Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ratex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!ratex!mck
From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Arguments -- (Reply to)**7 Baba, Pt 2
Message-ID: <1125@ratex.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 13:13:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: ratex.1125
Posted: Fri May  3 13:13:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 01:30:17 EDT
Organization: Squids R Us
Lines: 51
Keywords: haymarket


Lines marked with an odd number of '>' are those of Baba; the rest are mine.

>>>Which argument do you claim I dropped out of "rather than concede error"?
>>
>>Case in point: You asserted that free market conditions could be such that
>>economic growth was necessary to attain full employment.  I pointed out that
>>demand for labor and supply of labor were both functions of wage rates, and
>>that in a Free Economy workers and employers would bid wages up or down until
>>full employment was attained, without there necessarily being any growth in
>>the economy.
>
>Your reply, in this case, came about a month after the article of mine that
>it referenced (this was, you will recall, around the time that Larry Cipriani
>reported that you were unavoidably detained by homework and exams), and
>although I wrote a response to it as an exercise, I decided that it was 
>"old news" and left it sitting around.  If you'd like to read it, send me
>your net mail address (I know ratex doesn't work).  It at least contains more
>than personal abuse.

Mail can reach me indirectly if sent to cbosgd!dlm instead of ratex!mck.

>>In our arguments over inflation and unemployment, you pointed out ONE
>>genuine flaw in what I said; specifically, you noted that a general rise in
>>prices could be brought about by a major supply-shock, AND I PUBLICLY
>>ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE RIGHT.  At every other point you simply dropped out of
>>the argument.
>
>The last statement is simply untrue.  On March 3 I posted an article 
>entitled: "Inflation -- Back from B'ba -- to Dan'l again", which referenced
>message ID 911 on ratex, and which raised further questions about your thesis 
>that a "free economy" with competitive currencies was inflation-proof.  I
>never saw a response.  So either my article never reached ratex, or your 
>article never reached spar.  Or you didn't reply.  But the first two 
>possibilities are the most likely, on usenet.  Mail and news get lost pretty 
>often, at least in this part of the net.  And I don't think our area is
>unique.

Well, I can certainly admit the possibility that my extrapolation was
incorrect.  I say 'extrapolation', because it was based on a pattern of non-
response, which is continued in the article to which I am now responding.
Specifically, in your previous posting, you charged that I use innuendo (for
which you can never have had ANY evidence in that I never use innuendo) and
that I use 'jargon' to 'snow' people (an unreasonable interpretation in light
of my repeated offers to explain my nomenclature, at least one of which you
were previously familiar with); I pointed out the unreasonableness of these
two accusations in the article to which you are above responding, and you
dropped the subject.

                               Back later,
                               DKMcK