A Simple Model

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0504.1356)]

Here is an example of a simple yet powerful model. The model has only
three rules: (1) Economic growth solves all domestic problems; (2) the
investing class, i.e., wealthy, create economic growth; and (3) reducing
taxes on the wealthy frees them to generate growth. As simple as this
model is, it has yet to fail to predict what Bush will do with regard to
the economy.

Now Marc and many others would likely argue that this model is much too
simple to capture the rich subtleties of how Bush thinks and what Bush
perceives (memory and imagination included). Perhaps they are correct.
My model works. Does theirs?

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0504.1507)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.1424)

From your response I conclude that: (1) You have no model; and (2) you
do not understand how a model works. I had inferred this from your
exchange with Rick, but I wanted to be sure. I suggest that before you
take on the task of improving PCT you learn what a model is and how it
works. This should render your progress considerably more rapid.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.04.1411 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0504.1356)--

Here is an example of a simple yet powerful model. The model has only
three rules: (1) Economic growth solves all domestic problems; (2) the
investing class, i.e., wealthy, create economic growth; and (3) reducing
taxes on the wealthy frees them to generate growth. As simple as this
model is, it has yet to fail to predict what Bush will do with regard to
the economy.

The reasoning describes actions that are purported to solve domestic
problems (reduce taxes ---> generate growth --> solve domestic problems).
But I don't think that Bush's highest aim is necessarily to solve domestic
problems. Let us keep in mind just who will benefit the most from reducing
taxes on dividends. It is obviously the people who make the most money from
dividends. Try the Test: if it turns out that our domestic problems are not
solved as a result of the tax break, does anyone think Bush will ask for
the taxes to be restored?

We should keep reminding ourselves, too, of what happened the last time
there were huge tax breaks given to the business community. Those who got
the most money went on a spree of buying control of other companies,
instead of investing the windfall as they were supposed to do. The
so-called stimulus package fizzled out.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0504.1640)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.04.1411 MDT)

The reasoning describes actions that are purported to solve domestic
problems (reduce taxes ---> generate growth --> solve domestic problems).
But I don't think that Bush's highest aim is necessarily to solve domestic
problems.

Perhaps not. But the model still predicts what he will propose.

Let us keep in mind just who will benefit the most from reducing
taxes on dividends. It is obviously the people who make the most money from
dividends. Try the Test: if it turns out that our domestic problems are not
solved as a result of the tax break, does anyone think Bush will ask for
the taxes to be restored?

No, because the model has only one solution. If the tax cuts to not get
the economy moving it can only be because they were insufficiently
large. Deeper cuts are called for.

We should keep reminding ourselves, too, of what happened the last time
there were huge tax breaks given to the business community. Those who got
the most money went on a spree of buying control of other companies,
instead of investing the windfall as they were supposed to do. The
so-called stimulus package fizzled out.

Indeed. That's why the model predicts that Bush will claim that we need
still deeper cuts.

Needless to say, I agree with your sentiments. The purpose of the model is
simply to predict what Bush will attempt to do.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bruce Gregory 92003.0504.1651)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1516)

Purpose: I replied to a post to CSGnet by Bruce Gregory. Since he mentioned
me by name I responded in good humor. With many LOL's I really guess it
matters where someone is "coming" from It was not my intent to make fun of
or ridicule. In fact I said I would glady discuss anything with him
off-line but prefered to stick to HPCT/PCT on CSGnet. Apparently this was
some form of perverted "test" ( I don't have a`clue ) I got back this
venomous post,.

Oy vey. You don't know from venomous.

Feel better? I hope so? I hope you didn't throw up on your shoes? What are
you so angry about?

Actually, I'm more amused than angry.

Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.1424)

From your response I conclude that: (1) You have no model; and (2) you
do not understand how a model works.

Really?. I'm glad you told me so. Do you think this statement is
impressive?

Succinct and accurate.

If I don't know how a model works, how does this statement get

me closer to understanding how one does work?

That's Rick's job. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

What does "have no model"

mean?

You are not working from a model either of the economy or one based on
HPCT. You are "winging it."

I'm not as bright as you and I missed the subtlety of your post entirely.
Was it a hidden quiz?, Apparently it was. Sorry I failed.

No, you passed.

I see your a master communicator as well. Is this how you "teach" people?
Is this how you help people along? Exactly which passages, in which posts
offended you the most?

None of your posts offended me in the slightest. It is true that I
failed to grasp your points many times, but Rick was doing yeoman's
service trying to make sense of them. It would greatly help if you told
us what your model is and what it leads you to conclude.

Where was I most guilty? Maybe you did not

understand my posts or intended meanings? I keep on forgetting your a mind
reader, so you never have to inquire. You know.

Why don't you explain to me what a model is and how it works?, On second
thought, if that was your intent, to help, you would have done that to
begin with. Your intent was to smear and degrade.

When I want to smear and degrade you, have no fear, you will be left in
no doubt. However, since I don't even dislike you (simply don't
understand you), smearing and degrading are not high on my list of
priorities.

This should render your progress considerably more rapid.

Sometimes Bruce, your an A-1 Asshole.

Doubtless. I take it that remark was intended to clarify and instruct?

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

test test

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.1424) ]

Purpose: None. This reply doesn't deserve a purpose LOL.

With all my posts over the last 2 days and this is what you come up with?
LOL, LOL

I would be happy to discuss _anything_ with you. Just not on CSGnet :-).
What does this "simple" model have to do with HPCT or PCT?.

I'd be happy to take this off-line if I had a better idea of what you were
talking about. :slight_smile:

Which words and phrases are Technical and which might I consider
"normative" in your model? For instance, does "Economic growth" and
"domestic problems" have specific meanings in your "simple" model? if not,
which indicators are you speaking of?, What does it mean to be "wealthy"?
"Reducing" taxes by how much? Who is the "investing class". my wife's
pension fund?, My private account?

Turns out your "simple model" is not so simple. LOL

btw, Mr "mind reader" ( I keep on forgetting that, that is one of your best
skills LOL ) exactly what is _my_ model?

Marc

···

At 01:56 PM 5/4/2003 -0400, you wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0504.1356)]

Here is an example of a simple yet powerful model. The model has only
three rules: (1) Economic growth solves all domestic problems; (2) the
investing class, i.e., wealthy, create economic growth; and (3) reducing
taxes on the wealthy frees them to generate growth. As simple as this
model is, it has yet to fail to predict what Bush will do with regard to
the economy.

Now Marc and many others would likely argue that this model is much too
simple to capture the rich subtleties of how Bush thinks and what Bush
perceives (memory and imagination included). Perhaps they are correct.
My model works. Does theirs?

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1729) ]

[From Bruce Gregory 92003.0504.1651)]

This started out with a post out of the blue from B. Gregory. I tried to
respond light hearted to it and told him I would take the conversation
off-line. To that, I got a venomous reply. This is his response to me and
my last response to him regarding this matter. I have posted to him and him
to me privately. I want this to play out in the public.

Oy vey. You don't know from venomous.

Your "cuteness" is not appreciated or admired. You seem to think this is a
joke. Do you?

Feel better? I hope so? I hope you didn't throw up on your shoes? What are
you so angry about?

Actually, I'm more amused than angry.

What are you amused about?

From your response I conclude that: (1) You have no model; and (2) you

do not understand how a model works.

Really?. I'm glad you told me so. Do you think this statement is
impressive?

Succinct and accurate.

Please elaborate. You make a claim here. Where is your data?

If I don't know how a model works, how does this statement get

me closer to understanding how one does work?

That's Rick's job. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Do you mean it's your job to "judge" others on _your_ perceived
"understanding" of their knowledge?

What does "have no model"

mean?

You are not working from a model either of the economy or one based on
HPCT. You are "winging it."

What does "winging it" mean. What parts have I "made up"?

I'm not as bright as you and I missed the subtlety of your post entirely.
Was it a hidden quiz?, Apparently it was. Sorry I failed.

No, you passed.

Another jab that doesn't make you look good.

None of your posts offended me in the slightest. It is true that I
failed to grasp your points many times,

So why not address them at the time? It doesn't get any easier to
understand if some basic points are misunderstood.

but Rick was doing yeoman's
service trying to make sense of them.

No, Rick was not trying to "make sense" of them. He was trying to get me to
"say things" the way he felt comfortable hearing them. We, were never the
issue. I was. Seems to be the same with you. That is unfortuanate.

It would greatly help if you told
us what your model is and what it leads you to conclude.

I have been trying to do that over the past 48 hours. I like to learn out
loud. You take a couple of bumps but you have some idea of where you stand.
That is one reason I was taken aback by your post and tried to respond
lightly to it. Who cares about Bush. After 2 days of lexicon, posting
conventions, "constructing"`perceptions, the "adjusting for error" vs.
"goal" discussion, etc. You come out of left-field with this Bush stuff.

Is that how you gain a better understanding of what I am trying to convey?
I was amused by the question about Bush, but asked serious questions in
trying to answer it. You blew me off.

When I want to smear and degrade you, have no fear, you will be left in
no doubt. However, since I don't even dislike you (simply don't
understand you), smearing and degrading are not high on my list of
priorities.

So what was your original intent? and why did you respond with such a
vitriolic reply?

Marc

···

At 04:52 PM 5/4/2003 -0400, you wrote:

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1516 ]

Purpose: I replied to a post to CSGnet by Bruce Gregory. Since he mentioned
me by name I responded in good humor. With many LOL's I really guess it
matters where someone is "coming" from It was not my intent to make fun of
or ridicule. In fact I said I would glady discuss anything with him
off-line but prefered to stick to HPCT/PCT on CSGnet. Apparently this was
some form of perverted "test" ( I don't have a`clue ) I got back this
venomous post,. This is my reply

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0504.1507)]

Feel better? I hope so? I hope you didn't throw up on your shoes? What are
you so angry about?

Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.1424)

From your response I conclude that: (1) You have no model; and (2) you
do not understand how a model works.

Really?. I'm glad you told me so. Do you think this statement is
impressive? If I don't know how a model works, how does this statement get
me closer to understanding how one does work? What does "have no model" mean?

I'm not as bright as you and I missed the subtlety of your post entirely.
Was it a hidden quiz?, Apparently it was. Sorry I failed.

I had inferred this from your
exchange with Rick, but I wanted to be sure. I suggest that before you
take on the task of improving PCT you learn what a model is and how it
works.

I see your a master communicator as well. Is this how you "teach" people?
Is this how you help people along? Exactly which passages, in which posts
offended you the most? Where was I most guilty? Maybe you did not
understand my posts or intended meanings? I keep on forgetting your a mind
reader, so you never have to inquire. You know.

Why don't you explain to me what a model is and how it works?, On second
thought, if that was your intent, to help, you would have done that to
begin with. Your intent was to smear and degrade.

This should render your progress considerably more rapid.

Sometimes Bruce, your an A-1 Asshole.

Marc

Marc

···

At 03:07 PM 5/4/2003 -0400, you wrote: