5 ms·

Glad someone said it. Nearly every day I see Walter spouting off at the mouth on shit, asserting ideological opinions and viewpoints as fact with little suppor

Glad someone said it. Nearly every day I see Walter spouting off at the mouth on shit, asserting ideological opinions and viewpoints as fact with little support. Probably the most high profile and technically competent user that regularly contributes absolute drivel. It's now to the point I often don't even bother to read what he writes unless it's on a technical topic.

WalterBright 4y ago
I'm curious why you believe free markets are absolute drivel.
- robocat 4y ago
  Neither of us mentioned free-markets, nor what we think of them. Why are you trying to put words in our mouths? Why are you diverting from the original point I made? Why does it look to me like you are trolling? Edit: trying to be on topic, and trying to follow your diversión: By definition, a fiat currency like the USD is not a free market. In fact a “free market” is an oxymoron - it needs strict rules to be free (the inherent contradiction). Cryptocurrency is the closest we have to a “free market” currency at present. Context: I am a capitalist hippy. Let them eat Tether. I would summarise rjbwork’s comment as (void)WalterBright; | is not a pipe. Free market for pres (meme that)!
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Neither of us mentioned free-markets, nor what we think of them. I mostly post about free markets, and you had a general complaint about me, which is what I responded to. > Why does it look to me like you are trolling? I would be trolling if I didn't believe what I was posting. But I do, so there. If you look at my post history, I'm completely consistent in what I see as true. I don't berate others, call them names, call them stupid. For me, it's friendly conversation. I also like the sport of debate, like others enjoy a friendly pickup game of football. If you don't like it, please ignore me.
    - robocat 4y ago
      > I mostly post about free markets, and you had a general complaint about me, which is what I responded to. As I said, your comment did not come across as a response. I certainly haven’t noticed that you majority post about free market. A quick sample of your last 20 comments shows 1 low value comment about the free market. ~Half of your Your last ten comments are one-liner comments. Also plenty of opinion, some of which are stated as “facts” by you and could really do with some reference to supporting information. Your last ten comments are: 2x one-liner “facts” on inflation, a one-liner joke, 2 opinions on James Webb, a one-liner on ebooks, a two liner against magazine apps, a comment against government subsidies (with low-value political overtones IMHO), an opinion on Rocky & Android TV, one-liner “The telegraph network was the true origin of the internet”, one-liner “I'm sad that free markets are viewed as an ‘extreme’ position” (you derailed the article topic here). > I'm curious why you believe free markets are absolute drivel. rjbwork did NOT say that. You said that. I think that captures a perfect example of a one-liner comment of negative value to the HN community. “absolute drivel” is inflammatory, but it is only their opinion on the quality of your comments, and I suspect the intention wasn’t to be a personal attack. > I don't berate others, call them names, call them stupid. Why introduce that? An implication that we do? I don’t think either of us are suggesting you do those things. I don’t think either of us have done that. We could both choose to be politer, but the risk is a tone of passive-aggressive condescension. Personally I think we are positively engaging with you because we have enough respect for you to do so. My time, your time, and the time of others is extremely valuable (and difficult to own). > I also like the sport of debate Let’s imagine there are two forms of debate: 1) the political/lawyer form where the game is to win, any tactic that works is valid, facts are often irrelevant, and competitive behaviours are everything. 2) the scientific/engineering form where the game is a search for answers, discovering one is wrong is fantastic (learning), and cooperation is critical. I think you say you do (2). However you come across to me as doing (1). I have given you plenty of reasons in this thread backing up why your comments come across as disingenuous. Sorry that this is a meta-discussion. I really do want to encourage conversation on HN to be curious and positive, and not snarky. I am not a mod (ugggh). I sincerely try to write high quality comments and improve my commenting, not that I am necessarily succeeding ;p. My original comment got 10 upvotes (in a slow thread), so I am not alone with my opinion about your commenting style. Your comment “I'm completely consistent in what I see as true” is a possible signal that you are dogmatically sticking to your beliefs, and not allowing your beliefs to be changed by learning from others. To quote Jim Keller talking about himself: "Imagine 99% of your thought process is protecting your self-conception, and 98% of that is wrong.” — context @1:23:00 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2tebYAaOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2tebYAaOA That is the end of this thread for me. I hope you have gained something from our comments.
- rjbwork 4y ago
  For the same reason I don't drive my car as if it were a frictionless and spherical point mass. It's an idealized and fictional construct that is useful only insofar as a model by which to derive principals that can be applied to reality. Much as we do not have a theory of everything in physics because, despite our incredible talent as a species for constructing models and deriving principals, we have yet to come to a coherent model that directly maps to reality fully, we do not yet have some kind of economic theory of everything. Your repeated assertions of "belief in the free market" read to me much as a a religious belief, in that they are assertions of the mechanisms by which things work, despite repeatedly clashing with ground state reality. In my view they are, at best, simplistic representations of some other mechanism. I am actually quite a big fan of markets, and am interested in finance, trading, business, etc. But I am not a market ideologue, nor am I naive enough to think that someone has come up with a perfect economic system - especially when it is claimed to somehow harness for good and neutralize humanity's near infinite capacity for greed and evil.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    One doesn't need to believe in the free market in order for it to work, and it doesn't need to be a perfect free market to work. The more free market it is, the better it works. It's not religion, it's borne out by history. Countries that move towards free markets grow more prosperous, those that move away, less. The ones that do the worst are full on communism. > despite repeatedly clashing with ground state reality I've replied to all those claims of it clashing with reality. Most of them are based on the notion that free markets do not proscribe the use of fraud and force against others. The rest are often claims that free markets tend directly to monopolies, although the proponents are never able to identify any free market monopolies. Want a cite? Here's one. The US, in its first century, excluding the slave south. Was it an ideal free market? Nope. It's hard to argue with its resounding success. Compare it to the South American countries, which had no such success. Want another? The German Miracle, 1946 or so to 1970. Japan, post war to around 1990. Hong Kong in the 1960s turned to free markets, look at the results - GDP grew 18,000% from 1961-1987 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong If free markets are a religion, they certainly are a religion that delivers results whether or not the participants believe in it. > especially when it is claimed to somehow harness for good and neutralize humanity's near infinite capacity for greed and evil. It harnesses the selfishness in all of us. As for "somehow", the how is straightforward. To make money (a selfish motive) one has to provide a good or service that others find worth their money. If one tries to make money by stealing, cheating, defrauding, enslaving, extortion, blackmail, or murdering, one goes to jail.

WalterBright 4y ago

I'm curious why you believe free markets are absolute drivel.

robocat 4y ago
Neither of us mentioned free-markets, nor what we think of them. Why are you trying to put words in our mouths? Why are you diverting from the original point I made? Why does it look to me like you are trolling? Edit: trying to be on topic, and trying to follow your diversión: By definition, a fiat currency like the USD is not a free market. In fact a “free market” is an oxymoron - it needs strict rules to be free (the inherent contradiction). Cryptocurrency is the closest we have to a “free market” currency at present. Context: I am a capitalist hippy. Let them eat Tether. I would summarise rjbwork’s comment as (void)WalterBright; | is not a pipe. Free market for pres (meme that)!
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > Neither of us mentioned free-markets, nor what we think of them. I mostly post about free markets, and you had a general complaint about me, which is what I responded to. > Why does it look to me like you are trolling? I would be trolling if I didn't believe what I was posting. But I do, so there. If you look at my post history, I'm completely consistent in what I see as true. I don't berate others, call them names, call them stupid. For me, it's friendly conversation. I also like the sport of debate, like others enjoy a friendly pickup game of football. If you don't like it, please ignore me.
  - robocat 4y ago
    > I mostly post about free markets, and you had a general complaint about me, which is what I responded to. As I said, your comment did not come across as a response. I certainly haven’t noticed that you majority post about free market. A quick sample of your last 20 comments shows 1 low value comment about the free market. ~Half of your Your last ten comments are one-liner comments. Also plenty of opinion, some of which are stated as “facts” by you and could really do with some reference to supporting information. Your last ten comments are: 2x one-liner “facts” on inflation, a one-liner joke, 2 opinions on James Webb, a one-liner on ebooks, a two liner against magazine apps, a comment against government subsidies (with low-value political overtones IMHO), an opinion on Rocky & Android TV, one-liner “The telegraph network was the true origin of the internet”, one-liner “I'm sad that free markets are viewed as an ‘extreme’ position” (you derailed the article topic here). > I'm curious why you believe free markets are absolute drivel. rjbwork did NOT say that. You said that. I think that captures a perfect example of a one-liner comment of negative value to the HN community. “absolute drivel” is inflammatory, but it is only their opinion on the quality of your comments, and I suspect the intention wasn’t to be a personal attack. > I don't berate others, call them names, call them stupid. Why introduce that? An implication that we do? I don’t think either of us are suggesting you do those things. I don’t think either of us have done that. We could both choose to be politer, but the risk is a tone of passive-aggressive condescension. Personally I think we are positively engaging with you because we have enough respect for you to do so. My time, your time, and the time of others is extremely valuable (and difficult to own). > I also like the sport of debate Let’s imagine there are two forms of debate: 1) the political/lawyer form where the game is to win, any tactic that works is valid, facts are often irrelevant, and competitive behaviours are everything. 2) the scientific/engineering form where the game is a search for answers, discovering one is wrong is fantastic (learning), and cooperation is critical. I think you say you do (2). However you come across to me as doing (1). I have given you plenty of reasons in this thread backing up why your comments come across as disingenuous. Sorry that this is a meta-discussion. I really do want to encourage conversation on HN to be curious and positive, and not snarky. I am not a mod (ugggh). I sincerely try to write high quality comments and improve my commenting, not that I am necessarily succeeding ;p. My original comment got 10 upvotes (in a slow thread), so I am not alone with my opinion about your commenting style. Your comment “I'm completely consistent in what I see as true” is a possible signal that you are dogmatically sticking to your beliefs, and not allowing your beliefs to be changed by learning from others. To quote Jim Keller talking about himself: "Imagine 99% of your thought process is protecting your self-conception, and 98% of that is wrong.” — context @1:23:00 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2tebYAaOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2tebYAaOA That is the end of this thread for me. I hope you have gained something from our comments.
rjbwork 4y ago
For the same reason I don't drive my car as if it were a frictionless and spherical point mass. It's an idealized and fictional construct that is useful only insofar as a model by which to derive principals that can be applied to reality. Much as we do not have a theory of everything in physics because, despite our incredible talent as a species for constructing models and deriving principals, we have yet to come to a coherent model that directly maps to reality fully, we do not yet have some kind of economic theory of everything. Your repeated assertions of "belief in the free market" read to me much as a a religious belief, in that they are assertions of the mechanisms by which things work, despite repeatedly clashing with ground state reality. In my view they are, at best, simplistic representations of some other mechanism. I am actually quite a big fan of markets, and am interested in finance, trading, business, etc. But I am not a market ideologue, nor am I naive enough to think that someone has come up with a perfect economic system - especially when it is claimed to somehow harness for good and neutralize humanity's near infinite capacity for greed and evil.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  One doesn't need to believe in the free market in order for it to work, and it doesn't need to be a perfect free market to work. The more free market it is, the better it works. It's not religion, it's borne out by history. Countries that move towards free markets grow more prosperous, those that move away, less. The ones that do the worst are full on communism. > despite repeatedly clashing with ground state reality I've replied to all those claims of it clashing with reality. Most of them are based on the notion that free markets do not proscribe the use of fraud and force against others. The rest are often claims that free markets tend directly to monopolies, although the proponents are never able to identify any free market monopolies. Want a cite? Here's one. The US, in its first century, excluding the slave south. Was it an ideal free market? Nope. It's hard to argue with its resounding success. Compare it to the South American countries, which had no such success. Want another? The German Miracle, 1946 or so to 1970. Japan, post war to around 1990. Hong Kong in the 1960s turned to free markets, look at the results - GDP grew 18,000% from 1961-1987 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong If free markets are a religion, they certainly are a religion that delivers results whether or not the participants believe in it. > especially when it is claimed to somehow harness for good and neutralize humanity's near infinite capacity for greed and evil. It harnesses the selfishness in all of us. As for "somehow", the how is straightforward. To make money (a selfish motive) one has to provide a good or service that others find worth their money. If one tries to make money by stealing, cheating, defrauding, enslaving, extortion, blackmail, or murdering, one goes to jail.