Coronavirus

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Area 54? UFO's? Abductions? The X-Files? Are you trying to tell me . . . . 

Peter, did you miss that I was being sarcastic?

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

17 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon, you happen to be talking to someone who really does have insider information on this one.

Ellen

You said about two years ago that you had insider information proving population control schemes you said you were going to do something about.

Any progress?

[Ellen Stuttle]

17 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

You said about two years ago that you had insider information proving population control schemes you said you were going to do something about.

Any progress?

Progress was being made, in the sense that the conspirators were being alerted through roundabout means to there being people who were onto specific plans, so they were working on other methods.

Ironically, the COVID-19 scare has, for the moment, put a stop to the possibility of the schemers pursuing any of their methods.  Thing is, they need to be able to travel, and they're blocked, since they don't have the VIP status to get special permission for travel.

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

They were stopped, good.

I hope they don’t come up with something that is perfectly believed by all as real and that they could use as cover explanation for any and all deaths they may produce by the newly sought-after means.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More voodoo.

Health company apologizes for falsely telling 600,000 US military members they were infected with coronavirus
The company said it was a simple mistake

Quote

A healthcare insurance company for members of the U.S. military had to apologize for accidentally telling over 600,000 people that they were infected with the virus when they were not.

Tricare apologized for alarming several hundred thousand people because of a poorly worded email that implied the recipient was a coronavirus survivor. The email went out from Humana Military, a regional manager for Tricare.

"As a survivor of COVID-19, it's safe to donate whole blood or blood plasma, and your donation could help other COVID-19 patients. Your plasma likely has antibodies (or proteins) present that might help fight the coronavirus infection," read the email.

"Currently, there is no cure for COVID-19. However, there is information that suggests plasma from COVID-19 survivors, like you, might help some patients recover more quickly from COVID-19," the email continued.

Six hours later, Humana sent out a correction and an apology over the confusing and erroneous emails.

"In an attempt to educate beneficiaries who live close to convalescent plasma donation centers about collection opportunities, you received an email incorrectly suggesting you were a COVID-19 survivor," read the email. "You have not been identified as a COVID-19 survivor and we apologize for the error and any confusion it may have caused."

. . .

About 31,000 people affiliated with the U.S. military have been diagnosed with the coronavirus, far fewer than the 600,000 reached by the erroneous email.

Some critics of the pandemic lockdown orders have used mistakes in counting and reporting coronavirus cases to bolster their claims that some elements of the government are using the pandemic to damage the president and the Republicans.

Ya' think?

Notice that the cases of COVID-19 are always overcounted, never undercounted?

When a mistake always happens in one direction in a legion of cases, and never in the other direction, it's made on purpose.

Like the Bible said of evil spirits in Mark 5:9: "My name is Legion, for we are many..."

Voodoo healthcare...

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

Douchebag editor says “poorly worded [!!] email that implied [!!] the recipient was a coronavi ... ”

Gaslighting piece of shit is 100% on board with the deception.

How many of these are really required, Ellen? This one email would have yielded 600,000 servicemen and women assuring all their friends and family that “it’s 100% real, I know, I’m a survivor myself”? So how many of these were not stopped? How many cases of one email producing 600,000 new Ambassador-Believers have gone undetected?

[Peter]

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Peter, did you miss that I was being sarcastic?

Ellen

No, Ellen. I was briefly taking another point of view where all info, even scientific information is to be disbelieved if it does not suit some wacky agenda.

 

[Peter]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Voodoo healthcare...

The number of prison  inmates in Maryland and Delaware has an unhealthy percentage / number of Covid cases.  If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, cough, wheeze. aaargh!

[Ellen Stuttle]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

More voodoo.

Health company apologizes for falsely telling 600,000 US military members they were infected with coronavirus
The company said it was a simple mistake

Ya' think?

Notice that the cases of COVID-19 are always overcounted, never undercounted?

When a mistake always happens in one direction in a legion of cases, and never in the other direction, it's made on purpose.

Like the Bible said of evil spirits in Mark 5:9: "My name is Legion, for we are many..."

Voodoo healthcare...

Michael

Michael, you're getting backward what the import of the miscount would have been in this instance.  The people were mistakenly notified as survivors.  Thus, if they'd been listed in the disease tallies - which they weren't - they'd have falsely inflated the number of recoveries, not the number of deaths, and therefore decreased, not increased, the death rate.

Ellen

PS:  Jon, stop to think, huh?  If the insurance company's intention had been to produce alarm over a harmless bug, telling 600,000 people they'd had the bug without even knowing they'd had it wouldn't be helpful.

 

[Jon Letendre]

8 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

If the insurance company's intention had been to produce alarm over a harmless bug, telling 600,000 people they'd had the bug without even knowing they'd had it wouldn't be helpful.

 

No, I’m saying in the instance that the ins. co. intention was to keep the world convinced that a bug really exists. Turning over half a million servicemen and women into unwilling witnesses to its existence is very helpful to that end.

I don’t happen to believe this exactly has not been done many times, again, to be sure we keep believing, not to improve any particular stat or be deterred by deteriorating any stat, per your objection to Michael.

We keep showing example after example of them doing myriad funny business, so your logic about how they wouldn’t do this is that because it deteriorates a stat is beside the point in all of those myriad cases of pure funny business, logical and wise on their part or not. You can keep on believing them despite all the obvious coordinated lies. I do not. And until you share your insider knowledge I consider it as valuable as the servicemember testominy who knows it is real because they had it themselves, “got the positive results, gave blood, saved lives.”  They believe it, they’re being honest, but

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Michael, you're getting backward what the import of the miscount would have been in this instance.  The people were mistakenly notified as survivors.  Thus, if they'd been listed in the disease tallies - which they weren't - they'd have falsely inflated the number of recoveries, not the number of deaths, and therefore decreased, not increased, the death rate.

Ellen,

I saw that when I posted it. And cognitively you are right.

But I also saw this. If 600,000 military insurance beneficiaries were mistakenly identified as survivors of COVID-19, it's a good probability that they are listed somewhere in the insurance company records as cases of COVID-19.

(btw - See here for the article at military.com.)

Just because Humana and Tricare haven't used this number here or there (like say in places where their records can be checked), that doesn't mean they haven't NOT used this number here or there (which implies they need a segmented roll of beneficiaries in their computers--and if that is hooked into their autoresponder, they have a one-click email list of 600,000 for whenever they need it).

Unless you believe in the integrity of insurance companies reporting on COVID-19, which, with all the government moolah involved in our troubled times, I don't, then they goofed big time. They used their inhouse bogus COVID-19 list for something that could cause them liability, or worse, (gasp) trouble with their government partner--Defense Health Agency and the funds coming therefrom--for screwing up the plasma donations. Moolah is what insurance companies care about, especially in healthcare. They don't give a fuck about the truth. Not if it throws a buzzsaw into their moolah. Protecting their moolah is why they sent a letter of apology. And, I believe, that's the only reason they sent the apology.

I don't know if you have noticed, but the numbers don't add up anywhere in the press on COVID-19 stats. So why, all of a sudden, would this be the one case where integrity was present? Just because an insurance company, Humana, sent out an apology with the real number of infections they have on record (at least in one set of their books)?

There are plenty of places Humana could report 600,000 cases of COVID-19 without any liability at all. Just off the top of my head, I think about all those anonymous sources the mainstream press constantly relies on ("people with knowledge of the issue" and shit like that). How about quick informal and anonymous surveys? Maybe overseas in places where the final tally and identification of sources go through 15 different departments from 15 different countries (or more)? Or how about this, to pad reports, especially through a series of front companies, for generating payments from the government to them?

Those 600,000 were on a list where they could be identified--at the click of a mouse--as a COVID-19 survivors. And they were so identified in the email blast for a reason. It wasn't just the general military insurance roll in Humana's autoresponder. That number is much much larger.

I think Humana's CYA apology letter (motivated by fear of liability or loss of income, not simply to tell the truth) was a peek for the public behind the curtain of the Wizard of Oz.

The military is the biggest source of human guinea pigs the globalists have at hand (other than Africa). They can say whatever they want about their guinea pigs, too, including the truth if they want. But with no transparency requirement for most of it, why would they ever want to tell the truth at a truth qua truth level? 

You can believe truth is their main concern for a case like the Humana apology. I don't. I think they are only concerned about the truth when it benefits them, or when their asses are on the line (like with liability or profits). Otherwise, it's double bookkeeping, not double-entry bookkeeping, and a double-dog dare to anyone who will not accept them on faith.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's something I want to emphasize about my post above.

So long as reporting errors regarding COVID-19 always go in the direction of benefiting the elitist ruling class, I will never give them the benefit of the doubt. In my eyes, they are wrong and lying on purpose by default. I only start thinking about this case or that for analysis after that frame is firmly in place in my mind.

I'm not as radical as Jon in thinking the COVID-19 pandemic is a total hoax, but after watching over 3 years of the "muh Russians" hoax that resulted in an impeachment of the President in the House (which gloriously failed in the Senate), I find the idea plausible.

So hell yeah. In today's culture, it just might be a hoax. The elitist ruling class loves them some hoaxes, the bigger the better.

Institutions run by the elitist ruling class all suck at telling the truth to the public.

All of them.

They have no commitment to their word, not even for the sake of appearance.

Michael

[Peter]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They have no commitment to their word, not even for the sake of appearance

There are facts being reported and then there are lies. There are scientific interpretations and predictions about the facts and there are also misinterpretations and hoaxes to benefit a particular class of people. Misinterpretations do not change the facts. Look for the facts presented locally. I follow the local Covid news and regard it as worthy of consideration but not blind trust. Peter  

Notes. From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: validating method Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:26:35 -0600 Kent, According to Objectivism, the validation of human knowledge is gained by the method we name "Reason".  Reason is the human method based on the existents of reality that one perceives and then, because human knowledge is volitional and conceptual, and thus fallible, we require a method to arrive at abstract conceptual knowledge. Look at it this way - one perceives things - how do we know our knowledge is true about things?  We volitionally conceptualize and reason. If we consider all the evidence within the context, and if we follow a valid method, then we reach a true content in our knowledge. How? - by means of a valid method.  Thinking and conceptualizing volitionally is the process.  After we have validated our knowledge of existents, we call them "Facts" of knowledge.  The term "facts" is an epistemological tool that, in effect, states that 'some thing I know is true' -- i.e., it has been proven to be valid knowledge about a thing or event. Ellen M.

From Business Insider. . . . . Our body of scientific knowledge is constantly growing and changing. New discoveries or studies often lead to changes in old theories and sometimes even invalidate them altogether. That means some of the "facts" you learned in school aren't necessarily true anymore. For example, dinosaurs probably didn't look the way your textbook depicted them. The origins of Homo sapiens aren't as neat as the timeline you might have learned. And many of the nutrition and exercise guidance from your health classes has been debunked . . . . Myth: There's a dark side of the moon. There is a side of the moon that we never see from Earth, but it's not dark all the time. The moon is tidally locked with Earth, which means that we are always looking at the same side of it. As Earth spins, and our cold rock satellite rotates around it, sunlight falls across all sides of the moon . . . . Myth: Mars is a desert of red dust with no water. Three years' worth of radar data suggests that a lake of liquid water might lurk beneath Mars' polar ice caps, a study published last year said. Previous findings also indicated that liquid water might flow seasonally across Mars' surface, though the discovery has been thrown into question . . . .

[Peter]

I am not trying to tell or convince anyone about what they “know.” I am just asking any readers to reevaluate their “source’s, much as Clark Kent evaluated his . . . . but of course Clark had the super power of reason too. Peter 

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: The facts of reality - Bill and George Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:26:35 -0400 Ellen Moore says: >Perhaps this post will annoy you both [Bill and George]: Perhaps this post will annoy everyone concerned. Insofar as I think I understand the view of "fact" which EM is presenting (and, Ellen M., I usually do have trouble understanding your posts, make of this whatever epistemological sins on my part you will), I think I agree with *her* viewpoint -- though I disagree that there aren't ambiguities in what Rand said during the seminar.

 Indeed, I have some additional evidence for believing that Rand herself viewed "fact" as metaphysical, indirect evidence: At about the same time as her epistemology seminar, I guest-attended a seminar on the philosophy of science which Leonard Peikoff was giving at Brooklyn Polytechnic (he was on the faculty there at the time).  To the best of my recollection -- and Larry, who also attended LP's seminar, has the same recollection -- Peikoff presented "fact" as metaphysical, and I doubt that he'd have enunciated a view which he thought was at variance with Rand's. Ellen S.

[Peter]

Michael wrote, “Institutions run by the elitist ruling class all suck at telling the truth to the public.”

The police and government agencies have experts who “watch” testimony from witnesses (and potentially determine perpetrators) to crimes.  As those experts watch the news do they apply those same skills to evaluating what the broadcasters of the news are saying? Perhaps they do. I remember Walter Cronkite was held up as the epitome of “truth telling,” but after he retired he admitted to being a profoundly liberal and progressive person . . . but an objective news caster. Perhaps our skill set for sniffing out liars AND historical  facts will enable us to go back and reevaluate “history” as it was reported by the likes of Cronkite and Dan Rather. From what they said after they retired I think the restraint of telling the truth all the time was a burden. Peter

[Peter]

Do newscasters investigate and write “some of” what they report? Or do people like CBS’s Nora O’Donnell, who used to be White House correspondent, simply read what they are handed? Can you detect when a news caster, like Nora, disagrees with what they are expected to report? At least once or twice a week I think I can. In year’s past Nora was criticized for her biased interview with Sarah Palin and for slanting her interview with Newt Gingrich to make him seem like a racist. She is considered to be one of the good old gals who fit right in with the likes of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, but I think I detect a bit more honesty in her. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... it's double bookkeeping, not double-entry bookkeeping, and a double-dog dare to anyone who will not accept them on faith.

Here's a much smaller example and not military nor insurance company.

But notice which direction the "error" went in.

And, as I suspect, the error came from using the wrong set of books. I have little doubt there is a second set of books where the guy's friend is listed as having registered, but not taken the test.

Michael

[Peter]

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a much smaller example and not military nor insurance company.

Florida is having a lot of kids admitted to the hospital with Covid. I hope that isn’t a trend. The Wall Street Journal reported the following and they are regarded as “truthful” by its readership.

Cut from the web at 11:46 am. From The Wall Street Journal. Coronavirus Is Back With a Vengeance in Places Where It Had All but Vanished Philip Wen, Joyu Wang 4 hrs ago.  . . .  Australia reported only a handful of new coronavirus cases in early June, while Hong Kong went three weeks without a single locally transmitted infection that month. Japan had already lifted a state of emergency in May after the number of new cases dropped to a few dozen nationwide. All three reported new high-water marks in daily infection numbers in the past week, showing how difficult it can be to keep the virus at bay, even in places lauded for taking early and decisive action . . . . Mr. Andrews, Victoria’s premier, said last week that a sample from this month’s outbreak showed nearly 90% of people didn’t self-isolate between showing symptoms and getting a test. Even after taking a test, he said, more than half didn’t self-isolate while awaiting their results . . . .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Check this out.

Bill Gates:

Quote

I hope the conspiracy stuff dies down... the numbers kinda blow my mind... it's not just the fringe people you would normally think of...

Gates when asked if he wishes Internet companies "would play a role in taking stuff down which is demonstrably false."

Quote

It's a bad combination, a pandemic and social media...

It's a bad combination for him, that's for sure. He continued:

Quote

... and people looking for very simplex-mation... Who's the bad guy here...

Ever heard of a poker tell? "Simplex-mation" is quite a fun place for a man like Gates to stumble on his words. It's like he doesn't have his thoughts fully together on what to think about his inferiors challenging his narrative for real, and he's seeing for the first time he might not get his way. His fakes smile and smirks are not as robust as usual,.

 

Look at this:

White House petition to investigate Gates foundation garners more than 600,000 signatures

Quote

A White House petition that was launched in April to investigate Bill and Melinda Gates for “crimes against humanity and medical malpractice” has amassed six times the number of signatures needed in order to get an official response. 

Created by "C.S.," the petition states that Microsoft founder Gates should not be trusted with helping finding a cure for COVID-19. In one portion, the petition states: “At the forefront of this is Bill Gates, who has publicly stated his interest in 'reducing population growth' by 10–15%, by means of vaccination. Gates, UNICEF & WHO have already been credibly accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines.”

The petition was launched on April 10. Within days, it garnered 100,000 signatures, thereby meeting the site's terms to review the petition, place it in front of appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response. 

As Sunday night, more than 618,000 people have signed the petition. 

. . .

The petition is listed as among the most popular on the White House's "We the People" page.

Here's the White House petition. At the time of this posting, it is Number One. And the current number of signatories is 620,006.

That's a lot of livestock people who are sick of being ignored by their self-proclaimed betters acting like they are above scrutiny.

Michael

[Peter]

It’s no hoax. As I mentioned my sister is a Bay Area, California nurse and my niece works at the VA. They are worried. The tolls in my county, the surrounding counties and states are continuing to be reported as rising. Hospitals and clinics are requiring appointments where you enter one at a time with no one accompanying you. Local TV leads off with covid stories. Fox is reporting a vaccine test starts today and that sounds encouraging. Stay safe and play safe.     

From LA TV: Worldwide death toll of COVID-19 surpasses 400,000; at least 6.9 million people infected.

From Bing. Confirmed U.S. cases. 4,330,998 Confirmed U.S. deaths form Covid-19: 149,281.

Our place in the Cosmos, co-written by Carl Sagan

With every century
Our eyes on the universe have been opened anew
We are witness
To the very brink of time and space

We must ask ourselves
We who are so proud of our accomplishments
What is our place in the cosmic perspective of life?

The exploration of the cosmos
Is a voyage of self-discovery
As long as there have been humans
We have searched for our place in the cosmos

Are there things about the universe
That will be forever beyond our grasp?
Are there things about the universe that are
Ungraspable?

One of the great revelations of space exploration
Is the image of the earth, finite and lonely
Bearing the entire human species
Through the oceans of space and time

Matter flows from place to place
And momentarily comes together to be you
Some people find that thought disturbing
I find the reality thrilling

As the ancient mythmakers knew
We're children equally of the earth and the sky
In our tenure on this planet, we've accumulated
Dangerous evolutionary baggage

We've also acquired compassion for others,
Love for our children,
And a great soaring passionate intelligence
The clear tools for our continued survival

We could be in the middle
Of an inter-galactic conversation
And we wouldn't even know

We've begun at last
To wonder about our origins
Star stuff contemplating the stars
Tracing that long path

Our obligation to survive and flourish
Is owed not just to ourselves
But also to that cosmos
Ancient and vast, from which we spring

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

It’s no hoax.

Peter,

What is no hoax?

That hydroxychloroquine will kill you?

Or that hydroxychloroquine will not make much money for big pharma?

Michael

[Peter]

I was thinking about what the government, local and federal should or could do to get us over the Coronavirus. What is the public good? Should the Fed “open up America” no matter what, so we do not become insolvent? Here is an interesting exchange between the founder of Wikipedia and Ghs author of “Atheism, Ayn Rand and Other Heresies.” Closed up for brevity. Peter

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Public goods Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:23:33 -0700. I'd like to motivate this discussion by pointing out that if there are real economic phenomena that are ignored or evaded by political theorists, then those theorists will come to invalid conclusions.

Anti-capitalist theorists who ignore or evade the role of the price system in the distribution of information will fail to understand much about markets, and will come to invalid conclusions.  They will find themselves unable to make valid predictions of the future. Similarly, pro-capitalists theorists who ignore or evade particular issues in economics (perhaps out of a fear that if they looked too closely, they'd have to give up some other cherished notions – but the motive isn't important, the results are) -- these theorists will fail to understand markets, and will end up coming to invalid conclusions, too. Additionally, a failure to grasp some important issue will mean that when the pro-capitalist theorist is arguing with people who are middle-of-the-road or anti-capitalist, the argument will fail to be persuasive.  If you don't understand the public goods problem, and if you go around telling people that it doesn't exist, or that it's a statist hoax, then people who *do* understand the public goods problem will not change their minds about politics -- they will decide that you don't know what you're talking about. So, today, I want people to read and concentrate and understand two things -- public goods, and the public goods problem.

I.  What is a public good?

A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and has nonrivalrous consumption.  If a public good is produced, then the producer can't control who gets it.  Anyone who wants it, gets it, and there's nothing the producer can do about it. When we talking about public "goods", who gets to decide if it's really a good?  This is important.  It will not do for an economist to go around deciding what is really good, and then criticizing the people in an economy for not valuing the right things.  No, a valid concept of any "goods" *has to be from the perspective of agents acting in the economy*. A classic example of a public good is a traditional radio broadcast. When the good is produced it is nonexcludable -- anyone can receive the broadcast, and there's nothing that the broadcaster can do about it.  And it is also nonrivalrous in consumption -- my listening to the radio doesn't diminish anyone else's ability to listen to the radio.

II.  What is a public goods _problem_?

The problem of a public good is a problem _from the perspective of the people participating in the economy_.  No other conception of the problem is valid. The problem is that unless some solution is found to the problem, the public good will not be produced. Traditionally, this is the point where statists jump in with their solution -- force everyone to pay for the public good, and have the state (or connected people) produce it. But this is hardly the only solution to a public goods problem, as the radio example shows.  Radio broadcasts are produced, and paid for with advertising. The problem here is that producers can't charge consumers for listening to the radio.  So some other means of financing must be found.  Advertising is one solution, applicable in the case of radio, but not applicable in other cases. Notice, too, that another solution has become possible with radio in very recent years.  There is a new type of radio (XM radio, broadcast by satellite, and paid for by consumers) which is not tied to the advertising model.  This has become possible because of technological innovations which make it cheap for the satellite radio stations to encrypt their signal, so that only people who pay for the decryption codes can listen.  This type of radio is not a public good.

-------------

I'll stop here to let objections flow.  If any seem compelling, I'll post a corrected version of this. But after that I'd like to get into the meat of this.  What are some important public goods problems related to the provision of justice services, and why do they impact negatively on traditional arguments for anarchocapitalism? That's what we were talking about a few months ago when George stunned me by completely denying the existence of public goods problems. --Jimbo

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Public goods Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:28:59 -0500. Jimmy Wales wrote: "I'd like to motivate this discussion by pointing out that if there are real economic phenomena that are ignored or evaded by political theorists, then those theorists will come to invalid conclusions.

"...Similarly, pro-capitalists theorists who ignore or evade particular issues in economics (perhaps out of a fear that if they looked too closely, they'd have to give up some other cherished notions -- but the motive isn't important, the results are) -- these theorists will fail to understand markets, and will end up coming to invalid conclusions, too."

I am not ignoring or evading anything. I suggest that Jimmy dispense with further excursions into hokey psychoanalysis if he wants to get this discussion off on the right foot and avoid the kind of personal recriminations that he professes to abhor. He has started the ball rolling here, but I will ignore his irrelevant and inaccurate speculations in an effort to focus on the issues. Suppose I did have the motive that Jimmy suggests, suppose that I did criticize the public goods problem because I didn't want to surrender some "cherished notions" -- what difference would that make? The validity or invalidity of my objections would not be affected thereby. (True, Jimmy doesn't refer to me specifically, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that he was writing with me in mind.)

Jimmy wrote: "I. What is a public good? "A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and has nonrivalrous consumption.  If a public good is produced, then the producer can't control who gets it.  Anyone who wants it, gets it, and there's nothing the producer can do about it."

I have no problem with this.

Jimmy wrote: "When we talking about public "goods", who gets to decide if it's really a good?  This is important.  It will not do for an economist to go around deciding what is really good, and then criticizing the people in an economy for not valuing the right things.  No, a valid concept of any "goods" *has to be from the perspective of agents acting in the economy*.

I agree entirely. So how can an economist determine what people "value" in an *economic* sense apart from what they are willing to pay for in a free market?

People may claim they would like to see a Disneyland in every town, but if they aren't willing to pay for them this "value" has no *economic* significance. Moreover, it would be very misleading to speak of an economic "Disneyland Problem" owing to the fact that the demand is insufficient to pay for a Disneyland in every town.

Jimmy wrote: "II. What is a public goods _problem_? "The problem of a public good is a problem _from the perspective of the people participating in the economy_.  No other conception of the problem is valid. "The problem is that unless some solution is found to the problem, the public good will not be produced."

What "problem"? If enough people are willing to pay the market price for a good, it will produced in the market. If not, it will not be produced. So where is the "problem."?

Jimmy proceeds to present an example (radio) of the "public goods problem." But he has not specified exactly what the economic PROBLEM is supposed to be. I might like to see more philosophy books published in the market. Does this mean there exists an economic "philosophy books problem" if the market doesn't respond to my desires? People desire all kinds of things that the market doesn't produce, but we don't normally call these economic "problems."  The market may be unable to eliminate all poverty. Does this mean we have a "poverty problem" vis-a-vis the market? Not unless we import a value judgment from outside the realm of economics, according to which all poverty *should* be eliminated for moral or political reasons. The same reasoning applies to the so-called "public goods problem."

Jimmy concluded: "That's what we were talking about a few months ago when George stunned me by completely denying the existence of public goods problems."

I denied that there exists a public goods "problem" from the standpoint of ECONOMICS. A problem is generated only when a non-economic value judgment is applied to economics, a judgment which says that something *should* be produced apart from what the free market probably *will* produce. This "problem" is generated by a value judgment that is not part of economic analysis per se, a judgment about what *should* be the case, as determined by the value premises of the person rendering the judgment. Hence there might be no "problem" at all for another person who works from different value premises, even though both people might entirely agree in their value-free economic analysis of how the market is likely to behave. This was my basic point.

This objection has nothing whatever to do with the traditional tie between publics goods and government intervention. It is a very straightforward theoretical objection to the smuggling of an unacknowledged value judgment into an analysis that falsely represents itself as value-free. The traditional concept of a "public good" can be defined without reference to a value judgment. The traditional concept of a public goods PROBLEM cannot. Ghs

[Peter]

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What is no hoax?

The coronavirus. Pelosi is on TV talking about the legacy of John Lewis and she looks terribly aged.  She is a hoax. If she started to tell the truth, she would stutter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

The coronavirus.

Peter,

I wish I had your certainty.

I can't say if it is a hoax or not. I lean toward it is not, but that's normal caution. I also go along with the mask and crap like that when I go out just to avoid the hassle from Karens.

But I'm doing all this based on wanting to spend my time on other things. Hassles with strangers are time-consuming and blow my natural high. My caution is not based on anything I know.

The fact is, I don't believe anything I read in the mainstream press anymore. It's too unreliable.

When it comes to COVID-19, I've certainly heard a lot about it. I'm rich and full up to the gills in knowledge about opinions and agenda-driven things people say. But in actual knowledge, I'm ignorant as all hell. I know nothing about it. Absolutely nothing.

I can't wait until this thing is over. Even should it be a real plague that kills bazillions of people (although I have yet to see signs of mass deaths like plagues normally produce), plagues have a cycle where they eventually end.

So I'll keep studying and working on my writing while this thing swirls around me in the culture. And I'll lean toward caution when I go out without getting wound up about it. I've been told I'm in the target group for vulnerability due to age, but I'm not sure of anything since I don't believe hardly anyone in the mainstream. At any rate, I take that into account for what it's worth. 

Meanwhile, I think I'll finish reading the following book (of which I only read half): Memoires of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay. Even though it was published in 1841, the English is only slightly archaic-sounding and the ideas are just as valid today as they were back then. The version I linked to is the online HTML Guttenberg version that you can read for free on your browser. It even comes with the original engravings.

 

(Bookmarks are worrisome when reading that way, but all you need to do is copy a phrase from where you stop and paste it in a txt file you save just for this purpose--or Wordpad since it opens fast and rtf files allow hyperlinks. I use the name of the book I am reading for the name of the file. Then, later, when you want to go back to reading the book, open the txt file, copy the phrase, then open the book in the browser, click Ctrl F for search, paste the phrase into it and hit Enter. The page will automatically go to where you left off. I even post the URL to the book in the txt file so all I have to do is open that file when I want to read the book and I have everything I need to locate the online version and get to where I left off. I've done this with several books because I use a speech-to-text engine, TextAloud, to plow through the large chunks of text. I find that helps when the text gets really boring. I often listen and read at the same time, but, also, I just listen. The HTML version makes copying text for this--accurate text--a breeze.)

Michael

[Peter]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I use the name of the book I am reading for the name of the file. Then, later, when you want to go back to reading the book, open the txt file, copy the phrase, then open the book in the browser, click Ctrl F for search, paste the phrase into it and hit Enter. The page will automatically go to where you left off.

Wow. You da boss. I buy hard bound books and I got one today from Ben Bova after a month of waiting. I give the books I have read to the local library but not for sale, only for logging in and loaning them as if the library ordered the books. They do it and when I show up with a bag or box of books  after phoning there are ten people, no kidding, waiting to check them out . .  .  the old fashion way.