I’d never considered pragmatism to be anything much more than a non ideological outlook on life but after reading a post stressing how debilitating an effect it can have on the thought process, I can see that I’m mistaken and need to rethink the meaning clearly in my own mind. Doug Reich gave a great analysis here, http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/04/say-cheese.html .
I have difficulty accepting that a human mind can consistently hold a pragmatic outlook, deciding that reality is what everyone believes it to be. I can however, easily see that an inconsistent pragmatic approach with deviations allowing both reasoning and perceptual powers to smooth over the areas involving life and death rational decisions.
Because so much of the world we live in consists of applying manmade rules to human actions, the pragmatist is often able to function well and even to be financially successful. There are individuals who thrive in regulatory environments, where all the rules are laid out and memorization brings success. But the success would unfold only for the strongest minds as the economy of understanding complex things by way of cohesive ideas is not available to the consistent pragmatist and, only those people with exceptional memory skills could cope.
The economy of thinking made possible by using a rational, conceptual based system to integrate ideas into understandable pieces allows even the people with lesser intellectual capacity to fully understand complex thoughts.
But the pragmatist evaluation and its application to the sciences provides an explanation to a phenomena that has long troubled me. I often wondered at the absurdity of some of the flaky so-called scientific studies or reports, claiming proof for an idea that logic or induction proves without any statistical analysis. Something like an evening news report documenting that most obese people eat more than the people with no weight problems, or some similar fact totally reasonable with out any study.
I believe the researchers hold the view that a fact can only be discerned from observation, that for the experiment to be objective the researchers must be completely unbiased to the point of ignoring reason, until the results are tabulated and then, only statistical analysis constitutes proof.
Does the true pragmatist fully rejects induction as a means to knowledge?
I have always considered pragmatism to be a beneficial trait for a person in business and a despicable vote-gathering tool in a politician. I’m beginning to see the personal destruction that the inability to understand the world or the actions of people around oneself would bring to any questioning individual. We all require an understandable future to feel comfortable about the future.
Without the ability to do inductive thinking, all issues boil down to my poll verses your poll. To the pragmatist, numbers count, status of supporter count, even the sophistication of the presentation makes a difference. Only the facts, if not presented glamorously are ignored.
Is there any thinking going on or is every thing decided by the opinion of an other, an outsider because the individual has lost ability to discriminate? Does the pragmatist inevitably derive any sense of self-worth from the opinions of others? Is the modern belief that we need rules for everything the normal outcome of pragmatic thought? Is it responsible for the elitist idea, that the common guy lacks the ability to look after their own life and needs help?
I think it is the basis of the belief that only what has taken place before can be properly evaluated, the financial community's statement, " we're in new ground here. We've never tried this before so we don't know if the printing of this much money will work". And the pirate situation, where we fear the sailors may get hurt if the are given guns, or we don't know who to punish to stop the piracy.
More to come.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Earth day letter
On Saturday at 8:00 pm we will once again, be asked to participate in Earth Hour. We will be asked to turn out our lights and reduce our use of energy. The goal is to have everyone shrink their ‘carbon footprint’ for an hour. The reason we are urge to do this; because the ‘green’ lobbyists tell us CO2 is causing global warming and destroying the earth.
Alternatively, we are also being urged by the Competitive Enterprise Institute to celebrate Human Achievement Hour by leaving the lights on. They are saying, by doing nothing and living as we normally do, we are paying homage to the human mind, the basis of all the inventions and discoveries that make our lives better.
The “CO2-is-deadly-and-killing-the-earth” crowd are having a tough time right now. The last ten years have seen the earth cooling rather than warming as correctly predicted by Willie Soon Phd., who made the case that the sun is responsible for the earth’s temperature. He claims that sunspots drive the temperature and presently we are in a very low solar activity cycle.
Two weeks ago the Heartland Institute assembled some 73 climate scientists and held a conference to discuss the non-issue of global warming. These scientists agreed that capping CO2 is both costly for us and have no net benefit for the earth.
Space prohibits me from fully explaining how irrational and wrong the ‘goofy green’ movement has become, how truly anti-life their policies are.
For those people who want to go along with earth hour, I urge you to see if you can stick it out for a month rather than that one easy hour. A month without power will give a person a clear perspective on what life would be like if they had to live with less energy, the agenda the ‘greens’ are pushing.
Consider that by turning off the lights you will be renouncing human achievement, rejecting the mind and all the innovation we depend on for life. You will be rejecting the gifts from the minds of greatest inventive geniuses to have lived on this earth, such as Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, and Nicola Tesla, inventor of the power grid. You will instead, be claiming that it is better for all mankind to return to the stone age.
On Saturday night I’ll have the lights on to celebrate Human Achievement Hour. I’ll be pouring a glass and proposing toast, “to technology and the geniuses who share the products of their minds with us.” Join me if you like.
Alternatively, we are also being urged by the Competitive Enterprise Institute to celebrate Human Achievement Hour by leaving the lights on. They are saying, by doing nothing and living as we normally do, we are paying homage to the human mind, the basis of all the inventions and discoveries that make our lives better.
The “CO2-is-deadly-and-killing-the-earth” crowd are having a tough time right now. The last ten years have seen the earth cooling rather than warming as correctly predicted by Willie Soon Phd., who made the case that the sun is responsible for the earth’s temperature. He claims that sunspots drive the temperature and presently we are in a very low solar activity cycle.
Two weeks ago the Heartland Institute assembled some 73 climate scientists and held a conference to discuss the non-issue of global warming. These scientists agreed that capping CO2 is both costly for us and have no net benefit for the earth.
Space prohibits me from fully explaining how irrational and wrong the ‘goofy green’ movement has become, how truly anti-life their policies are.
For those people who want to go along with earth hour, I urge you to see if you can stick it out for a month rather than that one easy hour. A month without power will give a person a clear perspective on what life would be like if they had to live with less energy, the agenda the ‘greens’ are pushing.
Consider that by turning off the lights you will be renouncing human achievement, rejecting the mind and all the innovation we depend on for life. You will be rejecting the gifts from the minds of greatest inventive geniuses to have lived on this earth, such as Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, and Nicola Tesla, inventor of the power grid. You will instead, be claiming that it is better for all mankind to return to the stone age.
On Saturday night I’ll have the lights on to celebrate Human Achievement Hour. I’ll be pouring a glass and proposing toast, “to technology and the geniuses who share the products of their minds with us.” Join me if you like.
Monday, March 16, 2009
GOVERNMENTIUM
A major research institution has discovered the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. The new element, for now, has been named, "Governmentium."
Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an "atomic mess" of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected and it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. The minutest amount of Governmentium can cause one reaction to take four to six weeks to complete when it would normally take less than one second.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but every four years undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to speculate that Governmentium formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". You will know it when you encounter it. I don't know for sure, but I think we're there!
Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an "atomic mess" of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected and it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. The minutest amount of Governmentium can cause one reaction to take four to six weeks to complete when it would normally take less than one second.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but every four years undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to speculate that Governmentium formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". You will know it when you encounter it. I don't know for sure, but I think we're there!
Friday, January 30, 2009
water exports
Over the last however any years, British Columbia has been debating water exports with any number of people who applied for permits to fill tankers and send then off to a thirsty world. Most of these proposals involve parking the tanker near an ocean terminating river, hooking up a pipe to the supply and driving away when the tanker is full. When the tanker shows up where thirst guys are, the water is traded for money and off they go for another load.
I always thought of these schemes as a license to print money and well worth pursuing, but lo-and-behold was I in for a surprise. A cacophony of voices howled in protest, the loudest belonging to Maude Barlow. All sorts of reasons have been aired to prevent the export of water, and to me none of them make any real sense as we're talking about water that simply flows into the ocean. Does it make any difference to the ocean if the water makes a trip to California before it finally reaches the oceans? The water still makes it into the ocean sometime.
However, after some serious discussion over a couple of beer, we did figured out what the problem was - pollution. Think of this from a 'green' perspective. Here we have a product being shipped on the open ocean and, heaven forbid, the loaded tanker strikes an empty returning tanker and we now have an enormous spill. The true environmentalist recognizes the near impossibility of cleaning up the polluting spill. Now a normal human being might say water is water, what's the big deal, but that isn't how the environmental mind works. In their minds the water in the tanker has become a pollutant - the reason - its' been tainted with the profit motive.
Now you might think this is far-fetched and I'm seeing double ogres, but hear me out. As a example, think of Yellowstone National Park. Day after day, thousands of gallons of sulfur laden water bubble up out of the earth and, doing what gravity tells it top do, flows over the earth, into the Missouri river then the Mississippi and on to the gulf of Mexico.
Now if you had a business and dropped a tablespoon of sulfuric acid into the same river system the EPA would have a conniption. The local Sierra Club would write letters of condemnation and launch a lawsuit to get loot to cover everybody's perceived damages. The school teachers would get the eight years olds 'go public' with their newly learned anxieties. The television crew will be out in force filming geriatricly expired fish and claiming sulfur poisoning.
All it took was a couple of beer to finally see that to the goofy green environmentalist, profit = pollution. And Ben Franklin was right when he said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy".
I always thought of these schemes as a license to print money and well worth pursuing, but lo-and-behold was I in for a surprise. A cacophony of voices howled in protest, the loudest belonging to Maude Barlow. All sorts of reasons have been aired to prevent the export of water, and to me none of them make any real sense as we're talking about water that simply flows into the ocean. Does it make any difference to the ocean if the water makes a trip to California before it finally reaches the oceans? The water still makes it into the ocean sometime.
However, after some serious discussion over a couple of beer, we did figured out what the problem was - pollution. Think of this from a 'green' perspective. Here we have a product being shipped on the open ocean and, heaven forbid, the loaded tanker strikes an empty returning tanker and we now have an enormous spill. The true environmentalist recognizes the near impossibility of cleaning up the polluting spill. Now a normal human being might say water is water, what's the big deal, but that isn't how the environmental mind works. In their minds the water in the tanker has become a pollutant - the reason - its' been tainted with the profit motive.
Now you might think this is far-fetched and I'm seeing double ogres, but hear me out. As a example, think of Yellowstone National Park. Day after day, thousands of gallons of sulfur laden water bubble up out of the earth and, doing what gravity tells it top do, flows over the earth, into the Missouri river then the Mississippi and on to the gulf of Mexico.
Now if you had a business and dropped a tablespoon of sulfuric acid into the same river system the EPA would have a conniption. The local Sierra Club would write letters of condemnation and launch a lawsuit to get loot to cover everybody's perceived damages. The school teachers would get the eight years olds 'go public' with their newly learned anxieties. The television crew will be out in force filming geriatricly expired fish and claiming sulfur poisoning.
All it took was a couple of beer to finally see that to the goofy green environmentalist, profit = pollution. And Ben Franklin was right when he said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy".
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
jobs, work, effort
Have you heard the profound slogan "unemployment is not working"? That catchy sentence is usually followed by, "We demand more jobs". The two statements taken together, show clearly the ignorance associated with the meaning of the term "jobs".
And from the high level of unemployment in Canada we can deduce that few people really understand what is required to promote "jobs". Our political leaders make statements such as; "job sharing may be the only answer" and "the prosperity of the seventies is gone forever". No cure will ever come from people who make those kind of statements, statements that simply show economic ignorance.
Much of the confusion at the root of our unemployment problem stems from a misunderstanding of three terms or concepts. The terms effort and work must be clearly defined in order to understand the concept "job".
Let's begin with effort. Effort can be any kind of activity, mental or physical, that requires energy. Effort can be either productive or nonproductive, beneficial to our lives or detrimental. It can be work or play, both for ourselves or for others, but effort is totally self-generated. By that I mean, your effort can only be mentally directed by you.
Work is constructive effort, effort expended to support life. Work is a goal oriented and thought directed activity. And we all know when we are doing work for work is an activity that is distinctly different from play or exercise or entertainment.
The term job describes a type of work, work that someone else is willing to pay you to do. A job is an activity or a task that someone wants done and they are prepared to pay you to do that task.
Often the term job and occupation are interchanged, yet reason tells us this is not really true. One may have an occupation, but no job and one may have a job outside of one's occupation.
The term "job" is also incorrectly used to describe personal possession with regard to work. As a example, the phrase; "my job is ___" or "it's my job to ___". In actual fact, the owner of a piece of work is usually not the person being paid to do the work. This becomes very obvious if you quit a job, for the job doesn't stop. The boss simply hires someone else to finish the job.
There is still more confusion because jobs are often equated with the term duty. Many persons continue to fulfill a perceived obligation, sometimes after the pay stops and often after any pleasure for doing the task is gone.
Simply put, a job is nothing more than work or effort that is directed to satisfy another person. Your concern is payment, but a job appears when someone is willing to pay for time spent doing a particular piece of work. The prime concern of the person willing to pay for the work is always to get the work done or the product out.
Very few people comfortably accept this glaring fact. The prime concern of the person paying is not the economic well-being of the person employed. This is not due to any malicious or uncaring aspect in an employer's attitude - it's strictly reality. On a one-to-one basis this is easy to see. When you hire a person, say a plumber, your only concern is to get the job done, to get the toilet unplugged or the faucet to stop dripping. Someone who hires a thousand people concerns themselves with exactly the same thing, getting the product out.
Often needless personal devastation takes place when a man is fired or "his" job terminated yet jobs are terminated because of market conditions. To take personal offense at a market condition makes absolutely no sense.
The market is the sum total of all voluntary exchanges, all the trading that takes place in the entire world. The loss of a job means that an employer can't make money selling that particular effort on the world market. This may show a lack of accuracy on the part of an employer in assessing the market correctly and in desperation he cuts out work that costs too much. The market is refusing to pay.
A fact to keep in mind is that all persons pay on a voluntary basis. Be it product or work, everyone is faced with three choices. They can; (a) pay the price, (b) do the work or make the product themselves, and (c) do without.
If an employer is unable to sell our effort at a profit , we must look to the market ourselves and find a place where we can exchange our effort for the things we require for life. We will have to sell a product or our time ourselves. Selling directly into the market is the fastest way to learn just how much your time is valued by everyone else, and establishes a realistic view of personal worth.
It's the willingness of exchange that is too often forgotten. Pay does not come from unwilling employers. Expecting too much pay for work is the cause of unemployment.
Most people forget that effort is individual and self-directed. It requires thought and our effort, if constructive is called work. Can we wait for someone else to solve our problems, especially when the cure probably must come from within ourselves? Our effort is really the only commodity that we do control.
On a daily basis, time is the single commodity we all receive equally. Our personal sense of worth, our egos, depend on personal accomplishments. It is the effectiveness of our time utilization that governs our personal satisfaction with life. The power to use our time constructively comes from our own minds, the rational thinking process all of us are capable of following if we try.
Yes, unemployment is not working, but to demand a job is to demand a willingness beyond our control, a mythological impossibility. Recognizing that exchange is voluntary is the first step back to the affluence that we had and yes, can have again. Work is truly unlimited and does not need to be shared. The market supports anyone that offers a value for sale, but only if the price is right. Jobs are plentiful when a person's efforts are valued. The market is there and the choice is up each of us.
And from the high level of unemployment in Canada we can deduce that few people really understand what is required to promote "jobs". Our political leaders make statements such as; "job sharing may be the only answer" and "the prosperity of the seventies is gone forever". No cure will ever come from people who make those kind of statements, statements that simply show economic ignorance.
Much of the confusion at the root of our unemployment problem stems from a misunderstanding of three terms or concepts. The terms effort and work must be clearly defined in order to understand the concept "job".
Let's begin with effort. Effort can be any kind of activity, mental or physical, that requires energy. Effort can be either productive or nonproductive, beneficial to our lives or detrimental. It can be work or play, both for ourselves or for others, but effort is totally self-generated. By that I mean, your effort can only be mentally directed by you.
Work is constructive effort, effort expended to support life. Work is a goal oriented and thought directed activity. And we all know when we are doing work for work is an activity that is distinctly different from play or exercise or entertainment.
The term job describes a type of work, work that someone else is willing to pay you to do. A job is an activity or a task that someone wants done and they are prepared to pay you to do that task.
Often the term job and occupation are interchanged, yet reason tells us this is not really true. One may have an occupation, but no job and one may have a job outside of one's occupation.
The term "job" is also incorrectly used to describe personal possession with regard to work. As a example, the phrase; "my job is ___" or "it's my job to ___". In actual fact, the owner of a piece of work is usually not the person being paid to do the work. This becomes very obvious if you quit a job, for the job doesn't stop. The boss simply hires someone else to finish the job.
There is still more confusion because jobs are often equated with the term duty. Many persons continue to fulfill a perceived obligation, sometimes after the pay stops and often after any pleasure for doing the task is gone.
Simply put, a job is nothing more than work or effort that is directed to satisfy another person. Your concern is payment, but a job appears when someone is willing to pay for time spent doing a particular piece of work. The prime concern of the person willing to pay for the work is always to get the work done or the product out.
Very few people comfortably accept this glaring fact. The prime concern of the person paying is not the economic well-being of the person employed. This is not due to any malicious or uncaring aspect in an employer's attitude - it's strictly reality. On a one-to-one basis this is easy to see. When you hire a person, say a plumber, your only concern is to get the job done, to get the toilet unplugged or the faucet to stop dripping. Someone who hires a thousand people concerns themselves with exactly the same thing, getting the product out.
Often needless personal devastation takes place when a man is fired or "his" job terminated yet jobs are terminated because of market conditions. To take personal offense at a market condition makes absolutely no sense.
The market is the sum total of all voluntary exchanges, all the trading that takes place in the entire world. The loss of a job means that an employer can't make money selling that particular effort on the world market. This may show a lack of accuracy on the part of an employer in assessing the market correctly and in desperation he cuts out work that costs too much. The market is refusing to pay.
A fact to keep in mind is that all persons pay on a voluntary basis. Be it product or work, everyone is faced with three choices. They can; (a) pay the price, (b) do the work or make the product themselves, and (c) do without.
If an employer is unable to sell our effort at a profit , we must look to the market ourselves and find a place where we can exchange our effort for the things we require for life. We will have to sell a product or our time ourselves. Selling directly into the market is the fastest way to learn just how much your time is valued by everyone else, and establishes a realistic view of personal worth.
It's the willingness of exchange that is too often forgotten. Pay does not come from unwilling employers. Expecting too much pay for work is the cause of unemployment.
Most people forget that effort is individual and self-directed. It requires thought and our effort, if constructive is called work. Can we wait for someone else to solve our problems, especially when the cure probably must come from within ourselves? Our effort is really the only commodity that we do control.
On a daily basis, time is the single commodity we all receive equally. Our personal sense of worth, our egos, depend on personal accomplishments. It is the effectiveness of our time utilization that governs our personal satisfaction with life. The power to use our time constructively comes from our own minds, the rational thinking process all of us are capable of following if we try.
Yes, unemployment is not working, but to demand a job is to demand a willingness beyond our control, a mythological impossibility. Recognizing that exchange is voluntary is the first step back to the affluence that we had and yes, can have again. Work is truly unlimited and does not need to be shared. The market supports anyone that offers a value for sale, but only if the price is right. Jobs are plentiful when a person's efforts are valued. The market is there and the choice is up each of us.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Rational Capitalist: Houses Are Not Investments
The Rational Capitalist: Houses Are Not Investments
If, as you imply, houses are not investments then my definition of investment differs from your. I can see the consumable rule applying to a hamburger but not to a 'good' that retains value in the market place. The house, while possibly of eroding value, retains value to other purchasers. In that sense, I see a house to be a money substitute, something that an individual may choose to invest time and energy into rather, especially when faced with fiat currency, than something akin to a Madoff investment scheme.
Would you grant that to a builder or a developer, a house is an investment? In the sense that an Ipod is the reason we build the factory, a capitalist will purchase the necessary 'bricks and mortar' to build a factory to produce a consumer good, anticipating a future return on the original investment. In that sense, I can see the house to be rather similar to a few crates of Ipods. Do you consider the investment characteristic to end when something is not able to produce futher goods?
If I choose to build a hotel with my 'bricks and motar' does the hotel become an investment? If that is the case, renting the house to someone should also recatigorize the house as an investment.
Confused.
If, as you imply, houses are not investments then my definition of investment differs from your. I can see the consumable rule applying to a hamburger but not to a 'good' that retains value in the market place. The house, while possibly of eroding value, retains value to other purchasers. In that sense, I see a house to be a money substitute, something that an individual may choose to invest time and energy into rather, especially when faced with fiat currency, than something akin to a Madoff investment scheme.
Would you grant that to a builder or a developer, a house is an investment? In the sense that an Ipod is the reason we build the factory, a capitalist will purchase the necessary 'bricks and mortar' to build a factory to produce a consumer good, anticipating a future return on the original investment. In that sense, I can see the house to be rather similar to a few crates of Ipods. Do you consider the investment characteristic to end when something is not able to produce futher goods?
If I choose to build a hotel with my 'bricks and motar' does the hotel become an investment? If that is the case, renting the house to someone should also recatigorize the house as an investment.
Confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)