Drug Decriminalization in Portugal

[prole]

commies just need bullets, a secret police service, and open pits in the woods

[video:youtube]

[JayB]

I didn't grant anyone "the capacity to arrest, imprison, dispossess, detain" (besides to the judicial and police institutions through my elected officials). I only showed that your so-called freedom amounted to the freedom of plutocrats to manipulate, distort and control human impulses, which is nothing more than commercial propaganda that you otherwise have no problem identifying in some instances. Between corporocracy masquerading as the pursuit of free will (the so-called libertarian model) and democracy by and for the people, it is a no-brainer.

 

Nope, you didn't grant them - those are all powers that the one and only entity likely to enforce the kinds of restrictions that you are evidently in favor of.

 

I never talked about restrictions even though restrictions already do exist (despite your behaving as if it were impossible) such as in adverts for children and regarding subliminal advertising. Furthermore, if anyone is for restrictions it is likely to be you for I suspect you want to keep the control of media in the hands of the highest bidder, i.e. mega-corporations, all in the name of “freedom” of course.

 

It's clear that advertising is only one mode of knowledge transmission that has the potential to lead individuals into making choices that others deem contrary to their self interest. Clubs, religions, schools, sewing circles, gossip, etc - singling out advertising that meets existing rules against fraud, etc seems a bit arbitrary. If exposure to other modes of communication also put people at risk for making choices contrary to their externally determined self interest, what argument can you make against granting the same entity to power to restrict any means of disseminating information that meets your "known to be harmful to their self-interest" test? If you argue against doing so, I hope you'll be careful enough to construct an argument that isn't at odds with your position on advertising.

 

 

Clubs, religion, sewing circles etc ... don’t have a virtual monopoly on coming into your home and brain uninvited to keep repeating the same manipulative messages.

 

I'm also still curious about the mechanisms that you'd like to external agent determining and enforcing an choices that are in an individual's self interest use to make such distinction and impose them. E.g. how to distinguish someone duped into making a given decision by a corporocracy and someone who is making a choice consistent with real, objectively identifiable free will? Also, if a choice can be empirically determined to be driven by authentic free will, but has also been determined to be objective counter to the said person's self-interest, what would you still be comfortable for the external-self-interest-determiner using its power to prevent him from acting?

 

There is no need for anyone to make such distinctions and any solution has to account for the role of media in society. I haven’t given lots of thought to this topic but off hand I’d say it should involve the break up media conglomerates and the enabling of media that do not resort to advertising techniques distorting perception, cognition, motivation, etc …

 

Well, after you have dedicated an appropriate amount of thought to this question and have figured how the government can objectively determine what constitutes every individual's real vs illusory self interest in practice, how they can best enforce these distinctions, and how all communication can best be monitored and restricted in order to prevent individuals from being exposed to, formulating, and or believing in notions of their self interest that vary with those that the government has decided for them - I hope that you'll post all of the details here. Should be fascinating.

 

 

 

[JayB]

Is there something special about you that renders you immune to its effects and thereby permits you to exist as an autonomous dissident amongst the great grazing herd? If so, how did you acquire those qualities, and is this a status that others can attain independently?

 

you aren't really arguing for educated masses, are you? Doesn't this financial crisis show that even the experts are fucking retarded?

 

I think that Nassim Taleb's analysis is the most compelling.

 

Worth listening to:

 

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/04/taleb_on_black.html

 

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/03/taleb_on_the_fi.html

 

 

His central explanation for exactly how-and-why extremely intelligent people made such bad decisions regarding risk and leverage is that they based their decisions on statistical models of reality which assumed that all events which influence financial risk (e.g., reality) obey simple gaussian distributions for long periods of time.

 

Kind of like looking at the aggregate historical data for average temperature, wind-speed and precipitation on Rainier in the summer and concluding that it'll be safe to take the family on a hike up to Muir without worrying about or preparing for bad weather.

 

Very Hayekian in his warnings about the perils of confusing representations of reality based on sets of statistical aggregates with the real thing.

 

 

[Kimmo]

His central explanation for exactly how-and-why extremely intelligent people made such bad decisions regarding risk and leverage is that they based their decisions on statistical models of reality which assumed that all events which influence financial risk (e.g., reality) obey simple gaussian distributions for long periods of time.

 

"extremely intelligent"? that's kind of a funny assertion....i guess "intelligent" can mean many different things to different people.

 

Very Hayekian in his warnings about the perils of confusing representations of reality based on sets of statistical aggregates with the real thing.

 

what i always loved about hayek was his buddhist sensibility.

[PhöQ]

[prole]

Very Hayekian in his warnings about the perils of confusing representations of reality based on sets of statistical aggregates with the real thing.

 

Saying anything is "Hayekian" these days as if it's a good thing and has some connection to reality has got to be up for some irony award or something. Hilarious! Thanks.

[prole]

His central explanation for exactly how-and-why extremely intelligent people made such bad decisions regarding risk and leverage is that they based their decisions on statistical models of reality which assumed that all events which influence financial risk (e.g., reality) obey simple gaussian distributions for long periods of time.

 

"extremely intelligent"? that's kind of a funny assertion....i guess "intelligent" can mean many different things to different people.

 

 

The Harvard wunderkinds (a.k.a. “the best and the brightest”) who followed President John F. Kennedy into the White House in 1961 hung around the map tables long enough to point the country in the direction of the Vietnam War. Henry Kissinger, another Harvard prodigy, imparted to American statecraft the modus operandi of a Mafia cartel. The Reagan Administration imported its book of revelation from the University of Chicago’s School of Economics (“privatization” the watchword, “unfettered free market” the Christian name for Zeus) and by so doing set in motion what lately has come to be seen as a long- running Ponzi scheme. Take into account the Ivy League’s contributions to the Bush Administration—Attorney General John Ashcroft (Yale), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Princeton), director of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (Harvard)—and I can imagine a doctoral thesis commissioned by the Kennedy School of Government and meant to determine which of the country’s leading institutions of higher learning over the past fifty years has done the most damage to the health and happiness of the American people.--from "Achievetrons" in Harper's, March 2009

[JayB]

His central explanation for exactly how-and-why extremely intelligent people made such bad decisions regarding risk and leverage is that they based their decisions on statistical models of reality which assumed that all events which influence financial risk (e.g., reality) obey simple gaussian distributions for long periods of time.

 

"extremely intelligent"? that's kind of a funny assertion....i guess "intelligent" can mean many different things to different people.

 

Very Hayekian in his warnings about the perils of confusing representations of reality based on sets of statistical aggregates with the real thing.

 

what i always loved about hayek was his buddhist sensibility.

 

I think that virtually all of the folks that constructed the mathematical models used to quantify various kinds of financial risk, as in the paper below, would qualify as extremely intelligent.

 

"On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach

 

by David X. Li of The RiskMetrics Group

 

April 2000

 

Abstract: This paper studies the problem of default correlation. We first introduce a random variable called "time-until-default" to denote the survival time of each defaultable entity or financial instrument, and define the default correlation between two credit risks as the correlation coefficient between their survival times. Then we argue why a copula function approach should be used to specify the joint distribution of survival times after marginal distributions of survival times are derived from market information, such as risky bond prices or asset swap spreads. The definition and some basic properties of copula functions are given. We show that the current CreditMetrics approach to default correlation through asset correlation is equivalent to using a normal copula function. Finally, we give some numerical examples to illustrate the use of copula functions in the valuation of some credit derivatives, such as credit default swaps and first-to-default contracts.

 

JEL Classification: G13, C41.

 

Published in: Journal of Fixed Income, Vol. 9, No. 4, (March 2000), pp. 43-54."

 

Having said that, there's a distinction between intelligence and, say, wisdom - which is what I think that you must be getting at. Smart - yes. Wise - no.

[JayB]

Very Hayekian in his warnings about the perils of confusing representations of reality based on sets of statistical aggregates with the real thing.

 

Saying anything is "Hayekian" these days as if it's a good thing and has some connection to reality has got to be up for some irony award or something. Hilarious! Thanks.

 

This comment takes us waaaay into recursive irony-loops here, no?

 

It's far from clear to me that you:

 

- Have actually read any Hayek, much less enough to fully acquaint yourself with his ideas.

 

- Are capable of understanding them, even after doing the requisite reading.

 

- Have the capacity to make technically and logically sound critiques of his central ideas, even if you've done the reading and understand his central arguments.

 

Normally I'd hedge any statements like these, since I'd classify myself as a complete dilettante who's only read a fraction of his output and who has a very shallow understanding of his work. After reading what you've had to say on various topics, though, it's clear that no such qualifying statements are necessary.

 

However - prove me wrong and resolve the information problem at the heart of his ideas, and the world will beat a path to your door!

 

Let me know how it goes.

[j_b]

Well, after you have dedicated an appropriate amount of thought to this question and have figured how the government can objectively determine what constitutes every individual's real vs illusory self interest in practice, how they can best enforce these distinctions, and how all communication can best be monitored and restricted in order to prevent individuals from being exposed to, formulating, and or believing in notions of their self interest that vary with those that the government has decided for them - I hope that you'll post all of the details here. Should be fascinating.

 

You can repeat what I have already answered several times, it won't make it anymore true. The dynamics of this exchange encapsulate failry well most exchanges with JayB: never expect a specific answer to arguments put forward, always expect a repeat of what you already answered in your previous post.

[j_b]

Truly intelligent people know that castle of cards always collapse in due time. Some may take the unethical route and profit from it while the going is good knowing full well that someone has to end up holding the bag, but anyone who believed that rampant speculation and paper wealth were sustainable cannot be said to be intelligent.

[Kimmo]

"On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach

 

by David X. Li of The RiskMetrics Group

 

April 2000

 

Abstract: This paper studies the problem of default correlation. We first introduce a random variable called "time-until-default" to denote the survival time of each defaultable entity or financial instrument, and define the default correlation between two credit risks as the correlation coefficient between their survival times. Then we argue why a copula function approach should be used to specify the joint distribution of survival times after marginal distributions of survival times are derived from market information, such as risky bond prices or asset swap spreads. The definition and some basic properties of copula functions are given. We show that the current CreditMetrics approach to default correlation through asset correlation is equivalent to using a normal copula function. Finally, we give some numerical examples to illustrate the use of copula functions in the valuation of some credit derivatives, such as credit default swaps and first-to-default contracts.

 

JEL Classification: G13, C41.

 

Published in: Journal of Fixed Income, Vol. 9, No. 4, (March 2000), pp. 43-54."

 

i'm not sure if you are posting the above as evidence of your point, or mine....

 

 

[JayB]

Well, after you have dedicated an appropriate amount of thought to this question and have figured how the government can objectively determine what constitutes every individual's real vs illusory self interest in practice, how they can best enforce these distinctions, and how all communication can best be monitored and restricted in order to prevent individuals from being exposed to, formulating, and or believing in notions of their self interest that vary with those that the government has decided for them - I hope that you'll post all of the details here. Should be fascinating.

 

You can repeat what I have already answered several times, it won't make it anymore true. The dynamics of this exchange encapsulate failry well most exchanges with JayB: never expect a specific answer to arguments put forward, always expect a repeat of what you already answered in your previous post.

 

Just to be clear - this:

"There is no need for anyone to make such distinctions and any solution has to account for the role of media in society. I haven’t given lots of thought to this topic but off hand I’d say it should involve the break up media conglomerates and the enabling of media that do not resort to advertising techniques distorting perception, cognition, motivation, etc …"

 

constitutes the answer-in-the-previous-post that you are referring to, no?

[JayB]

"On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach

 

by David X. Li of The RiskMetrics Group

 

April 2000

 

Abstract: This paper studies the problem of default correlation. We first introduce a random variable called "time-until-default" to denote the survival time of each defaultable entity or financial instrument, and define the default correlation between two credit risks as the correlation coefficient between their survival times. Then we argue why a copula function approach should be used to specify the joint distribution of survival times after marginal distributions of survival times are derived from market information, such as risky bond prices or asset swap spreads. The definition and some basic properties of copula functions are given. We show that the current CreditMetrics approach to default correlation through asset correlation is equivalent to using a normal copula function. Finally, we give some numerical examples to illustrate the use of copula functions in the valuation of some credit derivatives, such as credit default swaps and first-to-default contracts.

 

JEL Classification: G13, C41.

 

Published in: Journal of Fixed Income, Vol. 9, No. 4, (March 2000), pp. 43-54."

 

i'm not sure if you are posting the above as evidence of your point, or mine....

 

 

I'd be willing to wager that the author of the above would crush both of us on an IQ test, so if we're talking about precise definitions of what the word intelligence means, then probably not yours. If you're using the term as a proxy for qualities like wisdom, sound judgment, etc that don't necessarily have anything to do with IQ, then perhaps your claim that the guys working in this field aren't very intelligent would be more meaningful.

 

 

 

 

[Kimmo]

 

I'd be willing to wager that the author of the above would crush both of us on an IQ test, so if we're talking about precise definitions of what the word intelligence means, then probably not yours.

 

if i will for a moment assume to know what you are talking about in the rather vague and contorted sentence above, then it sounds like this would logically lead into the ol' "what does 'intelligence' mean" discussion . it sounds like you might assume to know already, but for me, "precise definitions" are a bit harder to come by (and certainly not indicated by the administration of an iq test).

 

in other words, your assumption about a "precise definition" even existing (no matter what world you live in) is patently false.