Replying to Keith Wilde's green points:
Google is my home page. I will.
In the past, as a candidate, I have always concentrated on pointing out the
apparent faults in the present system, and following that up with our (obviously
sensible) answers to the problem. This favours the more practical approach and
helps better to promote our ideas. The method of testing against reality gets the
story across, long monologue only about what we would do leaves them iin
stony-faced incredulity.
I believe the near-parable about the mechanics to be apt. But no, nobody has
THE truth and I agree that those who claim it are downright dangerous. But when
we have a Minister of Finance obviously brainwashed by orthodox economists to
believe that banks lend their deposits, I most certainly get cynical. Or when I
read a four hundred odd page book about the great thinkers of economics and their
theories that nowhere mentions the part played by banks in increasing the money
supply.
No. We are not "the only...". Just that we do and I suspect those running the
present system do not. Otherwise we would not have the poor nations subsidising
the rich ones with goods produced by sweated labour and outrageous payments on
their debts. Or the impoverished people in the "rich" nations.
I welcome criticism from people like Keith because they force us to present our
ideas in better form than has often been the case.
John R.
>From: "Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca> >Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com> >Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Reply to Keith Wilde X 2 >Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:05:26 -0400 >
>A couple of 'green' remarks from Keith: > ----- Original Message ----- > From:
John G Rawson > To: socialcredit@elistas.com > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 5:21
AM > Subject: [socialcredit] Reply to Keith Wilde X 2 > > > Having dropped a
snide remark about "label thinking", it would be unseemly for me to quibble about
the precise one now applied to scientific methodology. Provided it means testing
against reality rather than pure untested deductions, then I am happy. If I stand
corrected, so be it, it does not affect the thrust of my argument. But I do hope
Keith's source is not
an anti-evolutionist "scientist" from a US mid-western college. > > If you
haven't heard of Ernst Mayr, you probably have heard of Google. Give it a try. >
> And scientists are regularly running tests of Einstein's work in space
experiments etc. > > Anyone who isn't sure what we are talking about could get an
excellent indication from either of two sources: a. The US Biological Science
Curriculum Studies "blue version", "Molecules to Man", about 1970, or b. the
Sherlock Holmes stories. The first undoubtedly contained it in the first chapter
of the book as a reaction to "put downs" from physical sicentists about our
"imprecise sciences"; someone else may care to guess at Conan Doyle's motivation.
> > And Keith does not have to look forward to empirical tests, because Vic
Bridger's excellent contributions contain many examples where predictioins based
on the Douglas
analysis have proved correct. > > Where did I say that I wanted empirical tests?
I am quite content with what I understand of Douglas' deductive apparatus--which
I am pretty sure had empirical foundations in his own thinking. My comments were
about where I conceive empirical effort to have the greatest potential impact for
promoting the policy. > > But I will mention again the stagflation problem if he
wishes one scrap. > > Finally, may I bring up the totally invented story of the
motorist who went to an economist mechanic when his car stalled. Mechanic DEDUCED
from the symptoms that the fault was certainly electrical and replaced the whole
ignition system. And the car still didn't go. So, several hundred dollars poorer,
the motorist went down the street to the Socred mechanic, who thought "Looks like
an electrical fault, but I'll check". Checking a spark plug, which
had a beautiful blue spark SUGGESTED (didn't prove) that his first hypothesis
was wrong. So he took the alternative one, that the fuel system was faulty, and
behold, no fuel was reaching the motor. So his next hypothesis was a line
blockage, but being truly (INDUCTIVE, or ..) he dipped the tank, to find it was
empty, and had to ditch that one too. Being knowledgeable, he asked the motorist
if he could have been misled by a fuel gauge permanently showing "full"? To leave
out the next hypothesis and cut the story a bit shorter, he soldered up the
broken lead from the tank unit to it and charged the motorist about ten dollars
before he went off happily. (It really was an electrical fault, but not the one
DEDUCED by the first operator.) > > What point are you trying to make by reciting
this example of the bitter humor of a self-satisfied, political-religious
minority who is certain
that they have THE truth of the universe and also that they are totally
misunderstood and persecuted by the ignorant and hostile mass of everyone else?
The only point you have in fact made is that you perceive yourself to be among
one of those groups. > > Before someone tells me modern cars have computers and
different methodology, I'll agree. But from the point of view of a typical
do-it-yourself Kiwi working on the wonderful old Chrysler Valiants formerly
produced in Australasia, it is dead accurate. > > The only message I can infer
from this (above) is that social crediters are the only sociologists who know how
to work like a good mechanic. Is that what you mean? > > For the first situation
in it, (first situation in what? I don't get the drift here.) perhaps one could
substitute the "trickle down" theory associated with the modern monetarist
approach to economics?
You won't get any reaction from me by criticizing "standard" economics, because
I have no defensive feelings about it--or much interest in it. On the other hand,
I do have an aversion to joining in with jeering mobs. If you or other believers
find my comments critical, you should not infer that they are directed against
Douglas or his analyses. Interpret them instead as a critique of your
merchandising technique. > > John R. > >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're
subscribed to this list with the email keithwilde@sympatico.ca >To unsubscribe,
send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information,
visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit > > >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe, send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
