On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Rceeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then, one must also consider that I have no expertise in this subject, just > some observations based on what I know from the news and the experiences of > people I know. I try not to start such a conversation, laden with ignorance > or potential ignorance on my part. I tend towards pragmatism in that > respect.<G> So, the reason you didn't post your prediction is because you didn't consider it reliable enough to share. Which was my number 1 guess, by the way. That is part of the point I was making. There are those like you, then there are others who share their predictions even though they are no good (either they know that and do it anyway, or they think their predictions are better than they are). The number of people who consistently make good predictions is very small, and they rarely share their predictions. > By the same token, if business were good at predicting things (without > constantly lying about it), they should be spreading the word in order to > self-regulate. And they do. Businesses set prices and make deals in markets. > You know there is nothing keeping them from taking their data > back to the regulators in order to get change when conditions warrant. And they do, although rarely by data...rather by influence and bribes. And not for the good of all, but for the good of themselves. They usually want a subsidy for themselves, but not their competitors. Or a rule that makes it easier for themselves, or harder on their competitors. When the government starts playing those games, the playing field is far from level. If their were no government favors to go after, then that sort of rent-seeking behavior would be lessened. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
