You gave no statistics, you gave a website with various metrics, like GDP and poverty. I could give the same link after talking about government policies. So this demonstrates the effectiveness of government policy? No -- accordion to you these "statistics" demonstrates the "effectiveness of markets." I'm asking: how? How do we know the results are an outcome of "market efficiency" and not governmental policy?
The world is just not as simple as you want to make it. — Xtrix
since the markets are largely influenced by government intervention, the "effectiveness" you talk about can be equally interpreted as a result of policy. Simply pointing to graphs like "GDP since the 1940s" and then saying: "See, market effectiveness!" is nonsense. — Xtrix
No. It's not an example of markets. Soldiers returning home had many effects, one of them being on markets. — Xtrix
It is you in fact, who, through your zealous devotion to Ayn Rand, has largely prevented yourself from seeing recalcitrant data, historical and economic. — Xtrix
They have. Plato and Aristotle had things to say about them, in fact. Were they the global markets of today? No, of course not. But no one is claiming that. — Xtrix
I'm talking about the real world. — Xtrix
No, that's not close to what he's referring to; nor am I.
The second sentence is laughable and meaningless.
Also, you use the word "dirigisme" way too much. Friendly criticism. — Xtrix
So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate. — Xtrix
A report on what? The "effects of the Fed"? Because that was the topic. This paragraph is completely out of left field and has nothing to do with the above. The link you provide, which I did indeed look at, deals with regulations. — Xtrix
What does this have to do with your statement that the "neoliberal phase" is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" The "Fed" is the Federal Reserve, which is the central banking system of the United States. Did you mean the government? — Xtrix
Not a surprise, given that these are concrete, and well documented, policies that have taken place over the last 40 years, starting in the late 70s. — Xtrix
The absolute number of regulations on the books is not what is meant by deregulation. So your source doesn't address even this. — Xtrix
The link you provide is a series of graphs, with no commentary that I can see. Many of those graphs look suspect to me -- but that's a moot point, since there's no argument presented. Besides the fact that a number of graphs are seemingly suggesting something happened in 1971 that changed various trajectories. Fine. — Xtrix
Yes, I'm well aware of the Nixon shock. What does this have to do with "corporate structure"? Can you be concrete about anything? — Xtrix
product it best cheap. — theRiddler
I keeps Honest, pragmatic men; cheap, tasteless men. Cause I must suffer. — theRiddler
since the markets are largely influenced by government intervention, the "effectiveness" you talk about can be equally interpreted as a result of policy. — Xtrix
No, it can't. Because governments have existed for thousands of years without those results. — Garrett Travers
No. It's not an example of markets. Soldiers returning home had many effects, one of them being on markets.
— Xtrix
Yes, more people in the markets means more production. Sorry, basic shit. — Garrett Travers
I never said I had a devotion to Ayn Rand. All of you assumed this because you all have a devotion to your plagiarist god emperor Marx. — Garrett Travers
Markets, in the capacity you or I know them, have NOT been around. — Garrett Travers
In what fantasy of yours would people not trade goods? — Garrett Travers
No, that's not close to what he's referring to; nor am I.
The second sentence is laughable and meaningless.
Also, you use the word "dirigisme" way too much. Friendly criticism.
— Xtrix
No, it's how I am describing how what he is describing is bullshit. There is only Dirigisme, and no I will not stop saying it. — Garrett Travers
So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate.
— Xtrix
No, that's just an element, among all the other elements I highlighted. — Garrett Travers
As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in, in tandem with the instantiation of the corporate structure we know today that initiated the decline in median income, all mixed in with new tech and innovations that sprang up out of post-war science. So, lot's of variables. Again, none of this stuff is anything I disagree with you on, except for what you call it. State economic domination has been going for thousands of years. — Garrett Travers
Don't worry about it, just know that you have no evidence to back up the opinions of some neoliberal age of non-regulation and what that entails. Regulations have not stopped building since FDR's tyrant ass. — Garrett Travers
The financial sector in the U.S. has been considerably deregulated in recent decades, which has allowed for greater financial risktaking. The financial sector used its considerable political sway in Congress and in the political establishment and influenced the ideology of political institutions to press for more and more deregulation.[30] Among the most important of the regulatory changes was the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, which repealed the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act regarding interest rate regulation via retail banking. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.
Such deregulation of the financial sector in the United States fostered greater risktaking by finance sector firms through the creation of innovative financial instruments and practices, including securitization of loan obligations of various sorts and credit default swaps.[31] This caused a series of financial crises, including the savings and loan crisis, the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis, each of which necessitated major bailouts, and the derivatives scandals of 1994.[32][33] These warning signs were ignored as financial deregulating continued, even in view of the inadequacy of industry self-regulation as shown by the financial collapses and bailout. The 1998 bailout of LTCM sent the signal to large "too-big-to-fail" financial firms that they would not have to suffer the consequences of the great risks they take. Thus, the greater risktaking allowed by deregulation and encouraged by the bailout paved the way for the financial crisis of 2007–08.[34][33]
What does this have to do with your statement that the "neoliberal phase" is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" The "Fed" is the Federal Reserve, which is the central banking system of the United States. Did you mean the government?
— Xtrix
That isn't what I said. — Garrett Travers
As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in — Garrett Travers
What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? — Xtrix
The "neoliberal" phase of a heavily regulated economy that hasn't stopped in a long time. — Garrett Travers
So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate. — Xtrix
No, that's just an element, among all the other elements I highlighted.
Not a surprise, given that these are concrete, and well documented, policies that have taken place over the last 40 years, starting in the late 70s.
— Xtrix
That are directly refuted by the stats I posted, but okay. — Garrett Travers
The absolute number of regulations on the books is not what is meant by deregulation. So your source doesn't address even this.
— Xtrix
It covers more than that across numerous decades, and if you looked through it, you would know that. — Garrett Travers
In 71 Nixon solidified the economy as a fiat one. In conjunction with the fed, the tax structure and the growing regulatory and SS system, the corporate structure you know today was complete in its creation. That's when wages began to fall, and haven't stopped: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ — Garrett Travers
Yes, I'm well aware of the Nixon shock. What does this have to do with "corporate structure"? Can you be concrete about anything?
— Xtrix
Yeah, I could, but it's gonna be a while, there's a good deal of info that goes into the whole thing. You can start here to learn what the hell they are, as opposed to normal businesses:https://open.oregonstate.education/strategicmanagement/chapter/2-the-evolution-of-the-modern-corporation/#:~:text=Corporations%20have%20existed%20since%20the,the%20British%20East%20India%20Company.
Check out the wikipedia page on them to see how they operate in the states:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Numerous funding methods through banking system:https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/062003.asp
Banking system controlled by the Fed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
This is all a good place to start investigating the massive coporate behemoth that the government feeds off of, I assure you there's more. But, no, it isn't something I can just explain. It's something you'll to piece together, no one argument is gonna do it. It's a topic for a series of discussions. — Garrett Travers
Patty and her lazy obese ass destroying the planet. I'm forced to meet five men, each have sandwiches. I'm saying I just wants more, more of this for desert. On top of that, society should suffer, everyone. men, Patty, step-triplets. more of that, to buy something. suffer is all I'm saying — theRiddler
Well, we don't have much else to go on except other human conceptualizations, so I'm stuck with empirically approaching this from what is most well understood. I'm open to ideas, of course. — Garrett Travers
Those are all good postulates, I just don't know how much support they have empirically. From what we know, consciousness is a neural phenomenon, so is reason and rationality, and those processes are confined to the individual brain producing them. The concept of the individual qua individual, is empirical. I'm talking to you right now, and you me. Neither of us are talking to anyone else in this specific conversation. Individuality is self-evidently so. And I don't see any way around that. — Garrett Travers
To be honest, the only real irrationality I've ever noticed, as everybody operates empirically in their day to day functions, is the kind that is encapsulated in values. The dismissal of reason as a value itself. The kind of stuff that allows people to pray over cancer patients, and then thank God when chemo works out. Reason is a natural function of the brain itself, it is constantly taking in data in these recurrent feedback loops. One's values can guide that process at a very high level. Reason, even from the Randian view, makes room for natural capacities/limitations, that's not really an issue at base Objectivism level. It can be when you're talking about the genuinely under privileged. — Garrett Travers
P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival. — Garrett Travers
it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty — Garrett Travers
then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers
Quantum physics demonstrates that predictability beyond empirical data must take into account a qualitative aspect to potential energy as well as a quantitative one. This is the rational structure of potentiality. — Possibility
and is consistently more accurate than an empirical approach. — Possibility
possible qualitative structures for understanding when empirical information (or indeed rationality) is insufficient. — Possibility
The point I’m trying to make, though, is that accurate reasoning needs to acknowledge the relativity of logic, energy and quality, regardless of how we conceptualise reality. If we dismiss rationality from our prediction, it has an unpredictable effect on empirical observations, contributing to prediction error in affect (experiences of loss, pain, humiliation). Likewise, if we dismiss indescribable quality (‘significance’) or unexplainable affect (‘feelings’) from our prediction, the accuracy of any reasoning is limited relative to what’s ignored. — Possibility
An alternative structure of consciousness aligning with such a prediction is going to come across qualitative and/or affective distortions in their own interpretation, simply because they cannot account for the same significance or feelings the author experienced in relation to this particular expression of their reasoning. Whenever we conceptualise our reasoning, this distortion is unavoidable, and arguably the source of most disagreements in philosophy (and quantum physics). — Possibility
Humans have other means of survival, such as cooperation. But I do not know whether you are implying that logic, rationality and conceptual activity are the ONLY means of survival. Maybe you meant they are some of the means of survival. (Side note: You used rationality, a synonym of reason, to define reason) — Hello Human
Values don't necessarily come from the use of reason. They can come from emotions for example. And we can live a live in accordance with our values without the use of reason. (Side note: What do you mean by "conceptual faculty of reason" ?). — Hello Human
People follow their values for reasons other than reason. Plenty of people believe killing is wrong, and don't commit murder due to some fear of a god or the law, not directly because of their values. — Hello Human
I don't see how this follows from your premises. — Hello Human
A sceptic could argue that values developed with reason are unreliable, and that values must come from some religious text. — Hello Human
that we must prevent people from forming their values rationally and that we must put in place a totalitarian government ensuring that people abide to the rules of the religious text and do not apply reason to their values. — Hello Human
Therefore, by assuming that he is right we do not deny your premises yet we can deny your conclusion, and as such your argument is invalid. — Hello Human
I'd meant "within my purview" with that, sorry. But, yes. These ethical standards that are directed at others are in fact beneficial if the ethical standards of those others align with yours. I wouldn't suggest being kind to a clepto, drug addict, or a murder in any way that implied connection or collaboration. But, for those who respect you as a reasoning individual, being good to them is being good to yourself through respect of THEIR individual reason. Rand highlights this in Atlas Shrugged endlessly. And I mean, over and over and over. — Garrett Travers
I really didn't enjoy that one all that much, smacked of her attempt at Russian Existentialism. It read well for a Russian to English first time novel, but I prefer her Romanticism. — Garrett Travers
Yes, Howard was written specifically for that, as in specifically. He was supposed to represent the walking ideal of "integrity at all costs." It's a Romantic novel. The point being that if one cannot have their own reason and consciousness, and all of the contents of its product, then life isn't worth living. I would agree. She didn't grow up like that, and currently we live in a world that is only now getting close to being conducive to it- apart from Russia, of course, who'd have thought? Human societies flourish when mutual respect for individual consciousness and reason are values of that society. Such is rational selfishness defined, as applied broadly. This does not apply to many societies in history at all. — Garrett Travers
How do I take the whole of human interaction, and reduce it to its base function? I have the individual, his/her capacity to reason, which informs his/her interactions with others. That's the basic unit. You've nailed something that is key here. If I can't approach our interaction from exactly that perspective, you and I are going to have issues with one another, especially if our interactions are in person. I think you and I should explore this more, to expand appreciations and what not, if you feel like. — Garrett Travers
Reason is the faculty by which we generate concepts and form conclusions in accordance with sensory data — Garrett Travers
If individual humans are the source of moral reasoning, then individual benefit is the standard for moral action. — Garrett Travers
Quantum physicis demonstrates that we must do such specifically in regard to quantum mechanics. Those mechanics don't apply to the macroscopic world. Unless you have a way to actually relate them to the macroscopic world, I don't see the relevance of this particular line of thought. Nothing about quanta demostrates a need for dismissal of empiricism, it is, in fact, still empiricism that scientisits use to study quanta. — Garrett Travers
All of this seems quite probable to me. I fail to see how you are not reasoning with it all. Again, any data gathered to be used in informing behaviors of approach, or anything like that is specifically what reason is. — Garrett Travers
Doing so, incorporating anything that you are talking about into thought and data that inform behaviors, is in fact an application of reason. I don't how you're drawing this conclusion. Reason cannot be insuficient if you are using it to do what you're describing. — Garrett Travers
I guess my objections to your premises have been properly addressed with this definition then. — Hello Human
A skeptic could answer by saying that though morality is discovered through human reason, the principle one discovers through moral reasoning is that you must play your pre-determined role in society. — Hello Human
Is this a desirable way of governing business? — Xtrix
They are not two different worlds - this is a misinterpretation, and a closer look at theoretical quantum physics (not just the calculations of QM) would show you that. — Possibility
And I haven’t called for a dismissal of empiricism - just a recognition of its limitations. Read again what I wrote, only this time without bringing your preferred explanation of quantum mechanics into it. Be open to ideas. — Possibility
An application of reason, yes. Not reason itself. Reason (rationality limited by an ’individual’ human consciousness) is not identical to its application. — Possibility
Any data gathered is not identical to its use in informing behaviours. I just wanted to clear this up before we go any further. — Possibility
Well, I would suggest being kind to a clepto, drug addict or murderer - just not in any way that might endorse or enable the particular aspects of their ethical standards that conflict with yours. — Possibility
Your willingness to connect and collaborate with them, particularly towards increasing their awareness with regards to ethics, nets gains with respect to their potential in developing a rational consciousness, and will broaden this overall capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond your own ‘individual’ reason. — Possibility
But the rational ideal of integrity is honesty with oneself - inclusive of a humility that comes from an honest understanding of your own limitations. — Possibility
For Howard, it was arguably not about rational self-interest, but this rational ideal of integrity achieved through collaboration - it wasn’t so much Howard’s isolated, individual qualities that brought ultimate success, but a collaboration with Wynand whose own quantitative power correlated with the qualitative inspiration of Howard, and with the affect or desire embodied in Dominique. To me, that makes more sense. None of these three characters is really complete as an ‘individual’. — Possibility
think it’s fair to say that this basic unit - one’s individual capacity to reason - is inconsistent, relative, and variable. It’s no wonder we have issues with one another. Perhaps we need to look for an alternative ‘basic unit’. Personally, I’ve found the Tao Te Ching to propose an intriguing model, but it’s difficult to translate into conceptual language (which I suggest might be the main issue here). — Possibility
It's complicated. There's variables like voluntary employment. But, no, this isn't how I would run a business, and it isn't how private owners do, by and large, in accordance with their profits. — Garrett Travers
This is particularly a corporate phenomenon, and I hate corporations probably more than you do - not meant as a slight. — Garrett Travers
This is not the way business should be operating, and such business is a state manufactured form of business. — Garrett Travers
Behind these concerns lie a number of fundamental questions. Who “owns” a corporation? What constitutes “good” governance? What are a company’s responsibilities? To shareholders? To other stakeholders, such as employees, suppliers, creditors, and society at large? How did Wall Street acquire so much power? And, critically, what are the roles and responsibilities of boards of directors?
I wouldn't say I hate them. I see them as kind of a like a tool -- a legal invention that can serve a decent purpose, or can be harmful. I don't particularly hate the people who run them, either -- I just think they're making a terrible mistake in their decisions. — Xtrix
As for you link -- I look at it once before. It's not very long, but interesting. The following questions are, I think, definitely the right ones: — Xtrix
the collective of individuals it attempts to be applied to, which is the same concept that requires individual benefit in a net way — Garrett Travers
Could you please clarify? — Hello Human
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were two different worlds. I meant domains of observation within the same world. How things operate disparately between domains isn't important if they don't translate between the domains.
I'm saying issues like the observer effect, or things of that nature in QM, are not examples of the limitations of empiricsim, but gaps in empirical methods that have been devised that can meet the challenge associated with that domain of observation. It was actually empiricism that revealed the mysteries themselves, and empiricism that is being used to solve them, exclusively. — Garrett Travers
An application of reason, yes. Not reason itself. Reason (rationality limited by an ’individual’ human consciousness) is not identical to its application.
— Possibility
This is not true, as far as I can gather from research. Applications of reason are reason. In fact, the brain is perpetually in a state of reasoning, even if it is not directed from executive function. — Garrett Travers
Ok, perhaps not so much limitations in empiricism, then, but in quantifying observation and measurement. The fundamental formulae of quantum physics were discovered not by empirical but by analytical methods, by working ‘backwards’ from existing data - this points to an important atemporal aspect of QM, which in empiricism amounts to a different ‘domain of observation’. — Possibility
Time in empiricism flows in only one direction, but when we correlate different ‘domains of observation’, what we struggle to conceptualise we have no problems in applying accurately, suggesting that we’re missing something from our conceptual reasoning that is not missing from our application: qualitative intentionality, or a particular focus of attention. QM is solved when calculations qualitatively align with specific observation/measurement - and vice versa. It’s this potential reversibility of QM that is beyond the limits of observation/measurement and (for some) empiricism. I’m talking four-, five- and six-dimensional reality. I don’t think this is necessarily beyond empiricism, but it’s well beyond certainty. — Possibility
Reasoning is an ongoing action/event; Reason is a capacity/potential. They are not identical. Applications of reason include reasoning and affect. Reasoning is a process of drawing from experience and reason to generate ‘thought and data’ that inform not only behaviours, but also adjustments to reason. But what directly informs behaviour is affect (energy distributed in a four-dimensional system of ongoing attention and effort), so reason must translate into affect in order to inform behaviour. This is an application of reason. But affect is not reason, it’s a qualitative arrangement of energy. Reason, on the other hand, refers to qualitative ideas in a logical structure. — Possibility
Applying the ethical standard of rationally selfish benefit to a collective of individuals, is still individual benefit as decided and recieved by those individuals that comprise the collective, and is also still distributed by individuals to them, individually. — Garrett Travers
If I understand well, your claim is that a benefit to a collective of individuals also constitutes a benefit to the members of the collective ? — Hello Human
Also, what do you mean exactly by “benefit” ? — Hello Human
Your willingness to connect and collaborate with them, particularly towards increasing their awareness with regards to ethics, nets gains with respect to their potential in developing a rational consciousness, and will broaden this overall capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond your own ‘individual’ reason.
— Possibility
I like your reasoning, it assumes a possible benefit associated with the interaction for all involved. Remember, their ethics is a benefit to you, not just your own. Net gains are a self-benficiary analysis. You have not only applied reason in this scenario, but done so on the basis of mutal benefit thereof. — Garrett Travers
It isn't inconsistent, it's universal a far as any sort of conceptualization goes, it's human cognition. But, relative and variable, definitely. That doesn't change the fact that a human cannot even be moral without it. It's where formulation of morals comes from, and every rationalization one gives oneself. I'll look into the Teo Te Ching bit. Where does that stem from? — Garrett Travers
So, you agree with this approach only insofar as there is sufficient self-benefit. But mutual benefit is not the basis - that’s just to consolidate this point beyond which our approach differs. Because when I talk about collaboration netting gains, I’m not referring to a self-beneficiary analysis of actuality. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration nets a qualitative gain beyond the sum of individually perceived gains - that is the nature of collaboration. There’s no empirical evidence of this, of course, unless you’re looking for it specifically. And where’s the reason in looking? Beyond this ‘event horizon’ of rational self-interest, for starters. — Possibility
I discussed the Tao Te Ching in considerable detail with T Clark in his thread last year, including the difficulties of translating from an ideological to a conceptual language. Our views were quite different, but I found the discussion and deep exploration itself was useful. — Possibility
The TTC is written in an ideological language, not a conceptual one. The language of traditional Chinese literature consists not of word concepts (the naming of 10,000 things), but of qualitative ideas (characters) arranged according to a logically structured syntax and grammar. The first chapter of the TTC outlines the limitations of the text in relation to reality, including what is missing (desire/affect), and basically explains that the truth of reality consists in embodying a relation of individual affect with this logical arrangement of qualitative ideas. So, the text remains consistent, even though each quality/character is variable according to its relative position in the text, and each reader always approaches the meaning of the text from a variable position of relative affect. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.