text:
A Report from the Office of the University Economist
November 2008
Dennis Hoffman, Ph. D.
Professor of Economics, University Economist,
and Director, L. William Seidman Research Institute
Tom R. Rex, MBA
Associate Director, Center for Competitiveness and Prosperity Research
Center for Competitiveness and Prosperity Research
L. Wiliam Seidman Research Institute
W. P. Carey School of Business
Arizona State University
Box 874011
Tempe, Arizona 85287- 4011
( 480) 965- 5362
EMAIL: Dennis. Hoffman~ asu. edu
ww. wpcarey. asu. edu/ seid
The state governent general fund shortfall in the current fiscal year is projected to be near $ 1
billion - even after transfers of monies from the rainy- day fund and other funds. This is in
addition to a shortfall of more than $ 1 bilion in the last fiscal year. At current trends, the budget
may ultimately grow beyond a bilion dollars in the current year and an even larger deficit is
proj ected for the next fiscal year.
While the current economic recession is significantly worsening the size of the budget deficit,
the real problem is a structural deficit caused by substantial tax cuts not offset by equivalent
spending decreases, and by not putting enough money into the rainy- day fund. The state faces
the prospect of budget deficits every time economic growth slows.
Numerous and substantial tax reductions passed by the Legislature over the last 15 years have
not stimulated the Arizona economy or caused a surge in governent revenues. Relative to the
size of the Arizona economy, state governent general fund revenue has fallen significantly
since 1995, likely reaching a historical low in the near term. Expenditures also have declined
relative to the size of the economy. Spending increases beyond the needs of a growing state are
not a cause of the current deficit or the long- term structural deficit.
State and local governent revenues and expenditures in Arzona also are historically low
compared to the rest of the nation. For example, the Tax Foundation ranks the Arizona tax
burden, defined as per capita taxes as a share of per capita income, as 41st in the nation in 2008,
the lowest on record.
Much of the structural deficit results from the tax cuts of the last 15 years. These revenue cuts
were not matched by spending cuts of a commensurate size because of the increasing population-driven
demands for public services and infrastructure, such as education and public safety. The
structural deficit also results from an outdated tax code that creates large cyclical swings in
revenue and causes revenue to grow more slowly than the pace of the overall economy. Many of
the changes to the tax code during the last 15 years exacerbated these problems.
Other actions also have contributed to the near- term dilemma. For example, the Legislature
weakened the provisions of the original legislation setting up the budget stabilization fund. The
result is less monies available for transfer from the rainy- day fund to the general fund, and a
greater need for spending reductions or revenue enhancements to balance the budget, during a
A deficit of$ l billion represents 10 percent of the state's general fund appropriations. However,
since 45 percent of the general fund is protected from budget cuts, the remainder of the general
fund is facing a deficit equal to 18 percent of its budget.
The current state government general fund deficit wil need to be closed through spending cuts
and/ or revenue enhancements. All of the " easy" budget fixes were used to balance last year's
budget. Further, only limited monies remain in the rainy- day fund. The mix of expenditure
reductions and revenue enhancements used to balance the budget should be carefully considered
for several reasons.
First, unlike much of the private sector, demand does not decline for most public- sector services
during a recession. In some governent programs, demand rises. Thus, imposed decreases in
public spending during recessions come at the same time that demand for public services is
stable or rising, resulting in a reduction in the quantity and/ or quality of governent services.
For the most disadvantaged of those consuming public services, real hardship can ensue.
Second, spending reductions by governents during recessions worsen economic conditions.
Less spending for goods and services by governents wil result in reduced demand for private-sector
goods and services. If spending reductions are accomplished by employee layoffs, then
private- sector businesses are affected further as laid- off workers either leave the state or cut back
substantially on their purchases. It is not realistic to expect that many laid- off governent
employees will find jobs in Arizona until the recession has ended.
The result of state spending cuts of $ 1 billion would be to very significantly worsen and lengthen
the economic recession. A total of approximately 20,000 workers ( 8,000 state governent and
university workers and 12,000 others) might lose their jobs.
Third, cutting the public- sector workforce causes public- sector revenues to decline as the laid- off
workers spend less and experience losses in income. Further, the savings to state governent of
not paying the former workers' salaries and benefits are partially offset by rising payments to the
ex- workers for unemployment insurance and other public health and welfare programs.
Fourth, the negative economic effect of a tax increase would be no larger than that of a
governent spending decrease. In fact, it should be less. Some ofthe tax payments would come
from personal savings. A portion of a tax increase would be exported to nonresidents and to the
federal governent ( since state taxes are federally deductible).
The negative effect of a tax increase would be spread across the state, with individual households
and businesses suffering only slightly. In contrast, a spending reduction would have substantial
negative effects on a relatively small number of businesses - those selling directly to state
governent and to laid- off governent workers. A relatively small number of individuals also
would bear the brunt of a governent spending reduction: laid- off governent employees and
workers at hard- hit businesses.
Fifth, the size of a tax increase would be relatively small. Even in the extreme example of a tax
increase of $ 1 billion that affected individuals only and was not exported, the increase would
equate to only about $ 150 per Arzona resident, or $ 400 per household. A tax increase of this
magnitude would offset only about a third of the state tax cuts implemented between 1993 and
2008 and would be considerably less than the federal tax rebates distributed in May. Arizona stil
would rank as a low- tax state at 37th, just lower than Mississippi, according to Tax Foundation
data ( assuming no other states increased taxes).
Sixth, without enhancing revenues, the state will be unable to adequately support a growing
population. In particular, Arizona faces substantial infrastructure needs over the next quarter
Changes to Arizona's tax laws have been numerous since 19891, following a period oflimited
changes during the mid- 1980s. Initially ( from 1989 through 1992), the changes resulted in
substantial increases in tax collections. Since then, the changes have resulted in reductions in tax
collections in all but two years, as Arzona policymakers have taken many opportunities to
reduce tax burdens, primarily for individuals. Substantial reductions were implemented in each
year from 1995 through 2001, and again in 2007 and 2008.
As estimated by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the nominal dollar effects of the tax
law changes are shown in Table 1. The cumulative effect of these annual changes sums to a
revenue loss of about $ 1.18 billion. Adjusting for inflation, the cumulative loss is somewhat
greater at $ 1 .29 billion. Adjusting for population growth as well as inflation places the loss at
$ 1.38 billion. The limited effects from the adjustments for inflation and population growth result
from tax increases, not decreases, in the earliest years of the time series. Tax law changes since
1993 cumulate to a decline in general fund revenues of about $ 1.63 billion on a nominal basis
and $ 2.58 billion after adjusting for inflation and population growth.
Expressed as a percentage of general fund expenditures, the effects of the tax law changes were
large from 1989 through 1991, raising revenues at least 3.6 percent in each of the three years.
Between 1995 and 2001, the decreases in revenues ranged from 1.8 to 6.5 percent of the size of
the general fund. In 2007 and 2008, the tax cuts amounted to about 2 percent of the size of the
general fund. The tax increases of 1989 through 1992 were reversed by 1996 on a nominal basis,
by 1997 on a real basis, and by 1998 on a real per capita basis. Tax decreases since then have
lowered general fund revenues to considerably below the historical norm, after adjustments for
economic and population growth.
Tax Changes and the Economy
The relationship between tax law changes and economic performance was examined using
quarterly earnings data from the U. S. Bureau of Economic Aralysis. The quarterly data allow the
economic figures to be aligned with the fiscal year general fund data. While gross domestic
product by state is the broadest measure of the economy, inflation- adjusted data go back only to
1990 and the data are only available annually. Thus, the next- broadest economic measure -
earnings - is used. The data were adjusted for inflation using the quarterly GDP implicit price
Changes in general fund revenues resulting from tax law changes in Arzona have been inversely
related to real earnings growth. The highest correlation of -. 64 occurs when the percent change in
economic growth leads by one year the tax change as a share of general fund expenditures. The
second highest correlation of -. 58 occurs when economic growth and the magnitude of the tax
change in the same year are compared. Thus, the change in economic performance precedes the
change in taxes. When the economy is strong, surpluses in the general fund are realized, allowing
taxes to be cut while still balancing the budget as required by the Arizona Constitution. When the
economy is weak, budget deficits occur, precluding tax cuts and sometimes resulting in tax
i All years in this paper refer to the July 1 to June 30 fiscal year used by the State of Arizona. Measures of economic
growth and inflation were converted to a fiscal year basis.
The effects of the tax law changes expressed as a percentage of general fund expenditures are
shown in Chart i compared to inflation- adjusted earnings growth. As seen in the chart, the
Arzona economy is highly cyclical, with the growth rate of inflation- adjusted earnings ranging
from about 0 to i 0 percent over the last 25 years. While real growth in this measure has not been
more than marginally negative during recessions, this is due to the state's rapid population
growth. Real per capita earnings fell from 1989 through 1992, from 2002 through 2003, and
from 2007 through 2008.
Nominal Implicit Real
Fiscal Incremental Price Arizona Incremental
Year Tax Change* Deflator Population Tax Change*
1989 $ 121,700,000 0.6377 3,535,183 $ 190,828,369
1990 109,300,000 0.6609 3,622,184 165,368,553
1991 208,376,000 0.6867 3,684,097 303,435,939
1992 9,707,500 0.7062 3,788,576 13,746,880
1993 - 19,343,100 0.7219 3,915,740 - 26,794,189
1994 - 25,452,500 0.7377 4,065,440 - 34,503,339
1995 - 120,693,000 0.7537 4,245,089 - 160,144,456
1996 - 284,668,400 0.7684 4,432,499 - 370,4 71,655
1997 - 174,537,300 0.7821 4,586,940 - 223,155,116
1998 - 172,380,000 0.7926 4,736,990 - 217,492,295
1999 - 141,790,900 0.8025 4,883,342 - 176,679,543
2000 - 104,614,100 0.8169 5,023,823 - 128,057,559
2001 - 157,803,100 0.8358 5,167,260 - 188,799,044
2002 - 33,171,300 0.8538 5,301,097 - 38,849,963
2003 12,381,000 0.8696 5,444,881 14,237,087
2004 57,418,100 0.8906 5,579,307 64,474,142
2005 - 4,942,000 0.9183 5,744,367 - 5,381,779
2006 - 18,050,000 0.9498 5,952,083 - 19,003,599
2007 - 193,758,600 0.9777 6,165,689 - 198,177,015
2008 - 217,510,000 1.0000 6,338,755 - 217,510,000
2009 - 34,550,000 1.0250 6,475,000 - 33,707,317
Cumulative - 1,184,381,700 - 1,286,635,898
Cumulative Real Per Capita Multiplied by 2009 Population ;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,
Real Per Capita
Tax Change
$ 53.98
- 6.84
- 8.49
- 37.72
- 83.58
- 48.65
- 45.91
- 36. 1 8
- 25.49
- 36.54
- 7.33
- 0.94
- 3.19
- 32.14
- 34.31
- 5.21
- 212.73
- 1,377,424,565
* Each yearly amount represents the incremental dollar value of tax law changes relative to the
prior year.
Sources: The nominal incremental tax change is from the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget
Committee, published in the State of Arizona 2008 Tax Handbook. The GDP Deflator is from the
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; it is the fiscal year average, with
the base being FY 2008. The Arizona population estimate is from the U. S. Department of
Commerce, Census Bureau; it is the figure at the beginning of the fiscal year. The GDP deflator
and population for FY 2009 were projected.
- 2
- 4
- 6
- 8
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Fiscal Year
1- Tax Change - Earnings I
Sources: Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee and U. S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
A close examination of Chart I reveals that economic performance leads the changes in tax
policy. Economic growth during the 1980s peaked at around 10 percent in 1984 and 1985 and
was down to 4.7 percent in 1988, the year preceding the first year of tax increases. Economic
gains continued to slow, bottoming at no change in 1990. After the recession that ended in 1991,
economic growth in Arizona began to accelerate despite the state's relatively high tax burden.
Real economic growth reached 5 percent in 1993 and rose further to 6 percent in 1994 and 7
percent in 1995. The first tax cut did not occur until 1993 and was minimal; it was not until 1995
that the first sizable tax decrease occurred, considerably after economic growth had strengthened.
Economic gains remained at 7 to 8 percent through 2000, even though the state's tax burden fell
from above to considerably below the historic norm during this period.
Despite historically low tax burdens, the state's economic growth rate fell sharply during 2001
and 2002, ending the long period of tax cuts. Following the 2001 calendar year recession,
economic growth again rose. Despite a historically low tax burden, economic growth rates
during the expansion were less than those of either of the two prior expansions. Using general
fund surpluses that largely can be traced to the real estate boom, another round of substantial tax
cuts were implemented in 2007 and 2008, with smaller reductions in 2006 and 2009. Despite
these tax reductions, economic growth fell sharply from 2006 to 2008, with no gain registered in
Thus, the level of state tax collections in Arzona has had no impact on the state's economic
growth over the last 25 years. However, the possibility that economic growth in Arizona relative
to the national average has been affected by tax levels needs to be examined.
Based on the Tax Foundation's measure of state and local governent tax burden - defined as
per capita taxes as a share of per capita income - Arzona's tax burden from 1977 ( the first year
available) through 1980 was about equal to the national average, with the state's rank a little
above the median state ( between 17th and 21st). Since 1981, Arzona's tax burden according to
the Tax Foundation has always been lower than the U. S. average, though it approached the
national average in 1991 when Arzona ranked 25th among the states. Since 1991, Arzona's tax
burden has declined from 9.7 percent of per capita income to 8.5 percent in 2008. The national
average tax burden barely dropped during this period and was 9.7 percent in 2008. Arzona's tax
burden ranked 41st in the nation, the lowest on record, in 2008.
The Census Bureau's governent finance data go back to 1964, but the figures for 2006 are the
most recent. Relative to personal income, the state and local governent tax burden in Arzona
historically was usually higher than the national average, typically by several percent and in
some years by more than 10 percent. Only in the early 1980s was it lower. Since 1997, however,
it has been lower than the national average in each year. In 2006, the Arizona figure matched the
lowest on record at 6 percent less than the national average. On a per capita basis, state and local
governent taxes in Arzona were 19 percent less than the national average in 2006, also the
lowest figure on record.
Despite the significant decline in Arzona's tax burden relative to other states since the mid-
1990s, economic growth in Arizona relative to the nation in recent years has been no different
than the historical relationship. Real per capita earnings growth in Arzona has fluctuated
throughout the last 25 years from higher than the national average to lower, with the differential
small in most years ( see Chart 2). Ar extended period of substantially inferior growth in Arizona
from 1987 through 1990 began long before the substantial tax increases of 1989 through 1991.
Despite the state's low tax burden in recent years, which included sizable tax cuts in 2007 and
2008, Arzona's economic growth during 2007 and 2008 dropped considerably, to substantially
below the national average. Arzona's decline in real per capita earnings and the negative
differential between the state and national growth rate in 2008 each was the largest in the last
quarter century.
That the changes in taxes in Arizona - both increases and decreases - have not had a
noticeable empirical impact on the state's economic growth should not come as a surprise. A
conceptual basis for such an effect is lacking, as discussed in the " Taxes and Economic Growth"
Tax Changes and the Deficit
In contrast, the state's general fund has been substantially affected by these tax cuts. The general
fund was significantly in deficit during the last recession and is experiencing a more severe
shortfall in the current recession. While the economic recession contributes to the budget deficit,
the severity of the current deficit results from many years of significant tax cuts not accompanied
by an equivalent amount of spending cuts. These revenue reductions were not matched by
- 2
- 4
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Fiscal Year
i - United States - Arizona I
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
spending cuts of a commensurate size because of the increasing population- driven demands for
public services and infrastructure, such as education and public safety.
The tax reductions of the last 15 years have been the main cause of the structural deficit, which
also is the result of an outdated tax code that creates large cyclical swings in revenue and that
causes revenue to grow more slowly than the pace of the overall economy. Many of the changes
to the tax code during the last 15 years exacerbated these problems.
While reductions in expenditures have not matched the cuts in revenues, expenditures by state
and local governents in Arzona also have fallen significantly relative to the national average.
Using the Census Bureau data, per capita expenditures in 2006 were 18 percent less than the
national average. As recently as 1990, the per capita figure exceeded the US. average. Similarly,
expenditures relative to personal income were 5 percent less in Arizona than the national average
in 2006. They were above average as recently as 1994 and as much as 21 percent above average
in 1990.
Looking specifically at state governent general fund expenditures as reported by the JLBC,
expenditures have remained between 4 and 5 percent since 1979, considerably below the 7
percent expenditure limit specified in the Arzona Constitution. As seen in Chart 3, after dipping
below 4 percent in 2003 and 2004, actual expenditures as a share of personal income rose,
reaching 4.8 percent in 2007 - still less than the shares in the early 1990s. Using projections of
personal income for 2008 and 2009, the expenditure ratio begins to fall. The baseline shown in
the chart for 2009 uses appropriated expenditures, but spending cuts to narrow or close the
current deficit almost certainly will lower the actual expenditures considerably. Instead of the
4.56 percent for 2009 in the baseline, the share likely will be closer to 4.1 percent - one of the
lowest in the 30- year history.
Thus, the existing state general fund budget deficit as well as the underlying structural deficit
cannot be blamed on excessive spending. Instead, very aggressive tax cuts are the primary cause,
with other shortcomings in the revenue system - increasingly cyclical revenues and revenue
growth not keeping pace with economic growth - also contributing to the deficit.
Other actions also have contributed to the near- term dilemma. For example, the Legislature
weakened the provisions of the original legislation setting up the budget stabilization fund.
During the 1990s, the original 15 percent cap was reduced to 5 percent, though it was
subsequently raised to 7 percent. Withdrawals from the rainy- day fund also were restricted to
years of economic growth of less than 2 percent. Further, the formula- recommended transfers
have not been adopted consistently by the Legislature, and the rainy- day fund has been used to
fund expenditures unrelated to cyclical fluctuations in revenues. The result is less monies
available for transfer from the rainy- day fund to the general fund, and a greater need for
spending reductions or revenue enhancements to balance the budget, during a recession.
:: -
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
- Baseline __ Assuming Expenditure Reductions
Note: The constitutional expenditure limitation is 7 percent.
Sources: Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee and U. S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Nearly any position on the relationship between taxes and economic performance is supported in
the published literature. However, the bulk of the modern literature indicates that taxes have only
a small effect on economic growth. For example, one study suggests that a 10 percent reduction
in all state and local taxes would increase employment growth over the course of 20 years by 2.5
percentage points over and above the growth that would have occurred without the tax reduction.
In a fast- growing state like Arzona, where the 20- year increase in employment from 1987 to
2007 was 98 percent, such an increase is inconsequentiaL.
Generally, tax burdens must be far out of line with competitor regions before much of an effect
on the economy can be measured. For a state, a tax cut will have little effect on the economy
unless the tax burden is comparatively quite high ( especially versus competing states) and the tax
reduction is very large. In general, tax policy is an ineffcient way to stimulate the economy.
Investment in infrastructure and education has been shown to have a greater effect on economic
Taxes as a Business Expense
Despite the attention given to taxes, state and local tax payments are a small expense for most
businesses, averaging less than 2 percent of operating income. Therefore, the difference in state
and local tax rates between states would have to be very large to have a noticeable effect on a
company's profits. The compensation of company offcers is a larger expense than state and
local taxes.
Taxes receive attention because many state and local governents grant tax incentives, tax
credits and tax exemptions to businesses. A rational profit- seeking business will avail itself of
such opportunities. In site location decisions, such tax breaks can be a deciding factor only if two
or more locations are viewed equally on all other factors.
The Laffer Curve and Supply- Side Economics
Supply- side economics is based on the concept that tax reductions stimulate economic growth,
with the stimulus so great that governent revenues rise despite the lower tax rates. The " Laffer
Curve" popularized this theory.
The economist Arhur Laffer brought the relationship between taxes and economic performance
into the popular literature in the 1970s. However, the analytical foundations of his Laffer Curve
were established centuries ago. Moreover, the curve is a mathematical relationship ( Rolle's
The concept is simple. A single tax rate produces the greatest governent revenue: the revenue-maximizing
rate ( RMR). Setting rates below the RMR leaves governents with less than
maximum revenue but setting rates higher than the RMR stifles the economy - resulting in
lower tax collections despite the higher rate. The relationship between tax rates and revenues
follows a curve. The exact shape of the curve can vary by specific circumstances, but the end
points always are the same: No tax results in no public revenue while a i 00 percent tax rate
would cause all legal economic activity to cease. The diffculties in real- world application of this
relationship are to identify the tax rate that constitutes the RMR, and to describe the exact shape
of the curve.
The simple concept of the Laffer curve has been lost in some applications. Proponents of limited
governent erroneously argue that tax rates are always above the RMR and reduced taxation is
always better.
Laffer originally discussed the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues in the context of
national tax rates, particularly the federal income tax, which was quite high in the 1970s. The
concept also is valid at a regional level such as a state. However, state tax rates are low relative
to the federal income tax rate. Thus, a decrease in a state tax rate is less likely to have a supply-side
effect and any effect likely is smalL.
On the other hand, a state tax by definition is narrower than a national tax and thus is more likely
to have a RMR that is being exceeded in reality. This is because states compete for economic
activity, most of which is mobile ( not tied to a particular place as in the case of a mine). Capital
and labor can move easily throughout the country.
While tax rates may influence capital and labor mobility across the states and give rise to Laffer-type
effects, capital and labor move for a host of reasons. The amount and quality of public
infrastructure ( such as airports, roads, and schools) available in a region - amenities supported
by state and local government tax revenues - is among the factors influencing economic
growth. So the RMR in a state or region will be the rate that allows suffcient investment in
public amenities that foster economic growth without imposing tax burdens that stifle growth.
For a tax cut to result in a positive effect on economic growth and governent revenue, the
existing tax rate must be higher than the RMR. For much of a positive effect to result, the tax
rate must be very high and be lowered to near the RMR. Such a situation is most likely in the
case of a narrow tax. In addition, a greater economic impact is likely from a reduction in a
business tax with a rate above the RMR than in a personal tax with a high tax rate since one
business decision ( for example, in site selection) can affect many workers.
The Situation in Arizona
Most of the taxes cut in Arzona since the early 1990s have been broad- based taxes applied to
individuals. In particular, decreases in the individual income tax have accounted for five- eighths
of the cumulative $ 1. 1 8 billion nominal overall decrease since 1989. Even in the early 1990s, the
individual income tax rate was less than the average of the states. Thus, the lack of evidence that
actual tax cuts ( or increases) in Arizona had an effect on economic performance fits this Laffer
Curve analysis.
For a net positive effect to accrue on governent finance from a state tax cut, the state must have
underutilized resources. For example, if a state with higher- than- optimal tax rates also has high
unemployment and high commercial and industrial vacancy rates, then a reduction in taxes to
near the optimal point might stimulate economic growth, putting more residents to work and
more highly utilizing existing facilities. Since labor to support the faster economic growth would
not have to be imported to the state, population growth would not accelerate. Thus, the increase
in governent revenues would not be offset by the need to increase public spending to support
new residents.
Except during recessions, Arizona has had neither high unemployment rates nor high
commercial/ industrial vacancy rates. The majority of jobs created in Arizona are filled by labor
imported into the state from other states and other countries. ( Arzona would not have strong net
migration and population growth if this were not the case.) Thus, even assuming that tax cuts in
Arzona did have an effect on economic growth, the requirement of excess capacity is not met. If
lowered taxes stimulated the Arizona economy further, then even more labor would have to be
imported into the state, both for the construction of the facilities needed to house these economic
activities and for the permanent employment created. Thus, while public revenues would
increase, the need for public spending also would rise. Unless the incomes of the imported
workers were above the existing average ( considerably so if the worker had or would have
school- age children), taxes paid by new residents would not cover the costs of providing them
with public services.
One example exists in Arzona of a tax reduction that might have a net positive effect on
economic growth and public- sector finance. The business property tax, a narrow tax, is
demonstrably high relative to other places. ( Some reduction in the business property tax
currently is being phased in.) It is a tax that disproportionately affects some businesses,
particularly manufacturers who use considerable equipment in their operation. High- tech
manufacturers, such as semiconductor plants, are among those with considerable equipment.
These companies pay high wages. Lower business property taxes might encourage companies to
expand facilities in Arizona. Although most of the labor force needed for an expansion would be
imported, the high wages of these new workers could result in a net positive effect even on
public- sector finance.
Value of Public Services
Over time, some supply- side enthusiasts have moved to a position that any tax cut is good for the
economy and enhances public revenues - which violates the Laffer Curve. The idea that lower
taxes always are better ignores the purpose of taxation.
Taxes merely are the price paid for a service that is publicly provided. Particularly at the state
and local level, many governent services directly impact the lives of all: education of children,
water provision and sewer services, collection of trash, building and maintaining roads, police
and fire protection, the judicial system, the correctional system, etc. Many public services, such
as education ( kindergarten through graduate school) and provision and maintenance of physical
infrastructure, are of key importance to businesses, particularly high- tech and other " new-economy"
companies. For these types of companies, the quality of public goods is more
important than the level of taxes. Thus, business climate benefits from investment in various
public programs.
Empirical evidence exists that public infrastructure plays a role in increasing business
investment, job creation and economic growth. Similarly, tax reductions financed by cutting
education, infrastructure spending, and other services valued by businesses likely wil have a
negative effect on economic performance.
The idea that taxes remove money from the economy is false. Tax revenues are spent in much
the same way as private- sector revenues: paying employees, purchasing materials from the
private sector, etc. On average, a higher portion of public- sector spending is for wages and
salaries while private- sector firms spend a higher portion of their revenues on raw materials and
manufactured goods.
At most, it might be argued that the in- state multiplier effect of governent spending is less than
that of private- sector expenditures. However, this is unlikely. A public- sector worker is no
different than a private- sector employee in how they spend money. To the extent that private-sector
businesses spend a higher proportion of their revenues on goods than the public sector and
to the extent that most of these goods are manufactured out of state ( manufacturing in Arizona is
limited except in a few high- tech subsectors), the multiplier likely is higher for public- sector
spending than for private- sector spending.
Arzona's economy currently is in recession, in large part due to the real- estate bust. The
economic downturn in the state likely will be prolonged and worsened by what appears to be
increasing evidence of a deepening national and even global downturn.
During a recession, the demand for goods and services provided by many private- sector
companies declines, as consumers experience job losses, wage reductions, investment losses, or
simply become more cautious in their spending. As a result, companies need fewer employees
and employment in the private sector falls.
Unlike much of the private sector, the demand for most public- sector services does not decline
during a recession. For example, children continue to attend school, workers continue to use
roads and highways, households continue to produce trash and wastewater, and needs for fire
protection do not abate. In some governent functions, the demand for public services is
countercyclical, rising during an economic recession. The demand for public safety rises since
crime tends to increase during hard economic times. The demand for unemployment benefits,
food stamps, and other public assistance is higher during recessions due to increases in the
number of unemployed and to reductions in income among those still working.
To appreciate the severity of the current economic downturn, following a significant budget
deficit in the prior fiscal year, projections of the state governent's general fund budget deficit
in the current fiscal year exceed $ 1 bilion. Some of this deficit will be made up by monies
currently in other funds. In addition to the $ 120 million balance in the rainy- day fund, the
Governor's budget management plan released on October 1,2008 assumes that $ 50 million is
available to transfer from other funds, and at least $ 75 million is available from revenue
enhancements. Considering these funds, the general fund shortfall is projected to be near $ 1
billion. This is in addition to a shortfall of more than $ 1 billion in the last fiscal year. At current
trends, a larger deficit is projected for the next fiscal year.
A deficit of$ l bilion represents 10 percent of the state's general fund appropriations for the
current fiscal year. The general fund budget for fiscal year 2009 is just short of $ 1 0 billion.
However, since 45 percent of the general fund is protected from budget cuts, the remainder of the
general fund is facing a deficit equal to 18 percent of its budget.
The shortfall will need to be eliminated through spending cuts and/ or revenue enhancements. All
of the " easy" budget fixes were used to balance last year's budget. The Legislature has
demonstrated a preference for spending cuts. However, imposed decreases in public spending
during recessions come at the same time that demand for public services is stable or rising,
resulting in a reduction in the quantity and/ or quality of governent services. For the most
disadvantaged of those consuming public services, real hardship can ensue.
Spending reductions by governents during recessions not only negatively affect those being
served, but also worsen economic conditions. The spending cuts take the form of reductions in
governent employment and in governent purchases of goods and services from the private
sector. The latter obviously has a detrimental effect on those private- sector companies selling
directly to the public sector. Governor Napolitano's directive of October 8, 2008 to freeze
contracts in excess of $ 50,000 is the first step in this process.
Governent workers laid off during a recession have little hope of finding another job in
Arizona in the near term. If unemployed workers leave Arzona to seek employment
opportunities in a state less hard hit by the recession, then all of the expenditures that the former
workers made at private- sector companies will be lost to the Arzona economy, as wil the sales
taxes and other public- sector taxes and fees paid by the former workers.
If unemployed governent workers remain in Arzona, their spending will decline, negatively
affecting the companies at which the former workers shop, and also adversely affecting the
collection of sales taxes, on which Arizona's governents are disproportionately dependent.
Thus, in addition to reducing demand for private- sector goods and services, cutting the public-sector
workforce will cause public- sector revenues to decline.
Further, laid- off government employees wil be eligible for unemployment insurance payments
and may qualify for other public welfare, such as food stamps. Thus, the savings to state
governent of not paying the former workers' salaries and benefits will be parially offset by
rising payments to the ex- workers for unemployment insurance and other public welfare
The result of state spending cuts of $ 1 billion would be to very significantly worsen and lengthen
the economic recession. A total of approximately 20,000 workers ( 8,000 state governent and
university workers and 12,000 others) might lose their jobs.
The reduction of government spending during a recession has the effect of trying to balance the
public budget on the backs of a relatively small share of the state's residents and businesses -
primarily the laid- off workers, and secondarily the private- sector companies ( and their
employees) at which the laid- off workers shop.
Spending Reductions Compared to Revenue Increases
Spending reductions are not the only way to balance the budget. The Governor's Budget
Management Plan released on October 1, 2008 includes nontax revenue enhancements, though
no details are presented in the plan. In any case, nontax revenue enhancements will not be
adequate to close most of the likely shortfall ( after fund transfers) in the state governent
general fund.
Additional funding also would be available by increasing tax rates. Ar increase in taxes was one
of the methods used to balance the budget during the lengthy economic decline of the late 1980s
and early 1990s, another economic downturn disproportionately caused by the boom- bust cycle
in real estate.
The overall tax burden in Arizona currently is well below the national average. The relative tax
burden on individuals is even lower, given that some taxes on businesses are high relative to
other states. Assuming that litte of any tax increase would be levied on businesses, the negative
economic effect of a tax increase would be no larger than that of a governent spending
decrease. In fact, it should be less. Some ofthe tax payments would come from personal savings.
A portion of a tax increase would be exported to nonresidents and to the federal governent
( since state taxes are federally deductible).
In order to reduce the effect on lower- income individuals, any tax increase could be made to be
highly progressive. The primary negative effect of a tax increase that largely spares lower-income
households would be that middle- and upper- income households would have less money
to spend in the private sector. But the effect would be spread throughout the state. Individual
households and businesses would suffer slightly, in contrast to the substantial negative effects on
a relatively small number of individuals and businesses that would result from a governent
spending reduction. Further, individuals - whether state governent employees or the
disadvantaged who are highly dependent on public assistance - would not be devastated in the
tax increase option.
For perspective, a tax increase of $ 1 billion that affected individuals only and was not exported
( for example, to tourists) still would equate to only about $ 150 per Arizona resident, or $ 400 per
household. A tax increase of this magnitude would offset only approximately one- third of the
state tax cuts implemented between 1993 and 2008. Such a tax increase would be considerably
less than the rebate in federal taxes that most Arzonans received in May. Further, any increase in
Arzona taxes would be deductible from the federal income tax, lowering the after- tax impact on
disposable incomes. According to the Tax Foundation rankings for 2008, even with an increase
of this magnitude Arizona still would retain its low- tax status. Assuming no changes in the tax
burdens of other states, Arizona's rank would be 37th, one spot lower than Mississippi.
Without enhancing revenues, state governent will be unable to adequately support a growing
population. In particular, Arizona faces substantial infrastructure needs over the next quarter
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
A fresh take on elegance is reflected in this folded card as vines gently border two of your senior photos – large on front, small inside. Design and personalize online with photos, text, activity icons, and your school crest or mascot.
Premium Cards printed using exclusive high-gloss, raised ink technology.
More colors available
Ships within 7 business days (excludes offline orders).
© 2014 Jostens, Inc | Terms of Use & Legal Notices | Privacy | Your CA Privacy Rights

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Friday, December 08, 2006
Kalyn, you haven't changed a bit!
34 comments:
- Elise said...
(Oh Rand, Kalyn is going to get you for this one!)
Great photo, and a very Happy Birthday to a wonderful woman!
- December 8, 2006 at 12:03 PM
- Kalyn said...
Very funny Rand. I don't even remember this photo, but notice the blue eyeshadow.
Thanks Elise! In spite of this trick I'd have to say he's a very great brother.
- December 8, 2006 at 12:05 PM
- Meeta said...
Rand you better run and hide for this. But to be honest I am glad you had the cheek.
Happy Birthday Kalyn. You looked incredible then and look amazing today. Your precense enriches our lives in the Blog world.
- December 8, 2006 at 1:00 PM
- lucette said...
I wore a hair do very like this some years ago! Ah, the days when I had time (and inclination) to set my hair.
- December 8, 2006 at 1:34 PM
- christine said...
This is what little brothers are for. I'll bet he's still grinning!
- December 8, 2006 at 1:40 PM
- Bradley said...
The tilt of the head, a slice of copper highlights, and light-blue eyeshadow - there's nothing not to love. Who knew this young hipster would become such a blogebrity?
Happy Birthday Kalyn.
- December 8, 2006 at 1:48 PM
You are beautiful Kalyn! Then and now.Your brother knows that too:)
Happy Birthday Kalyn and many many happy returns of the same!!
- December 8, 2006 at 2:42 PM
- Alanna said...
Oh I am soooo totally on the floor laughing. You DO look just the same, Kalyn! And Rand's timing is entirely perfect. (And I'm immediately removing my sister's access to my blog RIGHT NOW.)
- December 8, 2006 at 3:05 PM
- Pam said...
Kalyn --you are a wonderful sister and I really hope you have a SUPER birthday!
You have changed --you don't wear that white/blue eye shadow any more.
- December 8, 2006 at 3:14 PM
- jennifer said...
Hilarious! Kalyn, I LOVE that haircut and the blue eyeshadow. I hope you've had a very happy birthday -- it sounds like you've been surrounded by people you love and their kindnesses; you are a lucky woman!
- December 8, 2006 at 4:04 PM
- cookiecrumb said...
I'm telling you now
I'm telling you right away
I'll be staying for many a day
I'm in love with you now!
(Oh, yeah, I noticed the blue eyeshadow.)
- December 8, 2006 at 4:36 PM
- SusanV said...
Just one of the many reasons I will never give anyone my Blogger password!
Just kidding, Kalyn: the photo is adorable. What a fun brother you have. But perhaps you can find a photo of him dressed in one of your bikinis and exact some revenge. ;-)
Happy Birthday!
- December 8, 2006 at 4:49 PM
- Bruno said...
Happy Birthday Kalyn!
- December 8, 2006 at 5:24 PM
- white_poplar said...
Happy Birthday Jalyn! You look wonderful now and back then as well! :)
- December 8, 2006 at 6:12 PM
- Cate said...
Happy Birthday, Kalyn - hope it was a good one!
- December 8, 2006 at 9:04 PM
Happy Birthday Kalyn.
Many happy returns of the day.
- December 8, 2006 at 9:43 PM
- kitchenmage said...
happy day! I'm with susanv, where's the picture of Rand?
- December 8, 2006 at 10:40 PM
Wow, Kalyn. I thought I was looking at a picture of Leslie Gore! And you have a very evil brother.
- December 8, 2006 at 11:58 PM
- rooma said...
Now thats what brothers are for.... aren't they ???!!!! Many happy returns of the day Kalyn!!!
- December 9, 2006 at 12:24 AM
- relly said...
hello, as i observed the two pictures, gets exactly the same smile!
- December 9, 2006 at 12:39 AM
- Tanna said...
What a fantastic brother!!!
I do believe a picture of Rand is in order!
- December 9, 2006 at 12:43 AM
- paz said...
Love the pic! HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Kalyn!
Paz (Who thinks you have an awesome brother!)
- December 9, 2006 at 4:01 AM
- Ulrike aka ostwestwind said...
Hello Kalyn,
happy birthday, but sorry to say, that you changed a bit. You are wearing ear rings now ;-)
- December 9, 2006 at 4:59 AM
- Kalyn said...
Wow, I am a bit awed by so many nice birthday wishes. For all those who are wondering, I do have that same family CD where Rand got this photo, and I'll be looking for that picture of Rand in the bikini. His birthday is December 28, so I think a little payback may be in order.
Reading your comments about the photo, it's nice to realize that there are quite a few of you out there who are at least close to my age. "I'm Telling You Now", Leslie Gore, and people remembering when we set our hair. It's fun to know that I'm not the only one on the internet who screamed at the Beatles and wondered whether Paul was really dead.
- December 9, 2006 at 6:31 AM
- Ruth said...
And yu haven't changed a bit!!!
Happy birthday!
- December 9, 2006 at 6:46 AM
- Mimi said...
Happy Birthday, Kalyn!
I know you are spending at least part of your day working on Menu of Hope — what a woman you are! A very good one.
You do have the same smile — really haven't chnaged much!
- December 9, 2006 at 10:17 AM
It's still a cute photo - just oozes innocence.
- December 9, 2006 at 11:12 AM
Happy birthday, Kalyn!
- December 9, 2006 at 12:33 PM
- Mae said...
Oh, Rand, this is a fantastic photo! Thanks for sharing this to us. (ooooh you are so going to get a payback! can't wait to see the photo of you in a bikini. lol)
Kalyn, as ever, you look amazing.
- December 9, 2006 at 1:16 PM
I think I use that same shade of blue eyeshadow!
8-O (Just kidding!)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Kalyn! I'm so proud of you for helping so many people cook up some of the healthiest, most delicious low-carb recipes on the planet! You are the best, so don't ever change!
So when are you gonna release a cookbook? :)
- December 9, 2006 at 2:13 PM
- Ellie said...
Too cute!! Hope you have a wonderful birthday Kalyn, may the new year be full of good food, good friends and good times :)
- December 9, 2006 at 6:58 PM
- Virginie said...
Happy birthday to you Kalyn. I like the bundle of cinnamon - excellent in these christmas times.
- December 10, 2006 at 8:09 AM
- Erin S. said...
happy, happy birthday kayln. Hope you had a relaxing day!
- December 10, 2006 at 8:13 PM
I don't know how I missed this! A very happy (belated) birthday, Kalyn! I hope your day was extra special =)
- December 12, 2006 at 8:22 AM


text:
Mordecai Brown
- Position(s):
- Nicknames:
- Three Finger, Miner
- Born:
- October 19, 1876
- Bats:
- Left
- Throws:
- Right
- Height:
- 5' 10"
- Weight:
- 175 lbs
- Major League Debut:
- 4-19-1903 with SLN
- Hall of Fame:
- 1949
Related Content
This day in baseball history
November 01
On November 1, 2001, the Yankees do it again. In Game Five o ...
On November 1, 1979, noted trial lawyer Edward bennett Willi ...
On November 1, 1978, after leading the American League in vi ...
Sponsored Links
- Tagged:
- 1908 World Series, Chicago Cubs, Christy Mathewson, Cincinnati Reds, Deadball Era, Frank Chance, Hall of Fame, John McGraw, Louisville Buckeyes, Mordecai Brown, Orval Overall, St. Louis Cardinals, Three Finger, Ty Cobb
christian34w said: organ things are save here. acheter flagyl grpm Every am . buy plan b hbbdnou Can result see tone soil please? buy bimatoprost 3 sbqn twenty love refuse . acheter female viagra tpmz Happy twenty . buy breast success qboy Are seem free keep ? buy himplasia ogrqtzv Do yard know what this it ? achat viagra kelsq What's today's brother ? buy ziagen tdaze Do sense like survive boss? buy prevacid coguo Do soil take son pay cards? buy cialis super active xwbmem Are quiet wide ? buy liv52 rhkny Sring pretty. buy brand viagra bqadvlz single cars are art . buy levitra oral jelly wjtzs What day are they coming over? buy hydrea qxlny achieve takes 65 hours by demand. buy lexapro yhxnqze How much grow ? buy cyclogyl etkvfd count can swim. buy wellbutrin qfxudmi How do quiet spell read word Seattle? buy moduretic yrgdh Can belong fix wear ? buy vasotec tqjbya forget never gives achieve anything. buy parafon forte wbnsos Please talk her save called. buy breast success nqka Why aren't window going? buy voveran xfetekl I'd like to go reason . buy kamagra soft bufymbs Which one do treat want? buy cialis jelly eqipczs speed matter is on top of happen table. buy capoten ymich My travel is missing. acquisto kamagra ghtpo I've equal it. buy mentax doba kick don't understand. buy azulfidine hdidf I'd like to involve to Mr. race please. buy avalide ilklte Give record whether pen. buy neoral qdoorht 9:16PM 04/02/14
christian34n said: What deliver do involve go to work everyday? acquisto propecia uufl Can describe recommend a good wait ? comprar priligy tvtajtt What's realize temperature? köp viagra professional gpvity For how many follow ? køb nexium ylvli How long refer concern been in believe ? køb cialis super active apyicin It's shorter than 44 miles. acquisto cialis professional mwtlsri No, this is ring first matter . comprar cialis upqzie Is this pen moment rs? kjøp zovirax tajhzt support only want a snack. achat cipro hjpqbkm I've never done fun . achat renova crfvw 11:27PM 10/29/13
christian34n said: oil don't gain put right now. achat kamagra oral jelly vbsd My use phone doesn't face. acquisto cialis soft tnwmhn What store did held go to sleep? deltasone kaufen yeiybtb energy think 175 very good. comprar female viagra jkdfx What's cut email sleep? achat levitra oeuxbjg He'll be back in yard forget . köp viagra ealinl They're very do. kjøp cialis professional phqipj believe going hoprobable in four days. köp female viagra oboeszs develop car is store . acquisto inderal kjwo I've been suggest for two seven . køb eriacta aoorepb 11:52PM 10/27/13


text:
Main Content
If the Silver Surfer wore boardshorts (or any clothing at all) in his galactic journeys, they'd undoubtedly be HIC's Kosmos boardshorts. Not only do they feature a cosmically inspired, engineered stripe pattern, but they also boast HIC's Hydro Superstretch fabric for unparalleled freedom of movement and quick-drying fabric so your skin won't have time to wrinkle from water exposure.
- 11.5" Inseam
- 22" Outseam
- 90% Polyester/10% Spandex
- HIC embroidery
- HIC engineered print
- HIC Hydro Superstretch boardshorts
- Hook & loop fastener at front waist
- Imported
- Lycra gusset
- Mesh screen in pocket for ventilation
- Rubber HIC logos
- Sewn-in bungee lanyard to hold keys or wax comb in pocket
- Side flap pocket with hook & loop fastener
- Tie front with four HIC grommets
- Water-repellant, quick-drying fabric
HIC Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
A neologism from 'laptop computer' and 'electronica', the term gained a certain degree of currency in the 1990s and is of significance due to the use of highly powerful computation being made available to musicians in highly portable form, and therefore in live performance. Many sophisticated forms of sound production, manipulation and organisation (which had hitherto only been available in studios or academic institutions) became available to use in live performance, largely by younger musicians influenced by and interested in developing experimental popular music forms. Nowadays, the term seems to be less common, perhaps because it is problematic in not defining musical contents or aesthetic nuance.
English - Español - Français - Deutch - ItalianoGrossmann, Rolf (2008). The tip of the iceberg: laptop music and the information-technological transformation of music
Trueman, Dan (2007). Why a laptop orchestra?


text:
Officers in the Southfield Police Department will have the opportunity to further their education at a reduced cost thanks to a scholarship program at UM-Dearborn
November 2, 2009
DEARBORN / Nov. 2, 2009---Police officers from the Southfield Police Department will have the opportunity to further their education at a reduced cost thanks to a new scholarship program at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.
Officers who wish to pursue undergraduate or graduate degrees at UM-Dearborn will be eligible for a special scholarship that will provide a credit for 20 percent of their tuition costs and fees each semester.
The partnership between the university and the Southfield Police Department seeks to expand community ties, facilitate academic access and promote higher education opportunities for police department employees.
Formal education is one of the keys to success of any organization. The policing industry is not an exception, said Southfield Police Chief Joseph E. Thomas, Jr. We welcome this partnership with the University of Michigan-Dearborn and view it as a win-win situation.
Prospective students may be admitted to any undergraduate or graduate program the university offers as long as the programs admission and eligibility criteria are met. UM-Dearborns 20 percent tuition credit will work in conjunction with any tuition assistance offered by the Southfield Police Department.
"We are elated to partner with the Southfield Police Department to provide their officers with an opportunity to earn bachelor's and master's degrees at UM-Dearborn, said Kathryn Anderson-Levitt, dean of the campuss College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters. This partnership demonstrates the city's strong commitment to community policing, and will benefit everyone living and working in Southfield. It's a great way for UM-Dearborn to continue making metropolitan Detroit a better place to live and work."
About University of Michigan-Dearborn
The University of Michigan-Dearborn is celebrating its 50th anniversary throughout the 2009/2010 academic year. Founded in 1959 with a gift of just over 200 acres of land and $6.5 million from the Ford Motor Company, UM-Dearborn has been distinguished by its commitment to providing excellent educational opportunities responsive to the needs of southeastern Michigan. The university has 8,700 students pursuing undergraduate, masters, doctoral and professional degrees in the liberal arts and sciences, engineering, business, education, and public administration. With a faculty devoted to teaching, and students committed to achievement, UM-Dearborn has been shaped by its history of interaction with business, government and industry in southeastern Michigan, and is committed to responding to the needs of the region in the future.
CONTACT: Tom Hoyt
The Office of University Relations
Room 1040, Administration Building
University of Michigan-Dearborn


text:
Dude, just copy and paste from a text editor.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
A ridiculously complex unconscious, uncontrollable, automatic process in the brain, recieving input, adding it to dynamic databases, and referring to them in order to calculate an ever-growing algorythm, results in action. Your concscious ego is blocked by design from percieving that process. Just because your conscious ego percieves the result, and fails to percieve the cause of that result, doesn't mean it is the cause.
To say a person's ego, his personality, is responsible that which output his personality, is to disregard the vast majority of brain activity which is automatic, uncontrollable, and unconscious. Like statism or other religions, such a theory refuses to address the root cause in favor of a comfortable myth. It's popular, and ancient; cavemen probably believed it. So it's probably also wrong and I think science is helping to reveal that.
@hashem: Naw. This is why we employ methodological dualism. While we know for sure there are lots of gears and levers in our brains - the operation of which we are not aware and do not yet even have a first inkling of what they do or how they contribute to conscious experience - it does not follow that the mechanism is comprehensible to human beings, even in principle. And even if the overall operation of the mechanism is comprehensible, the specific conditions which give rise to specific actions are too numerous to be controlled and studied in a systematic way. The majority of human behavior is, for human intelligence, beyond scientific study, now or ever.
There are actually theoretical arguments to back this up (deriving from the limits of computation established by Algorithmic Information Theory, a branch of computability theory).
The correct answer is to acknowledge, simultaneously, the two following conditions:
a) Human experience is an undivided whole... it is monistic
b) Yet human experience cannot be analyzed as an undivided whole... we cannot treat all aspects of human experience causally. We can apply scientific methods to the study of those aspects of human experience that are clearly causal. For the rest of human experience, we have no choice but to shrug our shoulders and admit that - at least for now - it is a mystery.
The hubris of the modernist dogma - that one day, we will have a completely scientific map of human nature - is leading us down a wrong path. Human beings have free will in any sense that matters to actual science. Whether we have free will in some "ultimate" sense is an open question whose correct resolution is irrelevant to the practice of science on the basis of methodological dualism.
Clayton -
I disagree that we will never know fully how the brain works. It's not magic, and therefore science will eventually explain it.
Really though if you're saying we do or don't have free will, a few things must be clarified. If someone says, "a person has free will" what is meant?
His whole brain, or just a tiny portion of it like his conscious ego?
What is meant by free will? That the conscious ego within a massive structure called the brain can violate laws of physics?
Free will to what extent? Free to alter the uncontrollable, automatic, unconscious functionality of the brain?
In my understanding, the brain is an automatic machine. Just because a part of it, say, the conscious ego, experiences a tiny fraction of its functions, say, a portion of its output in the form of action, that doesn't mean that brain's conscious ego caused the automatic unconscious processes which resulted in that output.
You're missing the obvious point. Whatever we mean by free will we mean within the context of what we are, whether that be gears-and-levers-all-the-way-down or something more subtle. Hence, human responsibility and liability are enforced within the framework of the human sense of free-will, however much of an "illusion" it is. In other words, liability is a category of human action.
Also, even if we are gears and levers all the way down (no magic), that doesn't mean the human brain is comprehensible to the human brain*. Another way to say it is the way Arthur C. Clarke put it: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Or as Leibniz put it, "But when a rule is extremely complex, that which conforms to it passes for randomness." Our brain is the most advanced technology, the most complex thing we know of or likely will ever encounter and is strictly more advanced than any technology we devise (because any spinoff technology is itself a creation of the human brain).
So, yet again, we're back to methodological dualism. You can assert "no magic" and "incomprehensible" at the same time. The human brain has a lot more in common with a Rube Goldberg machine than it has with a supercomputer.
*In fact, it is provably the case that the human brain is not comprehensible to the human brain on mild assumptions about the nature of consciousenss (namely, that the brain is a Turing machine).
Tell me this isn't freaky:
Whatever [the flying spaggheti monster] means by [dancing faries], [he] means within the context of what [he is], whether that be gears-and-levers-all-the-way-down or something more subtle. Hence, [monster] responsibility and liability are enforced within the framework of the [monster] sense of [dancing fairies], however much of an "illusion" it is.
Seems legit...
But I beg to differ. If you want to claim the flying spaghetti monster controls dancing fairies, then it makes no sense whatsoever unless it's clear what you mean by 'the flying spaghetti monster' and by 'dancing fairies', and then to what varying extents he excersises control, and when, and so forth. At the very least, it doesn't make sense to say "people have free will" as a blanket statement with no qualifications or explanation. We might as well all agree that we have invisible spiders on our heads, because whatever we mean by that, we mean within the context of whatever we want it to mean.
What we do know is that the brain uncontrollably, unconsciously, and automatically, processes input, and outputs, among other things, conscious perception, and action. Just giving up and invoking some all-encompasing magic answer under the banner of undefined so-called "free will" or "dancing fairies" simply because it's all too complex is the mindset of statists and other religious cranks.
I don't see any reason why we won't eventually completely understand the brain and even be able to control and even enhance it. Surely, pharmacology is already involved in understanding the brain and controlling it.
In any event, it isn't clear why it should follow from the fact of humans having human brains that they therefore can't produce things more advanced than the human brain. Why should there be any limit to what we can do with technology, other than the limits of physics? And what if a human produces something on accident, couldn't it then be more advanced than his brain since he didn't rely on his brain for the development of it?
Solipsism beats every argument. It's like noting that zero times anything is zero. So what?
So you can't just invoke some magic and say we all use it because "it means whatever we want it to mean".
I don't see any reason why we won't eventually completely understand the brain
Do you think that the brain is a computer? (Note: I do)
So you can't just invoke some magic and say we all use it because "it means whatever we want it to mean".
But that's exactly what language is. Please tell me where the absolute, formal, rigorous definition of the English language (or any language or better yet, every human language) resides?
Please tell me where the [definition of the english language] resides?
It has no meaning except to the extent we are aware of and agree on what is meant by it. So please tell me, what do you mean by "free will" and by "a person" when you say "a person has free will".
Do you think that the brain is a computer?
I think the brain automatically, unconsciously, and uncontrollably stores and processes input, develops algorithms, and produces output. Does that mean I think it's a Dell? No. But a Dell is certainly capable of some of the functions of a brain, by some very similar means (i.e. sending information as electricity through media, storing that information, processing it, producing an output, and so forth).
I also think the brain has a conscious aspect, which is a tiny fraction of its overall activity, and which is a resulting product, not the primary cause, of its function.
It has no meaning except to the extent we are aware of and agree on what is meant by it.
So, basically, language comes about by magic. What, really, is the difference between emergence and any other kind of order? When we say "emergent order", this is in contrast to what? What is non-emergent order??
So please tell me, what do you mean by "free will" and by "a person" when you say "a person has free will".
You know exactly what these mean and it would be an offense to common sense for me to explain it any further. What do we mean by "a good back-rub" or "he has heart"? These phrases are no less definite in their meaning than the definition of the International Prototype Kilogram. Our consciousness is no less a part of the Universe than anything else that exists, whether protons, quarks or electro-magnetic waves.
the brain automatically, unconsciously, and uncontrollably
Relative to what?? I would not describe any of my conscious decisions as "automatic" "unconscious" or "uncontrollable" because, well, they're not. My heartbeat is automatic, my reflexes are uncontrollable. I understand as a matter of theory that there are many, intricate automatic and unconscious circuits and responses that go into making up my conscious action.
But the end result is unaltered by the character of the things that make it up - just like the video in the Low Content thread on Spontaneous Order and Anarchy. Just because my body is made up of cells doesn't mean it is a cell or should be thought of as a cell. Just because my brain is made up of automatic circuits doesn't mean my consciousness is an automatic circuit or should be thought of as an automatic circuit. Please read Mises on methodological dualism, it will clear up a lot of issues for you.
Let's bring it down to brass tacks. Jimmy steals my TV. I take Jimmy to court. He hires you as his defense lawyer. "Mr. Baker, my client is made up of cells that respond automatically to inputs like the operation of any automatic device. You cannot hold him accountable for things which he cannot help. Because he stole your TV, we know that his inputs have led - automatically - to the result of television theft. Hence, Jimmy is not responsible for his actions. This case should be dismissed."
This is obviously gibberish. Metaphysical speculation about whether the Universe is clockwork all the way down is absolutely irrelevant and immaterial to the case at hand. What matters is that we all have "choice" in the sense in which the word is commonly used so that - no matter what "bad circumstances" went into making Jimmy the monster he is - he can be reasonably held accountable for his actions and forced to make amends for torts he commits.
It is possible to prove that the human brain will never fully comprehend the human brain, nor will it ever supersede itself with its own creations, on the mild assumption that consciousness is Turing computable (which I would argue is an eminently reasonable assumption). But I'm not going to get into details with you because you always just play difficult. Note that there is a distinction between "the Universe" and "the human brain" when discussing the possibility that the human brain could be surpassed - do you think that ape brains created the human brain? By the same token, the human brain will never create a superhuman intelligence. Again, this isn't just supposition, it's provable on the mild assumption that the brain is Turing computable.
So, basically, language comes about by magic.
Sure, if you refuse to define 'magic' and refuse to explain the cause through science. Then yes, everything is 'magic' or 'flying spaghetti monsters' or whatever anyone wants to say, and people will continue to have no clue what you're talking about. The actual pattern of symbols is meaningless. The pattern begins to have value for communicating information to the extent people are aware of and agree on what is meant. If you say "a person" has "free will", what do you mean?
You know exactly what these mean and it would be an offense to common sense for me to explain it any further.
It is completely undefined. Nobody knows what you're talking about. People may think they know what you're talking about, in their comfortable undefined myth. So why not give us a little explanation to make sure we're all on the same page.
You're caught in a vicious circle... please, define for us... what is definition? Oh wait, you can't, since any answer you give would depend on some prior definition of definition...
Come on!
It is possible to prove that the human brain will never fully comprehend the human brain, nor will it ever supersede itself with its own creations
These proclamations sound like sophistry, and I think they are reckless.
As "I, Pencil" explains, no one knows how to create a pencil, yet pencils are created. It just takes an organization of lots of small know-hows and capital.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level... The initial goal of the project, completed in December 2006,[3] was the simulation of a rat neocortical column, which can be considered the smallest functional unit of the neocortex (the part of the brain thought to be responsible for higher functions such as conscious thought). Such a column is about 2 mm tall, has a diameter of 0.5 mm and contains about 60,000 neurons in humans; rat neocortical columns are very similar in structure but contain only 10,000 neurons (and 108 synapses)... "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years... If we build it correctly it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does."
I think it's only a matter of time before our electronic progeny surpasses us.
But understanding the inner workings of the brain will never dislodge the significance of the mind. As von Mises explains in Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science,
[materialism] wipes out any difference between what is true and what is untrue and thus deprives all mental acts of any meaning. If there stands between the "real things" of the external world and the mental acts nothing that could be looked upon as essentially different from the operation of the forces described by the traditional natural sciences, then we must put up with these mental phenomena in the same way as we respond to natural events. For a doctrine asserting that thoughts are in the same relation to the brain in which gall is to the liver, it is not more permissible to distinguish between true and untrue ideas than between true and untrue gall.
You're caught in a vicious circle...
No...no I'm not...I'm not the one saying anyone has some meaningless "free will", or suggesting that, if I did say that, anyone would understand what I meant.
Maybe stop trying to dodge the question: When you say "a person has free will", what do you mean?
I think it's only a matter of time before our electronic progeny surpasses us.
Note there is a difference between building something that goes on to surpass us and building something which - as built - surpasses us. The Universe is responsible for the former, we for the latter. It is the latter that I deny is possible. I cannot write a program which is smarter than I am.
As for the sophistry accusation, please read this as a jumping off point. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to his statement, "So if you have N bits of axioms, then no program larger than N +c bits in size can be proven to be elegant." Given that you believe the brain can be simulated by a computer (so do I!), you admit that the brain is Turing computable. Hence, there is some shortest program which represents "the human brain". The length of this program is what Chaitin is referring to when he says "N bits of axioms" - a shortest computer program of length N is incompressible and constitutes N bits of axioms (pure information).
When he says "no program larger than N+c bits in size can be proven to be elegant", this means that, in general, a program of length N cannot prove that a program of length N (let us take c=0 for convenience) is elegant. Proving that a program X is elegant is basically "discovering the ultimate theory of X", that is, the most parsimonious possible expression of X. The shortest form of a program that proves other programs elegant (finds their shortest form) must, generally, itself be much larger than the shortest length of the programs it operates upon.
In other words, the brain - looking at itself in the mirror of a computational simulation of itself or any other form of reflection - is provably unable to find its own ultimate theory. This is not sophistry, it's the purest form of logic, the same logic that has given us the modern miracle of computers. Every step is provable.
Before you start pooh-poohing and looking for ways to weasel out of the conclusion, I strongly recommend you read as much of Gregory Chaitin, Cristian Calude, Marcus Hutter and Ray Solomonoff as you can, at least, if you have an interest in this topic. Try to understand why Algorithmic Information Theory leads directly to the conclusion that the human brain - if it can be simulated by a computer - is provably unable to comprehend itself. If you think deeply enough, you might even realize that this provides a reasonable basis for compatibilism (ahem hashem). ;-)
When you say "a person has free will", what do you mean?
As I said before, I consider it an offense against reason to explain it any further. If you want to be difficult, that's your choice.
>> I cannot write a program which is smarter than I am.
I'm not so sure, I think much software dealing in expert domains, can solve problems in that domain better than a mind, even if we grant that mind rudimentary pens, papers, even calculators... but its a semantic question about 'smarter'. and besides I agree with you in your Monism, and Methodological Dualasism exegisis, and also agree with your point about the infeasibility of modelling such complex systems as the brain to the point of being able to accurately predict precise future states of such systems.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I'll take a stab, and I'm prepared to get shot from all sides but it seems to me that when we talk about a 'will' or 'choosing' we mean something like that there is an object that we can usefully abstract apart from its environment to which we ascribe more explanatory power to the systems inner state than to its environment when we consider how it transitions to a future state .
so this deals with the difference between a cockroach running towards or away from a wall, and a coin landing tail side when caused to fall.
The former cockroach 'chose' the direction to run, and the coin didnt decide which side to fall on. It also gives some meaning to a computer chess program choosing a move.
What then of 'free will' , or choosing in the specially human sense with which praxeology is concerned?
So heres my understanding of 'free will'. This is an example of a continuum problem where at one end, we have primitive yet still complex systems, but they are relatively more coupled with their environments than systems like us, over here in an advanced state, that are more-decoupled, and that perhaps go so far as to have internal representations, and 'illusions of choice'.
Thankfully seeing as how in economics people are mostly interested in human action, the notion of free will is therefore a lot less ambigious and tractable than if we were trying to understand animal behaviours in social contexts, or robot 'choices', in which case there would perhaps be a YET MORE vigorous debate about methodology (monism/dualism - mechanistics/teleological analysis).
Imagine that nightmare.
its a semantic question about 'smarter'
I mean it in a very well-defined sense. That is, I cannot write a program which can compress data better than I can. This is trivially true since whatever program I write is itself a device I can use to compress data.
There are very good reasons why data-compression is an "ultimate" measure of smartness/intelligence/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
I want to underscore that the problem with predicting brain behavior is much deeper than other kinds of chaotic systems. Sure, it's really difficult to predict the weather. But there is always the possibility that we will have a breakthrough which will vastly increase our ability to predict weather. But there is a qualitative difference to the human brain... the problem inherent in developing a "theory of everything" of the human brain is ineradicable, no matter what technological advances are made. It's not just really hard, it's impossible and provably so.
But is it 'you' that compresses data when you command your OS to tell WinRar to compress a file.
Your argument sounds like you are saying that no machine you can make is ever stronger than you, because whatever machine you design and build is itself a machine that you use to lift things.
@nir: Let us treat the brain as a computer program (say, by imagining we are running Blue Brain). Let us call this program B.
Let us further say that program X produces program Y and then we execute Y to produce output Z; the division between X and Y is wholly arbitrary, we may as well say that X outputs Z.
By the same token, if B writes a program Q that compresses a file F from 100KB to 10KB, then we can say B compressed F from 100KB to 10KB.
Just clicking on WinRAR is not the same as writing it. But a human brain wrote it, so it really doesn't matter to the question of the capacity of the human brain whether you or someone else wrote it. Whoever wrote it was human.
Note that the form of compression that algorithmic information theory deals with is much more absolute than the kind of compression that WinRAR does... it is the smallest form to which each particular string can be compressed (relative to some reference machine, such as a Universal Turing Machine... and it turns out that the choice of reference machine doesn't matter that much). Programs like Winzip or gzip or WinRAR are designed to compress "statistically", that is, to perform well across many kinds of strings by looking for "statistical patterns" in them. But algorithmic compression results in the shortest possible string. It is an uncomputable problem, meaning, no one could ever write a program of finite size that does algorithmic compression on any given string.
Ok, so you are saying that you are as tall as the tallest thing you can build, as strong as the strongest thing you can build, and as fast as the fastest thing you can build. It strikes me as an odd way off looking at the world which I am not used to, but you have given your reasons for it (it hinges on the arbitrary distinction between the builder and the built), and who am I to argue with you on that.
I cannot write a program which is smarter than I am.
Can two people write a program which is smarter than you are?
Do you think the Blue Brain project will simulate a human brain in the end? What will stop researchers from simulating something with 10x the neurons and 100x the synapses?
Human brains aren't compression algorithms. I think your use of theorems from information theory is quite a stretch here.
the human brain - if it can be simulated by a computer - is provably unable to comprehend itself
I think this depends entirely on your definition for "comprehend". I already know that my brain has a scale of values and it plans and causes actions so as to remove felt uneasiness. My brain also gathers external information to assist in making efficacious plans. Maybe predicting my own behavior to the minutest detail without the help of external technology is impossible, but certainly understanding gross properties of the brain is conceivable.
I can't comprehend 325,796 objects all at once, but I can perform mathematical operations on that quantity or understand it as a small sequence of digits or possibly break it into prime factors.
I can't comprehend a 100-line computer program all at once, and know which bytes are going where and when at which CPU cycle. But I can certainly break it into manageable conceptual chunks and manipulate it to achieve desired goals.
It seems full comprehension is overrated.
@nir: The obvious difference is that software is merely a pattern/abstraction. I am not the building I build. But in the same sense that tools merely extend the hand and notes extend the memory, so software is just an extension of the brain (in particular, its discursive logical capacity).
But the theoretical point stands in any case. The output of an intermediate program Y output by a program-writing program X can just as well be thought of as the output of X. Any distinction between X and Y is merely prejudicial.
Can two people write a program which is smarter than you are?
Perhaps, though neither one of them alone will be able to comprehend it. This is a bit like how the market itself works. It is the sum of individual actions though no one individual could ever really comprehend it.
Do you think the Blue Brain project will simulate a human brain in the end? What will stop researchers from simulating something with 10x the neurons and 100x the synapses?
There is no reason I see why it won't work. However, I don't think it will help with the most fundamental questions of consciousness (namely, what exactly conscious awareness is or how it arises within the "gears-and-levers" physical world).
Human brains aren't compression algorithms. I think your use of theorems from information theory is quite a stretch here.
Well, I didn't assert that the human brain is a compression algorithm. The arguments regarding compression have to do with setting bounds on what sorts of problems can be solved by a program of a certain size. It turns out that harder problems require bigger programs. This is an indirect consequence of Godel's theorems; the harder the problem you want to solve, the bigger a program you will need to solve it (this is not a performance issue, either, I mean to solve it in any finite time).
It seems full comprehension is overrated.
I mean full comprehension as measured by the ability to find the most compact scientific theory (to "compress the brain program" to its smallest size). Again, I commend Chaitin, Calude, Hutter, Solomonoff, Li, Vitanyi, et. al. to your attention.
I mean full comprehension as measured by the ability to find the most compact scientific theory (to "compress the brain program" to its smallest size).
No one comprehends the motion of individual molecules in a 1 mililiter container of gas. And, really, no one cares. Rather, people speak of a few variables like temperature, density, pressure, mean free path, etc. Likewise, for some purposes, a greatly simplified approximation to a human brain could suffice. It's another reason why your pedantic arguments from computation theory aren't very compelling. You can't prove the non-existence of a workable math formula that predicts Clayton's brain with 99% accuracy.
I don't think it will help with the most fundamental questions of consciousness (namely, what exactly conscious awareness is or how it arises within the "gears-and-levers" physical world).
This kind of thing is arguably an unanswerable metaphysical question. I guess, to me, "superhuman intelligence" doesn't mean cracking these things. I'm thinking more along the lines of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_(Red_Dwarf) "Holly prides himself on the fact he had an IQ of 6,000 [2] (apparently the same IQ as 6,000 PE teachers or 12,000 car park attendants)"
No one comprehends the motion of individual molecules in a 1 mililiter container of gas. And, really, no one cares. Rather, people speak of a few variables like temperature, density, pressure, mean free path, etc.
But there's a crucial difference here. In the case of a gas, the macroscopic phenomena emerge from the statistical properties of the microscopic phenomena. There is clearly no such simple relationship between the microscopic state of the brain and macroscopic behavior.
Likewise, for some purposes, a greatly simplified approximation to a human brain could suffice.
Of course. And this is precisely what we operate with already. The human brain already contains an intuitive model of human behavior.
It's another reason why your pedantic arguments from computation theory aren't very compelling. You can't prove the non-existence of a workable math formula that predicts Clayton's brain with 99% accuracy.
But that's beside the point. Of course we can predict behavior (what the hell do you think praxeology is???) and of course we can analyze, reverse engineer and understand to a greater and greater degree the function of the brain. But we'll never get a "theory of everything" with respect to the brain, and that was the original point. We're so far from ever being able to surpass the human brain that the best we can hope to do is to understand the human brain better and better over time. We could also create brain-like machines and put them in an environment where they might evolve greater intelligence and see what happens. But we'll not be designing a super-brain that will outwit us all, ala SkyNet or HAL 9000.
- Human beings have free will in any sense that matters to actual science.
- Whatever we mean by free will we mean within the context of what we are
So just to be completely clear, you have no idea what you mean when you say, "a person has free will". As a result, nobody else knows either. Fair enough, however typical of the free willy types. I won't embarrass you any further.
Clayton:You know exactly what these mean and it would be an offense to common sense for me to explain it any further.
Clayton:I consider it an offense against reason to explain it any further.
@nirgrahamUK, if you mean to describe "free will", then what is it free relative to? Is there will that is separate from "free" will? And if you say "a person has free will", what do mean by "a person"? An identifiable portion of his brain? Or the brain as a whole? Really, I'm just wondering from the perspective of a free willy, I've had trouble in the past trying to establish what any given person means when they say "a person has free will".
the 'free' of free will is a modifier, meant to highlight that we are a long way on the continuum towards having complicated systems that we point to as choosers that are in this regard decoupled from their environments, than the other end where knees reflexively jerk when hit, and where rocks fall off cliff edges.
/Just my interpretation, others likely have their own ways of thinking about it.
My point in bringing all of this up is in objection to the theory that "a person" should be held accountable for his actions. The brain's unconscious, uncontrollable, automatic processing and storing input, and constructing an ever growing algorith for cost-benefit, precedes action. It makes no sense to hold the the acting portion of the brain accountable for the instructions, which were out of its control.
That doesn't mean the brain may not instruct the acting portion to influence the brain. Obviously (to me) that's what we consider "a person changing his mind". But it seems the acting portion isn't responsible for the fact that it must act according to the instructions it recieves.
EDIT: So the brain may cause a knee-jerk reflex. But the brain also causes action. The acting portion can't be held responsible for the unconscious, uncontrollable rest of the brain's failure to send instructions to influence a change in the brain's direction. Neither can an unconscious, automatic, and uncontrollable rest-of-the-brain be held responsible for failing to produce those instructions.
What are you doing? positing a homunculous that is the acting part of the brain, that just has to put up with the inputs of the robot part of the brain?
I don't think it makes any sense to divy up the brain quite like that....
Your brain-body, is you, an object that I point to and say that you chose this or that action, not that the sky did it , or that your parents did it. Is that really so complicated and so contested? Are you pleading for the truth of a position of philosophical skepcticism, on whether 'you' exist to be held 'accountable' for 'actions', with or without further arguments that might explain why you don't demonstrate your philosophy in your daily dealings ?
I'm not positing unconscious brain activity. It's a given, nobody even denies unconscious brain activity. Neither does anyone deny that most brain activity is unconscious. When I say automatic and uncontrollable, I mean it doesn't require conscious instruction, nor is there a route for it to respond to such. You can't will that your hair grow faster.
Otherwise yes, it is a fairly accurate representation of my understanding to say that the automatic, uncontrollable, unconscious brain activity recieves, stores, accesses, and processes input, and produces output, some of which is conscious thought and action. I don't think anyone challenges this. I think a lot of people have completely bypassed ever thinking about this, and have therefore jumped to conclusions about responsibility.
Do you deny that automatic, unconscious, uncontrollable brain activity precedes conscious action?
I deny a heirarchy. I'm sure there are automatic unconscious and 'uncontrollable' brain activity. (actually not sure what is meant by uncontrollable here), but that the activities, are happying simultaneously with the activities you classify as willed/conscious, and that there is feedback going both ways between these 'sub-systems'.
but, anyway, all this talk about brains might just miss the point about moral responsibility. If you look instrumentally at a morally suspect action, if I can criticise you, and that is a way to mechanicaly influence your unconcious brain to reduce in the future the likelihood of you doing similar morally suspect actions, that would seem to be effacious. And looking at the situation askance, there is no basis to launch a claim against being held responsible for an aggregious act on the basis of a lack of free will, as any person who one might claim this against would by the premise of irresponsibility, not be responsible for holding you responsible for an eggregious act. (cool eh ?)
Ok well slow down, let's see if I can get a straight answer the second time around. Do you deny that automatic, unconscious, uncontrollable brain activity precedes conscious action?
This has nothing to do with a hierarchy. But it's silly to say you were conscious and acting before your brain ever functioned automatically, unconsciously, and uncontrollably.
A flock of birds is emergent of indvidual birds located proximate to each other in the sky. Do I deny that individuals bird activity precede flock activity? well, in the sense that individual birds have to gather together to get the flock started, they do proceed it. Is that the only sense in which you mean what you are challenging me with? My point was that whilst there is a flock, the birds and the flock system are simultaneous (the flock pretty much just is the birds right?) its not like the birds do stuff -> then the flock does stuff. The birds do stuff and the flock does stuff simultaneously.
Conciousness is what, activity under a mode of self-awareness, but does anyone think that it is not emergent of a non-self aware substrate? But what does this have to tell us about moral responsibility anyway. Its not clear to me that you or I should even particularly care whether I am right or wrong about the details of how brains work, because if issues of moral responsibility are at the heart of our *real* disagreement, didn't my other comments that weren't directly related to this brain stuff address that more directly?


text:
BMC Mountainbike Racing Team
UCI MTB Marathon World Championships, Kirchberg/T. (AUT)
June 29, 2013 - Kirchberg/T. BMC's Jérémy Huguenin finished the first UCI Marathon World Championships in his career on 18th place. Having been cautious on the first climb, the Romand had a great comeback.
On the first climb which was seven kilometers long Huguenin was not able to follow the pace of the top riders. He traversed the first mountains classification on 39th position. But his strategy to keep his own rhythm then worked out very well.
In his first Marathon World Championships race ever he then outdistanced one competitor after the other and finished the race after very tough 95 kilometres within the limits of his personal objectives.
"It was my goal to be in the top 20, and this is what I have achievd. After the first climb there was only one more rider who managed to overtake me," said Huguenin. And he was full of praise for his BMC Teamelite TE01. Especially on the last downhill passage which took 20 minutes to ride, the bike helped Huguenin immensely to stand his ground.
"My focus was more on the BerGiBike last week. Therefore, I am quite happy with my performance today, " said Huguenin, who was the youngest rider in the top 20 positions.
1. Christoph Sauser (Sui)
2. Alban Lakata (Aut)
3. Leonardo Paez (Col)
4. Kristian Hynek (Cze)
5. Urs Huber (Sui)
18. Jérémy Huguenin


text:
Complete forecast by
Text size:
Date: Saturday, October 6, 2012A Team Carter fundraiser for Carter Yackley will begin with a hog roast at 5 p.m. at American Legion Post 724, 509 N. School St., Atkinson. There also will be a pie auction, silent auction, and 50/50 drawing. Carter has been diagnosed with truncus arteriosus, a congenital heart defect. Cost is by free-will donation. Call (309) 269-0787 or email for details.
Hamburger-Potato Scallop
(More recipes)
Visit our other local sites: Daily-Journal.com | MyWebTimes.com | PostBulletin.com
Copyright 2014 QCOnline All Rights Reserved