- This topic has 605 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 13, 2011 at 9:05 AM #687308April 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #686143
Arraya
Participant[quote=briansd1]
That’s where we differ.
For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.Lives would be upended.
[/quote]The financial system is not real. It’s layers of abstractions that dictate and require a certain behavior. If the whole thing spontaneously combusted it would not mean a damn thing to the natural order of things( you know like water and air quality, energy supplies, the ability to move things around with our applied scientific knowledge called technology). You know the things that are empirically tested and quantifiable. The financial system is only in our heads and thus, if it collapsed, does not mean anything unless we choose to act in a detrimental manner.
[quote=briansd1]
You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?
[/quote]I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.
Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. Economists and politicians are essentially the same thing: Professional sophists, excuse-makers, propagators and scape goats for the status-quo. That use post hoc rationalizations for everything. This happened before that happened, and thus assume, that it must have caused it. Correlation is also called “magical thinking” for the obvious reasons.
With never-ending tautological debates about the interaction between the, inseparable, man-made ” state” and the man-made “market”.
April 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #686200Participant[quote=briansd1]
That’s where we differ.
For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.Lives would be upended.
[/quote]The financial system is not real. It’s layers of abstractions that dictate and require a certain behavior. If the whole thing spontaneously combusted it would not mean a damn thing to the natural order of things( you know like water and air quality, energy supplies, the ability to move things around with our applied scientific knowledge called technology). You know the things that are empirically tested and quantifiable. The financial system is only in our heads and thus, if it collapsed, does not mean anything unless we choose to act in a detrimental manner.
[quote=briansd1]
You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?
[/quote]I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.
Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. Economists and politicians are essentially the same thing: Professional sophists, excuse-makers, propagators and scape goats for the status-quo. That use post hoc rationalizations for everything. This happened before that happened, and thus assume, that it must have caused it. Correlation is also called “magical thinking” for the obvious reasons.
With never-ending tautological debates about the interaction between the, inseparable, man-made ” state” and the man-made “market”.
April 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #686823Participant[quote=briansd1]
That’s where we differ.
For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.Lives would be upended.
[/quote]The financial system is not real. It’s layers of abstractions that dictate and require a certain behavior. If the whole thing spontaneously combusted it would not mean a damn thing to the natural order of things( you know like water and air quality, energy supplies, the ability to move things around with our applied scientific knowledge called technology). You know the things that are empirically tested and quantifiable. The financial system is only in our heads and thus, if it collapsed, does not mean anything unless we choose to act in a detrimental manner.
[quote=briansd1]
You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?
[/quote]I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.
Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. Economists and politicians are essentially the same thing: Professional sophists, excuse-makers, propagators and scape goats for the status-quo. That use post hoc rationalizations for everything. This happened before that happened, and thus assume, that it must have caused it. Correlation is also called “magical thinking” for the obvious reasons.
With never-ending tautological debates about the interaction between the, inseparable, man-made ” state” and the man-made “market”.
April 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #686964Participant[quote=briansd1]
That’s where we differ.
For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.Lives would be upended.
[/quote]The financial system is not real. It’s layers of abstractions that dictate and require a certain behavior. If the whole thing spontaneously combusted it would not mean a damn thing to the natural order of things( you know like water and air quality, energy supplies, the ability to move things around with our applied scientific knowledge called technology). You know the things that are empirically tested and quantifiable. The financial system is only in our heads and thus, if it collapsed, does not mean anything unless we choose to act in a detrimental manner.
[quote=briansd1]
You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?
[/quote]I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.
Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. Economists and politicians are essentially the same thing: Professional sophists, excuse-makers, propagators and scape goats for the status-quo. That use post hoc rationalizations for everything. This happened before that happened, and thus assume, that it must have caused it. Correlation is also called “magical thinking” for the obvious reasons.
With never-ending tautological debates about the interaction between the, inseparable, man-made ” state” and the man-made “market”.
April 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #687313Participant[quote=briansd1]
That’s where we differ.
For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.Lives would be upended.
[/quote]The financial system is not real. It’s layers of abstractions that dictate and require a certain behavior. If the whole thing spontaneously combusted it would not mean a damn thing to the natural order of things( you know like water and air quality, energy supplies, the ability to move things around with our applied scientific knowledge called technology). You know the things that are empirically tested and quantifiable. The financial system is only in our heads and thus, if it collapsed, does not mean anything unless we choose to act in a detrimental manner.
[quote=briansd1]
You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?
[/quote]I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.
Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. Economists and politicians are essentially the same thing: Professional sophists, excuse-makers, propagators and scape goats for the status-quo. That use post hoc rationalizations for everything. This happened before that happened, and thus assume, that it must have caused it. Correlation is also called “magical thinking” for the obvious reasons.
With never-ending tautological debates about the interaction between the, inseparable, man-made ” state” and the man-made “market”.
April 13, 2011 at 10:03 AM #686178scaredyclassic
ParticipantI “read” the balck swan in the cafe at barnes and noble in about 18 minutes. I really liked what I read. I’m not a speed reader. More of a cheap reader. I might have skipped the philosophy section though. I’ll take another look next time I’m there.
I do buy booooks there, too. But as a family I’d say we read about 5000 worth of books and puchase about 800 annually.
April 13, 2011 at 10:03 AM #686235ParticipantI “read” the balck swan in the cafe at barnes and noble in about 18 minutes. I really liked what I read. I’m not a speed reader. More of a cheap reader. I might have skipped the philosophy section though. I’ll take another look next time I’m there.
I do buy booooks there, too. But as a family I’d say we read about 5000 worth of books and puchase about 800 annually.
April 13, 2011 at 10:03 AM #686858ParticipantI “read” the balck swan in the cafe at barnes and noble in about 18 minutes. I really liked what I read. I’m not a speed reader. More of a cheap reader. I might have skipped the philosophy section though. I’ll take another look next time I’m there.
I do buy booooks there, too. But as a family I’d say we read about 5000 worth of books and puchase about 800 annually.
April 13, 2011 at 10:03 AM #686999ParticipantI “read” the balck swan in the cafe at barnes and noble in about 18 minutes. I really liked what I read. I’m not a speed reader. More of a cheap reader. I might have skipped the philosophy section though. I’ll take another look next time I’m there.
I do buy booooks there, too. But as a family I’d say we read about 5000 worth of books and puchase about 800 annually.
April 13, 2011 at 10:03 AM #687348ParticipantI “read” the balck swan in the cafe at barnes and noble in about 18 minutes. I really liked what I read. I’m not a speed reader. More of a cheap reader. I might have skipped the philosophy section though. I’ll take another look next time I’m there.
I do buy booooks there, too. But as a family I’d say we read about 5000 worth of books and puchase about 800 annually.
April 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM #686279sdgrrl
ParticipantHey- that’s my ole’ thread- who found that from old bin? LOL. Look over some comments and try to reply later.
April 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM #686335ParticipantHey- that’s my ole’ thread- who found that from old bin? LOL. Look over some comments and try to reply later.
April 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM #686958ParticipantHey- that’s my ole’ thread- who found that from old bin? LOL. Look over some comments and try to reply later.
April 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM #687098ParticipantHey- that’s my ole’ thread- who found that from old bin? LOL. Look over some comments and try to reply later.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.