OJ will probably be granted parole today. How about that?
07-20-2017 02:28 PM
#23776
| |
|
OJ will probably be granted parole today. How about that? |
07-20-2017 02:33 PM
#23777
| |
I think he should run for governor. | |
07-20-2017 03:18 PM
#23778
| |
| |
07-21-2017 04:12 AM
#23779
| |
They had to rob a bank to save the bank from bankrobbers | |
| |
07-21-2017 04:20 AM
#23780
| |
^^^^ | |
| |
07-21-2017 07:51 AM
#23781
| |
My mate potentially lost $40k in lost bitcoin returns by going on holiday. He's been forced to sit on his wallet rather than game the system. He might have turned a corner the last 48 hours, depends what he's been doing. | |
| |
07-21-2017 08:42 AM
#23782
| |
Holy shit. I don't even want to touch stuff like that. Like I almost put a couple k in bitcoin for some shady bitcoin poker sites after black friday. I would have made over 1000% on that money. I'd rather not even consider gambling like that. That shit will follow you. Fuck stocks and currencies. | |
| |
07-21-2017 08:54 AM
#23783
| |
07-21-2017 09:53 AM
#23784
| |
I'm not interested in stocks and currencies from a short-term pov, but as a long term investment, I can see the appeal. You invest x amount, with a return of y amount in mind. It remains a risk, of course, but it's easier to not think about how much money potentially could've been earned with optimal trading. | |
| |
07-21-2017 10:00 AM
#23785
| |
| |
| |
07-21-2017 10:51 AM
#23786
| |
07-21-2017 10:54 AM
#23787
| |
Do actual humans do trades anymore? I thought the proliferation of the success stories where some nerd wrote an algorithm that made him loads of monies in micro-transactions was the game changer that would make human involvement nearly obsolete. | |
07-21-2017 10:56 AM
#23788
| |
It's not a bank. It's decentralised, it's the polar opposite of a bank. /pedantry | |
| |
07-21-2017 10:58 AM
#23789
| |
| |
07-21-2017 12:44 PM
#23790
| |
| |
07-21-2017 07:25 PM
#23791
| |
|
As much as it shows how stupid lots of security checks are on systems where you're basically giving your details away to hackers who want it with the company thinking you're protecting your account more, does that not show how great hcakers are? How many times in history can you think of a bank being robbed and at the end they are just like "just did it for lulz guys, here's how you can improve security". |
07-22-2017 02:08 AM
#23792
| |
Netflix and Youtube @ 10Mbps and the Pai shill hasn't even overturned the law yet | |
| |
07-22-2017 02:09 AM
#23793
| |
| |
07-22-2017 12:00 PM
#23794
| |
|
In other news, if I order twenty steaks, I should pay the same as the guy who orders one steak and I should get my twenty steaks at the same time too. |
07-22-2017 01:25 PM
#23795
| |
| |
07-22-2017 02:08 PM
#23796
| |
| |
07-22-2017 02:17 PM
#23797
| |
But I do see what is going on. You just accept whatever corporate line being thrown your way as unquestionable fact. The public is always wrong and they corporations are always good because they know what they are doing. | |
| |
07-22-2017 02:18 PM
#23798
| |
|
So the ISPs charge more for more use for the lolz? |
07-22-2017 02:19 PM
#23799
| |
| |
07-22-2017 02:24 PM
#23800
| |
| |
07-22-2017 02:33 PM
#23801
| |
I just presented you with facts indicating these people are lying | |
| |
07-22-2017 02:33 PM
#23802
| |
|
And? |
07-22-2017 02:39 PM
#23803
| |
|
And? |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-22-2017 at 02:44 PM. | |
07-22-2017 03:22 PM
#23804
| |
| |
| |
07-22-2017 03:23 PM
#23805
| |
| |
07-22-2017 05:04 PM
#23806
| |
Wuf, you seem to think that adding and subtracting government is like addition and subtraction. You may be right. But Jack is making a strong case that it is like multiplication and division, wherein order of operations is paramount to a desired end. You're not making a good argument for your assumption. | |
07-22-2017 07:22 PM
#23807
| |
|
I got tickets to go see Dinosaur Jr, literally no one I've told seems excited in any way about it. It's like I've told them I'm going to see some unkown band (including someone I'm going with). Am I just going to get there and it be twaty people my age and 40 year olds? |
07-22-2017 07:56 PM
#23808
| |
What's that movie about? | |
| |
07-22-2017 08:28 PM
#23809
| |
| |
07-23-2017 01:17 AM
#23810
| |
|
The market correcting mechanism still works with the lobby. If incumbent ISPs increase prices such that they have increase profits then it incentivizes other firms to enter (and to lobby to do so) as well as incentivizes politicians to listen to those lobbyists more than the incumbent's lobbyists due to the addition of very angry voters. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-23-2017 at 01:21 AM. | |
07-23-2017 01:19 AM
#23811
| |
| |
07-24-2017 10:59 AM
#23812
| |
You've made the claim that decreasing the reach of the government, despite in which order you decrease specific instances of its reach, is a good. I'd argue that even if we concede that reduced government is a good, there is likely an order of operations and ideal ratios which much be respected to see the outcomes you want. | |
07-24-2017 12:09 PM
#23813
| |
|
I completely agree. |
07-24-2017 12:15 PM
#23814
| |
|
I forgot to add that the more firm entry you get into a monopolistic market, the more competitive it becomes. The government disallowing ISPs to charge more money based on what they want can be the difference between being stuck with a monopoly ISP market vs. getting actual competition and choices and ultimately having price reduction and quality/quantity increase. |
07-24-2017 02:16 PM
#23815
| |
Ok, so are the ISP's (the two of them), ignorant of the fact that they're pushing for their downfall? Shouldn't they want to preserve the status quo, or even better for them, increase government overreach, thereby keeping the crowds out of the neighborhood? | |
07-24-2017 03:07 PM
#23816
| |
|
That's a great question. It's one I've thought some on. I've not seen the idea addressed specifically in economics and I don't think anybody knows the answer. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-24-2017 at 03:13 PM. | |
07-24-2017 10:14 PM
#23817
| |
|
I should rephrase this. They do use models, just when things are simple. For example, if they have two projects that are projected to take 20 years, wherein they can only do one, if they have sufficient quantitative knowledge of the costs and payoffs of the projects, there are financial models that can tell them which project to do. The stuff we're discussing is much more complex than that though. Nobody knows how to approximate Google Fiber's response to a change in behavior from Comcast. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-24-2017 at 10:29 PM. | |
07-25-2017 02:57 AM
#23818
| |
This is all fine and dandy and with perfect information it would work pretty well, then only stupidity and manipulation attempts would skew the results. I think it's needless to say that people suck at predicting, I see no good reason to think that masses of people would be significantly better. The market isn't a Who Wants To Be A Millionaire audience full of trivia geeks. Have there been even any attempts to measure how accurately these market predictions work, are they better than a random guess? | |
| |
07-25-2017 10:20 AM
#23819
| |
This is all well and interesting, but it doesn't plug the huge plot hole. Your whole argument on the issue hinges on either this being true or the big ISPs being incompetent irrational actors. You don't provide enough support for the former to argue so forcefully against net neutrality. | |
07-25-2017 10:53 AM
#23820
| |
|
ISPs just think it's a great way for them to make money in the short term, that's what they care about. In a market so monopolised maybe them all goofing off will allow others to enter but it's more likely that everyone just gets worse service for a quite a while. |
07-25-2017 12:30 PM
#23821
| |
| |
07-25-2017 01:08 PM
#23822
| |
|
My argument hinges on the supply and demand model. It's quite a robust model. |
07-25-2017 07:30 PM
#23823
| |
07-25-2017 08:07 PM
#23824
| |
|
Supply and demand models function very well under widely variable conditions. I say we "almost certainly know" the things that supply and demand models say ceteris paribus because they're still just models of reality instead of actual reality. |
07-25-2017 11:02 PM
#23825
| |
As I understand it, the most we can say, is that supply and demand curves are relatively stable when looked at over long time periods, and accounting for large-scale financial buffers and man-power to smooth out adjustment periods. | |
07-26-2017 12:27 AM
#23826
| |
|
Your characterization of supply and demand is correct regarding how it is taught regarding goods/services markets and how elasticity of the curves can change, yet we see the framework in specific ways too. For example, the model fits how stock prices adjust. |
07-26-2017 01:23 AM
#23827
| |
07-26-2017 10:08 AM
#23828
| |
Yeah, so I still think your case is less than compelling. Theoretically things should be better-- but how long it takes for the industry to settle is not clear, and how damaging a temporary, unregulated ISP monopoly could be is unknown. Five years of this could set us back fifty years. So many points can be conceded to you, and it's still not a rosy picture. | |
07-26-2017 10:23 AM
#23829
| |
|
Got offered a place on a maths teaching course. |
07-26-2017 11:35 AM
#23830
| |
07-26-2017 11:52 AM
#23831
| |
| |
07-26-2017 12:25 PM
#23832
| |
|
I'm not making the case that it *would* be better to let an ISP to set prices however it wants. I am making the case that economic theory says allowing that is how things have a higher likelihood of getting better in the long term. Economic theory also says that if you want a monopoly to get better in the short term, regulate their prices. Keep in mind that every bit of "damage" the ISPs cause, the greater the incentive for producers to offer their services and for consumers to substitute. This "damage" is so to speak what we've been talking about the whole time. Economics is largely about asking "what's the effect of that, and the effect of that effect, and the effect of that effect of that effect?" One of the effects in the chain is that the more "damage" the ISPs cause (from increasing prices), the greater the incentive to subvert them. In a free-ish market economy (which is what we have), this is part of the Invisible Hand (the observation that started it all). |
07-26-2017 12:33 PM
#23833
| |
| |
07-26-2017 12:44 PM
#23834
| |
|
Good to hear you may be teaching multiple math courses. Hope it works out. |
07-26-2017 02:05 PM
#23835
| |
Well... not really, no. | |
07-26-2017 02:28 PM
#23836
| |
|
It's important to distinguish between ceteris paribus and not. Economists don't disagree on the ceteris paribus effect. Disagreements come when extrapolating. You are correct that supply and demand doesn't tell us what will happen in the real world to GM stock due to a change in demand because what happens in the real world isn't ceteris paribus. An increase in demand for GM stock does push up its stock price (to the best of our knowledge), BUT a whole host of other stuff also happens, which can yield a lower price. |
07-26-2017 03:18 PM
#23837
| |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 07-26-2017 at 03:25 PM. | |
07-26-2017 03:39 PM
#23838
| |
|
Make a law that says that anybody named MadMojoMonkey who post on FTR must be paid $200/hour by any employer, and the S&D forecast would be a decline of quantity of MadMojoMonkeys employed. This forecast would be extremely effective in this new and unique situation, because (if I may use my crystal ball) employment of MadMojoMonkeys would quite reliably fall to around zero. Does this not show robustness of the supply and demand model? |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-26-2017 at 03:41 PM. | |
07-26-2017 03:44 PM
#23839
| |
07-26-2017 03:45 PM
#23840
| |
Oh, and these finally exist. At least for one guy for now. | |
07-26-2017 03:48 PM
#23841
| |
| |
07-26-2017 03:58 PM
#23842
| |
|
Here's a better question. If you could address this I would be grateful. |
07-26-2017 04:37 PM
#23843
| |
Clearly you're campaigning to ensure I am underpaid, and employers will jump at that opportunity. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 07-26-2017 at 04:41 PM. | |
07-26-2017 06:11 PM
#23844
| |
| |
07-26-2017 06:29 PM
#23845
| |
|
This is the article I was looking at: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robust.asp |
07-26-2017 06:36 PM
#23846
| |
Exactly. | |
| |
07-26-2017 06:46 PM
#23847
| |
| |
07-26-2017 06:49 PM
#23848
| |
| |
07-26-2017 06:51 PM
#23849
| |
07-26-2017 06:53 PM
#23850
| |
|
Your links are all about what the government has done. |