no homo = secret homo
Printable View
no homo = secret homo
oh i see it. yeah that is a no homo moment
im not a "no homo" guy. seems to be too much of a bro thing for me.
What do you mean by it then? And how is the opposite more true? Leftist views here are most prominent among educated high income people in cities. Right-wing and centrist views are most prominent in rural areas among poorly educated working class. Is it different in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What he means is that he hopes we can discard the fiction that the left cares about people and the right cares about themselves and that the opposite is closer to the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
What you just said about urban/rural areas, education level and income level are all irrelevant to his point, and a lot of people don't quite understand that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qlyn-jp0KEQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Well the only ones that have even mentioned that have been you two, and the meaning of "skin in the game" is still not any clearer to me. Some passer-by in this discussion might think it hit a nerve though with all this sudden defensiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
MAGA Thread....post #1283Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
My bad. I have too many tabs open and thought I was responding to someone else when I quoted your previous post and acted like a dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Thanks, read it. Have to say it made it less clear what wuf meant by his remark to banana's post, but oh well whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
BTW in the Taleb article those are definitely not 2 consecutive pages.
No worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It might be different in the US if in places like Scandinavia, the general population are big proponents of authoritarianism and social justice. I'm not sure that's true though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
In the US, those who are big proponents of authoritarianism and social justice tend to be people who don't bear a more full weight of their actions and who tend towards ignorance of and insulation/isolation from the real world.
Sorry about those links. Here's the one I read (definitely two consecutive pages). Taleb posted an updated version, which I just skimmed, assuming it was more clear/better. But apparently it has that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/959903625945518080
SITG is when you bear the rewards and consequences of your actions. When BananaStand said that he spent some time in the real world and got clued in, it is common story that people in the US frequently go through. For example, it is very common among people who have no SITG to think that people who work hard and make a lot of money are screwing people over, yet this view nearly vanishes when those same people develop SITG by working hard and making a lot of money. The transition is because they went from not bearing the ramifications of their ideas/actions to bearing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
SITG is the filter between the what doesn't work and what works. When somebody is isolated from the consequences of his actions and beliefs, he can act and believe all sorts of things. But when he bears the consequences of his actions and beliefs, success derives from the set of those that work.
The other side would suggest that those people have merely been affected by confirmation bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Until they get skin in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
How did you draw that conclusion? My personal opinion is that those who are better off are able to behave altruistically and not just struggle to make ends meet. Hence, you're poor you vote for anyone that you perceive could make your family's life easier. You're well off and doing fine, why not try to help others too, at least to soothe your conscience and to be able to say that's how you roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So what you mean is that lazy and poor people support leftist views since they don't have skin in the game? Wouldn't they be the beneficiaries of social welfare policies, aren't you leaving out half of Taleb's definition of SITG, which is as much incentives and disincentives?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
FWIW, our previous parliament elections had the following results:
Keskusta (centrist, mainly rural folks vote for them) 21.1%
Kokoomus (right wing) 18.2%
Perussuomalaiset (some fucked up nationalist socialist mixed with right wing rhetoric) 17.7%
SDP (social democratic party) 16.5%
Vihreät (the green party) 8.5%
Vasemmisto (left wing) 7.1%
RKP (the swedish party, yeah ikr) 4.9%
Kristilliset (christian democratic party, zealots) 3.5%
Piraattipuolue (the pirate party, lol) 0.8%
If we look at just the capital city, things are quite different, here's top3:
Kokoomus 26%
Vihreät 18.8%
SDP 15.5%
So, from what I understand, not too surprising that the right wing, eco-hippies and social democrats dominate the major cities, the overall winner pigfarmer-Keskusta was 7th among city folk.
almost no one thinks 'altruistically' like that. Even people who probably do have enough, and aren't struggling to make ends meet, still feel like they should have more. And they usually have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Isn't that everyone??Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I do realize it's hard to wrap your head around, maybe one day you'll have more than 2 options.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not sure that would be a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
2 feels like enough.
I think this is confusing what the SITG is for. An example is how Marxists do not have SITG regarding Marxism but they do have SITG regarding things that emerge from their lack of SITG of their Marxism beliefs. A Marxist might have incentive to argue in favor of Marxism because it might benefit him in the eyes of his peers. But that's not SITG of the Marxist beliefs; it's instead SITG for his interaction with his peers. SITG for Marxism would be if the Marxist lived in a Marxist society.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Altruism works as a description of what some behavior looks like. However, if we want to go deep, we see that altruism bases in self-interest.
Essentially what I said boils down to this: when evaluating SITG, it is necessary to identify which game.
If the game is the idea that the world would be better if taxes were 90% and that idea is held by somebody who doesn't pay taxes, he does not have skin in that game. He could, however, have SITG that emerges from that belief, like when he hangs out with his stupid friends and they talk about their stupid ideas; he might have skin in that game of talking about stupid ideas with his stupid friends.
i didnt wanna lol but i did actually lolQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
yes homo
He was auditioning to be in a Tyler Perry movie for context.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What you're saying seems to be that noone having political beliefs has skin in the game, or how do capitalists have SITG supporting capitalist ideas per your analogy? Someone supporting x economic policy has SITG in the sense that if it works, they benefit since the economy does better, and if it doesn't they lose. Isn't that the same for any belief?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think the jury is still out on that but I tend to agree, pure altruism is at the very least quit rare. Still, I think self-interest masked as altruism is better than pure self-interest, it's at least co-operative and mutually beneficial.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yes, and likewise a rich guy believing that he should pay 0% equally has SITG. This is pretty much what I said in my original question about SITG, people tend towards policies that they perceive to benefit themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No if the rich guy has SITG, he would WANT to pay some non-zero % for taxes, since he is affected if the government infrastructure supporting capitalism fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
If the government fell he'd still pay 0%. If the marxist leech's government fell, he'd get nothing.
SITG problems are rampant in democratic voting. The problems are probably the chief effect too. Most voting is telling others what to do without the teller having SITG. It's bad news and why we should vote for as few things as possible while making as many things that impact people as individual to each respective person as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Maybe it's just the usage of the teem SITG here that's confusing. It seems the traditional terms would be vested interest and accountability.
In theory I can see the benefits of having decisions done by only people who both have a vested interest and that are held accountable to the outcomes of their decisions. Implementing this in practice to all areas is probably impossible and not very democratic.
SITG is a type of vested interest and accountability. It's when you are impacted by your effect on a game that you impact. Using Trump and the field of plumbing as an example, let's say Trump signs a bill that impacts plumbing in the US. His skin in the game is for a different game other than the production and consumption of plumbing. His skin in the game is something along the lines of how signing the bill impacts his approval ratings (and other stuff). This tells us that Trump should have virtually nothing to do with plumbing policy because his SITG is for a different game. Using the SITG hypothesis, this means that Trump is liable to get things that impact plumbing wrong more often than people who have SITG regarding plumbing in a direct manner.
Where did you learn this new buzzword wuf? I'm not a fan.
Yet if you take this away from people what tends to happen is you have one person with lots of power making the decisions who has by far the least SITG.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Maybe. I'm not sure if the dichotomy is democracy or no democracy. There may be other options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
A constitution is supposed to bypass this, which it quite effectively does on a handful of issues. It may just be that we're in a time where constitutional prohibitions on government power are more necessary.
When I say that we're better off if we use the vote less, my thinking includes a constitution. For example, we would be better off if the constitution prohibited government from conducting any domestic welfare. That would reduce the relevance of democratic voting while also warding off the problem of dictatorship that you mention.
Ye I agree voting is retarded I just don't see that many realistic alternatives that are going to happen especially in any sort of short (i.e. my lifetime) scale. When power gets taken away from the vote it almost always goes to individuals or smaller groups which following your exact same logic are worse.
That being said constitutions are also ridiculous. This shit we used to think therefore has to always be true and no one can challenge it.
https://i.imgur.com/1ee7Jdb.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
https://i.imgur.com/ngBcy0E.jpg
It's one of Taleb's great contributions to mankind. I find it an incredibly useful heuristic.
Every option is a little ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Maybe we just redefine your mum as the game. That way pretty much everyone has skin in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No homo.
I lol'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If I'm reading this correctly, Taleb's paper implies that inferences from inequality data is junk science.
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/964450061164965888
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04...years-end.html
Finnish UBI program shut down after two years....
They should have known it was a bad idea after two minutes.
EDIT: Some people never learn
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-projects.html
A question I'm trying to figure out is why people don't think of economics in definable and objective terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I think the answer may have to do with economics being essentially a moral philosophy. Economics says things like this: because the math shows this and behavior shows that, we should implement thus policy. Once the *should* comes in, people probably disregard everything outside of feeling and ideals.
Maybe then the question is how to influence people to give credence to economics philosophy. I don't have an answer to that.
I was always under the impression that they do, and it's something like "Good Economics = +EV"Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That's kind of the idea with UBI. You've probably heard Jordan Peterson talk about how it's illegal to enlist someone in the military if their IQ is lower than 83. Because someone of that intelligence can't be trained to do anything that isn't counter productive. So the UBI'ers will tell you that's 10% of the population, so what the fuck are you gonna do with those people? They'll say that you can't put them into the economy because it's -EV. That's the right problem to be looking at. I just think that UBI is the wrong solution.
It's wrong because giving those people money to sit on their ass and do nothing is bad for their soul. It makes things worse for all the rest of to have to live among grown up infants like that. We should make them work anyway and consider their -EV as an investment in the psychological well-being of society.
Perhaps people say that; I'm not sure that's how they act. This is on the level of societal policy. When it comes to personal circumstances, people are pretty keen to pay attention to facts. Yet when it's expanded beyond that level, it seems common for people to not care what the facts are. The smaller domain is influenced by what works, and the larger domain seems to be influenced by morals. This could be why it's so hard to get people to think in terms of facts and logic when the domain is larger than that which affects them personally and obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The 10% sub-83 IQ people are already in the economy, and it is impossible to remove them. The same economic principles that apply to Bill Gates apply to Joe Numbskull. A system that perverts incentives yields worse results than otherwise because everything that happens is marginal and repeated. Sure, UBI can make Joe Numbskull better off, but it will make Future Joe Numbskull Who Would Not Be Joe Numbskull If The Economy Had Been Marginally Less Perverted worse off. It will also make everybody else worse off like you mentioned.Quote:
So the UBI'ers will tell you that's 10% of the population, so what the fuck are you gonna do with those people? They'll say that you can't put them into the economy because it's -EV. That's the right problem to be looking at. I just think that UBI is the wrong solution.
These peoples' -EV of production is to the military, not to themselves and not to some other forms of work.Quote:
It's wrong because giving those people money to sit on their ass and do nothing is bad for their soul. It makes things worse for all the rest of to have to live among grown up infants like that. We should make them work anyway and consider their -EV as an investment in the psychological well-being of society.
It is astoundingly rare for somebody to not be capable of making marginal +EV decisions. Those who can't are sufficiently insane that they don't know their own preferences. Those who are not insane like this are already maximizing their EV.
Freedom of economic choice is not about making people more able to maximize EV (they already are), but at reducing the asymmetric information between agents, thereby making their maximized EV a greater value than otherwise.
I'm disappointed that their entire test group is unemployed. It looks like the only thing they were interested in was if it's a more effective model than welfare. I'd be interested to see how it changes the behavior of people who have a regular job. Do they just continue as is with some extra cash, do they pursue education, start businesses, etc.
I think ideally we would want to get to a point where everyone can go after what motivates them rather than trying to keep employment rates up just because it has worked historically.
Currently it looks like the preferred strategy to battle unemployment is to increase minimum wages and forcefully create jobs when automation would be more economically viable. I know wuf thinks that new sectors will emerge that require low skilled labor. I don't see how. We'll know for sure in 10-20 years I guess.
Anyway, I'm currently teaching myself tensorflow because I am pretty sure that in 20 years time, you're either working on neural networks or you're oiling robots.
Nobody does. It happening is so far as reliable as the sun rising, so we expect it to continue. However, that doesn't mean it will always happen. In fact it probably won't always happen, though that doesn't mean that it not happening will be predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
And even then, UBI/welfare has a few premise flaws: (1) in a scenario in which they are "needed", they are actually not needed, and (2) they would make the problem worse anyways.
Question: do you think minimum wage is a way to tackle unemployment?
It's pretty obvious that compared to the baby boomer generation, we're completely fucked economically. I don't know enough about economy to know exactly why, but on the surface it looks like the masses are paying for the mistakes of a few powerful idiots. So I'm very hesitant to blame the current economy on the lazy. I don't think people were any less lazy in the 60's. It was the environment around them that was conducive to productivity.
It demonstrably is not. I don't think we disagree on that. It's welfare with occupational therapy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Economists have two prominent issues when it comes to addressing this idea: (1) measuring category change is VERY hard. It's so hard that the most sophisticated methods used are obviously bad and economists know it. Which leads us to: (2) economists rarely discuss this and rarely impart this information to others.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I say that to say this: An economy is better thought of as "stuff" rather than money or jobs. Money and jobs are a way of measuring "stuff." We use those measurements because of the aforementioned difficult time economists have when it comes to measuring category change of "stuff". Category change can be thought of as an evolution. Like how the evolution of film consumption has done things like go from drive-in theaters for small number of people to on-demand home theaters for substantially more people.
Economists do not know how to accurately measure this sort of evolution. The standard tools are super conservative, meaning that they grossly underestimate the real value gains. The idea that we are worse off than the baby boomers bases on using the grossly underestimating measurements.
Why do we use those measurements if they're so wrong? There are multiple reasons, an important one of which is that even though "stuff" is what economics is about, it's not the only thing economics is about. Another base concept is happiness (also known as utility). In those terms, even a super accurate measure of the category evolution of "stuff" would not give a clear idea of the impact.
This distinction is illustrated by the following: the home theater system that we use today would have cost millions (billions?) of dollars in the 50s, so in those terms, people who have it today are unfathomably richer than their grandparents. Yet are people today consuming things that would have cost millions a few decades ago better off (happier) because of it? That's the question. We don't know the answer to that. You'd have to be a zillionaire in the 50s to consume the stuff you do today for thousands of dollars, yet you (the general you) are probably worse off today than if you were a millionaire in the 50s and consuming the remarkably less "expensive" stuff millionaires of the 50s would consume.
Adding to that, in simple inflation-adjusted compensation terms, the boomer related data changes. The data that show boomers better off essentially compares all boomer compensation to a portion of others' compensation. When all compensation is compared across the board, boomers don't have it any better.
It gets to this question: how do you valuate a refrigerator in an absolute sense? We have a VERY robust way to valuate refrigerators in a relative sense (the price system / market transactions). But in absolute terms, where do we even start? There was once a time when only the extreme rich lived a refrigerator quality life, yet today the poorest people in the West take the refrigerator quality life for granted.
That people still look at the contemporary poor -- that are incredibly rich in absolute terms -- as poor, exemplifies the other problem I mentioned, that perceptions don't change linearly as "stuff" changes.
Haven't you guys discovered the word "fridge" yet?
And if I had my can of spraypaint in the 1100's, I would have been the KING OF THE WORLD. Doesn't change much how I feel about it now. Maybe a little bit.
So what about someone who doesn't own a smartphone and prefers to read in his free time? Is he fucked because he does not participate in the magic that is television? Aren't there proper measurement standards? Like the cost of a loaf of bread, square foot of living space... compared to median income. Is there a good reason you choose to ignore those and turn to consumer electronics instead? Let's be real if we could swap the housing and refrigerator prices back to what they were in 1950, would you decline?
Abbreviations are the crutch of the common dandy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
shup dheadQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Thermodynamics.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
:p
Seriously, though.
The benefits of having a fridge will vary widely based on geography and food availability.
Your greater point is good, though. People want to have roughly commensurate stuff as the people near them. All of which is ambiguously defined.
Value is by and large determined on an individual basis, but all those individual choices add up to a societal norm.
The value of the norm is probably moot. The existence of norms is all that matters, the specifics of those norms is unimportant.
I.e. if people shunned refrigerators in favor of personal, indoor greenhouses which produce fresh food on a regular basis without the need for cold storage, that could probably work out just fine. People just need to commit to it and develop the societal norms which support it.
I need a constant supply of cold milk. My fridge is extremely valuable to me.
That said, I think I paid £20 for it.
What I'm getting from all this fridge talk is that we all agree that UBI is not addressing the problem of absolute poverty, it's addressing relative poverty, aka Income Inequality.
Inequality is a natural outcome when populations of individuals all engage in their individually preferred creative endeavors. And variances in work ethic, aptitude, and temperament all factor in to the various unequal outcomes. So in a way you might say that income inequality is a good thing, since it is indicative that freedom exists.
The problem with it is that the bottom is a magnet. If you have no money, it's really hard to get some. If you have some money, it's relatively easy to get more. So people stack up at the bottom and they need outside assistance if they're ever going to get out of that. Such assistance exists. There are innumerable charitable agencies, government welfare programs, and public education facilities to provide people with opportunities to advance. As it stands now, a very very high percentage of people (something like 85+%) in the bottom 20% of the income distribution move out of that bracket within a decade or two.
So what problem does UBI even aim to solve?
That's a very good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The Pareto distribution exists all over the place. Even where you might last think to look, like among Harvard graduates. Harvard graduates have about the same inequality between themselves as the rich and poor do between themselves. This inequality phenomenon is just something we don't understand at all. We don't even know if inequality is bad (it might even be good).
Here's an example why frame matters and statistics can be so misleading. Because, yeah, what you said is true. Yet, while it might look like it suggests that the more well off somebody is, the more easily they become more well off. Yeah, well, not really. How about we change the measurement just slightly, to percentage increases. Then we find that the less you have, the easier it is to increase your gains. Now isn't that a different story?Quote:
The problem with it is that the bottom is a magnet. If you have no money, it's really hard to get some. If you have some money, it's relatively easy to get more.
Do you agree with the theory that welfare contributes to people producing less than they otherwise would?Quote:
So people stack up at the bottom and they need outside assistance if they're ever going to get out of that. Such assistance exists. There are innumerable charitable agencies, government welfare programs, and public education facilities to provide people with opportunities to advance. As it stands now, a very very high percentage of people (something like 85+%) in the bottom 20% of the income distribution move out of that bracket within a decade or two.
He's impacted by the same positive evolution of stuff. Some of the largest effects may be in electronics, though they occur in everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm glad you brought that up. Bread is among the least changing stuffs. Even so, it too has undergone change, and we get a much fuller story when we look at food in general. Taste increases, taste profile changes, and alteration of access and transportation are three ways in which food has changed quite a bit that tend to go unnoticed. One small personal example: there's a hot sauce that improves my appreciation of food by a significant margin, and nothing like it existed 20 years ago. Now that hot sauce is everywhere.Quote:
Aren't there proper measurement standards? Like the cost of a loaf of bread,
Government restriction of housing has put a huge damper on this. In good news, if you go somewhere that doesn't have much housing restriction, it's "like normal".Quote:
square foot of living space... compared to median income.
I'm happy you brought up housing. IIRC, what's going on is that people are spending more on nicer houses. I was watching an Elizabeth Warren lecture back in 2008 in which she made the case that the change in family expenditures over the decades has been putting more into nicer homes. She had persuasive data to back it up, and this was before she became a full blown Marxist.Quote:
Is there a good reason you choose to ignore those and turn to consumer electronics instead? Let's be real if we could swap the housing and refrigerator prices back to what they were in 1950, would you decline?
N=1: I work for a construction company, and one of the things I have become aware of that I was not before is that people are spending more money on more pleasing designs than they were just 10 years ago. There is a particular design that was very, very rare 20 years ago yet it is SUPER common in new houses today. That design doesn't improve the function of the home by much (if any). Why does everybody building a house these days use that new more expensive design? Because it's more aesthetically pleasing. They get the same square footage and the same function for more money, because they want something that looks nicer. This coincides with what Warren observed, that people are spending more than they used to on stuff that measures the same regarding square footage or function just because they want something that looks/feels nicer. This may be a good sign that even if square footage isn't increasing, median folk are still getting richer.
That's basically it, they wanted to see if if motivates unemployed people to seek jobs. At the moment if you're out of a job you get basic unemployment benefits, plus extra based on your wages in the previous years. You can of course apply for welfare if you still can't make your ends meet. Any part-time work you do while unemployed starts cutting into your unemployment benefits, which is daft as hell and makes it more beneficial to just not work and cash in the benefits. With the UBI deal you'd get a fixed amount no matter what. Too bad they decided to cut the test short and indeed only do it in a very limited fashion in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It is funny to see the collective global right wing poop their pants in joy over the "failure" of this test. The test actually ends in december, and there's still not even preliminary data about the failure or success of it, the reason to end it was purely political.
So you're saying because the government is to blame, it should be ignored? I don't understand how it's relevant who's to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So if I get you correctly on the other stuff it's that houses and bread that is equal in niceness to the 1950's should cost an equal percentage of median wage, and it's only the really nice stuff that's now commonplace is skewing the percentages? Do you have anything to back that up?
Even then, what happens won't tell us much about the effects of this welfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Economics is only barely an empirical science. While empiricism is good in economics, empiricism is usually not worth very much in the domain. Economics is instead more about math and logic.
When somebody says something is a test of an economic idea, just figure that it's probably not a test of it.
Did somebody say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I don't know what the percentages are, and I don't know if they are skewed. The only data I have seen are what I discussed: that the percentages are skewed by housing related choices. I don't know if the data are accurate.Quote:
So if I get you correctly on the other stuff it's that houses and bread that is equal in niceness to the 1950's should cost an equal percentage of median wage, and it's only the really nice stuff that's now commonplace is skewing the percentages? Do you have anything to back that up?
On bread, that would be worth looking into.
Originally I was referring to net effects adjusted for an entire domain.
Did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...E2_Fig_2-1.png
Is this fake news?
You said that in places where the government has kept their hands out of the market, it's "as normal" which I take to mean unchanged compared to historical data. Which I doubt (I'd love to see a source,) but even if it's the case, it's not true for the overall market. For the house buyer it makes no difference what the reason is, the effects are the same.Quote:
Did somebody say that?
What do you think I mean by category change?
I guess it means you can weasel your way out of acknowledging real data.
Those data don't address the point I made. This made me wonder if we need to go back so you can understand the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I have asked you for data that backs up your position repeatedly. I guess you're not much of a facts kind of guy.
What is my position?
idk man. Why don't you explain it again to me in very simple terms and this time link your sources.
ohh, I assumed he wanted you to give him one.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I like UBI. I wish I got paid to do whatever I wanted. I also like to think it'd be of great economic benefit but that probably results in 99.9999999% of the time I do nothing and die of alcohol related diseases which is only of minor economic benefit.