The Wall

[wufwugy]

Think of what your original point was, reread your post a times, think of what your point was again and then whether you think it is actually a good post. Let me know your conclusion.

I'm not acting like we have quantities. We have theory.

[JKDS]

How hard is it to prove whether that's a good thing?

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

I tend to disagree.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

Also in my previous post I meant you get a bias sample not that you are bias as a starting point. I imagine you make better decisions than most on most of the information you get.

Sorry that I misunderstood you. I freely admit that my sample only includes people who get caught, and whatever that may imply.

[Savy]

Sorry that I misunderstood you. I freely admit that my sample only includes people who get caught, and whatever that may imply.

As I read the post back I thought it sounded like me being out of order but I didn't know how to edit it to get my point across. The fault on the understanding was down to me. I do however think that implys a lot.

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

This argument seems to be we set a ruling, the people who bypass it get an advantage rather than whether the original ruling is good in the first place. It's a bullshit we all know this, I can prove it if you really want me to, but can we get to the more serious question. I promise I won't answer in such a dismissive (if completely correct and true) way as I did to wuf.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

I'm fairly certain that's an impractical option, but I only cite all of recorded history as my data, so not my area of expertise.

Although, in this day and age... IDK if that's still as relevant. America can't be taken over by any conceivable land invasion. I mean, it could be done... in the sense that the Mongols eventually killed 90% of the Chinese people, but the cost would be enormous. If America has one thing, it's fierce patriotism.

Is there really a fear of invasion from our (2) neighbors, even by an enemy force infiltrating those countries to enter with minimal scrutiny?
I am totally uninformed and out of my element, but I seriously doubt it.

I still think a wall is a terrible idea, but only under all circumstances. Even if immigration is tightened, I still think a wall is well proven to me a temporary stopgap solution at most and always a costly mistake in the long run.

I tend to disagree.

I mostly do, too.
I doubt my sense of practicality is representative of the greater public's on all issues.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

As is, with the laws as they are, you're, of course, correct.

However, if it is decided that our policy on immigration is dumb, ineffective, and that building a wall is same same, then perhaps a reform involving registration of certain immigrant classes is in order. Like TSA pre-screening, or something. Like, OK, tell us who you are and we'll do a full background check one time, and then you can pass through the express lane.

IDK if this addresses a totally different issue, though. There'd still need to be an amnesty for past criminal acts, in light of the new law, and loads of people are against that idea.

[BananaStand]

However, if it is decided that our policy on immigration is dumb, ineffective, and that building a wall is same same, then perhaps a reform involving registration of certain immigrant classes is in order. Like TSA pre-screening, or something. Like, OK, tell us who you are and we'll do a full background check one time, and then you can pass through the express lane

Great idea. I've heard the cartels wanted to outsource their mule hiring and interview process. Pretty generous of us to do it for free

[BananaStand]

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

Assume for a minute we had totally open borders. Assume for a minute that anyone could move to any country at any time.

What would happen then? The poorest people would seek out the country with the most benefits. You'd have a 'race to the bottom'.

The debate over whether open borders is a good thing or not is totally moot. Pointless discussion. Because the fact is that America is wholly unprepared to operate under such a policy. Countries operating as 'welfare states' (like the US), have the most to lose from an open borders

[wufwugy]

The guess is that its because of people getting scared of Trump, but theres obviously no way to prove that.

I've seen lots of anecdotes to that effect. Law enforcement and those who favor it are emboldened. The cost to being here illegally has increased tremendously.

[Savy]

I've seen lots of anecdotes to that effect. Law enforcement and those who favor it are emboldened. The cost to being here illegally has increased tremendously.

So are those burning crucifixes on black peoples lawns.

[wufwugy]

So are those burning crucifixes on black peoples lawns.

One is wrong and dumb and the other isn't.

[Savy]

One is wrong and dumb and the other isn't.

They're both up. For sake of argument though mine is a lot more measurable.

[wufwugy]

You mean the cost to being black?

[wufwugy]

Trump point is add on.

What's the opposite point I'm supposed to make? That the cheaper labor produces more for cheaper, and that's good? That's true, but I don't think it's the dominating effect.

[Savy]

Trump point is add on.

What's the opposite point I'm supposed to make? That the cheaper labor produces more for cheaper, and that's good? That's true, but I don't think it's the dominating effect.

No, I just expect you to give me a quantitative way of determining which is better.

Kind of like how you might expect a theory to predict something. Like in science.

So far your way of this labour has to be done I have two options x & y, compare the two and pick the smallest. That seems algorithmic and pretty nailed on. I imagine it's imperfect but you know more about economics than me so just give me the science.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure how I'd go about doing that. We don't really know what all the effects are so we can't quantify them and see which is best.

I tend to side with the school of thought that quantitative and empirical analyses are misused in economics. I'd need to research this a bit more to give a coherent and comprehensive explanation though.

[Savy]

I'm not sure how I'd go about doing that. We don't really know what all the effects are so we can't quantify them and see which is best.

I tend to side with the school of thought that quantitative and empirical analyses are misused in economics. I'd need to research this a bit more to give a coherent and comprehensive explanation though.

Sounds like we need a constant k which determines how not white you are.

I really do agree though like I don't understand electrics very well and the risk/reward of me sticking a fork into a plug socket to fix my bulb is probably similar to hiring a black person.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like we need a constant k which determines how not white you are.

Make that k^3 and you'd be on to something.

[MadMojoMonkey]

TIL plenty of Mexicans are white.
Who whould've guessed, right?

Also, Texas is a vast, multicultural place, with big cities full of all colors of people.
Again.. Who would've guessed that all those Texas Republicans weren't all racist?

Informative day.

[/troll]

[Savy]

I have a not great story.

[Poopadoop]

I have a great story about the fact that I've been commented on going for a piss about three times in my life.

Guess again.

[Savy]

Guess again.

You don't read my posts correctly.

I also don't watch QI.

[CoccoBill]

Assume for a minute New World Order and one central government.

Problem(s) solved.

[BananaStand]

Assume for a minute New World Order and one central government.

Someone tried that once. His name was Hitler. It didn't go well.

[CoccoBill]

I'm actually not too surprised that you'd think USA was the only sovereign nation left when you charged in.

[BananaStand]

Yeah, let's just make drugs legal and let doctors control it. 'cause they're all honest people who always do the right thing. They aren't motivated by profit. They never exploit people. Right?

http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases17/pr20170301b.html

[CoccoBill]

Yeah, let's just make drugs legal and let doctors control it. 'cause they're all honest people who always do the right thing. They aren't motivated by profit. They never exploit people. Right?

http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases17/pr20170301b.html

Do you have certain groups of people in mind that aren't human? Even still, I'd wager an average doctor is more inclined to do the right thing than your average druglord or corner kid.

[BananaStand]

Do you have certain groups of people in mind that aren't human?

Yeah, they're called empty shelves.

No heroin; no problem.

[Jack Sawyer]

Yeah, let's just make drugs legal and let doctors control it. 'cause they're all honest people who always do the right thing. They aren't motivated by profit. They never exploit people. Right?

http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases17/pr20170301b.html

Big pharma at its finest. I's not the legality of things, rather the profit margins. As always, its about profits and lobbyists.


This issue is separate from the "legalize it" thing

[wufwugy]

Israel would be safer without its wall. The Chinese would have been safer had they embraced the Mongols. The porous Alps has stopped every army that tried to invade Italy over the millennia. Russia didn't finally put a stop to being slaughtered and enslaved from perpetual southern invasions after constructing gulyay-gorod. Homes would be safer without locking doors and with inviting any in who so desire.

[Savy]

Homes would be safer without locking doors and with inviting any in who so desire.

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

[BananaStand]

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

[wufwugy]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial.

As I mentioned just earlier, Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician, often discusses how this is a type of thing that statisticians get wrong consistently. It has to do with the unpredictability of enormously disastrous events that change everything. If you lived in 1905 and you predicted the probability of intensely destructive wars breaking out, you could use all the smartest statistics of the time and be TOTALLY wrong.

Another way of looking at it is that getting home invaded and raped has such an incredible cost to you that even going an entire life reducing the probability of it happening by a small percentage by incorporating all sorts of security protocols has greater benefit than it does cost. That's part of the rationale for why people buy insurance in the first place, for example.

[Poopadoop]

As I mentioned just earlier, Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician, often discusses how this is a type of thing that statisticians get wrong consistently. It has to do with the unpredictability of enormously disastrous events that change everything. If you lived in 1905 and you predicted the probability of intensely destructive wars breaking out, you could use all the smartest statistics of the time and be TOTALLY wrong.

Another way of looking at it is that getting home invaded and raped has such an incredible cost to you that even going an entire life reducing the probability of it happening by a small percentage by incorporating all sorts of security protocols has greater benefit than it does cost. That's part of the rationale for why people buy insurance in the first place, for example.

Taleb was referring to things you couldn't predict because they'd never yet happened, like the industrialized slaughter that was WWI, and how this lulled people into thinking they never could happen.

You can predict rare but not unheard of events like a home invasion pretty solidly. And yes there is a difference between a very small likelihood with an immensely negative outcome and a 0 likelihood of that same event ('it can't happen to me syndrome').

That said, there comes a point where the extra security measures carry such an excessive cost that you may be better off not having a fortress for a house in terms of your overall happiness. But simply taking little steps like locking your door seems to come with no cost apart from learning a new habit, and there's no good reason not to do it imo.

[Jack Sawyer]

Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician

Sounds like a person who would not be getting a visa anytime soon

[Savy]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

That's because you're a schmuck. The only difference would be that you'd have a video of it.

Also I've lived with someone who had 3 people go into his house whilst he was there, rob him and beat him with a baseball bat. This was about a 10 minute walk away from the house we lived in.

[CoccoBill]

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

A case study in how bad humans are at risk management, especially when it comes to risks with disastrous consequences and low probability. We either ignore the risks completely (like you before the incident) or overreact (like you after the incident).

[Jack Sawyer]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

All you need is a moat and a few crocodiles. And something like and EMP against drones, and you're set!

[wufwugy]

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

Taleb would say something like the bolded is a thin-tailed interpretation of something that is fat-tailed (if I understand his statistics terminology correctly).

To the rest follow the logic through. Stop locking businesses, stop gating urban ones overnight, inform criminals that there is less opportunity cost to committing crime, the Pope or the President doesn't need bulletproof vehicles. We can even take it further: no need for security of any sort.

To the idea that in the real world we see little difference from change, that makes sense because the change is little and there are so many unadjusted for confounding variables.

[Savy]

Taleb would say something like the bolded is a thin-tailed interpretation of something that is fat-tailed (if I understand his statistics terminology correctly).

To the rest follow the logic through. Stop locking businesses, stop gating urban ones overnight, inform criminals that there is less opportunity cost to committing crime, the Pope or the President doesn't need bulletproof vehicles. We can even take it further: no need for security of any sort.

To the idea that in the real world we see little difference from change, that makes sense because the change is little and there are so many unadjusted for confounding variables.

No this doesn't apply at all and isn't what I'm saying.

[wufwugy]

No this doesn't apply at all and isn't what I'm saying.

Okay

[Jack Sawyer]

Israel would be safer without its wall.

Israel is a whole different beast with questionable motives.

[Savy]

Also never go outside, it's dangerous.

[OngBonga]

Also never go outside, it's dangerous.

But staying in is dangerous too, might fall down the stairs, or get locked in the toilet, or die of carbon monoxide poisoning, or get robbed and stabbed up by a gang of teenagers.

[Poopadoop]

But staying in is dangerous too, might fall down the stairs, or get locked in the toilet, or die of carbon monoxide poisoning, or get robbed and stabbed up by a gang of teenagers.

...or throw boiling water into your own face.

(sorry couldn't resist)

[OngBonga]

...or throw boiling water into your own face.

Only if the mutliuniverse theory where every possible outcome is a reality is true, in which case then yes, this does indeed have a non-zero probability of happening. Likewise, there's also a non-zero probability of banana getting so butthurt he injects heroin into his eyeballs to prove to us the dangers of doing so.

[Poopadoop]

Likewise, there's also a non-zero probability of banana getting so butthurt he injects heroin into his eyeballs to prove to us the dangers of doing so.

Sadly, I rarely seem to get to be in the universe where things like this happen.

[CoccoBill]

Likewise, there's also a non-zero probability of banana getting so butthurt he injects heroin into his eyeballs to prove to us the dangers of doing so.

I'd pay to see that.

[Savy]

But staying in is dangerous too, might fall down the stairs, or get locked in the toilet, or die of carbon monoxide poisoning, or get robbed and stabbed up by a gang of teenagers.

So essentially painless suicide is the safest option.

[OngBonga]

So essentially painless suicide is the safest option.

I think the safest option is to give less fucks.

[OngBonga]

The shit that goes on within a mile radius of my house in my shitty little town, I dread to think.

They pulled someone out of the canal, half a mile away, over the winter.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Can someone explain to me why the comparison between a home's doors and windows are comparable to a nation's immigration policy.

I see no direct comparisons which are simultaneously logical and compelling.

[wufwugy]

Can someone explain to me why the comparison between a home's doors and windows are comparable to a nation's immigration policy.

I see no direct comparisons which are simultaneously logical and compelling.

That analogy is used regarding illegal aliens that increase crime. It comes from those who believe that not securing the border (and visa stuff) increases the amount of unwanted people coming into the country, just like not securing the home would increase the amount of unwanted people coming into the home (in aggregation).

[MadMojoMonkey]

That analogy is used regarding illegal aliens that increase crime. It comes from those who believe that not securing the border (and visa stuff) increases the amount of unwanted people coming into the country, just like not securing the home would increase the amount of unwanted people coming into the home (in aggregation).

If the presumption is that all immigrants commit crimes, then that can only be buoyed by only looking at illegal immigrants, right?

Does the idea of open borders always mean a complete lack of border control?

I assume that you can have an open border policy while still requiring ID checks and criminal background checks and other stuff.
Does open borders necessarily mean "w/o any scrutiny at all"

'Cause if that's the case, I'm totally against open borders.

I don't think unlimited access to all comers is best. I favor minimal hurdles to entry & citizenship, but keeping track of who's coming and going and preventing known trouble-makers from making trouble here.

[wufwugy]

If the presumption is that all immigrants commit crimes, then that can only be buoyed by only looking at illegal immigrants, right?

Does the idea of open borders always mean a complete lack of border control?

I assume that you can have an open border policy while still requiring ID checks and criminal background checks and other stuff.
Does open borders necessarily mean "w/o any scrutiny at all"

'Cause if that's the case, I'm totally against open borders.

I don't think unlimited access to all comers is best. I favor minimal hurdles to entry & citizenship, but keeping track of who's coming and going and preventing known trouble-makers from making trouble here.

Probably depends on who is defining it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Probably depends on who is defining it.

Fair enough.

Can you elaborate on asymmetric information a bit?
Or even provide a link which you endorse as a good source for defining the term?
I'm unfamiliar.

(Sorry if you're in process of replying to my other post on this subject.)

[BananaStand]

Can someone explain to me why the comparison between a home's doors and windows are comparable to a nation's immigration policy.

I see no direct comparisons which are simultaneously logical and compelling.

Because doors and countries are both made out of atoms. Satisfied Mr. Physics?

More seriously, it's an analogy. Its' when you take something that's really nuanced and complicated and compare it to something more simple, so that reasonable people who understand the simple thing, can then use that knowledge to understand the more complex problem.

You lock your house to deter entrance by people who want to do you harm. You secure your country's border for the same reason.

You lock your house to deter people from taking your property. You secure your country so non-citizens won't come over and exploit your social programs.

Having a secure home means that you can control what is in it and what is not. Say you decide that you don't want drugs in your house. You should have a right to deny entrance to a meth addict. Similarly, a country should be able to stop illegal substances from crossing over its border.

Locking your house keeps other people's conflicts away from you. Say your neighbor's wife is a relentless harpy. He decides he's had enough of the conflict and wanders over to your place and sits down in your living room. Maybe you learn why his wife hates him so much. To prevent that, you have a door, and you control who comes through it. For countries, open borders means the cost of migrating is lower, meaning refugees are willing to immigrate earlier and further. This will have the most negative impact on the most prosperous countries.

Having a door through which you control the entry and exit to your home allows you to maintain law and order within its wall. If 200 people suddenly showed up, you'd have chaos likely resulting in property damage. Similarly, for countries, an open border policy could cause sudden spikes in population, particularly in areas closest to the border. That puts undue strain on local law enforcement and other public services, the net result of which is usually crime.

But if you want to be a dick about it, you're right. doors and countries are not the same thing. You get an A for vocabulary today. Tomorrow's word, is Analogy. Study hard.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Because doors and countries are both made out of atoms. Satisfied Mr. Physics?

Logical, but not compelling.

[the rest].

Neither logical nor compelling.

Windows are totally easy to break. Cordless power tools exist.

Is your analogy that a nation's immigration policy should be paper thin and easy to circumvent?

But if you want to be a dick about it, you're right. doors and countries are not the same thing. You get an A for vocabulary today. Tomorrow's word, is Analogy. Study hard.

What I want is to understand a nuanced subject in an adult manner which is informed and open-minded to unorthodox ideas, whether or not they pan out to be workable solutions.

There is only one person in this thread who is taking things personally and throwing insults around. The rest of us are struggling to uncover the missing information which clouds us from a full understanding.

[BananaStand]

The rest of us are struggling to uncover the missing information which clouds us from a full understanding.

Watch more Fox News

[Jack Sawyer]

Watch more Fox News

This is both hilarious and sad at the same time

Talk about conflicting emotions

[Poopadoop]

The gist of Taleb's argument against GMO as I understand it is that a small change in a number of small variables (i.e., genes) could have emergent multiplicative risks out of all proportion to their understood individual risks down the line, and that these could end up being catastrophically bad because ecology is all interconnected.

The problems with the argument imho is that a) it isn't at all obvious that these variables will necessarily interact, and b) if they do, it isn't obvious that such an interaction will be any more likely to be catastrophic than would be leaving things as they are. The variables as they exist now could still have a catastrophic effect at some time in the future (we'll never know until it happens because it's impossible to predict all the interactions, which is kind of Taleb's starting point for saying we shouldn't mess with the unknown).

It's like saying you have ten jars full of 100 marbles each, and each jar contains one or more marbles that fit into a piece that if combined becomes the 'giant doomsday marble'. You pull one marble from each jar simultaneously and if you pick 10 doomsday pieces at the same time you create the doomsday marble and the world implodes. His argument is analogous to saying that we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces in each jar by GMO, thus increasing the chance of the world imploding. But with all the maths in the world it can't be measured objectively because it's impossible to identify the doomsday pieces' interactions by definition. Which he then uses as an argument that we basically shouldn't accept any risks with any GMO because it is akin to creating these potential doomsday marbles in different jars (I'm paraphrasing).

tl;dr Taleb seems to be talking out his ass a bit on this one.

[wufwugy]

The gist of Taleb's argument against GMO as I understand it is that a small change in a number of small variables (i.e., genes) could have emergent multiplicative risks out of all proportion to their understood individual risks down the line, and that these could end up being catastrophically bad because ecology is all interconnected.

The problems with the argument imho is that a) it isn't at all obvious that these variables will necessarily interact, and b) if they do, it isn't obvious that such an interaction will be any more likely to be catastrophic than would be leaving things as they are. The variables as they exist now could still have a catastrophic effect at some time in the future (we'll never know until it happens because it's impossible to predict all the interactions, which is kind of Taleb's starting point for saying we shouldn't mess with the unknown).

It's like saying you have ten jars full of 100 marbles each, and each jar contains one or more marbles that fit into a piece that if combined becomes the 'giant doomsday marble'. You pull one marble from each jar simultaneously and if you pick 10 doomsday pieces at the same time you create the doomsday marble and the world implodes. His argument is analogous to saying that we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces in each jar by GMO, thus increasing the chance of the world imploding. But with all the maths in the world it can't be measured objectively because it's impossible to identify the doomsday pieces' interactions by definition. Which he then uses as an argument that we basically shouldn't accept any risks with any GMO because it is akin to creating these potential doomsday marbles in different jars (I'm paraphrasing).

tl;dr Taleb seems to be talking out his ass a bit on this one.

It's funny, I think your explanation is fantastic and I don't think it suggests out-of-ass talking on his part.

Perhaps it's because I view the "we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces..." statement as being more credible than perhaps you do. Lately I've been of the mind that "consensus" gets lots of stuff wrong, even when backed empirically with higher-than-standard rigor.

[wufwugy]

I think this is Taleb's paper on it: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2

He's so much smarter than me that I don't dismiss what he says out of hand. He's probably the smartest person I read and with the greatest proportion of material I don't understand.

[CoccoBill]

I think this is Taleb's paper on it: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2

He's so much smarter than me that I don't dismiss what he says out of hand. He's probably the smartest person I read and with the greatest proportion of material I don't understand.

I don't claim to have a clue about any of the stuff in the appendixes, way above my paygrade. To my understanding his basic conclusion here is paraphrased that any action that has systemic global existential hazards should be completely avoided without scientific near-certainty that the risks can be avoided. He feels GMOs fall under this category. I don't want to nor won't argue against this in principle, if we could afford this I'm sure it'd be the best strategy. What I feel he doesn't adequately address are the consequences of not using GM. Have to admit I've only skimmed some articles about the benefits and reasons for modifying crops, but my understanding is that they're not limited to vitamin A deficiency and risk of famine. GM allows to grow healthier and more plentiful crops in places where it otherwise wouldn't be possible. Just skimming the paper I'm not immediately convinced that GMOs aren't worth the risk, but what do I know. I'm definitely for extreme caution with using them, but also think they have huge potential. Genetic modification is just a tool, the results depend entirely on how it's used.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wuf: Is asymmetric information more than the notion that 2 parties or agencies have different access to information?

'Cause confidential information and "top secrets" are a thing that gov't's have. Granted, there are trade secrets that companies have, too, but presumably those ARE being used by the companies to economic advantage. I presume that one company having and using its trade secrets is beneficial to the economy, since its withholding that information from competing companies doesn't prevent the secret from impacting consumer choices. Is this plausible from an economics standpoint?

I'm curious if there is a preventative aspect of the system which prevents the business side from achieving symmetric information.

[wufwugy]

@wuf: Is asymmetric information more than the notion that 2 parties or agencies have different access to information?

That's basically it. The "more", as far as I can tell, is how it can be applied and what we can derive from it. For example, it's typically used in finance with a more narrow definition regarding asymmetry in the information available to a buyer and seller. But it can be thought of very broadly, like how the difference between what physicists know about the universe and what the universe actually is is asymmetric information relevant for whenever physicists interact with the universe. Or things that you know and your girlfriend doesn't and vice versa are asymmetry of information regarding your interactions with each other. A derivative idea is that if that asymmetry were to lessen, hazard would lessen and efficiency would improve.

The problem of asymmetric information is what we try to solve when we regulate financial markets. I believe that the idea can be applied across the board to all markets. My argument for free markets depends on the idea that they more efficiently use information and more efficiently reduce asymmetry of information than otherwise. Without that, I don't think the total free market ideal could hold up.

'Cause confidential information and "top secrets" are a thing that gov't's have. Granted, there are trade secrets that companies have, too, but presumably those ARE being used by the companies to economic advantage. I presume that one company having and using its trade secrets is beneficial to the economy, since its withholding that information from competing companies doesn't prevent the secret from impacting consumer choices. Is this plausible from an economics standpoint?

Great question. I'm not sure I can answer it, or even if I understand it. I do have a couple points of input though. The company uses its trade secrets to benefit itself. Any benefit to the economy that comes from this is secondary. The Invisible Hand idea is that when companies compete, the secondary effect, though unintended, happens nonetheless.

The company not withholding its secret from other companies would likely impact consumer choices. If more information got out, that would affect choice (by revealing more about the product). If more companies competed on providing the product, this would likely impact price and availability, which would impact consumer choice.

I'm curious if there is a preventative aspect of the system which prevents the business side from achieving symmetric information.

I certainly think there is. The seller wants to increase its information while decreasing the buyer's (in specific ways) and vice versa. If you're negotiating for something, and you really really really want it and you are willing to accept embarrassingly low terms, you still don't want the other party to know that. You get more benefit from him having less information (or even from him having bad information).

[Jack Sawyer]

A common misconception is that undocumented immigrants avoid paying taxes. In fact, undocumented individuals pay sales and excise taxes, property taxes and, in some instances, personal income taxes. The study determined that at least 50 percent of undocumented households currently file income tax returns through the use of individual tax identification numbers, and many have taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks.

In a state like Alabama, the study found, the effective tax rate for undocumented individuals was 7.2 percent, 3 percentage points higher than the 3.8 percent effective tax rate that the wealthiest 1 percent pay in that state. Alabama is no way alone in this development; 42 states currently tax undocumented people more than their wealthiest denizens.

https://www.salon.com/2017/03/02/wat...est-1-percent/

http://www.itep.org/pdf/immigration2017.pdf

[Poopadoop]

https://www.salon.com/2017/03/02/wat...est-1-percent/

http://www.itep.org/pdf/immigration2017.pdf

How in the fuck can the wealthiest people be paying 3.8% effective taxes? Oh I forgot, they use that extra money to create jobs.

[Jack Sawyer]

How in the fuck can the wealthiest people be paying 3.8% effective taxes? Oh I forgot, they use that extra money to create jobs.

While the poor buy iPhones instead of health insurance

[MadMojoMonkey]

While the poor buy iPhones instead of health insurance

This is a thing.

It bothers me.

People are confusing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is a thing.

It bothers me.

People are confusing.

I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services.

While it's troublesome to have some people blow their money on toys and then treat the rest of us like its our fault they have no savings, the alternative is uglier.

[BananaStand]

How in the fuck can the wealthiest people be paying 3.8% effective taxes?

They don't. That's bullshit. The reports/links provided are full of baloney.

Digging into the details, a big part of the equation is sales and other consumption taxes.

Another misconception, is that FICA taxes are taxes. They aren't. They're insurances. 7.65% of your pay comes out to pay for medicare and social security. Those programs will only pay so much. There's a cap.

Say someone makes 10 million per year, then he retires....does he expect social security to replace his income? Of course not. But the guy who made $50K per year, then retires DOES expect social security to replace his income.

I don't know what the cap is anymore, 10 years ago it was like $90K. I suspect it's a hundred and something now. For the sake of argument, let's say it's $150k. Anyone making up to that amount pays FICA taxes and is entitled to benefits later in life up to a certain amount depending on how much they paid in.

So the guy making $10 million/year only pays 7.65% on his first $150K, and then nothing on the rest. That's going to SERIOUSLY affect his 'effective tax rate'. It's going to look ALOT lower than someone making $50K per year.

I dont' see what's wrong with that since the money isn't meant to be used on infrastructure, police, schools, or public service. The taxes collected are meant to fund those insurance programs. It's contained, or at least it's supposed to be.

Sidebar: Anyone who believes Salon.com is credible is no longer allowed to ever give me shit for watching Fox News.

[JKDS]

If it's a misconception that illegal immigrants avoid paying taxes, why does the article concede that only 50% of illegal immigrant households pay income tax?

Seems like a large number of them are avoiding paying taxes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If it's a misconception that illegal immigrants avoid paying taxes, why does the article concede that only 50% of illegal immigrant households pay income tax?

Seems like a large number of them are avoiding paying taxes.

I haven't read the article, but you're conflating different statements.

doesn't pay income taxes != doesn't pay any taxes
avoids paying (some) taxes != avoids paying (all) taxes

[JKDS]

I haven't read the article, but you're conflating different statements.

doesn't pay income taxes != doesn't pay any taxes
avoids paying (some) taxes != avoids paying (all) taxes

Thank you, but that isn't what I said. I havnt misled you about what the article says either. They argue that illegal immigrants DON'T avoid paying taxes. They simultaneously admit that only about 50%, maybe more, pay income taxes. Meaning near 50% don't pay income taxes. Meaning they avoid the income tax. Again, the article refers to households, so that 50% avoidance is 50% of households.

Or is dodging the tax which steals near 20% of every legal citizens paycheck somehow not avoidance?

[wufwugy]

tax which steals near 20% of every legal citizens paycheck

[MadMojoMonkey]

You damn commie.
You should be honored to pay American taxes.
Where's your patriotism?