I often times do not worry about disproportion results. I do worry about unfair policies. To bring it full circle, the hypothetical provided a clear advantage to a group...there is no advantage from minorities disproportionally receiving benefits. Food Stamps does not benefit a Hispanic more than it does a white person of the same financial situation, the benefit is the same, even though their group may or may not receive a disproportional share of the food stamps.

Basically, the hypothetical was giving minorities $25 more in value for the benefit than white people (which leads to their improved results versus whites receiving the same benefits). This may not be a bad idea, just do not call it fair, or moral.

You could put everyone in a room, with all the comforts they desire, with endless supply of food and prevent people from interacting with each other, interactions that lead to unexpected and widely different outcomes, and no one would be offended, and no one would be harmed by another human.

Yes, there are policies that could decrease the amount of police shootings.

Which hypothetical? If you mean mine, then OrP's point is that my hypothetical emphasized universal programs, i.e. ones that are similar to SNAP in that they provide benefits not based on race, but on economic circumstance. Hence why, in my hypothetical, they could benefit people from every racial/ethnic group.

When you write that "the benefit is the same, even though their group may or may not receive a disproportional share of the food stamps", you can replace "the food stamps" with "well named's hypothetical social program" and you are describing exactly the sort of policy I'm suggesting. That is exactly why I said I thought it was absurd to describe that outcome as harmful to any particular group.

yes it is justified, and I don't see why it would not be

if you pay someone more than you have to based on the market you will likely go broke

Okay.

1. The quote in the photo you posted does not mention racism at all.
2. Just because MLK said something does not mean it is correct.
3. Reducing MLK's arguments about capitalism and racism as it coexisted in the United States during the civil rights era to capitalism <==> racism seems to me to be a vast oversimplification.

Maybe by asserting that you think capitalism =====> racism necessarily I am "unintentionally strawmanning" you, please let me know if so.

Obviously it would do nothing to poverty in the immediate case. Over time my guess is that you would get a slight reduction in poverty and a slight increase in class mobility (emphasis on slight) because there is some degree of explicit racism that introduces general inefficiencies in the system.

I mean the answer to Shame Trolly !!!1!'s question is obviously no. He should not get rewarded for simply taking a risk.

But you should get rewarded for taking good risks and Original Position's post covers that quite well.

I'm confused, that is not the hypothetical at all. Well named explicitly referred to universal policies that help the currently worse off disproportionately more. Food stamps is an example of such a policy.

Anyway, as long as we agree that a policy that disproportionately benefits one group can still be fair, I'm not that bothered.

My argument was that we should look at policies that purport to do this because even a marginal decrease in police shootings should also lead to a decrease in crime by warding off the the social unrest that often results from police shootings. Do you agree with this view?

Why does your hypothetical have a greater affect on minorities, than white people? The only logical answer is, minorities are receiving a greater benefit than whites are receiving. You are basically arguing it's okay to give a certain group more than another group. Great. It may not be a bad idea.

Remember, you started this foray asking me a question about obligation, or should the government be obligated to minorities, to make up for past unfairness. This will result in a some people getting less of a benefit than another group. How is it fair to the group that is getting less than?

I disagree it will lead to less social unrest. I bring up the ****ing bathroom again.

Seriously though, Nomaddd, which banned poster are you?

No, this is wrong. My hypothetical has a greater effect on poverty rates among minorities because minorities are disproportionately in poverty. This is exactly the same as what you wrote: "the benefit is the same, even though their group may or may not receive a disproportional share". No individual is receiving a greater benefit on the basis of their race.

I think you're confusing the question of what goals the government should embrace with the question of how those goals should best be accomplished. I asked the question about obligation the way I did because it flowed with the way you were characterizing the issues. Specifically, the questions you were asking about landlords suggested a concern about who should bear the burden for trying to improve the situation. So, I asked the question by way of suggesting that government should bear some burden.

However, as far as how we might address the problems through policy, concern about racial inequality isn't the only concern that governments need to worry about. If we are sitting around trying to decide what kinds of policies to enact, we're allowed to take into account more than one problem. I do think that understanding the history of racism and the policies that created racial economic stratification should lead to the conclusion that government has a responsibility to redress the harms it caused. But I also think that we might realistically favor certain kinds of universal policies over more racially targeted policies in attempting to address the problem. I think that both because I think that issues involving economic quality are larger than just racial issues, but also because I think it's probably more politically feasible.

Yeah, but there is an crucial difference. Protests about transgender access to bathrooms don't have an impact on police effectiveness, whereas the loss of trust and the change in police presence that has followed from the police shootings plausibly does. So even if we assume there is a constant supply of protest, we should still adopt policies that shift this protest away from police shootings and towards things like transgender bathrooms.

Well, I didn't get any stinkin' premium. This was in Nevada US, so we're talking under capitalism. So, did I just not apply at the correct office or something?

Also, if I got the Dodgers at +100, and so do the shareholders of the Stardust... I'm not really seeing this "benefit to society as a whole" -vs- me just keeping my cash in my pocket.

Then don't make the bet?

Then keep your cash in your pocket. The point is that many people want to sell or buy risk. Society as a whole benefits when it lets them do it. That doesn't mean that each transaction benefits society.

For discussion around the thread's new topic....

http://afropunk.com/2017/03/opioid-c...incarceration/

These are all true. I was kinda hoping to leverage knowledge you might have had. The struggle against capitalism, R-word-ism, sexism, for worker justice, for environmental justice, etc/etc are all the same struggle. This is a timeless fact. None of these things can be confronted in isolation. A holistic approach is absolutely necessary.



If I felt the Dodgers were a strong +100, and the Stardust had them at +140, I'm going to bet my $100. Now, I just took a good risk. And sadly for them, the shareholders of the Stardust, I've just stuck them with the worst of it. So let's do the math...

Result	me	shareholders of the Stardust
Dodgers win	cash $240	lost $140
no action	cash $100	push
Dodgers lose		win $100

Well, I don't see any reward for me taking "good" risk (separate from my +EV, of course). To be fair, however, the shareholders of the Stardust haven't been anti-rewarded, or punished, for taking their "bad" risk either. All I see is a zero-sum game where I just pwned the shareholders of the Stardust.

So, did I go to the wrong office for this "reward" too ??

Yeah, that's called insurance. We started out talking about premiums and rewards... and now we're talking about insurance. And now I'm confused.

So, let's say I know another pro sports better. We decide to pool risks. He buys half of me. I buy half of him. So, now that we've bought and sold risk... where do we apply for all these sweet, sweet capitalist premiums and rewards we keep hearing about ??

Well, I don't see how society as a whole benefits when me and another pro sports bettor buy pieces of each other. But, I guess maybe this isn't one of those times where the secret magical hand does his thing.

Can we get a guestimate on how often the magic works? Like, maybe before the capitalism destroys life on earth, maybe?

You are, however, unintentionally 'strawmanning' me if your position is that my position is that society should ban risk pooling.

Don't agree.

Even zero-sum games like this can have positive benefits for society through distributional effects. Consistent winners are probably better at pricing risk and so the larger the amount of capital they have to buy risk the more accurately risk as a whole will be priced in positive-sum markets as well. Your individual reward is your +EV.

Insurance is one of many markets where people buy and sell risk. Private equity, stocks and bonds, etc. are other examples.

Your premium is the lower chance of losing all your money you now have by diversifying your sports betting.

Society benefits because you are less likely to go bankrupt and have to be supported by social insurance programs.

I assume you also believe in at least some form of market for risk as well.

Of course not. That's what makes you a Librulz.

Uh, no. Consistently winning sports betters are better handicappers. Picking winners has a lot to with starting pitchers. It has nothing to do with pricing risk.

So youz guyz use "reward" and "+EV" synonymously? Good to know. And I hope you don't mind me asking, but you introduced the word 'individual' here. It just makes we wonder if there are non-individual rewards too. Are there?

I put in 100 blinds with AA against a random hand preflop, my reward is the +60 blinds in ev over the long run. Thats always what reward means

What you are doing here is confusing buying risky things -vs- risk pooling.

me	Librulz
+EV	Reward
Lower variance	Premium

Gotcha.

Why all the personal attacks? I was a pro better. I had a separate bankroll. That was my job.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'believe' here. So I'll just throw an equally cryptic comment back at you. Food != the commoditization of food.

Workers didn't always get paid for the hours they work there. They got in a little trouble for telling workers to clock out and keep working.

I don't understand what your dumb edge cases mean for anything.

I've played poker for 12 years since I was 16, I've personally bankrupted a couple of problem gamblers in my life time I'm sure. Not everything applies when people say its good for society to have risk tied to reward in the market.

In the USA almost anyone can become apart of the entrepreneurial class. You just need a bit of intelligence, creativity and work ethic, combined with the will to stomach the risk to your time and future should you business fail, which 80% fail in the first year and almost 98% by year 20. If you make it out and are a success you are financially rewarded beyond any normal person, this is the thing you rail against but this is the thing that allows new business to happen otherwise nobody would run the gauntlet of making a new means of production.

yeah ok, take them to court this is wrong doing on their part. Doesn't hurt the argument

No, I'm not. I referred to markets where people buy and sell risk. You said I was talking about insurance. That is indeed one market for risk, but so are the other ones I referred to.
I don't understand this.

Pro sports better is a pretty good candidate to go bust in my opinion.

I agree that they are not the same thing. However, the commodization of food is one of the reasons that famine has been eradicated in much of the world.

EDIT: Ah, it's just a translation chart. Sure, seems accurate enough.

Doods dont belong nowhere nears going in no chics bathroom...THIS IS A DISCRIMINATION THAT SHOULD IN NO WAY BE ARGUED...NATURE GONNA NATURE

Take your psycho-lib derail elsewhere please and thank you