that had me scratching my head as well. the only thing i could figure is maybe he is saying playing RR with one missing in the magazine, therefore guaranteeing ruin?
you are correct, but you took the analogy in a direction that is not analogous to this situation. the analogy in this situation is that investing $100m in one company that has a 20% chance of failing is less risky than investing $500m in five companies that each have a 20% chance of failing. the chance of failure is the same (assuming independence, which is actually quite questionable here) but the risk is much higher.
Bud, you are just talking out of your ass. Diversification does not apply here. Investing in 5 shitty stocks that each have a 1 in 5 chance of bombing is exactly the same is putting the same total amount of money in a single stock that has a 1 in 5 chance of bombing. The point of diversification is to make sure you don't lose everything if you happen to hit that 1 in 5 chance.
This has no applicability to the scenario we are discussing. There is no total amount that we are attempting to invest. Grants/loans were determined on a per-application basis, and they could decide to award one company or a hundred companies, up to a maximum total appropriated amount. In the scenario we are discussing, you are arguing that there is less risk investing $500 million in 5 companies than there is investing $100 million in 1 company. That does not make any sense.
Yes government subsides sure did accelerate ethanol production capabilities, didn't they? And that boondoggle may have slowed the development of alternatives. Like solar.
It's central economic planning, period. Why are we debating this ignorance?
Do you understand risk? At all? If you play Russian roulette with 5 out of 6 chambers full, and if you love you get $100... And then it turns out you actually hit the empty chamber and end up making money, does that mean it was a good idea for you to play? Does the fact that it worked out change the correctness of the decision at all? And by I don't accept your premise that it worked out, but rather than fight that battle I have decided to explain that it doesn't matter if it worked out.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the rabble generally understand supply and demand? In my experience, most of the non-rabble don't even understand supply and demand. For examples, try reading the rest of the comments on this article.
I can't speak to your experience, and I take you for your word. There aren't many cases where I can book a taxi an hour in advance, and I don't really consider that a very good service offering. Maybe the market will evolve where you get a discount if you plan that far in advance.
All I know is that before Uber, here in Austin, TX we would alter our behavior based on taxi issues. We knew, for example, that being out after 1:30am meant you weren't going to get home until 3:30am, because the demand for taxis as the bars close is enormous, and taxis would not take me where I live because it meant it was their last fare of the night. I literally would have taxis stop, ask where I'm going, and tell me forget it. Time and time again. So we simply would tell our friends goodbye around 1am and leave early to get a taxi. It was fine and we were used to it. It actually didn't bother us that much. But that's kind of how it is with market distortions; the world doesn't end and frankly you're not often even aware of how it could be better, but as soon as it is better, you don't want to go back.
We now arrive and leave whenever we want, unless we decide we don't want to pay the surge pricing. And that's pretty much the point: the surge pricing allows self-selection based on value of the transportation to the individual, rather than a lottery or, worse, a company-controlled decision.
saying the extreme of anything is bad is arbitrary thinking. the extreme right is just as likely to be "correct" as the dead center middle. and in the real world, most moderates are generally people who form their opinions based on social pressures rather than thought, resulting in an internally inconsistent ideology. the explosion of "no labels", "moderate", "center", "not a democrat nor republican", "independent", and even "libertarian" is the result of people attempting to disassociate themselves from damaged brands (republican and democrat, conservative and liberal). the brands are damaged each election cycle, and the move to no labels is purely to avoid association with them.
people are as different as they have always been. 100 years ago they were just as unlikely to fit into two political buckets. the difference now and the reason for the rapid rise in "independents" is simply brand related.
Your selected metric is seriously flawed. It treats all employment the same. Working 1 hour per week is the same as working 40 hours per week. That's pretty dumb. Why wouldn't you use hours worked / total potential labor hours? It's weird to me that you would identify the problem with fudging with "those not in the labor force", but then pick the metric you picked, which has pretty much the same problem (the metric you mock arbitrarily doesn't count 1 FTE that isn't working, and your metric arbitrarily doesn't count 0.75 FTE that isn't working).
Example from David Stockman:
At the present time, there are 210 million adult Americans between the ages of 16 and 68â"to take a plausible measure of the potential work force. That amounts to 420 billion potential labor hours, if we accept the convention that all adults are at least theoretically capable of holding a full-time job (2,000 hours/year) and pulling their share of societyâ(TM)s need for production and work effort.
By contrast, during 2014 only 240 billion hours were actually supplied to the US economy, according to the BLS estimates. Technically, therefore, there were 180 billion unemployed labor hours
as usual, you clowns are all oversimplifying. the debt was taken on voluntarily, mostly because membership in the euro drove greece's borrowing costs down below market for greece's risk profile. greece took advantage of the cheap money, and when borrowing costs increased, they were in serious trouble. they have now been teetering on the edge of a death spiral where they could end up unable to service their debt, thus spiking interest rates, thus making it even harder to service their debt, thus spiking interest rates, etc.
other euro countries have been bailing greece out in various forms, mostly to avoid setting the precedent that moving to the euro is reversible (because, if not bailed out, greece would need to exit the euro, issue its own currency, then devalue it in order to pay off its debt, at least nominally). tacked on to each bailout were demands of specific reform milestones for greece to fix is structurally problematic public sector and welfare/disability programs, as well as sell off assets (like islands, art, etc.) to raise funds. greece did none of this, and then just to top it off, its voters elected a part into power that ran on reneging on the bailout terms.
incidentally, since the "bailouts" are really the IMF giving money to greece so greece can make its payment to the IMF for the last bailout (for example), none of this helps out greece's citizens. they need to exit the euro and default, take the pain, and hopefully be smarter next time.
You hear both things because people play with whatever number they want to use. The D's outspent R's when considering candidate campaign dollars and party dollars. But when you include outside money (e.g., PACs), R's outspend D's. This is due in no small part to the decline of unions, which would generally counter R outside money.
You are mostly right, except for your last sentence. If Trump's net worth is $10b, he could liquidate a portion of that and swamp anyone. Even the most recent presidential campaigns, which have been absurd in spending, are around $1b per side the entire cycle, including everything (campaign, party, PACs, etc.).
You are very, very confused. You are taking personal net worth numbers and suggesting that has some impact on campaign spending. What matters is money raised directly and money raised by various PACs that support Trump vs. Jeb. Jeb is way ahead of Trump and everyone else.
Is Donald going to liquidate $1b (10%!) of his assets, write a check to his campaign, and spend it to make up the gap? And if so when is he going to start doing that? Because Jeb's contributions are liquid and are already being put to work.
I would just caution that it seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of money in campaigns.
Not sure what part you are saying requires a citation. If you are referring to my assertion that governments dictate what defines insurance, you can easily look that up. It's odd to me that you could be pontificating on this subject and not know something as basic as that. But, then again, you didn't specify what you were requiring a citation on, so perhaps I should be giving you more credit.
Depends on what your definition of correct is. If I say the earth is round because I have two legs and I can only have two legs if the earth is round, am I correct? Generally in reasoning you are attempting to reason or predict an outcome based on inputs. If you by chance identify the proper outcome but based on an entirely flawed process, I have a hard time calling that right. It's just chance.
You just don't get it. The higher prices to consumers during high demand times is a feature not a bug. It sorts out the people who could wait 30 minutes if they needed to from the people who really need to get home now. It's not perfect because people value money differently, but it's way better than if the price to the consumer is not differentiated.
Sorry, did I miss the part where Uber surge pricing wasn't a voluntary exchange? I use Uber all the time, and even stumbling out of the bar it's impossible to miss what the surge rate is. Now they even force you to type in the damn surge rate as a part of acknowledging that you can get it through your thick skull that this is a high demand time and you will pay more. How much more? Well you just typed it in. What more do you want?
So if you think it's robbery, don't pay it. Every city I know of with uber also has taxis. And guess what? The taxis have plenty of space available... thanks to uber. Everybody wins. You just don't like it, for whatever illogical reason.
That's definitely not applicable in the surge pricing situation. The bitching about surge pricing is rampant economic ignorance, plain and simple. If the rabble understood supply and demand as well as they understand Brangelina, Uber would be receiving innovation awards for surge pricing instead of BBB downgrades in cities like San Fran.
You just explained surge pricing. But instead of a central authority deciding prices based on a committee-agreed set of variables (eg, time of day), there is some market based formula. That way, when the idiot governing body didn't expect the BaconFest convention to be big enough to warrant special event pricing, consumers aren't screwed with too little supply. Or, more importantly, when Carlos, who runs a music event in town, asks his brother, who is on this governing body, to vote against designating centrally planned surge pricing the weekend of Carlos's competitors' music festival, consumers aren't screwed with too little demand. Humans aren't smart enough to do central planning well (even though many try with many things even today), and certainly humans *in government* aren't smart enough to do central planning.
Based on what? I hate Jeb but he is still the most likely nomination. He has a huge money advantage and has signed up the most experienced staff. Don't get fooled by the polls. It's way too early and is primarily driven by name ID. Look back at where Romney was at this time in the polls.
tl;dr the rumor of Jeb's death is greatly exaggerated
You seem to be using common sense vs actual knowledge, which is very problematic when talking about government regulations. Insurance products are mostly defined by government (originally modeled by what was in the market at the time of the regulations' creation). Do be allowed to call your insurance product commercial insurance, it must meet the definition set by government.
Further, this is not at all why uber is cheaper than taxis. This insurance issue is a red herring put forth by whining taxi drivers. The cost difference is from artificial monopolies imposed by city officials lobbied by taxi companies and economically ignorant protectionist voters who believe supply must be constrained in order to prop up taxi fees and taxi driver compensation (so that it's a "living wage").
Slashdot Mirror
that had me scratching my head as well. the only thing i could figure is maybe he is saying playing RR with one missing in the magazine, therefore guaranteeing ruin?
you are correct, but you took the analogy in a direction that is not analogous to this situation. the analogy in this situation is that investing $100m in one company that has a 20% chance of failing is less risky than investing $500m in five companies that each have a 20% chance of failing. the chance of failure is the same (assuming independence, which is actually quite questionable here) but the risk is much higher.
Bud, you are just talking out of your ass. Diversification does not apply here. Investing in 5 shitty stocks that each have a 1 in 5 chance of bombing is exactly the same is putting the same total amount of money in a single stock that has a 1 in 5 chance of bombing. The point of diversification is to make sure you don't lose everything if you happen to hit that 1 in 5 chance.
This has no applicability to the scenario we are discussing. There is no total amount that we are attempting to invest. Grants/loans were determined on a per-application basis, and they could decide to award one company or a hundred companies, up to a maximum total appropriated amount. In the scenario we are discussing, you are arguing that there is less risk investing $500 million in 5 companies than there is investing $100 million in 1 company. That does not make any sense.
I thank you for wasting my time.
Yes government subsides sure did accelerate ethanol production capabilities, didn't they? And that boondoggle may have slowed the development of alternatives. Like solar.
It's central economic planning, period. Why are we debating this ignorance?
Do you understand risk? At all? If you play Russian roulette with 5 out of 6 chambers full, and if you love you get $100... And then it turns out you actually hit the empty chamber and end up making money, does that mean it was a good idea for you to play? Does the fact that it worked out change the correctness of the decision at all? And by I don't accept your premise that it worked out, but rather than fight that battle I have decided to explain that it doesn't matter if it worked out.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the rabble generally understand supply and demand? In my experience, most of the non-rabble don't even understand supply and demand. For examples, try reading the rest of the comments on this article.
I can't speak to your experience, and I take you for your word. There aren't many cases where I can book a taxi an hour in advance, and I don't really consider that a very good service offering. Maybe the market will evolve where you get a discount if you plan that far in advance.
All I know is that before Uber, here in Austin, TX we would alter our behavior based on taxi issues. We knew, for example, that being out after 1:30am meant you weren't going to get home until 3:30am, because the demand for taxis as the bars close is enormous, and taxis would not take me where I live because it meant it was their last fare of the night. I literally would have taxis stop, ask where I'm going, and tell me forget it. Time and time again. So we simply would tell our friends goodbye around 1am and leave early to get a taxi. It was fine and we were used to it. It actually didn't bother us that much. But that's kind of how it is with market distortions; the world doesn't end and frankly you're not often even aware of how it could be better, but as soon as it is better, you don't want to go back.
We now arrive and leave whenever we want, unless we decide we don't want to pay the surge pricing. And that's pretty much the point: the surge pricing allows self-selection based on value of the transportation to the individual, rather than a lottery or, worse, a company-controlled decision.
saying the extreme of anything is bad is arbitrary thinking. the extreme right is just as likely to be "correct" as the dead center middle. and in the real world, most moderates are generally people who form their opinions based on social pressures rather than thought, resulting in an internally inconsistent ideology. the explosion of "no labels", "moderate", "center", "not a democrat nor republican", "independent", and even "libertarian" is the result of people attempting to disassociate themselves from damaged brands (republican and democrat, conservative and liberal). the brands are damaged each election cycle, and the move to no labels is purely to avoid association with them.
people are as different as they have always been. 100 years ago they were just as unlikely to fit into two political buckets. the difference now and the reason for the rapid rise in "independents" is simply brand related.
Your selected metric is seriously flawed. It treats all employment the same. Working 1 hour per week is the same as working 40 hours per week. That's pretty dumb. Why wouldn't you use hours worked / total potential labor hours? It's weird to me that you would identify the problem with fudging with "those not in the labor force", but then pick the metric you picked, which has pretty much the same problem (the metric you mock arbitrarily doesn't count 1 FTE that isn't working, and your metric arbitrarily doesn't count 0.75 FTE that isn't working).
Example from David Stockman:
as usual, you clowns are all oversimplifying. the debt was taken on voluntarily, mostly because membership in the euro drove greece's borrowing costs down below market for greece's risk profile. greece took advantage of the cheap money, and when borrowing costs increased, they were in serious trouble. they have now been teetering on the edge of a death spiral where they could end up unable to service their debt, thus spiking interest rates, thus making it even harder to service their debt, thus spiking interest rates, etc.
other euro countries have been bailing greece out in various forms, mostly to avoid setting the precedent that moving to the euro is reversible (because, if not bailed out, greece would need to exit the euro, issue its own currency, then devalue it in order to pay off its debt, at least nominally). tacked on to each bailout were demands of specific reform milestones for greece to fix is structurally problematic public sector and welfare/disability programs, as well as sell off assets (like islands, art, etc.) to raise funds. greece did none of this, and then just to top it off, its voters elected a part into power that ran on reneging on the bailout terms.
incidentally, since the "bailouts" are really the IMF giving money to greece so greece can make its payment to the IMF for the last bailout (for example), none of this helps out greece's citizens. they need to exit the euro and default, take the pain, and hopefully be smarter next time.
He calls himself a socialist. So, I don't think it's a stretch to say he's a socialist.
you are just talking about hard money contributions. early primary states have been blanketed with campaign ads for a while now.
You hear both things because people play with whatever number they want to use. The D's outspent R's when considering candidate campaign dollars and party dollars. But when you include outside money (e.g., PACs), R's outspend D's. This is due in no small part to the decline of unions, which would generally counter R outside money.
You are mostly right, except for your last sentence. If Trump's net worth is $10b, he could liquidate a portion of that and swamp anyone. Even the most recent presidential campaigns, which have been absurd in spending, are around $1b per side the entire cycle, including everything (campaign, party, PACs, etc.).
You are very, very confused. You are taking personal net worth numbers and suggesting that has some impact on campaign spending. What matters is money raised directly and money raised by various PACs that support Trump vs. Jeb. Jeb is way ahead of Trump and everyone else.
Is Donald going to liquidate $1b (10%!) of his assets, write a check to his campaign, and spend it to make up the gap? And if so when is he going to start doing that? Because Jeb's contributions are liquid and are already being put to work.
I would just caution that it seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of money in campaigns.
Not sure what part you are saying requires a citation. If you are referring to my assertion that governments dictate what defines insurance, you can easily look that up. It's odd to me that you could be pontificating on this subject and not know something as basic as that. But, then again, you didn't specify what you were requiring a citation on, so perhaps I should be giving you more credit.
Depends on what your definition of correct is. If I say the earth is round because I have two legs and I can only have two legs if the earth is round, am I correct? Generally in reasoning you are attempting to reason or predict an outcome based on inputs. If you by chance identify the proper outcome but based on an entirely flawed process, I have a hard time calling that right. It's just chance.
You just don't get it. The higher prices to consumers during high demand times is a feature not a bug. It sorts out the people who could wait 30 minutes if they needed to from the people who really need to get home now. It's not perfect because people value money differently, but it's way better than if the price to the consumer is not differentiated.
Sorry, did I miss the part where Uber surge pricing wasn't a voluntary exchange? I use Uber all the time, and even stumbling out of the bar it's impossible to miss what the surge rate is. Now they even force you to type in the damn surge rate as a part of acknowledging that you can get it through your thick skull that this is a high demand time and you will pay more. How much more? Well you just typed it in. What more do you want?
So if you think it's robbery, don't pay it. Every city I know of with uber also has taxis. And guess what? The taxis have plenty of space available... thanks to uber. Everybody wins. You just don't like it, for whatever illogical reason.
That's definitely not applicable in the surge pricing situation. The bitching about surge pricing is rampant economic ignorance, plain and simple. If the rabble understood supply and demand as well as they understand Brangelina, Uber would be receiving innovation awards for surge pricing instead of BBB downgrades in cities like San Fran.
You just explained surge pricing. But instead of a central authority deciding prices based on a committee-agreed set of variables (eg, time of day), there is some market based formula. That way, when the idiot governing body didn't expect the BaconFest convention to be big enough to warrant special event pricing, consumers aren't screwed with too little supply. Or, more importantly, when Carlos, who runs a music event in town, asks his brother, who is on this governing body, to vote against designating centrally planned surge pricing the weekend of Carlos's competitors' music festival, consumers aren't screwed with too little demand. Humans aren't smart enough to do central planning well (even though many try with many things even today), and certainly humans *in government* aren't smart enough to do central planning.
Yes not at all like the Left (socialists, #blacklivesmatter, occupy, envirowhackos, PETA, militant "feminists", etc)
BREAKING NEWS: people are different.
The left is "splintered" too. Take a look at Bernie Sanders in the polls. Or people trying to recruit Warren, Biden, Gore, etc.
This is not something about "the right". The party system is artificial and people do not fall into two or three buckets.
Based on what? I hate Jeb but he is still the most likely nomination. He has a huge money advantage and has signed up the most experienced staff. Don't get fooled by the polls. It's way too early and is primarily driven by name ID. Look back at where Romney was at this time in the polls.
tl;dr the rumor of Jeb's death is greatly exaggerated
You seem to be using common sense vs actual knowledge, which is very problematic when talking about government regulations. Insurance products are mostly defined by government (originally modeled by what was in the market at the time of the regulations' creation). Do be allowed to call your insurance product commercial insurance, it must meet the definition set by government.
Further, this is not at all why uber is cheaper than taxis. This insurance issue is a red herring put forth by whining taxi drivers. The cost difference is from artificial monopolies imposed by city officials lobbied by taxi companies and economically ignorant protectionist voters who believe supply must be constrained in order to prop up taxi fees and taxi driver compensation (so that it's a "living wage").