tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6583786819249131485..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Fairness on the Public AirwavesDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5776475860885285782018-09-20T18:50:36.846-07:002018-09-20T18:50:36.846-07:00Lovely thoughts re Foundation's Triumph. No si...Lovely thoughts re Foundation's Triumph. No sign the Asimov estate wants to do more, but I hope they'll consult with me at least. I have ideas... ;-)<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87837749410933097592018-09-18T23:07:20.795-07:002018-09-18T23:07:20.795-07:00As this is more then a three year old article I ex...As this is more then a three year old article I expect this is just shouting into the wind/clouds.....But I just am so enamored without Foundation's Triumph. But as that was published in 1999 - - is there any thoughts on on anyone else or more-so you Mr. Brin following it up? I heard there is a Apple series for Foundation in development...but it Triumph you left so many hints with Maserd or that other pirate guy being in the future, what happened to Bellis Seldon, or there is a thousands of years books could explore - with details on any of the robotic revolts, more Foundation era stories, anything<br /><br />I'm going to be investigating your other fiction - I am just obsessed with Asimov Foundation/Empire/Robot universe..It looks like the Asimov estate is very protective of the Grand Master's legacy (for good reason)<br /><br />I wonder if that makes (made) them hard to work with/forAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30592385694014453582015-02-04T13:57:30.657-08:002015-02-04T13:57:30.657-08:00Markets giving people what they want:
"Here&...Markets giving people what they want:<br /><br />"Here's Tom. He'll sell you what you want to have."<br /><br />"Here's Sam. He'll tell you what you want to hear."<br /><br />Not symmetric.EDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37240178925815531292015-02-03T14:58:50.012-08:002015-02-03T14:58:50.012-08:00I very much enjoy your political posts, but you re...I very much enjoy your political posts, but you really should reconsider your labeling of anti-vaxxing as an "incantation nursed by the much-smaller but still dangerous very-far-left". <br /><br />There are most certainly vaccine denialists on the left. However, as recent news reports demonstrate (i.e. Chris Christie, Rand Paul), this is yet another instance of science denial where the right increasingly predominates.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/us/politics/measles-proves-delicate-issue-to-gop-field.html?_r=0<br /><br />"There is evidence that vaccinations have become more of a political issue in recent years. Pew Research Center polls show that in 2009, 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats favored requiring the vaccination of children. Five years later, Democratic support had grown to 76 percent, but Republican support had fallen to 65 percent."Toddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57966801785198949392015-01-31T12:58:59.967-08:002015-01-31T12:58:59.967-08:00 Laurent Weppe - yes, indeed, the present situati... Laurent Weppe - yes, indeed, the present situation is an intelligence test for the aristocracy. Some have decided to side with the middle class engineers who created most of their wealth. Others, responding to 6000 years of instinct, come up with rationalizations for supporting the classic attempt at an oligarchic putsch; their drawing-room conversations rife with fantasies that enlightenment civilization must be tamed, curbed and guided, lest it tumble into mob-catastrophe.<br /><br />In EXISTENCE, I portray a grand conclave of “trillionaires” in the Alps, in the 2040s, attempting to plan not only a return to top-down, hierarchical rule, but also how to “do it right, this time,” using tools of science not only to entrench that rule, but also to make it more effective. To accomplish what no feudal society ever did — make a system based on inherited power actually good at statecraft.<br /><br />It was fun, playing out their rationalizations and how the brightest of them would even alter the very concept of noble breeding, in order to ACTUALLY improve high blood lines, instead of just making up stories about it.<br /><br />you can answer under the next posting.<br />===<br /><br />And now... onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35219922114596424372015-01-31T11:55:24.884-08:002015-01-31T11:55:24.884-08:00@larryhart - and since we can show this is incorre...@larryhart - and since we can show this is incorrect t, we can remove it as a true +ve sum game. The trick is to break this pernicious meme that is supported by the vested interests. Life and society is complicated!<br /><br />Unfortunately economics is not as robust as science, and worse, competing incorrect views can be promulgated as truth. This isn't unique to economics, but economics does have a major influence in our current system. Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13010238386049148432015-01-31T11:50:17.950-08:002015-01-31T11:50:17.950-08:00Any number of glib liars can pervert a deal of any...Any number of glib liars can pervert a deal of any type, even somehow depriving people of overtime, but that doesn't negate a free market. Every new positive-sum proposition discovered is not negated by standard obfuscutory theft tactics also applied to conventional trades. The problem is the liars who have always been with us, not the deal. Which is not intrinsically more prey to thieves, except from novelty.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50486043428469544092015-01-31T11:43:27.447-08:002015-01-31T11:43:27.447-08:00Alex Tolley:
The only case I agree with locum is ...Alex Tolley:<br /><i><br />The only case I agree with locum is that utility needs to be carefully measured, not assumed so that we are increasing the benefits that have value.<br /></i><br /><br />Supply-siders will insist (often sincerely) that tax breaks for the wealthy is positive-sum because they result in more jobs and investment, and actually <b>increase</b> tax revenue.<br /><br />They have been proven factually wrong over and over again, but the form of their argument is in fact that their policies raise all boats, and are therefore positive-sum.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48646164045086431222015-01-31T11:35:47.979-08:002015-01-31T11:35:47.979-08:00Is defending your country 'positive sum' w...<i>Is defending your country 'positive sum' when only 1% of your countrymen (the soldier-class) are asked to lose everything (health, home, hearth, future, life) to protect the interests of every other non-combatant?</i><br /><br />The game is greater than this, and all outcomes must be counted. The warrior may or may not die. So there is risk and reward. The warrior's offspring (genes) may be fully protected. <br />When all outcomes and relevant actors are counted, it is a positive outcome. <br /><br />Stock markets have generally resulted in +ve returns for nearly 90 years. So again, a +ve sum game. <br /><br />Cherry picking losers for any situation is not looking at the bigger picture of the number of games and outcomes. As a society, we need to remove -ve sum games and maximize benefits for the maximum number of society's members. <br /><br />The only case I agree with locum is that utility needs to be carefully measured, not assumed so that we are increasing the benefits that have value. In a richly varied economy, that often resolves itself with choices made by individuals. However there will be players that want nothing to do with an imposed system, e.g. those displaced native Americans. We shouldn't just ignore their needs become of some "greater good". However we also need to recognize that our system is dynamic and it may be impossible to preserve bubbles of different systems within ours. It is also impossible to determine the preferences of future generations, so there can never be some utopian system that forever maximizes benefits off society, but rather we must constantly manage and adapt the system we have. AGW response is one such example. Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50694058538597638592015-01-31T11:14:09.965-08:002015-01-31T11:14:09.965-08:00"Looking at a rich man buy his way out of cou..."<i>Looking at a rich man buy his way out of court and thinking "He shouldn't be able to get away with that" is not class envy</i>"<br /><br />No, but class-envy itself is more often than not a code-word used to justify class-tribalism: even accounting for mental compartmentalization there aren't many people who are stupid enough to sincerely believe such self-serving rhetoric, but it's hard to candidly admit that you'd rather be the biggest, most callous bastard in the jungle than forfeit a part of your material comfort, so portraying the people screwed up by the system that sustains your lifestyle as greedy, envious barbarians is a way to pretend that you still have the moral high ground.Laurent Weppenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31091130075206919762015-01-31T10:57:12.916-08:002015-01-31T10:57:12.916-08:00Laurent Weppe:
I know by experience that many of ...Laurent Weppe:<br /><i><br />I know by experience that many of my peers are not simply terrified of the guillotine: they're utterly certain that the plebs secretly want to commit a class based genocide<br /></i><br /><br />That's what gets me about, say, the Mitt Romney statement about 47% of the population voting for Democrats who will "give them stuff".<br /><br />My sense is that the 99%, at least those actually engaged in politics, want the government to provide them with dignity, security, and a fair playing field. The uber-rich seem to really believe that what the masses want the government to do is take money from the rich and give it away to everybody else. But what their attitude betrays is their innate belief that the things the populace <b>does</b> expect government to insure--dignity, security, justice, etc, <b>are</b> in fact the rightful property of the rich, and that providing such ideals for all <b>is</b> a taking from their coffers.<br /><br />Looking at a rich man buy his way out of court and thinking "He shouldn't be able to get away with that" is not class envy. Looking at a corporation being allowed to poison our drinking water and air and thinking "Something needs to be done to protect our survival" is not class envy. Those sentiments are being painted in the media as equivalent to looking at a neighbor's expensive car and thinking "I don't want to work as hard as he does, but I'd sure like his car." It exposes a dangerous belief that ideals like justice and a fair shake <b>are</b> the personal property of whoever can buy them rather than part of common human dignity.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40764650751505252992015-01-31T10:46:38.745-08:002015-01-31T10:46:38.745-08:00Jumper:
One positive sum game is flex time betwee...Jumper:<br /><i><br />One positive sum game is flex time between employer and employee. It's a benefit, but it's not taxed. It can replace benefits that are.<br /></i><br /><br />It can also replace overtime pay, so in that sense, it is negative sum.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57137854774780004862015-01-31T10:38:11.199-08:002015-01-31T10:38:11.199-08:00You can't give anyone confidence or intelligen...<br />You can't give anyone confidence or intelligence or happiness or equality. These things cannot be given. You can only facilitate their pursuit of these things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45619898097376658192015-01-31T10:22:32.859-08:002015-01-31T10:22:32.859-08:00"Few of them ever really believe that the gui..."<i>Few of them ever really believe that the guillotine will ever meet with their necks</i>"<br /><br />You're very wrong about that: being a one percenter myself, I know by experience that many of my peers are not simply terrified of the guillotine: they're <b>utterly certain</b> that the plebs secretly want to commit a class based genocide and that deputizing bullies and granting them superior firepower and privileged access to the upper class' scraps is the only thing that stands between them and the next dekulakization.<br /><br />Of course, such attitude can only increase people's grievance against the owners-class and may eventually turn this fevered dream into a foregone conclusion, long before endogamy bottleneck us into the next batch of Spanish Habsburgs.Laurent Weppenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47899516167644044312015-01-31T10:17:42.722-08:002015-01-31T10:17:42.722-08:00If a game that was once positive sum is no longer,...If a game that was once positive sum is no longer, then that's the current reality. Analysis is always needed to play.<br /><br />One positive sum game is flex time between employer and employee. It's a benefit, but it's not taxed. It can replace benefits that are. The employer and employee win. Sharp minds will see it deprives the government of taxes, if it's used as a substitute for raises. So it's not completely positive sum.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3491176395731409372015-01-31T10:07:55.501-08:002015-01-31T10:07:55.501-08:00There's no ANYTHING that can make some people ...There's no ANYTHING that can make some people contented, system or not.<br /><br />I'm afraid telling all those lies about superiority to children might make them idiots, but it also gives confidence to succeed. I consider this an ugly reality. I don't know what to do with this belief of mine.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35523572580397207692015-01-31T09:34:55.267-08:002015-01-31T09:34:55.267-08:00locumranch:
Can any game be said to be positive s...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Can any game be said to be positive sum, assuming rampant social inequality, sporadic rule enforcement and an unfair field advantage??<br /></i><br /><br />Thomas Paine argued explicitly that those who, in the name of general progress, are made personally <b>worse</b> off than they would have been in a state of nature, are owed compensation by society--not charity but compensation, or essentially "rent".<br /><br />I'll somewhat agree with what I think you're trying to get across--that the notion of a rising tide lifting all boats ignores the very real segment of society whose "pursuit of happiness" is directly tied to the sinking of boats. We can either decide as a society that <b>those</b> people don't count, but that implicitly gives <b>them</b> the right to grow powerful enough to decide that <b>we</b> don't count, which is what we're seeing in real life now. Or we can realize that there is no system that will make everybody contented at the same time.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3267897762933590292015-01-31T08:58:06.046-08:002015-01-31T08:58:06.046-08:00Alfred, you are absolutely right about negative su...Alfred, you are absolutely right about negative sum vs. zero sum. I just slipped up there - my bad! That was pre-caffeination. Negative sum is subtractive/reductive, destroying the resources that are available.<br /><br />When Loci questioned the "communal" nature of the bananas, he demonstrated one of the hallmarks of zero-sum thinking. The seagulls from "Finding Nemo" work just as well. <br /><br />Laurent, I agree on the 100 drooling idiots, but I don't think inbreeding is the key there. It doesn't take more than a generation for them to start drooling. If you raise a child to believe that he is God's chosen, smarter, more refined and genetically superior to 99.whatever % of the rest of humanity, they start drooling pretty quickly. The pattern of conspicuous consumption first noted by Veblen sets in right away. And, I am afraid, positive-sum scenarios can be hijacked by the upper crusties easily, which is why a democracy has to be hyper-vigilant in balancing the power of wealthy elites. Few of them ever really believe that the guillotine will ever meet with their necks, so they will drain society dry in the name of their individual freedom and superior breeding, superior talent (as with the nouveau riche) or whatever the justification of the day happens to be.<br /><br />Larry, what you said about sadists and "the pursuit of happiness" makes a cogent point. The Marquis De Sad's happiness is the joy of privilege. When we all have equal rights, then upper crusties like him have to pursue their happiness in other venues.Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86858506996507763322015-01-31T08:42:51.897-08:002015-01-31T08:42:51.897-08:00You'll get no argument from me about the exist...<br />You'll get no argument from me about the existence of positive sum games. The question remains, however, if any particular game qualifies as 'positive sum' by your own 'a rising tide lifts all boats' criteria in the absence of hard endpoints.<br /><br />The Stock Market can be thought of a 'positive sum' game (as can the housing market) but only if we assume 'bullish' unidirectional growth, otherwise it reveals itself as a sucker bet for approx 80% of its participants that lose everything in crashes like that of '29 and '89, etc.<br /><br />The same is true for a Social Contract (esp the American experiment wherein every contributing member gained by participation) that has transformed itself into something OTHER-than-positive-sum by a series of exceptions that favour one gender, race, religion, class and occupation over another, leading to the following question:<br /><br />Can any game be said to be positive sum, assuming rampant social inequality, sporadic rule enforcement and an unfair field advantage??<br /><br />Is defending your country 'positive sum' when only 1% of your countrymen (the soldier-class) are asked to lose everything (health, home, hearth, future, life) to protect the interests of every other non-combatant??<br /><br />No, I think not -- It is NOT positive sum -- Definitely NOT positive sum.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39790502285541216222015-01-31T04:54:43.704-08:002015-01-31T04:54:43.704-08:00"So if you ask the 100 wealthiest? This econo..."<i>So if you ask the 100 wealthiest? This economic policy was negative-sum because their percentage of the wealth has declined even as their effective wealth increased</i>"<br /><br />Then your 100 hypothetic people are drooling idiots.<br />Then again, dynastic transmission of wealth along inbred offsprings tends to product drooling idiots.Laurent Weppenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51397757967283528772015-01-30T21:51:41.118-08:002015-01-30T21:51:41.118-08:00Duncan the fact that minorities can be harmed by a...Duncan the fact that minorities can be harmed by actions of a majority is well understood and enlightenment societies have long striven to take it into account.<br /><br />We do not have majority rule. If we did, our culture/civil war would be over. What we have is sliding scale minority veto, in which the minority can black actions depending upon the PRODUCT of their numbers and their passion.<br /><br />51% can get their way, if the 49% simply shrug with indifference... or bargain for some small tradeoff.<br />But 33% can block something wanted by 67%, if their objection is passionate and vigorous. As the racist minority blocked civil rights bills till the JFK assassination made the majority equally passionate.<br /><br />Even smaller minorities have recourse to civil disobedience and other Gandhi methods, providing they are willing to spend a night in jail. And a night is all you get for a sit in or blocking traffic, because judges and the law now take this sliding scale into account.<br /><br />The passionate anti-abortion 33% do NOT get their way because Roe-v-Wade is the fait accompli, status quo. But they CAN block the Infrastructure Bill and any other positive political action.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59939106952301230112015-01-30T19:21:06.200-08:002015-01-30T19:21:06.200-08:00Robert:
My point was to show how policies can ben...Robert:<br /><i><br />My point was to show how policies can benefit everyone and yet have certain parties crying foul because they don't want to share the wealth.<br /></i><br /><br />Even simpler--a percentage of people are sadists who are only happy if they are hurting someone else. Does society protect other people <b>from</b> them, or present them with victims to facillitate <b>their</b> happiness. Because under those circumstances, it is logically impossible to make everybody happy.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87272538709939948692015-01-30T17:11:46.069-08:002015-01-30T17:11:46.069-08:00"We have this many bananas in our basket. Eve..."We have this many bananas in our basket. Every banana you eat is a banana I can't eat."<br /><br />A +ve sum economy is where I have bananas, toy have fish and we trade to maximize our relative desire to eat fish and bananas. We also specialize in finding bananas and catching fish so that there are more fish and bananas to consume that if we do not specialize.<br /><br />OK this is a narrow economic view, and doesn't account for externalities, but that can be added. <br /><br />If you assume that no amount of economic rearrangements will improve everyone's lot, then we might as well live in a Rousseauian condition of nature. I don't buy that for a minute and it should be obvious that isn't the case. <br /><br />Now of course if you put -ve utility to any economic arrangement, you can suggest there are no +ve sum games, and that is a valid argument, but that opens up a whole can of worms, including whether even life itself is a +ve or -ve sum game in a non-living universe.<br /><br />Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10492927509580575942015-01-30T15:47:33.549-08:002015-01-30T15:47:33.549-08:00PSB:
>We have this many bananas in our basket....PSB:<br /><br />>We have this many bananas in our basket. Every banana you eat is a banana I can't eat.<br /><br />That's actually zero-sum thinking. Its the game that most people think applies in the labor economy and in much of the commercial market. It can be modeled as a partition of a fixed amount of treasure.<br /><br />Negative-sum thinking is something you run into in markets when the thieves are able to steal enough to make the participants care. Each player starts to devote treasure to protecting the other treasure they have. This investment counts as sunk costs of doing business and eats away at the principle. If you have locks on your doors and windows, they count since you could have kept that money and made more money on it if you lived in a neighborhood where people wouldn't rob you blind.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28758331659300762752015-01-30T14:55:22.661-08:002015-01-30T14:55:22.661-08:00My point was to show how policies can benefit ever...My point was to show how policies can benefit everyone and yet have certain parties crying foul because they don't want to share the wealth. If you reduce the population in my example to 100 (which I had originally done), then you have one wealthy person with 40% of the wealth (let's say a total wealth of 5 million dollars so Thurston would have 2 million dollars)), 50 people with 40% of the wealth (each thus having 40 thousand dollars), and 49 people with the last 20% of the wealth (a little over 20,450 each). <br /><br />The economy grows by a factor of 10 (thus 50 million dollars), but wealth is redistributed. Thurston now only has 20% of the wealth, which comes to 10 million dollars), the middle class has 45% of the wealth or 450 thousand each), and the last 49 now have 35% (over 357 thousand each). Thurston's wealth has increased five-fold. But he will claim he was jipped because of wealth redistribution. He will claim that this was a zero-sum game.<br /><br />What Thurston wants is to now own 85% of the wealth of the nation, with the middle class with 10% and the poor with 5%. The middle class in Thurston's world would have 100,000 dollars each, and the poor would have 51,000 each. Hey, the poor and middle class have more money, it's "fair." <br /><br />But the effective economy isn't better off because Thurston isn't going to be spending most of his money. 15% of the money is in circulation. Maybe 20% if Thurston is a big spender. And that's the important thing. With the wider distribution of wealth, the effective wealth of that society is higher because more people have more money to spend. If a handful of people have 90% of the money, then the working economy is in fact 1/10th of what is on paper. <br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.com