Re: TURMEL: Money, Interest and Prosperity

The first link is no confirmation that it is the same 
person that wrote the nutty piece that you first 
cited.  If he did it would be a black mark on what 
would otherwise appear to be a distinguished career.

The second link merely refers to the "exponential 
growth" in links to websites so is irrelevant to this 
discussion.  Exponential means nothing more than 
acceleration or deceleration in respect to time.

The third link profoundly concludes, "If an 
organization is nurturing the positive feedbacks (and 
neutralizing the limiting effects of balancing 
feedbacks), it will see exponential growth."  So it 
too is irrelevant to this discussion.

I cam only repeat, there is nothing inherently 
exponential about positive feedback.  It depends on 
how you use it and whether or not you intend for it 
to be there and for what purpose.

What is exponential about the triode oscillator at 
saturation?

What is exponential about the clock escapement which 
feeds energy into the pendulum with each tick of the 
clock?

What is exponential about a falling object at its 
terminal velocity?

You can indeed construct positive feedback systems 
that are accelerating exponentially.

You can also construct negative feedback systems that 
are decelerating exponentially.

So what?  The point is there is nothing *inherently* 
exponential about either.

<**>By obvious, I mean if you attended a scientific 
meeting and said that positive feedback was not an 
exponential formula, you would be like someone who 
attended a mechanics meeting and stated that the 
carburetor should be attached to the top of the 
radiator.  The concept is that obvious.<**>
-------------------

Obvious to a poorly read, uneducated crank.  Positive 
feedback is not an exponential formula.  The 
exponential formula is the exponential formula.  It 
is meaningless when applied to something that is not 
inherently exponential, like systems with positive 
feedback that are not exponential or systems with 
negative feedback that are not exponential.  It has 
meaning when applied to something that is exponential 
if that exponentiality is caused by positive feedback 
or whatever else that is the cause of that 
exponentiality.  Would you like me to demonstrate 
systems with *negative* feedback that are exponential 
due to the negative feedback?  I will do so in a 
subsequent post.
--

<**>Negative feedback can stop the positive feedback 
from being exponential, so that the overall effect is 
not exponential.<**>
--------------------

Where is the negative feedback in the triode 
oscillator?  There is only positive feedback.  Where 
is the negative in the clock escapement?
--

<**>For example, the exponential formula of compound 
interest can be alleviated by bankruptcies, which 
inject interest-free/debt-free money into the economy 
(albeit in an unpleasant way).<**>
--------------------

First, interest is not an example of positive 
feedback, so the feedback argument in respect to 
interest is irrelevant.

Second, every contract calling for the payment of 
compound interest translates into a simple rate of 
interest.  That translation is required in most 
consumer contracts as a matter of law.  The two 
numbers mean exactly the same thing as a matter of 
pure mathematics and reflect in the same stream of 
total payments, but the compounding number makes the 
rate of interest seem deceptively low.  There is no 
"dynamic" difference between the two.  It takes a 
crank to see something that isn't there.  The term 
"compounding interest" is rapidly becoming illegal as 
a matter of law.  Its only value is to cranks like 
yourself, or con men

Third, bankruptcy injects nothing into the economy.






"Dan Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<TSwrb.33731$%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...