Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

'The Economy' doesn't seem to be a self-sustaining free mind, when left to it's own devices. Giving it loose reins is just as bad as completely controlling it.

I would say it WAS, up until you add the various ways the foundation, the stock market, can be manipulated through near instantaneous mass, organized buys and selloffs at the right times through computer precision being faster than the market can react in the natural way. So, over a course of lets say 3 months, 2 weeks, whatever the span between a news story that could theoretically affect the market. They buy a bunch of cheap stock through a bunch of different accounts, that are easy to set up through the internet. Because it's 7$ per trade the trading companies make more profit, so it's sort of like hush money. The story breaks, and before the market can react there is a mass, coordinated selling, which makes a huge profit because nothing's been able to affect the market yet. Then, normal investor people see the stock index "suddenly drop" (how many times have you heard on TV "The DOW index suddenly dropped today...) and that influences them to scramble to save whatever profit since the last gain. That will make the stocks continue to dip, (newscaster says "And stock prices continue to fall today in another bad day for the market") until at some point the whole thing starts over again at a slightly higher point than the last low. That's what's probably been causing the market spikes and declines that seem random or tied to events. The people who can do massive transactions in such a scale to influence the market before the current system can register it. The world governments aren't telling us because they have no idea how to fix it without pissing everyone off. Or at least that's what I think. Thoughts on feasibility from those with experience or links?

Not to be rude, but you really don't know much about how stocks are sold, do you?

Enlighten me? You could try doing it through PM's if I made an especially boneheaded mistake and I'll graciously accept it.

I only say try because PM's have been weird on the forum lately.

[flames removed]

[Renault]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

'The Economy' doesn't seem to be a self-sustaining free mind, when left to it's own devices. Giving it loose reins is just as bad as completely controlling it.

I would say it WAS, up until you add the various ways the foundation, the stock market, can be manipulated through near instantaneous mass, organized buys and selloffs at the right times through computer precision being faster than the market can react in the natural way. So, over a course of lets say 3 months, 2 weeks, whatever the span between a news story that could theoretically affect the market. They buy a bunch of cheap stock through a bunch of different accounts, that are easy to set up through the internet. Because it's 7$ per trade the trading companies make more profit, so it's sort of like hush money. The story breaks, and before the market can react there is a mass, coordinated selling, which makes a huge profit because nothing's been able to affect the market yet. Then, normal investor people see the stock index "suddenly drop" (how many times have you heard on TV "The DOW index suddenly dropped today...) and that influences them to scramble to save whatever profit since the last gain. That will make the stocks continue to dip, (newscaster says "And stock prices continue to fall today in another bad day for the market") until at some point the whole thing starts over again at a slightly higher point than the last low. That's what's probably been causing the market spikes and declines that seem random or tied to events. The people who can do massive transactions in such a scale to influence the market before the current system can register it. The world governments aren't telling us because they have no idea how to fix it without pissing everyone off. Or at least that's what I think. Thoughts on feasibility from those with experience or links?

Not to be rude, but you really don't know much about how stocks are sold, do you?

Enlighten me? You could try doing it through PM's if I made an especially boneheaded mistake and I'll graciously accept it.

I only say try because PM's have been weird on the forum lately.

Oi, I'll try that. Again, I'm not trying to be rude or attack you or anything, there are just some pretty substantial weak points in that argument.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We cannot trust the Government not to censor the internet, and thus should keep it out of their hands with a passion.

I take issue with the "free internet=intellect" argument. Making somthing free will just serve to attract stupid. And trust me, stupid can spread. Mob logic and such. People who would in any other situation be normal will act like total idiots when actual idiots are around.

Also, free internet reminds me of an unsettling idea presented in Stephen King's The Running Man. In the book, a dystopian America has passed laws that require Free-Vee, or free televisions, to be installed in every home under a certain income level. It also says that there was a "Compulsory Benefit Act" that would have made turning off a Free-Vee illegal. Said law failed in the House by only six votes.

[Renault]

We cannot trust the Government not to censor the internet, and thus should keep it out of their hands with a passion.

I take issue with the "free internet=intellect" argument. Making somthing free will just serve to attract stupid. And trust me, stupid can spread. Mob logic and such. People who would in any other situation be normal will act like total idiots when actual idiots are around.

Also, free internet reminds me of an unsettling idea presented in Stephen King's The Running Man. In the book, a dystopian America has passed laws that require Free-Vee, or free televisions, to be installed in every home under a certain income level. It also says that there was a "Compulsory Benefit Act" that would have made turning off a Free-Vee illegal. Said law failed in the House by only six votes.

The mandatory television thing is directly taken from Orwell's 1984, you know.

[Nikov]

We cannot trust the Government not to censor the internet, and thus should keep it out of their hands with a passion.

I take issue with the "free internet=intellect" argument. Making somthing free will just serve to attract stupid. And trust me, stupid can spread. Mob logic and such. People who would in any other situation be normal will act like total idiots when actual idiots are around.

Also, free internet reminds me of an unsettling idea presented in Stephen King's The Running Man. In the book, a dystopian America has passed laws that require Free-Vee, or free televisions, to be installed in every home under a certain income level. It also says that there was a "Compulsory Benefit Act" that would have made turning off a Free-Vee illegal. Said law failed in the House by only six votes.

The mandatory television thing is directly taken from Orwell's 1984, you know.

1984 being a socialist dystopia, I might point out.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We cannot trust the Government not to censor the internet, and thus should keep it out of their hands with a passion.

I take issue with the "free internet=intellect" argument. Making somthing free will just serve to attract stupid. And trust me, stupid can spread. Mob logic and such. People who would in any other situation be normal will act like total idiots when actual idiots are around.

Also, free internet reminds me of an unsettling idea presented in Stephen King's The Running Man. In the book, a dystopian America has passed laws that require Free-Vee, or free televisions, to be installed in every home under a certain income level. It also says that there was a "Compulsory Benefit Act" that would have made turning off a Free-Vee illegal. Said law failed in the House by only six votes.

The mandatory television thing is directly taken from Orwell's 1984, you know.

I thought the tellescreens were somewhat of a different thing. Free-Vees are about keeping the people pliable and addicted to the Games Federation. Tellescreens seemed more about watching the Proles and Outer Party in the event they commit thoughtcrime.

And Nikov has a point. 1984 is a socialist dystopia, The Running Man is a capitalist dystopia.

[Duuvian]

I was wrong about the economy posts a few above. Renault has enlightened me. I will post his reply if it's ok with him. It's a good explanation of the system. I was under the impression they had automated it.

EDIT2: Here is Renaults reply:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

First, you seem to be relying on the idea that big firms are leveraging huge short-sales through dozens of different "accounts." I'm assuming you are referring to online brokerages like e-trade and that. Thats a problem. Those accounts are far, far, far from anonymous--the Securities and Exchanges commission tracks all of them by law. Second,buying up huge amounts of cheap stock to create demand isn't sinister because it is genuinely increasing demand. Whoever they're buying from will increase prices as soon as they see sale orders coming. And since sales aren't done automatically, they will see each buy order coming in, one by one, even if some computer places the orders simultaneously. Remember, people are physically behind these transactions at all times, and they only move as fast as humans, no matter how fast the buy or sell order is placed.
Don't confuse ameritrade or any of those brokerage sites with the actual selling of stock. They aren't, far from it. When you place an order on that site, it isn't carried out immediately. Instead, an agent--the one collecting your transaction fee--places an offer on the stock exchange. If its really high, you'll see a wave of sellers rising to it--soon you'll have a ton of it, but once you do, there are fewer sellers and the frenzy tapers off. Then you're stuck with a ton of expensive stock, which I you propose they'd offload at the new high price--but thats not what'd happen. Instead, you'll see a demand curve precise commensurate to the one you first bought at. You see, the news media doesn't drive stock markets, stock markets are driven by the millions of interactions going on every day. Normal investor people read news to find trends, not individual markets. They can see that literally at any time on the NYSE--or whichever exchange they use--or any of the thousands of sites that track them, the WSJ being prime for it.
In short, it doesn't matter how fast computers place sell or buy orders, people need to react to them, and by the time they have, others have reacted to that. The market can be manipulated, but this isn't how to. I hope that wasn't too terribly confusing. Let me know what you think?

Also, Nikov, I'm watching that video. I'm about 7:15 in. Black republican says something about how the lowest income earners of Americans actually made about double the income during the Bush years in previous years despite what Intellectuals may claim. That was due to

 A: The minimum wage being raised

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

 B: There were VERY generous tax cuts from Bush, due to actually living up to campaign promises.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

Of course poor people got a refund also. Roughly 1.4 times your wage and a generous tax break that sends the country into debt might double your income, yes.

EDIT3: Wow, this video is ridiculous. It's pure conservative propaganda. Please, everyone watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/HooverInstitution#p/u/80/ERj3QeGw9Ok

At about 24:39 you can catch the host mindlessly agreeing with whatever the guest says after asking a leading question.

[Renault]

I was wrong. Renault has enlightened me. I will post his reply if it's ok with him. It's a good explanation of the system. I was under the impression they had automated it.

Her.

[Renault]

We cannot trust the Government not to censor the internet, and thus should keep it out of their hands with a passion.

I take issue with the "free internet=intellect" argument. Making somthing free will just serve to attract stupid. And trust me, stupid can spread. Mob logic and such. People who would in any other situation be normal will act like total idiots when actual idiots are around.

Also, free internet reminds me of an unsettling idea presented in Stephen King's The Running Man. In the book, a dystopian America has passed laws that require Free-Vee, or free televisions, to be installed in every home under a certain income level. It also says that there was a "Compulsory Benefit Act" that would have made turning off a Free-Vee illegal. Said law failed in the House by only six votes.

The mandatory television thing is directly taken from Orwell's 1984, you know.

I thought the tellescreens were somewhat of a different thing. Free-Vees are about keeping the people pliable and addicted to the Games Federation. Tellescreens seemed more about watching the Proles and Outer Party in the event they commit thoughtcrime.

And Nikov has a point. 1984 is a socialist dystopia, The Running Man is a capitalist dystopia.

I dont really see how the capitalism-socialism angle is relevant, though. Economics has nothing to do with censorship, at least directly. And capitalism wasn't really part of Running Man, either. The Games Network is government run--anathema to free-market types. In fact, its even set in Co-Op city, which is a huge co-op in the Bronx. I dont think thats very capitalist, at all.

[Nikov]

We cannot trust the Government not to censor the internet, and thus should keep it out of their hands with a passion.

I take issue with the "free internet=intellect" argument. Making somthing free will just serve to attract stupid. And trust me, stupid can spread. Mob logic and such. People who would in any other situation be normal will act like total idiots when actual idiots are around.

Also, free internet reminds me of an unsettling idea presented in Stephen King's The Running Man. In the book, a dystopian America has passed laws that require Free-Vee, or free televisions, to be installed in every home under a certain income level. It also says that there was a "Compulsory Benefit Act" that would have made turning off a Free-Vee illegal. Said law failed in the House by only six votes.

The mandatory television thing is directly taken from Orwell's 1984, you know.

I thought the tellescreens were somewhat of a different thing. Free-Vees are about keeping the people pliable and addicted to the Games Federation. Tellescreens seemed more about watching the Proles and Outer Party in the event they commit thoughtcrime.

And Nikov has a point. 1984 is a socialist dystopia, The Running Man is a capitalist dystopia.

I dont really see how the capitalism-socialism angle is relevant, though. Economics has nothing to do with censorship, at least directly. And capitalism wasn't really part of Running Man, either. The Games Network is government run--anathema to free-market types. In fact, its even set in Co-Op city, which is a huge co-op in the Bronx. I dont think thats very capitalist, at all.

Between Capitalist and Socialist nations lie the question of if your welfare relies upon yourself or upon the State. I find it quite relevant to the discussion.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I dont really see how the capitalism-socialism angle is relevant, though. Economics has nothing to do with censorship, at least directly. And capitalism wasn't really part of Running Man, either. The Games Network is government run--anathema to free-market types. In fact, its even set in Co-Op city, which is a huge co-op in the Bronx. I dont think thats very capitalist, at all.

There is a huge divide between poor and rich, with Oldbucks and Newbucks. The Games Network is a megacorporaton, even if government sponsored. Its capitalism in the extreme. And Co-Op City isn't in the Bronx, as, and I quote: "He (Richards) was on the 2:20 speed shuttle to New York. There were only forty or so passengers, most of them snoozing businessmen and students. The cop in the Judas hole dozed the whole trip. After a while, Richards dozed, too. They touched down at 3:06, Richards deplaned and left the airport without incedent."

How could he take a plane from New York, to New York, and have it take an hour?

[Nikov]

Also, Nikov, I'm watching that video. I'm about 7:15 in. Black republican says something...

Black Republican?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

PERSONAL: U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930
 
EDUCATION:
Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968
A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959
A.B. in Economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1958
 
EXPERIENCE:
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980 - present
Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., July 1974 - June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September- December 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April- August 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 - March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 - July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., September 1970 - June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 - June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 - June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo., June 1964 - August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 - June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962 - June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 - August 1962
 
PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS:
Intellectuals and Society (Basic Books, 2009)
On Classical Economics (Yale University Press, 2006)
Black Rednecks and White Liberals (Encounter Books, 2005)
The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press,1999)
Conquests and Cultures (Basic Books, 1998)
Migrations and Cultures (Basic Books, 1996)
The Vision of the Anointed (Basic Books, 1995)
Race and Culture: A World View ( Basic Books,1994 )
A Conflict of Visions (William Morrow, 1987)
Ethnic America (Basic Books, 1981)
Knowledge and Decisions (Basic Books, 1980)
Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (Princeton University Press, 1972)

 
Find the word Republican in there.

[Renault]

We cannot trust the Government not to censor the internet, and thus should keep it out of their hands with a passion.

I take issue with the "free internet=intellect" argument. Making somthing free will just serve to attract stupid. And trust me, stupid can spread. Mob logic and such. People who would in any other situation be normal will act like total idiots when actual idiots are around.

Also, free internet reminds me of an unsettling idea presented in Stephen King's The Running Man. In the book, a dystopian America has passed laws that require Free-Vee, or free televisions, to be installed in every home under a certain income level. It also says that there was a "Compulsory Benefit Act" that would have made turning off a Free-Vee illegal. Said law failed in the House by only six votes.

The mandatory television thing is directly taken from Orwell's 1984, you know.

I thought the tellescreens were somewhat of a different thing. Free-Vees are about keeping the people pliable and addicted to the Games Federation. Tellescreens seemed more about watching the Proles and Outer Party in the event they commit thoughtcrime.

And Nikov has a point. 1984 is a socialist dystopia, The Running Man is a capitalist dystopia.

I dont really see how the capitalism-socialism angle is relevant, though. Economics has nothing to do with censorship, at least directly. And capitalism wasn't really part of Running Man, either. The Games Network is government run--anathema to free-market types. In fact, its even set in Co-Op city, which is a huge co-op in the Bronx. I dont think thats very capitalist, at all.

Between Capitalist and Socialist nations lie the question of if your welfare relies upon yourself or upon the State. I find it quite relevant to the discussion.

Relevant to how internet access can make people "smarter?" I don't quite follow. I agree its very much a good discussion to have, but I just can't connect economic policy to this topic. Maybe a different thread? Or are you referring to an entirely different topic than I assume?

And metalslimehunt, income inequality is present in 1984 too. Check out the way Inner-Party members live far more decadently than plebs. So if income inequality is your indicator of capitalism, then 1984 is about capitalism too. The truth it divides between the rich and poor exist in any society, ultimately. And no no no. If its government-sponsored its not capitalism. Thats literally the opposite. Communists and socialits use corporations too, they're just publicly-owned--like the Games Network. It is not Capitalism in the extreme. At all. Not even a little bit.
As to Co-Op city, you're missing the point. Its the name, Co-Op city. It's a co-op. Co-ops are not typically lumped in with capitalist ideology, which stresses private ownership.
As to the Bronx reference, there is a Co-Op city in the Bronx in real life. Thats what I was referring to. It's a huge co-op, biggest in the world.

[Duuvian]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also, Nikov, I'm watching that video. I'm about 7:15 in. Black republican says something...

Black Republican?

[spoiler]PERSONAL: U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930
 
EDUCATION:
Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968
A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959
A.B. in Economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1958
 
EXPERIENCE:
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980 - present
Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., July 1974 - June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September- December 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April- August 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 - March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 - July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., September 1970 - June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 - June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 - June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo., June 1964 - August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 - June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962 - June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 - August 1962
 
PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS:
Intellectuals and Society (Basic Books, 2009)
On Classical Economics (Yale University Press, 2006)
Black Rednecks and White Liberals (Encounter Books, 2005)
The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press,1999)
Conquests and Cultures (Basic Books, 1998)
Migrations and Cultures (Basic Books, 1996)
The Vision of the Anointed (Basic Books, 1995)
Race and Culture: A World View ( Basic Books,1994 )
A Conflict of Visions (William Morrow, 1987)
Ethnic America (Basic Books, 1981)
Knowledge and Decisions (Basic Books, 1980)
Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (Princeton University Press, 1972)

 
He is a regular contributor to GOPUSA, a conservative web and email newsletter run by Endeavor Media Group, LLC.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

GOP = Good ol' Party = Republican

He does have an interesting background though, I read through it.

Anyways, back to the topic, we've established there would be some negative side affects. One of which is stupidity flows over the internet, which I sort of refuted with the "humans are rational" and can use facts which internet helps to provide, along with personal experiences in life, to eventually determine the difference between wrong and right. The other downside is that most people would use it for facebook, porn, other stuff than learning. That's negated by the fact that's what people already use it for.

Other things established are that even if government builds it physically, they should not have control over it because they would use it for evil.

Now then, what about a totally open, free internet where the government merely provides the wires to connect. I know the obvious arguments and I think I can abort them by saying 4chan is the embodiment of why this could be the worst idea in the history of mankind. However, would taking the bad with the good be worth it?

[Renault]

You realize that if you update your previous posts, it doesnt send the new post alert, right? Makes it sort of hard to stay current with your additions.