Overcoming The Obstacle Of Distance

[Camicon]

I don't give a flying fuck what pushups have to do with trade. Provide proofs for your earlier assertions and cease further random hypothetical diversion attempts until you do so. :^)

I shouldn't have to prove that decreasing/increasing the cost of trade has an impact on the quantity of trade. If the earliest native Americans had realized that horses could be used to help overcome the obstacle of distance, then the cost of trading would have decreased. This logically would have increased the quantity of trading. This, in turn, logically would have had what consequence?

Xero. Hey Xero. You listening?

There were no horses in the Americas for over ten thousand years before Europeans reintroduced them.

[Galloism]

I shouldn't have to prove that decreasing/increasing the cost of trade has an impact on the quantity of trade. If the earliest native Americans had realized that horses could be used to help overcome the obstacle of distance, then the cost of trading would have decreased. This logically would have increased the quantity of trading. This, in turn, logically would have had what consequence?

Xero. Hey Xero. You listening?

There were no horses in the Americas for over ten thousand years before Europeans reintroduced them.

Why do you presume facts matter in a religious thread?

[Senkaku]

I shouldn't have to prove that decreasing/increasing the cost of trade has an impact on the quantity of trade. If the earliest native Americans had realized that horses could be used to help overcome the obstacle of distance, then the cost of trading would have decreased. This logically would have increased the quantity of trading. This, in turn, logically would have had what consequence?

Xero. Hey Xero. You listening?

There were no horses in the Americas for over ten thousand years before Europeans reintroduced them.

The premise is either that horses survive in North America, or that they're somehow magically re-introduced at some point all throughout the Western Hemisphere (including, like, the Amazon and the Atacama, I guess). Xero has refused to say which it is, and seems to want to have his plausibility cake and eat it too.

[Xerographica]

I shouldn't have to prove that decreasing/increasing the cost of trade has an impact on the quantity of trade. If the earliest native Americans had realized that horses could be used to help overcome the obstacle of distance, then the cost of trading would have decreased. This logically would have increased the quantity of trading. This, in turn, logically would have had what consequence?

Xero. Hey Xero. You listening?

There were no horses in the Americas for over ten thousand years before Europeans reintroduced them.

There was some overlap between the earliest humans and horses. See the links, and discussion, on the first page.

[Camicon]

Xero. Hey Xero. You listening?

There were no horses in the Americas for over ten thousand years before Europeans reintroduced them.

There was some overlap between the earliest humans and horses. See the links, and discussion, on the first page.

And that little overlap in 9000 BCE is supposed to result in Mars colonies, if only those silly Native Americans had thought to use horses for travel?

[Salandriagado]

Xero. Hey Xero. You listening?

There were no horses in the Americas for over ten thousand years before Europeans reintroduced them.

There was some overlap between the earliest humans and horses. See the links, and discussion, on the first page.

Not rideable horses.

[Xerographica]

There was some overlap between the earliest humans and horses. See the links, and discussion, on the first page.

And that little overlap in 9000 BCE is supposed to result in Mars colonies, if only those silly Native Americans had thought to use horses for travel?

Can I blame the native Americans for overlooking the really important fact that they could have used horses to help overcome the obstacle of distance?

Right now I grasp that overcoming the obstacle of distance decreases the cost of trade, which increases the quantity of trade, which increases development. Because I understand the benefit of increasing the quantity of trade, I understand the immense benefit of people being free to trade their own taxes for the public goods that are most relevant to them. I endeavor to share my understanding with others.

So far I'm failing to help other people understand why freedom of expression is so beneficial. Imagine that 1000 years from now everybody finally understands the immense benefit of individual expression. When they look back at history... who do you think they'll blame? Will they blame all the people who didn't understand the benefit of individual expression? Or will they blame the guy who did understand, but completely failed to help other people understand? Perhaps they'll be charitable and say, "Xero led them to water, but he couldn't make them drink." Maybe they'll be super charitable and say, "Xero planted the seed, it wasn't his fault that it took so long to germinate."

Of course I have to accept the possibility that I'm barking up the wrong tree. It's entirely possible that I'm overestimating the importance of people's freedom to express themselves. But it just seems so obvious that horses would have made it a lot easier for the earliest native Americans to express themselves, and this much greater transfer of important information would have greatly facilitated their development.

How much did language facilitate development? Language facilitates the transmission of information. Except, if language was adequate at transmitting information... then what was the point of trade?

Consider this discussion between two cavemen...

Bob: Ugh, I'm sooooo thirsty!!! Can I have some of your water?
Sam: No
Bob: But I'm dying of thirst!
Sam: I told you to use your water sparingly... but you didn't listen. Instead, you squandered your water.
Bob: Aren't you going to be sad if I die?
Sam: I would be. Let's make a deal. I'll give you some water if you give me some of your obsidian arrowheads.
Bob: No deal! It took me forever to make those!
Sam: Guess you aren't that thirsty.

Language makes it easy to communicate how important something is to us. But the problem is that this information isn't very reliable. It's easy to pretend that something is more important to us than it truly is. So relying on language alone would result in the massive misallocation/waste of society's limited resources. Garbage in, garbage out.

It is necessary to increase the accuracy/reliability of information about importance. This is what sacrifice helps to accomplish. Sacrifice is a costly signal so it's hard to fake. Here's what might be the most relevant Wikipedia entry... Handicap principle...

The handicap principle is a hypothesis originally proposed in 1975 by Israeli biologist Amotz Zahavi to explain how evolution may lead to "honest" or reliable signaling between animals which have an obvious motivation to bluff or deceive each other. The handicap principle suggests that reliable signals must be costly to the signaler, costing the signaler something that could not be afforded by an individual with less of a particular trait.

It's kinda crazy that this concept falls under biology rather than economics. So, as far as I can tell, nothing in that entry mentions the obvious fact that spending money is a costly signal. Talk about overlooking the obvious.

Horses lower the cost of costly signals. Horses would have made it easier for the earliest native Americans to make costly signals, which would have transmitted a much greater quantity of reliable information about the importance of things, which would have greatly improved the allocation of resources. Better boats would have been made and there would currently be colonies on Mars.

What am I missing?

[Camicon]

And that little overlap in 9000 BCE is supposed to result in Mars colonies, if only those silly Native Americans had thought to use horses for travel?

Can I blame the native Americans for overlooking the really important fact that they could have used horses to help overcome the obstacle of distance?

I can blame you for repeatedly refusing to acknowledge that domesticating horses for travel wasn't even an option for over 11,000 years.

*blahblahblah*

You really like the sound of your own voice, don't you?

Of course I have to accept the possibility that I'm barking up the wrong tree. It's entirely possible that I'm overestimating the importance of people's freedom to express themselves. But it just seems so obvious that horses would have made it a lot easier for the earliest native Americans to express themselves, and this much greater transfer of important information would have greatly facilitated their development.

So now travel is "expression"?

How much did language facilitate development? Language facilitates the transmission of information. Except, if language was adequate at transmitting information... then what was the point of trade?

People generally need a reason to talk to each other, or try to talk to each other. The exchange of goods and services provides that reason, and generally is the only good enough reason to warrant long and dangerous travel; that is, the acquisition of things that you can't get at home.

Consider this discussion between two cavemen...

Bob: Ugh, I'm sooooo thirsty!!! Can I have some of your water?
Sam: No
Bob: But I'm dying of thirst!
Sam: I told you to use your water sparingly... but you didn't listen. Instead, you squandered your water.
Bob: Aren't you going to be sad if I die?
Sam: I would be. Let's make a deal. I'll give you some water if you give me some of your obsidian arrowheads.
Bob: No deal! It took me forever to make those!
Sam: Guess you aren't that thirsty.

Sam is an asshole.

Language makes it easy to communicate how important something is to us. But the problem is that this information isn't very reliable. It's easy to pretend that something is more important to us than it truly is. So relying on language alone would result in the massive misallocation/waste of society's limited resources. Garbage in, garbage out.

It is necessary to increase the accuracy/reliability of information about importance. This is what sacrifice helps to accomplish. Sacrifice is a costly signal so it's hard to fake. Here's what might be the most relevant Wikipedia entry... Handicap principle...

Money doesn't accurately relay how important something is to us, either (we've gone over precisely why ad nauseum in your other threads).

It's kinda crazy that this concept falls under biology rather than economics.

Not really, no. What is crazy is that you think it's applicable to economics.

So, as far as I can tell, nothing in that entry mentions the obvious fact that spending money is a costly signal.

Which varies depending on how much money a person has, etcetera (see: previous threads explaining this patently obvious and embarassingly simple concept to Xero)

Talk about overlooking the obvious.

In... deed.

Horses lower the cost of costly signals. Horses would have made it easier for the earliest native Americans to make costly signals, which would have transmitted a much greater quantity of reliable information about the importance of things, which would have greatly improved the allocation of resources. Better boats would have been made and there would currently be colonies on Mars.

So your reasoning is that horses would have, for some reason, motivated Native Americans to build "better" boats. And this would have resulted in Mars colonies.

>Native Americans domesticate horses
>???
>Native Americans build "better" boats
>???
>Mars colonies

What am I missing?

I could write a one-hundred page thesis on that topic, and still not cover everything.

[Senkaku]

And that little overlap in 9000 BCE is supposed to result in Mars colonies, if only those silly Native Americans had thought to use horses for travel?

Can I blame the native Americans for overlooking the really important fact that they could have used horses to help overcome the obstacle of distance?

9,000 years ago, when un-ride-able horses still existed in North America, trade was not a thing. It did not exist. There were a grand total of zero agricultural societies in the New World and very few even in the Old World. So no, you can't blame them.

Because I understand the benefit of increasing the quantity of trade, I understand the immense benefit of people being free to trade their own taxes for the public goods that are most relevant to them.

It always comes back to this, doesn't it lol

So far I'm failing to help other people understand why freedom of expression is so beneficial.

You're not talking about freedom of expression at all. We're discussing trade and horses in the prehistoric Americas.

Imagine that 1000 years from now everybody finally understands the immense benefit of individual expression.

Given what you seem to be defining as inidividual expression, I'd say this is about as plausible as horses spreading throughout the Western Hemisphere and being used by the Olmecs to conquer the world and build Martian colonies.

Perhaps they'll be charitable and say, "Xero led them to water, but he couldn't make them drink." Maybe they'll be super charitable and say, "Xero planted the seed, it wasn't his fault that it took so long to germinate."

Lmaooooo

In 1,000 years, if humanity is still around, NS and all record of everyone who played it will have been completely obliterated from our collective memory, so I don't think you need to be worrying about your historical legacy or whatever just yet.

Of course I have to accept the possibility that I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Really? I've never seen you accept this possibility, ever.

But it just seems so obvious that horses would have made it a lot easier for the earliest native Americans to express themselves, and this much greater transfer of important information would have greatly facilitated their development.

I'm sorry, trade is not being equated with freedom of expression?

...please give me whatever drugs you're on, I want to ride that dragon.

How much did language facilitate development? Language facilitates the transmission of information. Except, if language was adequate at transmitting information... then what was the point of trade?

...to trade stuff. Trade did not arise because language was inadequate, it was because people wanted to exchange things (because, presumably, language or their own senses were used to provide them with perfectly adequate descriptions of other people's things). This is very silly and frankly quite random.

Better boats would have been made

Fig. 1: Massive logical leap No. 1

"Horses will lead to better boats"

and there would currently be colonies on Mars.

Fig 2: Massive logical leap No. 2

"Boats in the past will lead to current Martian colonies"

What am I missing?

At this point, I'm not sure any of us know either.

[Xerographica]

Senkaku, is it a coincidence that neither you or Camicon said anything about the handicap principle?

[Senkaku]

Senkaku, is it a coincidence that neither you or Camicon said anything about the handicap principle?

No, I suspect both of us just didn't feel it was worth our time to respond to you making even more pretentious pronouncements on how everyone's "overlooking the obvious" and masturbating to your favorite jargon.

But it could be a coincidence, Cami would have to confirm. Are you going to respond to any of the rest of what we said? :^)

[Xerographica]

Senkaku, is it a coincidence that neither you or Camicon said anything about the handicap principle?

No, I suspect both of us just didn't feel it was worth our time to respond to you making even more pretentious pronouncements on how everyone's "overlooking the obvious" and masturbating to your favorite jargon.

The handicap principle is my favorite jargon? If so, it should be pretty easy for you to provide examples of where I've used it before.

Are you going to respond to any of the rest of what we said? :^)

Most of what I said revolved around the importance of costly signals. You entirely ignored this and now expect me to respond to what you said?

[Senkaku]

Are you going to respond to any of the rest of what we said? :^)

Most of what I said revolved around the importance of costly signals. You entirely ignored this and now expect me to respond to what you said?

An indignant "no" and insistence we didn't really respond at all- cool, then I think this is over. Call me when you can formulate actual counterarguments and provide evidence for your speculation. :^)

[Xerographica]

Most of what I said revolved around the importance of costly signals. You entirely ignored this and now expect me to respond to what you said?

An indignant "no" and insistence we didn't really respond at all- cool, then I think this is over. Call me when you can formulate actual counterarguments and provide evidence for your speculation. :^)

What motivates you to announce that you think this is over? Clearly you can't be informing yourself that this might be over. So you're informing me that this might be over? What do you think would happen if you didn't provide this information? Do you think I'd continue our discussion... without you?

The fact of the matter is that most people on forums don't announce when they are leaving a discussion. But I'm pretty sure that this doesn't result in numerous one-sided discussions. I've never returned to a thread that I've left and discovered that there are 10 pages of Galloism continuing our discussion without me.

[Camicon]

Senkaku, is it a coincidence that neither you or Camicon said anything about the handicap principle?

O'rly?

It's kinda crazy that this concept [the Handicap principle] falls under biology rather than economics.

Not really, no. What is crazy is that you think it's applicable to economics.

Are you going to respond to any of the rest of what we said? :^)

Most of what I said revolved around the importance of costly signals. You entirely ignored this and now expect me to respond to what you said?

We didn't ignore it. I didn't, at least. I reminded you that we debunked the arguments you use to "support" "cost signalling" in prior threads, because your ideas are as repetitive as they are ridiculous.

[Xerographica]

Senkaku, is it a coincidence that neither you or Camicon said anything about the handicap principle?

O'rly?

Not really, no. What is crazy is that you think it's applicable to economics.

Most of what I said revolved around the importance of costly signals. You entirely ignored this and now expect me to respond to what you said?

We didn't ignore it. I didn't, at least. I reminded you that we debunked the arguments you use to "support" "cost signalling" in prior threads, because your ideas are as repetitive as they are ridiculous.

Please link me to where you debunked the handicap principle.

[Costa Fierro]

Xero. Hey Xero. You listening?

There were no horses in the Americas for over ten thousand years before Europeans reintroduced them.

There was some overlap between the earliest humans and horses. See the links, and discussion, on the first page.

And the earliest horses were not domesticated and not useful to the people that lived there, because the people that lived there at the time you are talking about were not agricultural or needed any beasts of burden.

[Xerographica]

There was some overlap between the earliest humans and horses. See the links, and discussion, on the first page.

And the earliest horses were not domesticated and not useful to the people that lived there, because the people that lived there at the time you are talking about were not agricultural or needed any beasts of burden.

Every time they moved they had to carry everything themselves. So they themselves were the beasts of burden. I'm sure that they would have benefited from outsourcing their burden to horses. Why didn't they realize this? Of course I'd love to know how the first person finally figured out that other animals could be used to carry things. Was this person a genius or was it just an accidental and very fortunate discovery?

Maybe this is relevant...

One of those boys, who loved to play with his companions, observed that, by tying a string from the handle of the valve which opened this communication, to another part of the machine, the valve would open and shut without his assistance, and leave him at liberty to divert himself with his play-fellows. One of the greatest improvements that has been made upon this machine, since it was first invented, was in this manner the discovery of a boy who wanted to save his own labour. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Slaves, however, are very seldom inventive; and all the most important improvements, either in machinery, or in the arrangement and distribution of work which facilitate and abridge labour, have been the discoveries of freemen. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

[Costa Fierro]

Every time they moved they had to carry everything themselves. So they themselves were the beasts of burden.

They carried only what they needed. What was needed wasn't enough for horses.

I'm sure that they would have benefited from outsourcing their burden to horses. Why didn't they realize this?

Because they didn't need them. Horses to them were sources of food. This was the same for horse species across the world towards the end of the Pleistocene.

[Camicon]

O'rly?


We didn't ignore it. I didn't, at least. I reminded you that we debunked the arguments you use to "support" "cost signalling" in prior threads, because your ideas are as repetitive as they are ridiculous.

Please link me to where you debunked the handicap principle.

Please show me where you proved that a theory about biological evolution is similarly applicable to human economic activities.

[Xerographica]

Please link me to where you debunked the handicap principle.

Please show me where you proved that a theory about biological evolution is similarly applicable to human economic activities.

Which parts of the handicap principle do you think are irrelevant to human economic activities?

[Xerographica]

Every time they moved they had to carry everything themselves. So they themselves were the beasts of burden.

They carried only what they needed. What was needed wasn't enough for horses.

This made me chuckle. You think they killed a woolly mammoth and only carried the meat that they needed? Let's say you're hiking along and happen to find more gold than you can possibly carry. You'll only carry the gold that you need?

Here's a video of a coywolf replacing a goose egg with a roadkill. Do you think she only carried what she needed?

Would you guess that bags were invented before or after it was discovered that animals could be used to carry things?

[Camicon]

Please show me where you proved that a theory about biological evolution is similarly applicable to human economic activities.

Which parts of the handicap principle do you think are irrelevant to human economic activities?

I don't have to make that argument until you explain why a theory regarding biological evolution would be at all applicable to explaining your own personal theory on human economic behaviour.

[Xerographica]

Which parts of the handicap principle do you think are irrelevant to human economic activities?

I don't have to make that argument until you explain why a theory regarding biological evolution would be at all applicable to explaining your own personal theory on human economic behaviour.

Since you're not going to say which parts of the handicap principle you think are irrelevant to human economics then we can do this step by step.

Step 1

The handicap principle is about costly signals. Do you agree that spending money is a costly signal?

[Cetacea]

This is a reconstruction of an American Wild Horse btw, smaller than the modern horse (and smaller even than true Tarpans).

No way of knowing if they were suitable for riding either -