This is tjfxh's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following tjfxh's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I would not rush to judgment on this. Perhaps the interviewer did not know the fine ponts of Christian theology and did not understand precisely what Francis was saying. Without a transcript it is impossible to tell what Francis meant. See "kenosis" at the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. For example, when I was a grad student in philosophy at a major Catholic university in the US, I had the chance to meet with a top Vatican theologian personally when he was visting. The first thing he said to was, "You have to understand that I don't believe in God." Being very familiar with Aquinas, I said, "Of course." Then we had a fine discussion of a few of the many fine points of theology.
Toggle Commented Oct 10, 2019 on Heresy? Or new dogma? at Sic Semper Tyrannis
Early warning signal? This incident is starting to look like a revolution. Sputnik International, Chinese PLA Holds Riot Drills Near Hong Kong as Protests Escalate
In my view this is part of a larger picture that Bolan doesn't consider. There are reasons that the Trump team has not been more specific about desirable behavior: The desired behavior is for the regime to leave. The alternative to voluntary departure is overthrow. Actually, it can be argued that the US powers that be have been quite clear about this. 1. Regime change is the US major objective toward Iran, Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. The rest is subterfuge. (Europe, Japan and South Korea are already occupied and controlled, and most of the rest of Latin America is controlled, too.) 2. a. The ultimate goal is to break up China and Russia into smaller countries that can never threaten the us. 2. b. The US also has to control the development of India to maintain hegemony, but that is now is mostly on the table economically. 2. c. Longer terms the US also has to control Africa, which is going to be a significant player later in this century. The US is already committing significant special operations forces there. (Regime change in China and Russia would go a long way to securing Africa with minimal effort.) 3. Islamic militancy is here to stay. It will continue to be a thorn, but probably won't be able to become a spear. However, thorns can do significant damage, like putting out an eye. This is an issue not only in MENA but also in most of Africa. 4. The strategy is based on hybrid warfare, employing information warfare, economic warfare, cyber-warfare to the extent possible and to folllow with special operations, proxy war. 5. Kinetic warfare using the US military will only be applied if absolutely necessary unless the objective can be accomplished quickly, since the US public has little tolerance for protracted warfare that results in more than minimal US casualties.The specter of Vietnam still hovers, and 17 years in Afghanistan are still a reminder. 6. China and Russia know this, and so do smaller countries that are on the hit list. The smaller countries are stepping stonds toward China and Russia and no one is in the dark about this. This is basically the Wolfowitz doctrine, the Bush doctrine, and the grand chessboard as set forth by Zbig, based on Halford Mackinder's analysis and modifications by Nicholas Sykper. All one has to do is look at the China plan for the BRI to see that what is happening. The US leadership is now convinced that US hegemony is under direct attack by China, and the other countries slated for remine change are all part of the bigger picture in this regard. 7. This is a red line for the US. What are the red lines for China, Russia, and Iran. The US is probing to determine that.
Excellent setup for the historically relevant issues at the beginning of the 20th c. I vote to keep rather than kill.
1 reply
The link to Glossary citation in the above was omitted.
"But rather to note that for Al-Ghazali there is a cognitive faculty (intuition) superior to reason that is always available to grasp the truth and, if I understand him correctly, this faculty is in a certain sense not discursive (as the textual Quran is). Yes, this faculty can be developed out of our natural inclination towards truth needing to be filled out and completed with God's help (with or without revelation)." Al-Ghazali was himself a Sufi. The development of non-ordinary cognition and affect is the result of a non-intleectual process that results in cognition and affect that transcends the ordinary. This takes place in stages on the path through the inner planes that leads to God-realization. "During my successive periods of meditation there were revealed to me things impossible to recount. All that I shall say for the edification of the reader is this: I learnt from a sure source that the Sufis are the true pioneers on the path of God: that there is nothing more beautiful than their life, nor more praiseworthy than their rule of conduct, nor purer than their morality. "The intelligence of thinkers, the wisdom of philosophers, the knowledge of the most learned doctors of the law would in vain combine their efforts in order to modify or improve their doctrine and morals; it would be impossible. With the Sufis, repose and movement, exterior or interior, are illumined with the light which proceeds from the central Radiance of Inspiration. And what other light could shine on the face of the earth ? In a word, what can one criticize in them? "From the time that they set out on this path, revelations commence for them. They come to see in the waking state angels and souls of prophets; they hear their voices and wise counsels. By means of this contemplation of heavenly forms and images they rise by degrees to heights which human language cannot reach, which one cannot even indicate without falling into great and inevitable errors." Knowledge in Sufism is based on different degrees of certainty — Arabic: یقین‎‎ (yaqin or yaqeen) Note that the levels are traced to the Qur'an so they have different meanings in various interpretations. hSee for instance Meher Baba gave a Sufi explanation based on the Arabic yaqin: Certainty. Conviction. -Sufi. (1a) -Arabic. (Du*) ain-ul-yaqin: The conviction of sight, which comes by seeing God face to face on the sixth [inner] plane. -Sufi. Vedanta: antar drishti. (1a) -Arabic. (Du) Haqq-ul-yaqin: The certainty of Realization. -Sufi. (1a) -Arabic. (Du) ilm-ul-yaqin: Intellectual conviction based on rock-like faith. -Sufi. (1a) -Arabic. (Du) urf-ul-yaqin: The certainty of Gnosis of the Avatar and Perfect Masters, who use their Knowledge to help souls in bondage. -Sufi. (1a) -Arabic. (Du) yaqin-ul-yaqin: Conviction of souls on the first through the fifth [inner] plane. -Sufi. (1a) -Arabic. (Du) Glossary * Du = Duce, Murshida Ivy Oneita, How a Master Works, Copyright & published by, 1975, Sufism Reoriented, Inc., 1300 Boulevard Way, Walnut Creek, Ca., US In comparison with Western philosophy, Sufism is Platonic and Neo-Platonic rather than Aristotelian. E. J. Urwick compared Plato with the Vedic tradition in The Platonic Quest. Meher Baba showed the similarity of Vedanta and Sufism using key terms from both traditions. It seem that Al-Ghazali should be approached in this light instead of as a philosopher using chiefly empirical observation and reasoning. In addition, his approach to knowledge doesn't reduce to Aristotle's intellectual intuition, which the West intellectual tradition subsequently rejected. "for Al-Ghazali there is a cognitive faculty (intuition) superior to reason that is always available to grasp the truth and, if I understand him correctly, this faculty is in a certain sense not discursive (as the textual Quran is). Yes, this faculty can be developed out of our natural inclination towards truth needing to be filled out and completed with God's help (with or without revelation)." In light of the above, I would say this is correct. Tom Hickey
David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years. Melville House; Updated Expanded edition (2014). Michael Hudson and Marc Van De Mieroop, Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East. Capital Decisions Ltd (2002). Geoffrey Ingham, The Nature of Money. Polity (2004). A. Mitchell Innes, “The Credit Theory of Money,” The Banking Law Journal, Vol. 31 (1914), Dec./Jan., 151-168. _____________, “What is Money?,” The Banking Law Journal, Vol. 30 (1913), May. 377-409 L. Randall Wray, Theories of Money and Banking. Edward Elgar (2012) ______________, Understanding Modern Money:The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability. Edward Elgar (1998)
Toggle Commented Mar 21, 2017 on How Money Made Us Modern at Economist's View
1 reply
I was speaking specifically of the early history in my comment, but the entire article was rather one-sided. The debated on the history and nature of money is nuanced and the author made it seem as through the article presents a definitive version. The audience to which it is addressed would not glean that from the article and would likely come away with a one-sided and simplistic perspective on the history and nature of money.
Toggle Commented Mar 21, 2017 on How Money Made Us Modern at Economist's View
1 reply
The article is poorly researched. The author needs to read Innes, Graeber, Ingham, Wray and Hudson on the history of money from the perspective of credit instead of relying on Davies, who emphasizes commodity money and doesn't distinguish between bullion and chartal.
Toggle Commented Mar 21, 2017 on How Money Made Us Modern at Economist's View
1 reply
I find it difficult to conceive that these people acted on their own in this matter. If they did, they should be fired. If they did not, they are being used as a tool by someone or some cohort. Who might that be?
"Deep state" was already taken wrt to Turkey when Mike Lofgren picked it up an applied it to the US. I think that what he is referring to we call an "old boy network." At this level it is the leadership of the military//security/intelligence-industrial-financial-media-governmental complex unified by the revolving door. Basically it is inferred from the consistency and persistence of US policy across administrations regardless of platforms and campaign promises. It's not a conspiracy but a shared understanding that results in a policy framework, albeit with various debates within that framework.
Holdover from Mackinder-Spykman-Zbig? For unchallenged global dominance iaw Wolfowitz doctrine, the US needs to control Eurasia, and a Russo-Chinese strategic alliance threatens that. Adding Iran would complicate matters even more. So from the geopolitical and geostrategic POV, Russia, China and Iran are pivotal. Taking out NK would put the alliance on China's border, just as bringing the former Soviet states into NATO wrt Russia. Looks like a pretty straightforward plan of encirclement. Probably began under Clinton with his decision to advance NATO toward Russia., as well as the US discussion to continue to pursue Reagan's SDI, dubbed Star Wars. Is this just an extension of existing policy, possibly owing to things going wrong wrt to Russia, e.g., in Georgia and now Ukraine and Syria, and also the recent emergence of China onto the global stage from "hibernation." The projected economic union from Shanghai to Lisbon featuring hi-speed rail would shake Anglo-American financial and economic supremacy as the (neo-British Empire) with control of the sea (and air). So I can see how US policy makers could see this as threat. The problem is that they seem to think it strategically worthwhile to risk a multiple front war in Eurasia against China, Russia and Iran. That's s huge chunk to bite off. Or maybe just an excuse to ramp up military spending as an other gift to the military-industrial complex that along with finance powers the US economy. And the military would love the new toys, too.
Maybe Trump has signaled he is already in the neocon/war hawk camp: "Painted as anti-establishment and friendly toward Russia, Republican front-runner Donald Trump nevertheless embraced Michael Glassner as his Political Director [1]. Glassner was a senior advisor to former presidential candidates Bob Dole and John McCain, both notorious military interventionists. He was also a Regional Political Director for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) [2], a highly-influential organization with a long track record of lobbying for military invasions and aggressive sanctions against Israel’s neighbors [3].… "Another more ominous signal came last August, when Trump, who has frequently touted his opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, named former top US State Department official John Bolton as one of his top foreign policy advisors, stating: “He’s, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about.” Part of the Bush-Cheney regime, Bolton was a staunch advocate for military invasions of Iraq and Iran. [9]"
This may be relevant concerning the West's push for Raqqa. This has been on the agenda, but it is now imperative in light of the R+6 advance. The Race For Raqqa And America’s Geopolitical Revenge In “Syraq” (I) Andrew Korybko Oriental Review - Oct 14, 2015
Toggle Commented Nov 23, 2015 on Intrique in Rojava - TTG at Sic Semper Tyrannis
Moron maybe. I would assume it more likely she is on some clandestine service's payroll. It has all the earmarks of being a hit job. The people that actually created and are funding ISIS, Al Qaeda el al are desperately trying to shift the blame and cover their tracks This is especially true now that Sheriff Putin has declared that the full force of Russia is coming down on all involved in the downing of Metrojet Airbus A321, and he won't rest until they receive their due. You can bet the Spetsnaz is on the case.
Pepe Escobar has been writing about the strategy of destabilization for some time and has a book on it, too — The Empire of Chaos. Part of this strategy is the current American "lead from behind" strategy of getting others to do the dirty work, on the cheap if possible. It's become clear to the US leadership that voters don't want to expend blood and treasury on anything that they cannot see accruing immediate benefit to themselves. So they have to be keep afraid rather than greedy for domination. What you have missed is the endgame, which is partitioning Russia and China into smaller "democratic" states so that they can never challenge US global hegemony in the future. "Democracy" is really an American euphemism of plutonomy, and "freedom" means freedom for US business and finance to operate under rules that America chooses, that is, the people that run America. These folks are contemplating 1000 year empire with their descents in the seats of power. Now that Russia and China are aware of the plan, we'll see where it goes. What could go wrong?
GU College of Arts and Sciences 61, MA 72, PhD 75, all in phil. Two courses in phil were required of all undergrads then and they were standard Thomism taught b Jesuits in the Scholastic style. I majored in phil and was required to take Ancient Phil for two semesters as a junior and Modern Phil for two semesters as a senior. There were no other courses in philosophy offered, so the rest of one's work was electives with no further requirements. Of course, the college was all male, then, too. How times have changed. Btw, I returned to GU for grad work since I was interested in a historical approach and GU was one of the few grad schools where this approach then. Plus, it had a good balance of Anglo-American and Continental profs. — but sadly, no Asian phil. I did some post-grad work in that.
What we know from the information is that a person x did y and where x happens to be a particular individual designated as "Julius,". The form is y = f(x), where x is some person that is assigned an identifier, here a name, that is., an element of the set of people capable of satisfying the the function of inventing a zip drive. The appearance of contingency arises from specifying a particular value for x from the many possible names as identifiers. But the name doesn't connect the name "julius" to its interpretation as a particular person that happens to be named Julius. This is not knowable based on rules alone — definitions, axioms, formation and transformation rules. Semantic interpretation of symbols signifying that which is extra-linguistic and extra-logical is a matter of experience, either direct as one's own experience, or indirect, e.g., testimony or inference based on valid logical form and true premises. Another case of bewitchment of intelligence by language.
Efficiency is not an end in itself. A process can be highly efficient and fail to be effective in doing what it is designed to do. For example, in engineering efficiency is often sacrificed for safety by incorporating redundancy, like adding an emergency brake to your vehicle. The pollution control system also reduces efficiency from the engineering POV, but it is necessary to decrease negative eternality, which is deemed a goal of public purpose. Government policy is like that in macro. The private sector is highly efficient at producing profit at the lowest cost. However, that is not sufficient to meet all the high priority needs of society, and government subsidizes those where the private sector cannot undertake them profitably. This is not "market imperfection" or friction, elimination of which makes a more "perfect" market, as neoclassical economics holds. The economy is the life-support system of a society, and it must be effective even at the expense of introducing some inefficiency. The "free markets, free trade and free capital flow" trope is about efficiency of capital and not about fitting the global economy to the priorities of a life-support system for humanity. The assumption that efficiency of capital is the optimal means to achieve the optimal life-support system for humanity is gratuitous and it is highly suspect for two major reasons — manifest problems and the fact that the assumption is put forward by interested parties.
1 reply
Peter F. Drucker cautioned about confusing efficiency with effectiveness. Efficiency is about doing things right (means) and effectiveness about doing the right things (ends).
1 reply
In Fama's defense, he admits that he is not a macroeconomist. In criticism, then maybe he should just shut up about macro instead of making a fool of himself.
1 reply
Not a joke. Rand Paul is already running for president, and Chris Matthews announced today that he expects him to win the 2016 GOP nomination.
1 reply
James, see Mathew Forstater and Warren Mosler, "The Natural Rate of Interest Is Zero," JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ISSUES, Vol. XXXIX, No. 2 June 2005. The argument is that deficit spending is a reserve add that drives the overnight rate on interbank borrowing down, and since the US govt runs a deficit most years, the rate would be driven to zero as the "natural rate" if left to itself. However, the Fed chooses not to set the rate to zero by allowing excess reserve balances accumulate, but rather it prefers to set a positive rate. The Fed does this either using OMO in conjunction with the Treasury's management of its TT&L accounts, along with bond issuance by the Treasury that drains the added reserve balances from deficits expenditure. So the operational function of Treasury issuance of securities is as a reserve drain of the reserve add from deficit expenditure. Alternatively, the Fed could pay IOR as now. Should the Fed decide to set the policy rate to zero or pay IOR, then bond issuance would not be needed operationally in the Fed's hitting its target rate. JKH says: "Deficits do not lead to a lower fed funds rate, because in the actual world the Treasury manages its fiscal transactions through a cash management account at the Fed, under an expected cash management discipline." It is clear that this is true from the above, since the Fed does not in practice choose a policy rate of zero, but rather a policy rate greater than zero through using OMO/TTL coordination or else payment of interest on reserve balances. So no conflict between this and the claim that the "natural rate" is zero.
1 reply
A surplus funds debt redemption, i.e., one govt liability exchanged for another? I say "theoretically" since reserves are accounting entries and cannot be traced like a dollar bill changing hands. But as long as debt redemption is taking place, it's logical to assume that rb from taxes are being used to fund it.
1 reply
MMT economists have addressed fiscal sustainability in many places, blog posts papers, books, and even a conference. Two that come to mind are Bill Mitchell's blog post, "The full employment budget deficit condition," and Scott Fullwiler's paper, "Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability." To understand the stock flow consistent macro modeling that MMT uses, see Wynne Godley and Marc Lavoie, Monetary Economics (Plagrave MacMillan, 2nd ed., 2012). Now that MMT is gaining purchase, maybe it's time to dig into the lit instead of shooting from the hip? For Robert Waldmann, see Edward Harrison, "MMT for Austrians" at Credit Writedowns. For Weimar, see Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany: New Perspective on the “German View” using a Post-Keynesian Flow of Funds Framework" by Joseph Laliberté at Fictional Reserve Banking; L. Randall Wray, "Zimbabwe! Weimar Republic! How Modern Money Theory Replies to Hyperinflation Hyperventilators (Part 1)," and Edward Harrison, "MMT: Fear of Hyperinflation" at Naked Capitalism, also posted as "Hyperinflation in the USA" at Credit Writedowns. Hyperinflation - It's More than Just a Monetary Phenomenon by Cullen O. Roche shows that historically hyperinflations have been caused exogenously. Basically, the terms imposed on Germany at the end of WWI resulted in the need to obtain gold or foreign currency in international markets for reparations, which resulted in currency depreciation. This resulted in domestic inflation, which was exacerbated by curtailed supply resulting from the hobbling of Germany's productive capacity due to the terms of settlement. This lead to the Weimar hyperinflation, which Keynes decried in The Economic Consequences of the Peace. "The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance." Weimar was clearly a special case that is unrelated to conditions in the US.
1 reply