Are you happy with my choice of the word "copulate"? I'm not, it kinda has a Discovery Channel feel to it, but that's the best synonym a quick Google search had to offer. Honestly I kinda wanted to just use "f******", because, well, it was the first thing that came to mind. But I'm sure it would have offended quite a few people. Other slightly more viable possibilities were "humping", "boning" and "screwing"...but they are all still too vulgar. One somewhat "fun" possibility would have been "fornicating". It's "fun" in the sense that the word is imbued with delicious puritanical righteousness. Of course I could have gone with two words, ie "making love", "having sex"...but that would have made the activity the odd man out. I also thought of "loving" but that's too broad and "sexing" has a different meaning. "Reproducing" is kinda loaded...the vast majority of the time we really do not want to reproduce when we have sex.
What word would you have gone with? Would you have invented a new word?
It trips me out to consider that some unknown individuals invented every word we use. I'd certainly value the option to put a name to any word. You know, to give credit where credit is due.
Who gets credit for inventing the greatest quantity of integrated words? Who was the wordsmith who spent the most time thinking up new words? But just because they spent the most time doing so, doesn't necessarily mean that they produced the most accepted words. Perhaps they just wasted their time coming up with words that nobody would use. Tragic...right?
One gaping word gap that I've thought about on and off is the opposite of "to waste".
You: What are you doing?
Me: I'm trying to think of new/better words
You: Don't waste your time, we already have more than enough words
Me: I'm not wasting my time, I'm...err, saving it...no...I'm multiplying it...that's not right either. See what I mean?
You: Why not just say that you're using your time productively?
Me: Why use two words when I could use just one?
Another word gap is the opposite of "to improve". Recently on Wikipedia I battled against three editors who consistently made edits that did not improve the articles (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forced_rider_(economics)#See_also_items_removed). They worsened the articles. They degraded the articles. They _______ the articles.
How much time do we spend looking for improvement gaps? Just now my stomach indicated where there's room for improvement. So I grabbed a bag of almonds...a resealable bag of almonds. Roasted almonds are pretty great but after eating a few I decided that there was additional room for improvement. So I added some craisins to the mix. And now I'm thirsty. If I had a drink right next to me I'd drink it. But I don't. Getting up would involve finding a place to set my wireless keyboard and mouse and then I'd have to take the blanket off...which would ruin the pot pie joy. "Pot pie" is a cat that likes to sleep on my legs. It's not my cat. It wasn't my idea. Stupid cats.
More importantly, getting up to get a drink would take time away from the task at hand. Here we see the difference between cost (~30 seconds) and opportunity cost (~30 seconds that I could spend on more important things).
Long before I even heard of "opportunity cost"...I had decided that, if there was a magic pill that I could take that would irreversibly "cure" me of the need to eat and sleep, then I would gladly take the pill. In terms of giving up sex though, I think that perhaps I would take the pill, but I wouldn't take it as gladly.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't really enjoy steak and sex...it's just that there are better things that I could be doing with my time. For example, when I look at a "naked" tree I see plenty of room for improvement. That's why I should be walking around Los Angeles puritanically clothing trees with epiphytes (//http://www.flickr.com/groups/epiphytes/). Every day would be Christmas if every tree was pimped out with a fascinating diversity of living ornaments. There's no poem as lovely as a tree, and there's no tree as lovely as an orchid on a tree (//http://www.flickr.com/groups/orchidlandscape/). Unfortunately, there probably won't be an orchid on every tree anytime soon...the revolution will be indefinitely postponed...and it certainly will not be televised...because I'm too busy eating steak and having sex. Errr, and watching Duck Dynasty.
Have you watched Duck Dynasty? Not exactly sure why but the characters on the show are surprisingly likable. Perhaps it's because they are really good natured?
All the guys on the show have these really long beards. Jase Robertson, my favorite character, explained it like so..."If we combined the time we waste cutting grass with the time we waste shaving our faces, we'd be goin' to Venus, you know, we could be doin' whatever."
Clearly mowing lawns and shaving our faces are optional. We don't have to do these things. We certainly might be coerced by friends, family and society in general...so we might not have much of a choice in the matter...but the choice is there. However, with eating and sleeping we even have less of a choice in the matter. When it comes to sex, well, some people have chosen to forego it entirely. But even if you choose not to have sex, that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be able to escape from the distracting desire to have sex. If you do have sex though, at least right afterwards there's a window of time when you aren't thinking about it...which gives you the opportunity to think about more important things.
So would you give up the need/desire to eat, sleep and copulate? Are there better things that you could be doing with your time? Assuming the complete absence of any adverse effects, would you entirely sacrifice these three activities in order to spend more time on making some crazy dream of yours a reality?
Doesn't everybody have crazy dreams? What are yours? Maybe you wanna be a Rockstar? Maybe you want to be Richard D. James (//https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX562jnoRo0)? Would you sacrifice food, sleep and sex in order to be him (//https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzicDSTsahc)?
You can choose the path marked "Rockstar"...but whether you make it to your destination ultimately depends on whether enough consumers are willing to sponsor your success. You can sacrifice everything and then some...but if people don't buy your music, then they've decided that they have better things to spend their money on. Maybe it was a mistake to give up your day job.
Corey Robin, over at the Crooked Timber blog, shared the following passage in his recent post...The US Senate: Where Democracy Goes to Die (//http://crookedtimber.org/2013/03/12/the-us-senate-where-democracy-goes-to-die/)...
QuoteVermont's 625,000 residents have two United States senators, and so do New York's 19 million. That means that a Vermonter has 30 times the voting power in the Senate of a New Yorker just over the state line — the biggest inequality between two adjacent states. The nation's largest gap, between Wyoming and California, is more than double that. - Adam Liptak, Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate (//http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html)
All things being equal, why should a person from Wyoming have far more voting power than a person from California? That doesn't make any sense. Let's compare it to the private sector...
QuoteIn the market place minorities have "representation" and the number of "votes" a person has is related to his "proportioned productivity," so the incentives to act wisely are greater here than in the political sector. Therefore, it is relatively easy for an efficient firm to survive since it need only gain the support of creditors and consumers who have a direct personal interest in making wise decisions. - Gary S. Becker, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior (//http://books.google.com/books?id=qQAZnc-mMSoC)
Shouldn't influence be determined by "proportioned productivity"? The less time you spend eating, sleeping and copulating...the more time you'll have to produce things that other people may or may not value. If consumers do value whatever it is that you produce...then they'll reach deep into their own pockets and give you their own influence. The logical outcome is the increased production of things that we, as a society, truly value.
So what do you think? Should there be an orchid on every tree (//http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/calif/msg030555306240.html)? Or do you have better things to spend your money/time on?
My favorite Crooked Timber liberal, John Holbo, in his recent post...Weird Arguments About Love and Marriage (//http://crookedtimber.org/2013/03/11/weird-arguments-about-love-and-marriage/)...wrote this...
QuoteImagine a character who is always telling people what to order in restaurants and, when they refuse, rolling his eyes unto heaven: "The early Christians were persecuted, too!"
If I knock on your door and ask you if you're willing to pay me to attach orchids to your trees..how important is your freedom to say "no thanks"?
Orchids won't grow outdoors in LA, it's too dry. So fuck your epiphyte-attaching shakedown, bucko!
I believe you could utilize your time more efficiently without resorting to edits which devalue Wikipedia articles, don't you? Like, eating steak and having sex, ideally at the same time. Or having sex with steak, which, albeit messy, is ultimately less problematic than the human kind.
As for sacrificing food, sleep, and/or sex, forget it. If I could eat, sleep, and fuck simultaneously, I'd be doing it 24/7.
I mean this in the nicest possible way....are you high?
This is why I am against the legalization of pot.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"I mean this in the nicest possible way....are you high?
:rollin:
I'm totally down with whatever the fuck it was you said there, bro. :shock:
Quote from: "Xerographica"Doesn't everybody have crazy dreams? What are yours?
I'm alone in a forest at night. A nearly full moon looms prominently in the sky. Black wolves with red eyes stare at me from the brush, following me. I try to leave, usually by following the creek - the only noticeable landmark aside from the moon amidst this impossibly vast network of trees and brambles. I'm attacked - always by man or monster, never the wolves - and lose. I never successfully make it out.
I've tried following the creek. I never get very far.
I've tried traveling away from the creek - only to find it again sooner or later.
I've tried talking to the wolves to no avail.
I've even tried nothing once. Didn't work.
Quote from: "Davka"Orchids won't grow outdoors in LA, it's too dry. So fuck your epiphyte-attaching shakedown, bucko!
This photo was taken in LA...
(//http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8497/8332036808_07a602d168_n.jpg) (//http://www.flickr.com/photos/epiphyte78/8332036808/)
Cattleya Penny Kuroda 2 (//http://www.flickr.com/photos/epiphyte78/8332036808/) by epiphyte78 (//http://www.flickr.com/people/epiphyte78/), on Flickr
LA is too dry for the vast majority of plants that people grow...which is why they have to water them. While there are plenty of orchids that require a ton of water...there are literally 1000s of species that require less water than the ubiquitous lawn. There are even dozens of species that grow directly on cactus and other succulent plants.
For more info on drought tolerant orchids read my third post in this thread...An Orchid On Every Tree (//http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/calif/msg030555306240.html).
I actually read the title of the thread with interest and wanted to discuss this topic.
Meh.
QuoteSo would you give up the need/desire to eat, sleep and copulate? Are there better things that you could be doing with your time? Assuming the complete absence of any adverse effects, would you entirely sacrifice these three activities in order to spend more time on making some crazy dream of yours a reality?
Eating, sleeping and copulating are practically the only breaks I get from working on my crazy dreams :P
It'd be really stupid to give those up.
Quote from: "Davka"Orchids won't grow outdoors in LA, it's too dry. So fuck your epiphyte-attaching shakedown, bucko!
I believe you could utilize your time more efficiently without resorting to edits which devalue Wikipedia articles, don't you? Like, eating steak and having sex, ideally at the same time. Or having sex with steak, which, albeit messy, is ultimately less problematic than the human kind.
As for sacrificing food, sleep, and/or sex, forget it. If I could eat, sleep, and fuck simultaneously, I'd be doing it 24/7.
It is possible to roll and smoke a joint, while having sex at the same time.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Xerographica"Doesn't everybody have crazy dreams? What are yours?
I'm alone in a forest at night. A nearly full moon looms prominently in the sky. Black wolves with red eyes stare at me from the brush, following me. I try to leave, usually by following the creek - the only noticeable landmark aside from the moon amidst this impossibly vast network of trees and brambles. I'm attacked - always by man or monster, never the wolves - and lose. I never successfully make it out.
I've tried following the creek. I never get very far.
I've tried traveling away from the creek - only to find it again sooner or later.
I've tried talking to the wolves to no avail.
I've even tried nothing once. Didn't work.
Have you tried throwing a bright red ball for the wolves?
They probably just want to play.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Davka"Orchids won't grow outdoors in LA, it's too dry. So fuck your epiphyte-attaching shakedown, bucko!
I believe you could utilize your time more efficiently without resorting to edits which devalue Wikipedia articles, don't you? Like, eating steak and having sex, ideally at the same time. Or having sex with steak, which, albeit messy, is ultimately less problematic than the human kind.
As for sacrificing food, sleep, and/or sex, forget it. If I could eat, sleep, and fuck simultaneously, I'd be doing it 24/7.
It is possible to roll and smoke a joint, while having sex at the same time.
But while eating steak?
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Davka"Orchids won't grow outdoors in LA, it's too dry. So fuck your epiphyte-attaching shakedown, bucko!
I believe you could utilize your time more efficiently without resorting to edits which devalue Wikipedia articles, don't you? Like, eating steak and having sex, ideally at the same time. Or having sex with steak, which, albeit messy, is ultimately less problematic than the human kind.
As for sacrificing food, sleep, and/or sex, forget it. If I could eat, sleep, and fuck simultaneously, I'd be doing it 24/7.
It is possible to roll and smoke a joint, while having sex at the same time.
But while eating steak?
Yep, unless I'm misteaken.
So you wrote all that while fucking? At least you can multitask.. I guess..
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I didn't get anything from the OP. Do you mean we waste time doing all that? But we need to waste that time doing all that. Not just that, we also need to feel the 'need' for eating, sleeping and having sex. You cannot extract human from those basic needs and I don't even mean in a biological-physiological way which is actually the first obvious one.
OP is evidence why any real research on a topic is done through journals like APSR (and the many others, I just used that as an example) and not wiki. Verbose irrelevancies generally get you a laughing reply from referees...unless you're writing for a theology journal I guess.
The title of the thread is actually an interesting topic, well to me it is anyway.
It's shame approximately 2% of OP's post was actually about the title of the thread and little of that made sense as well, just like the rest of OP's post.
Every choice we make has some sort of opportunity cost, and analysing fundamental human behaviours with this in mind would have probably yielded some of the most interesting discussion AF has seen since we moved over to the new board.
Too bad OP was going to discuss this, but he didn't because:
[youtube:3g5rbpna]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw[/youtube:3g5rbpna]
QuoteEvery choice we make has some sort of opportunity cost, and analysing fundamental human behaviours with this in mind would have probably yielded some of the most interesting discussion AF has seen since we moved over to the new board.
Deep. Seriously, the only cogent point to come out of the OP. do a thread, my man.
You lost me after wrestling with the definition of getting laid.. I'd rather read the NYT's. :-k
Quote from: "SilentFutility"The title of the thread is actually an interesting topic, well to me it is anyway.
It's shame approximately 2% of OP's post was actually about the title of the thread and little of that made sense as well, just like the rest of OP's post.
Every choice we make has some sort of opportunity cost, and analysing fundamental human behaviours with this in mind would have probably yielded some of the most interesting discussion AF has seen since we moved over to the new board.
Too bad OP was going to discuss this, but he didn't because:
Heh, too funny. More cowbell? What about more cayenne? There's been more than a few times when I've put too much cayenne in my soup.
Clearly there's an optimal amount of cayenne that I should put into my soup. Just like there's an optimal amount of cayenne that should be supplied by farmers. Society's total welfare is diminished if there's too much or too little cayenne. A shortage of cayenne means too many boring soups and a surplus of cayenne means that there's a shortage of other essential ingredients.
Is what I'm saying making sense to you? Or do we still have the same problem that I smoked too much weed? I got too much weed and not enough cayenne? Perhaps you don't need as much cayenne when you're high.
Basically I'm talking about the efficient allocation of resources. Efficient allocation means optimal provision. And optimal provision depends on...opportunity cost.
Markets allow resources to flow to where they create the most value simply because we have the freedom to spend our money/time on the things that we value most.
Which do you value more...weed or cayenne? Values are subjective...but clearly weed is far more costly than cayenne. It's supply and demand. When it comes to weed...the demand is greater than the supply. It has absolutely nothing to do with weed being more difficult to grow than cayenne...and everything to do with cheap morals.
What are cheap morals? Cheap morals allow you to spend other people's money on your ideas of right and wrong.
The way the government is set up...you can demand things and then expect other people to pick up the tab. In other words, voters skip the opportunity cost part. They pass the difficult decisions onto their personal shoppers.
Voters are simply trying to maximize their utility. They are behaving rationally...they want the most bang for their buck...but they are making a huge mistake. People don't understand that the only way we can ensure an optimal provision of public goods is for each and every person to consider the opportunity costs of their spending decisions.
So when it comes to answering the question of whether drugs should be illegal...we put it to a ballot vote. But when it comes to answering the question of how much money should be spent on the drug war...we have to give taxpayers the freedom to put their own tax dollars where their morals are. Without each and every taxpayer evaluating the opportunity costs...we're certain to end up with a surplus or shortage of drug war.
Well...unless government planners are omniscient. Perhaps, just like God, they know exactly when a sparrow falls and they know exactly how much you value the drug war. If government planners can know these things...then there's really no need to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
*filters my 1300+ passages database for "omni"*...
QuoteBut where Wicksell proceeded to examine the process of preference revelation, Samuelson provided a more general definition of the efficient solution. Preference revelation is disregarded as the model visualizes an omniscient referee to whom preferences are known. - Richard A. Musgrave, Public Finance (//http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_P000244&edition=current&q=%22Preference%20revelation%22&topicid=&result_number=1)
Isn't that hilarious? The current system is based on assuming that government planners, just like God, are all knowing.
So can somebody who believes in the current system truly call themselves an atheist? Naw, I don't think so.
QuoteEssential though the efficiency model of public goods is as a theoretical construct, standing by itself it has little practical use. The omniscient referee does not exist and the problem of preference revelation must be addressed. - Richard A. Musgrave, Public Finance (//http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_P000244&edition=current&q=%22Preference%20revelation%22&topicid=&result_number=1)
Another word for "preference" is "demand"...as in supply and demand. So "preference revelation" is the same thing as "demand revelation". Here's a blog entry where I posted numerous passages on the subject...The Preference Revelation Problem (//http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-preference-revelation-problem.html).
So what do you think? Is this better than the OP? Or shall I try again? Or perhaps you should you listen to stromboli and "do a thread"?
And just like that, anything interesting in this topic died because you had to rehash the same bull you always post but can't adequately defend :(
Quote from: "Plu"And just like that, anything interesting in this topic died because you had to rehash the same bull you always post but can't adequately defend :(
What do you mean that I can't adequately defend it? Are you saying that I made the preference revelation problem up? Is it simply a figment of my imagination? Did I chomp on too many magic mushrooms?
Did you not read those passages by Richard A. Musgrave? Perhaps you need another passage.
So tell me...what part of the following passage do you disagree with?
QuoteHow, then, are demand functions revealed? It would be disingenuous, to say the least, in an exercise whose object is to discover how demand is revealed, to assume that, ex ante, centers of power know the preferences of consuming households. We must then begin our analysis of the forces that motivate citizens to reveal their preferences by focusing on a fundamental information problem. I therefore assume that as a consequence of imperfect information concerning the preferences of citizens, centers of power will provide, except by accident, goods and services in quantities that will be either larger or smaller than the quantities desired by consuming households at the taxprices they confront, and I show that these departures from optimality inflict utility loses on these households. - Albert Breton, Competitive Governments: An Economic Theory of Politics and Public Finance (//http://books.google.com/books?id=o0XNlQCub1cC)
I don't disagree with any of that, it's a great theory. It just doesn't work in practice, like most theories that sound so simple when you write them down. It's ignoring the complexities of the actual world, like most theoretical systems, and that's why we never implement them but instead go for something that sounds less nice but actually works.
Quote from: "Plu"I don't disagree with any of that, it's a great theory. It just doesn't work in practice, like most theories that sound so simple when you write them down. It's ignoring the complexities of the actual world, like most theoretical systems, and that's why we never implement them but instead go for something that sounds less nice but actually works.
You just contradicted yourself. If you think the current system works...then you can't agree with the passage. So which is it?
Let's try again. Do you agree or disagree with the following passage?
QuotePrices must also play a more important role as a mechanism for revealing the true demand for - and therefore, indicating the efficient supply of - public infrastructure. The current disconnect between payment by users and services provided by specific infrastructure assets has led to too much public capital in some sectors and too little in other sectors. - Harry Kitchen, Physical Infrastructure and Financing (//http://www.trentu.ca/economics/WorkingPapers/Physical%20Infrastructure.pdf)
You're a dumbass if you can't even understand my previous post. It really wasn't that hard.
Quote from: "Plu"You're a dumbass if you can't even understand my previous post. It really wasn't that hard.
Passage: The current system does not work because the government does not supply the optimal amount of public goods
You: I don't disagree with the passage
You: The current system works
You obviously contradicted yourself. Why? Because evidently you didn't understand the passage that you said that you agreed with.
Repetition is the key to learning...so let's try another passage. Do you agree or disagree with the following passage?
QuoteBecause of the coercive nature of government activity, two additional results come forth. First, by voluntarily purchasing an item on the market, an individual demonstrates that he values the item more than the money price. But in paying taxes, he makes no such demonstration. The government does not know, as a business does, the value individuals place on its activity. Since government cannot obtain the information and incentive by demonstrated preferences of individuals, they cannot efficiently serve individuals. - Jeffrey Herbener, Austrian Methodology: The Preferred Tax Type (//http://books.google.com/books?id=4neLQXRNntkC&pg=PA111&dq=%22forced+riders%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gC0nUarxC9HOigK3oYHQAQ&ved=0CIIBEOgBMA4#v=onepage&q=%22forced%20riders%22&f=true)
You missed the piece about "theory versus practice".
Quote from: "Plu"You missed the piece about "theory versus practice".
In practice the government does actually supply an optimal amount of public goods? Where are you getting your information from? Can you cite any sources? Because I can provide plenty of sources that prove that your assumption is incorrect...
QuoteTwo major problems with government provision of public goods, as discussed in the previous chapter, are the problems of preference revelation and preference aggregation: it is difficult to design democratic institutions that cause individuals to honestly reveal their preferences for public goods, and it is also difficult to aggregate individual preferences into a social decision. As a result, governments are often unable to deliver the optimal level of public goods in practice. - Jonathan Gruber, Public Finance and Public Policy (//http://books.google.com/books?id=0nwbDqaxSToC)
Sigh. Nevermind, I give up. You either are too dumb for or just don't want to have an actual discussion about this.
Quote from: "Plu"Sigh. Nevermind, I give up. You either are too dumb for or just don't want to have an actual discussion about this.
I'm pretty sure that I'm not too dumb...and I really do want to have an actual discussion about this. Do you have any other theories? The theory that I'm high seems to be fairly popular around here.
How about another passage?
QuoteVoting and other democratic procedures can help to produce information about the demand for public goods, but these processes are unlikely to work as well at providing the optimal amounts of public goods as do markets at providing the optimal amounts of private goods. Thus, we have more confidence that the optimal amount of toothpaste is purchased every year ($2.3 billion worth in recent years) than the optimal amount of defense spending ($549 billion) or the optimal amount of asteroid deflection (close to $0). In some cases, we could get too much of the public good with many people being forced riders and in other cases we could get too little of the public good. - Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabarrok, Modern Principles of Economics (//http://books.google.com/books?id=BdnxxpsF2pMC)
Quote from: "Plu"I don't disagree with any of that, it's a great theory. It just doesn't work in practice, like most theories that sound so simple when you write them down. It's ignoring the complexities of the actual world, like most theoretical systems, and that's why we never implement them but instead go for something that sounds less nice but actually works.
One word: Heuristics.
All of This, just like RCT, is a heuristic device.
I fail to see the connection between economic theory and eating, sleeping, and fucking. Someone pass me the bong so I can keep up, willya?
Quote from: "Davka"I fail to see the connection between economic theory and eating, sleeping, and fucking. Someone pass me the bong so I can keep up, willya?
so..... if they eventually legalize, does this mean we will have "post while you're stoned" threads? :-k
oh, wait- we already do.