Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2014, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2014 05:47 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 03:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  NONE OF WHICH YOU DID YOU FUCKING RETARD!

Do you need to be shown all of your bullshit parroting 'freedom', 'principals', and the magical thinking of the 'free market' you lying piece of shit?

Your arguments were SHIT, and fell apart with the slightest push. You only ever used false analogies that only seemed to work whenever you ignored massive inconvenient parts of reality, like that Hong Kong doesn't exists within a hermetically sealed bubble, or that people are not perfectly rational pacifists, or that your actions have consequences outside of yourself.
Objectively, from an external point of view, one (and others) of us gets all angry, insulting and abusive, and the other doesn't. So even if you had the best arguments in the world, you also have something extra.
You have anxiety about ethics, about human nature, about the things that people would do or might do. And you use the government (which is made of people) to manage that anxiety. So when I come and doubt the government, you get angry at me as if I made the people bad. I take away your fix, your sedative against the anxiety. I have no anxiety, I have my pepper spray against bad people and I call it Eau de Bronx.

The only ones competent to tell if people are good or bad are psychologists like Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo. Not you or me, you're barking up the wrong tree. Ask them what they think and what government system would they propose.

Other than that, poverty was decreasing before the welfare state and started growing. People who got welfare did not become self-sufficient and productive. If welfare helped the poor, why are there today still poor and welfare? The state doesn't help the poor, but it eases people's anxiety about helping the poor. You use the state and exploit the poor to manage your ethical anxiety.
http://www.academia.edu/1466704/Free_Ent...se_or_Cure
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 05:41 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 02:41 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Regulation can only be reactive, not proactive. There is no way to prevent someone from breaking a rule, there can only be a reactionary action (fine, censure, or expelled from industry).

Regulation is good in so far as the rules are not too specific (the more specific the rule, the more loopholes are created)
...

I just had to pick up on this one.
(Sorry if someone else covered it but I'm in transit so I've been skim-reading)

Regulation, in the sense of setting and enforcing policy, is both proactive and reactive.

Policies are usually set reactively (e.g TTA's pedo-policy) but from then on they act as a deterrent; proactively discouraging non-compliant behaviour / encouraging compliant behaviour.

E.g. One bank fucks up. The regulator imposes a policy... Reactive.
All the other banks now have to comply... Proactive.

Sorry for being picky.

Smile

No, DLJ. That's the theory of its function, but it does not function this way. I've been on the inside of regulation for 10 years. I promise you that the bank - if it really wants the funds - will violate federal securities laws and take their fine as a cost of doing business.

Most of the regulation is already in place, I promise you. The securities rules are clear and in place, yet Broker dealers like UBS traded credit default swaps like it was going out to style. They bet against their customers. All those regulations were Already in place. But UBS made 2 billion from it. The fine was 500 million. Cost of doing business.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 05:53 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 03:23 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So....can someone fill me in on what's been going on for the last 40 pages or so?

Or rather are we still going round and around?

Lumi has not only jumped aboard the libertarian bus, he's driving it at high speed with his eyes wide shut.

I present "Luminon: A Visual Representation".

[Image: Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895_FAIL.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 05:54 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 03:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Got it...I'll pick up from here then. I'd speculate on what he'd say next but I'm pretty sure that he's already said it. 3-4 times at least.

Thanks guys!
I disagree with this interpretation. What happened has been actually this. Half people here shower me with ugly adjectives and the other half thinks that if someone is gets a lot of bad adjectives, there must be a reason for it and it's not them.




(20-08-2014 03:50 PM)PKJoe Wrote:  I've read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. It is full of overly simplistic analogies and faulty logic. You should read some of the critiques on the book. The only reason that you think this book is meaningful is because it confirms your preconceived beliefs, and the analogies are simple enough for you to think they are meaningful. You really need to read more than just the opinions of people that agree with you. I've read Hayek, and Marx, and Keynes, and Smith, and Reich, and Krugman, and Greenspan. All very different opinions. You don't gain knowledge by only studying those you agree with. You gain knowledge by understanding every point of view and using critical thinking to parse out what makes the most sense. Each one of those authors have truths to what they say and what they believe in; some are more right than the others. Despite reading all of these various authors, I still don't consider myself an expert economist. I think you read one book and now consider yourself an expert on economics because you have "studied" the subject.
I didn't say I had read just one book. I had two years of government economics on high school, three years of micro and macro on community college and a year of both plus three Austrian economy courses at a private university. I have read more books than just Hazlitt's.
Well, do you know what is an argument and what is a principle? I have problems finding any critics of Hazlitt who know that. Sure enough, they put forward a lot of adjectives.

In principle, I don't see how a few bureaucrats can get right what hundreds of millions of people need and want, better than people themselves. That's an awful lot of info. But I can see how their willy-nilly do-goody interventions can have lots of unforeseen consequences, which they can then blame on free market and demand more political power to fix them.
It's the classy problem of economic calculation.

See if you can get your money back. Your degree is apparently only worth the paper it's printed on.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Cathym112's post
21-08-2014, 05:59 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 05:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 03:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  NONE OF WHICH YOU DID YOU FUCKING RETARD!

Do you need to be shown all of your bullshit parroting 'freedom', 'principals', and the magical thinking of the 'free market' you lying piece of shit?

Your arguments were SHIT, and fell apart with the slightest push. You only ever used false analogies that only seemed to work whenever you ignored massive inconvenient parts of reality, like that Hong Kong doesn't exists within a hermetically sealed bubble, or that people are not perfectly rational pacifists, or that your actions have consequences outside of yourself.
Objectively, from an external point of view, one (and others) of us gets all angry, insulting and abusive, and the other doesn't. So even if you had the best arguments in the world, you also have something extra.
You have anxiety about ethics, about human nature, about the things that people would do or might do. And you use the government (which is made of people) to manage that anxiety. So when I come and doubt the government, you get angry at me as if I made the people bad. I take away your fix, your sedative against the anxiety. I have no anxiety, I have my pepper spray against bad people and I call it Eau de Bronx.

The only ones competent to tell if people are good or bad are psychologists like Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo. Not you or me, you're barking up the wrong tree. Ask them what they think and what government system would they propose.

Other than that, poverty was decreasing before the welfare state and started growing. People who got welfare did not become self-sufficient and productive. If welfare helped the poor, why are there today still poor and welfare? The state doesn't help the poor, but it eases people's anxiety about helping the poor. You use the state and exploit the poor to manage your ethical anxiety.
http://www.academia.edu/1466704/Free_Ent...se_or_Cure


Wow, your talent for armchair psychology is worse than your talent at armchair economics.


You also have zero credibility here, so cite anyone you want at this point; literally nobody cares. You're in the same box as PleaseJesus, IandI, and hbl.


I also love how wanting to help people makes me the exploiter, because reasons...


Thanks for continuing to remind us all why you're nothing but a bullshit spewing narcissist.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 06:02 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 05:41 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 02:41 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I just had to pick up on this one.
(Sorry if someone else covered it but I'm in transit so I've been skim-reading)

Regulation, in the sense of setting and enforcing policy, is both proactive and reactive.

Policies are usually set reactively (e.g TTA's pedo-policy) but from then on they act as a deterrent; proactively discouraging non-compliant behaviour / encouraging compliant behaviour.

E.g. One bank fucks up. The regulator imposes a policy... Reactive.
All the other banks now have to comply... Proactive.

Sorry for being picky.

Smile

No, DLJ. That's the theory of its function, but it does not function this way. I've been on the inside of regulation for 10 years. I promise you that the bank - if it really wants the funds - will violate federal securities laws and take their fine as a cost of doing business.

Most of the regulation is already in place, I promise you. The securities rules are clear and in place, yet Broker dealers like UBS traded credit default swaps like it was going out to style. They bet against their customers. All those regulations were Already in place. But UBS made 2 billion from it. The fine was 500 million. Cost of doing business.

Then it's clear it is not enough of a disincentive. Make the penalties a percentage that starts at 100% and goes upwards, complete forfeiture of unlawful gains and then some. Make it so that breaking the law is no longer profitable. With proper regulation and enforcement, we can do this. But ol' Lumi would have us believe that the marker will magically prevent this on it's own because reasons...

Although if there are no regulations, then nothing is illegal, then everything is legal. People would still be getting fucked over, it would just all be kosker. I guess that's a win for Lumi, as technically nothing illegal would have happened? Hooray?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 06:44 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 06:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 05:41 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  No, DLJ. That's the theory of its function, but it does not function this way. I've been on the inside of regulation for 10 years. I promise you that the bank - if it really wants the funds - will violate federal securities laws and take their fine as a cost of doing business.

Most of the regulation is already in place, I promise you. The securities rules are clear and in place, yet Broker dealers like UBS traded credit default swaps like it was going out to style. They bet against their customers. All those regulations were Already in place. But UBS made 2 billion from it. The fine was 500 million. Cost of doing business.

Then it's clear it is not enough of a disincentive. Make the penalties a percentage that starts at 100% and goes upwards, complete forfeiture of unlawful gains and then some. Make it so that breaking the law is no longer profitable. With proper regulation and enforcement, we can do this. But ol' Lumi would have us believe that the marker will magically prevent this on it's own because reasons...

Although if there are no regulations, then nothing is illegal, then everything is legal. People would still be getting fucked over, it would just all be kosker. I guess that's a win for Lumi, as technically nothing illegal would have happened? Hooray?

Meh. I'm not sure that's even enough of a disincentive. Here is the thing:

The securities market is nothing more than a casino. It's all a matter of placing bets. Some of those bets have good odds and lower payouts (low risk investments), others have low odds and high payouts (high risk investments).

In order for someone to win their bet, someone must lose. The problem is that EVERYTHING has risk. Even if you stuff all your money in your mattress, you still have the risk that your house will burn down.

And people can't handle it when risk is realized. They think someone must have cheated if they lost their bet. And in many instances, people were placing bets at high stakes tables that they had no business playing at. Then they use regulation to try to ensure that people don't lose their ass (and that is impossible)

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 05:00 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 04:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  And he won't be winning 'Miss Congeniality' here.

Or anywhere on 'The Net'.

He has become the 'Demolition Man'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-08-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 05:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Objectively, from an external point of view, one (and others) of us gets all angry, insulting and abusive, and the other doesn't. So even if you had the best arguments in the world, you also have something extra.
You have anxiety about ethics, about human nature, about the things that people would do or might do. And you use the government (which is made of people) to manage that anxiety. So when I come and doubt the government, you get angry at me as if I made the people bad. I take away your fix, your sedative against the anxiety. I have no anxiety, I have my pepper spray against bad people and I call it Eau de Bronx.

Oh, God, ol' Lumi, please, please hit me with more delusional psychobabble. It's so hot. I just love the way you can pull such idiotic accurate analyses straight from your own anus Self-Evident Greatness and Insight. Don't stop, Lumi! Don't stop!

(21-08-2014 05:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The only ones competent to tell if people are good or bad are psychologists like Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo.

It may interest you to know that in the more than 40 years since the latter of those two, there has in fact been subsequent work done in psychology, up to and including critiques and analyses of their work itself.

But I guess that's the kind of thing only governmnet-approved Reptiloid brainwashing gunman schools teach people.

(21-08-2014 05:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Not you or me, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Wait, what?

(21-08-2014 05:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Not you or me, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Sorry, again?

(21-08-2014 05:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Not you or me, you're barking up the wrong tree.

THEN WHY DON'T YOU LET THAT STOP YOU
?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
21-08-2014, 10:02 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 05:41 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  NoYes, DLJ. That's the theory of its function, but it does not always function this way. I've been on the inside of regulation for 10 years. I promise you that the bank - if it really wants the funds - will violate federal securities laws and take their fine as a cost of doing business.

Most of the regulation is already in place, I promise you. The securities rules are clear and in place, yet Broker dealers like UBS traded credit default swaps like it was going out to style. They bet against their customers. All those regulations were Already in place. But UBS made 2 billion from it. The fine was 500 million. Cost of doing business.

I made some small corrections.

And there is a well known Indian IT Services company that does the same thing.

But taking DBS as a recent example... they had a 7.5 hour outage of their ATMs and the MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) slapped a $210m fine on them and ordered a change to the Incident Management process for all operating banks in SG so that major outages had to be reported within one hour.

All banks complied before the July deadline.

This also applies to more every-day regulations like the highway code / parking restrictions etc.

Most people comply most of the time. If the regulation is known about, then it acts as a deterrent.

Sometimes benefits of non-compliance outweigh the risks so not everyone complies all the time.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: