Off Topic Poker Forums

You're falling into sneakers territory. To not be an anarchic free marketeer does not make one a central planner.

I would amend the first sentence to say people are assumed to act rationally, either individually or as a group and that if everyone acts rationally, then everyone benefits. The inherent flaw is that people do not act rationally (in the scientific sense). SO WE MUST CONTROL THEM. WE CANOT TRUST PEOPLE. WE MUST DECIDE THE WINNERS AND LOSERS FOR THEM. TAX punish successful TAX reward failure TAXES MAN (did I forget to mention inequality)

FixedYourPost

Do you have any idea just how ridiculous your strawman is here?

Do you have any idea just how ridiculous your strawman is here?

Not really. It is the truth.
Government must decide, because .... blah blah blah

I have identified one axiom from which I think most of my POVs can be deduced:

#1 A society should always try to give it's children the best possible education.

let's stir this pot a bit more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-education

"Rousseau advocated an educational method which consisted of removing the child from society—for example, to a country home—and alternately conditioning him through changes to environment and setting traps and puzzles for him to solve or overcome."

[ed: wait, isn't that the plot to The Hunger Games?]


"There are no educators. As a thinker, one should speak only of self-education. The education of youth by others is either an experiment, conducted on one as yet unknown and unknowable, or a leveling on principle, to make the new character, whatever it may be, conform to the habits and customs that prevail."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"Schooling confuses teaching with learning, grades with education, diplomas with competence, attendance with attainment, and, especially, process with substance."
- Ivan Illich (paraphrased?)

/derail

The axiom "#1 A society should always try to give it's children the best possible education." is still fine even if you think that institutionalized education isn't a good thing. All it means if you have that point of view is that the best form of education isn't an institutionalized one.

Just be careful to not undervalue education in general if you happen to not like institutionalized forms of education. An old housemate of mine definitely fell into this trap and I feel as though it was definitely a huge loss to him as a result.

Not really. It is the truth.
Government must decide, because .... blah blah blah

whether it's true or not doesn't change the fact that your argument is a blatant strawman. Perhaps you could try applying the standards of logic you demand of others to your own arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

Follow along Shuttle, if you want to understand the history between Razor and me.
I jab back also when someone exaggerates my positions. I can have fun too. ;-)

Right now, you are just playing cheerleader for one side. Be objective to both sides, and your comments are okay with me. My positions and arguments are not without substance -- accept to the ideologue who keeps pounding the "inequality' drum.

Right now, you are just playing cheerleader for one side.

And you aren't?

And you aren't?

That is obvious, isn't it? I am debating my side.

Do you think I am 100% incorrect on everything?
I do not expect to be completely right, but there is some middle ground.
With that said, there is a saying, "Give someone an inch, and they will take a mile. (be careful)"

the thing is, free market theory demands (or realistically expects) people to act in their self-interest, but it's believed the unintended consequences of such selfish interests will lead to the benefit of society.

And that works fine until a large portion of the population is excluded from a market or a player in the market becomes too dominant. In those situations you can no longer expect the market to adjust (fast enough).

You're falling into sneakers territory. To not be an anarchic free marketeer does not make one a central planner.

I would amend the first sentence to say people are assumed to act rationally, either individually or as a group and that if everyone acts rationally, then everyone benefits. The inherent flaw is that people do not act rationally (in the scientific sense).

considering that i'm very keen to behavioral economics and prospect theory in particular (as it has huge implications on gambling psychology), i'll be the first to admit i don't believe in Homo economicus.

i personally have a hard time believing in anything since it seems to me that whenever i drill down into these theories, there are always assumptions which have to be taken as starting points which people confuse as self-evident truths. they're only true in the technical sense used in logic, not true in any absolute, universal sense, in my opinion anyway.

i have to admit, there is a nasty problem of externalities and the tragedy of the commons which is not satisfactorily dealt with in a completely free market. however, with that said, i still think the starting point for a better functioning economic system and society in general must start with the assumption that free markets are better than centralized control of markets (and yes, i understand no real system is or can be either in the extreme).

i think there is a greater danger in starting with the assumption of the benevolence and ability of men to govern others to create a better society. i'm very skeptical of such ideas. that way leads to sorrow as history has repeatedly told us. and relating back to Taleb and financial markets and blow-ups, that which blows up in the end is always 0. if you have a 999 years of a socialist paradise and 1 year of a totalitarian dictator, that civilization has failed imo. i'd rather take 1000 years of disparity and struggle over that any day. [ed: and sigh, i know this might be construed as just another straw man argument or maybe getting dangerously close to Godwin's Law]

let's stir this pot a bit more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-education

"Rousseau advocated an educational method which consisted of removing the child from society—for example, to a country home—and alternately conditioning him through changes to environment and setting traps and puzzles for him to solve or overcome."

[ed: wait, isn't that the plot to The Hunger Games?]


"There are no educators. As a thinker, one should speak only of self-education. The education of youth by others is either an experiment, conducted on one as yet unknown and unknowable, or a leveling on principle, to make the new character, whatever it may be, conform to the habits and customs that prevail."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"Schooling confuses teaching with learning, grades with education, diplomas with competence, attendance with attainment, and, especially, process with substance."
- Ivan Illich (paraphrased?)

/derail

Didactics is a very complex subject. I am a big advocate of gently forcing people to think. There is a massive difference between knowing and understanding.

......I am a big advocate of gently forcing people to think....

The word "force" is the dangerous word here.
Many many examples. I agree in education, but "force" is an ugly word, depending on which side of the equation you are (which dictator is forcing his opinion). Promising to do it "gently" doesn't make a difference. It is still coercion.

Here is a simple example for me personally, and the person I am.
I have always turned off the lights and tried to save energy -- way way back when it was not a political issue.
I have always saved cans (aluminum) and even had a business as a kid, pulling a little red wagon around collecting newspapers (1 ton = $18-24 recycling back then for paper).

So, some bureaucrat decides that it is not good enough, to "EDUCATE" me......now they are going to "FORCE" me through some mandate(s).

I rebel big time. You say I have to buy spaghetti light-bulbs. Screw you (to the bureaucrat)!

"Force" gently or rudely. It is all the same. It is coercion. Every dictator does it -- sometimes they are off their rockers. And then there is that word "accountability" for the f***-ups. It was a great idea, but oops.....who pays for the dreamy f***-ups?

Education over Force/Coercion.....and I relax my position on a majority of the issues.

considering that i'm very keen to behavioral economics and prospect theory in particular (as it has huge implications on gambling psychology), i'll be the first to admit i don't believe in Homo economicus.

i personally have a hard time believing in anything since it seems to me that whenever i drill down into these theories, there are always assumptions which have to be taken as starting points which people confuse as self-evident truths. they're only true in the technical sense used in logic, not true in any absolute, universal sense, in my opinion anyway.

Yeah, it often comes down to the base assumptions being absurd. I understand why they do it, it's because of the unknowability of how humans will make decisions. What I find the most interesting (though I don't believe it currently) is the idea that people as a whole act rationally even when people make decisions for completely different reasons.

I don't think anyone has suggested starting with complete control of a market and only carving out parts that allow for competition. Simply that left without any regulation, it won't work.

i think there is a greater danger in starting with the assumption of the benevolence and ability of men to govern others to create a better society. i'm very skeptical of such ideas. that way leads to sorrow as history has repeatedly told us.

The assumption that people in the free market will act benevolently for all falls apart for the same reason. What both need is some rules, and to be driven by a well informed, educated public that is at the helm of the system and not the mercy of it. Which brings us to improva's axiom. If you and I, and all the other reasonable thinking people who can grasp difficult concepts and come to consensus based on weighing pros and cons, then government would be in their hands. The markets would have only those regulations that cogent thought by an involved and educated society deemed necessary.

FixedYourPost

You mean, Read Into It What I Wanted To

Didactics is a very complex subject. I am a big advocate of gently forcing people to think. There is a massive difference between knowing and understanding.

[putting my improva fanboy hat back on]

+1 mirrion!

but do you attribute this to govt schooling or do you consider this something you picked up on your own? maybe the public schools in Europe are more different than i ever thought. this sounds great cause i'm all about understanding rather than knowing (dislike trivia masquerading as intelligence, etc.). but sadly, i think i'm very bad at it as i get very frustrated when things aren't spelled out for me, like someone is playing a trick on me. lol american education system?

You mean, Read Into It What I Wanted To

touché ..... but it is what you say

But then you turn around and say it (at least it seems that way to me)
......that some all-knowing-smarter-people Intelligentsia.......will make the rules -- and flex them according to their view of (fairness?).
Barney Frank was at the "helm" of such a group.....but you still believe he did no wrong -- and we cannot go back and fix it. Instead, he pointed the finger everywhere else (plenty of video).

.....What both need is some rules, and to be driven by a well informed, educated public that is at the helm of the system and not the mercy of it.....

But I do admit it sounds nice. About the same as I thought the first time I read Karl Marx in an International Finance class (Harvard Review study case). A lot of what he said still makes sense, and there are people who want to make his Utopia happen. But it always turns into Dictatorships, Socialism, and/or Communism, correct?

That is my main fight....against tryanny (force/coercion) by supposed well-informed Intelligentsia. The rest of the population and future generations are at the mercy of the experiments.

That is obvious, isn't it? I am debating my side.

Do you think I am 100% incorrect on everything?
I do not expect to be completely right, but there is some middle ground.
With that said, there is a saying, "Give someone an inch, and they will take a mile. (be careful)"

Where is the part where you find middle ground? The closest I've seen if you overstate a position, get called on it, and then say you're exaggerating your position because you perceived someone else to be doing that first.

Where is the part where you find middle ground? The closest I've seen if you overstate a position, get called on it, and then say you're exaggerating your position because you perceived someone else to be doing that first.

Call it what you like. I much prefer to have some fun with the other jesters, than tilting. Tilting sucks big time.

Over the last year, I have come to realize that both sides are well-intentioned and do want the same thing.... what is best for everyone (at least I think both sides want this.)
The debate is how to make that happen.

EDIT: the other thing that I do respect, is that most parties in the discussion are very intelligent (even Razor lol). That is my favorite thing about the DC forums. Otherwise, I would not keep returning for the abuse. I do fight political-correctness.

<now go back to your peanut gallery unless you have something to add.>

<now go back to your peanut gallery unless you have something to add.>

I'm asking a legitimate question. You may think that you're working towards a middle ground, but it doesn't come off that way at all. Your method appears to be marginalizing the other side in an attempt to win, not as trying to understand.

As for contributing to the thread, I asked this yesterday and do not see a response:

If legality is an acceptable limit to what a company can do, isn't that acknowledging the government regulation has a place? Aren't anti-trust laws and EPA regulations just demarcations of legality and limits?

BTW, this was my attempt to find a middle ground. I took my opinion, crossed it with yours, and looked for an intersection. Try doing the same without starting with an intentionally overstated version of my opinion and we might get somewhere.

I'm asking a legitimate question. You may think that you're working towards a middle ground, but it doesn't come off that way at all. Your method appears to be marginalizing the other side in an attempt to win, not as trying to understand.

As for contributing to the thread, I asked this yesterday and do not see a response:

BTW, this was my attempt to find a middle ground. I took my opinion, crossed it with yours, and looked for an intersection. Try doing the same without starting with an intentionally overstated version of my opinion and we might get somewhere.

Most of the time I see your posts as just being a clown -- making little jabs on DC. Sometimes it is funny -- but not close to as funny as Mitch. Sorry.

There are several others I have not responded to, that really do deserve responses. Unfortunately, I can only keep up with so many. It starts mushrooming into a full-time thing. lol

BTW, I think I did respond to that. Congrats on your efforts. If you do look at my posts, you should be able to find agreement (at least on something). Many times, I think different parties (including myself) simply ignore the parts we agree with.......like why argue points we agree on.
But on the other hand, there are some points I hammer on, because it seems that the other party refuses to acknowledge that I may make sense on the issue. It may be vice-versa on my part also.

But thanks for your caring about my style. You really have not been my focus in this debate. Razor keeps me plenty busy. lol

BTW, I think I did respond to that.

If you did, I didn't notice it the first time and can't find it skimming now. Can you either point me to the post or answer it again?

touché ..... but it is what you say

No, it is not. This is what I mean by being blinded by righteousness and 1st level thinking. You assume that because someone doesn't agree with you 100%, and in the way you express yourself, then they are 100% the polar opposite of you. It doesn't work that way.

Barney Frank was at the "helm" of such a group.....but you still believe he did no wrong -- and we cannot go back and fix it. Instead, he pointed the finger everywhere else (plenty of video).

I don't know what 'did wrong' means, but I will never say what government did or said (outside of repealing Glass Steagall) was any kind of major contributor to the crisis because it wasn't. The facts are plain and I took the time to research what actually happened to come to my conclusion.

But then you turn around and say it (at least it seems that way to me)
......that some all-knowing-smarter-people Intelligentsia.......will make the rules -- and flex them according to their view of (fairness?).

If you look back and really read what I wrote, you will find that this intelligentsia as you call it would be comprised of everyone. In other words, no one would not be intelligentsia. All peoples would be educated and knowledgeable. That can only be achieved with improva's axiom being realized. It means that society as a whole will start to agree on things, even though some things cannot be perfect, and everyone collectively will decide if the downsides should be lived with. This is theoretically how a democracy or republic should work. It doesn't work that way now because people are not educated and informed, and do not listen with an open mind and try to solve problems. Rather they try to defend their position, and come upon those positions based on influence. If everyone were educated, then money would have less influence over politics because the politician could sell some nonsense to people as fact, no matter how much someone contributed to the politician's campaigns.

Right now, despite our founding fathers' efforts, the people do not have control over their circumstance. And for one last thing, you conflate when I say 'government' with the current operation of the current government. Despite what you may have assigned to me, I have hardly in my entire life ever thought well of the way our government works. Very different from the concept of how they could work.

No, it is not. This is what I mean by being blinded by righteousness and 1st level thinking. You assume that because someone doesn't agree with you 100%, and in the way you express yourself, then they are 100% the polar opposite of you. It doesn't work that way.

OK. You refuse to agree on anything (zero) substantial with me. You definitely are the Pot-calling-the-Kettle-"black". I remember that debate with AJ. He actually changed my thoughts on some things. You? lol Kept on with your gospel, as usual. lol Whatever.

If you look back and really read what I wrote, you will find that this intelligentsia as you call it would be comprised of everyone. In other words, no one would not be intelligentsia. All peoples would be educated and knowledgeable. That can only be achieved with improva's axiom being realized. It means that society as a whole will start to agree on things, even though some things cannot be perfect, and everyone collectively will decide if the downsides should be lived with. This is theoretically how a democracy or republic should work. It doesn't work that way now because people are not educated and informed, and do not listen with an open mind and try to solve problems. Rather they try to defend their position, and come upon those positions based on influence. If everyone were educated, then money would have less influence over politics because the politician could sell some nonsense to people as fact, no matter how much someone contributed to the politician's campaigns.

A free market is "everyone". No one should be at the "helm" trying to coerce anyone.
But what I believe you want is that everyone be "educated" to your belief system. Anything else, is not "educated" enough for you. You make wisecracks about my opinion, and no one calls you on it. meh I am just going by the history of your arguments -- unless something has drastically changed in your belief system and you are less bleeding-heart and more logical. If that has happened, then let me know. Because for that, I will dance the jig and put it on youtube (maybe lol).



As far as Improva's "axioms", I have given them some thought. He speaks like he is reading from holy scripture, and anyone who disagrees "has it all backwards" or "has not learned anything". lol

In a nutshell, here are the reasons I disagree with Improva's supposed truths.
1. I disagree with the "gently forced" remark. Coercion again, abeit "gentle". ???

2. Denmark is 6million people......the US is 314million. You decide if it scales. I do not think we should take it as the truth just because Improva says so. If so, try it with states first. California has 38million?

3. I saw his excited remark regarding my EPA jab (they are criminal IMO). Then we find out that he owns international companies that indirectly benefit from all of the "environmental" mandates. No conflict of interest, right?
.............The EPA is one of the most criminal agencies IMO in regards to the damage done to economies. Same goes for California's EPA agency. (watch bankruptcy loom) These agencies literally destroy the economy -- criminal to do it during a bad economy. But of course, some "environmental" careers and companies will flourish and celebrate each mandate. Let's be real.

4. Denmark depends heavily on foreign trade.....and has carried a surplus for many years in Trade Balance. Basically, Denmark industries depend on siphoning of other countries' economies (not bad, but true)
The US had a trade deficit of about $550billion in 2011 (feel free to correct the number).
.....That is a negative of about $1,751 per person (in the red)
Denmark had a surplus of about 12.3billionDKK (or about us$2billion)
.....That is a positive of about $333 per person (in the black)
* feel free to correct numbers.

5. Lets send all of the illegal immigrants to Denmark could they absorb it? Probably not. A country the size of Denmark cannot absorb the amount of immigrants the US takes in each year (legal and illegal). That is a service the US provides (it seems).....and we cannot have cradle-to-grave welfare, until things like this are handle. I am sure Denmark's immigration policy is strict. I have never been to a country where the policy was not strict and logical. I am always amazed by this.

** If the numbers need to be corrected, I am okay with that. The point is that Improva is taking the Denmark model and has said it can be applied easily to the US. I disagree. The rest of his "truths" should be looked at skeptically. We are not Denmark, by a long shot.

NOTE: although I disagree with several of Improva's statements, I still do respect him immensely for his personal actions (believe it or not).
1. wrote at least two editions of a book, and does coaching. Bravo. Inspiring to me.
2. owns international businesses. I am jealous. That would be a dream for me.

Point being that, if our country was full of productive people like Improva, I would likely say "Heck yeah. Let the welfare services roll. We could afford to pay fo them."
Unfortunately we are in bad times. Now is not the time to experiment. At least wait until better times.

<break taking a breath lol>
EDIT: ========Holy Crap Alert========
The estimate I gave above for Denmark's Trade of Balance was only for Gas and Oil.
This is the full figure for 2011.
"......Denmark posted a surplus of 80.2 billion Danish kroner (14.3 billion U.S. dollars) on its trade account last year (2011)"
us$14.3billion/6million people = us$2,383.33 trade surplus per person in Denmark.
.......compared to -us$1,751/person in the US (deficit).

F***ing-A. Of course! Buy everyone their health insurance and whatever they want. Of course.
That figure blows me away. Apples to Apples? NOT even close. Wow LOL


.

I don't know what 'did wrong' means, but I will never say what government did or said (outside of repealing Glass Steagall) was any kind of major contributor to the crisis because it wasn't. The facts are plain and I took the time to research what actually happened to come to my conclusion.

You added this later in your edit.
To the rest in this thread, this is one of the major points I will not let Razor get by with. Shows the bias and protection for govt.

@Razor, I am too tired tonight to spell it out for you again. You are absolutely wrong. Several people have explained it to you. Barney Frank is a Moron, was TubaSteve's assessment of the guy. BUT, you always defended Barney's Frank. I guess it is because you do not want to admit that the government fueled the fire for the crisis. That is only a guess. This is why I am skeptical of any do-gooder government operations. The bias of some ideologues to protect the government from blame when they totally f***-up.

For me, besides all of the videos on youtube of Barney Frank lying before and after the crisis, I also read Thomas Sowell's book The Housing Boom and Bust. Don't worry. Sowell nails everyone, left right and center. No one escapes blame in this book. Everybody played a part in the housing crisis......but somehow Razor.....you always defend Government: i.e. Barney Frank, Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, and the Community Reinvestment Act.. I think they call that DENIAL. Prime example of bias to one's own ideology. Kind of boring.

Chat with you tomorrow if I have time.

[putting my improva fanboy hat back on]

+1 mirrion!

but do you attribute this to govt schooling or do you consider this something you picked up on your own? maybe the public schools in Europe are more different than i ever thought. this sounds great cause i'm all about understanding rather than knowing (dislike trivia masquerading as intelligence, etc.). but sadly, i think i'm very bad at it as i get very frustrated when things aren't spelled out for me, like someone is playing a trick on me. lol american education system?

I think the schools (primary and high school) are asked to do something close to the impossible. In Europe many primary and high schools have better conditions because we have fewer kids with massive social problems. A very religious upbringing is in my opinion a social problem. But I don't have any reason to think the schools in EU are doing a better job than the schools in the US.

Even in Denmark we see a very strong correlation between high school grades and social class. A difference of 1-2 grades! The schools in Denmark provide more or less the same education to the kids. This strongly suggests that we should invest money in helping the lower social classes.

My observation is not really based on my own experience as a student but my experience as a teacher, but my teachers in primary school were relentless in their focus on method rather than result. I think we had 1 or 2 multiple choice tests in primary school.

As far as Improva's "axioms", I have given them some thought. He speaks like he is reading from holy scripture, and anyone who disagrees "has it all backwards" or "has not learned anything". lol

Just provide your own axioms. I would rather burn holy scriptures than read them. The you-have-not-learned anything was a comment about your methods rather than your results.

In a nutshell, here are the reasons I disagree with Improva's supposed truths.
1. I disagree with the "gently forced" remark. Coercion again, abeit "gentle". ???

Children should learn that their method is more important than how many books they can quote.

2. Denmark is 6million people......the US is 314million. You decide if it scales. I do not think we should take it as the truth just because Improva says so. If so, try it with states first. California has 38million?

I agree a gradual approach is likely best. Europe has 731 million and most countries have a health care system equivalent to the Danish.

3. I saw his excited remark regarding my EPA jab (they are criminal IMO). Then we find out that he owns international companies that indirectly benefit from all of the "environmental" mandates. No conflict of interest, right?
.............The EPA is one of the most criminal agencies IMO in regards to the damage done to economies. Same goes for California's EPA agency. (watch bankruptcy loom) These agencies literally destroy the economy -- criminal to do it during a bad economy. But of course, some "environmental" careers and companies will flourish and celebrate each mandate. Let's be real.

I strongly disagree with the environmental laws in the US. They are way too soft. The business is not generated by the laws but by the fact that environmental labs in the US operate like EU labs did 10 years ago.

4. Denmark depends heavily on foreign trade.....and has carried a surplus for many years in Trade Balance. Basically, Denmark industries depend on siphoning of other countries' economies (not bad, but true)
The US had a trade deficit of about $550billion in 2011 (feel free to correct the number).
.....That is a negative of about $1,751 per person (in the red)
Denmark had a surplus of about 12.3billionDKK (or about us$2billion)
.....That is a positive of about $333 per person (in the black)
* feel free to correct numbers.

I think it is a mistake to look at the Danish economy in a vacuum. It seems you agree.

5. Lets send all of the illegal immigrants to Denmark could they absorb it? Probably not. A country the size of Denmark cannot absorb the amount of immigrants the US takes in each year (legal and illegal). That is a service the US provides (it seems).....and we cannot have cradle-to-grave welfare, until things like this are handle. I am sure Denmark's immigration policy is strict. I have never been to a country where the policy was not strict and logical. I am always amazed by this.

You are right we have strict rules for people outside the EU. And I think the US should implement stricter control, minimum wages and a central database with information about all citizens.

** If the numbers need to be corrected, I am okay with that. The point is that Improva is taking the Denmark model and has said it can be applied easily to the US. I disagree. The rest of his "truths" should be looked at skeptically. We are not Denmark, by a long shot.

You are right there are many many things that needs to be fixed in the US - but we have to start somewhere.

The estimate I gave above for Denmark's Trade of Balance was only for Gas and Oil.
This is the full figure for 2011.
"......Denmark posted a surplus of 80.2 billion Danish kroner (14.3 billion U.S. dollars) on its trade account last year (2011)"
us$14.3billion/6million people = us$2,383.33 trade surplus per person in Denmark.
.......compared to -us$1,751/person in the US (deficit).

F***ing-A. Of course! Buy everyone their health insurance and whatever they want. Of course.
That figure blows me away. Apples to Apples? NOT even close. Wow LOL

So an economy with a strong social dimension can perform really well? I thought it would be inefficient and produce products of low quality.