East Meets West Logic...

[labelwench]

In a world of non zero unemployment, it wouldn't be responsible for any parent not to have enough saved to protect their children in cases where wages cease.

That has ever been the purpose of families, communities and nations, to be able to steer through adversity as comes from time to time.

I am referring to the glut of individual wealth, where there are many persons who control more wealth than do small impoverished nations. That, and we are become a continent of people who dream of winning the 'big one', thereby joining such select group.

Difficult to engage such a mentality in looking at a new paradigm, would be my thoughts.

[SB_UK]

Never mind the nations, when people can't understand that they will never be able to repay their credit cards at the rate of interest applied.
Most people who are in credit card debt, do not understand grade 8 math. How , then, can they understand broader economic modeling or even which vote might improve the outcome?

I agree - exactly the point I'm making.

Correcting National interactions isn't enough, though absolutely certainly will be a part of the solution.
A particularly significant but not (by any means) the complete solution to our problems.
As mentioned previously rich country, poor country will simply become rich and poor within each and every country.

Balancing global trade will simply homogenize poverty geographically.

The great part of politics, economics and law is that we are free to define these systems for ourselves -
they're in no way similar to the conscious awareness independent University Departments.
We can do what we want in the field of politics, economics and law -
- all that's required is an explanation of what and why and one other very important factor

- why people are programmed to disagree.

Understand why people are programmed to disagree and you're given all that you need to generate a global agreement.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Dr. Paul Davidson has published in most of the publications you mention. He and I are always trying to extend the places to place our information, but we both agree it seems almost impossibel to reach the right people, due to the academic jealousies involved. Everyone wants to take our information and corrupt it to something it's not. This is quite common in all the history of academic evolution, but the truth seems to manage, after a fashion, to make it to the top. It's just this time around, it's quite critical to reach the top, and that's why I'm here at ToeQuest, to see what exactly it truly does take to reach other communities of differing interests, as none of us truly know what it does take to reach others, so I'm simply trying to find and chink all the weak spots, of what I say and present...

It doesn't matter where I or Paul Davidson publish or speak, since the American culture is 90+% against Keynesian ideas, especially when interpreted to the max, or of policy solutions to the max__so far. Thought we both keep trying, and we've both noticed more on the web picking up on our ideas, it's still a long way to go__At least it seems, but who knows... "Breaking on through to the other side" is a massive job, and it is more complex than the average bear thinks__Understanding-wise and presentation-wise...

Can't you explain the problem to an economics (specialist) correspondent on the major decent newspapers ?

Paul Davidson and I can't even really communicate the same exact subject, due to the complexities of differences of intellectual evolutions__Though we do see the same general trend of our ideas. If we can't yet get completely through to each other, how do we get through to the greater world...? It's really so simple, we can't yet explain its complexity of simplicity__simply. It's a big problem, to know how to plug directly into the academic and public mind__successfully. It's that age old problem of; 'How does complexity talk to simplicity...?', and 'How does simplicity talk to complexity...?' It ain't as easy as you may feel it is__It's extremely difficult...

They'll be able to understand what you mean and be able to explain your ideas in words which other people will be able to understand.

I wish it worked like that... As an example__Do you understand 'Ergodicity...?', the very subject of my first post in 'East Meets West...' Most in the world have never heard of one of mathematics' most important to understand problems...

The Independent, Guardian and New York Times are very well written newspapers.

Davidson's been there, done that__Very little response__and he wrote in simple language, as he does in his new book__very little response... Keynes' is dead to most of America...

~*~

I really do think that it's important that people understand what you mean.

I think you understand the problem and do have the solution.

Just a little confused, because every solution I've ever found has been simple to understand.

The over 100 years Evolutionary mathematics of 'Ergodicity' is not simple__and I know no way of making it simple, since it involves so many false Nobel Prizes already granted__For what is totally mis-interpreted academics. Anyone taking this on is up against a global mathematical and academic community__That can't see it's wrong__Beliefs don't die easily__Usually, their authors must die first__A lot of em are still alive...

[SB_UK]

I am referring to the glut of individual wealth, where there are many persons who control more wealth than do small impoverished nations.

It's difficult to tell people to go and make money, though not too much.
Especially when the mind which desires money, actually does want as much as possible.

That form of mind will simply reference any individual who they know has more money than they do, in the quiet of their own mind
- and make themselves feel better (absolve themselves of those nasty guilty feelings) in the process.

[SB_UK]

Anyone taking this on is up against a global mathematical and academic community__That can't see it's wrong__Beliefs don't die easily__Usually, their authors must die first__A lot of em are still alive...

The mechanism which I use to test an idea is to assess whether the idea explains some aspect of reality which I don't understand.

If you can explain (from my writing) what I don't understand (which your model does explain)
- then that'll help tremendously.

The problem I'm having, is that my understanding of the problem in global transactions and problems with introducing a solution are explained away from a human psychological perspective
- I think you're seeking to explain a flaw in peoples' understanding of the current system.

~*~

People don't want to be a part of a poor system.
Perhaps people are part of this current poor system for no reason other than people don't fully understand the current system's flaw.
It's likely (from past experience) and referencing Thomas Paine, that any systemic change is best introduced by talking to people without vested interest in preventing change ... ...
The problem though being that you're then restricted to having to explain the problem in plain English.

~*~

If the problem can't be explained to another person, simply - won't practical implementation be difficult ?

~*~

Reaching around in the dark here, I may not be understanding you properly.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Can you explain which aspects of reality your specific understanding of reality can extend mine by?

The deep complexities of mathematical economics, and the many thousands of models, and ideas of__yet, the few axioms and laws that change the outcomes...

A fundamental flaw in the structure which we use to think represents a fundamental flaw in every aspect of our reality.

Exactly. But, many have already died trying to get this fundamental flaw across to the academic pinheads__As did Jevons, Peirce and Keynes...

Money (economics) - exactly as Prof Pat suggests - is simply a study of mathematical models of economic activity, which bear no similarity to the real situation.

Well, if you believe that__I've some other snake-oil to sell you. These models, real or fake__run the real world...

Presumably economic models have all countries behaving legally as one of the rules in their construction
- where, I think you're suggesting that countries are either behaving illegally or unfairly ... ... ...

~that is~ behaving in a manner which would not ordinarily be permitted as part of the economic model.

Exactly true...

~*~

Are you suggesting that people can't understand why their current economic model is incorrect?

Again, exactly__Yes...!!!

If that's the case, wouldn't it be simplest to simply state where the error in the current model is (to somebody who can do something about it)?

Back to 'Ergodicity' again__Too complex to even understand the meaning, let alone the actual mathematics of__This is the problem for the thousands of economists and mathematicians, not even counting the general populace__without a clue...

If the error is simply in certain countries doing whatever they can do to win - then wouldn't challenging the Nation's understanding of winning be one's best approach?[No, as it's not the problem__the models' maths are...]
Do you think that people from around the World believe that all Americans live the lifestyle of their soap-operas
- and won't stop until they've attained that level of standard of living?

If so, we're back around to tackling the nature of the mind and how it works, at least in order to correct this misconception.

SB, the problem is thousands of different minds/economists looking at thousands of different models, and almost everyone of them based in the False Ergodicity, yet thousands of mathematicians, logicians and pseudo-philosophers, from Laplace onward, are defending the falsehoods of Ergodicity(to define it simply__It's to do with chance, choice and uncertainty__but of the complex math kinds, as relates to the hundreds/thousands of money models/names. Historically, Jevons, Peirce and Keynes are the only ones who dealt with it properly, as uncertainty math...)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Understand why people are programmed to disagree and you're given all that you need to generate a global agreement.

Evolution of Evolutions' Timings...

[SB_UK]

I wish it worked like that... As an example__Do you understand 'Ergodicity...?'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_theory
seems like a very important aspect of the natural process of self-assembly.

It's very interesting, I don't think I understand it on any more than the most superficial of levels though.

~*~

A central aspect of ergodic theory is the behavior of a dynamical system when it is allowed to run for a long time.

It's difficult to apply this kinda' theory to economics though - absolutely not so in physics, though, I would suggest.

Not so in physics, I believe - because of the more fundamental processes close to and above the quantum interface, having a 'faster' sense of time.

'To run for a long time' has a different meaning to a fundamental particle than it has for us.

Not a controversial argument - if we prefer we can jump up to the level of animals and cite the shorter life-span of a dog to a human, as an example of the nature of time changing (relatively) with evolutionary process.

Dog age in years x 7 = Human age
- the dog 'ages' seven times as quickly
- meaning that each of our human seconds is 7 times more 'precious' to the dog.

[SB_UK]

wikiP/Jevons

Theory of utility

Are you referring to the mechanism by which the human mind assesses worth?

The theory of utility above referred to, namely, that the degree of utility of a commodity is some continuous mathematical function of the quantity of the commodity available ... ...

This idea is very similar to the idea of scarcity/exclusivity of an item driving the price of the item upwards
- and the weak mind paying for the item, not because of ithe item's {quality,utility}, instead because of its (the items) desirability (or capacity for driving envy in other similar weak minds).

It's interesting that Jevons is associating worth with scarcity and not with quality.

I'd suggest that paying for exclusivity is the mark of a weak mind, and that paying for quality is the only valid basis to worth.

Scarcity is much simpler to assess (the designer produced only 5 of the item) -
- quality requires the individual to develop their own neural machinery sufficiently to be able to detect differences for themself.

Quality is often cited by people who pay more than they need to for a product; it would be interesting if people who define quality as the basis for their choice of purchase, are capable of telling the difference between their chosen and a cheaper alternative, in a formal blind test.

[SB_UK]

How much is a product worth?

It's impossible for any individual to answer this question.

I can (easily) make the argument that one's quality of life is maximized when one is freed from the need for purchases (all bar water, heat when the temperature outside is sub-zero ~etc~) ... ...

... ... once again I'm returning to the argument that there's nothing of worth beyond education and this idea poses a very significant problem for economics
- because I'm not really sure that economics can exist in a world in which items are not labelled with a $ sign and figure.

I don't think that you want to hear this kinda' argument though - you'd prefer to hear an approach to attributing $ figures to items, is that right ?

Personally though, I don't want anything that can be bought and I'm just average -
are you sure that the average person won't turn to this kinda' model as soon as they're helped to see through the nature of possessions?

Honestly though - a much better way to live, is this -
freedom from loathsome attachment to things.

Having said that though, I did like my old laptop; it died