Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants • Hacker News Board

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#51

Post by eftpotrm » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 4:32 PM UTC

Astrohacker wrote: post #35

bd_at_rivenhill wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually there will be a good deal of money printing involved in solving this problem, especially given the paucity of options available for fixed-income investors with a low appetite for risk (what, would you prefer the Euro or the Yen?), but it will never be the case that the US will have a solvency problem in the same way as Bear Stearns or Greece because they can always print their way out of it with inflation…

Is inflation tame according to the Fed calculations which ignore expenses that matter to people like oil, or according to meaningful calculations? Because it sure seems to me that the prices I pay are rising pretty quickly. Quickly enough that I can notice it. A cup of coffee that cost $1.95 a couple of years ago now costs $2.30. And I'm not earning any more money than I was then, so I can feel the difference.

Including oil in inflation costs distorts the picture though.

The standard response to inflation is to suppress demand within the economy to make price rises unsupportable and dampen things down. When the inflation is due to factors that are external to the economy though, such as a global spike in commodity prices, this measure is largely ineffectual; the dampening effect on global market prices is insignificant compared to the dampening effect on the internal economy. You only end up suppressing your own economic growth to your own cost while seeing a small at best effect on inflation in the commodity that was causing the inflation for which you're trying to control.

Oil prices are rising for perfectly sensible global reasons, get used to it. This is causing inflation you can't control and which the economy can't afford to compensate for; your standard of living will drop. If you want to avoid this, work harder to earn more; it's the only way out.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#52

Post by jpadkins » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 4:33 PM UTC

eftpotrm wrote: post #30

jpadkins wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did pass a bill, the debt ceiling is tied to a balanced budget amendment.

Which is frankly ridiculous grandstanding. If nothing else, a quick look at exactly how the deficit developed will reveal the hollowness of current pleas from some wings of the Republican party for a balanced budget amendment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

caps on future spending and a balanced budget amendment is ridiculous grandstanding?

keep in mind the group that passed this bill were not in the congress 2 years ago, let alone 10. Also keep in mind the republican leadership that was in office the last 10 years did not endorse or get behind the cut, cap, balance bill either. T

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#53

Post by jpadkins » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 4:43 PM UTC

albedoa wrote: post #38

ars wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are falling into the same trap. You see them wanting to shut down the goverment and decided they are insane. They have perfectly sane reasons for wanting that - you just don't agree. And if you are unable to see that, then the fault lies with you, not with them.

They have perfectly sane reasons for wanting that Name one.

To force the country to prioritize its spending and stop creating higher taxes on future generations. Deficit spending is taxation without representation, and should be eliminated.

Both parties are guilty of deficit spending (republicans more so) and new representatives were elected in 2010 to reduce spending.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#54

Post by jbooth » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 5:01 PM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #52

eftpotrm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is frankly ridiculous grandstanding. If nothing else, a quick look at exactly how the deficit developed will reveal the hollowness of current pleas from some wings of the Republican party for a balanced budget amendment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

caps on future spending and a balanced budget amendment is ridiculous grandstanding? keep in mind the group that passed this bill were not in the congress 2 years ago, let alone 10. Also keep in mind the republican leadership that was in office the last 10 years did not endorse or get behind the cut, cap, balance bill either. T

Yeah, it's ridiculous grandstanding because they don't have any plan or budget that actually gets there.

Chanting "cut cap and balance" repeatedly without any substance behind it is the definition of grandstanding.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#55

Post by eftpotrm » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 5:16 PM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #52

eftpotrm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is frankly ridiculous grandstanding. If nothing else, a quick look at exactly how the deficit developed will reveal the hollowness of current pleas from some wings of the Republican party for a balanced budget amendment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

caps on future spending and a balanced budget amendment is ridiculous grandstanding? keep in mind the group that passed this bill were not in the congress 2 years ago, let alone 10. Also keep in mind the republican leadership that was in office the last 10 years did not endorse or get behind the cut, cap, balance bill either. T

Yes, it is.

* Boehner has been in the House since 1991 and has been in a senior position for most of the time since 1995, so he has his part in the history.

* If a balanced budget amendment was such a major priority, there was plenty of time to pass it when President Bush was in office and raising the debt limit. This isn't about the principle but the opponent, amply illustrated by the reams of incoherent, provably incorrect slurs against President Obama from Tea Party activists.

* The proposals currently being insisted upon produce less savings than Democratic proposals but with the means to re-ignite this debate during next year's election campaign; their motive isn't a fiscally responsible solution but an attempt to inflict political damage.

* While it's true that Tea Party supporters weren't in congress 2 years ago, they're not there now in substantial numbers either. To argue that a small group of inexperienced politicians backing an incredibly economically naive platform should be allowed to have the final say is absurd; they are being used as cover by the Republican leadership.

* If the priority was truly balancing the finances then the targets would be different. Bush's top-end tax cuts were a huge contributor to the deficit yet are being treated as sacrosanct. US military spending is 5 times the nearest rival (China) and approximately equal to the next 20 biggest spenders; this is ego and corporate welfare, and a far better source of savings than the soft targets proposed. Equally if the healthcare bill combined with Medicare and Medicaid was too expensive in its current form (somewhat surprising given the CBO forecast savings rather than increased costs from its introduction) then the correct answer is not repeal but extension - single payer, whenever examined, has been cheaper. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=...

So, I repeat myself. What the Republican leadership is proposing, including a balanced budget amendment, is not fiscally responsible measures to try to regain control of American government finances. It is ridiculous grandstanding to try and inflict political damage on their opponent by deliberate misrepresentation of the both the history and the facts.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#56

Post by jessriedel » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 6:25 PM UTC

donall wrote: post #8

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is a pseduo-analytical wrapper around an extremely partisian stance: My political opponents are irrational idiots (literally mad elephants ), having purposely made themselves incapable of rational cooperation. Therefore, I will take the high road as the morally upright and rational person I am. The key thing about the game of chicken is that it is symmetric. And, in fact, the current budget debate is mor…

"Literally" mad elephants? ;) http://xkcd.com/725/

"Literally" referred to the fact that the OP literally called them mad elephants, not that they literally are .

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#57

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 6:32 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #54

jpadkins wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

caps on future spending and a balanced budget amendment is ridiculous grandstanding? keep in mind the group that passed this bill were not in the congress 2 years ago, let alone 10. Also keep in mind the republican leadership that was in office the last 10 years did not endorse or get behind the cut, cap, balance bill either. T

Yeah, it's ridiculous grandstanding because they don't have any plan or budget that actually gets there. Chanting "cut cap and balance" repeatedly without any substance behind it is the definition of grandstanding.

[deleted]

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#58

Post by jpadkins2011 » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 6:37 PM UTC

eftpotrm wrote: post #55

jpadkins wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

caps on future spending and a balanced budget amendment is ridiculous grandstanding? keep in mind the group that passed this bill were not in the congress 2 years ago, let alone 10. Also keep in mind the republican leadership that was in office the last 10 years did not endorse or get behind the cut, cap, balance bill either. T

Yes, it is. * Boehner has been in the House since 1991 and has been in a senior position for most of the time since 1995, so he has his part in the history. * If a balanced budget amendment was such a major priority, there was plenty of time to pass it when President Bush was in office and raising the debt limit. This isn't about the principle but the opponent, amply illustrated by the reams of incoherent, provably i…

Rand Paul's balanced budget in 5 years proposal: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/sen-paul-unveils-5-...

Your assessment of the republican leadership is correct, your assessment of the tea party caucus is off. It will probably play out the same as the 94 republican revolution, where the leadership takes over the movement and resumes deficit spending.

The goal is not spending or balanced budget per se, the goal is to maximize freedom and minimize the impact of the federal government on the individual citizen. So single payer health care is not optimal if you value freedom of choice. If your only criteria is cost, then we should just make all doctors and nurses slaves, because that is cheap.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#59

Post by eftpotrm » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 7:18 PM UTC

jpadkins2011 wrote: post #58

eftpotrm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is. * Boehner has been in the House since 1991 and has been in a senior position for most of the time since 1995, so he has his part in the history. * If a balanced budget amendment was such a major priority, there was plenty of time to pass it when President Bush was in office and raising the debt limit. This isn't about the principle but the opponent, amply illustrated by the reams of incoherent, provably i…

Rand Paul's balanced budget in 5 years proposal: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/sen-paul-unveils-5-... Your assessment of the republican leadership is correct, your assessment of the tea party caucus is off. It will probably play out the same as the 94 republican revolution, where the leadership takes over the movement and resumes deficit spending. The goal is not spending or balanced budget per se, the goa…

(Why the new account to reply to me?)

'Freedom' is one of those 'motherhood and apple pie' terms that gets thrown about, but with very little rigour behind its use. Freedom to what, exactly? The alleged virtuous benefits for freedom of the current healthcare situation (as you brought up that one in particular) are somewhat illusory to my mind when the current limited offering is costing the taxpayer more - financial freedom would be enhanced, not diminished, by a more comprehensive offering, while providing improved service. There's no realistic proposal to limit one's choice to pay for alternative treatment if one prefers, but the current system is, frankly, provably a waste of money.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#60

Post by donall » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 1:34 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #56

donall wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Literally" mad elephants? ;) http://xkcd.com/725/

"Literally" referred to the fact that the OP literally called them mad elephants, not that they literally are .

I was just reminded of that xkcd comic and thought I would share. I wasn't actually trying to start an argument about the usage of the term "literally" (which is why I'm not continuing it!). In any case, I would have thought the comic portrays the person doing the correcting in a crazy enough light to show disdain for the practice...