Pages:
Author

Topic: Economic Devastation - page 73. (Read 504811 times)

G2M
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
Activity: 616
May 30, 2015, 01:03:01 PM
P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

Perhaps, it's not something that can be taught.

Like, trying to explain that the pilonidal cyst one had suffered from decades ago was an artifact of evolution, the...contagion...that becomes a part of natural mental sight is something that can't be taught more than incrementally in a lifetime.

It would explain why people of all intelligence levels and backgrounds are drawn to your explanations.

Hey, call me a marxist you doofus!

coinits, his point was that the ip obfuscation will lead to knowledge of monero usage, and quantum computing resistance will lead to adequate transaction tracing. It's not 100% anonymity, which is why we've barely been able to convince anyone holding something as dumb as dash to drop their stash and pick up monero.

The centralization lies in the fact that mining relies on botnets. I mean did you even see the 4m hash that just up and left? that's almost a third of the network that had the basic ability any miner has to perform a tx witholding from the network, yet chose not to. It's like arguing because you don't have cancer, you're far from having cancer.
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1019
011110000110110101110010
May 30, 2015, 12:55:57 PM
Monero solves all of the problems you describe. The new decentralized anonymous crypto already exists.

No it has essentially the same centralization issues as all crypto-coins currently do.

Monero has one aspect of the anonymity (but I argue not even the adequate IP obfuscation, nor quantum computing resistance)

now that we have money types that can navigate around these monopolies

Which money can resist takeover by centralization?

Sorry I don't see any such money that exists, not even gold.

You nor anyone on this planet can trace a Monero transaction unless the parties involved allow them to. That is anonymity. It is far from centralized. No one can tell how many Monero that I have accumulated, if any Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 30, 2015, 12:49:28 PM
Monero solves all of the problems you describe. The new decentralized anonymous crypto already exists.

No it has essentially the same centralization issues as all crypto-coins currently do.

Monero has one aspect of the anonymity (but I argue not even the adequate IP obfuscation, nor quantum computing resistance)

now that we have money types that can navigate around these monopolies

Which money can resist takeover by centralization?

Sorry I don't see any such money that exists, not even gold.
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1019
011110000110110101110010
May 30, 2015, 12:45:06 PM
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 30, 2015, 12:27:53 PM

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.


The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Quote
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

that "Law" was constructed in the context of a debt-based fiat system in which money printing is central and of which Bitcoin is NOT.  hence, our optimism that we can change things for the better.  does optimism always have to be unrealistic?

The People demand fractional reserves debt. If you deny this fact, then let's go down that rabbit hole such as using the 1800s as an example where the People demanded debt from the private, decentralized banks. Otherwise I assume you accept this fact.

The State and its mandate to regulate legal tender exists because there is a power vacuum on which entity will regulate fractional reserves and backstop the economy when the fractional reserves periodically implode with the business cycle.

We had decentralized money in the 1800s and we can clearly see it ended with the bankruptcy of the USA wherein JP Morgan had to bailout the country (which led to the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913).

A power vacuum means that the system in decentralized mode can't squelch some undesired activity (e.g. counterfeiting a.k.a. fractional reserves) without some entity being given the monopoly on force (i.e. Max Weber's canonical definition of the State).

The regulation of fractional reserves is a collective power vacuum that will always exist under any technological paradigm including Bitcoin (unless we can argue that humans will no longer have use for debt).

Thus you have transposed (i.e. conflated) causality (cause and effect). The demand for centralized control over legal tender derives from individual self-interest that Bitcoin does not alter.

Thus Bitcoin is a power vacuum because it can't resist centralization and the People's self-interest in debt implicitly demands the State to maintain force over regulating finance.

I explained in the Economic Devastation thread that I think the demand for debt in the Knowledge Age may diminish, because I explained in great detail in one of my essays linked from the opening post of that thread that knowledge production can't be financed.

Our problem however, is that most humans are not ready to transition to the Knowledge Age work and they will continue to demand debt and Industrial Age jobs (or the government to subsidize failure to obtain such a job).

The only way we cross the chasm without falling into an totalitarian abyss along the way, is a newly designed crypto-currency for the fledgling Knowledge Age that can resist attack by the State because the People implicitly (due to their self-interest in debt and subsidies) demand the State to maintain a monopoly on force.

Bitcoin can only serve the NWO because it does not have immutable qualities of decentralization and anonymity. You are hoping for a mass awakening (to defend Bitcoin and maintain its decentralization) but that is impossible because the individual self-interest of each of the People are misaligned with such global optimization.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 30, 2015, 11:49:30 AM

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.


The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Quote
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 30, 2015, 03:24:46 AM
To all those who I offended with my "conspiratorial" perspective, I do not dislike any of you (as far I can see so far). Your world view is not the same as mine at this juncture in history (e.g. we might have been more aligned had we met in the 1990s when I was about high tech and there weren't these dark totalitarian clouds on the horizon). I believe you are deluded and you think the same of me. The future will prove who was correct. Good luck.

This might be my last post...

...

Any one who desires to have ongoing communication with me, please keep (permanently) a Bitmessage address on your Bitcointalk profile, make sure you have posted (anything) in one of the 4 threads I have been posting in recently. I will contact you when my free time allows. You must run your Bitmessage at least every other day (old messages are discarded from the network) and make sure you run it on a computer that can't be infected with any virus (i.e. hopefully not the same computer you surf the net from and download porn to!)

Bitmessage is the only means I am aware of for us to communicate where it can't be proven by the NSA whom was talking to whom.

...

Alternatively readers may send me your Bitmessage address in a private message. I can't promise which day I might contact any specific person via Bitmessage, so you would need to run it every other day indefinitely. It is unfortunate, but this is the best there for anonymous communication at this time. And I am very rushed, so my communications need to be prioritized.

Please read my recent posts and ask yourself if you agree with my stance on reality. If so and you want to encourage me to work on a solution (as I contemplate the decision), then feel free to offer to communicate with me in Bitmessage.

Note I am not lacking people interested in encouraging me, so perhaps readers should only request to communicate with me ongoing if they feel they can help.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 30, 2015, 03:00:09 AM
It was written with the same dripping disdain that I'm arguing against to make a point. Probably not a good idea.

Those who miscategorize Common Sense as disdain have lost common sense (ostensibly because they've been deluded by various propaganda as I have explained in the prior few posts).

sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 30, 2015, 01:50:02 AM

Thank you Cypherdoc. You put a lot of effort into that post and it makes your stance clear. I need to be reminded of that noble and inspirational perspective, although I was exposed to it before. The idea that information is spreading now with the internet and thus the masses will suddenly for the first time in human history change how they behave. Ya know, "it is different this time" has always been wrong for 6000 years since Mesopotamia.

Did you know that Napoleon won not because of his military genius but because (the Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword so) he promulgated the idealism that he was liberating the conquered areas from the oppression they were suffering. Later on when it became apparent tha Napoleon was the same oppression they were trying to get rid of, Napoleon began to lose battles.

But never did the masses succeed in eliminating the elite and system of oppression. Some blue bloods were beheaded, but the upper 0.0001% banksters were not touched (they didn't stick around during the French Revolution and they continued on under Napoleon).

The elite always co-op every mass movement. Why? Because collectivism is a power vacuum. It demands that an elite come into that entropic vacuum.

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives. And I have explained upthread that Bitcoin is power vacuum collective, i.e. it can't resist centralization.

So as nice as your theory sounds, it is incorrect. I wish you could agree, but alas some people need to be wrong (or let's say diverse objectives have to be fulfilled) to make a market, because there needs to be both a buyer and seller.

I do agree the general spread of technology improves the quality of life of the people, so there is a benefit to spreading these new technologies which can also be used to enslave us. My point is only that you won't get the revolutionary outcome via Bitcoin rather just more of the same oppression (and worse because of the peaking totalitarianism coming).

For the upper middle class, the only way to avoid expropriation is to find a frontier, technology and a market that is sufficiently large (noting that geographical frontiers and gold are no longer an option), which is can not be centralized, which does not require any ideological groupthink, and in which rather the individual incentives are aligned with no power vacuum.

P.S. the recent examples you cite as cases of the masses rising up were all engineered by the banksters. Do some research. Start with the Benghazi incident and Hillary Clinton's private email server. Dude they have the brains of the masses zombified with Facebook. They can put up anything there on Facebook and drive an overthrow of a government by releasing some corruption via Wikileaks, etc.. There has been a long-standing plan to foment chaos in the Middle East to drive the end of petro-dollar as they prepare the global economic collapse to drive the political result of the one world reserve currency and global Technocracy. The Middle East had to be eliminated as potential safe haven for capital.

The central bank and nation-states reputations are being destroyed on purpose by the banksters in order to usher in the one-world reserve currency solution to that morass.

Larry Summers would not cross over from a $3+ trillion black budget to a measily $10 billion marketcap because he has banked his entire life on the fact that the elite have never lost control ever. The names change, but the paradigm of the Iron Law of Political Economics have no changed in all of recorded human history.

He knows damn well that the elite are in control of Bitcoin and DEEP STATE think tanks know very well that you will fall for these delusions that you have.

In the case critical thinkers such as Peter R, etc, I presume these guys refuse to entertain information they can't prove as in equivalent to a scientific laboratory experiment. They fail to correlate the repeating pattern of history thus they they don't see the corroborating evidence. Thus they remain uncommitted until it is too late to do anything. Sad.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 30, 2015, 01:14:09 AM
Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!   Cheesy

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.

Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.

1. You seem to not be aware that $billions in capital (a lot of it not invested in BTC but rather VC investments in the space) is invested on the future of Bitcoin, and to make the future uncertain causes capital to become risk adverse. Gavin can't wait, because capital has to plan out the future.

2. You seem to assume centralization[1] can't solve every technical issue of scaling higher transaction rates. Wasn't Visa scale the initial goal? Is Visa not centralized? ("Damn it, but we want decentralization and we will early adopters will fork and short NWOcoin" is not a logical retort)

Come on man, come back to reality.

You seem to have developed an overconfidence from your early adopter decision, which you are projecting as correct analysis of the future. But where is the logic?

The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.

You early adopters were bought at a very small cost by the banksters to help them launch the NWOcoin trojan horse. You are now expendable. They have already the inertia they need.

[1] IBLT is a fancy sugar coating on centralization to make geeks wet their pants again (see their Jesus) and be fooled, as they were with the original DEEP STATE whitepaper.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 30, 2015, 12:45:59 AM
Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

Cypherdoc please help me understand you (and others like you).

How do you envision the growth of Bitcoin changing the way sufficient other people behave or think such that this would avoid the current system wherein the individual incentives are aligned with the cartels and oligarchs (a.k.a. the 0.0001%, banksters or TPTB) in a socialism+totalitarian cancer?

My assertion to Justus upthread (on this page) is that the masses don't change via education nor by evolution, rather only by the revolution of suffering a dead end in the road.

Icebreaker seems to think that the minority can impose their will on the majority, but he needs to consider that the upper 0.01% gain their power by aligning their incentives with the lower 50% in collectivism. His minority (which is my minority, i.e. We The Upper Middle Class Knowledge Age Producers) which is perhaps the upper 0.1% or so, will not succeed for as long as we do not align ourselves with a greater proportion of the middle class (the upper 50%).

My plans going forward in crypto (if I do proceed) are about forming that middle class alliance that can lead to overtaking Bitcoin by 2033 as Bitcoin falls into the NWO morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%.

Cypherdoc you and others seem to think Bitcoin can somehow escape that morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%. How so?


Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Obviously it was a "rough" number. It would great if they would both clarify which demographics they are referring to.

Note when I write 0.01% there are is also another upper 1+% or so of the Middle Class that align themselves opportunitistically but this can shift if they shift allegiances. And this is why the TPTB wish to destroy the millionaires, because they are the "parasites" (from the elite's perspective) that drive antifragility (with shifting allegiance) and defy the totalitarian control of the elite.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 29, 2015, 10:50:46 PM
It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

You seem to often conflate orthogonal concerns. We can fight the global cancer which some 50% are individually aligned, while still having their best interests in mind[1].

Mass education...

There is no shortcut.

Paradigms don't shift by educating people to ignore their individual incentives and go for global optimization. Rather the waterfall crashes force the adjustments.

[1]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11462546
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11469562


It is very much expected that the individual incentives are to be more concerned about the Bitcoin price than the greater implications of this totalitarianism and Ross's plight.

Individuals do not prioritize the global optimization of the society, but rather our own selfish incentives.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 29, 2015, 08:28:38 PM

Australia is a member of the Five Eyes nations.

Indeed this shows how desperate they are. As with Napster, they will just drive the movement to anonymity.

出る釘は打たれる (deru kugi wa utareru) - "A nail that sticks out will be hammered"

Ross Ulbricht sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole the harshest sentence possible.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbricht-sentenced-life-prison/

Let's hope we can free him and the others from jail one day in the future, but it won't likely be soon.

Clearly the system is going to attempt to apply maximum punishment on any individual which creates something which has a huge market and is in defiance of the TPTB and their NWO plans.

Quote from: Wired Magazine
“The stated purpose [of the Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. You were captain of the ship, the Dread Pirate Roberts,” she told Ulbricht as she read the sentence, referring to his pseudonym as the Silk Road’s leader. “Silk Road’s birth and presence asserted that its…creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous.”

So assuming I believe I have finally stumbled onto the design for altcoin that would actually scale and resist centralization, I hope you all can understand why I am contemplating whether I should proceed or not.

The interaction here is valuable both in terms of learning about the thoughts, synergies and counter-points, but between personal pressures on me and the overall speed at which the system is progressing towards the totalitarian outcome, it is about time for me to retire from Bitcointalk so I can devote full-time to making some decisions and then working on my chosen direction(s). Note I do have a newly launched fledgling social network to attend to which is demonstrating some traction.

Any one who desires to have ongoing communication with me, please keep (permanently) a Bitmessage address on your Bitcointalk profile, make sure you have posted (anything) in one of the 4 threads I have been posting in recently. I will contact you when my free time allows. You must run your Bitmessage at least every other day (old messages are discarded from the network) and make sure you run it on a computer that can't be infected with any virus (i.e. hopefully not the same computer you surf the net from and download porn to!)

Bitmessage is the only means I am aware of for us to communicate where it can't be proven by the NSA whom was talking to whom.

The anonymity facilities on the internet are sorely lacking. This must change and pronto, if we are to avoid a Dark Age.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
That Darn Cat
May 29, 2015, 08:12:55 PM

This has been one of my most interesting reads in awhile. Thank you.

Really?

like really?

"The Secret Space Program

Those living on Mars will demand payment soon! This involves refineries and mining companies.  Virtually no one knows about this aspect of the programme. Those who do know are afraid to speak out.
All countries are involved in very big debts, because real money went off Earth."

I get SpaceX is been doing incredible things, but we are no where near living on mars lol.

Yeah, living on Mars is in the LONG term future.  I swear, with the amount of these types of threads you would think everyone here wants a permanent second, or third, great depression.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 29, 2015, 08:03:31 PM
出る釘は打たれる (deru kugi wa utareru) - "A nail that sticks out will be hammered"

Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison today without the possibility of parole the harshest sentence possible.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbricht-sentenced-life-prison/

During the sentencing the judge had the following words for Ulbricht

“It (Silk Road) was a carefully planned life’s work. It was your opus,” she said. “You wanted it to be your legacy. And it is.”
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
May 29, 2015, 05:52:34 AM
...

rpietila and vokain

My understanding of the Scriptures is still at a beginning level, but is one of my main foci now.  Thank you for your interesting takes on work and Jesus.  I need to study what you have written some more.

I would agree that the amount of "work" that most of us actually do is quite low.  And working for others (a "job") is not on my radar.  Guys like TPTB who actually are working very hard (and producing) are an anomaly now.

It's honestly quite simple and easy, just 'Do good, be good". That's the only Work we truly have here, otherwise it'll just feel like work (i.e. if you do what you love/love what you do, it won't feel like work in the sense of unpleasantness).
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
May 29, 2015, 04:55:59 AM
Poll shows Rand Paul more competitive against Hillary Cinton than all other republican contenders.

Not a big deal because the primary results are competely cooked. I think it was in California 2008 that every voting district was announced to have voted less than 10% in favor of Ron Paul (and 30%+ of McCain), despite it being common knowledge to everyone there that McCain had next to no support in some districts and Paul had a realistic chance to win the state.

Oh well.. Can't really see myself debating the U.S. voting system, that's a bit away from my core  Roll Eyes Tongue
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1865
May 28, 2015, 09:43:12 PM
...

rpietila and vokain

My understanding of the Scriptures is still at a beginning level, but is one of my main foci now.  Thank you for your interesting takes on work and Jesus.  I need to study what you have written some more.

I would agree that the amount of "work" that most of us actually do is quite low.  And working for others (a "job") is not on my radar.  Guys like TPTB who actually are working very hard (and producing) are an anomaly now.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1865
May 28, 2015, 09:34:02 PM
...

CoinCube

I would also note that Rand Paul is now under heavy fire from other members of the R-Team for his (probably) correct comments on the conservatives being partly responsible for creating ISIS.  At this point, Rand is at least showing the other 18 "R contenders" that he thinks for himself.  He is at least somewhat carrying on the libertarian example of his father.

Disclosure: I actually believe that there IS a dime's worth of difference (but not much more) between Rand Paul and Hillary.  Doubt me?  Well, get back to me if/when President H. Clinton takes the reigns.  Or six months after...

TPTB

I also accept the likely fact (TPTB) that a dime's worth of difference is not very meaningful.  But, a small difference can sometimes lead to big differences in outcome, reference:

Why Nations Fail (Acemoglu and Robinson) 2012

Sometimes small differences make all the difference...

EDIT:

Nice quotation of Linus Torvalds!  Meritocracy on display.  Perhaps people will one day utter your name with similar reverence...

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
Pages:
Jump to: