So many lies, so little time.

[From Bill Williams 16 February 2004 3:50 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.02.16.1045)]

I forgot to press "Save" while doing my spam blocking so Bill Williams' last
two posts came through. And since the CSG posts are readily available at
http://listserv.uiuc.edu/archives/csgnet.html, spam protection is really not
going to keep me from seeing selected CSGNet posts.

And I no longer think it's really necessary to avoid seeing such posts.

I think all discussion is potentially useful.

# A special emphasis ought to be placed upon the adjective "potentially."

So I'll reply to some posts (or parts thereof) that I

think could use some clarification and just ignore the slim.

# It seems likely that you meant to say "slime."

···

#

# Giant leaps in the wrong direction, however, rather than

# "clarification" is really your most characteristic trait.

First, I'll reply to some earlier comments about my purported

"attacks" on Tom Bourbon and Ed Ford.

Bill Williams (11 February 2004 6:00 PM CST)

I wasn't around when as I understand it, Bill Powers and the

chief assistant designer made their attack upon Tom Bourbon

and Ed Ford.

Neither Bill P. nor I ever attacked Tom or Ed.

# This is not what Tom Borbon tells me. Neither you nor

# Bill Powers have a history that would inspire confidence

# in regard to your truthfulness. (This is different than

# calling you a liar.) But, the pattern of your statements

# is suggestive of a person who has told so many lies that

# you can't keep them straight.

#

# I would rather rely on what others, many others, have told me

# than trust in your account.

In fact, neither Tom nor Ed was on CSGNet when the supposed

"attacks" occurred.

# The most damaging episode, according to what I have been

# told, occurred during what I understand was the Vancouver CSG

# meeting.

Bill and I were simply arguing (on CSGNet, without Ed and Tom present)

that coercion occurs even when those who are coerced go along without

resistance and that telling a person that they have chosen to do

something that they haven't chosen it was deceitful.

# I reject the adjective "simply." If you are inclined to defend

# the "I see you have chosen ..." episode then you have not yet

# learned the potential lesson that the episode might "teach."

Although Tom was not on the net at the time I had assumed that

he would agree with all this.

# I doubt very much that this is in fact the case. Especially

# when you say, "all" this.

In the midst of this argument, Isaac Kurtzer posted to CSGNet an

"open letter" from Tom saying that Bill and I were not applying

PCT correctly and that our arguments were an attack on him.

# This extends the dispute in a direction I would not have

# anticipated. The "facts" are more complex than any one person's

# understanding encompass.

I think Bill was as surprised by this letter as I was.

# If this statement is genuine, and it may be, then both you

# and Bill Powers are both so grotesquely lacking in social

# perceptiveness as to be effectively dis-functional in some

# not so unusual circumstances.

Marc Abrams (2004.02.12.0935)

and if you think Marken and Powers did not drive Ford and Bourbon

away, why not just ask them.

I may have driven Ed Ford away.

# This is what I understand that you did. As I have been told you

# managed to do this by treating Ed Ford, his religion, his program

# in a way that was disrespectful. It was a sustained performance.

But it wasn't intentional (I like Ed) and I didn't do it by personal

attacks.

# "I like Ed."

#

# So you say. This comes as quite a surprise given the way you

# treated him.

#

# Many people are quite convinced that

# if you did not do what you did "intentionally" then you are

# markedly psychopathic. And, that certainly the appearance of what

# took place was that of an "attack" that was, to repeat

# comprehensive-- an attack that was personal, religious and an

# attack upon his program.

The only possible "attacking" I did was criticism of his religion

# And, what possible excuse do you have for an attack upon his

# religion?

# I myself have criticisms to make of the Roman Church. However,

# how in the world did people on the CSGnet permit you to attack

# Ed Ford's faith. This is quite beyond my understanding.

and his program. I think my comments about

Catholicism were tougher on him than my comments about his program.

# "Tough" isn't the word for what you do. "Stupid" comes a bit closer.

# But, basically what you do is "talk trash" to people who aren't

# prepared for to do this. The only people it harms are people who

# aren't prepared to tell you to "fuck off." Maybe what's needed are

# more classes to help people to recognize occasions when it is proper

# to tell people just "fuck off."

But I saw Ed at meetings after he left CSGNet (to form his own

discussion group regarding RTP) and I thought our relationship was

quite friendly.

# You are then evidently grossly lacking in interpersonal empathy.

So I think the "Rick drove Ed off the net" idea is mythology that

developed in retrospect.

# Nonsense.

Tom left CSGNet a year or more before the "coercion" and "I see you have

chosen" debates occurred. So it was impossible for me to have driven Tom

from CSGNet because he wasn't there.

# As I said above, what Bourbon told me involved what took place at

# the Vancouver meeting.

He had already left the net.

# Yes he had-- because of Vancouver and the aftermath.

And I saw and corresponded with Tom several times after he had left

CSGNet and we seemed to agree completely about everything concerning

PCT and I thought we were the best of friends.

# Again, this is not at all what Bourbon has told me.

We were even planning to do a PCT consulting business together at

on point. Tom was like my PCT soul mate.

# Again, this is not at all what Bourbon has told me.

I had (and still have) no interest in attacking Tom in any way.

# You can say whatever you wish about the purity of your invisible

# motivations. The outward expression of your persona that other

# people actually encounter is something that many of us have never

# encountered. Aside from an agreement that what we have experienced

# is profoundly pathological, we are puzzled as to just what it is

# that we have encountered.

I hope he will return soon to doing work on PCT.

# If my understanding is correct, Tom Bourbon will now and in the

# future make extra-ordinarily efforts so as to never encounter

# you again. This goes for Greg Williams, and I suspect though I do

# not know this for a fact, for Ed Ford. There are an extra-ordinary

# number of people who hate your guts.

You [David] were certainly here when the "I see you have chosen" BS put

Bourbon in a no win situation between Ford and Powers with Rick leading

the charge and Powers remaining silent on the sidelines or,deferring to

Rick's ranting non arguments instead of Bourbon's data.

Neither Tom nor Ed was on CSGNet when the "I see you have chosen" debate

occurred.

# This, as I remember was one of the points to which many people

# objected. That, having treated Tom Bourbon and Ed Ford in a way

# at the CSG meeting that was destructive, you used the CSGnet to gloat

# over their defeat.

The debate was not BS but a perfectly reasonable discussion about

a phrase that Bill and I felt had no place in a program that is presumably

based on PCT and that aims to teach kids to take responsibility for their

own actions. The RTP literature recommended the use of the "I see you have

chosen" phrase to imply that the disruptive student, not the teacher, was

responsible for choosing that the student leave the room. Tom, who was off

line, was apparently not in a "no win" situation with respect to Ed and Bill

since Ed eventually agreed with Bill (and I) and has stopped recommending

use of the "I see you have chosen" phrase.

# This is a very misleading characterization of what happened. "Perfectly

# reasonable" discussion? That is certainly not how it was perceived

# by Tom Burbon who came to the conclusion that it was part of a vicious

# attack by you upon him.

Bill Williams (14 February 04 11:30 PM CST)

It seems to me more apparent now than it was half a decade ago

that Bill Powers retains extremely influential misconceptions he

got from his dad. Not having read the Leakages tract, I couldn't

say, but the misconception that Y = C + S + I must have come

from somewhere.

I forget what these letters stand for.

# Your memory isn't evidently very good.

My guess is that Y is the flow of income to the aggregate consumer

(GDP),

# You make too many guesses, and your guess is wrong.

C is the portion of that flow that is used for consumption,

S is the portion used for savings and I is the

portion used for investment.

If this is true, this is not quite what I assume in H. economics. In

that model, Y = C + S (if I have the meaning of the symbols correct).

# Which you don't.

#

# I attach a post which you made almost a year ago. Partly I want to

# keep it in the active portion of the CSGnet Archive. And, partly

# it provides an indication of just how shallow you involvement in

# the economic thread has been.

  Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:01:16 -0500

  Reply-To: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)"

                <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>

  Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)"

                <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>

  From: Richard Marken <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>

  Organization: MindReadings.com

  Subject: Re: Keynes' meanings

  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";

                x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"

  [From Rick Marken (2003.02.24.1500)]

  > Peter J. Burke (UCR 2/24/2003 1:57PM PST)

  >

  > Bill Powers (2003.02.24.1418 MST)

  >

  > Do you have a copy of Keynes' General Theory? I'm interested in your

  > comments (or anyone's) about how Keynes got to his equations on p. 63,

  > chapter 6.

  >

  > Income = consumption + investment

  > Saving = income - consumption

  > Therefore saving = investment

  >

  > This looks to me not like a definition, but a statement of what is true,

  > that is, income as an amount is equal to the amount of expenditure on

  > consumption plus the amount invested. There are no independent or
dependent

  > variables here. Similarly for saving. On the other hand, I don't have
his

  > book, so this is more of an intuitive guess.

  I don't have his book either but I think you're right; these are
definitions, not

  statements of functional relationships. And I think these definitions are
wrong as

  they sit, at least if we are talking about total income (capital and
wage). I

  think total income can be divided into consumption, investment and saving.

  Consumption is consumption of consumer goods. Investment is consumption of
capital

  goods and saving is what's left over. So in my view of things

  income = consumption + investment + savings

  so that

  savings = income-consumption-investment

  I think this is closer to the way Econ004 works.

  Best

  Rick

  ---

  Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.

  Senior Behavioral Scientist

  The RAND Corporation

  PO Box 2138

  1700 Main Street

  Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

  Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971

  Fax: 310-451-7018

  E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

Rick's statement that:

       income = consumption + investment + savings

       Y = C + I + S

is one that he could easily test. Using the data which he

has access to he could check and see, does

Y = C + I

and

Y = C + S

or, does

Y = C + I + S.

This would be easy to do, and wouldn't take long. The reason

that Bill Powers and Rick Marken don't understand the meaning

of the [I = S] identity is that they don't understand an

accounting identity. Economics is not a matter of physical

substance, rather it is a field that is concerned with values.

Until Bill Powers and Rick Marken take the time to learn this

mundane lesson this absurd dispute will continue-- unless

chronic boredom intervenes-- which it might.

In the meantime the dispute from time to time flares into a

totalizing controversy, it which as David Goldstein imprudently

claimed, Williams has all his facts wrong, or Powers claims

despite what nice things he has said about me in the past, that

I've never made a contribution to CSG, or Rick claims in a

Recent post that I don't understand anything about anything.

These are ravings by slightly disturbed spirits who can not see

other persons with any accuracy in the context of a conflict.

This inability puts them at a severe disadvantage.

So, more giant leaps are evidently in store, in "the wrong

Direction you understand, and there will be more for me to

incorporate into my CSGnet fable "Running Naked in the Forest"

I am hard at work on the scholarly subtext, has anyone seen

my copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Rick.

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2004.02.16.2045)]

Bill Powers (2004.02.16.1328 MST)--

Such posts make you feel wrong, and you have to generate replies
until you feel right again. Why bother going through the cycle? The
wagers
of the vendetta will not believe anything you say.

I just can't help believing that I can show them that there is really
no reason for their hatred.

Bill Williams (16 February 2004 3:50 PM CST) --

Rick Marken (2004.02.16.1045)--

Neither Bill P. nor I ever attacked Tom or Ed.

# The most damaging episode, according to what I have been
# told, occurred during what I understand was the Vancouver CSG
# meeting.

What was the "episode"? I remember Tom ignoring me but I don't remember
attacking Tom. What did I do?

# I reject the adjective "simply." If you are inclined to defend
# the "I see you have chosen ..." episode then you have not yet
# learned the potential lesson that the episode might "teach."

The episode apparently taught one person, Ed Ford, that saying "I see
you have chosen" can be quite disrespectful, which was Bill's and my
point. And Ed has apparently had the grace to accept this criticism and
change his program based on it. Ed may not want to see me but it
sounds to me like he's acting like a mensch.

# Many people are quite convinced that if you did not do what
# you did "intentionally" then you are markedly psychopathic.
# And, that certainly the appearance of what took place was that
# of an "attack" that was, to repeat comprehensive-- an attack
# that was personal, religious and an attack upon his program.

I never personally attacked Ed or anyone else. It is not a personal
attack to criticize ideas, even ideas that some people hold dear. I
criticized Catholicism, not Ed's belief in it. I criticized some
aspects of RTP, not its developer.

The only possible "attacking" I did was criticism of his religion

# And, what possible excuse do you have for an attack upon his
# religion?

I have criticized Catholicism (and all other religions, including
Judaism) because they are just a bunch of ideas. I never attacked
anyone (or criticized anyone) for believing in those ideas.

# I myself have criticisms to make of the Roman Church. However,
# how in the world did people on the CSGnet permit you to attack
# Ed Ford's faith.

I never attacked Ed's _having_ a particular faith. I criticized a
religion in which Ed happens to have faith. I have criticized other
religions and ideas (behaviorism, evolutionary psychology, etc) in
which other people have faith. In doing so, I did not attack people for
having faith in these ideas any more than I attacked Ed for having
faith in Catholicism.

He had already left the net.

# Yes he had-- because of Vancouver and the aftermath.

No, this is not correct. Tom left CSGNet well before the Vancouver
meeting, not after it. He didn't leave CSGNet because of problems with
me or Bill because we had no problems at the time. The problems
developed while Tom was noff CSGNet. The existence of a problem became
known to Bill and myself only when Tom published his "open letter" (via
Isaac) to CSGNet, which was a couple months before the Vancouver
meeting. When I arrived at the meeting (the day after my Dad's funeral)
I got the cold shoulder from Tom and several others with whom I have
once had cordial relations.

# If my understanding is correct, Tom Bourbon will now and in the
# future make extra-ordinarily efforts so as to never encounter
# you again. This goes for Greg Williams, and I suspect though I do
# not know this for a fact, for Ed Ford. There are an extra-ordinary
# number of people who hate your guts.

It is an "extraordinary" number compared to the number that hated me
before the "Coercion" and "I see you have chosen" debate started on
CSGNet, months before the Vancouver meeting. It's kind of amazing to
me. I'm basically a pretty nice guy. Fortunately there are still a few
people who seem to like me alot. What in the world is Greg Williams
mad at me about? Why don't these people just talk it over with me if
they don't like something I've done? Why can't this be resolved? I'm
willing to come to the peace table. How about you?

Neither Tom nor Ed was on CSGNet when the "I see you have chosen"
debate
occurred.

# This, as I remember was one of the points to which many people
# objected. That, having treated Tom Bourbon and Ed Ford in a way
# at the CSG meeting that was destructive, you used the CSGnet to gloat
# over their defeat.

Ed Ford wasn't at the Vancouver meeting. I don't believe I treated
anyone at that meeting destructively. Tom gave a talk (which is on
tape) and I made a couple of comments. Was it those comments that were
the "destruction" that occurred? I've looked at the tapes (at Tom's
behest) and was unable to see
anything in what I said that struck me as being destructive.

The debate was not BS but a perfectly reasonable discussion about
a phrase that Bill and I felt had no place in a program that is
presumably
based on PCT and that aims to teach kids to take responsibility for
their
own actions...

# This is a very misleading characterization of what happened.
"Perfectly
# reasonable" discussion? That is certainly not how it was perceived
# by Tom Burbon who came to the conclusion that it was part of a
vicious
# attack by you upon him.

Then my characterization is not misleading. It's simply different than
Tom's. I don't see why Tom and all the others who hate me won't just
sit down and talk about it. I don't want to hurt Tom or Ed or Greg or
anyone
else. Why can't we just make up and be friends? I'm really not that bad
of a guy.

I forget what these letters stand for.

# Your memory isn't evidently very good.

Tell me about it.

Rick's statement that:

     income = consumption + investment + savings

     Y = C + I + S

is one that he could easily test.

Tell me how. I think Y corresponds to GDP. I is probably total gross
investment. And S is gross personal savings. So what is C? Personal
Consumption? There is no listing for Personal Consumption in the FRED
data. There is a line for Government Consumption & Gross Investment. Is
that it?

Y = C + I

and

Y = C + S

or, does

Y = C + I + S.

Great. Just tell me where to find the data that would test this and
I'll test it.

This would be easy to do, and wouldn't take long.

Then I presume you've done it. So send me the names of the economic
variables that I should use to test this and I'll post the results as
soon as I get them.

The reason that Bill Powers and Rick Marken don't understand the
meaning
of the [I = S] identity is that they don't understand an accounting
identity.

So this means that whatever is called I (Investment) in the FRED data
should be numerically identical to what is called S (Savings). Is that
right? I've already found that there is a correlation of only about .31
between what is called Gross Private Savings and what is called Gross
Private Investment. So I must be using the wrong data. What are the
data I should use to demonstrate this bookkeeping identity?

Until Bill Powers and Rick Marken take the time to learn this
mundane lesson this absurd dispute will continue-- unless
chronic boredom intervenes-- which it might.

I don't understand why this is so important. Let's just assume that I =
S. Now what? How does this affect the results (or the conclusions) of
the analysis I did that showed a negative relationship between
investment at
time t and growth at time t+1, for example.

Bill Williams (16 February 2004 7:40 PM CST) --

Rick Marken (2004.02.16.1330)--

Bill Powers (2004.02.16.1328 MST)]

The equation Y = C + S + I did not come from anywhere but me, as far
as

I

know. It simply says that the amount of money spent on consumption,
plus
the amount put into in savings accounts and not spent on anything,
plus the
amount spend on capital equipment, has to equal the total amount
taken in.
If there's another categories of places where income can go, it
could be
added to the equation (D for money Destroyed, for example).

Makes sense to me.

You are both idiots.

Why are we idiots? Is it because we should know that S = I? I'm willing
to believe that S is very close to being equal to I (since banks will
lend for investment to the amount on deposit). In my H. Economicus
model, S = I since the composite producer borrows exactly enough for
production to make up for saving by the composite consumer. I would
like to test this in using the FRED data. Just tell me what variables
to use in the analysis.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

[From Bill Powers 2004.02,17.0618 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.02.16.2045) --

I'm willing
to believe that S is very close to being equal to I (since banks will
lend for investment to the amount on deposit). In my H. Economicus
model, S = I since the composite producer borrows exactly enough for
production to make up for saving by the composite consumer.

If you put banks into the model, I think you will find that money lent by a
bank to anyone is new money, created de novo by a pair of bookkeeping
entries. So the money on deposit, which only sets a limit on the amount
that can be lent, is not used up -- it is still the depositor's to spend or
not to spend. More specifically, the money on deposit is not used to
purchase capital equipment -- that is, not until a check is written against
someone's deposit and spent on such equipment. Of course then there is a
little problem, namely that the reserve requirement is violated if the bank
was at the limit, so the bank has to borrow money from the Fed to make up
for it, or else stop making new loans until the outstanding balance has
been paid down, destroying an amount of money equal to your withdrawal
(times the multiplier -- it works both ways).

The neat trick, as I understand it, comes from considering the _composite_
or _aggregate_ bank. All money lent is immediately put on deposit (even if
checks are written), so the aggregate bank's deposits increase by the same
amount that it lends. Therefore the overall limit on lending is raised by
all but r % of the amount deposited, where r is the reserve requirement.
The limit on lending is actually almost nonexistent. I think it works out
something like this:

x := x + (1 - r)*newLoan, repeated at some rate.

But don't take my word for it -- I think this is called the multiplier effect.
It's just another example of the financial sleight-of-hand that makes our
economy seem to work.

···

=========================================================================

I just can't help believing that I can show them that there is really
no reason for their hatred.

They have no intention of believing you -- that's the nice thing about
beliefs, you don't have to have any facts to justify keeping them. The only
thing that will satisfy the haters is for you to go away permanently or
die, preferably in agony. Nothing you can say is going to make them change
their minds -- in fact if you disprove anything they say, they will hate
you even more and redouble their efforts to destroy you. Hatred becomes its
own justification.

One thing you suffer from is the apparent unwillingness on the part of many
people (in the past) to attack me for saying things that annoyed them.
After all, I was the Guru and the Glorious Leader, and in many cases a
personal friend, so who would have the nerve? What these people did instead
was to seek a scapegoat, revising their memories and misreading posts so
they could blame what I said on you, my lapdog. An example shows up in your
post, where you are said to have written Y = C + I + S. Actually, I was the
one who wrote that, but attributions wander all over the place, depending
on who the haters are maddest at at the moment, or maybe just who they are
talking to. The principle seems to be that while one does not attack the
leader of the pack, an attack on his lapdog is not only permitted, but fun,
with no holds barred and no need for any real reasons. This, of course,
plays havoc with the accuracy of memories about who waid what to whom on
what occasion.

Another example comes from the "I see you have chosen" asrgument. I pointed
out that terrorists often say that they will do something bad unless
certain terms are met, like releasing their buddies from jail. Then they
point out that because they have issued this warning, if the demands are
not met and the terrorists go ahead and do the bad thing, it is the victim,
not the terrorist, who has chosen to have the bad thing happen. This is
precisely the logic used in the "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC"
ploy. My thought was that the fallacy of this approach would be easier to
see in a situation where the perpetrator was not a nice person whom we all
approve of, as in the case of RTP teachers. But is that how my words were
taken? Hell, no -- Tom blew his stack and said I was accusing RTP teachers
of being terrorists. And then a little later, of course, it was you who
accused RTP teachers of being terrorists, since you were a more acceptable
hate object, and this escalated to the point where Tom said he refused to
be in the same room with you any more. The person he was really mad at was
me, but that didn't jibe with his idea of his relationship with me.

What flabbergasts me is the shocking stupidity of those otherwise
intelligent and even brilliant people who interpreted my words to mean that
RTP teachers are terrorists. This is like assuming that since Rick Marken
eats breakfast and terrorists eat breakfast, Rick Marksn is a terrorist.
This sort of interpretation shows that there is some sort of screw loose in
the reasoning processes of the objectors, but it certainly doesn't show
that I think (or said) that RTP teachers are terrorists. And the fact that
I said this should certainly not be recorded in memory as your having said it.

But facts are stomped flat under the feet of haters. They carry no weight
unless they can be used to increase the hate. If they tend to mitigate they
are simply dismissed -- they bounce off the armor with no effect.

And it doesn't help when you throw gasoline on the fire. Sure, you can say
say that you hate Catholicism but have no criticism of Catholics. I think
that would be a good trick if you could pull it off, like hating the sin
but not the sinner, or liking coffee but not coffee cups. but it never
works. I could say that capitalism is a greedy, evil, unfair, and stupid
system, but of course I don't mean to criticize you for saying you believe
in it. Even though the implication is clearly that you must be greedy,
evil, unfair and stupid to believe in it, which is obviously what I really
think. Of course that was just an example, so don't get your feelings hurt.
After all, capitalism is the worst possible system except for all the
others, to paraphrase Churchill.

How we waste our time!

Best,

Bill P>

[From Bill Powers (2004.02.17.1135 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.02.17.0830)--

All money lent is immediately put on deposit
(even if checks are written), so the aggregate bank's deposits increase
by the same amount that it lends.

I don't believe this is the case. Linda said that the money lent
cannot be counted as an asset against which more loans are made. You
still get quite a bit of money creation by loaning against deposits.

But the money lent is then spent, by writing checks to other firms, who
deposit them in their own accounts in the composite bank -- and those
deposits can be the basis for more loans. There is more money in the system
(until the loans are paid back, but in an expanding economy the total of
outstanding loans has to keep increasing). Remember to think in terms of
the _composite_ system. Many banks, many producers.

I just can't help believing that I can show them that there is really
no reason for their hatred.

They have no intention of believing you -- that's the nice thing about
beliefs, you don't have to have any facts to justify keeping them. The
only
thing that will satisfy the haters is for you to go away permanently or
die, preferably in agony.

Yes. It looks that way. I guess it helps me understand better the
situation of my ancestors living in Europe.

I guess it's time for his grandson to get wise and leave CSGNet (and
possibly CSG) now that the Nazis have taken over.

Who says they have taken over? Ignore them. If they actually do anything
beyond uttering words, we'll think of something, I'm sure.

I think we should just form our own discussion group.

We have our own discussion group. It's called CSGnet. Many fine people are
subscribed to it.

Too bad. I guess CSGNet has to be considered a failed endeavor. I'll
keep in touch with you about the status of my modeling efforts the old
fashioned way: by direct mail.

Don't give up yet. The secret is not getting dragged into dog-fights. It
is, in fact, possible to hit the delete key, or block spam, or do all those
things that eliminate irrelevancies.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Williams 17 February 2OO4 5:30AM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.02.16.2045)]

> Bill Powers (2004.02.16.1328 MST)--

> Such posts make you feel wrong,

I don't find that such posts make me feel at all

wrong. It is more like the feeling I get seeing

a deer over open sights.

> and you have to generate replies

I frequently don't read such posts. Why bother

unless I have some immediate end in view?

> until you feel right again.

Here again, I don't find that such posts "make

me feel" wrong. So, there isn't necessarily a

need to do anything to "feel right again."

> Why bother going through the cycle?

Well, it can obviously be a lot of fun. Especially if one perceives that one
is winning.

> The wagers of the vendetta will not believe anything

> you say.

Who ever thought otherwise? But, there is the audience to think of isn't
there?

Still there is a sense in which Bill Powers is right. I have reached the
conclusion that Rick is a sociopath liar, or rather just a plain

sociopath. And, consequently don't _necessarily_ believe anything he says.

Bill Powers has recently been telling lies too.

I just can't help believing that I can show them that

there is really no reason for their hatred.

Rick there is plenty of reason for their hatred. Believe me there is plenty
of reason.

"No reason" you say. How pitiful.

> Bill Williams (16 February 2004 3:50 PM CST) --

>> Rick Marken (2004.02.16.1045)--

>> Neither Bill P. nor I ever attacked Tom or Ed.

This is not the way that Tom Bourbon sees it. It is not the way Greg
Williams sees it. It is not the way I see it. I doubt that it is the way Ed
Ford sees it. There are others who see it the way I do, but for good and
other reasons do

not wish their names to be used.

> # The most damaging episode, according to what I have been

> # told, occurred during what I understand was the Vancouver CSG

> # meeting.

What was the "episode"? I remember Tom ignoring me but I don't remember

attacking Tom. What did I do?

You would have to ask Tom Bourbon this question to get an answer in detail.
And, I doubt very much that Bourbon would be willing to interact with you in
anyway outside a courtroom.

> # I reject the adjective "simply." If you are inclined to defend

> # the "I see you have chosen ..." episode then you have not yet

> # learned the potential lesson that the episode might "teach."

The episode apparently taught one person, Ed Ford, that saying "I see

you have chosen" can be quite disrespectful, which was Bill's and my

point.

I doubt very much that this was in fact "your point." Your concern for
behavior that you perceive as "quite disrespectful" is, I am convinced,
almost entirely, if not entirely disingenuous.

And Ed has apparently had the grace to accept this criticism and

change his program based on it. Ed may not want to see me but it

sounds to me like he's acting like a mensch.

Ah, who said anything about how Ed Ford is acting. This is I believe an
indicator of the root of your difficulty. Ed you say is "...acting like a
mensch."

If I have a criticism of Ed Ford it is that he wasn't prepared to tell you
and Bill Powers to just "fuck off." What happened is complex-- but I don't
think your statement that "he's acting like a mensch." comes close to an
explanation of why so many people are so angry. You really have a talent--
the like of which I have never in my entire life encountered the like of.

> # Many people are quite convinced that if you did not do what

> # you did "intentionally" then you are markedly psychopathic.

> # And, that certainly the appearance of what took place was that

> # of an "attack" that was, to repeat comprehensive-- an attack

> # that was personal, religious and an attack upon his program.

I never personally attacked Ed or anyone else.

Incredible.

You have never "personally attacked ... anyone."

You truly are delusional, or a pathological liar, or both.

I have included a recent post from you below, but I will copy it here and
comment upon it. Rick is talking about me:

    [From Rick Marken (2004.02.11.0940)]

  1) "...I don't think you know what you're talking about."

  2) "I don't think you understand my H. Economicus model (even though I
sent you the spreadsheet implementation of the model)."

   I never opened it, so you've got me here. As you remember Bill's
understanding of H. Economicus was that it was "a giant leap in the wrong
direction." How, you manage to forget what Bill said I have difficulty
understanding.

  3) "I don't think you understand mathematics."

  4) "I don't think you understand modeling."

  5) "I don't think you understand data analysis."

  6) "I don't think you understand economics."

  7) "I do think it's all a bluff. And mean-spirited bluff at that."

For the record: It is routinely acknowledged that Williams knows "something"
about economics.

And, Bill Powers not too long ago described my modeling using the term
"brilliant." And, I usually know "data mining" when I see it.

Back to Rick's lies.

It is not a personal attack to criticize ideas, even

ideas that some people hold dear.

This is more of your self justifying stupidity. Only a fool, or an innocent
would be taken in by this cant. It is clear by your selection of topics that
you were engaging in what was a personal attack. Your dodge isn't one that
would fool a reasonably intelligent person for more than a moment.

I criticized Catholicism, not Ed's belief in it.

Wonderful. No. You criticized Catholicism because you knew that doing so
would cause Ed Ford a bunch of pain. Obviously.

I criticized some aspects of RTP, not its developer.

Wonderful. Of course not. Again, there is the "reasonable person" standard
that this shit won't begin to pass.

>> The only possible "attacking" I did was criticism of his religion

> # And, what possible excuse do you have for an attack upon his

> # religion?

I have criticized Catholicism (and all other religions, including

Judaism) because they are just a bunch of ideas. I never attacked

anyone (or criticized anyone) for believing in those ideas.

The religions are as you say "just a bunch of ideas." You don't pass
judgment on anyone for believing that there is any reality connected to
these ideas. No, of course not. Who would ever think such a thing.

> # I myself have criticisms to make of the Roman Church. However,

> # how in the world did people on the CSGnet permit you to attack

> # Ed Ford's faith.

I never attacked Ed's _having_ a particular faith.

Interesting choice of words. Maybe you really weren't attacking Ed for, as
you say, "_having_ a particular faith." Could it just be that you attacked
Ed for having "a faith." This petty

deviousness isn't really very clever.

I criticized a religion in which Ed happens to have faith.

Ah, "Ed just happens to have a faith that, somehow or other you thought
needed attacking. I wonder how you came to perceive this need? Not that
there is any deep mystery here.

I have criticized other religions and ideas (behaviorism,

evolutionary psychology, etc) in

which other people have faith. In doing so, I did not attack people for

having faith in these ideas any more than I attacked Ed for having

faith in Catholicism.

Of course not. Who would mistake your attack for an intentional and personal
insult?

>> He had already left the net.

And, besides, as you say, he was already gone. Makes all the difference
doesn't it? But, wait a moment, if you were just criticizing at random and
with no one in mind, what difference

does it make whether Ed Ford was present or not? Do you really expect Ed
Ford to believe this blither?

>

> # Yes he had-- because of Vancouver and the aftermath.

No, this is not correct. Tom left CSGnet well before the Vancouver

meeting, not after it.

I stand corrected. I had it confused. As you tell it something must have
happened before the Vancouver meeting. Not that it makes any difference.

[Tom Bourbon] didn't leave CSGnet because of problems with me or

Bill because we had no problems at the time.

No? Then did you have problems at any time? Do you have problems now?

Strange, how come if there are no problems, Bourbon hates your guts?

The problems developed while Tom was off CSGNet.

This is your story and I don't believe a bit of it. Apparently Tom was not
as "off CSGnet" as your misleading story would suggest.

The existence of a problem became known to Bill and myself only

when Tom published his "open letter" (via

Isaac) to CSGNet, which was a couple months before the Vancouver

meeting.

Strange these people inexplicably develop a deep hatred for you. But, you've
done nothing that has any connection to their hatred.

Their hatred is just totally inexplicable-- as far as you are concerned. You
are forgetting Rick. I know you. You aren't fooling me at all.

When I arrived at the meeting (the day after my Dad's funeral)

I got the cold shoulder from Tom and several others with whom I have

once had cordial relations.

And, say you have no idea why you got the "cold shoulder?"

Give me a break. This isn't the sort of story that it is a good idea to tell
to a jury. They are likely to be offended. Offended because it looks to a
jury as if you think that they

are really stupid. And, this can sometimes cost you a lot of money.
Definitely not a good idea. Other people, many other people also object--
to being treated as if they are really

stupid. I don't mind-- and I expect it of you. But most people find it to
be really is very, very offensive. People often regard such behavior as a
sneaky attack upon their dignity and worth as human beings.

> # If my understanding is correct, Tom Bourbon will now and in the

> # future make extra-ordinarily efforts so as to never encounter

> # you again. This goes for Greg Williams, and I suspect though I do

> # not know this for a fact, for Ed Ford. There are an extra-ordinary

> # number of people who hate your guts.

It is an "extraordinary" number compared to the number that hated me

before the "Coercion" and "I see you have chosen" debate started on

CSGNet, months before the Vancouver meeting.

I suppose it is. Do you suppose that there is some possible connection here?

It's kind of amazing to me. I'm basically a pretty nice guy.

You really think so? Lets be careful here. Sturgeon has only recently
recovered from his laughing fit. If more people catch the laughing sickness
here we won't have enough people on their feet to meet classes.

Fortunately there are still a few people who seem to like me a lot.

Why not spend your time with these people "who seem to like you a lot."

What in the world is Greg Williams mad at me about?

You know, I am not sure precisely what Greg's problem is. When I attempted
to persuade Greg to come to a CSG meeting, what he said was, "Only if Marken
is dead." And, that is all I remember. It made sense to me, so apparently I
didn't find it worthwhile to remember the details. Maybe I didn't even
bother to ask.

Now, I am rather sure Greg would rather not discuss you. What ever it is, he
would rather you not in any way be a part of his life-- not even in memory.

You really do have a remarkable capacity to generate, no let me rephrase
this in PCT correct speech. There are a number of people who after coming
into interaction with you, have developed

a very intense hatred for you. I am not one of these, but then I don't hate
snakes either.

Why don't these people just talk it over with me if

they don't like something I've done?

"They don't like something you've done?" doesn't begin to cover it Rick.
Perhaps you genuinely have so little under standing of what you have managed
to do that this is, unlikely as it seems, a genuine question. But, I am not
really that much concerned with whether you are lying and pretending not to
understanding of the situation or not.

Why can't this be resolved?

Sometimes things pass beyond the stage that people are willing to forgive.
Many people, me included in this, have come to the conclusion that you are
socio-pathetic. I have for example

great difficulty thinking of you as a human being. You are so different than
anyone else I have ever experienced that who or what you are doesn't seem to
fall in the same class as the

rest of humanity. Not, in my experience. And, this is what many other
people have told me regarding their own assessment.

I'm willing to come to the peace table. How about you?

Not on your life. And, not on any other conditions either. I don't see that
you are a person that is remotely trustworthy. There is no point to a peace.
Peace is not a remotely plausible outcome.

>> Neither Tom nor Ed was on CSGNet when the "I see you have chosen"

>> debate

>> occurred.

> # This, as I remember was one of the points to which many people

> # objected. That, having treated Tom Bourbon and Ed Ford in a way

> # at the CSG meeting that was destructive, you used the CSGnet to gloat

> # over their defeat.

Ed Ford wasn't at the Vancouver meeting. I don't believe I treated

anyone at that meeting destructively. Tom gave a talk (which is on

tape) and I made a couple of comments. Was it those comments that were

the "destruction" that occurred? I've looked at the tapes (at Tom's

behest) and was unable to see

anything in what I said that struck me as being destructive.

Whether you have any understanding of what you have "in a sense done" is a
matter of complete indifference to me. Out of my own experience

with you I have come to the conclusion that what, Tom Bourbon, Greg Williams
and others who would rather not be named, have told me is entirely
plausible. I, of course, believe them, rather than you. Because as I say, I
have had my own experience with you and it corresponds very closely to what
others tell me.

>> The debate was not BS but a perfectly reasonable discussion about

>> a phrase that Bill and I felt had no place in a program that is

>> presumably

>> based on PCT and that aims to teach kids to take responsibility for

>> their

>> own actions...

I don't care to argue this question. I have come to conclusions which have
more than an adequate foundation.

> # This is a very misleading characterization of what happened.

> "Perfectly

> # reasonable" discussion? That is certainly not how it was perceived

> # by Tom Bourbon who came to the conclusion that it was part of a

> vicious

> # attack by you upon him.

Then my characterization is not misleading.

Your characterization is grotesquely self-serving. Your characterization
_is_ misleading. Of course it is misleading.

It's simply different than Tom's.

No. and I will repeat-- what you are attempting to do is not "simple." I
don't believe for a moment that Tom Bourbon is a sociopath and I am
convinced that you are a sociopath. The two accounts are not "simply
different." This is completely absurd.

I don't see why Tom and all the others who hate > me won't just sit down

and talk about it.

I would think that the chief reason is that the people who have come to hate
you, are convinced that there is no prospect that you will ever change.
Perhaps I shouldn't speak for "all the others." However, I am confident
that I am

reasonably well informed as to their views. And, even though my Ph.D. is in
economics, rather than clinical psychology, I have formed the opinion that
you are a mild, but impressively

destructive sociopath.

You don't seem to be inclined as far as I know to physically abuse people.
But, you do behave in such a way, and you have done so over a period of
years, that other people experience

you in a way that does result in them hating, as they say, your guts. I
really don't see that there is, now, anything practical that can be done
about this. I certainly would not think it worthwhile to make any such
attempt. And, I

certainly wouldn't recommend that anyone trust you in anyway what-so-ever.

As far as I know what you do isn't criminal. Although some people avidly
wish that it were.

I don't want to hurt Tom or Ed or Greg or anyone else.

As I have indicated above, I have no trust at all in what you say--
especially a report on what your motivation may happen to be. Whether or
not you wish to hurt people isn't my concern.

Being around you ends up with being hurt.

In PCT correct language I will again note that many people have found that
interaction with you can be extra ordinarily painful.

These people do not, under any circumstance, wish to risk a similar
experience now or in the future. They think of you as they would a rabid
dog.

Why can't we just make up and be friends?

Jesus, you are completely clueless.

In my understanding of the concept "friends" is a term that asserts people
have some common values. As a result of an extended history, many people are
of the opinion that the values that guide your life are ones that they will

experience as extra ordinarily disruptive. In your presence they experience
you as "attacking" them in ways that they don't anticipate and find
extremely painful. My experience of Greg Williams, Tom Bourbon, Ed Ford, and
others who wish to remain anonymous, is that these are decent people. What
they share is an intense

wish to never again to experience what they have experienced as a result of
their interaction with you.

I'm really not that bad of a guy.

You are extremely destructive.

If you asked people-- such as Greg Williams, Tom Bourbon, and Ed Ford, what
sort of guy is Rick Marken the answer you would get would be quite different
from your claim-- that "I'm really

not that bad of a guy."

As I have said above, as far as I know nothing you have done falls under the
criminal law. But, what you have managed to do has been experienced by
people, people who I believe are quite reasonable folk, as being uniquely
destructive. I myself am not of the opinion that this necessarily needs to
be the case-- but as a matter of fact, this is how these people perceive
interaction with you.

These people may share a more hopeful conception of human nature than the
one that I have arrived at. If one believes that there are human beings that
are, for whatever reason evil, then this

puts an entirely different slant upon interacting with a person like you. I
don't unlike many other people find you to be

threatening. I don't think you are physically a violent person. You do have
some interpersonal skills which you use in ways that I believe can aptly
described as sociopath. I am not equipped by training to elaborate this
conclusion, however I have listened to others who are better equipped make
what seem to me

to be informed conjectures about your characteristic modes of functioning.

I've found their discussions mildly useful, but the real key to dealing with
you effectively is-- never trust Rick. Absolutely, never trust Rick in
anyway. Then Rick doesn't pose any danger. The damage you do, is only
possible when your victim to some extent trusts you. In the absence of
trusting victim you are powerless.

You may remember a post [From Rick Marken (2004.02.11.0940)] in

which you said,

  1) "...I don't think you know what you're talking about.

  2) I don't think you understand my H. Economicus model (even though I sent
you the spreadsheet implementation of the model).

I didn't bother opening it.

  3) I don't think you understand mathematics.

  4) I don't think you understand modeling.

  5) I don't think you understand data analysis.

  6) I don't think you understand economics.

  7) I do think it's all a bluff. And mean-spirited bluff at that.

Why don't you accept my offer, and we will put money on the above
propositions. I think I could easily enough raise a $1OO,OOO. I assume
your net worth would allow you to match my wager.

How about it? Or Don't you really believe yourself what you've said?

Are your totalizing statements as you say "all a bluff?"

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2004.02.17.0830)]

Bill Powers 2004.02,17.0618 MST)--

Rick Marken (2004.02.16.2045) --

If you put banks into the model, I think you will find that money lent
by a
bank to anyone is new money, created de novo by a pair of bookkeeping
entries.

I agree. That's basically how the model works now. I am going to fix it
up by adding an explicit bank, separate stocks for Q and PQ, and
depreciation of Q, among other things.

So the money on deposit, which only sets a limit on the amount
that can be lent, is not used up -- it is still the depositor's to
spend or
not to spend.

Right.

The neat trick, as I understand it, comes from considering the
_composite_
or _aggregate_ bank. All money lent is immediately put on deposit
(even if
checks are written), so the aggregate bank's deposits increase by the
same
amount that it lends.

I don't believe this is the case. Linda said that the money lent
cannot be counted as an asset against which more loans are made. You
still get quite a bit of money creation by loaning against deposits.

I just can't help believing that I can show them that there is really
no reason for their hatred.

They have no intention of believing you -- that's the nice thing about
beliefs, you don't have to have any facts to justify keeping them. The
only
thing that will satisfy the haters is for you to go away permanently or
die, preferably in agony.

Yes. It looks that way. I guess it helps me understand better the
situation of my ancestors living in Europe.

Nothing you can say is going to make them change
their minds -- in fact if you disprove anything they say, they will
hate
you even more and redouble their efforts to destroy you. Hatred
becomes its
own justification.

In case you didn't see it, Bill Williams (17 February 2OO4 5:30AM CST)
reply to my last post confirms your prediction in spades (and he didn't
answer one of my questions about economic data analysis).

My beloved, wonderful, gentle grandfather had the genius to leave
Europe when he found himself being hated for doing nothing more than
being born to Jewish parents. I guess it's time for his grandson to get
wise and leave CSGNet (and possibly CSG) now that the Nazis have taken
over.

The principle seems to be that while one does not attack the
leader of the pack, an attack on his lapdog is not only permitted, but
fun,
with no holds barred and no need for any real reasons.

I think we should just form our own discussion group.

What flabbergasts me is the shocking stupidity of those otherwise
intelligent and even brilliant people who interpreted my words to mean
that
RTP teachers are terrorists.

Hitler was a pretty bright guy, too. But I've never met anyone I would
call "brilliant" who was also a hater. I've seen clever haters and even
ingenious ones. But brilliant people (like yourself), though
occasionally cranky, never hate.

Too bad. I guess CSGNet has to be considered a failed endeavor. I'll
keep in touch with you about the status of my modeling efforts the old
fashioned way: by direct mail.

Very best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Bill Williams 17 February 2004 3:30 PM CST]

In the period when steam power was just getting started
mechanics used a mixture of dirt and small gravel, (pea
gravel) as a sort of piston ring lapping compound. The
discussions which have been devoted to the various
economics threads on the CSGnet in many ways compare
to that earlier era in mechanics. This has been in large
part because Powers, is determined to remain ignorant,
and to make grotesquely silly remarks about questions
concerning which is almost completely uninformed.
This is the state of mind that I ridiculed in my fable
"Running Naked in the Forest."

The coarseness of the dialog reflects a measure of
unsophisticated, or rather uneven sophistication, on
the part of the participants. There is in addition
evidently something of an attitude that some people,
such as Bill Powers and Rick Marken are to be allowed
the privilege of "talking trash" as an indication of
their special status on the CSGnet, while others are
to be held to a more restricted vocabulary. (See David
Goldstein's _Rules for Talking Good German_ I understand
that coming soon is a long awaited second edition. )
If I offend German readers by my oblique references to
Facism, I want to make clear that I am not in anyway
Assuming anything about contemporary Germany, or Germans
Where ever they may be. The Facist episode in Europe is
  now something that happened long ago and far away. But,
it is an event that contains valuable lessons for today.

Is there a remedy? I doubt it. The person that Bill
Powers has been, has never had much success working with
other people. Before the rancor on the CSGnet thread
emerged, I was quite surprised when in a discussion of
Von Mises Bill Powers out of the blue referred to Von
Mises as an asshole. I don't myself regard Von Mises
as a sympathetic figure-- his brand of Austrian Economics
is at least in part a product of the collapse of the
Austrio-Hungarian Empire. And, it reflects the cultural
difficulties characteristic of the inter-war period in
Continental Europe.

But, Von Mises as an asshole? Not that the seven letter
oath holds much if any terror for me. You can ask David
Goldstein, if there is any doubt in this regard. But,
I found it a strange way to refer to this intellectual
icon.

But, calling poor Ludwig an asshole in the absence of any
other provocation than grotesque stupidity, that is Von
Mises's stupidity, is it seems to me to be indication of a
level of passion, indeed a level of rancor that may be a
barrier to clear thinking regarding economic issues. In
particular it is well known, at least I think it is well
known, that as the complexity of a problem increases the
intensity of the motivation that is effective as an element
in solving the problem decreases. And, in particular
personalizing problems may have the effect of shutting off
access to lines of intellectual development that either are,
or effectively amount to, essential conceptual tools.

The stagnation of British mathematics follow the dispute
between Newton and Liebnitz is an example of the effect of
such a personalization of a field and the destruction that
such emotions are capable of rendering. As far as I know
the destructive effect of such a personalization are more
destructive to the smaller party involved in the conflict.

This would be expected to be the case-- there are fewer
persons engaged in the smaller party-- everything else
being equal-- fewer ideas are emerging. Intellectual
advancement is for the most part a matter of borrowing and
tool combination. The larger party in the conflict has in
effect a larger "free trade" zone and so has access to
borrow more insights. So, other things being equal-- which
they never are-- it could in principle be expected that the
smaller party to a conflict will stagnate and the larger
party will experience an advance as a result of a larger
trading zone.

There is another way of considering the question. Intellectual
traditions are the result of a build up over generations of
ideas. In control theory the ideas that Bill Powers has
worked with go back to an ancient craft that generated control
devices to regulate wind and water mills, ovens, and brooding
pans, and a surprisingly large array of devices. Theoretically,
Clerk Maxwell seems to have been the first to generate a
mathematical analysis of the process of control. This side of
Maxwell, there was Gibbson's analysis of a flyball regulator,
and in the 20th century Black, Nyguest, and many others
augumented the analysis. And, then their was Weiner, Shannon
and others who brought the field to something like a
tentative maturity. However, in contrast to this ancient,
and rich tradition in practice and theory which Powers drew
upon for his _Behavior: the Control of Perception_.

The situation is quite different, however, when Powers sets
off to revolutionize economics. What legacy can he draw upon?
His dad's _Leakages_ thesis? The insights available in
Keynes' work are effectively unavailable to Powers as a
result of a deep seated suspicion that Keynes is a
representative of the business class. This delusional
suspicion began apparently with Bill dad. The argument
developed by Bill's dad that Keynes really didn't understand
that there was a macro dimension to economic phenomena is
absurd, and easily refuted. However, this argument was at
one point was proudly displayed as among "the best of the
CSGnet" postings. When came into question the posting was,
without explanation removed by parties unknown.

This is a familiar practice of cults to attempt to modify
their history when the history becomes inconvenient-- See
the history of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and the
editing of early church papers. As a very brief inspection
will disclose, the _Leakages_ thesis does not provide much
of a foundation for the creation of a viable school of
economic thought.

However, neither the isolation of an effort in terms of
numbers, nor the absence of an intellectually rich legacy,
are necessarily a barrier to innovation in economics and
economic theory. In principle a single person with a pad
and a number 2 pencil has all the equipment necessary to
generate a new school of economic thought. Add, the
equipment of a modest desktop computer, and most of the
mathematical barrier to analysis falls away. It is far
easier to simulate an economic process than it is to
approach the issue through the use of classical mathematical
analysis. Is it likely that Bill Powers can on his own,
or largely on his own, carry out a conceptual innovation
that will revolutionize economic theory and then possibly in
application economic practice as well?

I wouldn't entirely rule this out. In some sense it
depends upon the intellectual resources that Powers can
bring to bear upon the question. Were Powers' raw
intellectual capacities those of a Newton or a Liebnitz
and the work was being undertaken by a man in his forties
or even fifties with no other demands upon his time, the
creation of a new scheme of economic analysis might be a
distinct possibility. However, it is Powers' own
assessment of his raw intellectual capacities that his
abilities are comparatively modest and that they are in
no way comparable to those of the great and well known
physicists or mathematicians. Rather it has been my
impression that Powers has been baffled by the subtleties
and complexities of economic subject-matter in comparison
to the problems of psychology. At least this is my
understanding based upon his telling me that while he had
given economic questions considerable thought, he hadn't
found any place from which he could get a start. It was
as a result of this frustration apparently that Powers
settled upon his dad's _Leakages_ thesis. The choice of
the _Leakages_ thesis as a starting point was not a choice
that was informed by a familiarity, of any extensiveness,
with the options available in the spectrum of contemporary
economic thought.

This is not, when viewed from an external standpoint, a
hopeful basis from which to undertake a revolution in
economic theory. And, when this adventure is undertaken
in the same spirit that generated the conclusions that,
"it wasn't going to cost a damn thing!" to go to Mars.
Or rather than it would be EASY to start from scratch and
from the bottom up generate an entirely new conception of
the entire economic process the success of the project
undertaken in Powers' mid-70's would appear doubtful.
Powers thought, and thought for some time, that I was
going to contribute to his effort to revolutionize
economics. I at some points thought that it might
be possible to work with Powers toward such a goal.
But, then I realized that it would not be possible
to work _with_ Powers. Powers conceived of the
relationship in terms of my working _FOR_ him. He already
knew basically what he wanted to do, and my role was
carry out the realization of his _a priori_ beliefs.

Now, in Powers' conception a refusal to work _FOR_ his
worthy project is tantamount to hatred. And, since I
hold a Ph.D. it amounts to a "withholding of information."
In Powers' view his belittling of another person as "bent"
is his privilege. Telling someone to "stuff it." is
simply another case of "rank has its privileges."
Resisting such assumptions is, in Powers' view evidence
of hatred. But, this isn't necessarily the case. Rather
choosing to adopt a policy that Powers isn't going to
get away with sly digs, and other anti-social habits
allows one to interact on the CSGnet without the feelings
of hostility that otherwise might be generated. That
feelings of internalized hostility. If nasty behavior
is openly resisted then the emotional situation is quite
different than it would be in a situation in which it
is felt that resistance must not be expressed.

Bill Powers has raised the issue of memory and
truthfulness. He claims that I have not made a
"contribution" to CSG. Is this a claim that can be
supported? I don't think so. I've made something
of a contribution to CSG-- it is easy to document
these contributions-- including Bill Powers' some-
what fulsome acknowledgement of these contributions.

I do, however, think that What Powers has to say
about hatred ought to be taken seriously. The CSG
context is the locus within which some remarkable
events have taken place. Up till the present
Bill Powers has resisted efforts to consider why
these events were generated. Now, he proposes his
own peculiar explanation for the events. I, of
course, am not persuaded by what he says-- not merely
because of what he claims. Is there a way to get at
what actually happened? Perhaps not. But, it ought
to be understood that what Powers and Marken say is
not consistent with what many other people would
have to say. And, in some instances it can be
demonstrated that what Bill Powers and Rick Marken
say is not consistent with a documentary record.

Are there inconsistencies in the reports made by
the opposite point of view? Sure. However, for the
most part, I think the story told, by Tom Bourbon,
Ed Ford, Greg Williams, by Bill Williams, and also
the account given by people who do not wish to be
named at this time, is an account that will be for
many people a much more persuasive account.

But, I think it might be useful to have more people
Contribute to a documentation of, and assessment of
Why things developed in CSG such that people began
as Bill Powers initiated it, making physical threats.
At least in my view, threatening to bite someone for
Holding an opinion, indicates a somewhat peculiar
Disposition. Bye-the-way, the only people that I have
Known who have regarded biting as a practical tactic
Have been girls.

Bill Williams

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Williams" <WilliamsWd@umkc.edu>
To: <Williamswd@umkc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:56 PM
Subject: So many Lies, So little time

"The Assistant Head Designer Departs"

Rick Marken in an apparently shaken attempt to rationalize

his decision to withdraw from on-going discussions on the

CSGnet says, [Rick Marken (2004.02.17.0830)]

I just can't help believing that I can show them that there is really

no reason for their hatred.

The peculiar double negative construction creates some difficulties

in ascertaining just what Rick intends to say, but an analysis might

profitably start from the portion of the statement in which he says,

there is really no reason for their hatred.

A dictionary definition of "hatred" speaks of a "strong aversion."

But, Rick, I am convinced, has something more in mind, by his use

of "hatred" than simplify a dictionary definition. To get to the

"bottom" to the foundations of what is involved in this seemingly

simple sentence, is it seems to me a tiresome, but necessarily task.

And, unless it is carried out to its conclusion, I am convinced

that an understanding of what is involved in the departure of the

chief assistant head designer will escape us.

In the fragment of the sentence I have teased out of Rick's

complaint (the wider context of which I eventually intend to

address) combines two very different principles. And, it

combines these two principles in a somewhat novel fashion.

First: Ordinarily, "reason" is considered to be a collection

of principles of the "if then," sort-- a collection of the

familiar rules which make up first order logic.

Second: There is the axiological aspect-- the expression of

preferences, and value theory. And, "hatred" falls into this

category.

Rick, in his floridly self-indulgent Parthian shot, combines

the two domains, and argues that there is no reason for

people to hate him. Rick appears to be making an implicit

assumption that an axiological stance-- such as a hatred--

requires the justification of reason. This implicit assumption

however involves what amounts to a fundamental mistake in

which preferences are assumed in some way to depend upon logic.

When, however, the issue is considered explicitly I would

think that it should be apparent that the two domains are

independent of each other. Both are fundamental aspects of

cognition, and behavior. Hatred is not in any way dependent

as Rick appears to suppose upon a logical justification, or

upon logic in any other way for that matter. Hatred can

stand independently upon its own axiological foundation,

and is not in anyway in need of some external justification.

As such, the expression of hatred, or any other preference,

has its own foundational reality. As a consequence, when

Rick argues that,

there is really no reason for their hatred.

what Rick is attempting to do, is to assume away the existence,

that is the reality of a number of people who have, over a

number of years, acquired an avid axiological stance-- that

is they "hate Ricks guts." In the language of clinical

psychological I believe this process is known as "denial."

Anyone wishing to point out that I do not have a license to

engage in the practice of clinical psychology is welcome, at

this point, to state their objections. Bill Powers, in a

comment that Rick evidently regards as supportive-- says,

What flabbergasts me is [their] shocking stupidity

Powers goes on to argue that, "their" arguments are

like assuming that since Rick Marken eats breakfast and

terrorists eat breakfast, Rick Marken is a terrorist.

Strangely enough, this fact had, up until Powers pointed it

out, escaped the detection of even those who hated Rick's

guts with the most sustained intensity.

But, Powers in the above passage is considering, without

much success, the very same problem which baffles Marken.

And, he appears to be making the same mistake that Marken

makes-- that those who have formed a preference for "hating

Ricks guts" need some logical justification as a foundation

for hating Rick -- and in particular, that they need a

logical justification that appeals to Rick Marken and Bill

Powers.

Powers description of those with whom he currently

disagrees in terms of their "shocking stupidity" is an

example of how the domains of logic and axiology can

become conflated in a way that exacerbates the problem

of determining what is really going on-- a problem that

involves a question of the ontological context of the

process.

And, in regard to issues about process Bill Powers,

[Bill Powers 2004.02,17.0618 MST)] states, [he is

addressing this to Rick Marken, but it has a much wider

applicability,

it doesn't help when you throw gasoline on the fire.

Now, deplorably Powers fails to specify with any adequacy

what content he is assigning to the term "help." Obviously

the term, at least potentially, has an axiological dimension.

     A brief digression

Those readers who have followed the recent threads with

sustained attention, will, of course, be aware that Powers'

made this assertion before the dialog had proceeded to the

stage where CSGnet disputants were briefly considering the

possibility of burning each other houses down. Forgive me the

digression which it seems may extend itself to an extent that

may endanger the main argument-- but the change in the

context introduced by the contemplation of arson modifies,

at least potentially, the wider implications contained in

the terms "help" and "gasoline." And, this in turn augments

the increasingly cosmic implications of the "I see you have

chosen ..." thread. I can see it now, or at least imagine

it, the Fire Marshall begins an interview with a resident

contemplating the still smoking rubble of what was once his

house, by observing, "I see you have chosen to have your

house..." Well, we all know where this sort thing leads.

I had better end this promising excursion, and get back to

the main point-- which by now I have forgotten.)

  an attempt to return to the main issue

It took something approaching an archeological dig to

come within reach of the _main point_, but eventually

the effort met with success. The crux of the problem is

basically "Why are there so many people who hate Rick."

Unfortunately, this question seems to be no closer to

finding an answer than it was when I began seeming

ages ago. But, I think progress has been made in

identifying the basic difficulty which has for some

time been vexing Bill Powers. The subtle problem, a

problem which Powers has yet to solve, has been how to

convince his fellow disputants of their "shocking

stupidity" without "throw[ing more] gasoline on the

fire."

Whether or not, this question is related to the issue

of why so many people hate Rick remains at this point

a matter of conjecture. And, so is the question of now

that the Assistant Head Chief Designer has departed,

"Who is going to take up the load of running naked in

the forest?" Concurrently, volunteers are said to be

scouring Australia in search of a pair of Princess

Lady Diana's sunglasses. It is suspected that if they

find a pair, they will convey them to Ed Ford who is

a secret bagman and providing infra-structure for the

Test Bomb project.

Bill Williams

I am not at present making much, if any progress upon

my forthcoming but much delayed scholarly sequel to

"Running Naked in the Forest: the Scholarly Subtext."

Event are proceeding faster than I can develop a dense

interpretative exegesis and comprehensive gloss. The CSGnet Archives

are proving to be a rich mine of material-- really too rich for me to cope

with any adequacy.