some of the research going on in experimental economics is leading to conclusions that people often do act irrationally and not in their self interest -- ie, some research seems to defunct the fundamental assumption of economics.

In terms of your ideas, it is good to throw up new theories and ways of looking at things and have the ideas tested and analysed in a forum. Indeed this is how breakthroughs are made and how a science can advance.

 

It just seems to me that the apparent innefficiency of a system where "there are some situations involving a group of rational economic beings in which a Nash equilibrium is not the best outcome for the group" has to do with will, opportunity and the subjectivity of "good".

I'm thinking that "leading to conclusions that people often do act irrationally and not in their self interest " is fundamentally incorrect, as people cannot help but act rationally in what they percieve to be their best interest (at least on a subconscious level). Yes I'm saying that all people always act rationally, based on what their experience deems to be rational. I suppose I should qualify that heavily, but it seems too much at the moment.

Rationality is, as far as I can tell... dependent on context. Bah I'm just meandering now.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wants. Subjective. Remember that word, "subjective"?

Is "economics" a tool or an overseer? That is, does recognition of "economics" equal the acquisition of a tool to help cooperative humanity evolve its social processes, or is the recognition of "economics" the submission to a cause greater than the individual or the collective human endeavor?

In the everyday term, we might ask, "Do you work for economy or does economy work for you?" Change "economy" to "the economy," and then you have the political argument you so detest.

Because this isn't about politics, Wes, no matter how much you wish to hide from the issue. It's about the simple recognition that humans exist, and that any applicable sense of economics that fails to account for necessity either as well as or instead of demand will tend toward a practical imbalance that renders economic theory an overlord, a cause which must be served.

Contemporary economic theory derives from a philosophical background obsessed with the notion of gain or accumulation. The slow suffering of starvation far-removed from the individual is considerably less visible than the effects of warfare; it is no wonder commerce was treated as the pacifier of humanity; "Das ist der doux commerce!"°

Demand that fails to account for necessity reduces human beings to mere factors in an equation. Accounting for necessity--accounting for the fact that we humans exist at all°--changes the relationship between people and the abstract concept of scarcity. It recognizes differentiation in the Universe and attempts to account for the fact of what portion of differentiation it describes. Thus, air is only scarce if you're on the moon or some-such, or if you've polluted the life out of the air; the finite resource of air is of such vast proportions that it is essentially infinite in relation to humanity; we must work very hard to throw off the balance and consume more than nature produces. Air is not scarce because you have to breathe.

Something indeed gets lost in translation between the abstract and the applicable, between the should, could and is of reality. The longer this topic drags on, the closer I come to putting my finger on it. But I'm still not sure how close it is; like a negative image of the Luxor from fifty miles out, I see its darkness rising into the sky; but I couldn't tell you how far away it is. Fifty miles? If only.

That something has to do with the difference between the abstract description and the real situation. If only the scarcity you describe were the one humanity faced practically on a daily basis!

There's six billion people on the planet. Air is not scarce, and it should not be. The only places it's really problematic is where we've dumped a bunch of crap into it, and humanity's denial runs so deeply that we've even tried to blame our problems on the cattle in South America.

What makes any resource valuable to us, Wes, as you point out, is that we choose to give it value. We're afraid of death; at the end of the day, this underpins all practical implementation of economic theory. We're irrational creatures; our priorities are not necessarily logical; rather, they are necessarily illogical.

The slugs don't care about economy. Who does? Humans and a few other primates? Dolphins? Whales? Rats? Horses? Most of the living Universe is simply an acutely transient balance of matter and energy. When my cat knows it's time to die, she will go away somewhere and pass quietly. Or I'll simply find her, stiff, on the floor by the sofa. But she won't do what humans do; she won't steal necessary resources from others in order to extend her pleasure.

The value of things, when necessity remains unaccounted, is as mythical as anything else, and that's one of the things that sets scarcity to hiding religiously behind a wall of orthodoxy. The demonstrable, practical effects of the abstract, theoretical scarcity are all chosen.

We choose to use one resource instead of another. We choose to utilize that resource inefficiently. We choose to panic at the prospect of losing such access to the resource when what it does can be accomplished otherwise.

At present, it is out of character with humanity's practical example to simply roll over and let such abstractions frighten us to docility.

That fear comes from having bought into the myth. Resources are always scarce; scarcity is a natural condition of the Universe; supply must necessarily trail demand.

It's all what we choose.

Really? Life and death doesn't?

You don't need air?

So says you.

Apparently, you don't need air. Good thing. It's so scarce, after all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Notes:

° Das ist der doux commerce! - Apparently a joke between Marx and Engels. Oddly appropriate, if one ignores history, which only sharpens the wit of the joke.

° humans exist at all - A dubious proposition, insofar as it can only be agreed to and never proven.

 

That is your obsession clouding your judgement, yet again. Not everyone agrees with your bias, and you cannot emperically prove what you argue.

And this thread is on SCIFORUMS, and we are talking about SCIENCE, so what part of that don't you get? Humans are mere factors in an equation for the purposes of this discussion. I still contend that you have no business in this argument, and never have, because your trying to talk philosophy and politics in a thread devoted to science. Your motives are still impure, and the Mod of the EMJ forum, I would have expected better from you.

This statement worries me. I can only attribute it to someone who is potentially suicidal, or that has really just lost the will to live, and hasn't really seen fit to do anything about it yet.

I never realized going to the doctor when I was sick was the equilavent of stealing. Fascinating...

 

I regret having addressed the asshat directly.

I will no longer do so if I can keep myself from it.


Oh...

It did have one good point, life and death are definately on the list. I'd have added them if I thought of it but it's sort of inconsequential to the point that it will never get.

Look what a stupid dipshit it is:

"Apparently, you don't need air. Good thing. It's so scarce, after all."

Air is pretty scarce at the bottom of the ocean eh? Perhaps everywhere in the universe that isn't here, in this atmosphere or one identical to it as well eh?

This shouldn't be about politics, no... you simply MAKE IT THAT WAY YOU FUCKING LIAR.

FUCK OFF. GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY THREAD YOU IDIOT.

Okay, I'll ask nicely:

Please, have the decency to leave this thread.

I should have never addressed you again, but your horseshit makes it difficult for me to avoid so please, leave.

 

Wes and 15ofthe19

I await your responses.

I mean, I don't know what either of you call those excuses for posts, but should you ever feel the decency to actually respond, do so.

Wes--you're right. When you don't want to have an honest discussion, you probably shouldn't bother addressing me.

Just because you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about doesn't mean you need to go get all childish about it. What, do you really think you're demonstrating your brainpower pouting like a spoiled princess?

If you don't like your own arguments, don't argue them. Get a new gig. One that you're more comfortable with.

 

I've participated in some exercises like the one described. It was fun, but at times extremely frustrating to find workable compromises within our group. Some of the members of the group had a much more limited understanding of the subject matter and virtually no relevant experience applicable to the aims and goals of the fictitious organization we were managing. The context was often a competition of different fictitious businesses within a model of a given industry. Example: We made tennis shoes. We were Reebok. We competed against Nike, BK, whatever. What I took away from it was that it was almost impossible to account for all of the variables that would apply to a real analysis of the market that we were manipulating within our given model software. The computer software just wasn't able to account for things like the barge accident that closed the Mississippi River last month, or the attacks of 3/11 and the impact that had on world markets. So it seemed that the modeling was useful for teaching some basic understanding of the forces at play in a market, but not really an accurate representation of the market.

 

Here it is, cunt.

As if a dirty cunt like yourself could fathom a clue as to the decency of adults.

LOL. Oh I want it, it's just that you're incapable you fucking piece of shit.

LOL, so vehement divergence from the cuntular perspective makes me stupid now does it? LOL. And you wonder why I call you a cunt don't you? LOL. I am childish about this because that's apparently the only thing a cunt can understand, you fucking piece of shit.
Tell me you little cunt, what is it that makes you think you're so smart in comparison to the rest of us? Also, do you really even understand what smart is? I only ask because I wonder how it seems from behind your insurmountable wall. It seems to me if you really understood it, you'd never use the argument "you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about" you sorry, pathetic loser.

LOL. Man your comments never fail to make my jaw drop, so thank you for your incredible unpredictability. *snort*
That you would argue "if you don't like your argument, don't argue it" in response to anything I've said in this thread is fucking flabbergasting. It's like "hey what time is it?" and you respond "purple, you little stupid person". Uhm... see below:

I'm guessing you already realize that the popularity of the idea of "fuck you", regarding you, is still of like, rock star proportions with me no? You know what cunt? I'll take the gig I want, and your bullshit objections will result in my giggles, knowing I've crammed a little more sand in that gargantuan fucking cunt of yours. Please, object all you'd like.

The only think I'm uncomfortable about here is your disgusting perspective. Fuck off.

Here I'll try your style, such that maybe you'll understand something that another human attempts to communicate with your emotionally crippled ass:

"Stupidity is such an ugly sickness. Give it another whack when you grow up and get healthy, boy."

 

Just to make sure I have your argument straight, Wes:

Yep. That's smart, Wes. You sure told me.

Thanks for making it easier, Wes.

Like I said, let me know when you get around to responding.

I'm still waiting.

 

15ofthe19

I'm calmer. There are a couple issues worth responding to I admit.

Very little of economics is empirical. I would point to your own technical discussion with SLWK:

That much cleared up, it is worth noting whence I derive that assertion. I've been looking for a polite way to say, "Read a book, damn it," but failing miserably.

Essentially the book in question is Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests. I will seek to find a way to summarize the relevant argument for you over the coming days, but it's a dense 135 pages (plus notes). However, in lieu of that summary, and mostly as encouragement for people to read this book, I will for the time being, merely list some places the book turns up on Google, starting with an obvious couple:

• Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science - Professor Albert O. Hirschman. See http://www.sss.ias.edu/home/hirschman.html
• Princeton University Press. (The e-book is for sale here, as well as the paper copy, but the summary blurb is actually what's worth reading.) See http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/5996.html
• International Association of Health Policy. "Lecture Abstract: Social capital - Social or Capital?" See http://www.healthp.org/article.php?sid=193
• International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations. "1997 Symposium - Interests, Passions, Politics: Psychodynamic Assumptions of the U.S. Constitution." See http://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1997Swog.htm
• EconBooks.com. "Customer Reviews - The Passions and the Interests." See http://www.econbooks.com/The_Passions_and_the_Interests_0691015988.html

Like I said, I'll try to put together a reasonable summary as regards the issue at hand. The above links are merely intended to establish that I'm not insane for seeking information and knowledge from this book; aside from that, anyone is welcome to argue the value of what I get from it. Seriously, it's a great book. I encourage anyone to read it.

But it's going to be a tad difficult to summarize. It's actually easier to tell you to read the book and hope you do. (You know that compact, dense informational people scream for instead of my long rambling posts? This is it. You can almost outline the book by transcribing it, it's so bare-bones in order to contain itself.)

In the meantime, I'll give it a whirl. It's going to require abusive copyright violations beyond my usual willingness.

Why don't you try explaining what the hell that has to do with anything.

Now, just wait a minute. First off Wes says in his topic post that:

• It seems to me that any economic model you'd try to implement would include this foundation or it would be inherently flawed.

This refers to his three points outlined in the very beginning. Wes went on to affirm:

• Well, the intent of this thread is to discuss fundamentals of economics. I think I've come up with a generalized model that is applicable regardless of the details

Yet Wes is arguing as a necessary component of any economic model a notion of scarcity that cannot be applied. I even apologized for not realizing that we weren't discussing applicable ideas, which apology went over about as well as Les Nessman's turkeys.

And now here you are, 15, telling me that humans must necessarily be mere factors in an equation for the purposes of this discussion?

Once again ... are we discussing ideas that can be applied, or mere abstract theory that will remain forever abstract?

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would call refusing to account for relative factors scientific.

But, whatever. You're the genius, right?

Maybe about the time you demonstrate yourself capable of reading my posts, I'll give better consideration to your assessment of my motives. Remember that macho tantrum you threw about the cocaine bit? Your reading comprehension hasn't improved any, 15. You see politics where I see a clear pattern in history of humanity's idea of scarcity repeatedly defied, and the potential for that to occur again in the future.

All I've ever tried to do is discuss the validity of those original three points. But apparently we're supposed to just presume their correctness and proceed from there.

So ... what's that about "science," 15?

Remember that Catholicism makes much sense logically and rationally if you accept from the outset that God exists, Jesus saves, and the Bible is true. In other words, you can argue Christianity scientifically if you allow scientifically untenable assertions as the foundation.

Similarly, I debate the "reality" of those three points listed in the topic post insofar as they must be reconciled before I can accept the assertion that they must necessarily be at the foundation of any economic model, else it be flawed.

And that is what y'all have been running from the entire time.

That is what Wes calls irrelevant.

And yet you claim to be talking about science?

Again, we see an example of your problems with reading comprehension.

What ever are you going on about?

Fascinating, indeed. And it has what to do with what?

Like I said, I await your response. Preferably one that addresses issues for once?