sanity and dishonesty

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

From[Bill Willliams 19 August 2004 7:40 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.08.17.1339 MDT)]

From the guy who is still trying to defeat his dad, tell us that it isn't going to cost the economy anything to send people to Mars, comes a new and dishonest claim that,

Bill Williams < snipe > with an
almost charming unawareness of what he is saying, declared that >this is how
he judges theories and theoretical reasoning. Perhaps that's why >he finds
Keynes so easy to understand

I never said that I found Keynes "easy" to understand. What Bill is saying, here, has no connection with any actuall reality. But, that doesn't bother Bill Powers.

-- all he asks of a theory is that it support
his conclusions.\

This is a lie.

But back to more important issues concerning PCT.

Right, lying isn't an important issue-- not according to Bill Powers.

The test bed I have
proposed and partially produced is aimed at setting up a model >that does
not favor any preferences for how economic theories should turn >out, or
whose theory ought to be preferred.

How naive is it possible to be? Well, lots more naive than nearly anyone would ever believe.

If we want to end up with a useful
model, we can't afford to care whether it fits orthodox >assumptions or
neo-orthodox preferences or radical anti-this-or-that agendas.
When enough
people are guessing wildly, a good model is bound to support >_somebody's_
wild idea, but such support is meaningless. A good model will >lead us where it leads us, not where we wish to be led. That's >all we have to keep in mind.

Mean time just keep saying, "It won't cost the economy anything to send people to Mars."

Bill Williams

2

From [Marc Abrams (92004.08.19.1950)]

From[Bill Willliams 19 August 2004 7:40 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.08.17.1339 MDT)]

>The test bed I have
>proposed and partially produced is aimed at setting up a model >that does
>not favor any preferences for how economic theories should turn >out, or
>whose theory ought to be preferred.

How naive is it possible to be? Well, lots more naive than nearly anyone
would ever believe.

Let it go Bill.

Bill Powers is on another planet. Not until recently could I really
understand your frustration with both Rick and Bill on the subject of
economics, now I do. Neither of these guys would know an economic system if
they fell over it. Powers, like Rick, doesn't really understand some very
basic economic principles. These are principles that Veblen, Marx and
Friedman would all agree upon. Well, maybe not Veblen :-). I guess this is
the same hubris that says that you can talk about human behavior without
having a good understanding of how emotions and imagination are involved in
it.

Lets go to ECAC's. I'm sure most of the folks here wouldn't mind that one
bit.

Marc

3

From[Bill Williams 20 August 2004 8:10 AM CST]

From [Marc Abrams (92004.08.19.1950)]

From[Bill Willliams 19 August 2004 7:40 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.08.17.1339 MDT)]

>The test bed I have
>proposed and partially produced is aimed at setting up a model >that does
>not favor any preferences for how economic theories should turn >out, or
>whose theory ought to be preferred.

How naive is it possible to be? Well, lots more naive than nearly anyone
would ever believe.

Let it go Bill.

Bill Powers is on another planet.

Like maybe Mars?

Bill Williams

4

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.20.1029)]

From[Bill Williams 20 August 2004 8:10 AM CST]

>Bill Powers is on another planet.

Like maybe Mars?

Be nice. :slight_smile:

Powers really believes the 'benefits' far outweigh the costs. He may very
well be right. _AND_ he may very well be wrong. But it will certainly cost a
_GREAT_ deal of money and other scarce resources to make it happen. But why
should he care, he's not paying for it.

I wonder how much money Bill _personally_ would be willing to put up for
this adventure. If he thinks it's going to be such a great success is he
willing to put up everything he owns to back up his claim? He chides
entrepreneurs for using other people's money (A bogus claim by the way) to
start up new businesses. Is this any different? How is this mission going to
benefit society more than the introduction of a new idea or product people
are willing to buy to enhance their standard of living or help them enjoy
life a bit more, like putting the billions necessary for this trip into
alternative energy research to get us off the oil addiction.

Powers doesn't quite understand the notion of scarcity and alternative uses.

Maybe Powers thinks we'll find oil on Mars? Then all we have to do is figure
out how to get it here. :slight_smile:

Marc

5

From[Bill Williams 20 August 2004 12:30 PM CST]

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.20.1029)]

From[Bill Williams 20 August 2004 8:10 AM CST]

>Bill Powers is on another planet.

Like maybe Mars?

Be nice. :slight_smile:

Powers really believes the 'benefits' far outweigh the costs.

I am not sure that this is actually true-- see below.

He may very
well be right. _AND_ he may very well be wrong. But it will >certainly cost a
_GREAT_ deal of money and other scarce resources to make it >happen. But why
should he care, he's not paying for it.

I wonder how much money Bill _personally_ would be willing to >put up for this adventure.

Why don't we pose the question this way. If going to Mars depended upon taking money away from providing Bill's grand-kids medical care would he be in favor of denying his grand-kids medical care for the greater value obtained from spending the money on sending people to Mars?

Now change the question to suppose the money is taken away from providing medical care for other people's grand-kids. As I remember it, Bill Powers was in favor of this-- that is he would rather spend money on sending people to Mars than sending other people's grand-kids to the doctor or dentist. Nice guy-- or as some people might say, "A real peace of work."

Bill Williams