East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

SB and SteveA, it's not that we're locked out of 'fundamentals'__It's just most do not realize many valuable fundamentals really do exist. Here's a few examples:

Frank P. Ramsey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_P._Ramsey
Ramsey's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey%27s_theorem
Ramsey theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_theory
Jacques Herbrand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbrand
Herbrand's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbrand%27s_theorem
Herbrand's Term algebra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbrand_universe
Herbrand Universe http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HerbrandUniverse.html

The above all relate to fundamental background independencies of the universe, etc. There are many of these areas hidden to all of us, throughout history__Imo, we must all join our minds in the search, of a true values' mathematical enlightenment...rrr

grrr! (he's at it again)
Originally Posted by _
Not fundamental - we're locked out of 'fundamental' -
the other direction though
(evolution is unidirectional) -
unconstrained.
==
Originally Posted by SteveA
I apologize if my comment was an interruption, but I'm rather certain that no matter which way you go, past the boundaries of the physical universe to convoluted universes of possibilites beyond and farther out and beyond the realm of communication and past that of certainty and further past that to the realms of intuition and even that of sole incomprehensible experience, there's still a realm beyond that and it simply cannot be touched in any way except for the fact that it constructed all of the rest and it has immersed our experiences since the beginning and if there was anything to ever love or place ones trust it that is it. It has done nothing else the entire time and it has given us everything. (I think the pay back is simply to accept the gift and make the best use of it).

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I am not sure about the universe”. Albert Einstein

The global choice__Control mathematical money evolution, or let global money evolution control us...

The a-ethical phenomena of reality__Corporatism's money math rules...

Fundamental academic validity is only possible through numbers...

Fundamental values come from tolerances and acceptances of differences...

Ya can't place a simplicity on complexity, or a complexity on simplicity__They must be scientifically discovered...

Mathematical money fundamentally runs the world__This must change. We need human values running the world of money maths...

Math needs control Earth positively, not negatively__As is the case...

We must start our math systems from the universal background independencies, of the given universal symmetries__and draw our mathematical aesthetic/esthetic values of, into the entire system, that must be applied to real world conditions(we should limit our maths and values to these real world conditions). This(the more complex maths) is your area of expertise SteveA, and SB and I have the universal geometries of genericities for simpler clarities of explanations of__and all three sets of ideas must be united with the women's values' ideas, within the frameworks of any new models of. This is all entirely possible through just cause/effect applications of all our fundamental possibilia...rrr

[SteveA]

...

We must start our math systems from the universal background independencies, of the given universal symmetries__and draw our mathematical aesthetic/esthetic values of, into the entire system, that must be applied to real world conditions(we should limit our maths and values to these real world conditions). This(the more complex maths) is your area of expertise SteveA, and SB and I have the universal geometries of genericities for simpler clarities of explanations of__and all three sets of ideas must be united with the women's values' ideas, within the frameworks of any new models of. This is all entirely possible through just cause/effect applications of all our fundamental possibilia...rrr

Nicely said ... ok, let me give this a shot.

Let's assume there exists some community with a common desire to maximize the general well being of that community and people want to include a better economic coordination that more naturally reinforces the general well being and prosperity in a sustainable and growing manner.

The values that individuals have can vary and so the top level can't be tied to specifics like this because that would impede the diversity of the solutions below it. So in that case the "top level" should be a system that allows coordination between different interests and groups and includes the equivalent of an economic morality in supporting common desires to progress within these groups.

In many ways the ideal depends upon the characteristics of those people - a perfect ideal is simply that everyone has enough foresight and self control and intuition to the extent of superhuman mind reading to be to have no predetermined structure at all - they'd simply be able to figure it out in "real time" and not need any central coordination.

I don't think we're there yet

It would likely be that such a system should then support "freer" modes of interaction - if someone can't "play well" with others or doesn't have the foresight, consideration, or self restraint etc. to work beneficially with others in some group then they should have a greater level of external "direction" (which are really just restrictions and simple laws).

So you might have something similar to a minimal top level institution that simply assures a freedom of disassociation - if someone expects that to be enforced via. the system, then there's a cost for that service and hence an equivalent tax in support of that. It would seem that determining the specifics of this function would likely be more efficiently done by those who are able to operate with fewer restrictions because they would likely have a broader view of the picture. I admit I don't like the idea of asymmetrical governments, but if the entire system was voluntary and people were there out of a choice and desire to participate in the "best thing out there" , then in a sense the very very top level is perfectly symmetrical - noone has to stay and there shouldn't be any specific penalty for leaving.

The costs to enforce or the burden of additional laws should be placed within a group desiring that enforcement. For example, if some people wanted a community that prohibited smoking, they should be expected to pay for or perform whatever enforcement this requires. If one community doesn't have such a restriction, they shouldn't be expected to pay for enforcement elsewhere of something they don't participate in.

To simplify this though, you don't really need to consider specific issues. Enforcement costs are contained within whatever group on whatever scale desires that enforcement within it and the "costs" for those services go up as you accumulate more local specifics to the set (similar to costs of government distributed between local, state and federal levels). In a sense such a system would resemble a republic - and the top level, similar to the ideal in the U.S. initially is simply to assure states don't fight between themselves and the only costs at that level should simply be placed on whatever states happen to require those "services" but there could be a potential abuse of that ...

I just had another thought that interesting and might be more general to all this.

Let's say instead there was no specific monetary tax for this, which causes a problem in assigning specifically who or what gets to determine how this is allocated - in the end human resources are expended but this could be done in a more distributed manner.

Imagine instead that one of the general rules/laws was an obligation to help defend an aggression between such communities (this same "rule" could be recursively applied within communities if desired). So the "cost" of the system would be more one of some obligation to act as a juror or as a police officer etc. and you might even be able to have this done in a surrogate manner where you could select someone else to represent you (offering them whatever compensation they might desire to do it). If someone generally did not assist in this then that could be reason for an eviction notice . (It would be nice to find a way to get around this, but I'm not clever enough to figure out a way to get rid of some final "that's it, you're out of here!", but it appears that's one of those facts that nature doesn't appear to allow getting around)

I still haven't really gotten to more direct economic optimizations but I've got some things to do and I'll try to swing this more toward including an economic system that has a bit more direction and morality to it (once again, it's best to make it as free as possible but point at ways that people can organize better in material and economic terms to reach their desires better ).

Until later ...

P.S. Thanks for the subject Lloyd. It is something that deserves a detailed look at and I'm certain we can do better than where things are at now.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I'm not sure if you are understanding what I mean as the highest level background independencies...? This position is seeing one's own mind, and everyone elses as best functioning from a position of the freedoms of differences you speak of below, yet respecting each's and all's differences__but at the same time respecting the natural symmetries of the given geometric universe. It's no perfect system, yet it's the closest possible of a start of forming new ideas and thinking, only loosely guided by what nature has to offer mathematically, independently of any man-made systems__that natural beyond the beyond you've spoken of. It's a freedom of independence of thought guided only by the universal system of natural symmetries, to base new mathematical models in__No-one's in charge__only the universe's natural energies, as pertains to intuitions and desires, in this area. I'm simply suggesting, the natural symmetry mathematics offers us a given background independence, to draw from, just as Einstein did, in developing his intuitive mathematical visions__as pertains to the highest level you speak of__Uncontrolled by anyone but the pure mechanics' maths of the geo-spheres and bio-spheres...

It's fundamentally, a pure freedom of thought ground, as it's everything from universality to particularism, under a model of universal genericity, and respect for all sensible diversities. Sensible diversities can be decided by the universal geometries and maths, thus removing the drastic fallibilities of human frailties__As long as we stay within first order arithmatics, and first order logics, which everyone from Peirce, Ramsey, Brouwer, Keynes, Herbrand, to Gode'l, Tarsky and others have already proved are complete and thoroughly functional. Then all needs be done, is to figure out the universal values' systems place of fit__within these initial background independencies...

I realize background independencies are hard to grasp if one has not been long introduced to this very important area of theorizations__yet it's really easy to grasp, as it's the true difference between quantum and relative mechanics problems. It's entirely impossible to unite these diverse schools of thought, when qm demands background dependency, and rm uses background independency in all its formulations, since Einstein first introduced it in 1905. Free variables systems are not yet unitable with fixed variables systems' fundamentals...

We require the isomorphisms of these two disparate extended systems__And I think the solutions of values' re-integrations, into our social systems, offers the mathematical path we are all seeking, to unite qm and rm__Thus offering the possible unification of the four forces of nature, as the extended functions necessary, in the field of values, can then be mapped back into the unification of qm and rm__Thus the four forces unifications. I see it all as a function of understanding human values intergrations, with the full scientific mathematical spectrum, through the over-arching system of full background independencies, respecting disparate varieties of ideas...

You say; "I don't think we're there yet " I say; "We can be, iff we choose to be..."rrr


Here's one of the best links I've come across at attempting to unite qm and rm: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3080v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.1946v1.pdf
I've had his math checked out by a physicist friend of mine_based on C.S.Peirce logic. See what you think...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKym33vK1cs

Nicely said ... ok, let me give this a shot.

Let's assume there exists some community with a common desire to maximize the general well being of that community and people want to include a better economic coordination that more naturally reinforces the general well being and prosperity in a sustainable and growing manner.

The values that individuals have can vary and so the top level can't be tied to specifics like this because that would impede the diversity of the solutions below it. So in that case the "top level" should be a system that allows coordination between different interests and groups and includes the equivalent of an economic morality in supporting common desires to progress within these groups.

In many ways the ideal depends upon the characteristics of those people - a perfect ideal is simply that everyone has enough foresight and self control and intuition to the extent of superhuman mind reading to be to have no predetermined structure at all - they'd simply be able to figure it out in "real time" and not need any central coordination.

I don't think we're there yet

I still haven't really gotten to more direct economic optimizations but I've got some things to do and I'll try to swing this more toward including an economic system that has a bit more direction and morality to it (once again, it's best to make it as free as possible but point at ways that people can organize better in material and economic terms to reach their desires better ).

Until later ...

P.S. Thanks for the subject Lloyd. It is something that deserves a detailed look at and I'm certain we can do better than where things are at now.

[SteveA]

You say; "I don't think we're there yet " I say; "We can be, iff we choose to be..."rrr

Very interesting comment and I was thinking a bit about that too on the drive into work.

Yes, it does seem like teh best method is to begin with the most absolutely perfect system possible and then from there detail what compensations or sacrifices are needed to have it present in a more practical sense, but still the ideal should remain and some pathways with visibility to encourage people should also exist to people can see better what they're missing out on ... and come join the party!!

(I'm at work so I can't post more but thank you again for the ideas and links etc. It's admirable that you've managed to stay focused on the subject ... I tend to drift off and explore a bit, but it's nice to have someone showing prospectively nice vistas to check out . Thanks)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yeah, there you go__You're reading me now__loud and clear...!!!rrr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sjSHazjrWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXmTvbw4kLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F5XHZ0NPGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLQJ4toj-JY&feature=PlayList&p=DA3BD18D4E01082D&playnext=1& playnext_from=PL&index=24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqZmtq5LhFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Wpn3dFrEs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOCWUgwiWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqmLyu9SQ8g&feature=PlayList&p=38F1094D114 B3C2D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDVJcUSDKEE&feature=PlayList&p=296F5B3CCD0 63270&index=0
The Naughty Lady of Shady Lane
Black Holes Merge

Very interesting comment and I was thinking a bit about that too on the drive into work.

Yes, it does seem like teh best method is to begin with the most absolutely perfect system possible and then from there detail what compensations or sacrifices are needed to have it present in a more practical sense, but still the ideal should remain and some pathways with visibility to encourage people should also exist to people can see better what they're missing out on ... and come join the party!!

(I'm at work so I can't post more but thank you again for the ideas and links etc. It's admirable that you've managed to stay focused on the subject ... I tend to drift off and explore a bit, but it's nice to have someone showing prospectively nice vistas to check out . Thanks)

[SteveA]

You say; "I don't think we're there yet " I say; "We can be, iff we choose to be..."rrr

Just a quick comment - at a minimum it would be good to move in that direction so people can learn more and better see the ideal.

Well let me toss out a few ideas - the ideal seems to be basically anarchy amongst compatible people. You're really free to do whatever you want and if you extended that to what would appear to be practically unreachable levels of coordination between people, you don't even need to spend time building traffic lights or no parking signs. There'd be no need shop for employees because people would already know how to best fit in and you wouldn't need gates and locks or keys except to physically secure something against the environment.

Now I have to admit if someone else suggested that to me I'd be practically wincing in pain at all the distrust and thinking of all the ways that could be abused by people, as well and how the thing would collapse and we'd be back in the mud again though it really does depend upon the people and to really look at the ideal, that appears to be it (there's probably additional synergy that could be gained by including other aspects as well, but at least with respect to the form of interactions between people, that appears the ideal).

The problem might be broken up into a couple components (these could be broken up further but to keep it simple):

1) Finding ways to arrange people in more compatible ways

2) Finding ways to encourage future "motion" toward a generally greater compatibility between people.

Ok, let me toss out some more detailed ideas both in terms of some of the realistic considerations that would need to be dealt with as well as encouraging progress toward these:

1) You want some diversity, visibility of results and relative independence in pursuits so that people can experiment more and compare the results of various attempts in order to have that pathway a bit more obvious.

This requires a greater local economic and social independence as well as an ability to defend and retain those successes - if everytime some people do well, a local "pack of wolves" goes in and takes a percent of everything then this just adds a decay or half life to any value and people will tend to prefer to just maintain a minimal lifestyle and we'd not get any of the compounded growth necessary for long term stability.

If you want the "party" to go on for a while, the cupboards need to be restocked and that means assuring those stocking the shelves are rewarded and encouraged and the individual values can vary in that respect, which means an optimal system likely needs to deal with a diverse flow of "resources" in various forms - I do think that providing something like software tools to help coordinate efforts between people could help quite a bit in the long run in this respect.

2) Because much of a success relies upon personal qualities you might even have an equivalent of some form of social measures so that it's a bit easier to know who can be trusted with some keys to the place and that could also provide some encouragement for people to "work their way up".

Back when people lived in small villiages and you could pass on an entire days worth of gossip about the neighbors in 10 minutes, this was "built in to the system" , but nowdays with larger communities or a city etc. it's not quite as simple to do this and it could be a benefit for some private institution to help in this regard.

....

I still have hardly gotten to economics yet, but there's probably enough there to mull over some ideas, Lloyd.

Thanks for your links too. I was just looking at some of them.

I'll try to get some more ideas along these lines to post up here later.

I admit the subject is definitely one that appears important to the times and finding a good solution to a wide range of issues could be something that stimulates some desires to head in a new direction. So who knows ... I do think we're going through a process of change and I have some hope for the future. Besides I don't think the dice are entirely unbiased and in that case we might as well aim for the best we can do!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Steve, and good to see your caution... Below you loosely mention the ideal as anarchy, and if one applies that to individuals’ personal states of mind, that is mostly true, as long as the ideals remain within sensible(pragmatically functional) bounds, as anarchy extended to its limit, we must realize is a state of war, which no-one wants. This is where the older generations realized the limits of anarchic thinking lead to, and long ago dis-allowed it, but imo, went too far, as personal anarchy is needed for complete theorizing of best ideals, yet one must separate personal states of theorizing, from the pragmatic social states of organizing ideal law systems, of possible best social order. We can anarchically theorize, as that’s how the mind works the most free, but when transferring ideas from the abstract state of free mind, to the workable state of law reality, we must have a goal of consistency/constancy(Ben Franklin), which would protect the safety and sovereignty of the largest numbers possible, of any type of organized society__If not, we accomplish nothing, with all our theorizing…

Imo, we must respect the differences of sensible(pragmatic) minds’ theorizing, yet respect nature and the universe, as to states of order. Long ago the universe ordered itself from chaotic states of random motions, into uniform motions and ordered states of reality, thus abandoning its prime anarchic state, which imo, we must copy, if we are to have success of taking our anarchic states of mind, into a best ordered state of social organization, just as the Greeks long ago stated. If science be respected, we would realize that mathematics taken to its social limit__eons into a future state__where all social problems have been over-come, would be a single state of best possible order, respecting the most possible personal and social liberties of all citizens concerned. It is just a mathematical fact, as C.S.Peirce long ago showed, that if the scientific method be followed to its ultimate conclusion, all sensible citizens will discover the same exact truths, just as SB stated about thinking, think and think, and think a bit more, and we all eventually see the one answer__At thought’s natural epistemic(innate) limits…

It’s just most everyone is confused by the natural anarchy of their own minds telling them ideas that are the opposite of the scientific limits of the mathematical sciences. Ever since a child, no matter what is said, from emotions to social systems, my mind calculates these statements and ideals, as a possible probability of truth. I truly think everyone, knowingly or unknowingly, does exactly the same thing__as the mind’s natural state is a computational system, acting on all emotions, where fairness__a mathematical process__even helps us decide all emotional states, just as much as it helps us decide all states between emotions and logic, mathematically(fairness). To me, the soul is a mathematical difference engine, and I don’t see how anyone can honestly dis-agree with this, when stated in its simplest state of fairness(that innate mathematical difference engine of the soul) to all. I’ve just thought ever since a child, if more children, men and women could see and realize this simple gift of given nature, we could much more easily solve the personal and social problems__ plaguing the earth…

But, could anyone ever convince certain people/persons, that a natural innate difference engine of pure nature’s given mathematics, really and truly runs/helps run, their souls and minds__either good or bad__by our choices and non-choices of…? This is nothing we create, it’s the discovered truths of lil’ ol’ nature herself__She’s a wise mathematical wizard(she couldn’t be anything else and evolve = equal definition of evolution; 1+1=2^r), and I think we’d better start listening to her, if we’re ever to begin solving these real world problems…

Steve, imo, mathematics can be applied to anything, yet we must realize she is still incomplete between the infinite origin of universals and the definite particulars, but this is where the background independencies come into play. If background independencies are respected, over the background dependencies, one will quickly see this background independency acting within all our very own minds__mathematically__yet with no gound state, than nature’s own given, and the universe’s infinite production of this very pure state…

And imo, if we could simply respect this given possible decider state of nature, we could dream up wondrous ideal states, for our future’s safety and sovereignty, as only mathematics can be the fair decider of all knowledge systems’ truths, and not the ridiculous egos of man, woman and child. Without nature’s natural given decider engine, we are simply making all decisions with ego__your’s, mine or others__and that’s the dangerous anarchy, the older generations are scared to death of, and will fight the younger generations__to ‘blood in the streets’__to protect against…rrr

Just a quick comment - at a minimum it would be good to move in that direction so people can learn more and better see the ideal.

Well let me toss out a few ideas - the ideal seems to be basically anarchy amongst compatible people. You're really free to do whatever you want and if you extended that to what would appear to be practically unreachable levels of coordination between people, you don't even need to spend time building traffic lights or no parking signs.

I admit the subject is definitely one that appears important to the times and finding a good solution to a wide range of issues could be something that stimulates some desires to head in a new direction. So who knows ... I do think we're going through a process of change and I have some hope for the future. Besides I don't think the dice are entirely unbiased and in that case we might as well aim for the best we can do!

[SteveA]

Hi Steve, and good to see your caution... Below you loosely mention the ideal as anarchy, and if one applies that to individuals’ personal states of mind, that is mostly true, as long as the ideals remain within sensible(pragmatically functional) bounds, as anarchy extended to its limit, we must realize is a state of war, which no-one wants.

I'm not referring to chaos or some military or riot teams, I'm talking about political anarchy.

Anarchy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
3 : anarchism

Which is simply a removal of an official government structure. Whether or not that leads to war would appear determined by whether or not government has been what's stopping people from warring (actually in the history books it's been the other way around - the wars and riots almost always have at least one government entity included).

For example, if somehow the government of your country dissolved would you personally suddenly feel like going to war or rioting etc.? Notice that if we need a government to stop people from doing this, then there's already a problem in the society (oftentimes it's a government entity that causes the pressure for this chaos and not anarchy that creates it).

So you probably misinterpreted my use of the word. (And I once again think propaganda tends to try to associate anarchy with chaos, but the two terms are actually different).

I'll post more later in reply to your post.

And I did specifically said anarchy amongst compatible people - obviously this would not be a state of war at all, but there is a lot of social condition against this because of various strings that people don't want to give up. Of course then I went on to point out some of the difficulties in achieve that ideal though, but the ideal still appears to be anarchy though people would need to work at acquiring the self control, discipline and social skills etc. to achieve that, but that's about as close to an optimal state of productivity and growth in terms of human interactions as I can think of (hardly any social overhead at all and with tools available to coordinate on larger scales of interests that can help also).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

No Steve, I didn't mis-interpret you at all. As I stated in my last paragraph; "Without nature’s natural given decider engine, we are simply making all decisions with ego__your’s, mine or others__and that’s the dangerous anarchy, the older generations are scared to death of, and will fight the younger generations__to ‘blood in the streets’__to protect against…"(and I'm with them) It was personal and political anarchy, I was referring to throughout. And I must tell you, I think anyone is personally insane, who advocates political anarchy, just as the older generation believes, but my position is not based in fear, it's based in my knowledge of human beings__which imo, are eternally evil, when too free. I will never change that opinion, as I see people far too deeply, to think differently__no matter how the 'anarchists' try to manipulate and frame their ideas, to their preferred 'false state of kindness'__It's a chimera to me...

You see, Noam Chomsky is, imo, nothing but a complete nut-case, and is steering many people down a false road__as are many of his compadres on tv channels such as Link-TV. Yes, there are good critical points of view to be gained from such shows, but 'political anarchy' just ain't one of em. The only reason we have government, is solely because people are so evil, and not because they are good, or even have the potential to be good. This will not change, no matter how much internet expansion we have, because the number of people who know and believe government is absolutely necessary__Far out-number those who are against sensible forms of government__Far Out-Number, and always will, as it's a human necessity to protect man from man, due to his ignorant state of lowly evolution...

Anarchy, as a social organization is not even a sane possibility__Na Da__Forever...!!! Imo, ideas like that are not even within the sane thinking, on this Earth...rrr

I'm not referring to chaos or some military or riot teams, I'm talking about political anarchy.
So you probably misinterpreted my use of the word.

I specifically said anarchy amongst compatible people -

Imo, when it comes to compatible people, that ends where systems begin__and since systems will always be needed to feed the planet__that fact alone will require governments. So, it isn't a fact of improving peoples' personal states of minds__which many think__The real issue is improving peoples' systems' states of understanding the larger realities. The personal states could be in the worst states possible__and still be able to feed the planet__if they simply understood the absolute fundamentals of food and water distributions__So, it's not a humanistic problem__as many think__It's a statistics, logistics and mathematical problem__We Face...rrr

[labelwench]

While you gentlemen are sorting out the new world order, I would like to share the following observed mathematical improbabilty with you, as IMO it speaks to how seriously conditoned people have become to following suggestion, rather than using observation and their own thinking processes in decision making.

The head produce woman approached me the other day and commented, "Go figure. Those 5 lb bags of onions were on at a decent price, and very few were selling. Yesterday, they increased in price by 20%, yet the label came down saying 'On Sale', and the onions just flew off the shelf."

In our grocery store and in other retail outlets, I am very observant to price trends and history, as that is my job, and I can verify the fact that people pay less attention to the actual numbers on the shelf, than they do to the message of 'Sale.'

Yet we continue to blame the system for all manner of evils, when such obvious lack of self responsibility for decision making exists.

Every day, I see excellent values on good product overlooked, as the lemmings go shopping, oblivious to the savings they have just squandered by not participating in the process intelligently.

Sometimes I believe that we are devolving, not evolving, and maybe that's nature's way of starting the shakedown that appears imminent.