A few days ago, a certain Russell Brand appeared on Newsnight. Much to the delight of the generally disillusioned left wing viewer, here was a charisma with a rant about revolution, everything being wrong, and why vote for anyone?
A worryingly large chunk of my left leaning twitter cloud seemed to latch on this call to not vote out of protest. Hence this short blog.
His argument here was that voting for the system gave it legitimacy it doesn't deserve, and what was needed was revolution, not a slightly different brand of politicians.
Like all persuasive arguments, it has some basis in truth. There is little difference between the UK's two major parties .. BUT ..
Let's look at the NHS. If you seriously believe a Labour government in power would be selling off the NHS on the quiet as the Tories are, then maybe you have a point. I however, despite being willing to admit there is little in major reform policies between the two parties, can't see it myself. So let's assume I'm right here and if Labour was in power right now, the NHS would not be being dismantled.
Let's also take ATOS. A scheme introduced by the right wing that has arguably caused multiple early deaths and suicides. This is important. It's not a minor policy quibble. It's something else I don't believe Labour would have implemented that has and is causing very real damage to people.
What Russell Brand has just called for, as an appeal to the disillusioned left was in effect "Forget it lefties, don't vote. Let the Tory's win". This annoys me, and this is why I call him a dangerous fool.
If as part of your left leaning thinking, you believe cash flow perhaps isn't as important as avoiding human suffering where possible, then even if the existing Labour party doesn't represent your ideal government, it's still the option to vote for. Basically, that you should have got off your ass and voted for *something* if you wanted to help avoid needless human suffering, premature deaths and suicides. Otherwise you are complicit.
If you really hate Labour? Sure. Set up your own party representation, give it a shot. While you're grumbling about lack of representation, your wish for an ill-defined revolution though .. you might want to actually turn up at a voting station every once in a while and stick two fingers up at the right wing in which ever way you wish to do so.
One step further. I've heard a few times the argument that you have to let the right wing win, so that things get really bad, and this mythical revolution can occur. This .. will only take a moment.
So what these people are saying is, the needless suffering and hastened deaths that occur in pursuit of a revolution are valid. Whereas the needless suffering and hastened deaths that occur due to an unchecked free market / right wing agenda are evil. I'll go a step further. I think the needless suffering and hastened deaths that occur because left thinking people decided to not vote out of apathy or some form of ill judged protest are just as disgusting as the other options.
Read that last paragraph back. Can you see what I see? Where's the evolution in thought to a more caring society? Nowhere. If that's your basis for revolution, I don't want to have anything to do with it. You're just as demented as the people you claim are demented.
Yup. Russell Brand is a dangerous fool indeed.
Showing posts with label Idiots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idiots. Show all posts
28 Oct 2013
3 Sept 2013
Something Smells
On the apparent launch of two ballistic missiles in the Mediterranean area.
3rd Sept 2013
Here's how it went on the information I saw go by, in the order it appeared:
Launches detected by Russia, identify two missile launches from mid to East Med area.
A bit of silence.
Reports of gas pipeline in Syria destroyed in explosion (story later vanishes).
First story appears that this is a US test, along with rumour that it was an accidental launch.
Pause
Israel report no record of any missile launches.
Pause
France reports no knowledge of missile launches.
Then almost together:
Sky News reports that it was a US test launch.
Russia speculates that they may be weather testing related launches.
Much longer pause...
Israel claims it was a joint exercise with the US to test missile defence systems.
I missed the point where the US claimed it had no knowledge of missile launches, I'm only seeing that come in now in retrospect, so don't know where that would be on the time line.
But hang on here...
Israel / US launches missiles in the Mediterranean area, apparently at Syria (from Russia's initial analysis of the flight paths) .. with absolutely no press / media preparations? Nothing at all? Hours passed between launch detection news and the final Israel / US story appearing. Result? I don't believe the official story on this one either.
Something here stinks.
As does virtually all the information concerning Syria at the moment.
3rd Sept 2013
Here's how it went on the information I saw go by, in the order it appeared:
Launches detected by Russia, identify two missile launches from mid to East Med area.
A bit of silence.
Reports of gas pipeline in Syria destroyed in explosion (story later vanishes).
First story appears that this is a US test, along with rumour that it was an accidental launch.
Pause
Israel report no record of any missile launches.
Pause
France reports no knowledge of missile launches.
Then almost together:
Sky News reports that it was a US test launch.
Russia speculates that they may be weather testing related launches.
Much longer pause...
Israel claims it was a joint exercise with the US to test missile defence systems.
I missed the point where the US claimed it had no knowledge of missile launches, I'm only seeing that come in now in retrospect, so don't know where that would be on the time line.
But hang on here...
Israel / US launches missiles in the Mediterranean area, apparently at Syria (from Russia's initial analysis of the flight paths) .. with absolutely no press / media preparations? Nothing at all? Hours passed between launch detection news and the final Israel / US story appearing. Result? I don't believe the official story on this one either.
Something here stinks.
As does virtually all the information concerning Syria at the moment.
26 Aug 2013
Syria
It won't fit on twitter, and I don't like monologuing so much on there, so...
It's not about Assad.
The aim of any surgical strike (if it happens) on Syria, will be to destroy weapons that Israel believe to be threatening to themselves whether in the hands of Assad OR whoever might gain power following Assad's removal.
This explains in part the US & allies readiness to strike. They really don't intend to get dragged in to an Iraq war scenario here. It's just destroy the weapons then leave Syria to fight it out again.
But it raises some issues:
Firstly Israel must not only believe that it's strikes on Syria earlier this year were unsuccessful or limited in scope so a risk still remains. That or Russia has recently supplied Syria with more advanced weapons that Israel can't confidently deal with.
Next that it has reached a point where Israel doesn't believe it's safe for them to strike again to remove this threat as they have done in the past. Far safer for Israel to get America & chums to do it for them to avoid direct retaliation.
Next up? That Russia has knowingly provided more advanced weapon capabilities to Syria presumably in response to Saudi and US constantly funding the rebels for dubious reasons.
So if you stand back and take a look at it, it's once again super powers that be using another country as the playground of political gain with messy results.
This time however, there are some problems. The Syrian military has already said it would view an act of aggression by the US as an attack directed by Israel and would fire on Israel in retaliation. Bluff? Bit of a gamble? Israel / US counting on the fact they can neutralise the entire Syrian threat to Israel in one strike? Well ... If Syria does respond with a successful strike on Israel, all hell will break lose.
Now .. it's at this point I get a bit worried.
In the UK in recent days there's been a dramatic up turn in immigration control stopping and "taking away for interview" any ethnic minorities they can scoop up off the streets. Today it was Victoria station in London, and Oxford that I heard of. Want to minimise the risk of terrorism in response from within? Strike first and round up all you can?
Tenacious perhaps. But then there's the build up of military planes in Cyprus today. Easily the preferred point for US attack on Syria ... But ...
Look back up at the top there? We started this ramble on the assumption the original strike was simply to remove arms that Israel regards as a threat. Now all of a sudden, we're looking at contingency plans going in to place for a prolonged engagement and presumably a successful retaliation from Syria against Israel. If that does happen and it is being planned for as a side effect of the initial strike? Then the term "All hell will break lose" is very carefully chosen.
It's not about Assad.
The aim of any surgical strike (if it happens) on Syria, will be to destroy weapons that Israel believe to be threatening to themselves whether in the hands of Assad OR whoever might gain power following Assad's removal.
This explains in part the US & allies readiness to strike. They really don't intend to get dragged in to an Iraq war scenario here. It's just destroy the weapons then leave Syria to fight it out again.
But it raises some issues:
Firstly Israel must not only believe that it's strikes on Syria earlier this year were unsuccessful or limited in scope so a risk still remains. That or Russia has recently supplied Syria with more advanced weapons that Israel can't confidently deal with.
Next that it has reached a point where Israel doesn't believe it's safe for them to strike again to remove this threat as they have done in the past. Far safer for Israel to get America & chums to do it for them to avoid direct retaliation.
Next up? That Russia has knowingly provided more advanced weapon capabilities to Syria presumably in response to Saudi and US constantly funding the rebels for dubious reasons.
So if you stand back and take a look at it, it's once again super powers that be using another country as the playground of political gain with messy results.
This time however, there are some problems. The Syrian military has already said it would view an act of aggression by the US as an attack directed by Israel and would fire on Israel in retaliation. Bluff? Bit of a gamble? Israel / US counting on the fact they can neutralise the entire Syrian threat to Israel in one strike? Well ... If Syria does respond with a successful strike on Israel, all hell will break lose.
Now .. it's at this point I get a bit worried.
In the UK in recent days there's been a dramatic up turn in immigration control stopping and "taking away for interview" any ethnic minorities they can scoop up off the streets. Today it was Victoria station in London, and Oxford that I heard of. Want to minimise the risk of terrorism in response from within? Strike first and round up all you can?
Tenacious perhaps. But then there's the build up of military planes in Cyprus today. Easily the preferred point for US attack on Syria ... But ...
Look back up at the top there? We started this ramble on the assumption the original strike was simply to remove arms that Israel regards as a threat. Now all of a sudden, we're looking at contingency plans going in to place for a prolonged engagement and presumably a successful retaliation from Syria against Israel. If that does happen and it is being planned for as a side effect of the initial strike? Then the term "All hell will break lose" is very carefully chosen.
4 Jul 2013
``Never Whistle While You're Pissing''
Excerpts from ``Never Whistle While You're Pissing''
by Hagbard Celine
From the Illuminatus! Trilogy
Seventh Trip, or Netzach (the SNAFU Principle)
"The most thoroughly and relentlessly Damned, banned, excluded,
condemned, forbidden, ostracized, ignore, suppressed, repressed,
robbed, brutalized and defamed of all Damned Things is the individual
human being. The social engineers, statistician, psychologist,
sociologists, market researchers, landlords, bureaucrats, captains of
industry, bankers, governors, commissars, kings and presidents are
perpetually forcing this Damned Thing into carefully prepared
blueprints and perpetually irritated that the Damned Thing will not
fit into the slot assigned it. The theologians call it a sinner and
try to reform it. The governor calls it a criminal and tries to punish
it. the psychologist calls it a neurotic and tries to cure it. Still,
the Damned Thing will not fit into their slots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix Teth: Hagbard's Booklet
" I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had
blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing
was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good
scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them. The
world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor
shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only
regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to
his card-index system of classifications. Worst of all are the facts which
violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy
inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card-
indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately
juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of
politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the
Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment.
Every ideology is a mental murder, a reduction of dynamic living processes
to static classifications, and every classification is a Damnation, just as
every inclusion is an exclusion. In a busy, buzzing universe where no two
snow flakes are identical, and no two trees are identical, and no two
people are identical- and, indeed, the smallest sub-atomic particle, we are
assured, is not even identical with itself from one microsecond to the
next- every card-index system is a delusion. "Or, to put it more
charitably," as Nietzsche says, "we are all better artists than we
realize." It is easy to see that label "Jew" was a Damnation in Nazi
Germany, but actually the label "Jew" is a Damnation anywhere, even where
anti-Semitism does not exist. "He is a Jew," "He is a doctor," and "He is a
poet" mean, to the card indexing centre of the cortex, that my experience
with him will be like my experience with other Jews, other doctors, and
other poets. Thus, individuality is ignored when identity is asserted. At a
party or any place where strangers meet, watch this mechanism in action.
Behind the friendly overtures there is wariness as each person fishes for
the label that will identify and Damn the other. Finally, it is revealed:
"Oh, he's an advertising copywriter," "Oh, he's an engine-lathe operator."
Both parties relax, for now they know how to behave, what roles to play in
the game. Ninety-nine percent of each has been Damned; the other is
reacting to the 1 percent that has been labeled by the card-index machine.
Certain Damnations are socially and intellectually necessary, of course. A
custard pie thrown in a comedian's face is Damned by the physicist who
analyzes it according to the Newtonian laws of motion. These equations tell
us we want to know about the impact of the pie on the face, but nothing
about the human meaning of pie-throwing. A cultural anthropologist,
analyzing the social function of the comedian as shaman, court jester, and
king's surrogate, explains the pie-throwing as a survival of the Feast of
Fools and the killing of the king's double. This Damns the subject in
another way. A psychoanalyst, finding an Oedipal castration ritual here,
has performed a third Damnation, and the Marxist, seeing an outlet for the
worker's repressed rage against the bosses, performs a fourth. Each
Damnation has its values and uses, but is nonetheless a Damnation unless
its partial and arbitrary nature is recognized. The poet, who compares the
pie in the comedian's face with Decline of the West or his own lost love,
commits a fifth Damnation, but in this case the game element and the
whimsicality of the symbolism are safely obvious. At least, one would hope
so; reading the New Critics occasionally raises doubts on this point.
Human society can be structured either according to the principle of
authority or according to the principle of liberty. Authority is a static
social configuration in which people act as superiors and inferiors: a
sado- masochistic relationship. Liberty is a dynamic social configuration
in which people act as equals: an erotic relationship. In every interaction
between people, either Authority or Liberty is the dominant factor.
Families, churches, lodges, clubs and corporations are either more
authoritarian than libertarian or more libertarian than authoritarian. It
becomes obvious as we proceed that the most pugnacious and intolerant form
of authority is the State, which even today dares to assume absolutism
which the church itself has long ago surrendered and to enforce obedience
with the Church's old and shameful Inquisition. Every form of
authoritarianism is, however, a small "State," even if it has a membership
of only two. Freud's remark to the effect that the delusion of many men is
religion can be generalized: The authoritarianism of one man is crime and
the authoritarianism of many is State. Benjamin Tucker wrote quite
accurately:
Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression,
invasion, government are interchangeable terms. The essence of
government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to
control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the
nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it be made by one man
upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one
man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by
all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy.
Tucker's use of the word "invasion" is remarkably precise, considering that
he wrote more than fifty years before the basic discovery of ethology.
Every act of authority is, in fact, an invasion of the psychic and physical
territory of another.
Every fact of science was once Damned. Every invention was considered
impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every
artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly. The entire web of
culture and "progress," everything on earth that is man-made and not given
to us by nature, is the concrete manifestation of some man's refusal to bow
to Authority. We would own no more, know no more, and be no more than the
first apelike hominids if it were not for the rebellious, the recalcitrant,
and the intransigent. As Oscar Wilde truly said, "Disobedience was man's
Original Virtue."
The human brain, which loves to read descriptions of itself as the
universe's most marvelous organ of perception, is an even more marvelous
organ of rejection. The naked facts of our economic game are easily
discoverable and undeniable once stated, but conservatives- who are usually
individuals who profit every day of their lives from these facts- manage to
remain oblivious to them or to see them through a very rose-tinted lens.
(Similarly, the revolutionary ignores the total testimony of history about
the natural course of revolution, through violence, to chaos, back to the
starting point.)
We must remember that thought is abstraction. In Einstein's metaphor, the
relationship between a physical fact and our mental reception of that fact
is not like the relationship between beef and beef-broth, a simpler
extraction and condensation; rather, as Einstein goes on, it is like the
relationship between our overcoat and the ticket given us when we check our
overcoat. In other words, human perception involves coding even more than
crude sensing. The mesh of language, or of mathematics, or of a school of
art, or of any system of human abstracting, gives to our mental constructs
the structure, not of the original fact, but of the symbol system into
which it is coded, just as a map-maker colors a nation purple not because
it is purple but because his code demands it. But every code excludes
certain things, blurs other things, and overemphasizes still other things.
Nijinski's celebrated leap through the window at the climax of 'Le Spectre
d'une Rose' is best coded in the ballet notation system used by
choreographers; verbal language falters badly in attempting to conveying;
painting or sculpture could capture totally the magic of one instant, but
one instant only, of it; the physicist's equation, Force = Mass X
Acceleration, highlights one aspect of it missed by all these other codes,
but loses everything else about it. Every perception is influenced, formed,
and structured by habitual coding habits- mental game habits- of the
perceiver.
All authority is a function of coding, of game rules. Men have arisen again
and again armed with pitchforks to fight armies with cannon; men have also
submitted docilely to the weakest and most tottery oppressors. It all
depends on the extent to which coding distorts perception and conditions
the physical (and mental) reflexes.
It seems at first glance that authority could not exist at all if all men
were cowards or if no men were cowards, but flourishes as it does because
most men are cowards and some men are thieves. Actually, the inner dynamics
of cowardice and submission on the one hand and of heroism and rebellion on
the other are seldom consciously realized either by the ruling class or the
servile class. Submission is identified not with cowardice but with virtue,
rebellion not with heroism but with evil. To the Roman slave-owners,
Spartacus was not a hero and the obedient slaves were not cowards;
Spartacus was a villain and the obedient slaves were virtuous. The obedient
slaves believed this also. The obedient always think of themselves as
virtuous rather than cowardly.
If authority implies submission, liberation implies equality; authority
exist when one man obeys another, and liberty exists when men do not obey
other men. Thus, to say that authority exists is to say that class and
caste exis, that submission and inequality exist. To say the liberty exists
is to that classlessness exists, to say that brotherhood and equality
exist. Authority, by dividing men into classes, creates dichotomy,
disruption, hostility, fear, disunion. Liberty, by placing men on an equal
footing, creates association, amalgamation, union, security. When the
relationships between men are based on authority and coercion, they are
driven apart; when based on liberty and non-aggression, they are drawn
together. The facts are self-evident and axiomatic. If authoritarianism did
not possess the in-built, preprogrammed double-bind structure of a Game
Without End, men would long ago have rejected it and embraced
libertarianism. The usual pacifist complaint about war, that young men are
led to death by old men who sit at home manning beaurocrats' desks and
taking no risks themselves, misses the point entirely. Demands that the old
should be drafted to fight their own wars, or that the leaders of the
warring nations should be sent to the front lines on the first day of
battle, etc., are aimed at an assumed "sense of justice" that simply does
not exist. To the typical submissive citizen of authoritarian society, it
is normal, obvious and "natural" that he should obey older and more
dominant males, even at the risk of his life, even against his own kindred,
and even in causes that are unjust or absurd.
"The Charge of the Light Brigade"- the story of a group of young males led
to their death in a palpably idiotic situation and only because they obeyed
a senseless order without stopping to think- has been, and remains, a
popular poem, because unthinking obedience by young males to older males is
the most highly prized of all conditioned reflexes within human, and
hominid, societies.
The mechanism by which authority and submission are implanted in the human
mind is coding of perception. That which fits into the code is accepted;
all else is Damned to being ignored, brushed aside, unnoticed, and- if
these fail- it is Damned to being forgotten. A worse form of Damnation is
reserved for those things which cannot be ignored. These are daubed with
the brain's projected prejudices until, encrusted beyond recognition, they
are capable of being fitted into the system, classified, card-indexed,
buried. This is what happens to every Damned Thing which is too prickly and
sticky to be excommunicated entirely. As Josiah Warren remarked, "It is
dangerous to understand new things too quickly." Almost always, we have not
understood them. We have murdered them and mummified their corpses.
A monopoly on the means of communication may define a ruling elite more
precisely than the celebrated Marxian formula of "monopoly in the means of
production." Since man extends his nervous system though channels of
communication like the written word, the telephone, radio, etc., he who
controls these media controls part of the nervous system of every member of
society. The contents of these media become part of the contents of every
individual's brain.
Thus in preliterate societies taboos on spoken word are more numerous and
more Draconic than at any more complex level of social organisation. With
the invention of written speech -- hieroglyphic, ideographic, or
alphabetical -- the taboos are shifted to this medium; there is less
concern with what people say and more concern with what people write. (Some
of the fist societies to achieve literacy, such as Egypt and the Mayan
culture of ancient Mexico, evidentially kept a knowledge of hieroglyphs a
religious secret which only the higher orders of the priestly and royal
families were allowed to share.) The same process repeats endlessly: Each
step forward in the technology of communication is more heavily tabooed
than the earlier steps. Thus, in America today (post-Lenny Bruce), one
seldom hears of convictions for spoken blasphemy or obscenity; prosecution
of books still continues, but higher courts increasingly interpret the laws
in a liberal fashion, and most writer feel fairly confident that they can
publish virtually anything; movies are growing almost as decentralised as
books, although the fight is still heated in this area; television, the
newest medium, remains encased in neolithic taboo. (When the TV pundits
committed le`se majeste after an address by the then Dominant Male, a
certain Richard Nixon, one of his lieutenants quickly informed them they
had over stepped, and the whole tribe -- except for the dissident minority
-- cheered for the reassertion of tradition.) When a more efficient medium
arrives, the taboos on television will decrease.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can order The Illuminatus! Trilogy over the Web from
The Robert Anton Wilson Bookstore
by Hagbard Celine
From the Illuminatus! Trilogy
Seventh Trip, or Netzach (the SNAFU Principle)
"The most thoroughly and relentlessly Damned, banned, excluded,
condemned, forbidden, ostracized, ignore, suppressed, repressed,
robbed, brutalized and defamed of all Damned Things is the individual
human being. The social engineers, statistician, psychologist,
sociologists, market researchers, landlords, bureaucrats, captains of
industry, bankers, governors, commissars, kings and presidents are
perpetually forcing this Damned Thing into carefully prepared
blueprints and perpetually irritated that the Damned Thing will not
fit into the slot assigned it. The theologians call it a sinner and
try to reform it. The governor calls it a criminal and tries to punish
it. the psychologist calls it a neurotic and tries to cure it. Still,
the Damned Thing will not fit into their slots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix Teth: Hagbard's Booklet
" I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had
blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing
was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good
scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them. The
world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor
shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only
regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to
his card-index system of classifications. Worst of all are the facts which
violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy
inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card-
indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately
juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of
politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the
Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment.
Every ideology is a mental murder, a reduction of dynamic living processes
to static classifications, and every classification is a Damnation, just as
every inclusion is an exclusion. In a busy, buzzing universe where no two
snow flakes are identical, and no two trees are identical, and no two
people are identical- and, indeed, the smallest sub-atomic particle, we are
assured, is not even identical with itself from one microsecond to the
next- every card-index system is a delusion. "Or, to put it more
charitably," as Nietzsche says, "we are all better artists than we
realize." It is easy to see that label "Jew" was a Damnation in Nazi
Germany, but actually the label "Jew" is a Damnation anywhere, even where
anti-Semitism does not exist. "He is a Jew," "He is a doctor," and "He is a
poet" mean, to the card indexing centre of the cortex, that my experience
with him will be like my experience with other Jews, other doctors, and
other poets. Thus, individuality is ignored when identity is asserted. At a
party or any place where strangers meet, watch this mechanism in action.
Behind the friendly overtures there is wariness as each person fishes for
the label that will identify and Damn the other. Finally, it is revealed:
"Oh, he's an advertising copywriter," "Oh, he's an engine-lathe operator."
Both parties relax, for now they know how to behave, what roles to play in
the game. Ninety-nine percent of each has been Damned; the other is
reacting to the 1 percent that has been labeled by the card-index machine.
Certain Damnations are socially and intellectually necessary, of course. A
custard pie thrown in a comedian's face is Damned by the physicist who
analyzes it according to the Newtonian laws of motion. These equations tell
us we want to know about the impact of the pie on the face, but nothing
about the human meaning of pie-throwing. A cultural anthropologist,
analyzing the social function of the comedian as shaman, court jester, and
king's surrogate, explains the pie-throwing as a survival of the Feast of
Fools and the killing of the king's double. This Damns the subject in
another way. A psychoanalyst, finding an Oedipal castration ritual here,
has performed a third Damnation, and the Marxist, seeing an outlet for the
worker's repressed rage against the bosses, performs a fourth. Each
Damnation has its values and uses, but is nonetheless a Damnation unless
its partial and arbitrary nature is recognized. The poet, who compares the
pie in the comedian's face with Decline of the West or his own lost love,
commits a fifth Damnation, but in this case the game element and the
whimsicality of the symbolism are safely obvious. At least, one would hope
so; reading the New Critics occasionally raises doubts on this point.
Human society can be structured either according to the principle of
authority or according to the principle of liberty. Authority is a static
social configuration in which people act as superiors and inferiors: a
sado- masochistic relationship. Liberty is a dynamic social configuration
in which people act as equals: an erotic relationship. In every interaction
between people, either Authority or Liberty is the dominant factor.
Families, churches, lodges, clubs and corporations are either more
authoritarian than libertarian or more libertarian than authoritarian. It
becomes obvious as we proceed that the most pugnacious and intolerant form
of authority is the State, which even today dares to assume absolutism
which the church itself has long ago surrendered and to enforce obedience
with the Church's old and shameful Inquisition. Every form of
authoritarianism is, however, a small "State," even if it has a membership
of only two. Freud's remark to the effect that the delusion of many men is
religion can be generalized: The authoritarianism of one man is crime and
the authoritarianism of many is State. Benjamin Tucker wrote quite
accurately:
Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression,
invasion, government are interchangeable terms. The essence of
government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to
control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the
nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it be made by one man
upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one
man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by
all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy.
Tucker's use of the word "invasion" is remarkably precise, considering that
he wrote more than fifty years before the basic discovery of ethology.
Every act of authority is, in fact, an invasion of the psychic and physical
territory of another.
Every fact of science was once Damned. Every invention was considered
impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every
artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly. The entire web of
culture and "progress," everything on earth that is man-made and not given
to us by nature, is the concrete manifestation of some man's refusal to bow
to Authority. We would own no more, know no more, and be no more than the
first apelike hominids if it were not for the rebellious, the recalcitrant,
and the intransigent. As Oscar Wilde truly said, "Disobedience was man's
Original Virtue."
The human brain, which loves to read descriptions of itself as the
universe's most marvelous organ of perception, is an even more marvelous
organ of rejection. The naked facts of our economic game are easily
discoverable and undeniable once stated, but conservatives- who are usually
individuals who profit every day of their lives from these facts- manage to
remain oblivious to them or to see them through a very rose-tinted lens.
(Similarly, the revolutionary ignores the total testimony of history about
the natural course of revolution, through violence, to chaos, back to the
starting point.)
We must remember that thought is abstraction. In Einstein's metaphor, the
relationship between a physical fact and our mental reception of that fact
is not like the relationship between beef and beef-broth, a simpler
extraction and condensation; rather, as Einstein goes on, it is like the
relationship between our overcoat and the ticket given us when we check our
overcoat. In other words, human perception involves coding even more than
crude sensing. The mesh of language, or of mathematics, or of a school of
art, or of any system of human abstracting, gives to our mental constructs
the structure, not of the original fact, but of the symbol system into
which it is coded, just as a map-maker colors a nation purple not because
it is purple but because his code demands it. But every code excludes
certain things, blurs other things, and overemphasizes still other things.
Nijinski's celebrated leap through the window at the climax of 'Le Spectre
d'une Rose' is best coded in the ballet notation system used by
choreographers; verbal language falters badly in attempting to conveying;
painting or sculpture could capture totally the magic of one instant, but
one instant only, of it; the physicist's equation, Force = Mass X
Acceleration, highlights one aspect of it missed by all these other codes,
but loses everything else about it. Every perception is influenced, formed,
and structured by habitual coding habits- mental game habits- of the
perceiver.
All authority is a function of coding, of game rules. Men have arisen again
and again armed with pitchforks to fight armies with cannon; men have also
submitted docilely to the weakest and most tottery oppressors. It all
depends on the extent to which coding distorts perception and conditions
the physical (and mental) reflexes.
It seems at first glance that authority could not exist at all if all men
were cowards or if no men were cowards, but flourishes as it does because
most men are cowards and some men are thieves. Actually, the inner dynamics
of cowardice and submission on the one hand and of heroism and rebellion on
the other are seldom consciously realized either by the ruling class or the
servile class. Submission is identified not with cowardice but with virtue,
rebellion not with heroism but with evil. To the Roman slave-owners,
Spartacus was not a hero and the obedient slaves were not cowards;
Spartacus was a villain and the obedient slaves were virtuous. The obedient
slaves believed this also. The obedient always think of themselves as
virtuous rather than cowardly.
If authority implies submission, liberation implies equality; authority
exist when one man obeys another, and liberty exists when men do not obey
other men. Thus, to say that authority exists is to say that class and
caste exis, that submission and inequality exist. To say the liberty exists
is to that classlessness exists, to say that brotherhood and equality
exist. Authority, by dividing men into classes, creates dichotomy,
disruption, hostility, fear, disunion. Liberty, by placing men on an equal
footing, creates association, amalgamation, union, security. When the
relationships between men are based on authority and coercion, they are
driven apart; when based on liberty and non-aggression, they are drawn
together. The facts are self-evident and axiomatic. If authoritarianism did
not possess the in-built, preprogrammed double-bind structure of a Game
Without End, men would long ago have rejected it and embraced
libertarianism. The usual pacifist complaint about war, that young men are
led to death by old men who sit at home manning beaurocrats' desks and
taking no risks themselves, misses the point entirely. Demands that the old
should be drafted to fight their own wars, or that the leaders of the
warring nations should be sent to the front lines on the first day of
battle, etc., are aimed at an assumed "sense of justice" that simply does
not exist. To the typical submissive citizen of authoritarian society, it
is normal, obvious and "natural" that he should obey older and more
dominant males, even at the risk of his life, even against his own kindred,
and even in causes that are unjust or absurd.
"The Charge of the Light Brigade"- the story of a group of young males led
to their death in a palpably idiotic situation and only because they obeyed
a senseless order without stopping to think- has been, and remains, a
popular poem, because unthinking obedience by young males to older males is
the most highly prized of all conditioned reflexes within human, and
hominid, societies.
The mechanism by which authority and submission are implanted in the human
mind is coding of perception. That which fits into the code is accepted;
all else is Damned to being ignored, brushed aside, unnoticed, and- if
these fail- it is Damned to being forgotten. A worse form of Damnation is
reserved for those things which cannot be ignored. These are daubed with
the brain's projected prejudices until, encrusted beyond recognition, they
are capable of being fitted into the system, classified, card-indexed,
buried. This is what happens to every Damned Thing which is too prickly and
sticky to be excommunicated entirely. As Josiah Warren remarked, "It is
dangerous to understand new things too quickly." Almost always, we have not
understood them. We have murdered them and mummified their corpses.
A monopoly on the means of communication may define a ruling elite more
precisely than the celebrated Marxian formula of "monopoly in the means of
production." Since man extends his nervous system though channels of
communication like the written word, the telephone, radio, etc., he who
controls these media controls part of the nervous system of every member of
society. The contents of these media become part of the contents of every
individual's brain.
Thus in preliterate societies taboos on spoken word are more numerous and
more Draconic than at any more complex level of social organisation. With
the invention of written speech -- hieroglyphic, ideographic, or
alphabetical -- the taboos are shifted to this medium; there is less
concern with what people say and more concern with what people write. (Some
of the fist societies to achieve literacy, such as Egypt and the Mayan
culture of ancient Mexico, evidentially kept a knowledge of hieroglyphs a
religious secret which only the higher orders of the priestly and royal
families were allowed to share.) The same process repeats endlessly: Each
step forward in the technology of communication is more heavily tabooed
than the earlier steps. Thus, in America today (post-Lenny Bruce), one
seldom hears of convictions for spoken blasphemy or obscenity; prosecution
of books still continues, but higher courts increasingly interpret the laws
in a liberal fashion, and most writer feel fairly confident that they can
publish virtually anything; movies are growing almost as decentralised as
books, although the fight is still heated in this area; television, the
newest medium, remains encased in neolithic taboo. (When the TV pundits
committed le`se majeste after an address by the then Dominant Male, a
certain Richard Nixon, one of his lieutenants quickly informed them they
had over stepped, and the whole tribe -- except for the dissident minority
-- cheered for the reassertion of tradition.) When a more efficient medium
arrives, the taboos on television will decrease.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can order The Illuminatus! Trilogy over the Web from
The Robert Anton Wilson Bookstore
17 Apr 2013
The 'Science' of Economics
Deep sigh.
This follows on from my "Why Krugman is an Idiot" post horribly well.
You're safe. You don't have to read that one. In it I criticise the start point of Krugman's thought experiment as distorted to fit his conclusions. There you go. That was easy!
Well take a look at this then ...
Got that? A chunk of missing NZ data for whatever reason, that's royally messed up a currently widely respected and followed piece of economic research.
Tell that to the families and friends of the suicides in Greece.
Just one huge deep sigh at how we are being led increasingly by stupidity instead of ability.
My father was an educational researcher. It's a messy hard to explain field. Fundamentally though a lot of it rests on data, analysis and research of whichever area is under the microscope. What he did well, and seems to have rubbed off on me. Is respect for source data.
It's the same from instruments, through good old record decks right up to modern audio systems. The quality of source data is vital. If that's deformed, mangled, distorted in any way at all, then there is no way in hell you are going to make up for it no matter how good the analysis is that follows.
If done properly, the life of the educational researcher is a test of skills in that respect. The source data is often a mix of quantitative and qualitative data. The funding for time spent on gathering it is often as little as humanly possible. Each scrap of data is like a tiny nugget of gold. One inept field researcher can demolish vast swathes of valid input.
Where am I going with this? Just that the art of good research and solid conclusion based on it seems to be slowly fading away from the world. Outside the world of the purely scientific, it seems anything goes as long as it pays. Well actually. Even within the world of the scientific. Look at climate change deniers and who funds their papers.
Just another facepalm night in a world full of fail.
This follows on from my "Why Krugman is an Idiot" post horribly well.
You're safe. You don't have to read that one. In it I criticise the start point of Krugman's thought experiment as distorted to fit his conclusions. There you go. That was easy!
Well take a look at this then ...
Got that? A chunk of missing NZ data for whatever reason, that's royally messed up a currently widely respected and followed piece of economic research.
Tell that to the families and friends of the suicides in Greece.
Just one huge deep sigh at how we are being led increasingly by stupidity instead of ability.
My father was an educational researcher. It's a messy hard to explain field. Fundamentally though a lot of it rests on data, analysis and research of whichever area is under the microscope. What he did well, and seems to have rubbed off on me. Is respect for source data.
It's the same from instruments, through good old record decks right up to modern audio systems. The quality of source data is vital. If that's deformed, mangled, distorted in any way at all, then there is no way in hell you are going to make up for it no matter how good the analysis is that follows.
If done properly, the life of the educational researcher is a test of skills in that respect. The source data is often a mix of quantitative and qualitative data. The funding for time spent on gathering it is often as little as humanly possible. Each scrap of data is like a tiny nugget of gold. One inept field researcher can demolish vast swathes of valid input.
Where am I going with this? Just that the art of good research and solid conclusion based on it seems to be slowly fading away from the world. Outside the world of the purely scientific, it seems anything goes as long as it pays. Well actually. Even within the world of the scientific. Look at climate change deniers and who funds their papers.
Just another facepalm night in a world full of fail.
13 Apr 2013
WTF Is Wrong With You People?
BITCOIN!
This time Bitcoin-24 down.
Previously MtGox.
People again moaning they have BTC tied up in there.
If you were mid transaction when it went down? Then fair enough, and I'm sorry for your horribly bad luck. If you parked all your money there? What are you? Some kind of idiot?
If you park your money on any website, in any currency, you take a risk! With Bitcoin you don't even need to! Install the client software. Use it. That's your transaction wallet. Install Armory just like I told you to weeks back. That's your easily restored even from a complete computer crash wallet.
Bitcoin is now getting bad press from idiot's parking money on a website when for 90% of the time there's no need to at all with bitcoin! You are your own bank with bitcoin! That's part of the whole appeal if you have the faintest clue what you're doing!
ARGH!
This time Bitcoin-24 down.
Previously MtGox.
People again moaning they have BTC tied up in there.
If you were mid transaction when it went down? Then fair enough, and I'm sorry for your horribly bad luck. If you parked all your money there? What are you? Some kind of idiot?
If you park your money on any website, in any currency, you take a risk! With Bitcoin you don't even need to! Install the client software. Use it. That's your transaction wallet. Install Armory just like I told you to weeks back. That's your easily restored even from a complete computer crash wallet.
Bitcoin is now getting bad press from idiot's parking money on a website when for 90% of the time there's no need to at all with bitcoin! You are your own bank with bitcoin! That's part of the whole appeal if you have the faintest clue what you're doing!
ARGH!
12 Apr 2013
Why Krugman Is An Idiot
Recently an article Krugman wrote in 1998 has been quoted and used as a reason to slate bitcoin.
Luckily, we don't even have to debate bitcoin this time. Krugman doesn't even understand babysitting.
Here's the basics of his article. Don't worry. You don't have to understand economics in great detail to see exactly why Krugman is talking out of his arse. It's pretty simple.
It claims to capture the essence of hoarding being a problem in an economic sense by comparing it to a baby sitting club using 1 hour coupons.
In Krugman's model. One couple (let's call them the Krugman's) decide to undermine the basis of the coupons and increase the value of them by hoarding them.
First problem. To hoard the coupons, the Krugman's spend months baby sitting and gathering vouchers. They never accept an offer for baby sitting in return. In effect, they are being rather generous.
After a couple of months, the baby sitting group meets up and notices the vouchers are running low. There is discussion. Everyone agree's the Krugman's are a bit weird, but they did get some baby sitting done, so it's no real problem. They buy another book of coupon's and carry on exchanging coupon's, some even seek out the Krugman's knowing they will never be asked to babysit in return.
There is no devaluation or economic point you can make out of any of this whatsoever for one very simple reason:
A one hour baby sitting coupon is worth one hour of babysitting. Hoarding it doesn't change anything. It's an hour of baby sitting. All the other coupons don't become worth more or less. Even supplying more to the people that do baby sitting doesn't change the value. Every voucher is still worth one hour of baby sitting no matter what the Krugman's do.
Any other conclusion is a severe distortion of reality. Why do you need to contrive a completely unrealistic situation to prove a point? Hmm... What kind of lunatic baby sitting club would declare a problem with supply of vouchers is causing the value of every voucher to change? Or to simply dissolve the baby sitting circle as an answer?
The Krugman's however are left with a vast pile of vouchers, now to cash in!!! Except ... you can only spend one voucher, per hour, per babysitter. So it's going to take them rather a long time to do it. The Krugman's have in fact taken on additional risk. What if the baby sitting pool vanishes before they can spend all the vouchers? What if the children grow up and don't even need them? ... In short ... The Krugman's are trying to manipulate a bubble and may get burned for it because they don't understand it. Are you listening Paul? I so wish I could know you read this one day.
All Krugman's efforts to demonstrate a problem with hoarding in baby sitting voucher's illustrates is that here is an economic "guru" who doesn't understand simple value and exchange.
It's a stupid model, a stupid analogy, ill thought out and deeply flawed as an example of anything except Krugman's own stupidity.
We don't even have to go on to apply his conclusions to bitcoin, because if he can't even get the economics of a baby sitting circle right, what's the point?
I've had people get back to me and say "No you don't get it. In Krugman's model, they can't get any more coupons, that's the whole point of his argument". To which I say. No. You don't get it. It is trivial for the group to get another book and issue coupons for baby sitting. That is what would happen in reality. To say "Well in Krugman's model they simply can't". Is just dumb. If Krugman wants to prove his point, he needs a real world example of what he's trying to argue where it's not trivially easy and reasonable for the group to just get more coupons.
If he can't find a model that actually fits what he wants to say. Just Maybe what he is saying is flawed as well? To love Krugman's reasoning on this one, you have to also love the fact that his conclusion may be just as contrived and unrealistic as his basic original model.
Yes I am aware of how thought experiments work. When it comes to mathematics, you can be quite fanciful if your end aim is admittedly a theoretical exercise only. For example: We know two men row a boat so fast. I wonder how fast 500 men could row the same boat? It is impossible of course to fit 500 men in the boat, but for the purposes of testing out your theories on how fast the boat might go, it'll do. When it comes to economics, it's not a scientifically testable or correct outcome from a thought experiment, so your start point needs to be pretty darn valid if there's going to be any faith in the conclusions you come to.
In the boat example, you might start off by asking how good are the rowers? How long do they have to sustain that speed? You define reasonable assumptions and the basics for later calculation. If you want to skew the results, you find two very slow rowers, or two very fast rowers and don't pay any attention to that fact in your conclusions. It's called selecting the data to suit the assumption. That's exactly what Krugman is guilty of here.
The perfect world:
"Yes Mr Krugman, I can see you have started from an excellent simple model with which I can find no major flaws whatsoever. I shall consider your final conclusions when applied to economics as a whole with a degree of belief".
Where we are:
"Mr Krugman? Why can't the group just buy more vouchers?"
"Because I said they can't."
"Could you have chosen an example where limit of supply was more realistic?"
"I don't care. This way I get to prove a problem with hoarding."
"Why babysitters?"
"Limited supply of a small number of vouchers!"
"But that's not at all realistic is it Mr Krugman? Gold would be a better example of limited supply wouldn't it? Why not make your argument using gold as a start point?"
<silence ... mutters something about hoarding examples not working so well for gold>
"So why does your final conclusion work out the way it does?"
"Because I said it does and it matches the original model."
"M'kay. Is this sounding a little circular in the logic department?"
<silence>
So no it's not okay to say Krugman's theory is valid even if he got baby-sitting dynamics wrong. Krugman chose an example to illustrate a principle he believed in. His example is deeply flawed. How much do you trust his principle now? You can't extend a theory from bullshit.
People listen to moron's like Krugman because they have money. Don't. People with money can also be incredibly stupid, as I have just demonstrated in one very short blog post.
On this one. Maybe we get a glimpse of how the great economists controlling our nation's think. They don't very much. They know how to play the numbers given to them in the game they know how to play. They lack a fundamental knowledge of how it all works when the wheels start falling off and basic supply and demand is the economic factor. They live in a world where a "one" is a billion. They no longer have any clue how the part's work that made the "one" possible.
-----
Postscript Diversion
Hey if we can contrive whatever we like out of a situation to prove the point we want to make? Here's my version. Just for the lulz. I'll even stick to the original impossible to replace idea.
We take it that the Krugman's have a significant share of the the impossible to replace vouchers as described above. The circle meets, there is no easy solution. If the Krugman's are excluded from the club then the vouchers can never be earned back in to circulation. Nobody wants to see value adjustment of existing vouchers, nor is there a simple and agreeable way to do it. Dissolving the circle and starting with new vouchers is impossible. These are the only baby vouchers that will ever exist, and each is quite clearly marked "One Hour". The circle meeting breaks up with little in the way of solutions, vowing to meet again next week and review the situation. A few days later, under cover of night, a small faction of baby sitting gun owners storm the Krugman's demanding the return of the vouchers.
Nobody is hurt, but arrests are made. Three of the father's in the baby sitting circle are now facing charges in custody. First the wives of those three, then a larger support group form a passive 24 hour resistance group that camps outside the Krugman's. Hurling abuse at them and demanding the vouchers back whenever they are seen outside the house.
Infuriated that the voucher hoarding plan hasn't worked and harassed by the support camp. The Krugman's light a bonfire one night and burn the vouchers they do have in full sight of the baby sitting support camp.
The cries of loss from the camp are unbearable. All hope is lost.
The remaining vouchers can't sustain even a small baby sitting circle and the group disbands. No baby sitting is ever possible in the town again for the rest of eternity. The Krugman's eventually leave town and try to join baby sitting circles in the next place they put down roots, only to find that they are excluded. Denied the joys of equitable baby sitting, the Krugman's argue bitterly and eventually divorce at great personal cost.
Meanwhile, over a period of decades, the town the Krugman's removed virtually all baby sitting vouchers from produces less and less children, and attracts less and less families with children. It gradually becomes a ghost town, eventually only populated by the childless over the age of 40. Such is the economic wasteland left by the Krugman's hoarding and burning of irreplaceable baby sitting vouchers.
News of the tragedy spreads across America, and soon all baby sitting circles have set an absolute upper limit on the number of vouchers any one couple can hold. It becomes known as "The Krugman Limit". Thus the rest of America is spared the horrors of baby sitting voucher hoarding and the tragic loss to humanity that results.
Well hey. You did say the vouchers were totally impossible to replace right? I like my version better than Krugman's anyway. It has social resistance, drama, fires and divorce in it. What's not to like?
Luckily, we don't even have to debate bitcoin this time. Krugman doesn't even understand babysitting.
Here's the basics of his article. Don't worry. You don't have to understand economics in great detail to see exactly why Krugman is talking out of his arse. It's pretty simple.
It claims to capture the essence of hoarding being a problem in an economic sense by comparing it to a baby sitting club using 1 hour coupons.
In Krugman's model. One couple (let's call them the Krugman's) decide to undermine the basis of the coupons and increase the value of them by hoarding them.
First problem. To hoard the coupons, the Krugman's spend months baby sitting and gathering vouchers. They never accept an offer for baby sitting in return. In effect, they are being rather generous.
After a couple of months, the baby sitting group meets up and notices the vouchers are running low. There is discussion. Everyone agree's the Krugman's are a bit weird, but they did get some baby sitting done, so it's no real problem. They buy another book of coupon's and carry on exchanging coupon's, some even seek out the Krugman's knowing they will never be asked to babysit in return.
There is no devaluation or economic point you can make out of any of this whatsoever for one very simple reason:
A one hour baby sitting coupon is worth one hour of babysitting. Hoarding it doesn't change anything. It's an hour of baby sitting. All the other coupons don't become worth more or less. Even supplying more to the people that do baby sitting doesn't change the value. Every voucher is still worth one hour of baby sitting no matter what the Krugman's do.
Any other conclusion is a severe distortion of reality. Why do you need to contrive a completely unrealistic situation to prove a point? Hmm... What kind of lunatic baby sitting club would declare a problem with supply of vouchers is causing the value of every voucher to change? Or to simply dissolve the baby sitting circle as an answer?
The Krugman's however are left with a vast pile of vouchers, now to cash in!!! Except ... you can only spend one voucher, per hour, per babysitter. So it's going to take them rather a long time to do it. The Krugman's have in fact taken on additional risk. What if the baby sitting pool vanishes before they can spend all the vouchers? What if the children grow up and don't even need them? ... In short ... The Krugman's are trying to manipulate a bubble and may get burned for it because they don't understand it. Are you listening Paul? I so wish I could know you read this one day.
All Krugman's efforts to demonstrate a problem with hoarding in baby sitting voucher's illustrates is that here is an economic "guru" who doesn't understand simple value and exchange.
It's a stupid model, a stupid analogy, ill thought out and deeply flawed as an example of anything except Krugman's own stupidity.
We don't even have to go on to apply his conclusions to bitcoin, because if he can't even get the economics of a baby sitting circle right, what's the point?
I've had people get back to me and say "No you don't get it. In Krugman's model, they can't get any more coupons, that's the whole point of his argument". To which I say. No. You don't get it. It is trivial for the group to get another book and issue coupons for baby sitting. That is what would happen in reality. To say "Well in Krugman's model they simply can't". Is just dumb. If Krugman wants to prove his point, he needs a real world example of what he's trying to argue where it's not trivially easy and reasonable for the group to just get more coupons.
If he can't find a model that actually fits what he wants to say. Just Maybe what he is saying is flawed as well? To love Krugman's reasoning on this one, you have to also love the fact that his conclusion may be just as contrived and unrealistic as his basic original model.
Yes I am aware of how thought experiments work. When it comes to mathematics, you can be quite fanciful if your end aim is admittedly a theoretical exercise only. For example: We know two men row a boat so fast. I wonder how fast 500 men could row the same boat? It is impossible of course to fit 500 men in the boat, but for the purposes of testing out your theories on how fast the boat might go, it'll do. When it comes to economics, it's not a scientifically testable or correct outcome from a thought experiment, so your start point needs to be pretty darn valid if there's going to be any faith in the conclusions you come to.
In the boat example, you might start off by asking how good are the rowers? How long do they have to sustain that speed? You define reasonable assumptions and the basics for later calculation. If you want to skew the results, you find two very slow rowers, or two very fast rowers and don't pay any attention to that fact in your conclusions. It's called selecting the data to suit the assumption. That's exactly what Krugman is guilty of here.
The perfect world:
"Yes Mr Krugman, I can see you have started from an excellent simple model with which I can find no major flaws whatsoever. I shall consider your final conclusions when applied to economics as a whole with a degree of belief".
Where we are:
"Mr Krugman? Why can't the group just buy more vouchers?"
"Because I said they can't."
"Could you have chosen an example where limit of supply was more realistic?"
"I don't care. This way I get to prove a problem with hoarding."
"Why babysitters?"
"Limited supply of a small number of vouchers!"
"But that's not at all realistic is it Mr Krugman? Gold would be a better example of limited supply wouldn't it? Why not make your argument using gold as a start point?"
<silence ... mutters something about hoarding examples not working so well for gold>
"So why does your final conclusion work out the way it does?"
"Because I said it does and it matches the original model."
"M'kay. Is this sounding a little circular in the logic department?"
<silence>
So no it's not okay to say Krugman's theory is valid even if he got baby-sitting dynamics wrong. Krugman chose an example to illustrate a principle he believed in. His example is deeply flawed. How much do you trust his principle now? You can't extend a theory from bullshit.
People listen to moron's like Krugman because they have money. Don't. People with money can also be incredibly stupid, as I have just demonstrated in one very short blog post.
On this one. Maybe we get a glimpse of how the great economists controlling our nation's think. They don't very much. They know how to play the numbers given to them in the game they know how to play. They lack a fundamental knowledge of how it all works when the wheels start falling off and basic supply and demand is the economic factor. They live in a world where a "one" is a billion. They no longer have any clue how the part's work that made the "one" possible.
-----
Postscript Diversion
Hey if we can contrive whatever we like out of a situation to prove the point we want to make? Here's my version. Just for the lulz. I'll even stick to the original impossible to replace idea.
We take it that the Krugman's have a significant share of the the impossible to replace vouchers as described above. The circle meets, there is no easy solution. If the Krugman's are excluded from the club then the vouchers can never be earned back in to circulation. Nobody wants to see value adjustment of existing vouchers, nor is there a simple and agreeable way to do it. Dissolving the circle and starting with new vouchers is impossible. These are the only baby vouchers that will ever exist, and each is quite clearly marked "One Hour". The circle meeting breaks up with little in the way of solutions, vowing to meet again next week and review the situation. A few days later, under cover of night, a small faction of baby sitting gun owners storm the Krugman's demanding the return of the vouchers.
Nobody is hurt, but arrests are made. Three of the father's in the baby sitting circle are now facing charges in custody. First the wives of those three, then a larger support group form a passive 24 hour resistance group that camps outside the Krugman's. Hurling abuse at them and demanding the vouchers back whenever they are seen outside the house.
Infuriated that the voucher hoarding plan hasn't worked and harassed by the support camp. The Krugman's light a bonfire one night and burn the vouchers they do have in full sight of the baby sitting support camp.
The cries of loss from the camp are unbearable. All hope is lost.
The remaining vouchers can't sustain even a small baby sitting circle and the group disbands. No baby sitting is ever possible in the town again for the rest of eternity. The Krugman's eventually leave town and try to join baby sitting circles in the next place they put down roots, only to find that they are excluded. Denied the joys of equitable baby sitting, the Krugman's argue bitterly and eventually divorce at great personal cost.
Meanwhile, over a period of decades, the town the Krugman's removed virtually all baby sitting vouchers from produces less and less children, and attracts less and less families with children. It gradually becomes a ghost town, eventually only populated by the childless over the age of 40. Such is the economic wasteland left by the Krugman's hoarding and burning of irreplaceable baby sitting vouchers.
News of the tragedy spreads across America, and soon all baby sitting circles have set an absolute upper limit on the number of vouchers any one couple can hold. It becomes known as "The Krugman Limit". Thus the rest of America is spared the horrors of baby sitting voucher hoarding and the tragic loss to humanity that results.
Well hey. You did say the vouchers were totally impossible to replace right? I like my version better than Krugman's anyway. It has social resistance, drama, fires and divorce in it. What's not to like?
11 Apr 2013
Oh good grief...
I've just seen this 'Ripple' + OpenCoin article go by.
Bangs head on desk.
A lot of people with more money than sense will probably jump in to it hoping it's the next bitcoin. If you figure out which bit they carefully are not mentioning though, you'll be thinking "But why?".
First lets buy in to Ripples. It's the same problem you have with bitcoin. Somehow you need an exchange, and you need some ripples, because ... they vanish every time you do a transaction. M'kay ... So ... I need my Dollars in there somehow, because it says I can do that, but not how. I'm presuming they have some clever idea how to get cash from an account in to the Ripples account. This worries me. Any bank backing for this by any chance?
Oh. And I need some Ripples. I can't just buy those on Ripple with my Dollars in there, because I need Ripples for a transaction. So I need to do that then ... O.o
Hey. I just realised. I'm entering all this information on a single website. Can I have my account stored locally? Well sort of. It's in browser javascript at the moment that does store all the information locally, but buried somewhere in your browser cache and plug in settings. That sounds super fun and not at all prone to go wrong whatsoever. Glad we cleared that up then. Good talk. The information must also get stored on all the servers that keep being mentioned. Apparently all kinds of people are eager to run validating nodes because (I kid you not), straight from Ripples own wiki:
Blinks. Uhm. Ok. Moving on!
Now I spend my Dollars on some Euro's. (This is the only good part about Ripples), through a distributed exchange. So if someone matches my offer, it gets filled. That's pretty clever stuff when you might only get part orders filled, and you're trusting that network transaction, because it doesn't seem to be being verified in anything like the same way as bitcoin. There's lag in bitcoin transaction for verification. Anyway ...
I've got my Euro's and lost a few Ripples. How do I get my Euro's out again?
You mean I need to find someone who will buy Euro's from a Ripples account and give me Euro's in my pocket? Wait what ...? Oh and it costs me some more Ripples to do it ... Nice.
Unless of course there's some bank stepping in behind this to say "Don't worry, we'll exchange Ripple Euro's for real Euro's at the exchange rate of x". I'm almost wondering if this is a part bank backed effort to kill bitcoin.
It's DOUBLE the bitcoin problem + tiny ripples vanishing?
The sad bit is, the same witless crew that just ran up a $260 bubble on Bitcoin will rush over to it, with no understanding of it. The anti-bitcoin foghorns will then declare Bitcoin 2 has arrived. And after a few months people will figure out that actually it's cheaper moving money in Bitcoin. What damage it'll do to bitcoin is any one's guess. Right now, laying low might be no bad move for BTC. It coped pretty well with a speculation bubble, but public opinion is determined to see it die. I'm not sure why. Frankenstein like "We don't understand it! Kill it!" going on.
Bangs head on desk.
A lot of people with more money than sense will probably jump in to it hoping it's the next bitcoin. If you figure out which bit they carefully are not mentioning though, you'll be thinking "But why?".
First lets buy in to Ripples. It's the same problem you have with bitcoin. Somehow you need an exchange, and you need some ripples, because ... they vanish every time you do a transaction. M'kay ... So ... I need my Dollars in there somehow, because it says I can do that, but not how. I'm presuming they have some clever idea how to get cash from an account in to the Ripples account. This worries me. Any bank backing for this by any chance?
Oh. And I need some Ripples. I can't just buy those on Ripple with my Dollars in there, because I need Ripples for a transaction. So I need to do that then ... O.o
Hey. I just realised. I'm entering all this information on a single website. Can I have my account stored locally? Well sort of. It's in browser javascript at the moment that does store all the information locally, but buried somewhere in your browser cache and plug in settings. That sounds super fun and not at all prone to go wrong whatsoever. Glad we cleared that up then. Good talk. The information must also get stored on all the servers that keep being mentioned. Apparently all kinds of people are eager to run validating nodes because (I kid you not), straight from Ripples own wiki:
"Who will run validating nodes?
Anyone, with a reputation, who wants to support the network will run a validating node."Blinks. Uhm. Ok. Moving on!
Now I spend my Dollars on some Euro's. (This is the only good part about Ripples), through a distributed exchange. So if someone matches my offer, it gets filled. That's pretty clever stuff when you might only get part orders filled, and you're trusting that network transaction, because it doesn't seem to be being verified in anything like the same way as bitcoin. There's lag in bitcoin transaction for verification. Anyway ...
I've got my Euro's and lost a few Ripples. How do I get my Euro's out again?
You mean I need to find someone who will buy Euro's from a Ripples account and give me Euro's in my pocket? Wait what ...? Oh and it costs me some more Ripples to do it ... Nice.
Unless of course there's some bank stepping in behind this to say "Don't worry, we'll exchange Ripple Euro's for real Euro's at the exchange rate of x". I'm almost wondering if this is a part bank backed effort to kill bitcoin.
It's DOUBLE the bitcoin problem + tiny ripples vanishing?
The sad bit is, the same witless crew that just ran up a $260 bubble on Bitcoin will rush over to it, with no understanding of it. The anti-bitcoin foghorns will then declare Bitcoin 2 has arrived. And after a few months people will figure out that actually it's cheaper moving money in Bitcoin. What damage it'll do to bitcoin is any one's guess. Right now, laying low might be no bad move for BTC. It coped pretty well with a speculation bubble, but public opinion is determined to see it die. I'm not sure why. Frankenstein like "We don't understand it! Kill it!" going on.
27 Mar 2013
Global Warming
From Twitter
David Davies @davidtcdavies 9:50 PM (27th March 2013)
"Where's the global warming? Maybe govt shud create tax breaks for high carbon industries. Cheap bills, jobs & warmth (if greens r correct)"
David Davies. The man here showing zero reasoning skills is Conservative MP for Monmouth and Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
Why is he a moron?
Well let me explain to him and all the other "I'm cold, global warming must be bollocks" idiots.
Warming something is adding energy. Global warming is energy being added to the atmosphere and oceans of the planet at faster than historic averages / normals.
When you heat something up, you make it more chaotic. The little particles go bounce bounce bounce. That's what heat is. Tiny little atoms and molecules going ping ping ping all over the place extra fast.
When you heat up the entire globe, the same thing happens. The overall average temperature goes up and you get resulting chaos in the weather patterns. What does this mean?
This means you can get abnormally short or long periods of a certain weather pattern. You can have hotter weather or colder weather. The earth really doesn't care about the 10 mile radius around your house that much. It's busy with all this extra energy going ping ping ping around the atmosphere. So sorry brains of Monmouth, cold weather ALSO happens because of global warming.
I really wish they'd called it Global Entropy, because then moron's like David Davis might understand. I could be wrong. They might just stare at the word "Entropy" and look puzzled.
Warmth = Entropy.
Unusual weather = Entropy.
Got it?
Great now what the hell are you doing in a position of power and responsibility with an IQ of 12?
Digs a little deeper: This guy left school at 18, and was raised by the intellectual elite of British Steel (before the Tories helped it vanish), and the Territorial Army. His life funded by his "Something for nothing" family shipping company. He also makes the grade of Special Constable for the transport police. If you ever wondered how smart some of our police are? Here's a prime idiot.
When your political system is staffed by people who had their entire life funded by bank of mum & dad, and don't have a clue about further education or any reasoning ability you have a problem. David Davies you are the weakest link. I wish you would say goodbye.
David Davies @davidtcdavies 9:50 PM (27th March 2013)
"Where's the global warming? Maybe govt shud create tax breaks for high carbon industries. Cheap bills, jobs & warmth (if greens r correct)"
David Davies. The man here showing zero reasoning skills is Conservative MP for Monmouth and Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
Why is he a moron?
Well let me explain to him and all the other "I'm cold, global warming must be bollocks" idiots.
Warming something is adding energy. Global warming is energy being added to the atmosphere and oceans of the planet at faster than historic averages / normals.
When you heat something up, you make it more chaotic. The little particles go bounce bounce bounce. That's what heat is. Tiny little atoms and molecules going ping ping ping all over the place extra fast.
When you heat up the entire globe, the same thing happens. The overall average temperature goes up and you get resulting chaos in the weather patterns. What does this mean?
This means you can get abnormally short or long periods of a certain weather pattern. You can have hotter weather or colder weather. The earth really doesn't care about the 10 mile radius around your house that much. It's busy with all this extra energy going ping ping ping around the atmosphere. So sorry brains of Monmouth, cold weather ALSO happens because of global warming.
I really wish they'd called it Global Entropy, because then moron's like David Davis might understand. I could be wrong. They might just stare at the word "Entropy" and look puzzled.
Warmth = Entropy.
Unusual weather = Entropy.
Got it?
Great now what the hell are you doing in a position of power and responsibility with an IQ of 12?
Digs a little deeper: This guy left school at 18, and was raised by the intellectual elite of British Steel (before the Tories helped it vanish), and the Territorial Army. His life funded by his "Something for nothing" family shipping company. He also makes the grade of Special Constable for the transport police. If you ever wondered how smart some of our police are? Here's a prime idiot.
When your political system is staffed by people who had their entire life funded by bank of mum & dad, and don't have a clue about further education or any reasoning ability you have a problem. David Davies you are the weakest link. I wish you would say goodbye.
30 Nov 2012
Pond scum
Despite my best efforts.
"Pond Scum"
A reasonably accurate way to describe the human race.
We learn nothing. Despite knowing it for years. Example? Oh I don't know, take the recent UK paedophile revelations. Looks on shelf. Yeah. Lets take the Leveson report and Murdoch as well.
What's going on here then? Well. A bunch of people did illegal, immoral and wrong things. Raping children, hacking a dead girl's voice messages, bribing the police and so on and so on.
This happens because as a species we already know that if 49 people in the room say "Ah just do it. Press the button, give the guy a 240v electric shock and then we can all go home". The chances are the guy on the button, whether he wants to or not, will fry the victim. Peer pressure. We all suffer from it.
Where we excel at being pond scum however is:
We naively assumed that our governments and officials in places of power were somehow better than that. Wrong. Actually, if you give people power and opportunity to cover things up, they'll tend to go with that. Stop wagging your finger at the government. I'll bet you're just as bad. I am. It's just my lies and cover ups tend to extend to covering up for forgotten appointments, instead of forgetting to mention to anyone about this guy raping small children or taking a bribe as a police officer.
Thing is. The government and the police get the chance to cover up *really big things!* for years and years and years. Better yet, they can get fairly wealthy at the same time. It's win win.
The other factor in our pond scum skill is:
We have no culture at all for dealing with it. There is no incentive for anyone to break rank and reveal wrong that they've been a part of. First, they'll get victimised by everyone else that's still in on the cover up. But being a brilliant bunch, the general public, despite being better off for the knowledge will lynch them as well. Maybe 2% of the population will be smart enough to go "Hey thanks! You're a bit of an asshole for all that, but at least you did the right thing in the end".
Leveson is pond scum gold. Corruption upon corruption, with only the corrupt investigating the corrupt, to find that they don't need to change anything because that would annoy the corrupt people that started the need for Leveson in the first place.
Paedophile cover up. Same deal. Huge public swell in demand for enquiries, some credible queries and evidence of very notable public figures being involved. And what do we get? Lord McFuckingAlpine. Sorry. Lord McAlpine (fucking), in my opinion deliberately trying to stifle public debate about allegations. To my knowledge, not one single case of libel has been heard or proved. Not one. NOTHING. McAlpine is 100% bluff and bullshit and the only reason that I can see for that is HE IS PROTECTING KNOWN PAEDOPHILES. They might be live, they might be dead, I don't know. But that appears to be his aim as determined from his own actions. Not one thought of "Maybe we should do the right thing here". Just pure denial, concealment and cover up.
Pond scum.
We excel at it.
"Pond Scum"
A reasonably accurate way to describe the human race.
We learn nothing. Despite knowing it for years. Example? Oh I don't know, take the recent UK paedophile revelations. Looks on shelf. Yeah. Lets take the Leveson report and Murdoch as well.
What's going on here then? Well. A bunch of people did illegal, immoral and wrong things. Raping children, hacking a dead girl's voice messages, bribing the police and so on and so on.
This happens because as a species we already know that if 49 people in the room say "Ah just do it. Press the button, give the guy a 240v electric shock and then we can all go home". The chances are the guy on the button, whether he wants to or not, will fry the victim. Peer pressure. We all suffer from it.
Where we excel at being pond scum however is:
We naively assumed that our governments and officials in places of power were somehow better than that. Wrong. Actually, if you give people power and opportunity to cover things up, they'll tend to go with that. Stop wagging your finger at the government. I'll bet you're just as bad. I am. It's just my lies and cover ups tend to extend to covering up for forgotten appointments, instead of forgetting to mention to anyone about this guy raping small children or taking a bribe as a police officer.
Thing is. The government and the police get the chance to cover up *really big things!* for years and years and years. Better yet, they can get fairly wealthy at the same time. It's win win.
The other factor in our pond scum skill is:
We have no culture at all for dealing with it. There is no incentive for anyone to break rank and reveal wrong that they've been a part of. First, they'll get victimised by everyone else that's still in on the cover up. But being a brilliant bunch, the general public, despite being better off for the knowledge will lynch them as well. Maybe 2% of the population will be smart enough to go "Hey thanks! You're a bit of an asshole for all that, but at least you did the right thing in the end".
Leveson is pond scum gold. Corruption upon corruption, with only the corrupt investigating the corrupt, to find that they don't need to change anything because that would annoy the corrupt people that started the need for Leveson in the first place.
Paedophile cover up. Same deal. Huge public swell in demand for enquiries, some credible queries and evidence of very notable public figures being involved. And what do we get? Lord McFuckingAlpine. Sorry. Lord McAlpine (fucking), in my opinion deliberately trying to stifle public debate about allegations. To my knowledge, not one single case of libel has been heard or proved. Not one. NOTHING. McAlpine is 100% bluff and bullshit and the only reason that I can see for that is HE IS PROTECTING KNOWN PAEDOPHILES. They might be live, they might be dead, I don't know. But that appears to be his aim as determined from his own actions. Not one thought of "Maybe we should do the right thing here". Just pure denial, concealment and cover up.
Pond scum.
We excel at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)