Remastered Players

I sat in a lecture hall of 500 people in an Economics 101 class. The professor was hard to understand and droning on straight from a powerpoint that I later found was put online verbatim. The Chinese TA could also barely speak English but at least I think that he cared. Economics likes to use math and pretend that it is a science but I wouldn't even call it an art either at least as it was taught in this situation. Stroggoz can really fill you in if he feels like it.

On May 03 2024 04:39 RiKD wrote: I sat in a lecture hall of 500 people in an Economics 101 class. The professor was hard to understand and droning on straight from a powerpoint that I later found was put online verbatim. The Chinese TA could also barely speak English but at least I think that he cared. Economics likes to use math and pretend that it is a science but I wouldn't even call it an art either at least as it was taught in this situation. Stroggoz can really fill you in if he feels like it.

I think the OP is talking about StarCraft.

lol

I asked my economics professor if the central banks create money out of thin air as debt by handing it out as loans that need to be repaid with interest. He said it was more complicated than that(insinuating that what I said was inaccurate), but never explained or touched the subject again for the rest of the semester.


Also on the matter of starcraft, I was watching some chinese anime called Dragon Raja, and the main character randomly gets some ability where he is able to unlock "maps" of unknown areas by saying "Black Sheep Wall".

Private banks and central banks both create money out of thin air. Private banks create money out of thin air whenever someone makes a deposit. Central banks do it based off bad statistical analysis and what effect people working there think it will have on the economy, unemployment and inflation.

Money has been seriously misunderstood in the economics profession until recently. Most of the textbooks said that historically people started using barter, then gold coins, then finance.
Which is something that was literally just made up, I guess by the likes of Paul Samuelson or someone else. It wasn't until anthropologists like David Graeber started looking into this and advocating an evidence based view that things changed. His 5000 years debt was a best seller and so it wasn't possible for textbooks to lie about this anymore. But you look at the old ones, they had these mythologies in them.

Why is this interesting and important? Well, there are a few reasons. Understanding how money is created led to an understanding of sectoral balances, and modern monetary theory. Which was developed by wall street bankers Warren Mosler, and fringe economists who wanted to have a reality based economic theory of how money works. This allowed people to understand the relationship between private and public debt and surpluses. Very useful information that would have allowed people to see the great recession coming. But not enough people knew about this. It is also funny, that Alan Greenspan actually knew this, but suppressed his knowledge of how sectoral balances work. He wrote a paper could "credit creation", which discussed this, but never talked about it ever again once he became known as the maestro.

All of this information about credit creation would be useful for understanding inflation, unemployment, and it could be used to make an economy where kids don't have to apply to 300 jobs after they leave college, ect.

On May 03 2024 04:39 RiKD wrote: I sat in a lecture hall of 500 people in an Economics 101 class. The professor was hard to understand and droning on straight from a powerpoint that I later found was put online verbatim. The Chinese TA could also barely speak English but at least I think that he cared. Economics likes to use math and pretend that it is a science but I wouldn't even call it an art either at least as it was taught in this situation. Stroggoz can really fill you in if he feels like it.

"The purpose of learning economics is to stop being deceived by economists"- Joan Robinson.

I'd say all the social sciences have ego problems in their own way. Economists turn to math to try and assert their intellectual dominance. In political science, philosophy, you have "theories".

In area's like math or computer science, or physics, if you have a complicated theory or complex code, you're generally considered to be a noob. Software engineering in particular this is true. I heard that Microsoft engineers only write about 1,000-2000 lines of code a year.

On May 04 2024 16:36 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 03 2024 04:39 RiKD wrote: I sat in a lecture hall of 500 people in an Economics 101 class. The professor was hard to understand and droning on straight from a powerpoint that I later found was put online verbatim. The Chinese TA could also barely speak English but at least I think that he cared. Economics likes to use math and pretend that it is a science but I wouldn't even call it an art either at least as it was taught in this situation. Stroggoz can really fill you in if he feels like it. "The purpose of learning economics is to stop being deceived by economists"- Joan Robinson. I'd say all the social sciences have ego problems in their own way. Economists turn to math to try and assert their intellectual dominance. In political science, philosophy, you have "theories". In area's like math or computer science, or physics, if you have a complicated theory or complex code, you're generally considered to be a noob. Software engineering in particular this is true. I heard that Microsoft engineers only write about 1,000-2000 lines of code a year.

How much economics do you have to learn to not be deceived by economists?

Infinite amount. There's just general progress in avoiding deception the more you question things.

There's this big debate about AI or tech taking people's jobs and I think that's mainly a propaganda narrative (originates with obama) to deflect blame away from things people can change (politics and economics) and onto things that are harder to change, and arn't really that responsible. So many people on the left fall for this and think they are critiquing capitalism but really they are disempowering themselves.

I definitley question things. Even when reading my God Byung-Chul Han...

Damn, count me in to the left that fall for this and think they are critiquing capitalism but really they are disempowering themselves. That is actually a critique of my God Byung-Chul Han as well but he subtly has been offering solutions the whole time. I am too cynical and fatalist these days to think I can have an effect on politics or economics. And that is before I started playing poker again so forget about it. I can be extremely selfish and self-centered and I don't think joining Catholicism is going to help that. The AA Cult may be my only hope. I can't even drive to Food Not Bombs because I am scared of bridges. But I'm sitting here studying that ATcc has .01 higher ev raising a button open than calling...

On May 04 2024 16:36 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 03 2024 04:39 RiKD wrote: I sat in a lecture hall of 500 people in an Economics 101 class. The professor was hard to understand and droning on straight from a powerpoint that I later found was put online verbatim. The Chinese TA could also barely speak English but at least I think that he cared. Economics likes to use math and pretend that it is a science but I wouldn't even call it an art either at least as it was taught in this situation. Stroggoz can really fill you in if he feels like it. "The purpose of learning economics is to stop being deceived by economists"- Joan Robinson. I'd say all the social sciences have ego problems in their own way. Economists turn to math to try and assert their intellectual dominance. In political science, philosophy, you have "theories". In area's like math or computer science, or physics, if you have a complicated theory or complex code, you're generally considered to be a noob. Software engineering in particular this is true. I heard that Microsoft engineers only write about 1,000-2000 lines of code a year.

The changes in Economics began with people like Von Neumann and Morgenstern introducing discussion of the relation between the modern monetary theories and the description of utilitarianism as introduced recently (to this audience) by Bentham and his discussion in English parliament. Essentially, the weak relation i.e. quasi-isomorphic relation between utility as luck, happiness, or fortune, and the depiction of decision theory as a mode of parlancing choice began with the identity relation wherein a specific mathematic notion was introduced called weak homogeneity, or morphism of preference. Preference theory described this identity as a sort of equality that withstood mathematical rigor to the mind of Von Neumann and Morgenstern. The relations described by mathematicians and statisticians are condensed into economic reality via the statistical theory known as the central limit theorem. The CLT condensed the equality of causation into something formidable but comprehensible.

On May 10 2024 20:55 RiKD wrote: I definitley question things. Even when reading my God Byung-Chul Han... Damn, count me in to the left that fall for this and think they are critiquing capitalism but really they are disempowering themselves. That is actually a critique of my God Byung-Chul Han as well but he subtly has been offering solutions the whole time. I am too cynical and fatalist these days to think I can have an effect on politics or economics. And that is before I started playing poker again so forget about it. I can be extremely selfish and self-centered and I don't think joining Catholicism is going to help that. The AA Cult may be my only hope. I can't even drive to Food Not Bombs because I am scared of bridges. But I'm sitting here studying that ATcc has .01 higher ev raising a button open than calling...

There's not much relation between risk-loving and risk-averse people individual decision theory.

On May 11 2024 03:15 failsafe wrote: Show nested quote + On May 10 2024 20:55 RiKD wrote: I definitley question things. Even when reading my God Byung-Chul Han... Damn, count me in to the left that fall for this and think they are critiquing capitalism but really they are disempowering themselves. That is actually a critique of my God Byung-Chul Han as well but he subtly has been offering solutions the whole time. I am too cynical and fatalist these days to think I can have an effect on politics or economics. And that is before I started playing poker again so forget about it. I can be extremely selfish and self-centered and I don't think joining Catholicism is going to help that. The AA Cult may be my only hope. I can't even drive to Food Not Bombs because I am scared of bridges. But I'm sitting here studying that ATcc has .01 higher ev raising a button open than calling... There's not much relation between risk-loving and risk-averse people individual decision theory.

So, you are saying that risk-loving and risk-averse people are different when it comes to their choices statistically? God I love economics...

On May 11 2024 03:14 failsafe wrote: Show nested quote + On May 04 2024 16:36 Stroggoz wrote:   On May 03 2024 04:39 RiKD wrote: I sat in a lecture hall of 500 people in an Economics 101 class. The professor was hard to understand and droning on straight from a powerpoint that I later found was put online verbatim. The Chinese TA could also barely speak English but at least I think that he cared. Economics likes to use math and pretend that it is a science but I wouldn't even call it an art either at least as it was taught in this situation. Stroggoz can really fill you in if he feels like it. "The purpose of learning economics is to stop being deceived by economists"- Joan Robinson. I'd say all the social sciences have ego problems in their own way. Economists turn to math to try and assert their intellectual dominance. In political science, philosophy, you have "theories". In area's like math or computer science, or physics, if you have a complicated theory or complex code, you're generally considered to be a noob. Software engineering in particular this is true. I heard that Microsoft engineers only write about 1,000-2000 lines of code a year. The changes in Economics began with people like Von Neumann and Morgenstern introducing discussion of the relation between the modern monetary theories and the description of utilitarianism as introduced recently (to this audience) by Bentham and his discussion in English parliament. Essentially, the weak relation i.e. quasi-isomorphic relation between utility as luck, happiness, or fortune, and the depiction of decision theory as a mode of parlancing choice began with the identity relation wherein a specific mathematic notion was introduced called weak homogeneity, or morphism of preference. Preference theory described this identity as a sort of equality that withstood mathematical rigor to the mind of Von Neumann and Morgenstern. The relations described by mathematicians and statisticians are condensed into economic reality via the statistical theory known as the central limit theorem. The CLT condensed the equality of causation into something formidable but comprehensible.

Hahaha. Bro, I have math degree and barely know what a morphism is. quasi-isomorphic hahah. Modern monetary theories?? MMT was developed 40 years after Von Neumann died. I have little idea about what you're talking about, but why would you use such sophisticated terminology on such a forum. Are you trolling me or do you have schizophrenia? If its the later case I would seek therapy or ask friends/family if you have it.

I am pretty sure failsafe is confirmed schizophrenic. And his blogs pop up typically when he is trending psychotic. I've never really seen him here in a euthymic (steady) state.

Ah ok, that makes sense now.

On May 10 2024 20:55 RiKD wrote: I definitley question things. Even when reading my God Byung-Chul Han... Damn, count me in to the left that fall for this and think they are critiquing capitalism but really they are disempowering themselves. That is actually a critique of my God Byung-Chul Han as well but he subtly has been offering solutions the whole time. I am too cynical and fatalist these days to think I can have an effect on politics or economics. And that is before I started playing poker again so forget about it. I can be extremely selfish and self-centered and I don't think joining Catholicism is going to help that. The AA Cult may be my only hope. I can't even drive to Food Not Bombs because I am scared of bridges. But I'm sitting here studying that ATcc has .01 higher ev raising a button open than calling...

People on the left believe almost everything they are told by the corporate propaganda machine. If it wasn't for a handful of scholars that decided to understand how the economy actually works (like Chomsky, Ha Joon Chang, and a few others), the left wouldn't be pointing out the hypocrisy behind free market fundamentalism, even though its right in front of their eyes. They would be totally defenseless.

Fatalism is another ideology that brings a smile to the face of corporate america. Oh, generation Z / millenials are a bunch of doomers? Great, they have accepted their fate. Now lets exploit them for as much as we can since they arn't going to do anything about it.

On May 12 2024 22:07 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 10 2024 20:55 RiKD wrote: I definitley question things. Even when reading my God Byung-Chul Han... Damn, count me in to the left that fall for this and think they are critiquing capitalism but really they are disempowering themselves. That is actually a critique of my God Byung-Chul Han as well but he subtly has been offering solutions the whole time. I am too cynical and fatalist these days to think I can have an effect on politics or economics. And that is before I started playing poker again so forget about it. I can be extremely selfish and self-centered and I don't think joining Catholicism is going to help that. The AA Cult may be my only hope. I can't even drive to Food Not Bombs because I am scared of bridges. But I'm sitting here studying that ATcc has .01 higher ev raising a button open than calling... People on the left believe almost everything they are told by the corporate propaganda machine. If it wasn't for a handful of scholars that decided to understand how the economy actually works (like Chomsky, Ha Joon Chang, and a few others), the left wouldn't be pointing out the hypocrisy behind free market fundamentalism, even though its right in front of their eyes. They would be totally defenseless. Fatalism is another ideology that brings a smile to the face of corporate america. Oh, generation Z / millenials are a bunch of doomers? Great, they have accepted their fate. Now lets exploit them for as much as we can since they arn't going to do anything about it.

Today, I do my best to avoid the corporate propaganda machine. I realize that I haven't purged the bad though. The bullshit that I have accumulated since university much of it is probably still there to some degree. It's not like I read Manufacturing Consent and then the bullshit vanishes on the spot. Maybe some of it does. At one time I was reading New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and had like 10+ corporate propaganda machine approved magazine subscriptions. That's a lot of bullshit. I went mad. It wasn't pretty.

I believe in compatibilism. That means to some degree things are determined. Except there are openings for free will. It's easy if I'm down to lazily proclaim fatalist. I am way better off today than I was with magazines piling up in my chic flat and I think I've had some say in the choices that have led here. So, really, I am not a pure fatalist. Just as I don't want to get owned at the poker tables I don't want to get owned by capitalism. But, much of capitalism is an invisible power (the highest power) like some guy that is bluffing you but never shows down the hand. It's really difficult to beat capitalism.

If you read the new york times and manufacturing consent then your more well informed than 90% of the population. Even though there's bias, it's not nearly bad as teenagers getting news from their dancing friends on tiktok, which is apparently the main news source for young people now. Random shit from the internet might be slightly better than fox news but a lot worse than NYT on averge imo. At least with the NYT you actually get accurate reporting and it does a lot to debunk conservative economics, even if there's a ton of gatekeeping. The NYT is very accurate when it comes to reporting, and fact checking. Moreso than radical media on both sides of the spectrum. The main bias it has is its selective biases.