Thursday, January 26, 2017

GOP Budget Dilemma


A video is worth 1,000 words. This is the big unknown right now. Hard to see how Trump can use 'the art of the deal' on this one... perhaps 'you're fired!' though.



62 comments:

Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Malmo's Ghost said...

Trump promising to balance the budget was not what got Trump elected. His party, however, views a balanced budget as the Holy Grail. Thus Trump obviously needs to finesse the certain non balanced budgets coming his way. Will most certainly have to be his first flip flop. In the big picture, however, it will be a net voter gain for Trump because entitlements won't be slashed and no way will his party fuck with him, nor can it given his popularity with the plebs and his standing as an incumbent. And furthermore, perhaps Trump will channel his inner MMT, which at times he's demonstrated he's familiar with.

There is still an art of the deal to be had coming from Trump on this BB gospel. Watch.

Noah Way said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt Franko said...

Maybe he thinks he can make it up via his 'border tax'...

One thing is that whatever current production he can get back from the external sector it will have a multiplier in excess of 1.0 as the external sector has a USD 'hoarding' coefficient that is HIGHER than the domestic sector...

So we can achieve a much HIGHER domestic product with just equal leading USD flow...

Bob said...

More like someone is channeling Paul Krugman.

Mark Groom said...

Sorry to be off topic, but Rand Paul unveiled his health care plan to replace ACA: Paul's plan includes a tax credit of up to $5,000 per person to use as part of a Health Savings Account to pay for medical care.
Here is Mosler's plan at his site:
◦Everyone gets a ‘medical debit card’ with perhaps $5000 in it to be used for qualifying medical expenses (including dental) for the year.
This is just part of the plans but I find this to be too coincidental that both plans govt funded and are the same dollar amount. Thoughts????

Penguin pop said...

"Sorry to be off topic, but Rand Paul unveiled his health care plan to replace ACA: Paul's plan includes a tax credit of up to $5,000 per person to use as part of a Health Savings Account to pay for medical care.
Here is Mosler's plan at his site:
◦Everyone gets a ‘medical debit card’ with perhaps $5000 in it to be used for qualifying medical expenses (including dental) for the year.
This is just part of the plans but I find this to be too coincidental that both plans govt funded and are the same dollar amount. Thoughts????"

Yeah this does sound a lot like Mosler's plan. Mike may be onto something when he's said in his videos that he thinks Trump has been reading his stuff. Now Rand Paul too. What kind of alternative reality are we living in?

Matt Franko said...

The left are not trained enough in STEM (deterministic science) to be able to well understand any of this stuff....

The right is more deterministic/materialistic... that's where the solution is going to have to come out of... MMT is deterministic...

Matt Franko said...

That would be $20k for family of 4... should be about enough imo if there is mandatory enrollment for all ie get rid of the ACAs 'individual mandate'...

Issue is still going to be what to do with the illegal aliens when they show up for care.... unless we can get rid of all of them for certain they are going to still show up...

Mark Groom said...

Illegal aliens are easy to deal with. Seize the property of any business/individual that hires an illegal. When there is no demand for the labor the supply will go away (or the proper channels will be followed for legal immigration).

Matt Franko said...

Also, these morons could still put an income limitation on the credits... iow dont put it past them that they would say if a family of 4 makes $20k, then they dont qualify for any of the $5k per person credits....

Matt Franko said...

"or the proper channels will be followed for legal immigration"

You'd have to make this mandatory but the local authorities would have to report their presence... Trump in big war with Dem mayors on this as we speak.... Dems dont want to report them ie chaos....

Tom Hickey said...

There is still an art of the deal to be had coming from Trump on this BB gospel. Watch.

You'll never see the real poker players. Congress ("the swamp") is the mark on this one.

Unknown said...

The problem the Republicans have is with the so called "Debt" - Mitch Mc Connell said about the Trillion dollar infrastructure plan introduced by the Senate Democrats -

“I don’t think we ought to borrow almost a trillion dollars and plus up a bunch of federal accounts,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday.

Since we have been at "Zero interest bound for a while" - why not just retire the debt by minting the "platinum coin"? Let the Republican funders taste what getting 0% on your money actually means.

Matt Franko said...

"plus up a bunch of federal accounts,”

Lol what the hell does he think happens otherwise ? Fing lawyers...

Tom Hickey said...

“I don’t think we ought to borrow almost a trillion dollars and plus up a bunch of federal accounts,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday.

Someone tell him that works out to be a trillion $ credit to corp profits according to the profit equation and see what he says.

Tom Hickey said...

Sorry to be off topic, but Rand Paul unveiled his health care plan to replace ACA: Paul's plan includes a tax credit of up to $5,000 per person to use as part of a Health Savings Account to pay for medical care.
Here is Mosler's plan at his site:
◦Everyone gets a ‘medical debit card’ with perhaps $5000 in it to be used for qualifying medical expenses (including dental) for the year.
This is just part of the plans but I find this to be too coincidental that both plans govt funded and are the same dollar amount. Thoughts????"


Doesn't look like coincidence to me.

Tom Hickey said...

The right is more deterministic/materialistic... that's where the solution is going to have to come out of... MMT is deterministic...

This is accounting. Dems are in the pocket of finance. They should be able to figure it out.

Plus, finance is populated with the cream of physics PhDs because of the demand and super-sized rewards relative to teaching or industry.

Tom Hickey said...

I should add to the above that politicians are only involved in the ideology aimed at the next election.

The nuts and bots work is done by their staffs in conjunction with the lobbyists that represent the big donors, who "suggest" policy and submit the wording of legislation they advocate.

And most of the politicians are mouthpieces for the leadership since if they don't play ball, they know they be sitting on the back bench and never get in the game.

Ignacio said...

The left are not trained enough in STEM (deterministic science) to be able to well understand any of this stuff....

The right is more deterministic/materialistic... that's where the solution is going to have to come out of... MMT is deterministic...


You keep saying stuff but idk what even "left" or "right" means. I know plenty of "lefties" who are STEM trained and plenty of "righties" who are oblivious to science and/or maths.

I think you are misunderstanding whole vocal segments of the population for whole blocks, which is kind of stupid.


They all don't understand you can't run out of money and keep conflating the real economy (production & distribution/ownership) with the nominal (finance). If there is one group which overdoes it and always has is "conservatives", and if there is one group which kowtowed to that narrative time ago was the "progressives", but they all go together on stupid.

John said...

Matt: "The left are not trained enough in STEM (deterministic science) to be able to well understand any of this stuff.... The right is more deterministic/materialistic... that's where the solution is going to have to come out of... "

Determinism died with the advent of quantum mechanics. Chaos put another nail in the coffin. Science, as currently understood, is anti-deterministic. The equations may be deterministic, but the solutions aren't. From the three body problem, a dripping tap and weather systems to radioactivity and determining the position-momentum of the most elementary particle, the world is indeterministic. That's the great insight of twentieth century science.

It's not a political issue; it's acknowledging science as is. Although the right, especially the so-called Christian right, refuse to accept the undisputed and empirically proven findings of science, whether it's evolution, climatology, geology or cosmology. Louie Gohmert, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee obviously know more than the National Academy of Sciences.

Matt Franko said...

Well here we are then ... you should not be complaining about anything if this is your worldview...

You are not being logical if you have any complaints... this is just the way it is working at this time... we can't determine our own policies according to you it's always some random outcome good or bad...

You should be pleased...

Matt Franko said...

The 1% are probably evolving into a new superior species ... "so long suckers!!!!"

Matt Franko said...

Ignacio,

Maybe I should say 'the non-libertarian right'... has more material systems competency than the 'non-libertarian left'...


Penguin pop said...

The libertarian right is where most of that rubbish about running out of money comes from. Dick Cheney understood deficits don't really matter that much if that's what you mean by material systems competency.

Noah Way said...

$5k health debit card funded by a tax credit? And if you don't make enough to pay federal income taxes? LoL

Aside from the fact that for any serious care $5k won't get you past one night in a hospital without doctors.

Kevin Fathi said...

Matt and Tom,

Do you think Trump would consider...the platinum coin solution?

John said...

"You are not being logical if you have any complaints... this is just the way it is working at this time... we can't determine our own policies according to you it's always some random outcome good or bad..."

I'm making the exact opposite argument because I'm purely making a point about science, not a point about economics and politics, let alone the applicability of radioactivity to cutting Medicare. Determinism is dead in science. The scientific community is in agreement that our scientific theories cannot accommodate determinism. If someone can come up with deterministic theories with deterministic solutions, contrary to all the evidence we have, then they'll be showered with Nobel prizes and Field medals.

I'm not saying that politics and economics are science. You're the one who's saying that. If the issue is economics and politics, then I'd say, yes, policies are very causal and very deterministic, although not exactly so. If you're talking science, that's a different matter completely. You're making extremely specific scientific arguments that relate only to the field of science, and have nothing to say about economics and politics. Your'e taking pre-twentieth century scientific arguments and applying them to non-scientific areas.

Do I agree that economics and politics are relatively causal and deterministic? Yes, I do. Do I think it has anything to do with pre-twentieth century science? No, I don't. If I don't pay my mortgage, I know what the consequences will be, and it has nothing to do with any deterministic or indeterministic scientific theory. And anyway, why the fixation with pre-twentieth century science? Why use theories whose limitations and shortcomings spurred the creation of theories that are much more applicable to the natural world we see. The natural world may include Louie Gohmert, though they cannot explain him. The results of his policies do not require knowledge of Newtonian mechanics or nonlinear dynamical systems. Cut Medicare and people suffer. Balancing the budget in most circumstances will result in economic problems. There can be no deterministic scientific theories that can explain the economic and political world.




Bob said...

Mechanical devices are deterministic. From levers to Zeiss projectors.

Malmo's Ghost said...

"You'll never see the real poker players. Congress ("the swamp") is the mark on this one."

Exactly.

If you've read Art of The Deal you'll recall that Trump has an incredible ability to deal with bureaucratic inefficiency. And New York City is the epitome of red tape, it takes forever, bureaucracy.

The point is that Trump has a uncommon ability to be patient while the wheels of government grind slowly. He also, from his NYC experience, knows how success is achieved through being EXTREMELY patient and persistent at the same time. Those who underestimate his ability to transcend the BB crowd, primarily on the Republican side, will likely be proven wrong in the end. He'll play these politicians like a fiddle if they go all economically religious and dig in their heels.

John said...

Tom and Malmo,

If congress is the mark, it necessarily means the people behind congress. Congress is a reflection of those who have paid serious money to get their wishes enacted as law. Is Trump going to wage war on the contributors and the lobbyists? And who are the congress going to side with, the new man in town or the contributors and lobbyists they've always relied on and will still rely on when Trump is no longer prez? It seems a stretch to believe that corrupt politicians are going to fall in line because Trump says so. If the contributors decide to fund someone else, they won't be there at the next election. I'm sure that's been made very clear to them. If the GOP base gets uppity with the congress for not supporting Trump, they can say he's not a fiscal conservative, or even not a real Christian....and...look....at the debt clock...it's MELTING!!!!

Matt Franko said...

John,

Well how do we end up with the "Individual Mandate" in the ACA insurance scheme?

Its bad actuarial science... quantity 1 in the denominator?

Maybe what I am talking about is applied science... who cares where an electron is when we have morons going all around saying "we're out of money!" ....

I think we have bigger fish to fry than where an electron is...

Matt Franko said...

Kevin,

I dont think so he would probably think it a gimmick...

But might be worth a try though as he is probably not reflexively dismissive of "loopholes" in general...

I dont not believe he has our amount of knowledge wrt these systems...

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Sean Spicer Reveals How Mexico Will Pay For "The Wall"

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that as part of its plans to make Mexico "pay for the wall", the Trump administration is considering a 20% border tax on Mexican imports.

In a brief gaggle on the way back from Philadelphia, Spicer said that POTUS has decided how to pay for the border wall: "by imposing a 20 percent tax on all imports from Mexico."

He did not give any details about that tax, how it would work, and he described it as a beginning of a process that would be part of overall tax reform. But he did describe this as a decision that POTUS has made.


In other words the US public will be paying more for what they are currently using. This would be somewhat inflationary I presume.

Matt Franko said...

John,

Hey maybe you can get one of your science guys to figure out what the hell is going on with the Cu, Ag, and Au ie "precious" metals all being in column 11 and only metals with full D bands?

Now THAT would be helpful science.... could be some sort of EM emissions there effecting these moron's brain signals...

I dont think it matters exactly where the electron are in 3-D space but maybe there is something with the unique energy configuration...

John said...

Bob: "Mechanical devices are deterministic. From levers to Zeiss projectors."

Depends what you mean by deterministic. Let's take your example of a lever. If I pull on one side of a lever, something will happen on the other side. If that's all you mean by deterministic, then fine. But that's not how scientists define determinism, at least not in cases like these. They're talking about a (numerical) solution.

Suppose you apply so many newtons of force and you know the exact length of the lever, then you'll get a certain amount of torque. Again, fine, but that's a theoretical model I have just given you. In practice, however, things are not so simple. In the real world, you need to make measurements, not just assume that the numbers given are true. Measuring any length or mass or whatever is not exact. There will always be an error in the measurement no matter how many times you take the measurement and no matter how careful you try to be. There is what is called a "sensitivity to initial conditions". So in the case of the lever you'll have a sensitivity to the initial conditions of the length of the lever and the force applied. The more inaccurate the measurements, the more inaccurate will be your solution. The system is deterministic. The equations are deterministic. The solution is not deterministic because of the inability to get an exact measurement of the initial conditions.

All of this technically difficult and conceptually difficult science has zero relevance to the social realm. If you don't pay your mortgage, you get repossessed. End of the matter. It's very deterministic and has a very simple and deterministic solution. If you defund healthcare, people's health will suffer. If you can put an equation with deterministic solutions together for this, I'd like to hear it. That's why actuarial science is probabilistic. Actuaries learn probability and statistics, not deterministic solutions to deterministic equations. In any case, there aren't many deterministic equations with exact solutions. Approximation methods are used to get a so-called "solution", although it would be better thought of as a "result" rather than a "solution".

Tom Hickey said...

Matt and Tom,

Do you think Trump would consider...the platinum coin solution?


As bargaining chip? Of course.

Tom Hickey said...

If congress is the mark, it necessarily means the people behind congress. Congress is a reflection of those who have paid serious money to get their wishes enacted as law. Is Trump going to wage war on the contributors and the lobbyists? And who are the congress going to side with, the new man in town or the contributors and lobbyists they've always relied on and will still rely on when Trump is no longer prez? It seems a stretch to believe that corrupt politicians are going to fall in line because Trump says so. If the contributors decide to fund someone else, they won't be there at the next election. I'm sure that's been made very clear to them. If the GOP base gets uppity with the congress for not supporting Trump, they can say he's not a fiscal conservative, or even not a real Christian....and...look....at the debt clock...it's MELTING!!!!,

Trump has already identified them with the swamp is going to drain. He has the swamp critters in his sights.

Matt Franko said...

Unk,

To maintain volume they would have to lower their prices...

John said...

Matt, yes atoms can only be stable in unique configurations. That is true. But that's no different to a million other things that can only be stable in one and only one way. You can balance a pencil on its tip. You can stand on one foot for quite a long time. But these are NOT stable configurations. A pencil has a stable configurations positioned on its side.

Atoms are stable in unique configurations, but here's what's interesting. Atoms are only stable because of indeterminism! It's because of the indeterminacy/uncertainty principle.

I'd have to brush up on my quantum chemistry to give you a good answer to your funny question, which is obviously coin money based. Although it may work the other way round. The reason they're used as money is to do with, I think, their resistance to corrosion.

Matt, only your brilliantly idiosyncratic mind could link "moron brain signals" and group 11 elements! That's one theory I would not discount.

John said...

"Trump has already identified them with the swamp is going to drain. He has the swamp critters in his sights."

That's one helluva big swamp! 535 against 1? It'll be like those idiotic wrestling matches in which it's all against all until there's only one left standing. But at least Trump's got experience of wrestling.

It's early days, but I can't see how he can do any of what he's proposing against a hostile congress. But he's nothing if not resilient and surprising.

Bob said...

John, it is deterministic from an engineering perspective. A lever will function predictably within certain parameters. A more complex device will be designed with the same goal in mind.
It is deterministic from an cryptanalytic perspective. Random numbers cannot be obtained from a deterministic process.

I would have to guess that economics includes elements that are pseudo-random and elements that are deterministic. Some elements are predictable, others are not. Keep in mind that if precise operation of the economy is not attainable, then the next logical step is to increase the tolerance (e.g. specify an operating range).


de·vice
dəˈvīs/
noun
1. a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of mechanical or electronic equipment.
"a measuring device"
synonyms: implement, gadget, utensil, tool, appliance, apparatus, instrument, machine, mechanism, contrivance, contraption; More
2. a plan, scheme, or trick with a particular aim.
"writing a public letter is a traditional device for signaling dissent"
synonyms: ploy, tactic, move, stratagem, scheme, plot, plan, trick, ruse, maneuver, machination, contrivance, expedient, dodge, wile
"an ingenious legal device"

Malmo's Ghost said...

John, Scott Adams nails it:

When you encounter a situation that is working great except for one identifiable problem, you can focus on the problem and try to fix it. But if you have a dozen complaints at the same time, none of them looks special. The whole situation just looks confusing, and you don’t know where to start. So you wait and see what happens. Humans need contrast in order to make solid decisions that turn into action. Trump removed all of your contrast by providing multiple outrages of similar energy.

You’re probably seeing the best persuasion you will ever see from a new president. Instead of dribbling out one headline at a time, so the vultures and critics can focus their fire, Trump has flooded the playing field. You don’t know where to aim your outrage. He’s creating so many opportunities for disagreement that it’s mentally exhausting. Literally. He’s wearing down the critics, replacing their specific complaints with entire encyclopedias of complaints. And when Trump has created a hundred reasons to complain, do you know what impression will be left with the public?

He sure got a lot done.

Even if you don’t like it.


http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution

Tom Hickey said...

Congress can do nothing without the approval of the president unless they pass legislation over his veto. There are enough congress-critter from districts that Trump won handily to make that impossible. They know they will be primaried in the next election even if from safe states or districts. POTUS has a lot of leverage over Congress, and if they don't follow his lead, he has a bully pulpit from which which to beat them. And none of them has any doubt that Trump is a tough customer.

Bob said...

Matt, only your brilliantly idiosyncratic mind could link "moron brain signals" and group 11 elements! That's one theory I would not discount.

Some of these nutters actually ingest the metals, affecting their physiology, so it is possible!

John said...

Malmo and Tom,

You see, not being an American, I was always under the impression that congress is where the real power lies, at least domestically. The Prez may have a lot of leeway over foreign affairs, but the domestic scene is all about congress. And with them dependent on campaign contributions, they essentially do as they're told to by the contributors lobbyists.

If Trump has somehow flipped that around, well, he's got my respect! What he's going to do is another matter. But if congress has been subdued by one man, this is flabbergasting because I always thought it was pretty much the other way round: the prez had to work within parameters set by congress.

So is that it? Trumps has got congress by the short and curlies and they can't do a damn thing about it? The billions of dollars from contributors and lobbyists is wasted money now?

Malmo, I like the explanation of Trump flooding the playing field so that everyone is discombobulated and can't get their bearings! If that's true, it's inspired, the work of a political genius. I don't think the man sleeps and he's addicted to twitter, so he's going to be fucking with their heads at 4 a.m. They may throw it all just for a good night's sleep: they're going to have reporters permanently camped on their doorstep and demanding answers at ungodly hours to the latest Trump tweet!

Bob said...

Congress can propose and pass legislation. Like say, a balanced budget amendment.

Tom Hickey said...

There is a balance of powers in the US. The president can propose legislation to Congress but they get to write it. On the other hand, they have to get any bills they pass signed by the president of they have to pass it over his veto with a supermajority, which is difficult, especially when the president is in a position to take his case to the people and a significant number of people agree with him.

It's a system that is designed to be effective by being inefficient.

Bob said...

I'll bet Trump would love to have the power of a Prime Minister in a majority parliament.

John said...

Tom: "The president can propose legislation to Congress but they get to write it. On the other hand, they have to get any bills they pass signed by the president of they have to pass it over his veto with a supermajority, which is difficult..."

Would it be fair to say that in the first case the congress has the upper hand?

And also would it not be also be fair to say that a Rep prez, even one as different as this one, will find it difficult to oppose his own party for four years?

But more important than that, what is the ratio of legislation initiated between the two? The prez or the congress? I'd imagine that it'd be the congress, what with more of them elected, more staffers and researchers, more legal teams, just more of everything and they can bludgeon things through. It is said that bills are passed almost every day, many of them as long as War and Peace, so nobody reads them. Even if they wanted to read them, they're so long, so complicated, full of the most dense legalese that it's impossible to understand, and anyway the legislators are busy collecting campaign donations. The system is designed to be lobbyist-friendly not voter-friendly.

John said...

Bob: "I'll bet Trump would love to have the power of a Prime Minister in a majority parliament."

He'd be in a position to run absolute riot, especially if you have a craven party! Blair had an unimaginably cowardly parliamentary party, but even cowards occasionally show a bit of fight. There are, however, numerous ways to get rid of a PM. Whether it's a challenger or a motion of confidence or refusal to vote on a key piece of legislation, that will usually finish off a PM. There are all kinds of ways to take them out if they start losing the plot or doing something parliamentarians particularly feel strongly about. Thatcher was finished off by resignations and then a challenge to her leadership over Europe.

Tom Hickey said...

Generally presidents are not interested in legislating directly. They have certain policy initiatives that they want passed and certain things that they don't want to see coming to their desk but that is about the extent of it, although they do negotiate some details with congressional leaders of their party.

For what he has said, DJT has certain bottom lines. He is likely to draw them as red lines for Congress, certainly with the leadership and publicly if deemed necessary, which usually happens through the WH press secretary. But DJT is also likely to use social media, especially if the media is not compliant.

Congress critters are more vulnerable than the president since the House and a third the Senate must stand for election in 2018.

Tom Hickey said...

Again speaking generally, I see America on a collision course with destiny. It ain't gonna be pretty. There is no congruent social, political and economic mindset on the table that is congruent with reality, and reality is the great guru, as in learning through experience. AKA "reality is a bitch."

Liberalism is beginning to flame out after a good run since the 18th century. The highly individualistic version of liberalism that has developed in America is too extreme to be workable, given the level of collective consciousness. There is a defect of social cohesion and now the wheels the coming off.

Ignacio said...

Don't want to derail the conversation into an other philosophical discussion about determinism vs. randomness (as much I like them), and this may turn out to be rabbling (so skip if you will) but:

I stand by my theory that what we describe as nonlinear systems or apparently (with our current tools and understanding) random phenomena are not against a deterministic universe in a pure philosophical sense.

The problem is one of information: insufficient information (including knowledge, lack of sufficient observation) and insufficient computational power vs. combinatoric complexity. Non-linearity is a system which falls within the category of NP-complete problems hence a necessary. Some problems would require as many particles as there are in the universe to be solved, so they have to be approached stochastically and/or heuristically (most scientific theories are macro aggregates through the means of heuristics of lower level phenomena to abstract whole classes of problems away and focus on a subset of physical phenomena problems), but that does not mean they are not deterministic in their nature (necessarily).

Science (understood as a way of "doing things" or "understanding things") itself is deterministic, and both economics and politics are not apart of besides science. This is what I read when Matt posts, ie.:

Well how do we end up with the "Individual Mandate" in the ACA insurance scheme?

Its bad actuarial science... quantity 1 in the denominator?


...

Ignacio said...

...

Sure some (most even) economic and political, (and btw I personally DON'T remove economics or politics from the general universe as a different way of functioning, I see they working exactly the same as other natural phenomena, subset to the same rules, otherwise I would be assuming that humans are made of a different matter or subject to different laws, which I don't, as I'm not a religious person; so for me they are as subject to be done 'scientifically' as any other matter).

Many economic or political problems are nonlinear, but you can see the guys that come from engineering (applied science) like Matt have a different approach to problem solving and are not captured by the narrative of we cannot do anything (as long as they are not libertarians!).

You work within a certain degree os certainty or safety, never absolute, but you are pretty suuure that if you do one thing one way you will get a certain result, and if you don't is that you got something wrong in the first place and need to correct the path (so there is usually a certain degree of trial and error when a subject is not completely understood or is very complex, this is how we destile heuristics and rules that eventually are 'good enough' to get stuff done). But coming with the fact that budgets per se should not be the primary factor (ok, inflation then may be a factor, or other metrics, but not "funding") when deciding policy because government cannot run out of money is because you are actually following the causal chain from currency faucets and funds and doing it through accounting science (which is not much more than elementary algebra, but science nevertheless).

If morons are taking decisions according to WRONG foundations (bad science) they need to be called off, and we can because we can show it "doesn't work that way" (so we are doing science). But even if was 'stochastic' process (let's assume we do not control all the parameters in the accounting, there are leakages which are not accounted for etc. btw accounting usually has rules to account for those problems, and we do not have a clear picture of the whole causal chain because we lack enough information) we can say with a certain degree of confidence that the parameters system will fall off between a certain range (to the point we can say that budget constraints because 'funding' are a non starter, not even wrong as they are not even an input parameter).

So fundamentally speaking we can do science because we assume a certain degree of determinism and not total randomness (in a philosophical sense), and we can apply the principles of doing science to economics and politics (and governance and societies in general). Despite of how truly random or deterministic those systems are (personal opinion, as Trump would say: A 100% deterministic. Is True.).

/rabble

Tom Hickey said...

Ignacio is correct from the POV of philosophy.

There is a difference between epistemological uncertainty, where there may is a problem with information or the limitations of human knowledge, or both. Problems with information can potentially be solved by improved methods. But humans are stuck with the limitations on knowing unless the sages are correct in claiming that human knowledge can be expanded infinitely and that infinite consciousness is realizable. In any event, the vast majority of humans are in gross consciousness according to perennial wisdom, so for practical purposes human knowledge is limited to the gross as far actual possession of knowledge goes, without appeal to authority.

The issue of determinism is a philosophical one. The ancient Greek view was that order (Kosmos) arises from randomness (Chaos). The view of 19th century scientific realism was that the universe is deterministic, and it is the project of science to discover the how of it. Many still hold this view. QM famously questioned that, returning to the ancient Greek conception in modern form, although famously Einstein remained convinced that this would eventually be corrected by future discovery of a deterministic foundation.

In other words, this is a matter of speculation (philosophy), and the evidence at this point it time suggests that randomness is foundational. But the opposition counters correctly that this is tentative on new knowledge. So this a matter of belief with some justification in favor of randomness.

Putting all that aside as looking at particular cases some processes are "causally determined" in that theory explains the direction and transmission mechanism of specific processes. Other change is not causally explained and the best information is correlational. Different math approaches are suited to specifics on this basis.

But even in cases where theoretically it is possible to explain a process of change causally, there may be measurement obstacles, or good historical data may not be available.

The upshot is that each case has to be dealt with in terms of the conditions that prevail.

Ignacio said...

Clarification, I lost some phrases while copy pasting that, damn blogger:

* Non-linear systems fall within the category of NP-complete problems hence [necessarily you are going to have to use approximations (which may appear random sometimes) to come with solutions.]
* Sure some (most even) economic and political [problems are complex or not straightforward and can be approached from many angles, or could be described as nonlinear, but they are not random or undetermined in terms of causal chains]

And by rabble I meant ramble/rambling, typo :)

Tom Hickey said...

Correction, my first sentence above should be "There is a difference between epistemological uncertainty, where there may is a problem with information or the limitations of human knowledge, or both, and ontological certainty, which involves the way reality is structured. To the degree that reality is structured in randomness, it is unknowable in principle even with perfect knowledge."

Unknown said...

Rand Paul's program is MoslerCare minus two essential elements

1. Job Guarantee with full healthcare
2. Medicare for All once the $5000 gives out - the $5000 under Mosler care is for medical expenses, and not to pay for insurance premiums.

jrbarch said...

“Ignorance is the source of confusion. Knowledge is the source of clarity”.

Of what are we ignorant; or more to the point – what are we ignoring?

Going inside is not a trivial thing.

One of the advantages of taking a pov something like Kabir (Meher Baba?) expressed is that it allows you to look at the whole world with fresh eyes. No ‘belief’ necessary or subscription held. ‘World-leaders’ are all blind men stumbling around in the desert, leading blind followers. There is a humorous side to that!

So – ‘for practical purposes’ (:-)), human knowledge is limited to the gross only when the human being has no clue how to go within; or understand why.

Kabir laughed and laughed about this: - for him, (very few will agree) everything that these eyes can see, ears hear, etc etc; all of the social institutions in the world, all of the culture, all of the beliefs; in short the whole of planet earth and the beings on it, the whole of cosmos – are illusion! An illusion is something that pretends to be real, to be something substantial, but is not. Kabir was very forthright and strong about this. Everything on the outside is an illusion; a ‘veil’ over reality. Contemplating this makes a human being feel confused, shocked – because – no knowledge.

On the human scale, ‘Russia USA China Australia Iran’ just a thought-form held in people’s minds – the instance it be dissolved it would be as though they never existed; a line drawn in water. That is the human reality of mind. People don’t face that, nor do they realise how hypnotised they are: - if everyone woke up tomorrow morning and the ‘Queen’ had been erased from everyone’s mind; then there would just be a sweet old lady wandering around a big stone monument, wondering who she is and what to do with herself. As below, so above: - in the Ageless Wisdom Cosmos exists and evolves for as long as it is held in the ‘Cosmic Mind’. It is a meditation.

Next time you are walking on the beach, looking at the clouds and the ocean, the miracle of a human being, the beauty of it all – remember how Kabir insisted all was an illusion – everything in front of your eyes and senses that we think is so real; and 99.99999% of what passes through your mind.

Who will give pause, and for how long? For Kabir, the human heart was the door. Imagine an animal, trying to escape through some magical ‘door in nature’ to the human kingdom, where it could become a kind, wise, gentle human being and enjoy life more fully. Well, this is the human being, seeking another door on another turn of the spiral, to the realm of the Self.

jrbarch said...

(cont).
For Kabir, the only rope you had to pull you out of illusion - from insanity to sanity, from illusion to reality, darkness to light, death to immortality - was to go inside. Billions and billions of people have come and gone on the face of this earth, but how many understood to go inside. Instead, they were conditioned by the world, hypnotised, and swept up in its events; and passed from this earth none the wiser. This body, the atoms of which took billions and billions of years to evolve to the point where they could form organs and the city of the body – they fill this city with garbage. Or sacrifice it to illusion, glamour, maya – no worthy goal. Even today, Kabir is a ‘poet’. Ha!

I agree with Kabir.

In touch with peace, the Life and Light of the inner world, the beautiful and profound universal energy of unconditional Love, then perhaps mind could be persuaded to do something wise and intelligent in the outer world (like make friends and share; have some gratitude and respect for existence, enjoy being alive). ”Knowledge is the source of clarity.” So, people are not satisfied with words – they have to have experience; know for themselves. So, Russia, USA, China, Australia, Iran etc are just horses on the carousel of the external world – those who are learning how to light the lamp of self, go within and open up the universe within – these are the pioneers, according to Kabir. The world is arrogance and hubris which is why Kabir laughed; he was always totally politically incorrect: - ”Ignorance is the source of confusion”. he said what was happening in the world was sheer stupidity.