I’m currently in the middle of reading this article.

It’s interesting stuff that is largely in line with my own thinking, but I find the information presented here to be a bit wanting.

"How dangerous are monopolies and oligopolies? How much can they reap in excessive profits? Several kinds of evidence suggest that monopolies and small-number oligopolies have limited power to earn much more than competitive rates of return on capital. A large number of studies have compared the rate of return on investment with the degree to which industries are concentrated (measured by share of the industry sales made by, say, the four largest firms). The relationship between profitability and concentration is almost invariably loose: less than 25 percent of the variation in profit rates across industries can be attributed to concentration.
A more specific illustration of the effect the number of rivals has on price can be found in Reuben Kessel’s study of the underwriting of state and local government bonds. Syndicates of investment bankers bid for the right to sell an issue of bonds by, say, the state of California. The successful bidder might bid 98.5 (or $985 for a $1,000 bond) and, in turn, seek to sell the issue to investors at 100 ($1,000 for a $1,000 bond). In this case the underwriter “spread” would be 1.5 (or $15 per $1,000 bond).
In a study of thousands of bond issues, after correcting for size and safety and other characteristics of each issue, Kessel found the pattern of underwriter spreads to be as shown in Table 2.
For twenty or more bidders—which is, effectively, perfect competition—the spread was ten dollars. Merely increasing the number of bidders from one to two was sufficient to halve the excess spread over what it would be at the ten-dollar competitive level. Thus, even a small number of rivals may bring prices down close to the competitive level. Kessel’s results, more than any other single study, convinced me that competition is a tough weed, not a delicate flower."

George J. Stigler, Monopoly (via hongkongstockexchange)

Relevant in light of federal regulators being worried that the merger of dollar general and family dollar might be monopolistic practice.

(Source: ordnungsokonomik)

ordnungsokonomik:

I’ve been watching the Khan Academy linear algebra playlist and one thing doesn’t make sense to me. It says that ab = ab, but ab is a scalar and aᵀb is a 1x1 matrix. You can multiply any matrix by a scalar but multiplying an mxn matrix by a 1x1 matrix is undefined in most cases.

When I was reading my book on mathematical economics, I had the same concern, but it seems (at least according to that author) that a 1x1 matrix is just defined to be the same as a scalar instead of having the properties you would expect from a matrix.

ordnungsokonomik:

hongkongstockexchange:

lostincape-town:

I’m attracted to intelligence. Not the book smart type of intelligence. I could care less whether you’ve gone to college or how much money you make because of it. I like intelligent conversations that make me think even hours after it’s ended. I soak up words from radical minds.

Intelligent people are more likely to be “book smart,” go to college, and earn high incomes, hence these can be used as proxies for intelligence when you cannot gauge it a more direct way such as spontaneous knowledge of IQ scores.

Step one: “Hey I may have an IQ of 80 but what if money don’t real?!?”

Step two: Collect panties

Inb4: “but book smarts are a bad proxy for intelligence”

If you have a conversation and you cannot think it through even hours after it’s ended, there are two general conclusions:

1. The conversation was actually quite intelligent.

2. You’re not intelligent enough to understand the conversation.

Furthermore, the truth of 1 in turn has two general implications. Either

a. The person you were having a conversation with is intelligent

b. The person you were having a conversation with is of mediocre intelligence and is reciting the arguments of someone who does happen to be intelligent.

Only if conditions 1 and a are satisfied does an intelligent conversation imply intelligence.

Therefore, even if “book smart” is a poor proxy for intelligence, “intelligent conversations that make me think even hours after it’s ended” is probably an even poorer proxy for intelligence.

"Human envy is certainly not one of the sources of discontent that a free society can eliminate. It is probably one of the essential conditions for the preservation of such a society that we do not countenance envy, not sanction its demands by camouflaging it as social justice, but treat it, in the words of John Stuart Mill, as ‘the most anti-social and evil of all passions"
— Friedrich A. Hayek  (1899-1992) Austrian Economist (via philosophicalconservatism)

theloudestsongs:

suns-of-liberty:

i-am-dallas:

dumblr—feminist:

anti-sjw-groudon:

ipodiphoneirack:

FUCK!

IT HAS BEGUN! THE BACKLASH AGAINST THE NAIL POLISH THAT COULD BE SAVING WOMEN’S LIVES!

Feminists like Laci Green don’t want women to be able to protect themselves from rapists. They don’t care that this could save people’s lives. They don’t care that could prevent women from being raped.

No. They are worried we might be ‘victim blaming’. :(

This is why women don’t need feminism.

fuck protecting ourselves. feminism is going to get rid of rape once and for all! just like the police got rid of crime.  and like the military got rid of wars.  hell, put aside the fact that there has been rape since the beginning of humanity, THESE women, THESE feminists of 2014, THESE people who cry over a video game character.  THEY’RE going to be the ones to end it!

DON’T USE BUG SPRAY JUST TEACH MOSQUITOES NOT TO BITE ME! SCREW FIRE EXTINGUISHERS LETS JUST TEACH FIRE NOT TO BURN! Fucking backwards logic.

I’m not sure how people can continue to think Laci Green is intellectually insightful when she says things like this.

In the responses above, I see two strawmen, a false analogy, and a personal attack, respectively. Obviously Laci Green is not saying that we can magically end all rape with social change, or that we can completely end rape. She is not even saying that the nail polish is a bad thing.

Instead, she’s bringing some reality to the idealistic perception that special nail polish will solve rape. She’s not saying we shouldn’t use it, but rather, that it’s never going to drastically reduce rape rates (given how few rapes involve date rape drugs). Instead, we should focus our energy on changing the social mentality that leads to rape. It’s fair to say that a large number of rapes are caused by the mentality of these men, so there are a lot more potentially preventable rapes with this approach than the 2.4% of rapes that the nail polish can potentially affect.

I don’t think Laci Green really is saying the words you are putting into her mouth. I can admit that the comments above mine have logical issues. I can even admit my own comment constitutes a personal attack. However, I am not willing to accept that Laci Green’s own position is not itself highly fallacious.

You claim that she is not saying that nail polish is a bad thing. In fear of invoking more strawmen, let us consult the picture directly.

These devices are helpful insofar as they make women feel safe and in control

But there are flaws!

It is inconsistent for Laci to say here that as long as women feel safe, anti-rape devices are helpful and yet still claim later that they are bad because they “promote an illusion of safety.” If she is to be consistent, she must choose to discard one of the arguments, and considering that the whole point of the picture is to show the flaws of relying on anti-rape technology, I am inclined to speculate that given the choice, she would discard the argument that they can be helpful. In light of her own arguments, it seems as if the line that “these devices are helpful…control” is more lip service. It is clear that the flaws presented outweigh the benefits, and in the final assessment, this picture does more to show that anti-rape devices are bad than to say that they do have benefits. Note furthermore that Laci is claiming that there are flaws not with culture in general or people’s perceptions, but with the devices themselves. It is this argument in particular that I want to explore further.

Let us look at exactly why Laci believe that anti-rape devices are flawed.

They add to a long list of things women are “supposed to do”

But isn’t it the existence of such a list that is at fault, not the device itself? The flaw is that people have bad mentalities, not that there is anything inherently wrong with anti-rape technologies. In the absence of any technology to help prevent rape, the arguments that “she shouldn’t have been wearing such slutty clothing” or “she was totally asking for it” and more like these still exist.

This further limits women’s freedom by limiting their choices and promoting victim blaming.

Before this technology, women were forced to be vigilant if they wanted to avoid being drugged. With the technology, they can choose to use the nail polish or they can choose to just be careful without it, just like before. Maybe I’m just being superficial, but isn’t that more choices than before? Laci never properly defends her (very counter intuitive) assertion that anti-rape technologies actually limit choice and therefore, we should dismiss it until it is properly backed. Furthermore, victim blaming will occur regardless of the state of technology. True, the existence of technology give some ignorant people on the internet an excuse to blame the internet, but people who do victim blame will find excuses with or without the aid of the technology. Furthermore, if we interpret freedom in a political-legal sense, this statement is simply false. I find it highly implausible that “She wasn’t wearing anti-rape nail polish so she was totally asking for it/consenting” to hold any water in a court of law. Therefore, women do not have to wear anti-rape nail polish to have the protection of the law, and therefore, there is no limiting of freedoms going on.

Such a device promotes an illusion of safety when rape is still possible.

Again, it is the people who hold such illusions that are flawed, not the technology itself. The picture is correct in pointing out the limited applicability of this particular technology, but in the larger context of its own arguments, it is still wrong.

After having addressed these relatively minor points, I get to my main point of disagreement, which is that the argument presented here (and often elsewhere) is a bit of a false dilemma.

Instead, we should focus our energy on changing the social mentality that leads to rape.

These sorts of arguments are often presented as above as if there is a choice between focusing “our” energies on either creating technologies to help prevent rape or on changing the culture to prevent rape. However, the only sensible solution in my mind is that we both treat the symptoms and cure the disease. It is certainly true that changing the social mentality that leads to rape addresses the underlying problem directly and would therefore be more effective, if successful. However, the pitfall is that cultural change is slow and would most likely take at least a generation to happen. That leaves a very long “short run” in which the problem still persists.

The “short run” solution of helping women avoid rape scenarios whenever possible possesses two advantages over the cultural solution. In the first place, it can be applied much more quickly. Even if it is only applicable to 2.4% of all rape cases, its expediency makes up for its limited use value. The 2.4% of women that it can help is by no means negligible, and it can help these women now, as opposed to waiting until the culture changes. In the second place, it is potentially profitable. If it can be shown that the anti-rape business has a lot of money in it, then even greedy, selfish capitalists might rack their brain into finding a solution. Maybe then, solutions will come out that are applicable not only to the limited case of drugging but to other forms of rape. It is true that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that these quick fixes are the be all end all solution, but we should also not underestimate the power of entrepreneurial inventiveness in alleviating social ills, provided that there is profit in doing so.

Insofar as Laci or feminists like her are just pointing out that these anti-rape devices are simply quick fixes addressing symptoms and not cures to the underlying problem, I have no complaints. However, insofar as they are actually blaming the device for making some things worse (which I have tried to show that they are indeed doing), I am forced to denounce their arguments as counterproductive.

i-am-dallas:

dumblr—feminist:

anti-sjw-groudon:

ipodiphoneirack:

FUCK!

IT HAS BEGUN! THE BACKLASH AGAINST THE NAIL POLISH THAT COULD BE SAVING WOMEN’S LIVES!

Feminists like Laci Green don’t want women to be able to protect themselves from rapists. They don’t care that this could save people’s lives. They don’t care that could prevent women from being raped.

No. They are worried we might be ‘victim blaming’. :(

This is why women don’t need feminism.

fuck protecting ourselves. feminism is going to get rid of rape once and for all! just like the police got rid of crime.  and like the military got rid of wars.  hell, put aside the fact that there has been rape since the beginning of humanity, THESE women, THESE feminists of 2014, THESE people who cry over a video game character.  THEY’RE going to be the ones to end it!

DON’T USE BUG SPRAY JUST TEACH MOSQUITOES NOT TO BITE ME! SCREW FIRE EXTINGUISHERS LETS JUST TEACH FIRE NOT TO BURN! Fucking backwards logic.

I’m not sure how people can continue to think Laci Green is intellectually insightful when she says things like this.

Anonymous Asked
Questionman is a natural capitalist it's been in our blood since the dawn of mankind Answer

ordnungsokonomik:

shitrichcollegekidssay:

image

ok

Given your history of sending yourself dumb anons which you can then hilariously “refute” I wouldn’t be surprised if this is another example.

On the other hand, isn’t that argument (albeit with ever so slightly more nuance) essentially the one Rothbard tries to make in his worjs?

ordnungsokonomik:

I’m convinced that infiltrating the tumblr left will be easy as hell, and one day I’ll create a blog to test this theory. Post unsourced quotes of rich white males being problematic uwu. Repeat tired 60s-era cliches about how “capitalism is violence”. See how many followers I get. It will be the tumblr equivalent of the Sokal paper.

In fact, who’s to say that I haven’t already done this? Who’s to say that “Shit Rich White College Kids Say” isn’t already that blog?

That Sokal paper is arguably the biggest achievement of postmodernism

staticdiplomat:

ALL U ANCAPS SAY THEREs NO SUCH THING AS MARKET FAILURE

So why am I still mortal???

save me free market

Correction: all those an caps who read Rothbard.
Honestly, Rothbard’s argument that market failure cannot exist by definition is about as convincing as some Marxists who argue that capitalists exploit workers by definition.
Although the arguments are logically true, they do not say anything about the world.

panicacidide:

Apparently it’s not socially acceptable for a man to invite another man out just for coffee or to go out for a meal, in case it’s perceived as a date. Like it’s fine if you wanna go to the pub and drink beer and have a chat but make it non-alcoholic and suddenly you’re not straight anymore? You can go to the cinema together but ONLY if it’s an action movie. You guys can’t even just go shopping with each other. Oh masculinity, so fragile, so strange. 

I’ve been on such a “Man date” before and the idea I might be preceived as homosexual never even crossed my mind
Side note: I typed homosexual incorrectly and it got auto corrected to “him oscillator” which might not be a completely wrong description.

How is it possible to have utility maximizing rationality and economic growth at the same time? It would seem to me that growth is an ex post indicator in the current period that the economy was not optimized in previous periods. The empirical fact of almost always positive economic growth would seem to prove that humans on a whole have never optimized anything which is really a jab at the assumption of human rationality.
Economists usually explain away this seeming paradox by saying that growth is caused by exogenous shocks. This seems unsatisfactory to me. In particular, the exogenous shock explanation begs the question of why empirically, these exogenous shocks are on average, disproportionately positive. It seems to me that the theory is lacking here.

njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good

njrvmdcapa:

tubesock:

monster—zero:

PLEASE STOP

Ok ok ok

That lions head (not actually a lion) looks so good

(Source: saydox)

noxnoctis17:

invigoratingingenuity:

The Undead Buzzkill

How fitting.

BEHOLD! THE TUMBLR CRITIC!

The annoying car alarm…nice

(Source: harryfloorcorn)

Right now, the most beautiful sentence in the English language to me is “This completes the proof.”