7 ms·

A comment I made on this when it was posted a few days ago: I am surprised that this was regarded as a close decision. I guess a lot depends on wording, but wh

A comment I made on this when it was posted a few days ago: I am surprised that this was regarded as a close decision. I guess a lot depends on wording, but when one person is predicting the dollar will be worthless, and the person in the role of judge claims that given global economic uncertainty, it's a "close" question, I wonder if they're just saying that to be diplomatic. Obviously there's a lot of uncertainty, but one way to think about it, is that it can get so much worse than it currently is. And it seems like the predictions being wagered over were pointing to the "so much worse". I think the same holds for the environment, and for the proposed war between rich and poor. I get the temptation to treat those as close, because there's tensions that you could imagine leading to some worst case scenarios. And so one might want to acknowledge the tension, and you want to put that acknowledgment into some sort of partial credit. But I think that way of thinking gets all confused and hair splitty, and comes from a place of thinking everything's a trick question, and not wanting to be perceived as overlooking nuances. Anyhow, credit to all parties involved for formalizing their discussion and getting a bet out of it. I think those kinds of conversations are valuable, and I think it helps to get people thinking about what it takes for beliefs to be true over the long run.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
It was close, in 2008. It was frighteningly close. Not before or since, but yeah, I'll give them "close" on that one. ("Worse than 1930" was part of the criterion. We didn't come close to that in terms of the final outcome, but we were, I think, within a very few days of getting there.)
- JamisonM 6y ago
  I really don't think that 2008 was ever close to anything like "Worse than 1930". For example Europe handled the financial crisis in an almost completely farcical way and didn't suffer anything close to the economic problems of 1930's America. There was never a moment where the US or any other important financial center was at risk of a real bank run of any significance.
- glenstein 6y ago
  Here was one of the predictions in the words of one of the participants in the bet: >“The first [measurement] would be an economic collapse. The dollar would be worthless, the yen would be worthless, the mark would be worthless—the dislocation we saw in the Depression of 1930, magnified many times over. The dollar is not worthless and not close to worthless. There's no reasonable interpretation of that outcome, or of reality, where the dollar becoming worthless was "close" to an accurate prediction. I truly, honestly don't know how to reason with someone who is going to dispute that. Another prediction was that we would be in an active global military conflict between rich and poor nations. Also not close. Another prediction was "Africa, from the Sahara to South Africa, becomes unlivable." If words actually mean things, none of these were close.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    First: Those weren't the words of the bet, per the article. The actual words of the measure of collapse, per the article were: > an economic disaster that would render the dollar worthless, causing a depression worse than the one in 1930; a rebellion of the poor against the monied; and a significant number of environmental catastrophes. Now, you sound like you have a source other than the article, and the article sounds like it might be a paraphrase. But it's kind of hard for me to judge without knowing what your source is. But, using the wording from the article: Were we close to the first of those in 2008? When Lehman collapsed, if there hadn't been intervention the dominoes would have continued to fall. How far would they have continued to fall? Hard to tell now, but at the time it looked like they were just going to keep falling...
    - glenstein 6y ago
      >Those weren't the words of the bet, Yes, they were the words of the bet. https://www.wired.com/1995/06/saleskelly/ https://www.wired.com/1995/06/saleskelly/
      - lukedoolittle 6y ago
        I don't know if this changes anything but I think the actual bet is described by the line >I bet you US$1,000 that in the year 2020, we're not even close to the kind of disaster you describe—a convergence of three disasters: global currency collapse, significant warfare between rich and poor, and environmental disasters of some significant size. We won't even be close. I'll bet on my optimism. It seems like in the actual terms of the bet Kelly paraphrases Sale. That is how I would read it sans an actual signed legal document. But then again I'm not a lawyer or anyone versed in gambling etiquette and protocol.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  There is a pretty good chance that the period of 2022-2035 or so will be a lot worse than the 2008-2015 one.
  - JamisonM 6y ago
    I would like to know why you would think that. In US terms it seems clear that financial support in excess of that available in 2009 onwards will be provided. Vaccines are being delivered and economic activity will increase as the fear of COVID-19 subsides. Is this based on political gridlock after the next set of US midterms? Something not COVID-19 related?
    - Cro_on 6y ago
      IMO, it is the memes which will do it. Have you seen the one about capitalism teetering on an ivory tower, unable to to continue growing after moving away from extractivism and hopelessly trying to exert itself into a knowledge based economy? It's a real tickler.
  - bpiche 6y ago
    Get ready for a Peripheral style Jackpot ;)
  - chromaton 6y ago
    Let's bet.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  I don't think I can agree with that as long as the FDIC exists.
wernst 6y ago
I agree, but I'm reminded of this quote from Ernest Hemingway: “How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” Massive change due to tech is always just waiting to happen. Here's to hoping it just changes society without destroying it.
- rramadass 6y ago
  >“How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” Great quote! Gradually and unknowingly you approach a tipping point until some factor pushes you over the edge like the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". I believe Sale was/is broadly right. Some of Nassim Taleb's ideas also play into this viz. our inability to predict the future and the catastrophic effect of non-linear and "black swan" events. It is not "Technology" that is the problem but our stewardship of it. We simply are not taking a holistic system view of it which is absolutely necessary when our system (i.e. our planet) is "closed".
  - jb_gericke 6y ago
    Actually the global poverty line has been on a steady decline over the last three decades (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty). We have made untold advances in the medical sciences (hello MRNA vaccines), we are rapidly divorcing ourselves from our reliance on fossil fuels, and we are living in a time when there is an unprecedented level of awareness for basal human rights (well, primarily in the West and North America). I feel Sale is incredibly naive in thinking agrarian or subsistence based societies were the pinnacle of human comfort. Back breaking labour, very long working hours, poor health care and for the most part, endentured servitude to those who own the land/mills/factories you toil away in? A very reductive and simplistic way of thinking, ala 'Lets go back to the good ol days where the world made sense to me...' It's ridiculous.
    - SirHound 6y ago
      And just imagine all the tribal wars. Talk about forgetting your history
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
darkerside 6y ago
No credit to Sale for denying victory to his opponent. I'm more disappointed than I thought I would be.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Right. He agreed that they'd go with Patrick's judgement, then petulantly went back on his word after he lost.
KorematsuFred 6y ago
Would I rather prefer the society of 1995 or of 2020 ? That is a very simple question for me. I do not find it very close. If I your were in India which was a deep socialist state in 1980s and 1995 just when the seeds of 1992 reforms were sowed, it was a complete shithole compared to the India of 2020 even with COVID.
- simonh 6y ago
  Likewise China, I first went in 2001 and it's a different country in terms of most people's every day lives. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty into comfortable livelihoods and I personally know some of them. There's still a long way to go, but it's incredible how far it's already come.
  - spurgu 6y ago
    But is it sustainable? China has been (like most western countries) creating a ton of debt to make that happen.
    - KorematsuFred 6y ago
      Future is not for us to see and when it comes to predicting future of nations and societies we are especially pretty bad. Having said that sustainability is a first world problem. There is no point sustaining anything if 80% of your population is malnourished, availability of food per capita and clothes per capita is less than what is needed for sustenance of life where thousands of children die of polio and thousands more disabled. I would rather live in an unsustainable India of 2020 than in sustainable India of 1985. Debt is not really much of a problem for India as debt of gdp ratio is pretty low. Debt is not a problem in terms of sustainability either, when the proverbial shit hits the fan the country might go into massive recession but even in the worst of worst cases and even with terrible politicians at help recessions don't last very long. But the gain upto that point are all real. (India has over 50M more young and healthy people purely because the country has eliminated Polio and dozen other diseases that were common 40 years ago). Rising population and rapid urbanization would require India to manage its forests, water and other resources better and India is not equipped to do so because of government control of key industries and bad policies. But we can hope things will change for better as a more competent government is at helm.
simonh 6y ago
>but when one person is predicting the dollar will be worthless, and the person in the role of judge claims that given global economic uncertainty, it's a "close" question, He did not think the currency issue was close at all, "Not much contest here" and granted that one unequivocally to Kelly. On the others I don't agree with Patrick at all. On environment we are quite possibly heading towards a disaster, but it's still very far off. I doubt we'll even be in a situation to unequivocally call this one for Sale even in another 25 years. Maybe in 50, sure, but the bet was about the conditions in 2020, not 2045 or 2070. As for war between rich and poor, I think it should be judged compared to historical examples. Are we in a higher level of conflict between rich and poor now than in the past? I'd say no. Occupy came and went. The global economy recovered ok from the crisis in 2008 by historical standards. Advanced technology is already solving the pandemic for us, and we should be back to normal economically within a few years. Only 4 years ago a Billionair won a US election on a platform of cutting taxes for the rich, which he did. If there's a war going on between rich and poor, I'm not seeing it.
- glenstein 6y ago
  >He did not think the currency issue was close at all, Thank you for catching that, I stand corrected with respect to the judging of the economy. It's interesting that there are commenters here taking issue with my point disputing that, when it turns out not even the judge, Bill Patrick, felt that question was close! People will really debate anything. As you point out, Bill did, however, remark that the other questions were close, and asserted that Kirk was not merely close, but correct(!) on the other two questions. I am surprised about that, for reasons more or less along the lines you mention.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  On the others I don't agree with Patrick at all. On environment we are quite possibly heading towards a disaster, but it's still very far off. I doubt we'll even be in a situation to unequivocally call this one for Sale even in another 25 years. Maybe in 50, sure, but the bet was about the conditions in 2020, not 2045 or 2070. And this is what scares me. From my point of view, we are already well into multiple major environmental disasters. I wonder how much worse it has to get before more people realise that.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
Yeah, the bet and judgment are both unreasonably favorable to Sale, to an absurd degree. He predicted society's "collapse", that by now we'd be living in small bands. Global warming steadily making the worse a crappier place is an awful thing, to be sure, but we're nowhere near collapse, at least not at the moment. The first part of the bet is a good one: the dollar -- the world's reserve currency -- becoming worthless is something that makes sense as a part of society collapsing, and more importantly, it's fairly objective to judge. The other two are far more ambiguous.
- glenstein 6y ago
  >He predicted society's "collapse", that by now we'd be living in small bands. Global warming steadily making the worse a crappier place is an awful thing, to be sure, but we're nowhere near collapse, at least not at the moment. Yeah, this is exactly the thing I'm stuck on when I go over these responses. I feel like people really aren't grasping the difference in scale between (a) 2008 financial crisis was pretty bad and (b) dollar becoming "worthless". People are talking as if those two things are close, or taking up the tone of cautionary finger wagging and saying "well, you know he wasn't too far off" and going off to say this or that about a given poverty statistic. My best theory as to what's going on here is that people are just cannibalizing the question and using it as a digression into various world problems in ways that don't clearly connect back to the wording of the question.
permo-w 6y ago
You’re not taking into account that Kelly bet that it wouldn’t even be close to Sale’s vision. That massively evens the odds, because we aren’t so far from his vision, and most people would agree that the world (or the west at least) is much more going downwards than upwards

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

It was close, in 2008. It was frighteningly close. Not before or since, but yeah, I'll give them "close" on that one. ("Worse than 1930" was part of the criterion. We didn't come close to that in terms of the final outcome, but we were, I think, within a very few days of getting there.)

JamisonM 6y ago
I really don't think that 2008 was ever close to anything like "Worse than 1930". For example Europe handled the financial crisis in an almost completely farcical way and didn't suffer anything close to the economic problems of 1930's America. There was never a moment where the US or any other important financial center was at risk of a real bank run of any significance.
glenstein 6y ago
Here was one of the predictions in the words of one of the participants in the bet: >“The first [measurement] would be an economic collapse. The dollar would be worthless, the yen would be worthless, the mark would be worthless—the dislocation we saw in the Depression of 1930, magnified many times over. The dollar is not worthless and not close to worthless. There's no reasonable interpretation of that outcome, or of reality, where the dollar becoming worthless was "close" to an accurate prediction. I truly, honestly don't know how to reason with someone who is going to dispute that. Another prediction was that we would be in an active global military conflict between rich and poor nations. Also not close. Another prediction was "Africa, from the Sahara to South Africa, becomes unlivable." If words actually mean things, none of these were close.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  First: Those weren't the words of the bet, per the article. The actual words of the measure of collapse, per the article were: > an economic disaster that would render the dollar worthless, causing a depression worse than the one in 1930; a rebellion of the poor against the monied; and a significant number of environmental catastrophes. Now, you sound like you have a source other than the article, and the article sounds like it might be a paraphrase. But it's kind of hard for me to judge without knowing what your source is. But, using the wording from the article: Were we close to the first of those in 2008? When Lehman collapsed, if there hadn't been intervention the dominoes would have continued to fall. How far would they have continued to fall? Hard to tell now, but at the time it looked like they were just going to keep falling...
  - glenstein 6y ago
    >Those weren't the words of the bet, Yes, they were the words of the bet. https://www.wired.com/1995/06/saleskelly/ https://www.wired.com/1995/06/saleskelly/
    - lukedoolittle 6y ago
      I don't know if this changes anything but I think the actual bet is described by the line >I bet you US$1,000 that in the year 2020, we're not even close to the kind of disaster you describe—a convergence of three disasters: global currency collapse, significant warfare between rich and poor, and environmental disasters of some significant size. We won't even be close. I'll bet on my optimism. It seems like in the actual terms of the bet Kelly paraphrases Sale. That is how I would read it sans an actual signed legal document. But then again I'm not a lawyer or anyone versed in gambling etiquette and protocol.
jacquesm 6y ago
There is a pretty good chance that the period of 2022-2035 or so will be a lot worse than the 2008-2015 one.
- JamisonM 6y ago
  I would like to know why you would think that. In US terms it seems clear that financial support in excess of that available in 2009 onwards will be provided. Vaccines are being delivered and economic activity will increase as the fear of COVID-19 subsides. Is this based on political gridlock after the next set of US midterms? Something not COVID-19 related?
  - Cro_on 6y ago
    IMO, it is the memes which will do it. Have you seen the one about capitalism teetering on an ivory tower, unable to to continue growing after moving away from extractivism and hopelessly trying to exert itself into a knowledge based economy? It's a real tickler.
- bpiche 6y ago
  Get ready for a Peripheral style Jackpot ;)
- chromaton 6y ago
  Let's bet.
Dylan16807 6y ago
I don't think I can agree with that as long as the FDIC exists.

wernst 6y ago

I agree, but I'm reminded of this quote from Ernest Hemingway: “How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” Massive change due to tech is always just waiting to happen. Here's to hoping it just changes society without destroying it.

rramadass 6y ago
>“How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” Great quote! Gradually and unknowingly you approach a tipping point until some factor pushes you over the edge like the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". I believe Sale was/is broadly right. Some of Nassim Taleb's ideas also play into this viz. our inability to predict the future and the catastrophic effect of non-linear and "black swan" events. It is not "Technology" that is the problem but our stewardship of it. We simply are not taking a holistic system view of it which is absolutely necessary when our system (i.e. our planet) is "closed".
- jb_gericke 6y ago
  Actually the global poverty line has been on a steady decline over the last three decades (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty). We have made untold advances in the medical sciences (hello MRNA vaccines), we are rapidly divorcing ourselves from our reliance on fossil fuels, and we are living in a time when there is an unprecedented level of awareness for basal human rights (well, primarily in the West and North America). I feel Sale is incredibly naive in thinking agrarian or subsistence based societies were the pinnacle of human comfort. Back breaking labour, very long working hours, poor health care and for the most part, endentured servitude to those who own the land/mills/factories you toil away in? A very reductive and simplistic way of thinking, ala 'Lets go back to the good ol days where the world made sense to me...' It's ridiculous.
  - SirHound 6y ago
    And just imagine all the tribal wars. Talk about forgetting your history

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

darkerside 6y ago

No credit to Sale for denying victory to his opponent. I'm more disappointed than I thought I would be.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Right. He agreed that they'd go with Patrick's judgement, then petulantly went back on his word after he lost.

KorematsuFred 6y ago

Would I rather prefer the society of 1995 or of 2020 ? That is a very simple question for me. I do not find it very close. If I your were in India which was a deep socialist state in 1980s and 1995 just when the seeds of 1992 reforms were sowed, it was a complete shithole compared to the India of 2020 even with COVID.

simonh 6y ago
Likewise China, I first went in 2001 and it's a different country in terms of most people's every day lives. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty into comfortable livelihoods and I personally know some of them. There's still a long way to go, but it's incredible how far it's already come.
- spurgu 6y ago
  But is it sustainable? China has been (like most western countries) creating a ton of debt to make that happen.
  - KorematsuFred 6y ago
    Future is not for us to see and when it comes to predicting future of nations and societies we are especially pretty bad. Having said that sustainability is a first world problem. There is no point sustaining anything if 80% of your population is malnourished, availability of food per capita and clothes per capita is less than what is needed for sustenance of life where thousands of children die of polio and thousands more disabled. I would rather live in an unsustainable India of 2020 than in sustainable India of 1985. Debt is not really much of a problem for India as debt of gdp ratio is pretty low. Debt is not a problem in terms of sustainability either, when the proverbial shit hits the fan the country might go into massive recession but even in the worst of worst cases and even with terrible politicians at help recessions don't last very long. But the gain upto that point are all real. (India has over 50M more young and healthy people purely because the country has eliminated Polio and dozen other diseases that were common 40 years ago). Rising population and rapid urbanization would require India to manage its forests, water and other resources better and India is not equipped to do so because of government control of key industries and bad policies. But we can hope things will change for better as a more competent government is at helm.

simonh 6y ago

>but when one person is predicting the dollar will be worthless, and the person in the role of judge claims that given global economic uncertainty, it's a "close" question, He did not think the currency issue was close at all, "Not much contest here" and granted that one unequivocally to Kelly. On the others I don't agree with Patrick at all. On environment we are quite possibly heading towards a disaster, but it's still very far off. I doubt we'll even be in a situation to unequivocally call this one for Sale even in another 25 years. Maybe in 50, sure, but the bet was about the conditions in 2020, not 2045 or 2070. As for war between rich and poor, I think it should be judged compared to historical examples. Are we in a higher level of conflict between rich and poor now than in the past? I'd say no. Occupy came and went. The global economy recovered ok from the crisis in 2008 by historical standards. Advanced technology is already solving the pandemic for us, and we should be back to normal economically within a few years. Only 4 years ago a Billionair won a US election on a platform of cutting taxes for the rich, which he did. If there's a war going on between rich and poor, I'm not seeing it.

glenstein 6y ago
>He did not think the currency issue was close at all, Thank you for catching that, I stand corrected with respect to the judging of the economy. It's interesting that there are commenters here taking issue with my point disputing that, when it turns out not even the judge, Bill Patrick, felt that question was close! People will really debate anything. As you point out, Bill did, however, remark that the other questions were close, and asserted that Kirk was not merely close, but correct(!) on the other two questions. I am surprised about that, for reasons more or less along the lines you mention.
goodcanadian 6y ago
On the others I don't agree with Patrick at all. On environment we are quite possibly heading towards a disaster, but it's still very far off. I doubt we'll even be in a situation to unequivocally call this one for Sale even in another 25 years. Maybe in 50, sure, but the bet was about the conditions in 2020, not 2045 or 2070. And this is what scares me. From my point of view, we are already well into multiple major environmental disasters. I wonder how much worse it has to get before more people realise that.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

Yeah, the bet and judgment are both unreasonably favorable to Sale, to an absurd degree. He predicted society's "collapse", that by now we'd be living in small bands. Global warming steadily making the worse a crappier place is an awful thing, to be sure, but we're nowhere near collapse, at least not at the moment. The first part of the bet is a good one: the dollar -- the world's reserve currency -- becoming worthless is something that makes sense as a part of society collapsing, and more importantly, it's fairly objective to judge. The other two are far more ambiguous.

glenstein 6y ago
>He predicted society's "collapse", that by now we'd be living in small bands. Global warming steadily making the worse a crappier place is an awful thing, to be sure, but we're nowhere near collapse, at least not at the moment. Yeah, this is exactly the thing I'm stuck on when I go over these responses. I feel like people really aren't grasping the difference in scale between (a) 2008 financial crisis was pretty bad and (b) dollar becoming "worthless". People are talking as if those two things are close, or taking up the tone of cautionary finger wagging and saying "well, you know he wasn't too far off" and going off to say this or that about a given poverty statistic. My best theory as to what's going on here is that people are just cannibalizing the question and using it as a digression into various world problems in ways that don't clearly connect back to the wording of the question.

permo-w 6y ago

You’re not taking into account that Kelly bet that it wouldn’t even be close to Sale’s vision. That massively evens the odds, because we aren’t so far from his vision, and most people would agree that the world (or the west at least) is much more going downwards than upwards