Two gay men attacked a women. One held her down and the other did her hair.
How odd that no one commented on the previous version of this. At least someone should have been offended, or inspired by a dim light at the end of our dark tunnel.
In this case silence implies consent, so to avoid guilt dislike this in public. Don't bother to say why. I imagine scores of one-word posts saying, "dislike."
Barry
Mathematics of the Unmeasurable
It is important to consider quantities that can not be accurately measured if we hope to understand economics, but the economics discipline’s pretensions towards being a hard science have limited mathematical equations to those that have factors that can be assigned a measured number.
Rates of production like the GDP can be measured numerically, but a single number to measure life span of the things produced is not available. However, the wealth we have, our stock of goods, is properly calculated by the rate of production multiplied by the life span of the goods produced. High rates of production will result in little wealth on hand if the goods vanish soon after production.
Soon is not a numerical time measure, but it's clear that as their lifespan approaches zero our stock of goods in service also approaches zero. The equation, goods-on-hand = rate-of-production multiplied by the lifespan-of-the-goods produced, illuminates our situation even though we don't have nice numbers to plug into it.
It is not unscientific to consider that equation. It seems we don't care about the wealth we have so much as we care about rates of profit, job creation, and the "inefficiency" of leaving some resources for the future.
The strange omission of a time to go with the rate seems to reveal a failure to comprehend the most basic principles of economics. "How far did we go?" is not measured by our speed alone.
The omission of subjective factors and unknowable quantities from economic math does not make economics scientific; it makes it blind.
Barry http://home.earthlink.net/~durable/