I'm not suggesting people go take out big loans just to re-invest (although an experienced investment banker probably does that all the time with his own money). I'm talking about a situation where you have 30k in cash already and you invest it and then take a 30K loan out against it to buy a car instead of dropping 30k on the car up front. The difference is that if you have 30k cash that you can afford to part with right now then you're not going to go broke if you lose some of it in market fluctuations. It just means having to pay your car loan from your regular income like everybody else instead of your investment income.
I don't mean to sound condescending but you sound like one of these people that avoids investing because perhaps you don't know much about it and you have an irrational fear of the next 'big market crash'. I would recommend taking off the tinfoil hat. Or at least admit that your wearing it instead of trying to convince me that I'm make poor financial decisions.
Prime here in Canada is currently 6%. Not really important to the discussion; just fyi to put the 5% in better context.
Thus, for a car financing entity to lend money at 5% must be a loss leader.
It is. The factory (not the dealer) does the financing and figures it into the cost they charge the dealer. Kind of a scam actually because the buyer can't negotiate a better price in lieu of the cheap financing. Maybe you don't have a similar situation down south. Keep in mind this is only for new cars.
And then there is the issue of borrowing money in order to invest it elsewhere at a presumed profit. Multi-billion dollar hedge funds might be able to successfully pull off tricks like that and turn a sustained profit - but not you and me.
30K invested over 5 years in the proper array of mutual funds and bonds should easily return better then prime with minimal risk. Plus, you shouldn't be cashing it out even after the loan is paid off anyway so if it fluctuates a bit that's ok. You keep it invested and use it as collateral for future loans.
So even if you can't get special low factory financing, if you have 30K in investments then you can sign them as guaranteed collateral and the bank should give you, if not prime then extremely close to it (most banks here will give prime for a loan secured with investments).
You simply trade significant risk for a very slim potential profit.
You think it's slim? Let me give you some numbers then. If prime is 8.25 then you should be able to at least get a rate of 8.5% on a fully secured loan (secured with your 30k investments). At 8.5% over five years you will pay $6930 in total interest. Now lets assume that your investments do poorly and return only 8.5% (the same as your loan). 30K over five years at 8.5% turns into $45110. Subtract the $6930 and your still up $8180. I don't consider 8k slim.
Making large purchases for cash is not correct. You can invest that cash for at least 8% while most dealerships offer financing at less than 5%. Plus, over the term of the loan you'll be paying down the principal which lowers the overall interest. You lost a fair chunk of change paying with cash instead of investing.
Thinking long term doesn't mean avoiding debt. Often taking out a loan is the best way to maximize long term income. I don't mean to embarras you; just trying to help out. Financial planning can be somewhat complicated which is why people can make careers out of it.
Which leads me to believe the rest of the price of those players is Blue Diodes + Brand names
Actually HD-DVD also uses blue lasers. The reason for the cost is because blu-ray uses a much higher data density which current DVD factories can't create without a complete re-tooling.
The format that will win will be the one that the movie studios throw their support behind. And thier decision will be based primarially on the politicking of all the big companies involved. The PS3 will be largely irrelevent, except as a way for Sony to prove to the movie publishers that this technology is viable and that they are committed to it. The opinion of the customers on this issue is worth far less then most of us believe. And the 'market penetration' of the ps3 is not significant enough to be relevant.
It doesn't do anything to support your arugment that lying is always bad for the individual in the general case.
Sorry, I realized after posting that this is not correct. I misread. What I should have said is that your example describes a specific situation in which the game theory choice matches the moral choice, but it's not an arugment for the general case. Though, that was probably your point. You were just trying to explain your position to me, not defend it, I assume. My point is that I don't think you can make a good arugment for the general case.
You believe that morals transcend game theory, and that lying is a better for the individual by game theory.
No, I didn't say that. I belive that sometimes lying is better for the individual. I thought that was obvious and didn't realize that it would be a point of debate. Though I understand now that it's the keystone of your position.
To put this in Game Theory terms, think of this as the prisoner's dilemma - lying helps you only if everyone else doesn't lie (or if you do it first, if you like). But to you personally, you have a choice - lie or don't lie. If you lie, then you know that everyone else will start lying in a downward spiral - which will be bad for you. If you don't lie, then as long as noone else lies you are far better off. The trick is that in a society, you can beat up the guy that lies first - getting you out of the prisoner's dillemma, and matching the game theory choice with the moral choice.
That's just a specific example in a very constrained environment. It doesn't do anything to support your arugment that lying is always bad for the individual in the general case. I don't think your posision has any legs when scaled to the scope of the real world. In fact, it's almost trivial to refute; we only have to look at the origin of this debate. There are many people who value (morally) life on this planet after we're extinct, or who value alien life on another planet twelve galaxies over that will never affect us. Those values have no explaination in your model. Perhaps you think those opinions are uncommon, but I don't think so.
Game theory is the science of calculating optimum response (optimizing self-interest) in difficult situations.
If you lie, you can achieve a short term gain while everyone else loses - but, longer term, your lie will lead to people not trusting you (either you in particular or more generalized mistrust), which will lower society's output (because people cannot work well together), which will mean that you are worse off than before. So most people do not lie.
I should clarify. I agree that this example is an application of game theory because there are other people making decisions based on your decisions that you need to condsider. However your overall understanding of the specifics of game theory do not seem correct. You apply the term too liberally in situations where you should not. Your previous Venus/Mecury example was not a valid application of game theory.
Game theory is the science of calculating optimum response (optimizing self-interest) in difficult situations.
No, it's not. I explained this in my last post. I don't like repeating myself. Game theory involves multiple competing players each making decisions for themselves. What you're talking about is a generalized decision theory.
If you lie, you can achieve a short term gain while everyone else loses - but, longer term, your lie will lead to people not trusting you (either you in particular or more generalized mistrust), which will lower society's output (because people cannot work well together), which will mean that you are worse off than before. So most people do not lie.
I agree. But now you're talking about the origin of morals. The difference is important, as I will explain momentarially.
Of course, most people do not go through that line of reasoning
That's exactly my point; the one I've been trying to make all along. But why is that exactly? The reason is because moral laws work for the benifit of society as a whole (as your example describes), but not for the individual. It is often the case that what is best for the individual (even in the long run) is not best for society as a whole. Honesty is an excellent example. That means that people often make decisions that actually have a negative impact on themselves personally. The only way the law can work correctly to benifit society is if people follow it blindly (i.e. without an analysis of the logic you described). As a result, that's exactly the way nature has evolved morals to work. They're enforced subconsciously. But the subconscious machine that does that isn't precise; it doesn't know exactly in which situations the law needs to be applied, so it usually applies it liberally. So, for example, most people will develop a value for life that extends to aliens twelve galaxies over.
Well that's just foolish. Animals have values too. You just mean that the human standards of value are a human concept and not universal; which I agree with. But I don't agree that they die with us. Only values defined in economic terms die. You say moral values also die but nothing in your argument supports that, or even addresses the concept of a moral value. Actually "moral values" is just a longer way to right "morals", so lets use that term instead.
A diamond is valuable now, but if we all died of the plague tomorrow, what good is it going to do for the squirrels, dogs, or cats.
Your example of the value of a diamond describes a purely economic definition of the word value.
Our morals (moral values) are part of the definition of what we are. It is part of the definition of humanity. The _definition_ of humanity would still exist even after we're all gone, so that means that our set of morals still exist even if no one is around to adhere to them.
Re:It's not the horror games that are scary
on
Fraidy Cat Gamer
·
· Score: 1
I'm one of those people who only gets the jitters waiting for the shit to hit the fan
That's a major element a good horror game (or movie) and I think most people, not just yourself, find it more scary than being startled. Ghosts and the like are often used because the limits on what they can do (or are about to do) is much wider. They're more unpredictable which increases the suspense and makes them scarier. Simply put, they're not scary just because they're 'ghosts'; they're scary because they're unpredictable.
I believe that morality is merely an advance form of game theory.
Game thoery consists of a set of players who are all competing against each other with each player making decisions to try and maximize thier own gain and minimize thier own loss. Game theory can tell you what the optimal decisions are for those players. That's nothing like the situation that your example is describing. You're trying to come an optimial decision in the face of conflicting requirements, but you don't have competing playing each making thier own decisions. Sorry, but game thoery doesn't apply.
But we can drop the term game theory for a moment and talk about what you meant. You're saying that morality is the system used to come to a decision in the face of conflicting requirments. The 'lesser of two evils' problem. Choice A is bad, but B is worse so we choose A. That defintion of morality not useful because you haven't defined what is good or bad, which is the entire point of morality. The correct interpretation is that morality defines A as bad and B as worse and then we can use standard decision making techniques to resolve the confict.
it is simple that we should not destroy Venus just because it obstructs our view of Mecury
Why? How did you make that assertion? Where did it come from? It came from your morals. That's what morality does; it defines that act as 'bad' with no other underlying logic. (In this specific case destroying Venus might possibly have significant negative impacts on Earth, but that's besides the point). Morals are what define right and wrong when no other standards apply.
Of course, many philisophical things are irrational,
I forgot to mention in my last post, but this is completely wrong. You obviously haven't studied philosophy or the works of any of the great philosophers. Philosophy is best described (imo) as the application of logic and rational thinking to problems that can't be answered by the scientific methods of experimentation and observation. Every university philosophy department that's worth anything will have a first year course that teaches basic symbolic logic.
You don't seem the type to enjoy a philosophical discussion but I can help myself.:)
The concept of value intersects significantly with the concept of morality. One way to describe morals is to call them a list of things we value that don't necessarially affect us directly or indirectly. I consider life precious and valuable regardless of whether it exists here or twelve galaxies over.
They have no value because anything that is unused by the valuer has no value by definition
Your defintion of value is not correct. We're not talking about a car or a house here. Something of value is simply something of 'worth' which, in a philosophical or moral context, is difficult to precisely describe. Humans can, for example, value 'life' in general even for a specific life which doesn't benefit us in anyway. To use your example, yes extra-terrestrial life is valuable, though not necessarially more valuable then our planet's life, but still valuable.
Or it'll interpret general controller gestures into predetermined saber motion animations.
This is the big question I have. And not just about star wars. What about the sword fighting stuff that Nintento actually demoed? (Red Steel was it?). How does that game work? Is it completlely free or does it have specific pre-programed sword animations?
Slashdot Mirror
You're paying down the principal on the loan to lower the future interest, but you're not deducting that from the invested amount
That's why you make more money this way. Go back in this thread a look at the numerical example I gave.
I'm not suggesting people go take out big loans just to re-invest (although an experienced investment banker probably does that all the time with his own money). I'm talking about a situation where you have 30k in cash already and you invest it and then take a 30K loan out against it to buy a car instead of dropping 30k on the car up front. The difference is that if you have 30k cash that you can afford to part with right now then you're not going to go broke if you lose some of it in market fluctuations. It just means having to pay your car loan from your regular income like everybody else instead of your investment income.
I don't mean to sound condescending but you sound like one of these people that avoids investing because perhaps you don't know much about it and you have an irrational fear of the next 'big market crash'. I would recommend taking off the tinfoil hat. Or at least admit that your wearing it instead of trying to convince me that I'm make poor financial decisions.
Right now Prime is hovering around 8.25%
Prime here in Canada is currently 6%. Not really important to the discussion; just fyi to put the 5% in better context.
Thus, for a car financing entity to lend money at 5% must be a loss leader.
It is. The factory (not the dealer) does the financing and figures it into the cost they charge the dealer. Kind of a scam actually because the buyer can't negotiate a better price in lieu of the cheap financing. Maybe you don't have a similar situation down south. Keep in mind this is only for new cars.
And then there is the issue of borrowing money in order to invest it elsewhere at a presumed profit. Multi-billion dollar hedge funds might be able to successfully pull off tricks like that and turn a sustained profit - but not you and me.
30K invested over 5 years in the proper array of mutual funds and bonds should easily return better then prime with minimal risk. Plus, you shouldn't be cashing it out even after the loan is paid off anyway so if it fluctuates a bit that's ok. You keep it invested and use it as collateral for future loans.
So even if you can't get special low factory financing, if you have 30K in investments then you can sign them as guaranteed collateral and the bank should give you, if not prime then extremely close to it (most banks here will give prime for a loan secured with investments).
You simply trade significant risk for a very slim potential profit.
You think it's slim? Let me give you some numbers then. If prime is 8.25 then you should be able to at least get a rate of 8.5% on a fully secured loan (secured with your 30k investments). At 8.5% over five years you will pay $6930 in total interest. Now lets assume that your investments do poorly and return only 8.5% (the same as your loan). 30K over five years at 8.5% turns into $45110. Subtract the $6930 and your still up $8180. I don't consider 8k slim.
we bought both our cars for cash
Making large purchases for cash is not correct. You can invest that cash for at least 8% while most dealerships offer financing at less than 5%. Plus, over the term of the loan you'll be paying down the principal which lowers the overall interest. You lost a fair chunk of change paying with cash instead of investing.
Thinking long term doesn't mean avoiding debt. Often taking out a loan is the best way to maximize long term income. I don't mean to embarras you; just trying to help out. Financial planning can be somewhat complicated which is why people can make careers out of it.
The condorcet system is the best. Under which Al wins in both of your examples.
considering Sony and Toshiba have argued the price is due to the processors required for decoding
Do you have a source for that?
Which leads me to believe the rest of the price of those players is Blue Diodes + Brand names
Actually HD-DVD also uses blue lasers. The reason for the cost is because blu-ray uses a much higher data density which current DVD factories can't create without a complete re-tooling.
Troll! Troll!
Instead we end up with the same boring dice roll kind of fighting, which is probably easier with a regular controller.
Did you not actually read the article?
The format that will win will be the one that the movie studios throw their support behind. And thier decision will be based primarially on the politicking of all the big companies involved. The PS3 will be largely irrelevent, except as a way for Sony to prove to the movie publishers that this technology is viable and that they are committed to it. The opinion of the customers on this issue is worth far less then most of us believe. And the 'market penetration' of the ps3 is not significant enough to be relevant.
Man, I forgot about that game. That was fun; it was all about the amputations! :D
It doesn't do anything to support your arugment that lying is always bad for the individual in the general case.
Sorry, I realized after posting that this is not correct. I misread. What I should have said is that your example describes a specific situation in which the game theory choice matches the moral choice, but it's not an arugment for the general case. Though, that was probably your point. You were just trying to explain your position to me, not defend it, I assume. My point is that I don't think you can make a good arugment for the general case.
You believe that morals transcend game theory, and that lying is a better for the individual by game theory.
No, I didn't say that. I belive that sometimes lying is better for the individual. I thought that was obvious and didn't realize that it would be a point of debate. Though I understand now that it's the keystone of your position.
To put this in Game Theory terms, think of this as the prisoner's dilemma - lying helps you only if everyone else doesn't lie (or if you do it first, if you like). But to you personally, you have a choice - lie or don't lie. If you lie, then you know that everyone else will start lying in a downward spiral - which will be bad for you. If you don't lie, then as long as noone else lies you are far better off. The trick is that in a society, you can beat up the guy that lies first - getting you out of the prisoner's dillemma, and matching the game theory choice with the moral choice.
That's just a specific example in a very constrained environment. It doesn't do anything to support your arugment that lying is always bad for the individual in the general case. I don't think your posision has any legs when scaled to the scope of the real world. In fact, it's almost trivial to refute; we only have to look at the origin of this debate. There are many people who value (morally) life on this planet after we're extinct, or who value alien life on another planet twelve galaxies over that will never affect us. Those values have no explaination in your model. Perhaps you think those opinions are uncommon, but I don't think so.
Game theory is the science of calculating optimum response (optimizing self-interest) in difficult situations.
If you lie, you can achieve a short term gain while everyone else loses - but, longer term, your lie will lead to people not trusting you (either you in particular or more generalized mistrust), which will lower society's output (because people cannot work well together), which will mean that you are worse off than before. So most people do not lie.
I should clarify. I agree that this example is an application of game theory because there are other people making decisions based on your decisions that you need to condsider. However your overall understanding of the specifics of game theory do not seem correct. You apply the term too liberally in situations where you should not. Your previous Venus/Mecury example was not a valid application of game theory.
Game theory is the science of calculating optimum response (optimizing self-interest) in difficult situations.
No, it's not. I explained this in my last post. I don't like repeating myself. Game theory involves multiple competing players each making decisions for themselves. What you're talking about is a generalized decision theory.
If you lie, you can achieve a short term gain while everyone else loses - but, longer term, your lie will lead to people not trusting you (either you in particular or more generalized mistrust), which will lower society's output (because people cannot work well together), which will mean that you are worse off than before. So most people do not lie.
I agree. But now you're talking about the origin of morals. The difference is important, as I will explain momentarially.
Of course, most people do not go through that line of reasoning
That's exactly my point; the one I've been trying to make all along. But why is that exactly? The reason is because moral laws work for the benifit of society as a whole (as your example describes), but not for the individual. It is often the case that what is best for the individual (even in the long run) is not best for society as a whole. Honesty is an excellent example. That means that people often make decisions that actually have a negative impact on themselves personally. The only way the law can work correctly to benifit society is if people follow it blindly (i.e. without an analysis of the logic you described). As a result, that's exactly the way nature has evolved morals to work. They're enforced subconsciously. But the subconscious machine that does that isn't precise; it doesn't know exactly in which situations the law needs to be applied, so it usually applies it liberally. So, for example, most people will develop a value for life that extends to aliens twelve galaxies over.
I spelled 'write' as 'right'. I feel like a moron... duh..me spel good!!
Actually, "Value" is a purely human concept
Well that's just foolish. Animals have values too. You just mean that the human standards of value are a human concept and not universal; which I agree with. But I don't agree that they die with us. Only values defined in economic terms die. You say moral values also die but nothing in your argument supports that, or even addresses the concept of a moral value. Actually "moral values" is just a longer way to right "morals", so lets use that term instead.
A diamond is valuable now, but if we all died of the plague tomorrow, what good is it going to do for the squirrels, dogs, or cats.
Your example of the value of a diamond describes a purely economic definition of the word value.
Our morals (moral values) are part of the definition of what we are. It is part of the definition of humanity. The _definition_ of humanity would still exist even after we're all gone, so that means that our set of morals still exist even if no one is around to adhere to them.
I'm one of those people who only gets the jitters waiting for the shit to hit the fan
That's a major element a good horror game (or movie) and I think most people, not just yourself, find it more scary than being startled. Ghosts and the like are often used because the limits on what they can do (or are about to do) is much wider. They're more unpredictable which increases the suspense and makes them scarier. Simply put, they're not scary just because they're 'ghosts'; they're scary because they're unpredictable.
I believe that morality is merely an advance form of game theory.
Game thoery consists of a set of players who are all competing against each other with each player making decisions to try and maximize thier own gain and minimize thier own loss. Game theory can tell you what the optimal decisions are for those players. That's nothing like the situation that your example is describing. You're trying to come an optimial decision in the face of conflicting requirements, but you don't have competing playing each making thier own decisions. Sorry, but game thoery doesn't apply.
But we can drop the term game theory for a moment and talk about what you meant. You're saying that morality is the system used to come to a decision in the face of conflicting requirments. The 'lesser of two evils' problem. Choice A is bad, but B is worse so we choose A. That defintion of morality not useful because you haven't defined what is good or bad, which is the entire point of morality. The correct interpretation is that morality defines A as bad and B as worse and then we can use standard decision making techniques to resolve the confict.
it is simple that we should not destroy Venus just because it obstructs our view of Mecury
Why? How did you make that assertion? Where did it come from? It came from your morals. That's what morality does; it defines that act as 'bad' with no other underlying logic. (In this specific case destroying Venus might possibly have significant negative impacts on Earth, but that's besides the point). Morals are what define right and wrong when no other standards apply.
Of course, many philisophical things are irrational,
I forgot to mention in my last post, but this is completely wrong. You obviously haven't studied philosophy or the works of any of the great philosophers. Philosophy is best described (imo) as the application of logic and rational thinking to problems that can't be answered by the scientific methods of experimentation and observation. Every university philosophy department that's worth anything will have a first year course that teaches basic symbolic logic.
You don't seem the type to enjoy a philosophical discussion but I can help myself. :)
The concept of value intersects significantly with the concept of morality. One way to describe morals is to call them a list of things we value that don't necessarially affect us directly or indirectly. I consider life precious and valuable regardless of whether it exists here or twelve galaxies over.
They have no value because anything that is unused by the valuer has no value by definition
Your defintion of value is not correct. We're not talking about a car or a house here. Something of value is simply something of 'worth' which, in a philosophical or moral context, is difficult to precisely describe. Humans can, for example, value 'life' in general even for a specific life which doesn't benefit us in anyway. To use your example, yes extra-terrestrial life is valuable, though not necessarially more valuable then our planet's life, but still valuable.
Props!
And I did mean, "mute." As in, silenced, muffled, etc.
ROTFL! In other words: "Oh shit! How can I cover my ass here?"
Or it'll interpret general controller gestures into predetermined saber motion animations.
This is the big question I have. And not just about star wars. What about the sword fighting stuff that Nintento actually demoed? (Red Steel was it?). How does that game work? Is it completlely free or does it have specific pre-programed sword animations?