On May 15, 7:52 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On May 15, 6:12 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>> On May 15, 1:09 am, orangata...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> machavillion freedom. freedom to do what, to whom, for what? you
are
> >>> a indoctrinated fool.
> >> You've shown repeatedly that you don't understand either of
> >> Machiavelli nor Friedman.
>
> > sure i do.
>
> I wonder.
>
show me why i do not. i wonder, means you have nothing.
> > its you that is the chanter.
>
> I think the first thing I ever posted to sci.econ, back when
> David ran it, was "... but people aren't rational." He advised me
> to look up "normative assumption." Which I did. That was a good
> day.
>
i no nothing of that post. i have spent the last decade on
alt.politics.economics. and many people are not rational. we have been
thru this before.
> >
> so, if freidman says all
>
> > information is perfect, markets are perfect, and all persons involved
> > in a transaction are rational, and have correct, perfect information.
>
> I have to agree - this one thing of Friedman's continues
> to bedevil people. I interpret it as being like the
> frictionless billiard-ball physics of ninth graders - he
> was simplifying the message to make it a mass message.
crap.
But
> he's going to the market as a source of information itself,
> which is what was intended to impress people.
>
markets are not self policing, markets are people. people lie, steal,
and cheat. so if you are going to the markets for information, you may
well be lied to, stolen from, and cheated.
> Indeed, I don't think you can talk about comparative
> advantage without *im*perfect information. *People* are
> *im*perfect. Groupthink happens; that is why we have
> bubbles and whatnot.
>
so markets are not perfect, self policing, self righting. and markets
are made up of good people, and bad people.
markets implode on a regular basis, and must be bailed out by
government, hardly a free market. and if we do not bail them out, we
get 1929 or worse.
> But I don't really know what he intended with all that, and
> it's largely beside the point. I think this
> is a lot more interesting:
>
it was pure machavillian, orwellian double speak. this definition is
as good as it gets.
"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
> http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004833.html
>
> > that is a straight shooter, who does not practice double speak. or, he
> > was a idiot, possibly insane not to understand his fellow human being,
> > and completely ignorant of history. which was he?
>
> Why, he might simply have been.... *im*perfect. :)
that is my point. and he built a cult around imperfection that he
knew was not as advertised. pure machavillian in nature.
Newton
> was just absolutely insane at points, but his work is highly
> useful. Old Milton was far from crazy.
>
milton was not crazy. he knew exactly what he was doing. that is why
you do not understand the machavillian snooker he pulled on you.
> > all fascism is, is libertarianism in decay.
>
> Well okay then. And all up is down, and all blue is green. Bully! All
> this stuff headends in human psychology, which is ... ugly.
>
its where libertarian societies end up. the u.k. under thatcher,
chile, the u.s.a., all police states.
> "What's the ugliest part of your body? It could be your mind." - Frank
> Zappa.
>
our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
contem****ary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
the space between them.
richard a. swanson
> >> --
> >> Les Cargill
>
> --
> Les Cargill
|
