OPINION: we don’t need 14th century treason laws to make Brexit happen, we just need concerted will

February 2, 2019 at 8:54 am
A movement is very easily sidelined when organised around a set theme. Decentralised and coordinated action in both deed and word is much harder to stop.
Gandhi was correct, “be the change you want to see in the world”.
With the internet Be the Change and just let others know too.

Dominic Raab Confirms changes in Chequers deal appeared after his signing off the draft? See from 2.11 mins
election who authorized that it’s not
clear to me I’ve asked that question as
a change made that if it wasn’t you and
you’re the
secretary paid to be the negotiator the
brexit said we can only have been the
Prime Minister well I don’t know I asked
that question in cabinet I haven’t had a
particular good answers it was described
as a drafting change but I think if you
look at it you’ve got it there in front
of you it is very clear that the future
relationship will be based on this

Steve Baker makes the same point in his detailed evidence to the Brexit committee.







The Slog.

win_20190127_120025 The Western world’s élite media set are not obsessed with Brexit: they are hell-bent on the destruction of everything Brexit is about. Cast adrift by the very politicians who claim to represent them, the People of Britain have one remaining weapon – electoral blackmail to threaten the political class with extinction.


I confess to feeling a little sorry at the moment for all those hungry cats chased up trees in which they are now stuck. All over Britain, the trees are full of felines starving to death because there’s no room on news bulletins or in tabloids for those little snippets that make us go “Aaaah!”

Although such items are always referred to as “human interest” stories, it is amazing how often they feature animals.

But for now, I see no octopus about to predict the result of the Grand National, no kittens whose best friend is a…

View original post 1,682 more words


Response to Frank Slater, held in Moderation.

Animated GIF-downsized_large (5)

February 2, 2019 at 1:23 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“The upper output rate boundary occurs when all the effort available for tool making and
maintenance is fully committed to maintaining the tools already in use; no further effort is
available to make more.”

Take this part here frank which I think is the meat of what you are trying and failing to say in your paper.

In a proper economics rooted in real empirically defined and testable units of Value/Utility what this would say is.
Where the Energy cost of Energy exceeds the Net Energy Surplus no further production surplus can accrue.
Dr Tim Morgan Explains Energy Cost of Energy here.


Vaclav Smil covers the lower bounds of production dealing in calorific value of human labour

paraphrase here on my blog

Box 1.10
Calculating the net energy cost of human labor
There is no universally accepted way to express the energy cost of human
labor, and calculating the net energy cost is perhaps the best choice: it is a
person’s energy consumption above the existential need that would have to be
satisfied even if no work were done. This approach debits human labor with
its actual incremental energy cost. Total energy expenditure is a product of
basal (or resting) metabolic rate and physical activity level (TEE = BMR × PAL),
and the incremental energy cost will obviously be the difference between TEE
and BMR. The BMR of an adult man weighing 70 kg would be about 7.5 MJ/d,
and for a 60 kg woman it would be about 5.5 MJ/day. If we assume that hard
work will raise the daily energy requirement by about 30%, then the net
energy cost would be about 2.2 MJ/day for men and 1.7 MJ/day for women,
and hence I will use 2 MJ/day in all approximate calculations of net daily.



Frank, my main thing is sound modelling and FFT analysis so the maths is meat and drink to me I find Climate models extremely limited as they too are trying to prove they are right without looking at all the available evidence.

I think your paper is Naive, thats only my opinion but applied maths and engineering has to stand up to test in the field, what Tetlock says about experts


Incompleteness, boundary conditions or Limits.
IF. 0 = True , IF. 1 = False, IF. REF= 1:10 otherwise GO TO Menu?

( See Bull Shit Derrida) http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/05/on-bullshit-ad-hominem-election-2017.html

“Of course it’s funny, but not out loud!”

A CLASSIFYING ALGEBRA FOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS J¨urgen Fuchs X DESY Notkestraße 85, D – 22603 Hamburg Christoph Schweigert CERN CH – 1211 Gen`eve 23
(MetaPhysics ?)Or (Physics?).
Abstract We introduce a finite-dimensional algebra that controls the possible boundary conditions of a conformal field theory. For theories that are obtained by modding out a Z2 symmetry (corresponding to a so-called Dodd-type, or half-integer spin simple current, modular invariant), this classifying algebra contains the fusion algebra of the untwisted sector as a subalgebra. Proper treatment of fields in the twisted sector, so-called fixed points, leads to structures that are intriguingly close to the ones implied by modular invariance for conformal field theories on closed orientable surfaces. CERN-TH/97-215 August 1997

Timoshenko beam with uncertainty on the boundary conditions
Thiago G. RittoI; Rubens SampaioII; Edson CataldoIII
Ithiagoritto@gmail.com IIEmeritus Member, ABCM, rsampaio@pucrio.br, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro – PUC-Rio, Mechanical Engineering Department, 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil IIIecataldo@im.uff.br, Fluminense Federal University – UFF, Applied Mathematics Department, Graduate Program in Telecommunications Engineering, 24020-140 Niterói, RJ, Brazil
(Physics?).(MetaPhysics ?)


February 2, 2019 at 4:36 pm

You may have skimmed my paper but you have clearly failed to understand it. You have not dealt with its predictions being falsifiable but that they conform to the empirical evidence. That they predict new relationships which Lakatos would find highly significant. So you have failed to deal with the paper and apparently reiterate your failed arguments.



Frank, I think the production function is absurd and as part of the general comedy, your paper adds to the general absurdity.
The emperor’s new clothes is an apt allegory for the stupidity and hubris of practitioners of Economics in the main stream.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend,

February 2, 2019 at 5:56 pm

I must make clear I am NOT an economist. I am an engineer. What axiom would challenge? The only ones used by me are the definitions of productivity and of technical progress. If you can NOT prove those to be wrong then the mathematics leads to a single inexorable conclusion.


Technical progress is a subjective ill defined genrality , it is psuedo scientific, the measure of productivity is possibly not quite as bad but if it is measured in Monetary measures even if based upon levelised costs Monetary units are arbitrary and meaningless. There is no scientific rigour in the generalised production function it is pseudo scientific and based upon a belief system and as such is meta physical or Faith based not empirically grounded. All of the material I have pointed to makes this clear. All your paper does Frank is compound the circular reasoning as the whole edifice of the production function is built upon shifting sands.


TV bullshit and its effect on clear thinking.




A very amusing part 3 to Adrian Blaus Bullshit series, Trilogy even?

Part 1 and 2 were reblogged here,

May 3, 2017
Leave a comment
Edit“Is Derrida full of bullshit? Part 2”


There’s a mild kind of bullshit which is common, entirely understandable, and produced by many of us, including me. But it’s insidious, and I’ll suggest that it might contribute to bigger problems.

Bullshit as Harry Frankfurt characterises it – in contrast to Jerry Cohen’s notion of bullshit – involves phoniness, indifference to truth. (See my earlier post for a comparison of Frankfurt’s and Cohen’s notions of bullshit, and some examples.)

In my view, bullshit is a matter of degree, and a mild form of Frankfurt-bullshit can often be found on TV, especially at the start of programmes.

Here are two recent examples from British television. The first is from top chef Michel Roux Jr., or rather, from whoever wrote the words which he read out at the start of the programme:

There’s nothing I’m more passionate about than what, how and why we eat and drink. … Something I’m obsessed…

View original post 773 more words

Heisenberg, Gödel, and Chomsky walk into a bar. Neo-Classical Economics is the Joke!


Godel Escher Bach art print!


Another interesting discussion of Lars Syl’s Real Economics Blog Page.

Economics and reality

from Lars Syll

‘Modern’ economics has become increasingly irrelevant to the understanding of the real world. In his seminal book Economics and Reality(1997), Tony Lawson traced this irrelevance to the failure of economists to match their deductive-axiomatic methods with their subject

It is — sad to say — as relevant today as it was twenty years ago.

It is still a fact that within mainstream economics internal validity is everything and external validity nothing. Why anyone should be interested in that kind of theories and models is beyond imagination. As long as mainstream economists do not come up with any export-licenses for their theories and models to the real world in which we live, they really should not be surprised if people say that this is not science, but autism!

Studying mathematics and logic is interesting and fun. It sharpens the mind. In pure mathematics and logic, we do not have to worry about external validity. But economics is not pure mathematics or logic. It’s about society. The real world.

Economics and Reality was a great inspiration to yours truly twenty years ago. It still is.


Just to bumper sticker the argument, Steve Keen says, and I agree with him that Economists have maths envy particularly of Physicists, Physicists of the Classical School feel that the Statistical turn which Einstien and Schroedinger regretted was founded in a sort of priestly hubris.

Minsky was always criticised for not using Mathematical models But made a lot of progress as he genuinely was searching for a solution.

My Claim is that Mainstream Economics fails because it is not interested in a Real answer it is only interested in proving it is right, the same goes for the generality of the Mainstream Academic edifice which is an institutionalised Sychophant to the Oligarchy.

Ok, Frank, I read this Paper


Stylised Facts?

The Allocation of Effort?

If the numeraire (generally money) presents an affine transformation from the theoretically valid labour-time measurements then the resulting equations will be representative of the underlying reality

I assume you are a competent mathematician so I haven’t checked your maths.

Regardless of the Maths, your reasoning makes some pretty bold general claims which are not supportable logically.

Money as a measure is Flawed both Abstract and Arbitrary, it is not a concept based in reality it is an Abstract ideal.

The paper is I found rather lacking in scientific rigour and fails to define its terms adequately.

The economy is an energy transformation equation and it is there that you will find scientific empirical data to support the theoretical framework you fail to establish.

The future is an emergent chaotic construct and as such is indefinable, brush up your Tarski so to speak,

Regarding the Boundary conditions for forwarding prediction energy potentials can be abstracted and presented as embodied energy equations as has been achieved in this paper.


I discuss it in this blog post here


and here


I also recommend some Vaclav Smil

And this rather compelling Model here,


which i discuss with its programmer here.


Frank, I found the paper entertaining as far as it went but kept thinking of the Song Castles in the air Saying it is so, in theory, does not make it so in fact and when your metrological magic wand is an abstract ill-defined “Allocation of Effort” we are indeed in the field of metaphysics and not falsifiable scientific rigour.

Heisenberg, Gödel, and Chomsky walk into a bar

Heisenberg looks around the bar and says, “Because there are three of us and because this is a bar, it must be a joke. But the question remains, is it funny or not?”

And Gödel thinks for a moment and says, “Well, because we’re inside the joke, we can’t tell whether it is funny. We’d have to be outside looking at it.”

And Chomsky looks at both of them and says, “Of course it’s funny. You’re just telling it wrong.”



I read the North Essay? am I missing something, looks like metaphysics to me.

Shubick’s paper on Institutional economics takes a lot of beating he says this in it.

Martin Shubick,

”The monetary and financial system of an economy are part of the socio-politico-economic control mechanism used by every state to connect the economy with the polity and society. This neural network provides the administrative means to collect taxes, direct investment, provide public goods, trade. The money measures provide a crude but serviceable basis for the accounting system which in turn, along with the codification of commercial law and financial regulation are the basis for economic evaluation and the measurement of trust and fiduciary responsibility among the economic agents. A central feature of a control mechanism is that it is designed to influence process. Dynamics is its natural domain. Equilibrium is not the prime concern, the ability to control the direction of motion is what counts.

Money and financial institutions provide the command and control system of a modern society. The study of the mechanism, how they are formed, how they are controlled and manipulated and how their influence is measured in terms of social, political, and economic purpose pose questions, not in pure economics, not even in a narrow political economy, but in the broad compass of a political economy set in the context of society. ”