chermi

6 ms·

91.
by chermi 2mo ago
My uncle told me not to smoke, but he's a smoker so I didn't listen.
92.
by chermi 2mo ago
That's true of basically all economists' predictions of technology. But he does a lot more than state predictions, his numbers and breakdowns and decompositioba are valuable in themselves.
93.
by chermi 2mo ago
But why? I don't know of a case where biofuels aren't a disaster against the stated environmental purpose. Bailouts for farmers? Sure. A good way to generate green energy? I think engineered algae comes kind of close to making
94.
by chermi 2mo ago
That's kind of my point. It is a stretch that's called lying. Why not just relax the claim instead of insisting the world understands it's hyperbole
95.
by chermi 2mo ago
I don't like false statements, fuck me right? Accurate models of reality matter. If you stick to the belief that 100% of trump presidency is negative, you will eliminate from your options the policies that were positive.
96.
by chermi 2mo ago
Yes those are all good things. Tariffs aren't the only and almost never are the most sustainable long-term way to get them. I'm not old enough to remember the protections against japanese cars, but I know they didn't solve
97.
by chermi 2mo ago
Nuclear stuff. btw what's more probable - every single thing that has been done under this presidency is unambiguously negative, or it's mostly negative? It's so easy to just NOT take the most extreme stance, and almost cert
98.
by chermi 2mo ago
Ok cool let's go back to then and cut the budget to match. Sounds like a decent tradeoff to me I guess. I would prefer a more incremental experiment though. I'm not a free market fundamentalist. I also don't think we ever ha
99.
by chermi 2mo ago
I didn't say tariffs were necessarily regressive, my (poorly made) point was that renaming tariffs taxes doesn't really change the problem with them. Edit- but I would be shocked if the net effect of Trump's tariffs weren&#x2
100.
by chermi 2mo ago
Trump and MAGA also won elections. My point is winning with a shitty plan is not smartening up, unless your only goal is winning the current election. The Republicans committed suicide, we saw it live.
101.
by chermi 2mo ago
Tariff is a naughty word because of its proven negative side(main) effects. Not all taxes are equal. Regressive ones suck.
102.
by chermi 2mo ago
Not absolutely everything. You can make a very strong negative claim without hyperbole, and be a more trusted source in the process.
103.
by chermi 2mo ago
Create and serve better products more efficiently while the US insists preserving unproductive jobs and banning progress is more important than growth and affordability. Learn from what they did well and what they did poorly, copy the good
104.
by chermi 2mo ago
"Now, the US is simply able to renege or renegotiate the bilateral deals whenever he feels like it, forcing the other party to face down the US by themselves" This won't last. There are consequences for behavior on all scales
105.
by chermi 2mo ago
Smartening up in the sense of winning elections? Or serving their constituents?
106.
by chermi 2mo ago
A UN declared right is not legally binding in general AFAIK. Assuming I'm correct, your comment is non sequitur. Not that I agree at all what happened.
107.
by chermi 2mo ago
Pricing externalities is not a feature unique to LTV. Is your position that your pricing is not more "optimal" than market based pricing? Just because you're using moral terms doesn't mean you're not making a value
108.
by chermi 2mo ago
Did you forget about the all of the evidence from other systems? No economic system will satisfy everyone. In the meantime I prefer one that is (more) determined by individual preference and motive vs one relying on experts who swear it wi
109.
by chermi 2mo ago
Well I have a lot to say but I don't see much use. Just to restare 1) LTV is correct because it correlates with the system you disagree with and that it's superior to? 2) The best evidence overturning all of the consensus and evid
110.
by chermi 2mo ago
So the purpose of prices is to comply with LTV? Prices carry information from individual needs and desires in markets. And incentive production to meet that demand. What do they do in your system? My understanding from this thread and the
111.
by chermi 2mo ago
every system does != every system relies on it to the same extent.
112.
by chermi 2mo ago
Ok, so the purpose of prices to you is not to convey information about what's needed?
113.
by chermi 2mo ago
Are you saying the validity of the LTV is a 60 citation comment paper who's metric of correctness is correlation with market prices? And we just ignore everything else?
114.
by chermi 2mo ago
oops meant energy - entropy balance
115.
by chermi 2mo ago
Well first let's agree on terms. What do you think the purpose of a price is? What should it represent?
116.
by chermi 2mo ago
But why would you base anything on an incorrect theory? If you value things by LTV, you're not going to like the results.
117.
by chermi 2mo ago
Are you claiming the pricing problem is solved? That you can set prices without the information gained from market?
118.
by chermi 2mo ago
I will always upvote shalizi. obligatory https://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/
119.
by chermi 2mo ago
The fix is to realize that if your system requires changing human behavior you should downweight it against alternatives
120.
by chermi 2mo ago
That last part is a good reminder just how much we judge things relatively rather than absolutely. Did they say anything about 1-2 years after ? Edit just say the survey only covered during the payments

More ›