Soggy:
There is a lot of BS in this thread.
Ahhhh.... yesss... yes, Grasshopper, but which, and, who decides? Allow me to elucidate, if only a little.
Once upon a time, I took a little graduate economics. The professor was demonstrating some principle using differential math to prove a point - all very impressive, fancy and compelling.
But what about *real* economics in the real world?
In the fall of 1985 the chairman of the Fed mentioned that he wouldn't mind seeing the dollar lose a little of its value on world currency markets. The very next day the dollar lost 20% against the mark; within three months it was half the price it had been the day the remark was made.
A PhD in economics doesn't guarantee wealth, and the extrapolation of the best in economic theory is often way off the mark in the real world. And without the historical record, it is as off looking at the past as it is looking to the future. Yet economic experts cling to their mathematical models as tenaciously as a barnacle to a piling.
But, but... there are just too many unknowns, too many factors, too many uncertainties, they say, and the theories are sound...
I find it fascinating that the same folks who cannot forecast the weather or the economic conditions half a year hence with any accuracy (are those not subject to scientific exploration and explanation?) are so certain of the accuracy of their conjectures drawn from current available observations and mathematical extrapolations on the nature of things 20 billion years ago. "20 billion years ago" - even
that is subject to where you measure it, where you stand in the cosmos, and what you measure it against... "relative to what?"
On a galactic scale, what Rick and Soggy do is of infinite insignificance. Isn't it grand that even in our infinitesimally small corner of the universe there is vast wonder for us to explore and to contemplate. The assumption that we know a lot about
anything pales before reality.
"For now we see through a glass darkly, but then, face to face."
Rick
