Watch more Fox NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Printable View
Watch more Fox NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This is both hilarious and sad at the same timeQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Talk about conflicting emotions
Probably depends on who is defining it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This is showing a new systemic bias against Taleb types?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Can you elaborate on asymmetric information a bit?
Or even provide a link which you endorse as a good source for defining the term?
I'm unfamiliar.
(Sorry if you're in process of replying to my other post on this subject.)
Is it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Bonus points if you noticed the dude was from Nigeria (not on The List atm), had a fully valid visa, and still had to put up with shit.
The gist of Taleb's argument against GMO as I understand it is that a small change in a number of small variables (i.e., genes) could have emergent multiplicative risks out of all proportion to their understood individual risks down the line, and that these could end up being catastrophically bad because ecology is all interconnected.
The problems with the argument imho is that a) it isn't at all obvious that these variables will necessarily interact, and b) if they do, it isn't obvious that such an interaction will be any more likely to be catastrophic than would be leaving things as they are. The variables as they exist now could still have a catastrophic effect at some time in the future (we'll never know until it happens because it's impossible to predict all the interactions, which is kind of Taleb's starting point for saying we shouldn't mess with the unknown).
It's like saying you have ten jars full of 100 marbles each, and each jar contains one or more marbles that fit into a piece that if combined becomes the 'giant doomsday marble'. You pull one marble from each jar simultaneously and if you pick 10 doomsday pieces at the same time you create the doomsday marble and the world implodes. His argument is analogous to saying that we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces in each jar by GMO, thus increasing the chance of the world imploding. But with all the maths in the world it can't be measured objectively because it's impossible to identify the doomsday pieces' interactions by definition. Which he then uses as an argument that we basically shouldn't accept any risks with any GMO because it is akin to creating these potential doomsday marbles in different jars (I'm paraphrasing).
tl;dr Taleb seems to be talking out his ass a bit on this one.
That's basically it. The "more", as far as I can tell, is how it can be applied and what we can derive from it. For example, it's typically used in finance with a more narrow definition regarding asymmetry in the information available to a buyer and seller. But it can be thought of very broadly, like how the difference between what physicists know about the universe and what the universe actually is is asymmetric information relevant for whenever physicists interact with the universe. Or things that you know and your girlfriend doesn't and vice versa are asymmetry of information regarding your interactions with each other. A derivative idea is that if that asymmetry were to lessen, hazard would lessen and efficiency would improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The problem of asymmetric information is what we try to solve when we regulate financial markets. I believe that the idea can be applied across the board to all markets. My argument for free markets depends on the idea that they more efficiently use information and more efficiently reduce asymmetry of information than otherwise. Without that, I don't think the total free market ideal could hold up.
Great question. I'm not sure I can answer it, or even if I understand it. I do have a couple points of input though. The company uses its trade secrets to benefit itself. Any benefit to the economy that comes from this is secondary. The Invisible Hand idea is that when companies compete, the secondary effect, though unintended, happens nonetheless.Quote:
'Cause confidential information and "top secrets" are a thing that gov't's have. Granted, there are trade secrets that companies have, too, but presumably those ARE being used by the companies to economic advantage. I presume that one company having and using its trade secrets is beneficial to the economy, since its withholding that information from competing companies doesn't prevent the secret from impacting consumer choices. Is this plausible from an economics standpoint?
The company not withholding its secret from other companies would likely impact consumer choices. If more information got out, that would affect choice (by revealing more about the product). If more companies competed on providing the product, this would likely impact price and availability, which would impact consumer choice.
I certainly think there is. The seller wants to increase its information while decreasing the buyer's (in specific ways) and vice versa. If you're negotiating for something, and you really really really want it and you are willing to accept embarrassingly low terms, you still don't want the other party to know that. You get more benefit from him having less information (or even from him having bad information).Quote:
I'm curious if there is a preventative aspect of the system which prevents the business side from achieving symmetric information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's not that complicated in its essence, it just refers to a difference in the potential upside/downside of an outcome. Buying a lottery ticket is asymmetric because the upside is huge and the downside is small. The risk of a meteor landing on your house has a huge downside and the upside if it doesn't happen is small (life just goes on).
Taleb also applies it to situations where decisions are being made whose outcomes can be extreme, but don't directly affect the person(s) making the decision. An example would be financial institutions and the 2008 crisis. Assuming their actions caused all the bad outcomes, but they themselves didn't suffer financially due to bailouts, there's an asymmetry between them having no stake (or a limited stake) in the matter themselves and the overall consequences to people in general.
Edit: sorry I thought we were still talking about Taleb. D'oh!
I can post something if I come across it. It's a topic I mostly only covered in class. It was sort of a light bulb where I realized that's the technical term for the types of things we talk about regarding problems in markets. For example, when I claim that people are individually more productive at spending their money than the government is spending the money instead, my claim is predicated in part on the idea that the people individually have less asymmetric information in relevant scenarios than the government does. The two main types of asymmetric information covered are adverse selection and moral hazard.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'd say the issue seems pretty timeless. Not something that began recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
To the idea that somebody named Nassim Taleb has a harder time entering the country than others, I don't know. I can't comment on any data. On theory, there are forces that could make that the case and countervailing forces that could actually make it easier to immigrate with that name. An example of a countervailing force could be that (I've heard) Middle East Christians have a much harder time getting into the country than Middle East Muslim blindly-assumed-to-be refugees. If true, there could be countervailing force of people thinking that Christians have it great so they can pound sand while Muslims are more downtrodden than squished snail so they can be given the stars.
It's funny, I think your explanation is fantastic and I don't think it suggests out-of-ass talking on his part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Perhaps it's because I view the "we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces..." statement as being more credible than perhaps you do. Lately I've been of the mind that "consensus" gets lots of stuff wrong, even when backed empirically with higher-than-standard rigor.
I probably shouldn't have said 'talking out of his ass' as if he never thought about it much and just spun out a paper one day cause he was bored. I'm sure he has thought about it and he may be making more sense than I realise.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
OTOH, I still stand by my arguments a) and b) above. I think his argument is a bit of the old 'we're creating our own disaster because experts don't understand maths' argument that he used for economics. I think he may have gotten a big head about that and his hubris may have outran his knowledge a bit.
What this kind of reminds me of is about a dozen years ago when Francis Crick (of Watson and Crick, the structure of DNA Nobel prize winners) decided he was going to be a neuroscientist, and not only that but solve pretty much the biggest question in neuroscience which was how the brain creates consciousness. That did not end well for him.
https://www.salon.com/2017/03/02/wat...est-1-percent/Quote:
A common misconception is that undocumented immigrants avoid paying taxes. In fact, undocumented individuals pay sales and excise taxes, property taxes and, in some instances, personal income taxes. The study determined that at least 50 percent of undocumented households currently file income tax returns through the use of individual tax identification numbers, and many have taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks.
In a state like Alabama, the study found, the effective tax rate for undocumented individuals was 7.2 percent, 3 percentage points higher than the 3.8 percent effective tax rate that the wealthiest 1 percent pay in that state. Alabama is no way alone in this development; 42 states currently tax undocumented people more than their wealthiest denizens.
http://www.itep.org/pdf/immigration2017.pdf
How in the fuck can the wealthiest people be paying 3.8% effective taxes? Oh I forgot, they use that extra money to create jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
While the poor buy iPhones instead of health insuranceQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If it's a misconception that illegal immigrants avoid paying taxes, why does the article concede that only 50% of illegal immigrant households pay income tax?
Seems like a large number of them are avoiding paying taxes.
That specifically said household too, btw. So its accounting for the elderly, the children, etc who wouldn't have jobs to pay taxes with.
It also tells you that the number is calculated using a "sophisticated program" (bullshit alert), based on numerous studies of illegals using phoney ssns
They don't. That's bullshit. The reports/links provided are full of baloney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Digging into the details, a big part of the equation is sales and other consumption taxes.
Another misconception, is that FICA taxes are taxes. They aren't. They're insurances. 7.65% of your pay comes out to pay for medicare and social security. Those programs will only pay so much. There's a cap.
Say someone makes 10 million per year, then he retires....does he expect social security to replace his income? Of course not. But the guy who made $50K per year, then retires DOES expect social security to replace his income.
I don't know what the cap is anymore, 10 years ago it was like $90K. I suspect it's a hundred and something now. For the sake of argument, let's say it's $150k. Anyone making up to that amount pays FICA taxes and is entitled to benefits later in life up to a certain amount depending on how much they paid in.
So the guy making $10 million/year only pays 7.65% on his first $150K, and then nothing on the rest. That's going to SERIOUSLY affect his 'effective tax rate'. It's going to look ALOT lower than someone making $50K per year.
I dont' see what's wrong with that since the money isn't meant to be used on infrastructure, police, schools, or public service. The taxes collected are meant to fund those insurance programs. It's contained, or at least it's supposed to be.
Sidebar: Anyone who believes Salon.com is credible is no longer allowed to ever give me shit for watching Fox News.
I know a guy, a real dummy, his rebuttal to a 10% flat tax was that it would benefit the rich by reducing their taxes. Then a little later he was up in arms over his belief that the rich pay next to no taxes.
I haven't read the article, but you're conflating different statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
doesn't pay income taxes != doesn't pay any taxes
avoids paying (some) taxes != avoids paying (all) taxes
This is a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It bothers me.
People are confusing.
Thank you, but that isn't what I said. I havnt misled you about what the article says either. They argue that illegal immigrants DON'T avoid paying taxes. They simultaneously admit that only about 50%, maybe more, pay income taxes. Meaning near 50% don't pay income taxes. Meaning they avoid the income tax. Again, the article refers to households, so that 50% avoidance is 50% of households.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Or is dodging the tax which steals near 20% of every legal citizens paycheck somehow not avoidance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip1SYl97kh4Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Wuf let's set up our own country where we don't have taxes. Then we can invade other countries, take them over and make them better.
Just so long as Uncle Nige approves.
That's not what the article says.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
"A common misconception is that undocumented immigrants avoid paying taxes. In fact, undocumented individuals pay sales and excise taxes, property taxes and, in some instances, personal income taxes. The study determined that at least 50 percent of undocumented households currently file income tax returns through the use of individual tax identification numbers, and many have taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks."
They're not arguing that illegal immigrants don't avoid paying taxes. They're arguing that it's a misconception that all illegal immigrants pay no taxes.
You damn commie.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You should be honored to pay American taxes.
Where's your patriotism?
Patriotism to the nation, not the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Of course, he's neve paid tax in his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
JKDS just made me read an article that says you're basically a mooch off the illegal immigrants your (beautiful?) state attracts, who're paying their share and the share of half of their brethren and your share, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
:p
[/troll]
Of course he has. Have you seen how much ale the man gets through?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
While it's troublesome to have some people blow their money on toys and then treat the rest of us like its our fault they have no savings, the alternative is uglier.
That's all party funded, his personal stash he gets off the coast.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
We're also both white Wuf so I imagine he'd love that.
Well, of course some illegals pay some taxes. But that's never been the point. It is obvious that those who buy goods, in States with sales tax, would pay that tax. No one pictures illegal immigrants going into special checkout lines at Walmart where they click magic "no tax, I'm illegal" buttons.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What people get Sandy vaginas about is that their paycheck is cut into pieces, and the paychecks for illegals is not.
Not only that, but the paychecks are smaller than they should be to begin with, even before they get cut to pieces.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
The illegal who is not paying income taxes is willing to work for a lower wage, since it's all cash. In the aggregate, that keeps wages low for everybody.
I'm not speaking to what people get upset about.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
According to that link, the average amount of taxes paid by illegal immigrant households is higher than the rate paid by legal citizens. The article says that is true even when it is taken into account that half of illegal immigrants avoid paying income taxes.
Unless you're prepared to argue with that statistic, the link actually belies your deeper point.
The credibility of Salon.com was called into question, so this may be a simple act.
(I have never heard of Salon.com before, so I have no idea if its a credible source.)
I'll argue it. The article relies on the second link jack posted. The 2nd paragraph of the 2nd page says illegal immigrants would pay significantly more taxes if granted a pathway to citizenship. More taxes. Not less.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What you, and perhaps the article, are confused is the reference to the effective tax rate of the 1%, who pay less than everybody cuz repiblicans.
Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.
When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts
Mr. 1% earns $1 million per year. He's only charged FICA taxes on the first $150K. 7.65% x $150K = $11,475
Mr. 99% earns 60,000 per year. He pays FICA taxes on all of his earnings under $150K. 7.65% x $60k = $4,590
Effective tax rate of Mr. 1% = $11,475/1,000,000 = 1.1%
Effective tax rate of Mr 99% = $4590/60,000 = 7.65%
That cap on FICA taxes is what's really fucking up the data in this study, and makes the whole thing worthless in my opinion. You need some really muddled math to demonstrate that the rich pay less than the poor.
FICA isn't really a tax either. It's an insurance. It's a contained system where you get out what you pay in. So if you want millionaires to pay more into the system, you're going to have to pay more out to them when they retire. I don't think anyone wants retired millionaires to get huge social security payments commensurate with their working income. Hence, the cap.
Yep. It's so bad that the more I know about this stuff, the more I ignore projections regarding the macro economy. Getting anywhere close to reliable takes so much more than is put into estimates. Even then, projections would still likely be unreliable. A good macroeconomist discusses effects of policies regarding incentives and unintended consequences; a bad macroeconomist releases projections.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
What is the alternative?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This is a separate point from what the Salon article says, then. The Salon article makes no predictions or even time-dependent statements that I saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
If that is a misconstruction of what the other link says (and that other link was the sole reference of the Salon article), then I'm again at a loss, since I now need to read that link, too.
At any rate, I understood the point of the article differently than you and that's all I was discussing.
What did I say which indicated a misunderstanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
What is the missing information which will eradicate my confusion?
Please be careful not to attribute ideas to me which I have not supported.
Just because I understand what someone has said, and can repeat it w/o distortion, doesn't mean that I agree with them.
It means I understand them.
All of this rings true to my sensibilities as a skeptic and a scientist.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I have yet to see data on this issue which doesn't scream of a foregone conclusion being confirmed through bias.
Both sides have yet to describe the situation in a way which isn't blind to the complexity and nuance in the whole situation with glaring omissions in the data they report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Are you calling from a cell phone? Sorry 911 is only for people who don't squander their money on luxury items.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
We've got a unconscious patient with a gunshot wound coming in through the ambulance bay, but we found a pack of gum in his pocket and no insurance card, so we are turning him away.
Welcome to the DMV. I see you have a Starbucks coffee cup, so you will not be permitted to share in the privilege of driving, to which non-frivolous citizens have access.
What a waste of time, you got to be trolling at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.
Should the government just give that away?
Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.
the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this
$2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250
In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.
Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.
How about we just don't give that person any money?
Tbf though the assumption that people understand money, financing and such things on even a basic level just isn't true. In fact people who do understand such things tend to have incentive to exploit the people who don't so I don't imagine that changing any time soon.
You should know me better than this after all these years.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I'm not intentionally trolling you. When I troll, I claim it in the same post as the troll.
***
I don't get why you're upset.
You asked questions about what the Salon article says, and I was doing my best to figure out the same.
You went to question whether or not those claims are based on data, and I agree with your analysis that it doesn't have the trademarks of unbiased reporting.
IDK what you expect from the conversation if not that we are joining our super powers together to seek understanding of what this mad world is throwing at us.
You are not my political rival.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You are correct. A significant reason why so many people don't understand personal finance is they don't have much of a reason to anymore, largely due to government handouts, government mandated insurances, other regulations, and other cultural factors (like less cultural stigma to relying on others to take care of you).Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
People used to have a much more firm grasp of personal finance. Independence from government and adoption of Protestant ethics/communities made sure of that.
I caution that this could carry with it some substantial unintended consequences. This would likely open the door to greater intrusive power of bureaucracy and greater acceptance of dependency by citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
When we get down to brass tacks, the only reason the government should provide for somebody is to increase their productivity. Doing so for any reason that reduces their productivity is unfair to the productive since they are the ones paying for it (this means unfair to most people). I have been unable to develop a cohesive argument for how government can intervene into personal exchange to make them more productive than otherwise. I can't even recall seeing an economist do it. Given this, it is probable that people are better off when the government doesn't try to help them.
Can't ever realistically happen as all car companies will send armies of lobbyists to tackle this immediately. Heck, they will probably even sue the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The UK government not that long ago put in a minimum scrapping price of cars and as a result the bottom end of the used car market just disappeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
They would loseQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
LOL, doesn't that affect the cheapest shit cars? Better cars mean more money has to be spent on the procurement of those cars, right?
What do you mean? I'm saying your car basically has a guaranteed scrap price, not so much a bad thing but market adjustments don't happen so it is, therefore any car you could buy that cost you less than x (x is scrap price of your car) you can no longer buy. We're talking old crappy cars at this point but that doesn't mean they aren't old crappy cars you can get time out of. The knock on effect of this is that EVERY car gets slightly more expensive because you don't just delete the cars worth less than that you also raise the value of every car slightly above that and that knocks on to every other car (decreasing as you go up). So that £400 car you might have bought is £450, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Indeed, every car gets more expensive, therefore more money has to be spent on the procurement of those cars, right?
Making things more expensive is not in the interests of the poor and the marginated in any case. Which is probably why the more bottom end of the market dissapeared. But I dunno about this issue and it's not really relevant right now, so to steal your own words, cba.
And yet my point was that in bananastand's particular example above
a) Realistic prices for quite many people, but also realistic because no savings are taken into accoount. I guess, when living paycheck to paycheck, one cannot 'afford' to save even in theory
b) By introducing a some sort of mythical government ceiling on a specific debit entry in any budget, you allow for allocation of those freed funds into something else. Yet, in this example, the specific affectees by this introduced ceiling would make so much noise to all the winds that it would be overturned in a snap. That, and lobbyists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Indeed
That's fair enough.
I'm just saying same car more expensive whilst also stopping you buying a % of the market. This isn't your point clearly.
Sure you can (unless you're referring to how somebody living paycheck to paycheck definitionally isn't saving).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I've known a lot of working-low-middle-class people. They all have one thing in common: they throw their money down the toilet and complain about how they live paycheck to paycheck. A commonality among more well off people is tendency to save regardless of income level. In fact, one of the best ways (and probably the single most underrated way) to move up in wealth is to consistently spend less than you make.
The math checks out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy