"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:47:03 GMT, "Don"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote
"Don" wrote:
Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be
advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic,

I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less
presumptuous.
And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for
my
childrens education?*


How about because an uneducated populace would lead to many problems
throughout society?

Who's talking about *populace*?
I said, MY children.
If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your
checkbook, as he is homeschooled.

Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves.

Nope.
My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility.

I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school?

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:39:37 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.

That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an
econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did.

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

You just described applied psychology - just as much as
studying any other stimulus and response. Do people always
react the same to a given stimulus? No, of course not. For
one thing, they don't agree on economic values.

What could be further form the truth than that?

Almost anything. And I don't recall any economist claiming
that people always behave rationally. But they often do
behave rationally. Your point being...???

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

There are a whole bunch of people here who apparently think that Thomas
Jefferson was an ardent socialist. (Can you believe that Marxist/commie
actually thought that tax-supported schools should be a cornerstone of
democracy? Shocking, I tell you, shocking)
http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/outreach.htm

"Jefferson was the prophet of the American faith in the powers of education
to secure the freedom and the happiness of the people. As early as 1778, in
his Virginia Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, Jefferson set
forth a comprehensive plan of public education broadly based in primary
schools, rising as in a pyramid through secondary schools, with a state
university at the apex. The dual mission was, first, “to illuminate, as far
as practicable, the minds of the people at large,” and second, to ensure
that “those persons whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue” —
Jefferson’s “natural aristocracy” — should be educated to the limits of
their abilities in order the better to serve the mass of citizens.

Quite beyond its practical benefits to the individual, education at all
levels had distinctly moral, social, and civic purposes. It should
cultivate virtue, teach the obligations of individuals to each other, and,
above all, raise up the informed and responsible citizens a democratic
government required. Regrettably, Jefferson’s plan never came to fruition
in Virginia; and although his influence was felt in other states, he finally
had to be satisfied with the achievement of the state university — the apex
of the pyramid without the foundation in the schools.

Jefferson’s faith in democracy was, at bottom, a faith in education.
Believing, as he said, “that the people are the only safe depositories of
their own liberty,” it was essential that they should be educated to a
certain degree and prepared to take part in public affairs; moreover,
government should be structured in ways that invited widespread citizen
participation. Empowerment of the people depended upon education. It was,
therefore, a paramount responsibility of democratic government.
Tax-supported public education assumed common schools shaping a common
citizenship and a common culture.

After his retirement as President, Jefferson preached that the future of
democracy hung from two hooks: first, general education to enable every
citizen to judge for himself how best to secure freedom and happiness, and
second, the establishment everywhere of “little republics,” which he called
“wards,” and compared to New England town meetings, to encourage due
participation in public affairs. The wards should be responsible for the
public schools. Jefferson distrusted concentrated power.

“What,” he asked, “has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every
government under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating of all cares in
one body.” Where power is dispersed, and common schooling is the rule, every
citizen may come to identify his own interest with the interests of the
whole. With impassioned eloquence, Jefferson declared: “Where every man …
feels he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an
election one day in the year, but every day; where there shall not be a man
in the State who will not be a member of some one of its councils, great or
small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his powers
be wrested from him by a Caesar or Bonaparte.”

If Jefferson was right, the health, indeed the salvation, of American
democracy depends upon the making of informed, responsible, and
participating citizens. Civic education, therefore, ought to be a central
theme in the conduct and curriculum of schools. This includes many things,
from the integration of the children of a pluralistic society in a shared
culture to thorough instruction in the history and workings of American
democracy.

In recent years, the achievement of scientific, mathematical, and cultural
literacy have been set forth as key goals of K-12 education. Civic
literacy, however, has been neglected. Yet in the vision of Thomas
Jefferson — the vision as well of Horace Mann and John Dewey among eminent
American educators — civic literacy is fundamental, morally, socially,
politically. By restoring the iron thread of civic learning and civic
purpose in our schools, we help to restore faith in American ideals and
institutions. The philosopher Santayana once remarked that in America “the
common citizen must be something of a saint and something of a hero.” There
is a Jeffersonian ring to that. It encapsulates a worthy idea."

Quoted from a letter to American educators from Merrill D. Peterson,
Chairman of The Thomas Jefferson Commemoration Commission.

"gregpresley" wrote
There are a whole bunch of people here who apparently think that Thomas
Jefferson was an ardent socialist. (Can you believe that Marxist/commie
actually thought that tax-supported schools should be a cornerstone of
democracy? Shocking, I tell you, shocking)
http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/outreach.htm
It should cultivate virtue, teach the obligations of individuals to each
other,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You can't get more socialist that that.
Of course that is exactly why Jeffersons Constitution fails, in its first
three words.
Jefferson was also the first president to completely ignore the boundaries
set forth in that document.

gregpresley wrote:

Jefferson’s faith in democracy was, at bottom, a faith in education.

But, of course, we are not and were not a democracy...despite the
attempts of the numerous fools and "theoretic politicians" who
patronize this species of government.

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Jonathan Ball wrote:

Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


And slavery is freedom...

You still don't get it. I am not offering anything
that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning
truth on its head in '1984'.

Gosh Jonathan, what is the subject line again? Why yes, it's all
about turning truth on its head.

But I guess it's your density to live as a legend in your own mind.

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65762 rec.gardens:259682 misc.survivalism:502596 misc.rural:115990 rec.backcountry:172721

Charles Scripter wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


And slavery is freedom...


You still don't get it. I am not offering anything
that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning
truth on its head in '1984'.


Gosh Jonathan, what is the subject line again? Why yes, it's all
about turning truth on its head.

Yes. "Right is wrong" and "war is peace" are examples
of that. "Less is more" is not; "less is more" is an
observation that, in some things, written expression
being one of them, saying less (but saying it well)
leads to a more powerful expression of thought.

Being a pigheaded fool, you refuse to acknowledge the
difference. I think you actually see the difference,
but because you are a pigheaded fool, you can't allow
yourself to acknowledge it. You have such a bloated
ego, the pain of acknowledging your error would be too
much to bear.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:28:13 GMT, "Don"
wrote:


Who's talking about *populace*?
I said, MY children.
If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your
checkbook, as he is homeschooled.

I thought it was obvious from a societal standpoint that "my" children
meant "not your" children. Without going into too much nitpicking
over exceptions, society benefits from an educated populace. If you
decide to teach your children at home, you just declined the education
you were entitled to. Whether that "free" education is worth the cost
varies depending on the public schools in question and your own
priorities.
Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves.

Nope.
My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility.
Again, I thought it obvious we were talking about society. I said OUR
parents and OURselves, you might notice. MY problems are separate
from SOCIETY'S problems. And I did not suggest you kid should write a
check to solve them; I expect at least some of today's children to
become tomaorrow's scientists and politicians. Apparently, you
children are being raised to believe they are only in it for
themselves, so maybe this assumption does not apply.

I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school?
Joseph McCarthy is dead. scaremongering is a waste of time. As we've
seen many times in this thread, self-sufficiency in the pure sense is
not realistic; we must rely on each other to meet our collective
needs, and if that's socialism, then socialism is reality.

k
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:28:13 GMT, "Don"
wrote:


Who's talking about *populace*?
I said, MY children.
If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your
checkbook, as he is homeschooled.

I thought it was obvious from a societal standpoint that "my" children
meant "not your" children. Without going into too much nitpicking
over exceptions, society benefits from an educated populace. If you
decide to teach your children at home, you just declined the education
you were entitled to. Whether that "free" education is worth the cost
varies depending on the public schools in question and your own
priorities.
Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves.

Nope.
My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility.
Again, I thought it obvious we were talking about society. I said OUR
parents and OURselves, you might notice. MY problems are separate
from SOCIETY'S problems. And I did not suggest you kid should write a
check to solve them; I expect at least some of today's children to
become tomaorrow's scientists and politicians. Apparently, you
children are being raised to believe they are only in it for
themselves, so maybe this assumption does not apply.

I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school?
Joseph McCarthy is dead. scaremongering is a waste of time. As we've
seen many times in this thread, self-sufficiency in the pure sense is
not realistic; we must rely on each other to meet our collective
needs, and if that's socialism, then socialism is reality.

I have no problem at all contracting with YOU and others to gain what I
need.
What I have a problem with is people like YOU that believe there should be
an expensive middle man in DC.
Yes, that is socialism.
All for one, one for all.

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.

That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an
econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did.

You may *think* you did, but you didn't.

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

You just described applied psychology

No, I didn't. Psychologists *study* human behavior. Economic theory
is based on an *assumption* about behavior, an extremely naive one,
and proceeds from there, with no study of behavior to investigate that
assumption.

I don't recall any economist claiming that people always behave rationally.

See above.

Your point being...???

My point is, your original post is incorrect, as well as what you said
here. (BTW, "being" is not a verb.)

Are you sure that book you read with your wife wasn't about HOME
economics?

vince norris

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:44:02 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.

That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an
econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did.

You may *think* you did, but you didn't.

Do you have any idea of how easy that argument is to turn
around? "I understand economics, but you only think you
do." Not exactly overwhelming.

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

You just described applied psychology

No, I didn't. Psychologists *study* human behavior. Economic theory
is based on an *assumption* about behavior, an extremely naive one,
and proceeds from there, with no study of behavior to investigate that
assumption.

Economists certainly do study human reactions to the
economic variables - tax rates, interest rates, monetary
creation, regulations, etc. You seem to think there is a
single "economic theory" - shared by everyone from Paul
Samuelson to Arthur Laffer. Not so. They do not agree
about economic behavior resulting from economic policies and
conditions. And they do study it - that's what all their
graphs and projections are about - not rocks on the other
side of the moon - economic behavior.

I don't recall any economist claiming that people always behave rationally.

See above.

Your point being...???

My point is, your original post is incorrect, as well as what you said
here. (BTW, "being" is not a verb.)

I stand by my original and follow-up posts. Are you an
English teacher, grading usenet posts for grammar? If so,
you really have your work cut out for you.

Are you sure that book you read with your wife wasn't about HOME
economics?

tsk, tsk...

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote:


paghat wrote:

In article , Greylock
wrote:


Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...


Economics is a subset of psychology

Uh...no. Not even close.

Economics is the study of choice under constraint. The
field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference
is what it is; preferences are taken as a given.
Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences;
economists don't.

An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged
contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define
economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the
definition he gave us, over 30 years ago:

Economics is the branch of learning that deals
with the social organization and process by which
the scarce means of production are directed towards
the satisfaction of human wants.

- psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing. If psychology is a science
(a highly questionable If), then so is economics.

Economics is, without question, the most rigorous of
all the social sciences. Nothing else comes close.
Political science has gotten a lot better than it once
was, but that was because economics "invaded" the field
and began applying numerical analysis to issues
poli-sci simply couldn't explain, e.g. why people vote
(poli-sci couldn't come close to explaining it.)
Psychology and esp. sociology are thoroughly
unscientific: there are too many political ends to be
served.

To the extent that advances in economic theory come
from peer reviewed articles, and because economics is
far and away the most mathematized of all the social
sciences, it is probably scientific enough.

Come on folks. People can do whatever they want. I have thought of
teaching my child at home, but then I figured the social interaction
would be good for her at a school. That is my opinion only.
Everyone must decide these things for themselves given their
circumstances.

Have a good life

Joe, Ontario


On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:17:53 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:28:13 GMT, "Don"
wrote:


Who's talking about *populace*?
I said, MY children.
If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your
checkbook, as he is homeschooled.

I thought it was obvious from a societal standpoint that "my" children
meant "not your" children. Without going into too much nitpicking
over exceptions, society benefits from an educated populace. If you
decide to teach your children at home, you just declined the education
you were entitled to. Whether that "free" education is worth the cost
varies depending on the public schools in question and your own
priorities.
Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves.

Nope.
My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility.
Again, I thought it obvious we were talking about society. I said OUR
parents and OURselves, you might notice. MY problems are separate
from SOCIETY'S problems. And I did not suggest you kid should write a
check to solve them; I expect at least some of today's children to
become tomaorrow's scientists and politicians. Apparently, you
children are being raised to believe they are only in it for
themselves, so maybe this assumption does not apply.

I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school?
Joseph McCarthy is dead. scaremongering is a waste of time. As we've
seen many times in this thread, self-sufficiency in the pure sense is
not realistic; we must rely on each other to meet our collective
needs, and if that's socialism, then socialism is reality.

k
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

vincent p. norris wrote:

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.


That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

As many economists have long pointed out, those are
safe assumptions. The theory that is derived from the
assumptions accurately predicts how consumers and firms
behave.

All the conclusions of neo-classical price theory can
be derived without introducing "utility" at all. A
professor at UCLA named Armen Alchian, among others,
showed that decades ago. That is, you don't need a
three dimensional map, with goods X and Y on their
respective axes, and utility on a Z axis; you can get
downward sloping demand curves - the fundamental
finding of price theory concerning demand - with only X
and Y axes.


What could be further form the truth than that?

Consumers and firms behave "as if" they knowingly
equate at the margins.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:33:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote:


paghat wrote:

In article , Greylock
wrote:


Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...


Economics is a subset of psychology

Uh...no. Not even close.

Oh, not close - correct.

Economics is the study of choice under constraint.

And that isn't psychology? Since when???

The
field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference
is what it is; preferences are taken as a given.

That people HAVE preferences, or what those preferences are?
Of course people have preferences, but they aren't
universal. "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."

Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences;
economists don't.

Oh, sure they do. Or else why do "liberal" econmomists and
libertarian economists not agree about the effects of high
tax rates?

An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged
contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define
economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the
definition he gave us, over 30 years ago:

Economics is the branch of learning that deals
with the social organization and process by which
the scarce means of production are directed towards
the satisfaction of human wants.

economics (èk´e-nòm´îks, ê´ke-) noun
Abbr. econ.
1. (used with a sing. verb). The social science that deals
with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods
and services and with the theory and management of economies
or economic systems.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). Economic matters,
especially relevant financial considerations: "Economics are
slowly killing the family farm" (Christian Science Monitor).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

psychology (sì-kòl´e-jê) noun
plural psychologies
Abbr. psych., psychol.
1. The science that deals with mental processes and
behavior.
2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an
individual, a group, or an activity: the psychology of war.
3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or
influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer
when trying to make the point.
4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the
soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the
functions of the body.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

I stand by my original assertion. Economics is OBVIOUSLY a
subset of psychology. Economists are people who apply
psychology to "production, distribution, and consumption of
goods and services."

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.