The Wall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Only a troll would suggest that national policies should be justified with rumors and hearsay..

---

Only a troll would misinterpret sarcasm as sincerity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Only a troll would suggest that the USA is the only, or even most inviting, place which would attract immigration.

---

Only a troll would make a claim like this without looking it up. Go ahead, look it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

If you're not an intentional troll, then your sense of evidence or what constitutes a motivating standard for national policy is completely irrelevant to the topic.

---

Ok, I'll humor you, what would be the 'motivating standard' for your idea of an 'express lane' over the southern border? How do you not see massive potential for fraud and abuse of that policy. The only way to counter that, would be to screen these people. Except you made them exempt from screening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

My other critiques hold.

---

I flat out, don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

.

---

I can't respect you when you keep arguing against points I have not made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I can't respect you when you keep arguing against points I have not made.

---

Then don't respect me. Again, I flat out don't care.

You DID make the point about an express lane over the border. If you care to explain how you could prevent from being abused, go ahead. Otherwise, we'll just agree it was a stupid idea.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Also never go outside, it's dangerous.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

So essentially painless suicide is the safest option.

---

I think the safest option is to give less fucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

---

I agree. I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

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

---

Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You DID make the point about an express lane over the border.

---

Nope.
If you read my actual words, rather than scan them and run them past your inner filter for what you're allowed to be offended by, you will find a complete lack of any confidence in my post, as well as a lot of speculation.
I made exactly 0 points, so whatever you think you read is, again, nothing to do with me.

Here. Bold added for clarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you care to explain how you could prevent from being abused, go ahead.

---

I didn't propose any changes to what constitutes a full background check.
If it's abusable in my brainstormed proposal, then it's already abusable, and a non-sequitur to attribute that flaw as a fault in my proposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Otherwise, we'll just agree it was a stupid idea.

---

We can agree that the idea you attribute to me, which is not my idea, is stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

---

Maybe maybe not. I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

---

It's the same principle, you can apply it to any number of people.

Not sure what to think of the whole GMO argument. Just because you can imagine something going horribly wrong doesn't mean it necessarily has a non-zero chance of happening; could be Taleb just watched Jurassic Park too many times ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

---

The level of risk definitely varies depending on whose behalf we are assessing it. On a society level the risk of getting eaten by a shark might be insignificant. For a person diving with great whites daily it's something different. The control measures to alleviate risks should be in harmony with the estimated costs of the risks involved. It makes no sense to implement a control against a risk that costs more annually than what the costs of the risk would be if it realizes. Now, all of this is very simple and easy, assessing the risks thoroughly and accurately enough is where it gets difficult. What price do you put on GMOs destroying civilization? How likely is it to happen? Actually, to my knowledge the prices of GMO goods are determined fully by the markets without direct government involvement, so in theory the costs relating to the possibility for the civilization ending should already be baked in.

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.

Literally every food in the produce section is a GMO.
There are instructions in the old testament on how to GM your O's.

Without GMing the O's, the O's are mostly fiber and seed, virtually no pulp, minimal fruit sugars and vitamins.


Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Israel would be safer without its wall.

---

Israel is a whole different beast with questionable motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

---

I guess the worry is that we create some monster crop that's radioactive and turns everyone gay. Yeah we've been modifying the O's by more crude means for tens of thousands of years, now that we can do it more accurately and efficiently it's suddenly a bad thing. 10000 years ago it was probably quite beneficial for survival to fear everything new and unknown, but nowadays it just has a tendency to just hinder progress. Maybe overall it's still a good thing, better safe than sorry or whatnot. I'd put the fear of GMOs in the same category as fear of nuclear power, vaccines, microwave ovens etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I agree. I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

---

Bananas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

What price do you put on GMOs destroying civilization? How likely is it to happen? Actually, to my knowledge the prices of GMO goods are determined fully by the markets without direct government involvement, so in theory the costs relating to the possibility for the civilization ending should already be baked in.

---

I'm very happy you made this point. It's one of the main reasons for why I think there is a possible hole in this one spot regarding free markets. Actually during all the time I've argued in favor of free markets at every point, I've also acknowledged that the one area in which they might not work is when they can't assess for an externality or asymmetric information that somehow a central command can. Here's a way I could see it being the case regarding GMO:

Let's say Taleb is right. Well, the markets don't actually think he's right. As much as I may try to explain how this would show a problem with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, I can't do it. Free markets are in general better at adjusting for new information than command (by far), but that doesn't mean that every adjustment is better by a free market than by command. Maybe the asymmetric information is too great regarding GMO that investors have a harder time accounting for it than Grandma's Wisdom. Even though I tend to disagree with how the "animal spirits" Keynesian thing is taught in economics, this gives credence to the idea. It could be that investors are too caught up with normal tools that are poor at seeing something that atypical tools are better at seeing. This would be like being a victim of one's own success. Yet, applying atypical tools is one thing free markets are great at.

I wanted to post more, but I'm gonna stop here (there's a lot missing). It is really bugging me because I can't develop a coherent view in either direction. It's been bugging me for a while. I don't seem successful at acceptably following the logic through. I may address it later. One hiccup I identify is that if Taleb is right and markets don't think so, free markets still seem to be the best way to eventually get to a point that markets see it. Another hiccup is that those who act in free markets are still those who use Grandma's Wisdom, so it's not like it's one or the other but more like probably the best way to get Grandma's Wisdom is free markets. Still, there can be something regarding asymmetric information that "free" is less good than command. I can't reconcile any of this yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

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

---

Trump supporter. Rails against Salafi Islam. Great guy. Just the kind we want to help make America great again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Bananas

---

What do you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What do you mean?

---

Bananas are the utmost example of GMOs, didn't destroy civilization


I'd be much more worried about GHOs and designer babies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Trump supporter. Rails against Salafi Islam. Great guy. Just the kind we want to help make America great again.

---

Yet if he was outside the US, on name alone, his probability of getting a visa would not be very high

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

---

I couldn't do Taleb's point any justice. And like most points he makes, I disagree with them at first. But they are very compelling and wear on me.

As far as I understand it, his GMO point is costs of a bad GMO event are not being accounted for. He uses statistics that I don't understand to explain. An example could be something like, let's say there is a 0.00001% chance of something bad happening and it costs $1000 when it does happen. We can find the cost of the behavior, and it's so small that it's ignored. But if we do this with GMO, a cost can be the total collapse of civilization, something our measurement tools don't adjust for well, yet we still treat it like it's negligible cost.

I probably shouldn't say this because I suspect if Taleb commented on it, I would be on the right track but getting something very important wrong about his thesis. I'll post something fuller from him if I come across it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Yet if he was outside the US, on name alone, his probability of getting a visa would not be very high

---

Where does this idea come from?

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.

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I couldn't do Taleb's point any justice. And like most points he makes, I disagree with them at first. But they are very compelling and wear on me.

As far as I understand it, his GMO point is costs of a bad GMO event are not being accounted for. He uses statistics that I don't understand to explain. An example could be something like, let's say there is a 0.00001% chance of something bad happening and it costs $1000 when it does happen. We can find the cost of the behavior, and it's so small that it's ignored. But if we do this with GMO, a cost can be the total collapse of civilization, something our measurement tools don't adjust for well, yet we still treat it like it's negligible cost.

I probably shouldn't say this because I suspect if Taleb commented on it, I would be on the right track but getting something very important wrong about his thesis. I'll post something fuller from him if I come across it again.

---

The problem with this criticism is that one pathogen would have to have a seriously troublesome effect on many different crops to cause a total collapse.
Different crops have different strengths and weaknesses; they are susceptible to different diseases and blights.

Perhaps with the exception of a super insect plague, which would be an external effect, not due to GMOs.

***
There is much data showing that the rise of civilizations is commensurate with the discovery of human selection (compare to natural selection) over which seeds from which plants should be re-sown next season. The credit for the rise of civilizations is due to many factors, but the cultivation of increasingly efficacious food sources is on the list.

Still... that's not me saying, "if they're bad, we should accept it 'cause they've gotten us this far."
Just me pointing out that whatever risks there are, GMOs have been hugely beneficial to humans for the past 12,000 years or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Where does this idea come from?

---

From current events bra, many erudites have been denied visa or outright turned around. E.g. a dude had to balance a binary search tree just to prove he was a cs/software engineer.

http://boingboing.net/2017/03/01/wha...ite-color.html

Bonus points if you realize that the answer they were looking for could not deviate from wikipedias answer, as the ones asking had no idea what the fuck they were asking about

Talent does not indicate you will be allowed through (or respected) by border patrol apparently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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

---

Logical, but not compelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

[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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

Watch more Fox News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Watch more Fox News

---

This is both hilarious and sad at the same time

Talk about conflicting emotions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

From current events bra, many erudites have been denied visa or outright turned around. E.g. a dude had to balance a binary search tree just to prove he was a cs/software engineer.

http://boingboing.net/2017/03/01/wha...ite-color.html

Bonus points if you realize that the answer they were looking for could not deviate from wikipedias answer, as the ones asking had no idea what the fuck they were asking about

Talent does not indicate you will be allowed through (or respected) by border patrol apparently

---

This is showing a new systemic bias against Taleb types?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

This is showing a new systemic bias against Taleb types?

---

Is it not?

Bonus points if you noticed the dude was from Nigeria (not on The List atm), had a fully valid visa, and still had to put up with shit.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

@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.

Quote:

---

'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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.)

---

It's not that complicated in its essence, it just refers to a difference in the potential upside/downside of an outcome. Buying a lottery ticket is asymmetric because the upside is huge and the downside is small. The risk of a meteor landing on your house has a huge downside and the upside if it doesn't happen is small (life just goes on).

Taleb also applies it to situations where decisions are being made whose outcomes can be extreme, but don't directly affect the person(s) making the decision. An example would be financial institutions and the 2008 crisis. Assuming their actions caused all the bad outcomes, but they themselves didn't suffer financially due to bailouts, there's an asymmetry between them having no stake (or a limited stake) in the matter themselves and the overall consequences to people in general.

Edit: sorry I thought we were still talking about Taleb. D'oh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.)

---

I can post something if I come across it. It's a topic I mostly only covered in class. It was sort of a light bulb where I realized that's the technical term for the types of things we talk about regarding problems in markets. For example, when I claim that people are individually more productive at spending their money than the government is spending the money instead, my claim is predicated in part on the idea that the people individually have less asymmetric information in relevant scenarios than the government does. The two main types of asymmetric information covered are adverse selection and moral hazard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Is it not?

Bonus points if you noticed the dude was from Nigeria (not on The List atm), had a fully valid visa, and still had to put up with shit.

---

I'd say the issue seems pretty timeless. Not something that began recently.

To the idea that somebody named Nassim Taleb has a harder time entering the country than others, I don't know. I can't comment on any data. On theory, there are forces that could make that the case and countervailing forces that could actually make it easier to immigrate with that name. An example of a countervailing force could be that (I've heard) Middle East Christians have a much harder time getting into the country than Middle East Muslim blindly-assumed-to-be refugees. If true, there could be countervailing force of people thinking that Christians have it great so they can pound sand while Muslims are more downtrodden than squished snail so they can be given the stars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

---

I probably shouldn't have said 'talking out of his ass' as if he never thought about it much and just spun out a paper one day cause he was bored. I'm sure he has thought about it and he may be making more sense than I realise.

OTOH, I still stand by my arguments a) and b) above. I think his argument is a bit of the old 'we're creating our own disaster because experts don't understand maths' argument that he used for economics. I think he may have gotten a big head about that and his hubris may have outran his knowledge a bit.

What this kind of reminds me of is about a dozen years ago when Francis Crick (of Watson and Crick, the structure of DNA Nobel prize winners) decided he was going to be a neuroscientist, and not only that but solve pretty much the biggest question in neuroscience which was how the brain creates consciousness. That did not end well for him.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

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.

That specifically said household too, btw. So its accounting for the elderly, the children, etc who wouldn't have jobs to pay taxes with.

It also tells you that the number is calculated using a "sophisticated program" (bullshit alert), based on numerous studies of illegals using phoney ssns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

I know a guy, a real dummy, his rebuttal to a 10% flat tax was that it would benefit the rich by reducing their taxes. Then a little later he was up in arms over his belief that the rich pay next to no taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

While the poor buy iPhones instead of health insurance

---

This is a thing.

It bothers me.

People are confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

tax which steals near 20% of every legal citizens paycheck

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip1SYl97kh4

Wuf let's set up our own country where we don't have taxes. Then we can invade other countries, take them over and make them better.

Just so long as Uncle Nige approves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

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?

---

That's not what the article says.

"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."

They're not arguing that illegal immigrants don't avoid paying taxes. They're arguing that it's a misconception that all illegal immigrants pay no taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip1SYl97kh4

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

Patriotism to the nation, not the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Just so long as Uncle Nige approves.

---

Of course, he's neve paid tax in his life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Patriotism to the nation, not the state.

---

JKDS just made me read an article that says you're basically a mooch off the illegal immigrants your (beautiful?) state attracts, who're paying their share and the share of half of their brethren and your share, too.
:p

[/troll]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

Of course, he's neve paid tax in his life.

---

Of course he has. Have you seen how much ale the man gets through?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Of course he has. Have you seen how much ale the man gets through?

---

That's all party funded, his personal stash he gets off the coast.

We're also both white Wuf so I imagine he'd love that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

They're not arguing that illegal immigrants don't avoid paying taxes. They're arguing that it's a misconception that all illegal immigrants pay no taxes.

---

Well, of course some illegals pay some taxes. But that's never been the point. It is obvious that those who buy goods, in States with sales tax, would pay that tax. No one pictures illegal immigrants going into special checkout lines at Walmart where they click magic "no tax, I'm illegal" buttons.

What people get Sandy vaginas about is that their paycheck is cut into pieces, and the paychecks for illegals is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

What people get Sandy vaginas about is that their paycheck is cut into pieces, and the paychecks for illegals is not.

---

Not only that, but the paychecks are smaller than they should be to begin with, even before they get cut to pieces.

The illegal who is not paying income taxes is willing to work for a lower wage, since it's all cash. In the aggregate, that keeps wages low for everybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Well, of course some illegals pay some taxes. But that's never been the point. It is obvious that those who buy goods, in States with sales tax, would pay that tax. No one pictures illegal immigrants going into special checkout lines at Walmart where they click magic "no tax, I'm illegal" buttons.

What people get Sandy vaginas about is that their paycheck is cut into pieces, and the paychecks for illegals is not.

---

I'm not speaking to what people get upset about.

According to that link, the average amount of taxes paid by illegal immigrant households is higher than the rate paid by legal citizens. The article says that is true even when it is taken into account that half of illegal immigrants avoid paying income taxes.

Unless you're prepared to argue with that statistic, the link actually belies your deeper point.

The credibility of Salon.com was called into question, so this may be a simple act.
(I have never heard of Salon.com before, so I have no idea if its a credible source.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'm not speaking to what people get upset about.

According to that link, the average amount of taxes paid by illegal immigrant households is higher than the rate paid by legal citizens. The article says that is true even when it is taken into account that half of illegal immigrants avoid paying income taxes.

Unless you're prepared to argue with that statistic, the link actually belies your deeper point.

---

I'll argue it. The article relies on the second link jack posted. The 2nd paragraph of the 2nd page says illegal immigrants would pay significantly more taxes if granted a pathway to citizenship. More taxes. Not less.

What you, and perhaps the article, are confused is the reference to the effective tax rate of the 1%, who pay less than everybody cuz repiblicans.

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

Mr. 1% earns $1 million per year. He's only charged FICA taxes on the first $150K. 7.65% x $150K = $11,475

Mr. 99% earns 60,000 per year. He pays FICA taxes on all of his earnings under $150K. 7.65% x $60k = $4,590

Effective tax rate of Mr. 1% = $11,475/1,000,000 = 1.1%
Effective tax rate of Mr 99% = $4590/60,000 = 7.65%

That cap on FICA taxes is what's really fucking up the data in this study, and makes the whole thing worthless in my opinion. You need some really muddled math to demonstrate that the rich pay less than the poor.

FICA isn't really a tax either. It's an insurance. It's a contained system where you get out what you pay in. So if you want millionaires to pay more into the system, you're going to have to pay more out to them when they retire. I don't think anyone wants retired millionaires to get huge social security payments commensurate with their working income. Hence, the cap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

---

Yep. It's so bad that the more I know about this stuff, the more I ignore projections regarding the macro economy. Getting anywhere close to reliable takes so much more than is put into estimates. Even then, projections would still likely be unreliable. A good macroeconomist discusses effects of policies regarding incentives and unintended consequences; a bad macroeconomist releases projections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

---

What is the alternative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

I'll argue it. The article relies on the second link jack posted. The 2nd paragraph of the 2nd page says illegal immigrants would pay significantly more taxes if granted a pathway to citizenship. More taxes. Not less.

---

This is a separate point from what the Salon article says, then. The Salon article makes no predictions or even time-dependent statements that I saw.
If that is a misconstruction of what the other link says (and that other link was the sole reference of the Salon article), then I'm again at a loss, since I now need to read that link, too.

At any rate, I understood the point of the article differently than you and that's all I was discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

What you, and perhaps the article, are confused is the reference to the effective tax rate of the 1%, who pay less than everybody cuz repiblicans.

---

What did I say which indicated a misunderstanding?
What is the missing information which will eradicate my confusion?

Please be careful not to attribute ideas to me which I have not supported.
Just because I understand what someone has said, and can repeat it w/o distortion, doesn't mean that I agree with them.
It means I understand them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

---

All of this rings true to my sensibilities as a skeptic and a scientist.

I have yet to see data on this issue which doesn't scream of a foregone conclusion being confirmed through bias.
Both sides have yet to describe the situation in a way which isn't blind to the complexity and nuance in the whole situation with glaring omissions in the data they report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What is the alternative?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

Are you calling from a cell phone? Sorry 911 is only for people who don't squander their money on luxury items.

We've got a unconscious patient with a gunshot wound coming in through the ambulance bay, but we found a pack of gum in his pocket and no insurance card, so we are turning him away.

Welcome to the DMV. I see you have a Starbucks coffee cup, so you will not be permitted to share in the privilege of driving, to which non-frivolous citizens have access.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

This is a separate point from what the Salon article says, then. The Salon article makes no predictions or even time-dependent statements that I saw.
If that is a misconstruction of what the other link says (and that other link was the sole reference of the Salon article), then I'm again at a loss, since I now need to read that link, too.

At any rate, I understood the point of the article differently than you and that's all I was discussing.


What did I say which indicated a misunderstanding?
What is the missing information which will eradicate my confusion?

Please be careful not to attribute ideas to me which I have not supported.
Just because I understand what someone has said, and can repeat it w/o distortion, doesn't mean that I agree with them.
It means I understand them.

---

What a waste of time, you got to be trolling at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.

Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.

Should the government just give that away?

Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.

the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this

$2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250

In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.

Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.

How about we just don't give that person any money?

Tbf though the assumption that people understand money, financing and such things on even a basic level just isn't true. In fact people who do understand such things tend to have incentive to exploit the people who don't so I don't imagine that changing any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

What a waste of time, you got to be trolling at this point.

---

You should know me better than this after all these years.
I'm not intentionally trolling you. When I troll, I claim it in the same post as the troll.

***
I don't get why you're upset.

You asked questions about what the Salon article says, and I was doing my best to figure out the same.

You went to question whether or not those claims are based on data, and I agree with your analysis that it doesn't have the trademarks of unbiased reporting.


IDK what you expect from the conversation if not that we are joining our super powers together to seek understanding of what this mad world is throwing at us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

.

---

You are not my political rival.