Global Warming

Jon Senior said:

Keith Willoughby [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

If you had to choose between two bikes, that were seemingly identical,
with identical components, the same geometry, the same materials,
effectively identical by all visible evidence, and one was made by
Cannondale, and one was made by me, which would you choose?

That would depend on the asking price. Assuming they were identical, I'd
choose the Cannondale because I know them.

Right. And people choose to invest in the US because they know
them. If they ceased to know them, they'd stop investing. The peace of
mind that comes with that knowledge is valuable.

Quoted message said:

My problem is that if economics provides a representation of material
wealth then it should be unaffected by public opinion.

I don't see why. It's modelling human behaviour, after all. A warehouse
full of bikes only has value in the context of humans. Otherwise it's a
pile of metal and plastic. Similarly, a the value of a tulip bulb, or a
diamond, or an ounce of gold, are entirely dependent on whether people
want them or not.

Quoted message said:

If it doesn't, then it has little meaning. It's the same reasoning
that means I find it ridiculous when a one-bedroom flat in Edinburgh
which is about the size of a broom cupboard can sell for 150% of the
asking price which is already inflated over the "value" of the
property.

If someone wants to pay that, then that's what it's worth. What is it to
you either way? Which would you do - forbid the buyer from buying, or
force the seller to sell for a lower price?

Quoted message said:

People have created these "economies" but are incapable of controlling
them.

That's because it models human behaviour. People don't want to be
controlled, and very rarely are. It's no co-incidence that command
economies are invariably partnered by repression of the populace.

Quoted message said:

I can't easily think of any other human creation that is capable of
controlling the originators (With the possible exception of religion,
but don't get me started on that one!).

Probably best not, yes.

--
Keith Willoughby
Welcome to the police state - http://tinyurl.com/3cptb

Keith Willoughby [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

If someone wants to pay that, then that's what it's worth. What is it to
you either way? Which would you do - forbid the buyer from buying, or
force the seller to sell for a lower price?

Neither. Just because I find the concept ridiculous, doesn't mean that I
would choose to change it. Humanity is human. This doesn't mean I have
to like it though.

Quoted message said:

That's because it models human behaviour. People don't want to be
controlled, and very rarely are.

I beg to differ. People are frequently controlled. And most do seem to
prefer being controlled. Hence "pack" behaviour as apposed to
independance.

Quoted message said:

Probably best not, yes.

<he he>

Jon

Jon Senior said:

Keith Willoughby [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

If someone wants to pay that, then that's what it's worth. What is it to
you either way? Which would you do - forbid the buyer from buying, or
force the seller to sell for a lower price?

Neither. Just because I find the concept ridiculous, doesn't mean that I
would choose to change it. Humanity is human. This doesn't mean I have
to like it though.

And just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it (in this case,
economics) doesn't make sense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's because it models human behaviour. People don't want to be
controlled, and very rarely are.

I beg to differ. People are frequently controlled. And most do seem to
prefer being controlled.

This is one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I make rational choices,
he is led, they are controlled.

Quoted message said:

Hence "pack" behaviour as apposed to independance.

People choose to join packs.

--
Keith Willoughby
Welcome to the police state - http://tinyurl.com/3cptb

Jon Senior said:

My problem is that if economics provides a representation of material
wealth then it should be unaffected by public opinion. If it doesn't,
then it has little meaning.

This is your fundamental error. Public opinion is absolutely central to
economics. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them.
Wealth is only the total worth of ones assets. People might be willing to
pay different amounts for the same things at different times. Wealth is
therefore dependent on public opinion.

Economics is only a description of how people act.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Keith Willoughby [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

And just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it (in this case,
economics) doesn't make sense.

<petulant> But it doesn't! To create an economy on the perception that
people like it beggars belief when millions are then dependant on that
economy. Without any change in resources America could be reduced to
near third world status by the changing of a symbol in an accountant's
spreadsheet. While I personally think that this would be a good thing, I
don't think that it makes any sense. A "floated" economy like this is a
paradox. It is powerful because people think that it is powerful, they
think that it is powerful because it is powerful.

</petulant>

Quoted message said:

This is one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I make rational choices,
he is led, they are controlled.

He he.

Quoted message said:

People choose to join packs.

Probably, but only to delegate decision making. Make one choice, have
someone else make all others for you!

Jon

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:22:24 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior said:

My problem is that if economics provides a representation of material
wealth then it should be unaffected by public opinion. If it doesn't,
then it has little meaning.

This is your fundamental error. Public opinion is absolutely central to
economics. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them.
Wealth is only the total worth of ones assets. People might be willing to
pay different amounts for the same things at different times. Wealth is
therefore dependent on public opinion.

Quite so. Even the USSR reckoned that, once Communism had taken over
the world, they'd keep one small country capitalist, so they could
tell what the market prices for goods were, to feed into their
economic plans.

Quoted message said:

Economics is only a description of how people act.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk