There is a widespread confusion about the power and job of politicians. Most people believe - and lying politicians claim - that they can create jobs, win wars, broker deals and such. They cannot. These things are done by professionals. Save for a few mad leaders, no politician would stop professionals doing something good for the country. I mean if someone could send people to Mars, no politician would stop him. Actually most things are done outside of politics, in the private and NGO sector.
However many politician would not spend trillions of dollars reaching the Mars, while Kennedy spent the necessary money for reaching the Moon. Of course not his money, taxpayer money. So actually taxpayers sent astronauts to the Moon and Kennedy did nothing. Or did he?
The power of politicians lies in redistributing wealth and power within their society. They tax some people and give the money to others. They regulate some to decrease their power relative to their competitors. When you hear a politician saying "I will make X happen" you hear an empty slogan. When you hear "I will make X happen at the expense of Y", you have a program. This program can be stupidly wrong. But at least it's right or wrong. "I will make X" is not even wrong.
Hillary Clinton talked more about jobs than Donald Trump, yet her message wasn't holding. Why? Because she didn't explain who will pay for it. Her site has mostly empty claims how. Infrastructure program? From what? More tax when she offers tax reliefs in the same document?
Trump had two clear ways to make jobs: deport illegal immigrants who now occupy jobs and forcing manufacturers with a 35% border tax to manufacture in the US. Both can be wrong, but at least they make sense. I mean the first idea transfers jobs from immigrants to citizens, while the second transfers money from the buyers of the more expensive products to the workers who create it more expensively domestically. These can be done. It's not necessarily a good idea to do them, but you can do them.
All politicians offer solutions to all kinds of problems. Ignore them and focus only on those who offer the solutions in the form of wealth or power transfer. Because these are the things they can do.
However many politician would not spend trillions of dollars reaching the Mars, while Kennedy spent the necessary money for reaching the Moon. Of course not his money, taxpayer money. So actually taxpayers sent astronauts to the Moon and Kennedy did nothing. Or did he?
The power of politicians lies in redistributing wealth and power within their society. They tax some people and give the money to others. They regulate some to decrease their power relative to their competitors. When you hear a politician saying "I will make X happen" you hear an empty slogan. When you hear "I will make X happen at the expense of Y", you have a program. This program can be stupidly wrong. But at least it's right or wrong. "I will make X" is not even wrong.
Hillary Clinton talked more about jobs than Donald Trump, yet her message wasn't holding. Why? Because she didn't explain who will pay for it. Her site has mostly empty claims how. Infrastructure program? From what? More tax when she offers tax reliefs in the same document?
Trump had two clear ways to make jobs: deport illegal immigrants who now occupy jobs and forcing manufacturers with a 35% border tax to manufacture in the US. Both can be wrong, but at least they make sense. I mean the first idea transfers jobs from immigrants to citizens, while the second transfers money from the buyers of the more expensive products to the workers who create it more expensively domestically. These can be done. It's not necessarily a good idea to do them, but you can do them.
All politicians offer solutions to all kinds of problems. Ignore them and focus only on those who offer the solutions in the form of wealth or power transfer. Because these are the things they can do.
14 comments:
Leaders who control a sovereign currency have no actual need to tax. They have printing presses instead. As long as they don't get too greedy, they can even keep inflation under control as well.
So 35% WR in one of your previous posts is proof of rigging (prison), but 78% WR now is proof of how good your system works ?
Can you safely claim, that your patterns and decisions (even subconsciously) after let's say, ~50 WW games, were the same as they are now ? Or are you intentionally doing mistakes ingame to mimic your previous "skill" ?
Yes, "something is changed and something has happened is the the proof of causality" is kind of the science, even when random events can also explain everything in the world.
Of course my "skill" improves with every game, but to quote the devs: Warwick’s always been the go-to jungler for new players. He’s mechanically simple and stays very healthy in the jungle, but his gameplay pattern offers relatively little depth. Approachability is great, but you shouldn't be able to totally master a champ in a few games. http://www.surrenderat20.net/2017/01/warwick-uncaged-wrath-of-zaun.html
Or do you claim that after 500 games I magically forgot to play and fell to 35% winrate, just to master it 50 games later and get 75% and reach higher than ever before?!
It looks dodgy.
If, by your own count, half of the games are "fair", you should never be winning more than half of them. 75% winrate means you are winning ALL the unfair games (including the ones you were set up to lose) or you're simply very lucky.
OTOH I bought some stuff in World of Warships recently. I noticed immediately that matchmaking started placing me into lower tier games. Games are still fair overall, it is just me who has it easier, as most opponents are below my tier and very few are above. Of course, the opposing team has somebody like me, too.
Of course fair only in regards to win rate, xp and credits earned favour me considerably as I can do more damage in a better ship.
@Gelvon Clinton's documented policies were much more detailed and audit-able than Trump's (Trump's lack of detail made it harder to attack specifics, causing Clinton to mistakenly focus more on his illiberal ideas), but it is generally accepted wisdom to talk more about the people you are helping and less about who you will make pay the bill.
The traditional transfer model has winners and losers. Politicians try to maximise political capital from their winners while minimising the cost of their losers. Trump broke the rules by treating both sides of the transfer as positives. He wasn't helping one group at the expense of another. He was helping everyone and punishing the evil-doers.
@Ael Printing money is a form of transfer too since you are devaluing wealth holders to pay for the transfer.
The US government spend over 35% of national GDP and have a long-term GDP growth of 2-3%. Printing dollars faster than growing wealth will make your population poorer on average meaning non-greedy money creation would be limited to a small faction of total spending.
I'm curious how league level corresponds to "cred" in LoL.
In SC2:WoL (original pre-xpac game, back when i played it), you were someone of consequence when you reached Platinum. This was the point at which people started taking your streams somewhat seriously and also the point at which you could start meaningfully participating in communities such as Team Liquid on the strength of your ladder alone.
I am not sure how it is in SC2 nowadays (Diamond i guess?). How it is in LoL?
@Slawomir: the 50% fair is on average. I guess it was weekend when more casual players (read: buyers) play, so the rigged ratio was higher. It's not just a guess, I had more easy wins and "set up for defeat" games than usual.
@maxim: I have no idea, nor I care. I'm not interested in the "community".
@Gevlon
If you don't care then why are you so concerned with updates on which league you are in?
Leagues only matter within the context of the community. More to the point, your ability to prove anything about LoL significantly hinges on whether your "exploit exploitation" will allow you to reach a league that is perceived worthwhile by the community.
If you can reach a level that is considered to be the territory of the "skilled", then you might have an actual claim on having an understanding of the game. If you can't reach that level, then everything you said is hot air, almost irrespective of how correct it is.
Kind of like nobody in Eve would ever even notice a sub-million-ISK player. much less take him seriously.
@dobablo:
So your argument is that bankers are performing implicit wealth taxation when they lend money (i.e. creating money via creating a deposit).
Private bankers also have money printing presses and in some cases use it more than governments do.
@Maxim: according to op.gg my current position is that 26% of the players are ahead of me and 74% are below me. That's good enough but I'm now eyeing top 10%, that seems Gold 2 according to the rating of random dude I once played with http://eune.op.gg/summoner/userName=mattsm2th
So leagues have objective meaning and not subject of "community" opinion.
The "relevant" is probably top 1% or top 0.1% which is most likely unreachable for me (even if I win all the easy wins and sure losses, I'd lose too many fair games to progress. The elitism is strong in every game, anyone who is below you is a "useless scrub". I remember the belittling top raiders gave to other top raiders who were one boss behind.
Sure, the "elite" will likely say "lol b Challenger first XD" but I have no reason to care. The target audience is the median player who is forever stuck in ELO Hell. Remember that the "relevant community" in World of Tanks does clan battles and my posts became my top hitters despite I've never done any of it.
I haben't played LoL ever, but i read your Blog for years, thats the reason i comment on something i don't care much (LoL, not your Blog).
Something i've noticed in most pvp games; check for timeframes that are more or less profitable to play before something else. If you're a above average gamer but not a absolut top player, thats even more important.
@Ael Yes and no. Banks do create currency when they accept deposits and recycle back into the economy as loans (known as the money multiplier), and it has been the cause of unsustainable credit booms. That is one of the reasons for our post-credit-crisis regulations stipulating liquidity requirements for commercial banks. Theoretically this limits their ability to create money. Whether or not current regulations are enough is open for debate.
The money multiplier is a key consideration in government spending. Every note added to circulation by government (M0) increases the broad money in the economy (M2/3) many times over. Unfinanced government expenditure (or austerity measures) impact the economy by far more than the headline figure.
dobablo said...
"@Ael Yes and no."
Also, the banks are getting the money first, before the devaluation kicks in, so they get paid as if there is no inflation. By the time the inflated money gets to you or I, it's value had decreased. We're the ones being wealth-taxed by that, not the money's first users.
Also, I had to giggle at "As long as they don't get too greedy" in the very first comment. How's that working out? Giving politicians free access to money is like passing out fortified wine to winos.
@Gevlon
I am not entirely sure why you figure that top 10% is somehow better than top 25% and top 1% is too much. For all we know, everything you learn outside of top 0.1% may be utterly useless. Alternatively, it may well be the case that top 80% already have something worthy to say.
It seems you are catering your goals to what would be comfortable to reach for you and then saying that reaching these goals is "objectively correct regardless of community".
Post a Comment