sillygoose

15 ms·

61.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Well, it's not like anyone's here to bitch at us for being off-topic anymore.. ? Any ideas, then?
62.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Yeah, we can agree that utility is non-linear. What we haven't established yet is: "so what?" :) > I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else
63.
by sillygoose 11y ago
What strawman? You supported the idea of detaining people on any suspicion . I suggested that there's no point in going down that road because anyone could be a threat anywhere. Sure, sometimes someone is suspicious because he's
64.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Better incentives? An incentive is just something that drives you towards a certain course of action. How can one be better than another? Isn't the act what matters? The choices we make can be moral, amoral, or immoral. Incentives aren
65.
by sillygoose 11y ago
> As long as we delude ourselves into believing that the system can be made to work with just the right combination of rules and checks (in other words, as long as we delude ourselves into thinking that markets aren't dynamic and d
66.
by sillygoose 11y ago
> Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing. That's exactly why it's a better foundation for economic conclusions. Why would you keep requesting evidence even after acknowledging that there's evidence every whic
67.
by sillygoose 11y ago
You're talking about something like marginal utility. The first $10 used towards satisfying a certain want are more effective than the next $10. For example, if you're really hankering for an apple and you eat one, that apple wi
68.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Anyone could be a psychopath too, and highly dangerous. I guess they should detain everyone just in case, and grill them for hours. Of course, it's not like a psychopath could lie convincingly so that he could proceed with his evil pla
69.
by sillygoose 11y ago
You're right. But to be more accurate, who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organization that beheads innocent bystanders because they're infidels or something? Usually, a "terrorist" is an
70.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Do ordinary people want to fight in a war, when the best possible outcome for them is getting back alive? If not, how would democracy make them any less willing to wage wars?
71.
by sillygoose 11y ago
There's too much to unpack in what you wrote. Again, define "efficiency", and while you're at it, define "utility" too and what it means that it's "non-linear" for capital.
72.
by sillygoose 11y ago
> There is no right to free speech in the UK. Yes, and that's.. what? Not acceptable, but not resisted anyway? Do you think "putting scrutiny" [1] on people who support terrorism is fine, but imprisoning people for a tw
73.
by sillygoose 11y ago
> I should note that money didn't "just emerge". Gold and silver sure as hell did, and that's what I was referring to, which I'm pretty sure you saw anyway, especially considering you brought up gold too. Actua
74.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Think of it this way: there's a market for favours given through the use of political power. The problem isn't the existence of "market economics", but rather the existence of this particular market .
75.
by sillygoose 11y ago
We're told governments are of the people and for the people and so on, but the reality is that they keep doing things they know are against our interests, and any time the people resist, the government's response is always tearg
76.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Why that would be the people to whose power your speech might be a threat in some way, of course. Coincidentally, that's exactly when you need to be punished for "misusing" your free speech.
77.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Sneaking laws in when no one's looking, without a public discussion is pretty much standard practice in all democracies. It's clear they know the masses would object to those laws, but our representatives pass them anyway. May
78.
by sillygoose 11y ago
.. With highly silly wigs!
79.
by sillygoose 11y ago
"Just look at what these loonies are doing! We can't have people openly supporting the slaughter of innocent people and baby seals. They are undermining the values we hold dear, and corrupting the youth with their hateful message
80.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Kings and "Nobility" were a ruling class, but we wouldn't accept them anymore. Elected (or not) "representatives" and a bunch of central bankers are another, but they're just fine.
81.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Pretty cool.
82.
by sillygoose 11y ago
> Well, that's just plain wrong. You're conflating money and wealth. They're different things. Money is just created to reflect wealth: it's literally just invented by your government (or, in the case of Bitcoin, jus
83.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either. You wa
84.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Evidence? Isn't reasoning enough? Or do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?
85.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Some people would stop working just because it would be kind of silly not to, considering their circumstances. Some other people would stop working because why bother when those lazy scumbags aren't doing anything either, and others wo
86.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Taking away someone's money to give it to someone else IS actually a zero-sum game. Of course, bureaucratic waste and/or graft makes it actually a negative-sum game. Two people trading with each other is not, because both perc
87.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Yes, the money comes from taxes, and no one wants to pay them. There's a limit to how many percent of someone's income you can take away before he stops working. There's also a limit to how much people are willing to pay in p
88.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Decades of increasingly large and seemingly free lunches have gotten us to a point where people actually think there is such a thing. But there isn't. The money has always had to come from somewhere, and it's always had conseque
89.
by sillygoose 11y ago
Or you could call it something like "Free Money Forever", because that's what its proponents seem to think they'd be getting, as if the money didn't have to come from somewhere. How many people have any clue as to w
90.
by sillygoose 11y ago
>> I don't think more resources or less fragmentation would change anything regarding the situation above Well, as far as I can tell, lots of Linux people are hipstery special little snowflakes and fork things because some smal

More ›