3 ms·

Their actual mathematical conclusions are what matters, not the platitudes at the end for public consimption. And even their platitudes just highlight that we

by EGreg 2y ago

Their actual mathematical conclusions are what matters, not the platitudes at the end for public consimption. And even their platitudes just highlight that we don’t know how to eliminate it. Why do you take it for granted that this behavior should be punished, controlled? Why do you think punishment is the best way to address this phenomenon? It’s like the war on drugs and many other initiatives that the governments keep going despite no measurable improvement for decades. Why do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?

ceejayoz 2y ago
> Their actual mathematical conclusions are what matters... OK, what in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798 concludes cartel-like things that arise naturally can't be regulated?
- EGreg 2y ago
  That is a straw man. The purpose was to show just how deep the rabbithole goes. Successfully banning emergent phenomena is generally much harder than someone colluding. Now asking to prove they “can’t” be regulated is a loaded question. You CAN engage in all kinds of foolish and futile things (witness the war on drugs, for instance, or Prohibition in USA). You can show people you’re “doing something” but in reality nothing much ever changes, after an initial improvement. Because you can’t win that war against human nature. Here, tell me how you can make sure banks lend to the people who need the money first, before the people who have better credit. Tell me how we through regulations can stop investors colluding and investing in the same startups and piling on to the same stocks. Did you even read my own article? I spoke about GameStop and AMC, and many examples besides that.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > That is a straw man. No, you very specifically claimed "Their actual mathematical conclusions are what matters" and derided the non-mathematical conclusions in your own link as "platitudes". What are those mathematical conclusions with regards to regulation of naturally arising cartel-like behavior?
    - EGreg 2y ago
      Yes the valuable part is what someone mathematically proves. We can use that and cite it in support of a statement. Just because someone says “and therefore, we aren’t sure what can be successfully done about it” doesnt prove what you think it proves, in fact it doesnt prove anything at all. Asking a question is not a proof! I never claimed they mathematically concluded that cartel-like things that arise naturally can't be regulated. That’s what makes it a strawman. Nevertheless I already addressed your strawman above and you ignored all of it!
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        You said "You can’t ban what emerges naturally" and stated "this was shown" in the research, but the research does not show that. It shows that cartels can emerge naturally rather than via deliberate collusion. That's all. It says nothing about being able to ban them.
        EGreg 2y ago
        Can you define “ban them”? If you mean “promulgate a prohibition about them” then sure. You can ban them. If you mean “successfully ban them”, ie “eliminate them to nearly zero occurrences” as I meant it, then no, you can’t. Show me an example where naturally emergent GROUP phenomena that were constantly emerging from widely distributed natural behavior, were successfully banned. The only way it has ever been reduced is by introducing alternatives that were just as good. Such as making the Impossible Burger widely available rather than banning meat. Or making electric cars instead of banning fossil fuel usage in vehicles.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Show me an example where naturally emergent GROUP phenomena that were constantly emerging from widely distributed natural behavior, were successfully banned. Sure, if we're ditching mathematical certainty now. The American auto market, where the emergent group phenomenon of making unsafe cars (and millions of consumers purchasing them) despite things like seatbelts being available was addressed very successfully via regulation requiring those safety features. Or smoking cigarettes, which was largely eradicated in public without even needing an outright ban.

by EGreg 2y ago

ceejayoz 2y ago

> Their actual mathematical conclusions are what matters... OK, what in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798 concludes cartel-like things that arise naturally can't be regulated?

EGreg 2y ago
That is a straw man. The purpose was to show just how deep the rabbithole goes. Successfully banning emergent phenomena is generally much harder than someone colluding. Now asking to prove they “can’t” be regulated is a loaded question. You CAN engage in all kinds of foolish and futile things (witness the war on drugs, for instance, or Prohibition in USA). You can show people you’re “doing something” but in reality nothing much ever changes, after an initial improvement. Because you can’t win that war against human nature. Here, tell me how you can make sure banks lend to the people who need the money first, before the people who have better credit. Tell me how we through regulations can stop investors colluding and investing in the same startups and piling on to the same stocks. Did you even read my own article? I spoke about GameStop and AMC, and many examples besides that.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > That is a straw man. No, you very specifically claimed "Their actual mathematical conclusions are what matters" and derided the non-mathematical conclusions in your own link as "platitudes". What are those mathematical conclusions with regards to regulation of naturally arising cartel-like behavior?
  - EGreg 2y ago
    Yes the valuable part is what someone mathematically proves. We can use that and cite it in support of a statement. Just because someone says “and therefore, we aren’t sure what can be successfully done about it” doesnt prove what you think it proves, in fact it doesnt prove anything at all. Asking a question is not a proof! I never claimed they mathematically concluded that cartel-like things that arise naturally can't be regulated. That’s what makes it a strawman. Nevertheless I already addressed your strawman above and you ignored all of it!
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      You said "You can’t ban what emerges naturally" and stated "this was shown" in the research, but the research does not show that. It shows that cartels can emerge naturally rather than via deliberate collusion. That's all. It says nothing about being able to ban them.
      - EGreg 2y ago
        Can you define “ban them”? If you mean “promulgate a prohibition about them” then sure. You can ban them. If you mean “successfully ban them”, ie “eliminate them to nearly zero occurrences” as I meant it, then no, you can’t. Show me an example where naturally emergent GROUP phenomena that were constantly emerging from widely distributed natural behavior, were successfully banned. The only way it has ever been reduced is by introducing alternatives that were just as good. Such as making the Impossible Burger widely available rather than banning meat. Or making electric cars instead of banning fossil fuel usage in vehicles.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Show me an example where naturally emergent GROUP phenomena that were constantly emerging from widely distributed natural behavior, were successfully banned. Sure, if we're ditching mathematical certainty now. The American auto market, where the emergent group phenomenon of making unsafe cars (and millions of consumers purchasing them) despite things like seatbelts being available was addressed very successfully via regulation requiring those safety features. Or smoking cigarettes, which was largely eradicated in public without even needing an outright ban.