OT: James Arthur, the perfect market and the perfect op amp

[Bill Sloman]

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:19:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

James designs and sells electronics and electronic design services.
You do nothing useful. Who do you think

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

The problem with government is that, as a collective entity, it
doesn't understand economics. Look at the real estate busts in the US
and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

Listen: nobody understands economics. So the best thing to do is let
millions of people and companies try all sorts of random things, and
let the market decide who is right.

It's evolution, but you don't believe in evolution.

John

 

[Bill Bowden]

On Aug 12, 8:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Yes, the natural tendency of traders is to hold on to their money,
which is why gold is around $1700 today. I paid $550, how did you do?

-Bill

 

[Glenn Gundlach]

On Aug 12, 8:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any
kind of
human - government - intervention.
snip
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I agree with James because he's right and you're wrong.

If government was right, they wouldn't have to confiscate my money.

G˛

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 13, 1:45 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:

On Aug 12, 8:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Yes, the natural tendency of traders is to hold on to their money,
which is why gold is around $1700 today. I paid $550, how did you do?

Who'd be silly enough to buy gold? You can't eat it and the price is
determined by the level of anxiety of people stupid enough to buy it,
which is to say that it's not subject to rational prediction.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 13, 2:01 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:19:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:



James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

James designs and sells electronics and electronic design services.
You do nothing useful. Who do you think

You also design and sell electronics and electronic design services -
appreciably more successfully than James Arthur, but have any number
of silly ideas about areas outside of electronics.

You've probably got the intellectual capacity do better, if you were
prepared to learn a bit more about the subjects you pontificate about,
but your implicit claim that current competence in one area is any
kind of quide to competence in unrelated areas is silly enough to
reveal that you really can't do joined-up logic.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

The problem with government is that, as a collective entity, it
doesn't understand economics.

They do, much better than you give them credit. They aren't - sadly -
super-human.

Look at the real estate busts in the US
and europe;

We know about the real estate bust in the US. Which real estate bust
in Europe did you have in mind?

House prices in the Netherlands are drifting down a bit, and it is a
buyer's market, but there's no suggestion of a real estate bust.

look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

The governments and their economic advisors didn't cause the messes -
you don't like the remedial actions that the GFC forced them to take,
but that's a different claim. James Arthur's beloved US bankers caused
the sub-prime mortage crisis by making ninja loans to anybody who
asked for them. Preventing the subsequent stock market crash from
turning into a re-run of the Great Depression did involve a great deal
of deficit-financed spending which has run up a lot of government
debt, but nowhere near as much as if they'd followed James Arthur's
advice and just let the economy tank - GNP went down by 25% during the
Great Dpression and un-employment hit 25%.
As Paul Krugman points out, the half-hearted Keynesian pump-priming
that has been done has been sufficient to avoid this sort of disaster,
but not as much as was needed. The US economy is currently only
growing at about 2% a year, rather than the 4% "natural" rate, and US
unemploment is a 9.1% rather than the 7.5% you enjoyed before the GFC.

James Arthur does claim that Democrats twisted the arms of his beloved
bankers, and forced them to make their ninja loans, but the reality is
that nobody imagined that the bankers could be as stupid and greeedy
as they turned out to be, and consequently failed to install proper
quality controls in the loan guarantee system that was needed to
persuade bankers to make home loans to good credit risks who happened
to live in low income areas.

Listen: nobody understands economics.

Nobody understands economic perfectly, any more than anybody
understands the climate perfectly. You know very little about either,
and confidently assert that nobody knows more than you do. It's an
opinion, but not one that deserves much attention.

So the best thing to do is let
millions of people and companies try all sorts of random things, and
let the market decide who is right.

If you can live with monopolies - which every big company tries to
construct if they aren't watched very carefully - and repeating boom
and bust cycles.

You don't seem to have any difficulty accepting the necesity for anti-
trust legislation, and you would be able to see the sense in
regulating economic cyles to minimise booms and busts if you didn't
share James Arthur's bizarre ideas about economics.

It's evolution, but you don't believe in evolution.

Actually, I do, it's just your quasi-creationist variation on the
theory that excites my incredulity.
You know too little about the subject to realise quite hiw ludicrous
your delusions really are.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 13, 2:08 pm, Glenn Gundlach <stratu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 On Aug 12, 8:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
 > James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
 > absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any
kind of
 > human - government - intervention.
snip
 > --
 > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I agree with James because he's right and you're wrong.

You agree with James because he is far-right in economic matters, and
I'm not.

If government was right, they wouldn't have to confiscate my money.

If the government was that far-right, they'd still confiscate your
money, but they'd spend it on invading neighbour countries, or more
remote countries with large oil-fields, though they'd probably throw
in some spurious claim about weapons of mass-destruction to justify
the exercise.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:04:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 13, 2:01 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:19:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:



James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Keynes was a goofy theorist whose prescriptions never worked, and who
lived in a world that no longer exists. His popularity rests mostly
with politicians and government parasites, who believe his ancient
theories because they authorize them to tax and spend and consume
without producing. You, of course, are one of the admiring parasites.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:19:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

Why don't you, once in a while, start a thread about electronics? You
post thousands of lines of garbage, and you only argue about things
that are unprovable, and your intent seems only to prove how much
smarter you are than others, which is really stupid if you think about
it.

How can you stand to be such a tedious, useless old git?

John

 

[Jamie]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:19:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote:


James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.


Why don't you, once in a while, start a thread about electronics? You
post thousands of lines of garbage, and you only argue about things
that are unprovable, and your intent seems only to prove how much
smarter you are than others, which is really stupid if you think about
it.

How can you stand to be such a tedious, useless old git?

John



It's all that socialist, mind control up bringing!

Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 14, 3:14 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:04:20 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:01 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:19:44 +1000,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Keynes was a goofy theorist whose prescriptions never worked, and who
lived in a world that no longer exists.

Try reading a biography of the man before making yourself even more
ridiculous than usual. He really wasn't a "goofy theorist". The
Wikipedia article on him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

includes the line "Keynes showed considerable talent at applying
economic theory to practical problems" when discussing the work he was
doing just before WW1 and he remained impressively competent in
practical matter for the rest of his life.

His popularity rests mostly
with politicians and government parasites, who believe his ancient
theories because they authorize them to tax and spend and consume
without producing.

You could also try to find a simplified exposition of what his
theories actually involved. "Tax and spend without producing" hasn't
got much to do with what he was talking about. His most important
contribution was the idea of using government interventions in the
money markets to damp down the natural tenedency of the market to
oscillate between boom and bust.

James Arthur can't understand how this could possibly work, but that
because he's got some remarkably silly political prejudices that block
any kind of rational appreciation of what Keynes had to say.

You, of course, are one of the admiring parasites.

You do like to think that. In fact I spent some thirty years in full
time work as a senior electronic engineer, and while I'm now retired -
somewhat against my will - and living on some of pension I earned (and
sharing my wife's rather more extravagant life-style), this doesn't
make me any kind of parasite. I've organised my pensions so that most
of them won't start paying out until I'm 70, when my wife's income
looked likely to drop back a bit (or at least it looked as if it might
drop back when I was close to turning 65 and could nominate when the
pensions started paying out).

If I'm a parasite, then pretty much everybody else who is retired and
living on an earned pension is also a parasite.

You really do post utter nonsense from time to time.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 14, 3:18 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:19:44 +1000,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:



James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

Why don't you, once in a while, start a thread about electronics? You
post thousands of lines of garbage, and you only argue about things
that are unprovable, and your intent seems only to prove how much
smarter you are than others, which is really stupid if you think about
it.

I do post stuff on electronics from time to time. I'm not doing much
electronics at the moment, so I rarely feel the need to start a thread
on electronics.

I'm not interested in "proving that I'm smarter than others". I did
that many years ago, when I got my Ph.D. though "proving I was smart"
was not what I had in mind when I started the process of getting the
Ph.D.

I spend time here pointing out that I'm better informed than some of
the other people who post here - you included - but I'm primarily
engaged in correcting false claims, and one can't point out that
someone has posted nonsense without implicitly claiming to be better-
informed than whoever it was that posted the nonsense

How can you stand to be such a tedious, useless old git?

How can you stand being such an illogical and ill-informed old git?
Why can't you go to the trouble of checking your claims before dumping
them onto the web? Your characterisation of Keynes as a "goofy
theorist" is extraordinarily counter-factual - even for you - and
thirty seconds reading could have saved you from making an utter fool
of yourself.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 14, 3:32 am, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:19:44 +1000,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

Why don't you, once in a while, start a thread about electronics? You
post thousands of lines of garbage, and you only argue about things
that are unprovable, and your intent seems only to prove how much
smarter you are than others, which is really stupid if you think about
it.

How can you stand to be such a tedious, useless old git?

John

It's all that socialist, mind control up bringing!

John Larkin seems to be a competent electronic engineer - not great,
but perfectly adequate - but he's lamentably ill-informed on matter
outside of electronics, and lamentably prone to resort to personal
abuse when his pretensions are deflated.

On the evidence available here, the capitalist education system didn't
manage to control his mind well enough to get him to pay any attention
to anything much outside of electronics.

The Tasmanian education system wasn't noticably socialist in the
1950's, but they did require a fair spread of subjects up to age 16,
and we all had to sit - and pass - the same Schools Board
examinations. I can't say I was all that enthusiastic about doing
Commerce - elementary book-keeping - and Social Studies - which was a
blend of history and geography, with some basic economic data thrown
in - but I studied hard enough to pass the exams.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Nico Coesel]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

This documentary makes that more than clear:
http://vodo.net/theyesmen

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income. And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

...Jim Thompson

[On the Road, in New York]
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

John

 

[Bill Bowden]

On Aug 12, 11:23 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 13, 1:45 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info
wrote:



On Aug 12, 8:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Yes, the natural tendency of traders is to hold on to their money,
which is why gold is around $1700 today. I paid $550, how did you do?

Who'd be silly enough to buy gold? You can't eat it and the price is
determined by the level of anxiety of people stupid enough to buy it,
which is to say that it's not subject to rational prediction.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Well , I don't know, but gold seems to be a hedge against the riots
going on in London. If they burn down all the stores, what will there
be to eat? At least you have a little gold to trade for some bread?
That's better than trying to trade stocks or bonds for bread. Maybe
oil would be a better bet? How about toilet paper?

Looks like Keynesian economics isn't working any more? Maybe this is
the end of all that BS?

-Bill

 

[Rich Grise]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell

you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 14, 3:21 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:

On Aug 12, 11:23 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Aug 13, 1:45 pm,BillBowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info
wrote:

On Aug 12, 8:19 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

Yes, the natural tendency of traders is to hold on to their money,
which is why gold is around $1700 today. I paid $550, how did you do?

Who'd be silly enough to buy gold? You can't eat it and the price is
determined by the level of anxiety of people stupid enough to buy it,
which is to say that it's not subject to rational prediction.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

Well , I don't know, but gold seems to be a hedge against the riots
going on in London. If they burn down all the stores, what will there
be to eat? At least you have a little gold to trade for some bread?

Flour would be more negotiable, if a little bulkier.

That's better than trying to trade stocks or bonds for bread. Maybe
oil would be a better bet? How about toilet paper?

You can survive without toilet paper. Food and shelter are lot more
important.

Looks like Keynesian economics isn't working any more?

Why do you think that? The Tories in the UK differentiated themselves
from Gordon Brown - who is a Keynesian - by publicly rejecting
Keynesian solutions, but this was all political posturing.

Maybe this is the end of all that BS?

Probably not, because Keynes original insights were the very
antithesis of BS. Some of the schemes that claimed to implement some
of his ideas were BS, but that's political posturing for you.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 14, 9:07 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income.  And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

Right-winger do tend to ignore the way that big companies use
advertising to manipulate what their customers want, and advertising-
derived techniques to blind customers to the dangers of using their
products.

The tobacco comapanies started it by misleading their customers about
the health hazards of smoking, and the fossil-carbon extraction
industry - notably Exxon-Mobil - used the same people to mislead the
population about the climate-changing effects of burning lots of
fossil-carbon.

After all, the free market is perfect and companies wouldn't be silly
enough to wreck their long term prospects by trashing their customers
health or the health of the planet they live on ...

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen