Alex Briggs
@tickyw.bsky.social
Retired but still curious. Numbers, not waffle
https://cityboykan.blogspot.com/
https://cityboykan.blogspot.com/
Reposted by Alex Briggs
Very interesting!
"Cats make good house pets. Tigers are cats. Therefore tigers make good house pets."
This proposition would be true if an existential quantifier were used, i.e. "Some cats make good house pets"
"Cats make good house pets. Tigers are cats. Therefore tigers make good house pets."
This proposition would be true if an existential quantifier were used, i.e. "Some cats make good house pets"
December 19, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Very interesting!
"Cats make good house pets. Tigers are cats. Therefore tigers make good house pets."
This proposition would be true if an existential quantifier were used, i.e. "Some cats make good house pets"
"Cats make good house pets. Tigers are cats. Therefore tigers make good house pets."
This proposition would be true if an existential quantifier were used, i.e. "Some cats make good house pets"
Back in the day (post-war to 1970s), the prevailing view was that the UK government had almost unlimited resources; MMT in action, I'd say.
In the 1970s and 80s, monetarism became a thing, which held that money creation should grow at no more than the growth of the economy, else inflation occurs
In the 1970s and 80s, monetarism became a thing, which held that money creation should grow at no more than the growth of the economy, else inflation occurs
December 19, 2025 at 2:13 PM
Back in the day (post-war to 1970s), the prevailing view was that the UK government had almost unlimited resources; MMT in action, I'd say.
In the 1970s and 80s, monetarism became a thing, which held that money creation should grow at no more than the growth of the economy, else inflation occurs
In the 1970s and 80s, monetarism became a thing, which held that money creation should grow at no more than the growth of the economy, else inflation occurs