tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post309484707097483976..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: New paradigms in economic theory? Not so fast.Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9557045813612686942016-04-01T13:53:56.968-04:002016-04-01T13:53:56.968-04:00Noah writes: The lesson appears clear: Bubbles exi...Noah writes: The lesson appears clear: Bubbles exist. Investors aren’t just rational, patient, well-informed, emotionless calculators of risk and return. <br /><br />Didnt we already know that from Keynes ?<br />peAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55503001904001151472016-04-01T07:37:58.336-04:002016-04-01T07:37:58.336-04:00I think some of the confusion arises due to the us...I think some of the confusion arises due to the use of Words, semantics. <br />There is no meaningful distinction between "empiricism" and "philosophy". Rather its a Classic discussion in the philosophy of science as to what sort of methodology or epistemology should be employed in the pursuit of knowledge. The two main camps are traditionally rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism typically employing some sort of logical deductive method of enquiry, rooted in pure thinking and the creative use of the faculty of mind. Empiricism has traditionally been contrasted, where sense experience is seen as the main source of knowledge. But today this is really regarded as a false dichotomy, since Kant demonstrated back in late 18th Century that we employ a combination of the two. Something that has been aptly confirmed by recent research in cognitive science. <br />Economics as a science has just for some time strayed of into the realm of theory building, employing the axiomatic deductive method typical in mathematics. But a change is already taking place and has been so for some time. The complex problem is really detailing what weight should be given to the two faculties involved. Sloan Wilson is therefore constructing a strawman when he claims that economics is not an empirical science. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12809945062616896157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-86610512993420352922016-03-30T14:09:54.354-04:002016-03-30T14:09:54.354-04:00Tom Brown
Science is not about preaching but proo...Tom Brown<br /><br />Science is not about preaching but proof. You are provably false and are defending the indefensible.<br /><br />Thank you for the link to TheMoneyIllusion. See my comment there ‘The futility of testing economics blather’<br /><br />http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/03/the-futility-of-testing-economics.html<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-60827602838956830462016-03-29T21:40:30.551-04:002016-03-29T21:40:30.551-04:00Egmont,
It remains a fact that your "axioms&...Egmont,<br /><br />It remains a fact that your "axioms" are just accounting identities. Here is another fact: in the National Income and Product Accounts I = S is an accounting identity. They are equal by definition. You can disagree with their definitions and say that you have the REAL definition, which has savings equal to profits. But what the official accountants of the GDP define investment to equal savings. If you want to play with your own definitions, claimed to be a "theorem," fine, but nobody will pay any attention to you. Nobody.<br /><br />Barkley Rosserrosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-50111438503712385792016-03-29T13:34:27.908-04:002016-03-29T13:34:27.908-04:00'It works. That's all that really matters....'It works. That's all that really matters.' <br /><br />I'd would go even further and say if it works and works best, it is a good theory. Pablonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-65025547536205845172016-03-29T13:26:33.863-04:002016-03-29T13:26:33.863-04:00Just wanted to upvote. Realizing Noah Smith spends...Just wanted to upvote. Realizing Noah Smith spends time reading 'evonomic' articles made me lose a little respect for him (sorry Noah). The only thing evonomics is concerned with is creating its own macroeconomic school of thought. Which, apparently is all that any of the scientist on there know about economics. Pablonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-51718765735425330842016-03-29T09:18:15.092-04:002016-03-29T09:18:15.092-04:00"If models that use K can predict the dynamic..."If models that use K can predict the dynamics of K (and/or other stuff), then who cares about that theoretical argument?? It's a model. It predicts something."<br /><br />But then you have to admit (and I think that this is a good thing) that you are not predicting the dynamics of capital but rather the dynamics of a specific measure, which is a more or less imperfect proxy for capital. <br /><br />My point is that as serious scientists, economists should avoid using general terms for their predictions of specific measures. E.g. capital and labour inputs are actually gross operating surplus and compensation of employees; these are social not technological categories. It is often misleading to talk in such general terms.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-6654491343808666182016-03-28T18:35:02.802-04:002016-03-28T18:35:02.802-04:00...preaching to the choir Egmont. It's "M......preaching to the choir Egmont. It's "Major-Freedom" that desperately needs your insights. (link above)Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-20318945857078464242016-03-28T07:07:16.904-04:002016-03-28T07:07:16.904-04:00Tom Brown
We have two SEPARATE issues (i) orthodo...Tom Brown<br /><br />We have two SEPARATE issues (i) orthodox economics is false and thoroughly refuted according to well-defined scientific criteria, and (ii), given that Orthodoxy is dead, what does the new paradigm look like?<br /><br />The problem with Noah Smith and you is that you have not yet realized (i). Because of this you are hopelessly locked in at the proto-scientific stage. With regard to Orthodoxy or so-called mainstream economics this is the situation: “... we may say that ... the omnipresence of a certain point of view is not a sign of excellence or an indication that the truth or part of the truth has at last been found. It is, rather, the indication of a failure of reason to find suitable alternatives which might be used to transcend an accidental intermediate stage of our knowledge.” (Feyerabend)<br /><br />Therefore, for every economist there is but ONE worthwhile task: to contribute to the NEW paradigm. All the rest is pointless behind-the-curve blather.<br /><br />Instead of doing your scientific homework you argue with regard to (ii): “Even a zeroth order model will do (up or down). Is your theory useful? I’d like to see the evidence that it is. Make them conditional if you like: tell me what things cannot happen and what's more likely to happen. Tell us the kinds of states we’ll likely find the economy in, and those that are excluded by your theory (past, present and future).”<br /><br />Obviously you cannot read. With regard to the issues of scientific prediction and testable economic laws I have referred you above to the pertinent posts which are in turn backed up by working papers. You have not realized this either.<br /><br />Economics could make much faster progress toward science if failed mainstream economists could simply get out of the way — NOW.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-56430606991792007982016-03-28T01:11:58.769-04:002016-03-28T01:11:58.769-04:00Egmont, I take it all back. You win. I'd love ...Egmont, I take it all back. You win. I'd love to see you talk some sense into <a href="http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31582#comment-613843" rel="nofollow">this guy now</a>.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-34825345558057062592016-03-26T13:24:41.319-04:002016-03-26T13:24:41.319-04:00“The future is unpredictable.”
And yet prediction...“The future is unpredictable.”<br /><br />And yet predictions are made: about the climate, about gravity waves being detected, about where Jupiter will be a year from now, about the death of stars, about what kinds of fossils will be found in specific geological layers, about where Earthquakes are most likely to take place, about radioactive decay, about chemical reactions, etc, etc, etc. I'm not asking you to predict a lottery winner, I'm asking for what you say the trends will be for some very broad market indicators. Even a zeroth order model will do (up or down). Is your theory useful? I'd like to see the evidence that it is. Make them conditional if you like: tell me what things cannot happen and what's more likely to happen. Tell us the kinds of states we'll likely find the economy in, and those that are excluded by your theory (past, present and future).<br /><br />I'm not asking you for anything unusual: other people make exactly the kinds of forecasts I requested based on theory. Are you willing to put your theory up against theirs?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76313582902217334452016-03-26T05:57:07.690-04:002016-03-26T05:57:07.690-04:00Addendum
The complete formula for the simulation ...Addendum<br /><br />The complete formula for the simulation of the elementary structural axiomatic consumption economy is given here<br />https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AXEC25.png<br /><br />You are certainly in the position to produce the source code yourself.AXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58473245695974324882016-03-26T05:30:46.125-04:002016-03-26T05:30:46.125-04:00Tom Brown
(i) You say: “Having a consistent set o...Tom Brown<br /><br />(i) You say: “Having a consistent set of axioms is not a guarantee that you’re doing science.” Yes, indeed, because science requires formal AND material consistency. THIS is the guarantee: “Research is in fact a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant)<br /><br />The fact of the matter is that orthodox economics lacks BOTH formal AND material consistency. This in turn is the guarantee that economics is NOT a science. In order to refute a theory it SUFFICES to prove EITHER logical or material inconsistency.<br /><br />Walrasian and Keynesian economics is logically defective and the proof has been carried out by using the axiomatic-deductive method. No scientist will ever accept Walrasian or Keynesian economics.<br /><br />(ii) Walrasian and Keynesian economics is refuted. Economists either do not know it, do not understand it, or ignore it. Either way, they are violating the well-defined standards of science. This is inexcusable.<br /><br />(iii) It is a silly game to challenge a scientist by asking him to predict the future. He will simply tell you “The future is unpredictable.” (Feynman)* Predicting the future is the business of imbeciles.<br /><br />(iv) Because of this, economics from Jevons/Walras/Menger onward to DSGE is NOT dismissed because it has not predicted crises. Neoclassics is unacceptable because it is logically and empirically inconsistent.<br /><br />(v) From the structural axioms follows the elementary version of the Profit Law.** You, or a competent economist for that matter, are invited to test it against the DSGE profit law. This test, though, is an entirely separate issue and should not distract from the fact that neoclassical economics is axiomatically false since more than 140 years.<br /><br />(vi) That the FED uses DSGE does not speak for DSGE but against the FED.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />* For details see the posts ‘Scientists do not predict’<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/02/scientists-do-not-predict.html<br /><br />or ‘Prediction does not work? Try retrodiction first’<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2015/11/prediction-does-not-work-try.html<br /><br />** See ‘The three fundamental economic laws’<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/03/the-three-fundamental-economic-laws.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-482174878938735282016-03-25T19:23:27.189-04:002016-03-25T19:23:27.189-04:00Having a consistent set of axioms is not a guarant...Having a consistent set of axioms is not a guarantee that you're doing science (try finding a use for the field of <a href="http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LJM/vol16/bov.xml" rel="nofollow">"nondefinable numbers"</a>). <br /><br />But lets get straight to it: can you use the models you derive from your theory to forecast the inflation rate (core CPI or core PCE), price level, exchange rates, monetary base, interest rates, or NGDP for a couple of dozen large population countries around the world, maybe two years out? If, not, what can we do with it? How does it stack up against the NY Fed DSGE? Please share with us. Maybe some <a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RXmkUXdnWZE/VrUWmWZ4aNI/AAAAAAAAIwE/9iPMfx0tolU/s1600/pce%2B2.png" rel="nofollow">charts like this</a> and a place to download your source code so we can all give it a go.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-3733988519261595732016-03-25T18:08:49.911-04:002016-03-25T18:08:49.911-04:00"Evolution needs heredity, so evolutionary th..."Evolution needs heredity, so evolutionary theorists who want to change the econ world should focus on demonstrating the existence of traits that are passed from company to company, or person to person, or industry to industry, within economies." <br /><br />That's actually not the key point of evolution. The key point is variation and selection. You don't need heredity, you simply need to define how variation and selection occur. This is simple in econ - once a company tries an idea, that idea will be tried out by various other companies in slightly different ways. New companies will form based on some amalgam of existing ideas and (possibly) novel ones (these are akin to random mutations). You don't need an explicit form of mating and heredity to generate evolutionary effects - just a way to create variations of existing entities, then a way to select among those variations which ones persist to influence the next crop of variations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23716125077013117782016-03-25T07:27:40.004-04:002016-03-25T07:27:40.004-04:00Tom Brown
You say: “Your concept of science sound...Tom Brown<br /><br />You say: “Your concept of science sounds more like mathematics.” This is perhaps because you have a wrong idea of what science is all about. Science was already well established when Adam Smith declared that economics, too, is a science. Economics defends this claim until this day but has never delivered anything fitting the description of science.<br /><br />So, it is not “my” concept or “your” concept. Science is well-defined and economists either stick to the rules or they will be thrown out of science. According to the criteria of formal and material consistency (Klant, 1994, p. 31), economics is indisputably a failed science. In methodological terms this means that the old paradigm is dead and a new paradigm is urgently needed. Because a paradigm is defined by its foundational propositions, a.k.a axioms, a paradigm shift means practically to fully replace the old axiom set, i.e. HC1 to HC6 above, by a new one. This has nothing to do with mathematics as such. Newton put his PHYSICAL axioms on the first pages of the Principia.* In methodological analogy ECONOMIC axioms have to be laid down by economists. This defines the subject matter.<br /><br />The actual situation is this: Orthodoxy clings to a thoroughly refuted axiom set and Heterodoxy so far has failed to formulate a new one. As Keynes famously put it: “Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry. Something similar is required to-day in economics.” (Keynes, 1973, p. 16)<br /><br />As a matter of fact, Keynes’s paradigm shift (= overthrow of axioms) failed. This means in the strict sense that economics has no scientifically valid axiomatic foundations at all. Walrasian and Keynesian economics is what Feynman famously called cargo cult science. In other words, economics is de facto OUT of science.<br /><br />Economists violate well-defined scientific standards on a daily basis. To recall: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941, pp. 369-370)<br /><br />In the proto-science of economics it is indeed possible to teach falsified theories like supply-demand-equilibrium generation after generation ‘as if nothing had happened’.<br /><br />Therefore, in economics the task is NOT to replace true ‘Newtonian’ axioms with true but more general ‘Einsteinian’ axioms but to replace the neoclassical axioms which are KNOWN to be FALSE.<br /><br />There is not “my” or “your” concept of science or different concepts in mathematics, physics, the so-called social sciences, or economics. There is only ONE way to build up a valid theory: “The basic concepts and laws which are not logically further reducible constitute the indispensable and not rationally deducible part of the theory. It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.” (Einstein, 1934, p. 165)<br /><br />The methodological term for ‘basic concepts and laws which are not logically further reducible’ is axioms. As long as economic theory is not based on a consistent set of axioms it is out of science. This is the case since Adam Smith. There is no use to wish-wash around this embarrassing fact.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />References<br />Einstein, A. (1934). On the Method of Theoretical Physics. Philosophy of Science, 1(2): 163–169. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/184387<br />Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.<br />Klant, J. J. (1994). The Nature of Economic Thought. Aldershot, Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.<br />Morgenstern, O. (1941). Professor Hicks on Value and Capital. Journal of Political Economy, 49(3): 361–393. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1824735.AXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55381149744696881932016-03-24T13:05:51.743-04:002016-03-24T13:05:51.743-04:00Egmont, your concept of science sounds more like m...Egmont, your concept of science sounds more like mathematics: start with axioms and deduce conclusions from those. Mathematics doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. Science makes use of mathematics, but does something entirely different: proposes hypotheses and then tests those against nature (i.e. reality) to see if they're false and/or useless. If the hypothesis pass these empirical tests, then we are justified in incrementally increasing our confidence in them... and the testing never stops, until the hypothesis fail our tests, or until a better, simpler, more explanatory hypothesis comes along which is equally successful empirically. <br /><br />Science produces a series of improving approximations to reality. At any one time in this process, each most accepted approximation has a region of validity it can be used over: thus Newtonian mechanics are a justifiable simpler approximation over certain "everyday" conditions, while general relativity must be used outside of those conditions (at the cost of a bit of extra complexity). Meanwhile Aristotelian physics has been completely invalidated. There's no region of validity left for it: other approximations do a better job in all circumstances.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-61198895355988374532016-03-24T06:48:52.884-04:002016-03-24T06:48:52.884-04:00Barkley Rosser
You say: “Your supposed axioms are...Barkley Rosser<br /><br />You say: “Your supposed axioms are ... true by definition.” Yes, this is exactly what I assert. So we have common ground. Not only this, we are in perfect accordance with what Aristotle defined as scientific method: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.”<br /><br />Having established a rock solid starting point we now can advance: “The object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of what we already know, something else which we do not know.” (Peirce)<br /><br />From the axioms we have agreed upon to be true follows that Walrasianism and Keynesianism is provably false.<br /><br />This, in a nutshell, is the straightforward application of the axiomatic-deductive method to economics. The method is known since more than 2000 years and you can look it up in Wikipedia: “Euclid’s method consists in assuming a small set of intuitively appealing axioms, and deducing many other propositions (theorems) from these.”<br /><br />One very important theorem is the Profit Law which says in its most elementary form (i) Qm=-Sm (Qm monetary profit, Sm monetary saving). This is the beauty of the scientific method to ‘find out, from the consideration of what we already know, something else which we do not know.’ What theorem (i) tells you is that all I=S models are false and by implication that both Walrasianism and Keynesianism are as dead as a doornail. I am pretty sure that you did not know this until now.<br /><br />You say about the axioms A1 to A3 “They lead to nowhere at all other than to help in a ‘measurement without theory’ sort of empirical investigation, which you claim is ‘pointless.’ But your axioms are good for nothing more, and not even all that useful for even that.”<br /><br />It cannot be said that my axioms ‘lead to nowhere.’ At minimum they have led to the incontrovertible conclusion that you have been hanging around for too long in the scientific Neanderthal.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-52308533426164312552016-03-23T23:12:36.800-04:002016-03-23T23:12:36.800-04:00Oh gosh, Egmont, I take it all back. I now unders...Oh gosh, Egmont, I take it all back. I now understand the true nature of profit thanks to you informing me that the wage bill equals the number of hours worked times labor productivity! I had never known that the wage bill equaled labor hours worked times labor productivity. All these years I thought that the wage bill was one half of the hours worked times labor productivity. Now that I realize the truth, mine eyes have been opened and now I see the glory of the Lord, not to mention what profits REALLY are. Wow! Danke schoen!rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58623691537109215312016-03-23T19:58:57.666-04:002016-03-23T19:58:57.666-04:00Gameshow? That sounds like reality.
H.Gameshow? That sounds like reality.<br /><br />H.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-57435945985902481502016-03-23T19:30:04.518-04:002016-03-23T19:30:04.518-04:00If nothin' else, I learned how to leave snazzy...If nothin' else, I learned how to leave snazzy looking comments! e.g.<br />$$(3)\:\alpha_{2} = \frac{1 - \alpha_{1}(1 - \theta) - \theta}{K_{H}\theta}$$<br />(probably will look like crap here... the blogger needs to do <a href="http://banking-discussion.blogspot.com/p/mathjax-secret-formula.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> before we can arrogantly abuse them with perfectly typeset math)Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-66696910300726532082016-03-23T19:17:27.929-04:002016-03-23T19:17:27.929-04:00Henry: my idea for a gameshow: take normal people ...Henry: my idea for a gameshow: take normal people off the street and read them some work from arrogant sounding mainstream, heterodox, and insane economics enthusiasts (professionals & amateurs)... and ask them to identify the crackpots. Trouble is, nobody wins... for 20 years, when the crackpots are finally committed and/or receive their Nobel prizes.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72838585825445386132016-03-23T18:59:39.722-04:002016-03-23T18:59:39.722-04:00... also, Cameron Murray (commenting below) left a...... also, Cameron Murray (commenting below) left a note of encouragement (especially regarding the Gary Becker angle), and I guess he's an econ educator, so I found that interesting. <br /><br />I'm still a tad mystified by the SFC thing... and as you know I spent a lot of time digging into it, even adding a bit <a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/03/an-rlc-circuit-with-r-s-and-l-f.html?showComment=1458710509317#c2767176829220687661" rel="nofollow">yesterday</a>. The fact that what I came up with (seemingly contradicting the point of that post) only works over a relatively narrow range of parameters I think has something to do with it.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-53257498968739396082016-03-23T18:47:23.243-04:002016-03-23T18:47:23.243-04:00I think that post was part joke, part frustration ...I think that post was part joke, part frustration and part hyperbole... he's dropped moderation since and Ramanan and Brian Romanchuk have commented there again recently... in fact he did another couple of SFC posts, one trying to cast it in an IT framework. Plus he and John Handley have been having some interesting disagreements (<a href="http://banking-discussion.blogspot.com/2016/03/japan-philips-curve-regression-200312.html" rel="nofollow">I couldn't replicate either of their results, in the case of Japan's Philip's curve</a>).Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76552065550346059022016-03-23T18:28:29.020-04:002016-03-23T18:28:29.020-04:00Egmont, have you shared your views with Scott Sumn...Egmont, have you shared your views with Scott Sumner at <a href="http://www.themoneyillusion.com/" rel="nofollow">www.themoneyillusion.com</a>? Scott welcomes all in his comments section and would probably enjoy delving into your ideas. The sole exception (after 7 years of blogging) being a gentleman (or gentlewoman... hard to tell which) commentator referring to themselves as <a href="http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31516" rel="nofollow">"Shmebulock, Crusher of Pussy."</a>Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.com