yes, but the experimenter influences the measure, as we know very well, so … what credit to give to the scientist?
concerning the fact that all humans are mortal, it is to omit that companies like google work on the subject, and certainly many others , so unless you are at the heart of their project to know where they are, it is possible to doubt…
I would agree with this distinction. But you cannot completely ignore there is a “tax analogy” there.
Well, I think I am not as convinced as you were back then to be able to pass over it. I will always be curious about the evolution of ucoin/Duniter nevertheless. 
Yes I remember, I think your first name is Camille.
It still is yep !
1 Like
I’m tempted to argue that politics is very much tied to psychology, especially group psychology, but that’s not our point here.
To sum up, the economical incentives is that in a Libre Currency, people are strongly encouraged to exchange, rather than hoarding (and thus speculating on) money.
As for inequality reduction, you should read the RTM and my book, and do the Galileo Module. But again I’ll be nice and sum it up for you: you can’t get “filthy rich” in a Libre Currency, because it implements in its core principles the first freedom “the individual is free to use the resources in a non-nuisance perspective”, since it is based on it. Therefore it is not possible in a Libre Currency to find ourselves in a situation where 1% of the population manages to hoard the majority of the resources, as it happens today with the current financial system.
We could debate about it for hours, but the best is to experiment it, since human behavior is full of surprises.
Newtonian mechanics works quite well for 99% of the cases.
Newton never did that, and in economy no theory, never, considered the experimental fact everybody can verify that human beings have a limited life expectancy.
And this was because of a strange paradigm where “values” would exist independantly of the human who create and evaluate them.
You can deny reality and experience and make maths “out in thin air”, it is absolutely not the scientific way.
1 Like
I will agree experiment will tell. But I am not convinced DUs will be enough to prevent the creation of huge disparities (there are some non-linear responses (in the sense of signal theory) due to virality of opinions or economy of scale, computers (automation), so some kind of empirical progressive taxation is needed IMHO). And I am not convinced it will prevent speculation (in economies that will be build around but // to the libre currency). But I may be pessimistic. Who knows. Let’s experiment !
But we do such approximation (black body radiation for thermal analysis for example), and it can be very accurate and useful in practice.
I would pretend otherwise. Models are useful and used in practice and are critical pieces of “the scientific way”.
Approximation is valid only relatively to something (short period of time, no exterior factors etc.).
But if you say considering economy “let’s approximate what’s happening during 20 ans”, denying the fact in 20 years, it will be 20/80 = 25% of the population replaced, it is absolutely incorrect, 25% is not someting you can ignore.
If you say considering economy “let’s approximate what’s happening during 1 year”, without considering life expectancy, you can consider it quite correct, because it will be only 1/80 = 1,25% of the population replaced, so it can be considered acceptable approximation not considering people replacement.
But more than 3 years it becomes very dubious to not consider it.
2 Likes
all the theorems are false but some are useful.
It is futile to try to formalize the economy perfectly, it would be necessary for that to formalize perfectly the human behaviours, like “The demon of Pascal”, but it is impossible 
Formal mathematics describes an imaginary world, not reality. It is a fact that many mathematicians unfortunately refuse to accept…
Most mathematician I know or I knew where pure mathematician (I have a few friends doing PhD in this domain and a few in physics as well). But they were/are very aware of the limitation of mathematization especially in economy. Look at the declarations of Piketty or Saez (Emmanuel not Damien ;)) who were both trained as pure mathematician in the beginning (both Ulm).