Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
Andrew Crystall wrote: On 12 Nov 2008 at 19:08, Nick Arnett wrote: Anybody here a Second Life participant? I'm talking to them about perhaps joining the company... but I'm barely familiar with it as a user. Any suggestions about things to try, etc. I'm most interested in metrics and such, things that are or could be measured, which has to do mostly with the economy, of course. I've sent you something I hope you'll be interested in offlist, but from a personal standpoint I'm highly uncomfortable with their general policys - the Linden's application of what can only be taken as censorship has lead me to stear directly clear of playing SL and many of their economic descisions (on gambling, on banks and so on) strike me as nothing short of lunatic and they are never properly discussed or explained to the community. Is there another virtual-world community with similar features that you would recommend as an alternative? I'm genuinely interested to know. /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
On 15/11/2008, at 10:56 PM, Claes Wallin wrote: Is there another virtual-world community with similar features that you would recommend as an alternative? I'm genuinely interested to know. The pub? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, I should have known better. LOL! By the way, I noticed that some of your posts do not begin with honestly. Is that a clue? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think there should be any minimum legal age for people to make that decision and take those actions, as frex there is with alcohol or tobacco? Those minimum ages always struck me as rather arbitrary. I'd think that if there were licensing, there could be some sort of test (and possibly parental consent for minors to get a license) which seems less arbitrary than an age restriction. But I don't have a strong opinion on it. It would be interesting to see what rules states and counties would make if the experiments I mentioned before were tried. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I have pointed out, the only substantive difference between viewpoints on this List is the degree to which we view goverment control as acceptable. Which is a euphemism for whether it is right to force one's will on others, and in what cases the ends justify the means. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/11/2008, at 10:56 PM, Claes Wallin wrote: Is there another virtual-world community with similar features that you would recommend as an alternative? I'm genuinely interested to know. The pub? +1 funny, +1 insightful. The pub does offer some of the benefits of the kind of platform I am looking for, plus beer, but it doesn't offer me the tools to build and interact with 3D models. I could bring my own tools and raw materials to the pub and start working (ok, let's start with a two-meter-high wooden box here!), but I suspect I might get thrown out. Not to mention the time and cost as opposed to a virtual alternative. Also, the other eight customers are not likely to want to play with and comment on my work, whereas in a virtual community of thousands I should be able to find a few who happen to be interested in the same kinds of designs as I am. /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, John Williams wrote: Your two previous links did not give an example of how Bush deregulated anything that may have lead to the subprime mortgage crisis. The youtube video you listed does not give any examples of deregulation either. I don't think that word means what you think it means. OK, *there's* the proof of the sense of humor, quoting Princess Bride. (Any old fool can dump links from The Onion.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
On 15 Nov 2008 at 12:56, Claes Wallin wrote: Is there another virtual-world community with similar features that you would recommend as an alternative? I'm genuinely interested to know. It's still in beta, currently more limited and with a somewhat different focus, but Metaplace, Raph Koster's company. https://www.metaplace.com/ AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I would have liked to see an example of Bush's deregulation. Unfortunately, Bush was largely responsible for increasing government spending and government interference. I forgot where I heard it, but the joke is that Bush entered office as a social conservative, and is leaving office as a conservative socialist. The problem isn't just deregulation, it is a failure to regulate, although there has been plenty of deregulation since the 1980s, led by those who cling to the same arguments you present here, that government is never the solution. That's the thinking that gave us the SL collapses, the Keating Five, the sub-prime crisis, etc. This administration and Congress looked the other way, if they didn't actually cheer on, the insanity of predatory practices in the mortgage industry. They caved to lobbyists from the the banking industry, lobbyists who were championing the same hands-off policies that you have praised here. They ignored warning after warning that the sub-prime market was a house of cards. They failed to notice, or perhaps only failed to care, that a catastrophe was brewing. A sub-prime loan is little more than a way to trick home buyers into assuming far more risk than they can understand. When the government failed to act on this con game, it wasn't doing us any libertarian favors, it was failing in its fundamental responsibility to legislate and enforce laws that protect the citizenry. Con games are crimes, not economics. We do not, in this nation, respect a freedom to trick people. When we warn, If it seems to be too good to be true, it probably isn't, we are not excusing the con man, no matter how much responsibility we assign to the victim. We prosecute con artists. Perhaps the Bush administration saw every bit of this and consciously decided that a catastrophe would not really be a problem, since it is how free markets correct themselves. By doing so, they permitted the world economy to enter a recession that is causing incalculable grief. Surely their inaction is unjustified, given the enormity of the resulting crisis and the effects that ripple out from it. The fellow who shot and killed three people about a mile from my house yesterday did so just after being laid off, which is not to say that government is to blame for the murders he committed, but to point out that an environment of economic uncertainly affects much more than just our wallets. Before sticking the blame on people who shouldn't have chosen to sign their loans, consider that a large but as-yet uncounted number of them ended up in foreclosure because they couldn't pay their medical bills. Only the hardest-hearted would argue that people choose to have medical problems. Thus, failure to address the mess that is health insurance is also clearly related to the mortgage crisis. Sub-prime and predatory mortgages. No medical safety net. If addressing these practices via regulation is socialism, bring it on. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
At 07:39 AM Saturday 11/15/2008, Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/11/2008, at 10:56 PM, Claes Wallin wrote: Is there another virtual-world community with similar features that you would recommend as an alternative? I'm genuinely interested to know. The pub? Charlie reaches for paper towel to clean screen . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
At 08:22 AM Saturday 11/15/2008, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, I should have known better. LOL! By the way, I noticed that some of your posts do not begin with honestly. Is that a clue? Honestly? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
At 08:27 AM Saturday 11/15/2008, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think there should be any minimum legal age for people to make that decision and take those actions, as frex there is with alcohol or tobacco? Those minimum ages always struck me as rather arbitrary. I'd think that if there were licensing, there could be some sort of test (and possibly parental consent for minors to get a license) which seems less arbitrary than an age restriction. But I don't have a strong opinion on it. It would be interesting to see what rules states and counties would make if the experiments I mentioned before were tried. Okay, let's approach it from the other end: Is there any age or group of people by age that you think would be too young to self-administer hard drugs for recreational purposes? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
At 07:57 AM Saturday 11/15/2008, Claes Wallin wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/11/2008, at 10:56 PM, Claes Wallin wrote: Is there another virtual-world community with similar features that you would recommend as an alternative? I'm genuinely interested to know. The pub? +1 funny, +1 insightful. The pub does offer some of the benefits of the kind of platform I am looking for, plus beer, but it doesn't offer me the tools to build and interact with 3D models. Some of the folks you meet there become even more model-like and build more 3D (as opposed to flat) structure the longer you stay at the pub. (At least that is what I have been told.) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 10:51 AM Saturday 11/15/2008, Nick Arnett wrote: Only the hardest-hearted would argue that people choose to have medical problems. Or those doctors who when they can't find a clear answer in five minutes* announce that the problem is all in the patient's head and hand out anti-depressants. _ *Thirty seconds if the patient is a woman. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Ronn! Blankenship Okay, let's approach it from the other end: Is there any age or group of people by age that you think would be too young to self-administer hard drugs for recreational purposes? My kids, as long as I judge them unable to decide for themselves (and they are living under my roof). The restnot under my jurisdiction. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or those doctors who when they can't find a clear answer in five minutes* announce that the problem is all in the patient's head ... Yeah, that's what they said about Dave Land's brain tumor -- it was all in his head. He gave the surgeons a piece of his mind. He needed brain surgery like he needed a hole in the head. Ah, tumor humor. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the thinking that gave us the SL collapses, the Keating Five, the sub-prime crisis, etc. Actually, bad government regulation contributed to all of those, Dems and Reps both. And no one has consistently predicted such things. You can't preempt what you can't predict. They failed to notice, or perhaps only failed to care, that a catastrophe was brewing. Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? Did you suggest a way to preempt it? You seem like a clever guy. If you didn't, why do you think the politicians could? And even if they could, why would they? Their incentives are to try to please people who can get them reelected, and to not make any decisions that displease those people or that can prove to be decisively wrong come election time. A sub-prime loan is little more than a way to trick home buyers into assuming far more risk than they can understand. It is a good thing we have you (and politicians) to look out for the all those people who can't understand a mortgage. Thus, failure to address the mess that is health insurance is also clearly related to the mortgage crisis. The government has certainly made a mess of health insurance. The best thing the government could do would be to remove the laws that make it difficult for health insurance providers to serve customers in different states, and especially to remove the subsidy for employer provided health care which makes health-care more expensive for the self-employed and unemployed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction! what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial thbush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Actually, bad government regulation contributed to all of those, Dems and Reps both. And no one has consistently predicted such things. You can't preempt what you can't predict. There have been many warnings and predictions; consistency in predictions is not a precondition for learning and acting. Consistency in predictions is a pipe dream. Your comments about both parties being involved are irrelevant. Both parties are involved in every act of Congress, even when they vote present or choose not to vote. The clearest recent example of failing to regulate at the behest of the industry is the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, which, in its original version, would have addressed many of the issues. However, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the American Banking Association lobbyists convinced the House majority to permit lenders to continue the insidious practice of giving larger fees to brokers for putting borrowers into higher cost sub-prime mortgages. It also bars borrowers whose predatory loans have been sold from suing investors for relief until they are facing foreclosure. This forces borrowers into foreclosure as a condition for asserting their rights, which is outrageous. The industry persuaded government to leave them alone and look what happened. You keep saying that bad government contributed to all these things. I have no doubt that you can demonstrate some such contributions, but you have failed to offer any argument that would show that the net impact of regulation was to bring these problems about. You can't prove something simply by asserting it over and over. Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? Irrational argument. It is not all up to me, of course. It is a good thing we have you (and politicians) to look out for the all those people who can't understand a mortgage. The fact that people are responsible for their choices does not grant legitimacy to those who would fleece them, does it? Shall we excuse con artists by blaming their victims, in the name of free markets? If so, then how can economics becomes anything more than figuring out the best ways to cheat? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction! what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial thbush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? That seems like a reasonable denial to me. It goes back to the early 1980s. But that doesn't excuse the failure to act, which is crystal clear in hindsight. That is what is so sad about those who continue to endorse the same policies, or more extreme versions of the same. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Regulation and deficit spending
I'm done with this conversation since you ducked my question about what should replace government regulation. our resident troll does that a lot. i suspect he is an ayn rand, libertarian wannabe, or he just likes to agitate. one would think that the current collapse would wake this guy up. It depends on what they think is the cause of the current collapse. If you're crazy enough, I am pretty sure you can blame it on what little regulation remained getting in the way of good, honest business people trying to do good, honest business. I'm so tired of that old song. They've been singing it since FDR, and it's still not true, although they've sung it so long and so loud that it has actually bent many millions of minds into thinking that it is common sense. It never was, it is not now, it never will be. Dave i still don't understand how regulation is to blame; i would sure like to hear some examples from someone... i'm not saying de-regulation is the only cause of the current crisis. there are many other factors. the iraq war had a lot to do with it, which made a lot of money for arms dealers, war contractors, etc. bush's cronys and other opportunists also did well with the real estate and other bubbles. now they will all be buying and selling their ill gotten capital and bailout subsidies to make even more during the continuing wild market fluctuations. Just like the crash of '29 cured many of the excesses from selling on margin, a way was found around such regulations, thanks again to the bush administration and his chainsaw surrogates. i wonder how long the lessons being learned from current excesses will prevent greed in the future? a way will be found... we have a deficit economy; it served a purpose at one time, but it is way out of control. pouring taxpayer liens in at the top of the financial system is not the answer. people are out of work. now people are beginning to start to live within their means. now is a good time to play the market corrections if you have disposable cash, or can get some of that bailout money now is the time for a new new deal to deal with america's. infrastructure projects. now that the rest of the world is feeling the domino effect of globalization, it is time to turn away from unrestrained growth. the developing nations should see where it leads and start producing for themselves, instead of sending the fruit of their workers' labors to us. maybe they will see how the bankers, brokers, agents, arms dealers and other contract pimps are ripping off the disenfranchised. we need a new, green socialism model that conserves the earth's resources, recycles industrial waste, reuses, rebuilds and extends the longevity of technology rather than designing products to wear out in three years or less, so they can be trashed for the next version. if governments are going to indulge in deficit spending then do it creating jobs in cleaning up the planet, health care, education and other creative, rather than destructive enterprises... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial the bush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? That seems like a reasonable denial to me. It goes back to the early 1980s. But that doesn't excuse the failure to act, which is crystal clear in hindsight. That is what is so sad about those who continue to endorse the same policies, or more extreme versions of the same. Nick i am not denying reagan started it, but he backed down after the mid-term elections. it was under bush II that the economy went completely out of control. it still could have been contained after 9/11, but when he started insanely spending to finance the war in iraq, national bankruptcy became a distinct possibility. in the process, he turned most of the world against an america that had lost its way. his solution was... shop til you drop! well, we're dropping, all right... the extremes of the last eight years have come home to roost, and the consequences are only beginning to be felt. even obama can't stop what is to come. he can only try to lessen the pain and take america in a new direction... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 11:55:20 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I don't recall having posted about this onlist, but it has been on my mind for a few years as being a serious problem w/consequences. What got me thinking about it in the first place was news about housing prices in California and New York City. I found it astounding that home prices in those places could be at such variance with what I saw in the local market. I understood the demand arguments, but didn't find them too convincing. Then, I discussed the situation with people who had moved here from California. They were selling Cal. homes and moving here into homes well beyond their means (and then bitching about property taxes). Frex: One guys dad had bought a Cal. home for 70K back in the 70's and sold it in 2003 for over 1.5M. To me, that was a sign of an unsupportable bubble, and led me into further thinking about the local market. The home I grew up in cost my parents 11K in 1958. In 1977 my Mom sold it for 33K even though the neighborhood was already in a downward slide (becoming a poor persons neighborhood). Now I would guess you couldn't touch the house for less than 60K(I just looked up some homes in the 'hood and its more like 85K) even though it is basically a slum. This tells me that there is something seriously wrong with the housing market. And the market here is quite favorable compared to many other areas of the country. (I think Dan could speak about this with more authority off the top of his head.) My current thinking is that the whole real estate market is basically a pyramid scam where players make profit in the long term off of boom and bust cycles, and in the short term off of speculation. (I'm not positing grand conspiracies, just greed greed gred) I'm not much of a proponent for regulation in this case, but I don't see any market forces that are strong enough to offset or even oppose the greed function. At the least, for decades we have been hammered with the idea that real estate prices will *always* increase. But why should they when the intrinsic value of a property has decreased? Now the bubble has burst, and in some places prices are decreasing. But it isn't because the homes are deteriorating, or gangs infest the local parks, or the schools are failing, or city services have been diminished, it is because the credit market is suffering. And that tells me the entire system is broken. (Note: Locally, home prices are holding steady or increasing. Correct me if I am wrong here) xponent Intentional Non-Homeowner Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
what's wrong with this picture...?
Actually, bad government regulation contributed to all of those, Dems and Reps both. And no one has consistently predicted such things. You can't preempt what you can't predict. WHAT bad government regulations? Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? Did you suggest a way to preempt it? You seem like a clever guy. If you didn't, why do you think the politicians could? And even if they could, why would they? Their incentives are to try to please people who can get them reelected, and to not make any decisions that displease those people or that can prove to be decisively wrong come election time. are you saying no one predicted this was coming? hell, i knew it was coming and i ain't so clever as you think you are!~) the republicans incentives were to please the lobbyists with deep pockets and a vested interest in deregulation. the democrats were the ones who wanted to please people who could get them reelected, with incentives such as fannie and freddie. that way ordinary people could share the american dream and actually own property, so they wouldn't have to rent and pay off the mortgages of their landlords. bush wanted people to become consumers and max out their credit to fuel the economy and pay for the war. The government has certainly made a mess of health insurance. The best thing the government could do would be to remove the laws that make it difficult for health insurance providers to serve customers so you don't think the providers are making enough? what about removing the providers! i think it's called single payer, so all that profit goes to people who don't have health care, or can't afford the deductibles... oh, i forgot, that would put all those paper pushers and date entry personnel out of work, AND big pharm would no longer be able to buy politicians and especially to remove the subsidy for employer provided health care which makes health-care more expensive for the self-employed and unemployed. shades of mc cain! hook line and sinker... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction! what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial thbush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? LOL. How about one example of Bush deregulation that was responsible, as you claimed? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: There have been many warnings and predictions; That is a problem! consistency in predictions is not a precondition for learning and acting. Of course it is! All sorts of people predict all sorts of things. The only ones worth listening to are the ones who have a track record of being consistently right. Consistency in predictions is a pipe dream. If it is, then government regulation of markets is hopeless. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/15/2008 11:55:20 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I don't recall having posted about this onlist, but it has been on my mind for a few years as being a serious problem w/consequences. I hazard a guess that the reason you did not post is one of these: 1) You were not certain enough of your prediction to risk that other people might act on it 2) You did not care enough to help others with your insight Or perhaps none of the above. But whatever the reason, it is a good example of the difficulty of regulating markets. If the government were good at predicting these things, then I think what should be done is to convey the predictions and warnings to the public, and let people act on them as they see fit. This has the great advantage (compared to regulation) that people are not forcing their will on others, encroaching on liberty and freedom. But this approach is rarely used. I claim it is because the government is no better, and probably worse, at predicting these things than the markets. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: what's wrong with this picture...?
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: are you saying no one predicted this was coming? No, that is not what I wrote. Have you ever seen a guy with a sign like Repent, the End is Near? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial the bush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? LOL so you admit you don't have any facts, AND that the bush administration played a role in the subprime mortgage crisis... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
what's wrong with this picture...?
are you saying no one predicted this was coming? No, that is not what I wrote. ah, so you ARE saying it was predicted! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so you admit you don't have any facts, AND that the bush administration played a role in the subprime mortgage crisis... Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Regulation and deficit spending
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i still don't understand how regulation is to blame; i would sure like to hear some examples from someone... I know you were on this list before September 23. Maybe you weren't interested in examples then? If you are now, then check the archive: http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20080922/144140.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Of course it is! All sorts of people predict all sorts of things. The only ones worth listening to are the ones who have a track record of being consistently right. If that were true, no market research company would be in business. I'd imagine that no long-term forecaster of any kind would be in business. I know a little bit about forecasting... I co-founded and ran a successful market research firm and I have patents for methods of forecasting markets. Do you have any credentials or examples to cite that would support your notion that we should only listen to people who are right all the time? I have a little trouble imagining that you do, since following that advice, you might as well put in earplugs, since there's nobody who is consistently right about long-term forecasting or predicting much of anything interesting. The value in long-term forecasting is not so much the forecast as the thinking behind it. As regards the current economic situation, there's an old truism that good weather predictions are far more accurate than bad weather predictions. The people whose predictions are accurate during stable conditions are far less likely to be accurate when things become more chaotic. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Of course it is! All sorts of people predict all sorts of things. The only ones worth listening to are the ones who have a track record of being consistently right. If that were true, no market research company would be in business. The market research that I have seen has never had a good record. I would certainly not spend any of my money on it, unless it was just a way of keeping track of what is trendy. I'd imagine that no long-term forecaster of any kind would be in business. Depending on what you mean by long-term (10 years or more?), then I would probably agree that there are no long-term forecasters with a good record. I know a little bit about forecasting... I co-founded and ran a successful market research firm and I have patents for methods of forecasting markets. Do you have any credentials or examples to cite that would support your notion that we should only listen to people who are right all the time? LOL. I certainly wouldn't pay for your forecasts! You didn't even forecast your own house price decline. You want a pissing contest, do you? Since I don't register my predictions, and I doubt you have either, the only thing I can think of is how good we have been at predicting the financial markets, based on our investment returns. How would you like to compare investment returns? I think I am much younger than you, so I only have 6 years of returns, but I have outperformed the major indices by a statistically significant amount over that time. I'm even positive YTD, which puts me well above the 90th percentile this year. If you are interested, feel free to post your investment returns during the last 6 years, and I will do the same. The value in long-term forecasting is not so much the forecast as the thinking behind it. In little-league, they always used to tell us that winning wasn't important, just having fun. We didn't win much. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You want a pissing contest, do you? Hardly. That's not an accurate description of my invitation to you. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
John Williams wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I did. Unfortunately, I can't find the post where I predicted it. But I always predict disasters, so it's not surprising that sometimes I'm right. Cassandra Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Regulation and deficit spending
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:03 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i still don't understand how regulation is to blame; i would sure like to hear some examples from someone... I know you were on this list before September 23. Maybe you weren't interested in examples then? If you are now, then check the archive: http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20080922/144140.html Ah, yes, the McCain argument that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (via the CRA) supposedly caused the sub-prime meltdown. The only trouble with that explanation is that it is baloney. You have confused the tail with the dog. Those two were LOSING market share rapidly from 2002 to 2007 as the sub-prime market exploded, led not by them (or they'd have increased their share) but by investment bankers and mortgage brokers. They only got involved (unfortunately) after the private market led them there. So, any *real* examples of how government regulation caused the sub-prime crisis? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why ProsperityResumedafter the War
I do not consider it nonsense, as I don't consider most economics arguments to be nonsense. Or, to put it positively, I think it makes as much sense as many other economics arguments that I am familiar with. Which is to say, plausible, but not entirely convincing, since contradictory views can also be argued plausibly. OK, I think I understand your view of this paper. Calling it plausible, but not the only possible explanation does put good boundaries on your evaluation and I very much appreciate your willingness to move a discussion forward by setting those boundaries. So, I contemplated how to move this discussion forward. There are two linked ways that I tend to evaluate this type of paper. First, I try to look at the numbers the author gives and look for other numbers to check his assertions. Second, I look at technique. For the first, I've obtained a source with yearly GDP for the US going back to 1870, and then decade by decade estimates back to 1820. I think this type of number will allow us to look for evidence of at least correlations between government actions and the GDP in the past. Since the hypothesis is given in the paper for correlations between government actions and GDP, one comes to the obvious conclusion that the author can see such correlations. Thus, looking for others that would be predicted by his hypothesis is a most reasonable way to evaluate his hypothesis. Second, you may not know it, but my formal studies have ranged over a wide range of subjects. About a decade ago, I took a graduate seminar course on Persian and Hellenistic Judaism. During the first week, we were assigned two books to read. After that, the professor apologized for assigning one of the books, because it wasn't a good book.as we should have known. When I asked why, he said technique..and went through the evidence for the use of poor technique. I have found this a good general rule for all disciplines that involve exploring the empirical world in any extent whatsoever.that authors that use good techniques are better than authors that use poor techniques. I'll give two examples of techniques by different people in the area of scripture study: one good and one bad. The good one is Raymond Brown's Death of the Messiah and the bad one is Spong's Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes. Brown's book usually includes discussions of the various camps on each critical issue, lists the arguments for each camp and then gives his argument. He makes no claim without extensive support for that claim. He has 200 pages of footnotes, about a third of which references works that come to different conclusions than he does. Spong, on the other hand, makes strong statements like the basic purpose of the gospels is the liturgical following of the Jewish calendar with minimal evidence. Further, he doesn't even consider the basis for previous arguments, (e.g. arguments that reference the detailed work which examines the structure of Mark's gospel). In other words, he makes claims, cites a couple of random facts that support them, and then declares that previous ideas are just mired in the past. So, I've looked at the work you've cited with these types of criteria. Before going on, it would be worth noting whether you think these are acceptable criteria or if you have other criteria for the verisimilitude of an analysis. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Regulation and deficit spending
i still don't understand how regulation is to blame; i would sure like to hear some examples from someone... I know you were on this list before September 23. Maybe you weren't interested in examples then? If you are now, then check the archive: http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20080922/144140.html long before september 13th, but i don't read everything. if i read your posts, it is usually because you comment to one of mine, or i get drawn in by someone else's, who you insulted. anyway, my question was how REGULATION was to blame for the meltdown. i recognize there are other causes, even some preceding bush. i have stated many times that the he (and his cronys) are the single most responsible causes of the crisis becoming critical. fannie and freddie had far, far less to do with it, after it was well on the way. i am still waiting for ANY genuine examples of how government regulation caused the sub-prime crisis? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I did. Unfortunately, I can't find the post where I predicted it. But I always predict disasters, so it's not surprising that sometimes I'm right. Cassandra Monteiro Cassandra's beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so no one would believe her predictions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
You want a pissing contest, do you? Hardly. That's not an accurate description of my invitation. Nick in other words, he knows he would lose if he accepted your challenge. so, any good stock tips? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Regulation and deficit spending
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, yes, the McCain argument that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (via the CRA) supposedly caused the sub-prime meltdown. The only trouble with that explanation is that it is baloney. You have confused the tail with the dog. Those two were LOSING market share rapidly from 2002 to 2007 as the sub-prime market exploded, led not by them (or they'd have increased their share) but by investment bankers and mortgage brokers. They only got involved (unfortunately) after the private market led them there. Actually, FNM and FRE are the largest players in the mortgage markets, by far. Looking at their combined (both companies) assets, from 1998 to 2008, they are 806, 962, 1134, 1417, 1640, 1813, 1816, 1640, 1657, 1677, 1776 billion dollars. That is $1.776 trillion even today! Total assets did go down a bit in 2005, but they have since come back up almost to the 2004 levels (of course, if the bad mortgages were marked down it may be lower). The government subsidizes FNM and FRE (through the implicit guarantee and the loose capital requirements) so that they can borrow money at lower rates, thereby having lower costs than all of the competition. This has the effect of making business tough for any smaller players, without government subsidies, trying to compete in the prime mortage market. It is not surprising that many of them resorted to subprime, where FNM and FRE initially did not play. If that is not bad enough for you, then FNM and FRE were pushed by Congress to help support low-income borrowers. Their management knew it was a bad idea, so instead of directly buying subprime mortgages, they bought mortgage backed securities that contained subprime loans. Since FNM and FRE are so huge, this significantly increased the demand for subprime mortgages, and again, it is not surprising that people started making the subprime loans to sell those subprime mortgages. By the way, do you really get your information from McCain? I don't think I mentioned McCain in my examples, so I don't really understand why you brought him up. So, any *real* examples of how government regulation caused the sub-prime crisis? Not all of the reasons I listed involved FNM and FRE. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You want a pissing contest, do you? Hardly. That's not an accurate description of my invitation to you. I know, you wanted to compete on credentials rather than putting your money where your mouth (or other parts of your anatomy) is. I realize it is much easier to put other people's money on the line with one's predictions than one's own. I don't blame you for not risking your own money on your predictions. I wouldn't risk my money on your predictions either! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Forecasting
I know a little bit about forecasting... I co-founded and ran a successful market research firm and I have patents for methods of forecasting markets. Do you have any credentials or examples to cite that would support your notion that we should only listen to people who are right all the time? I have a little trouble imagining that you do i highly doubt he has anything to back up his massive certainty that he is always right and everyone else is wrong. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
so you admit you don't have any facts, AND that the bush administration played a role in the subprime mortgage crisis... Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. tch, tch, there you go again, putting words in my mouth and twisting the context of what i did say... anyway you have tacitly admitted the bush administration is largely responsible for the current economic meltdown. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
the reason you did not post is one of these: 1) You were not certain enough of your prediction to risk that other people might act on it. 2) You did not care enough to help others with your insight. Or perhaps none of the above. you ain't no nice guy, john williams. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
I know, you wanted to compete on credentials rather than putting your money where your mouth (or other parts of your anatomy) is. I realize it is much easier to put other people's money on the line with one's predictions than one's own. I don't blame you for not risking your own money on your predictions. I wouldn't risk my money on your predictions either! i would, and how do you know he hasn't put his own money on the line? so, i guess you're admitting you have no credentials? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: One more bit for Veterans Day
-- Original message from Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Olin Elliott wrote: As one of the comments says, Not all heroes have two legs I say I know how an old war dog feels a lots like the homeless veterans wandering the streets and by the waysides! http://kink9570.wordpress.com Pvt. PV On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Olin Elliott wrote: As one of the comments says, Not all heroes have two legs Thanks for this, Ronn. I have worked for a group in the past trying to get a national war dog memorial and the DOD has steadfastly opposed it. A very different look at the dogs of war. Its funny when you think about it, dogs serve in our military, our police forces, they care for the sick and disabled, they work on farms, they are our companions and members of our family -- in fact, they've been a part of our civilization for about 15,000 years by the most convervative estimate. They helped build our civilization, and in every way that counts, they are true citizens. Maybe one day, that will be recognized legally. Only, they won't be allowed to marry in certain states. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
socialism v. capitalism
i just came across this in my spam folder, claes... socialism is not without flaws. there is dissension among socialists, and most would condemn my preference for a mixed economy. i recognize the importance of individual incentives, and not against all private enterprise by any means, nor am i in favor of a welfare state. What is the European style socialism that you prefer, if you are not in favor of a welfare state? Or perhaps we mean different things with this term? /c depends on what kind of welfare state. sweden's model is preferable to england, both economies have access to north sea oil. i don't believe in fostering dependency, or enabling people working the system to supplement their under the table income with the dole. i do believe the state should assist people with disabilities to become self sufficient, and provide services like health care, free education and vocational training, etc. actually i think we need to come up with new models of enlightened democratic socialism that are productive and creative, rather than destructive to the environment. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
On 16/11/2008, at 12:57 AM, Claes Wallin wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/11/2008, at 10:56 PM, Claes Wallin wrote: Is there another virtual-world community with similar features that you would recommend as an alternative? I'm genuinely interested to know. The pub? +1 funny, +1 insightful. Glad you liked it. ;) The pub does offer some of the benefits of the kind of platform I am looking for, plus beer, but it doesn't offer me the tools to build and interact with 3D models. Yeah, my pub looks oddly 2D after a few pints too. :-D Being slightly more serious, the only online communities I'm involved with are through mailing lists, and to an extent a couple of blogs and one forum. Interactive worlds are something I'd rather keep on the level of single-player games, rather than MMORPGs. Not sure why I feel that way, but maybe I just like maintaining fairly solid walls around my real life. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 2:40:44 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/15/2008 11:55:20 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I don't recall having posted about this onlist, but it has been on my mind for a few years as being a serious problem w/consequences. I hazard a guess that the reason you did not post is one of these: 1) You were not certain enough of your prediction to risk that other people might act on it 2) You did not care enough to help others with your insight It is such cynical and sarcastic statements that makes you appear to run Asshole as a native app. Not trying to be insulting, just an observation on why you catch so much flak. You remarks here were uncalled for and if you are trying to draw my ire..try harder. Or perhaps none of the above. Probably. It is not like this mailing list is a compendium of my every thought or belief. I've been here for 10 years or so, and have discussed many things. I even started all that Maru stuff a few years ago. There is no master Brin-L list of everything in the universe that we tic once a conversation gets underway. 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 But whatever the reason, it is a good example of the difficulty of regulating markets. Regulation is always a balancing act, but then so is running a business. If the government were good at predicting these things, then I think what should be done is to convey the predictions and warnings to the public, and let people act on them as they see fit. [snip] 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. You know there is nothing keeping them from taking their data back to the regulators in order to get change when conditions warrant. And then it would be a matter of public record rather than self-serving polemics. Of course, this never happens because business gets it's pool of experts from the same place government does. And business does not embrace the concept of enlightened self-interest to a degree that would allow it to be self-regulating, thereby making a need for government regulation superfluous. xponent The Invisible Hand Has No Brain Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
rude and insulting
It is such cynical and sarcastic statements that makes you appear to run Asshole as a native app. Not trying to be insulting, just an observation on why you catch so much flak. Your remarks were uncalled for, and if you are trying to draw my ire..try harder. any theories why this person has such a mean streak. either he was bullied as a child, or he was the bully!~) it's not like he isn't aware and just lacking in social skills. he probably never leaves his house and spends all his time picking arguments on line. he won't reveal any info mation about himself, so he is certainly using an alias. no one seems to know how he found out about this list, but he seems to thrive on all the attention he receives for being so abusive. how sad... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
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
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
Jphn W. wrote: I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! Now that's a good idea! At once we have heroin addicts that aren't going to be stealing stuff to get their fix and we cut off the dealers and their whole underworld. Lets do it. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
I mean John W. wrote, sorry. On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jphn W. wrote: I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! Now that's a good idea! At once we have heroin addicts that aren't going to be stealing stuff to get their fix and we cut off the dealers and their whole underworld. Lets do it. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: any theories why this person has such a mean streak. I don't think that's my business. He is what he is. I find greater peace when I manage to accept people as they are, rather than as I think they should be. I would invite others to do the same, but I''m not saying they should. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
Original Message: - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:10:37 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: rude and insulting On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I don't think that's my business. He is what he is. Actually, we don't know much about who is behind the posts. It is one of the facinating things about communications like this. I'm not so much interested in why I'm insulted (the actual insults mean little to me because I have virtually no personal investment in John Williams; I'm interested in the set of ideas that is promoted and the basis for those viewpoints. I find greater peace when I manage to accept people as they are, rather than as I think they should be. I would invite others to do the same, but I''m not saying they should. Some I do, and some I don't. Some, I don't think that I shouldI mean that I accept that they are as they are, and I do not control them, but there are times I engage in negative reinforcement. For example, I'm going to complain about someone who didn't do their job and left me unknowingly without insurance for a week. If someone attacks one of my kids or my wife I will put in some effort to have them realize that it will not be helpful to their own goals to keep up with such activity. But, being called a looser on an internet list, that I might analyze, but not really have any emotional reaction to. Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: any theories why this person has such a mean streak. I don't think that's my business. He is what he is. I find greater peace when I manage to accept people as they are, rather than as I think they should be. I would invite others to do the same, but I''m not saying they should. Good, because if you *were* saying they should, that would violate the acceptance of people as they *are*. I've found it to be a helpful sort of attitude for myself, personally, except I have very little toleration for some characteristics and someone displaying those characteristics more prominently than the ones I consider to be more positive will likely get a Oh, man, why can't he be less --- in my head. That's something I need to work on more. (I think I figured out this week just why I, and a certain group I belong to, have little tolerance for one of those characteristics I perceive as negative. That may be a step in the right direction for me, at least to be able to step back and understand why I react badly to it.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
At 08:10 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: any theories why this person has such a mean streak. I don't think that's my business. He is what he is. I find greater peace when I manage to accept people as they are, rather than as I think they should be. I would invite others to do the same, but I''m not saying they should. Nick That's my approach, too. Particularly on-line. Which doesn't mean I have to agree with whatever position they espouse. Far from it. But I think in general it is a lot more productive not to mention easier on /my/ mental and emotional state to discuss the ideas rather than the person and try to guess at his/her motivation(s) and the shortcomings of his/her personality and/or history . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
At 08:32 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone attacks one of my kids or my wife I will put in some effort to have them realize that it will not be helpful to their own goals to keep up with such activity. If someone _physically_ attacks one of my kids or my wife (all hypothetical atm), they may find themselves suddenly with one or several surplus body openings in whatever caliber I can lay my hands on at the time . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Forecasting
At 05:59 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I know a little bit about forecasting... I co-founded and ran a successful market research firm and I have patents for methods of forecasting markets. Do you have any credentials or examples to cite that would support your notion that we should only listen to people who are right all the time? I have a little trouble imagining that you do i highly doubt he has anything to back up his massive certainty that he is always right and everyone else is wrong. WADR such certainty is hardly exclusive to him (or even to members of this or similar lists ;)) . . . Those Who Think They Know Everything Are Annoying To Those Of Us Who Do Maru . . . ronn! :P Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 06:54 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, Rceeberger wrote: It is such cynical and sarcastic statements that makes you appear to run Asshole as a native app. I've told people that in the same way Micro$oft claimed IE is an integral part of Windows that cannot be removed or disabled without rendering the OS [even more] inoperable [than it already is], my somewhat, um, unique and sometimes annoying sense of humor is an integral part of the package that cannot be removed or disabled either . . . xponent The Invisible Hand Has No Brain Maru If It Had I'd Think Someone Flunked Anatomy 101 Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 06:03 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: the bush administration is largely responsible for the current economic meltdown. Things that happened under the Bush administration may have served the function of the straw that broke the camel's back wrt the current situation, but it has been developing for decades and politicians in both parties and on both sides of the aisle in Congress as well as people in the financial and business sector and others have been responsible. No Shortage Of Blame To Go Around Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 05:48 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I did. Unfortunately, I can't find the post where I predicted it. But I always predict disasters, so it's not surprising that sometimes I'm right. Cassandra Monteiro Cassandra's beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so no one would believe her predictions. History and myth also show that the one thing which is much worse than a prognosticator whose predictions are unreliable is one whose predictions are 100% accurate. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
On 16/11/2008, at 1:10 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: I don't think that's my business. He is what he is. I find greater peace when I manage to accept people as they are, rather than as I think they should be. I would invite others to do the same, but I''m not saying they should. There's two sides to that. Yes, people have different opinions, viewpoints and characters, and it is good to be accepting of a range of views and opinions. One should certainly at least hear many views in order to explore ideaspace before settling on one's own position. But the other side is that in a community, there is behaviour that is simply unacceptable. Ad hominem, falsehoods and abuse (particularly unprovoked) are among those. It is hard to accept trolling. It is best to start by explaining where the offender is outside the range of acceptable behaviour or agreed code of standards. However, once someone consistently refuses to adhere to those, telling them outright they're out of order is the next reasonable step, along with replying to their posts that stay within the spirit of discussion and calling out ones that don't. Moderation follows - personally I think banning is extreme, and in a community like this simply choosing to pass over emails from certain individuals is usually enough. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: History and myth also show that the one thing which is much worse than a prognosticator whose predictions are unreliable is one whose predictions are 100% accurate. A member of Congress once pointed that out to me, as we talked about political polls and such. She said that whenever somebody comes up with a truly accurate polling system, people get excited, praise it... and fairly soon, stop paying for it in favor of polls that tell them what they wanted to hear. Human nature being what it is, at least among politicians, people ultimately want to hear confirmation, not reality. This came as I was doing a startup that was showing very good predictive capabilities. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... and try to guess at his/her motivation(s) and the shortcomings of his/her personality and/or history . . . That's just because you're weak-minded. Nick GSV Can't Resist Irony ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: There's two sides to that. Yes, people have different opinions, viewpoints and characters, and it is good to be accepting of a range of views and opinions. One should certainly at least hear many views in order to explore ideaspace before settling on one's own position. Hmmm. I didn't mean I accept their opinions, I meant accept that they have their opinions and it's not my job to try to change them. Terribly tempting, though. I also have to remind myself frequently that what other people think of me is none of my business. As the wise man used to yell, Can't make nobody do nuthin'! And a hearty Amen to the boundaries you described. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
Dan wrote: But, being called a looser on an internet list, that I might analyze, but not really have any emotional reaction to. Excellent attitude, Dan; attack the argument ignore the puerile aspects of the communication and don't take anything too personally. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. It's fairly obvious it all began with private investment banks going public in the 1980's and shifting liabilities onto shareholders. Since then it's been a steadily increasing land slide of increased risk in an environment of decreasing regulation as apparent wealth creation has been trumpeted widely while the increasing fragility of ever leveraged debt remained hidden. Both Republican and Democrat administrations were blinded by the proclaimed profits, and everyone (and there were quite a few) who warned of the dangers was simply ignored because the big players pooh poohed them. What most failed to notice was the incentives the big players had to ignore reality - it not being their wealth they were risking. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 7:50:42 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. Off the mark. You said: 1) You were not certain enough of your prediction to risk that other people might act on it I don't really care that anyone would act on *my* understanding of a situation. Not my problem. It is that subjects where the volume of knowledge is large and my own understanding is limited are not subjects where I pretend to have an opinion that can be taken as fact, and would prefer to listen and learn rather than speak out. It has nothing to do with making predictions.that is for blowhards and other idiots who think Christmas tree lights have smart DC transformers built in. Dig? 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. In any predictive setting there will be uncertainty based on the quality of data and the lack of necessary data. No one can judge the need for data if they do not have it and don't know that they need it, or even know it exists. It is what you don't know that hurts you. 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. So.you are saying that the market *intentionally* caused this burst bubble? That they intentionally lost a trillion in stock value? If so, your polemic places you squarely in the drown it in the bathtub set. xponent In Reference To Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is that subjects where the volume of knowledge is large and my own understanding is limited are not subjects where I pretend to have an opinion that can be taken as fact, As I said, I got it in number 1. So.you are saying that the market *intentionally* caused this burst bubble? Intentionally? No. That would require everyone to act together on the same bad information. The sort of thing that government interference tends to cause. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 10:35:11 PM, Euan Ritchie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. It's fairly obvious it all began with private investment banks going public in the 1980's and shifting liabilities onto shareholders. Since then it's been a steadily increasing land slide of increased risk in an environment of decreasing regulation as apparent wealth creation has been trumpeted widely while the increasing fragility of ever leveraged debt remained hidden. Both Republican and Democrat administrations were blinded by the proclaimed profits, and everyone (and there were quite a few) who warned of the dangers was simply ignored because the big players pooh poohed them. What most failed to notice was the incentives the big players had to ignore reality - it not being their wealth they were risking. I'm sure that is all quite true, but I think it begins earlier. (Please correct me if I get the facts wrong here) About 50 years ago a home would cost 10-15K, you put 40% down and paid it off in 10 years. The idea that real estate would *always* increase in value set in and land and home prices increased at a rate that allowed people to think of their property as an investment. Over the intervening period wages did not keep pace with the rising land values. So soon, lenders were forced to change their practices. At first 20% down and 20 years to pay and so on til you have 0% down and 30 or more years to pay. In light of rising property values, lenders had little choice but to give more liberal loans if they wanted to keep lending money for homes and land. Buyers had to accept longer term loans if they wanted to buy a home. So basically, it didn't matter all that much what government policies were, eventually we were going to come to this bubble burst one way or the other. (Though I must say that there is an implication of government complicity since rising real estate prices mean higher property tax revenues) Why this death spiral was not being discussed years ago is beyond me. Perhaps it is similar to an economic singularity. No one could see what was on the other side, and so averted their gaze. xponent Event Horizon Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 11:00:14 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is that subjects where the volume of knowledge is large and my own understanding is limited are not subjects where I pretend to have an opinion that can be taken as fact, As I said, I got it in number 1. So.you are saying that the market *intentionally* caused this burst bubble? Intentionally? No. That would require everyone to act together on the same bad information. The sort of thing that government interference tends to cause. Since market information is not filtered through the government but through the market itself, exactly how does that work? xponent Plato Says So Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since market information is not filtered through the government but through the market itself, exactly how does that work? Exactly how does what work? Government regulation? Not very well. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
I'm sure that is all quite true, but I think it begins earlier. (Please correct me if I get the facts wrong here) It's not just about home mortgages, it just happens that's the bubble that revealed the weakness - if not for that some other, all multiple, markets would have bubbled and burst at some time. The housing bubble started when prices began to outstrip the traditional 4 ~ 6 times the median annual income - that distortion is a reflection of, and pressure for more, changes in evaluations of values and risks. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
Since market information is not filtered through the government but through the market itself, exactly how does that work? Exactly how does what work? Government regulation? Not very well. But evidently better than none, or as it was - the pretence of self regulation. Investment managers didn't bother to evaluate the risks of what they were doing because their personal wealth was not at risk, nor even - ridiculously, was their re-numeration. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: socialism v. capitalism
Jon said: depends on what kind of welfare state. sweden's model is preferable to england, both economies have access to north sea oil. i don't believe in fostering dependency, or enabling people working the system to supplement their under the table income with the dole. i do believe the state should assist people with disabilities to become self sufficient, and provide services like health care, free education and vocational training, etc. actually i think we need to come up with new models of enlightened democratic socialism that are productive and creative, rather than destructive to the environment. The ideas that the welfare state has a model separate from capitalist free markets is very strange notion. In fact capitalist monopolies are very Instrumental in creating the welfare state. This can be seen in the basic Economic 101 demand models: http://www.econ.umn.edu/~walrath/LargeLect1101Sp08/Econ1101SuppNotesMonopoly.pdf The high price moguls who received millions to burn surplus and pay below scale wages [real wage based on a value added concept] are basic culprits in the analysis of your “self sufficient.” How can anyone actually discuss a model of democratic socialism without examination of misplaced value systems where people accept theft of services as a form of enlightenment. I the enlighten society a thief can’t pass good title. One golden parachute of $15 million represent about 1,000 salaries at the poverty level of $15,000. Note this slightly before the minimum wage. A note from PV -- Original message from Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- i just came across this in my spam folder, claes... socialism is not without flaws. there is dissension among socialists, and most would condemn my preference for a mixed economy. i recognize the importance of individual incentives, and not against all private enterprise by any means, nor am i in favor of a welfare state. What is the European style socialism that you prefer, if you are not in favor of a welfare state? Or perhaps we mean different things with this term? /c depends on what kind of welfare state. sweden's model is preferable to england, both economies have access to north sea oil. i don't believe in fostering dependency, or enabling people working the system to supplement their under the table income with the dole. i do believe the state should assist people with disabilities to become self sufficient, and provide services like health care, free education and vocational training, etc. actually i think we need to come up with new models of enlightened democratic socialism that are productive and creative, rather than destructive to the environment. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 11:43:53 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since market information is not filtered through the government but through the market itself, exactly how does that work? Exactly how does what work? Government regulation? Not very well. Disingenuity will get you nowhere. Try harder Roto. xponent Sock Puppet Spoor Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
