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

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 328 of 420 FirstFirst ... 228278318326327328329330338378 ... LastLast
Results 24,526 to 24,600 of 31490
  1. #24526
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    When it comes to the WTC, the floors below were not displaced, they were compressed. So yes, they act as a single entity.

    I'm sure mojo will correct me if I'm wide of the mark here.
    Yeah, the whole skydiver thing was bad for reasons you noted.
    A skydiver is not a piston in a cylinder, and neither is a collapsing building.

    Buildings are mostly air, which is easily displaced out the broken window holes as the floor collapses. That wind would offer similar resistance as it would to a skydiver, given those holes would be the entire perimeter of the floor being crushed.

    The floors, I mean the steel and concrete, are probably readily modeled as an incompressible solid, which did not change density in the collapse. This whole "single entity" conversation is only useful within limits, and it's not clear what limits each of you are working with. Clearly the building went from mostly a single entity to mostly a pile of rubble, so the model can't hold the whole time.

    FWIW on the whole toppling issue, all that determines that is whether or not the structural failure was "mostly under the center of mass." If the building fails from its center, then it will fall down. If it fails at it's edge, then the part above that will fall that direction, and down.

    IDK if you've all heard that stuff falls down 'cause of gravity, but it's maybe worth mentioning that gravity makes stuff fall down.
  2. #24527
    IDK if you've all heard that stuff falls down 'cause of gravity, but it's maybe worth mentioning that gravity makes stuff fall down.
    No it doesn't. Lack of structural integrity makes stuff fall down. I am not "falling down", yet I am absolutely in a gravity field. Why aren't I falling? Because... structural integrity, in this case the elctromagnetic structural integrity of molecules.

    Something broke the bonds, and it wasn't gravity.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #24528
    Clearly the building went from mostly a single entity to mostly a pile of rubble, so the model can't hold the whole time.
    Yes indeed. I have a problem with the speed it took for this transition to occur. It implies a monumental amount of force just to get into motion.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #24529
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Peeking into the rando thread.

    Oh, we're talking about 9/11?

    Dips out.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  5. #24530
    You want something crazy to talk about?

    I might have a job.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #24531
    I'm also fucking off for the weekend, so have fun guessing what it might be.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #24532
    Really? Noone even talked about it?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #24533
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    FTR dies on the weekends, man.

    Your mom giving you an allowance doesn't count as a job, so I'm not sure what to even guess.

    It's something where you can get paid "under the table," so you can remain on the guvment dole, I imagine.
  9. #24534
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm also fucking off for the weekend, so have fun guessing what it might be.
    Jerking off punks for 15 quid a man?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  10. #24535
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's something where you can get paid "under the table," so you can remain on the guvment dole, I imagine.
    Haha funny. This was actually discussed but it's a little bit more illegal than you might realise. Not worth the risk, from both mine and potential employer pov.

    It's only a month's work, but it might become more. And it's boring warehouse work... stripping down old printers, testing parts, go for shit during work hours etc.

    Jerking off punks for 15 quid a man?
    That's gonna be four dudes just to get something near an acceptable daily wage. I can't do more than two. So my price is £30 a man.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #24536
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Really? Noone even talked about it?
    I didn't sleep the whole weekend thinking about it if that makes you feel better.
  12. #24537
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Your mom giving you an allowance doesn't count as a job, so I'm not sure what to even guess.
  13. #24538
    Wasn't that funny. Certainly not worthy of such an elite gif.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #24539
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    @ wuf:


    @ong:

  15. #24540
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Wasn't that funny. Certainly not worthy of such an elite gif.
    Elite of burn positively correlates with lack of expectation of burn.

    At least that's what ur mam said.
  16. #24541
    What made you take it?
  17. #24542
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    What made you take it?
    Quite frankly I hate my town and I want to move to the countryside. That isn't happening unless I have some money.

    If it only turns out to be a month or two of work, well the extra cash will just get me some new clothes and shit. Ideally I want to stick it for 12-18 months, however long it takes me to get enough money to leave this shithole, get myself a new gaff, and maybe grow some tomatos, have myself a little home tomoato business.

    And it's still not definite, I'm just at the front of the queue. My mate has worked there for 5 years or so now, it's thanks to him that this might happen. Chances are good.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #24543
    Just read the BBC headlines.

    "75,000 jobs could be lost thanks to Brexit".

    What utter bollocks. The company I might be working for are expanding because of... Brexit. They sell the working printer parts on ebay to companies around the world, and the weaker pound means cheaper parts for those abroad. Business is booming.

    The BBC will happily tell you how many jobs are lost, but they're not so quick to say how many are gained.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #24544
    Oh and in other news, my local MP is the guy accused of calling his secretary "sugar tits" and getting her to buy two dildos from a sex shop - one for his wife, and one for his mistress.

    By-election looming maybe.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #24545
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oh and in other news, my local MP is the guy accused of calling his secretary "sugar tits" and getting her to buy two dildos from a sex shop - one for his wife, and one for his mistress.

    By-election looming maybe.
    "Sugar tits" haha.

    Reminds me of a case study years ago about a lawyer who got brain damage that caused him to lose all his inhibitions. So, after he gets out of the hospital, his first day of work, he goes up to the receptionist and grabs her tits. This was back in the day when sexual harassment was frowned on but not a cause for immediate dismissal. So he gets in shit from the boss and finishes his work.

    Next day, he walks straight up and grabs her tits again. Ya, that got him the sack.
  21. #24546
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Just read the BBC headlines.

    "75,000 jobs could be lost thanks to Brexit".

    What utter bollocks. The company I might be working for are expanding because of... Brexit. Business is booming.
    "It's snowing outside, why are they still talking about global warming?"

    Sample size fail.
  22. #24547
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    "It's snowing outside, why are they still talking about global warming?"

    Sample size fail.
    There's no sample size fail. There's a lot of companies that have net export. And while those that have net import will be hit by a weaker pound, the knock on effect will have some positive benefit for the British economy because in at least some cases it will become cheaper to buy British than to import.

    The economic landscape is shifting. For the better imo. We shouldn't rely on imports, we should produce and export. Companies that do so will benefit, whilst those who don't will suffer. That's the principle effect of Brexit right now. Our currency was artifically overvalued thanks to our membership of the EU, and it was hurting companies that export. Now the pound is weaker and there's the potential for global trade deals around the corner. It's natural that we will start exporting more, nature abhors a vacuum.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #24548
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There's no sample size fail. There's a lot of companies that have net export. And while those that have net import will be hit by a weaker pound, the knock on effect will have some positive benefit for the British economy because in at least some cases it will become cheaper to buy British than to import.

    The economic landscape is shifting. For the better imo. We shouldn't rely on imports, we should produce and export. Companies that do so will benefit, whilst those who don't will suffer. That's the principle effect of Brexit right now. Our currency was artifically overvalued thanks to our membership of the EU, and it was hurting companies that export. Now the pound is weaker and there's the potential for global trade deals around the corner. It's natural that we will start exporting more, nature abhors a vacuum.

    I'm no expert and I don't really care about Brexit except inasmuch as it makes less people want to come here and do the jobs I'd be interested in, which is good for me personally. But, I'm pretty sure free trade and free movement of labour is almost always better than the alternative. The UK is going to suffer from Brexit in the long term imo.

    But I'm sure Wuf will come on here shortly with a theory about why that isn't true in this specific case.
  24. #24549
    But, I'm pretty sure free trade and free movement of labour is almost always better than the alternative.
    Why? Free movement of labour puts British people out of work. I'm not talking about closing our borders completely, but controlling them is certainly not a bad thing for the economy. Free trade, that's something we can still have after Brexit, only with a potentially bigger market. And tariffs aren't necessarily a bad thing... again it might become cheaper to buy British than import. Well that's great. One company might not be happy about it, but three companies are. Capital that was leaving the country now stays in the country.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #24550
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why? Free movement of labour puts British people out of work. I'm not talking about closing our borders completely, but controlling them is certainly not a bad thing for the economy. Free trade, that's something we can still have after Brexit, only with a potentially bigger market. And tariffs aren't necessarily a bad thing... again it might become cheaper to buy British than import. Well that's great. One company might not be happy about it, but three companies are. Capital that was leaving the country now stays in the country.
    If native British people were falling over themselves to be plumbers, construction workers, and petrol station attendants you might have a stronger argument there.

    Protectionistic trade policies also harm the consumer by jacking up the prices. If you're so patriotic that you'd rather pay twice as much for the same product made in Britain then whether or not those other items are available here or not should be irrelevant.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-31-2017 at 12:11 PM.
  26. #24551
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I'm no expert and I don't really care about Brexit except inasmuch as it makes less people want to come here and do the jobs I'd be interested in, which is good for me personally. But, I'm pretty sure free trade and free movement of labour is almost always better than the alternative. The UK is going to suffer from Brexit in the long term imo.

    But I'm sure Wuf will come on here shortly with a theory about why that isn't true in this specific case.
    Some of the most well established models in economics are ones that show net benefit resulting from freer trade and freer movement of labor. The empirical results that show this are among the best too. The popular criticisms against free trade and free migration do not address the issue that well, in my estimation.

    That said, the models are simple and there are a good deal of variables they don't account for. There is reason to believe that some negatives emerge when trade or labor are TOO free to outsiders. One example is Trump election itself. That was in part blowback from trade and immigration policies that benefit Americans economically in the medium-term yet are disruptive for other reasons. An example of those reasons is that national character is a REAL thing that needs to be accounted for, and things do not go well when there is too rapid of change. Lots of Americans benefit from the cheaper goods and cheaper labor, but they view the disruption of the American character as turning the situation into a net loss (and they could be right, we don't know).

    Most of the apparent disruptions resultant from freer migration and trade I believe are emergent from other policies even though they get blamed on migration and trade. An example of that is that it appears that all the Mexican immigration into the US has made it so that US-born teens don't have as great of access to work and important skill-building activities. But, I say "appears" for a reason, because what I think is actually going on is that teens are disincentivized from work and skill-building activities for other reasons that include things like government throwing gigantic amounts of money at long schooling and a generous welfare state. If US-born teens were to legitimately compete with Mexican migrant labor, teens would win out a lot more than people think. The way it is now, the government is essentially subsidizing US-born youths to not do certain things while subsidizing immigrants to instead do those things.


    The reason I support Brexit is not for a reason that is popular among Brexiters: an antagonism to migrant labor, or anything of the sort. I support Brexit because large central governments are doom. The EU is a monster of ever increasing control and incompetence shrouded in sophistication. The political and media class sell their large central government ideas as if they are good for economies and good for people, but they are not. These institutions are the cause of the increasingly poor economic outcomes for people as well as increasingly restricted private choices. The EU does NOT practice free trade nor free migration of labor.
  27. #24552
    The short of it is that I do not believe that free trade or free migration are the cause of the problems that they are popularly blamed for. To many it looks like too much competition is harmful, but that isn't the case. Places that have lost out from freer trade/migration policies have actually lost out instead because of intense protectionism policies by their respective governments (thanks, union lobbies!). As usual something else gets the blame other than the actual culprit: government intervention into markets.
  28. #24553
    Protectionistic trade policies also harm the consumer by jacking up the prices. If you're so patriotic that you'd rather pay twice as much for the same product made in Britain then whether or not those other items are available here or not should be irrelevant.
    It's not about patriotism and I'm not talking about paying twice as much. It's simple economics. The weaker pound makes it more expensive to import. If it costs 10% more to import, or 5% more to buy British, then it makes economic sense to buy British. And if a company pays 5% more than it otherwise would have done, but 100% of that capital stays in Britain instead of going to China, Britian wins, even if the company has to lay off 2% of its workforce to balance the books.

    I'm obviously pulling numbers out of my arse here, but you're mistaking the point if you think this is about buying British out of patriotic pride. I'm simply talking about a net economic benefit.

    And yes protectionism jacks up prices. In the case of tariffs, it jacks up import prices. So don't import. If you're paying 20p more for a kilo of apples because we're no longer importing them, well you're 20p out of pocket but a British company is maybe £2.20 better off. So now they can employ more people, and expand. If that continues, they become more competetive and the price should come down.

    So any personal financial loss is short-term, while the national economic benefit is long-term.

    More capital stays in Britian. That is obviously a net benefit to the economy.

    And if there was a shortage of plumbers, well more people would train to be plumbers. That's because businesses would offer apprenticeships. I certainly would if I were seeking a plumber for my business and was struggling to fill the vacancy. If a Polish man was skilled and available, I probably wouldn't offer that apprenticeship because I don't need to. Why train someone when there's someone already trained?

    Wuf is right about the EU. It doesn't make economies better. We're going to see this in the coming years. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm no economist. But you poop talk about protectionism hurting prices. Well the EU is the biggest protectionist entity in the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #24554
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's not about patriotism and I'm not talking about paying twice as much. It's simple economics. The weaker pound makes it more expensive to import. If it costs 10% more to import, or 5% more to buy British, then it makes economic sense to buy British. And if a company pays 5% more than it otherwise would have done, but 100% of that capital stays in Britain instead of going to China, Britian wins, even if the company has to lay off 2% of its workforce to balance the books.
    The most important aspect of this is WHY the price of the pound changed, not that it changed. Making claims based on that the price of a currency has changed is VERY common, even among economists*. It's a reasoning from a price change fallacy.

    Less abstractly, if the pound depreciates because the Bank of England is purchasing more bonds than usual (and the private sector believes the incoming new money will be permanent in the economy), then exports will expand. But if the pound depreciates because of a reduction in the demand by investors to hold the pound because the Bank of England has slowed bond purchases below trend, then the demand for exports is already baked into the demand reduction for money.

    And yes protectionism jacks up prices. In the case of tariffs, it jacks up import prices. So don't import. If you're paying 20p more for a kilo of apples because we're no longer importing them, well you're 20p out of pocket but a British company is maybe £2.20 better off. So now they can employ more people, and expand. If that continues, they become more competetive and the price should come down.
    In this hypothetical, the British economy has fewer resources and is worse off.

    Another big mistake made by economists -- mostly when communicating with non-economists -- is not making it emphatically clear that real wealth = real resources = real production and that increases in wealth are from doing more with less, the same with less, more with the same, or a combination of those. In your hypothetical, the tariff makes the consumers' real production (represented by the real value of the pound) less valuable per apple, which makes the value of the apple producers' incomes less.

    In your hypothetical, nominal terms are the same but real terms are decreased. Aggregate supply has shifted left (it has reduced) and inflation has increased. Here's a quantitative example:

    Let's say the economy is made up of 100 pounds and a 100 widgets, resulting in 1 widget worth 1 pound and vice versa. Let's introduce a tariff, and we'll get 50 widgets. Now 2 pounds are worth 1 widget. The price level has inflated and the economy is poorer in real terms. But, per your example, let's ramp up domestic widget production. But wait, the costs of labor and other inputs are higher than with the imported widgets and projections are that widget producers can only sell the same number of widgets as before if the widgets cost 1.5 pounds. So, the new tariff economy of 100 pounds ends up with only 67 widgets produced. The economy is poorer.

    More capital stays in Britian. That is obviously a net benefit to the economy.
    I'm not sure if more would stay or if it would leave (I think it depends), but regardless it is nominal, not real. The fewer resources from the enacted tariffs is real capital loss in itself.

    And if there was a shortage of plumbers, well more people would train to be plumbers.
    A shortage results from deviation from equilibrium such that the quantity demanded of labor exceeds the quantity supplied of labor. In that situation, the price of labor is high and quantity low in the market, and more people will become plumbers. Eventually equilibrium will be reached again.

    But, your hypothetical is not creating a shortage of labor. It is creating a reduction in the supply of labor itself. This is a leftward shift of the curve, which results in equilibrium with permanently lower quantity and higher price of the labor.


    * Reasoning from a price change is a serious problem among economists. Not all do it, but most of what you hear in popular publications do it. All econ 101 textbooks teach to not reason from a price change, but politics is so powerful to some people that even some very smart economists discard established thought in order to maintain a preferred political stance.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 10-31-2017 at 06:40 PM.
  30. #24555
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's not about patriotism and I'm not talking about paying twice as much. It's simple economics. The weaker pound makes it more expensive to import. If it costs 10% more to import, or 5% more to buy British, then it makes economic sense to buy British. And if a company pays 5% more than it otherwise would have done, but 100% of that capital stays in Britain instead of going to China, Britian wins, even if the company has to lay off 2% of its workforce to balance the books.

    I'm obviously pulling numbers out of my arse here, but you're mistaking the point if you think this is about buying British out of patriotic pride. I'm simply talking about a net economic benefit.

    And yes protectionism jacks up prices. In the case of tariffs, it jacks up import prices. So don't import. If you're paying 20p more for a kilo of apples because we're no longer importing them, well you're 20p out of pocket but a British company is maybe £2.20 better off. So now they can employ more people, and expand. If that continues, they become more competetive and the price should come down.

    So any personal financial loss is short-term, while the national economic benefit is long-term.

    More capital stays in Britian. That is obviously a net benefit to the economy.

    And if there was a shortage of plumbers, well more people would train to be plumbers. That's because businesses would offer apprenticeships. I certainly would if I were seeking a plumber for my business and was struggling to fill the vacancy. If a Polish man was skilled and available, I probably wouldn't offer that apprenticeship because I don't need to. Why train someone when there's someone already trained?

    Wuf is right about the EU. It doesn't make economies better. We're going to see this in the coming years. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm no economist. But you poop talk about protectionism hurting prices. Well the EU is the biggest protectionist entity in the world.
    It's arguable whether making wealthy people wealthier is good for the common man. The money 'staying in Britain' is only good for all us if we somehow reap the benefit of that money. If it goes to the East Midlands Gidget company or whoever we're just paying more to buy our gidgets and support a monopoly.

    The EU common currency might be a problem, but the free trade and movement of labor aspects of it are almost certainly beneficial. If the EMG can operate more cheaply using Polish labor than British, then I'm not bothered and in fact I'm happy. I'll have a direct benefit of cheaper products, and not have to rely on some nebulous and indirect benefit to me of the EMG making a bigger profit.

    Also, having labor shortages is not a self-solving problem. Like you say, there has to be an incentive, and this costs money. Guess who those costs get passed on to?

    Finally, devaluation of a currency is not all roses and sunshine. There are probably more negative effects than positive in the long run. Basically, you're making the whole country poorer. What about things you have to import, like a lot of our food? Unless the EMG can set up some orange groves in Kent we're not going to benefit from that.
  31. #24556
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's arguable whether making wealthy people wealthier is good for the common man.
    Assuming this is additional wealth, it does benefit the common man because the additional wealth does not exist in a closed economy isolated from the common man.

    The argument against this sort of thing interprets the economy as a zero-sum game (it's not one), and claims that a forced redistribution from wealthy to common results in more efficient production of resources. The latter has some theoretical backing, though it is much weaker than the theoretical backing against the claim.


    Finally, devaluation of a currency is not all roses and sunshine.
    It depends on why the currency depreciates.
  32. #24557
    In my super mega amazing economic opinion, arguing against freer trade and freer migration because of negative impact on jobs or wages is a losing argument. That doesn't mean that the principle is wrong in every way. You CAN make an argument that trade and migration can be too free.* One way I would go about doing that is that they have lots of hidden costs that result from cultural subversion.

    *That is different than allowing a free market on all things trade/migration. In a totally free market, there would still be varied practiced restrictions on trade and migration.
  33. #24558
    I feel like I'm going to have to read that post of wuf's a few times before it will even begin to sink it. It's kind of beyond me tbh. Thanks for such a detailed reply.

    I don't really know why the pound is devalued. That's why I used the phrase "artificially overvalued". The dynamics of currencies is not something I'm going to pretend to understand. I just know a weaker pound is good for our exports, because foreign markets now have access to cheaper goods, while a strong pound is good for imports, because we can buy more for our money.

    Quote Originally Posted by wuf
    In this hypothetical, the British economy has fewer resources and is worse off.
    I don't understand this. In my hypothetical, the British apple trader was selling no apples because it was cheaper to import. Now the cost of imports has risen to the point where buying British is more economic, the British apple trader is now selling apples. The British economy has more resources, because the capital is staying in the UK. The British apple trader can invest money that would otherwise be invested by say a Spanish apple trader.

    I don't get how the British economy is worse off when a British company sells more than it did before. If it was £2 a kilo of Spanish apples before devaluation, and after it's £2.40, while British apples remain fixed at £2.20, then devaluation has a direct benefit to the British apple seller while having a negative impact on the Spanish seller. It's Spain's economy that suffers, at the cost of ours.

    It doesn't matter that I have to pay an extra 20p for my apples. It matters to me personally, but my loss is much smaller than the seller's gain. I've lost 20p, he gained £2.20 (minus costs).

    Assuming this is additional wealth, it does benefit the common man because the additional wealth does not exist in a closed economy isolated from the common man.
    I think I get this though. I mean if the rich guy gets richer, assuming he now has more money in a British bank, that British bank can lend more money to other businesses. Assuming also that these other businesses are borrowing responsibly, these businesses will grow.

    Even if the rich guy invests his money in other ways, it's nearly always getting loaned or reinvested one way or another. Unless the rich guy is stuffing £50 notes under his matress, the British economy will benefit from his increased wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    If the EMG can operate more cheaply using Polish labor than British, then I'm not bothered and in fact I'm happy. I'll have a direct benefit of cheaper products, and not have to rely on some nebulous and indirect benefit to me of the EMG making a bigger profit.
    But you might be paying more tax to support the greater number of unemployed people. Furthermore, Polish workers are likely to be sending money home. Now while their labour should be worth more than their salary, which means the economy still benefits from their labour, there is less capital staying in this country. The British worker is much more likely to spend or save his money in Britain, further supporting the economy.

    Getting your kilo of apples 20p cheaper is coming at a heavy cost to the economy, it's just not easy to see this because you're 20p better off.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #24559
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I feel like I'm going to have to read that post of wuf's a few times before it will even begin to sink it. It's kind of beyond me tbh. Thanks for such a detailed reply.
    You're welcome. I hope it's helpful.

    I don't understand this. In my hypothetical, the British apple trader was selling no apples because it was cheaper to import. Now the cost of imports has risen to the point where buying British is more economic, the British apple trader is now selling apples. The British economy has more resources, because the capital is staying in the UK. The British apple trader can invest money that would otherwise be invested by say a Spanish apple trader.
    With the introduction of tariffs, the real cost per apple has increased, which means that the total resources in the British economy has declined because now per apple purchased, there is less net wealth left to purchase other stuff. Imports are an increase in resources to the importing economy as well as exports are an increasing in resources to an exporting economy. Also, outside investment (like Spanish investment in Britain) is an export.

    If the tariffs cause an increase in cost per apple for the British consumer, while it is true that the British producer of apples benefits, this also means that the British consumer loses. British consumers now have fewer resources at the same price as before the tariff.

    I don't get how the British economy is worse off when a British company sells more than it did before. If it was £2 a kilo of Spanish apples before devaluation, and after it's £2.40, while British apples remain fixed at £2.20, then devaluation has a direct benefit to the British apple seller while having a negative impact on the Spanish seller. It's Spain's economy that suffers, at the cost of ours.
    The Spanish producer loses and the British producer benefits. Because the Spanish producer loses, the British consumer also loses because the British consumer has to spend more of its real wealth on the same quantity of apples, which means it has less real wealth to spend on other stuff.

    It doesn't matter that I have to pay an extra 20p for my apples. It matters to me personally, but my loss is much smaller than the seller's gain. I've lost 20p, he gained £2.20 (minus costs).
    The British producer's cost of apple production is higher, which means that you get fewer apples for the additional 20p than you otherwise would from Spanish apples with the same 20p increase. If you were to spend all your money including Spanish apples, you would have more resources than if you spend all your money including only British apples. The resources, not money, are wealth. Money can only be thought of as wealth as far as how it represents the resources.

    I think I get this though. I mean if the rich guy gets richer, assuming he now has more money in a British bank, that British bank can lend more money to other businesses.
    Yep. The cost of borrowing reclines for the common person.

    Even if the rich guy invests his money in other ways, it's nearly always getting loaned or reinvested one way or another. Unless the rich guy is stuffing £50 notes under his matress, the British economy will benefit from his increased wealth.
    Even if he is stuffing it under the mattress the economy benefits from the additional wealth (assuming the money represents some new production, like we did assume in the hypothetical). Stuffing under the mattress is "saving". Saving is future consumption. In most cases, it's a bad saving strategy though.

    I'll add other ways to look at this. Even if richies' gonna rich and spend newly introduced wealth on yachts, who builds the yachts? Not rich people. Voila, the newly introduced wealth exclusively into the richies' pockets benefits the non-rich. Most of what happens, though, when rich people get more resources, is not a significant boost in consumption but in investment. The act of consumption is actually destruction of resources. Investment is so ridiculously good for an economy because it creates more resources. This implies an irony in the redistribution welfare state proponents. It isn't just that the ideas are not good for the economy, but that they are explicitly bad. They reduce investment (resource production) for the purpose of increasing consumption (resource destruction). They probably get away with their ideas in part because resource destruction isn't the only thing that consumption does. Some destruction of resources (like a banana by eating it) provides for production of resources (like not dying so you can produce in the future). But it would be nice if people understood these things instead of just assuming that forcing productive behavior to "give" to unproductive behavior somehow makes things more productive.
  35. #24560
    Started the tourney for the ticket to PCA in Barbados about an hour ago. 2500 players in it for 100 tickets. Most players seem decent, but there's also three 50+ VPP droolers at my table, cold calling with J9o and 74s, stuff like that.

    Drooler hit trip 7s defending J7 in the big blind vs. my AA. Lolslowplayed it till the river, when he minraised. Cost me about 1/8 of my stack. Got some of it back later when I hit a set of 9s.

    Sitting 1500th out of 2400 now.
  36. #24561
    Literally ban the twat.
  37. #24562
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Literally ban the twat.
    Hey Savy, took a break from training for Mayweather to come and spread some joy I see. Welcome!
  38. #24563
    3 1/2 hours in, sitting 750th out of 1700 remaining. 60 BB stack. C'mon baby!
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-05-2017 at 06:03 PM.
  39. #24564
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    @Poopadoop, aka poopy mcpoopface:
    There's no poker in the commune.

    Now clean up your mess.

    ***
    If I'm the mod who cleans this mess up, you'll get a 1 or 2 day ban, depending on whether I have a nice trip home on STL Metro.
    Forecast: generally grim

    I'm at work, so I'm not doing it now.
    FWIW, I'd create a thread in the tourney poker forum and move the offending posts.
    I don't care how it gets handled, though.

    If another mod cleans this up, or if poopy mcpoopface deletes his poker posts from the commune, then I don't care.
    If I am the one who fixes it, then I will break out the beatin' stick.
  40. #24565
    Oh sorry thought it was LC/NC and thus not a big deal. Wasn't like I was asking for opinions on how I played a hand. Anyways your wish is my command.
  41. #24566
    Eh? I was only able to delete the last two?
  42. #24567
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I appreciate your effort.

    Consider yourself banned until you read this message.

    Feel the pain of my beating stick!
  43. #24568
    Well that seems pretty ruthless. Or is it ruthfull? In any case, my apologies, won't happen again.
  44. #24569
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I met a nice, although smelly, person on the train. He struck up a conversation and we mused on the topic of both of us having had nice interactions with strangers in public recently. It was meta.
  45. #24570
    Can't be arsed. It's not a proper rule, it's a matter of politeness. poop is just being rude and should feel bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #24571
    Guess what parents.....your kids are never going to live a second of their lives without a calculator in their pocket. So you know what, they don't need to learn math the way you did. So for kids to spend classroom hours learning archaic mathematical methodologies would be a humongous and regrettable waste of government resources.

    I feel like this is common sense, and literally everyone should know this.

    I have kids, and they get math homework. It does please me on some level to see that lesson plans have evolved in ways to help kids do more math in their heads. Concepts are being presented in ways to that they can be applied mentally and answers can be generated quickly.

    In other words, they are making kids be smart.

    So it really pisses me off when I see shit like this...

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/...V8e?li=BBnbfcL

    I feel like this is not an uncommon story. Someone needs to smack this mother in the head and tell her that it's perfectly ok for the school to expect her third grader to understand the relationship between some, all, and none. The fact that this went viral, and got turned into newsworthy content is deplorable. What's even more infuriating is the follow up edit to the story.

    She doesn't have all the marbles. And she doesn't have none of the marbles. The answer to the problem is "Janelle has some marbles". It most definitely isn't "Make up your own answer, and a question mark is acceptable"

    I feel like Ms Sappington should lose custody of Izzy. All I see here is a stubborn bitch who demands that the school not teach concepts that she herself doesn't understand. She's forcing the school to under-educate her child so she doesn't feel stupid. Her own insecurity made her kid dumber.
  47. #24572
    It is an unconventional question to be sure, and may be asking a lot of a third grader (it certainly was asking a lot of her mom). But I agree, going apeshit because a teacher actually asks your child to think is pretty bad.

    I think the sciences face a related problem inasmuch as statistics are being taught in terms of what button to press in your software program rather than actually understand wtf it is you are doing and why. This cookbook approach to stats basically means people with no inherent mathematical skill can go on to become 'successful' scientists. Sadly, when I review a paper nowadays I generally have to start with the assumption the authors don't understand the statistics they did until they prove otherwise. It ain't good.
  48. #24573
    It's worth noting that not understanding something & putting a question mark is a perfectly valid response from a child which helps the teacher. It's also very valid for a teacher to ask a question that gets lots of different responses. Maybe kids putting down numbers less than 15 but more than 0 can be used as a talking point which helps cement the concept being discussed.

    The actual issue arises when kids are stuck & they ask a grown up for help who isn't really qualified to help. I had a girl who was stuck on fractions of amounts. She had gone home to do homework not been able to do it so asked a parent for help and basically had a method repeated at her by her dad for 20 minutes before giving up & writing her a note saying she tried but didn't get it. This results in a pupil being confused, thinking they can't do it (low self-esteem) & disengaging/losing interest in the work. Two lessons later she could do it perfectly well, if she would have just not done her homework/asked for help from a teacher she'd have got it in ~15 minutes.
  49. #24574
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    It's worth noting that not understanding something & putting a question mark is a perfectly valid response from a child which helps the teacher. It's also very valid for a teacher to ask a question that gets lots of different responses. Maybe kids putting down numbers less than 15 but more than 0 can be used as a talking point which helps cement the concept being discussed.
    Based on the information given in the story linked....do you think that this was the case?

    Or...is it more likely that the teacher just photo-copied questions from some pre-prepared materials and handed it off to the class without giving it much scrutiny at all. I'm also guessing that the Teacher had the same confused reaction as the mom since her response when challenged was to say "the answer is to make up our own answer".

    The answer is obviously, and most definitely: Janelle has some marbles.

    Wanna know why we are losing to the chinese? It's because our 3rd grade math teachers are confounded by 3rd grade math.
  50. #24575
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Based on the information given in the story linked....do you think that this was the case?

    Or...is it more likely that the teacher just photo-copied questions from some pre-prepared materials and handed it off to the class without giving it much scrutiny at all. I'm also guessing that the Teacher had the same confused reaction as the mom since her response when challenged was to say "the answer is to make up our own answer".

    The answer is obviously, and most definitely: Janelle has some marbles.

    Wanna know why we are losing to the chinese? It's because our 3rd grade math teachers are confounded by 3rd grade math.
    Depends on how good the teacher is really & you don't need to be that good of a teacher to do it. New teachers tend to care enough to put the effort in to reading through their materials if they take them from the internet, if not it trips you up a lot and you look stupid & old teachers tend to have been using the same resources year in year out in which case the problem would have been flagged up prior to this year. So it's probably like 60/40 meant/mistake.

    "Make up your own answer" can definitely be a misunderstanding from a parent/child as to what I said "putting down numbers less than 15 but more than 0".

    The reason I think it's meant is because instead of being a bad question it's a really good one imo. I might actually bring it up tomorrow at uni/school.
  51. #24576
    First of all it's not a "math" question per se since it's ill-defined.

    Second, the answer is < 14 > 0 imo since losing 'some' marbles suggests more than one was lost (otherwise you would say she lost 'one') and less than 'all' (since otherwise you would say she lost them 'all'). But, I would accept your answer as well even though it's also ill-defined and could mean anything from 2 to a very large number.

    Still seems like a lot to ask of a 3rd grader imo. Certainly wouldn't be surprised if the majority of 3rd graders (even Chinese ones) didn't know wtf they were supposed to answer.

    Here's a more entertaining question; I think Savy should give it to his students and get a discussion going - and report anyone who gets it right to the nearest counselor.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/hea...FGM?li=BBnbfcL
  52. #24577
    Here's a more entertaining question; I think Savy should give it to his students and get a discussion going - and report anyone who gets it right to the nearest counselor.
    From the link...
    (Although full disclaimer: no one really knows where this riddle came from,
    Not true. It came from here...
    https://youtu.be/e9eKtmnD_LE

    Maybe don't get your lesson plans from cancelled NBC comedies.
  53. #24578
    fwiw, that riddle was around before 30 rock. I remember hearing it first about 20 years ago.
  54. #24579
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    This isn't about math.
    The real message here is that Mr. Stand is still claiming to be the voice of moral righteousness, who gets to decide who is good and who is bad, and to then reward or punish them by redistributing their children.

    Sounds like an immoral way to go about things... taking people's kids from them because they irrationally protect said kids in a perfectly predictably Darwinian way... but what does a heathen scientist know?
  55. #24580
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop
    I think the sciences face a related problem inasmuch as statistics are being taught in terms of what button to press in your software program rather than actually understand wtf it is you are doing and why. This cookbook approach to stats basically means people with no inherent mathematical skill can go on to become 'successful' scientists. Sadly, when I review a paper nowadays I generally have to start with the assumption the authors don't understand the statistics they did until they prove otherwise. It ain't good.
    I agree, and I think the problem is that too many people are getting schooling that they they shouldn't*. I think the problem would get solved over time if the government stopped being involved in schooling decisions and subsidization.


    *This essentially means that the costs of particular schooling is too high for a lot of people BUT due to subsidization the cost to those individuals is so low that not schooling would be the more costly decision. This situation creates greater social cost than would otherwise happen too.
  56. #24581
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    A technician needs to know what button to press, but the engineer who designed the device with the button needs to know much more.

    Many people don't need to be taught how to solve integrals, just what program solves integrals. However, some people need to be taught so they can write programs that solve integrals.
  57. #24582
    ^^ I think this is essentially what sorts the wheat from the chaff in the workplace in any profession. The high level performers need to understand something before they apply it, which leads to better results in the long run. Bog standard people just repeat a process without thinking about it.

    In bean counting terms, that's the difference between somebody that can only prepare a set of accounts, rather than somebody that can interpret a set of accounts and then use that interpretation to drive the growth of the business. The former are ten a penny. One criticism levied at the East Asian education system is that they produce people that can only do the the technician or accounts prep type work, since getting the correct answer is the be all and end all drilled in at an early age.
  58. #24583
    Savy, PM me if you wanted a copy of a teaching text book from my company. Haylock books are popular for maths teaching, but can't remember if you're aiming at primary or secondary level.
  59. #24584
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    Savy, PM me if you wanted a copy of a teaching text book from my company. Haylock books are popular for maths teaching, but can't remember if you're aiming at primary or secondary level.
    I'd completely forgot about that, will have a look. Cheers.

    I've got a couple of assignments coming up so will have a look at the reading list this weekend & see if you guys publish anything on it / similar enough to use.
    Last edited by Savy; 11-07-2017 at 06:02 PM.
  60. #24585
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    A technician needs to know what button to press, but the engineer who designed the device with the button needs to know much more.

    Many people don't need to be taught how to solve integrals, just what program solves integrals. However, some people need to be taught so they can write programs that solve integrals.

    You are probably right, but the problem I'm referring to is people not knowing enough to properly interpret the numbers that come out when they press the button. That's why knowing which button to press often isn't enough - you need to now why you're pressing it and what other things are important. They say 'oh this looks good according to my naive understanding of stats', but in reality they are missing an important thing that changes the entire interpretation.
  61. #24586
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    This might be a bit of a heavy question for this forum, but: what do you do if your dad is a fag? Not in the homosexual sense of the word, but in the really really gay way. Taking a dick in the ass would be the most masculine thing this fucker has done in the past 25 years.

    Alright, next topic. Has anyone seen Shameless with William H Macey? I am convinced that this is a producers exercise in taking the most dogshit script they could find and making it watchable by punching it up beyond recognition and making the actors work like they've never worked before.
    "Well this dialogue is total shit" "But what if they're fucking?" "Great! - put that in!" "now a kid walks in and a dog liks his asshole" "Stop digging, you've hit gold!"
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  62. #24587
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    There's this brilliant scene between WHM and Joan Cusack where he tries to seduce her and it's so compelling and awkward... two scenes later she shoves a dildo the size of her forearm up his ass, because that's the way the... that's showbiz I guess.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  63. #24588
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    This might be a bit of a heavy question for this forum, but: what do you do if your dad is a fag?
    stop beating yourself up trying to figure out why you like to watch stuff like this....

    two scenes later she shoves a dildo the size of her forearm up his ass
  64. #24589
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    This might be a bit of a heavy question for this forum, but: what do you do if your dad is a fag? Not in the homosexual sense of the word, but in the really really gay way. Taking a dick in the ass would be the most masculine thing this fucker has done in the past 25 years.
    Do you mean really effeminate? in that case I'd probably be embarrassed a bit when I'm out with him, but what can you do? It's not like you can tell your dad not to be such a pussy. My dad would have kicked my ass if I said that - oh wait maybe for this type of dad you can say it - though making your dad cry seems a bit mean.
  65. #24590
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    This is the first time I realize Banana and Poop are two different accounts.
    wp, Spoon.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  66. #24591
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    This is the first time I realize Banana and Poop are two different accounts.
    wp, Spoon.
    So you used to think Banana was arguing with himself 90% of the time? That guy really must have a lot of spare time on his hands.
  67. #24592
    What's going on with Maria Ho's chest here?

    https://www.highstakesdb.com/8274-ma...ain-event.aspx
  68. #24593
    Speculation on what sin Louis committed?

    Right now I'm guessing either child porn, or he was caught on a hot-mic saying something pro-Trump. Those seem to be the only two things that can get you fired in Hollywood
  69. #24594
    I was told that he would block female comics from leaving rooms and jerk off to them.
  70. #24595
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I would never call someone a fag for being effeminate.

    The Louis CK thing seems really weird to me. I would have thought myself a decent judge of character. I guess it's some kind of ocd thing. What I don't get: that's a pretty big step, just taking your dick out apropos of nothing. You'd think someone as successful and as hard working as CK would have the willpower to... not take his dick out?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  71. #24596
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    You'd think someone as successful and as hard working as CK would have the willpower to... not take his dick out?
    Get ahead in your industry using this one weird trick.
  72. #24597
    Still digesting the morning news here, but the Louis stuff seems really....weak sauce.

    I mean, we've been talking alot about the "dilution" of the word racism. I agree that's happened. And now I think it's happened with the therm "sexual assault", or "harassment" or whatever word the media likes to toss around that day.

    From what I understand there were five women affected by four incidents.

    One incident, Louis asked a woman if he could jerk off in front of her, and she declined. Louis took no for an answer and moved on. The woman reported the incident, as she should, and the employer took action. They could have shut down production and fired Louis, but the woman said she could get over it, and keep working. The end.

    Another incident a woman claims that she "believes" Louis was jerking off during a phone conversation. Sorry lady...pics or it didn't happen!

    There was another incident where two women consensually got drunk with Louis, then consensually accepted an invite to his hotel room late at night, after the bars were closed, for more drinking. HEY SLUTS!! WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN WHEN YOU GO TO A MAN'S HOTEL ROOM LATE AT NIGHT WITH THE INTENT OF GETTTING DRUNK(ER)? Where are the fathers in America today? I have three daughters and I can guarantee you that they will know to never follow a man to his hotel room unless you are PLANNING on fucking. Either you're good to go, or you decline the invite!!

    And even then, if you decide to be hopelessly naive and go anyway, you should probably get the hint when the guy takes his penis out. And you know, at that point you can always say "Thanks for a great evening, bye now". Now understand that if you sit there and giggle like it's cool, he's gonna think it's cool!!

    Finally there was a fifth woman when Louis worked on the Chris Rock Show. Louis asked her if he could jerk off in front of her, and then she said "YES". Her explanation..."she was in her early 20's, and just went along with the culture"


    What I'm hearing in all this is that women are weak, meek, naive, helpless and fragile creatures that have no power to influence anyone or the world around them. They are completely incapable of standing up for themselves or demanding respect from their peers.

    How in the world could a woman be expected to predict a man's intentions when he drunkenly invites her to his hotel room? Obviously women are not intelligent enough to figure that out. So whatever happens is obviously the man's fault for asking in the first place, because women are stupid and will do whatever you tell them, right?

    And how in the world could a woman find the strength to end a conversation and hang up a phone when she's talking to man?? The phone rang, there is a voice on the other side. Someone with a woman's meager intelligence certainly can't be expected to do anything besides answer it and listen.

    It seems that women are so weak that they can say "yes", give consent, and STILL be victimized.

    Come on ladies....is this really the world you wanna live in?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 11-10-2017 at 09:18 AM.
  73. #24598
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand
    Where are the fathers in America today?
    Daddy Government.

    It's hard to say if having the government take over the role of father emerges from that agenda itself or from the decline of fatherhood such that something needs to insert into that role. Regardless, it certainly has happened and is happening. In black demos, government basically already is dad. Just a really terrible dad.
  74. #24599
    From Louis

    The power I had over these women is that they admired me.
    What's the fucking point of being rich and famous if you aren't gonna use it to get laid??
  75. #24600
    Why din't y'all warn me that I have no business taking linear algebra?

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
  •