Wow.

Looks like you weren't, looks like he really meant it.

Well, if the market isn't perfect, and the government makes a small intervention (so the impact is small) in a completely random fashion, then there's a 50% chance the market efficiency increases and 50% chance the market efficiency decreases. Which then immediately proves my point. That's why I was assuming you were assuming what you were.


Yes, I was claiming that. And 95% of climatologists.


So you're fine with me doing damage to you as long as you can't tell it was me or "you couldn't notice the difference"?

BTW, that gets to the core of the problem--lots of people doing individually very small damage to lots of other people but the collective damage to one person could be large. Or thinking about it the other way the damage one person does is actually fairly large, but it is spread over many people.

I take back a little bit about what I said about s2bp. Not entirely--still quite a ways away from b4m.

However, the above is circular logic.

No. Suppose you take a winning, yet non-perfect poker strategy, and change a play at random. The chances that it will result in the strategy doing worse is extremely high, and it's nowhere close to 50%. The only way it would be 50% is if the strategy is completely random to begin with, and is thus not a winning strategy at all.

If I can't notice the difference, there's no significant damage done.

It could be. And if you have evidence that that's the case, and their pollution is getting into your property, and the terms of ownership of your property don't include an agreement to allow them to do this, then you could very well have a claim against all of them.

Or say neighborhood A is being polluted by neighborhood B, they can make the claim together against all the property owners of neighborhood B.

Still, I remain skeptical that burning gasoline 100 miles away can be a serious issue; let alone on the other side of the world. And of course, if pretty much everyone is burning gasoline in similar amounts, then it could very well be that the transaction costs of setting up a system of payments for the pollution caused is higher than the net benefit that the vast majority of property owners would gain from collecting these payments; and be sure that these transaction costs are much, much larger if the system of payments is arranged through taxes rather than through the market.

No, because I wasn't using one statement as proof of the other.

Analogy fail.


Small effects can add up. Have you studied calculus?

Sheesh. It's been said in *this* thread that is a non-starter and the reasons given. Reread, as I am not going to rehash it.

This does little to help that problem (since there's neighborhoods C, D, E, ..., ADFADFIJITJT, ADFADFIJITJU, ... )

Yeah, 95% of scientists are obviously wrong, and should bow to your skepticism.

YES, you get the point of why a market-based system is untenable.

You're going to seriously try to claim that? Yeah, it takes a lot of effort for the federal government to collect the 15.8 cent per gallon tax.

I mean, what does the form look like? How many gallons of gasoline did you sell? ___________ multiply that by 0.158 and send that in. Sure, there can be the threats of audits but there are very easy paper trails (the purchase of gasoline at the distributor/wholesaler/producer level, etc...)

****ty logic, circular logic, horrible thinking, a terrible argument, call it whatever you want.

Why? It works well IMO.

But I would notice the difference with the added effects.

Only if you buy the premise that it's a world-wide issue.

Like how 95% of scientists believe the global warming scare? But they don't.

There's more to transaction costs than simply paying. That money is then supposed to be transferred to the affected victims, according to the amount of damage that was caused to their property. What does that cost the federal government?

First, there's no need for an analogy. Second, it's really not apparent that changing from one situation to another hasn't changed something important. Third, it's not obvious your claim in the analogy is correct. If we're playing non-GTO and our opponent is (as an example) that could mean we're bluffing 0.5% too often. Adjusting our strategy by a little bit (that 0.5%) would increase our payoffs if we go in the correct direction.


Have you looked at worldwide temperatures???? Or do you deny those too?

I really don't have to do that. There are many sub-populations you could talk about. It really comes down to individuals...

Are you putting more words in there (scare) just to editorialize or to try to change the claim to something else?

Because if you're claiming that climate scientists don't believe that global warming is man-made, well...


There's citations in the graph if you want to verify for yourself the claims of the graph.

And from a 2012 paper's abstract, "Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC" (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short). They follow that in their abstract with "Here, we ... show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

We were talking about making markets more efficient. There's nothing in that about transferring to affected victims. You're either changing the claim or you didn't understand it in the first place. Please don't do that.

But the adjustment was random. You could just as well end up folding AA to an open raise pre-flop.


I have. They don't bother me. And no one's been able to predict what the climate will do next so far. Hell, they can't even get the forecast for tomorrow right.

I wonder how they're measuring "climate expertise", but either way, "scientific prominence" simply means how easily they get funding for studies. This also applies to how many studies they get to publish on a regular basis. We already knew that those who tell the IPCC and other tax-funded agencies what they wanna hear will get the funding.

Clearly you don't understand what "efficiency" means in terms of economics. Well, I really thought you did, but obviously you've suspended your judgement here, or something. You seem to be getting upset. Maybe take a short break before posting again.

Excuse me but I just have to point out how laugh out loud selective your argument is.

The money in climate science is an utter JOKE compared to the money in fossil fuels. How can you consider the lure of money in climate science so powerful that it perverts the course of science, while being completely blind to how a literally hundreds of times better funded industry would like to prove the exact opposite. If by your own argument money actually determined the direction of science, we would be swimming in volumes of peer-reviewed scientific literature that clearly demonstrated that continuing liberal burning of fossil fuels is utterly harmless. Just like we would be swimming in scientific literature that showed that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Oh wait, science actually generally moves in the direction of truth, despite attempts by big money to get a grip on it.

Some of your posts even make sense, blows my mind how you can end up with such distorted views.

Wait, you mean like how BP was the largest supporter of cap and trade?

Yeah. Sometimes it will work against you, sometimes it'll work for you.



A general upward trend has been predicted. That's what's been seen (post prediction). There's a mechanism (higher greenhouse gasses) for higher temps, we've measured higher concentrations of GHG, and we've seen higher temps.

BTW, weather != climate. Don't make that rookie mistake.

You could read the chart (they talk about most published/most active). I'd imagine they're using citations as well, but like you I haven't read the cites on the chart.

Wat????

Wat?

Oh, are you going with some AE redefinition of the word "efficiency"? It's either that, or you're 'attacking' me for not understanding the word when it's actually you that doesn't.

In mainstream economics, efficiency has nothing to do with how individuals fare before or after, but rather how the whole collective (producers *and* consumers) fares after the change. Individuals could be worse off in the final allocation in a more efficient situation.

I believe what you're talking about is Pareto efficiency (or optimality). That's when every individual is better off (or at least not worse off). That's one of the worst biases by the Austrians...but it is their go-to metric. Note that if an allocation with higher efficiency exists, it is possible to make a Pareto improvement based on that allocation (with side payments, etc...). But the general definition of efficiency does not require that.

So LOL at you trying to get into my mind. Tell me again please that I don't know what I'm talking about (or that I'm 'upset')

Jesus Christ. How can people not realize that science isn't like other things where there are two sides. In science there is 'right' and there is 'wrong'. 'Right' has the data and 'wrong' doesn't. When it comes to climate change the climate is changing, and all the data supports that. As a result the vast majority of climate scientists are in the process of saying ever more dire things about the world getting warmer. This isn't to get funding because they would get far more funding by saying the opposite. There is no shortage of corporate money out there for climate scientists who are willing to damage their careers by doing bad science and claiming that climate change is possibly not real.

Do you know why it will damage their careers? Because everyone else out there doing the science is seeing something incredibly unsubtle and they recognize very clearly that anyone saying otherwise is a whore for the greenhouse gas producers. In fields like science being a whore results in there being a giant asterisk next to your name for the rest of your career. Lying usually does that in most careers. Do you think the very well publicized fiction writing journalists of the last 20 years have been able to get jobs at newspapers?

Typing lots of words and trying to use vocabulary from the back-end of your econ textbook doesn't equate to being knowledgeable. Many people here who have been around the forum for a while can see the holes in what you write and the semantic gymnastics in your posting style, but few people are too eager to debate someone for days on end about it when the discussions have been had many times over. Having the most free time on your hands to post and being the most steadfast/stubborn doesn't amount to much. One of the few times I saw you bother not engaging someone in a continued debate was with Zygote in a recent thread, which was unsurprising.

The original quote you disagreed with was:
The implication is that government, collectively, will never be a net gain to the economy. Trying to pinpoint some remote example where the government thinks it improved efficiency while disregarding all the unintended consequences elsewhere just misses the point.

No, I said "assuming they can". But in other words, as I already said before, it seems that you're trying to argue whether or not it's hypothetically, conceivably possible for the government to enact policies causing a net gain to some tunnel visioned aspect of the economy, all while not overstepping their bounds and allowing human nature to spill into the equation. And yes, it was already conceded that hypothetically if they had god-like powers and were all knowing, while also possessing the purest of altruistic intentions then what you're saying would be true.

Yes, the climate is changing, as it always has and always will. Who is to say which type of climate is correct and which is not? Does it matter if it is human caused or not? It is hubris to believe that governments can stop this without massive unintended consequences.

This is based on an incorrect assumption that random intervention from the government has equal chance at increasing or decreasing efficiency. About as lousy of an assumption as saying if you let 7 year old make decisions for a fortune 500 company for a day, there's a 50/50 shot at him improving or worsening operations for the company. If the company is far more knowledgeable about the intimate details of their business, it's intellectually shallow to think some outside entity has a 50% chance of intervening and improving efficiency.

Difference is, I made no effort at all to engage you in a structured discussion because I've seen enough of your posts to know it's just wasting time with a wall. Hell, even in the discussion you're having with S2bP you're doing the same thing as usual. Conveniently side stepping points you don't want to address, straw manning, hand waiving, etc. For example, why do you feel entitled to post drivel such as your example of 50% chance of improved efficiency in the example above, and then simply say "Analogy fail." when s2bp correctly calls it out. It's funny though that you assume because I would rather not have my time wasted in the way you're wasting s2bp's time ITT that you must know something I don't. But no thank you, I'd rather participate with lol'ing and limited mockery here and there when the posts stoop to a new low. That was why I originally posted anyway, I merely was noting that the forum is reaching a new low when it's now degenerated into discussions on whether an individual or small group of individuals can generate a net gain overall to the economy's efficiency. The forum already had noticeably been slowing, clearly, when many things you argue in various threads go unaddressed, even though it's all been refuted in various threads from long ago.

And here's a good example with the poker analogy of what you do in econ, except on a poker forum, it's harder for you to disguise the fact you really have no idea what you're talking about using terminology and concepts. Your response regarding bluffing .5% too often and GTO completely misses the point and just attempts to side track using something you read in a poker theory thread somewhere, while actually have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL. As I said from the onset, the posts you make in econ are the poker equivalent of someone going into the HSNL forum trying to use poker terminology and random argumentative tactics that seem "knowledgeable" on the surface to argue things experienced players know are blatantly wrong. Then when nobody takes it serious and wants to dedicate days to debating it, he goes off thinking he's an unmatched poker genius. Problem is with people like coffee_monster though is, they never will acknowledge when they're wrong, they'll just straw man, re-contextualize, goal post shift, and never take a strong stance to be pinned on one way or the other. For example, coffee_monster clearly, to anyone who is reading, just tried to suggest s2bp's poker analogy about why a random intervention won't have a 50% chance at a better result, yet we could spend a month debating it and get no where. Fortunately though, we don't need to waste time debating it to know it's absurdity.

LOL. Still trying to claim that I'm not knowledgeable when it comes to economics? Keep trying, it's entertaining!

Cite, please. I've never not come back when I've been asked, I know that (unlike AEists, one of whom I remember left and didn't return when asked after I completely destroyed his link to mises trying to prove something he was claiming)

Ah, you're mistaking 'market' for 'economy'. Not surprising that you're trying to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about when you continue to make such errors (that one, and the efficiency one earlier). Funny that s2bp wasn't taking me to issue for that. Seems that you're the only one off in your own little world of definitions (or misreads)

Again, you're twisting the claim made in your mind. That causes you to have to use phrases like 'god-like powers' and 'all knowing' when talking about my position, when that simply isn't true. Nothing like that is needed.

But like someone else said, it's obvious you don't want to learn. If you wanted to, you'd be taking a completely different tack ITT and wouldn't make posts like the quoted.

Yes, the economy is changing, as it always has and always will. Who is to say which type of economy (macro outcomes) is correct and which is not? Does it matter if it is government caused or not?

I was talking about one small change to one decision. Clearly you misunderstood that. Either that, or you're strawmanning with your claim of putting a 7 year old in power for a DAY. And you then go on to claim that I'm strawmanning. Sigh.

The correct analogy would be if a fortune 500 company isnt' making as much profit as they could, and someone says "increase (or decrease) production by one unit".

I *hope* you can see the difference between that and putting a 7 year old in control for a day.


LMAO. Just LMAO.

The problem is that you (b4m) don't understand what's being discussed. See the first quote and reply for a prime example.

You could stop posting then. That would make an immediate improvement. You don't understand the arguments or intentionally twist them, and then have the hubris to claim others are doing exactly what you're doing, all the while hurling insults. It does get tiring.

Refuted? I think you're confused again.

Well, *somebody* has missed the point, and continues to do so. I was just trying to help you understand something. I guess you'd rather not.

LMAO. It's funny when you try to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.


You've got the roles reversed.

Assert your way to victory! There's just so much wrong with that quoted paragraph I don't even know where to start.

In all seriousness, b4m, you've used the HSNL/donk example a couple of times so far. So I only think it's fair to ask what your qualifications are.

If its (as I assume it is) you've read a few websites and had a few dorm room BS sessions on 2+2 with people who read the same websites--isn't that like the donk who's read a few poker books and wanders into HSNL? Who then ignores or refuses to understand what others are saying while being so cocksure?

FYP

So let's stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the environment and economy?

That would be great, thanks!

As long as people have remedies against illegitimate harm caused to them by others, there should be no tinkering in the environment or the economy. I understand there are difficult cases and grey areas, but I don't believe that using force (government) is the answer.

Lol at this thread right now. Lol at anyone ever arguing with coffee. Lol at people continuing to claim Bernanke is doing a terrible job because...well i have no idea why people continue to claim this it is absolutely beyond ******ed.