On Oct 13, 8:05=A0pm, Del Cecchi` <dcecchinos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > Because (to a very good approximation) the movements of celestial
> > bodies obey laws doesn't mean that anything else does. =A0Inventing
law=
s
> > based on incomplete information is not even not science. =A0It is
> > superstition.
>
> Actually it is science. =A0Everyone from Charles Darwin to Stephen
Hawkin=
g
> has done so.
>
Darwin conjectured. His conjecture had more far-reaching implications
than he imagined or than most still realize. His conjectures have
attained the status of theory through many, many, many experiments. I
think the jury is out on Hawking. Physics is a mess. Great for
movies, TV specials, and wild Slashdot conversations.
No one ever has complete information, and philosophers of science will
argue about what the appropriate standards are, but free market
"theory" would not pass anyone's test for science.
>
> > People do this constantly. =A0They notice pattens and they invent
> > rules. =A0They think they are much smarter and much more insightful
tha=
n
> > they are.
>
> Actually they made a logic rule "correlation is not causation".
=A0People
> do all sorts of stuff.
>
There is apparently survival value in noticing correlations, but it
isn't theory, it certainly isn't science, and it leads to many, many,
many wrong conclusions. The extreme form is called paranoia.
>
>
> > The shuck of free market "theory" is that, well, ok, so individuals
> > often get it wrong. =A0In the aggregate, markets get it right/
=A0Where=
's
> > the proof? =A0It is pure superstition.
>
> Who ever said aggregate markets get it first time every time? =A0Sounds
> like a straw man to me. =A0You have heard of "extraordinary delusions
and
> the madness of crowds", right? =A0It is just that free markets, like
> democracy, seem to do better than any other system that has been tried.
>
We are watching a test in real time of your beliefs. If we are very,
very, very lucky, you and so many others will not be proven wrong.
>
> > What to replace it with? =A0Who says it's in***bent on me to answer
suc=
h
> > questions? =A0You want me to invent a law because, like everyone else,
> > you seem to think that everything is amenable to analysis and the
> > invention of laws.
>
> If you claim the free market system is so bad that it needs to be done
> away with, then surely you have an idea of what it should be replaced
> with. =A0Anarchy, totalitarianism, dictator****p of the proletariat?
=A0If
> you can't come up with anything, consider that perhaps the free market
> system, like democracy, is the best of a bad lot.
>
Who ever said the free market is so bad it has to be done away with?
For one thing, there is not now nor has there ever been a free market
anywhere.
What needs to be done away with is the justification of rapacious
behavior based on a total shuck. Whoever it is gets to keep his half
billion because there are laws to protect him. Personally, I think
there's something wrong with a system like that. It doesn't matter
what I think, but if things get bad enough, people who tend more to
act than to talk will get into the fray. We got very close in the
Great Depression, and we're probably going to get very close again.
Only time will tell.
In the meantime, I have a Milton Friedman voodoo doll that I stick
pins in every night.
>
>
> > The abuse I've put up with here merely for begging to differ should
> > give any reasonable person pause. =A0There is nothing free about your
> > "free" markets. =A0It's just another tyranny with a different name.
>
>
> I haven't abused you. On the contrary I have gone out of my way to be
> courteous and professional.
>
Indeed, you have, as always.
> On the other hand, there is nothing about any system that can force
> everyone to be kind and understanding all the time, although I try very
> hard. =A0(and they aren't "my" free markets)
>
> I still don't understand what your real issue is? =A0Is it just a scream
> of primal rage at the success of x86?
>
If there is ever an expression of primal rage from me, you don't want
to be anywhere nearby.
I quoted a New York Times blogger about an AMD financial deal. As
usual, I got bashed, because I said something the local yahoos don't
want to hear. If there is a primal scream, it is about being
patronized by people with a very limited view of just about
everything.
As it happens, what the amdroids here take to be good news about AMD
is just more bankers and consultants collecting fees. No wonder the
world is run by idiots.
We got off on IBM's role in propping up x86 because of the number of
IBM'ers here and the uniformity of their claims. They are not
disinterested observers.
Robert.
|
