|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States44283 Posts
On August 11 2016 06:35 puerk wrote:
I am interested in why kwark keeps ignoring the aggregate picture in his argument for savings on a personal responsibility level
the situation is: there is a large incentive to save, there is government funding to match, and employer matching aswell
but
those incentives only exist because the assumed rate of use for them is very very low
furthermore: there is no demand for capital, there are no worthwhile investments for the huge amounts of capital you want to see saved, the system only works for a few, not because it is set up unfavourably for individuals, but because it has a limited aggregate demand
in a global economy where interbank interest rates and government bonds are below 0 as they are in europe, advocating for more saving on the individual basis to somehow improve the financial situation of all (not a single) individuals is doomed to fail by default
yes it works for you, but only because of the other 250m that currently are not doing it to the extent you advocate
This argument is essentially "sure, people can invest now but what happens when every single plus EV investment is completely filled, what then?". It's absurd.
So for an investment to be worth doing it would need an output of greater value than the input. So for there to be literally none of these left it would require every infrastructure project to be fully funded, every educational project to be fully funded, all scientific progress to already be discovered, everything of value that could be invented to be invented, medical progress to the point that more lives would be wasted trying to progress it further than would save.
In short we would need infinite money to invest and perfectly efficient allocation to meet the preconditions for your problem. Let me know when it happens. Until then, as long as there is at least one bridge that would cost, say, $100,000 to repair today but $100,001 to repair in 10 years, investments will be plus EV (assuming inflation adjusted).
|
Sigh, something about not giving attention whores more attention then strictly necessary and certainly not live broadcasting the climb for hours...
|
Just took a sip of water and dropped it?
|
Is this entire election cycle just an elaborate marketing stunt for Idiocracy 2?
|
|
|
Disappointing end, I wanted to see what he had to say 
|
Apparently he'd been climbing for almost 3 hours??? o.O Wow.
|
He was climbing about a foot every 5 minutes.
If only the police would've patiently waited a year for him to finish. I'm sure it would've been an enlightening experience.
|
On August 11 2016 07:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 06:35 puerk wrote:
I am interested in why kwark keeps ignoring the aggregate picture in his argument for savings on a personal responsibility level
the situation is: there is a large incentive to save, there is government funding to match, and employer matching aswell
but
those incentives only exist because the assumed rate of use for them is very very low
furthermore: there is no demand for capital, there are no worthwhile investments for the huge amounts of capital you want to see saved, the system only works for a few, not because it is set up unfavourably for individuals, but because it has a limited aggregate demand
in a global economy where interbank interest rates and government bonds are below 0 as they are in europe, advocating for more saving on the individual basis to somehow improve the financial situation of all (not a single) individuals is doomed to fail by default
yes it works for you, but only because of the other 250m that currently are not doing it to the extent you advocate This argument is essentially "sure, people can invest now but what happens when every single plus EV investment is completely filled, what then?". It's absurd. So for an investment to be worth doing it would need an output of greater value than the input. So for there to be literally none of these left it would require every infrastructure project to be fully funded, every educational project to be fully funded, all scientific progress to already be discovered, everything of value that could be invented to be invented, medical progress to the point that more lives would be wasted trying to progress it further than would save. In short we would need infinite money to invest and perfectly efficient allocation to meet the preconditions for your problem. Let me know when it happens. Until then, as long as there is at least one bridge that would cost, say, $100,000 to repair today but $100,001 to repair in 10 years, investments will be plus EV (assuming inflation adjusted).
And how do you measure the output of an investment ?
|
United States44283 Posts
On August 11 2016 07:55 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 07:13 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2016 06:35 puerk wrote:
I am interested in why kwark keeps ignoring the aggregate picture in his argument for savings on a personal responsibility level
the situation is: there is a large incentive to save, there is government funding to match, and employer matching aswell
but
those incentives only exist because the assumed rate of use for them is very very low
furthermore: there is no demand for capital, there are no worthwhile investments for the huge amounts of capital you want to see saved, the system only works for a few, not because it is set up unfavourably for individuals, but because it has a limited aggregate demand
in a global economy where interbank interest rates and government bonds are below 0 as they are in europe, advocating for more saving on the individual basis to somehow improve the financial situation of all (not a single) individuals is doomed to fail by default
yes it works for you, but only because of the other 250m that currently are not doing it to the extent you advocate This argument is essentially "sure, people can invest now but what happens when every single plus EV investment is completely filled, what then?". It's absurd. So for an investment to be worth doing it would need an output of greater value than the input. So for there to be literally none of these left it would require every infrastructure project to be fully funded, every educational project to be fully funded, all scientific progress to already be discovered, everything of value that could be invented to be invented, medical progress to the point that more lives would be wasted trying to progress it further than would save. In short we would need infinite money to invest and perfectly efficient allocation to meet the preconditions for your problem. Let me know when it happens. Until then, as long as there is at least one bridge that would cost, say, $100,000 to repair today but $100,001 to repair in 10 years, investments will be plus EV (assuming inflation adjusted). And how do you measure the output of an investment ?
There is an entire profession devoted to this. You find a member of it and you ask them to calculate it to the best of their ability.
|
On August 11 2016 07:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 07:55 WhiteDog wrote:On August 11 2016 07:13 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2016 06:35 puerk wrote:
I am interested in why kwark keeps ignoring the aggregate picture in his argument for savings on a personal responsibility level
the situation is: there is a large incentive to save, there is government funding to match, and employer matching aswell
but
those incentives only exist because the assumed rate of use for them is very very low
furthermore: there is no demand for capital, there are no worthwhile investments for the huge amounts of capital you want to see saved, the system only works for a few, not because it is set up unfavourably for individuals, but because it has a limited aggregate demand
in a global economy where interbank interest rates and government bonds are below 0 as they are in europe, advocating for more saving on the individual basis to somehow improve the financial situation of all (not a single) individuals is doomed to fail by default
yes it works for you, but only because of the other 250m that currently are not doing it to the extent you advocate This argument is essentially "sure, people can invest now but what happens when every single plus EV investment is completely filled, what then?". It's absurd. So for an investment to be worth doing it would need an output of greater value than the input. So for there to be literally none of these left it would require every infrastructure project to be fully funded, every educational project to be fully funded, all scientific progress to already be discovered, everything of value that could be invented to be invented, medical progress to the point that more lives would be wasted trying to progress it further than would save. In short we would need infinite money to invest and perfectly efficient allocation to meet the preconditions for your problem. Let me know when it happens. Until then, as long as there is at least one bridge that would cost, say, $100,000 to repair today but $100,001 to repair in 10 years, investments will be plus EV (assuming inflation adjusted). And how do you measure the output of an investment ? There is an entire profession devoted to this. You find a member of it and you ask them to calculate it to the best of their ability.
That profession is only devoted to evaluate the efficiency of one investment, they don't care about the macro effect of an overall increase in saving.
It was clearly a rethorical question on my part, the global output of all investments does not come from god, it has nothing to do with the moral value of the investment, it is evaluated by the market. It's too complicated (long) to really give you a good answer, but the output also depend on the potential demand for the good/service that might be produced by the investment (that's not entirely true at all times due to the central bank and the state but permit me to fast forward a little).
If everybody save more and invest that saving (which by the way is not true at all time, this creating another problem), you might increase potential production (increase in future productivity), but you'll need a demand for the increase in production to be absorbed. Countries with high saving rates, like China or Germany, are heavily dependant on outside demand because their own national demand is so low they can't absorb more than a fraction of their production - and see how China is trying its best to increase its national demand, something that requires them to decrease their saving rate and increase their income. The fact that americans are ready to spend and save less, is actually one of the reasons why they are so important in today's world economy : they're a big demand.
And since the US have such well organized financial system, it actually absorb the world's savings, and make money out of it, which is quite intelligent.
|
If it was a russian he would have made it to the top.
|
This is what I've said multiple times:
For Trump, conservatism is a foreign realm to visit on the way to his final destination. On Monday evening, Donald Trump gave a speech in which he attempted to lay out his economic plans for the nation. The speech represented his usual combination of good policy (tax cuts and regulatory loosening) and incoherent ignorance (free trade as the devil). But because Trump stuck to the teleprompter, for the first time in a week, Trump starved the media of a juicy headline — a gaffe that would distract from Hillary Clinton’s hurricane of incompetence.
And that minor amount of message discipline bore dividends: Within twelve hours, the news story of the day was that Hillary’s team had not only allowed the father of Orlando jihadist Omar Mateen into one of her rallies, but she had seated him behind her in full view of the audience and media. In other Hillary news, families of the Benghazi dead filed a lawsuit against Clinton. And in still other news, Hillary now has to answer questions about why there was material on her private server about an Iranian spy.
For nearly a full day, the news cycle seemed to spin Trump’s way.
Then the timer on his phone went off, and he realized it was time once again to shove his head up his ample orange rump. So, in the middle of a rally, he began rambling about Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court picks. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Trump mused. “Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”
This is silly stuff even if we assume that Trump knew that the Second Amendment pertains to firearms (always a mildly questionable proposition, given his knowledge of the Twelve Articles of the Constitution). It’s silly because a Supreme Court ruling overturning Heller isn’t going to lead gun owners to storm the White House and take Hillary Clinton hostage. That’s a slur on gun owners. Gun owners would probably take violent action against government agents if those government agents showed up on their doorsteps and entered their homes to confiscate their rightfully held guns. It’s condescending and dumb of Trump to portray “Second Amendment people” as sitting around, oiling their AR-15s, waiting on the edge of their chairs for the moment Justice Obama rules that we have no individual right to keep and bear arms. Violence against the government is the last resort for law-abiding gun owners; Trump treats “Second Amendment people” as vigilantes on the loose.
But that’s the natural result of nominating a man who speaks conservative as a second language.
The rest is here
|
I guess it's probably the only belief I share with American conservatives but the reliability issue seems to me to be the single most important thing especially as foreign policy is concerned. I think it's not ideological differences between say Russia, Turkey or the US that make the world more dangerous but the fact that leadership in countries with lots of power gets more and more erratic which can even blow tiny conflicts completely out of proportion. We've seen lots of those over the last few years.
If we get a Cuban missile crisis with Trump, Erdogan and Putin I think we can all move into our bunkers.
|
United States44283 Posts
I'm still surprised Putin let the whole shooting down of a jet thing go. Trump would have made a wall around Turkey for that.
|
On August 11 2016 09:28 KwarK wrote:
I'm still surprised Putin let the whole shooting down of a jet thing go. Trump would have made a wall around Turkey for that.
Walls are against rapist, criminal countries. Turkey would've been nuked.
|
20% of Repubs say Trump should drop out; the Secret Service has now spoken to his campaign. I think it's time to #dropout. Ryan could probably give Hillary a run for her money.
|
I don't see Trump dropping out, no matter what happens. It's just not in his personality.
|
I love how the secret service has to lecture him. "nope donny, you can't just joke around and threaten political assassination, that's not how America works" It's not like the guy is 70 years old
|
ROFL its official. He's trying to lose the election. There is no other explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
