Posted by: graemebird | March 26, 2010

Aint No Keynesian Whores-Gold/(And You Wouldn’t Want To Look For It Even If There Were)

Stimulus spending to increase the deficit is always a diversion from business spending, and not an increase in spending in total. It therefore always causes unemployment. I’ll say that again: STIMULUS SPENDING ALWAYS CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT DIRECTLY. It did so this time around in Australia. It did so this time around in the the US particularly. It did so during the depression in the US. This ought to be so incredibly obvious but somehow we have had a different model of spending flows injected into our head. Slashing government spending would create private employment almost right away so long as there was sufficient wage restraint, and so long as proper monetary policy (not, for fucksakes, interest rate subsidies, or other bank subsidies, which are not monetary policy but fundamentally a crime) quickly brought total business revenues (NOT! for fucksakes GDP) back up to the level it peaked at prior to the financial collapse.

From Elsewhere:

They are self-evident.

Do you not believe that if you made me central banker with new money creation powers, and control over the reserve asset ratio THAT I COULD HIT ANY GROSS DOMESTIC REVENUE TARGET I DECIDED ON?

Do you not believe that?

So I can get all the cash printed I want. Buy back all the bonds or set up a factoring outfit for local governments in debt… or both …….. ?

And at the same time I can raise the reserve asset ratio whenever I felt like it?????

And I’ve statistics graduates charging around my office. Is your claim that I CANNOT hit the nominal spending target I’m after?

No of course you are not claiming that. Because it would be stupid to claim that. Because any one of us, with a few near misses, could get adept at hitting the target we had set for ourselves, under such an idyllic setup.

So what I am saying IS-IN-FACT self-evident. And I’m sorry you had to hear it from me but we have no time for this rubbish anymore its not funny anymore our most important ally is being trashed from the inside and DO YOU WANT TO FIGHT because I don’t!!!!!!!

Now the truth is that government spending doesn’t increase total spending. But so what if it did? I suppose that if I’m going to be creative about it I could INVENT SPECIFIC SCENARIOS wherein we could conduct fiscal policy in such a way that we’d get some tiny paltry increase in gross business revenues. BUT SO WHAT?

Lock it in brother: We’ve already established that we can hit any spending target we are looking to hit with the only valid monetary policy mix available.

Once you internalize that you will realise that what I’m saying is indeed self-evident. And obviously so. And if you cannot see it its time for you to order your Schaum’s outline series on logic, and not get back to economics until you’ve been through it twice.

Listen to Little Bill Dagget. He says there is no Keynesian Whores Gold. And even if there was you wouldn’t want to be looking for it.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Very clever comment Mr Soon:

    “Nice piece of intellectual history from Rothbard

    http://mises.org/daily/4162

    I think Rothbard is a much better intellectual historian than he is a practical policy economist..”

    Rothbard was an all-around Genius. Great philosopher, magnificent economist, great epistemologist and so forth.

    Where we has at his least convincing was current events political commentary.

    He did break new ground in economics. But there is of course always the slight tendentiousness of the anarcho-capitalist there.

    An innovative economist but not the one with the best judgement in all things.

    So for example if Reisman and Rothbard disagree, Reisman is always right.

    On specific, technical economics, Reisman sets the standard. Reisman is like a more global version of Hutt.

    Shows what good taste Rafe has to choose Hutt. Rafes commonsense is uncanny. His epistemology is atrocious.

  2. “Joe’s in the States getting a check-up BirdLab ”

    Tal.

    You conspicuously talk to my stalker, and just as conspicuously you won’t talk to me?

    What did I do to deserve this disrespect?

  3. “I’ll be snarky about someone else other than Abbott and CL for a change. Is there anything more boring on a blog than a Gruen post about Web2 and the Government 2 taskforce?

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/03/24/competence-and-likeability-and-how-increased-power-can-make-you-worse-off/

    steve from brisbane
    25 Mar 10 at 9:53 am”

    No. Well possibly. But you’d go into insulin shock halfway through and so you’d never know.

  4. Graeme I was going to pop our here next week to wish you and yours a Happy Easter. No disrespect intended darl x

  5. Graeme, the vast majority of slobbering mouth-breathers who post their witless one-liners on your blog are Cold War conservatives with a monarchist bent with a Fatal Doomed To Frustration Attraction to Spunky Left Women Who Wouldn’t Look at Them Twice who religious-like worship The Market and Banks and Big Business because it makes them – vicariously – feel, err, big. Sort of. It’s the closest approximation to feeling big these limp-dicked pimply faced dudes will ever know.

    No wonder you – and most everyone else who enjoys your blog – find these “libertarians” as nourishing and stimulating as the culinary equivalent of chronically constipated von Mises {ry} Guts. LOL.

  6. I haven’t been able to figure out who Carlos the Jackal is. But you’ve got the right idea about him posting witless one-liners. So I wiped that one.

  7. Still no answer from anyone as to even the potential benefits of Keynesian stimulus. Its just a fact that we can hit any spending target we want with the combination of new cash creation and increasing the reserve asset ratio.

    Now bear in mind that this does not mean we have to hit an inflationary target. What it proves, once you admit this basic fact, is that so-called fiscal stimulus is never stimulus at all. Merely a diversion away from private business spending. And thus it will immediately cause unemployment. As it always does.

    Thats the direction people are going with it. Thats their next trick. Having no evidence for and total logical proof against the very idea of fiscal stimulus they have decided to pretend that I’m advocating inflationary policy. The dope Cambria tried this on when I advocated and injection of 17 billion dollars in cash, and an increase in the rar in mid 2008. This was to bring the money supply up to its former high of December 2007. So it was not to increase the money supply, except to its former high. With typical idiocy Cambria suggested that I was advocating inflation.

    That we can hit any spending target and indeed any money supply target by with this two-policy approach does not imply that we would choose to hit an inflationary target. My goodness what inspires such an idiotic suggestion?

    But this is the suggestion some of those still sentimental towards the economically illiterate Keynes are making.

    So I point out that you can hit any spending target you want with new cash creation, to retire debt, combined with a reserve asset ratio ……

    …. step two is that the Keyenesian dummy starts talking as if you wanted to hit an inflationary target.

    This is the new mental cul de sac that these people have fallen into. But Cambria and Soon fell into it before them. So we see that the fiscal stimulus mental handicap is certainly a common one.

    Jason Soon still professes to believe in a Keynesian spending multiplier. He won’t argue for it or bring evidence to its favour.

    Its just an irrational belief and he has nothing more to say about it.

    Same with the irrational Cambria and the irrational Mark Hill.

    Just incredible. And this is the economic illiteracy we face in this country.

  8. How can government spending “be a diversion away from private business spending”? That implies that the private sector is a subsidiary of and wholly dependent on government in order to function, which of course it is not, not least in your general world view.

    No one is stopping private business spending on job creation programs in areas of need, especially infrastructural and productive. So if this is not occurring and regardless of government policy unemployment is growing then it is clear that the growing unemployment is not governmental but corporate capitalist market failure.

    And the blame for this must be fully sheeted home where it rightly belongs, which is in the failure of the private sector and private capital to create jobs or carry out productive investment.

    In other words: market fail, again.

    Capitalism is a totally irrational and chronically dysfunctional system. It works best as Hitler showed under totalitarian state conditions of total war.

    Keynesian, a set of reformist capitalism economic nostrums does work on key levels but at what cost and under what conditions that would be socially or politically acceptable today?

  9. Here we have Sinclair Davidson, as responsible as anyone for this incredible national tragedy of the fiscal stimulus. Since when he was called to testify before the Senate THE STUPID FUCKING KEYNESIAN MADE THE KEYNESIAN MULTIPLIER BIPARTISAN.

    Here he was pretending to speak for the right. Fundamentally what he told the Senate is that the fiscal multiplier is a reality. So he cut us all off at the knee-caps. He still refuses point blank to justify the Keynesian multiplier as a concept.

    Of course if you redirect spending from business spending that isn’t picked up in GDP to consumer or government spending that is picked up in GDP well what do you know? You will increase nominal GDP.

    Its not as if I hadn’t gone over this many times before on Catallaxy. And yet this fucking blockhead Keynesian still managed to faux-verify the alleged reality of the Keynesian multiplier to the Senate.

    Here is his testimony.

    Scroll down to

    “1. Spending Multipliers Are Low”

    Its just a fucking tragedy. And a crime.

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_IP1BbGdfqUJ:www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fapa_ctte/stimulus_package/submissions/sub11.pdf+Senate+%22Sinclair+Davidson%22+multiplier&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjWaUnCOwN-TEA3BjGqUuf04X5soUTFHLGoya9874MypSwKNHsAdj-S57ZSlxF9qc58eNnYmbZ1jJcNHKUAAmwrH2xf9GxCIkEknB4PIBidSizyFlPhwfYa0PLeIBfnABleiaCP&sig=AHIEtbSDU5-JbbKMg8TfaGO33obq8Oy9ug

  10. There is never a discrepancy between theory and empirical evidence. Where theory and empirical evidence collide the theory is wrong.

    But this does not stop the ignorant Keynesian Sinclair Davidson.

    “It is important to note that there is a discrepancy between theory and empirical evidence”

    No there is not Sinclair. You can get that right for starters. Sinclair then goes on to quote a bunch of morons who do not understand economic theory.

    Sinclair asserts that theory states that extra spending ought to be more stimulatory then tax cuts.

    This is obviously wrong. Sinclair is defining stimulus with regards to the effect on GDP. This is an idiotic thing to do right there. But obviously tax cuts will increase real GDP more than government spending increases. The reason being that when you adjust for consumer price inflation you will find that the tax cuts have done less damage.

    Then Sinclair, curse his black heart, consults three idiots. In consulting these three idiots he re-emphasises that both wings of economics allegedly agree that the Keynesian multiplier is a real and valid concept. Which it isn’t. Its mentally retarded drooling idiocy.

    Its unbelievable almost. That the people that Sinclair refers to, none of them competent economists, seem to put statistics over logic. Statistics trumps logic it seems in their view.

    So Sinclair tells the Senate that if you cut taxes and increase the deficit by one dollar you’ll get three dollars extra GDP according to one source, but if you increase spending you’ll get only 1.4 dollars.

    Meantime Sinclair, because he doesn’t understand economics does not tell the Senate that in the spending case you will be directly diverting spending away from business spending, and therefore directly causing unemployment.

  11. Where is all this confusion coming from. Well you see all Keynesians are Geselian monetary cranks.

    And all dumb economists rely on the various punditti.

    And nearly all the most stupid economists now seem to rely on the Harvard brand-name. This despite the undeniable reality that no progress in economics has ever come out of Harvard.

    The fact is that Sincliar seems to have been somewhat remote from economic theory at this time. Maybe if you had caught him ten years earlier he might have been a little less rusty.

    So his source material appears to have come from a single blog entry from Greg Mankiw around about that time.

  12. And here is the blog spot right here. Sinclair, perhaps having too much work on his plate, seems to have been inspired by this blog entry where Greg Mankiw, who knows nothing, gets horribly confused because he doesn’t specify in his thinking whether he is talking about nominal or real GDP. And he doesn’t seem to understand that neither of these metrics are any sound proxy for either total spending, total business spending, or total employment spending.

    Its all a big fat embarrassment. As a result of this blogspot of Gregs I wrote an article: Greg you are right to be humble.

    Sinclair’s reaction was quite different. He must have thought, “I wonder what I’ll present to the Senate” then he must have read the blogspot and then thought “ho ho. I’ll build around that”

    http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/fiscal-policy-puzzles.html

    Its not a puzzle at all if you understand economics.

  13. I think we ought to call out Obama for the foreign-backed traitor that he is.

    Think of all he has done. And then think of just one thing he has done. While his country is waging a two front war on Muslim terrorism he’s given a billion dollars to Hamas.

    Lets not have the Jason Soon micronisation routine, wherein Jason says

    “Graeme thinks that Obama is a traitor ONLY BECAUSE……”

    No Soetoro is a foreign backed traitor, and giving Hamas a billion dollars is yet further confirmation of the fact.

  14. When was it the case that a social worker, because thats basically what Soetoro was…..

    …. a social worker had the political machinery to disqualify most of his opponents from even competing against him in virtually every election he ran?

    We already know the Obama campaign turned down 90 million dollars in public money so that the foreign backing would not be traced.

    He’s just passed a brazen totalitarian takeover attempt disguised as health care reform.

    You people are really dreaming to imagine that this is your normal time magazine reality at work here. I think we have come to a time period wherein there has been an explosion of intrigue, scandal and behind the scenes machinations.

  15. Imagine being an American Usurper-President and waking up and realising that you’d absentmindedly given Hamas a billion dollars?

    Isn’t that like being a German and saying “I didn’t know what was going on? Next thing you know I just woke up and I was goose-stepping through Poland”

  16. It would be a very good thing if the American government did give the Palestinian government a billion dollars. Not that it would be in the least adequate compensation for the damage and destruction it has wreaked on these people over decades by bankrolling the terrorist colonial settler state of Israel in order to protect its oil interests in the Middle East.

  17. There doesn’t seem to be the required evidence that the traitor was born in Hawaii. Officials are quick to imply that he was without actually stating it explicitly. They will for example claim he is eligible, which is not what we wanted to know. From Hawaiian officials we want to know where he was born and who is father was. They will not say. They will instead pretend to be constitutional lawyers and claim he is eligible. There may be from memory one exception to this. But it was a belated and apparently illegal statement made by an official. If thats the sum total of evidence, then its pretty damn slim.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Bigone5555J#p/u/7/KATsyxZyKIY

  18. Well they have already done this very good thing Philomena. If you think its a good thing they have already done it.

  19. Some people are still under the delusion that they know for sure where Obama was born and what his citizenship status is. They know no such thing.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Bigone5555J#p/u/18/ky7Wv2IGV7U

  20. you haven’t answered my question up thread.

    “How can government spending “be a diversion away from private business spending”? That implies that the private sector is a subsidiary of and wholly dependent on government in order to function, which of course it is not, not least in your general world view. ‘

  21. Where is the money coming from?

    We are talking about extra spending, without the creation of new money. So you tell me where the money is coming from. And then I can answer your question.

  22. Here is something I wrote elsewhere that may be helpful to see what is going on. We didn’t have a fullblown recession hit. Or rather we were already in a central bank induced squeeze when the bad news came in from overseas. So in fact there was nothing really wrong at all for us, and the only upshot was a reduction in exports for awhile.

    But when a real recession hits the economy is in need of repair. The recession reveals the destruction that has been going on in the prior boom.

    Now in that situation you need resources and funds to do the repairing. If you suck them up in government bonds and idiotic stimulus packages you are doing unbelievable harm and we always see the results of this harm.

    Here is what I have said elsewhere:

    “I thought the point of fiscal stimulus was to sell bonds to the private sector during a financial panic, when they’re too scared to invest in anything else……”

    What possible point could there be to such craziness. See how you are robbing the private sector of spending? And for what reason? To buy bonds? How are resources, being sent to buy bonds, going to employ people? Are bonds a private business expense? Are bonds spending incurred fixing up liquidated investments? Are they an expense involved with taking a project to completion? You have just answered your own question. The spending has been diverted to where it is not not employing anyone, nor fixing the distorted market.

    “But now you tell me that a stimulus package with 37% given out as tax cuts is a seizure from private initiative…..”

    Now you are muddying the waters QE. You’ve purposefully, in order to stay ignorant, with some real determination brought tax cuts into it. Deficit stimulus spending will unemploy people immediately. Tax cuts are much less of a certain thing. But in my country and yours the tax cuts were particularly unhelpful. Since they were designed to be splurged.

    “…… and that even during a financial panic when investors are liquidating their holdings and businesses spending is falling, issuing bonds will immediately destroy jobs by subtracting from gross investment…..”

    Of course it will. Here you are in a terrible situation, and you’ve diverted spending from where it could do some good. Instead of doing any good and employing people its being dried up in bonds.

    I cannot understand this. What is wrong with you? Why can you not see that diverting funds from gross investment, into these bonds, and into government spending is instantly unemploying people. In the very scenarios you have described.

    Some liquidated investments needed further spending to bring a cash flow to them. A chicken coup was halfway through being built. The owner might sell it and the land under it. He might bring the project to completion and cash-flow. A neighbour might buy him out to consolidate his vineyard but more spending will be needed for this to become part of his cash flow. To alter the chicken coup to make it an extension of the vineyard. And what do you want to do? ROB THAT SPENDING AND DIVERT IT INTO GOVERNMENT BONDS.

    See the economy is damaged. And its needs repairs to the engine room. Not to the caboose. Investment needs to be made to balance the economy and to deal with all these half-investments out there. Some areas have experienced overinvestment. Other areas there has been underinvestment. The economy has been thrown out of balance. But to utilise the overinvestments, even after liquidation, or even if the same owner soldiers on, there will need to be more spending to bring them matters to positive cash flow.

    Other areas were underinvested in. That will be the real engine of employment growth. Well lets just say rather that it WOULD HAVE been. Because what are these morons doing? Robbing any potential for this to happen. Because your crowd went and diverted the potential funds into increasing government debt and then allowing Washington to splurge.

    This is an immediate and direct destruction of jobs.

    “Well, there’s no evidence because it’s all counter-factual suppositions: we’re comparing jobs under a certain policy with what might have been otherwise.”

    No there is not any evidence because of that reason. There just isn’t any evidence at all. There isn’t an apriori case, or empirical evidence. Or anything. Just nothing. Pure irrationalism out there floating on its own.

    “And since neoclassical economists have a terrible track record making predictions, it’s a good idea to be skeptical of those suppositions.”

    Why bring THEM into it. Friedman is gone. Stigler too. Buchanan wants 100% backing like me. The rest of those guys are morons. See how hard you are trying to NOT learn anything?

    “But if you think Obama’s economic team is a bunch of idiots….”

    No no. We know they are idiots. Look at the results. Total morons. Soetoro would have picked them specifically to trash things and let him splurge. Every one of these guys is a moron.

    The rest is just jibber. All of his team is fine with statistics. They are just idiots when it comes to economics and good sense. Now get it together.

    You already you can hit any spending target you are after. Ergo if you are in the process of hitting that target, and you divert spending and resources away from business expenses ….. business expenditure ….. And to doing stupid things like buying bonds, consumers splashing out on foreign televisions, and urging people to rack up more debt on their credit cards ….. then you are directly unemploying people. And obviously so.

    You aren’t increasing total spending. We’ve already decided what total spending will be. Thats locked in. Which means you’ve diverted spending. You’ve specifically diverted spending from gross investment. This is what wages and salaries are paid out of. This is destroying jobs as any peacetime historical sequence of statistics will prove for you.

    But you should understand it straight away. You haven’t created spending. You’ve diverted. Diverted it away from repairing the half-finished investments, from renovating the liquidated properties, from investing now that the market signals aren’t distorted, and we find out which business OUGHT TO BE expanding. And by starting up government spending, you’ve diverted (WE’VE ALREADY DETERMINED AND SET IN STONE THE SPENDING TARGET.. SO IT MUST BE A DIVERSION) money from all those activities needed to fix up the wounded economy.

    Man you should have seen back in Reagans time. How wonderful it was what came out of that recession. Yes the deficits were at 100 BILLION PLUS but they were at least attempting to dry up non-defense spending. Completely different from today. And so you had all these resources going into computing, new business startups. Kids starting things out of their garage. Just a night and day difference now that the lunatics are in charge.

  23. Suppose I was a closet Nazi. That in reality I thought like Hitler and wanted Jews dead.

    If I was faking my way through the American Presidency, under normal assumptions I still could not act in the shocking way that Obama is acting. Supposing I wanted to run a second term, or not risk having everyone turning on me.

    We have to take the evidence where it leads us. And it leads us to the conclusion that Obama is going out of his way to show to his various foreign sponsors that the hundreds of millions they have invested in this fake-ass prick have been well-spent.

    You see he isn’t relying on the American people for the votes. He never was. They can be taken for granted if enough money is spent buying their minds.

  24. If you want to see colonised minds than there is no better place to see this than in the men who post on Catallaxy. It’s a case study. Seriously.

    The distorted idea of individualism which these poor sods espouse which is ethically undermined and diminished and in reality totally compromised and contradicted with every reference to practical politics and real life is evidence of fabulously effective mind control by corporate crony capitalism of the petty bourgeoisie.

    Amusing if it wasn’t so tragic and pathetic.

  25. It does seem that way.

  26. From Elsewhere:

    PZ do you not consider the problems with DNA getting going as not having pretty large implications?
    Since all knowledge is holistic, I would have thought that if we were unable to show clearly how DNA could get started, this would have implications in other areas of science.
    For example if the idea of DNA getting going from scratch is just too hard an ask, then this may imply that the rather baseless theory of the big bang doesn’t have a lot going for it. This may imply that the universe is far older, and that evolution is not a single-planet, single-solar-system affair.
    Your explanation doesn’t really sound altogether satisfying.

  27. Answer your own question, Graeme.

    Where does money come from in the first place? What were its origins? Is there always a predictable mechanical relationship between growth in money and productive or social wealth?

    And in relation to your comments about “facts” and “evidence”.

    Again there is a confusion at base here which is unscientific. Facts are not the same as data. Facts are culturally constructed. They are made, not given, like data. Data is the raw material, facts are something made or worked up and incorporated into theories.

    Observable data is often rejected. It is compatibility with theory which turns what is the merely given as opposed to made into facts. But it remains contestable and incomplete theory.

    Understanding this is a pre-condition for the scientific method and for philosophy. And for any useful economics.

  28. When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
    When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
    When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
    When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
    How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
    Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
    In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
    Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

    Walt Whitman

  29. “Answer your own question, Graeme.”

    You’ve got to answer the question Philomena. Because if in your example the money was not created anew, then it was diverted. If it was borrowed it will have been diverted from gross business investment in all likelihood.

    If people buy bonds that money would have been spent elsewhere had the bonds not sucked up those resources. The fact is that government spending and extra consumer spending takes up both nominal spending AND real resources.

  30. Posts from elsewhere (Topic:sustainability)

    Post 1:

    To pit high CO2 levels AGAINST sustainability will always be an acid test, to sort the serious analyst from the truly stupid.

    Post 2:

    I like the Othello reference. But really high levels of reproduction are very very rare in the Western world. We face pressure from expanding Muslim populations. So our immigration ought to be reasonable and with our girls, if they really did want to have two or three kids and they miss out, then thats a lifetimes tragedy.

    I don’t see much in the way of deep thinking with regards to national defense in the analysis of these public servants.

    Post 3:

    Extinction and near extinction events have to be taken into account with sustainability. With the right policies, particularly to do with energy production, land use, canals, wharves, and permanently glutted high-rise……

    …. With the right policies in a couple of hundred years time we could be fabulously rich and yet be leaving less of a footprint then at any time since we came out of Africa.

    Sitting around in the dark trying not to consume or breed, for the sake of the animals, is not much use to the animal kingdom, if we are not in the position to help them or ourselves, whensoever next we are hit by one of these extinction or near extinction events.

    Even the coming of the next glacial period could totally reverse any progress we made at allowing room for more diversity and feral life. Although it must be said that a new glacial period would likely do wonders to restore some robustness to life in the oceans, landed bio-diversity would likely suffer horribly.

    What we need to do is stay rich and technically adept. Then we are in a position to afford the policy mix which will slowly alter our behaviour towards sustainability over the next many decades. Trying to change things too quickly, at the expense of our economic power is itself unsustainable.

    Post 4.

    Three other things to throw into the sustainability mix.

    1. Nuclear Power.

    2. The ideas of Henry George. People tend to be absolutist when it comes to Henry George. Being from an economics background I don’t accept the Georgist program 100%. But I don’t see why people cannot meet Henry George part of the way. I would consider myself about one eighth a Georgist. But where the topic is sustainability I cannot see how Georgism can be left outside.

    Also with regards to Georgism, I think one ought to be more Georgist as the density of population increases, or if land holdings of the few are too vast. If I was a Pakistani I would be 50% Georgist. For our future sustainability I would advise a two hundred year program where we got to about one-eighth Georgism, then progressed to as much as one half.

    3. A very very slow, very very patient 1000 year project to make inland transport/desalination canals ubiquitous. I want to emphasize that its NOT ON!! to go into more debt over such a project. Or set up further serious burdens on the taxpayer. Or spend billions on what in the short and medium-run, would probably be a series of white elephants. I’m seriously talking about a slow, cost-effective, 1000 year project.

    The reasons I think that this is necessary are too complicated to go into here. But they are to do with the development of the economy, and as well insurance against extinction and catastrophic events.

  31. I’m so out of touch with the kids music now Philomena. I stopped watching the music around 2003. Nice video. I particularly like the young ladies look when the body paint is like she is dressed up to be a female “Green Lantern”

    I think I get your message from the Walt Whitman poem and the video. And I’m not blaming you for intuitively taking the other side of the argument.

    But I get angry at Jason and Sinclair. Because they ought to be able to understand what I’m saying. And it should be just a matter of pointing out one or two things that they aren’t taking into account. Each of them has done at least about five years straight of economics study.

    As opposed to my twenty or so I suppose.

    (((((The Green Lantern is a superhero comic character, with the sort of powers one would like to have from a purely greedy disposition. But on the other hand he has a philosophical bent and is kind of zen. Well he was. I haven’t read those comics since the late seventies/early eighties. His philosophical nature may have reflected the genius of one of my sometime correspondents, the brilliant Neal Adams))))

    For some contrast to your last vid may I present an old standard. Better audio versions could be found at youtube. But I really couldn’t leave those beautiful girls out of it:

  32. Moderated from elsewhere:

    I see a great tragedy going down here Barry. By the way you mastered the history and reality of nuclear power, I can see that you obviously have the raw congenital material to be a magnificent scientist. But you haven’t been given the right guidance early on I’m afraid. You are clueless when it comes to epistemology.
    When it came to climate science you fell headlong into the trap of the shadow of the curse of the lone paradigm. Now you could make your way out of it, and still be an earth-shattering scientist. But I cannot see you doing it with all these groupies around you.
    A tragic waste of a pretty smart kid.

  33. what do you think Graeme? keen to follow in the footsteps of your hero and do a triathlon? you were a swimming coach weren’ you

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/29/2858728.htm?section=justin

    • He needs to keep fit. But he’d be better of with me, Kates, and Jackson bringing him up to scratch on policy. Joyce is by far the sounder fellow. Abbot is not nearly as sound as Joyce, but at leas he might FUCKING LISTEN, which is something Turnbull was never going to do.

      I’m not against him spending two hours a day on aerobics. I was after all a swimming coach. But he ought not waste all his inspiration through his joints, when he could have me, Kates and Jackson learning him how to be the true statesman of the quarter century.

  34. Abbott really bombed out badly last week didn’t he. Made a fool of himself and lost the PR war in the health debate. Rudd outwitted him masterfully on all counts.

    And then, quelle horreur, he came 1186th out of 1540 in the triathalon. How embarrassing! What a loser.

  35. What is it with Liberal leaders these days? If they’re ultra conservative like Abbott they’re on the nose electorally and if they’re liberal wets like Barry O’Farrell in NSW they’re invisible and can’t cut the mustard either with the electorate.

  36. Its pretty sad at that. Stop gloating Sal.

    You forgot to add:

    If they are totally sound and righteous like Barnaby, their inferiors give them the boot.

  37. Hey SOON consider this.

    Lately I posted the day that little bill beat up crazy English Bob right?

    Me and you must have seen that 100 times. But the genius of great writing, great direction, and fantastic acting, you cannot escape it.

    Because for the first time I notice little Bill step down and casually or it might have been CONTEMPTUOUSLY push away the loaded rifle of one of his subordinates as he went down to kick the living shit out of English Bob.

    And we’ve seen it 100 times right?

    But like Brando with a cat in his lap, like “live and let die” with the background singers saying

    “you know you did, you know you did, you know you did”

    You know you have that genius understanding that penetrates through to the subconcious. And if Hackett didn’t push the rifle away like he did do, that would be half the power of the scene gone.

    Scroll up to the youtube in the thread directly above. I may have helped spoil it to some extent.

  38. Its a funny movie you know. Its a funny movie. It suddenly leaps forward into post-war fancy-French philosophy as far as I can make out.

    Look at how sick Will Munny is when he gets the beaten senseless. He is so deleriously sick and yet he keeps going for a bottle or to try and get at Little Bill. In fact Munny is this like really sick terminator. But Bill is for one time in his life grandstanding in front of this writer. Well Bill makes a mistake. Reads Munny wrong. Big big big mistake. Because Munny keeps crawling, out of pure meaness or instinct. But he keeps crawling and its a beautiful thing.

    Then afterwards Strawberry-Alice sez:

    You just kicked the living shit out of an innocent man.

    And Little Bill sez:

    INNOCENT OF WHAT!!!!!

    Well Bill is right of course. But isn’t that just condensing some of the insights of Becket, Sarte and Kafka and polishing them and putting them there in the right context?

    Its a beautiful thing.

    I thought this movie was going to be good but I never imagined it would be quite THAT good.

  39. I think the Liberals really are historically and practically irrelevant now, electorally and politically. Which is why it is so difficult for them to come up with err, policy, or policy that is electorally acceptable.

    Few, certainly a distinct minority of voters want to venture into far right or loose cannon territory which is all that the Libs federally now propose, certainly with the current leadership incumbents.

    The ALP has successfully from its point of view seized the centre-right (formerly Liberal) political terrain and the Greens a large part of what is essentially the former social democratic terrain surrendered by the ALP.

    It would be good if there were more progressive ‘single issue parties” that could get electoral representation in the Upper House at least and the Lower House too of course. Would make for a much richer and more democratic political discussion nationally.

  40. Yeah but sal.

    You OUGHT TO be right. But the incumbents are the biggest bunch of morons we’ve ever seen in Australian government in all this time from Federation.

    So even an irrelevant team can make hay against such utter light-weights.

  41. Never let it be said that you ever exaggerate or talk nonsense.

    And even if you do, exaggeration plays a very important role even in science, n’est-ce pas?

  42. Well I’m going to ask Jason Soon what famous classic piece of literature UNFORGIVEN is by far the most modeled on. And he ought to workshop it with
    CL and Fisk and the others and see if he gets the right answer.

    I’m going to email the right answer to Philomena right now as a control experiment.

    • Graeme. JC/BirdLab is already on record as thinking that Homer refers to none other than Homer Simpson so I wouldn’t be holding your breath thinking his intellectual peers Jason Soon and Michael Fisk would have any idea about the Homeric inspiration in Clint Eastwood’s film.

      As a Greek I am proud of my literary heritage but I must point out that classical Greek literature owes a huge debt to that of ancient Egypt and Homer’s Odyssey to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

  43. Philomena might like this one:

  44. PZ. The fact is you’ve blown it mate. You’ve made a fool of yourself. It was a bad sign when you confessed you were a CO2-bedwetter.
    You are a biologist. You should have known better, than to be a bedwetter.
    So you are a fake. And you are failed analyst.
    From here on in you shall be known as PZ.
    CO2-bedwetter.
    You are just a dummy mate. You were faking it. And you weren’t good enough to come to Australia.
    #49
    Posted by: Marie the Bookwyrm | March 29, 2010 1:20 AM
    Oh, joy! He showed up! Let’s all RIDE THE LYING TIGER AND GRAB ITS EARS!
    #50
    Posted by: Graeme Bird | March 29, 2010 1:22 AM
    Look at this!!!!
    Not only is PZ a non-scientist, a failed analyst and a CO2-bedwetter.
    He’s a liar:
    “anti-vaxer,”
    You are a liar PZ.
    Yes you are.
    Yes you are.
    #51
    Posted by: Cerberus | March 29, 2010 1:24 AM
    I dunno, maybe I just know too many people in therapy but that description of his blog just seems like one of those super-embarassing affirmations.
    It makes my heart weep.
    I just want to go up to him and say, yes, you are a unique person who is worthy of love.
    I mean, completely misinformed and deeply divorced from reality.
    But worthy of love just the same.
    It’s okay, Graeme. It’s okay. The demons of your past can’t hurt you any more.
    #52
    Posted by: Phasic | March 29, 2010 1:24 AM
    Woo, it’s on again.
    #53
    Posted by: Pope Bologna XIII – The Glorious High Sauceror of Pastafarianism and Grand Poobah of His Holy Meatball. | March 29, 2010 1:24 AM
    Naww this man makes me sad to be Australian 😦
    #54
    Posted by: Graeme Bird | March 29, 2010 1:25 AM
    “anti-evolutionist”
    Look at that?
    PZ is a liar.
    Not only is he a bedwetter and a fucking dummy. He’s a committed liar.
    Lets have that evidence for the big bang PZ you fucking moron.
    You are just a dummy Pz/
    You will never be a scientist PZ. You will always only be a parasitical science worker. Because you have no chance of debating me ever.
    #55
    Posted by: Bombus | March 29, 2010 1:26 AM
    We can all relieve some of our stress by setting Bird’s chirps to song. I look forward to your contributions, as the use of my singing voice is banned in Canada and at least 7 states
    #56
    Posted by: Graeme Bird | March 29, 2010 1:28 AM
    You are a liar Pz. Yes you are. And a CO2 Bedwetter. Yes thats right.
    And a goose-stepping sheeple big-bang believer.
    Thats right PZ. You are a fake. You never had what it took to be a scientist.
    You couldn’t debate me on anything. So you chose to lie.
    Like the CO2 bedwetter that you are.
    #57
    Posted by: Phasic | March 29, 2010 1:30 AM
    “Goose-stepping Sheeple big-bang believer” has got to be a song title.
    #58
    Posted by: Graeme Bird | March 29, 2010 1:31 AM
    You were always a fake PZ. You never had it together to apply the scientific method. Yeah you can TALK ABOUT IT you big fat fake.
    But its all talk.
    Because you have been found out as a CO2-bedwetter,and big bang believer.
    You be far more comfortable dressing up in sheila’s clothing then applying the scientific method.
    #59
    Posted by: Notkieran | March 29, 2010 1:32 AM
    Dear birdbrain:
    >You are a blockhead mate. Anyone could trash you in a physics argument.
    My condolences, Mr Bird. How does it feel to be no one?
    Seriously? I’m impressed. You must be some kind of psychic, given that I have not yet, in my presence, actually bothered with discussing physics with you.
    Yes. I teach physics at a high school specialising in maths and science, because I love the subject, and I still am not going to argue physics with you.
    The reason is not that I am afraid of you.
    The reason is that I can’t stop laughing.
    Why am I laughing? Because your only response to evidence is to say “that is not evidence” and then carry on with your stupidity.
    I want to caption you. I want to tag you with “Dunning-Kruger exhibit 1.00” and lead generations of students to look at you, except that I’m afraid that
    (a) My students would injure themselves laughing at you.
    (b) Insanity is catching.
    (c) I don’t want to scare the punters.
    No, shh, Mr Bird. It’s ok.
    I don’t expect you to talk.
    Guess what I do expect?
    #60
    Posted by: monado | March 29, 2010 1:33 AM
    Your wingnut seems to be turning into a broken record. Entertainment value is declining. G’night, all!
    #61
    Posted by: Phasic | March 29, 2010 1:34 AM
    “You be far more comfortable dressing up in sheila’s clothing then applying the scientific method.”
    Woo, 10 points for femininity-as-insult, Bird.
    #62
    Posted by: Graeme Bird | March 29, 2010 1:35 AM
    “We can all relieve some of our stress by setting Bird’s chirps to song.”
    Yeah Okay. Lets talk this fellow who isn’t even a man. He’s just a sheila. He couldn’t summon the moxie to be man enough to be a scientist.
    He’s not man.
    He’s a bumsucking homo.
    So lets have a song for this non-scientist.
    CHEER UP SLEE-PZ
    OH WHAT CAN IT MEAN
    FOR A
    BIG BANG BELIEVER
    AND A
    HOME-COMING QUEEN.
    You like it?
    He’s a fucking moron mate. He’s a girly-man.
    #63
    Posted by: desertfroglet | March 29, 2010 1:35 AM
    Not an anti-vaxer, Gra Gra? You sure are.
    They don’t see anything imprudent with jacking babies with multiple vaccines all in one hit, and the vaccines containing the nerve and brain poison MERCURY. And the fuckwit sighted [sic] a court case with absolutely no transparent reasoning or data in it and erroenously [sic] decided that this meant that there is no possible link between these imprudent and frankly quite criminaly [sic] negligent practices and autism. The fact is no evidence either way was presented so one would obviously defer to prudence and commonsense. And one would take seriously the change in babies [sic] demeanour that is often reported when these disgraceful multiple vaccines laced with mercury are practiced.
    From here, as mentioned in the OP. You are a profoundly incapable human being, Gra Gra.
    #64
    Posted by: Pope Bologna XIII – The Glorious High Sauceror of Pastafarianism and Grand Poobah of His Holy Meatball. | March 29, 2010 1:35 AM
    What in Aphrodite’s pink frilly knickers are you blathering on about Graeme? CO2 bedwetter? Are you in primary school or are you a fully grown man capable of communicating your thoughts, because I know which category I would place you in.
    Grow up, you’ve got to be kidding if this is how you handle your online image as a candidate for politics. It’s truly cringe-worthy watching you prance about making such a fuss. Have some decorum.
    #65
    Posted by: WowbaggerOM | March 29, 2010 1:35 AM
    You know what’s fun? Singing Graeme Bird’s posts out loud. They’re even more hilariously batshit-insane when they’re songs.

  45. So lets sing along. Because he’s not even a man. He never could summon the moxie to live up to his own alleged beliefs and apply the scientific method. So instead the great big fat hairy pussy projected his own unscience onto non-atheists.
    He’s not a man. He’s a bumsucking homo. He’s here in Australia telling us about the importance of getting laid. He’s a fake I tell you.
    CHEER UP SLEE-PZ
    OH WHAT CAN IT MEAN
    FOR A
    BIG BANG BELIEVER
    AND A
    HOME-COMING QUEEN

  46. Those guys were all great and very underrated. But Nesmith was the brains of the bunch. Follow a dumb kid home and you will find a stupid women. Probably PZ’s momma.

    Follow Nesmith home and you will find a lady so smart that as a secretary she invented white-out.

    Here is Nesmith a bit later on in life:

  47. Two of the coolest and most talented people in American theatre and film in the 20th century. And raging lefties to boot, Birdy.

  48. Thanks for Mink de Ville. Like most of your music postings, I’ve never heard of them. But this group is very special I can tell.

  49. ‘Since all knowledge is holistic’ – Graeme, you and your supporters are A-grade nutjobs with scrambled logic processes. When the sun rises do you think ‘shit, the Earths falling over!’. You wouldn’t know the truth if it demonstrated itself to you over and over and over and over……

    YOU COMPLETE NUTJOB. LETS HAVE YOU EXPAND ON YOUR THEORY THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE IS NOT HOLISTIC. WHERE PZ MYERS GOES THE STUPIDITY NEVER BOTTOMS OUT.

  50. Graeme, I think a large part of the problem is that you recognise everything is politicised, true, but because you’ve thrown your hat in with the Right you miss out on seeing that it is precisely the Left, virtually exclusively and going back centuries, which has painstakingly dissected the process of state and ruling class brainwashing of the masses to a tee.

    There are countless left and progressive writers who have detailed the processes and means by which this occurs. And they are or were all, exclusively, left-wing politically. This commonly accepted conclusion is drawn from both data and fact. It is not a mere theory.

    BTW did you know that the words ‘fetish’ and ‘fact’ historically are first cousins, so to speak, etymologically? Unlike ‘data’ or ‘datum’, which hail from another tribe entirely?

  51. In the 20th century, to take just the most recent past, all the Right has to ‘boast’ of is opposition to:

    women’s and gay liberation, the ending of apartheid, indigenous peoples’ culture and human rights, national independence in the poorest countries of the world (i.e. the liberatory strivings of the overwhelming majority of the human race)

    and support for:

    brutal Western imperialist backed and armed totalitarian dictatorships – from Korea to Vietnam to the African continent and all of Latin America – the growing relative immiseration of the majority in the advanced capitalist countries as a direct result of untrammelled capitalism facilitating the enrichment of the minority ruling class, an erosion of fundamental civil liberties and basic bourgeois democratic rights, and a pitiful autistic-like incomprehension about and dismissal of ecological and environmental problems of the utmost importance to all sentient beings, not least homo sapien.

    Not to mention the Western (particularly American Right’s support for Christian religious fundmentalism, protection and defence of predatory pedophile priests and brothers, undermining of crucial formations within a democratic civil society (such as trade unions) and not a single cultural contribution, in music, film or the plastic arts that can be said to have contributed anything to the sum of human knowledge or non-abusive human enjoyment or edification.

    A very sorry and reprehensible record indeed.

  52. Graeme, Sinclair Davidson, Jason Soon and John Humphreys, authentic Australian neo-liberal libertarians one and all, may have been your former political mentors and coachers, but as you are now becoming aware, even they are too loony Right for you to stomach.

  53. I’M WINNING EVERY ARGUMENT AND OBVIOUSLY SO IDIOT.

    “I don’t quite get it; this is money the government is disbursing to encourage jobs for the sake of jobs, and if they were hiring people to dig holes and fill them in again, it would accomplish their task.”

    YOUR MAN PZ MYERS IS AN IMBECILE IN EVERY SUBJECT. HE IS ALLERGIC TO REASON AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

  54. They are not right enough for me Philomena. My objection to them is that they aren’t committed economists.

  55. Voodoo economics the application of which has resulted in a GFC that is causing massive disruption and destruction and facilitated colossal corporate greed and theft ain’t got a lot going for it, agreed.

    Let us lay it in the waste bin of history where it belongs.

  56. Sure Philomena. Thats a good interpretation if taken literally. The voodoo economics that bank-cash-pyramiding is valid behaviour and can lead to wealth creation, ought to indeed be put on the scrap-heap of history. Those American bankers like Goodman Sachs were a huge part of the GFC.

  57. “Holistic” –
    –adjective
    1.
    incorporating the concept of holism in theory or practice: holistic psychology.
    2.
    identifying with principles of holism in a system of therapeutics, esp. one considered outside the mainstream of scientific medicine, as naturopathy or chiropractic, and usually involving nutritional measures.
    I am holding out two fingers on one hand and two fingers on my other hand, I am holding out four fingers – knowledge – not very ‘holistic’, just factual.

  58. Right. So you have some theory going that knowledge isn’t holistic?

    Fire away.

    We only categorize and demarcate one area of knowledge from another for convenience sakes. In reality there are no such demarcations. Hence if we find that its implausible that DNA could have involved in such a short time, this is further evidence for the foolishness of the big bang theory.

    People are not used to thinking in such a holistic way. And its a great hindrance to scientific development.

  59. ‘Since all knowledge is holistic,’ is what you said. I simply disagree that ALL knowledge is holistic. Sure some is.

    YOU IDIOT. WHERE IS THE CUTOFF. IF THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY, OR A SLIM LIKELIHOOD OF DNA GETTING OFF THE GROUND, EXCEPT IN THE LONGEST LONGEST LONGEST RUN, HOW DOES NOT THAT RELATE TO YET MORE EVIDENCE OF THIS MOST BOGUS OF FANTASIES KNOWN AS THE “BIG BANG”

    SURELY IF THE SHEER PROBABILITY OF DNA GETTING OFF THE GROUND IS BROUGHT INTO QUESTION IT IMPLIES A MUCH OLDER UNIVERSE. NOW IF YOU ARE THE SORT OF DIM BULB THAT YOU ARE YOU MAY NOT SEE THAT CONNECTION WITH THE CLARITY OF SOMEONE LIKE ME, NOT WEIGHED DOWN BY THE STUPID GENES.

    ‘We only categorize and demarcate one area of knowledge from another for convenience sakes. In reality there are no such demarcations.’

    – what a furphy!

    NO NO. ITS NOT A FURPHY. ITS JUST A FUCKING FACT YOU SILLY CUNT.

    You only make this claim so that you can justify your position if any part at all of the position of someone or something you disagree with is found wanting.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU SILLY CUNT MAKING RULES FOR ME? WHAT SORT OF GIBBER IS THAT? THE FACT IS THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE IS HOLISTIC. AND WE DON’T KNOW STUFF UNLESS WE HAVE CONVERGENT EVIDENCE. IN THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS, WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, THAT THE DIVISIONS BETWEEN AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE ARE ENTIRELY ARTIFICIAL.

    ‘Hence if we find that its implausible that DNA could have evolved in such a short time, this is further evidence for the foolishness of the big bang theory.’

    – According to this logic, if it is found that continental drift from a singular land mass may not be correct, the earth must be flat!

    THATS YOUR LOGIC YOU SILLY CUNT. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT. AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT CONTINENTAL DRIFT IS IMPLAUSIBLE.

    The application of holistic thinking can be useful when trying to solve problems, develop theories and establish testing processes for theories, but not when applied to facts.

    WHAT FACTS YOU SILLY CUNT. YOU KNOW FUCK ALL. THESE FACT YOU THINK YOU KNOW. YOU DON’T KNOW THEM. YOU ARE A MORON. YOU JUST CONFESSED TO THINKING YOU KNOW ABOUT THE BIG BANG. NO YOU DON’T. THE BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN.

    YOUR VIEW THAT IT HAPPENED IS A CLEAR DELUSION.

    LIKE YOUR VIEW OF CONTINENTAL DRIFT.

    DRAW ME THE FORCE VECTORS YOU SILLY CUNT??????

    YOU CANNOT DO IT.

    BUT A TEAM OF YOU DUMB FUCKS COULD GET TOGETHER AND PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL NO PROBLEM. ALTHOUGH I WOULD DOUBT THE ABILITY OF ANY ONE OF YOU TO PULL IT OFF.

    YOU THOUGHT THE WORLD WASN’T FLAT. YOU WERE RIGHT. YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS THE BIG BANG AND YOU WERE WRONG. YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS THIS CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THAT TOO.

    BUT SCIENCE CAN FIND THE RIGHT ANSWERS. YOU’VE JUST GOT TO LET SCIENCE DO THE WORK.

    AND A PRE-REQUISITE FOR LETTING SCIENCE DO THE WORK IS TO REALISE THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE IS HOLISTIC.

    IF YOU DOUBT FOR ONE MINUTE THAT CONTINENTAL DRIFT IS NOT BULLSHIT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS AT LEAST GET IT CLEAR IN YOUR OWN MIND THE FORCE VECTORS THAT COULD WRENCH ALL THOSE CONTINENTS AROUND LIKE THAT.

    IT MIGHT BE HARD TO COMMUNICATE SUCH A THING. BUT YOU GET IT CLEAR IN YOUR OWN MIND I’M SURE YOU CAN CONVINCE ME.

  60. Always I emphasize that the search for knowledge involves paradigms in parallel.

    Paradigms, theories and hypotheses in parallel.

    Yes there is a difference between these three, but while they are different there is no cutoff, and my habit is to use them almost interchangeably.

    Now in my methodology, because we get to rightful certitude only from convergent verification (and convergent falsification) we find through experience and for reasons too complicated to go into here that we ought not start the budget off for the research project without 3 hypotheses in parallel.

    It turns out under my epistemology that 3 is always a minimum. With two you don’t even have a tie-break.

    In the search for knowledge we always work in 3 theories in parallel, minimum.

    AND SIX IS BETTER.

    By analogy nowhere in the universe will you find any intelligent life without at least three good senses. Two superb and excellent senses will not be good enough no matter how excellent. Better to have three or more pretty good senses.

    Three is the minimum but six is better.

    We have touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight, and balance.

    Five plus one equals six.

    We evaluate reality with six different inputs. Maybe more but six serviceable ones.

    Nowhere in this universe will there be an intelligent life-form making it on two utterly powerful senses alone.

    Two people are walking along and they SEE a dried up turd before them. One fellow picks the turd up. He says it FEELS like turd. SMELLS like turd. SOUNDS like turd. TASTES like turd, SMELLS like turd.

    They put it down again.

    “lucky we didn’t step in it”

    The world is spherical for at least five or six convergent reasons. Three strong lines of evidence would be good enough, but five or six seal the deal as a fact.

    But you have shit when it comes to the big bang and continental drift. You have one line of evidence with the big bang. Maybe three so-so ones with the continental drift.

    Here is the thread that will make things clear to you:

    https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/deductive-bivalent-exactitude-versus-rightful-certitude/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: