You really give way too much credit and importance to Government actions…[/quote]
It’s funny that you would say this about the economy and the opposite about global warming when the evidence contradicts you on both counts.
Care to give examples, my understanding is that the social democracy of Sweden is an entrepreneurial wasteland and the socialism in China is yielding to entrepreneurship.
I agree, as you acrue wealth you tend to act more liberally than the average person would. Didn’t take me three Ph.D.s to figure that one out.
[quote]The fact that you completely misunderstand the methods we defend, based on your uneducated opinion (rather than educated reason) doesn’t make you right – it just makes you ignorant.
We are NOT Bolsheviks. Putting us in the same “leftist” bag is as retarded as putting Conservatives and neo-Nazis in the same “rightist” bag.
[/quote]
Did you multiply in the course of this post?
I never said anything about Bolshevism, I merely asserted that you were in favor of living wage laws. I’m going to assume after two posts of tap dancing and your sudden jump from singularity to plurality that you do, in fact, support living wage laws. For the second time, am I wrong?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
It’s funny that you would say this about the economy and the opposite about global warming when the evidence contradicts you on both counts.[/quote]
What evidence? Serious, I want to know, because the evidence I’ve seen apparently supports both my points very well…
In a Capitalist environment (which Social Democracy supports), irrespective of the Government being more to the left or to the right, the government can directly influence macro economic indicators – like inflation – but can hardly do much for or against the plurality of micro-economic entities, like entrepreneurs.
Of course, this government has specifically benefited some micro-economic entities – like Halliburton – but that’s a serious perversion of Capitalism that Social Democracy would NEVER support. Neither do you, I believe.
With regards to global warming and other ecological concerns, the opposite is true: quite rarely, in a Capitalist environment, it is in the best short term economic interest of any company to do anything to protect the environment. Most Capitalists think short term, and protecting the environment is rarely short-term economically justifiable. Only regulation can tilt the balance towards the protection of the environment, because it adds immediate and serious negative consequences to not protecting the environment, through hefty fines, and it can subsidize good environmental citizens.
You might argue that public pressure can also tilt the balance, but experience has proven that while people can be very vocal to protecting the environment, the demand elasticity does not change much when the environment is added to the equation, i.e., being bad to the environment does not decrease sales – in fact if it allows lower prices, it still increases them.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Care to give examples, my understanding is that the social democracy of Sweden is an entrepreneurial wasteland[/quote]
That is completely absurd. Some of the most innovative and dynamic companies in the world are Swedish, which is amazing considering the extremely small size of the country. Their economic indicators, including the GDP per capita and unemployment, are quite healthy.
And, on top of that, the quality of life that Swedish people enjoy is far greater than most everyone else in the world, including the US.
By the way, Sweden recently pledged to break dependence on fossil fuels by 2020:
This while living the Economic Dream of budget surplus – in fact, their SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM has a budget SURPLUS too.
The reason you don’t see hordes of people wanting to move there, is, quite simply, their geographical location, including their depressing long, dark, cold winter… which makes their achievements all the more amazing, especially considering they do not have hordes of cheap illegal immigrant labor driving their economy at the bottom.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
and the socialism in China is yielding to entrepreneurship.[/quote]
First of all, I have repeatedly said I do not defend Socialism, but rather Social Democracy. Very different. China was never a Social Democratic state – far from it.
Secondly, go to China and see for yourself what brand of entrepreneurship they adopt – it’s called “putting the family members of government officials ahead of companies, and then guaranteeing they have a monopoly”.
Hardly what we call entrepreneurship. Hardly what we call Free Market Capitalism.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I agree, as you acrue wealth you tend to act more liberally than the average person would. Didn’t take me three Ph.D.s to figure that one out.[/quote]
So, are you saying that successful Entrepreneurs are either masochists or morons that like to shoot themselves in the foot? Or is it that successful Entrepreneurs gain the experience to realize that Social Democracy would not have in any way hampered their success, while still increasing the quality of life for not only them, but everyone else?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
you do, in fact, support living wage laws. For the second time, am I wrong?[/quote]
Of course I do. All Social Democrats do. And you know that. It was a rhetorical question. The fact that you feel that living wage laws erode the spirit of Entrepreneurship is what I’m rallying against – because that opinion is based on a spectacular misunderstanding on your part of the dynamics of Social Democracy.
Just ask any successful Entrepreneur.
Or go live in a country with Living Wage laws – like The Netherlands or Sweden – enjoy the quality of life it affords EVERYONE (including the rich) and then come back (if you want to) to tell me if you are still so firmly against it.
What evidence? Serious, I want to know, because the evidence I’ve seen apparently supports both my points very well…[/quote]
The number of countries meeting their Kyoto goals is less than those failing.
[quote]In a Capitalist environment (which Social Democracy supports), irrespective of the Government being more to the left or to the right, the government can directly influence macro economic indicators – like inflation – but can hardly do much for or against the plurality of micro-economic entities, like entrepreneurs.
Of course, this government has specifically benefited some micro-economic entities – like Halliburton – but that’s a serious perversion of Capitalism that Social Democracy would NEVER support. Neither do you, I believe.[/quote]
A state or even federal government could quite easily annihilate micro-economic entities as well as set them awash in profits. Are you really going to tell me that disincentivising or outright battling corporations like Wal-mart will have no effect on micro-economic entities? Any other companies ring a Bell?
[quote]With regards to global warming and other ecological concerns, the opposite is true: quite rarely, in a Capitalist environment, it is in the best short term economic interest of any company to do anything to protect the environment. Most Capitalists think short term, and protecting the environment is rarely short-term economically justifiable. Only regulation can tilt the balance towards the protection of the environment, because it adds immediate and serious negative consequences to not protecting the environment, through hefty fines, and it can subsidize good environmental citizens.
You might argue that public pressure can also tilt the balance, but experience has proven that while people can be very vocal to protecting the environment, the demand elasticity does not change much when the environment is added to the equation, i.e., being bad to the environment does not decrease sales – in fact if it allows lower prices, it still increases them.[/quote]
I don’t agree with your assertion that ‘most capitalists think short term’, for the last 30 yrs., all we’ve heard from the good capitalists is that we need to think long term. I think most can see to the point of not harming their customers or future customers.
Sure, the numbers look great if you don’t look at them very hard:
With 26 sick days a year and the rampant depression, one wonders…
I didn’t say you defend Socialism, what I said was as Capitalism and entrepreneurship spread, all varieties of socialism, from the most vile Leninist Socialist to the most well-intentioned Schroderian Social Democrat, recede.
I dunno, with pirated CDs/DVDs, pharmaceuticals, weapons, and everything in between, I wouldn’t be surprised if dollar-wise it was the largest market with the least government in the world. Which goes to another point, I’m not against all forms of social democracy, as some is necessary, but I believe it’s continual advance is unnecessary.
I’m really easily proven wrong here, all you have to do is show me a successful entrepreneur who was an ardent social democrat before he was successful.
Did you just tell me the question I asked was rhetorical? And I wouldn’t say necessarily all of them do, the afformentioned Herr Schroder’s “Agenda 2010” comes to mind.
Erode is a good word, Social Democracy won’t destroy entrepreneurship, but it can most certainly wear it down. And my point wasn’t so much about social democracy eroding entrepreneurship as much as ‘living wage’ laws corroding workforce competence, which you claimed to be advocating.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
A state or even federal government could quite easily annihilate micro-economic entities as well as set them awash in profits. Are you really going to tell me that disincentivising or outright battling corporations like Wal-mart will have no effect on micro-economic entities? Any other companies ring a Bell?[/quote]
Wait, are we talking in the realm of Capitalism and Social Democracy, or on an unbound political realm? Are you trying to change the subject?
WITHIN Social Democracy, by the very definition of Social Democracy, no, you cannot annihilate micro-economic entities. Again, that would go fundamentally against the philosophy.
If you don’t understand that, there’s a couple dozen books I can recommend to enlighten you.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I don’t agree with your assertion that ‘most capitalists think short term’, for the last 30 yrs., all we’ve heard from the good capitalists is that we need to think long term. I think most can see to the point of not harming their customers or future customers.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s why the horrible post-sales customer support almost every company offers is, by far, the biggest source of consumer dissatisfaction!
Actions speak louder than words.
Then again, you’re really not disagreeing with me: you’re cheating by changing the wording from “most” to “good”. Sure, good capitalists think long term. Most don’t. If that means most capitalists are not “good”, does that surprise you?
Free Market Capitalist philosophy is born out of the doctrine that greed is good; greed is hardly ever long-term.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Kyoto[/quote]
The reason countries are failing to achieve the promised results is because their governments are too cowardly to enforce them; it is not because they are really unable to.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Sure, the numbers look great if you don’t look at them very hard:
So you link to a heavily biased site, with a political agenda, that makes a heavily biased, outdated and distorted analysis to prove your point? You don’t think that’s dishonest?
Show me an article from an UNBIASED source and we’ll discuss.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
And, on top of that, the quality of life that Swedish people enjoy is far greater than most everyone else in the world, including the US.
With 26 sick days a year and the rampant depression, one wonders…[/quote]
I’d like to see you live through the dark, cold Swedish winter… and then we can talk about the causes of depression.
Blaming depression (and sickness) on the political system, rather than on the dramatic impact that lack of sunlight in the winter and sleep deprivation in the summer have on people’s brains, is retarded and ignorant.
Your clearly have never been to Sweden either.
Don’t talk about stuff you do not understand.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I didn’t say you defend Socialism, what I said was as Capitalism and entrepreneurship spread, all varieties of socialism, from the most vile Leninist Socialist to the most well-intentioned Schroderian Social Democrat, recede. [/quote]
First of all, Schroeder is/was NOT a Social Democrat, in spite of the name of his political party. Neither is Tony Blair, by the way. They’re slightly to the right of Social Democracy.
Second, you are also completely mistaken in the rest of your assertion – in post-WWII Europe, it was Social Democracy that ENABLED Capitalism and entrepreneurship to spread. The fact that Europe goes through left-right cycles (much like the US!) has much more to do with greed than anything else – after an economic upturn, people get greedy and switch to the right; the right then damages the economy, creates a downturn and a big gaping hole in the middle class (income inequality) and the left takes over again to fix it. When it’s fixed, people get greedy again, and the cycle restarts.
Simple as that.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I dunno, with pirated CDs/DVDs, pharmaceuticals, weapons, and everything in between, I wouldn’t be surprised if dollar-wise it was the largest market with the least government in the world. [/quote]
Maybe. But, it is certainly not Free Market Capitalism, and everything in China goes pretty much against every single tenant of Social Democracy and liberalism.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I’m really easily proven wrong here, all you have to do is show me a successful entrepreneur who was an ardent social democrat before he was successful.[/quote]
Again, you’re changing the rules. Why “ardent” social democrat? And why do I have to show it BEFORE they were successful? Again, are you arguing they become dumber with age, not wiser?
And anyway, did you read anywhere that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet were EVER not leftist? Seriously.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Did you just tell me the question I asked was rhetorical? And I wouldn’t say necessarily all of them do, the afformentioned Herr Schroder’s “Agenda 2010” comes to mind.[/quote]
Schroeder is/was not a Social Democrat, for that very reason and others. It simply goes completely against the philosophy. He was trying to be popular by reaching out to the right. By trying to keep both sides happy, he failed, of course, and he paid for it. It?s quite sad, really. Any smart politician knows that it is political suicide to betray the principles you claim to defend. Except maybe in the US, where Republicans continue to win elections even though they have long betrayed the fundamental principle of fiscal conservatism. Then you wonder why people think Americans are dumber than everyone else.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
‘living wage’ laws corroding workforce competence, which you claimed to be advocating.[/quote]
Living wage laws do NOT corrode workforce competence, as many European countries proved before they got greedy and switched to the right.
They DO change the rules somewhat, of course – and force managers to use different incentives (and punishments) to keep people at peak performance. But anyone that has actually been a successful manager and/or entrepreneur knows that the classic money and fear carrot / stick pair are far from being the best, let alone the only, enablers of high performance. They are simply the easiest and most commonly used by incompetent managers. And we?re not trying to train incompetent managers; we?re trying to train competent, successful, best-of-breed, managers and entrepreneurs.
We teach our students to be successful managers irrespective of the political climate, and they are; having said that, almost all of them invariably find out (talking to Stanford GSB alumni from all over the world) that Social Democratic environments provide them with the strongest, most intelligent, least stressed, most productive workforce – and hence these are the environments where their success is in fact the easiest to achieve.
WITHIN Social Democracy, by the very definition of Social Democracy, no, you cannot annihilate micro-economic entities. Again, that would go fundamentally against the philosophy.
[/quote]
Yup, you need them to milk them…
Minimum wages however DO lead to a higher base of unemployment. It is kind of a cartell where those who do have a job benefit and those who don`t have very hard time getting one.
But, wait I have an even better idea:
We could finance this unemployment by taxing labor costs therefore making labor more expensive, more people will get fired , labor will get even more expensive having to support more unemployed people, which makes labor even more expensive, leading to even more people that are unemployed…
[quote]orion wrote:
Prisoners Dilemma, intelligent egoism means co-operating, given the right environment.
If the right environment is not a given, than maybe forced cooperation is a stupid idea.[/quote]
Look, I have a PhD in Game Theory, don’t patronize me on the Pisoner’s Dilemma.
You are making absolutely no sense, by the way.
The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution: “rational” choice leads the two players to both play defect (betray) even though each player’s individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the dilemma.
Yes, when the prisoners both betray each other, each prisoner achieves a worse outcome than if they had cooperated. But the fact is, “rational” players always will, due to our selfish nature. This demonstrates very elegantly that in a non-zero sum game the Pareto optimum and the Nash Equilibrium can be opposite.
Later studies by Douglas Hofstadter go further in asserting that only “superrational” players take into account that the other person is superrational, like them, and thus they cooperate.
How many people do you know that are “superrational”? None, because you are an atheist like me (theists believe in prophets, who are superrational).
Hence, “forced cooperation” remains as the only option to attain the optimal solution – because if left to their own devices, they will achieve, in fact, the sub-optimal solution.
[quote]hspder wrote:
orion wrote:
Prisoners Dilemma, intelligent egoism means co-operating, given the right environment.
If the right environment is not a given, than maybe forced cooperation is a stupid idea.
Look, I have a PhD in Game Theory, don’t patronize me on the Pisoner’s Dilemma.
You are making absolutely no sense, by the way.
The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution: “rational” choice leads the two players to both play defect (betray) even though each player’s individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the dilemma.
Yes, when the prisoners both betray each other, each prisoner achieves a worse outcome than if they had cooperated. But the fact is, “rational” players always will, due to our selfish nature. This demonstrates very elegantly that in a non-zero sum game the Pareto optimum and the Nash Equilibrium can be opposite.
Later studies by Douglas Hofstadter go further in asserting that only “superrational” players take into account that the other person is superrational, like them, and thus they cooperate.
How many people do you know that are “superrational”? None, because you are an atheist like me (theists believe in prophets, who are superrational).
Hence, “forced cooperation” remains as the only option to attain the optimal solution – because if left to their own devices, they will achieve, in fact, the sub-optimal solution.
[/quote]
With your PhD in game theory you should know that if they have to play the game again and again and again, like they have to in real life, they will cooperate.
The long term benefit outweighs the short term gain therefore they are selfish and reasonable when cooperating.
And lo and behold, that actually works in real life…
[quote]orion wrote:
With your PhD in game theory you should know that if they have to play the game again and again and again, like they have to in real life, they will cooperate.
The long term benefit outweighs the short term gain therefore they are selfish and reasonable when cooperating.
And lo and behold, that actually works in real life…[/quote]
You continue to make a complete ass of yourself by spouting nonsense about the prisoner’s dilemma.
First of all, in real life you do NOT “play the game again and again and again”. The moment any variable changes (like the specific players) it is a different game – very rarely people are competing or dealing with the exact same people in the exact same circumstances. If the environment changes even slightly, the game changes and it starts from scratch.
The iterative prisoner’s dilemma is purely theoretical because in real life, the prisoners WOULD go to jail – so they would have no chance to repeat it.
But I?ll be extra nice to you (even if you do not deserve it), and I?ll imagine for argument?s sake that the iterative version applies in real life; unfortunately (for you) your argument is still completely idiotic.
The “best” deterministic strategy in the iterative prisoner’s dilemma (for single players) was found to be “Tit for Tat”, which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into a tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his opponent did on the previous move.
The problem is that in real-life, people will NOT necessarily cooperate in the first iteration (they usually don?t, unless they are forced), so if we do use tit-for-tat, we get trapped in a cycle of defections. So, again, it results that the optimal strategy is to force cooperation – in the first iteration, at least.
Another way to prove this is starting from the end; If an iterated PD is going to be iterated exactly N times, for some known constant N, then there is another interesting fact. The Nash equilibrium is to defect every time. That is easily proved by induction; one might as well defect on the last turn, since the opponent will not have a chance to punish the player. Therefore, both will defect on the last turn. Thus, the player might as well defect on the second-to-last turn, since the opponent will defect on the last no matter what is done, and so on. For cooperation to remain appealing, then, the future must be indeterminate for both players. One solution is to make the total number of turns N random. The shadow of the future must be indeterminably long.
Of course, that again does not apply to real life, because we do not live forever, and people KNOW that. Furthermore, please have limited patience, which would bind N even more in real life.
Wait, are we talking in the realm of Capitalism and Social Democracy, or on an unbound political realm? Are you trying to change the subject?[/quote]
I assumed unbound political realm. I apologize, it’s hard to judge where our limits are since a) we are not a social democracy and b) you bounded from ‘living wages’ to Social Democracy and/or Bolshevism.
Do I go to the penalty box for cheating or just get an asterisk by my name in the record books? See below.
500M yrs. of evolution might disagree with you, but you might be right, we’ll have to see.
Ahem, “Then again, you’re really not disagreeing with me: you’re cheating by changing the wording from “unable” to “unwilling”.”
[quote]So you link to a heavily biased site, with a political agenda, that makes a heavily biased, outdated and distorted analysis to prove your point? You don’t think that’s dishonest?
Show me an article from an UNBIASED source and we’ll discuss.[/quote]
How about, in the name of fairness and practicality, you put up an article from an ‘unbiased’ source that disproves the facts of the article and I’ll dismiss it by waving my hands and saying the words ‘heavily biased’ as well.
[quote]I’d like to see you live through the dark, cold Swedish winter… and then we can talk about the causes of depression.
Blaming depression (and sickness) on the political system, rather than on the dramatic impact that lack of sunlight in the winter and sleep deprivation in the summer have on people’s brains, is retarded and ignorant.[/quote]
Please forgive a retard for being confused but wasn’t your stance that the standard of living better there?
[quote]Your clearly have never been to Sweden either.
Don’t talk about stuff you do not understand.[/quote]
I won’t claim to have spent a year backpacking across the country, but I have actually spent more than 24 hrs. there. Given your inaccuracy, I’ll just assume this was a rhetorical statement.
This doesn’t disagree with my assertion that you can clearly be a social democrat and be responsible for welfare cuts. Although, as you pointed out, it is much like asserting the Bush Administration represents the cine que non conservative archetype. I think we would have to regard this as argumentative impass.
I disagree, the black market represents the essence of free market capitalism, the acquisition of power/wealth unfettered by government regualtion, and this was my point, in a strictly socialist nation, this wouldn’t happen.
I said ardent to avoid getting someone like Tony or Gerhard, you apparently can’t be too careful.
And you wonder why people call you elitist, I’m not associating intelligence with social tendencies, I’m associating means with social tendencies.
It’s economics, in English, doc, am I going to fast for you?
Bill Gates, nowhere, the man supposedly got a million bucks the day he was born and even if he didn’t, his family has been wealthy for generations. Buffett on the other hand was very fiscally conservative in his early years, he was worth at least $10M before he started spreading the wealth. You may disagree, but ‘margin of safety’ investing is far from liberal fiscal policy. IMO, it wasn’t until the Clinton Era that he became truly liberal and even then more civilly as opposed to fiscally.
I’m sorry, the fastest growing economy post-WWII was what? Fifty years after WWII the world’s largest economy is what?
Could you be any more vague? Are you afraid of giving away Stanford GSB secrets by citing specific examples (or was carrot/stick not a metaphor?) or are you afriad to give away some of the wisdom you collected in your years as a successful manager?
So they all work in Sweden? (It occurs to me that one of your more successful alumns works in a country led by one of the ‘social democrats’ we mentioned earlier.) Have you heard back from all of your alumni or even the majority? Or are you only hearing back from the ones who are taking a ‘sick day’? I’d actually be interested to know in what nation the majority of SUGSB students end up, could you point me in the direction of that info?
[quote]hspder wrote:
orion wrote:
With your PhD in game theory you should know that if they have to play the game again and again and again, like they have to in real life, they will cooperate.
The long term benefit outweighs the short term gain therefore they are selfish and reasonable when cooperating.
And lo and behold, that actually works in real life…
You continue to make a complete ass of yourself by spouting nonsense about the prisoner’s dilemma.
First of all, in real life you do NOT “play the game again and again and again”. The moment any variable changes (like the specific players) it is a different game – very rarely people are competing or dealing with the exact same people in the exact same circumstances. If the environment changes even slightly, the game changes and it starts from scratch.
The iterative prisoner’s dilemma is purely theoretical because in real life, the prisoners WOULD go to jail – so they would have no chance to repeat it.
But I?ll be extra nice to you (even if you do not deserve it), and I?ll imagine for argument?s sake that the iterative version applies in real life; unfortunately (for you) your argument is still completely idiotic.
The “best” deterministic strategy in the iterative prisoner’s dilemma (for single players) was found to be “Tit for Tat”, which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into a tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his opponent did on the previous move.
The problem is that in real-life, people will NOT necessarily cooperate in the first iteration (they usually don?t, unless they are forced), so if we do use tit-for-tat, we get trapped in a cycle of defections. So, again, it results that the optimal strategy is to force cooperation – in the first iteration, at least.
Another way to prove this is starting from the end; If an iterated PD is going to be iterated exactly N times, for some known constant N, then there is another interesting fact. The Nash equilibrium is to defect every time. That is easily proved by induction; one might as well defect on the last turn, since the opponent will not have a chance to punish the player. Therefore, both will defect on the last turn. Thus, the player might as well defect on the second-to-last turn, since the opponent will defect on the last no matter what is done, and so on. For cooperation to remain appealing, then, the future must be indeterminate for both players. One solution is to make the total number of turns N random. The shadow of the future must be indeterminably long.
Of course, that again does not apply to real life, because we do not live forever, and people KNOW that. Furthermore, please have limited patience, which would bind N even more in real life.[/quote]
Directly from wikipedia:
“As the number of iterations approaches infinity, the Nash equilibrium tends to the Pareto optimum, meaning the likelihood of cooperation becomes greater and greater.”
How many transactions does Amazon do every day?
Are there enough iterations to approach infinity enough to ensure cooperation in allmost all cases?
Can Amazons customers freely exchange information and behave in a way as one cutomer regarding Amazons reputation?
Does goodwill have a value you can actually measure in cold hard cash?
What is goodwill if not public expectation?
Could Amazons optimal strategy possibly be to start honest and remain so, while cutting those customers who don`t pay?
How is Amazon fundamentally different than let us say a butcher in a small village when it comes to goodwill?
Could goodwill be a solution for a problem that you think can only be solved by coercion?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Free Market Capitalist philosophy is born out of the doctrine that greed is good; greed is hardly ever long-term.
lucasa wrote:
500M yrs. of evolution might disagree with you, but you might be right, we’ll have to see.[/quote]
Do I need to educate you also in the Prisoner’s dilemma – that proves that, in fact, cooperation, not greed, is the one that yields that optimal outcome?
[quote]hspder wrote:
The reason countries are failing to achieve the promised results is because their governments are too cowardly to enforce them; it is not because they are really unable to.
lucasa wrote:
Ahem, “Then again, you’re really not disagreeing with me: you’re cheating by changing the wording from “unable” to “unwilling”.”[/quote]
??!?!?!?
Even if assume that you actually meant the reverse – from “unwilling” to “unable” – that is exactly my point: they are unwilling because they are political cowards, not because they are unable. So the problem is not with the philosophy or the power that they have, is it their lack of political balls. How I am cheating?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Blaming depression (and sickness) on the political system, rather than on the dramatic impact that lack of sunlight in the winter and sleep deprivation in the summer have on people’s brains, is retarded and ignorant.
lucasa wrote:
Please forgive a retard for being confused but wasn’t your stance that the standard of living better there?[/quote]
Why are you pretending you do not know what standard of living is? Because it is convenient for you to play dumb?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I disagree, the black market represents the essence of free market capitalism, the acquisition of power/wealth unfettered by government regualtion, and this was my point, in a strictly socialist nation, this wouldn’t happen.[/quote]
So, you’re calling a black – i.e., illegal – market an example of free market capitalism (an oxymoron if I ever saw one!).
And them you’re again changing subject, by talking about strict socialism. I have no interest in defending “strict socialism”. Why mention it, again? I am as much against “strict socialism” as you are, why you keep mentioning it… escapes me.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I said ardent to avoid getting someone like Tony or Gerhard, you apparently can’t be too careful.[/quote]
That was a pretty good comeback. Got a pretty good laugh out of it. I commend you.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
And you wonder why people call you elitist, I’m not associating intelligence with social tendencies, I’m associating means with social tendencies. [/quote]
So, you’re saying that means determine social tendencies? Why then are not trust fund babies also liberals? Why are the majority of trust fund babies, in fact, Republicans?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Bill Gates, nowhere, the man supposedly got a million bucks the day he was born and even if he didn’t, his family has been wealthy for generations.[/quote]
I thought we were talking about success, not means. We started this discussion talking about Entrepreneurial Spirit. You can’t be surprised that I’m confused that it now somehow slid into talking about means. Now that I understand that you are looking at means, the same comment above applies: why, then, do trust fund babies vote Republican?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Buffett on the other hand was very fiscally conservative in his early years, he was worth at least $10M before he started spreading the wealth. [/quote]
Nephorm actually addressed that somewhere else; he was always a liberal; the reason he took a while before starting to share his wealth is that he believed that way he could give more over the long term – he makes money with money, after all, so giving away too much of his wealth would reduce his ability to make more and hence give more.
I completely understand this rationale and apply it myself.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I’m sorry, the fastest growing economy post-WWII was what?[/quote]
The US, after being fueled by Social Democratic royalty – FDR, one of the greatest, most eminent Social Democrats in History – and by a constant inflow of money from the Social Democratic Europe that needed our working industry (theirs had been leveled) to produce goods for their reconstruction.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Fifty years after WWII the world’s largest economy is what?[/quote]
Momentum is a great thing, isn’t it?
Especially when coupled with the concept of the helicopter drop of money (in case you don’t know what I’m talking about, look up Bernanke’s work – yes THAT Bernanke), that both Reagan and Bush used and abused – and allowed some momentum to be regained (at the expense of long-term growth and inflation, as Bernanke explains).
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Could you be any more vague? Are you afraid of giving away Stanford GSB secrets by citing specific examples (or was carrot/stick not a metaphor?) or are you afriad to give away some of the wisdom you collected in your years as a successful manager?[/quote]
Oh please. Do you really expect me to write a whole essay here summarizing the courses I teach? For free?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
So they all work in Sweden? (It occurs to me that one of your more successful alumns works in a country led by one of the ‘social democrats’ we mentioned earlier.) [/quote]
We teach about 370 students a year in the MBA program, plus a couple dozen in the Sloan Program.
They come from more than 60 countries.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Have you heard back from all of your alumni or even the majority?[/quote]
I’m closely involved with the GSB Alumni Association, which we keep very tight:
I’ve been able to keep tabs at least my best ex-students, and we get regular reports and survey responses from the rest, that we process and consolidate into one big annual report. The response rates are tremendous, 100% in most years, because, as I said, we keep the community very tight.
We also have regular reunions (everywhere in the world – not just here in campus) and events, as well as many “Continuing Studies” courses that bring a lot of them back to learn more about specific subjects.
[quote]hspder wrote:
I’d actually be interested to know in what nation the majority of SUGSB students end up, could you point me in the direction of that info?[/quote]
During Clinton a lot of them tried to get jobs here and stayed, but since Bush came to power, most of them go back to their home countries. Those would be the 60 countries I mentioned.
Unfortunately, I can’t tell you more without breaking confidentiality rules. If you apply and drop by an admissions briefing, the admissions office might be able to tell you more after you sign a confidentiality agreement (they’ll go that extra mile if they feel that you’re a good candidate and the information will help convince you to join us – as long as you’re willing to sign the NDA).
[quote]orion wrote:
How many transactions does Amazon do every day?[/quote]
When did this become a discussion about electronic transactions?
That is a completely different subject. I actually wrote a paper on the Game Theory behind Customer Satisfaction and another one on the dynamics of both customer review sites (like Amazon, epinions.com, etc.) and the eBay scoring system.
Basically, as I said, that is a COMPLETELY different discussion that has nothing to do with living wages and social security – namely the dynamics are completely different.
The weekend is coming, and I really don’t have the time to discuss it at much length. I apologize for that.
But please feel free to start a new thread on it, and when I get back on Monday I promise I’ll post something.
Just as an appetizer, in fact the eBay scoring system is an interesting variation of the prisoner’s dilemma – but it is fundamentally different because the second person to play has fore-knowledge of what the other person played before; it is also not iterative, since you cannot change your feedback for a transaction after you posted it, and future transactions are new games, because they require an intermediate action (a purchase / auction).
Customer Satisfaction is also fundamentally different because of the problem of demand elasticity.
[quote]hspder wrote:
orion wrote:
How many transactions does Amazon do every day?
When did this become a discussion about electronic transactions?
That is a completely different subject. I actually wrote a paper on the Game Theory behind Customer Satisfaction and another one on the dynamics of both customer review sites (like Amazon, epinions.com, etc.) and the eBay scoring system.
Basically, as I said, that is a COMPLETELY different discussion that has nothing to do with living wages and social security – namely the dynamics are completely different.
The weekend is coming, and I really don’t have the time to discuss it at much length. I apologize for that.
But please feel free to start a new thread on it, and when I get back on Monday I promise I’ll post something.
Just as an appetizer, in fact the eBay scoring system is an interesting variation of the prisoner’s dilemma – but it is fundamentally different because the second person to play has fore-knowledge of what the other person played before; it is also not iterative, since you cannot change your feedback for a transaction after you posted it, and future transactions are new games, because they require an intermediate action (a purchase / auction).
Customer Satisfaction is also fundamentally different because of the problem of demand elasticity.
[/quote]
I think you have to split hairs to see that as a fundamentally different situation.
If Amazon cheats (not delivers the books) it gets a “big” reward. If it doesn`t it gets a small reward.
Amazon plays that game over and over again uses the tit-for-tat strategy, starting with an honest move.
If you think electronic transactions are fundamentally different (why?), why do butchers in a small village not constantly have their thumbs on their scales?
It seems to me, when you are in a business to stay, your greed alone should motivate you to be an honest businessman.
I still wonder how you deal with the fact that there is something like “goodwill” when it comes to businesses.
It allmost seems as if businesses would not start from scratch every time but would play the game over and over again.
[quote]hspder wrote:
orion wrote:
It seems to me, when you are in a business to stay, your greed alone should motivate you to be an honest businessman.
Well, it doesn’t. If you don’t get that by now through Game Theory and Microeconomics, just look around.[/quote]
well, if you let crimes committed by managers cloud your judgement, why not.
You are just forgetting that the main target of their criminal operations is usually their own company, since this is the area where they have the most pull.
You simply do not want to believe that humans are clever enough to recognize mutual benefit, yet the idea of trade is older than the concept of “law” or even “government” …
Tit-fot-tat is hard-wired in our brains because co-operation does pay off in the long run, even for our selfish genes…
[quote]orion wrote:
You simply do not want to believe that humans are clever enough to recognize mutual benefit, yet the idea of trade is older than the concept of “law” or even “government” …[/quote]
It’s not a question of belief – it’s a question of proof. You are the one with the wishful – VERY wishful – thinking here. Every single related study in modern Psychology and Game Theory proves in fact the exact opposite of your claim.
[quote]orion wrote:
Tit-fot-tat is hard-wired in our brains because co-operation does pay off in the long run, even for our selfish genes…[/quote]
You really have no idea of what you’re talking about… I give up. This is clearly a religious issue for you (in the sense that your belief is based on faith, not reality, and no amount of scientific proof will sway you), and there is much point in trying to change your mind as there is in changing JPBear’s or ZEB’s mind.
[quote]hspder wrote:
orion wrote:
You simply do not want to believe that humans are clever enough to recognize mutual benefit, yet the idea of trade is older than the concept of “law” or even “government” …
It’s not a question of belief – it’s a question of proof. You are the one with the wishful – VERY wishful – thinking here. Every single related study in modern Psychology and Game Theory proves in fact the exact opposite of your claim.
orion wrote:
Tit-fot-tat is hard-wired in our brains because co-operation does pay off in the long run, even for our selfish genes…
You really have no idea of what you’re talking about… I give up. This is clearly a religious issue for you (in the sense that your belief is based on faith, not reality, and no amount of scientific proof will sway you), and there is much point in trying to change your mind as there is in changing JPBear’s or ZEB’s mind.[/quote]
It is not a religious issue for me. I think that given the right environment people will co-operate.
I think we need governments to make sure such an environment exists.
See, governments should build a market place and defend it, not try to run it.
Cool that science has absolutely positively proven (which is impossible, btw…) that we, as a social species, are so greedy and selfish that we will never be able to foresee the moves of others or discover the benefits of cooperating, which is why we will never build civilizations, go to the moon or watch Baywatch reruns…
Sad, really, all other social species are able to, but we, eqipped with an intelligence that is primarily concerned with solving social/political problems just can?t pull it off.
HsSpider, you do realize that you have a vested interest in people being too stupid to figure it out for themselves because otherwise your idea of a benevolent dictators…, um, Social Democracy somehow goes down the drain…
Plus, if we are greedy, egoistic bastards, unable to fight it even when it would be in our best interest, what will the Social Democratic administrators be?
I even know the answer, they are different because they are social democrats, therefore enlightened and I am the one who is being religious.
