To George Dalton (3 February 1959) - Revision history

Santiago Pinault: /* References */

2019-04-06T23:17:39Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:17, 7 April 2019
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Written on the envelope: “to what extent are margins of error calculable?”		Written on the envelope: “to what extent are margins of error calculable?”

	== ~~References~~ ==		== Letter Information ==
	'''Reference''':<br />		'''Reference''':<br />
	'''~~Source~~''': [[50/04]], 44-49		'''KPA''': [[50/04]], 44-49

Santiago Pinault at 06:18, 25 December 2017

2017-12-25T06:18:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:18, 25 December 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{English to type}}		{{English to type}}

	[…] [2] He [Gailbraith] <u>has</u> helped me to clarify what I <u>meant</u> in saying that a technological society can afford to be free.		[…] {{Page \|n°=2}} He [Gailbraith] <u>has</u> helped me to clarify what I <u>meant</u> in saying that a technological society can afford to be free.

	As to the ‘accountancy’ issue let us guard from the fallacy of overprecision. Market accountancy is (formally) <u>infinitely precise</u>. It is very doubtful whether this quality is relevant to the problem. To give you an example <u>technological</u> calculations are essentially imprecise. Their <u>money</u> expression (which is infinitely precise) covers up the instable imprecision of all <u>technological</u> formulae (in contrast [3] to mathematical physics which <u>is</u> <u>precise</u>). The <u>degree</u> of precision provided by market method of calculation is <u>far beyond</u> the requirements. Only if the <u>system-problems</u> is given preference over the actual immediate, <u>practical problem</u> does the Mises thesis apply with its insistence on the impossibility of accountancy outside of the competitive market. There is a sense in which is absolutely right. The question is only whether it is also relevant to the actual needs to requirements.		As to the ‘accountancy’ issue let us guard from the fallacy of overprecision. Market accountancy is (formally) <u>infinitely precise</u>. It is very doubtful whether this quality is relevant to the problem. To give you an example <u>technological</u> calculations are essentially imprecise. Their <u>money</u> expression (which is infinitely precise) covers up the instable imprecision of all <u>technological</u> formulae (in contrast {{Page \|n°=3}} to mathematical physics which <u>is</u> <u>precise</u>). The <u>degree</u> of precision provided by market method of calculation is <u>far beyond</u> the requirements. Only if the <u>system-problems</u> is given preference over the actual immediate, <u>practical problem</u> does the Mises thesis apply with its insistence on the impossibility of accountancy outside of the competitive market. There is a sense in which is absolutely right. The question is only whether it is also relevant to the actual needs to requirements.

	Now, I agree with you entirely about the [4] impossibility of even formally calculating the costs of most <u>interventions</u>. Granted this to be so, the <u>real question</u> arises to what extent <u>are margins of error calculable</u> (which is the method applied in technology).		Now, I agree with you entirely about the {{Page \|n°=4}} impossibility of even formally calculating the costs of most <u>interventions</u>. Granted this to be so, the <u>real question</u> arises to what extent <u>are margins of error calculable</u> (which is the method applied in technology).

	--		--

Santiago Pinault at 19:33, 4 May 2017

2017-05-04T19:33:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 4 May 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{English to type}}		{{English to type}}

	[…] [2] He [Gailbraith] has helped me to clarify what I meant in saying that a technological society can afford to be free.		[…] [2] He [Gailbraith] <u>has</u> helped me to clarify what I <u>meant</u> in saying that a technological society can afford to be free.

	As to the ‘accountancy’ issue let us guard from the fallacy of overprecision. Market accountancy is (formally) infinitely precise. It is very doubtful whether this quality is relevant to the problem. To give you an example technological calculations are essentially imprecise. Their money expression (which is infinitely precise) covers up the instable imprecision of all technological formulae (in contrast [3] to mathematical physics which is precise). The degree of precision provided by market method of calculation is far beyond the requirements. Only if the system-problems is given preference over the actual immediate, practical problem does the Mises thesis apply with its insistence on the impossibility of accountancy outside of the competitive market. There is a sense in which is absolutely right. The question is only whether it is also relevant to the actual needs to requirements.		As to the ‘accountancy’ issue let us guard from the fallacy of overprecision. Market accountancy is (formally) <u>infinitely precise</u>. It is very doubtful whether this quality is relevant to the problem. To give you an example <u>technological</u> calculations are essentially imprecise. Their <u>money</u> expression (which is infinitely precise) covers up the instable imprecision of all <u>technological</u> formulae (in contrast [3] to mathematical physics which <u>is</u> <u>precise</u>). The <u>degree</u> of precision provided by market method of calculation is <u>far beyond</u> the requirements. Only if the <u>system-problems</u> is given preference over the actual immediate, <u>practical problem</u> does the Mises thesis apply with its insistence on the impossibility of accountancy outside of the competitive market. There is a sense in which is absolutely right. The question is only whether it is also relevant to the actual needs to requirements.

	Now, I agree with you entirely about the [4] impossibility of even formally calculating the costs of most interventions. Granted this to be so, the real question arises to what extent are margins of error calculable (which is the method applied in technology).		Now, I agree with you entirely about the [4] impossibility of even formally calculating the costs of most <u>interventions</u>. Granted this to be so, the <u>real question</u> arises to what extent <u>are margins of error calculable</u> (which is the method applied in technology).

	--		--

Santiago Pinault: Created page with "{{English to type}} […] [2] He [Gailbraith] has helped me to clarify what I meant in saying that a technological society can afford to be free. As to the ‘accountancy’..."

2017-05-04T19:28:35Z

Created page with "{{English to type}} […] [2] He [Gailbraith] has helped me to clarify what I meant in saying that a technological society can afford to be free. As to the ‘accountancy’..."

New page

{{English to type}}

[…] [2] He [Gailbraith] has helped me to clarify what I meant in saying that a technological society can afford to be free.

As to the ‘accountancy’ issue let us guard from the fallacy of overprecision. Market accountancy is (formally) infinitely precise. It is very doubtful whether this quality is relevant to the problem. To give you an example technological calculations are essentially imprecise. Their money expression (which is infinitely precise) covers up the instable imprecision of all technological formulae (in contrast [3] to mathematical physics which is precise). The degree of precision provided by market method of calculation is far beyond the requirements. Only if the system-problems is given preference over the actual immediate, practical problem does the Mises thesis apply with its insistence on the impossibility of accountancy outside of the competitive market. There is a sense in which is absolutely right. The question is only whether it is also relevant to the actual needs to requirements.

Now, I agree with you entirely about the [4] impossibility of even formally calculating the costs of most interventions. Granted this to be so, the real question arises to what extent are margins of error calculable (which is the method applied in technology).

--
Written on the envelope: “to what extent are margins of error calculable?”

== References ==
'''Reference''':<br />
'''Source''': [[50/04]], 44-49