Go Wall!
No Wall!
03-10-2017 03:54 PM
#451
| |
| |
Last edited by BananaStand; 03-10-2017 at 03:56 PM. | |
03-10-2017 03:59 PM
#452
| |
| |
03-10-2017 04:01 PM
#453
| |
| |
03-10-2017 04:02 PM
#454
| |
| |
03-10-2017 04:17 PM
#455
| |
03-10-2017 04:21 PM
#456
| |
| |
03-10-2017 04:25 PM
#457
| |
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. | |
03-10-2017 04:29 PM
#458
| |
|
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. |
03-10-2017 04:35 PM
#459
| |
| |
03-10-2017 04:40 PM
#460
| |
|
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. |
03-10-2017 04:48 PM
#461
| |
|
I'd say the issue seems pretty timeless. Not something that began recently. |
03-10-2017 04:53 PM
#462
| |
|
It's funny, I think your explanation is fantastic and I don't think it suggests out-of-ass talking on his part. |
03-10-2017 05:41 PM
#463
| |
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. | |
03-13-2017 08:14 PM
#464
| |
| |
| |
03-13-2017 08:25 PM
#465
| |
03-13-2017 09:41 PM
#466
| |
| |
03-14-2017 12:30 AM
#467
| |
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? | |
03-14-2017 12:34 AM
#468
| |
That specifically said household too, btw. So its accounting for the elderly, the children, etc who wouldn't have jobs to pay taxes with. | |
Last edited by JKDS; 03-14-2017 at 12:36 AM. | |
03-14-2017 09:34 AM
#469
| |
|
They don't. That's bullshit. The reports/links provided are full of baloney. |
03-14-2017 11:57 AM
#470
| |
|
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. |
03-14-2017 01:03 PM
#471
| |
03-14-2017 01:18 PM
#472
| |
03-14-2017 08:56 PM
#473
| |
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. | |
03-14-2017 10:23 PM
#474
| |
| |
03-14-2017 10:26 PM
#475
| |
|
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. |
03-14-2017 10:41 PM
#476
| |
|
Just so long as Uncle Nige approves. |
03-14-2017 11:00 PM
#477
| |
That's not what the article says. | |
03-14-2017 11:02 PM
#478
| |
03-14-2017 11:06 PM
#479
| |
| |
03-15-2017 12:09 AM
#480
| |
| |
03-15-2017 12:11 AM
#481
| |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 03-15-2017 at 12:17 AM. | |
03-15-2017 12:14 AM
#482
| |
| |
03-15-2017 12:16 AM
#483
| |
I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services. | |
03-15-2017 12:22 AM
#484
| |
| |
03-15-2017 12:45 AM
#485
| |
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. | |
03-15-2017 09:07 AM
#486
| |
| |
03-15-2017 09:11 AM
#487
| |
I'm not speaking to what people get upset about. | |
03-15-2017 09:42 AM
#488
| |
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. | |
03-15-2017 09:46 AM
#489
| |
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. | |
Last edited by JKDS; 03-15-2017 at 09:52 AM. | |
03-15-2017 10:49 AM
#490
| |
|
Mr. 1% earns $1 million per year. He's only charged FICA taxes on the first $150K. 7.65% x $150K = $11,475 |
Last edited by BananaStand; 03-15-2017 at 11:46 AM. | |
03-15-2017 12:50 PM
#491
| |
|
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. |
03-15-2017 12:51 PM
#492
| |
| |
03-15-2017 03:02 PM
#493
| |
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. | |
03-15-2017 03:08 PM
#494
| |
All of this rings true to my sensibilities as a skeptic and a scientist. | |
03-15-2017 03:18 PM
#495
| |
Are you calling from a cell phone? Sorry 911 is only for people who don't squander their money on luxury items. | |
03-15-2017 03:46 PM
#496
| |
03-15-2017 04:03 PM
#497
| |
|
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. |
03-15-2017 04:30 PM
#498
| |
|
How about we just don't give that person any money? |
Last edited by Savy; 03-15-2017 at 04:32 PM. | |
03-15-2017 04:45 PM
#499
| |
You should know me better than this after all these years. | |
03-15-2017 04:49 PM
#500
| |
03-15-2017 05:02 PM
#501
| |
|
You are correct. A significant reason why so many people don't understand personal finance is they don't have much of a reason to anymore, largely due to government handouts, government mandated insurances, other regulations, and other cultural factors (like less cultural stigma to relying on others to take care of you). |
03-15-2017 05:21 PM
#502
| |
|
I caution that this could carry with it some substantial unintended consequences. This would likely open the door to greater intrusive power of bureaucracy and greater acceptance of dependency by citizens. |
03-15-2017 07:11 PM
#503
| |
| |
03-15-2017 07:25 PM
#504
| |
| |
03-15-2017 09:22 PM
#505
| |
| |
03-15-2017 11:25 PM
#506
| |
| |
03-15-2017 11:33 PM
#507
| |
|
What do you mean? I'm saying your car basically has a guaranteed scrap price, not so much a bad thing but market adjustments don't happen so it is, therefore any car you could buy that cost you less than x (x is scrap price of your car) you can no longer buy. We're talking old crappy cars at this point but that doesn't mean they aren't old crappy cars you can get time out of. The knock on effect of this is that EVERY car gets slightly more expensive because you don't just delete the cars worth less than that you also raise the value of every car slightly above that and that knocks on to every other car (decreasing as you go up). So that £400 car you might have bought is £450, etc. |
03-15-2017 11:59 PM
#508
| |
| |
| |
03-16-2017 12:03 AM
#509
| |
|
That's fair enough. |
03-16-2017 12:25 PM
#510
| |
|
Sure you can (unless you're referring to how somebody living paycheck to paycheck definitionally isn't saving). |
03-16-2017 12:34 PM
#511
| |