You are confused. Friedman never argued for a completely free and unregulated market. Primarily, he said that government is responsible for enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud. Those are forms of regulation. Less != none. I don't know why that is so hard for people to understand. I suppose people choose not to try and understand because otherwise they would actually have to listen to other peoples ideas and consider them instead of outright dismissing them. Summarily dismissing someone is the easy, close minded, arrogant way out of having any real discussion.
A compromised position would be to only bail out companies that agree to split. That was my main complaint about the bailouts, they left the companies relatively untouched. If they accepted a bailout they should have been forced to split until they were no longer too big to fail.
There are two problems. The first is to keep companies from getting too large. The second is what to do with companies that get too large and then fail. If we always solve the first problem, there won't be a second problem but that is unlikely to be the case 100% of the time.
The Open Science Framework focuses on psychology instead of chemistry but I would imagine they could both utilize similar frameworks and methodologies. I'm not a chemist or a psychologist so there may be some major incompatibility I don't know about.
Human limitations and fallibility have nothing to do with economics in particular.
That is correct and is not contradictory to the quote. The point of the quote is that economics can help show leaders how little they really know about the impacts their policies will have.
As for the rest, you have presented a false dichotomy. Hayek didn't say that we shouldn't do anything unless we are 100% sure of all of the consequences of that action. He did say that we don't know nearly enough about economics to justify making grand designs to control the economy. This applies equally to many regulatory schemes. The bulk, but not all, of such things are best left to emergent systems that contain local knowledge that are, currently, inaccessible to central planners.
Shocking. Hayek strikes again, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
I would have modded you up but I don't currently have any mod points. I decided to post a smug comment that you probably don't agree with instead.:)
That works during the day just fine. What about at night? Most night time activities that they could participate in without hiring a baby sitter every night are indoors. The inside options are things like reading, watching movies, and playing games. He would rather game. She would rather not. He wants to try and bridge that gap if possible.
I agree with most people here that he probably shouldn't even bother trying. If she isn't interested, she isn't interested. I've also seen problems arise when couples game together because of the frequent, vast difference in skill level (as the OP stated). If one is much better than the other, one or both will usually end up getting frustrated.
read the style guide and actually follow it? That would save you the time of being corrected and the corrector the time of having to correct you. I've never seen a style guide that was too long or complicated to easily follow. You can get used to just about any style once you've worked in it and looked at it for long enough. Consistency does actually go a long way towards readability which is a definite productivity gain. You can also glean information about code from the naming conventions without even thinking about it as long as they are consistent.
I didn't see any criteria listed in TFA other than they are registered sex offenders. If they used this to target people who are on the list for doing things like soliciting sex from a minor online then I think it makes sense. If it is a blanket action that includes people who pissed in public, "sexted" their high school gf/bf, etc. then I think it is ridiculous and basically harassment of people who already served their time.
Sure, his claims are extraordinary but he provides evidence to back them up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which, in my opinion, he provided.
I would agree about his life expectancy argument being statistical trickery if other countries top two killers were non-healthcare related deaths and removing them would have a similar effect on ranking. His argument implies that is not the case but it is worth verifying. You are right that car deaths are not 100% irrelevant for health care but I would argue they aren't nearly as relevant as something like cancer or heart attacks. This makes car deaths disproportionately effect death rates and life expectancy.
As for infant mortality, the US considers an infant alive (and thus capable of dying) once it leaves the womb and shows any sign of life. This is reported by the hospital. I'm not sure how much more stringent you could get than that, doing anything else would result in lower death rates. Other countries do not have hospitals report them (they use in home surveys) or do not consider an infant alive for 24 hours, days, or even weeks after they are born. For a discussion of Western European practices: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00291.x/pdf
I haven't looked into the minority argument enough to really have an opinion on it.
The take away for me is that US healthcare isn't nearly as bad as it has been made to seem in comparison to other countries. Of course it still has huge problems and issues that we absolutely need to address. We just need to be careful that we are modeling our system off of other systems for the right reasons and not based on false assumptions or reasons.
He didn't say it was wonderful and that is nothing but a blatant ad hominem fallacy. He could be the devil himself and still be correct. Listen to his arguments. If you think they are bad, unsupported arguments then that is fine. It is wise to be skeptical of people who have a vested interest, it is foolish to dismiss them because of that interest.
Those studies are a joke, listen and learn: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html
You are probably unwilling to listen since it contradicts your world view and fervently held system of beliefs. You should continue to close yourself off and only read evidence that supports what you already believe, it makes it easier to be dismissive and to denigrate people you disagree with.
What you actually meant to write:
1) public heath insurance -> try to provide money for campaign contributors -> goal, make people sick so they need health care and are dependent on the government
2) public health care -> try to provide money for campaign contributors -> goal, try to provide the greatest quantity of the most expensive treatments
3) private health insurance -> try to earn money -> goal, pay the least amount for health care (can be through either refusing to cover things, negotiations, and/or keeping clients healthy)
4) private health care -> try to earn money -> goal, try to provide the greatest quantity of the most expensive treatments
1 and 2 are in collusion with each other (bad), 3 and 4 are in opposition to one another (good).
I'm not a lawyer or a doctor so I am talking out of my ass. That being said, I've never heard of a senator being held accountable for anything he/she said that turned out to be wrong (other than a blatant lie under oath) regardless of the consequences. They might be able to get him for giving unlicensed medical advice but they could probably get around that with technicalities. For example, saying "vaccines are bad" as a general statement isn't the same as saying "you should not give your child a vaccine because it will harm him" to an individual. The former wouldn't cause issues, the later could even though the implication is the same.
Aside from the other good points people have made about how wrong this article is, you also don't need to accumulate $200,000 in debt to go to college. Go to a good public school (not the best, but a good one) and it won't cost you nearly that much. You could get a 4 year degree for about $50,000 (tuition + frugal living expenses) from a good school. You could also go to a community college for 2 years for practically free then transfer, giving you a college degree for $25,000. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me as long as you are getting a useful degree (one that will actually improve your chances of getting a job).
invite qualified, effective orators and have them educate people as is the purpose of a conference. If they happen to be all white men, so be it. If they happen to be all black women, so be it. The only thing to get angry about is if they rejected or overlooked a qualified speaker because of their race/gender/whatever. Rejecting a qualified white male because there are already "too many white males" is the same thing as rejecting anyone else because of their race or gender.
There are a few limited cases where selecting or rejecting based on gender or race is ok. For example, if the purpose of the conference was to educate people on how work experience changes based on your race and gender, it would be foolish to invite only white males or any other homogeneous group. In cases like that, racial and gender diversity really matters.
Why stop at race and gender? Why not require that tall people and short people be represented. Skinny people and fat people. People with freckles and people without freckles. People with different natural hair colors. People with big noses and small noses. Pick qualified people, not people with or without certain physical characteristics that they have little or no control over.
They should probably go with a more efficient design that uses torches instead of relying on sunlight. It may require a fair amount of cobblestone (or stone if you're feeling fancy) but it is much easier to harvest than their design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2DaL3kHRZA
And some of them will say...how the US is doing such a good job of things.
Citation needed. The argument isn't that the US is doing such a good job, the argument is that the UN would do an even worse job. I'm not saying which side of that argument is correct, I just want you to argue about the correct thing instead of setting up a straw man.
I suppose one last thought to take into consideration is that most people I've met are not entirely black and white in this perspective. I can't think of anyone I've met that was totally "unwilling to see what is" on all (or even most) issues. There are certain issues they will hold to without a nod to reason or thought but that doesn't describe their reaction to all things. Someone who holds onto religious dogma about creation of the earth will still be willing to discuss trade offs in engine design, more effective ways to disseminate information (educate), better aircraft design, etc. Being unwilling to reason on some issues doesn't mean they are unwilling to reason on some or most issues.
Labeling someone as anti-education or anti-intellectual implies they are completely against all forms of education and reason whereas they are probably only that way on a select set of issues.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confused. Friedman never argued for a completely free and unregulated market. Primarily, he said that government is responsible for enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud. Those are forms of regulation. Less != none. I don't know why that is so hard for people to understand. I suppose people choose not to try and understand because otherwise they would actually have to listen to other peoples ideas and consider them instead of outright dismissing them. Summarily dismissing someone is the easy, close minded, arrogant way out of having any real discussion.
A compromised position would be to only bail out companies that agree to split. That was my main complaint about the bailouts, they left the companies relatively untouched. If they accepted a bailout they should have been forced to split until they were no longer too big to fail.
There are two problems. The first is to keep companies from getting too large. The second is what to do with companies that get too large and then fail. If we always solve the first problem, there won't be a second problem but that is unlikely to be the case 100% of the time.
Colluding isn't a case of competition "not working." It is a case of there being no competition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZWzf3h50LU
Skip to 1:14. I'm no physicist but those look like lasers to me.
I was actually describing the Reproducibility Project which uses the Open Science Framework. My bad.
http://openscienceframework.org/project/EZcUj/wiki/home
The Open Science Framework focuses on psychology instead of chemistry but I would imagine they could both utilize similar frameworks and methodologies. I'm not a chemist or a psychologist so there may be some major incompatibility I don't know about.
Human limitations and fallibility have nothing to do with economics in particular.
That is correct and is not contradictory to the quote. The point of the quote is that economics can help show leaders how little they really know about the impacts their policies will have.
As for the rest, you have presented a false dichotomy. Hayek didn't say that we shouldn't do anything unless we are 100% sure of all of the consequences of that action. He did say that we don't know nearly enough about economics to justify making grand designs to control the economy. This applies equally to many regulatory schemes. The bulk, but not all, of such things are best left to emergent systems that contain local knowledge that are, currently, inaccessible to central planners.
Shocking. Hayek strikes again, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
:)
I would have modded you up but I don't currently have any mod points. I decided to post a smug comment that you probably don't agree with instead.
That works during the day just fine. What about at night? Most night time activities that they could participate in without hiring a baby sitter every night are indoors. The inside options are things like reading, watching movies, and playing games. He would rather game. She would rather not. He wants to try and bridge that gap if possible.
I agree with most people here that he probably shouldn't even bother trying. If she isn't interested, she isn't interested. I've also seen problems arise when couples game together because of the frequent, vast difference in skill level (as the OP stated). If one is much better than the other, one or both will usually end up getting frustrated.
Luckily, it is not yet required, only 'preferred'.
read the style guide and actually follow it? That would save you the time of being corrected and the corrector the time of having to correct you. I've never seen a style guide that was too long or complicated to easily follow. You can get used to just about any style once you've worked in it and looked at it for long enough. Consistency does actually go a long way towards readability which is a definite productivity gain. You can also glean information about code from the naming conventions without even thinking about it as long as they are consistent.
I didn't see any criteria listed in TFA other than they are registered sex offenders. If they used this to target people who are on the list for doing things like soliciting sex from a minor online then I think it makes sense. If it is a blanket action that includes people who pissed in public, "sexted" their high school gf/bf, etc. then I think it is ridiculous and basically harassment of people who already served their time.
Sure, his claims are extraordinary but he provides evidence to back them up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which, in my opinion, he provided.
I would agree about his life expectancy argument being statistical trickery if other countries top two killers were non-healthcare related deaths and removing them would have a similar effect on ranking. His argument implies that is not the case but it is worth verifying. You are right that car deaths are not 100% irrelevant for health care but I would argue they aren't nearly as relevant as something like cancer or heart attacks. This makes car deaths disproportionately effect death rates and life expectancy.
As for infant mortality, the US considers an infant alive (and thus capable of dying) once it leaves the womb and shows any sign of life. This is reported by the hospital. I'm not sure how much more stringent you could get than that, doing anything else would result in lower death rates. Other countries do not have hospitals report them (they use in home surveys) or do not consider an infant alive for 24 hours, days, or even weeks after they are born. For a discussion of Western European practices: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00291.x/pdf
I haven't looked into the minority argument enough to really have an opinion on it.
The take away for me is that US healthcare isn't nearly as bad as it has been made to seem in comparison to other countries. Of course it still has huge problems and issues that we absolutely need to address. We just need to be careful that we are modeling our system off of other systems for the right reasons and not based on false assumptions or reasons.
He didn't say it was wonderful and that is nothing but a blatant ad hominem fallacy. He could be the devil himself and still be correct. Listen to his arguments. If you think they are bad, unsupported arguments then that is fine. It is wise to be skeptical of people who have a vested interest, it is foolish to dismiss them because of that interest.
Those studies are a joke, listen and learn:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html
You are probably unwilling to listen since it contradicts your world view and fervently held system of beliefs. You should continue to close yourself off and only read evidence that supports what you already believe, it makes it easier to be dismissive and to denigrate people you disagree with.
What you actually meant to write:
1) public heath insurance -> try to provide money for campaign contributors -> goal, make people sick so they need health care and are dependent on the government
2) public health care -> try to provide money for campaign contributors -> goal, try to provide the greatest quantity of the most expensive treatments
3) private health insurance -> try to earn money -> goal, pay the least amount for health care (can be through either refusing to cover things, negotiations, and/or keeping clients healthy)
4) private health care -> try to earn money -> goal, try to provide the greatest quantity of the most expensive treatments
1 and 2 are in collusion with each other (bad), 3 and 4 are in opposition to one another (good).
I'm not a lawyer or a doctor so I am talking out of my ass. That being said, I've never heard of a senator being held accountable for anything he/she said that turned out to be wrong (other than a blatant lie under oath) regardless of the consequences. They might be able to get him for giving unlicensed medical advice but they could probably get around that with technicalities. For example, saying "vaccines are bad" as a general statement isn't the same as saying "you should not give your child a vaccine because it will harm him" to an individual. The former wouldn't cause issues, the later could even though the implication is the same.
Aside from the other good points people have made about how wrong this article is, you also don't need to accumulate $200,000 in debt to go to college. Go to a good public school (not the best, but a good one) and it won't cost you nearly that much. You could get a 4 year degree for about $50,000 (tuition + frugal living expenses) from a good school. You could also go to a community college for 2 years for practically free then transfer, giving you a college degree for $25,000. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me as long as you are getting a useful degree (one that will actually improve your chances of getting a job).
You just made my day :) An escape goat is even better than an irrelephant! (from a previous slashdot commenter)
Well said. People get hung up on representing physical diversity but seem to miss the boat on other, usually more important, forms of diversity.
invite qualified, effective orators and have them educate people as is the purpose of a conference. If they happen to be all white men, so be it. If they happen to be all black women, so be it. The only thing to get angry about is if they rejected or overlooked a qualified speaker because of their race/gender/whatever. Rejecting a qualified white male because there are already "too many white males" is the same thing as rejecting anyone else because of their race or gender.
There are a few limited cases where selecting or rejecting based on gender or race is ok. For example, if the purpose of the conference was to educate people on how work experience changes based on your race and gender, it would be foolish to invite only white males or any other homogeneous group. In cases like that, racial and gender diversity really matters.
Why stop at race and gender? Why not require that tall people and short people be represented. Skinny people and fat people. People with freckles and people without freckles. People with different natural hair colors. People with big noses and small noses. Pick qualified people, not people with or without certain physical characteristics that they have little or no control over.
They should probably go with a more efficient design that uses torches instead of relying on sunlight. It may require a fair amount of cobblestone (or stone if you're feeling fancy) but it is much easier to harvest than their design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2DaL3kHRZA
Because then the images/text wouldn't line up correctly with the bezel keys due to calibration issues :P
And some of them will say...how the US is doing such a good job of things.
Citation needed. The argument isn't that the US is doing such a good job, the argument is that the UN would do an even worse job. I'm not saying which side of that argument is correct, I just want you to argue about the correct thing instead of setting up a straw man.
Fair enough about the study :P
I suppose one last thought to take into consideration is that most people I've met are not entirely black and white in this perspective. I can't think of anyone I've met that was totally "unwilling to see what is" on all (or even most) issues. There are certain issues they will hold to without a nod to reason or thought but that doesn't describe their reaction to all things. Someone who holds onto religious dogma about creation of the earth will still be willing to discuss trade offs in engine design, more effective ways to disseminate information (educate), better aircraft design, etc. Being unwilling to reason on some issues doesn't mean they are unwilling to reason on some or most issues.
Labeling someone as anti-education or anti-intellectual implies they are completely against all forms of education and reason whereas they are probably only that way on a select set of issues.
Maybe that's just the people I've met.