The Wall

[wufwugy]

You mean the cost to being black?

[wufwugy]

Think of what your original point was, reread your post a times, think of what your point was again and then whether you think it is actually a good post. Let me know your conclusion.

I'm not acting like we have quantities. We have theory.

[Savy]

I'm not acting like we have quantities. We have theory.

Try and make a post arguing the exact opposite point that you just did, use economics but don't use Trump.

You mean the cost to being black?

Specifics are always bad when arguing a point. Hate crimes across the board are up.

[wufwugy]

Trump point is add on.

What's the opposite point I'm supposed to make? That the cheaper labor produces more for cheaper, and that's good? That's true, but I don't think it's the dominating effect.

[Savy]

Trump point is add on.

What's the opposite point I'm supposed to make? That the cheaper labor produces more for cheaper, and that's good? That's true, but I don't think it's the dominating effect.

No, I just expect you to give me a quantitative way of determining which is better.

Kind of like how you might expect a theory to predict something. Like in science.

So far your way of this labour has to be done I have two options x & y, compare the two and pick the smallest. That seems algorithmic and pretty nailed on. I imagine it's imperfect but you know more about economics than me so just give me the science.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure how I'd go about doing that. We don't really know what all the effects are so we can't quantify them and see which is best.

I tend to side with the school of thought that quantitative and empirical analyses are misused in economics. I'd need to research this a bit more to give a coherent and comprehensive explanation though.

[Savy]

I'm not sure how I'd go about doing that. We don't really know what all the effects are so we can't quantify them and see which is best.

I tend to side with the school of thought that quantitative and empirical analyses are misused in economics. I'd need to research this a bit more to give a coherent and comprehensive explanation though.

Sounds like we need a constant k which determines how not white you are.

I really do agree though like I don't understand electrics very well and the risk/reward of me sticking a fork into a plug socket to fix my bulb is probably similar to hiring a black person.

[JKDS]

How hard is it to prove whether that's a good thing?

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

I tend to disagree.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

Also in my previous post I meant you get a bias sample not that you are bias as a starting point. I imagine you make better decisions than most on most of the information you get.

Sorry that I misunderstood you. I freely admit that my sample only includes people who get caught, and whatever that may imply.

[MadMojoMonkey]

TIL plenty of Mexicans are white.
Who whould've guessed, right?

Also, Texas is a vast, multicultural place, with big cities full of all colors of people.
Again.. Who would've guessed that all those Texas Republicans weren't all racist?

Informative day.

[/troll]

[Savy]

Sorry that I misunderstood you. I freely admit that my sample only includes people who get caught, and whatever that may imply.

As I read the post back I thought it sounded like me being out of order but I didn't know how to edit it to get my point across. The fault on the understanding was down to me. I do however think that implys a lot.

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

This argument seems to be we set a ruling, the people who bypass it get an advantage rather than whether the original ruling is good in the first place. It's a bullshit we all know this, I can prove it if you really want me to, but can we get to the more serious question. I promise I won't answer in such a dismissive (if completely correct and true) way as I did to wuf.

[Savy]

I have a not great story.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

I'm fairly certain that's an impractical option, but I only cite all of recorded history as my data, so not my area of expertise.

Although, in this day and age... IDK if that's still as relevant. America can't be taken over by any conceivable land invasion. I mean, it could be done... in the sense that the Mongols eventually killed 90% of the Chinese people, but the cost would be enormous. If America has one thing, it's fierce patriotism.

Is there really a fear of invasion from our (2) neighbors, even by an enemy force infiltrating those countries to enter with minimal scrutiny?
I am totally uninformed and out of my element, but I seriously doubt it.

I still think a wall is a terrible idea, but only under all circumstances. Even if immigration is tightened, I still think a wall is well proven to me a temporary stopgap solution at most and always a costly mistake in the long run.

I tend to disagree.

I mostly do, too.
I doubt my sense of practicality is representative of the greater public's on all issues.

Even so, if we accept that nations should screen or vet immigrants, then it's unfair to have people entering illegally. People taking the time and expense of doing it "right" get screwed. If we accept that people need to be screened first, then I think it's right to stop people from bypassing that screening.

As is, with the laws as they are, you're, of course, correct.

However, if it is decided that our policy on immigration is dumb, ineffective, and that building a wall is same same, then perhaps a reform involving registration of certain immigrant classes is in order. Like TSA pre-screening, or something. Like, OK, tell us who you are and we'll do a full background check one time, and then you can pass through the express lane.

IDK if this addresses a totally different issue, though. There'd still need to be an amnesty for past criminal acts, in light of the new law, and loads of people are against that idea.

[Poopadoop]

Did this make you relate with me more? Am I more of your friend? It was said on QI and as a result you either watched it on QI or someone else you speak to passed it off as a bit of information they know and they got it from QI.

Why, are you trying to persuade me of something? Because that's Wuf's job

I imagine the answers to all of this is yes I'm just wondering the impact of you realising this and the impact on my approach. I'd usually say my source (originally went to post it even in that post) but maybe this is a bad approach. Or maybe I don't remember that fact but I watch QI is a better result for the general person.

I heard it first from an English person who heard it from a German and then I also saw it on QI. So you're the third time I've heard it.

The fact that you watch QI makes me like you more if that matters.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like we need a constant k which determines how not white you are.

Make that k^3 and you'd be on to something.

[Poopadoop]

I have a great story about the fact that I've been commented on going for a piss about three times in my life.

Guess again.

[BananaStand]

Some would say nations should have completely open borders, that people should be free to go where they please, and any restrictions are unreasonable limitations on our rights.

Assume for a minute we had totally open borders. Assume for a minute that anyone could move to any country at any time.

What would happen then? The poorest people would seek out the country with the most benefits. You'd have a 'race to the bottom'.

The debate over whether open borders is a good thing or not is totally moot. Pointless discussion. Because the fact is that America is wholly unprepared to operate under such a policy. Countries operating as 'welfare states' (like the US), have the most to lose from an open borders

[CoccoBill]

Assume for a minute New World Order and one central government.

Problem(s) solved.

[BananaStand]

Assume for a minute New World Order and one central government.

Someone tried that once. His name was Hitler. It didn't go well.

[CoccoBill]

I'm actually not too surprised that you'd think USA was the only sovereign nation left when you charged in.

[BananaStand]

Yeah, let's just make drugs legal and let doctors control it. 'cause they're all honest people who always do the right thing. They aren't motivated by profit. They never exploit people. Right?

http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases17/pr20170301b.html

[BananaStand]

However, if it is decided that our policy on immigration is dumb, ineffective, and that building a wall is same same, then perhaps a reform involving registration of certain immigrant classes is in order. Like TSA pre-screening, or something. Like, OK, tell us who you are and we'll do a full background check one time, and then you can pass through the express lane

Great idea. I've heard the cartels wanted to outsource their mule hiring and interview process. Pretty generous of us to do it for free

[CoccoBill]

Yeah, let's just make drugs legal and let doctors control it. 'cause they're all honest people who always do the right thing. They aren't motivated by profit. They never exploit people. Right?

http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases17/pr20170301b.html

Do you have certain groups of people in mind that aren't human? Even still, I'd wager an average doctor is more inclined to do the right thing than your average druglord or corner kid.

[Savy]

Guess again.

You don't read my posts correctly.

I also don't watch QI.

[BananaStand]

Do you have certain groups of people in mind that aren't human?

Yeah, they're called empty shelves.

No heroin; no problem.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Great idea. I've heard the cartels wanted to outsource their mule hiring and interview process. Pretty generous of us to do it for free

Only a troll would suggest that national policies should be justified with rumors and hearsay.

Only a troll would suggest that the USA is the only, or even most inviting, place which would attract immigration.

If you're not an intentional troll, then your sense of evidence or what constitutes a motivating standard for national policy is completely irrelevant to the topic.

***
I do have to give credit where it's due. You're standing up for what you believe against like half a dozen people who disagree with you.
I can forgive the fact that you crossed my statements with other people's statements in that sense.
My other critiques hold.

Until you see the nuance in each of your political rivals' thoughts, you will not get the respect you feel you deserve.
FYI
We can't respect you when you keep arguing against points no one has made.

[BananaStand]

Only a troll would suggest that national policies should be justified with rumors and hearsay..

Only a troll would misinterpret sarcasm as sincerity.

Only a troll would suggest that the USA is the only, or even most inviting, place which would attract immigration.

Only a troll would make a claim like this without looking it up. Go ahead, look it up.

If you're not an intentional troll, then your sense of evidence or what constitutes a motivating standard for national policy is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Ok, I'll humor you, what would be the 'motivating standard' for your idea of an 'express lane' over the southern border? How do you not see massive potential for fraud and abuse of that policy. The only way to counter that, would be to screen these people. Except you made them exempt from screening.

My other critiques hold.

I flat out, don't care.

[MadMojoMonkey]

.

I can't respect you when you keep arguing against points I have not made.

[BananaStand]

I can't respect you when you keep arguing against points I have not made.

Then don't respect me. Again, I flat out don't care.

You DID make the point about an express lane over the border. If you care to explain how you could prevent from being abused, go ahead. Otherwise, we'll just agree it was a stupid idea.

[wufwugy]

Israel would be safer without its wall. The Chinese would have been safer had they embraced the Mongols. The porous Alps has stopped every army that tried to invade Italy over the millennia. Russia didn't finally put a stop to being slaughtered and enslaved from perpetual southern invasions after constructing gulyay-gorod. Homes would be safer without locking doors and with inviting any in who so desire.

[Savy]

Homes would be safer without locking doors and with inviting any in who so desire.

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

[BananaStand]

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

[wufwugy]

This is a good analogy, people make far too big of a deal of this & the benefit is minimal. In fact there are lots of places dotted around where people do leave their doors open and strangely enough it doesn't really make all that much difference in terms of crimes. Then you have those people who spend ridiculous sums of money on home security systems to which the cost benefit ratio is hilarious.

Taleb would say something like the bolded is a thin-tailed interpretation of something that is fat-tailed (if I understand his statistics terminology correctly).

To the rest follow the logic through. Stop locking businesses, stop gating urban ones overnight, inform criminals that there is less opportunity cost to committing crime, the Pope or the President doesn't need bulletproof vehicles. We can even take it further: no need for security of any sort.

To the idea that in the real world we see little difference from change, that makes sense because the change is little and there are so many unadjusted for confounding variables.

[wufwugy]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial.

As I mentioned just earlier, Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician, often discusses how this is a type of thing that statisticians get wrong consistently. It has to do with the unpredictability of enormously disastrous events that change everything. If you lived in 1905 and you predicted the probability of intensely destructive wars breaking out, you could use all the smartest statistics of the time and be TOTALLY wrong.

Another way of looking at it is that getting home invaded and raped has such an incredible cost to you that even going an entire life reducing the probability of it happening by a small percentage by incorporating all sorts of security protocols has greater benefit than it does cost. That's part of the rationale for why people buy insurance in the first place, for example.

[Savy]

Taleb would say something like the bolded is a thin-tailed interpretation of something that is fat-tailed (if I understand his statistics terminology correctly).

To the rest follow the logic through. Stop locking businesses, stop gating urban ones overnight, inform criminals that there is less opportunity cost to committing crime, the Pope or the President doesn't need bulletproof vehicles. We can even take it further: no need for security of any sort.

To the idea that in the real world we see little difference from change, that makes sense because the change is little and there are so many unadjusted for confounding variables.

No this doesn't apply at all and isn't what I'm saying.

[Savy]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

That's because you're a schmuck. The only difference would be that you'd have a video of it.

Also I've lived with someone who had 3 people go into his house whilst he was there, rob him and beat him with a baseball bat. This was about a 10 minute walk away from the house we lived in.

[Savy]

Also never go outside, it's dangerous.

[OngBonga]

The shit that goes on within a mile radius of my house in my shitty little town, I dread to think.

They pulled someone out of the canal, half a mile away, over the winter.

[OngBonga]

Also never go outside, it's dangerous.

But staying in is dangerous too, might fall down the stairs, or get locked in the toilet, or die of carbon monoxide poisoning, or get robbed and stabbed up by a gang of teenagers.

[CoccoBill]

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

A case study in how bad humans are at risk management, especially when it comes to risks with disastrous consequences and low probability. We either ignore the risks completely (like you before the incident) or overreact (like you after the incident).

[Poopadoop]

But staying in is dangerous too, might fall down the stairs, or get locked in the toilet, or die of carbon monoxide poisoning, or get robbed and stabbed up by a gang of teenagers.

...or throw boiling water into your own face.

(sorry couldn't resist)

[Savy]

But staying in is dangerous too, might fall down the stairs, or get locked in the toilet, or die of carbon monoxide poisoning, or get robbed and stabbed up by a gang of teenagers.

So essentially painless suicide is the safest option.

[OngBonga]

...or throw boiling water into your own face.

Only if the mutliuniverse theory where every possible outcome is a reality is true, in which case then yes, this does indeed have a non-zero probability of happening. Likewise, there's also a non-zero probability of banana getting so butthurt he injects heroin into his eyeballs to prove to us the dangers of doing so.

[OngBonga]

So essentially painless suicide is the safest option.

I think the safest option is to give less fucks.

[Poopadoop]

As I mentioned just earlier, Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician, often discusses how this is a type of thing that statisticians get wrong consistently. It has to do with the unpredictability of enormously disastrous events that change everything. If you lived in 1905 and you predicted the probability of intensely destructive wars breaking out, you could use all the smartest statistics of the time and be TOTALLY wrong.

Another way of looking at it is that getting home invaded and raped has such an incredible cost to you that even going an entire life reducing the probability of it happening by a small percentage by incorporating all sorts of security protocols has greater benefit than it does cost. That's part of the rationale for why people buy insurance in the first place, for example.

Taleb was referring to things you couldn't predict because they'd never yet happened, like the industrialized slaughter that was WWI, and how this lulled people into thinking they never could happen.

You can predict rare but not unheard of events like a home invasion pretty solidly. And yes there is a difference between a very small likelihood with an immensely negative outcome and a 0 likelihood of that same event ('it can't happen to me syndrome').

That said, there comes a point where the extra security measures carry such an excessive cost that you may be better off not having a fortress for a house in terms of your overall happiness. But simply taking little steps like locking your door seems to come with no cost apart from learning a new habit, and there's no good reason not to do it imo.

[Poopadoop]

Likewise, there's also a non-zero probability of banana getting so butthurt he injects heroin into his eyeballs to prove to us the dangers of doing so.

Sadly, I rarely seem to get to be in the universe where things like this happen.

[CoccoBill]

Likewise, there's also a non-zero probability of banana getting so butthurt he injects heroin into his eyeballs to prove to us the dangers of doing so.

I'd pay to see that.

[wufwugy]

Taleb was referring to things you couldn't predict because they'd never yet happened, like the industrialized slaughter that was WWI, and how this lulled people into thinking they never could happen.

You can predict rare but not unheard of events like a home invasion pretty solidly. And yes there is a difference between a very small likelihood with an immensely negative outcome and a 0 likelihood of that same event ('it can't happen to me syndrome').

That said, there comes a point where the extra security measures carry such an excessive cost that you may be better off not having a fortress for a house in terms of your overall happiness. But simply taking little steps like locking your door seems to come with no cost apart from learning a new habit, and there's no good reason not to do it imo.

I agree. I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

[wufwugy]

No this doesn't apply at all and isn't what I'm saying.

Okay

[MadMojoMonkey]

You DID make the point about an express lane over the border.

Nope.
If you read my actual words, rather than scan them and run them past your inner filter for what you're allowed to be offended by, you will find a complete lack of any confidence in my post, as well as a lot of speculation.
I made exactly 0 points, so whatever you think you read is, again, nothing to do with me.

Here. Bold added for clarity.

However, if it is decided that our policy on immigration is dumb, ineffective, and that building a wall is same same, then perhaps a reform involving registration of certain immigrant classes is in order. Like TSA pre-screening, or something. Like, OK, tell us who you are and we'll do a full background check one time, and then you can pass through the express lane.

IDK if this addresses a totally different issue, though. There'd still need to be an amnesty for past criminal acts, in light of the new law, and loads of people are against that idea.

If you care to explain how you could prevent from being abused, go ahead.

I didn't propose any changes to what constitutes a full background check.
If it's abusable in my brainstormed proposal, then it's already abusable, and a non-sequitur to attribute that flaw as a fault in my proposal.

Otherwise, we'll just agree it was a stupid idea.

We can agree that the idea you attribute to me, which is not my idea, is stupid.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

Maybe maybe not. I don't know.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

It's the same principle, you can apply it to any number of people.

Not sure what to think of the whole GMO argument. Just because you can imagine something going horribly wrong doesn't mean it necessarily has a non-zero chance of happening; could be Taleb just watched Jurassic Park too many times

[CoccoBill]

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

The level of risk definitely varies depending on whose behalf we are assessing it. On a society level the risk of getting eaten by a shark might be insignificant. For a person diving with great whites daily it's something different. The control measures to alleviate risks should be in harmony with the estimated costs of the risks involved. It makes no sense to implement a control against a risk that costs more annually than what the costs of the risk would be if it realizes. Now, all of this is very simple and easy, assessing the risks thoroughly and accurately enough is where it gets difficult. What price do you put on GMOs destroying civilization? How likely is it to happen? Actually, to my knowledge the prices of GMO goods are determined fully by the markets without direct government involvement, so in theory the costs relating to the possibility for the civilization ending should already be baked in.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Can someone explain to me why the comparison between a home's doors and windows are comparable to a nation's immigration policy.

I see no direct comparisons which are simultaneously logical and compelling.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Literally every food in the produce section is a GMO.
There are instructions in the old testament on how to GM your O's.

Without GMing the O's, the O's are mostly fiber and seed, virtually no pulp, minimal fruit sugars and vitamins.


Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

[Jack Sawyer]

Yeah, let's just make drugs legal and let doctors control it. 'cause they're all honest people who always do the right thing. They aren't motivated by profit. They never exploit people. Right?

http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases17/pr20170301b.html

Big pharma at its finest. I's not the legality of things, rather the profit margins. As always, its about profits and lobbyists.


This issue is separate from the "legalize it" thing

[Jack Sawyer]

Israel would be safer without its wall.

Israel is a whole different beast with questionable motives.

[Jack Sawyer]

Nassim Tabel, wicked smart mathematician

Sounds like a person who would not be getting a visa anytime soon

[CoccoBill]

Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

I guess the worry is that we create some monster crop that's radioactive and turns everyone gay. Yeah we've been modifying the O's by more crude means for tens of thousands of years, now that we can do it more accurately and efficiently it's suddenly a bad thing. 10000 years ago it was probably quite beneficial for survival to fear everything new and unknown, but nowadays it just has a tendency to just hinder progress. Maybe overall it's still a good thing, better safe than sorry or whatnot. I'd put the fear of GMOs in the same category as fear of nuclear power, vaccines, microwave ovens etc.

[Jack Sawyer]

People always say this until something happens, and then locking your door doesn't seem so trivial. I used to be that way. I never locked the door to my house. I lived in a very very rural area, in a town with virtually no crime, surrounded by towns with virtually no crime. All police ever did was respond to domestic disputes and make traffic stops.

Then one day, a group of local youths decided that they were a gang. And that they were going to rob a house. Reports claimed that the boys drove around for a while before choosing a house at random. The house they chose was only a mile away from mine. Then they made a solemn pact among themselves to kill whoever was inside.

Three of the boys went inside, armed, while the other waited outside as a lookout/getaway driver. One of the boys snuck into the mom's room and stabbed her to death. Another boy took a machete into the 8 year old daughter's room and hacked her up (miraculously, she survived). The four of them robbed the house and made off.

Since then....I lock my doors, and invested in a security system. Fuck the cost/benefit ratio.

All you need is a moat and a few crocodiles. And something like and EMP against drones, and you're set!

[Jack Sawyer]

I agree. I don't think that means lots of kinds of security measures being poo-pooed are of greater cost.

About the Taleb thing, does the rationale apply on the individual level ("it can't happen to me" seems a whole lot like "it can't happen to society" on different scale)? As far as I can tell, his argument involves costs associated as well as probability of the event. He talks a lot about how terrible GMOs are in part because in the rare event of them being a problem, it basically destroys civilization, and that cost is not accounted for when statisticians discuss GMO.

Bananas

[wufwugy]

What price do you put on GMOs destroying civilization? How likely is it to happen? Actually, to my knowledge the prices of GMO goods are determined fully by the markets without direct government involvement, so in theory the costs relating to the possibility for the civilization ending should already be baked in.

I'm very happy you made this point. It's one of the main reasons for why I think there is a possible hole in this one spot regarding free markets. Actually during all the time I've argued in favor of free markets at every point, I've also acknowledged that the one area in which they might not work is when they can't assess for an externality or asymmetric information that somehow a central command can. Here's a way I could see it being the case regarding GMO:

Let's say Taleb is right. Well, the markets don't actually think he's right. As much as I may try to explain how this would show a problem with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, I can't do it. Free markets are in general better at adjusting for new information than command (by far), but that doesn't mean that every adjustment is better by a free market than by command. Maybe the asymmetric information is too great regarding GMO that investors have a harder time accounting for it than Grandma's Wisdom. Even though I tend to disagree with how the "animal spirits" Keynesian thing is taught in economics, this gives credence to the idea. It could be that investors are too caught up with normal tools that are poor at seeing something that atypical tools are better at seeing. This would be like being a victim of one's own success. Yet, applying atypical tools is one thing free markets are great at.

I wanted to post more, but I'm gonna stop here (there's a lot missing). It is really bugging me because I can't develop a coherent view in either direction. It's been bugging me for a while. I don't seem successful at acceptably following the logic through. I may address it later. One hiccup I identify is that if Taleb is right and markets don't think so, free markets still seem to be the best way to eventually get to a point that markets see it. Another hiccup is that those who act in free markets are still those who use Grandma's Wisdom, so it's not like it's one or the other but more like probably the best way to get Grandma's Wisdom is free markets. Still, there can be something regarding asymmetric information that "free" is less good than command. I can't reconcile any of this yet.

[wufwugy]

Sounds like a person who would not be getting a visa anytime soon

Trump supporter. Rails against Salafi Islam. Great guy. Just the kind we want to help make America great again.

[wufwugy]

Bananas

What do you mean?

[Jack Sawyer]

What do you mean?

Bananas are the utmost example of GMOs, didn't destroy civilization


I'd be much more worried about GHOs and designer babies

[wufwugy]

Can someone explain to me why the comparison between a home's doors and windows are comparable to a nation's immigration policy.

I see no direct comparisons which are simultaneously logical and compelling.

That analogy is used regarding illegal aliens that increase crime. It comes from those who believe that not securing the border (and visa stuff) increases the amount of unwanted people coming into the country, just like not securing the home would increase the amount of unwanted people coming into the home (in aggregation).

[Jack Sawyer]

Trump supporter. Rails against Salafi Islam. Great guy. Just the kind we want to help make America great again.

Yet if he was outside the US, on name alone, his probability of getting a visa would not be very high

[wufwugy]

Can we be more specific on what (if anything) is categorically dangerous about GMO's?

I couldn't do Taleb's point any justice. And like most points he makes, I disagree with them at first. But they are very compelling and wear on me.

As far as I understand it, his GMO point is costs of a bad GMO event are not being accounted for. He uses statistics that I don't understand to explain. An example could be something like, let's say there is a 0.00001% chance of something bad happening and it costs $1000 when it does happen. We can find the cost of the behavior, and it's so small that it's ignored. But if we do this with GMO, a cost can be the total collapse of civilization, something our measurement tools don't adjust for well, yet we still treat it like it's negligible cost.

I probably shouldn't say this because I suspect if Taleb commented on it, I would be on the right track but getting something very important wrong about his thesis. I'll post something fuller from him if I come across it again.

[wufwugy]

Yet if he was outside the US, on name alone, his probability of getting a visa would not be very high

Where does this idea come from?

[wufwugy]

I think this is Taleb's paper on it: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2

He's so much smarter than me that I don't dismiss what he says out of hand. He's probably the smartest person I read and with the greatest proportion of material I don't understand.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wuf: Is asymmetric information more than the notion that 2 parties or agencies have different access to information?

'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?

I'm curious if there is a preventative aspect of the system which prevents the business side from achieving symmetric information.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I couldn't do Taleb's point any justice. And like most points he makes, I disagree with them at first. But they are very compelling and wear on me.

As far as I understand it, his GMO point is costs of a bad GMO event are not being accounted for. He uses statistics that I don't understand to explain. An example could be something like, let's say there is a 0.00001% chance of something bad happening and it costs $1000 when it does happen. We can find the cost of the behavior, and it's so small that it's ignored. But if we do this with GMO, a cost can be the total collapse of civilization, something our measurement tools don't adjust for well, yet we still treat it like it's negligible cost.

I probably shouldn't say this because I suspect if Taleb commented on it, I would be on the right track but getting something very important wrong about his thesis. I'll post something fuller from him if I come across it again.

The problem with this criticism is that one pathogen would have to have a seriously troublesome effect on many different crops to cause a total collapse.
Different crops have different strengths and weaknesses; they are susceptible to different diseases and blights.

Perhaps with the exception of a super insect plague, which would be an external effect, not due to GMOs.

***
There is much data showing that the rise of civilizations is commensurate with the discovery of human selection (compare to natural selection) over which seeds from which plants should be re-sown next season. The credit for the rise of civilizations is due to many factors, but the cultivation of increasingly efficacious food sources is on the list.

Still... that's not me saying, "if they're bad, we should accept it 'cause they've gotten us this far."
Just me pointing out that whatever risks there are, GMOs have been hugely beneficial to humans for the past 12,000 years or so.

[BananaStand]

Can someone explain to me why the comparison between a home's doors and windows are comparable to a nation's immigration policy.

I see no direct comparisons which are simultaneously logical and compelling.

Because doors and countries are both made out of atoms. Satisfied Mr. Physics?

More seriously, it's an analogy. Its' when you take something that's really nuanced and complicated and compare it to something more simple, so that reasonable people who understand the simple thing, can then use that knowledge to understand the more complex problem.

You lock your house to deter entrance by people who want to do you harm. You secure your country's border for the same reason.

You lock your house to deter people from taking your property. You secure your country so non-citizens won't come over and exploit your social programs.

Having a secure home means that you can control what is in it and what is not. Say you decide that you don't want drugs in your house. You should have a right to deny entrance to a meth addict. Similarly, a country should be able to stop illegal substances from crossing over its border.

Locking your house keeps other people's conflicts away from you. Say your neighbor's wife is a relentless harpy. He decides he's had enough of the conflict and wanders over to your place and sits down in your living room. Maybe you learn why his wife hates him so much. To prevent that, you have a door, and you control who comes through it. For countries, open borders means the cost of migrating is lower, meaning refugees are willing to immigrate earlier and further. This will have the most negative impact on the most prosperous countries.

Having a door through which you control the entry and exit to your home allows you to maintain law and order within its wall. If 200 people suddenly showed up, you'd have chaos likely resulting in property damage. Similarly, for countries, an open border policy could cause sudden spikes in population, particularly in areas closest to the border. That puts undue strain on local law enforcement and other public services, the net result of which is usually crime.

But if you want to be a dick about it, you're right. doors and countries are not the same thing. You get an A for vocabulary today. Tomorrow's word, is Analogy. Study hard.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That analogy is used regarding illegal aliens that increase crime. It comes from those who believe that not securing the border (and visa stuff) increases the amount of unwanted people coming into the country, just like not securing the home would increase the amount of unwanted people coming into the home (in aggregation).

If the presumption is that all immigrants commit crimes, then that can only be buoyed by only looking at illegal immigrants, right?

Does the idea of open borders always mean a complete lack of border control?

I assume that you can have an open border policy while still requiring ID checks and criminal background checks and other stuff.
Does open borders necessarily mean "w/o any scrutiny at all"

'Cause if that's the case, I'm totally against open borders.

I don't think unlimited access to all comers is best. I favor minimal hurdles to entry & citizenship, but keeping track of who's coming and going and preventing known trouble-makers from making trouble here.

[Jack Sawyer]

Where does this idea come from?

From current events bra, many erudites have been denied visa or outright turned around. E.g. a dude had to balance a binary search tree just to prove he was a cs/software engineer.

http://boingboing.net/2017/03/01/wha...ite-color.html

Bonus points if you realize that the answer they were looking for could not deviate from wikipedias answer, as the ones asking had no idea what the fuck they were asking about

Talent does not indicate you will be allowed through (or respected) by border patrol apparently

[CoccoBill]

I think this is Taleb's paper on it: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2

He's so much smarter than me that I don't dismiss what he says out of hand. He's probably the smartest person I read and with the greatest proportion of material I don't understand.

I don't claim to have a clue about any of the stuff in the appendixes, way above my paygrade. To my understanding his basic conclusion here is paraphrased that any action that has systemic global existential hazards should be completely avoided without scientific near-certainty that the risks can be avoided. He feels GMOs fall under this category. I don't want to nor won't argue against this in principle, if we could afford this I'm sure it'd be the best strategy. What I feel he doesn't adequately address are the consequences of not using GM. Have to admit I've only skimmed some articles about the benefits and reasons for modifying crops, but my understanding is that they're not limited to vitamin A deficiency and risk of famine. GM allows to grow healthier and more plentiful crops in places where it otherwise wouldn't be possible. Just skimming the paper I'm not immediately convinced that GMOs aren't worth the risk, but what do I know. I'm definitely for extreme caution with using them, but also think they have huge potential. Genetic modification is just a tool, the results depend entirely on how it's used.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Because doors and countries are both made out of atoms. Satisfied Mr. Physics?

Logical, but not compelling.

[the rest].

Neither logical nor compelling.

Windows are totally easy to break. Cordless power tools exist.

Is your analogy that a nation's immigration policy should be paper thin and easy to circumvent?

But if you want to be a dick about it, you're right. doors and countries are not the same thing. You get an A for vocabulary today. Tomorrow's word, is Analogy. Study hard.

What I want is to understand a nuanced subject in an adult manner which is informed and open-minded to unorthodox ideas, whether or not they pan out to be workable solutions.

There is only one person in this thread who is taking things personally and throwing insults around. The rest of us are struggling to uncover the missing information which clouds us from a full understanding.