3 ms·

Excuse me please, Sir. This is just language mumbo-jumbo you're playing here... slicing and dicing things that can be interpreted in any fashion you want to. My

Excuse me please, Sir. This is just language mumbo-jumbo you're playing here... slicing and dicing things that can be interpreted in any fashion you want to. My points are perfectly valid: that aggregation of power in the U.S. financial system has led to hazards and that a comparison to developing nations can lead to insights on power abuse. The next time you slice and dice me like this I'll call it out for what it is: trolling. You can't just take apart sentences and push them back slanted with any angle you want to spin on them. Further, the decisiveness in which you answer, e.g. "you could call it pony", 5 x "you're wrong", "uselessly", "hope is not a plan" is inappropriate. You are not on solid ground yet your language suggests so. I have been to graduate school in economics at one of the best schools in the world. My friendly language in which I try to accommodate other views is not an invitation to ignite fickle territorial battles. Geez, this is getting narrow-minded.

anamax 18y ago
> that aggregation of power in the U.S. financial system has led to hazards Yes. > and that a comparison to developing nations can lead to insights on power abuse. You've yet to show that the different aggregations have any useful similarity. You've misstated what the IMF does, you've misstated the IMF's success rate, and you've ignored how IMF folk have been involved. > The next time you slice and dice me like this I'll call it out for what it is: trolling. "call it out"? Playground. (Also, that's not what trolling means.) Yes, I'm being blunt, but you're babbling. There's a good reason why you're not citing any supporting facts. We're currently at I'm mean but correct and you're nice and wrong. I can live with that. > You can't just take apart sentences and push them back slanted with any angle you want to spin on them. Feel free to show how I've twisted your words or made factual errors.
- christofd 18y ago
  I have not misstated what the IMF does, I have not pegged the IMF to a defined success rate nor have I ignored or somehow covered up involvement of IMF staff. I know that you could interpret that I might have meant that, but I did not exactly say that. Overly aggressive or pointed responses on discussion boards do count as trolling in my book. Regarding these quick cut-and-paste responses of yours: I could write a simple program that extracts a sentence with a high density of technical words, then puts a forward arrow before it, trails it with a linefeed and then inserts a random response, such as "you're babbling" or "you're wrong", or just states the opposite of the statement (that's more difficult). How about a coherent response using the English language? I don't need to point out how exactly different aggregations of power have any useful similarity, since we are still in research mode here. My central point remains valid (we need all the input we can get), and actually so does yours, which was about questioning the track record of the IMF.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > I have not misstated what the IMF does, I have not pegged the IMF to a defined success rate Who wrote "Who could provide better advice than an organization that routinely deals with these kinds of failures?" I'll admit to assuming that the author meant "successfully deals", but I'll be happy to retract if said author elaborates to "unsuccessfully deals" and explains why failures in unrelated situations are a qualification in ours. > Overly aggressive or pointed responses on discussion boards do count as trolling in my book. And if your usage was definitive, that would be enough. Feel free to use personal definitions, but if you're going to communicate with other people.... I note that you still haven't shown where I'm wrong or supported your "facts". > I don't need to point out how exactly different aggregations of power have any useful similarity Sure you do, because there are many tools for "aggregations of power", but the vast majority are irrelevant because of the characteristics of said tools, power, and/or aggregations. > My central point remains valid (we need all the input we can get) We don't need "all the input we can get". We need to avoid the irrelevant/useless because processing input has a cost. > we are still in research mode here If you really think that justifies any random factoid, then a list of the phone numbers from US cities would also be worthwhile. I was sympathetic to the idea that the IMF might be useful until I started looking into it. If you think that the IMF is useful in our situation, details matter.
    - christofd 18y ago
      You keep on insisting that "more data" is a bad idea. Economics has a long tradition of learning from Economic History and comparative observation. I can't resist quoting Google here, that "more data" is the way to go, as Norvig argues (slightly out of context; field is machine-learning): http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_intelligent/intelligent/homepage/2009/x2exp.pdf http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_intelligent/intellig... I'm more or less arguing for that the IMF, or any other org. in those waters, has a lot of rich data in their possession. Well, here's an example: I worked for three years on a government-funded survey on "barter networks in Eastern Europe", where I did the number crunching on the data set... regression analysis, multivariate statistics etc. This resulted in one of the first extensive studies on contract theory in barter networks (http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-Trade-Transition-Resurgence-Barter/dp/0262133997 http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-Trade-Transition-Resurgence-...). Basically in absence of cash to keep trade flowing you barter. Now if the U.S. financial system breaks down to the point where nobody can pay their suppliers and vendors etc. they'll have to pay each other with parts and other barter derivatives, passing around IOUs. Turns out, somebody looked at this and it works on a grand scale and even across borders. Anyway, there are lots of crazy ideas that you can try out and experiment with, looking at a rich data set of failed nations. I remember how expensive it was compiling all that data on barter networks (granted, we did the legwork; data was not from the IMF). Regarding "abuse through power aggregation in developing nations" I don't have an example right now, on how that directly applies to the U.S. situation.

anamax 18y ago

> that aggregation of power in the U.S. financial system has led to hazards Yes. > and that a comparison to developing nations can lead to insights on power abuse. You've yet to show that the different aggregations have any useful similarity. You've misstated what the IMF does, you've misstated the IMF's success rate, and you've ignored how IMF folk have been involved. > The next time you slice and dice me like this I'll call it out for what it is: trolling. "call it out"? Playground. (Also, that's not what trolling means.) Yes, I'm being blunt, but you're babbling. There's a good reason why you're not citing any supporting facts. We're currently at I'm mean but correct and you're nice and wrong. I can live with that. > You can't just take apart sentences and push them back slanted with any angle you want to spin on them. Feel free to show how I've twisted your words or made factual errors.

christofd 18y ago
I have not misstated what the IMF does, I have not pegged the IMF to a defined success rate nor have I ignored or somehow covered up involvement of IMF staff. I know that you could interpret that I might have meant that, but I did not exactly say that. Overly aggressive or pointed responses on discussion boards do count as trolling in my book. Regarding these quick cut-and-paste responses of yours: I could write a simple program that extracts a sentence with a high density of technical words, then puts a forward arrow before it, trails it with a linefeed and then inserts a random response, such as "you're babbling" or "you're wrong", or just states the opposite of the statement (that's more difficult). How about a coherent response using the English language? I don't need to point out how exactly different aggregations of power have any useful similarity, since we are still in research mode here. My central point remains valid (we need all the input we can get), and actually so does yours, which was about questioning the track record of the IMF.
- anamax 18y ago
  > I have not misstated what the IMF does, I have not pegged the IMF to a defined success rate Who wrote "Who could provide better advice than an organization that routinely deals with these kinds of failures?" I'll admit to assuming that the author meant "successfully deals", but I'll be happy to retract if said author elaborates to "unsuccessfully deals" and explains why failures in unrelated situations are a qualification in ours. > Overly aggressive or pointed responses on discussion boards do count as trolling in my book. And if your usage was definitive, that would be enough. Feel free to use personal definitions, but if you're going to communicate with other people.... I note that you still haven't shown where I'm wrong or supported your "facts". > I don't need to point out how exactly different aggregations of power have any useful similarity Sure you do, because there are many tools for "aggregations of power", but the vast majority are irrelevant because of the characteristics of said tools, power, and/or aggregations. > My central point remains valid (we need all the input we can get) We don't need "all the input we can get". We need to avoid the irrelevant/useless because processing input has a cost. > we are still in research mode here If you really think that justifies any random factoid, then a list of the phone numbers from US cities would also be worthwhile. I was sympathetic to the idea that the IMF might be useful until I started looking into it. If you think that the IMF is useful in our situation, details matter.
  - christofd 18y ago
    You keep on insisting that "more data" is a bad idea. Economics has a long tradition of learning from Economic History and comparative observation. I can't resist quoting Google here, that "more data" is the way to go, as Norvig argues (slightly out of context; field is machine-learning): http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_intelligent/intelligent/homepage/2009/x2exp.pdf http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_intelligent/intellig... I'm more or less arguing for that the IMF, or any other org. in those waters, has a lot of rich data in their possession. Well, here's an example: I worked for three years on a government-funded survey on "barter networks in Eastern Europe", where I did the number crunching on the data set... regression analysis, multivariate statistics etc. This resulted in one of the first extensive studies on contract theory in barter networks (http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-Trade-Transition-Resurgence-Barter/dp/0262133997 http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-Trade-Transition-Resurgence-...). Basically in absence of cash to keep trade flowing you barter. Now if the U.S. financial system breaks down to the point where nobody can pay their suppliers and vendors etc. they'll have to pay each other with parts and other barter derivatives, passing around IOUs. Turns out, somebody looked at this and it works on a grand scale and even across borders. Anyway, there are lots of crazy ideas that you can try out and experiment with, looking at a rich data set of failed nations. I remember how expensive it was compiling all that data on barter networks (granted, we did the legwork; data was not from the IMF). Regarding "abuse through power aggregation in developing nations" I don't have an example right now, on how that directly applies to the U.S. situation.