elder-schmelder

Joined

• started 84 topics
• posted 613 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by elder-schmelder

• 
  20

  Overlapping Generations

  by elder-schmelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i think that this explains it best !!.

  one of the critical and most debatable assumptions we have maintained thus far in our arguments is the assumption of successive generations.

  in other words, we have assumed that, every period, a new generation arises and the old one dies off.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  I am glad that we finally got it right this time. I don't that they will have to change it again.

  elder-schmelder
• 
  20

  Overlapping Generations

  by elder-schmelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i think that this explains it best !!.

  one of the critical and most debatable assumptions we have maintained thus far in our arguments is the assumption of successive generations.

  in other words, we have assumed that, every period, a new generation arises and the old one dies off.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  I think that this explains it best !!

  One of the critical and most debatable assumptions we have maintained thus far in our arguments is the assumption of successive generations. In other words, we have assumed that, every period, a new generation arises and the old one dies off. Generations precede and follow each other, but they do not overlap at any point. This is a very restrictive and unrealistic assumption but one that, unfortunately, is difficult to dispose of.

  Models which allow successive generations to overlap with each other were first proposed by Maurice Allais (1947) and, independently, Paul Samuelson (1958). They noticed immediately that such a structure has some intriguing implications for intertemporal social welfare.

  There are many ways of modeling overlapping generations. The simplest is the "two-period-life" version. In this case, each generation lives for two periods -- call it "youth" and "old age". At any time period, one generation of youths coexists with one generation of the elderly. At the beginning of the next period, the elderly die off, the youths themselves become elderly and a new generation of youths is born. Thus, there are two "overlapping" generations of people living at any one time.

  Although we cover this in more detail elsewhere, our interest is in the social welfare implications of overlapping generations. To see this, let us attempt to construct a social welfare function when generations overlap. We assume a generation born at time period t (call it "generation t") lives for two periods: t and t+1. Let c t t and c t+1 t denote the consumption in periods t and t+1 respectively by generation t. Let us denote by u t (c t t , c t+1 t ) the intertemporal (two-period) utility function of generation t. Allowing for additive separability utility and personal myopia, we can write:

  u t (c t t , c t+1 t ) = u t (c t t ) + b u t (c t+1 t )

  where b is the personal discount factor. Now, this is for a single generation that is born at time t. As a new generation is born every time period t, then the intertemporal social welfare function is:

  S = u 0 (0, c 1 0 ) + å t=1 ¥ u t (c t t , c t+1 t )

  where u 0 (0, c 1 0 ) is the utility of the first generation of elderly people (born at t = 0), who have had no "youth". Notice that this is intertemporal, so every generation, present and future, is given equal weight in this social welfare function (there was a small controversy between Abba Lerner (1959) and Paul Samuelson (1959) over this). Thus, assuming the same personal discount rate across generations, we can plug in our explicit form:

  S = b u 0 (c 1 0 ) + å t=1 ¥ [u t (c t t ) + b u t (c t+1 t )]

  or, rearranging:

  S = å t=1 ¥ u t (c t t ) + b å t=0 ¥ u t (c t+1 t )

  By the Benthamite "equal capacity for pleasure" argument, let u t (?, ?) be the same across generations. This permits us to drop the t superscripts and rewrite the social welfare function simply as:

  S = å t=1 ¥ u(c t ) + b å t=0 ¥ u(c t+1 )

  This is revealing. For any positive consumption path, this social welfare function S is not a finite sum, i.e. S = ¥ for any {c t } > 0. Thus, not only are paths "non-comparable", but we cannot find a "social optimum". The old problem re-emerges.

  The overlapping generations construction yields interesting implications. Firstly, even when we incorporate personal myopia, we do not end up with finite social welfare sums. We cannot appeal to the reality of individual discounting to solve the incomparability problem. To make the sums finite, to make consumption paths comparable, we require that the social planner start making evaluations of the relative social worth of different generations. Personal discounting will not do as a substitute. Thus, letting g be the social planner's discount rate per generation, then we end up with:

  S = å t=1 ¥ g t-1 u(c t ) + b å t=0 ¥ g t-1 u(c t+1 )

  where, assuming 0 < g < 1, then S becomes finite and paths are now comparable. But g is an explicitly unethical discount. There is nothing obvious we can pluck out of society that can justify it. We must simply accept that our social planner is "morally challenged".

  Secondly, the decentralization thesis does not hold in overlapping generations. Specifically, it can be easily shown that in an overlapping generations model, the competitive equilibrium is not Pareto-optimal. This means that a social planner (or a government) can achieve a superior allocation than that yielded by the market. The social planner's solution (if we can find one) will be different from the market solution. The decentralization thesis breaks down.

  However, there is a trick that is possible: namely, if we follow the "dynastic" logic employed earlier. Including intergenerational altruism and "bequests" in an overlapping generations model, as Robert Barro (1974) did, we can effectively replicate the traditional Ramsey-style infinite-horizon problem with successive generations and restore the decentralization thesis.
• 
  2

  stem cells - question from readers

  by besty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  can someone please post for me the qfr:.

  *** w97 1 / 2 p. 29 questions from readers *** .

  thanks in advance.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  Questions

  From

  Readers

  According

  tonewsreports,afterababyisdelivered,somehospitalssavetheplacentaandumbilicalcordtoextractthingsfromtheirblood.Shouldthisconcerna

  Christian?

  In many locations, nothing like that occurs, so Christians need not be concerned. If there is very good reason to believe that such a practice is followed in the hospital where a Christian will give birth, it would be proper simply to direct the physician that the placenta and the umbilical cord should be disposed of, not used in any way.

  Various medical products have been obtained from biological sources, either animal or human. For example, certain hormones have been extracted from the urine of pregnant horses. Horse blood has been a source of tetanus serum, and gamma globulin to fight disease has long been derived from the blood in human placentas (the afterbirth). The placentas have been retained and frozen by some hospitals and later collected by a pharmaceutical laboratory so that the blood rich in antibodies could be processed to extract gamma globulin.

  More recently, researchers have claimed success in using blood from the afterbirth to treat one type of leukemia, and it has been theorized that such blood might be useful in some immune-system disorders or in place of bone-marrow transplants. Hence, there has been a degree of publicity about parents having blood from the afterbirth extracted, frozen, and banked in case it might be useful in a treatment for their child in years to come.

  Such commercialization of placental blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God’s perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life. The only use of blood that he authorized was on the altar, in connection with sacrifices. (Leviticus 17:10-12; compare Romans 3:25; 5:8; Ephesians 1:7.) Otherwise, blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of.—Leviticus 17:13; Deuteronomy 12:15, 16.

  When Christians hunt an animal or kill a domestic chicken or pig, they drain the blood and dispose of it. They do not literally have to pour it on the ground, for the point is that they dispose of the blood rather than put it to any use.

  Christians who are hospitalized understand that biological products removed from them are disposed of, whether the products be body wastes, diseased tissue, or blood. Granted, a doctor might want certain tests to be done first, such as a urinalysis, a pathological examination of tumorous tissue, or tests on the blood. But thereafter, the products are disposed of in accord with local law. The hospital patient hardly needs to make special requests to this effect because it is both reasonable and medically prudent to discard such biological products. If a patient had valid reason to doubt that such a normal practice was going to be followed, he or she could mention it to the physician involved, stating that for religious reasons he or she wanted all such products disposed of.

  However, as mentioned, this is seldom a concern for the average patient because in many places such salvage and reuse of the afterbirth or other biological products is not even considered, much less practiced routinely.
• 
  96

  What "invisible" persons do you actually firmly believe in?? (and Why?)

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  imagine that!.

  invisible persons!.

  from ancient times some of us have imagined there to be living persons that can't be seen but that are more than real!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  NONE

  elder-schmelder
• 
  63

  A Question To All on this Board

  by kes152 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello,.

  i have been reading this board for some time and would like to ask: why you come here and post?

  what do you all hope to accomplish by being here?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  I come here because I am affected by the JW's every day (I work with my Dad and Grandmother). I want to keep up the the ever changing beliefs and doctrine's so I can talk to my family that is still in and I can be informed of what is going on. Most of the time I am ahead of them in what is going on.

  elder-schmelder
• 
  72

  Head Count request, are you male or female? Lets count!

  by asilentone in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  at her recent thread, changeling was asking us if there are more men than women leaving the org.

  lets find out.. .

  i am a male.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  Male
• 
  20

  My wife's out and we're very happy

  by 10p in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i feel a bit guilty.

  people on this forum were very friendly and helpful to me when i was in the in-between phase between brainwashing and freedom.. i also got a lot of help and advice and sympathy when i was trying to get my wife out.. but when she did leave, i forgot all about you guys, and we got on with our lives, and have never been happier.

  honestly, life is soooo damn good now, i worry i might have reached the peak and things will only get worse from here.. we are amazed at how much our children enjoy birthdays and christmas - how healthy, normal and fun these things are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  Great Job !!
• 
  145

  FUN TEST! I am 37% JW!! Post your percentage here plz

  by Tired of the Hypocrisy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i found this online.

  i have not seen it on here before so i thought i would post it.

  it is a test to determine if you belong in the jw religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  30% for me.

  elder-schmelder
• 
  3

  ...or....who can meet me in Las Vegas for the weekend????

  by UnConfused in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  we could do a scene by scene reenactment of the hangover..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  I will be in Vegas on Monday 5th to Thursday 8th.

  Where are you guy's staying?

  elder-schmelder

  PS: I like drinking
• 
  79

  God is not a good Samaritan

  by peacedog in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i don't start threads very often, but yesterday i had something of an epiphany as i was doing some work in the yard.

  deep in thought, as i usually am when doing mundane tasks, it occurred to me that while jesus encouraged us to be "good samaritans", god himself is not a good samaritan.

  in the parable by jesus, a traveler is left beaten and robbed on the side of the road.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  elder-schmelder

  God is a Jerk !!

  Gods main goals

  1) Kill people

  2) Make sure that we trim our PeePee's

  elder-schmelder