gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

I believe that there is some small non-worldly part of us, that allows us to make a free decision.

That the topic of free will versus pre-destination presents such a conundrum is a hint that our metaphysics is inadequate.

[jtabeb]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

I think you were really asking about manipulation, the more that I think about it.

Here is a really good article on the subject. (even though it is just and advert)

001.jpg




It places us in the middle of a large moral dilemma. That is, what forms of manipulation are ethically permissible in a achieving a goal? Is it even moral to use manipulation in any fashion what so ever?

I think the answer has to be a highly qualified "yes".

Here are the qualifications:

First, the manipulation must truly be in the legitimate best interest of the object of the manipulation.
Second, it must be of a form that allows the object to gain something that they otherwise would not have been able to learn or acheive.
Third, it is moral to gain from the manipulation of others BUT only if the first two conditions are met AND the gain is a legitimate by-product of the honest wish to benevolently benefit the object of the manipulation. That is, the gain must be "earned", for lack of a better term and should be proportional to the benefit rendered to the object of the manipulation.

Sorry, I've drifted wildly off subject here, I tend to do that. But I had to get it down in writing or I would have forgotten.

Sorry for rambling on like that, but hope it sparks a worthwhile discussion.

V/R

JT

[jtabeb]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

"Alternative interpretations of quantum theory, such as de Broglie–Bohm theory and the many-worlds interpretation, provide a deterministic theoretical framework that is consistent with empirical observation of quantum mechanical phenomena. Notable physicists, such as Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrodinger, never believed that Quantum Mechanics was a fundamental theory. Einstein is famous for believing that while Quantum Mechanics provided good experimental predictions, it should ultimately be replaced with a deterministic theory that could account for the seemingly probabilistic nature of the atomic regime. In a letter to Max Born, Einstein wrote, "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

I HAVE to agree withe Einstein on this. I don't exactly know WHY or HOW, nor can I prove the assertion. I just somehow know it to be intrinsically correct.

Preordination is only ever visable always AFTER the fact. Looking back in time one can see all the causal events that led to a certain outcome. It was as if they were designed to only occur in one fashion and one fashion only, even though a multitude of possible outcomes could have resulted at each step of the instantiation of each discrete point in time and space.

It's a FRAME OF REFERENCE THING, trust me! (I'll try to figure that one out in my lifetime). The only way the future could affect the past is if it were possible for information to pass from the future to the past, or more precisely to one's "present". Informational leakage from the future to the present if you will

Ah Hah! (got it) The way that future events impact the present is that the actor has a choice in his frame of reference, he has KNOWLEDGE of his future action. I tell myself to hum for say ten seconds, and I do it and then stop after ten seconds have elapsed. Have I not gained knowledge of the future? Yes it is a TINY piece of knowledge, but there it is. And it will happen as I plan it to (the humming for ten seconds UNLESS some outside force acts upon me to stop me from completing this action). So there is a probability of a collision between what I am planning to do and what actually happens. the likely hood of my being successful in humming for ten seconds depends on the chances that some other force will act upon me during the process of me trying to complete my humming. This produces a range of probabalistic outcomes. The really INTERESTING question becomes, can I improve my odds of success? (can I do something that will improve the chances that I will successfully hum for ten seconds).

Somehow there seems to be a link in my chances for success and the benevolence of my intent. Don't know why or how that is, only just that it is so.

The corollary seems to be that if I want to improve my chances for success, my intent must be benevolent. (I mistakenly said "purity" in an earlier version, that is incorrect. I must be BENEVOLENT because "purity" could be expressed in either through BENEVOLENCE or through MALEVOLENCE. Purity for Purities sake could manifest itself as pure EVIL as in Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic or as pure GOOD as in Jesus, The Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad PBUH, Ghandi, Moses, and Mandela. The point IS purity, in and of itself, is insufficient, benevolence IS REQUIRED.

Does the benevolence of intent in ones actions somehow lead to fewer collisions that would otherwise upset the process and prevent it from reaching fruition?

Know that seems like a bunch of gobledy-gook, but it certainly seems correct, at least in my frame of reference.

When people say something like "God is on OUR side" they are ONLY correct if their intentions are benevolent. If their intentions are malevolent, the God is assuredly NOT "on OUR side" because this is not in the nature of his being. If his creation of us stems from his grace and mercy, how could it be otherwise?

What about conquering others for the sake of saving their souls? That is fundamental question of religious conflict throughout history, and It's a non-starter. There is a UNIVERSAL prohibition in ALL religions against the use of force to compel another person to believe what we believe. Here is the information on my own religion, Islam.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/ter...sm_verses1.htm


Makes you wonder if religion is just like string theory. They all mean the same, it's just they appear as DIFFERENT "Flavors" of the same ice cream but all ultimately represent the same "matrix" of beliefs. String theory was unified fairly recently. It was shown that all of the flavors of string theory were reconcilable into a single aggregate structure. While each was correct from it's own vantage point, each individually missed the universal import of their unified collective meaning. Only when when all were taken together, could the fundamental meaning of the entire collective be known. This reconciliation and integration of apparently disparate perspectives into a unifying whole which is ultimately greater than the sum of it's individual parts gives me hope that some day soon we will be able to accomplish the same task as it pertains to all of our collective religious endeavors. We can all hope and pray for that.


Steve Jobs seems to have had an intimate experience with how pre-ordination impacts a person's life. I agree with his conclusion that one can only "connect the dots" looking backwards, never looking forward, hence the mandate of active choice in the here and now.

Here is a link to his Stanford Commencement Address.

[cjppjc]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Hmmm interesting thoughts. I will cogitate on this for a while, especially the ideas swirling around pre-destination being
a form of arrogance.
I believe that there is some small non-worldly part of us, that allows us to make a free decision. Free from the
chains of the bio-mechanics of our bodies. That small piece is what gives us accountability. Otherwise if we
are robots, there is no sin.

Free will is a fascinating concept. If I am given a difficult choice, and at once I decide on option a. If I thought it over for a day or two would I still choose option a, or now that I've thought it over, would I choose option b? Is the reason for the choice in either case a free decision, or the result of external influences that affect my decision, and I'm not aware of it?

[Starving Steve]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Another one of the great heros of WWII died just days ago on May 28, 2010: Retired Admiral Robert Welland in the Canadian Forces. Welland led destroyer escorts for convoys across the North Atlantic from America and from Canada to Britain.

One day, he happened to witness the sinking of a passenger-liner by a torpedo from a nazi submarine. This happened off of the coast of Ireland. Over one-thousand people were left floating in the ice-cold water of the North Atlantic for seven hours. Robert Welland's destroyer escorts saved the lives of nearly all of these people.

Welland was also in command of destroyer escorts for convoys going to Murmansk, USSR from Britain. He was in charge of getting convoys safely through the Arctic Ocean north of Scandanavia.

One of the memorable quotes from Welland: "Sometimes sinking submarines is unsatisfactory business, because you never see the results of your work."

To me, what stands-out here is the determination and the leadership of this man. Welland was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross in 1941.

The complete story of the life and passing of Robert Welland was published in the Globe and Mail, British Columbia edition, on June 16, 2010. As with Stalin, Admiral Welland did not putz-around with excuses, appeasement, with half-measures, nor with manners. Admiral Welland did his job, and he did it well and beyond expectation. Welland won the convoy war against the nazis, and winning the convoy war was an important part of securing the final victory against Hitler's nazis in WWII.

[c1ue]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

I made a proposal on the optimal structure of the US economy. I argue that it is Optimal, and that no matter who you check with, whomever the authority, they would agree that it is optimal as well. (Political constraints not withstanding, of course)

This is a statement making an argument from authority - and I am asking you whose authority this is.

Your response thus far has now twice been 'anybody' and 'whomever'.

As for my critiques - these are not mine alone. The ideas encompassed there draw from Dr. Michael Hudson, from Minsky, from Schumpeter, and from the more forward thinking of the my social community outside of iTulip.

I don't see how equity loans fix the problem. Debt loans worked for centuries - what screwed it up was removing the bank's penalty for making a bad loan both via TBTF support (later) and via securitization (first). Conversely removing both of these constructs seems an obvious fix.

Sure, but you'd need a modern day Midas Mulligan to do this. You know any bankers that poses this level of character in today's day and age?

This has nothing to do with the banksters. Removing securitization is one law away from reality.

Similarly TBTF is also irrelevant with regards to banksters wishes. All that is needed is a non-corrupt government, or even a leader with a modicum of decency and integrity.

I disagree completely. The entire problem with Proposition 13 and its brethren is that you inherently distort the housing market via the cash flow subsidies that accrue over time.

These subsidies are a significant factor in driving up housing prices.

Yeah, BUT, BUT BUT! Inflation in assets has exceeded wage inflation. SO a confiscatory situation arises for any home owner that lives in a single house for a long time (as I myself hope to do one day). I agree that it is a distortion, but that by limiting the distortion to a SINGLE Owner-occupied residence per family, not per person. You AVOID the confiscatory seizure of property through taxation for regular folks AND because the tax is INDEXED at the sale then the distortion is corrected. We want STABLE neighborhoods, this is the cost of doing that. Remember, this is not the situation of Mr. "I can't remember how many houses I own" McCain, we are talking a single exclusion for a single family. I know of plenty of older folks that have been forced to sell or downsize, because of the property tax burden. I say you should not have to leave your home due to an oppressive property tax regime. The community get's good long term planning numbers, and tenants get stable costs. And the equation get's reset each time a new sales transaction taxes place. This is a functional subsidy, one that we actually GET Something Desireable from (in contrast to most subsidies).

While it will be easy to find any number of penniless grannies that would be evicted from their homes due to rising property taxes - the reality is that the increase in property taxes is ultimately a combined function of inflation and government growth.

Having a Ponzi property tax scheme doesn't fix either of these issues - and in fact said grannies are as much or more affected by inflation on their Social Security, government costs on their standard of living, and rising house prices squeezing their non-bankster children out of housing affordability.

The point again is quite straightforward:

1) State, local and municipal governments must have revenue to survive.

2) Said revenue was once primarily property tax based, now it is spread among income, sales, and property, but the revenue growth has been quite consistent. Hence 'limiting' property tax clearly did nothing to actually reduce overall taxes paid.

3) Property prices are primarily a function of incomes - hence cash flow - as expressed through property tax payments and mortgage payments. The lower the property tax payments, the higher the mortgage payments and thus the higher the property prices.

The primary beneficiaries of higher property prices are the FIRE industries. Conversely those who choose to save cash are penalized.

Of course instituting this immediately would be a disaster. My personal recommendation is a 10 year period where the 'proper' property tax rate as a function of necessary revenue is phased in.

But I agree that:
"Again, I do not see that the form of home loan is the issue. I see the issue is as Dr. Michael Hudson notes: the switch from property taxes as the primary form of state/local/municipal government income thus freeing up more cash for loan service." You are absolutely correct in that regard.

It would be far more productive to ban all private money for campaign purposes period."

Sure! More power to ya brother if you can find a way to get that one done (I totally agree with you there, it's the implementation that's difficult, not the solution). Didn't the Germans figure this out after Hitler? Think we might could learn from them?

From my view - the necessary will won't arise until it is too late - i.e. the 20% minimum fall in average American standard of living is upon us.

At that point the anger will be unstoppable - it will merely need to be directed productively. Of course it is exactly that anger which risks the rise of a fascist.

[jtabeb]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

You appear to be quite dogmatic in your responses to my suggestions. Is that a fair assessment, or am I missing something?

[c1ue]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

You appear to be quite dogmatic in your responses to my suggestions. Is that a fair assessment, or am I missing something?

What exactly are you referring to?

I've posted my critique as well as my version on how/why things ought to be.

I've asked you where your source of authority is twice, this constituting a third question - and in a respectful fashion.

And the best you can do is say I'm dogmatic?

[jtabeb]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Can we just argue ideas, without the need to justify the validity of our argumentation through authoritative substantiation?

I've given you the source, the source is me, myself. Is that okay?

Can we proceed on those terms?

[coolhand]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Gregor raises one of the 3 key issues, all of which are interrelated, which is IMO a key to understanding our current quandary. The bottom line is that economic growth is impossible without growth in energy consumption. The current crisis is the intersection of energy boundaries (peak cheap oil), once in multiple generation demographic issues (Baby Boomers exist b/c of the largest conflict in human history), & the firm belief in an economic paradigm that failed to ever account for the possibility that energy was anything but endless, which Gregor does a marvelous job of detailing in his article.

Because of that firm belief in an economic paradigm where energy is a secondary thought, promises were made & debt taken on with the assumption that ever-increasing amounts of cheap energy would be there to drive the necessary growth. It's not. Unless we find a very good alternative w/the same or higher EROIE as cheap oil soon, those promises are going to be broken & that debt defaulted on, through either inflation or outright default...the problem is that it is a lot of debt.

EJ has done a great job singularly looking at the issues of debt, peak cheap oil & to a lesser extent, demographics. The only source I've seen put all 3 together is Andy Lees at UBS in his "The Right Game", which can be found online free if you google it...the mainstream media, economists are still clueless on it...they just don't understand why everything just can't go back to 1995.

[c1ue]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Can we just argue ideas, without the need to justify the validity of our argumentation through authoritative substantiation?

I've given you the source, the source is me, myself. Is that okay?

Can we proceed on those terms?

I asked you for your sources for 2 reasons:

1) to understand the background of your statements. Someone who is a Hayek fan, for example, has a clear cognitive leaning which saves a lot of unnecessary words in discussion.

2) to potentially learn of new valid sources for ideas.

You've now gone from 'anybody knows', to 'whomever', to just 'me'. The original defense of your statements on 'how things should be' via appeal to authority is clearly invalidated.

You've further not made any comments on my critiques other than they are not possible under the current system in your opinion.

In my opinion, the current system has no incentive to change. The powers that be are too fearful of losing their position, and the pool of powers that could be is simply too corrupt or too ignorant to be a source of change.

And the change that is needed - whatever the final version - is going to be painful and contrary to natural predilection.

Lincoln, for example, is someone I do not consider one of the great Presidents.

Why? Because every single action he undertook was completely predictable from the standpoint of selfish survival instinct. He gets kudos for preserving the Union, but doing so was in his own self interest - and his means was no different than a mildly enlightened dictator like Napoleon taking and retaining control. Certainly a Wilson or a Coolidge couldn't have done it but not being a weak President is hardly the same as being a great one.

In contrast the President that would be in charge of true change to our present American path would be presiding over the decimation of his sponsors and his own class, the moderate to severe reduction in standard of living of all of his constituents, the disapprobation of the entire existing political establishment both right and left, and so on and so on.

There are individuals who are capable of doing that: Theodore Roosevelt, who took insurance company money then promptly turned around and killed that golden campaign finance goose. Andrew Jackson, who went out of his way to take out the 2nd Bank of the United States.

But both TR and Jackson are individuals whose past history clearly showed their contrary and stubborn nature - notable especially in contrast to our existing Commander-in-Chief.

A glance around the existing political spectrum yields a similar character (to TR and AJ): McCain. But McCain is as thoroughly sold out to FIRE as is Dodd and cohorts - his temper and his mouth are organs of enforcement, not change despite his age and lack of legacy.

So again, I point to my previous critiques and leave it at that.

[Rajiv]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

The only source I've seen put all 3 together is Andy Lees at UBS in his "The Right Game",

About a 100 page long pdf

[jk]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

EJ has done a great job singularly looking at the issues of debt, peak cheap oil & to a lesser extent, demographics. The only source I've seen put all 3 together is Andy Lees at UBS in his "The Right Game", which can be found online free if you google it...the mainstream media, economists are still clueless on it...they just don't understand why everything just can't go back to 1995.

thanks for the tip on lees. the little summary at barry ritholtz's big picture made it sound quite interesting. i'm not fully convinced of eroei is the right measure to examine- a liquid fuel for transport is worth much more than a solid one for electricity generation, for example, in a way that eroei alone can't capture. but that's nitpicking, i suspect. i will read the lees piece and see what i think. thanks again.

[neoken]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

About a 100 page long pdf

Wow great read, thanks!

[bill]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Wow great read, thanks!

Yes, I only had to read one line, page 90

Nuclear fusion is the only solution.