Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 319 of 420 FirstFirst ... 219269309317318319320321329369419 ... LastLast
Results 23,851 to 23,925 of 31490
  1. #23851
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Your links are all about what the government has done.
    Ajit Pai is government, yes. He is an unelected bureaucrat put in place by dear leader Trum himself yes. He also happens to be an ex-verizon lawyer, who is currently doing verizon's bidding in the government, yes.

    This is not as much what the government has done, but highlighting how corruption is being done right now. Pai is a hired goon put in place by Trump tasked with assassinating net neutrality at any cost. It does not matter any opposing viewpoints, these are simply readily dismissed as lunacy. It does not matter what evidence one brings, as these are dismissed as well. He has a single task, make his former and future employers as rich as possible. A monotasker if you will.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  2. #23852
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Your links are all about what the government has done.
    Also, this link is not about what the government has done. I'm pretty sure you didn't click it, because if you did you would have known

    https://arstechnica.com/information-...ps-themselves/
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  3. #23853
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is the article I was looking at: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robust.asp
    I'm pretty cool with that interpretation of robust.
  4. #23854
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Ajit Pai is government, yes. He is an unelected bureaucrat put in place by dear leader Trum himself yes. He also happens to be an ex-verizon lawyer, who is currently doing verizon's bidding in the government, yes.

    This is not as much what the government has done, but highlighting how corruption is being done right now. Pai is a hired goon put in place by Trump tasked with assassinating net neutrality at any cost. It does not matter any opposing viewpoints, these are simply readily dismissed as lunacy. It does not matter what evidence one brings, as these are dismissed as well. He has a single task, make his former and future employers as rich as possible. A monotasker if you will.
    TIL the government doing stuff isn't the government doing stuff.
  5. #23855
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm pretty cool with that interpretation of robust.
    If the robust financial models are based on the supply and demand model, does that mean the supply and demand model is also robust?
  6. #23856
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If the robust financial models are based on the supply and demand model, does that mean the supply and demand model is also robust?
    No.

    A single axiom may not be enough to form a robust model, but many axioms may. Even if none of the axioms individually give rise to complexity, the combination can.
  7. #23857
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    TIL the government doing stuff isn't the government doing stuff.
    Government bad! My government good!

    SAD!

    Edit: weak, wuf. I am dissapoint
    Last edited by Jack Sawyer; 07-27-2017 at 12:26 AM.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  8. #23858
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    No.

    A single axiom may not be enough to form a robust model, but many axioms may. Even if none of the axioms individually give rise to complexity, the combination can.
    So, the supply and demand framework is really, really, really effective. That was why I called it robust. Given that you say robust is the wrong word (you may be right, I'm not gangster enough at statistics to counterpoint further), what description do you think I should have used?
  9. #23859
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Government bad! My government good!

    SAD!

    Edit: weak, wuf. I am dissapoint
    I don't like corporations as much as you. They are greedy and selfish. However, the observation that spawned the field of economics is one that when greedy selfish entities are in competition, what arises is a societal good greater than otherwise. Even if it appears that my posts are not essentially about that observation, they are. Keep in mind that economics principles are deeply unpopular. Government intervention is a powerful tool that has restrained the societal benefit stated by this base observation of economics.
  10. #23860
    http://concave-asscheeks.tumblr.com/...bran-darthkres

    just keep on reading ...it keeps on giving
  11. #23861
    Quote Originally Posted by wuf
    Government intervention is a powerful tool that has restrained the societal benefit stated by this base observation of economics.
    Without government intervention we have the black market and anarchism. Not that I'm against this in principle, but strip away government, and that's what we have.

    The world would be more chaotic and dangerous, and the markets more volatile. Who's going to make sure chicken can't be sold unless the farm meets strict hygeine standards? Who's going to negotiate trade deals with other nations?

    I would love to live in a world without government intervention, however that relies on everyone not being a cunt. Wishful thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #23862
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    http://concave-asscheeks.tumblr.com/...bran-darthkres

    just keep on reading ...it keeps on giving
    Excellent trolling. The silly bitch thinks she won. 10/10 for lemon man.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #23863
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    So, the supply and demand framework is really, really, really effective. That was why I called it robust. Given that you say robust is the wrong word (you may be right, I'm not gangster enough at statistics to counterpoint further), what description do you think I should have used?
    I've said that I'm perfectly happy with the definition of robust in the link you provided. I'm not trying to crowbar the economics definition to be the statistical definition. That's pointless. I'm not telling other people what they're saying. I'm trying to understand what they mean when they say stuff.

    Now that I understand the economics definition of robust, my opinion hasn't changed that it's not appropriate to call S&D robust.

    The definition given in that link states that in order to call a model robust it needs to have specific predictive powers.

    Quote Originally Posted by robust link
    Financial models are an integral part of running a corporation. From the corporate executives of large multinational corporations, to the franchise owner of the local burger restaurant, decision-makers need up-to-date information presented to them in a model form that best reflects the activities of the business.

    [...]

    A robust model will continue to provide executives and managers with effective decision-making tools, and investors with accurate information on which to base their investment decisions.
    There is nothing specific (quantitative) about S&D, so there can be nothing accurate about it.
    Accuracy can't be applied to generalizations, that's more charlatan speak.

    Then their summary:
    However, when market conditions change, or the model is applied to another time period or the future, the model fails horribly, and losses are realized. This is usually the result of a trading model that is not robust.
    Which seems like them specifically excluding S&D from being considered robust w/o coming right out and saying it.
  14. #23864
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Without government intervention we have the black market and anarchism. Not that I'm against this in principle, but strip away government, and that's what we have.

    The world would be more chaotic and dangerous, and the markets more volatile. Who's going to make sure chicken can't be sold unless the farm meets strict hygeine standards? Who's going to negotiate trade deals with other nations?

    I would love to live in a world without government intervention, however that relies on everyone not being a cunt. Wishful thinking.
    The first realization of economics states that these problems get solved by competition. Given that you said what I present relies on "everyone not being a cunt" suggests that you don't know what my point is. Everyone being a cunt is an input into classical economic philosophy. On the contrary, everyone not being a cunt is what is required to have good government. Since people ARE selfish greedy cunts, we had best work with the philosophy that best describes how to mitigate that damage.
  15. #23865
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Accuracy can't be applied to generalizations, that's more charlatan speak.
    Here's where I'm confused. S&D is one of the most reliable models that humans have. I would think that would make it quite robust. But if it's that something can only be robust if it tells you exactly what will happen at a certain time period based on a certain input, then no, S&D doesn't do that. Well, it actually might when it comes to financial markets, but I don't know. The goods/services market versions don't.

    Maybe this will help me: are the thermodynamics laws robust? If they're not, the law of supply and demand might not be robust for similar reasons.
  16. #23866
    Given that you said what I present relies on "everyone not being a cunt" suggests that you don't know what my point is.
    Yeah whatever, I was grunching and saw "blah blah govt intervention restrains social benefits blah blah".

    It also advances social benefits. It does both.

    On the contrary, everyone not being a cunt is what is required to have good government.
    Not at all. You just need those who are governing to not be cunts. A big ask, I realise, but not as big an ask as "everyone".

    For there to be no government intervention, for anarchism to work, the "don't be a cunt" rule is passed from government to the masses.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #23867
    No it isn't it just self regulates better because people don't have the power to be massive cunts with no repercussions.
  18. #23868
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Not at all. You just need those who are governing to not be cunts.
    Did you watch the short segment about the Unicorn State?
  19. #23869
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Did you watch the short segment about the Unicorn State?
    No. It's not this page or last page, and I got bored looking for it.

    You win.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #23870
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    No it isn't it just self regulates better because people don't have the power to be massive cunts with no repercussions.
    Well this is my argument in favour of anarchy, but it doesn't sell well.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #23871
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Here's where I'm confused. S&D is one of the most reliable models that humans have. I would think that would make it quite robust.
    Look at it this way: If the law of gravity was: "what goes up must come down," then that would be a broad description which doesn't really guide us on how to, say, design parachutes or safety brakes in elevators, etc. Furthermore, it would have a lot of loopholes and exceptions. E.g. escape velocity sending things up which don't come down, and the preponderance of stuff coming down which doesn't seem to have "gone up" so much as just be up.

    That would not be a robust law, when compared to other scientific laws.

    Understanding gravity as an acceleration equivalent to forces on masses not only explains the whole up and down thing, but so much more. It predicts things which were never anticipated, and thought to be absurd at first, but those predictions were later observed. Further refining our understanding of gravity to be a warping of 4-dimensional spacetime was another huge leap, with similar hallmarks of robustness.

    Do you see what robust laws are compared to ... not robust ... laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    But if it's that something can only be robust if it tells you exactly what will happen at a certain time period based on a certain input, then no, S&D doesn't do that. Well, it actually might when it comes to financial markets, but I don't know. The goods/services market versions don't.
    Well, that's a big part of, it, so do we agree, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Maybe this will help me: are the thermodynamics laws robust? If they're not, the law of supply and demand might not be robust for similar reasons.
    The laws of thermodynamics make specific predictions, which have never credibly been shown to have made an incorrect prediction. Neither can be said about S&D. Thermodynamics makes predictions about things which are well beyond the known scope of the field when these laws were formulated.

    By the economics definition of robust, this pings hard on all the criteria. It provides useful information to people who can make actionable decisions with known outcomes. The model provides (measurably) accurate predictions, even when the stimulus to the model is varied widely.
  22. #23872
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well this is my argument in favour of anarchy, but it doesn't sell well.
    It doesn't sell well because people think what we've built up so far even if it is massively flawed is still somewhat going in the right direction from nothing because the comparisons are now with what we have now which is pretty great or essentially caveman times with nothing when we have something that would be more like anarchy*. If you want to convince people what you have to do is come from a point of showing that something we have now does badly and showing how a form of liberalism is a better idea that than. Ideally without linking it with the negative imagery that words like anarchy highlight.

    *And the idea of anarchy that is lighting everything on fire and watching it burn
  23. #23873
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker



    0 empathy. Until it happens to you
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  24. #23874
    Let's discuss ideas that make peoples' lives better instead of assuming knowledge of others' internal thoughts.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-01-2017 at 11:48 AM.
  25. #23875
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Let's discuss ideas that make peoples' lives better instead of assuming knowledge of others' internal thoughts.

    I prefer to discuss how certain people's hypocrisies affect other other people's lives for the worse



    What one can demonstrate with facts is real; assuming knowledge of others' internal thoughts is fantasy. My fantasy is reserved for GoT
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  26. #23876
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I prefer to discuss how certain people's hypocrisies affect other other people's lives for the worse



    What one can demonstrate with facts is real; assuming knowledge of others' internal thoughts is fantasy. My fantasy is reserved for GoT
    Just to clarify, being a hypocrite means that by default your position is fucked; it's so bad that you yourself cannot support your own position. Now if you can't support your own position, how can you expect (and want!) others to do so?

    Do as I say, not as I do. LOL
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  27. #23877
    What's the hypocrisy you're referencing?
  28. #23878
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Tomi Lahren. Notorious Obamacare hater




    And yet this exchange happened at politicon


    “I believe it’s my right to purchase health care, I don’t believe it’s my right to pay for it for other people,” Lahren said. “We need to find alternatives — what we have now is not working. What we had before Obamacare wasn’t working.”


    “Do you have a health care plan or no?” Handler asked.




    “Well luckily, I’m 24, so I am still on my parents,” Lahren replied.




    The Obamacare law allowed children to to stay on their parents’ health insurance until the age of 26. Previously, the cutoff age was 19.

    Aside from fundamentally not understanding how insurance works ("I don’t believe it’s my right to pay for it for other people,”), her level of hypocrisy is astounding, And this is an all too common occurrence
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  29. #23879
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    New favourite channel

    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  30. #23880
    Are you open to the idea that that's not an example of hypocrisy?
  31. #23881
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Are you open to the idea that that's not an example of hypocrisy?
    Guy with the blender walks the walk imo.

    Tomi Lahren isn't a hypocrite either. There's a difference between your parents paying your insurance and you paying taxes for a total stranger's insurance. Still doesn't change the fact that universal health care is the only civilized approach to the whole issue, as all of the civilized world minus the US figured out decades ago.
  32. #23882
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Are you open to the idea that that's not an example of hypocrisy?
    You're going to need to rephrase this, then, I think:

    I choose to use gov't assistance; I am competent to earn my own money and purchase my healthcare independently, but I don't do that.
    Furthermore, I believe that gov't assistance is wrong, and that you shouldn't use it.

    ***
    EDIT: I choose to use gov't assistance let someone else pay for my healthcare. I am competent to earn my own money and purchase my healthcare independently, but I don't do that.
    Furthermore, I believe that gov't assistance is wrong, and that you shouldn't use it, 'cause you should pay for your own stuff.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 08-02-2017 at 07:17 PM.
  33. #23883
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Guy with the blender walks the walk imo.

    Tomi Lahren isn't a hypocrite either. There's a difference between your parents paying your insurance and you paying taxes for a total stranger's insurance. Still doesn't change the fact that universal health care is the only civilized approach to the whole issue, as all of the civilized world minus the US figured out decades ago.
    Just like universal food, universal housing, and universal dating.

    Keep in mind that the kinds of problems that single-payer coverage causes are quite severe in these "rest of the civilized world" countries. Also, keep in mind that an actual free market would be remarkably better for their citizens.
  34. #23884
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You're going to need to rephrase this, then, I think:

    I choose to use gov't assistance; I am competent to earn my own money and purchase my healthcare independently, but I don't do that.
    Furthermore, I believe that gov't assistance is wrong, and that you shouldn't use it.

    ***
    EDIT: I choose to use gov't assistance let someone else pay for my healthcare. I am competent to earn my own money and purchase my healthcare independently, but I don't do that.
    Furthermore, I believe that gov't assistance is wrong, and that you shouldn't use it, 'cause you should pay for your own stuff.
    Her argument is that the system should be different. One can say that there should not be a law that forces insurance companies to allow people to stay on their parents' plans until the age of 26, while they themselves stay on their parents plans until the age of 26 when the system is organized such that that is the best option in the situation.

    I don't think the government should own roads and I would gladly vote such that they would not own roads if I had the option, yet here I am, driving on roads that the government owns. What a hypocrite I must be.
  35. #23885
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The fact that you say all that without sarcasm is adorable.
  36. #23886
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1606969...-debate-on-the

    When people have facts and reasons in their armory, they use them first. When they run out of rational arguments, they attack the messenger.
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1282673...ive-dissonance

    Personal Attack: A personal attack without reason is among the strongest tells [for cognitive dissonance]. That means the person being attacked has been so persuasive that it is shaking someone else’s self-image.
  37. #23887
    Who should own the roads wuf? Private companies? How are they going to make a profit?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #23888
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Who should own the roads wuf? Private companies? How are they going to make a profit?
    Replace bus stops with toll booths.

    Then add more toll booths.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  39. #23889
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Who should own the roads wuf? Private companies? How are they going to make a profit?
    You know the answer to this, so what's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Replace bus stops with toll booths.

    Then add more toll booths.
    At least they'd have an incentive to speed up the toll booths thus making traffic flow quicker.
  40. #23890
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Her position is that Obamacare is so bad it has to go. It is a “a death spiral” and is “detrimental”. And yet here she is using it. She has the choice not to use that particular provision and get her own private healthcare, the “git a jub” approach to practicing what she preaches, and yet she chose to use Obamacare anyway




    Don’t get me wrong, it is the logical thing to do. Obamacare, ahem, Affordable Care Act, while not perfect, particularly because it does include any provisions to lower or at least limit the cost of medical care and prescription drugs, is still much better than what there was before.




    You can also choose to fix its shortcomings without having to bomb it. You know, like add provisions to lower or at least limit the cost of medical care and prescription drugs.




    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.650014314ef8




    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...democrats.html








    Point that out and you get the “This is unacceptable. So why model our entire healthcare system on a failed government experiment?. Also, fuck obama anyway” retort




    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-a-great-event




    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't think the government should own roads and I would gladly vote such that they would not own roads if I had the option, yet here I am, driving on roads that the government owns. What a hypocrite I must be.



    Dem tolls yo
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  41. #23891
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You know the answer to this, so what's your point?
    The point is obviously to bait wuf into saying tolls. I'm curious if that's what he proposes.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #23892
    At least they'd have an incentive to speed up the toll booths thus making traffic flow quicker.
    cmon man this is 2017, and you're practically a millenial. How does someone pushing 40 immediately realise that the tolls would be digital while you think about traffic flow through booths? No need for toll booths, just cameras with number plate reading technology.

    Privatising the roads sounds like a horrible idea to me. Then again, privatising trains and busses is also horrible, but we've done that. And the result is piss poor service, because it's a natural monopoloy. How many companies do you suppose run the busses in my shitty town? One. And we only have one train line going through the town. So there's no competition. Go onto Kidderminster Matters on facebook, and you'll see that the local bus company are considered a joke. Weekly photos of one broken down, daily tales of people being late for work due to unannounced cancellations, even the occasional engine on fire. But of course, fares rise above inflation.

    It would be the same with the roads. Costs would go up at above the rate of inflation, slowly squeezing more money out of people who are just trying to get to work to make the economy work in the first place.

    I'm down with small government... but that small government should be in control of critical state infrastructure and natural monopolies, with any "profit" going back into the public purse. The incentive for government to deliver is a booming economy with more tax revenue, and public approval which means more votes. Because the incentive is not profit, costs to the consumer are minimal.

    This isn't socialism. The markets are still free. Government doesn't control bread. Government merely provides the environment in which the citizens can best thrive, based on their individual strengths and skills.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #23893
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Her position is that Obamacare is so bad it has to go. It is a “a death spiral” and is “detrimental”. And yet here she is using it. She has the choice not to use that particular provision and get her own private healthcare, the “git a jub” approach to practicing what she preaches, and yet she chose to use Obamacare anyway
    And it would be hypocritical if she said that using Obamacare when it is the law of the land is wrong. Which she did not say. Virtually no conservatives believe using Obamacare when it is the law is wrong.

    You can also choose to fix its shortcomings without having to bomb it. You know, like add provisions to lower or at least limit the cost of medical care and prescription drugs.
    Some costs can be brought down by the power that single-payer can have regarding negotiating prices. The benefits are pretty small compared to the other costs created by using single-payer. Obamacare CANNOT be fixed because it is a third-party payer system and because it by nature cannot include market forces that reduce costs via competition. Obamacare certainly could be made better in theory, but it cannot be "fixed" such that citizens would receive as high of quantity and quality of care at as low of price as in a free market system.

    Keep in mind that single-payer is a failed system. The last thing you wanna do in single-payer systems is get sick, because the way those systems are constrained means they must cut costs by rationing, which is why sick people get such delayed treatment (or no treatment) even when "insured" by the government.

    Keep in mind that we are not dealing with new fundamental ideas regarding economic structure. Each idea that people think is a "new" idea that hasn't been tried before is not new and has been tried before. They each operate under one of two fundamental paradigms: Smithian capitalistic one or Marxist socialist one. The former is responsible for unfathomable improvements in the poorest peoples' lives and the latter is responsible for the suffering of tens of millions.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-03-2017 at 10:07 AM.
  44. #23894
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The point is obviously to bait wuf into saying tolls. I'm curious if that's what he proposes.
    I have covered this in the past.

    There would be tolls on roads just like there is a toll to enter Walmart. And like there is a toll to enter Starbucks. And like there is a toll to enter an auto shop or a law or accountancy office.

    Remember that not only are you NOT being tolled to enter those places, but you ARE ALREADY being tolled to use government roads. It's called taxes. And the roads are pretty shitty. Savy is correct. Private ownership would streamline traffic. It would also make the roads nice. This is because roads do not function much like consumer goods; instead they function like costs impeding consumption of different consumer goods. Private roads would result in the poor becoming much wealthier.
  45. #23895
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    cmon man this is 2017, and you're practically a millenial. How does someone pushing 40 immediately realise that the tolls would be digital while you think about traffic flow through booths? No need for toll booths, just cameras with number plate reading technology.
    You say that but it doesn't work like that at all, it should, I agree, but it doesn't. So to assume it does is just wrong.

    And don't use the bus & or train.

    I agree though bastardised government monopolies sold off to individual companies to have a monopoly on is worse than the government doing it all especially when the government will step in to deal with shit caused by that company.
    Last edited by Savy; 08-03-2017 at 10:11 AM.
  46. #23896
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Hypocrisy is when you do exactly the thing you criticize in others.
    Your hypocrisy is evident, here.

    Furthermore, since when is 'adorable' a personal attack?
    You're making a conflict that exists only in your mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have covered this in the past.

    There would be tolls on roads just like there is a toll to enter Walmart. And like there is a toll to enter Starbucks. And like there is a toll to enter an auto shop or a law or accountancy office.

    Remember that not only are you NOT being tolled to enter those places, but you ARE ALREADY being tolled to use government roads. It's called taxes. And the roads are pretty shitty. Savy is correct. Private ownership would streamline traffic. It would also make the roads nice. This is because roads do not function much like consumer goods; instead they function like costs impeding consumption of different consumer goods. Private roads would result in the poor becoming much wealthier.
    Land is a finite resource. Roads have to go somewhere. Where is the competition to I70? Is another company going to lay a parallel highway to I70, so it can compete? What if they're both shit companies, and a third company wants to step in and compete? Are there now 3 nearly identical highways running parallel? Or damn, that first company went out of business. Now there's an abandoned highway running coast to coast, and the company declared bankruptcy, and there is literally no money to rennovate that land.

    Private ownership of a lot of things is good, but roads, fire service and police, along with other services, cannot thrive in a competitive environment. They need sanctioned domains of coverage, which are publicly agreed upon, via representative democratic processes.
  47. #23897
    "Natural monopoly" as a reason for government intervention is funny, because it's not something that comes from economics. The concept of natural monopoly does and what theoretically makes one does, but all the supposedly natural monopolies that we're supposedly dealing with and that supposedly cause problems does not. Roads are not any different regarding their natural monopolistic elements than something like food.

    Here's a natural monopoly (by a lot): smart phones. And yet, innovation is very high, quality and quantity are improving greatly, and costs are coming down, and most importantly disruption from substitution innovation is still robust. Add government intervention to the equation and we could easily find all that goes away.
  48. #23898
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Hypocrisy is when you do exactly the thing you criticize in others.
    What is the example?

    Furthermore, since when is 'adorable' a personal attack?
    When it belittles instead of addresses the argument.

    Land is a finite resource.
    Yet somehow private ownership of farmland does the opposite of what you stated private ownership of this other finite land resource would, as well as how government ownership of farmland does the EXACT thing you stated government ownership of this other finite land resource protects against.

    Private ownership of a lot of things is good, but roads, fire service and police, along with other services, cannot thrive in a competitive environment.
    It would be very hard to find an economist who agrees with this. Economics teaches how things thrive due to being in competitive environments and how they don't thrive due to not being in competitive environments.

    This is a cool development because the argument on this board against free markets used to always be about how certain markets aren't naturally competitive. The claim that those same markets can't work instead when competitive suggests we're converging on acknowledgement of the idea closer to the truth (though perhaps not since the claim change is cognitive dissonance, and that's something that seems to have an unlimited lifespan/number of uses).
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-03-2017 at 11:23 AM.
  49. #23899
    One way of looking at it is that roads behave similarly to complementary goods even though they themselves are not the consumption goal. The complement of roads would be to most other goods. Example: everything sold at Walmart would be complementary with roads. For complementary goods, a decrease in price of one leads to an increase in demand for the other. Since the goods consumers want are the Walmart goods instead of the road driving "good" and since there is tremendous room for profit in the Walmart good but not in the road "good", firms would have incentive to decrease the price of the road "good" as much as possible.

    We see examples of the type of thing already. Example: loss leaders. Razor blades and razors are complements. Firms have figured out that they make more money by selling blades for a profit yet the razors for a loss. Gillette essentially gives its razors away for free because it allows them to sell more blades for even greater profit than otherwise.

    A private transportation system should be expected to function similarly. The faster the transport, the more comfortable the transport (up to a point), and the cheaper the transport -- the higher the demand for the unlimited number of other goods/services at the edges of roads.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-03-2017 at 12:47 PM.
  50. #23900
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What is the example?

    IF what I said is a personal attack (it's not), then your response is equally so.
    Perceived offense is not important.

    My point is not based on emotion. My emotions are simply that I can't believe you keep saying the same things year after year, when you've pivoted around them by the end of the conversation every time you bring them up.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    When it belittles instead of addresses the argument.
    We've gone over this subject before. It's disingenuous for you to ignore all of my prior responses to this idea of yours. My act of marveling at the fact that you can seemingly ignore all of our past discussions and keep saying things you've previously recanted is not a fault in my critique of your ideas.

    This is all just a rehash of prior discussions. It's just melodrama at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    When it belittles instead of addresses the argument.
    So tell me why you belittle this discussion by pretending that all of our past discussions need to be repeated?

    Why do you persist on belittling your entire profession? If you have evidence and proof that your ideas are better than our rebuttles, then we will all change our minds and sing the wufwugy song.

    Don't belittle your entire profession by claiming to truths you cannot demonstrate, conclusively, to your fellow economists. Don't belittle your profession by asserting that you have it all figured out, but that somehow the problem is that the rest of us just wont listen to you. That's a cop-out, even if it's true. (I don't believe it's true for a second, but I could be wrong.) IF it's true, it is your responsibility to communicate what you know to be right, and not blame the ignorant people who don't know better.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    [...]
    You completely ignored the point.

    Describe to me how there can be free market competition among highways.
    Describe to me how St Louis carves another I70-wide path through the city so that the scandalous owners of the current I70 can face the competition they deserve.
    Tell me how I am wrong to think this is an absurd proposition.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 08-03-2017 at 02:42 PM.
  51. #23901
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    IF what I said is a personal attack (it's not), then your response is equally so.
    Perceived offense is not important.

    My point is not based on emotion. My emotions are simply that I can't believe you keep saying the same things year after year, when you've pivoted around them by the end of the conversation every time you bring them up.


    We've gone over this subject before. It's disingenuous for you to ignore all of my prior responses to this idea of yours. My act of marveling at the fact that you can seemingly ignore all of our past discussions and keep saying things you've previously recanted is not a fault in my critique of your ideas.

    This is all just a rehash of prior discussions. It's just melodrama at this point.


    So tell me why you belittle this discussion by pretending that all of our past discussions need to be repeated?

    Why do you persist on belittling your entire profession? If you have evidence and proof that your ideas are better than our rebuttles, then we will all change our minds and sing the wufwugy song.

    Don't belittle your entire profession by claiming to truths you cannot demonstrate, conclusively, to your fellow economists. Don't belittle your profession by asserting that you have it all figured out, but that somehow the problem is that he rest of us just wont listen to you. That's a cop-out, even if it's true. (I don't believe it's true for a second, but I could be wrong.) IF it's true, it is your responsibility to communicate what you know to be right, and not blame the ignorant people who don't know better.
    I have in the past responded to your points as directly as I knew how. Also it is rare for people to understand my points correctly enough that they could repeat them back to me. Some of the problem is my lack of proficiency in explaining and some of it is cognitive biases that disrupt acknowledgement and understanding of the points.

    You completely ignored the point.
    What I did was show the faulty premise.

    Describe to me how there can be free market competition among highways.
    There are lots of highways in the same areas that go to the same places. There are lots of people (lots of capital) who have interests in how the highways function. There are robust substitutes. There would be prices and first-party payers. I have not yet seen any reason that roads do not have all the attributes that make for a robust monopolistic competition market. Monopolistic competition is the term for which most markets are categorized, and they provide wonderful market balance and growth.

    Describe to me how St Louis carves another I70-wide path through the city so that the scandalous owners of the current I70 can face the competition they deserve.
    I don't know. And the great thing is that knowing that is not requisite for the principles of economics discussions we have had. Nobody has a sufficient answer to the question. The best that can be said now is something like "we'd have to find out how the trillions of moving parts in the market land". Fifty years ago could you describe what a free market of communications would look like today? Economists don't have much understanding of the specific details for how goods/services in markets change, but they do have good evidence that they change and good understanding of why in general.

    Tell me how I am wrong to think this is an absurd proposition.
    Because it is not logically coherent nor theoretically sound. There is nothing in economics that tells us that land for road use is fundamentally different from land for farm use such that road use must be monopolized by the government in order to function and the farm one works better when privately owned and operated. The institution of government road ownership and private farm ownership arises from peoples' political preferences, not from understanding of markets.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-03-2017 at 03:39 PM.
  52. #23902
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Private ownership would streamline traffic. It would also make the roads nice. This is because roads do not function much like consumer goods; instead they function like costs impeding consumption of different consumer goods. Private roads would result in the poor becoming much wealthier.
    Wait, you mean if companies built roads for profit they would go to great lengths to maintain them, lest everyone take an alternate route to work? Ya, don't think that's how it would work. You'd get a choice between a shitty road to work or another shitty road to work that takes 10 minutes longer.
  53. #23903
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What I did was show the faulty premise.
    Do you mean this?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Yet somehow private ownership of farmland does the opposite of what you stated private ownership of this other finite land resource would, as well as how government ownership of farmland does the EXACT thing you stated government ownership of this other finite land resource protects against.
    In order for you to pivot to this subject matter as an answer to my questions, you need to demonstrate a 1:1 correlation that what maximizes the efficiency of food production is identical to what maximizes transportation throughput.
    So take it 1 step at a time if you want to go here.

    Convince me these are the same thing, and are equally maximized by identical treatment by society.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It would be very hard to find an economist who agrees with this. Economics teaches how things thrive due to being in competitive environments and how they don't thrive due to not being in competitive environments.
    You just said, "If that works, then economics can't explain it, which is why economists would suggest something different."
    That's not a compelling reason to change something.
  54. #23904
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Show me an example where roads are run by a free market, and they are awesome roads that trump German roads. I can't argue that American roads are crap, but but you can't say that it's always bad when there are obvious counter-examples of it not being bad.

    The whole, "You're doing it wrong, but IDK how you should do it." is pretty understandably not changing any behaviors.
  55. #23905
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This isn't socialism. The markets are still free. Government doesn't control bread. Government merely provides the environment in which the citizens can best thrive, based on their individual strengths and skills.
    QFT
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  56. #23906
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    In order for you to pivot to this subject matter as an answer to my questions, you need to demonstrate a 1:1 correlation that what maximizes the efficiency of food production is identical to what maximizes transportation throughput.
    So take it 1 step at a time if you want to go here.

    Convince me these are the same thing, and are equally maximized by identical treatment by society.
    Can't do it. Economics will likely never have enough information to do something like that. This is why the discipline is philosophical exercise regarding coherence of principles and available data. Even if you found econometric models that gave you that 1:1 correlation, they would probably be very wrong models.

    You just said, "If that works, then economics can't explain it, which is why economists would suggest something different."
    That's not a compelling reason to change something.
    If what works?

    Show me an example where roads are run by a free market, and they are awesome roads that trump German roads. I can't argue that American roads are crap, but but you can't say that it's always bad when there are obvious counter-examples of it not being bad.
    Keep in mind that "bad" is relative. German roads can be much better than American ones and still not good compared to how they would arise in free markets. Keep in mind that the manifestations of consequences of new economic inputs are mostly unforeseeable in specific terms. We have very little clue what the kind of transformation a society that forms around private roads would look like. It could be a bunch more roads, far fewer roads, it could be innovations focused on home deliveries or mass transit, it could transform entire cities such that they look little like any modern city does today. However, what we do know are some of the principles involving general movement of price and quantity and how those incentivize some behavior, and then we deduce from there (and conduct research). The lesson of the price mechanism and competition was what birthed the field of microeconomics, is the foundation of economic thought, and has stood up against every attempt to tear it apart so far. Economists cannot tell you what privatizing roads would do in specific terms other than that it would to a very high degree of probability lead to some amalgamation of lower costs, higher quantities, and higher qualities within the economy. Predicting the specifics would be like engineers predicting the new devices built on new technology in 30 years.

    The samples of modern societies that have private roads is scant. It can probably still be found with something like China's somewhat famous "economic freedom zones." I posted about those a long time ago and probably couldn't find the sources again. Those are cases where the Chinese government allowed zones to do virtually anything they wanted and the government wasn't in charge of much of anything, and they resulted in substantially increased improvement of economic life.

    The whole, "You're doing it wrong, but IDK how you should do it." is pretty understandably not changing any behaviors.
    What seems to be going on here is a conflation of two different types of things.

    The economics we are discussing is how to organize the system for general function. The specific "how do things play out inside that economy" is transformed by the trillions of interactions between producers and consumers and all the complexities that arise. Take the pencil for example. Adam Smith could not have predicted where each of the products that go into the pencil would be harvested, manufactured, and sold, and he could not predict at what price and quantity or quality. He could not predict the innovations regarding types of pencils and uses of pencils. He could not predict non-pencil products/behaviors that would arise out of the happenings regarding the pencil. But he could predict (and did predict) that innovations like that would arise from free market transactions that otherwise would not without the free market transactions. Businesses and customers ultimately determine "how something is done" in the free market without realizing it, and that "something" is what best satisfies preferences. This is Adam Smith's famous Invisible Hand, which encapsulates the most important idea in microeconomics.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-03-2017 at 06:38 PM.
  57. #23907
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Remember that not only are you NOT being tolled to enter those places, but you ARE ALREADY being tolled to use government roads. It's called taxes. And the roads are pretty shitty. Savy is correct. Private ownership would streamline traffic. It would also make the roads nice. This is because roads do not function much like consumer goods; instead they function like costs impeding consumption of different consumer goods. Private roads would result in the poor becoming much wealthier.

    Just like in the Netherlands. But, there you can eat off the roads; they are so damn nice.


    There are literally no potholes. None. Also no private roads. In the whole damn country.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_Netherlands


    Clearly you(US)’re doing it wrong once again




    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Private roads would result in the poor becoming much wealthier.

    C’mon now wuf
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  58. #23908
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You say that but it doesn't work like that at all, it should, I agree, but it doesn't. So to assume it does is just wrong.

    And don't use the bus & or train.
    Walk around, obviously. No bikes either
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  59. #23909
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I agree though bastardised government monopolies sold off to individual companies to have a monopoly on is worse than the government doing it all especially when the government will step in to deal with shit caused by that company.
    And this is the #no1problem that somehow keeps arising. This is what I try to avoid at all costs. But as stands, it simply converges to this every single fucking time, and everyone is either oblivious as to how to fix it, or does not give enough of a fuck
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  60. #23910
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Just like in the Netherlands. But, there you can eat off the roads; they are so damn nice.


    There are literally no potholes. None. Also no private roads. In the whole damn country.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_Netherlands


    Clearly you(US)’re doing it wrong once again







    C’mon now wuf
    Keep in mind that it is common for selectively used statistics to substantiate wrong ideas. The case I have made doesn't negate the emergence of one set of government-intervened markets being markedly better than another.
  61. #23911
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    And this is the #no1problem that somehow keeps arising. This is what I try to avoid at all costs. But as stands, it simply converges to this every single fucking time, and everyone is either oblivious as to how to fix it, or does not give enough of a fuck
    I'm not going to step in and say exactly what Savy's point is, but history shows us that as bad as crony capitalism is, socialism is significantly worse. Also, capitalism doesn't converge to cronyism every time. Most of the transactions in the capitalist world are not that subjected to cronyism. But we do hear about the cronyism a whole bunch because there are a handful of hot button issues that manifest as gargantuan in our minds.

    Question: do you find it strange that you don't like the effects of government corruption and your solution is more government power?
  62. #23912
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Walk around, obviously. No bikes either
    I hope you're paying for the use of the pavement.
  63. #23913
    I don't like the way of saying you're talking about roads and then you get a list of who has the best roads and therefore the way they do it is best. If you put me in a dictatorship of a developed country and said get the best x I could do it, easily. It'd be at the detriment to pretty much everything else and the money (& lives) I spent to get it to that level wouldn't in any way justify the benefit to better x.
  64. #23914
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I don't like the way of saying you're talking about roads and then you get a list of who has the best roads and therefore the way they do it is best. If you put me in a dictatorship of a developed country and said get the best x I could do it, easily. It'd be at the detriment to pretty much everything else and the money (& lives) I spent to get it to that level wouldn't in any way justify the benefit to better x.



    Lebron consistently averaged at least 25 points per game for 12 years straight. I’d say he knows a thing or two about basketball offense.




    His career PER is 27+, second best of all time to only the GOAT MJ. This indicates that I’d also be able to say with full confidence that he knows a thing or two about basketball in general. He has consistently demonstrated this. It’s not theories, nor in books, nor urban legends and hearsay, also not only in the gym, but on documented footage and box scores in real games against NBA level opponents, in regular and post season.




    When this dude talks basketball, I’d listen up if I want to get better at basketball
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  65. #23915
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Lebron consistently averaged at least 25 points per game for 12 years straight. I’d say he knows a thing or two about basketball offense.

    His career PER is 27+, second best of all time to only the GOAT MJ. This indicates that I’d also be able to say with full confidence that he knows a thing or two about basketball in general. He has consistently demonstrated this. It’s not theories, nor in books, nor urban legends and hearsay, also not only in the gym, but on documented footage and box scores in real games against NBA level opponents, in regular and post season.


    When this dude talks basketball, I’d listen up if I want to get better at basketball
    That analogy is either bad or shows you missed my point.

    To change the topic slightly there are plenty of great sports stars who don't understand the games that they play that well, they are just incredibly good at doing what needs to be done, I'm not saying that applies to either people in your analogy but it's definitely true of a hell of a lot of football players. It'd also be completely false to assume that just because that person is good at what you say that therefore he is optimal, or the best way to approach something. There are plenty of world class coaches that have never played the game at the highest levels. Do they not understand the game?
  66. #23916
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Wait, you mean if companies built roads for profit they would go to great lengths to maintain them, lest everyone take an alternate route to work? Ya, don't think that's how it would work. You'd get a choice between a shitty road to work or another shitty road to work that takes 10 minutes longer.
    One of my previous responses addresses this in part. It is that roads would likely act as loss leaders since the best way to profit would be from selling other products. The firms that sell goods/services or that purchase labor would have the most incentive to own the roads or have deals with the larger firms that own the roads. Those deals would be to reduce the most important costs associated with the roads to the customers and laborers of the firms to the point that doing so increases profits. Long commutes, bad traffic, and shitty driving experiences cost firms quite a lot already. For example, in labor economics courses you discuss how an increase in the commute time of a laborer increases the wage his employer pays (obviously with individual variation).

    Something else that would probably also occur is tolling in certain zones. This could work in your specific scenario. The owners of those roads, if tolled, would make more profit by incentivizing customers to choose their road. They incentivize such by reducing implicit costs -- improving efficiency of travel, improving comfort of travel -- and/or by reducing explicit costs -- decreasing price. Consumers are the selection mechanism between the two roads as well as they also choose substitutes for their time/energy/money. Firms have incentive for customers to not substitute out either.

    Keep in mind that you are already paying for roads. That payment is through taxes.

    On a side note, something interesting to think about: an increase in profit in a competitive market (in aggregation) can typically (perhaps always) be thought of as an increase in true wealth for consumers. This is because wealth is really just resources, and an increase in profits in a competitive market comes from improving resources. Since the consumers are exchanging their money for the improved resources, they value the resource greater than the money they exchange, which results in an improvement in the value in their life, which basically translates into true wealth.
  67. #23917
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Can't do it. Economics will likely never have enough information to do something like that.
    Fine.
    Just... If you know/believe this, then why do you use language which constantly misrepresents this about your profession?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If what works?
    Let's go with: the repeated human rational action of assessing that a governing body of some form is a thing they value.
    We can at least agree on that, right?.. that every people ever known has some form of governing group which resolves conflicts and/or sets policies on the large scale?

    Can we agree that people decide to be governed?
    I don't get the sense that you believe this is true, despite every historical precedent for people not overthrowing any and all attempts to govern them.

    Can you at least humor me and assume that people do choose to be governed and address why intelligent, hard-working citizens may want this, and what they expect its functions to be, broadly?


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The samples of modern societies that have private roads is scant. It can probably still be found with something like China's somewhat famous "economic freedom zones."
    See, you're turning broad, generic statements into very specific criticisms, which are nowhere in the models you from which you draw. Your criticisms are fine. The language that you know what you're talking about is what's not fitting. If the conclusions and models and statements which are guiding you are broad and general, then it is NOT within the model to draw specific conclusions.

    That China example hardly sounds like a state level example of what you're suggesting, but if you drop a link, I'll give it a read.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What seems to be going on here is a conflation of two different types of things.

    The economics we are discussing is how to organize the system for general function. The specific "how do things play out inside that economy" is transformed by the trillions of interactions between producers and consumers and all the complexities that arise.
    (Clipped here, because everything you say after this is the opposite of what you're saying here.)

    See my above comments. Your guiding statements are broad, general statements about big topics. Using language which makes it sound like your specific advice is a direct application of the model is either bad logic or propaganda.

    [Adam Smith and pencils]
    This is confirmation bias.
    Adam Smith said literally nothing about pencils (according to your post, IDK jack about him). He said things about markets and transactions and pressures. For any example you can draw up in which he looks like he totally nailed it, you can dig up another where he was dead wrong.
    Your field is about one of the most nuanced things known to us, "How do we decide and how do our decisions drive other's decisions?" For you to try to claim that the conclusions of this field are unnuanced statements glorifying any one model w/o nuance is clearly not bringing any credibility to the conversation.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 08-03-2017 at 08:54 PM.
  68. #23918
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    That analogy is either bad or shows you missed my point.


    To change the topic slightly there are plenty of great sports stars who don't understand the games that they play that well, they are just incredibly good at doing what needs to be done,

    You mean “lucky” people? Because I don’t understand what you mean with “sports stars who don't understand the games that they play that well”. You have to understand the game to play it well.


    But then again, sure there’s lucky people, but it shows. In basketball at least. I have no idea about football, because I don’t follow it that much


    http://thereformedbroker.com/2012/11...etball-hockey/









    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I'm not saying that applies to either people in your analogy but it's definitely true of a hell of a lot of football players. It'd also be completely false to assume that just because that person is good at what you say that therefore he is optimal, or the best way to approach something. There are plenty of world class coaches that have never played the game at the highest levels. Do they not understand the game?



    I said, that when Lebron opens his mouth to talk basketball and I’m looking to get better, I listen. If the world class coaches who never played a game at the highest levels somehow have a proven and verifiable track record of continued success and knowing what they are doing, I’d sure as fuck listen too, why not?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  69. #23919
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Fine.
    Just... If you know/believe this, then why do you use language which constantly misrepresents this about your profession?
    It's not my profession. I'm finishing up my bachelors in economics and likely will not go further.


    Let's go with: the repeated human rational action of assessing that a governing body of some form is a thing they value.
    We can at least agree on that, right?.. that every people ever known has some form of governing group which resolves conflicts and/or sets policies on the large scale?

    Can we agree that people decide to be governed?
    I don't get the sense that you believe this is true, despite every historical precedent for people not overthrowing any and all attempts to govern them.

    Can you at least humor me and assume that people do choose to be governed and address why intelligent, hard-working citizens may want this, and what they expect its functions to be, broadly?
    I recall stating before that I agree with this. In my estimation, even if humankind magically experienced a 100 years of purely free markets and living standards increased at a rate several times what they do now, I think that after the 100 years and they lost the magic that made them to not organize into governments, they would then still organize into governments almost immediately. The desire to feel protected and to project morality and to have those manifest in the form of law headed up by lawmen is probably innate to the typical or aggregated human mode of being. Of course, that raises the question of what kinds of things humankind can still remove government from in a sustainable way.

    See, you're turning broad, generic statements into very specific criticisms, which are nowhere in the models you from which you draw. Your criticisms are fine. The language that you know what you're talking about is what's not fitting. If the conclusions and models and statements which are guiding you are broad and general, then it is NOT within the model to draw specific conclusions.
    I'm not transforming the general to the specific. I'm doing model analysis (and principles analysis) and applying it to the real world. That's what we do from the very beginning of Econ 101 to at least the bachelor's capstone. Economics is not like a natural science. Natural sciences test the real world then develop conclusions. Economists instead develop models that most coherently describe a world that we cannot control and then apply them and derive. The market models are specific on the market level but general on the firm and consumer level.

    Adam Smith said literally nothing about pencils (according to your post, IDK jack about him). He said things about markets and transactions and pressures. For any example you can draw up in which he looks like he totally nailed it, you can dig up another where he was dead wrong.
    It is a problem and probably one of the reasons why the lay public don't like economics. However, the basic models and principles are universally accepted by economists (probably because they have been so effective).

    There's a reason why the most famous communicator of economics, Milton Friedman, used as his best evidence for the Smithian claim is that the only examples of countries that have risen out of poverty are ones that adopted significant free market reforms. In a natural science sense, the evidence looks pretty weak, but it's basically the best we're gonna get in this field any time soon.

    Let me reference my favorite living scientist, Nassim Taleb, who says that in sufficiently complex systems, scientific study tends towards insufficient explanation such that common sense is more effective than empirical analysis. That is to say, (one of my favorite blue collar sayings) "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" type of reasoning is more effective when complexity is too high. When the only countries to have risen out of mass poverty are ones that adopted free market reforms and when the consensus theory in economics explains why those free market paradigms create greater prosperity within the models, what we've probably got on our hands is a duck. One of my gripes with economists is that it appears that a great deal of empirical study is creating more problems than solutions. They're being led astray by using tools of great insufficiency on a system of vast complexity.

    Your field is about one of the most nuanced things known to us, "How do we decide and how do our decisions drive other's decisions?" For you to try to claim that the conclusions of this field are unnuanced statements glorifying any one model w/o nuance is clearly not bringing any credibility to the conversation.
    Understanding nuance of resource allocation is a goal of economics, but it has not yet been achieved to the remotest of degrees. The best economists have been able to come up with is stuff like "increased profits in a market incentivizes increased firm entry into the market ceteris paribus". There are trillions and trillions and trillions of things that happen in the economy every day. We do not know how to take a scalpel to that and improve it. What we do know is how to apply big ideas that affect entire sections of the system at once. We derive from reason and data regarding things like the difference between first-party and third-party payments on efficiency, and then apply with broad brush strokes since we are nowhere close to knowing enough of how to do it in nuanced ways.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-03-2017 at 11:42 PM.
  70. #23920
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's not my profession. I'm finishing up my bachelors in economics and likely will not go further.
    Hey, that's news!

    What do you plan to do with your undergrad?
    Graduate studies?
    Moving to some small nation w/o taxation where you can live your dream of building roads to collect that sweet, sweet toll money?
    Some other form of world domination?
  71. #23921
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufywugster
    Of course, that raises the question of what kinds of things humankind can still remove government from in a sustainable way.
    I propose we begin by understanding why this specific function, i.e. mass transportation, has been fairly uniformly chosen by peoples all over the world as a good candidate for gov'ts to sustain.

    I'm not transforming the general to the specific. I'm doing model analysis (and principles analysis) and applying it to the real world.
    I thought you were saying, "Gov't roads are bad, mkay. Free market roads would be much better."

    So you have a general statement, "Free markets maximize resource mobility and incentivize innovation, which leads to greater wealth creation than immobile resources and disincentivizing innovation." (Or something like that, yeah? I'm paraphrasing as best I can.)

    Sounds great, BTW. Not kidding. This seems like a broadly true statement to me.

    The specific is when you apply that general statement to, in this example, roads. There is no evidence that this general statement should hold true for all things. There isn't even the assertion that it should, only that it tends to. So we're left with a vacuum of predictive power in this case. Not because there is no predictive power in the statement, I don't see that as being the case here, vs when we're talking S&D plots, but because we have some reason to believe that we're dealing with a special case in roads. The ubiquity of state-run roads can't be ignored. This is not a local phenomenon, but a global one.

    Let me reference my favorite living scientist, Nassim Taleb, who says that in sufficiently complex systems, scientific study tends towards insufficient explanation such that common sense is more effective than empirical analysis. That is to say, (one of my favorite blue collar sayings) "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" type of reasoning is more effective when complexity is too high.
    @ bold: that is a load of pure horse shit, man. A complete misuse or misunderstanding of the scientific process. It is the opposite of science, in fact, to make a general statement and search for examples which affirm it. Science is about making specific statements and searching for examples which disprove them.
    He's basically describing brainstorming, and while this is a useful tool in the mind of anyone facing creative obstacles, it is a tiny piece of the scientific process. I hazard to say that it is a pre-scientific process which gives way to testing the hypothesized statements generated in this way.

    Seriously. How could GPS exist if this were true? How could microwave ovens exist if this were true? Science does not look at QM and say, wow, that's really complex, let's make some unconfirmed statements about it and leave it at that.

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, you're right. We should let it dictate our economic policy. We should definitely NOT check to see if it's a duck-impersonating water foul, or perhaps a new species of duck with different habitat, mating and feeding habits. That'd be silly. A duck is a duck.
  72. #23922
    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a loon.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #23923
    If it looks like a duck but squeaks like a little bitch, it's a coot.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #23924
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I propose we begin by understanding why this specific function, i.e. mass transportation, has been fairly uniformly chosen by peoples all over the world as a good candidate for gov'ts to sustain.
    It's a good question. I think the answer is that it's a byproduct of other government functions that people care about more, namely security and safety agents (like police). Roads in most of history have been private, but as government power expanded, the "need" for them to traverse their territory without hindrance increased. Example: cops can speed down public roads but if they do that on private roads it could become a bigger problem.


    I thought you were saying, "Gov't roads are bad, mkay. Free market roads would be much better."

    So you have a general statement, "Free markets maximize resource mobility and incentivize innovation, which leads to greater wealth creation than immobile resources and disincentivizing innovation." (Or something like that, yeah? I'm paraphrasing as best I can.)

    Sounds great, BTW. Not kidding. This seems like a broadly true statement to me.

    The specific is when you apply that general statement to, in this example, roads. There is no evidence that this general statement should hold true for all things. There isn't even the assertion that it should, only that it tends to. So we're left with a vacuum of predictive power in this case. Not because there is no predictive power in the statement, I don't see that as being the case here, vs when we're talking S&D plots, but because we have some reason to believe that we're dealing with a special case in roads. The ubiquity of state-run roads can't be ignored. This is not a local phenomenon, but a global one.
    I agree. I have tried to argue that the case that roads (more accurately, transportation) are different than markets like food has not been made; instead rationalizations for political or normalcy purposes (in a subconscious way) have been made. Here's an example: education used to have no government intervention and it functioned. Today is has tremendous government intervention and it functions (though there are some striking problems that are most likely caused by the intervention, like rate of tuition price increase). Yet, the argument I get presented with from others is that education is *unique* and requires government intervention up the yazoo, yet no coherent reason is ever given. The argument appears to me to stem from an emotional, political rationalization.

    @ bold: that is a load of pure horse shit, man. A complete misuse or misunderstanding of the scientific process. It is the opposite of science, in fact, to make a general statement and search for examples which affirm it. Science is about making specific statements and searching for examples which disprove them.
    He's basically describing brainstorming, and while this is a useful tool in the mind of anyone facing creative obstacles, it is a tiny piece of the scientific process. I hazard to say that it is a pre-scientific process which gives way to testing the hypothesized statements generated in this way.

    Seriously. How could GPS exist if this were true? How could microwave ovens exist if this were true? Science does not look at QM and say, wow, that's really complex, let's make some unconfirmed statements about it and leave it at that.

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, you're right. We should let it dictate our economic policy. We should definitely NOT check to see if it's a duck-impersonating water foul, or perhaps a new species of duck with different habitat, mating and feeding habits. That'd be silly. A duck is a duck.
    Take it up with Taleb. He could be wrong. Though I agree with him. But it could be confirmation bias.

    I see the problem in some stuff. Economists spending (wasting) time studying the minimum wage is one of them. The body of literature is still inconclusive and I posit will remain inconclusive to infinity and beyond. I believe the economy is sufficiently complex that econometric analysis fails most of the time. Instead, what I think we should be doing regarding the minimum wage is using reason to come up with ways in which it *could* not cause deadweight loss (in S&D models, it causes deadweight loss), and then go from there. But that's not what economists have been doing. One set who support the minimum wage politically structure the studies such that they can inevitably get the result they want, another set that dislikes it for political reasons does the opposite, and another studies it without bias yet, like the others, still doesn't use sophisticated enough techniques to achieve conclusive results (because they don't know how). The whole thing is a mess and I think it's indicative of some serious problems in professional economics.

    Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit, and really they're just doing science badly. Which, well, that's probably what it is. So many economists have blinders on when it comes to things that run up against their emotional, political views. I'm an odd cat in that my political views drastically changed due to studying economics. I used to be to the left of Bernie Sanders but now I'm to the right of Milton Friedman.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-04-2017 at 12:33 PM.
  75. #23925
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Hey, that's news!

    What do you plan to do with your undergrad?
    Graduate studies?
    Moving to some small nation w/o taxation where you can live your dream of building roads to collect that sweet, sweet toll money?
    Some other form of world domination?
    Not sure yet. Possibly something in data analysis. If I go that route I may return for a masters in data analysis later.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •