Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

improving ideas (was: Patent and copyrights)

Expand Messages
  • Zyn Evam
    On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] ... I was prioritizing on getting a job that pays well. now I would like to spend more time
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 8, 2017
      On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
      <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >
      >> On Nov 22, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Evam Zyn zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >>
      >>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 22:19, Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >>>
      >>>>> On Nov 22, 2016, at 2:11 PM, Evam Zyn zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >>>>>
      >>>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 21:53, Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>> On Nov 22, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Evam Zyn zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 21:18, Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Evam Zyn zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>> Was Rand right about patents and copyrights? http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> seems reasonable. did you have some problem in mind?
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> Some object that IP laws are unethical violation of some individual's rights to use their own property as they see fit. Is that so?

      >>>>>
      >>>>> by "their own property" you mean something like a DVD they purchased?
      >>>>
      >>>> No. Like a patent on a mouse trap would restrict some on using their wood and metal in a certain way.
      >>>
      >>> oh, there's some hard cases there.
      >>>
      >>> the bigger picture is you make a legal system (like the one we already have) and then you make adjustments to solve problems that come up. so if something is causing a lot of people a bunch of grief, then you change it. this is more important than figuring out all the details of a theoretical ideal system.
      >>
      >> Yeah I agree with gradualism. I had this discussion with anarchists who are completely against IP. They don't argue about details of implementing IP. They just would prefer to get rid of it.

      >
      > you should discuss with us more instead. we're better.
      >
      > do you understand TCS super well? ARR? paths forward? rationally resolving conflicts between ideas? liberalism? Objectivism? "mental illness"?
      >
      > for the ones you answer yes to, you ought to write some stuff to expose your understanding to criticism. and also work on improving them or expose to criticism some reasoning for why to do otherwise! if no to some, you ought to learn more about them or expose to criticism a reason for not doing so.


      I was prioritizing on getting a job that pays well. now I would like
      to spend more time on improving ideas. I started to post summaries as
      I go along reading Liberalism from Mises in November. shall I continue
      that?


      I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
      I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
      some of them more. economics is a topic that most people have no clue
      about or side with marxist propaganda picked up from culture. after
      reading mises or rand I feel like I need to do something about it.
      lack of capitalism hinders progress. what can we do about it? should
      we care?
    • Elliot Temple
      ... ok. ... *All*!? How long did that take? Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 8, 2017
        On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:

        > On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:


        >> you should discuss with us more instead. we're better.
        >>
        >> do you understand TCS super well? ARR? paths forward? rationally resolving conflicts between ideas? liberalism? Objectivism? "mental illness"?
        >>
        >> for the ones you answer yes to, you ought to write some stuff to expose your understanding to criticism. and also work on improving them or expose to criticism some reasoning for why to do otherwise! if no to some, you ought to learn more about them or expose to criticism a reason for not doing so.
        >
        >
        > I was prioritizing on getting a job that pays well. now I would like
        > to spend more time on improving ideas. I started to post summaries as
        > I go along reading Liberalism from Mises in November. shall I continue
        > that?

        ok.


        > I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
        > I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
        > some of them more.

        *All*!? How long did that take?

        Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.

        Are you saying you read through this entire list?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography

        Or did you find a different list of equal or greater length?

        Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind in particular his economic calculation paper.

        Did you write anything about them? Notes of any kind? Save quotes you liked?

        > economics is a topic that most people have no clue
        > about or side with marxist propaganda picked up from culture.

        absolutely!

        > after
        > reading mises or rand I feel like I need to do something about it.
        > lack of capitalism hinders progress. what can we do about it? should
        > we care?

        yeah it's one of the things really fucking up the world. a current example is the Obamacare mess.

        and Trump, the good guy on economic policy compared to the Democrats who are more Marxist, has protectionism/tariffs/trade-wars type bad thinking. and nationalist "we" need more jobs. http://curi.us/1804-donald-trump-is-a-protectionist

        but what to do about it? it's hard. i think the best approach is to get better than Rand at philosophy and work from there. sadly neither Rand nor Mises was terribly effective. and that sets a high bar for what it takes to be effective. so that's why I've been doing. and I think I'm better at philosophy than Rand now, but not enough so to just change the world alone. and unfortunately i don't think anyone else is anywhere close to me to help.

        Elliot Temple
        www.curi.us
      • Zyn Evam
        2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas]
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 9, 2017
          2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
          fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
          > On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
          >
          >> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
          >
          >> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
          >> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
          >> some of them more.
          >
          > *All*!? How long did that take?
          >
          > Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
          known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
          >
          > Are you saying you read through this entire list?
          >
          > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography


          I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
          ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.


          > Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
          in particular his economic calculation paper.


          I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
          have found on mises.org.


          > Did you write anything about them? Notes of any kind? Save quotes you
          liked?


          what I did is I saved quotes that were interesting or new to me. ~66000
          words.




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Elliot Temple
          ... do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along? could you now write a great economics essay of your own
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 22, 2017
            On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

            > 2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
            > fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
            >> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
            >>
            >>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
            >>
            >>> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
            >>> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
            >>> some of them more.
            >>
            >> *All*!? How long did that take?
            >>
            >> Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
            >> known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
            >>
            >> Are you saying you read through this entire list?
            >>
            >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography
            >
            >
            > I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
            > ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.
            >
            >
            >> Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
            >> in particular his economic calculation paper.
            >
            >
            > I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
            > have found on mises.org.

            do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along? could you now write a great economics essay of your own using ideas you learned from Mises? (not original.)

            if not, what were you trying to get out of the reading which you think didn't need discussion, and do you think you succeeded?


            >> Did you write anything about them? Notes of any kind? Save quotes you
            >> liked?
            >
            >
            > what I did is I saved quotes that were interesting or new to me. ~66000
            > words.

            that's like a whole book worth of saved quotes. sounds like it'd be hard to find stuff in it because it doesn't just select highlights. if i had 66,000 words of Rand quotes, i doubt i'd use it much, i think i'd just do regular book and internet searches like i commonly do now.


            Elliot Temple
            Get my philosophy newsletter:
            www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter
          • Zyn Evam
            2017-03-22 23:01 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] ... As I was reading through his books I had the following main questions: Why are we
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 24, 2017
              2017-03-22 23:01 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
              <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
              > On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              >
              >> 2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
              >> fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
              >>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
              >>>
              >>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
              >>>
              >>>> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
              >>>> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
              >>>> some of them more.
              >>>
              >>> *All*!? How long did that take?
              >>>
              >>> Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
              >>> known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
              >>>
              >>> Are you saying you read through this entire list?
              >>>
              >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography
              >>
              >>
              >> I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
              >> ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.
              >>
              >>
              >>> Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
              >>> in particular his economic calculation paper.
              >>
              >>
              >> I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
              >> have found on mises.org.
              >
              > do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along?

              As I was reading through his books I had the following main questions:
              Why are we poor and what can we do about it? What policies should we
              follow if we wish to maximise economic progress? These were easy to
              understand. There were many issues though, which were less relevant to
              answer these. I was not intent to understand *everything* he wrote. I
              go back to his writings when I can't figure out an answer on my own
              during discussions. Most of the time people raise issues which I know
              where to find the answer to.

              > could you now write a great economics essay of your own using ideas you learned from Mises? (not original.)

              Yes.

              > if not, what were you trying to get out of the reading which you think didn't need discussion, and do you think you succeeded?

              Even without discussion, I can now answer most criticisms raised
              against capitalism and liberalism.
            • Elliot Temple
              ... what are your answers, briefly? ... which people, where? why do you regard these people, and the issues they raise, as a serious test? i ll raise 3 issues
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 24, 2017
                On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:

                > 2017-03-22 23:01 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                > <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                >> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                >>
                >>> 2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
                >>> fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                >>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                >>>>
                >>>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                >>>>
                >>>>> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
                >>>>> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
                >>>>> some of them more.
                >>>>
                >>>> *All*!? How long did that take?
                >>>>
                >>>> Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
                >>>> known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
                >>>>
                >>>> Are you saying you read through this entire list?
                >>>>
                >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
                >>> ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>> Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
                >>>> in particular his economic calculation paper.
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
                >>> have found on mises.org.
                >>
                >> do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along?
                >
                > As I was reading through his books I had the following main questions:
                > Why are we poor and what can we do about it? What policies should we
                > follow if we wish to maximise economic progress? These were easy to
                > understand.

                what are your answers, briefly?

                > There were many issues though, which were less relevant to
                > answer these. I was not intent to understand *everything* he wrote. I
                > go back to his writings when I can't figure out an answer on my own
                > during discussions. Most of the time people raise issues which I know
                > where to find the answer to.

                which people, where? why do you regard these people, and the issues they raise, as a serious test?

                i'll raise 3 issues at the bottom of my post. there are many more that could be discussed.


                >> could you now write a great economics essay of your own using ideas you learned from Mises? (not original.)
                >
                > Yes.

                will you do it now and post the (permanent) link?


                >> if not, what were you trying to get out of the reading which you think didn't need discussion, and do you think you succeeded?
                >
                > Even without discussion, I can now answer most criticisms raised
                > against capitalism and liberalism.

                how do you know, since this skill is largely untested?

                to judge this, you have to not only consider your skill but also correctly foresee the difficulty of addressing a wide variety of arguments, which you could easily underestimate. i doubt you know a lot about all the problems that come up in such critical debates, which mostly isn't covered in Mises' books.

                ---

                here's a question i have, related to a common criticism of capitalism. what material did you find from Mises relating to the public goods and free riders?? i've never found much (so i developed my own answers with help and some initial answers from David Deutsch) but i haven't read Mises as thoroughly as you have. note that if your answer is you haven't found much, then i guess you aren't currently well-preapred to address this particularly common and crucial capitalism criticism, right? (btw years ago i was kicked off the Mises email discussion list for asking about public goods, which I found strange.)

                another question i'd like to hear your take on, having just read all this Mises, is *fractional reserve banking*. anything wrong with it, or not?

                and one more for now: is it better to have a fixed money supply, which leads to prices going down over time as stuff gets cheaper to make? or a money supply which increases slowly so that prices stay about the same over time? i think that basically all reasonable economically-clueful people agree price *inflation* is bad. but then price deflation (from there being the same amount of money as before while demand for money increases) vs. something like the money supply increasing just enough to keep up with increasing demand for money ... that's less clear. thoughts?

                Elliot Temple
                www.curi.us
              • Zyn Evam
                2017-03-24 23:24 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] ... policies that hinder capital formation are against progress. one of the biggest
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 25, 2017
                  2017-03-24 23:24 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                  <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                  > On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                  >
                  >> 2017-03-22 23:01 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                  >> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                  >>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>> 2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
                  >>>> fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                  >>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
                  >>>>>> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
                  >>>>>> some of them more.
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>> *All*!? How long did that take?
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>> Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
                  >>>>> known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>> Are you saying you read through this entire list?
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>> I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
                  >>>> ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
                  >>>>> in particular his economic calculation paper.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>> I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
                  >>>> have found on mises.org.
                  >>>
                  >>> do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along?
                  >>
                  >> As I was reading through his books I had the following main questions:
                  >> Why are we poor and what can we do about it? What policies should we
                  >> follow if we wish to maximise economic progress? These were easy to
                  >> understand.
                  >
                  > what are your answers, briefly?

                  policies that hinder capital formation are against progress. one of
                  the biggest problems is wealth redistribution. people object
                  inequality and think that taking from the rich and giving to the poor
                  is the solution for poverty. although it can result in a short term
                  gain for the poor, it is against the long run interest of everyone
                  involved.

                  in brief the government should gradually stop all activities except
                  for providing the conditions for protecting the lives and property of
                  individuals. it should gradually stop meddling with the voluntary
                  exchanges between individuals.

                  >> There were many issues though, which were less relevant to
                  >> answer these. I was not intent to understand *everything* he wrote. I
                  >> go back to his writings when I can't figure out an answer on my own
                  >> during discussions. Most of the time people raise issues which I know
                  >> where to find the answer to.
                  >
                  > which people, where?

                  a bit of context: I have translated the program that you can find at
                  the end of Reisman's Capitalism and created a website around it, with
                  other translated material from Mises, Rand, Popper, etc.:
                  http://www.szabadtarsadalom.org/. I wanted to have a party with a
                  program in my country I would be willing to cast my vote on. I have
                  also created a facebook page:
                  https://www.facebook.com/szabadtarsadalom/. however, this is not a
                  major project for me, I was spending maybe ~10% of my free time on it
                  for the last one year. I am not sure about the best way to proceed
                  with it though. ideally, I would like other people to pick it up, form
                  a party, etc.

                  > why do you regard these people, and the issues they raise, as a serious test?

                  I don't regard it as a serious test. but I have to engage with people
                  if I want to change their ideas.

                  > i'll raise 3 issues at the bottom of my post. there are many more that could be discussed.
                  >
                  >
                  >>> could you now write a great economics essay of your own using ideas you learned from Mises? (not original.)
                  >>
                  >> Yes.
                  >
                  > will you do it now and post the (permanent) link?

                  I would have to figure out first if it would be a good use of my time.

                  >>> if not, what were you trying to get out of the reading which you think didn't need discussion, and do you think you succeeded?
                  >>
                  >> Even without discussion, I can now answer most criticisms raised
                  >> against capitalism and liberalism.
                  >
                  > how do you know, since this skill is largely untested?

                  indeed, I should have written most criticisms raised by people not
                  good at philosophy and economics.

                  > to judge this, you have to not only consider your skill but also correctly foresee the difficulty of addressing a wide variety of arguments, which you could easily underestimate. i doubt you know a lot about all the problems that come up in such critical debates, which mostly isn't covered in Mises' books.

                  could be true, as I did not discuss much with people that were
                  particularly good at philosophy and economics.

                  > ---
                  >
                  > here's a question i have, related to a common criticism of capitalism. what material did you find from Mises relating to the public goods and free riders?? i've never found much (so i developed my own answers with help and some initial answers from David Deutsch) but i haven't read Mises as thoroughly as you have. note that if your answer is you haven't found much, then i guess you aren't currently well-preapred to address this particularly common and crucial capitalism criticism, right? (btw years ago i was kicked off the Mises email discussion list for asking about public goods, which I found strange.)

                  I was also looking into this problem in the past, Mises wrote a bit on
                  it in Human Action, he calls it *external economies*.
                  http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/308#Mises_0068_2266
                  he has given a similar argument as you had at
                  http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods under section "Simple Argument".

                  Mises wrote:

                  > A project P is unprofitable when and because consumers prefer the satisfaction expected from the realization of some other projects to the satisfaction expected from the realization of P. The realization of P would withdraw capital and labor from the realization of some other projects for which the demand of the consumers is more urgent. The layman and the pseudo-economist fail to recognize this fact. They stubbornly refuse to notice the scarcity of the factors of production. As they see it, P could be realized without any cost at all, i.e., without foregoing any other satisfaction. It is merely the wantonness of the profit system that prevents the nation from enjoying gratuitously the pleasures expected from P.

                  you wrote:

                  > The better the project is, the easier it is to get it to take place under capitalism. The more borderline it is, the harder. As the project approaches zero benefit, the difficulty for making it happen goes to infinity. (This is an idealization. In real life, with imperfect information and mistaken judgements, it will approximate this plus random error.) Isn't that good? Why is it a problem that barely-beneficial projects rarely happen, and hugely-beneficial projects happen reliably? That is not a problem. That is great!

                  but there are other arguments as well. here is what Reisman wrote in
                  Capitalism (p. 98.): (this contains the contingency payment argument
                  you have given at http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods under section
                  "Capitalism Can Produce Public Goods")

                  > There is no better place than this to observe that in addition to being used in support of environmentalism, the externalities doctrine is used as a fundamental justification for government activity beyond defense against the
                  initiation of physical force. It is argued that insofar as important
                  benefits are obtainable without individuals having to pay for them, a
                  free market cannot function successfully. A typical case advanced to
                  illustrate this claim is that of lighthouses, which, once they exist,
                  benefit all the ships passing in the night, whether the ships’ owners
                  have helped to pay for the lighthouses or not. It is argued that in
                  this case, the possibility of avoiding payment and getting by as a
                  “free rider” on the strength of the contributions of others will
                  result in large numbers of shipowners refusing to pay for lighthouses
                  and thus in either preventing their construction altogether or making
                  their construction and operation less adequate. More broadly, as a
                  general principle, it is argued that in such circumstances vital
                  services will not be performed, or will be performed inadequately,
                  because too many people will be hoping to take advantage of a “free
                  ride.”
                  >
                  > The substance of the free-rider argument is the gratuitous assumption that people lack sufficient rationality to act in their own interest in cases in which they cannot receive corresponding direct payment, and hence must be forced to act in their own interest in such cases. The clearest contradiction of this belief is the success of the activities carried on by countless private charities. In their case, individual donors give without expecting to receive any corresponding material payment, direct or indirect. Although the free-rider doctrine’s supporters are focused on such cases as lighthouses, the logic of the doctrine implies that all charitable activities should be performed by the government. The doctrine also implies that in every case in which there are benefits of any description which are not paid for, the government is to be put in a position in which it can demand a blank check, since no one can actually determine what voluntary payments made by the citizens on their own would be “adequate.”
                  >
                  > The truth is that private citizens are capable on their own of providing for necessary activities for which it may not be possible to arrange the normal system of payment for goods or services received. This is true even in cases requiring the cooperation of millions of individuals. There is no reason why in such cases individuals could not agree to contribute to the financing of a project on a contingency basis, namely, on the basis of a sufficient number of other individuals making the same pledge. Whether it is a matter of a hundred ship owners concerned with constructing a lighthouse or a million property owners concerned with building a dam to prevent flood damage (or perhaps installing catalytic converters on their automobiles to reduce smog), there is no reason why an arrangement could not be made whereby the individual pledges his contribution on the condition of an equal or otherwise comparable contribution being pledged by a certain percentage of other such individuals. For example, the individual ship owner or property owner might agree to pledge a definite sum on the condition that half or two-thirds of the other ship owners or property owners made the same or a comparable pledge. Only when it was established that the necessary number of pledges had been made, would the pledges of the various individuals become binding. In such cases, there might be a class of free riders, but they would certainly not stop the activity from proceeding. (To some people, of course, such a procedure may appear cumbersome. Nevertheless, it is an insignificant price to pay for maintaining consistent respect for the rights of the individual.)
                  >
                  > Finally, although the payment for a good or service in such circumstances might be less than it would be if somehow the usual circumstance prevailed of receipt of the benefit being directly contingent on payment being made, it by no means follows that the amount of benefit provided would be any less under private control than under government control. Government is inherently wasteful. As a result, it needs to spend much more money than a private organization to provide the same amount of goods or services. True, if it spends still more than that, it may provide more of the good or service than would be provided privately. But no objective basis exists for showing that it should provide more. In fact, the one outstanding objective fact in the situation is that in taking responsibility for activities beyond defense against the initiation of force, the government does something it should not do: namely, it initiates physical force against people."

                  > another question i'd like to hear your take on, having just read all this Mises, is *fractional reserve banking*. anything wrong with it, or not?

                  fractional reserve banking combined with government interference is
                  responsible for business cycles. as such it is pretty bad. in short
                  sound money allows people to perform economic calculation. fractional
                  reserve banking makes economic calculation less reliable. when banks
                  engage in large-scale credit expansion entrepreneurs misjudge which
                  projects are feasible, and invest in stuff for which there are no
                  sufficient savings available. under free banking credit expansion
                  would be kept within narrow limits.

                  > and one more for now: is it better to have a fixed money supply, which leads to prices going down over time as stuff gets cheaper to make? or a money supply which increases slowly so that prices stay about the same over time? i think that basically all reasonable economically-clueful people agree price *inflation* is bad. but then price deflation (from there being the same amount of money as before while demand for money increases) vs. something like the money supply increasing just enough to keep up with increasing demand for money ... that's less clear. thoughts?

                  a slow rate of increase in the money supply, like we would have under
                  a gold standard, would work reasonably well. it is so because slow
                  changes in the money's purchasing power do not hinder substantially
                  businessmen's ability to perform economic calculation. a large
                  increase or decrease in the money's purchasing power would be
                  problematic. on the other hand, what sort of fixed money supply do you
                  have in mind? it was a long evolution until the market arrived at
                  silver and gold.
                • Elliot Temple
                  ... i don t know if by capital formation you mean *creating* capital or *accumulating* capital. or if somehow that s supposed to mean both. both are
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 29, 2017
                    On Mar 25, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                    > 2017-03-24 23:24 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                    > <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                    >> On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                    >>
                    >>> 2017-03-22 23:01 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                    >>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                    >>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                    >>>>
                    >>>>> 2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
                    >>>>> fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                    >>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                    >>>>>>
                    >>>>>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                    >>>>>>
                    >>>>>>> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
                    >>>>>>> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
                    >>>>>>> some of them more.
                    >>>>>>
                    >>>>>> *All*!? How long did that take?
                    >>>>>>
                    >>>>>> Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
                    >>>>>> known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
                    >>>>>>
                    >>>>>> Are you saying you read through this entire list?
                    >>>>>>
                    >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>> I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
                    >>>>> ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>> Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
                    >>>>>> in particular his economic calculation paper.
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>> I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
                    >>>>> have found on mises.org.
                    >>>>
                    >>>> do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along?
                    >>>
                    >>> As I was reading through his books I had the following main questions:
                    >>> Why are we poor and what can we do about it? What policies should we
                    >>> follow if we wish to maximise economic progress? These were easy to
                    >>> understand.
                    >>
                    >> what are your answers, briefly?
                    >
                    > policies that hinder capital formation are against progress.

                    i don't know if by "capital formation" you mean *creating* capital or *accumulating* capital. or if somehow that's supposed to mean both. both are necessary.

                    my first guess would be you mean *creating*, but:

                    > one of the biggest problems is wealth redistribution.

                    wealth redistribution harms capital accumulation more directly than creation.

                    > people object
                    > inequality and think that taking from the rich and giving to the poor
                    > is the solution for poverty. although it can result in a short term
                    > gain for the poor, it is against the long run interest of everyone
                    > involved.
                    >
                    > in brief the government should gradually stop all activities except
                    > for providing the conditions for protecting the lives and property of
                    > individuals. it should gradually stop meddling with the voluntary
                    > exchanges between individuals.

                    This is a kinda statist perspective.

                    The question was what to do about poverty and what policies to have.

                    And you talk about what the government should and shouldn't do, and what the government policies should be.

                    While I have no objection to including these points in your answer, I do object to making it the whole answer.

                    What policies should free market companies have? What should people do to create a lot of wealth? How should reasonable people think about a poor neighbor, and what should they do about it if anything? How does a free market work, and what individual actions makes it work out better or worse for those individuals?

                    You don't address these things, you just focus on government action and government decision making.

                    >>> There were many issues though, which were less relevant to
                    >>> answer these. I was not intent to understand *everything* he wrote. I
                    >>> go back to his writings when I can't figure out an answer on my own
                    >>> during discussions. Most of the time people raise issues which I know
                    >>> where to find the answer to.
                    >>
                    >> which people, where?
                    >
                    > a bit of context: I have translated the program that you can find at
                    > the end of Reisman's Capitalism and created a website around it, with
                    > other translated material from Mises, Rand, Popper, etc.:
                    > http://www.szabadtarsadalom.org/.

                    FYI the twitter icon on the home page mistakenly goes to twitter's home page, not to your twitter account.

                    > I wanted to have a party with a
                    > program in my country I would be willing to cast my vote on.

                    are you aware that you're disagreeing with Ayn Rand on this matter? She said to pursue philosophical education prior to election politics. She didn't think it was a good idea to have a political party too early in the process when the country isn't good enough. I agree with Rand.

                    Something Rand didn't say, which I will add: once good ideas spread enough, making a political party and getting votes will be EASY. the test for when it's time to make a political party -- or do a wide variety of other things -- is when it's easy and cheap. if you do it when it's an expensive struggle with a high chance of failure, then the project will consume too much resources and is inefficient.


                    > I have
                    > also created a facebook page:
                    > https://www.facebook.com/szabadtarsadalom/. however, this is not a
                    > major project for me, I was spending maybe ~10% of my free time on it
                    > for the last one year. I am not sure about the best way to proceed
                    > with it though. ideally, I would like other people to pick it up, form
                    > a party, etc.
                    >
                    >> why do you regard these people, and the issues they raise, as a serious test?
                    >
                    > I don't regard it as a serious test. but I have to engage with people
                    > if I want to change their ideas.

                    are you trying to change their ideas or form a political party and get votes? these are different things.

                    focus on a political party will lead to some outcomes like being more focused on changing the ideas of people who can vote in your country. whereas that is not optimal for philosophical education which doesn't care who can vote.


                    >> i'll raise 3 issues at the bottom of my post. there are many more that could be discussed.
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>> could you now write a great economics essay of your own using ideas you learned from Mises? (not original.)
                    >>>
                    >>> Yes.
                    >>
                    >> will you do it now and post the (permanent) link?
                    >
                    > I would have to figure out first if it would be a good use of my time.

                    it would be a good use of time because it'd both create a great essay and also serve as a test for your largely-untested abilities and knowledge which you nevertheless are opinionated about.

                    you spent like 85 hours just reading Mises. of course it's efficient to write one essay on the matter and get information about how effective that large reading investment was. it'll help you make better decisions about what to do in the future (e.g. continue similarly or change the discussion-to-reading ratio, or write more essays, or even decide "wow this is harder than i thought, there's so many criticisms i didn't expect that make these issues tricky. i'm going to go do something else instead").




                    >> here's a question i have, related to a common criticism of capitalism. what material did you find from Mises relating to the public goods and free riders?? i've never found much (so i developed my own answers with help and some initial answers from David Deutsch) but i haven't read Mises as thoroughly as you have. note that if your answer is you haven't found much, then i guess you aren't currently well-preapred to address this particularly common and crucial capitalism criticism, right? (btw years ago i was kicked off the Mises email discussion list for asking about public goods, which I found strange.)
                    >
                    > I was also looking into this problem in the past, Mises wrote a bit on
                    > it in Human Action, he calls it *external economies*.
                    > http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/308#Mises_0068_2266

                    Mises writes:

                    > It would hardly be necessary to say more about external economies if it were not for the fact that this phenomenon is entirely misinterpreted in current pseudo-economic literature.

                    heh, yeah, sounds about right to me :/

                    i don't think many of Mises' fans know this, though.

                    however from reading a bit of this I don't see Mises addressing the free rider argument. specifically an argument like "Joe would be better off with the dam than his $100, and he knows it. And the dam costs $2000 and there are 30 people who'd get $300 of benefit. And they aren't cash-poor or any problems like that, they just straight up would all strongly prefer to pay $100 individually and get the dam. However, they'd prefer even more to pay $0 while their neighbors buy the dam, so everyone tries to sit out since without him there's still 9 extra people. this argument has various flaws, but i don't see that someone reading the Mises passage would be equipped to answer it.

                    a comment relating to what i did read:

                    a good question to ask, related to what Mises says: Why don't ALL profitable (net-gain) projects happen? If the project is purely a gain, with no downside, why don't we do every single profitable project?

                    Part of the answer is the projects CONVERT STUFF INTO OTHER STUFF and whether that's a gain or loss depends on supply and demand. E.g. suppose you hire someone for $10/hr and he creates $20/hr of physical goods (at CURRENT market prices). This doesn't ONLY create a profit, it also reduces the availability of *labor* and increases the availability of physical goods. If too many projects like this happened they'd stop being profitable because labor would get too scarce. So all the projects which appear profitable at this point in time aren't compatible, if they were all pursued some would not end up turning a profit.

                    When you ask someone to pay money for a dam to protect himself from floods, you are not simply offering him benefit with no downside. You are offering a *conversion* leaving him more cash-poor and low-flood-risk-rich. If he took on too many great-looking transactions which kept asking for cash, he'd come out with a bad life, he'd *lose*.




                    > he has given a similar argument as you had at
                    > http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods under section "Simple Argument".
                    >
                    > Mises wrote:
                    >
                    >> A project P is unprofitable when and because consumers prefer the satisfaction expected from the realization of some other projects to the satisfaction expected from the realization of P. The realization of P would withdraw capital and labor from the realization of some other projects for which the demand of the consumers is more urgent. The layman and the pseudo-economist fail to recognize this fact. They stubbornly refuse to notice the scarcity of the factors of production. As they see it, P could be realized without any cost at all, i.e., without foregoing any other satisfaction. It is merely the wantonness of the profit system that prevents the nation from enjoying gratuitously the pleasures expected from P.
                    >
                    > you wrote:
                    >
                    >> The better the project is, the easier it is to get it to take place under capitalism. The more borderline it is, the harder. As the project approaches zero benefit, the difficulty for making it happen goes to infinity. (This is an idealization. In real life, with imperfect information and mistaken judgements, it will approximate this plus random error.) Isn't that good? Why is it a problem that barely-beneficial projects rarely happen, and hugely-beneficial projects happen reliably? That is not a problem. That is great!

                    i don't think these are similar. Mises doesn't say my point here.

                    admittedly, for what Mises does say, i'm doing some mix of taking it for granted and saying it too. but my focus is on a more advanced point which the Mises passage doesn't talk about at all.

                    my point is about how it's not a big deal if some *borderline* projects don't happen, and the non-borderline ones will happen no problem. so it's not great projects that are failing to happen, it's barely viable ones which may be pushed over the line into non-viability by this issue. (while this stuff isn't an issue *for capitalism*, it does make some individual projects a bit more difficult. projects involving more people have larger transaction/coordination costs. of course. and of course the government stepping in as an organizer isn't free, it's not getting rid of those costs, the government has overhead costs if it plays that role even if we're setting aside the government-use-of-force issue)

                    i wonder if you misunderstood my point or what. (such things are common with undiscussed readings ;p)

                    > but there are other arguments as well. here is what Reisman wrote in
                    > Capitalism (p. 98.): (this contains the contingency payment argument
                    > you have given at http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods under section
                    > "Capitalism Can Produce Public Goods")
                    >
                    >> There is no better place than this to observe that in addition to being used in support of environmentalism, the externalities doctrine is used as a fundamental justification for government activity beyond defense against the initiation of physical force. It is argued that insofar as important
                    >> benefits are obtainable without individuals having to pay for them, a
                    >> free market cannot function successfully. A typical case advanced to
                    >> illustrate this claim is that of lighthouses, which, once they exist,
                    >> benefit all the ships passing in the night, whether the ships’ owners
                    >> have helped to pay for the lighthouses or not. It is argued that in
                    >> this case, the possibility of avoiding payment and getting by as a
                    >> “free rider” on the strength of the contributions of others will
                    >> result in large numbers of shipowners refusing to pay for lighthouses
                    >> and thus in either preventing their construction altogether or making
                    >> their construction and operation less adequate. More broadly, as a
                    >> general principle, it is argued that in such circumstances vital
                    >> services will not be performed, or will be performed inadequately,
                    >> because too many people will be hoping to take advantage of a “free
                    >> ride.”
                    >>
                    >> The substance of the free-rider argument is the gratuitous assumption that people lack sufficient rationality to act in their own interest in cases in which they cannot receive corresponding direct payment, and hence must be forced to act in their own interest in such cases.

                    i don't think that sentence is true. the issue is: they individually think they see an opportunity and pursue it. and group coordination is hard, especially when there are *individual incentives* towards some outcomes such as "everyone but me pays". the difficulties here don't depend on people being irrational. they may be *unwise* in various scenarios (b/c it's not worth trying to get out of paying, it's better just to pay and think about something else and reduce the risk of the project failing), and that may be quite common as a practical matter, but the intellectual issue includes worrying about scenarios where people are trying to focus some attention on optimizing this rather than the project just being no big deal.


                    >> The clearest contradiction of this belief is the success of the activities carried on by countless private charities. In their case, individual donors give without expecting to receive any corresponding material payment, direct or indirect.

                    i don't think this argument is good. ppl donate to charity b/c they want e.g. fewer homeless people in the world. they are trying to change the world to be more how they like it.

                    paying for a lighthouse is not addressing the same moral issue for them. it doesn't satisfy the same preference. and, further, even if it was identical, then still if they can free ride on the lighthouse then they can have it AND buy some additional charity on top of it.


                    this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?

                    >> Although the free-rider doctrine’s supporters are focused on such cases as lighthouses, the logic of the doctrine implies that all charitable activities should be performed by the government.

                    why? because people will free ride on paying for homeless shelters? but for moral-philosophical reasons many people want to be personally responsible for helping the homeless, but don't care about being personally responsible for a lighthouse or dam.

                    one particular example of this, which Reisman ought to have thought of, is altruists who have a twisted mentality something like this: they want to SACRIFICE for the homeless and other charity cases, so they have to pay there. but they don't give a shit about paying for the lighthouse which wouldn't be a sacrifice since it'd help their business more than what they paid.


                    >> The doctrine also implies that in every case in which there are benefits of any description which are not paid for, the government is to be put in a position in which it can demand a blank check, since no one can actually determine what voluntary payments made by the citizens on their own would be “adequate.”

                    when i read this i'm skeptical that Reisman is aware of the vast majority of the unpaid "public good" benefits which are routinely provided. otherwise he'd give some examples and point out how common it is, and how absurd it would be for the government to take over managing ALL of this.

                    i don't think Reisman has in mind that grocery stores give out the public good of the option to buy food there. and i doubt he has in mind -- though he might know this exact case -- that bookstores give free browsing. btw grocery stores also give free browsing of foods, which has value in a similar way to bookstore browsing.

                    if you understand this stuff, you'll see that basically every business gives out public goods by the dozens all the time. so what we're contemplating is utter 100% government control over the entire economy and the end of any private businesses existing whatsoever. which i would think Reisman would state and oppose if he knew that's what was at stake. and if he had stated it, a lot more of his readers would more strongly oppose it! I think Reisman just doesn't know.

                    and Reisman's blocking paths forward -- I would tell him if only he was responsive to emails. but he's not, he's chosen not to speak with me. actually i was even thinking of writing extensive comments on his book, but i lost a significant amount of interest when i determined that Reisman wouldn't engage with it, so the project would be equivalent for doing the same thing with Human Action even though Mises is dead -- except that these things work better with more famous authors that more readers care about, so actually the Reisman project is considerably worse in that way. anyway, sucks for him!


                    >> The truth is that private citizens are capable on their own of providing for necessary activities for which it may not be possible to arrange the normal system of payment for goods or services received. This is true even in cases requiring the cooperation of millions of individuals. There is no reason why in such cases individuals could not agree to contribute to the financing of a project on a contingency basis, namely, on the basis of a sufficient number of other individuals making the same pledge. Whether it is a matter of a hundred ship owners concerned with constructing a lighthouse or a million property owners concerned with building a dam to prevent flood damage (or perhaps installing catalytic converters on their automobiles to reduce smog), there is no reason why an arrangement could not be made whereby the individual pledges his contribution on the condition of an equal or otherwise comparable contribution being pledged by a certain percentage of other such individuals. For example, the individual ship owner or property owner might agree to pledge a definite sum on the condition that half or two-thirds of the other ship owners or property owners made the same or a comparable pledge. Only when it was established that the necessary number of pledges had been made, would the pledges of the various individuals become binding. In such cases, there might be a class of free riders, but they would certainly not stop the activity from proceeding. (To some people, of course, such a procedure may appear cumbersome. Nevertheless, it is an insignificant price to pay for maintaining consistent respect for the rights of the individual.)

                    this is blatantly open to the possibility of free riders. people can try to be in the third that doesn't have to pay. and that could potentially result in 80% of people not signing up at all, trying to free ride. on the other hand if you require EVERYONE to pay to try to fix this, you make it really fragile to a single person wants to spend his money on something else and the whole project falls apart. which is why you tax everyone so they HAVE to pay! this is a standard anti-capitalist argument and Reisman is not addressing it adequately here.



                    >> Finally, although the payment for a good or service in such circumstances might be less than it would be if somehow the usual circumstance prevailed of receipt of the benefit being directly contingent on payment being made, it by no means follows that the amount of benefit provided would be any less under private control than under government control. Government is inherently wasteful. As a result, it needs to spend much more money than a private organization to provide the same amount of goods or services. True, if it spends still more than that, it may provide more of the good or service than would be provided privately. But no objective basis exists for showing that it should provide more. In fact, the one outstanding objective fact in the situation is that in taking responsibility for activities beyond defense against the initiation of force, the government does something it should not do: namely, it initiates physical force against people."
                    >
                    >> another question i'd like to hear your take on, having just read all this Mises, is *fractional reserve banking*. anything wrong with it, or not?
                    >
                    > fractional reserve banking combined with government interference is
                    > responsible for business cycles. as such it is pretty bad. in short
                    > sound money allows people to perform economic calculation. fractional
                    > reserve banking makes economic calculation less reliable. when banks
                    > engage in large-scale credit expansion entrepreneurs misjudge which
                    > projects are feasible, and invest in stuff for which there are no
                    > sufficient savings available. under free banking credit expansion
                    > would be kept within narrow limits.

                    i totally disagree. can you state what law you think should exist to outlaw or limit fractional reserve banking? what, specifically, would people not be allowed to do?

                    you are aware, i take it, that "fractional reserve banking" (FRB) is a fancy term for *relending*, right? i lend you $50 and you then lend $20 of it to Joan. or i give my money manager, Bank of America, $1000, and they invest it for me.

                    btw Harry Binswanger told me -- based on personal discussions with Reisman -- that Reisman is very adamantly against fractional reserve banking. he said the issue is basically that Reisman doesn't trust people to make good decisions about what to do with their money. that is, you can say to Reisman "What if the bank specifies a contract where you deposit money,a and you know it will be lent out, and you know you know the terms of withdrawal like you can get all of it in at most 6 months and aren't guaranteed to withdraw faster than that, and various other details. and the bank clearly notifies everyone of this and advertises it." and he will STILL oppose fractional reserve banking (and maybe you will, too? that's my first guess from what you say, though it's hard to tell. if you're totally content with that scenario then you should basically be presenting yourself as IN FAVOR OF fractional reserve banking, b/c it's a totally reasonable, good and actually VERY IMPORTANT thing -- FRB means the freedom to have a money manager, such as a bank who handles investments for you.) sadly, I believed the accusation.


                    >> and one more for now: is it better to have a fixed money supply, which leads to prices going down over time as stuff gets cheaper to make? or a money supply which increases slowly so that prices stay about the same over time? i think that basically all reasonable economically-clueful people agree price *inflation* is bad. but then price deflation (from there being the same amount of money as before while demand for money increases) vs. something like the money supply increasing just enough to keep up with increasing demand for money ... that's less clear. thoughts?
                    >
                    > a slow rate of increase in the money supply, like we would have under
                    > a gold standard, would work reasonably well. it is so because slow
                    > changes in the money's purchasing power do not hinder substantially
                    > businessmen's ability to perform economic calculation. a large
                    > increase or decrease in the money's purchasing power would be
                    > problematic. on the other hand, what sort of fixed money supply do you
                    > have in mind? it was a long evolution until the market arrived at
                    > silver and gold.

                    an example of a way to get a fixed money supply:

                    the US government adds a constitutional amendment (and does whatever other steps are necessary for people to trust this is a permanent policy) with the following policy:

                    no new US dollars will be printed. the only money printed ever again will be replacements for worn out bills.

                    smaller or larger denominations will be created if demand for money gets high or low enough, relative to this fixed supply, that they are more convenient (e.g. people want to transact in fractions of a penny.)

                    any problem with this?

                    i know that fluctuations in the supply and value of other currencies would affect things. so try to imagine all the other countries disappear or something, and also imagine everyone keeps using dollars and not some substitute like gold. then what happens? anything bad? anything good?


                    Elliot Temple
                    Get my philosophy newsletter:
                    www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter
                  • Justin Mallone
                    ... One issue I see is that people have different risk tolerances, want different rates of return, etc. They re investing over different time horizons cuz of
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 2, 2017
                      On Mar 29, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                      > On Mar 25, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                      >
                      >> 2017-03-24 23:24 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                      >> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:

                      >>> here's a question i have, related to a common criticism of capitalism. what material did you find from Mises relating to the public goods and free riders?? i've never found much (so i developed my own answers with help and some initial answers from David Deutsch) but i haven't read Mises as thoroughly as you have. note that if your answer is you haven't found much, then i guess you aren't currently well-preapred to address this particularly common and crucial capitalism criticism, right? (btw years ago i was kicked off the Mises email discussion list for asking about public goods, which I found strange.)
                      >>
                      >> I was also looking into this problem in the past, Mises wrote a bit on
                      >> it in Human Action, he calls it *external economies*.
                      >> http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/308#Mises_0068_2266
                      >
                      > Mises writes:
                      >
                      >> It would hardly be necessary to say more about external economies if it were not for the fact that this phenomenon is entirely misinterpreted in current pseudo-economic literature.
                      >
                      > heh, yeah, sounds about right to me :/
                      >
                      > i don't think many of Mises' fans know this, though.
                      >
                      > however from reading a bit of this I don't see Mises addressing the free rider argument. specifically an argument like "Joe would be better off with the dam than his $100, and he knows it. And the dam costs $2000 and there are 30 people who'd get $300 of benefit. And they aren't cash-poor or any problems like that, they just straight up would all strongly prefer to pay $100 individually and get the dam. However, they'd prefer even more to pay $0 while their neighbors buy the dam, so everyone tries to sit out since without him there's still 9 extra people. this argument has various flaws, but i don't see that someone reading the Mises passage would be equipped to answer it.

                      One issue I see is that people have different risk tolerances, want different rates of return, etc. They're investing over different time horizons cuz of things like age. The hypo specifies $300 of benefit for $100 investment, but over what period? And with what % likelihood of failure?

                      Also people will have different investment opportunities and face different opportunity costs. Maybe someone has a great employer match on their 401k or whatever. Maybe another has a buddy who's gonna have the next hot startup. People with other good options will be more likely to pursue those options, whereas people without those options will be more likely to invest in the dam (and thus move first)

                      The more we can break the apparently symmetrical position of the neighbors (which also makes the hypo resemble IRL stuff more), the more plausible it is that there won't be an endless stand-off situation where a bunch of similarly situated people wait for all the other people to move first.

                      You could also specify a bunch of extra conditions to try and address this. Like "imagine everyone's the same age, has the same expected longevity, has the exact same alternative investment opportunities, has precisely the same appetite for risk, etc etc." But if you do that, I think you just make clear how removed from reality the hypo is.


                      Some other quick points:

                      big stuff gets funded all the time now by stuff like Kickstarter (even movies and transportation devices)

                      there's known ways to address the holdout problem. I recall reading at some point that the current PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES would do stuff like use a variety of shell companies to buy up land, so that people wouldn't realize someone was gonna do one big development and try and hold out.

                      An IRL holdout problem I've seen some examples of is somebody who holds out and doesn't wanna sell at any price for emotional reasons (like attachment to their house), which then holds up some big project.

                      In that case, the issue isn't that people rationally seek their economic self-interest and then get stuck in a logjam that government needs to break. It's more like they (unreasonably) don't wanna sell at any reasonable price. I still don't think govt should interfere, but it's a different (and narrower) problem than most people imagine. Most people are pretty reasonable and will move if they get to move to a nicer place and still have lots of money left over.

                      -JM
                    • Elliot Temple
                      ... tangent about writing/communication: this ALL CAPS bit was poor communication. it makes it sound like he did something in his capacity as prez. but you re
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 2, 2017
                        On Apr 2, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Justin Mallone <justinceo@...> wrote:

                        > there's known ways to address the holdout problem. I recall reading at some point that the current PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES would do stuff like use a variety of shell companies to buy up land, so that people wouldn't realize someone was gonna do one big development and try and hold out.

                        tangent about writing/communication:

                        this ALL CAPS bit was poor communication.

                        it makes it sound like he did something in his capacity as prez. but you're actually talking about something he did before he was prez, before he was even planning to be prez.

                        it makes it sound like him being prez now is relevant in some way. it isn't.

                        it doesn't mention his relevant traits. people have to think of those. this isn't just an issue of recollecting them. it's also they have to figure out which of his many well-known traits are relevant. and which does Justin think are relevant? Justin hasn't told us which ones Justin has in mind. the reader has to guess.

                        and it just plain fails to name the guy which makes it harder to follow.

                        it's also pretty easy to miss the word "current" because you're reading along and see "at some point" followed by what, at a glance, looks like filler words leading into an all caps phrase.

                        it looks kinda like this to someone who isn't carefully reading every word:

                        original:

                        > I recall reading at some point that the current PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                        reader's perspective:

                        > blah blah blah at some point blah blah PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES


                        the "at" might be a "blah" too.

                        no one cares about your memory ("recall"). no one cares about you ("I"). no one cares that you were reading.

                        they also don't care when but they have to read some words. alternatively maybe more people would jump this way:

                        > I recall [zzzz ... filler] PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                        rather than noticing "some point" they could just see that you're recalling something and then start reading what it is.

                        that you recall, and that you read something, are both irrelevant. and at "some point" is vague -- you could be way more specific like saying it was a couple decades ago instead of just a totally unspecified time.


                        Elliot Temple
                        Get my philosophy newsletter:
                        www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter
                      • Zyn Evam
                        2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] ... by capital *accumulation* do you mean e.g. Joe has an enterprise and earns a profit
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 21, 2017
                          2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                          <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                          > On Mar 25, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                          >
                          >> 2017-03-24 23:24 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                          >> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                          >>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>>> 2017-03-22 23:01 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                          >>>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                          >>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                          >>>>>
                          >>>>>> 2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
                          >>>>>> fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                          >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                          >>>>>>>
                          >>>>>>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                          >>>>>>>
                          >>>>>>>> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
                          >>>>>>>> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
                          >>>>>>>> some of them more.
                          >>>>>>>
                          >>>>>>> *All*!? How long did that take?
                          >>>>>>>
                          >>>>>>> Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
                          >>>>>>> known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
                          >>>>>>>
                          >>>>>>> Are you saying you read through this entire list?
                          >>>>>>>
                          >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography
                          >>>>>>
                          >>>>>>
                          >>>>>> I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
                          >>>>>> ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.
                          >>>>>>
                          >>>>>>
                          >>>>>>> Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
                          >>>>>>> in particular his economic calculation paper.
                          >>>>>>
                          >>>>>>
                          >>>>>> I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
                          >>>>>> have found on mises.org.
                          >>>>>
                          >>>>> do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along?
                          >>>>
                          >>>> As I was reading through his books I had the following main questions:
                          >>>> Why are we poor and what can we do about it? What policies should we
                          >>>> follow if we wish to maximise economic progress? These were easy to
                          >>>> understand.
                          >>>
                          >>> what are your answers, briefly?
                          >>
                          >> policies that hinder capital formation are against progress.
                          >
                          > i don't know if by "capital formation" you mean *creating* capital or *accumulating* capital. or if somehow that's supposed to mean both. both are necessary.

                          by capital *accumulation* do you mean e.g. Joe has an enterprise and
                          earns a profit of $100? by capital *creation* do you mean e.g. Joe
                          invests his profit of $100 into new equipment that can create more
                          wealth?

                          >> people object
                          >> inequality and think that taking from the rich and giving to the poor
                          >> is the solution for poverty. although it can result in a short term
                          >> gain for the poor, it is against the long run interest of everyone
                          >> involved.
                          >>
                          >> in brief the government should gradually stop all activities except
                          >> for providing the conditions for protecting the lives and property of
                          >> individuals. it should gradually stop meddling with the voluntary
                          >> exchanges between individuals.
                          >
                          > This is a kinda statist perspective.
                          >
                          > The question was what to do about poverty and what policies to have.
                          >
                          > And you talk about what the government should and shouldn't do, and what the government policies should be.
                          >
                          > While I have no objection to including these points in your answer, I do object to making it the whole answer.
                          >
                          > What policies should free market companies have? What should people do to create a lot of wealth? How should reasonable people think about a poor neighbor, and what should they do about it if anything? How does a free market work, and what individual actions makes it work out better or worse for those individuals?
                          >
                          > You don't address these things, you just focus on government action and government decision making.

                          Good points. These constructive/positive things were not addressed by
                          me. I guess it would work better in persuading people about the
                          virtues of free markets if one were to include these points.

                          >>>> There were many issues though, which were less relevant to
                          >>>> answer these. I was not intent to understand *everything* he wrote. I
                          >>>> go back to his writings when I can't figure out an answer on my own
                          >>>> during discussions. Most of the time people raise issues which I know
                          >>>> where to find the answer to.
                          >>>
                          >>> which people, where?
                          >>
                          >> a bit of context: I have translated the program that you can find at
                          >> the end of Reisman's Capitalism and created a website around it, with
                          >> other translated material from Mises, Rand, Popper, etc.:
                          >> http://www.szabadtarsadalom.org/.
                          >
                          > FYI the twitter icon on the home page mistakenly goes to twitter's home page, not to your twitter account.
                          >
                          >> I wanted to have a party with a
                          >> program in my country I would be willing to cast my vote on.
                          >
                          > are you aware that you're disagreeing with Ayn Rand on this matter? She said to pursue philosophical education prior to election politics. She didn't think it was a good idea to have a political party too early in the process when the country isn't good enough. I agree with Rand.

                          I was not aware that Rand was on this opinion, but I would agree with
                          her. I don't see the point of making an *official* party, without
                          major support and awareness of the virtues of the free market. the
                          site and material serve only as a reference. e.g. if someone asked me
                          what my thoughts on politics are I could provide a link.

                          > Something Rand didn't say, which I will add: once good ideas spread enough, making a political party and getting votes will be EASY. the test for when it's time to make a political party -- or do a wide variety of other things -- is when it's easy and cheap. if you do it when it's an expensive struggle with a high chance of failure, then the project will consume too much resources and is inefficient.

                          good points, I agree. there is no point in spending much money in
                          marketing ideas. if ideas are good, they should spread without much
                          cost.

                          >>> i'll raise 3 issues at the bottom of my post. there are many more that could be discussed.
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>>>> could you now write a great economics essay of your own using ideas you learned from Mises? (not original.)
                          >>>>
                          >>>> Yes.
                          >>>
                          >>> will you do it now and post the (permanent) link?
                          >>
                          >> I would have to figure out first if it would be a good use of my time.
                          >
                          > it would be a good use of time because it'd both create a great essay and also serve as a test for your largely-untested abilities and knowledge which you nevertheless are opinionated about.
                          >
                          > you spent like 85 hours just reading Mises. of course it's efficient to write one essay on the matter and get information about how effective that large reading investment was. it'll help you make better decisions about what to do in the future (e.g. continue similarly or change the discussion-to-reading ratio, or write more essays, or even decide "wow this is harder than i thought, there's so many criticisms i didn't expect that make these issues tricky. i'm going to go do something else instead").

                          good points. I should definitely modify the read/write ratio.

                          >>> here's a question i have, related to a common criticism of capitalism. what material did you find from Mises relating to the public goods and free riders?? i've never found much (so i developed my own answers with help and some initial answers from David Deutsch) but i haven't read Mises as thoroughly as you have. note that if your answer is you haven't found much, then i guess you aren't currently well-preapred to address this particularly common and crucial capitalism criticism, right? (btw years ago i was kicked off the Mises email discussion list for asking about public goods, which I found strange.)
                          >>
                          >> I was also looking into this problem in the past, Mises wrote a bit on
                          >> it in Human Action, he calls it *external economies*.
                          >> http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/308#Mises_0068_2266
                          >
                          > Mises writes:
                          >
                          >> It would hardly be necessary to say more about external economies if it were not for the fact that this phenomenon is entirely misinterpreted in current pseudo-economic literature.
                          >
                          > heh, yeah, sounds about right to me :/
                          >
                          > i don't think many of Mises' fans know this, though.
                          >
                          > however from reading a bit of this I don't see Mises addressing the free rider argument. specifically an argument like "Joe would be better off with the dam than his $100, and he knows it. And the dam costs $2000 and there are 30 people who'd get $300 of benefit. And they aren't cash-poor or any problems like that, they just straight up would all strongly prefer to pay $100 individually and get the dam. However, they'd prefer even more to pay $0 while their neighbors buy the dam, so everyone tries to sit out since without him there's still 9 extra people. this argument has various flaws, but i don't see that someone reading the Mises passage would be equipped to answer it.
                          >
                          > a comment relating to what i did read:
                          >
                          > a good question to ask, related to what Mises says: Why don't ALL profitable (net-gain) projects happen? If the project is purely a gain, with no downside, why don't we do every single profitable project?
                          >
                          > Part of the answer is the projects CONVERT STUFF INTO OTHER STUFF and whether that's a gain or loss depends on supply and demand. E.g. suppose you hire someone for $10/hr and he creates $20/hr of physical goods (at CURRENT market prices). This doesn't ONLY create a profit, it also reduces the availability of *labor* and increases the availability of physical goods. If too many projects like this happened they'd stop being profitable because labor would get too scarce. So all the projects which appear profitable at this point in time aren't compatible, if they were all pursued some would not end up turning a profit.
                          >
                          > When you ask someone to pay money for a dam to protect himself from floods, you are not simply offering him benefit with no downside. You are offering a *conversion* leaving him more cash-poor and low-flood-risk-rich. If he took on too many great-looking transactions which kept asking for cash, he'd come out with a bad life, he'd *lose*.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >> he has given a similar argument as you had at
                          >> http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods under section "Simple Argument".
                          >>
                          >> Mises wrote:
                          >>
                          >>> A project P is unprofitable when and because consumers prefer the satisfaction expected from the realization of some other projects to the satisfaction expected from the realization of P. The realization of P would withdraw capital and labor from the realization of some other projects for which the demand of the consumers is more urgent. The layman and the pseudo-economist fail to recognize this fact. They stubbornly refuse to notice the scarcity of the factors of production. As they see it, P could be realized without any cost at all, i.e., without foregoing any other satisfaction. It is merely the wantonness of the profit system that prevents the nation from enjoying gratuitously the pleasures expected from P.
                          >>
                          >> you wrote:
                          >>
                          >>> The better the project is, the easier it is to get it to take place under capitalism. The more borderline it is, the harder. As the project approaches zero benefit, the difficulty for making it happen goes to infinity. (This is an idealization. In real life, with imperfect information and mistaken judgements, it will approximate this plus random error.) Isn't that good? Why is it a problem that barely-beneficial projects rarely happen, and hugely-beneficial projects happen reliably? That is not a problem. That is great!
                          >
                          > i don't think these are similar. Mises doesn't say my point here.
                          >
                          > admittedly, for what Mises does say, i'm doing some mix of taking it for granted and saying it too. but my focus is on a more advanced point which the Mises passage doesn't talk about at all.
                          >
                          > my point is about how it's not a big deal if some *borderline* projects don't happen, and the non-borderline ones will happen no problem. so it's not great projects that are failing to happen, it's barely viable ones which may be pushed over the line into non-viability by this issue. (while this stuff isn't an issue *for capitalism*, it does make some individual projects a bit more difficult. projects involving more people have larger transaction/coordination costs. of course. and of course the government stepping in as an organizer isn't free, it's not getting rid of those costs, the government has overhead costs if it plays that role even if we're setting aside the government-use-of-force issue)
                          >
                          > i wonder if you misunderstood my point or what. (such things are common with undiscussed readings ;p)

                          what I had in mind is that the two arguments are similar in that both
                          explain that due to the scarcity of the factors of production the
                          higher the expected satisfaction from the realization of a given
                          project the higher the likelihood of it being accomplished under
                          capitalism. thus it is the least beneficial projects that have
                          difficulty funding. your argument is better though, as it makes
                          explicit the relationship between the difficulty of a project and
                          expected benefits.

                          >> but there are other arguments as well. here is what Reisman wrote in
                          >> Capitalism (p. 98.): (this contains the contingency payment argument
                          >> you have given at http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods under section
                          >> "Capitalism Can Produce Public Goods")
                          >>
                          >>> There is no better place than this to observe that in addition to being used in support of environmentalism, the externalities doctrine is used as a fundamental justification for government activity beyond defense against the initiation of physical force. It is argued that insofar as important
                          >>> benefits are obtainable without individuals having to pay for them, a
                          >>> free market cannot function successfully. A typical case advanced to
                          >>> illustrate this claim is that of lighthouses, which, once they exist,
                          >>> benefit all the ships passing in the night, whether the ships’ owners
                          >>> have helped to pay for the lighthouses or not. It is argued that in
                          >>> this case, the possibility of avoiding payment and getting by as a
                          >>> “free rider” on the strength of the contributions of others will
                          >>> result in large numbers of shipowners refusing to pay for lighthouses
                          >>> and thus in either preventing their construction altogether or making
                          >>> their construction and operation less adequate. More broadly, as a
                          >>> general principle, it is argued that in such circumstances vital
                          >>> services will not be performed, or will be performed inadequately,
                          >>> because too many people will be hoping to take advantage of a “free
                          >>> ride.”
                          >>>
                          >>> The substance of the free-rider argument is the gratuitous assumption that people lack sufficient rationality to act in their own interest in cases in which they cannot receive corresponding direct payment, and hence must be forced to act in their own interest in such cases.
                          >
                          > i don't think that sentence is true. the issue is: they individually think they see an opportunity and pursue it. and group coordination is hard, especially when there are *individual incentives* towards some outcomes such as "everyone but me pays". the difficulties here don't depend on people being irrational. they may be *unwise* in various scenarios (b/c it's not worth trying to get out of paying, it's better just to pay and think about something else and reduce the risk of the project failing), and that may be quite common as a practical matter, but the intellectual issue includes worrying about scenarios where people are trying to focus some attention on optimizing this rather than the project just being no big deal.
                          >
                          >
                          >>> The clearest contradiction of this belief is the success of the activities carried on by countless private charities. In their case, individual donors give without expecting to receive any corresponding material payment, direct or indirect.
                          >
                          > i don't think this argument is good. ppl donate to charity b/c they want e.g. fewer homeless people in the world. they are trying to change the world to be more how they like it.
                          >
                          > paying for a lighthouse is not addressing the same moral issue for them. it doesn't satisfy the same preference. and, further, even if it was identical, then still if they can free ride on the lighthouse then they can have it AND buy some additional charity on top of it.
                          >
                          >
                          > this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?

                          not many :/

                          >>> Although the free-rider doctrine’s supporters are focused on such cases as lighthouses, the logic of the doctrine implies that all charitable activities should be performed by the government.
                          >
                          > why? because people will free ride on paying for homeless shelters? but for moral-philosophical reasons many people want to be personally responsible for helping the homeless, but don't care about being personally responsible for a lighthouse or dam.
                          >
                          > one particular example of this, which Reisman ought to have thought of, is altruists who have a twisted mentality something like this: they want to SACRIFICE for the homeless and other charity cases, so they have to pay there. but they don't give a shit about paying for the lighthouse which wouldn't be a sacrifice since it'd help their business more than what they paid.
                          >
                          >
                          >>> The doctrine also implies that in every case in which there are benefits of any description which are not paid for, the government is to be put in a position in which it can demand a blank check, since no one can actually determine what voluntary payments made by the citizens on their own would be “adequate.”
                          >
                          > when i read this i'm skeptical that Reisman is aware of the vast majority of the unpaid "public good" benefits which are routinely provided. otherwise he'd give some examples and point out how common it is, and how absurd it would be for the government to take over managing ALL of this.
                          >
                          > i don't think Reisman has in mind that grocery stores give out the public good of the option to buy food there. and i doubt he has in mind -- though he might know this exact case -- that bookstores give free browsing. btw grocery stores also give free browsing of foods, which has value in a similar way to bookstore browsing.
                          >
                          > if you understand this stuff, you'll see that basically every business gives out public goods by the dozens all the time. so what we're contemplating is utter 100% government control over the entire economy and the end of any private businesses existing whatsoever. which i would think Reisman would state and oppose if he knew that's what was at stake. and if he had stated it, a lot more of his readers would more strongly oppose it! I think Reisman just doesn't know.
                          >
                          > and Reisman's blocking paths forward -- I would tell him if only he was responsive to emails. but he's not, he's chosen not to speak with me. actually i was even thinking of writing extensive comments on his book, but i lost a significant amount of interest when i determined that Reisman wouldn't engage with it, so the project would be equivalent for doing the same thing with Human Action even though Mises is dead -- except that these things work better with more famous authors that more readers care about, so actually the Reisman project is considerably worse in that way. anyway, sucks for him!
                          >
                          >
                          >>> The truth is that private citizens are capable on their own of providing for necessary activities for which it may not be possible to arrange the normal system of payment for goods or services received. This is true even in cases requiring the cooperation of millions of individuals. There is no reason why in such cases individuals could not agree to contribute to the financing of a project on a contingency basis, namely, on the basis of a sufficient number of other individuals making the same pledge. Whether it is a matter of a hundred ship owners concerned with constructing a lighthouse or a million property owners concerned with building a dam to prevent flood damage (or perhaps installing catalytic converters on their automobiles to reduce smog), there is no reason why an arrangement could not be made whereby the individual pledges his contribution on the condition of an equal or otherwise comparable contribution being pledged by a certain percentage of other such individuals. For example, the individual ship owner or property owner might agree to pledge a definite sum on the condition that half or two-thirds of the other ship owners or property owners made the same or a comparable pledge. Only when it was established that the necessary number of pledges had been made, would the pledges of the various individuals become binding. In such cases, there might be a class of free riders, but they would certainly not stop the activity from proceeding. (To some people, of course, such a procedure may appear cumbersome. Nevertheless, it is an insignificant price to pay for maintaining consistent respect for the rights of the individual.)
                          >
                          > this is blatantly open to the possibility of free riders. people can try to be in the third that doesn't have to pay. and that could potentially result in 80% of people not signing up at all, trying to free ride. on the other hand if you require EVERYONE to pay to try to fix this, you make it really fragile to a single person wants to spend his money on something else and the whole project falls apart. which is why you tax everyone so they HAVE to pay! this is a standard anti-capitalist argument and Reisman is not addressing it adequately here.

                          couldn't projects get funded like kickstarter projects get funded? I
                          think such contingency payment setup would work reasonably well. it is
                          true that people would still want to be in the third that doesn't have
                          to pay, but if they really want the given project to kick off they
                          will pledge eventually.

                          >>> Finally, although the payment for a good or service in such circumstances might be less than it would be if somehow the usual circumstance prevailed of receipt of the benefit being directly contingent on payment being made, it by no means follows that the amount of benefit provided would be any less under private control than under government control. Government is inherently wasteful. As a result, it needs to spend much more money than a private organization to provide the same amount of goods or services. True, if it spends still more than that, it may provide more of the good or service than would be provided privately. But no objective basis exists for showing that it should provide more. In fact, the one outstanding objective fact in the situation is that in taking responsibility for activities beyond defense against the initiation of force, the government does something it should not do: namely, it initiates physical force against people."
                          >>
                          >>> another question i'd like to hear your take on, having just read all this Mises, is *fractional reserve banking*. anything wrong with it, or not?
                          >>
                          >> fractional reserve banking combined with government interference is
                          >> responsible for business cycles. as such it is pretty bad. in short
                          >> sound money allows people to perform economic calculation. fractional
                          >> reserve banking makes economic calculation less reliable. when banks
                          >> engage in large-scale credit expansion entrepreneurs misjudge which
                          >> projects are feasible, and invest in stuff for which there are no
                          >> sufficient savings available. under free banking credit expansion
                          >> would be kept within narrow limits.
                          >
                          > i totally disagree. can you state what law you think should exist to outlaw or limit fractional reserve banking? what, specifically, would people not be allowed to do?
                          >
                          > you are aware, i take it, that "fractional reserve banking" (FRB) is a fancy term for *relending*, right? i lend you $50 and you then lend $20 of it to Joan. or i give my money manager, Bank of America, $1000, and they invest it for me.
                          >
                          > btw Harry Binswanger told me -- based on personal discussions with Reisman -- that Reisman is very adamantly against fractional reserve banking. he said the issue is basically that Reisman doesn't trust people to make good decisions about what to do with their money. that is, you can say to Reisman "What if the bank specifies a contract where you deposit money,a and you know it will be lent out, and you know you know the terms of withdrawal like you can get all of it in at most 6 months and aren't guaranteed to withdraw faster than that, and various other details. and the bank clearly notifies everyone of this and advertises it." and he will STILL oppose fractional reserve banking (and maybe you will, too? that's my first guess from what you say, though it's hard to tell.

                          I had some misunderstandings about FRB when I was writing my previous
                          answer. with the setup that you wrote, I am in favor of FRB. I thought
                          of the case of relending your money without you being aware that it is
                          relended.

                          >>> and one more for now: is it better to have a fixed money supply, which leads to prices going down over time as stuff gets cheaper to make? or a money supply which increases slowly so that prices stay about the same over time? i think that basically all reasonable economically-clueful people agree price *inflation* is bad. but then price deflation (from there being the same amount of money as before while demand for money increases) vs. something like the money supply increasing just enough to keep up with increasing demand for money ... that's less clear. thoughts?
                          >>
                          >> a slow rate of increase in the money supply, like we would have under
                          >> a gold standard, would work reasonably well. it is so because slow
                          >> changes in the money's purchasing power do not hinder substantially
                          >> businessmen's ability to perform economic calculation. a large
                          >> increase or decrease in the money's purchasing power would be
                          >> problematic. on the other hand, what sort of fixed money supply do you
                          >> have in mind? it was a long evolution until the market arrived at
                          >> silver and gold.
                          >
                          > an example of a way to get a fixed money supply:
                          >
                          > the US government adds a constitutional amendment (and does whatever other steps are necessary for people to trust this is a permanent policy) with the following policy:
                          >
                          > no new US dollars will be printed. the only money printed ever again will be replacements for worn out bills.
                          >
                          > smaller or larger denominations will be created if demand for money gets high or low enough, relative to this fixed supply, that they are more convenient (e.g. people want to transact in fractions of a penny.)
                          >
                          > any problem with this?
                          >
                          > i know that fluctuations in the supply and value of other currencies would affect things. so try to imagine all the other countries disappear or something, and also imagine everyone keeps using dollars and not some substitute like gold. then what happens? anything bad? anything good?

                          there would be no inflation. this would mean that if you had savings
                          it would not lose its value over time. thus it promotes saving over
                          consumption. entrepreneurs could also better calculate and there would
                          be less malinvestment as a result. I don't see such problems with
                          price deflation. I guess price deflation would mean a slower change in
                          the price structure. it is hard to figure out how all the prices
                          change relative to each other as a result of changing circumstances.
                          that is the task of the entrepreneurs. I don't see what problems we
                          would solve with a slowly increasing money supply. could you explain
                          what you have in mind?
                        • Elliot Temple
                          ... creating capital = i create new wealth that didn t exist before. accumulating capital = i *save* up wealth until i have a lot of it. you could create lots
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 21, 2017
                            On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                            > 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                            > <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                            >> On Mar 25, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                            >>
                            >>> 2017-03-24 23:24 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                            >>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                            >>>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                            >>>>
                            >>>>> 2017-03-22 23:01 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                            >>>>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                            >>>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                            >>>>>>
                            >>>>>>> 2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
                            >>>>>>> fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                            >>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                            >>>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                            >>>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>>> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
                            >>>>>>>>> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
                            >>>>>>>>> some of them more.
                            >>>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>> *All*!? How long did that take?
                            >>>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>> Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
                            >>>>>>>> known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
                            >>>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>> Are you saying you read through this entire list?
                            >>>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography
                            >>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>> I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
                            >>>>>>> ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.
                            >>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>> Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
                            >>>>>>>> in particular his economic calculation paper.
                            >>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>>
                            >>>>>>> I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
                            >>>>>>> have found on mises.org.
                            >>>>>>
                            >>>>>> do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along?
                            >>>>>
                            >>>>> As I was reading through his books I had the following main questions:
                            >>>>> Why are we poor and what can we do about it? What policies should we
                            >>>>> follow if we wish to maximise economic progress? These were easy to
                            >>>>> understand.
                            >>>>
                            >>>> what are your answers, briefly?
                            >>>
                            >>> policies that hinder capital formation are against progress.
                            >>
                            >> i don't know if by "capital formation" you mean *creating* capital or *accumulating* capital. or if somehow that's supposed to mean both. both are necessary.
                            >
                            > by capital *accumulation* do you mean e.g. Joe has an enterprise and
                            > earns a profit of $100? by capital *creation* do you mean e.g. Joe
                            > invests his profit of $100 into new equipment that can create more
                            > wealth?

                            creating capital = i create new wealth that didn't exist before.

                            accumulating capital = i *save* up wealth until i have a lot of it.

                            you could create lots of capital but keep spending it right away and never accumulate much.




                            >> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                            >
                            > not many :/

                            better discuss more!!!!!

                            and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!



                            >>>> The truth is that private citizens are capable on their own of providing for necessary activities for which it may not be possible to arrange the normal system of payment for goods or services received. This is true even in cases requiring the cooperation of millions of individuals. There is no reason why in such cases individuals could not agree to contribute to the financing of a project on a contingency basis, namely, on the basis of a sufficient number of other individuals making the same pledge. Whether it is a matter of a hundred ship owners concerned with constructing a lighthouse or a million property owners concerned with building a dam to prevent flood damage (or perhaps installing catalytic converters on their automobiles to reduce smog), there is no reason why an arrangement could not be made whereby the individual pledges his contribution on the condition of an equal or otherwise comparable contribution being pledged by a certain percentage of other such individuals. For example, the individual ship owner or property owner might agree to pledge a definite sum on the condition that half or two-thirds of the other ship owners or property owners made the same or a comparable pledge. Only when it was established that the necessary number of pledges had been made, would the pledges of the various individuals become binding. In such cases, there might be a class of free riders, but they would certainly not stop the activity from proceeding. (To some people, of course, such a procedure may appear cumbersome. Nevertheless, it is an insignificant price to pay for maintaining consistent respect for the rights of the individual.)
                            >>
                            >> this is blatantly open to the possibility of free riders. people can try to be in the third that doesn't have to pay. and that could potentially result in 80% of people not signing up at all, trying to free ride. on the other hand if you require EVERYONE to pay to try to fix this, you make it really fragile to a single person wants to spend his money on something else and the whole project falls apart. which is why you tax everyone so they HAVE to pay! this is a standard anti-capitalist argument and Reisman is not addressing it adequately here.
                            >
                            > couldn't projects get funded like kickstarter projects get funded? I
                            > think such contingency payment setup would work reasonably well. it is
                            > true that people would still want to be in the third that doesn't have
                            > to pay, but if they really want the given project to kick off they
                            > will pledge eventually.

                            kickstarter is blatantly open to the possibility of freeriders!

                            i can just sit there and let other ppl fund something i want and not pay a dime myself!

                            kickstarter works anyway, even though people can easily freeride? well that just means, factually-empirically, mainstream economists are wrong. they ought to notice and try to figure out which of their abstract ideas are the wrong ones and why.

                            one of the replies some of them would give is: economics says what RATIONAL ACTORS do, but the people who choose to pay on kickstarter are IRRATIONAL. they might go on to muse: so does capitalism rely on irrationality? and as we fund our public schools better and create a better world with more rational people, then will capitalism stop working (at least in some cases) and we'll need to (at least partly) switch to Something Else (e.g. government control of the economy)?

                            your thoughts?




                            >>>> and one more for now: is it better to have a fixed money supply, which leads to prices going down over time as stuff gets cheaper to make? or a money supply which increases slowly so that prices stay about the same over time? i think that basically all reasonable economically-clueful people agree price *inflation* is bad. but then price deflation (from there being the same amount of money as before while demand for money increases) vs. something like the money supply increasing just enough to keep up with increasing demand for money ... that's less clear. thoughts?
                            >>>
                            >>> a slow rate of increase in the money supply, like we would have under
                            >>> a gold standard, would work reasonably well. it is so because slow
                            >>> changes in the money's purchasing power do not hinder substantially
                            >>> businessmen's ability to perform economic calculation. a large
                            >>> increase or decrease in the money's purchasing power would be
                            >>> problematic. on the other hand, what sort of fixed money supply do you
                            >>> have in mind? it was a long evolution until the market arrived at
                            >>> silver and gold.
                            >>
                            >> an example of a way to get a fixed money supply:
                            >>
                            >> the US government adds a constitutional amendment (and does whatever other steps are necessary for people to trust this is a permanent policy) with the following policy:
                            >>
                            >> no new US dollars will be printed. the only money printed ever again will be replacements for worn out bills.
                            >>
                            >> smaller or larger denominations will be created if demand for money gets high or low enough, relative to this fixed supply, that they are more convenient (e.g. people want to transact in fractions of a penny.)
                            >>
                            >> any problem with this?
                            >>
                            >> i know that fluctuations in the supply and value of other currencies would affect things. so try to imagine all the other countries disappear or something, and also imagine everyone keeps using dollars and not some substitute like gold. then what happens? anything bad? anything good?
                            >
                            > there would be no inflation. this would mean that if you had savings
                            > it would not lose its value over time. thus it promotes saving over
                            > consumption.

                            i disagree.

                            i think it's neutral regarding savings vs consumption.

                            and the current inflationary system is biased to promote consumption.

                            for a pro-savings bias the government could burn $100 every month. which is basically the equivalent of taking $100 and dividing it up among all the savers proportional to how much they saved.


                            is there some reason a fixed money supply has a pro-savings bias that i'm missing?


                            > entrepreneurs could also better calculate and there would
                            > be less malinvestment as a result. I don't see such problems with
                            > price deflation. I guess price deflation would mean a slower change in
                            > the price structure. it is hard to figure out how all the prices
                            > change relative to each other as a result of changing circumstances.
                            > that is the task of the entrepreneurs. I don't see what problems we
                            > would solve with a slowly increasing money supply. could you explain
                            > what you have in mind?

                            i don't think slowly increasing the money supply solves a problem. you said:

                            >>> a slow rate of increase in the money supply, like we would have under
                            >>> a gold standard, would work reasonably well

                            i agree that works reasonably well.

                            and i think a fixed money supply is more optimal.

                            i've heard/seen lots of people (who are libertarian austrian types) who want a gradually increasing money supply over a fixed money supply. they think it's better for some reason. i've been unable to figure out what the reason is though. i think they're mistaken.

                            under a fixed money supply, in an open, liberal society, prices will gradually go down due to progress. some people seem to think that's bad but i think it's fine. so they would want want to print more money at a rate which keeps up with progress so that prices stay the same, and i think that's really bad, wrong thinking.

                            from your comment i thought you might have some thoughts like that. or not. so i raised the issue of whether there's any actual downside with a fixed money supply (as many people believe) or not.

                            it sounds like you actually agree with me and you mentioned the gradual increase in gold supply as being ok, not a disaster, rather than it actually being something you consider desirable.

                            Elliot Temple
                            www.fallibleideas.com
                          • Zyn Evam
                            2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] ... how should I do that? what is the best way? ... yeah :P ... I don t agree that people
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 22, 2017
                              2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                              <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                              > On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              >
                              >> 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                              >> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                              >>> On Mar 25, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              >>>
                              >>>> 2017-03-24 23:24 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                              >>>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                              >>>>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>> 2017-03-22 23:01 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                              >>>>>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                              >>>>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              >>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>> 2017-03-08 20:12 GMT+00:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas] <
                              >>>>>>>> fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                              >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                              >>>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>>> On 22 Nov 2016, at 23:20, Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                              >>>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>>> I liked reading Mises, but I did not explain much to anyone about what
                              >>>>>>>>>> I understood from his books. I read all of his books at least once,
                              >>>>>>>>>> some of them more.
                              >>>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>> *All*!? How long did that take?
                              >>>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>> Do you mean literally all of them or just mean all the popular or well
                              >>>>>>>>> known ones? He has a LOT of books. I presume you mean only the English ones.
                              >>>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>> Are you saying you read through this entire list?
                              >>>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#Bibliography
                              >>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>> I read all of his books listed on this wikipedia page. with 470 wpm it is
                              >>>>>>>> ~85 hours. it took me about 3-4 months. I haven't read anything in German.
                              >>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>> Did you avoid his non-book writing or read worthy papers? I have in mind
                              >>>>>>>>> in particular his economic calculation paper.
                              >>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>>> I have read the economic calculation paper as well, and some other that I
                              >>>>>>>> have found on mises.org.
                              >>>>>>>
                              >>>>>>> do you think you understood most of it correctly and had like zero questions as you went along?
                              >>>>>>
                              >>>>>> As I was reading through his books I had the following main questions:
                              >>>>>> Why are we poor and what can we do about it? What policies should we
                              >>>>>> follow if we wish to maximise economic progress? These were easy to
                              >>>>>> understand.
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>> what are your answers, briefly?
                              >>>>
                              >>>> policies that hinder capital formation are against progress.
                              >>>
                              >>> i don't know if by "capital formation" you mean *creating* capital or *accumulating* capital. or if somehow that's supposed to mean both. both are necessary.
                              >>
                              >> by capital *accumulation* do you mean e.g. Joe has an enterprise and
                              >> earns a profit of $100? by capital *creation* do you mean e.g. Joe
                              >> invests his profit of $100 into new equipment that can create more
                              >> wealth?
                              >
                              > creating capital = i create new wealth that didn't exist before.
                              >
                              > accumulating capital = i *save* up wealth until i have a lot of it.
                              >
                              > you could create lots of capital but keep spending it right away and never accumulate much.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >>> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                              >>
                              >> not many :/
                              >
                              > better discuss more!!!!!
                              >
                              > and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!

                              how should I do that? what is the best way?

                              >>>>> The truth is that private citizens are capable on their own of providing for necessary activities for which it may not be possible to arrange the normal system of payment for goods or services received. This is true even in cases requiring the cooperation of millions of individuals. There is no reason why in such cases individuals could not agree to contribute to the financing of a project on a contingency basis, namely, on the basis of a sufficient number of other individuals making the same pledge. Whether it is a matter of a hundred ship owners concerned with constructing a lighthouse or a million property owners concerned with building a dam to prevent flood damage (or perhaps installing catalytic converters on their automobiles to reduce smog), there is no reason why an arrangement could not be made whereby the individual pledges his contribution on the condition of an equal or otherwise comparable contribution being pledged by a certain percentage of other such individuals. For example, the individual ship owner or property owner might agree to pledge a definite sum on the condition that half or two-thirds of the other ship owners or property owners made the same or a comparable pledge. Only when it was established that the necessary number of pledges had been made, would the pledges of the various individuals become binding. In such cases, there might be a class of free riders, but they would certainly not stop the activity from proceeding. (To some people, of course, such a procedure may appear cumbersome. Nevertheless, it is an insignificant price to pay for maintaining consistent respect for the rights of the individual.)
                              >>>
                              >>> this is blatantly open to the possibility of free riders. people can try to be in the third that doesn't have to pay. and that could potentially result in 80% of people not signing up at all, trying to free ride. on the other hand if you require EVERYONE to pay to try to fix this, you make it really fragile to a single person wants to spend his money on something else and the whole project falls apart. which is why you tax everyone so they HAVE to pay! this is a standard anti-capitalist argument and Reisman is not addressing it adequately here.
                              >>
                              >> couldn't projects get funded like kickstarter projects get funded? I
                              >> think such contingency payment setup would work reasonably well. it is
                              >> true that people would still want to be in the third that doesn't have
                              >> to pay, but if they really want the given project to kick off they
                              >> will pledge eventually.
                              >
                              > kickstarter is blatantly open to the possibility of freeriders!
                              >
                              > i can just sit there and let other ppl fund something i want and not pay a dime myself!
                              >
                              > kickstarter works anyway, even though people can easily freeride? well that just means, factually-empirically, mainstream economists are wrong. they ought to notice and try to figure out which of their abstract ideas are the wrong ones and why.

                              yeah :P

                              > one of the replies some of them would give is: economics says what RATIONAL ACTORS do, but the people who choose to pay on kickstarter are IRRATIONAL. they might go on to muse: so does capitalism rely on irrationality? and as we fund our public schools better and create a better world with more rational people, then will capitalism stop working (at least in some cases) and we'll need to (at least partly) switch to Something Else (e.g. government control of the economy)?
                              >
                              > your thoughts?

                              I don't agree that people on kickstarter are irrational. I would say
                              that those people understand that if no one pays, the given thing will
                              not get funded. and therefore they will pledge eventually.

                              >>>>> and one more for now: is it better to have a fixed money supply, which leads to prices going down over time as stuff gets cheaper to make? or a money supply which increases slowly so that prices stay about the same over time? i think that basically all reasonable economically-clueful people agree price *inflation* is bad. but then price deflation (from there being the same amount of money as before while demand for money increases) vs. something like the money supply increasing just enough to keep up with increasing demand for money ... that's less clear. thoughts?
                              >>>>
                              >>>> a slow rate of increase in the money supply, like we would have under
                              >>>> a gold standard, would work reasonably well. it is so because slow
                              >>>> changes in the money's purchasing power do not hinder substantially
                              >>>> businessmen's ability to perform economic calculation. a large
                              >>>> increase or decrease in the money's purchasing power would be
                              >>>> problematic. on the other hand, what sort of fixed money supply do you
                              >>>> have in mind? it was a long evolution until the market arrived at
                              >>>> silver and gold.
                              >>>
                              >>> an example of a way to get a fixed money supply:
                              >>>
                              >>> the US government adds a constitutional amendment (and does whatever other steps are necessary for people to trust this is a permanent policy) with the following policy:
                              >>>
                              >>> no new US dollars will be printed. the only money printed ever again will be replacements for worn out bills.
                              >>>
                              >>> smaller or larger denominations will be created if demand for money gets high or low enough, relative to this fixed supply, that they are more convenient (e.g. people want to transact in fractions of a penny.)
                              >>>
                              >>> any problem with this?
                              >>>
                              >>> i know that fluctuations in the supply and value of other currencies would affect things. so try to imagine all the other countries disappear or something, and also imagine everyone keeps using dollars and not some substitute like gold. then what happens? anything bad? anything good?
                              >>
                              >> there would be no inflation. this would mean that if you had savings
                              >> it would not lose its value over time. thus it promotes saving over
                              >> consumption.
                              >
                              > i disagree.
                              >
                              > i think it's neutral regarding savings vs consumption.

                              true. it does not promote saving over consumption. saving would be
                              promoted if the value of your money would go up over time (i.e. there
                              would be a shrinking money supply).

                              > and the current inflationary system is biased to promote consumption.
                              >
                              > for a pro-savings bias the government could burn $100 every month. which is basically the equivalent of taking $100 and dividing it up among all the savers proportional to how much they saved.
                              >
                              >
                              > is there some reason a fixed money supply has a pro-savings bias that i'm missing?

                              what I had in mind above was rather that there would be more savings
                              and less consumption compared to present conditions. I can't think of
                              another reason for a pro-saving bias than what we have brought up.

                              >> entrepreneurs could also better calculate and there would
                              >> be less malinvestment as a result. I don't see such problems with
                              >> price deflation. I guess price deflation would mean a slower change in
                              >> the price structure. it is hard to figure out how all the prices
                              >> change relative to each other as a result of changing circumstances.
                              >> that is the task of the entrepreneurs. I don't see what problems we
                              >> would solve with a slowly increasing money supply. could you explain
                              >> what you have in mind?
                              >
                              > i don't think slowly increasing the money supply solves a problem. you said:
                              >
                              >>>> a slow rate of increase in the money supply, like we would have under
                              >>>> a gold standard, would work reasonably well
                              >
                              > i agree that works reasonably well.
                              >
                              > and i think a fixed money supply is more optimal.
                              >
                              > i've heard/seen lots of people (who are libertarian austrian types) who want a gradually increasing money supply over a fixed money supply. they think it's better for some reason. i've been unable to figure out what the reason is though. i think they're mistaken.

                              ok. I agree with you.

                              > under a fixed money supply, in an open, liberal society, prices will gradually go down due to progress. some people seem to think that's bad

                              why? do they give a reason?

                              > but i think it's fine. so they would want want to print more money at a rate which keeps up with progress so that prices stay the same, and i think that's really bad, wrong thinking.

                              agree.

                              > from your comment i thought you might have some thoughts like that. or not. so i raised the issue of whether there's any actual downside with a fixed money supply (as many people believe) or not.
                              >
                              > it sounds like you actually agree with me and you mentioned the gradual increase in gold supply as being ok, not a disaster, rather than it actually being something you consider desirable.

                              yes. a fixed supply would be desirable.
                            • Elliot Temple
                              ... write short posts to FI. daily. there is no study guide or prepackaged life plan for this. no learn this then this then this then this and then you re
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 22, 2017
                                On Apr 22, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:

                                > 2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                >
                                >> On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                >>
                                >>> 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:


                                >>>> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                                >>>
                                >>> not many :/
                                >>
                                >> better discuss more!!!!!
                                >>
                                >> and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!
                                >
                                > how should I do that? what is the best way?

                                write short posts to FI. daily.

                                there is no study guide or prepackaged life plan for this. no "learn this then this then this then this and then you're awesome" and you just follow the instructions. you have to lead yourself.

                                i can give examples of the kinds of things that are good to do. but don't just do my specific examples as if they were a curriculum.

                                you could talk about what you know and don't know already, and what problems you see with that and what you think is good about it, and ask what problems others see. you could talk about what if anything you think you might need to learn and why.

                                you could talk about what you think your problems in your life are and your current plans for improving and ask for any better ideas.

                                you could respond to some of the things i've written about philosophy and start actually discussing epistemology.

                                Elliot Temple
                                www.fallibleideas.com
                              • Zyn Evam
                                2017-04-22 20:51 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] ... One problem I have is not writing much to FI, or writing sporadically, and then
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jun 13, 2017
                                  2017-04-22 20:51 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                  <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                  > On Apr 22, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> 2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                  >>>
                                  >>>> 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >>>>> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                                  >>>>
                                  >>>> not many :/
                                  >>>
                                  >>> better discuss more!!!!!
                                  >>>
                                  >>> and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!
                                  >>
                                  >> how should I do that? what is the best way?
                                  >
                                  > write short posts to FI. daily.
                                  >
                                  > there is no study guide or prepackaged life plan for this. no "learn this then this then this then this and then you're awesome" and you just follow the instructions. you have to lead yourself.
                                  >
                                  > i can give examples of the kinds of things that are good to do. but don't just do my specific examples as if they were a curriculum.
                                  >
                                  > you could talk about what you know and don't know already, and what problems you see with that and what you think is good about it, and ask what problems others see. you could talk about what if anything you think you might need to learn and why.
                                  >
                                  > you could talk about what you think your problems in your life are and your current plans for improving and ask for any better ideas.

                                  One problem I have is not writing much to FI, or writing sporadically,
                                  and then stopping. I believe I understand the value of others
                                  supplying criticism for my ideas, but I haven't integrated it much
                                  with my life. That is not enough. It is not like I feel urged to share
                                  my ideas so that others can find faults in them. I think that should
                                  be a thing to aim for. I should be excited about others pointing out I
                                  am wrong.

                                  I thought my problem was finding the time. But it has more to do with
                                  preferences.
                                • Elliot Temple
                                  ... It helps to conceptualize find faults as find opportunities for improvement . It helps to value something highly. Some people value truth, but other
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jun 13, 2017
                                    On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:23 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:

                                    > 2017-04-22 20:51 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                    > <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                    >> On Apr 22, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                    >>
                                    >>> 2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>> 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >>>>>> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>> not many :/
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> better discuss more!!!!!
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!
                                    >>>
                                    >>> how should I do that? what is the best way?
                                    >>
                                    >> write short posts to FI. daily.
                                    >>
                                    >> there is no study guide or prepackaged life plan for this. no "learn this then this then this then this and then you're awesome" and you just follow the instructions. you have to lead yourself.
                                    >>
                                    >> i can give examples of the kinds of things that are good to do. but don't just do my specific examples as if they were a curriculum.
                                    >>
                                    >> you could talk about what you know and don't know already, and what problems you see with that and what you think is good about it, and ask what problems others see. you could talk about what if anything you think you might need to learn and why.
                                    >>
                                    >> you could talk about what you think your problems in your life are and your current plans for improving and ask for any better ideas.
                                    >
                                    > One problem I have is not writing much to FI, or writing sporadically,
                                    > and then stopping. I believe I understand the value of others
                                    > supplying criticism for my ideas, but I haven't integrated it much
                                    > with my life. That is not enough. It is not like I feel urged to share
                                    > my ideas so that others can find faults in them. I think that should
                                    > be a thing to aim for. I should be excited about others pointing out I
                                    > am wrong.

                                    It helps to conceptualize "find faults" as "find opportunities for improvement".


                                    It helps to value something highly. Some people value truth, but other values work too. Some people really want to win at video game or sports competitions and they form a good attitude to criticism to help them achieve that goal.

                                    Valuing something highly handles layers of indirection better. If you care a ton about about D, that helps you care about A to help with B to help with C to help with D.

                                    For example, consider a typical person who cares a little about their car and has no interest in paint. Then he won't want to learn about car detailing paints and brushes. He'll only do that if he feels pressured to by e.g. a highly visible scratch. But people who care a ton about their car often form some interest in car-related paint so they can improve their car. And the person who cares even more may learn about mixing custom paint or even manufacturing a new type of paint with different chemistry.

                                    It helps to be interested in stuff in multiple ways. The guy who learns about paint chemistry and manufacturing generally either

                                    1) already had some separate interest in science and business

                                    or

                                    2) he tried looking into them for his car. but once he got started on them, he found he liked them for some reasons independent of his car. so even if he stopped driving and sold his car, he still might continue with them.



                                    It helps to slow down and pay more attention to your life. Try to be consciously aware of what you're doing and intentionally choose it according to some reasoning, rather than get "sucked in" to activities. If you can do that in general with your current activities, it will put you in a better position to make reasoned changes.

                                    Don't try to change everything at once. If you can be more self-aware of your current activities, without changing them, that's a good step. Then you'll be in a better position to evaluate them and decide what, if anything, you actually want to change.


                                    It helps to think about philosophical problems and connections in a regular basis, during your life. Like considering how philosophical issues are relevant to what you're doing and philosophical answers could help with it. You can do this intentionally if it doesn't come naturally to you. E.g. you can take regular 5 minute breaks to do it.

                                    E.g. you could notice you're trying to do something difficult and you want it to work instead of not work, but you have a significant concern that it may not work. Then philosophy about errors is especially relevant. Is there a way to proceed so that error is impossible? Knowing the answer to that matters. If the answer is yes, it'd be good to find out the method. If the answer is no, then is there anything to be done about error besides fatalistically put up with it? etc

                                    Or you could decide you need to learn a new skill for your project. Then philosophy about learning is relevant. Are there better and worse ways to learn? What causes some attempts to learn things to fail? How does one learn faster or better? That's all useful.

                                    Are these kinds of things too abstract for you? You can concretize. The book _Understanding Objectivism_ helps. You can find relevant sections if you search it for terms like "concretize", "concretizing" and "chewing".

                                    Peikoff talked somewhere about his experiences learning from Ayn Rand. She'd tell him an idea, and then he'd go out in the world and notice it in a bunch of places and see it for himself and connect it to a bunch of concretes. (I forget where Peikoff talked about this. I thought it might be in _Understanding Objectivism_ but I searched a little and didn't find it. It could be in the audio lectures the book is based on, which I listened to, or maybe some other audio lectures or the podcast. Does anyone else remember where it is?)


                                    > I thought my problem was finding the time. But it has more to do with
                                    > preferences.

                                    You have something like a prioritized list of stuff you want to do. You look at it and think the stuff above philosophy will take up all your time. You think if you could finish the short term stuff near the top of the list, then you'd have enough time for philosophy.

                                    But you'll always add new things to the list. There's plenty of stuff you could do. So what matters most is how highly prioritized philosophy is. Raising philosophy's prioritization will make a bigger difference than freeing up some time by clearing some things off the list.

                                    Specifically, if you prioritize philosophy above most incoming things being added to your list, then you'll do often. As a loose approximation, you can think of the incoming new stuff to do as being on a bell curve with a mean of 100 priority and a standard deviation of 15. Then if you prioritize philosophy at 90, it doesn't have much chance. But if you prioritize philosophy at 130, then around 98% of the new additions to your list will be inserted below philosophy.

                                    Elliot Temple
                                    Get my philosophy newsletter:
                                    www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter
                                  • Zyn Evam
                                    2017-06-13 18:04 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] ... Here it would have been better to write: excited about others pointing out faults
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jun 28, 2017
                                      2017-06-13 18:04 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                      <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                      > On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:23 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      >> 2017-04-22 20:51 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                      >> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                      >>> On Apr 22, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                      >>>
                                      >>>> 2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                      >>>>
                                      >>>>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                      >>>>>
                                      >>>>>> 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>>>>>> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                                      >>>>>>
                                      >>>>>> not many :/
                                      >>>>>
                                      >>>>> better discuss more!!!!!
                                      >>>>>
                                      >>>>> and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!
                                      >>>>
                                      >>>> how should I do that? what is the best way?
                                      >>>
                                      >>> write short posts to FI. daily.
                                      >>>
                                      >>> there is no study guide or prepackaged life plan for this. no "learn this then this then this then this and then you're awesome" and you just follow the instructions. you have to lead yourself.
                                      >>>
                                      >>> i can give examples of the kinds of things that are good to do. but don't just do my specific examples as if they were a curriculum.
                                      >>>
                                      >>> you could talk about what you know and don't know already, and what problems you see with that and what you think is good about it, and ask what problems others see. you could talk about what if anything you think you might need to learn and why.
                                      >>>
                                      >>> you could talk about what you think your problems in your life are and your current plans for improving and ask for any better ideas.
                                      >>
                                      >> One problem I have is not writing much to FI, or writing sporadically,
                                      >> and then stopping. I believe I understand the value of others
                                      >> supplying criticism for my ideas, but I haven't integrated it much
                                      >> with my life. That is not enough. It is not like I feel urged to share
                                      >> my ideas so that others can find faults in them. I think that should
                                      >> be a thing to aim for. I should be excited about others pointing out I
                                      >> am wrong.

                                      Here it would have been better to write: "excited about others
                                      pointing out faults in my ideas".

                                      > It helps to conceptualize "find faults" as "find opportunities for improvement".

                                      Thats even better.

                                      > It helps to value something highly. Some people value truth, but other values work too. Some people really want to win at video game or sports competitions and they form a good attitude to criticism to help them achieve that goal.
                                      >
                                      > Valuing something highly handles layers of indirection better. If you care a ton about about D, that helps you care about A to help with B to help with C to help with D.
                                      >
                                      > For example, consider a typical person who cares a little about their car and has no interest in paint. Then he won't want to learn about car detailing paints and brushes. He'll only do that if he feels pressured to by e.g. a highly visible scratch. But people who care a ton about their car often form some interest in car-related paint so they can improve their car. And the person who cares even more may learn about mixing custom paint or even manufacturing a new type of paint with different chemistry.
                                      >
                                      > It helps to be interested in stuff in multiple ways. The guy who learns about paint chemistry and manufacturing generally either
                                      >
                                      > 1) already had some separate interest in science and business
                                      >
                                      > or
                                      >
                                      > 2) he tried looking into them for his car. but once he got started on them, he found he liked them for some reasons independent of his car. so even if he stopped driving and sold his car, he still might continue with them.

                                      Agreed.

                                      If you want to actively pursue philosophy you have to value it highly.
                                      You have to see how it relates to your life. You have to asses your
                                      present situation and identify problems with it. You have to see how
                                      your problems are the result of wrong ideas. You have to see that
                                      there is a possibility for change. You have to think through this
                                      repeatedly, not just a few times. When you want to acquire some
                                      objects, such as a new iMac, you analyse from many perspectives how it
                                      could make your life better/easier. You check its features and compare
                                      to your present rig. Then you will put up with the difficulties of
                                      acquiring it to the degree you see the benefits. This is similar to
                                      how you value and do philosophy.

                                      > It helps to slow down and pay more attention to your life. Try to be consciously aware of what you're doing and intentionally choose it according to some reasoning, rather than get "sucked in" to activities. If you can do that in general with your current activities, it will put you in a better position to make reasoned changes.
                                      >
                                      > Don't try to change everything at once. If you can be more self-aware of your current activities, without changing them, that's a good step. Then you'll be in a better position to evaluate them and decide what, if anything, you actually want to change.

                                      This is a good advice. You have to slow down and pay more attention to
                                      what is going on in your life and mind. Are you in control of what is
                                      going on in your life and mind or are you mostly driven by ideas that
                                      you rarely (re)evaluate and unproductive?

                                      > It helps to think about philosophical problems and connections in a regular basis, during your life. Like considering how philosophical issues are relevant to what you're doing and philosophical answers could help with it. You can do this intentionally if it doesn't come naturally to you. E.g. you can take regular 5 minute breaks to do it.

                                      It is good habit to make such short regular breaks, e.g. 4 times a
                                      day. You can easily spend daily 20 minutes on things far less
                                      important. Do you care much about how you look? Do you do washing, and
                                      grooming, and putting up nice clothes? How much time? How much value
                                      does it add to your life in the long term? How much value could you
                                      gain by spending the same time on things that has long term
                                      significance, such as improving you mind?

                                      > E.g. you could notice you're trying to do something difficult and you want it to work instead of not work, but you have a significant concern that it may not work. Then philosophy about errors is especially relevant. Is there a way to proceed so that error is impossible? Knowing the answer to that matters. If the answer is yes, it'd be good to find out the method. If the answer is no, then is there anything to be done about error besides fatalistically put up with it? etc
                                      >
                                      > Or you could decide you need to learn a new skill for your project. Then philosophy about learning is relevant. Are there better and worse ways to learn? What causes some attempts to learn things to fail? How does one learn faster or better? That's all useful.
                                      >
                                      > Are these kinds of things too abstract for you? You can concretize. The book _Understanding Objectivism_ helps. You can find relevant sections if you search it for terms like "concretize", "concretizing" and "chewing".
                                      >
                                      > Peikoff talked somewhere about his experiences learning from Ayn Rand. She'd tell him an idea, and then he'd go out in the world and notice it in a bunch of places and see it for himself and connect it to a bunch of concretes.

                                      That is a good advice as well. When you learn something from e.g. a
                                      book, you shall look for examples of the idea even after you have put
                                      down the book. You shall analyse if the idea is really applicable and
                                      true. Otherwise you will waste much of your time and will not make
                                      much progress. You will consider you have some sessions a day for
                                      doing philosophy and the rest for doing other things. This is not
                                      good.

                                      > (I forget where Peikoff talked about this. I thought it might be in _Understanding Objectivism_ but I searched a little and didn't find it. It could be in the audio lectures the book is based on, which I listened to, or maybe some other audio lectures or the podcast. Does anyone else remember where it is?)
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >> I thought my problem was finding the time. But it has more to do with
                                      >> preferences.
                                      >
                                      > You have something like a prioritized list of stuff you want to do. You look at it and think the stuff above philosophy will take up all your time. You think if you could finish the short term stuff near the top of the list, then you'd have enough time for philosophy.
                                      >
                                      > But you'll always add new things to the list. There's plenty of stuff you could do. So what matters most is how highly prioritized philosophy is. Raising philosophy's prioritization will make a bigger difference than freeing up some time by clearing some things off the list.

                                      Agreed.

                                      > Specifically, if you prioritize philosophy above most incoming things being added to your list, then you'll do often. As a loose approximation, you can think of the incoming new stuff to do as being on a bell curve with a mean of 100 priority and a standard deviation of 15. Then if you prioritize philosophy at 90, it doesn't have much chance. But if you prioritize philosophy at 130, then around 98% of the new additions to your list will be inserted below philosophy.

                                      Thats a good example.
                                    • anonymous FI
                                      On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@gmail.com ... you say that you agree a lot here. and you even expand on some of the ideas and provide
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jul 9, 2017
                                        On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@...
                                        [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                        > 2017-06-13 18:04 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                        > <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                        >> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:23 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                        >>
                                        >>> 2017-04-22 20:51 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                        >>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                        >>>> On Apr 22, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>>> 2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                        >>>>>
                                        >>>>>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                        >>>>>>
                                        >>>>>>> 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>>>>>> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                                        >>>>>>>
                                        >>>>>>> not many :/
                                        >>>>>>
                                        >>>>>> better discuss more!!!!!
                                        >>>>>>
                                        >>>>>> and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!
                                        >>>>>
                                        >>>>> how should I do that? what is the best way?
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>> write short posts to FI. daily.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>> there is no study guide or prepackaged life plan for this. no "learn this then this then this then this and then you're awesome" and you just follow the instructions. you have to lead yourself.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>> i can give examples of the kinds of things that are good to do. but don't just do my specific examples as if they were a curriculum.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>> you could talk about what you know and don't know already, and what problems you see with that and what you think is good about it, and ask what problems others see. you could talk about what if anything you think you might need to learn and why.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>> you could talk about what you think your problems in your life are and your current plans for improving and ask for any better ideas.
                                        >>>
                                        >>> One problem I have is not writing much to FI, or writing sporadically,
                                        >>> and then stopping. I believe I understand the value of others
                                        >>> supplying criticism for my ideas, but I haven't integrated it much
                                        >>> with my life. That is not enough. It is not like I feel urged to share
                                        >>> my ideas so that others can find faults in them. I think that should
                                        >>> be a thing to aim for. I should be excited about others pointing out I
                                        >>> am wrong.
                                        >
                                        > Here it would have been better to write: "excited about others
                                        > pointing out faults in my ideas".
                                        >
                                        >> It helps to conceptualize "find faults" as "find opportunities for improvement".
                                        >
                                        > Thats even better.
                                        >
                                        >> It helps to value something highly. Some people value truth, but other values work too. Some people really want to win at video game or sports competitions and they form a good attitude to criticism to help them achieve that goal.
                                        >>
                                        >> Valuing something highly handles layers of indirection better. If you care a ton about about D, that helps you care about A to help with B to help with C to help with D.
                                        >>
                                        >> For example, consider a typical person who cares a little about their car and has no interest in paint. Then he won't want to learn about car detailing paints and brushes. He'll only do that if he feels pressured to by e.g. a highly visible scratch. But people who care a ton about their car often form some interest in car-related paint so they can improve their car. And the person who cares even more may learn about mixing custom paint or even manufacturing a new type of paint with different chemistry.
                                        >>
                                        >> It helps to be interested in stuff in multiple ways. The guy who learns about paint chemistry and manufacturing generally either
                                        >>
                                        >> 1) already had some separate interest in science and business
                                        >>
                                        >> or
                                        >>
                                        >> 2) he tried looking into them for his car. but once he got started on them, he found he liked them for some reasons independent of his car. so even if he stopped driving and sold his car, he still might continue with them.
                                        >
                                        > Agreed.
                                        >
                                        > If you want to actively pursue philosophy you have to value it highly.
                                        > You have to see how it relates to your life. You have to asses your
                                        > present situation and identify problems with it. You have to see how
                                        > your problems are the result of wrong ideas. You have to see that
                                        > there is a possibility for change. You have to think through this
                                        > repeatedly, not just a few times. When you want to acquire some
                                        > objects, such as a new iMac, you analyse from many perspectives how it
                                        > could make your life better/easier. You check its features and compare
                                        > to your present rig. Then you will put up with the difficulties of
                                        > acquiring it to the degree you see the benefits. This is similar to
                                        > how you value and do philosophy.
                                        >
                                        >> It helps to slow down and pay more attention to your life. Try to be consciously aware of what you're doing and intentionally choose it according to some reasoning, rather than get "sucked in" to activities. If you can do that in general with your current activities, it will put you in a better position to make reasoned changes.
                                        >>
                                        >> Don't try to change everything at once. If you can be more self-aware of your current activities, without changing them, that's a good step. Then you'll be in a better position to evaluate them and decide what, if anything, you actually want to change.
                                        >
                                        > This is a good advice. You have to slow down and pay more attention to
                                        > what is going on in your life and mind. Are you in control of what is
                                        > going on in your life and mind or are you mostly driven by ideas that
                                        > you rarely (re)evaluate and unproductive?
                                        >
                                        >> It helps to think about philosophical problems and connections in a regular basis, during your life. Like considering how philosophical issues are relevant to what you're doing and philosophical answers could help with it. You can do this intentionally if it doesn't come naturally to you. E.g. you can take regular 5 minute breaks to do it.
                                        >
                                        > It is good habit to make such short regular breaks, e.g. 4 times a
                                        > day. You can easily spend daily 20 minutes on things far less
                                        > important. Do you care much about how you look? Do you do washing, and
                                        > grooming, and putting up nice clothes? How much time? How much value
                                        > does it add to your life in the long term? How much value could you
                                        > gain by spending the same time on things that has long term
                                        > significance, such as improving you mind?
                                        >
                                        >> E.g. you could notice you're trying to do something difficult and you want it to work instead of not work, but you have a significant concern that it may not work. Then philosophy about errors is especially relevant. Is there a way to proceed so that error is impossible? Knowing the answer to that matters. If the answer is yes, it'd be good to find out the method. If the answer is no, then is there anything to be done about error besides fatalistically put up with it? etc
                                        >>
                                        >> Or you could decide you need to learn a new skill for your project. Then philosophy about learning is relevant. Are there better and worse ways to learn? What causes some attempts to learn things to fail? How does one learn faster or better? That's all useful.
                                        >>
                                        >> Are these kinds of things too abstract for you? You can concretize. The book _Understanding Objectivism_ helps. You can find relevant sections if you search it for terms like "concretize", "concretizing" and "chewing".
                                        >>
                                        >> Peikoff talked somewhere about his experiences learning from Ayn Rand. She'd tell him an idea, and then he'd go out in the world and notice it in a bunch of places and see it for himself and connect it to a bunch of concretes.
                                        >
                                        > That is a good advice as well. When you learn something from e.g. a
                                        > book, you shall look for examples of the idea even after you have put
                                        > down the book. You shall analyse if the idea is really applicable and
                                        > true. Otherwise you will waste much of your time and will not make
                                        > much progress. You will consider you have some sessions a day for
                                        > doing philosophy and the rest for doing other things. This is not
                                        > good.
                                        >
                                        >> (I forget where Peikoff talked about this. I thought it might be in _Understanding Objectivism_ but I searched a little and didn't find it. It could be in the audio lectures the book is based on, which I listened to, or maybe some other audio lectures or the podcast. Does anyone else remember where it is?)
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>> I thought my problem was finding the time. But it has more to do with
                                        >>> preferences.
                                        >>
                                        >> You have something like a prioritized list of stuff you want to do. You look at it and think the stuff above philosophy will take up all your time. You think if you could finish the short term stuff near the top of the list, then you'd have enough time for philosophy.
                                        >>
                                        >> But you'll always add new things to the list. There's plenty of stuff you could do. So what matters most is how highly prioritized philosophy is. Raising philosophy's prioritization will make a bigger difference than freeing up some time by clearing some things off the list.
                                        >
                                        > Agreed.
                                        >
                                        >> Specifically, if you prioritize philosophy above most incoming things being added to your list, then you'll do often. As a loose approximation, you can think of the incoming new stuff to do as being on a bell curve with a mean of 100 priority and a standard deviation of 15. Then if you prioritize philosophy at 90, it doesn't have much chance. But if you prioritize philosophy at 130, then around 98% of the new additions to your list will be inserted below philosophy.
                                        >
                                        > Thats a good example.

                                        you say that you agree a lot here. and you even expand on some of the
                                        ideas and provide examples, which is good.

                                        but you don't actually say anything about your own problems or your
                                        own life. you don't say anything about what problems you have been
                                        having that have been getting in the way of doing this stuff. or what
                                        ideas you have for how to apply any of this advice to your own life &
                                        problems. or what things you are going to do differently moving
                                        forward.

                                        you just agree a lot and give a bunch of impersonal examples that
                                        aren't really related to your problems.
                                      • Zyn Evam
                                        2017-07-09 8:03 GMT+01:00 anonymous FI anonymousfallibleideas@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] ... I think in the past 2 years I focused too much on getting a job
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jul 12, 2017
                                          2017-07-09 8:03 GMT+01:00 anonymous FI
                                          anonymousfallibleideas@... [fallible-ideas]
                                          <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                          > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@...
                                          > [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                          >> 2017-06-13 18:04 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                          >> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                          >>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:23 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                          >>>
                                          >>>> 2017-04-22 20:51 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                          >>>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                          >>>>> On Apr 22, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>>> 2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                          >>>>>>
                                          >>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                          >>>>>>>
                                          >>>>>>>> 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>>>>>> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                                          >>>>>>>>
                                          >>>>>>>> not many :/
                                          >>>>>>>
                                          >>>>>>> better discuss more!!!!!
                                          >>>>>>>
                                          >>>>>>> and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!
                                          >>>>>>
                                          >>>>>> how should I do that? what is the best way?
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> write short posts to FI. daily.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> there is no study guide or prepackaged life plan for this. no "learn this then this then this then this and then you're awesome" and you just follow the instructions. you have to lead yourself.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> i can give examples of the kinds of things that are good to do. but don't just do my specific examples as if they were a curriculum.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> you could talk about what you know and don't know already, and what problems you see with that and what you think is good about it, and ask what problems others see. you could talk about what if anything you think you might need to learn and why.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> you could talk about what you think your problems in your life are and your current plans for improving and ask for any better ideas.
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> One problem I have is not writing much to FI, or writing sporadically,
                                          >>>> and then stopping. I believe I understand the value of others
                                          >>>> supplying criticism for my ideas, but I haven't integrated it much
                                          >>>> with my life. That is not enough. It is not like I feel urged to share
                                          >>>> my ideas so that others can find faults in them. I think that should
                                          >>>> be a thing to aim for. I should be excited about others pointing out I
                                          >>>> am wrong.
                                          >>
                                          >> Here it would have been better to write: "excited about others
                                          >> pointing out faults in my ideas".
                                          >>
                                          >>> It helps to conceptualize "find faults" as "find opportunities for improvement".
                                          >>
                                          >> Thats even better.
                                          >>
                                          >>> It helps to value something highly. Some people value truth, but other values work too. Some people really want to win at video game or sports competitions and they form a good attitude to criticism to help them achieve that goal.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> Valuing something highly handles layers of indirection better. If you care a ton about about D, that helps you care about A to help with B to help with C to help with D.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> For example, consider a typical person who cares a little about their car and has no interest in paint. Then he won't want to learn about car detailing paints and brushes. He'll only do that if he feels pressured to by e.g. a highly visible scratch. But people who care a ton about their car often form some interest in car-related paint so they can improve their car. And the person who cares even more may learn about mixing custom paint or even manufacturing a new type of paint with different chemistry.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> It helps to be interested in stuff in multiple ways. The guy who learns about paint chemistry and manufacturing generally either
                                          >>>
                                          >>> 1) already had some separate interest in science and business
                                          >>>
                                          >>> or
                                          >>>
                                          >>> 2) he tried looking into them for his car. but once he got started on them, he found he liked them for some reasons independent of his car. so even if he stopped driving and sold his car, he still might continue with them.
                                          >>
                                          >> Agreed.
                                          >>
                                          >> If you want to actively pursue philosophy you have to value it highly.
                                          >> You have to see how it relates to your life. You have to asses your
                                          >> present situation and identify problems with it. You have to see how
                                          >> your problems are the result of wrong ideas. You have to see that
                                          >> there is a possibility for change. You have to think through this
                                          >> repeatedly, not just a few times. When you want to acquire some
                                          >> objects, such as a new iMac, you analyse from many perspectives how it
                                          >> could make your life better/easier. You check its features and compare
                                          >> to your present rig. Then you will put up with the difficulties of
                                          >> acquiring it to the degree you see the benefits. This is similar to
                                          >> how you value and do philosophy.
                                          >>
                                          >>> It helps to slow down and pay more attention to your life. Try to be consciously aware of what you're doing and intentionally choose it according to some reasoning, rather than get "sucked in" to activities. If you can do that in general with your current activities, it will put you in a better position to make reasoned changes.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> Don't try to change everything at once. If you can be more self-aware of your current activities, without changing them, that's a good step. Then you'll be in a better position to evaluate them and decide what, if anything, you actually want to change.
                                          >>
                                          >> This is a good advice. You have to slow down and pay more attention to
                                          >> what is going on in your life and mind. Are you in control of what is
                                          >> going on in your life and mind or are you mostly driven by ideas that
                                          >> you rarely (re)evaluate and unproductive?
                                          >>
                                          >>> It helps to think about philosophical problems and connections in a regular basis, during your life. Like considering how philosophical issues are relevant to what you're doing and philosophical answers could help with it. You can do this intentionally if it doesn't come naturally to you. E.g. you can take regular 5 minute breaks to do it.
                                          >>
                                          >> It is good habit to make such short regular breaks, e.g. 4 times a
                                          >> day. You can easily spend daily 20 minutes on things far less
                                          >> important. Do you care much about how you look? Do you do washing, and
                                          >> grooming, and putting up nice clothes? How much time? How much value
                                          >> does it add to your life in the long term? How much value could you
                                          >> gain by spending the same time on things that has long term
                                          >> significance, such as improving you mind?
                                          >>
                                          >>> E.g. you could notice you're trying to do something difficult and you want it to work instead of not work, but you have a significant concern that it may not work. Then philosophy about errors is especially relevant. Is there a way to proceed so that error is impossible? Knowing the answer to that matters. If the answer is yes, it'd be good to find out the method. If the answer is no, then is there anything to be done about error besides fatalistically put up with it? etc
                                          >>>
                                          >>> Or you could decide you need to learn a new skill for your project. Then philosophy about learning is relevant. Are there better and worse ways to learn? What causes some attempts to learn things to fail? How does one learn faster or better? That's all useful.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> Are these kinds of things too abstract for you? You can concretize. The book _Understanding Objectivism_ helps. You can find relevant sections if you search it for terms like "concretize", "concretizing" and "chewing".
                                          >>>
                                          >>> Peikoff talked somewhere about his experiences learning from Ayn Rand. She'd tell him an idea, and then he'd go out in the world and notice it in a bunch of places and see it for himself and connect it to a bunch of concretes.
                                          >>
                                          >> That is a good advice as well. When you learn something from e.g. a
                                          >> book, you shall look for examples of the idea even after you have put
                                          >> down the book. You shall analyse if the idea is really applicable and
                                          >> true. Otherwise you will waste much of your time and will not make
                                          >> much progress. You will consider you have some sessions a day for
                                          >> doing philosophy and the rest for doing other things. This is not
                                          >> good.
                                          >>
                                          >>> (I forget where Peikoff talked about this. I thought it might be in _Understanding Objectivism_ but I searched a little and didn't find it. It could be in the audio lectures the book is based on, which I listened to, or maybe some other audio lectures or the podcast. Does anyone else remember where it is?)
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>> I thought my problem was finding the time. But it has more to do with
                                          >>>> preferences.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> You have something like a prioritized list of stuff you want to do. You look at it and think the stuff above philosophy will take up all your time. You think if you could finish the short term stuff near the top of the list, then you'd have enough time for philosophy.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> But you'll always add new things to the list. There's plenty of stuff you could do. So what matters most is how highly prioritized philosophy is. Raising philosophy's prioritization will make a bigger difference than freeing up some time by clearing some things off the list.
                                          >>
                                          >> Agreed.
                                          >>
                                          >>> Specifically, if you prioritize philosophy above most incoming things being added to your list, then you'll do often. As a loose approximation, you can think of the incoming new stuff to do as being on a bell curve with a mean of 100 priority and a standard deviation of 15. Then if you prioritize philosophy at 90, it doesn't have much chance. But if you prioritize philosophy at 130, then around 98% of the new additions to your list will be inserted below philosophy.
                                          >>
                                          >> Thats a good example.
                                          >
                                          > you say that you agree a lot here. and you even expand on some of the
                                          > ideas and provide examples, which is good.
                                          >
                                          > but you don't actually say anything about your own problems or your
                                          > own life. you don't say anything about what problems you have been
                                          > having that have been getting in the way of doing this stuff.

                                          I think in the past 2 years I focused too much on getting a job and
                                          not so much on anything else. I was doing some translations of Mises
                                          and BOI but I haven't discussed those. I see philosophy and in
                                          particular knowledge about economics to be really important. For
                                          example, when I read news about how the government inadvertently makes
                                          things worse I feel this is something really pressing. Like you see
                                          how broken things are how much better things could be if only people
                                          understood more about economics. I am not saying I know too much
                                          though. I am perhaps better than 99.999999 of people. I am not sure
                                          how much I should focus on economic education at this stage though. I
                                          think I might need to focus more on how to think. There are so many
                                          things wrong with my thinking.

                                          > or what
                                          > ideas you have for how to apply any of this advice to your own life &
                                          > problems. or what things you are going to do differently moving
                                          > forward.
                                          >
                                          > you just agree a lot and give a bunch of impersonal examples that
                                          > aren't really related to your problems.

                                          posting regularly would be ideal. daily posting commitment is a good
                                          thing. a better way to look at it, which is less frustrating, is how
                                          fast you would like to make progress. the more you post the more
                                          progress you can expect. not posting is ok. but you will stagnate or
                                          get worse if you are not doing much anywhere else.
                                        • Zyn Evam
                                          ... correction: I meant 99.9999%
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jul 12, 2017
                                            2017-07-12 15:36 GMT+01:00 Zyn Evam <zynevam@...>:
                                            > 2017-07-09 8:03 GMT+01:00 anonymous FI
                                            > anonymousfallibleideas@... [fallible-ideas]
                                            > <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                            >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@...
                                            >> [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                            >>> 2017-06-13 18:04 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                            >>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                            >>>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:23 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>>> 2017-04-22 20:51 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... [fallible-ideas]
                                            >>>>> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:
                                            >>>>>> On Apr 22, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                            >>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>> 2017-04-22 0:09 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                            >>>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... wrote:
                                            >>>>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>>>> 2017-03-30 0:57 GMT+01:00 Elliot Temple curi@... wrote:
                                            >>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>>>>> this reminds me of a question: did you find many *mistakes* in Mises and others when reading them?
                                            >>>>>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>>>> not many :/
                                            >>>>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>>> better discuss more!!!!!
                                            >>>>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>>> and study *critical thinking* (a branch of philosophy) more!!
                                            >>>>>>>
                                            >>>>>>> how should I do that? what is the best way?
                                            >>>>>>
                                            >>>>>> write short posts to FI. daily.
                                            >>>>>>
                                            >>>>>> there is no study guide or prepackaged life plan for this. no "learn this then this then this then this and then you're awesome" and you just follow the instructions. you have to lead yourself.
                                            >>>>>>
                                            >>>>>> i can give examples of the kinds of things that are good to do. but don't just do my specific examples as if they were a curriculum.
                                            >>>>>>
                                            >>>>>> you could talk about what you know and don't know already, and what problems you see with that and what you think is good about it, and ask what problems others see. you could talk about what if anything you think you might need to learn and why.
                                            >>>>>>
                                            >>>>>> you could talk about what you think your problems in your life are and your current plans for improving and ask for any better ideas.
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>>> One problem I have is not writing much to FI, or writing sporadically,
                                            >>>>> and then stopping. I believe I understand the value of others
                                            >>>>> supplying criticism for my ideas, but I haven't integrated it much
                                            >>>>> with my life. That is not enough. It is not like I feel urged to share
                                            >>>>> my ideas so that others can find faults in them. I think that should
                                            >>>>> be a thing to aim for. I should be excited about others pointing out I
                                            >>>>> am wrong.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Here it would have been better to write: "excited about others
                                            >>> pointing out faults in my ideas".
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> It helps to conceptualize "find faults" as "find opportunities for improvement".
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Thats even better.
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> It helps to value something highly. Some people value truth, but other values work too. Some people really want to win at video game or sports competitions and they form a good attitude to criticism to help them achieve that goal.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Valuing something highly handles layers of indirection better. If you care a ton about about D, that helps you care about A to help with B to help with C to help with D.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> For example, consider a typical person who cares a little about their car and has no interest in paint. Then he won't want to learn about car detailing paints and brushes. He'll only do that if he feels pressured to by e.g. a highly visible scratch. But people who care a ton about their car often form some interest in car-related paint so they can improve their car. And the person who cares even more may learn about mixing custom paint or even manufacturing a new type of paint with different chemistry.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> It helps to be interested in stuff in multiple ways. The guy who learns about paint chemistry and manufacturing generally either
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> 1) already had some separate interest in science and business
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> or
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> 2) he tried looking into them for his car. but once he got started on them, he found he liked them for some reasons independent of his car. so even if he stopped driving and sold his car, he still might continue with them.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Agreed.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> If you want to actively pursue philosophy you have to value it highly.
                                            >>> You have to see how it relates to your life. You have to asses your
                                            >>> present situation and identify problems with it. You have to see how
                                            >>> your problems are the result of wrong ideas. You have to see that
                                            >>> there is a possibility for change. You have to think through this
                                            >>> repeatedly, not just a few times. When you want to acquire some
                                            >>> objects, such as a new iMac, you analyse from many perspectives how it
                                            >>> could make your life better/easier. You check its features and compare
                                            >>> to your present rig. Then you will put up with the difficulties of
                                            >>> acquiring it to the degree you see the benefits. This is similar to
                                            >>> how you value and do philosophy.
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> It helps to slow down and pay more attention to your life. Try to be consciously aware of what you're doing and intentionally choose it according to some reasoning, rather than get "sucked in" to activities. If you can do that in general with your current activities, it will put you in a better position to make reasoned changes.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Don't try to change everything at once. If you can be more self-aware of your current activities, without changing them, that's a good step. Then you'll be in a better position to evaluate them and decide what, if anything, you actually want to change.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> This is a good advice. You have to slow down and pay more attention to
                                            >>> what is going on in your life and mind. Are you in control of what is
                                            >>> going on in your life and mind or are you mostly driven by ideas that
                                            >>> you rarely (re)evaluate and unproductive?
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> It helps to think about philosophical problems and connections in a regular basis, during your life. Like considering how philosophical issues are relevant to what you're doing and philosophical answers could help with it. You can do this intentionally if it doesn't come naturally to you. E.g. you can take regular 5 minute breaks to do it.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> It is good habit to make such short regular breaks, e.g. 4 times a
                                            >>> day. You can easily spend daily 20 minutes on things far less
                                            >>> important. Do you care much about how you look? Do you do washing, and
                                            >>> grooming, and putting up nice clothes? How much time? How much value
                                            >>> does it add to your life in the long term? How much value could you
                                            >>> gain by spending the same time on things that has long term
                                            >>> significance, such as improving you mind?
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> E.g. you could notice you're trying to do something difficult and you want it to work instead of not work, but you have a significant concern that it may not work. Then philosophy about errors is especially relevant. Is there a way to proceed so that error is impossible? Knowing the answer to that matters. If the answer is yes, it'd be good to find out the method. If the answer is no, then is there anything to be done about error besides fatalistically put up with it? etc
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Or you could decide you need to learn a new skill for your project. Then philosophy about learning is relevant. Are there better and worse ways to learn? What causes some attempts to learn things to fail? How does one learn faster or better? That's all useful.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Are these kinds of things too abstract for you? You can concretize. The book _Understanding Objectivism_ helps. You can find relevant sections if you search it for terms like "concretize", "concretizing" and "chewing".
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Peikoff talked somewhere about his experiences learning from Ayn Rand. She'd tell him an idea, and then he'd go out in the world and notice it in a bunch of places and see it for himself and connect it to a bunch of concretes.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> That is a good advice as well. When you learn something from e.g. a
                                            >>> book, you shall look for examples of the idea even after you have put
                                            >>> down the book. You shall analyse if the idea is really applicable and
                                            >>> true. Otherwise you will waste much of your time and will not make
                                            >>> much progress. You will consider you have some sessions a day for
                                            >>> doing philosophy and the rest for doing other things. This is not
                                            >>> good.
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> (I forget where Peikoff talked about this. I thought it might be in _Understanding Objectivism_ but I searched a little and didn't find it. It could be in the audio lectures the book is based on, which I listened to, or maybe some other audio lectures or the podcast. Does anyone else remember where it is?)
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>>> I thought my problem was finding the time. But it has more to do with
                                            >>>>> preferences.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> You have something like a prioritized list of stuff you want to do. You look at it and think the stuff above philosophy will take up all your time. You think if you could finish the short term stuff near the top of the list, then you'd have enough time for philosophy.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> But you'll always add new things to the list. There's plenty of stuff you could do. So what matters most is how highly prioritized philosophy is. Raising philosophy's prioritization will make a bigger difference than freeing up some time by clearing some things off the list.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Agreed.
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> Specifically, if you prioritize philosophy above most incoming things being added to your list, then you'll do often. As a loose approximation, you can think of the incoming new stuff to do as being on a bell curve with a mean of 100 priority and a standard deviation of 15. Then if you prioritize philosophy at 90, it doesn't have much chance. But if you prioritize philosophy at 130, then around 98% of the new additions to your list will be inserted below philosophy.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Thats a good example.
                                            >>
                                            >> you say that you agree a lot here. and you even expand on some of the
                                            >> ideas and provide examples, which is good.
                                            >>
                                            >> but you don't actually say anything about your own problems or your
                                            >> own life. you don't say anything about what problems you have been
                                            >> having that have been getting in the way of doing this stuff.
                                            >
                                            > I think in the past 2 years I focused too much on getting a job and
                                            > not so much on anything else. I was doing some translations of Mises
                                            > and BOI but I haven't discussed those. I see philosophy and in
                                            > particular knowledge about economics to be really important. For
                                            > example, when I read news about how the government inadvertently makes
                                            > things worse I feel this is something really pressing. Like you see
                                            > how broken things are how much better things could be if only people
                                            > understood more about economics. I am not saying I know too much
                                            > though. I am perhaps better than 99.999999 of people.

                                            correction: I meant 99.9999%

                                            > I am not sure
                                            > how much I should focus on economic education at this stage though. I
                                            > think I might need to focus more on how to think. There are so many
                                            > things wrong with my thinking.
                                            >
                                            >> or what
                                            >> ideas you have for how to apply any of this advice to your own life &
                                            >> problems. or what things you are going to do differently moving
                                            >> forward.
                                            >>
                                            >> you just agree a lot and give a bunch of impersonal examples that
                                            >> aren't really related to your problems.
                                            >
                                            > posting regularly would be ideal. daily posting commitment is a good
                                            > thing. a better way to look at it, which is less frustrating, is how
                                            > fast you would like to make progress. the more you post the more
                                            > progress you can expect. not posting is ok. but you will stagnate or
                                            > get worse if you are not doing much anywhere else.
                                          • Elliot Temple
                                            ... yes, for example they (including Trump) have stupid views on “trade deficits”. however, there are a lot of obstacles in the way of me telling Trump
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jul 12, 2017
                                              On Jul 12, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Zyn Evam zynevam@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                              > 2017-07-09 8:03 GMT+01:00 anonymous FI
                                              > anonymousfallibleideas@... [fallible-ideas]
                                              > <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com>:


                                              >> you say that you agree a lot here. and you even expand on some of the
                                              >> ideas and provide examples, which is good.
                                              >>
                                              >> but you don't actually say anything about your own problems or your
                                              >> own life. you don't say anything about what problems you have been
                                              >> having that have been getting in the way of doing this stuff.
                                              >
                                              > I think in the past 2 years I focused too much on getting a job and
                                              > not so much on anything else. I was doing some translations of Mises
                                              > and BOI but I haven't discussed those. I see philosophy and in
                                              > particular knowledge about economics to be really important. For
                                              > example, when I read news about how the government inadvertently makes
                                              > things worse I feel this is something really pressing. Like you see
                                              > how broken things are how much better things could be if only people
                                              > understood more about economics.

                                              yes, for example they (including Trump) have stupid views on “trade deficits”.

                                              however, there are a lot of obstacles in the way of me telling Trump that and him understanding my point and changing. and those obstacles involve stuff other than economics. (people might find it interesting to try to list them.)

                                              > I am not saying I know too much
                                              > though. I am perhaps better than [99.9999%] of people. I am not sure
                                              > how much I should focus on economic education at this stage though. I
                                              > think I might need to focus more on how to think. There are so many
                                              > things wrong with my thinking.

                                              there’s soooo many things wrong with other people’s thinking, and those get in the way of economics education. so that’s another reason to look at how-to-think stuff.


                                              >> or what
                                              >> ideas you have for how to apply any of this advice to your own life &
                                              >> problems. or what things you are going to do differently moving
                                              >> forward.
                                              >>
                                              >> you just agree a lot and give a bunch of impersonal examples that
                                              >> aren't really related to your problems.
                                              >
                                              > posting regularly would be ideal. daily posting commitment is a good
                                              > thing. a better way to look at it, which is less frustrating,

                                              what’s frustrating? why?

                                              > is how
                                              > fast you would like to make progress. the more you post the more
                                              > progress you can expect. not posting is ok. but you will stagnate or
                                              > get worse if you are not doing much anywhere else.

                                              generally, over time, as people set up their life more, they become less interested in radically rethinking stuff since they already made their big decisions. setting up their life means stuff like getting a home, spouse, kids, education, career skills, specific long term job, promotions, social circle, and position in a social status hierarchy in their community, career field, or elsewhere. then it’s like, what’s left to think about in a major way, unless you want to disrupt all that stuff (that is, disrupt your life)?



                                              Elliot Temple
                                              www.fallibleideas.com
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.