Because experimentally people do not always behave in the model of the rational economic actor, and therefore do not follow the behavior predicted by classic game theory. For example, the ultimatum game.
The iterated version reduces to the single play near the endpoint of iterations. It is only if there is no known endpoint, or more exactly if there is no nash disequilibria of expected reward, that the game doesn't reduce to a single play at some point.
This assumes perfect intergenerational altruism, which is not observed in practice. The experiment shows that an unknown threshold removes on Nash equilibrium. Multi round games would eventually reduce to a one round game at termination. Only if there is no known endpoint does threat against the future look credible.
Per capita is meaningless here, what people want to know is standard of living against emisssions. Carbon density, PPP/Ton is a much better measure. By that measure the energy density of Europe is roughly 1.5 times that of the US and Canada. China's is less than half of the US. China improves somewhat if Taiwan and Hong Kong are included in their total, but not a great deal.
The best developed nations - Sweden and France - are almost 7000 PPP/Ton. A factor of 3 versus the US, and a factor of almost 7 over the PRC
However even this national measure is flawed since many nations use poor, carbon inefficient, countries to outsource much of their part labor or other low value add work.
How is someone who can't tell the difference between theft and violating copyright, in addition to confusing the difference between declarative and interrogative statements, supposed to be credible on the issue of copyright?
That is completely false, the protection of rights was left to the states, there is no bill of Rights in the Articles, it is not until after the Civil War that the Federal Government gained the ability to enforce the Federal Bill of Rights on the States.
Ireland is a disaster area. Israel has constant minority leading parties that must ally with parties demanding bribes. A system has to have some mechanism to force coalition without the minor partners having disproportionate power.
Yeah that Republican landslide in the Congressional elections of 2006 and 2008 was enormous. Please don't lie, it only annoys people who learned how to count in Kindergarten, read in elementary school, and google as soon as it became possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2008
It is one thing to oppose a candidate's policies or abhor his record, however people who seethe about how the press is in the tank for Obama have a statistically high correlation to not believing in global warming, darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and assorted other surreality based community ideals.
That's OK, it is always funny when some one pimping capitalism and property quotes a socialist without attribution in his sig. They can't even run their mouths they way they say they would run the world. "Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive" is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbert_Hubbard Elbert Hubbard.
He gets shit wrong. The Big Bang, last anyone checked, is physics, not biology, and YEC by definition is against it. AGW is not biology, and the right, include a big swathe of Dawkins' friends, are against it. Why evolution by natural selection? Dawkin himself wrote the answer back in The Blind Watch Maker namely Evolution by natural selection directly contradicts teology – that God does everything by purpose, or at least all things have a goal. One can believe physics and believe in a direct first causer, but evolution no so much. In a country where a candidate gaffed by admitting he believes that children conceived from rape are part of God's purpose, and his opponent believes much the same thing, it is not hard to see why a scientific doctrine that contradicts their theology, and therefore their economic basis, is particularly anathema.
Religion's economic function is to translate macro-ethics into micro-moral prohibitions. Where science infers with this, and because science must ultimate be concerned with nature external to our petty concerns it will, it is targeted for attack.
No you don't, you just externalize the cost on people who can't do anything about it. You are also confusing fixed and variable costs, so you don't even know econ. Stop thumping tea bags.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be "Now, do all of you..." Iron clad law of grammar flames is that have grammatical mistakes in them.
Nicely cherry picked data combined with a outright lie about what the natural forcing is.
The LCA of what's left sucks.
Because experimentally people do not always behave in the model of the rational economic actor, and therefore do not follow the behavior predicted by classic game theory. For example, the ultimatum game.
Then you don't know what you are talking about.
The iterated version reduces to the single play near the endpoint of iterations. It is only if there is no known endpoint, or more exactly if there is no nash disequilibria of expected reward, that the game doesn't reduce to a single play at some point.
This demonstrates the prisoners dilemma.
This assumes perfect intergenerational altruism, which is not observed in practice. The experiment shows that an unknown threshold removes on Nash equilibrium. Multi round games would eventually reduce to a one round game at termination. Only if there is no known endpoint does threat against the future look credible.
i.e. kill someone else. Also known as externalization of cost through a high future discount.
Per capita is meaningless here, what people want to know is standard of living against emisssions. Carbon density, PPP/Ton is a much better measure. By that measure the energy density of Europe is roughly 1.5 times that of the US and Canada. China's is less than half of the US. China improves somewhat if Taiwan and Hong Kong are included in their total, but not a great deal. The best developed nations - Sweden and France - are almost 7000 PPP/Ton. A factor of 3 versus the US, and a factor of almost 7 over the PRC However even this national measure is flawed since many nations use poor, carbon inefficient, countries to outsource much of their part labor or other low value add work.
to enforce a clearly bogus trademark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_(game)
It is actions like this, as well as who is paid, that has turned many people against copyright as an abusive and indefensible theft of the commons.
How is someone who can't tell the difference between theft and violating copyright, in addition to confusing the difference between declarative and interrogative statements, supposed to be credible on the issue of copyright?
But they are both hungry man eating beasts.
That is completely false, the protection of rights was left to the states, there is no bill of Rights in the Articles, it is not until after the Civil War that the Federal Government gained the ability to enforce the Federal Bill of Rights on the States.
Ireland is a disaster area. Israel has constant minority leading parties that must ally with parties demanding bribes. A system has to have some mechanism to force coalition without the minor partners having disproportionate power.
Yes States can be bought with smaller checks.
of attrition and lowered wages.
Yeah that Republican landslide in the Congressional elections of 2006 and 2008 was enormous. Please don't lie, it only annoys people who learned how to count in Kindergarten, read in elementary school, and google as soon as it became possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2008
It is one thing to oppose a candidate's policies or abhor his record, however people who seethe about how the press is in the tank for Obama have a statistically high correlation to not believing in global warming, darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and assorted other surreality based community ideals.
This is incorrect, runs on banks are what prompted developed countries to institute deposit insurance.
Your sig is a quote from him, without attribution. Your inability to be consistent affects how people should see your arguments.
That's OK, it is always funny when some one pimping capitalism and property quotes a socialist without attribution in his sig. They can't even run their mouths they way they say they would run the world. "Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive" is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbert_Hubbard Elbert Hubbard.
Religion's economic function is to translate macro-ethics into micro-moral prohibitions. Where science infers with this, and because science must ultimate be concerned with nature external to our petty concerns it will, it is targeted for attack.
No you don't, you just externalize the cost on people who can't do anything about it. You are also confusing fixed and variable costs, so you don't even know econ. Stop thumping tea bags.