> On Jul 1, 11:49Â am, Deadrat
b.com> wrote:>> tg
earthlink.net> wrote
>> innews:f2fa5323-beec-4e47-a014-22d7335 >>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 10:36Â pm, Larry
y.com> wrote:>>
>>>> Â tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>>>>> On Jun 30, 8:58Â pm, Larry
y.com> wrote:>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>,
>>
>>>>>> Â tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 1:17Â pm, Deadrat
b.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> tgdenn...@
earthlink.net wrote
>>>>>>>> innews:a839adb7-31c1-421d-b3e4-3d64002bfd7b@f36g2000hsa.goo
>>>>>>>> gle grou
>>>>>>>> :
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:27Â pm, Deadrat
b.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> BretCah...@
peoplepc.com wrote
>>>>>>>>>> innews:f5a4c66c-0069-4725-a6ae-58118cf32631
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A company that produces two one year and four the
>>>>>>>>>>>> next year
>>> *has*
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same percentage growth rate as the company that
>>>>>>>>>>>> produces
>>> Â two
>>>>>>>>>>>> million the first year and fourt million the second.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So far so good.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Leaving aside tortured hypotheticals,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's harder to produce two million more than two
>>>>>>>>>>>> more.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You need some  effect .  Maybe coyotes start eating t
> he
>>>>>>>>>>> h
>>> omework
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the employees at larger companies. Â You'ld say that
>>>>>>>>>>> the "co
>>> yote
>>>>>>>>>>> effect" has been well established at major
>>>>>>>>>>> universities, etc.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> First of all, anyone with a passing knowledge or
>>>>>>>>>> organizational
>>
>>>>>>>>>> dynamics understands that complexity increases much
>>>>>>>>>> faster than
>>
>>>>>>>>>> linear growth, so there's no need to posit a coyote
>>>>>>>>>> effect.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you really don't have a good sense of mathematical
>>>>>>>>> reasonin
>>> g.
>>>>>>>>> "Complexity increases much faster than linear growth"
>>>>>>>>> doesn't ev
>>> en
>>>>>>>>> qualify as hand-waving.
>>
>>>>>>>> You don't believe this to be true? Â Or you just want some
>>>>>>>> mathem
>>> atical
>>>>>>>> justification?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After that you need to explain how this effect would
>>>>>>>>>>> produce similar results in nations, which don't
>>>>>>>>>>> disappear with negati
>>> ve
>>>>>>>>>>> growth rates.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secondly, the observation isn't that it's impossible
>>>>>>>>>> for a larg
>>> er
>>>>>>>>>> entity to grow faster than a smaller one, just that
>>>>>>>>>> it's harder
>>> .
>>
>>>>>>>>> Ummmmmm.... If it is harder, then with all conditions
>>>>>>>>> the same,
>>> it
>>>>>>>>> *isn't* possible.
>>
>>>>>>>> So you think that hard things are impossible.
>>>>>>>> Â Interesting.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I've come to the conclusion that you are one of those
>>>>>>>>> people (fundatarian perhaps) who listen to a lot of talk
>>>>>>>>> radio, and are
>>> Â used
>>>>>>>>> to having everyone agree with you even when you don't
>>>>>>>>> bother to construct rational sentences, as long as you
>>>>>>>>> use some buzzwords
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> hew to the party line.
>>
>>>>>>>> And like the rest of your conclusions, it's faulty.
>>>>>>>> Â You've deci
>>> ded to
>>>>>>>> disagree with me no matter what silly things you have to
>>>>>>>> claim:
>>> Â hard
>>>>>>>> things are impossible, for instance. Â Given that there's
>>>>>>>> disagre
>>> ement,
>>>>>>>> you've then decided you know who I am: Â I listen to talk
>>>>>>>> radio,
>>> for
>>>>>>>> instance.
>>
>>>>>>>> I can't be wrong or misguided; I have to be the enemy who
>>>>>>>> "hews to
>>> Â a
>>>>>>>> party line."
>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you certainly are wrong and misguided. But the diagnosis
>>>>>>> was bas
>>> ed
>>>>>>> on the nature of your responses not the substance. That's
>>>>>>> what's interesting; there is a stylistic similarity among
>>>>>>> creationists, fundatarians and various other
>>>>>>> math/science-deniers.
>>
>>>>>>> One characteristic is dishonesty, evidenced by snipping or
>>>>>>> even misquoting without snipping as you did above. I said
>>>>>>> "with all conditions the same", which has been your premise
>>>>>>> all along, but you
>>
>>>>>>> left that out.
>>
>>>>>>>> That's pathetic.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to remember: Twice as many farmers with twice as
>>>>>>>>> many plows
>>> can
>>>>>>>>> till twice as many fields.
>>
>>>>>>>> This isn't a fourth-grade arithmetic problem. Â In the real
>>>>>>>> world
>>> , an
>>>>>>>> organization with twice as many farmers faces a four-fold
>>>>>>>> increase
>>> Â in
>>>>>>>> problems of logistics. Â Also note that mature economies
>>>>>>>> cannot arbitrarily increase the number of fields (i.e.,
>>>>>>>> the resources).
>>
>>>>>>> And now we begin to see what's going on. When you say
>>>>>>> "larger econom
>>> y,
>>>>>>> all things being equal", you mean "all things *not* being
>>>>>>> equal". I thought we were talking about size of the economy,
>>>>>>> not 'maturity'. That's why the island thought experiment
>>>>>>> serves as a counterexample
>>> to
>>>>>>> your claim. Do you think that  small economies don't run up
>>>>>>> agains
>>> t
>>>>>>> resource limits? Â Or is the fourth grade where things
>>>>>>> started gett
>>> ing
>>>>>>> tough for you?
>>
>>>>>> A smaller economy that has the same number of resources as a
>>>>>> larger economy would use less resources, meaning more would be
>>>>>> left for expansion and growth.
>>
>>>>> I just can't believe you people are serious. If an economy is
>>>>> running out of resources, then its lack of growth is the result
>>>>> of running out of resources, not its size.
>>
>>>> That begs the question. Â It is running out of resources because of
>>>> its size.
>>
>>> Ok, so if we have a large economy with lots of resources available
>>> and a small economy which has very few resources available, the
>>> small economy is going to grow at a smaller rate, correct?
>>
>> Right. Â Like the Japanese economy in the '60s and '70s.
>>
>> No, wait.
>>
>>> Since the small economy is running out of resources because of its
>>> size, Â you have proved that small economies grow at a smaller rate
>>> than large economies, correct?
>>
>>> I think it is you guys who are (unconsciously perhaps) begging the
>>> question.
>>
>> You don't know what this idiom means.
>>
>>> You are conflating the idea of an economy which is small
>>> relative to its resource base with an economy which is small
>>> compared to other economies.
>>
>> You don't mean conflating.
>>
>>> This is very very very basic stuff; if you can't
>>> keep those two concepts straight in your minds then you shouldn't
>>> attempt such a discussion.
>>
>> And irony meters explode everywhere.
>>
>
>
> Your talk radio/adolescent roots are showing.
Stop projecting. You don't know anything about me.
> The juxtaposition with
> Larry, who is also wrong on the substance, is remarkably revealing.
Not about Larry. You don't know him either.
> He
> writes a concrete, coherent statement. Wrong, but not cowardly.
I can only imagine how proud Larry must be to have your endorsement.
>
> -tg
>
> BTW, the correct example is Japan circa 1940. Or various European
> countries during the era of colonization, when the largest economy at
> any point in time was able to expand its resource base at the expense
> of the smaller ones, who couldn't field the fleets.
BTW, you're still an ignoramus.
But thanks for sharing.
