Corrections To Some Of Xander/Kevin'S Latest Falsehoods

[Scott Barton]

Why don't we all just NOT post when Bro. Peterson needs to defend himself.

Or he could use his blog.

[Daniel Peterson]

I could. But it's more permanent than this place, where threads come and go by the score every week.

If my brief responses here really bother you, interfere with the normal functioning of this message board, or in any other way mess up your life, please don't hesitate to complain to the moderators.

[ERayR]

Dr Peterson

I see nothing wrong with defending yourself in this forum as long as the moderators do not mind. I realize that a person in your position it is a must that you mount a public defense, no matter how outlandish the claims, or else those claims seem to take on some validity in the minds of some. I am one who thinks that you should have a safe place to rebut without discussion.

I am sorry that you have to endure this but then fame and fortune does seem to have its price,

[Daniel Peterson]

Moderate fame and, alas, no fortune.

[Vance]

Moderate fame and, alas, no fortune.

I thought the Packer faction (or the Monson, or Nelson or whoever faction) had purchased your allegiance (or silence or whatever) for an exorbitant sum.

Also, weren't you selling off chunks of FARMS or something?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He continues to insist, though, that my comment about government authority being derived, ultimately, from government's ability to coerce comes from somebody named Neal Boortz, of whom I had never heard until Xander/Kevin identified him as my supposed political guru, rather than, as is documented already in a paper that I wrote back in 1976, from a dictum of Mao Tse-Tung and from my generally libertarian understanding of politics and economics, which is of ancient date.

One thing I have learned about Kevin is that I find his politics worse than his religious dialogue. I find he has less a clue about that than he does about other things.

I have never listen to Neal Boortz. But I have heard Moa's dictum several times. The most recent was one of the union leaders that said "And we largely agree with Moa, that power comes for the end of the barrel of a gun." Any way carry on.

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought the Packer faction (or the Monson, or Nelson or whoever faction) had purchased your allegiance (or silence or whatever) for an exorbitant sum.

The Packer Faction, which didn't like the Maxwell Institute, overpowered the Oaks Faction, which backed the Maxwell Institute. But now it turns out that the Packer Faction evidently likes the unprincipled bullying of the Maxwell Institute after all and actually supports the Maxwell Institute, which is very, very confusing. I blame it all on the Teixeira Faction, which, however, is only a surrogate doing the bidding of the shadowy Yamashita Faction.

Also, weren't you selling off chunks of FARMS or something?

Our budget was recently slashed from $2.7 billion annually to only $823 million, despite our recent acquisition of a $76 million dollar donation from Howard Hughes, who is actually still alive (following an alien abduction) and sharing a condo with Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis in Bakersfield.

[Scott Lloyd]

If my brief responses here really bother you, interfere with the normal functioning of this message board, or in any other way mess up your life, please don't hesitate to complain to the moderators.

Or, he could do as you suggested in the OP, just not read them.

[Buzzard]

Our budget was recently slashed from $2.7 billion annually to only $823 million, despite our recent acquisition of a $76 million dollar donation from Howard Hughes, who is actually still alive (following an alien abduction) and sharing a condo with Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis in Bakersfield.

Bakersfield? BAKERSFIELD??? No wonder we think they are dead. The only reason to live in that armpit of a burg is that it's an hour closer to the Sierra than Santa Clarita.

[ERayR]

The Packer Faction, which didn't like the Maxwell Institute, overpowered the Oaks Faction, which backed the Maxwell Institute. But now it turns out that the Packer Faction evidently likes the unprincipled bullying of the Maxwell Institute after all and actually supports the Maxwell Institute, which is very, very confusing. I blame it all on the Teixeira Faction, which, however, is only a surrogate doing the bidding of the shadowy Yamashita Faction.

Our budget was recently slashed from $2.7 billion annually to only $823 million, despite our recent acquisition of a $76 million dollar donation from Howard Hughes, who is actually still alive (following an alien abduction) and sharing a condo with Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis in Bakersfield.

I wondered where they went when they left here.

[Vance]

The Packer Faction, which didn't like the Maxwell Institute, overpowered the Oaks Faction, which backed the Maxwell Institute. But now it turns out that the Packer Faction evidently likes the unprincipled bullying of the Maxwell Institute after all and actually supports the Maxwell Institute, which is very, very confusing. I blame it all on the Teixeira Faction, which, however, is only a surrogate doing the bidding of the shadowy Yamashita Faction.

It is rather OBVIOUS that you are withholding the identities of other (and numerous) factions and their "real" influence for nefarious reasons.

Our budget was recently slashed from $2.7 billion annually to only $823 million, despite our recent acquisition of a $76 million dollar donation from Howard Hughes, who is actually still alive (following an alien abduction) and sharing a condo with Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis in Bakersfield.

These numbers are OBVIOUSLY are being understated or deflated by a full order of magnitude, again for nefarious reasons.

We "know" this because we "know" your "real" character (or lack thereof), or something.

[CASteinman]

I am pretty sure that the bullies focused on Daniel Peterson have violated a number of civil laws. There may also be some criminal laws violated as well. Its not so easy to take action on such things that get involved over the internet. However, over time, with enough evidence, it may be a way to uncover the actual name of the stalker and related anonymous bullies.

[Buzzard]

@economicsishard: What the blazes are you talking about? The only thing I can deduce is that you are so enamored of your educated genius that you feel compelled to share said genius with the rifraff. Meh.

[economicsishard]

Thank you for your enlightening response on the theory of taxation. It is a shame that you had to resort to the same tactics as you accuse Mr. Peterson of, otherwise I may have wished to study your formulae in more detail and then looked to see if it could be applied in Syria or the Soviet Union or even in Great Britain in the 1960's when the Army threatened to remove the elected Government from power and were only stopped by the threat of force from others in the same Army. I might also have gone to my local Court to ask those who have just been sentenced what they thought of the formulae.

Again, I did this to prove the point, that we don't know everything. I specialize in financial econometrics, you folks in religion. I am not coming here to say, "Hey, I know everthing about everthing!" However, I am here to discuss relgion from a different perspective. I accuse Dan of playing the 'know it all' yes, but I don't pretend to know anything myself outside the realm of financial economics, logic, and math. The point I was making is that I can conjure up some complex mathematical conclusions and not many will understand, just as Dan can write a highly technical and detailed paper on ancient hebrew and I'll have to take his word for it since I know very little about hebrew; that is the point I attempted to make, please don't be offended, just trust me that this is all that it was.

[economicsishard]

Also, I read a paper the other day from a Mopologist on the Book of Abraham where he uses physics to prove that the scrolls Joseph Smith used may have been longer; i.e., some of the scroll is missing. Since this is a message board dedicated to studies like this study, then I am sure there are others here who would understand my post. I find it fascinating, for example, that that study even occured since its use of math is atrocious. The problem is, that not too many will understand the math, and therefore their default reaction is the easiest reaction and that is; "its true because it feels good." Lets not stop there, lets keep going, lets get to the base elements of everything, shall we? It will only get more interesting as we go along.

[Skylla]

Also, Buzzard calm the eff down. This is called knowledge, its not "riff raff" and you don't even know who I am. I'm not here to promote myself, but I am here to engage in some interesting and challenging discussions. Stop with the emo attacks, its uneccesary. The things I've presented are fundamental theorems for societal health. Assumning you are American, these two theorems are the basis for all FINANCIAL MARKETS IN THE WORLD, as an Ameican who believes in free markets, assuming you do, why are you freaking out over the basic foundation; that my freind is not very sound judgment. This conversation was directed at Dan, not you. I am not rebuking, necessarily, but I am asking that you leave your emo comments to yourself; they don't help anyone.

economicsishard: Please refrain from using profanity even if abbreviated and review the board guidelines.

Skylla

[economicsishard]

Sorry about that, won't happen again; thanks for the heads up!

[Buzzard]

Also, Buzzard calm the eff down. This is called knowledge, its not "riff raff" and you don't even know who I am. I'm not here to promote myself, but I am here to engage in some interesting and challenging discussions. Stop with the emo attacks, its uneccesary. The things I've presented are fundamental theorems for societal health. Assumning you are American, these two theorems are the basis for all FINANCIAL MARKETS IN THE WORLD, as an Ameican who believes in free markets, assuming you do, why are you freaking out over the basic foundation; that my freind is not very sound judgment. This conversation was directed at Dan, not you. I am not rebuking, necessarily, but I am asking that you leave your emo comments to yourself; they don't help anyone.

Oh, I'm one calm dude. I do think your attempt-as I percieve it-to prove our religion fallacious through mathamatical equations will prove fruitless. But it's a free country, subject to the restrictions imposed by our mods.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Buzzard

[Daniel Peterson]

First, before you read this post, take a deep breath, relax, and say to yourself, "I will not be offended."

I'm not offended.

those who acheive the level of "PHD" many times feel that they are now entitled to assume an expert role when it comes to anything from math to philsophy to economics to religion and the list goes on and on. . . . your default writing style seems to be centered on "I KNOW ALL, I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, I HAVE THE TRUTH BECAUSE MY LOGICAL BRAIN TELLS THIS IS SO." I think your problem here is that you seem to know everything about anything, and if someone disagrees with your assessment, then they must be either brain dead or on the verge of being brain dead.

I'm not offended.

your writing style, similar to other Mormon Apologists so this is not just your problem, pre-demeans and pre-insults the opposition before the opposition has a chance to respond.

LOL. I'm not offended.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you should consider increasing your "self-awareness" thereby allowing yourself to finally say to yourself, "Perhaps I am mistaken." Yes, this is tougher than it seems.

I'm not offended.

you claim that your ideas on taxation are: "This seems to me so obvious, so self-evident, as to be beyond reasonable dispute." Really? Really Dan?

Yup. Really. Do you have even the foggiest idea what I was talking about?

Economics has grown quite a bit since the "hold a gun to the head mentality."

My point had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with technical economics, as such.

And what on earth is the "hold a gun to the head mentality"?

Do you have a PHD in economics to know what you are talking about?

Do you have a Ph.D. in economics? If so, congratulations.

But, even if you do, what connecton does that have with my point? Do you understand what my point was? It seems not.

Perhaps you have a PHD in everything, I have no idea, nor do I care.

I'm not offended.

But the simple fact that you have one PHD now gives you the authority to "opine" about anything and everthing, so when someone reads or hears your opinion and your opinion is completely retarded, then they will mentally note, "This man is blazing mad, a complete lunatic, and becuase he believes he's holds the magical truth, I will make it my job to ensure that he KNOWS that he in fact doesn't know anything."

I'm not offended.

This idea will fester, and then this person will attack and continue to attack because he knows that what you have said is completely stupid

I'm not offended.

And I understand. Even my most hostile and obsessive critics are only doing what they have to do. I've left them no choice. It's my fault.

your problems are 1000 times worse than other PHD folks

I'm not offended.

You write in a very definative style and, quite frankly, at best its mildly annoying and at worst it points to some unresolved psychosematic inner strife where you secretly wish to take over the world.

I'm not offended.

you do have quite a few haters; in fact, more haters than any other Mormon Apologist.

And they are, essentially, my victims. I've made them what they are.

Because I am not sure you get the "drift" of what I am talking about

I'm not offended.

More to come!

[Daniel Peterson]

I am going to analyze your taxation position from the my perspective since I have a PHD in Compuational Finance. Since Computational Finance is a relatively new field of study, let me breifly explain what it is.

It's not quite economics. But close. Anyway, it has nothing to do with my point.

For all your magisterial condescension, what you're saying isn't even relevant.

Mathematical Requirements: Stochastic Calculus with applications in ITO Calculus and Discrete and Continous Time series; Advanced Multi-variate calculus; Advanced linear programming methodologies with applications to 3 and 4 dimensional gamma and beta algebras including applications to Godel's theorems on rational choice set theory and pereto optiamlity; advanced real analysis including real analysis applications to finite and infinite set theory; PDE or pertial differential equiations; number theory; graph theory

Computer Science; derivative modeling in C++; financial futures and forwards modeling in python, java, C++, visual C, and C#; DMA or direct market access machine and processor optimzation with application in econophyics and high-frequency finance; rational and irrational set theory notation and ultimate-L logic computer systems; multi processor design

Physics (for applications of Econophysics): Advanced quantum theory, quantum theory lecture series, mathematical basis of particle physics

Logics: inductive, deductive, Ultimate-L

Economics: Lagrangian Optimizatino applications to financial markets; Advanced mathematical physics and its applications to financial markets; Advanced macro economic modeling with MATLab, SAS, STATA, C++ with research and financial modeling applicatinos; Advanced Pricing Theory with relation to Micro economic theory

I think this is the point where I'm supposed to be intimidated.

Alas, though, I'm not. Instead, I'm chuckling. (Which is not, I suspect, the reaction you wanted.)

It reminds me of a passage that I wrote many years ago:

"But one can hardly fail to be reminded, in this context, of an exchange in C. S. Lewis's early novel The Pilgrim's Regress—a novel that seems more prescient with each passing year. The conversation revolves around the 'Landlord,' who, in Lewis's allegory, represents God:

"'But how do you know there is no Landlord?'

"'Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder!!' exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.

"'I beg your pardon,' said John.

"'Eh?' said Mr. Enlightenment.

"'I didn't quite understand,' said John.

"'Why, it's plain as a pikestaff,' said the other. 'Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round—round as an orange, my lad!'

"'Well, I don't know that it would,' said John, feeling a little disappointed. 'My father always said it was round.'

"'No, no, my dear boy,' said Mr. Enlightenment, 'you must have misunderstood him. It is well known that everyone in Puritania thinks the earth flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question.'"

Piling up impressive-sounding irrelevancies may convince some who aren't really paying attention, but it's just not a cogent response.

So, when you take a position on "taxation" that you are so sure of, then did you consider the areas of study that I mentioned above?'\

No. Of course not. I also didn't consider the history of Burma or the study of Flemish poetry or the military strategy of Hannibal.

I ask this because I find your comment about taxation very misguided and amatuer, but what do I know,

Not much that's relevant, apparently.

I just spent 6 years bridging the gap between advanced math, physics, macro and micro eoconmics and fiancial markets, not to mentioned econometrics which includes, mind you, Adam Smith's simpleton "invisible hand" bulls4t.

Adam Smith may have been a greater economic thinker than you are. Consider the possibility.

Understand that economics and taxation are far removed from your "gun to the head" mentality.

I can't see that you have even the faintest grasp of what I was talking about.

I will never understand why people are so sure of their position on government and finance, quite frankly its embarassing to even read some of their stupidity

LOL. I'm not offended.

and "I know this is true because Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is a good book."

It's generally considered a great book. And I agree with that assessment.

More to come!

[Daniel Peterson]

[quote name='economicsishard' timestamp='1338396508' post='1209127325'Let me leave you with one simple idea in economic theory, this should solidify my point:

The FirstWelfare Theorem is really a mathematical restatement of Adam Smith's famous \invisible hand" result. It relates competitive equilibria and Pareto opti-mality, which we will dene more precisely further on. But before that, some preliminary terms are introduced.

We let "S" be a normed vector space with norm ||.||. We interpret "S" to be a commodity space, each vector representing a basket of commodities. There are "I" consumers, 1, 2, ... I. Each consumer "I" chooses from a set of commodity points in the super set Xi(<=S), giving each commodity point (that is, basket of commodities) a value via the utility function ui : Xi ---> modular(R(-inf.<N<inf.)) <> 2. There are "J" firms, 1, 2, ... J. Each firm j chooses among points in the set Yj(<=S), each point being a vector describing production of the firms in the various commodities under technological limitations.

Denition 1. An allocation [(xi); (yj )] is Pareto Optimal if it is feasible and if there is no other feasible allocation [(x,PRIME), (yjPRIME)] such that [ui(xiPRIME) => Ui(xi)] for all i and Ui(x,PRIME)>Ui(xi) for some i.

Pareto optimality, then, is the allocation at which no individual can increase his utility without reducing the utility of others.

Denition 2. The local nonsatiation condition for consumers is satised if for each consumer i and each x[(x<=X(X)Xi)], and for every EPSILOLN > 0, there exists x(PRIME)[(x<=X(X)Xi)] such that ||x(prime)-x|| <= EPSILON and Ui(xPRIME) > Ui(x). That is to say, for any basket of commodities there is another basket of commodities arbitrarily nearby that is strictly preferred to it.

First Theorem of financial economics

Let {[(xiNOT),(yjNOT)], (SIGMA)} be a competitive equilibrium. We first show that under the condition of nonsatiation, for each i, Ui(x) = Ui(xiNOT) implies SIGMA(x) >= SIGMA(xiNOT). Suppose instead that Ui(x) = Ui(xiNOT) and SIGMA(X) < SIGMA(xiNOT).

Now, by the local nosatiation condition, we can let {Xn} be a sequence in Xi converging to X such that Ui(Xn) > Ui(x) = Ui(xiNOT), i = 1, 2, ......INF.

Since SIGMA is continous, this implies, by our supposition, that for all sufficiently large SIGMA(Xn)<SIGMA(XiNOT). However, by condition, the competative equilibrium, Ui(Xn)>Ui(XiNOT) implies SIGMA(Xn)>SIGMA(XiNOT)

Hence by contradiction {for each i, Ui(x) = Ui(xiNOT) implies SIGMA(x) >= SIGMA(xiNOT)} = TRUE

[Daniel Peterson]

The fun part about this is that I've seen interviews of yourself on youtube where you've stated something to the effect of, "Not sure why someone would study science over religion."

I've never said anything of the kind, and I believe nothing of the kind.

You misunderstand the position you're purporting to refute, and then you purport to refute it by generating reams of irrelevancies -- they're not even arguments, but merely lists -- that you apparently expect will dazzle your target audience into awed silence.

The most reasonable interpretation of your behavior is that you're engaged in a parody. But, if it's designed to parody me, you're going to have to make some major modifications to your approach. And . . . well, it should probably be funny.

Here's where I prove your taxation "gun to the head" stupidity

I'm waiting with bated breath. And, despite your determined efforts, I'm still merely amused, not offended. (Sorry.)

keep in mind the mormon church tells us we should help the poor right? Well, is there a mathematical proof for that? A proof that must exist or the entire economy would be destroyed? Yep there is, and this is the "second theorem of financial economics" or the power of the government to intervien and realign any pareto inefficiencies that may arise from the fist fundamental theorem of financial economics. In simple terms, this fundamental theorem states that the government should be comprised of rational and highly skilled individuals who are capable of restoring individuals wealth preferences by re allocating goods that were distributed due to irrational, or otherwise, pricing anomolies. Governments attain this goal through TAXATION. If this proof doesn't hold, then our neo classical system of economics dosen't hold; yes, this means that if someone in society obtains more than his or her needed supply of goods beyond their desired and constant satiation point, then the governement must step in to restore this inefficiency. If only Joseph Smith would have had this proof when he tried to implement the law of consecration. Yet again Dan, why would you say anything about science or math when science and math prove the same thing as religion but do so in an extreme and intense manner; you really can't argue with the beauty of these proofs; they are like the number pie (3.1415...etc.) in that they exists irregardless of our human intervention.

Even if I were to buy this, it would be irrelevant to my point.

So, without further delay, the proof that taxation is a good thing and not a "gun to your head" but the exact opposite in fact,

And there's the proof that you don't have a clue what I was talking about: I don't see the propositions that "taxation is a good thing" and that "political power rests, ultimately, on the power to coerce" (which is my claim, to which, quite incoherently, you've been taking very, very wordy exception) as mutually exclusive.

ou don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

LOL. I could make a painfully obvious observation, but I'll confine myself to saying that I'm still not offended.

Second Theorem of financial economics: taxation

Under the appropriate conditions, given a Pareto optimal allocation, [(xiNOT), (yjNOT)], there exists a nonzero price system SIGMA: S --> R(-INF.<RealNUM<INF.) such that:

for each i, x[(x<=X(X)Xi)] and Ui(x)>=Ui(XiNOT) implies SIGMA(x)>=SIGMA(XiNOT) and for each j, y[(y<=Y(Y)Yi)] implies SIGMA(y)<=SIGMA(yjNOT)

While the two equations above are identical to the "feasible allocation equation in theorem 1" the first condition is weaker than the second. This condition only maximizes the expenditure for consumers, rather than maximizing utility as in conditions in the first second equation. It is not too difficult to improve equation 2. It is sufficient to impose the conditions that the consumption set be convex over the set of all possible bundles of consumer goods and corresponding satiation points X <> 0, Y<=X,NOT.

Completely irrelevant.

Nevertheless, please start to think before you go off on your high horse thinking you know something about "taxation" when in fact you know nothing.

Sorry. Still not offended.

But you yourself might want to reflect upon the concept of ignorance on a high horse.

This "might' improve your standing amongst your peers. Just a side note, theres a reason why people turn to science and atheism these days, and the reason is, math proves that we can prove the same thing without needed to submit to stupidity spewed form the pulpit. If you were a true religious man . . .

Not offended. Definitely amused, though.

and I am Kose Kosmou. The fun has just begun.

I'd already guessed that you were. The self-glorification, the weirdly varying spellings -- didn't you used to be "Kore Kosmou"? that, at least, made sense -- the smugness, the threats, the personal hostility, but, most of all, the tendency to post lengthy lists of things without relevant analysis (and, mostly, without any analysis at all) -- it's a very distinctive and characteristic mix.

Plainly, you've been disappointed that I've hardly responded to your emails, and your reception even on the so-called "Recovery" board has been a bit . . . er, rocky, and less than awestruck. So you're reaching out.

I wish you all the best.

Finis.

[economicsishard]

Economicishard > Dan

Edited May 30, 2012 by economicsishard

[Mark Beesley]

Y'all realize, of course, that the community of individuals that are exposed to the battles that rage on these internet Boards is rather insignificant in terms of numbers. Board posters, particularly those who spend an inordinate amount of time on the Boards, may have a tendency to lose perspective of just how uninfluential these Boards are in the overall scheme of things.

I recently saw some rather unflattering (and untrue) things written about moi on another Board. I chose to ignore it rather than respond there, here or anywhere. I'm not saying that it is wrong to respond, only that it is probably unnecessary. Life goes on, even in the face of uncorrected error.

[Daniel Peterson]

This is just the start to a long and fruitful relationship between Dan, the Mopologists, and myself;

I'll be enormously surprised, based on what I've seen from you over the past several days, if there's ever any "relationship" at all, let alone a "long" one, to say nothing of "fruitful."

just you wait folks, math & logic vs. Mormon Doctrine. Lets see how things stand up to 20th century logical systems. From what I've read so far, it seems like you folks seem to default to 2000 year old shepard logic from the days of Socrates and Aristotle. Unfortunately, those days died in the 17th and 18th century. These discussion will only get so much better.

Pretentious nonsense, or so it seems to me. And I'm unaware of any serious logician who dismisses the rules laid out in Aristotle's Organon as wholly obsolete or associates them in any way with "shepherds."

I don't pretend to know anything myself outside the realm of financial economics, logic, and math.

But you've been posting up a storm elsewhere over the past several days with endless quotations of doubtful relevancy about Hermeticism, obscure boasts about bigger things to come, threats of my future humiliation at the hands of some vague movement for which you imagine yourself a spokesman, and swaggering claims of having downloaded thousands of books about Hermetic materials. There's little if any evidence, however, that you've either read the stuff or understood it.