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
>To: James W Mickens
>CC: improvetheworld Æ 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
|
