|
On October 16 2013 01:36 phyvo wrote:
I actually find hanging around in certain nerd circles pretty uncomfortable even though I'm about as nerdy as it gets.
As an example, one time a gregarious non-nerd friend told me "oh my goodness I know this other guy who plays video games and you should meet him!" We met, found out we played entirely different video games, then tried not to stare at each other until one of us left.
I have much better luck interacting with other kinds of people, though there are a few exceptions.
It's just because nerdships (nerd + friendship) take more time to culminate than just one meeting. See if you were a roommate of a person who played completely different games than you, you'd start influencing him and he'd start influencing you. Maybe a hardcore MOBA gamer wouldn't become a CS:GO or Madden (lol) pro, but maybe he might feel that inkling sometimes that will make him want to log on and shoot some people in the face.
|
The one group of nerds/geeks that I have a lot of trouble relating to are the anime types. I've gone a few cons with an open mind and curiosity about what is the big deal with all of this, and the people I met are just too ... different. It's kind of sad because to the general public, gamers, anime folks, bookworms, etc are all the same.
I should note that once you enter adult life (or even just leave high school), most of the labels don't matter and no one cares. I talk about being a nerd, but my "identity" is probably closer to a young professional with nerdy hobbies.
|
It's strangely refreshing to meet a project manager who doesn't seem too at ease with the current project nor with her own qualifications.
I mean, we certainly don't have the most laid back or qualified person ever for the job, but it kinda breaks the picture given by all the others who're way more competent than you and know so much more stuff and make you wonder if you'll manage to get at ease with leading a team and being its technical referent in only a few years.
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
On October 16 2013 01:16 Slayer91 wrote:
roffles is a good man now?
No. I don't know where that misconception came from.
|
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/what-happens-if-we-actually-truly-default.html
this is a reasonably realistic "what if" of a US default; posting since we talked about it for a bit last week
though despite the "nightmare scenario" title this is actually a pretty reserved projection; a true "nightmare scenario" would see european markets crash through the night before US markets even open, and when the US markets open, continue crashing ~_~
warning: boring if you dont actually care about finance
|
On October 16 2013 02:08 Roffles wrote:No. I don't know where that misconception came from.
I think when you received the nickname Dr Roffles, people mistakenly think it means you're a doctor, and therefore your credibility shot up.
Or maybe I'm just happy it stuck.
|
On October 16 2013 02:15 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/what-happens-if-we-actually-truly-default.htmlthis is a reasonably realistic "what if" of a US default; posting since we talked about it for a bit last week though despite the "nightmare scenario" title this is actually a pretty reserved projection; a true "nightmare scenario" would see european markets crash through the night before US markets even open, and when the US markets open, continue crashing ~_~ warning: boring if you dont actually care about finance
Interesting read
He says that he has been informed by Secretary Lew that today will be the day that the United States of America fails to make a timely payment on its debt.
It feels weird to say this as if we aren't already ~$16 trillion in debt
Congressman Ted Yoho in the hallways outside his office, who dodges the reporter's questions about his previous statement that a U.S. default would "bring stability to the world markets."
*face desk* I honestly feel like no politicians have passed Economics 101...
It's also absurd to think how selfish the politicians are. It's not ok to play chicken when it's our money at stake. It's even worse when you consider that the entire world economy is partially hinged on us.
|
Probably about time for world finance to reconsider what a "risk free asset" is anyways. But, yes, mismanagement by the treasury not paying coupon payments on outstanding debt would make the shit hit the fan.
|
On October 16 2013 02:48 cLutZ wrote:
Probably about time for world finance to reconsider what a "risk free asset" is anyways. But, yes, mismanagement by the treasury not paying coupon payments on outstanding debt would make the shit hit the fan.
It would be risk-free without that is effectively economic/financial suicide being committed. The US remains highly solvent (that is, financially able to pay off the debt), the issue remains liquidity (won't have the capital at hand because of ridiculous debt ceiling shenanigans).
Barring aforementioned politicking, US debt remains one of the safest assets available on the market currently (though it's very unlikely you'll get anything more than a miniscule return on it with current interest rates and QE in effect); part and parcel of the USD being used as the primary means of foreign reserve (though this will change over the next few decade[s]).
|
|
|
*swedish bank
also that's just dishonest xes, the prize was jointly awarded to fama hansen and shiller, which represents the opposite view as well :<
|
On October 16 2013 01:16 Slayer91 wrote:
roffles is a good man now?
He's escaped the system. We should all aspire to be Roffles.
|
ya'll don't know anything about global economics:
+ Show Spoiler +
On October 16 2013 03:12 GhandiEAGLE wrote:He's escaped the system. We should all aspire to be Roffles.
the only thing he's escaped is a perma ban
and only because he's a translator
|
On October 16 2013 02:58 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:48 cLutZ wrote:
Probably about time for world finance to reconsider what a "risk free asset" is anyways. But, yes, mismanagement by the treasury not paying coupon payments on outstanding debt would make the shit hit the fan. It would be risk-free without that is effectively economic/financial suicide being committed. The US remains highly solvent (that is, financially able to pay off the debt), the issue remains liquidity (won't have the capital at hand because of ridiculous debt ceiling shenanigans). Barring aforementioned politicking, US debt remains one of the safest assets available on the market currently (though it's very unlikely you'll get anything more than a miniscule return on it with current interest rates and QE in effect); part and parcel of the USD being used as the primary means of foreign reserve (though this will change over the next few decade[s]).
I dont think a wise person would ever consider sovereign debt of any kind "risk free", because there is no entity that can compel them to pay you. It has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with who can ensure you get your money if that entity doesn't want to pay you. With regard to America, the answer is no one.
|
On October 16 2013 03:15 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:58 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 16 2013 02:48 cLutZ wrote:
Probably about time for world finance to reconsider what a "risk free asset" is anyways. But, yes, mismanagement by the treasury not paying coupon payments on outstanding debt would make the shit hit the fan. It would be risk-free without that is effectively economic/financial suicide being committed. The US remains highly solvent (that is, financially able to pay off the debt), the issue remains liquidity (won't have the capital at hand because of ridiculous debt ceiling shenanigans). Barring aforementioned politicking, US debt remains one of the safest assets available on the market currently (though it's very unlikely you'll get anything more than a miniscule return on it with current interest rates and QE in effect); part and parcel of the USD being used as the primary means of foreign reserve (though this will change over the next few decade[s]). I dont think a wise person would ever consider sovereign debt of any kind "risk free", because there is no entity that can compel them to pay you. It has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with who can ensure you get your money if that entity doesn't want to pay you. With regard to America, the answer is no one.
that's an extremely extremist (hah) view to take...
by this logic there is NO risk free asset, period.
|
On October 16 2013 03:12 Slayer91 wrote:ya'll don't know anything about global economics: + Show Spoiler +
Alright, that was well played.
He's not advocating for a return of the US to the gold standard, so I'd rate his understanding of it better than some other folks I know of.
On October 16 2013 03:15 cLutZ wrote:I dont think a wise person would ever consider sovereign debt of any kind "risk free", because there is no entity that can compel them to pay you. It has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with who can ensure you get your money if that entity doesn't want to pay you. With regard to America, the answer is no one.
By your definition, nothing is risk-free.
The criteria that there is no coercive force that will ensure an entity pays redeems your debt is rather silly, given that there is no need for it. If the US refuses to redeem its bonds after they mature, then the US government wrecks its ability to finance future deficits and debt at what is currently almost an effective 0% interest rate. It's in no one's interest for the US to refuse to redeem its bonds after maturation.
If you'd prefer, you can think of US debt as the "most risk-free", given all the factors that coalesce to facilitate it. What alternates are you going to resort to that's safer, gold? :x
|
On October 16 2013 03:11 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:*swedish bank also that's just dishonest xes, the prize was jointly awarded to fama hansen and shiller, which represents the opposite view as well :<
Pls Hansen is a smurf
But you're right, Fama does hate Shiller's guts
|
On October 16 2013 03:17 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 03:15 cLutZ wrote:On October 16 2013 02:58 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 16 2013 02:48 cLutZ wrote:
Probably about time for world finance to reconsider what a "risk free asset" is anyways. But, yes, mismanagement by the treasury not paying coupon payments on outstanding debt would make the shit hit the fan. It would be risk-free without that is effectively economic/financial suicide being committed. The US remains highly solvent (that is, financially able to pay off the debt), the issue remains liquidity (won't have the capital at hand because of ridiculous debt ceiling shenanigans). Barring aforementioned politicking, US debt remains one of the safest assets available on the market currently (though it's very unlikely you'll get anything more than a miniscule return on it with current interest rates and QE in effect); part and parcel of the USD being used as the primary means of foreign reserve (though this will change over the next few decade[s]). I dont think a wise person would ever consider sovereign debt of any kind "risk free", because there is no entity that can compel them to pay you. It has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with who can ensure you get your money if that entity doesn't want to pay you. With regard to America, the answer is no one. that's an extremely extremist (hah) view to take... by this logic there is NO risk free asset, period.
I would agree with this sentiment largely. More importantly, I think that people have, in the past, overly discounted the potential for political discourse and instability to affect the ability of countries to repay debts. The whole system is based on historically unprecedented norms created in the post WWII climate that inevitably would change.
|
|
|
On October 16 2013 03:30 xes wrote:
But what about bitcoins
you fknoob troll lol
On October 16 2013 03:28 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 03:17 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 16 2013 03:15 cLutZ wrote:On October 16 2013 02:58 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 16 2013 02:48 cLutZ wrote:
Probably about time for world finance to reconsider what a "risk free asset" is anyways. But, yes, mismanagement by the treasury not paying coupon payments on outstanding debt would make the shit hit the fan. It would be risk-free without that is effectively economic/financial suicide being committed. The US remains highly solvent (that is, financially able to pay off the debt), the issue remains liquidity (won't have the capital at hand because of ridiculous debt ceiling shenanigans). Barring aforementioned politicking, US debt remains one of the safest assets available on the market currently (though it's very unlikely you'll get anything more than a miniscule return on it with current interest rates and QE in effect); part and parcel of the USD being used as the primary means of foreign reserve (though this will change over the next few decade[s]). I dont think a wise person would ever consider sovereign debt of any kind "risk free", because there is no entity that can compel them to pay you. It has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with who can ensure you get your money if that entity doesn't want to pay you. With regard to America, the answer is no one. that's an extremely extremist (hah) view to take... by this logic there is NO risk free asset, period. I would agree with this sentiment largely. More importantly, I think that people have, in the past, overly discounted the potential for political discourse and instability to affect the ability of countries to repay debts. The whole system is based on historically unprecedented norms created in the post WWII climate that inevitably would change.
the entire financial system is all artificial anyways there's nothing inherent about any of it, so i don't see how the current system being based on arbitrary post-ww2 norms is relevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
