Sender: -2.0 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-ID: <BLU116-F12286DB7F904E2A01BF0AFA7C60 &AElig phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709072051160.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:01:07 -0700
To: dreeves &AElig umich.edu, jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu
Cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: "Eva Revesz" <erevesz &AElig hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: candidate calculator

Thanks, Danny.
Really enjoyed this.
You're not being provocative at all when you call me a socialist, so no 
worries there. I'm flattered!
Yes, I also find James very convincing. Great retort about  "finite wealth," 
which really shoots a big hole into Graham's "Daddy's Model of Wealth." 
(Just read that a minute ago -- that was James, right?). Finally someone to 
explain rationally/economically what I've been sensing all along. The pie is 
just so big, I was arguing. Danny, remember how you pooh-poohed that, like 
I'm too dense to get what Graham is talking about. But really, just from a 
purely theoretical, mathematical standpoint, this (i.e. wealth) is simply 
not an instance of "infinity" and James really explains that well.
Thank you!

Trixie


>From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
>To: James W Mickens <jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
>CC: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
>Subject: Re: candidate calculator
>Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:31:24 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Sorry, I was being provocative in calling y'all socialists.  I did have the 
>impression your ideal economy would be more European than American. We 
>disagree less than I thought, but the disagreement is still pronounced. 
>More on that in the other thread (forthcoming)!
>
>One more stab at recruiting James to the voting pact:
>
>Setting: A cocktail party.
>
>James: [performs an elaborate parlour trick]
>        [or maybe tells the BoyJazz story]
>Alice: [swoons] [recovers]
>[The conversation now turns to politics.]
>Alice: So, James, who are *you* voting for?
>James: Mitt Romney, to my walloping chagrin.
>Alice: [buffaloed, waits with eyebrows raised]
>James: See, I'm in this kind of cult and there was this pact...
>Alice: [horrified fascination]
>James: It's a long story, I'll point you to the relevant blog posts.
>
>[Later, James forwards his brilliant, cogent arguments against Romney.]
>[Alice, curiosity piqued, swallows it all up, forwards to her friends, 
>James's candidate wins the election.]
>
>Actually, wait, this is James Mickens we're talking about. Is there really 
>any chance he won't convince us to endorse his favorite candidate? :)
>
>Danny (adoring Mickens fan, who still thinks he has something on James when 
>it comes to economics)
>
>
>PS: above applies to Trixie too!
>
>PPS: the prediction markets say that Hillary is more likely than anyone 
>else to win the election, but that she probably won't.
>
>P3S: to Trixie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
>      GIYF!
>
>
>--- \/   FROM James W Mickens AT 07.09.07 20:28 (Today)   \/ ---
>
>>>Who else wants to join?  (You can reply to just me if you want.)
>>>We really need some socialists (Michelle? Dave? Trixie? James?).
>>
>>Being concerned about the negative effects of income inequality does not 
>>make me a socialist. I have no special distrust of capitalism or 
>>market-based systems. My ideal economy would look more American than 
>>European, and as I've mentioned before, a certain level of income 
>>inequality is needed to encourage our most productive citizens. However, I 
>>recognize that completely unfettered markets optimize wealth-based 
>>metrics, not welfare-based metrics. Thus, a basic sense of morality 
>>compels me to support government intervention when markets fail to protect 
>>the less fortunate. This is not a socialist stance, but a humanistic one.
>>
>>~j
>>
>>
>>p.s. I will not join the endorsement pact because there is no guarantee 
>>that the selected candidate will be the best one from my perspective. I 
>>see no reason to cede my vote to the will of a collective that may not 
>>share my key political beliefs. The fate-sharing aspect of the endorsement 
>>process might encourage me to argue hard for my candidate; however, 
>>fate-sharing does not ensure the correctness of the group's decision from 
>>my perspective, and it is precisely my perspective which determines how I 
>>cast my vote on election day.
>>
>
>--
>http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
>"It's not easy being easy." -- The Ethical Slut
>

_________________________________________________________________
Share your special parenting moments! 
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us