OMG OF THE DAY
“I’m not demanding. I just want you to buy me a car.”
Only a woman can say that kind of thing with a straight face.
And only a woman can actually believe it.
WTH?
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 03:29:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
OMG OF THE DAY “I’m not demanding. I just want you to buy me a car.” Only a woma
-
ECONOMIC FALLACY #3 : CORRELATION VS CAUSATION Correlation does not mean causati
ECONOMIC FALLACY #3 : CORRELATION VS CAUSATION
Correlation does not mean causation.
I hesitate to include this one on the list because the phrase has become overused in some circles. It can be very easy to accuse someone of this and then not have to deal with their argument, even though there is good reason to believe causation exists. Inappropriately accusing people of this fallacy is especially easy when discussing economics. Economics is like a science in which you can’t account for all of the variables. Politicians can take credit, or blame others, for things without knowing the real cause.
One example of this fallacy is David Johnston’s assessment of the Bush tax cuts. I have no problem when he says the Bush tax cuts didn’t lead to the prosperity Bush promised, although I don’t blame Bush for that, and nearly every politician exaggerates when they are trying to sell something. The main problem I have is when he says “the data show overwhelmingly that the Republican-sponsored tax cuts damaged our nation.” This is a case of the fallacy because most of his evidence that the nation has been damaged is a decrease in average income (his case that less revenue was collected is legitimate). It very well could be the case that the tax cuts made the average income higher than what it would have been.
The average income could have decreased for reasons other than the Bush’s tax cuts. I lean toward that conclusion because there is no conceivable way that tax cuts can cause a decrease in average income. I would be more than happy to retract my statement if someone could please tell me how this happens.
I first became aware of this fallacy while I was in college. I was discussing minimum wage with a sociology professor. There are better arguments for raising the minimum wage, but the one she was giving me was that raising it often decreased the unemployment rate. I was baffled that someone could say this because, again, there is no conceivable way that increasing minimum wage could cause a decrease in unemployment. She pointed to certain years when minimum wage increased, and unemployment decreased. It escaped her that minimum wage could have destroyed jobs in one place while a new business may have started up in another, showing a net increase in employment.
With both the professor and Johnston, they claim that they are just looking at the facts, and those of us with even a little understanding of what causes what in economics are blindly following an ideology with no connection to reality. All this tells me is that they have no interest in how economics actually works. They have a political position they want to advance and they hope they can find “facts” to support it, even if it doesn’t make any sense.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 03:16:00 UTC
-
ECONOMIC FALLACY #4: SCIENTISTS AREN’T NEUTRAL SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICS ARE ADVO
ECONOMIC FALLACY #4: SCIENTISTS AREN’T NEUTRAL
SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICS ARE ADVOCATES OF EXTREMES, THEY ARE NOT NEUTRAL JUDGES
No need to explain this. The process of competition between ideas in the pursuit of status in the scientific community tends, over time, to produce relatively truthful results. But scientists cannot make the claim for neutrality, or that as individuals they even follow the scientific method. It is the market for status signals that produces the outcome, not the ethics of any particular scientist. In fact, it certainly looks like most grad students are vastly incompetent, most professors are not much better, and only the top one percent of people in any discipline are even close to accurate about anything that they publish. And those that are, are accurate because they are synthesists, of everyone’s work not advocates of their own.
Science is not what scientists claim it to be. Economists are as bad or worse.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 03:15:00 UTC
-
ECONOMIC FALLACY #2 : HIDDEN COSTS Not Accounting For Hidden Costs or HIdden Tra
ECONOMIC FALLACY #2 : HIDDEN COSTS
Not Accounting For Hidden Costs or HIdden Transfers.
This is somewhat similar to “the broken window fallacy” introduced by Frédéric Bastiat. Bastiat tells a parable where a shopkeeper’s son breaks a window in the shop. As a condolence people say that at least the son has fueled a job for the man who will repair the window. While the son did circulate money, and boost one industry, the shopkeeper would have used his money to employ other labor if the window had not been broken.
When the government spends money on something, part of the cost is not only the dollars spent, but the things that the money would have been spent on otherwise. Amazingly what the money would have been spent on otherwise is very often the same thing the government is trying to create. So politicians may have done nothing at all when all is said and done, we may even be worse off, but they can take credit for what was created.
The current best example of this is the stimulus. Supporters of the stimulus can say that it created jobs, but because we can only speculate on what might have happened without the stimulus, the true costs remain hidden.
Lawrence Lindsey argues convincingly that it was simply a waste of money. One of his best lines is “Since the beginning of the recession, the number of unemployed has increased by more than 8 million people. For $800 billion, we could have handed every one of these people a check for $100,000.” Not only is the cost over $800 billion, but it may very well be the case that more jobs would have been created if that money remained in the hands of the private sector. For those of us who think government is by nature horribly inefficient, that is a reasonable conclusion.
Spending money for policies like the stimulus is usually a beneficial political move (although when you get up to $800 billion your chances get a lot worse). First and foremost, you can say you “did something about it.” That always counts for a lot in politics (this is another point made by Sowell). You don’t want to be caught sitting on your hands, not wasting money. Second, you can say that it would have been far worse if you didn’t do something, since all we can do is speculate about the alternative. Third, you can point to a concrete example of progress you have made. You were part of the effort that created hundreds of thousands of jobs. It doesn’t matter if its cost was so high, that it may have also erased hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Generally speaking the government is so inefficient that when it says it created something, most likely it destroyed far more in order to create it.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 03:08:00 UTC
-
ECONOMIC FALLACY #1 : THE FALLACY OF MEASUREMENT Fallacy Of Measurement The firs
ECONOMIC FALLACY #1 : THE FALLACY OF MEASUREMENT
Fallacy Of Measurement
The first fact to understand about statistics surrounding economics is the different ways people can skew the results. People use whatever twisted statistics they think make their political point. If you want the economy to look bad then use household income rather than personal income. This is a convenient way to lie about the economy.
This is a point Thomas Sowell makes: “household or family income can remain virtually unchanged for decades while per capita income is going up by very large amounts. The number of people per household and per family is declining.”
Another tool for someone trying to make the situation look bad is to talk about the income gap. Saying that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing makes it seem like the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer, or that the rich are taking from the poor. While that gap is increasing, it is mainly because it is so much easier for the wealthy to increase their incomes by large amounts. Yes, the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer as well.
This point is made brilliantly by Michael Medved in his book “The 5 Big Lies About American Business.” To paraphrase Medved, if one citizen who makes $200,000 per year shows an increase of 10 percent, he now makes $220,000. If another citizen who makes $20,000 per year has an increase of 20 percent he now makes $24,000 per year. The second person saw an increase twice as large as the first person yet the gap increased from $180,000 to $196,000. “The gap” is how you make a situation which was good for everyone look bad. There are more accurate ways to illustrate how the poor are doing.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 03:07:00 UTC
-
Need a cyborged techie too
Need a cyborged techie too
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 02:09:00 UTC
-
ARISTOCRACY: “I’M WILLING TO DO THAT” If you want get into a dialog whose object
ARISTOCRACY: “I’M WILLING TO DO THAT”
If you want get into a dialog whose objective is to determine truth or falsehood, then I’m willing to do that.
If you want to lower your standard, and enter into a utilitarian debate, then I’m willing to do that.
If you want to lower your standard and get into an eristic debate, I am willing to do that.
if you want to get into name calling, and threats, then I’m willing to do that.
If you want to get into a fist fight, I am willing to do that.
If you want to get into a gun fight, I am willing to do that.
What I am not willing to do is let ignorant, stupid or evil people pollute the world of ideas in my presence, any more than I am willing to let them pollute the physical world in my presence.
That is what it means to be an aristocrat.
And aristocracy is what it means to be a gentleman.
It has absolutely nothing to do with wealth.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 02:02:00 UTC
-
LOVING THE WORLD There are people on both sides of the spectrum that love life a
LOVING THE WORLD
There are people on both sides of the spectrum that love life and celebrate it. THere are people on both sides of the spectrum that criticize everything.
I pretty much love anybody that is heroic. Whether it’s some proletarian who is looking under rocks for the bright things in life, or some conservative who is hero worshipping western art and architecture. Or some libertarian who hero worship’s technology and wealth.
It’s all beautiful. And it’s all possible because none of them can get enough power in government to mandate that we share the same sense of joy, and therefore mandate that we pursue the same ends.
Personally I’d like to throw the people who want control over government, regardless of ideology, into a cauldron and cook them slowly, and feed them to farm animals.
At the end they would at least be useful as fertilizer. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 01:10:00 UTC
-
Benford’s law of controversy: “Passion is inversely proportional to the amount o
Benford’s law of controversy:
“Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. The fewer facts are known to and agreed on by the participants, the more controversy there is, and the more is known the less controversy there is. Thus, controversies in physics are limited to areas where experiments cannot be carried out yet, whereas controversy is inherent to politics, where communities must frequently decide on courses of action based on insufficient information.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 00:13:00 UTC
-
FOR MY RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN FRIENDS WHO WANT PERSPECTIVE ON AMERICAN TOLERANCE
FOR MY RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN FRIENDS WHO WANT PERSPECTIVE ON AMERICAN TOLERANCE FOR FAILURE – ITS INFINITE.
FROM: James Altucher (Who is smart but was a catastrophe.)
Когда я построил свою первую компанию в 90-х годах я сделал все умные, пока я не сделал все глупо.
Мы создали сайт для развлечений компании. Bad Boy записей, Miramax, Time Warner, HBO, Sony, Disney, Loud Records, Interscope, дальше и дальше. Ох, и Con Edison.
Потом я увидел, что дети в средней школе учились HTML. Так что я продал бизнес. $ 15 мм. Примерно год спустя. Я хеджирования и обналичил. Продал все свои акции. $ 15 миллионов в настоящее время денежные средства.
Я купила квартиру для миллионов людей. Я перестроил его. Фэн-шуй! Я купил искусства. Я много играл в покер. Я начал инвестировать в компании. Здесь миллиона. Несколько сотен тысяч там. Один IPO Я ставлю $ 2 млн. в $ 20 и смотрел, как пойти в $ 0. Они сделали беспроводных устройств для глухих людей. Огромный рынок.
Я начал другую компанию. CMGI, Allen & Co, Investcorp, Henry Kravis и другие млрд инвестиций. Я начал венчурный фонд. Я вложил в более компаний.
Тогда интернет акции начали снижаться. Это смешно, подумал я. Интернет здесь остаться. Я ничего не знал об акции или оценки, или ничего похожего рационального мышления. Я удвоил вниз. Тогда в четыре раза вниз. Тогда 8-upled вниз.
С июня 2000 года до сентября 2001 года я, вероятно, потерял $ 1 млн в месяц. Когда кто-то говорит: “это смешно”, вот код для, “я собираюсь потерять много денег».
Я не могла остановиться. Я был наркоманом. Я хотела, чтобы вернуться на вершину.
Я хотел быть любимым. Я хотел бы иметь $ 100 млн, чтобы люди любили бы Меня.
Я был худший идиот. Дать это сейчас я чувствую, как резка моих запястьях и животе. У меня было 2 детей.
Я чувствовал, что я умру. Это один равно смерти. Я не мог поверить, насколько глуп я был. Я потерял все мои друзья. Никто не вернулся звонков. Я хотел бы пойти в банкомат и чувствую, что моя кровь проходит мое тело, когда я увидел, как много осталось. Я собирался к нулю, и ничто не могло остановить его. Существовали ни работы, ничего не было.
Я потерял свой дом. Один уик-энд, когда мне пришлось $ 0 оставили на моем банковском счете я позвонил моим родителям, чтобы занимать деньги, но они сказали “нет”. “Колледж был достаточно”, они сказали мне.
Я пытался медитации, чтобы успокоить, но она не работает. Я никогда не спал. Я потеряла 30 фунтов. Я 5’9 “. Я пошел от 160 до 130. Я не мог ни с кем разговаривать. Я не мог двигаться. Я остановился имеющих идеи. Я плакала каждый день. Я чувствовал, что я выиграл в лотерею (я ), и теперь не было бы никаких шансов для меня. Я хотел бы посмотреть на моих дочерей и думаю, что я погубил свою жизнь. Я пошел от чувства к чувству бессмертные мертвые во всем, каждый день. Существовал никогда не момент, когда я не чувствовал себя больных. меня были пусть все вниз навсегда.
Мы переехали в 80 милях к северу от Нью-Йорка с чуть-чуть денег, которые мы взяли из нашей квартиры после продажи на миллион долларов убытка. Я не выходить из дома в течение трех месяцев. Я получил обратно все мои вес, а затем еще на 30 кг.
Наконец, я должен был либо погибнуть, либо кормить свою семью.
– Я начал тренироваться каждый день. Я стал лучше питаться. Один из вопросов, на завтрак. Здоровый обед. Крошечные ужин. Нет закуски.
– Я начал быть только вокруг людей, которые любят и поддерживают меня. Я прервал все отношения с тем, кто я плохо себя чувствовал, чтобы быть рядом.
– Я написал программу еще раз. Вместо слепого инвестирования на фондовом рынке, я скачал 50 лет данные о запасах и начал статистически моделирования, что происходит в сотнях различных ситуациях. Делая это, я разработал идеи для торговых систем, которые я поделился свободно с несколькими хедж-фонд менеджеров, некоторые из которых дал мне денег, чтобы управлять.
– Я записал идеи каждый день статьях я мог бы написать об интернете и акции. Постепенно такие места, как thestreet точка ком, The Financial Times, Forbes, Yahoo Finance и другие места, начал публиковать их. Постепенно они начали платить мне за них.
– Я молился каждый день. Я был благодарен за моих дочерей. Я был благодарен за то, что я имел. Я не бороться реальность или сожалеть. Это была моя реальность, и я должен был сделать это наилучшим образом.
– Каждый день я пришел с идей для нового бизнеса. У меня был блокнот официанта. Я хотел бы пойти в кафе в 6 утра около 4 книги и читать на час или два, а затем начать записывать идеи для нового бизнеса, статьи, торговые системы и т.д.
– Я начал хедж-фондов. Я начал фонд хедж-фондов. Я начал рассылку. Я сделал предложения. Я сделал введения каждый день, расширяя мою новую сеть с нуля. Я был вовлечен в психиатрической компании здоровьем я продал за $ 41 мм.
– Я начал веб-сайт, Stockpickr! которые получили миллионы уникальных пользователей. Я нашел рекламу для него. Я продал ее фондового рынка – бизнес новости, рыночные данные, со Analysis – TheStreet
– Я сделал миллионы с нуля.
Тогда я перестал использовать фундаментальные методы, которые я описал выше. Каждый раз, когда я потерял деньги, это потому, что я растратил мое физическое, эмоциональное, умственное и духовное здоровье.
Я была очень плохой.
А потом я потерял все это снова.
– А потом я построил его снова. В совершенно по-другому, но с использованием тех же основных фундаментальных техник здоровья, которые я описал выше. Из пытаются создать ценность для людей. Из пытается идти от успеха к успеху.
И я надеюсь, что смогу сохранить здание. Я надеюсь, что я не вернуться обратно к моей привыкание тенденции. Я думаю, что на этот раз я узнал. Каждый день в обязательном порядке я сосредотачиваюсь на физическом, эмоциональном, ментальном и духовном здоровье.
Но жизнь приносит с собой много проблем и много вещей, чтобы учиться. Я отрекаюсь к тому, что мне нужно еще учиться.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-10 11:59:00 UTC