rreform

Why did you never tell Bill that we can explain the tides?

You instead made the more general point that if we can't explain something, it doesn't mean an invisible man in the sky did it, which is a good point to make. However, I think it would have been great to highlight his ignorance by calling him out on it.

I think using the tau form lets you see better where it comes from.

e^ix = cos(x) +i sin(x), by considering the taylor series of each term.

Cos (τ) = cos (2π) =1,

Sin (τ) = sin(2π) =0

and you have the result.

Well he couldnt really criticise while still working there, so it makes sense.

There are two separate issues here. The first is whether or not people think they are getting a "free lunch" by having the government spend money. Davies contends that most people do have this misconception. I believe that most people do not. This is a rather trivial matter.

The second is the issue of whether or not government spending can help growth. This is probably the single most important and contentious issue in economics, so this debate can easily turn into listing the various existing arguments on both sides.

I do however, wish to make a point about Davies' outlook. He believes very much in free markets, because the theory is admittedly very elegant, and the results are inescapably true under the right conditions. However, given that we are in a situation which cannot be easily explained by this classical economics, it is surely a reasonable assumption that there are missing pieces, or complicating factors, which are not captured by the classical view, and so the underlying axioms of the free market theory do not hold. Given that there is an output gap, as in the free market employs less than all the resources available, resulting in unemployment, is it not right to say that action should be taken to correct this market deficiency? Arguments that this deficiency is caused by markets not being free enough are almost baseless, and the prevailing view is that government intervention helps, rather than hinders, in this respect.

Not only that, bookies do not legally have to honour any winning bet. They just do it because it would ruin their business not to.