4 ms·

Oh, boy, here we go. Your word-wall-no-jutsu is strong. I shall respond to certain statements as I see fit, because bless you that's why. >When the asset chang

by yterdy 3y ago

Oh, boy, here we go. Your word-wall-no-jutsu is strong. I shall respond to certain statements as I see fit, because bless you that's why. >When the asset changes hands, it is sold and the then current market price is known. Volume is down in many asset classes and the "distressed property" pricing is not being allowed to affect like appraisals in areas like commercil real estate. So, the truth actually isn't coming out, as a matter of practicality. >We already DO implement the mechanism to avoid scamming people, TRUST. This is a terrible mechanism absolutely ripe for corruption, which brings us to... >You can go get a boring govt or academic job and be very safe @ work or you can go choose a very risky, but lucrative job that pays a lot. Unless you leverage your public or bureaucratic position for personal gain, like trading securities on insider information or using your expertise to either gain a lucrative private position after reaitgning or gaining a public position where you can steer policy towards your interests. But that never happens in America. >No, I'm talking about the basics of economics in our system. Right, scams. Profit is taken off the arbitrage of information asymmetry that, in a better system, would not exist (at least so egregiously). Your "trust" is lipstick-pigging the inherent scamminess of free enterprise as it exists in our society. >I agree with this, but that's not related to this discussion at all. It's actually the central issue. People are making poor decisions based on their poor access to information. Consensus is deterministic when the information under consideration is equal. What I'll give is that, practically-speaking, that equality is impossible, but it's much easier to approach when one party isn't allowed to hide a massive component of their valuation. Again, I've yet to see you explain how this auditing process would be more expensive to society than arbitrage-bred profits that are then gambled away in bad market bets and economic crises. What you're running up against is the fact that capital accrual is more expensive to society than distribution to pay for basic goods and services. Hoarding money is more expensive than just using it. Sorry.

zie 3y ago
So if I understand your position, you want information to always be free in every transaction, so when you go to the store to buy a pack of gum, you can look up the entire supply chain, figure out the entire cost for that gum and come to a reasonable price between the buyer and seller? We would have independent auditors that verify the supply chain information is accurate, adding lots of extra cost for these auditors. How are they paid? How do we keep the auditors honest? What if they are incentivized in some way to not be completely truthful in their auditing? How many people do you think will be willing to do that? I'd bet the amount of people willing to do that is effectively zero. Especially over a pack of gum.
- yterdy 3y ago
  >So if I understand your position, you want information to always be free in every transaction, so when you go to the store to buy a pack of gum, you can look up the entire supply chain, figure out the entire cost for that gum and come to a reasonable price between the buyer and seller? You bet your sweet patootie I do. It would go a long way towards curbing human rights abuses, too. But you're engaging in a bit of a slippery-slope fallacy, because we were talking about large property and business sales, not gum. As to how to implement this regime, I'd love to put the big brains that are currently relegated to glorified ad sales, Ponzi scheme engineering, and bigot-corrections (that would be tech, finance, and social justice advocacy, respectively) on it.
  - zie 3y ago
    You know that you can do this now, presuming the companies involved are public companies? It's not 100% but for the enterprising sort you can figure it out. This is basically what investors do all day, track down and dig into companies and how they make their money. Then they apply future growth compared to current value and decide if they want to buy in on the future of the company or not. If they are not public companies, then you have to have a plausible excuse for the private company to share that information with you. Investor as the job title usually gets the job done, provided they want more money invested.

by yterdy 3y ago

zie 3y ago

So if I understand your position, you want information to always be free in every transaction, so when you go to the store to buy a pack of gum, you can look up the entire supply chain, figure out the entire cost for that gum and come to a reasonable price between the buyer and seller? We would have independent auditors that verify the supply chain information is accurate, adding lots of extra cost for these auditors. How are they paid? How do we keep the auditors honest? What if they are incentivized in some way to not be completely truthful in their auditing? How many people do you think will be willing to do that? I'd bet the amount of people willing to do that is effectively zero. Especially over a pack of gum.

yterdy 3y ago
>So if I understand your position, you want information to always be free in every transaction, so when you go to the store to buy a pack of gum, you can look up the entire supply chain, figure out the entire cost for that gum and come to a reasonable price between the buyer and seller? You bet your sweet patootie I do. It would go a long way towards curbing human rights abuses, too. But you're engaging in a bit of a slippery-slope fallacy, because we were talking about large property and business sales, not gum. As to how to implement this regime, I'd love to put the big brains that are currently relegated to glorified ad sales, Ponzi scheme engineering, and bigot-corrections (that would be tech, finance, and social justice advocacy, respectively) on it.
- zie 3y ago
  You know that you can do this now, presuming the companies involved are public companies? It's not 100% but for the enterprising sort you can figure it out. This is basically what investors do all day, track down and dig into companies and how they make their money. Then they apply future growth compared to current value and decide if they want to buy in on the future of the company or not. If they are not public companies, then you have to have a plausible excuse for the private company to share that information with you. Investor as the job title usually gets the job done, provided they want more money invested.