J30 strike: NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL call for a general strike on June 30th

[SpineyNorman]

I'd imagine the dinosaurs wore pathways into the earth - were they property of Rex corporation or summat?

 

[PaulAtherton]

Question to Paul the gymnast: Were the first pathways invented before (ie the majority of history) or after the invention of private property?...

Define Private Property? One could argue that Neolithic Cavemen would fight to protect their families in the Caves they inhabited. Would it by definition be their's because they owned it by possession ergo Private Property?

And for the record this is the last question I am answering about throw away comments.

I'd like to get back to this thread and my core issue which is the comparison of Public Sector against Private Sector pay in relation to justifying the general strikes being suggested.

Has anyone got any comparisons to make?

 

[nino_savatte]

Simple - Private makes Profit - Public Doesn't.

Well, duh. What's your point - apart from pointless point-scoring?

 

[PaulAtherton]

Why pluck an answer I gave to a direct question put to me by somebody else sometime ago and try to imply it was a point I was trying to make?

This all started with me trying to get some evidence to support the notion that Public Sector workers are paid less than Private Sector workers.

And that if the public sector wishes to be treated the same as the private there would be no reason not to privatise it.

Do you have anything to add to that debate?

 

[nino_savatte]

Why pluck an answer I gave to a direct question put to me by somebody else sometime ago and try to imply it was a point I was trying to make?

Who died and made you emperor? Is there a rule that says I can't respond to a post; any post?

This all started with me trying to get some evidence to support the notion that Public Sector workers are paid less than Private Sector workers.

They are or perhaps you think that care workers are on the same salaries as chief execs?

And that if the public sector wishes to be treated the same as the private there would be no reason not to privatise it.

It's a false dichotomy and a strawman. Where did you pick that up from?

Do you have anything to add to that debate?

Yes, plenty. How about you? Btw, you've derailed the thread with your posturing.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Who died and made you emperor? Is there a rule that says I can't respond to a post; any post?

No. But I was asking why, not implying you couldn't. I just didn't see the point to it? Was there one?

They are or perhaps you think that care workers are on the same salaries as chief execs?

Well seeing as Chief Executives & Carers both work in the Public Sector not sure of your point here?

It's a false dichotomy and a strawman. Where did you pick that up from?

On what grounds?

Yes, plenty. How about you? Btw, you've derailed the thread with your posturing.

Good, let's hear it? I've responded to other people's posturing questions. As I'm doing here.

All of my recent posts are intent on getting back onto the thread but nobody seems to want to go there.

But hopefully you can put us back on track by elucidating your thoughts on the Strike for money against public service?

 

[nino_savatte]

No. But I was asking why, not implying you couldn't. I just didn't see the point to it? Was there one?




Well seeing as Chief Executives & Carers both work in the Public Sector not sure of your point here?



On what grounds?



Good, let's hear it? I've responded to other people's posturing questions. As I'm doing here.

All of my recent posts are intent on getting back onto the thread but nobody seems to want to go there.

But hopefully you can put us back on track by elucidating your thoughts on the Strike for money against public service?

You're either completely stupid or wilfully ignorant. One thing is for certain, you've deployed an army of strawmen to fight for you. As this demonstrates,

Well seeing as Chief Executives & Carers both work in the Public Sector not sure of your point here?

If that isn't wilful ignorance, then I'm the Sultan of Brunei. Do you know how much care workers earn or are you making it all up in your tiny mind?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Of course it's willful ignorance. You can't subscribe to right wing "libertarianism" without either ignoring reality or distorting it in a similar way to Kent Hovind style young earth creationists. If the reality doesn't fit your dogma, then you redefine the concepts so you can pretend it does - hence the wealth = profit nonsense.

And if wealth does = profit then I don't care about wealth. I care about doing whatever it takes to secure and distribute resources (which, were it not for the daft redefinition of wealth, could be called wealth, but we'll leave that) so that the needs of everyone in society can be met.

 

[PaulAtherton]

You're either completely stupid or wilfully ignorant. One thing is for certain, you've deployed an army of strawmen to fight for you. As this demonstrates,



If that isn't wilful ignorance, then I'm the Sultan of Brunei. Do you know how much care workers earn or are you making it all up in your tiny mind?

Well hello Sultan. Shame you have no substance to your points, just more name calling.

And seeing as I employ carers, yes I'm very aware of what they make. I'm also very aware of what Chief Executives of Local Councils earn too. (My debate was the difference about Public & Private pay of equivalent jobs not the difference in pay between levels of employment within each sector).

Are you suggesting that everybody should be paid the same regardless?

Having said that, I think it's abhorrent what Chief Executives are paid in Councils. I also think it appalling that Councils have contracted out most of the care work to organisations like Allied Healthcare - whereby the councils pay twice the salary of a carer to a private company who then passes that to the carer having taken well over 2/3rds of it for themselves. It's neither efficient, caring or focused on the needs of their residents in the boroughs they are supposed to serve.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rants. If you've nothing constructive to add I'll desist from addressing you.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Paul, I found it odd that you would rely on Adam Smith to backup your definition of profit later in the thread, when Adam Smith viewed wealth as being the sum total of everything that is produced - ie: all the material products that arise from production, plus profit. I don't remember him talking about services and whether he would count them as wealth since they do not produce a tangible product, but do facilitate the production/consumption of tangible products.
Marx too considered wealth to be about the material outcomes of production. In fact, in as much as I remember, no economic theorist discounted the value of the material outcomes of production from their measure of the wealth of a population.. perhaps someone like Von Mises but I've never got round to reading his stuff..

I would like to explore this with you in a genuine manner, because I cannot understand your position, either from it's own point of view (that wealth=profit) or from a wider point of view (whereby wealth also includes the material outcomes of production, and takes into account the addition that services make to the level of material outcome, even where that increase is not done directly (ie: with education - I think it'd be broadly accepted that having an educated workforce will help you to produce stuff, but it'd be difficult (prob. impossible) to actually measure affect in any meaningful way).

So within your own framework, I would like to know more about why you think that - in principle - a public sector company that produces profit (such as in the mine example given above, or Royal Mail which currently produces a profit) does not actually create wealth, and why would this change overnight if it was privatised, but none of the outputs of the business changed. As much as possible, I would like to talk about this question in a generalised, hypothetical/in principle manner so that it could be applied to all public sector organisations.

I'd also like to know what you think about private sector companies profit made on public sector contracts? Getting quite complicated, the cleaners at my school are from a private company.. is that part of the school wealth generating even though public sector education isn't wealth generating?

(for clarity, and in case you didn't guess, I am of the opinion that wealth = material outcomes of production, excluding profit. If you think profit is wealth, then you can have all that money, I'll keep the stuff that's been produced to create the wealth and we'll see who survives longest.. Therefore, for me, if a public sector organisation increases the amount being produced by a population than it is creating wealth.. I'd love to have a discussion with someone who will actually discuss this and not run away as most tend to do)

As VP rightly pointed out, I didn't use Smith, but we'd all agree that Smith was the founder of the study of modern economics, right?

Would you also agree that we have a mixed economy (more akin to a communist one than a capitalist), which is predicated on what I would call a Consumerist Economy? Which extends well beyond the precepts of Smith.
(whilst still controversial I would start with Thorstein Velben, then for modern interpretations Janet Knoedler and Anne Mayhew).

Could we also agree that notions of manufacturing & service are constructs that have almost no meaning in the 21st Century as we start to see real life millionaires constructed in virtual worlds such as Second Life or FaceBook (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/11/second_lifes_fi.html) (for this read Vernon Smith, Magnus Thor Torfason & Eyjolfur Gudmundsson).

Can we also agree that the construct of money circulation (specifically in the UK) is now just a mere faith rather than a reality (for fun, but beautifully explained check out SouthPark http://akirathedon.com/blobblog/video-south-park-13x03-margaritaville/)? The original notion of having a finite amount of notional money in circulation based on a Gold Reserve has ceased to exist i.e. The Gold Standard (see Frank Shostak http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae3_4_3.pdf).

We now just have notional money not based on anything. Qualitative easing took that one stage further, by in essence printing more money without actually printing more money (http://www.nolanchart.com/article8843_The_Gold_Standard_Printing_Money_and_the_Federal_Reserve.html). Which meant that the notional money didn't deflate as it should have done (see Zimbabwe for what happens when you print more money http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html).

So whilst we still have manufacturing, farming etc. the constructs of the old economists really have no place in the 21st Century.

Which leads me to my point about Wealth. Wealth is measured in monetary terms by Government (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal_wealth/13-5-table-2005.pdf). And if Wealth can only be measured in such monetary terms then it follows that to increase wealth requires the increase of the ownership of money (Cash, Bonds, Stocks, Equity, assets etc.).

If we agree on these points, then I'll continue, if not, perhaps you'd be good enough to come to some other notion of agreement as our starting point to address your questions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Smith didn't "found modern economics" so much as tie together pre-existing strands of ideas into a coherent whole.

Even then, hardly anyone reads Smith properly. They prefer to dig out apposite quotes that support what they're saying rather than taking him in his original context.

Oh, and it's Thorsten Veblen, and his work is hardly considered "controversial" nowadays.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Smith didn't "found modern economics" so much as tie together pre-existing strands of ideas into a coherent whole.

Hence why I said he "was the founder of the study of modern economics" not that he founded modern economics

Even then, hardly anyone reads Smith properly. They prefer to dig out apposite quotes that support what they're saying rather than taking him in his original context.

Evidence?

Oh, and it's Thorsten Veblen, and his work is hardly considered "controversial" nowadays.

Thanks for the typo check, interesting you spot that, but didn't read the opening sentence correctly though.

Any evidence to support the contention that he still doesn't remain controversial?

Having said that, what was your point overall?

 

[nino_savatte]

Well hello Sultan. Shame you have no substance to your points, just more name calling.

Projection.

And seeing as I employ carers, yes I'm very aware of what they make. I'm also very aware of what Chief Executives of Local Councils earn too. (My debate was the difference about Public & Private pay of equivalent jobs not the difference in pay between levels of employment within each sector).

Then why did you suggest that carers and Chief Execs were the same? Btw, I don't believe you "employ carers".

Are you suggesting that everybody should be paid the same regardless?

Do you always jump to such conclusions?

Having said that, I think it's abhorrent what Chief Executives are paid in Councils. I also think it appalling that Councils have contracted out most of the care work to organisations like Allied Healthcare - whereby the councils pay twice the salary of a carer to a private company who then passes that to the carer having taken well over 2/3rds of it for themselves. It's neither efficient, caring or focused on the needs of their residents in the boroughs they are supposed to serve.

You've pretty much undermined your earlier thesis. Bravo.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rants. If you've nothing constructive to add I'll desist from addressing you.

Says the poster with the fact-free posts. I've not done any "ranting".It's all in your head, simpleton.

 

[nino_savatte]

As VP rightly pointed out, I didn't use Smith, but we'd all agree that Smith was the founder of the study of modern economics, right?

This proves that you're not interested in an exchange of views. You sort of made this up, didn't you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hence why I said he "was the founder of the study of modern economics" not that he founded modern economics

Evidence?

Take, for example, The Adam Smith Institute, a "think-tank" constructed almost entirely around an interpretation of Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor. You could also take the Vienna School (aka Austrian School) of economics' use of Smith's invisible hand to reinforce their idea of the market as a process in a constant state of flux, non-amenable to modelling, when such an interpretation only stands of you don't read "The Wealth of Nations" as a de-mythologising of economics, an attempt to do away with the sort of claims that members of the Vienna School made.

Thanks for the typo check, interesting you spot that, but didn't read the opening sentence correctly though.

I own (and have read, heaven save me) "The Theory of the Leisure Class", and can see the spine from where I sit typing. Of course I'm going to spot a typo when two examples, one in error, are both within my direct line of sight.

As for your opening sentence, the same argument pertains. Smith didn't "found the study", he drew together strands. Others came later and added stuff, some of which stuff predated Smith, much of which post-dated him.

Any evidence to support the contention that he still doesn't remain controversial?

What, besides the fact that many of his ideas have been incorporated into theories of consumption for more than 60 years?
You could, I suppose, also ignore that Veblen's take on business as a parasite in a symbiotic relationship with industry was proven every time "business" bailed out on industry in the 20th century and is a widely-accepted truism in economic reporting and writing , or that his idea that technological advance does not equate to cultural progress or social evolution has been endorsed in just about every generation of economists and sociologists since he formulated it?

Having said that, what was your point overall?

I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a spieler. You give it the chat, but you generalise. It's like you're citing something you've just googled.

Now, maybe that's a function of your writing style, but maybe not. Who knows how graduates in Business Administration are taught to write (except other students of that field)?

 

[ViolentPanda]

This proves that you're not interested in an exchange of views. You sort of made this up, didn't you?

Like I said, he cited the first hit on a google. Unattributed.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Having said that, I think it's abhorrent what Chief Executives are paid in Councils. I also think it appalling that Councils have contracted out most of the care work to organisations like Allied Healthcare - whereby the councils pay twice the salary of a carer to a private company who then passes that to the carer having taken well over 2/3rds of it for themselves. It's neither efficient, caring or focused on the needs of their residents in the boroughs they are supposed to serve.

That's the private sector you utter fruitloop.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Projection.

I've never once insulted somebody since coming on this site. So don't see how this could be projection.

Then why did you suggest that carers and Chief Execs were the same? Btw, I don't believe you "employ carers".

I didn't suggest they were the same, I said they are working in the same sector. Are you even reading what I'm writing? And not that I have to prove a point but http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/205...on-s-story-07-07-10-pdf-july-8-2010-11-3?dn=y

Do you always jump to such conclusions?

A question could never be deemed a conclusion.

You've pretty much undermined your earlier thesis. Bravo.

How?

Says the poster with the fact-free posts. I've not done any "ranting".It's all in your head, simpleton.

Would you be kind enough to point to one single citation or external reference you've sourced to support your claims. And why the vitriol?

 

[PaulAtherton]

Like I said, he cited the first hit on a google. Unattributed.

I quoted "" a piece that I wasn't able to attribute to a single source for a general definition of Profit. Which was a long way from being the first thing that I was able to reference online but certainly the most appropriate.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I've never once insulted somebody since coming on this site.

You insult us every time you indulge in the dishonest sophistry you're so fond of.

 

[stethoscope]

The master documentary maker is all over the place

 

[PaulAtherton]

Take, for example, The Adam Smith Institute, a "think-tank" constructed almost entirely around an interpretation of Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor. You could also take the Vienna School (aka Austrian School) of economics' use of Smith's invisible hand to reinforce their idea of the market as a process in a constant state of flux, non-amenable to modelling, when such an interpretation only stands of you don't read "The Wealth of Nations" as a de-mythologising of economics, an attempt to do away with the sort of claims that members of the Vienna School made.

Two examples does not support your claim that

hardly anyone reads Smith properly

, which I must say would also suggest that only YOU and a few others on the entire planet, have such a thorough grasp of economic theory that you are in a place to make such a claim.

One can only conclude therefore that you have a Doctorate and are recognised as an authority in the subject of Economics to deliver a generalisation as vast as this, with such confidence?

I own (and have read, heaven save me) "The Theory of the Leisure Class", and can see the spine from where I sit typing. Of course I'm going to spot a typo when two examples, one in error, are both within my direct line of sight.

Though are unable to quote correctly from the source directly in front of you i.e. mine.

As for your opening sentence, the same argument pertains. Smith didn't "found the study", he drew together strands. Others came later and added stuff, some of which stuff predated Smith, much of which post-dated him.

Acknowledging that you misquoted me is a good start.

It is largely accepted that Smith was the founder of the study of Modern Economics (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/religion) in both School & University texts (http://blogger-progress.blogspot.com/2009/02/adam-smith-father-of-modern-economics.html). Even arguments against this idea begin the case acknowledging that fact (http://mises.org/daily/4810)

So what reading are you doing to suggest otherwise?

What, besides the fact that many of his ideas have been incorporated into theories of consumption for more than 60 years?
You could, I suppose, also ignore that Veblen's take on business as a parasite in a symbiotic relationship with industry was proven every time "business" bailed out on industry in the 20th century and is a widely-accepted truism in economic reporting and writing , or that his idea that technological advance does not equate to cultural progress or social evolution has been endorsed in just about every generation of economists and sociologists since he formulated it?

Your contention was his work is still not controversial, which would imply that there is full agreement amongst the economic community on the basis of his Darwinian approaches, his aesthetics arguments and the engineers and the Industrial Republic, which is clearly not true (Rick Tilman http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Legacy-Thorstein-Veblen-Contributions/dp/0313299463, Malcolm Rutherford http://web.uvic.ca/econ/research/papers/pdfs/ddp9901.pdf and Oliver Brette http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...ional-change-beyond-technological-determinism to name but a few)

"I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a spieler. You give it the chat, but you generalise. It's like you're citing something you've just googled."

Now, maybe that's a function of your writing style, but maybe not. Who knows how graduates in Business Administration are taught to write (except other students of that field)?

One would hardly call two generalisations and a typo, criticisms, even by non academic standards.

But, I'm hardly going to write an academic thesis on a forum. However, the core issues are supported in exactly the same way as you would present in an academic essay, by citing sources to support claims. But let's not forget this was not addressed to you but BigTom (who, as we know, won't be back until tomorrow).

So, I still don't understand the purpose of your engagement, especially as even you acknowledge, that you barely have a point to make

"I suppose that if I have a point"

?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Christ you're tedious. Go away please.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Two examples does not support your claim that...

Actually, two examples do support my claims. What they don't do is PROVE it.

Sharpen up, eh?

which I must say would also suggest that only YOU and a few others on the entire planet, have such a thorough grasp of economic theory that you are in a place to make such a claim.

I'm sure you must say it, but that's probably because you're not too bright. You can't be, if you interpret a sad state of affairs such as Smith being under-read and misrepresented as me suggesting that I'm privy to information that few in the world know.

One can only conclude therefore that you have a Doctorate and are recognised as an authority in the subject of Economics to deliver a generalisation as vast as this, with such confidence?

You might conclude that. You're special that way.

Even at sarcasm you're not particularly gifted.

Though are unable to quote correctly from the source directly in front of you i.e. mine.

I didn't quote you, I paraphrased you. Quite a difference.

Acknowledging that you misquoted me is a good start.

I didn't quote you, therefore I wouldn't be able to misquote you.

It is largely accepted that Smith was the founder of the study of Modern Economics (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/religion) in both School & University texts (http://blogger-progress.blogspot.com/2009/02/adam-smith-father-of-modern-economics.html). Even arguments against this idea begin the case acknowledging that fact (http://mises.org/daily/4810)

So what reading are you doing to suggest otherwise?

Well, I'm certainly not reading blogs that advertise postgrad programmes and refer to Smith as the father rather than the founder.

Me, I'd read Hume's "A Treatise On Human Nature" and "Essays Moral & Political", then read Smith. Smith is heavily influenced by Hume. As I said. Smith drew together the strands. You posting up web-pages whose titles refer to Smith as "the founder" doesn't change that.

Your contention was his work is still not controversial, which would imply that there is full agreement amongst the economic community...

Are you touched? It implies nothing of the sort! For a start (as you'd know, if you knew what you were talking about), there is no such thing as "full agreement" in the economic community. That is the nature of the social sciences.

Veblen's work isn't controversial. His ideas are drawn on across the social sciences, and in economics. If they were controversial, they wouldn't be everyday currency.

on the basis of his Darwinian approaches, his aesthetics arguments and the engineers and the Industrial Republic, which is clearly not true (Rick Tilman http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Legacy-Thorstein-Veblen-Contributions/dp/0313299463, Malcolm Rutherford http://web.uvic.ca/econ/research/papers/pdfs/ddp9901.pdf and Oliver Brette http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...ional-change-beyond-technological-determinism to name but a few)

So bloody what?

Anyone with access to an ATHENS account, or who can use Google Scholar can dig up citations that argue against a point. That doesn't make the point any less of a point. Veblen's ideas are common currency. Live with it.

One would hardly call two generalisations and a typo, criticisms, even by non academic standards.


But, I'm hardly going to write an academic thesis on a forum. However, the core issues are supported in exactly the same way as you would present in an academic essay, by citing sources to support claims.

It's not "exactly the same". For a start, you haven't demonstrated that you understand the contents of the links you've chucked in, just that you can use Google and understand the use of key phrases.

But let's not forget this was not addressed to you but BigTom (who, as we know, won't be back until tomorrow).

Oh, sorry your majesty. I didn't realise that mere mortals like myself weren't allowed to respond to your attempts at intellectual masturbation.

So, I still don't understand the purpose of your engagement, especially as even you acknowledge, that you barely have a point to make ?

Ah, selective editing of someone's post as a device to represent them as saying something that they haven't said. What I actually said was, of course, "I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a spieler".
So, I wasn't saying that I don't have a point, I was presenting the fact that if my criticism had a focus, it was that you're a Billy Bullshitter.

Hope that's cleared that up. I'd hate for you to accidentally misrepresent me again with a bit of selective editing.

Are the rumours I've been hearing that you don't confine your selective editing to bulletin boards accurate, I wonder?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Christ you're tedious. Go away please.

Sorry for boring you, Norm.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Actually, two examples do support my claims. What they don't do is PROVE it.

Sharpen up, eh? [/QUOTE]

I'm going to use the toilet paper word of the week here - that's sophistry!

To suggest 2 examples even supports a claim that you're aware of what everybody on the planet does - is a stretch that the most ardent of your supporters would struggle with.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you must say it, but that's probably because you're not too bright. You can't be, if you interpret a sad state of affairs such as Smith being under-read and misrepresented as me suggesting that I'm privy to information that few in the world know.

To make statement like "hardly anyone reads Smith properly" suggests that you have full knowledge, of who does and doesn't read Smith and then knowing which ones do are able to distinguish which one read him properly (as defined by you). What other conclusion would you draw?

You might conclude that. You're special that way.

So do you have any qualifications or would you prefer to continue to proselytise?

I didn't quote you, I paraphrased you. Quite a difference.

You placed the term within quotes. Thereby implying it was a direct quote. You didn't paraphrase - to do so would have required to have given the full quote and then suggest what you believe it meant afterwards. A basic interpretation is given on this site (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/01/)

I didn't quote you, therefore I wouldn't be able to misquote you.

Yes, you placed the term within quotation marks, if you didn't believe you were quoting me why did you do this? (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/)

Well, I'm certainly not reading blogs that advertise postgrad programmes and refer to Smith as the father rather than the founder.

So post graduates in Economics don't meet your standards either?

Me, I'd read Hume's "A Treatise On Human Nature" and "Essays Moral & Political", then read Smith. Smith is heavily influenced by Hume. As I said. Smith drew together the strands. You posting up web-pages whose titles refer to Smith as "the founder" doesn't change that.

I also said that every standard text book supports this contention and asked you to tell me what your reading that disputes this - do you have any references? Or are you only able to state what most people already know?

Are you touched? It implies nothing of the sort! For a start (as you'd know, if you knew what you were talking about), there is no such thing as "full agreement" in the economic community. That is the nature of the social sciences.

So by definition every economic theory is controversial.

Veblen's work isn't controversial. His ideas are drawn on across the social sciences, and in economics. If they were controversial, they wouldn't be everyday currency.

So bloody what?

Anyone with access to an ATHENS account, or who can use Google Scholar can dig up citations that argue against a point. That doesn't make the point any less of a point. Veblen's ideas are common currency. Live with it.

Here you don't even support your contention, let alone prove it.

It's not "exactly the same". For a start, you haven't demonstrated that you understand the contents of the links you've chucked in, just that you can use Google and understand the use of key phrases.

If you read the works, they clearly evidence my point.

Oh, sorry your majesty. I didn't realise that mere mortals like myself weren't allowed to respond to your attempts at intellectual masturbation.

So no real point then.

Ah, selective editing of someone's post as a device to represent them as saying something that they haven't said. What I actually said was, of course, "I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a spieler".
So, I wasn't saying that I don't have a point, I was presenting the fact that if my criticism had a focus, it was that you're a Billy Bullshitter.

Hope that's cleared that up. I'd hate for you to accidentally misrepresent me again with a bit of selective editing.

Are the rumours I've been hearing that you don't confine your selective editing to bulletin boards accurate, I wonder?

Seeing as I posted your entire quote, how on gods earth could that be selective editing? More poor reading on your behalf I'm afraid. A testament to your myopic standpoint.

You'll be pleased to know, I'll be busy for the rest of the week. But will come back on the weekend)))

 

[nino_savatte]

I've never once insulted somebody since coming on this site. So don't see how this could be projection.

A projection is not the same thing as an "insult". Then you don't understand what projection is, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I didn't suggest they were the same, I said they are working in the same sector. Are you even reading what I'm writing? And not that I have to prove a point but http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/205...on-s-story-07-07-10-pdf-july-8-2010-11-3?dn=y

Which is pretty much the same thing. It all points to lazy thinking.

A question could never be deemed a conclusion.

What the hell are you talking about?

How?

I already demonstrated "how".

Would you be kind enough to point to one single citation or external reference you've sourced to support your claims. And why the vitriol?

The old "go and look it up for me" tactic. You'll have to do better than that.

 

[nino_savatte]

Like I said, he cited the first hit on a google. Unattributed.

Yep.

 

[SpineyNorman]

@vp - that wasn't directed at you, I was talking about Mr Atherton. Should have quoted him really. My apologies.

 

[BigTom]

I'm just back from a festival and rather worse for wear, so I've not responded to everything but there is some stuff I can respond to straight away and I think the conversation can move on regardless

As VP rightly pointed out, I didn't use Smith, but we'd all agree that Smith was the founder of the study of modern economics, right?

In terms of founders, I'd argue that the Physiocrats have a better shout than Smith, but I'd agree that Smith is both more influential and more important and that he did begin the Classical Liberalism strand of economic theory. I don't see this as being an important point though, and I don't think we should get bogged down in a minor, almost pedantic, disagreement

Would you also agree that we have a mixed economy (more akin to a communist one than a capitalist), which is predicated on what I would call a Consumerist Economy? Which extends well beyond the precepts of Smith.
(whilst still controversial I would start with Thorstein Velben, then for modern interpretations Janet Knoedler and Anne Mayhew).

Agree about mixed economy, don't agree about more communist but don't see the point of getting into a debate about that. Probably agree on consumerist economy in parts but I'd need to have a re-read of things to really answer that. Generally agree about extending beyond the precepts of Smith I would think, but there might be specific disagreements.

Could we also agree that notions of manufacturing & service are constructs that have almost no meaning in the 21st Century as we start to see real life millionaires constructed in virtual worlds such as Second Life or FaceBook (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/11/second_lifes_fi.html) (for this read Vernon Smith, Magnus Thor Torfason & Eyjolfur Gudmundsson).

Whilst in essence I agree, the practical fact of the matter is that production/manufacturing produces tangible goods, whilst services produce intangible goods. This makes the tertiary sector different in a quite fundamental way to the primary & secondary sectors. It means that they have different sets of measurements available to them. It also is easier to see/understand the increase in wealth that comes from the primary/secondary sectors but hard for the tertiary sector.

Can we also agree that the construct of money circulation (specifically in the UK) is now just a mere faith rather than a reality (for fun, but beautifully explained check out SouthPark http://akirathedon.com/blobblog/video-south-park-13x03-margaritaville/)? The original notion of having a finite amount of notional money in circulation based on a Gold Reserve has ceased to exist i.e. The Gold Standard (see Frank Shostak http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae3_4_3.pdf).

We now just have notional money not based on anything. Qualitative easing took that one stage further, by in essence printing more money without actually printing more money (http://www.nolanchart.com/article8843_The_Gold_Standard_Printing_Money_and_the_Federal_Reserve.html). Which meant that the notional money didn't deflate as it should have done (see Zimbabwe for what happens when you print more money http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html).

This is something I'd need to come back to if you want me to. Given that I disagree with almost everything else in your post, I'd hazard a guess that I'd disagree with this

So whilst we still have manufacturing, farming etc. the constructs of the old economists really have no place in the 21st Century.

No, the "old economists" (do you have a date/theorist at which point old becomes new?) studied fundamentally the same system we have now. It has changed, significantly. You need to read old theorists with that in mind - the physiocrats are really outdated because their concept of economics is tied into the idea that land ~ value which is certainly no longer true but you can see why economists studying the very beginnings of capitalism, living in a still broadly agrarian economy, would think that..
Anyway, the old economists definitely have things to tell us about the 21st economy, and how we best manage it - Hayek vs Keynes is being played out in front of our eyes right now.

Which leads me to my point about Wealth. Wealth is measured in monetary terms by Government (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal_wealth/13-5-table-2005.pdf). And if Wealth can only be measured in such monetary terms then it follows that to increase wealth requires the increase of the ownership of money (Cash, Bonds, Stocks, Equity, assets etc.).

Obviously I agree that government measures wealth in money, but money isn't the only way to measure wealth. It's used because it's the only way to measure everything that is produced in the same unit. There are other ways, perhaps better ways, to measure wealth. We can measure food in terms of the calories & nutrients the provide, we can measure things like oil, coal, gas, wind farms etc. in terms of the energy they provide.
Even if we just talk about money as a measurement of wealth, you've put the horse before the cart with the conclusion you've drawn. Money is the measure of wealth, it is not wealth. To increase money (not sure why you've said "ownership of money") what you need to do is increase wealth, then you'll increase money because that's what you are using to measure wealth.. but you no more increase wealth by increasing money than you grow taller by gaining CMs in height.

There's nothing special about money as a measurement. Well, being applicable to everything is quite special to be fair, but it doesn't mean it's the best way to measure something. for instance, I'm told (and I haven't yet verified this fact beyond my trust in the person who informed me of it, so apologies if I'm wrong) that the extraction of oil from tar sands in Canada uses more energy that is extracted in the form of oil, because oil is so valuable that the other forms of energy are cheaper.. so by the measure of money/profit, wealth is increased - but energy - the thing we actually want - is decreased...

If we agree on these points, then I'll continue, if not, perhaps you'd be good enough to come to some other notion of agreement as our starting point to address your questions.

Too tired to really do this briefly I'd say that money is just one of a number of ways of measuring wealth, and that what money measures when it used to measure an economy (for instance GDP) is the total amount of goods/services produced by an economy (usually defined (not in dictionary terms, in geographic/political terms) in reference to the nation state, or more recently supra-national organisations such as the EU or NAFTA)