 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I have this mode of conduct. It goes like this:
I am stupid until proven otherwise.
That works for me. I really appreciate help with the proving part of the method.
So, when a person manages to help me, which is not often, I tend to greet that help with an elevated interest.
Example:
You would have to construct a theory of your own, and then defend it against your critics, or else show clearly why economics as it is now is either logically contradictory or false to fact. Positing a better alternative requires coming up with one, and showing it to be better than what the field has to offer now.
I would not have to do any of the above. However that has already been done many times already. I've even offered my own versions.
For example:
One might 'think' that money in common usage now is something that conforms to their own perception of it. Someone might write a whole book on the matter and for some strange reason that someone might even make a living at promoting that perception simply because that perception is common and for no other reason whatsoever. Fact need not be considered one tiny bit.
Another one might point out, to anyone interested in a more accurate perception, that money has one common natural property that can be measured physically and therefore can be proven as a physical fact.
One might find that such an interest is counter to the interests supporting the other 'theory'. That may seem like a contradiction; certainly contradictory to this:
Positing a better alternative requires coming up with one, and showing it to be better than what the field has to offer now.
One would be inclined to respond to that with this:
A more accurate perception concerning what IS or IS NOT accurate is self-evident only to those who have an interest in perceiving what IS or IS NOT accurate.
And one might also try to communicate this:
Even if one does know what IS and IS NOT more accurate, then, one may not want anyone else to know until such time as one is able to profit from that advantage.
Then one might also add:
Once the flow of value starts; from the disadvantaged toward the advantaged one, then, it is accurate to note that the advantaged one will be less likely to promote the communication of accuracy (his or her advantage).
And further:
Once the advantaged one becomes dependent upon that advantage and that steady flow of value, then, one may actively promote the inaccurate perception almost as if one were to lose touch with one's own conscience and to that end one might try to project such failures in moral conduct upon their victims; like calling their victims Money Cranks or some such false label, or straw man, to be conveniently ripped apart with accurate self-evident logical rhetoric.
All that and more can occur if one is to discuss an issue rather than simply dictate facts as to what one must or must not do in reality.
Meanwhile: the age of enlightenment in free and equitable commerce is growing strong despite all efforts to manipulate that natural human common interest into scarcity.
One might even conclude that the cat is already out of the bag and nothing short of nuclear war can put it back in. Falsehood, and the inequity that follows, is rapidly becoming less fashionable.
You can do as you please. I'll do the same. If our interests agree, then, we have earned an equitable measure of commerce. Who would insist upon anything less: the money crank ungrateful angry mob socialist ignoramuses who can’t save a dime for lack of economic wisdom?
We can agree on one thing, I think, but that remains somewhat elusive.
I am the stupid one.
Last edited on Wed May 24th, 2006 04:24 pm by Joe Kelley