tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post962259098115722633..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Is There Really a "Keynesian Case"?William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-59009088223306330582013-05-13T15:46:19.482-04:002013-05-13T15:46:19.482-04:00I'm no economist, but it seems to me that are ...I'm no economist, but it seems to me that are problems are that we don't actually make enough good and services that the world outside of us wants. Even our own businesses leave the country for labor because they can get it cheaper or better abroad. That's the real economic problem. All this stupidity about consumers saving instead of stimulating, or not enough demand is asinine. There's plenty of demand in the world, we're just not supplying it. If that's a malinvestment theory, than I say malinvestment is 100% correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-34903513222166341042010-09-17T13:55:29.888-04:002010-09-17T13:55:29.888-04:00Rothbard’s point about malinvestments being cleans...Rothbard’s point about malinvestments being cleansed and distortions being dealt with in periods of very high unemployment is total nonsense because this process takes place all the time anyway. In other words, even during periods of low unemployment, a thousand firms a day go bust in any decent size economy, and a thousand new firms start up.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-82932687728977124082010-07-31T08:51:23.220-04:002010-07-31T08:51:23.220-04:00"The man campaigned as a Messiah, complete wi..."The man campaigned as a Messiah, complete with having his acceptance speech in a stadium with Greek columns as a backdrop, and Krugman really believed this hype?"<br /><br />It's all just so sick. the faux Greek setting is so indicative of the entire system at this point.lennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2219679281375935242010-07-27T00:11:20.359-04:002010-07-27T00:11:20.359-04:00you guys realize BadTux is trolling right?you guys realize BadTux is trolling right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-12661341358558267002010-07-26T11:28:14.260-04:002010-07-26T11:28:14.260-04:00But we are more efficent at making everything now ...But we are more efficent at making everything now than we were 30 years ago, 100 years ago, etc. So if the money supply had remained constant or at least grew very slowly (i.e. gold, silver) the only 'price deflation' we would see is due to increases in productivity. <br /><br />With an elastic money supply most of the increase in productivity is siphoned away from those who are actually productive to those with the politcal connections to get the freshly printed money first. Most people don't notice as long as their nominal wages keep up with the (cheery picked) CPI, but they have to be much more productive than laborers 30 years ago just to maintan the same standard of living. The money supply can increase by 10% or 100% but with increases in prodcutivity we may only see a 3% increase in CPI. This is part of the loss of purchaing power Austrains refer to. <br /><br />Futhermore, a decrease in the money supply only becomes neccessary after an artifical expansion.jason hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795436962579269461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77860153638096885142010-07-25T13:03:37.209-04:002010-07-25T13:03:37.209-04:00A chunk of silicon that held 1 transistor in 1970 ...A chunk of silicon that held 1 transistor in 1970 holds 1,000,000 transisters today. Semiconductor manufacturing has literally become 1,000,000 times more efficient, which is why a CPU that would have cost $6,000,000 in 1970 would cost you $6 today (typical price today for embedded microcontrollers that have as much computing power as a $6M mainframe had in 1970). <br /><br />In short, you're confusing price declines caused by increasing efficiency with price declines caused by increasing value of money. The former does not affect profitability of computer companies because they aren't required to sell goods for less than it cost to make them, indeed, Apple Computer recently turned in a record $14B quarter, and Intel recently turned in a record profit too, both caused by increasing their efficiency at creating goods. Monetary deflation, on the other hand, requires companies to sell goods for less than it cost to make them if companies wish to maintain volume, which clearly is a loss rather than a profit. <br /><br />In short, your observation about supposed declining prices in the computer industry was incomplete. The per-unit price of a chunk of silicon is still pretty much the same as in 1970. All that has happened is that we need a lot fewer chunks of silicon to make a computer today than we needed in 1970, i.e., there is no actual price deflation in the computer industry, just an efficiency increase that allows spreading the price over more devices.<br /><br />-Badtux the SIlicon PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-64795426330976265612010-07-25T10:47:09.844-04:002010-07-25T10:47:09.844-04:00Badtux,
If I may restate your position based on p...Badtux,<br /><br />If I may restate your position based on previous comments you have made. You contend that the government needs to manage the money supply (i.e. create more money) in an expanding economy (one producing more goods and services) in order to ensure sellers are compensated. (I understand this as the standard ‘price stability’ position). <br /><br />I pointed out that today the thriving computer industry (not to mention the thriving TV industry, thriving cell phone industry, etc.) produces better products at lower prices year after year. <br /><br />You respond with a bunch of stuff about mercantilism, capitalism, fractional reserve banking, ‘financial wherewithal’, etc. I certainly can comment on all of that, and time willing, plan to do so in a future post, but I think this is a distraction from the issue at hand.<br /><br />The issue being; how does a thriving computer industry producing better products at lower prices year after year square with your position that more money must be added to an expanding economy in order to compensate sellers (again, the standard ‘price stability’ position). <br /><br />I see actual reality (sellers are compensated despite falling prices) clashing with your reality (sellers are not compensated if prices are falling). Given that you see yourself as ‘reality based’ I think you owe an explanation as to why you hold with your reality.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-13277787681256990942010-07-25T02:40:11.148-04:002010-07-25T02:40:11.148-04:00I think you need to go over your definitions.I think you need to go over your definitions.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89059815947954201642010-07-24T20:02:19.791-04:002010-07-24T20:02:19.791-04:00Richard, I am baffled. You claim that barring frac...Richard, I am baffled. You claim that barring fractional reserve banking will result in an economic system (which I'll call "mercantilism" for lack of a better term, since it isn't capitalism) that is competitive with capitalism, which is inherently dependent upon fractional reserve banking in order to finance the capital equipment needed to produce future output using the revenue produced by that future output. Without fractional reserve banking the amount of money available for capital investment purposes is reduced by over 90%, which is why capitalism -- which inherently is based on fractional reserve banking -- has proven in the forge of history to be the most flexible and nimble way of matching supply and demand ever to evolve on this planet (I say evolve because capitalism evolved from earlier systems like mercantilism and won because it had evolutionary advantages based on its greater ability to adjust supply to meet demand, capitalism was not created from scratch or from the fertile imaginations of ideologues). <br /><br />So anyhow, you claim that this mercantilist system that you propose ("100% reserve banking") will somehow be able to muster the financial wherewithall to build a $4 billion RAM plant, a $4 billion CPU plant, a $4 billion LCD display plant, and all the other *enormous* investments needed to produce a $500 computer. I can point to my computer and verify that a capitalist system produces all of those. Can you point to a single example anywhere in history of a mercantilist economy producing capital investments of anything approaching this scale? Curious penguins want an actual example, BTW, not hypotheticals pulled out of bungholes! My computer is on my desk. Where's your hypothetical mercantilist economy's computers (or equivalent-scaled investment)? <br /><br />- Badtux the Reality-based PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-65598651409114226372010-07-24T18:46:18.768-04:002010-07-24T18:46:18.768-04:00Correction, "100% reserve banking", not ...Correction, "100% reserve banking", not "100% fractional reserve banking."Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17549032234900026846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77279249781079309732010-07-24T17:16:09.704-04:002010-07-24T17:16:09.704-04:00Badtux,
You wrote "I *did* say that yes, a c...Badtux,<br /><br />You wrote "I *did* say that yes, a capitalist economy with fiat currency simply works better than that system does. For perfect proof of that I don't have to do equations and other such silliness. I just have to turn on my computer. No other kind of economy ever produced computers. 'Nuff said."<br /><br />This is a refutation of 100% fractional reserve banking? You have got to be kidding me. Google "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy."<br /><br />( I do you enjoy your sense of irony though. I mean, you pick a thriving industry that offers better and better products at lower and lower prices year after year to make the case that the state must increase the money supply in order to compensate sellers. Really, truly, funny).Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-64388256071245417992010-07-24T15:32:01.251-04:002010-07-24T15:32:01.251-04:00Your religious texts hold that labor and resources...<em>Your religious texts hold that labor and resources are fixed</em><br /><br />No they don't. What the heck are talking about? As my mother used to say, you are full of prunes. <br /><br />This is getting sad and creepy.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-51487605068789628272010-07-24T15:10:52.660-04:002010-07-24T15:10:52.660-04:00Wow, you guys just beat that stuffing out of the m...Wow, you guys just beat that stuffing out of the man of straw! You want to lie and pretend I said things I did not say? Uhm, dudes. Grow up. You "proved" Austrian economics is economics in the same way that the religious nut "proves" that Creation Science is science, and now are patting yourself on the back in self-congratulation? Gosh darn it, you guys sure feel proud of yourself for proving that your Holy scriptures are true and everybody else is a heretic who must burn on the fires of Hell.<br /><br />But you are correct that there are certain things I *did* say that contradict your religious texts. Your religious texts hold that labor and resources are fixed, while I point out the simple reality that we have more labor and resources in today's economy than we had in the 15th century economy (dudes, that's not exactly amenable to argument, that's simply reality, like rocks falling when you drop them). Your religious texts say that the value of money should be allowed to increase because that is what creates economic growth. I *did* say that the value of money should be maintained by providing sufficient dollars for the economy so that producers can sell goods at a profit rather than at a loss, and that all periods of economic growth in our history have been during times when sufficient dollars have been provided for this purpose. Your religious texts say that economies worked better back before fractional reserve lending (which you guys hold is a "fraud") and hard currencies. I *did* say that yes, a capitalist economy with fiat currency simply works better than that system does. For perfect proof of that I don't have to do equations and other such silliness. I just have to turn on my computer. No other kind of economy ever produced computers. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />So yes, there are things I *did* say that contradict your theology, that you can have differences with. But creating lies to stuff in my mouth in order to create a strawman for you to batter? Dudes. That's just childish stupidity, and makes you look like the biggest friggin' lying morons to ever walk this planet.<br /><br />- Badtux the Reality-simply-IS PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-63750030046502252012010-07-24T14:49:01.833-04:002010-07-24T14:49:01.833-04:00Jason h, I agree. Nevertheless, Badtux just gave u...Jason h, I agree. Nevertheless, Badtux just gave us a fine example of why smart defense lawyers don't allow their doofus motor-mouth clients to testify in their own defense.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-76862696470309806162010-07-24T14:42:50.051-04:002010-07-24T14:42:50.051-04:00Perhaps we should stop feeding the troll as s/he j...Perhaps we should stop feeding the troll as s/he just admitted that labor and resources are not scarce, profits must be garunteed by money printing (heaven forbid the cost of living decrease with increasing productivity), and trade did not exist before an elastic fiat money supply was invented.jason hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795436962579269461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-43176714162223529532010-07-24T11:54:02.454-04:002010-07-24T11:54:02.454-04:00Bob, religion is inherently the pulling of BS out ...Bob, religion is inherently the pulling of BS out of one's bunghole in order to explain things that human intellect is too feeble to currently understand. So there you have my philosophical objection to the subject as a whole. Religion is no more necessary to work economics than it is to work physics -- both have areas where it is provably impossible to create models that predict the exact behavior of individual particles, and it simply isn't <i>necessary</i> to pull BS out of your bunghole to predict things that are provably unpredictable. <br /><br />The fact that you cling so tightly to your religion doesn't surprise me, I find that most of the religious do, but that doesn't make it anything more than made-up nonsense. Asking me to refute made-up nonsense is like asking me to refute the notion that God or the Great Penguin created the Earth from scratch 16,000 years ago by waving his hands or flippers and shouting Oooba gooba joooba squawwwwk! Uhm, you're the one who's making statements that you claim to be fact. Where's your evidence? Where's your numbers? Oh wait, like the young earth creationist you insist you don't NEED any numbers because your holy scriptures are Revealed Truth from your Holy Trinity of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard (or Garrison in this case). Alrighty then! <br /><br />Regarding purchasing power of money, your problem is that you don't believe in fractional reserve lending, much as the young earth creationist doesn't believe in the Big Bang. The fact is that the amount of money in circulation is going DOWN right now, because the reserve multiplier has effectively gone *negative*, and this is stealing purchasing power from buyers who lack money to buy and sellers who can't get enough money when selling in order to make a profit, and giving that purchasing power to hoarders -- but that's okay with you, because like the young earth creationist you can just put your hands over your ears and shout "I hear nothing! Mises strike you down for your heresy!" <br /><br />Finally, I find it sad that you believe the amount of goods and services in an economy is fixed, and thus the only purpose of an economy is to move a fixed supply around. You must become completely discombobulated every time a new invention like the computer comes around that makes it possible to do amazing new things and add amazing value and efficiency to the economy, though of course you're not old enough to remember when computers were thousands upon thousands of young ladies in the Pentagon's basements cranking hand cranks as fast as they could in order to produce artillery tables with hand calculators. Now my cell phone has enough computing power to produce such artillery tables. Economies don't have to be static like in your sad model of an economy and as they grow, as more goods and services enter the economy, we need more money to match up with those goods and services or else we're stealing from the sellers by forcing them to sell at a loss. But wait, I forget, as long as we're not stealing from the hoarders, who cares? Alrighty, then!<br /><br />-- Badtux the Heretic PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-83812068115684466192010-07-24T09:58:31.494-04:002010-07-24T09:58:31.494-04:00Well now. We’ve had admissions from Badtux that yo...Well now. We’ve had admissions from Badtux that you can’t model micro behavior and that the nature of human will is a “religious” or philosophical question, meaning the issue cannot be decided with math. By the way Badtux, since you appear to dispute the idea of “free will”, what is your philosophical position on the nature of man’s will and also the Austrian theory of “acting man”? Must one use math to make the determination? Show your work.<br /><br />While you are at it, why don’t you refute in a scholarly article <a href="http://mises.org/books/austrian_macroeconomics_garrison.pdf" rel="nofollow">“Austrian Macroeconomics: A Diagrammatical Exposition” </a>by Roger W. Garrison?<br /><br />The entire book is free online so you have no excuse in not refuting it in a detailed and scholarly manner.<br /><br />We’ve also had the admission from Another Anonymous that when the government steals purchasing power from holders of existing money in order to pass out new funny money, that such a process is not really theft: <br /><br /><em>“gummint has the legal right to commit this theft and fraud. Not everybody shares your odd brand of morality, indeed what I think is morally imperative (deficit spending) is morally wrong in you eyes, for non-empirical reasons”</em><br /><br />So, this is not a math problem either, but a moral and philosophical one. I note that even if the process is morally “OK” with AA, he doesn’t dispute that the process is really occurring. According to AA, purchasing power is being swiped surreptitiously from holders of existing money pursuant to a process that is morally fine because it is necessary and helpful. And gumints are just allowed to get away with swiping stuff. Just cuz.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18654289778377598202010-07-24T05:58:44.480-04:002010-07-24T05:58:44.480-04:00Badtux,
An economy is a network of individuals s...Badtux,<br /><br /> An economy is a network of individuals striving to fulfill their wants and needs with limited resources.<br /><br />Say an individual striving to fulfill his wants decides to build a bunch of houses to sell at a profit. He buys the materials necessary and with some labor builds a few. He later finds he is unable to sell them at a profit and takes a loss on them.<br /><br />Have resources been allocated properly here? An individual bid resources away from other uses to build houses because he thought other individuals would be willing to pay more for them. He finds that they do not. He has created goods from resources that people are employing elsewhere at a profit.<br /><br />Isn't this your understanding of how profit and loss in a market economy works to allocate resources? Losses on goods sold show that resources are not demanded for making these goods; profits show that resources are being utilized where people demand them. <br /><br />Also, one question for you. Apparently you see Austrian economics as akin to religious doctrine. Can you provide the premise or premises that any Austrian economist has used in developing an economic theory that they have insisted be accepted on faith?Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6226576354514040452010-07-24T05:46:04.612-04:002010-07-24T05:46:04.612-04:00@burkll13, who said
"so let me get this stra...@burkll13, who said<br /><br />"so let me get this straight, a program that 'encourages economic activity', or demand, doesnt have an effect on prices. ok, i get it now...."<br /><br />Yes, you got it. In depression conditions, Keynesian programs do not have effects on prices. The naive quantity theory of money is empirically wrong. Deficit spending during a depression, especially for rational projects, say like the Triboro bridge in NYC are a complete win-win for everybody. They make everybody richer, happier and don't change prices.<br /><br />@ Bob Roddis<br /><br />Me:<i>One can call this "theft" in one's odd econo-religion. But still, the more well-designed "theft" the better then.</i><br /><br />Bob Roddis: The artificial creation of money is theft and fraud for the same that reason criminal counterfeiting is theft and fraud. If you save $100,000 to buy a house and your next door neighbor prints up $110,000 of counterfeit cash and outbids you for the house, he’s stolen your purchasing power. <br /><br />My silly name-calling was "econo-religion" - I think a lot weaker than "theft and fraud". The gummint has the legal right to commit this theft and fraud. Not everybody shares your odd brand of morality, indeed what I think is morally imperative (deficit spending) is morally wrong in you eyes, for non-empirical reasons. In any case, in depression conditions, like right now, all you have to do is buy the house next to your counterfeiting-next door-neighbor's purchase, using the 100,000 you saved up, and laugh at him for overpaying. His printing money will not change prices. So he's richer. You both got the houses you wanted, and the previous owners are richer. Everybody is happy. Because again, the naive quantity theory of inflation is wrong. <br /><br />Keynesian economics works. When the world was guided by Keynesian full employment policies, it got a lot richer, quickly. When it abandoned them, it grew much slower, and with most of the economic growth going to a bunch of rich fools.Another Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-44403476551450036842010-07-24T01:40:17.251-04:002010-07-24T01:40:17.251-04:00So I'm baffled. You appear to have battered mu...So I'm baffled. You appear to have battered multiple holes in a man of straw -- my inability to model microeconomic behavior -- when neither Krugman nor I have ever stated we could model microeconomic behavior. It's as if you stated that Krugman is a fraud because he did not predict who was going to win the Lotto last week. Uhm, what's that got to do with macroeconomics?!<br /><br />Oh wait. You don't believe in macroeconomics. Just like you don't believe human beings are subject to fundamental laws of physics. Despite the fact that, err, we have these models, and, err, they've predicted 100% what the course of the current economic recession would be based upon the decrease in effective money supply caused by a collapse in asset values and resulting effect upon the multiplier ratio as banks suspend lending (either voluntarily or because they go under). But nevermind that, look over there, it's an Austrian ostrich! Err, alrighty, then! <br /><br />BTW, if you're wanting me to produce some models for you, you're SOL. I don't care enough. Go buy a basic macro text, I hear Krugman's reprinting one of his if you're interested in learning some macroeconomics rather than repeating religious scriptures.<br /><br />- Badtux the Macro PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-75407718208574448502010-07-24T01:23:36.670-04:002010-07-24T01:23:36.670-04:00Badtux, it's so encouraging to know that you a...Badtux, it's so encouraging to know that you are shooting with blanks. What a pathetic argument, trying to confuse the physics of what might happen to your body if used as a projectile vs. the purposeful action of your infantile behavior in trying to insult Austrians.<br /><br />Further, I have already stated that statistical analysis can help make educated guesses about future human behavior. Like polling before elections. That has nothing to do with refuting Austrian Economics. Apples and oranges. <br /><br />Since you admit that "micro" (human) predictions cannot be made, what's the dispute?<br /><br />Hell, I can usually predict in advance the dumb-ass uninformed desperate anti-Austrian arguments used by blog commenters.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-41970974120271734362010-07-24T01:09:22.846-04:002010-07-24T01:09:22.846-04:00Uhm, I already stated that micro events are not in...Uhm, I already stated that micro events are not in general predictable by models, whether we are talking about specific quantum mechanical events or microeconomic events. I also stated that this makes no (zero) difference in the ability to model macro events. I am sorry that you lack the intellect to understand basic quantum physics, but (shrug). Reality is what it is, regardless of your lack of understanding. The semiconductors that I model work just fine, even if I can't predict the behavior of individual electrons -- your computer is proof of that.<br /><br />Reminds me of the Austrians who enjoy playing gotcha with me about "how can something be in two places at once?" talking about money. Once again, that demonstrates more a lack in Austrian intellect than in something that violates fundamental laws of nature. In nature, it is quite possible for subatomic particles to be in two places at one time (see the famous quantum interference experiment for an example of that with photons). Furthermore, it is quite possible for something to physically be two things at the same time -- light is both a particle that acts upon substances in discrete quanta, and a wave which interferes with other waves. No, *not* a particle moving in a wave, but both things at once, much as Catholic theology holds that God and Jesus are two different entities, yet the same entity. The fact that a bunch of ignorant shepherds 2,000 years ago could understand such things yet some folks who claim to be "economists" cannot is telling...<br /><br />Now I here you saying, "but men are not physical things! You can't use the same laws of physics for men!" Really? Funny, I seem pretty physical to me (pokes arm - yep, physically there, yo). Such a statement that men are not governed by the fundamental laws of nature is not sustainable by any scientific evidence, but, rather, is a religious statement. Which is fair, but don't claim that any "economics" based upon religious statements is anything other than religion, just like "creation science" is not science. It's religion. Be honest about it.<br /><br />- Badtux the Scientific PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-81161098831622682312010-07-24T00:56:15.702-04:002010-07-24T00:56:15.702-04:00Wow. People DON'T have free will. Who knew?
...Wow. People DON'T have free will. Who knew? <br /><br />Then present your math models for my four questions or go away. Then, use your math to refute the various bases of the Austrian School.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-17470950947130858562010-07-23T23:29:07.738-04:002010-07-23T23:29:07.738-04:00Free will is a religious belief, Bob, and has noth...Free will is a religious belief, Bob, and has nothing to do with the question of whether macro behavior can be modeled or not. Thus validating my assertion that Austrian "economics" is, at heart, a religious faith rather than a science, and should not be confused with the actual <i>science</i> called Economics, any more than "creation science" should be confused with the actual science called Biology.<br /><br />Furthermore, "free will", even if it existed (I submit that there is no proof that it does exist as anything other than quantum uncertainty at the subatomic level within the physical neurons of human beings) does not affect the validity of the observation that micro behavior can be unpredictable yet macro behavior predictable. Einstein tried to disprove this observation and didn't manage it. You're no Einstein. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />- Badtux the Scientific PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89006832383293461492010-07-23T23:05:13.150-04:002010-07-23T23:05:13.150-04:00Human beings have free will and their behavior can...Human beings have free will and their behavior cannot be "modeled" like projectiles or engineering projects. There's nothing more to say on this and arguments to the contrary are silly and a waste of time.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.com