Test Bed of What?

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.24)]

The main components of the TB seems to be a composite producer of products and a composite consumer of products willingly entering into transactions or exchanges. Every time a transaction occurs between a consumer and producer, the event is measured in monetary units, what the consumer paid the producer for the product.

Now, this, IMHO, is a model of a market; not a model of say the economy of the USA. While some would characterize the USA as having a “market” economy, surely we all know there are major elements of the economy that are not willing exchanges between consumers and producers.

Would someone clarify what the TB is testing?

[From Bill Williams 24 January 2004 7:10 PM CST]

Kenney,

I think you are making a good point. The economy is not just the market. The point was made, and frequently, perhaps tiresomely, by Veblen. I provide a sample....

Veblen, T. "Profesor Clark's Economics"

"... a gang of Aleutian Islanders slushing about in the wrack and
  surf with rakes and magical incantations for the capture of
  shell-fish are held, in point of taxonomic reality to be engaging
  on a feat of hedonistic equilibrium in rent, wages, and interest.
  And that is all there is to it. Indeed, for economic theory of
  this kind, that is all there is to any economic situation. p. 193.

But, the market is, in a contemporary society, is unquestionably of almost fundamental importance. So, the market is _the_ major topic of consideration for, as Veblen said, "economic theory of this kind."

There are enough features to the market, banks, investment banking, even government, and professinal services such as accounting services, to keep the Test Bed folks happily engaged for the near future.

In regard to you question, "Test bed of what?"

As an onlooker to the Test Bed project, I think we need to be patient. They aren't ready to test anything as yet. And, based upon my slight experience they don't know what is out there that is availible to be tested. So, asking the question you have, is likely to provoke a considerable irritation. Really it is the journey rather than the destination that obviously provides the motivation. It is a matter of their not knowing where they are going, but they are happily on their way.

The testing phase will come when they have assembled enough structure to make testing models people have of economic agents sufficiently realistic that the results will be in some measure persuasive. How extensive the Test Bed will have to be before dis-interested onlookers will regard it as "sufficiently realistic" to be used in discriminating between rival conceptions of economic agency would be perilous to predict. My guess would be that no one would ever place any confidence what-so-ever in some modest sized software, a toy model, to select between rival conceptions of economic agency. Then there is the issue of how many models of human agency are availible to be tested? Has any thought been given to this question of how many? Not that I could tell. When some time ago I asked who wanted a Test Bed, I didn't think I got an adaquate answer. Not, that I claimed that no one did. I wasn't asking a trick question, but I wondered what this thing was really going to be used for. It wasn't clear to me that there was a readily identifiable market.

The active Test Bed folks can correct me if I'm mistaken.

I'm watching the progress with facination. Facination because, the issue involved in economic theory can generate such emotion involvement that logic and rationality get all bent out of shape. Bill Powers obviously has some reference levels and high loop gains associated with economic questions, but I'll have to say I don't pretend to understand with any confidence what is going on. My approach to economic issues, is to study particular questions until I have reached a novel understanding of the phenomena. I usually start with a paradoxical or anomolous situation. This allows me to build small models that simulate the behavior of a particular econmic issue. Doing so allows me to proceed by writing small programs-- sometimes two or three pages of code, sometimes 20 or thirty pages. The Test Bed, if it develops according to the initial description can be expected to require quite a bit of code. Powers doesn't like to write documentation, maybe nobody does. This can be expected to be a source of difficulty. Still, even though I've never found the idea interesting, not sufficiently at any rate to work for Powers, in developing the project-- something interesting might come of it.

Economic theory quite obviously frequently contains and expresses powerful elements irrationality. I've thought that TCP and Bill Powers dislike of Keynes had its source in some cultural clash. Powers current expressions of anger directed at me, contain stuff that I wouldn't at all have predicted. To say that I am amused, would be taunting Powers, but his attacks don't touch me in ways to which I am vulnerable.

It really seems to me that Bill is involved in some battle with a phantom (Keynes is somehow connected) and I am somehow perceived as the substantiation of the phantom. So, if the Test Bed can be developed so that it works well enough to be used to illustrate the nature of economic relationships, it will be interesting to see how the phantom's and the Test Bed interact. In regard to the interaction between the mundane world and the world of magic I've pasted in, following my signature, selections from Bronislow.

Bill Williams

Malinowski Bronislow (the Slav anthropologist

   ( Encyclopedia Social Science )

     p. 636.

         In some pursuits magic is used under certain conditions
         and is absent under others. In a maritime comunity
         depending upon the products of the sea there is never
         magic connected with the collecting of shellfish or with
         fishing by poison, weirs and fish traps, so long as
         these are completely reliable. On the other hand, any
         dangerous, hazardous and uncerntain type of fishing is
         surrounded by ritual.

       p. 636.

Bronislaw Malinowski observations of the behavior of the

Trobriand Islanders in the South Pacific describes the inter-

relation of matter-of-fact technique and magic.

   even with all their systematic knowledge,
   methodologically applied, they are still at the
   mercy of powerful and incalculable tides, sudden
   gales during the moonsoon season and unknown reefs.
   And here comes in their magic, performed over the
   cannoe during its construction, carried out at the
   beggining and in the course of expeditions and
   resorted to in moments of real danger.

   If the modern seamen, entrenched in science and
   reason, provided with all sorts of safety
   appliances, sailing on steel-built steamers, if
   even he has a singular tendency to superstition--
   which does not rob him of his knowledge or reason,
   nor make him altogether prelogical--can we wonder
   that his savage collegue, under much more precarious
   conditions, holds fast to the safety and comfort of
   magic?

      An interesting and crucial test is provided by
   fishing in the and its magic.
   While in the villages on the inner lagoon fishing
   is done in an easy and absolutely reliable manner
   by the method of posioning, yeilding abundant results
   without danger and uncertainty, there are the shores
   of the open ocean sea dangerous modes of fishing and
   also certain types in which the yeild greatly varies
   according to whether shoals of fish appear beforehand
   or not. It is most significant that in the lagoon fishing,
   where man can rely completely upon his knowledge and skill,
   magic does not exist, while on the open sea fishing, full of
   danger and uncertainty, there is extensive magical ritual to
   secure safety and results. p. 30.

   Reflecting upon what he percieves as a contrast between

the Trobriand Islanders and sophisticated Europeans Malinowski

states,

   Looking from far and above, from our high places of
   safety in developed civilization, it is easy to see
   all the crudity and irrelevance of magic. But, without
   its power and guidance early man could not have mastered
   his practical difficulties as he has done, nor could man
   have advanced to higher stages of culture. p. 90.

It is easy perhaps from the perspective of "higher stages of

culture" to see the "crudity and irrelevance of magic" _in

a_technologically_less_developed_culture_. But, it is

evidently far less easy to percieve such influences within

our own culture where we have been subjected to educational

programs intended to systematically induce magical beliefs.

   The explaination of Robinson's peculiar combination of

success and failure was the result of her attempt to proceed

logically in what is a primarily a non-logical domain.

Returning to the conclusions which Malinowski drew from his

observations in the South Pacific,

     ... any drawing of conclusions, or arguing by the
     law of logical contradiction, is absolutely futile
     in the realm of belief, belief savage or civilized.
     Two beliefs, quite contradictory to each other on
     logical grounds may coexist, while a perfectly
     obvious inference from a very firm tenent may be
     simplely ignored. p. 220

Magic, Science and Religion and other essays
Bronislaw Malinowski

1948
Free Press

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.25)]

<Bill Williams 24 January 2004 7:10 PM CST>

<I think you are making a good point. The economy is not just the market. The point was made, and frequently, perhaps tiresomely, by Veblen.>

Well, thanks, Bill W. I appreciate your praise even more since you are an economist and I am not.

Fact is, I never read Veblen or even heard of him (that I recall anyway–I did receive a minor degree in economics so long ago it probably does not matter). What I wrote was only original to me. I certainly don’t claim it to have been an original insight for economists.

I personally like it best when you try to inform those on CSGNet who want to develop a new model of the economy when they are wrong in their assumptions, equations, definitions, etc.

It seems to me that if the new TB model is inaccurate, or significantly incomplete, any results obtained from it would be bogus. I don’t think anyone wants or needs a new bogus toy model of the theory of economics.

I recall what that great economic (or at least business economic) genius Ross Perot would say, “Measure twice, cut once.” If this is wise, one might want to observe, measure and try to understand the observed econmy carefully before trying to make and run a toy model and try to obtain a valuable result.

But, that is just MHO.

Kenny,

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.25)]

<Bill Williams 24 January 2004 7:10 PM CST>

<I think you are making a good point. The economy is not just the market. The
point was made, and frequently, perhaps tiresomely, by Veblen.>

Well, thanks, Bill W. I appreciate your praise even more since you are an
economist and I am not.

I really do think that it is important to realize that "the economy" is a much more inclusive phenomena than "the market." For a market to run effectively there is a requirement for non-market institutions. You need, to begin with, institutions like a police power to enforce the law, a judicial system to say what the law is, and all societies have in addition functional specializations like medicine, a priesthood, and institutions like the family. All of these functions and institutions run on some other basis than profit maximization. So, I am convinced that it is helpful to study stuff like economic anthropology-- cultures where the market is either absent or only of slight importance so that one's cultural blinders can be to some extent cut down, and it becomes more possible to look at economic aspects of our own culture other than through marketplace assumptions.

Fact is, I never read Veblen or even heard of him (that I recall anyway--I
did receive a minor degree in economics so long ago it probably does not
matter). What I wrote was only original to me. I certainly don't claim it >to have been an original insight for economists.

If you haven't read Veblen, there a potential adventure out there waiting for you.

Actually, I would say that your insight _was_ original. Just because some people arrived at the same insight long ago, doesn't make it any less _original_ when you do so independently.

I personally like it best when you try to inform those on CSGNet who want to
develop a new model of the economy when they are wrong in their assumptions,
equations, definitions, etc.

I've wondered about how some of this wrangling must look to those lurking out there. I personally find it extremely tiresome having to point out stuff that I think ought to be obvious. However, I can to some extent appreciate how it must appear from the other side of the field. I view economics to some extent like chess. A mster chess player may not be in terms of raw intellectual capacity that outstanding, but if the guy ( unisex useage here ) knows the history of the game he can be an effective competitor. He may not know in detail why certain lines of play don't work, but despite the lack of a theoretical explaination he may have a basis for thinking that this or that line of attack or configuration of defense doesn't work. This doesn't mean neccesarily that they can't be made to work, but it does mean that if one is behind in the game in regard to the time clock then it isn't a good idea to go off in some radical direction.

It seems to me that if the new TB model is inaccurate, or significantly
incomplete, any results obtained from it would be bogus.

Well, of course. What you are saying is almost true by definition. However, even bogus results may have some value. I haven't believed there was any validity to the neo-classical economic theory since I was a college sophmore, but the work I'm doing depends largely on using neo-clasical theory to identify paradoxes and anomolies. These paradoxes and anomolies provide the starting point for developing control theory explainations-- first of the anomolies and paradoxes, and then if things work out a larger more inclusive explaination of ecnomic phenomena. At least this is the path things have taken with the Giffen paradox. First an explaination of the paradoxical phenomena, and then the extension of the analysis to a theoretical description of consumer behavior on more general terms. (General in the senses of inclusive scope without _any_ exceptions -- not the vulgarized useage of general in the sense of vagueness.)

I don't think anyone wants or needs a new bogus toy model of the
theory of economics.

I'm more inclined to be somewhat tolerant. Even "toy" models have their
uses. And, in the current situation the world of economics is split
between an orthodox camp that is funded by NSF and other agencies, and
heterodox folks who "fund" their work out of their own hide. Divergent
modeling is going to inescapably "toy model" in scale. My approach to
modeling in economics has been along the line of "partial" modeling.
What Bill Powers wants to do is along the lines of "general" modeling.
I'm not on philosophic grounds opposed to developing a "general" model
of the economy. However, when I look at the effort that is going to be
involved, and compare the costs to my estimate of what such a project
can be expected to generate-- the ratio doesn't look promising. But,
that's my estimate-- but my estimate isn't entirely an uninformed guess.
I have spent more than 30 years since finishing the doctorate looking
for combinations of problems and techniques that would have the potential
for generating fundamental economic insights in economic theory.

I recall what that great economic (or at least business economic) genius Ross
Perot would say, "Measure twice, cut once." If this is wise, one might want
to observe, measure and try to understand the observed econmy carefully before
trying to make and run a toy model and try to obtain a valuable result.

But, that is just MHO.

However, humble it is an opinion I share.

However, there is always the possiblity that however, uninformed, however imprudent, a mad dashing about in the dark may blunder upon an undiscovered pathway in middle of a thicket of thorns that no one suspected was there.

I should point out however, that there are two sides to Bill Powers' interest in economics. One is the side that has a connection to his dad's Leakeages thesis. When Bill P gets going on his dad's econmics the result is what might be called "thinking with the limbic system." The florid expression of this is Rick's H. Economcus broke toy.

The other side of the coin is based upon Powers' approach to modeling. As best I can see, and based upon the standards of judgment I use, there isn't anything wrong with Powers' approach to modeling. I wrote an MA thesis in 1969 on the concepts of "Equilibrium and Equation in Marshall and Keynes" and then a doctoral dissertation on mathematical aspects of Veblen's economics in 1972. The result of this was that when I got a hold of a copy of Powers BCP I could turn to the appendix and see that Powers understood how to represent behavior in time correctly. I don't recall ever having a disagreement concerning this side of Bill's approach to economic analysis.

What the appendix to BCP also contains in addition to a formal description of behavior in classical mathematical terms is a concise account of how to _compute_ behavior in time. Once you see it, it is the so obvious that you wonder why it isn't more widely understood. But, for some reason most people just don't get it. I gather than when Bill P recently attempted to explain it to John Flach 2003 _Control theory for Humans_ , that Flach just didn't get it. This is frustrating, because the concepts involved aren't that difficult. I would think that you could teach the concepts to a bright 12 year old. The problem is that the people who are availible are people like Flach, and they've been taught a whole lot of stuff that gets in the way of an understanding of Bill Powrs' approach to modeling.

The problem from my standpoint with Bill Powers and economics is that while Powers' approach to modeling is, as best I can tell, absoutely impeccable. However, when I've worked with Bill the ultimate issue eventually came came down to whether or not I was going to admit that Bill's dad had arrived at this fantastic insight that had escaped the notice of all the economists.
One reason economists are never going to appreciate TCP's insights into economic phenomena is that these supposed insights are the result of a failure to understand the elementrary principles of bookkeeping. (This is, I know, does not provide an intelligible explaination of the problem. You have to understand the duality that is the basis of income/expenditure accounts for this to be meaningful. But, it does I am convinced identify the source of the difficulty. )

So, from my standpoint inorder to work with the Bill Powers who genuinely does have a profound insight into how to model intentionality, requires in effect that you have to work through or with this issue regarding his dad's ecoomics.
Ultimately he makes it a condition-- you must join me in appreciating, there are other words that are equally applicable, what my dad accomplished. Well, dear old dad was a crack-pot. Dad was also a distinguished structural chemist.

It really does help to have access to a view, like your own, a perspective that is, for the most part, from sidelines.

If what you want is a concise answer for the question "What is the Test Bed for?" I would say that that the "Test Bed" project is a test of strength between Bill Powers and his dad. Bill can't be a better chemist than his dad, but being a better economic modeler is within reach. There really isn't any inherent barrier for Bill achieving this goal. I'm not sure the effort involved is going to be justified by the results obtained, but then I'm not in competition with Bill's dad, and Bill is. Outsider's rarely find family fights appealing, let alone a sport they want to be a part of.

Bill Williams

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.25.1456 MST)]

Bill Williams (2004.01.25) –

If what you want is a concise
answer for the question “What is the Test Bed for?” I would say
that that the “Test Bed” project is a test of strength between
Bill Powers and his dad. Bill can’t be a better chemist than his dad, but
being a better economic modeler is within reach. There really isn’t any
inherent barrier for Bill achieving this goal. I’m not sure the
effort involved is going to be justified by the results obtained, but
then I’m not in competition with Bill’s dad, and Bill is.
Outsider’s rarely find family fights appealing, let alone a sport they
want to be a part of.

Bill, this is getting comical. It seems that it just doesn’t matter what
I say-- you have your convictions and nothing is going to budge them. I
notice that at least you haven’t repeated your 20 years of assertions
about total investment being an almost-constant fraction of GNP, after I
showed that you were using the wrong data. Have you, by the way, looked
up the missing data to see if it supports or denies TCP’s observation? Of
course not.
This whole business about me and my father is getting ridiculous; from
what I have gleaned between the lines, it might be much more appropriate
for you to examine your own filial relationships. But this is getting
ad-hominum to a preposterous degree. What does all this have to do
economics and modeling? Couldn’t I (or you) be waging a battle with my
(or your) dead father, and still be right? The trouble with ad-hominem
arguments is that they might prove someone to be a misguided, ignorant,
uneducated idiot, but they say nothing about the validity of his
argument. Let’s try to get serious.

···

==========================================
One of the essential aspects of successful modeling is to leave as few
loose ends as possible, and to offer reasonable hypotheses to account for
ALL of those that remain. In a complete model, every variable must be
either an independent variable, a dependent variable, or a function of
one or more other variables within the system. An independent variable is
one whose state represents things occurring outside of the system in
question to affect variables inside the system. In PCT, one of the most
important independent variables for any given loop is called the
“disturbance”. It represents variables that can have an effect
on (mainly) controlled variables. In your part-model, an independent
variable was called "investment;’ it was adjusted periodically quite
independently of what the model was doing, independently of any other
system variable, to join with income in affecting the variable called
consumption…
Also, models allow for dependent variables; variables outside the system
that are functions of variables inside the system. In control theory,
these are called side-effects, but only because they don’t have any
obvious immediate effects on other system variables.
In the test bed, the independent variables are functions of the actions
that agents take, and the dependent variables are variables (important to
the agents) that are affected by variables in the test bed model. The
test bed itself is a system made of economic variables: monetary
accumulations and accumulations of goods, as well as some measures of the
uses of machinery of production. Connecting these cumulative variables
are flows of money and goods, measured as rates (i.e., dollars per day,
goods per day). These system variables depend on each other in complex
ways; a change in the price of goods, for example, will alter the way
accumulations of goods affect consumer monetary reserves, and in relation
to income can determine whether those reserves are increasing or
decreasing. And changes in the rate of buying goods can, in conjunction
with prices, reflect on how much income is available to pay the costs of
production of the goods, and thus to supply money to the households
responsible for buying goods (as well as covering other costs, such as
maintenance of machinery, which affects the efficiency of labor in
producing so many goods per dollar of wages).
All of these relationships among variables in the Test Bed exist (or will
exist) simultaneously and operate simultaneously. Each variable in each
loop affects many other variables and ultimately itself. The only way to
deduce what the behavior of the whole system will be (without cheating by
peeking to see what the real system did) is to set up the system of
differential equations and solve them. Simulation is a means of solving
them.
What the test bed model/simulation will do for us is this: Suppose an
agent acts, through an independent variable, to affect some variable
inside the test-bed system. What will be the effects of the agent’s
action on the variables inside the test bed (for example, on
inventories), and through them, on the dependent variables that affect
the agent (for example, the amount of income with which food can be
purchased, and thus on the food available for the agent to
eat)?
I have never seen any analysis in an economics text that could actually
answer a question like that. That is because there is only one way to
answer it – solve the simultaneous closed-loop differential equations –
and I have never seen that done in a textbook. I haven’t seen many
textbooks, but one would think that the most prominent economists, like
Keynes and Samuelson, would have done it if anybody did. And they didn’t,
as far as I could see.
I have, of course, seen many assertions about what would happen, but
they have no basis in fact or science. Consider this question. If you
double the sensitivity of an output function, of a control system so it
produces twice as much output for the same amount of error signal at its
input, how much will the action of the control system change? If you
simply examine the local relationships “through a keyhole”, you
will have to say that the action will approximately double. We know that
that is the wrong answer. The right answer is that the action will
increase only slightly, and the error signal will drop to about half its
previous value.
So, even assuming that the equation C = Y - I is correct, how do you know
that increasing income will increase consumption? Maybe you will find
that the predominant effect is to increase investment, and leave
consumption the same. Maybe there is another effect of I on C that you
have left out. It all depends on what relationships exist in the rest of
the system, connecting these same variables through other paths.
Part-models can’t be used to draw any conclusions about the whole
system.
This is the sort of problem we face in trying to analyze a complex system
like the test bed especially if we look only at parts of it, as
economists commonly do. What you see by looking at part of it is an
apparent causal relationship, so that changing one variable leads to
changes in another. But when that little part-relationship is embedded in
the whole system, exactly the opposite of what you expect may well
happen. Certainly, something quite different will happen. When you raise
a price, you might expect producer income from that good to rise
accordingly, if you’re looking only at sales. But of course we find that
purchases decline, instead. This mysterious “dead hand” is
simply a negative feedback effect, but without a full system analysis you
could never prove that. And your explanations will tend toward
superstition rather than understanding.
So the Test Bed can be a very important addition to economic theorizing.
As I said, it can keep the theorist honest, by showing all the
effects of an action, rather than only those one sees through a keyhole.
I don’t think there is any other way to arrive, ultimately, at a valid
model of the economy.

Best,

Bill P.

From:
Bill Powers

To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu

Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 4:41 PM

Subject: Re: Test Bed of What?

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.25.1456 MST)]

Bill Williams (2004.01.25) –

If what you want is a concise answer for the question "What is the Test Bed for?" I would say that that the "Test Bed" project is a test of strength between Bill Powers and his dad. Bill can't be a better chemist than his dad, but being a better economic modeler is within reach. There really isn't any inherent barrier for Bill achieving this goal.  I'm not sure the effort involved is going to be justified by the results obtained, but then I'm not in competition with Bill's dad, and Bill is.  Outsider's rarely find family fights appealing, let alone a sport they want to be a part of.

Bill, this is getting comical.

I am not sure however that it is ready for stand-up. But, I think it has promise.

It seems that it just doesn’t matter what I say-- you have your convictions and nothing is going to budge them.

This shouldn’t be any surprise. You are proceeding on the basis of an limbic assumption that your dad had a brilliant insight into theoretical

economics. I don’t share your personal history, so I don’t buy that the old guy knew what he was talking about-- in regard to economics.

Edgell, Steven and Townshend, Jules 1993 "Marx and Veblen on

 Human Nature."    Journal of Economic Issues vol 27 # 3 September
 p, 721,    No substantial agreement upon a point of knowledge
 or conviction is possible between persons who proceed from

disparate preconceptions. p. 721

I notice that at least you haven’t repeated your 20 years of assertions about total investment being an almost-constant

fraction of GNP, after I showed that you were using the wrong data.

I say “Tis” to your “Tant”

But, what you are saying is just what your dad told me 20 years ago, and I didn’t believe it was true then, and I don’t believe it is true now. So, you

may think that you “showed” me. But, you actually didn’t. What you need to do, now as then is convince some people. I told your dad,

take it on the road. By-the-Way would you mind saying how many copies of leakages have been sold?

Have you, by the way, looked up the missing data to see if it supports or denies TCP’s observation? Of course not.

Of course not indeed. I am not going to play gofer for a crank. Why would I want to do such a thing?

The way the game is played if the guy on the outside wants to gain some attention , he has to show some one on the inside that he has an insight

that is worth considering. So, when I see what you claim in an refereed journal, then maybe it will be worth my time.

This whole business about me and my father is getting ridiculous; from what I have gleaned between the lines, it might be much more appropriate for you to examine your own filial relationships.

Mine personal history isn’t that interesting. Whatever else he was, dad wasn’t a crank. But, self reflection has its limits. Maybe we both could stand some

help. I’m willing if you are. I’m sure there are some lurkers on the net who could assist us, in a mutual process of self-awareness.

But this is getting ad-hominum to a preposterous degree.

Who was it that was recently comparing me to the Almighty. That really provided a badly needed boost to my self concept.

The Joe McCarthy bit-- now that was sort of a downer. And, I thought the billy goat crack was perhaps meant to be mean

spirited. Did I miss anything?

What does all this have to do economics and modeling?

Well, it is fascinating, because there is a conflict here. You are an excellent modeler, but your economics is just full of shit.

So, when the two come into contact with each other it its hard to predict which side is going to win out. It really is

a fascinating test of modeling. I’m not count out the possibility that the modeling might win.

Couldn’t I (or you) be waging a battle with my (or your) dead father, and still be right?

Sure. This is a distinct possibility. But, there are two sides to your modeling. One is the modeling itself and the other is the

stuff connected with your father.

The trouble with ad-hominem arguments is that they might prove someone to be a misguided, ignorant,

uneducated idiot, but they say nothing about the validity of his argument.

Ah, my argument really is making some headway! To some extent I really am getting through to you.

Let’s try to get serious.

I’ve been saying this longer than you have. But, we keep going back to how great an insight you dad came up with.

I haven’t study the stuff that follows with the attention it deserves, but on a quick first reading I can see that I

agree with much of what you have to say. You grumble a bit here and there, and it will require a more considered

reading for me to see, in more detail what you are saying.

I’ll post this, and perhaps get back to you later.

Bill Williams

···

----- Original Message -----