From: Wayne Hayes (wayne@cs.toronto.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 13 1997 - 16:06:15 MST
"Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin" <warrl@blarg.net> writes:
>In that case, I must ask you the same question: cite some policies
>(and tell us who promoted and enforced them) and explain how they
>kept oil prices *lower* than they should be.
>Further, explain how *you* decided what oil prices *should* have
>been.
I am going to cordially withdraw from this debate, because I can't
answer that question because I don't know. The problem is this:
things like politics, social practice, and economics, are far
too complicated to analyze in detail with the current state of
human knowledge. Every few years, I get into a conversation like
this and get convinced about one thing or another. Later, some
party pooper like you :-) comes along and shakes my faith in my
previous conclusion. This *always* happens to me in these types
of conversations, no matter how many times I have them. The only
conclusion I can draw is that either I'm just not smart enough to
figure these things out, or that *nobody* is smart enough to see
all the sides to figure these things out conclusively.
I like to pretend I'm a scientist on most days. That means I like
to see facts and figures before I make a decision. The problem, as
we've demonstrated above, is that there isn't even agreement on what
constitutes a salient fact, or what things we should count when we're
building numbers to argue with. I quote numbers, then you contest them.
I can go and try to quote more numbers and facts, but we'll probably
disagree on what facts are relevant and what constitutes a valid cost
when pricing a barrel of oil. I really should learn to stay out of
these conversations. At least I'm getting better at withdrawing sooner.
Understanding Quantum Teleportation is far, far easier in comparison.
I think I'll stick to that thread, and go back to being a lurker on
this one.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:13 MST