Bernanke - Gold standard will not solve problems
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.
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.
Again you seem to be assuming that future people have a right to the same climate we have now. That the status quo is somehow the "correct" climate. This is not possible, since it is going to change whether we try to stop it or not. And it's not like we are going to make the planet completely uninhabitable, or even significant portions of it. Some areas may even become more habitable. People will adapt.
The negative effects of current Fed policy may not become apparent until after Bernanke retires (as it was with Greenspan).
yeah it's no like earth is gonna venus in the next few decades so who cares!
coffee_monster, thanks for proving my point -- that you will post endlessly using elementary school logic disguised with 'eXprt internetZ arguing tactics!'. In all the words you wrote, you said much about nothing. The fact that you're sitting here going through great lengths to post, while posting **** like this with a straight face, under the pretense of being smart, is quite fascinating:
If I were to mimic your juvenile posting style, this would be something to "LMAO" about. Everything else you wrote was all lol as well, but I don't get off on playing your semantic musical chairs, multi-quoting endlessly game. You seem a bit OCD and tilt happy, I'm sure those attributes serve you well at the tables. And just saying things are so doesn't make them so.
Nice read champ, but no. I've made 7 figures+ in poker, which is pretty much a 100% lock to be more than you, but sure, if you'd like to carry on your charade and pretend you know what you're talking about in poker you can do that too. Tread carefully though, your ignorance is much more apparent when trying to talk poker than Econ for most people since, you know, this is a poker forum first and foremost. Your mentions of "GTO" and bluff frequencies are complete hogwash as far as the point you were trying to prove.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
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.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
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.
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?
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?
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
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)
coffee_monster, thanks for proving my point -- that you will post endlessly using elementary school logic disguised with 'eXprt internetZ arguing tactics!'. In all the words you wrote, you said much about nothing. The fact that you're sitting here going through great lengths to post, while posting **** like this with a straight face, under the pretense of being smart, is quite fascinating:
If I were to mimic your juvenile posting style, this would be something to "LMAO" about. Everything else you wrote was all lol as well, but I don't get off on playing your semantic musical chairs, multi-quoting endlessly game. You seem a bit OCD and tilt happy, I'm sure those attributes serve you well at the tables. And just saying things are so doesn't make them so.
Nice read champ, but no. I've made 7 figures+ in poker, which is pretty much a 100% lock to be more than you, but sure, if you'd like to carry on your charade and pretend you know what you're talking about in poker you can do that too.
We weren't really talking about poker here either, nor how much people make, nor any other of the crap you're talking about. You brought up the useless analogy about HSNL versus people coming in. You made another useless (and misguided!) analogy with poker. I'd rather keep on topic than make those poker tangents. But I guess that's one other thing you have--assertions and bad analogies.
Actually, in my first reply, I didn't realize how much you misread what was said just so you could do some bragging. Here's what happened. You compared me (in this economics discussion) with someone (in a poker discussion) who doesn't know what they're talking about going into the HSNL forum and trying to lecture/educate the regs. Thus you were making the analogy between yourself (with respect to economics) and the knowledgeable HSNL regs. I was asking what your ECONOMIC qualifications were for comparing yourself to the HSNL regs in the analogy you were making.
So once again, you take something I'm saying, twist it horribly, and then act as if I've said something wrong. It seems to be an incredibly bad habit of yours since you've done that throughout this thread.
Tread carefully though, your ignorance is much more apparent when trying to talk poker than Econ for most people since, you know, this is a poker forum first and foremost. Your mentions of "GTO" and bluff frequencies are complete hogwash as far as the point you were trying to prove.
BTW, I did ask you why exactly it was you were comparing yourself to the HSNL regs in your analogy. So again, what exactly makes you think your econ knowledge (or whatever it is you're claiming) makes that a good analogy?
Uh, not that I really want to be the one subjecting Zygote to some long drawn out debate with a brick wall (the same person who claimed he'd post in a civil manner, then goes on to 'LMAOz' and ad hominem s2bp, I guess you just claim you'll post civilly as bait to sucker people in?)
And it sort of turned out s2bp was kind of like you. Just not as obvious and not as extreme.
but he posted a long response to you at post #32 in this very thread, which you didn't respond to.
He didn't ask you to (who would?), I just mentioned it because you seem to OCD post in every thread and tout how knowledgeable you are,
so I found it interesting that it was one of the few occasions you actually left well enough alone and stfu.
The Earth has gone through thousands of cyclical climate changes much larger than the ones that are being predicted due to man made CO2. These will continue despite our activities. It is also likely that other forms of energy will overtake fossil fuels in economic viability before too much human caused change is done.
Even if we forget about this, there are a lot of smart economists who feel that without his policies we would have ended up in the second Great Depression, and if this is true it doesn't matter what negative effects we feel in the future, as the negative effects we would have felt if he did nothing far outweigh them.
However, I simply cannot begin to imagine any process how what the fed is doing could really help the economy. It simply fails to make any sort of sense to me. Maybe I'm stupid, but damn, I get the idea of quantum mechanics, cosmology, biochemistry, etc, why would this economic stuff be so profoundly nonsensical to me?
Paul Krugman is supposedly a very smart economist.
I will say that this is true and has certainly eroded my opinion of the Bernanke haters.
However, I simply cannot begin to imagine any process how what the fed is doing could really help the economy. It simply fails to make any sort of sense to me. Maybe I'm stupid, but damn, I get the idea of quantum mechanics, cosmology, biochemistry, etc, why would this economic stuff be so profoundly nonsensical to me?
Paul Krugman is supposedly a very smart economist.
However, I simply cannot begin to imagine any process how what the fed is doing could really help the economy. It simply fails to make any sort of sense to me. Maybe I'm stupid, but damn, I get the idea of quantum mechanics, cosmology, biochemistry, etc, why would this economic stuff be so profoundly nonsensical to me?
Paul Krugman is supposedly a very smart economist.
Which one of the Fed's policies don't you think should work?
I'm not sure if you fit into this camp, but there are a lot of Bernanke haters who have been claiming since 2008 that his policies were going to lead to immediate, rapid, high level inflation that have now settled into claiming his policies are actually a ticking time bomb that is going to go off some undetermined time in the future.
Even if we forget about this, there are a lot of smart economists who feel that without his policies we would have ended up in the second Great Depression, and if this is true it doesn't matter what negative effects we feel in the future, as the negative effects we would have felt if he did nothing far outweigh them.
Hyperinflation can always be averted. Shut off the "printing presses" and the currency will devalue but stabilize. But this leads to default. These would be the choices in the loss of control scenario.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
Wow, you must have a big penis.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
You brought up the useless analogy about HSNL versus people coming in. You made another useless (and misguided!) analogy with poker. I'd rather keep on topic than make those poker tangents.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
And it sort of turned out s2bp was kind of like you.
For those still wasting time following along, the statements hidden at the heart of all the coffee_monster theatrics and posts:
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
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.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
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.
Originally Posted by soon2bepro
but no single person or outside entity can guide the whole market towards more efficiency, all they can do is get in the way.
I only skim over your gibberish at this point since it's just a sideshow with no real substance, so when I saw you asking for my qualifications with a few key words like "HSNL","2+2", etc, it seemed you were asking about poker -- especially since my post was lol'ing at your poker analogy. You asking about poker or econ "qualifications" is just more "coffee_monster coffee_monstering" though, since the central point I was making was clear.
Here it is in case you missed it: you were comparing yourself ITT (on an economic level) with HSNL regs (on a poker level). I simply asked what makes you think that comparison is apt. I think it's a fair question, especially since you were the one touting your qualifications (albeit indirectly). Though I can see why you'd try to avoid it and somehow spin it into something negative about me.
Sideshow with no substance? smh. I don't think you know what substance is, especially given your contributions ITT.
Yawn. Attempting to further distort what's really going on here. S2bp made a poker analogy illustrating what was wrong with what you were saying, you tried to respond with a refined poker analogy that you thought was closer to correct. It wasn't and was laughably bad/wrong. I pointed out how your recurring theme of thinking you're knowledgeable about something was surfacing in the poker tangent as well.
No, it's just easier to categorize everyone disagreeing with you as just "misrepresenting" what you're saying.
In reality, you have the same gimmick/cliche posting style as others who word things in a way to wiggle out later, not take real stances on anything, and then when saying things that are wrong/ridiculous turning it into a semantic side show.
BTW, if it is because you don't understand something and it has to be clarified (so you *think* I'm saying one thing and then you're corrected), that's not me wiggling out of anything. There's a difference.
For those still wasting time following along, the statements hidden at the heart of all the coffee_monster theatrics and posts:
And him disagreeing with this statement:
And him disagreeing with this statement:
So not only are you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU' but you're also then claiming what I'm saying is wrong.
BTW, (actually it was TomCowley--got the thread *and* the person wrong), as I said I didn't mean to get into a huge discussion about the particulars of the paper I posted but to give you a feel. I'll probably look through it a bit more and comment on your comments (your point 1 seems definitely true and does have some not-so-great implications). Note, I guess that was in the other thread...
This is like saying that it's not the hitman's fault that a person was killed, because if he wasn't willing to be a hired assassin, he would be replaced.
I'm in the ticking time bomb camp, but was never in the immediate inflation camp. And there are possibilities that could make the time bomb turn into a dud, such as some technological discovery, perhaps which enormously reduces the cost of energy, increases productivity, or something of that nature. Something that would boost the economy in a sustainable way so that tax revenue would increase. Barring that I do think there is a danger of the Fed losing control of inflation and interest rates, making it more costly to service the debt. This in turn will increase the deficit and grow the debt even more. This is not Bernanke's fault. His job would be much easier if the deficit was brought under control, and he has admitted as much. He's an enabler, but if he weren't one, he would be replaced.
I disagree that there was a danger of a second Great Depression. Many government policies exacerbated it back then, and some lessons were learned. I do believe there is a chance of a Japan style long malaise, or, as I said above, loss of control. I'm not so sure this would be better.
I disagree that there was a danger of a second Great Depression. Many government policies exacerbated it back then, and some lessons were learned. I do believe there is a chance of a Japan style long malaise, or, as I said above, loss of control. I'm not so sure this would be better.
It's clear that your idea of how "a non-perfect, yet well functioning system (like a market, a business or a winning poker strategy), if forced to make a random decision, will only have a 50% chance of doing worse off" is wrong. The reason is of course that most of the decisions made by this system are correct.
After you refused to acknowledge this, it was clear what you were posting here for. So I just stopped. It's sad in a way, because I used to like discussions with you and reading your posts. Maybe you'll come around at some point in the future.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
LMAO. You admit you reply to stuff without reading them carefully or even fully, and then you rip on me. I see you're avoiding the question though.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
Here it is in case you missed it: you were comparing yourself ITT (on an economic level) with HSNL regs (on a poker level). I simply asked what makes you think that comparison is apt. I think it's a fair question, especially since you were the one touting your qualifications (albeit indirectly). Though I can see why you'd try to avoid it and somehow spin it into something negative about me.
The exact details of the analogy are not relevant, it's the comparison being made. Typical coffee_monster though to want to spin a simple analogy where the central point just has to do with me saying I interpret your posts as an uninformed individual coming and posting things that have already been debated at lengths, into specifically asking about "HSNL qualifications". Even if you change the analogy to "a home game player who beats his co-workers in $5 games while watching football, waltzing onto the SSNL forum preaching about what he's learned through experience", it's the same concept.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
Sideshow with no substance? smh. I don't think you know what substance is, especially given your contributions ITT.
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
Note the reference to markets and not economy. Note also that s2bp hasn't 'corrected' me on this, it's just b4m who seems to be confused about what is actually going on.
Originally Posted by soon2bepro
It's clear that your idea of how "a non-perfect, yet well functioning system (like a market, a business or a winning poker strategy), if forced to make a random decision, will only have a 50% chance of doing worse off" is wrong. The reason is of course that most of the decisions made by this system are correct.
It's clear that your idea of how "a non-perfect, yet well functioning system (like a market, a business or a winning poker strategy), if forced to make a random decision, will only have a 50% chance of doing worse off" is wrong. The reason is of course that most of the decisions made by this system are correct.
That is, I'm saying "if A then B". You're saying -A, so my logic is wrong. That just isn't a correct argument against my argument.
After you refused to acknowledge this, it was clear what you were posting here for.
So I just stopped. It's sad in a way, because I used to like discussions with you and reading your posts. Maybe you'll come around at some point in the future.
To put it in the context of what b4m was 'trying', let's look at the 7-year-old making a decision for a company. Again, to apply the analogy to my argument, we'll let the 7-year old make a slight change to *one* decision that wasn't made optimally.
So let's say this company is making only one good, and it's profit function looks like
-100 + 10Q - Q^2. (say Q is finely divisible--or measured in thousands or something like that)
The optimal choice for this company is given by setting the derivative equal to zero, or 10 - 2Q = 0 or Q=5 (thousand). Well, suppose this company is producing Q=5.5 (thousand)--that is, not optimally. We let our 7-year old flip a coin and decide to produce one more (Q = 5.501) or one less (Q=5.499). One of those leads to more profit and one to less. Since there are two choices and one leads to a higher profit (the one getting closer to Q=5), the probability that a random decision in this case gets closer to optimal is the aforementioned 50%.
No, I stopped reading closely when your posts degenerated into only ad hominems and after you'd already put your foot in your mouth with the poker analogy and claim about 50% chance of being better off. It was at that point that you were grasping for straws and looking for any miss step in posting that you could cling to to try to make a point.
Just reaching, in similar fashion to the series of posts you just made in regards to me interpreting your question being about my qualifications being about poker. Twisting and spinning it into something that's not there like a champ. "oH well seE! see, you mistakenly thuoght I was asKing BOUT ur poker credentials even though you were just lol'ing about my poker analogy and I made comments about reading 2+2, this CLEArLy must mean you didn't read anything else!!1111! gotchaaa!". No.
I ignored it because it's clear that the direction you're attempting to take things with that question is a waste of time. But look, I'll save you the trouble since you seem to be salivating at the mouth at the chance to discuss my/your economic qualifications -- very few people here will be impressed with whatever degree you have in Econ that you think makes you knowledgeable. Really no different than the people with advanced degrees in health/nutrition waltzing onto a bodybuilding forum and asking what the qualifications are of the respected posters or the general community there too. Apparently they don't have any, but in this day and age with the internet, a community of people collectively analyzing studies, researching/reading, and debating different viewpoints objectively, will be far more knowledgeable than your random grad being spoonfed dated information from textbooks.
The exact details of the analogy are not relevant, it's the comparison being made. Typical coffee_monster though to want to spin a simple analogy where the central point just has to do with me saying I interpret your posts as an uninformed individual coming and posting things that have already been debated at lengths, into specifically asking about "HSNL qualifications".
Even if you change the analogy to "a home game player who beats his co-workers in $5 games while watching football, waltzing onto the SSNL forum preaching about what he's learned through experience", it's the same concept.
I already explained why I know better than to waste time trying to make actual arguments with you. That reason is evidenced by the very back and forth we're having right now, even when it comes to non-substance related discussions you use the same gimmicks. Same reason s2bp just said he gave up talking with you and the reason another poster said he doesn't know why anyone wastes time arguing with you. One of my first posts in the thread already mentioned that I know your MO -- post endlessly, take things out of context, strawman, dodge and shift, etc. The fact that you do it to this extent even over blatantly terrible claims and analogies such as the ones I already quoted, is a clear indication that attempting to debate more obscure and detailed economic concepts would be a complete waste of time.
Seems your only strategy is just to assert things to be correct. See below:
lol. At best you're just strawmanning through more semantic musical chairs, at worst you're highly confused.
I don't see any arguments of yours to follow, except for assertions with no evidence or logic presented. It's obvious why you're posting.
Yeah, this was around the time when I stopped reading closely since clearly if he's willing to bob and weave endlessly around a claim such as this, the idea of discussing something more involved makes you want to do cartwheels into oncoming traffic. The follow up poker analogy regarding "GTO" and "bluff frequencies" was even more amusing though.
I really should have followed my own advice earlier and been done with you, b4m (and maybe s2bp). In all seriousness, it's obvious what your train of thought is and why you're posting here. You've drunk the kool-aid and refuse to even consider anything else, hence you don't put the time in to try to understand arguments that go against 'markets perfect, anything else makes things worse' worldview.
1. Yes, we know your first post (not one of your first, but first) was exactly like what you're accusing me of--ad-hominem attacks and a general wish that I could be silenced.
2. Because of your obvious lack of open-mindedness, your continued attacks, and your lack of providing *any* arguments to back up what you're saying, I will no longer read or reply to any of your posts, as you have nothing to offer.
Good day, sir.
All of the pro gold standard people need to read this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...and_next_.html
And then tell the rest of us why it's completely wrong about everything. If you can't coherently attack this article your opinion basically isn't heavy enough to matter.
I'm not saying that there isn't a reasonable case to be made for a gold standard, just that the people who make the argument are usually kind of dumb.
And then tell the rest of us why it's completely wrong about everything. If you can't coherently attack this article your opinion basically isn't heavy enough to matter.
I'm not saying that there isn't a reasonable case to be made for a gold standard, just that the people who make the argument are usually kind of dumb.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE