Dear Mr Lewis,

You obviously are unfamiliar with the Negative Fallacy. It is 100% up to the claimant of supernaturals to provide sharable evidence. In a complex, open system, proving non-existence is logically impossible. The ball is in the court of *all* claiming the existence of *anything* non-physical [energy-matter-information] I stand ready to wager for charity at longbets dot org that there will be no evidence forthcoming.

I recall giving a link to my System Science paper which is “Feedback and Dis-Equilibrium in Human Overpopulation.” It was given to the Plenary of The World Congress of the System Sciences- 2000, Toronto, webcast to 3 continents, and has never been rebutted. Search Countercurrents dot org and the above title, or my name Steven B Kurtz

As to cluttering Tim’s blog with many references from *your* blog and other sources rather than replying to the two simple points I challenged in my original reply, I must say that our gracious host is most tolerant.

Yes, retired dilettante is my title, but I stand willing to debate and/or wager for charity on points about which I am confident. Religious sorts and ideologues never step up to the plate.

Steve

drtimmorgan
on December 10, 2019 at 6:50 am said:
I must admit to being less than wholly delighted with all these links.

From here on I think it should be ‘one link per article’.

rogerglewis
on December 10, 2019 at 6:50 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Steven, Dilettante is as dilettante does. Thank you for the information to search for the link I will take a look, Thankyou. You had not previously provided this information. On the Graciousness of Tim our Host, of course, Tims excellence and acuity is not in question, certainly not by me. Regarding your Blustering. Steven, our discussion is linked and people can read and make up their own minds. And in making up their Minds!, therein lies the question.
What is Mind?
My own Mind is persuaded by the great Logician and Father of American Pragmatism C S Pierce.

“Three modes of evolution have thus been brought before us: evolution by fortuitous variation, evolution by mechanical necessity, and evolution by creative love. We may term them tychastic evolution, or tychasm, anancastic evolution, or anancasm, and agapastic evolution, or agapasm. The doctrines which represent these as severally of principal importance we may term tychasticism, anancasticism,and agapasticism. On the other hand the mere propositions that absolute chance, mechanical necessity, and the law of love are severally operative in the cosmos may receive the names of tychism, anancism, and agapism.” — C. S. Peirce, 1893[2]

Pierce had considerable Nous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouse

and to finish with a little more Peirce. CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: ´´In order to reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues as intellectual honesty and sincerity and a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientificinquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to know how things really were … (1-34).[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with intentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235). [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative…´´.
http://web.ncf.ca/ag659/308/Peirce-Rorty-Haack.pdf

Pierces seminal essay How to make our ideas clear is also a great starting off point for embracing such truth as we might be fortunate enough to encounter in our allotted time on this blue marble suspended in eternity.
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html

Chrysippus Ha! you jest with me? Beware of the shaft of insoluble syllogism.

rogerglewis
on December 10, 2019 at 8:30 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GCNewsletter/GCJuly2011.html
#Kurtz Steven could you confirm that this is the paper you wish to engage in/upon a discussion / Debate with me.
I am happy to arrange a convenient time to debate your paper Live-streamed on my YouTube/channel or any other platform you consider more convenient to you. Here are two previous such live streams I have participated in.
https://youtu.be/_SVqU-vuOGA

also, available on the Progressive Momentum Blog of Bill40 a GolemXIV stalwart of the comments section.
https://bill40.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/david-malone-the-man-on-the-case/

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM: IT`S THEIR FUTURE, ” I HAD A BRILLIANT IDEA FOR 21ST CENTURY ECONOMICS ”

https://youtu.be/FaQmM-0-hgs
There is no reference to Smil but to Smail, is Smail? Smil? according to your claimed quotes of Smil, is there another longer paper perhaps with more substance?. Vaclav Smil is not J. Kenneth Smail, Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at Kenyon College, so naturally, I am wondering if this is the same paper you refer too or whether you did not correctly recall who you quoted. You do quote a lot of people as part of your argument to authority style, so it’s hardly surprising that you may have tripped your self up or misremembered.

It seems clear that in your “Paper” you substitute the word “Evidence” for what should be correctly called “opinion”, it is also quite clear that arguments to Authority are very important to your world view. My own background comes from a tradition of Logic, Mathematics and finite element analysis. Given that I sense from your writing that yours is not a Scientific or indeed mathematical Background I am happy if you wish, for you to propose a seconder with the necessary, Mathematical, Scientific and Statistical chops to debate the qualitative empirical data in an informed manner. Tim has the chops and it would perhaps be appropriate if he would agree that we ask Tim to chair our discussion a 3-way skype conference call is easily streamable, there are also several more sophisticated platforms we could use which I am also familiar with.

You claim that your paper has never been rebutted. Culturally the term Rebuttal seems somewhat de-valued in US chattering class circles such as yours, “Kill the poor to prove you love them”, circles. It is also true, in much the same way, that the Term “Research” has also been similarly diluted and turned on its head in Social Media.

For the record, I found your paper challenging and challengable at All quadrants and all levels not least because it is a Polemic and not a serious inquiry into the question. As it stands as its own rebuttal, Hoisted on its own petard, one might say, it is unsurprising that it has not been challenged by anyone seriously pursuing the subject either in the field or more widely drawn intellectual salons. As you are unaware whether it has been “rebutted” ( as you call it) or publicly challenged, I assume you can not point me to any substantive discussion or formal challenge to it?
I will be only too happy to make a full account and particularise its shortcomings. I will write a formal essay doing just that after the Uk General Election results have been declared on Friday. I will post a link to my essay here next Monday.

There is one basic Mistake I feel it only fair to point out. steady states and Equilibria are much-misapplied terms, quite as much as Rebuttal and Research are, as pointed out above. In Dynamic Systems oscillation across complex dimensions and domains characterise the multiple possible states of any System and What Lewis called “Possible worlds” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

Equilibria and Steady States are what Quine termed convenient posits, you might find Claes Johnson’s work on the Navier Stokes Equations helpful in understanding the more scientific analysis of the systems and system states you so clearly misrepresent, through your poor understanding of the concepts you dabble with.
https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-kutta-condition.html

You may take this post as my accepting your Duelling Gauntlet, En Garde. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVID8kkHKrI

Actually I agree that the global financial system is not self-correcting because of the reasons you describe. It is broken and controlled mainly by the USA and the Fed. My book explains all this and I concur that it is the energy economy to which we need to address our solutions.

I fear that the end of our fiat currency system is due, perhaps even by the end of this year as the BIS plans its digital currency for the New World Order.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/global-crash-just-around-corner-central-banks-are-cutting-fastest-rate-financial-crisis

rogerglewis
on December 9, 2019 at 2:42 pm said:
Hi, Stephen, I do not claim ownership of The Ideas of the Late Dr Adrian Wrigley.
I do not claim either to be A Henry George or Single Land Tax Expert. I have Read George and also some developments of his ideas. Mainly I have been into the work of GK Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc and Distributism which is an Honest hybrid of Market and Social ideas that is neither Left or right but founded in the Catholic Christian tradition.
My won work on all of these ideas of political economy is on my blog anyone can search the concepts I mention and with respect to elaborating here, I prefer not to as persons such as yourself have made it quite clear that you will brook no discussion only passive submission to your own settled minds. Tim our host is I must say not included in that remark but you certainly are.

Steven B Kurtz
on December 9, 2019 at 4:49 pm said:
Ah, so Your refusal to explain your scheme to the blog members is my problem. And then you cloak your muddled thinking with a religious doctrine. Must be greatly self-satisfying, however the list learns nothing from it.

rogerglewis
on December 9, 2019 at 5:44 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Steven,
Thank you for your invitation to address the List? I will decline thank you very much. My ideas are very extensively explained and sourced with citations, links and so forth and my Conquest of Dough Web site also has many links to downloadable PDF’s.

https://theconquestofdough.weebly.com/some-important-texts.html

I did explain to you that The Late Dr Adrian Wrigleys work is his and not mine and they are his ideas and not mine the full web site which is now run by Robin Smith, who used to publish a satirical blog called the melt Fund, now runs it.
Here is the link.
TO
The Systemic Fiscal Reform Group (SFR Group)
http://www.sfrgroup.org/
&
Melt Fund on the way back machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150623071540/http://www.meltfund.com/

For the dilettantes and hard of Irony please be aware that the Melt Fund is a footlights production of Cambridge academics bursting with good old fashioned British irony. I merely mention this as Steven has self-identified previously as a dilettante in one of his only moments of blinding insight I recall from his participation on the “List”. In sharp contrast of course to my own cloaked .. “muddled thinking with a religious doctrine”.
I still await a link to your 2000 systems paper Steven but you are I recall not interested in ideas outside of your own No Intelligence allowed religious doctrine of atheism.
/2019/10/13/156-actual-fantasy/

https://twitter.com/GrubStreetJorno/status/1183614641701871616

mentions “retired dilettante trained in analytic philosophy, but have researched this for 3 decades or so”. So Steven 3 decades as a Dilettante it seems? Have you got a link to your 2000 systems paper quoting Smil, I would like to read it.
Just out of courtesy and so those who resent the links I have added and do not wish to and have an understandable disinterest in Stevens charges against me a philosopher and poet on little note or consequence that lives in the middle of nowhere in a Swedish forest here are the bare bones on the question of Distributism and “ChesterBelloc” political Economy of the Catholic Christin Democratic variety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Distributism is found under the Christian Democracy section of Wikipedia, rather than dabble in ad-hominem and making strawmen arguments for a correctly cited school of thought from the Christian Catholic Tradition, where Belloc and Chesterton drew from to produce their very interesting system in the “30 acres and mule” and “3 acres and a cow”, land reform traditions in the USA and The British Isles.
/2018/08/02/3-acres-and-a-cow-milking-the-usa-who-ate-all-the-pies/
Predicting in the Serville State modern Neo-Liberalism and of course the rise of Adolph Hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Servile_State

That an ethical foundation can be found within a traditional religious framework should not provoke such harsh reproach as it does in you Stephen such reactions are found in Iconoclastic Zealots and no doubt dilettantes down the ages, is it presumptuous to think you might bring your personal experience and self-analysis to bear on that question?

https://mises.org/library/whats-wrong-distributism

/2018/06/15/hope-without-an-object-cannot-live-this-land-is-mine-henry-george-and-the-single-land-tax/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T2W8JAl57I

Pingback: #159. The perils of equilibria. Carbon Taxation. GE2019 the #CO2 #COP outs, Our Democracy is on Fire! Von Der Leyen and the #EUGreenDeal #WrongKindofGreen – Not The Grub Street Journal

You’re entitled to your view, of course, and healthy debate is what it’s all about.

My own view is that we discuss two very significant themes here. If the core thesis of the surplus energy economy doesn’t ‘leap off the page’ in this one, be assured that it’s there.

The interpretation of the EM economies is solidly based on SEEDS – conventional interpretation is only inching its way towards something that is important, and identified – indeed, red-flagged – by the SEEDS model.

The second part, about assets and incomes, also ties in. The gap between incomes and asset pricing is a consequence of monetary policy – but this policy was only adopted in the first place because the authorities didn’t understand that the economy was faltering, let alone the reasons why it was happening, or their powerlessness to ‘fix’ it with monetary gimmicks.

In that sense, the disequilibrium is a symptom – but one that’s going to have very big, real-world consequences and, I think, sooner rather than later.

Steven B Kurtz
on December 8, 2019 at 6:13 pm said:
In many countries, property taxes have been the rule for generations. What would be different with your (Georgist?) scheme?

Also, re:
“Means-tested welfare should be replaced by a Citizens’ Dividend distributing the financial surpluses of government arising from such reforms.”

As most governments are in deep, maybe unrepayable debt, wouldn’t surpluses from any activity be sucked into that black hole?

Cheers,
Steve

rogerglewis
on December 9, 2019 at 5:25 am said:
Hi Tim,
I do not dispute that the Energy Cliff ECOE is in the pie. Of course, it is. The Extent to which it explains the apparently failing international global financial system at the moment is not separated out though with this analysis.
The CLaims on Wealth post the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2010 were rebased and redistributed to the Billionaire Class and the State Sanctioned Corporate and Banking sector. The result of this has been to disenfranchise both economically and politically almost everyone else and in increasing numbers.
The resulting bottom half of society has now termed the precariat and the precariat is growing and not shrinking.
Under neoliberalism, the Precariat is not an unfortunate by-product but a necessary condition for top-down state-monopoly capitalism. Jean Calvin said that “the poor must remain poor so that they remain obedient”, he could have got a job writing copy for the EU constitution where Austerity is baked into the cake or any number of the Alphabet soup of Global Bi and Multilateral trade deals and IMF and world bank liberalisation conditions attached to development loans and government development aid packages.
The truth of all of these Political Economic factors is that they are driven by Geo-Political balance and Particularly US Dollar Hegemony in international trade. That arrangement began to break back in the late sixties when De Gaulle repatriated Frech Gold. and criticised the US and its Exorbitant privilege and of course , come to 1972, Connoly famously said, “It’s our currency but your problem”.

The energy is part of the problem, and the thing about Energy Based econometrics is that they can capture dynamics rather more concretely that econometrics based upon an abstract, debt-based and variable monetary measure.

A stock-taking of the real economy based upon a seeds accounting unit and indexing of the previous 25 years would give a far better idea of what the potentials are going forward.

The current system is not fit for purpose and hopelessly corrupted.
Steve Kurtz, The Sovereign Debt crisis emerges straight out of the GFC, it exists because in 2008 the banks were bailed out to the tune of Trillions by the treasuries of Nation States, of course, the who enterprise is farcical and imaginary.
What merely happened is that Losses were socialised ( Socialism for the Rich) and Profits were previously privatised and remained in the hands of the Privileged Oligarchical classes.
Regarding Georgist single land, taxation read a book.even do a google search. His ideas remain relevant and workable today and fit very well with incorporating SEEDS realism into our political Economy.

austrianpeter
on December 9, 2019 at 7:11 am said:
Excellent comment Roger, thank you. If you haven’t already seen this article about energy, it might prove worth reading:
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2019/12/08/recession-ahead-an-overview-of-our-predicament/

Season’s greetings

rogerglewis
on December 9, 2019 at 7:44 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi Peter,

I read Gail’s article at the link you kindly provided. I like Gails WOrk as indeed I like Tims work too. Where I found Gail’s emphasis less credible was on the assumption that the Monetary Economy is a self Organising system empirically it is not and we should not forget that. Free Markets that self organise in my opinion can not exist under a State ordered Capitalism due to two factors, the first that State sanction money tokens are not Neutral and secondly where the state-sanctioned Money token is created as debt at interest the boundary conditions that will play out are exactly as Chrysihphus says here in Lucians Sale of Creeds.
HELLENIC AND HELLENISTIC PAPERS
LUCIAN’S SALE OF CREEDS

Chrysippus

In regard to things external, health, wealth, and the like, I am then all
that Nature intended me to be. But there is much previous toil to be undergone. You
will first sharpen your eyes on minute manuscripts, amass commentaries, and get
your bellyful of outlandish terms. Last but not least, it is forbidden to be wise without repeated doses of hellebore.
Seventh

dealer All this is exalted and magnanimous to a degree. But what am I to
think when I find that you are also the creed of cent-per-cent,1
the creed of the usurer? Has he swallowed his hellebore? is he made perfect in virtue?
Chrysippus

Assuredly. On none but the wise man does usury sit well. Consider.
His is the art of putting two and two together, and usury is the art of putting interest
together. The two are evidently connected, and one as much as the other is the prerogative of the true believer; who, not content, like common men, with simple interest, will also take interest upon interest. For interest, as you are probably aware, is of two kinds. There is simple interest, and there is its offspring, compound interest. Hear Syllogism on the subject. “If I take simple interest, I shall also take compound.
But I shall take simple interest: therefore I shall take compound.”
Seventh dealer

And the same applies to the fees you take from your youthful pupils? None but the true believer sells virtue for a fee?
Chrysippus

Quite right. I take the fee in my pupil’s interest, not because I want it.
The world is made up of diffusion and accumulation. I accordingly practise my pupil
in the former, and myself in the latter.
Seventh dealer

But it ought to be the other way. The pupil ought to accumulate,
and you, “sole millionaire,” ought to diffuse.
Chrysippus

Ha! you jest with me? Beware of the shaft of insoluble syllogism.

Pingback: #159. The perils of equilibria. Carbon Taxation. GE2019 the #CO2 #COP outs, Our Democracy is on Fire! Von Der Leyen and the #EUGreenDeal #WrongKindofGreen – Not The Grub Street Journal