The Center of the Universe

St Croix, United States Virgin Islands

MOSLER'S LAW: There is no financial crisis so deep that a sufficiently large tax cut or spending increase cannot deal with it.

either you believe in representative gov or you don’t…

Posted by WARREN MOSLER on August 20th, 2011

Poll: 30% of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs lived together

By Ross Ramsey

Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.


Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? 30% of Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don’t know.

chart

Supporters of Gov. Rick Perry were more likely than any other group to believe that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together ten millennia ago.

70 Responses to “either you believe in representative gov or you don’t…”

  1. Winslow r. Says:

    Of course it depends how you define ‘dinosaur’….. :)

    Reply

    Unforgiven Reply:

    @Winslow r.,

    Deficit Pterrordactyl?

    Misesaurus?

    I’m sure there must have been a few Austeropithicus wandering about…

    Reply

    roger erickson Reply:

    @Unforgiven,

    museums are full of Austerian toolkits used by extinct, non-adaptive hominids

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    i’ll defer to the historical religious texts for that

    Reply

  2. Mario Says:

    that’s the scary thought that I’ve been realizing as of late…all the mess we have in America…we actually DESERVE this mess, b/c we are the ones creating it. That is the most frightening realization of all…of course the next most frightening is that our politicians execute our insane demands. It’s really representative indeed! More so than I ever imagined. Dear Lord.

    Reply

    Ryan Reply:

    @Mario, The scary policy is that half our graduate school seats in science and engineering are filled by foreigners when, as this article indicates, we have millions of people here that need to learn. What is worse is economists and lawmakers have adopted various policies that favor white collar services for an imagined population of educated workers that doesn’t exist. Hence the low unemployment rate for folks with degrees, and SSI disability for those that don’t.

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    looks to me like an anti intellectual wave that seems to happen when intellectuals are seen to have failed us, President Obama being the latest example.

    historically, numerous revolutions have involved the actual killing of intellectuals

    the intellectual side of man is a relatively new phenomena, and a work in progress as it interacts with man’s ‘biological’ nature.

    See Robert Pirsig’s ‘Lila’

    Reply

    Mario Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER,

    good point. Intellectualism is a very dangerous force when it is devoid of the people’s reality and the care for the people at all times.

    One of the revolutionary ideas of MMT is actually it’s base premise that full employment is a public purpose of government and should be achieved immediately.

    Since when have intellectuals thought like that?!?! It’s always been a mental masturbation about how full employment is impossible or not ideal for all sorts of reasons all the while they are refusing to look at what the REALITY of unemployment is for people on the ground. We see this all the time in our military ops too like in counting US casualties only, coining phrases like “bad intelligence,” “collateral damage,” etc. It’s in the media all the time and politics is very little else. It’s all intellectualism at its absolute worst, devoid of reality and heart, commitment and practical applications. These guys have been too smart for everyone’s own good.

    I prefer intelligence over intellectualism anyday and unfortunately we don’t see enough of the former and waaay too much of the later.

    The Tea Party is attempting to be a more gritty and “straight-shooting” form of intellectualism…but the fact is it doesn’t matter how you slice a ham, it’s still always going to be ham. Personally I like a gritty and straight-shooting form of intelligence myself. That’s my personal preference.

    I’ll check out pirsig too. Thanks

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    mmt says that without govt/taxes/currency there is no unemployment
    unemployment is a monetary phenomena.

    “… one wants to explain the empirical fact that involuntary unemployment is only associated with money-using contractual economies. In other words, real economies that do not use money and money labor contracts to organize production (e.g., feudalism, slave economies, South Sea Islanders discovered by Margaret Meed, etc) may possess important nonlinearities and even an uncertain future — but there is never an important involuntary unemployment problem. Slaves are always fully employed as well as are serfs in feudalism…….Finally it should be noted that herds of animals, schools of fish, etc organize together to solve the economic problems of What? How? For Whom? Without using money, contracts or markets, these animals still face complex nonlinear problems in their search for food and interaction with other herds. Yet animals never suffer from involuntary unemployment!.

    Professor Paul Davidson
    University of Tennessee

    (PKT Archives)

    MamMoTh Reply:

    @Warren,

    Herds of animals organize themselves without money, but they sacrifice the members less fit for survival. I’d call them unemployed (or employed as some member of another species herd lunch.)

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    when you die you are no longer unemployed. and unemployment doesn’t go down either.

    otherwise smaller nations would have lower unemployment rates than larger ones…

    Mario Reply:

    @Mammoth,

    Herds of animals organize themselves without money, but they sacrifice the members less fit for survival. I’d call them unemployed (or employed as some member of another species herd lunch.)

    LOL. yes that is quite true. Leaving the scrawny ones out to die is the equivalent of leaving the less productive or empowered workers today to die in poverty and squalor. In some senses of the word, just being ravaged to death by a pack of wolves might be a bit easier than slowly eeking out a dying existence for 10 years.

    A jobs program is like a the tribe giving the scrawny guy a last ditch effort in being able to “run with the pack” if you will.

    I’m all for it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I’d rather be my brother’s keeper thank you very much. ;)

    Clonal Antibody Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER,

    Both of Persig’s books have been very influential in my life.

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    :)

    roger erickson Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER,

    for heaven’s sake; the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain in addition to the hindbrain is documented out the wazoo, is already millions of years old, and predates even the onset of homo sapiens (despite what Pirsig says; he’s on the right track, but rather out of paradigm)

    doesn’t matter; natural selection still applies;

    if your car fails in a race with other cars, you don’t forswear all cars; you up the design ante

    similarly, if our delegated intellects fail in an adaptive race with other intellects, American ingenuity doesn’t forswear the human fore-brain! (or at least we didn’t used to do that)

    we set the goal higher and rely upon our OWN instead of delegated intellects, and then find an ingenious way to set higher stds for policy delegates
    (jeez, how long does it take to notice a change in context? longer with every increase in population?)

    if the Founding Fathers/Mothers could see us now, they might well renounce US citizenship in shame, or rise up to soundly kick some oversize butts

    Reply

    Art Reply:

    @roger erickson,

    “if the Founding Fathers/Mothers could see us now, they might well renounce US citizenship in shame, or rise up to soundly kick some oversize butts”

    Hey, those oversized butts correlate rather tightly with productivity increases:

    Net energy balance = kCalories in – kCalories out

    Productivity means the same # of kCals can be consumed w/ fewer kCals expended, so higher net energy balance.

    But our evolutionary bodies haven’t yet adapted, so we still eat for a non-linear and uncertain future, causing waistlines to expand alongside productivity (with some national and regional outcome variation based on cultural values, practices, etc).

    Empirically, the data seem to back it up. Not sure what this to do with anything, just find it interesting that the primary cause appears to be something that economists otherwise fawn over. Also that we can never assume a future where humans don’t need to adapt (my book 2 cents: Rene Dubos’ Man Adapting).

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    different point.

    how long ago did humans evolve to sweet talking with with today’s type of verbal language to get a date?
    (vs other animals which still don’t use human type of verbal communication)
    in other words, when did we start thinking in words the way we do today?

    100,000 years ago or so?

    roger erickson Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER,

    > intellectual .. interacts with man’s ‘biological’ nature

    > different point

    Agreed. Was actually trying to be cheek-in-tongue, but typed too fast.

    Point is that there’s really no point in trying to separate intellect from biology -even though they’re often assumed to be different. :)

    Just different points on the same spectrum of layered capabilities. Hotmountain’s un-pointedness theorem applies.

    Reply

    roger erickson Reply:

    @roger erickson,

    > 100,000 years ago or so?

    Way, way, way before that. You never seen videos of bonobos sweet talking one another? Even cicadas engage in sweet chirps. You really can’t pin down any clear point of change, although you could argue for some recognizable inflection points.

    So the analogy, while of limited use, is a bit out of paradigm, and won’t scale. :)

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    ok, how long ago did people reject each other for different religious beliefs?

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    right, the question is when the intellect became sufficient to at least sporadically dominate?

    Tom Hickey Reply:

    @roger erickson,

    “Point is that there’s really no point in trying to separate intellect from biology -even though they’re often assumed to be different. :)”

    Exactly. See Antonio R, Damasio, Descrates’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (1994) for the biology/neurology.

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    agreed. and the intellect has yet to take over. the struggle is still on.

    the question was about when it began to seriously challenge

    Mario Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER,

    the intellectual side of man is a relatively new phenomena, and a work in progress as it interacts with man’s ‘biological’ nature.

    by relatively new I’m assuming your going back a good couple thousand years or more? Ancient Egypt dealt with these very issues as well. We have enough historical data to at least learn something that we could stop today and not repeat again surely.

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    i’m thinking 100,000 years or so

  3. Paul Mineiro Says:

    This makes me question my belief in polling rather than my belief in representative democracy.

    Reply

    ESM Reply:

    @Paul Mineiro,

    Agreed. These polls are stupid, and they can be done in such a way as to get almost any result. If a pollster called me and asked me whether I believed in evolution, I would hang up immediately.

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    at least somewhat inter related?

    Reply

  4. Dave Begotka Says:

    I don’t “believe” anything………except I can melt the tires off a superbike…….and I suck at spelling and basketball

    Alien intervention sounds better than our brains got smaller since Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal or that bible stuff…..

    Bigfoot lives…..

    Reply

    roger erickson Reply:

    @Dave Begotka,

    with his foot in his mouth! :)

    Reply

  5. Ryan Says:

    Someone should poll the Representatives in the House and Senators with these questions.

    Reply

  6. WARREN MOSLER Says:

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Jon
    Huntsman on Thursday turned to Twitter to attack a rival, Texas Gov. Rick
    Perry, for his positions on evolution and climate change.”To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy,” Huntsman tweeted.

    Mitt Romney believes in global warming and thinks that man
    is contributing to it.

    by Steve Dennis

    Mitt Romney was asked late last week at a town hall style
    meeting in New Hampshire whether he believed in global warming, and if so did
    he believe it was manmade. His answer should send shivers down the spines of
    all Republican primary voters who are thinking about voting for him as a viable
    option to Barack Obama:

    I believe the world is getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe humans contribute to that.

    Perry’s answer on “evolution” draws fact checks

    Gov. Rick Perry’s answer to a child’s question about evolution has drawn another round of national parsing of the presidential candidate’s statement.
    At the urging of his mother, a young boy asked Perry’s views on evolution.
    “Here your mom was asking about evolution, and you know it’s a theory that’s out there, and it’s got some gaps in it,” Perry said, according to ABC News. “In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools — because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”
    Perry’s response drew swift reaction from education officials and legal analysts in Texas, who were quick to point out that Texas public schools do not teach creationism.
    The researchers over at PolitiFact Texas looked into the issue and rated Perry’s statement as “False.”

    Bachmann doubts evolution, wants intelligent design in schools

    , Humanist Examiner

    June 18, 2011 – Like this?
    Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has once again expressed doubts about the validity of evolution, and her support for introducing creationism, also known as Intelligent Design, into the public school science classroom.
    Friday, speaking at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, Bachmann reiterated her suspicions about evolution and her support for evolution. This is not the first time Bachmann has made such claims.
    In 2006, Bachmann claimed “there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact… hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design.”

    Reply

    pebird Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER, I believe in idiotic design.

    Reply

    Greg Marquez Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER, I’m pretty sure Warren that you don’t believe the truth is determined by referendum, or by intellectual fashion. Most intellectuals know less about Darwinisim than they know about MMT. 99% of the people in the United States couldn’t even tell you why the term neo-Darwinism exists.

    Reply

    roger erickson Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER,

    ???
    evolution IS intelligent design, and incredibly elegant too

    what’s the problem here?
    someone discover that even a straw man can evolve? :)

    Reply

    roger erickson Reply:

    @roger erickson,

    I don’t believe in the utility of belief. Only in finding out.

    Belief = presumption, which always leads us astray; it’s only a question of how soon

    Reply

    Tom Hickey Reply:

    @roger erickson,

    Energy is the capacity to produce change, and intelligence is the capacity to direct change. The latter capacity increases up the evolutionary ladder, until at the human level, our species discovered how to *use* energy to produce change. Then things really took off.

    Reply

    Deus-DJ Reply:

    @roger erickson,

    Hehe, well said.

    Reply

  7. Jeff Says:

    The most scientific are the 30% who admit they– like everyone else– don’t know.

    Reply

  8. Gary Says:

    real conservative should not believe in evolution, but should believe in social Darwinism (survival of the fittest in economic sense).
    real conservative also should not believe in climate change, nor in mass extinctions of plans and animals caused by people, but should believe that nature will magically regenerate no matter how much you abuse it (not that it is abused according to real conservative).
    real conservative believes in unending progress of capitalism and is an enemy of socialism and equates communism with hell. Capitalism for real conservative is a natural state of human society that should have been present from the times of Garden of Eden (which was too much like communism if you think about it).

    Reply

    MamMoTh Reply:

    @Gary, and Austrians should believe mass extinction of animals is due to malinvestment in unfit species caused by the government messing around with the interest rate for which liquidation was the right solution.

    Reply

    Vincent Reply:

    @Gary, I wish someone would come out with someething like this…evolution is a fundamentally important concept, but it doesn’t help us understand the origin of humnanity and the universe,

    Reply

    Mario Reply:

    @Vincent,

    exactly. Why can’t both exist? God or Source or Creation or whatever created the pieces and all the stuff and from there things have more or less “evolved” as they deemed fit through interaction together. What’s the problem really? Frankly, as soon as a human makes a new discovery or breaks an addiction or bad habit or changes their behavior in some way or learns a new concept EVOLUTION by definition is taking place. We can literally watch it happening before our eyes today. If evolution somehow threatens your belief in God either your faith is pathetic or your God is waaaay too small. Take your pick.

    Reply

  9. Vincent Says:

    Bad. But, just to take a little pressure off the Texans/Americans, a majority of those surveyed in the UK think Sherlock Holmes is non-fiction, and Winston Churchill fiction.

    Reply

    beowulf Reply:

    @Vincent,

    Understandably so. The world’s most famous consulting detective is happily retired and, at last report, still tending his bees in the Sussex countryside.
    http://januarymagazine.com/fiction/finalsolution.html

    Reply

  10. CybrWeez Says:

    Yea, and 100% of MMT’ers believe the debt is not an issue. The majority of Americans would laugh at such “nonsense”. So who’s really crazy?

    I think going against the majority is the right approach…

    Reply

  11. John Krehbiel Says:

    To paraphrase a former Speaker of the House, You get to pick your political representatives, but not your facts.

    Reply

  12. Winslow r. Says:

    @Warren

    When you have a chance can you confirm/deny the following….

    In addition to ‘loans create deposits ‘ we have ‘government spending creating deposits and reserves’.

    The simple model is the government prints a $10 bill and takes it to a bank and deposits it into a checking account. The bank creates a $10 deposit and has $10 in reserves.

    Of course the flip side to this transaction is taxes destroy deposits and reserves.

    This question follows from RSJ’s post at Nick’s site

    Posted by: rsj | August 20, 2011 at 07:27 AM
    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/08/is.html?cid=6a00d83451688169e2015390d87f8b970b#comment-6a00d83451688169e2015390d87f8b970b

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    yes, gov spending adds net financial assets in the form of reserve balances and/or currency in circulation

    Reply

    Winslow r. Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER,

    Okay, but would you take it a step further? Does it increase bank deposits too on the H.8?

    Government doesn’t transact with sellers of goods and services using cash or reserves. RSJ’s point is the government uses bank deposits. Simplified form is government deposits reserves into a bank in return for a deposit account that they can use to transact business. The government then writes checks from a bank.

    I don’t recall if this is totally true. In the past I received checks from the government for goods and services rendered and don’t recall if the checks were issued by a bank or u.s. Treasury. Probably not important.

    Either way, the money is deposited into the banking system into my deposit account, increasing the deposit base without an increase in loans but reserves would increase.

    Reply

    Winslow r. Reply:

    @Winslow r.,

    I find ‘bank loans create bank deposits’ to be very helpful.

    I’m trying to determine if ‘government spending creates bank deposits and bank reserves’ could be helpful as well?

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    gov spending adds net financial assets ultimately in the form of cash, tsy secs, and/or reserve balances.

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    yes, bank deposit go up unless the gov’s payment somehow adds to bank equity.

    any reason any of this matters?

    Winslow r. Reply:

    @Warren,

    If you look back at Nick’s post, Nick was claiming there was no ‘accounting connection’ between government spending and bank deposits used for transactions.

    The ‘bank loans create bank deposits’ doesn’t provide that connection.

    ‘Government spending creates bank deposits and bank reserves’ does provide that connection.

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    ok
    seems he’s just being argumentative.
    he has to know that when someone gets a soc sec payment via direct deposit it’s an incremental balance in that person’s account.
    even if that person is from Austria, or whatever…

    Winslow r. Reply:

    @Warren.,

    ….and when a person sends a tax payment to the treasury, bank deposits and bank reserves are destroyed. Thanks!

  13. jaymaster Says:

    I always say: half the population is below average intelligence.

    And it’s amazing how many people argue with me over that.

    (And yes, I know the proper term is “mean”, not average. But I suspect only about 1% of the population would understand that.)

    Reply

    Charles Reply:

    @jaymaster, Actually, half is below median intelligence, not mean.

    Reply

    jaymaster Reply:

    @Charles,

    Yep, you caught me!

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    I’m a direct descendent of adam and eve

    Reply

    jaymaster Reply:

    @WARREN MOSLER,

    Some unsolicited advice then: Don’t touch the apple!

    Reply

  14. Calgacus Says:

    Poll: 30% of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs lived together

    Without the sacrament of marriage? I’m shocked too!

    Reply

    Unforgiven Reply:

    @Calgacus,

    Those trailers must have been HUGE!

    Reply

    Calgacus Reply:

    @Unforgiven, Texas-sized.

    Reply

    roger erickson Reply:

    @Calgacus,

    No wonder the dinosaurs died out. They got stuck with the contaminated FEMA trailers! SCOT refused to take the crass action suit and god sent a giant tornado to level the trailer park. That’s why there’s no evidence.

  15. Charles Yaker Says:

    Unfortunately they vote. Maybe we can secede?

    Reply

  16. Charles Yaker Says:

    Jokes aside. When Gore ran against Bush I sort of thought half of us saw the future and were prepared to go out and meet it; while half saw the future and where frightened into returning to their childhood myths. I don’t know if it is a good description or not but I do know this is serious stuff because they have already infiltrated our military. If you don’t believe me check out Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religeouse Freedon Foundtion. http://www.MRFF.org. Mikey is a very credible Republican who is an Air Force Acadamy graduate as are his sons. He worked in the Regan White House and for Ross Perot, his father’s roommate at Anapolis. His organization is the one that blew the whistle on the bible verses inscribed on gun sites as well as other violations of our Constitution.

    Reply

  17. PG Says:

    WM:

    “… one wants to explain the empirical fact that involuntary unemployment is only associated with money-using contractual economies. In other words, real economies that do not use money and money labor contracts to organize production (e.g., feudalism, slave economies, South Sea Islanders discovered by Margaret Meed, etc) may possess important nonlinearities and even an uncertain future — but there is never an important involuntary unemployment problem. Slaves are always fully employed as well as are serfs in feudalism……”

    What about the hypothesis that unemployment is a structural feature of capitalism?

    Capitalism provides a necessary condition for unemployment: the prevalence of the employer / employee social relation. Without this relation both employed and unemployed cannot exist.

    Having established a necessary condition one investigates a possible sufficient condition. Some pieces of the puzzle:

    - The “rentalization” of labor. If X hires Y, then X is renting Y’s capability to labor for a specified period of time.

    - The highly skewed distribution of income and wealth, in a frame of fast growing productive capacity and increasing average life standard.

    - The increasing propensity to save as income grows.

    - The paradox of thrift.

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    unemployment, as defined, comes from the currency monopolist restricting supply.

    that is, the govt not spending enough to cover the tax liability plus savings desires

    or, for a given size govt and given savings desires, unemployment is the evidenced we are over taxed

    etc.

    Reply

  18. Crake Says:

    Perry insisting that abstinence only program works as Texas is 3rd in teen pregancies %.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngiJhmoFKkw

    Reply

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>