Game Theory For Baby Names

[The Two Jerseys]

I've already pointed out such disparities in your division.

You can't point out the disparity between my division and my preferences. You know why? It's because you don't know my preferences better than I do. Nobody knows my preferences better than I do. This means that I'm the only one who can point out the disparity. Is there a disparity? No.

I do truly like all those songs... but I don't like all of them equally. They aren't all equally useful to me. This is clearly proved by the fact that I didn't equally divide my $10 dollars between the 10 songs.

Since I do really like all these songs, I want them to be on more people's radar. And now they are! I shared these 10 songs in this thread and now they are on the radar of everybody who saw my list. But what if I was going to actually spend money to put these songs on even more people's radar? Would I want to promote these 10 songs equally? Nope. The more useful a song is to me, the more radars that I'd want it to be on.

But I'd rather not have your songs cluttering up my radar scope.

[Salandriagado]

I've already pointed out such disparities in your division.

You can't point out the disparity between my division and my preferences. You know why? It's because you don't know my preferences better than I do. Nobody knows my preferences better than I do. This means that I'm the only one who can point out the disparity. Is there a disparity? No.

I do truly like all those songs... but I don't like all of them equally. They aren't all equally useful to me. This is clearly proved by the fact that I didn't equally divide my $10 dollars between the 10 songs.

Since I do really like all these songs, I want them to be on more people's radar. And now they are! I shared these 10 songs in this thread and now they are on the radar of everybody who saw my list. But what if I was going to actually spend money to put these songs on even more people's radar? Would I want to promote these 10 songs equally? Nope. The more useful a song is to me, the more radars that I'd want it to be on.

Yes I can. Because you stated your preferences. Specifically, you claimed that you like all ten of the songs: that is, you said that you have a positive valuation of all of them. And yet, when it came to allocating those $10, you allocated $0 to several of them. This is an explicit disparity between your preferences and your spending.

[Xerographica]

You'd recommend a book... but you wouldn't spend a dollar to promote it?

I would not, because I would lose a dollar and gain nothing.

You'd gain nothing?

Here's an essay by Friedrich Hayek... The Case For Freedom. Have you read it? Probably not. Most people haven't. I'd be willing to pay $1 dollar to promote Hayek's essay. From my perspective, I'd definitely gain something if more people truly understood the case for freedom. If more people understood the case for freedom, there would be more freedom. I'd have more freedom. But the benefit that I'd gain from more personal freedom is vanishingly small compared to the amount of benefit that I'd gain from everyone having more freedom.

Virtually everything that I benefit from is the result of other people's freedom. So a little more freedom for everybody means a lot more benefit for me. Logically, a little more freedom for everybody means a lot more benefit for everybody.

People's knowledge really isn't equally beneficial to me. People's ignorance isn't equally harmful to me. Right now I could spend my time telling you about epiphytes. Did you know that they grow on trees? If not, then now you do. And perhaps you would use this knowledge to attach an epiphyte to a tree. And I'd certainly benefit from living in a world with more epiphytes on trees.

So why I haven't spent my time telling you about epiphytes? Simple. Your ignorance of epiphytes is a lot less harmful to me than your ignorance of economics. This is why I spend a lot more time combating your economic ignorance.

Do you perceive that people have some ignorance that harms you? If not, then there's a problem.

[Xerographica]

You can't point out the disparity between my division and my preferences. You know why? It's because you don't know my preferences better than I do. Nobody knows my preferences better than I do. This means that I'm the only one who can point out the disparity. Is there a disparity? No.

I do truly like all those songs... but I don't like all of them equally. They aren't all equally useful to me. This is clearly proved by the fact that I didn't equally divide my $10 dollars between the 10 songs.

Since I do really like all these songs, I want them to be on more people's radar. And now they are! I shared these 10 songs in this thread and now they are on the radar of everybody who saw my list. But what if I was going to actually spend money to put these songs on even more people's radar? Would I want to promote these 10 songs equally? Nope. The more useful a song is to me, the more radars that I'd want it to be on.

Yes I can. Because you stated your preferences. Specifically, you claimed that you like all ten of the songs: that is, you said that you have a positive valuation of all of them. And yet, when it came to allocating those $10, you allocated $0 to several of them. This is an explicit disparity between your preferences and your spending.

Here's my dollar division...

$4: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$2: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$0: Jan Blomqvist - More
$0: DATA - Don't Sing
$0: Moderat - Running
$0: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

Here's an alternative division...

$1: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$1: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$1: Jan Blomqvist - More
$1: DATA - Don't Sing
$1: Moderat - Running
$1: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

Which dollar division more accurately reflects my preferences?

[Galloism]

Yes I can. Because you stated your preferences. Specifically, you claimed that you like all ten of the songs: that is, you said that you have a positive valuation of all of them. And yet, when it came to allocating those $10, you allocated $0 to several of them. This is an explicit disparity between your preferences and your spending.

Here's my dollar division...

$4: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$2: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$0: Jan Blomqvist - More
$0: DATA - Don't Sing
$0: Moderat - Running
$0: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

Here's an alternative division...

$1: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$1: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$1: Jan Blomqvist - More
$1: DATA - Don't Sing
$1: Moderat - Running
$1: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

Which dollar division more accurately reflects my preferences?

Based on your statements, it looks like they're both equally wrong.

[Salandriagado]

Yes I can. Because you stated your preferences. Specifically, you claimed that you like all ten of the songs: that is, you said that you have a positive valuation of all of them. And yet, when it came to allocating those $10, you allocated $0 to several of them. This is an explicit disparity between your preferences and your spending.

Here's my dollar division...

$4: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$2: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$0: Jan Blomqvist - More
$0: DATA - Don't Sing
$0: Moderat - Running
$0: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

Here's an alternative division...

$1: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$1: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$1: Jan Blomqvist - More
$1: DATA - Don't Sing
$1: Moderat - Running
$1: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

Which dollar division more accurately reflects my preferences?

Both are horribly inaccurate.

[The Two Jerseys]

I would not, because I would lose a dollar and gain nothing.

You'd gain nothing?

Here's an essay by Friedrich Hayek... The Case For Freedom. Have you read it? Probably not. Most people haven't. I'd be willing to pay $1 dollar to promote Hayek's essay. From my perspective, I'd definitely gain something if more people truly understood the case for freedom. If more people understood the case for freedom, there would be more freedom. I'd have more freedom. But the benefit that I'd gain from more personal freedom is vanishingly small compared to the amount of benefit that I'd gain from everyone having more freedom.

Virtually everything that I benefit from is the result of other people's freedom. So a little more freedom for everybody means a lot more benefit for me. Logically, a little more freedom for everybody means a lot more benefit for everybody.

People's knowledge really isn't equally beneficial to me. People's ignorance isn't equally harmful to me. Right now I could spend my time telling you about epiphytes. Did you know that they grow on trees? If not, then now you do. And perhaps you would use this knowledge to attach an epiphyte to a tree. And I'd certainly benefit from living in a world with more epiphytes on trees.

So why I haven't spent my time telling you about epiphytes? Simple. Your ignorance of epiphytes is a lot less harmful to me than your ignorance of economics. This is why I spend a lot more time combating your economic ignorance.

Do you perceive that people have some ignorance that harms you? If not, then there's a problem.

Yes, I'd gain nothing.

Paying a dollar to get people to read, let's say, The Great Gatsby does not fulfill any of my needs or wants.

And since I have one dollar less than I had before that I could have instead spent on fulfilling my needs/wants, I lose two things.

[Forsher]

I've already pointed out such disparities in your division.

You can't point out the disparity between my division and my preferences. You know why? It's because you don't know my preferences better than I do. Nobody knows my preferences better than I do. This means that I'm the only one who can point out the disparity. Is there a disparity? No.

I do truly like all those songs... but I don't like all of them equally. They aren't all equally useful to me. This is clearly proved by the fact that I didn't equally divide my $10 dollars between the 10 songs.

Since I do really like all these songs, I want them to be on more people's radar. And now they are! I shared these 10 songs in this thread and now they are on the radar of everybody who saw my list. But what if I was going to actually spend money to put these songs on even more people's radar? Would I want to promote these 10 songs equally? Nope. The more useful a song is to me, the more radars that I'd want it to be on.

You repeatedly tell us both that you love all these songs and that you don't like Monderat - Running. Repeatedly.

Get this through your head what YOU think your expenditure says is WRONG.

It's not even a problem unique to you. As I said before, talking can actually be a poor means of communicating unless you trust what people are saying and are using language that has the same meaning to everyone else. Notice how these criticisms are really, really similar (in fact, functionally identical) to the criticisms that people make of pragmatarianism? There's a reason for this. If one wants to talk about communication (apparently, you do) then one wants to talk about how communication works (you don't) and, specifically, why it often fails to happen.

Think about this for a moment. Just a moment, that's all it takes. It doesn't matter to models of communication whether or not the way actors encode their messages is verbally, through interpretative dance, via writing or by spending or whatever other medium. That doesn't matter. It's all the same in the abstract sense because matters is how the choice of encoding facilitates accurate decoding. Every which way of encoding a message is a good idea right up until the moment it's not... which is when the message is decoded. And it turns out that spending is a really dumb means of encoding messages about preferences. We can tell because everyone has decoded the message incorrectly. In fact, they haven't, given the evidence available to the receiver they make a correct decoding... it's just that the medium is incapable of carrying the information the encoder/sender wanted to send.

Let's take another example of communication in action. Remember your economics joke? Remember the set it's from? Did you notice how most of those jokes required explanation? That's because the audience wasn't able to decode the jokes in a way that the encoders wanted. Interestingly, did you ever notice how in your joke about the Tesla cars it's the comedians who explain it? Let's pay closer attention to what goes on there...

Harford (the economist they brought along) explains the joke about the Econometricians. The comedian explains a joke which is funny only by having people believe the standard prescription for recessions (i.e. expansionary fiscal policy) is dumb. That's... an interesting division of labour to say the least. Harford actually says "it's a terrible joke". The next joke is about a criticism of GDP that you find in textbooks. The economist explains this joke: "rather profound" he says. Then it's the Tesla joke. The one that relies on misdefining demand. The comedians explain it. Then it's the "voting is irrational joke". Again, explained by the comedians. The game theorist presumably finds it funny less because "lol, voting's irrational" and more because it's a joke about trust. The economist then makes a joke which he says is best because, and here's the kicker, "it doesn't really need to be explained, which is why it's better than the other jokes."

Final example... wouldn't my message be better if I didn't wrap it up in all this extraneous fluff that just leaves room for misinterpretation? Yeah, probably, but the way that Xero uses that joke has annoyed me for years. (He used to attribute it to the amateur legal scholar and economist David D. Friedman.)

[Xerographica]

You'd gain nothing?

Here's an essay by Friedrich Hayek... The Case For Freedom. Have you read it? Probably not. Most people haven't. I'd be willing to pay $1 dollar to promote Hayek's essay. From my perspective, I'd definitely gain something if more people truly understood the case for freedom. If more people understood the case for freedom, there would be more freedom. I'd have more freedom. But the benefit that I'd gain from more personal freedom is vanishingly small compared to the amount of benefit that I'd gain from everyone having more freedom.

Virtually everything that I benefit from is the result of other people's freedom. So a little more freedom for everybody means a lot more benefit for me. Logically, a little more freedom for everybody means a lot more benefit for everybody.

People's knowledge really isn't equally beneficial to me. People's ignorance isn't equally harmful to me. Right now I could spend my time telling you about epiphytes. Did you know that they grow on trees? If not, then now you do. And perhaps you would use this knowledge to attach an epiphyte to a tree. And I'd certainly benefit from living in a world with more epiphytes on trees.

So why I haven't spent my time telling you about epiphytes? Simple. Your ignorance of epiphytes is a lot less harmful to me than your ignorance of economics. This is why I spend a lot more time combating your economic ignorance.

Do you perceive that people have some ignorance that harms you? If not, then there's a problem.

Yes, I'd gain nothing.

Paying a dollar to get people to read, let's say, The Great Gatsby does not fulfill any of my needs or wants.

And since I have one dollar less than I had before that I could have instead spent on fulfilling my needs/wants, I lose two things.

So you're not harmed by any ignorance? You perceive that public education is a waste of tax dollars?

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes, I'd gain nothing.

Paying a dollar to get people to read, let's say, The Great Gatsby does not fulfill any of my needs or wants.

And since I have one dollar less than I had before that I could have instead spent on fulfilling my needs/wants, I lose two things.

So you're not harmed by any ignorance? You perceive that public education is a waste of tax dollars?

Stop right there.

Paying taxes isn't voluntary, and I don't choose where my tax money goes once the government takes it from me.

Don't even go down that road.

[Forsher]

Here's an alternative division...

$1: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$1: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$1: Jan Blomqvist - More
$1: DATA - Don't Sing
$1: Moderat - Running
$1: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

Which dollar division more accurately reflects my preferences?

This one is also deeply flawed. Now we believe that you like all of them... because you funded the promotion of all of them... which is something we couldn't tell before, but suddenly we now no longer know that Moderat - Running is less preferable than several others, which is something we could tell before.

It's almost as if spending money can't do both things, right? (Who remembers the challenge: does it matter that you can't use integer values?)

[Xerographica]

So you're not harmed by any ignorance? You perceive that public education is a waste of tax dollars?

Stop right there.

Paying taxes isn't voluntary, and I don't choose where my tax money goes once the government takes it from me.

Don't even go down that road.

Oh, now you're trying to use reverse psychology on me. I'm not going to fall for it. I will not go down that road. I don't want this thread to be locked.

All I'm asking you is whether it's useful or useless for tax dollars to be spent on public education. Is it useful or useless for tax dollars to be spent on combating public ignorance of useful things?

Is public education useful?

1. Yes
2. No

[Forsher]

So you're not harmed by any ignorance? You perceive that public education is a waste of tax dollars?

Stop right there.

Paying taxes isn't voluntary, and I don't choose where my tax money goes once the government takes it from me.

Don't even go down that road.

I'm not sure what you think this thread is about if it's not "choosing where my tax money goes"... none of Xero's threads are ever about anything else. He raises some stuff that would make for interesting conversations... in the hands of literally anyone else... but because they are all leashed to their invisible master ("pragmatarianism") which also strictly controls Xero we have the absurdity we call this thread.

Xero, I think it fairly obvious that the Two Jerseys is harmed by ignorance, it's just that it's your ignorance... I'm not really sure why anyone other than Xero is in this thread if the answer isn't "somebody is wrong on the internet" syndrome.

[The Two Jerseys]

Stop right there.

Paying taxes isn't voluntary, and I don't choose where my tax money goes once the government takes it from me.

Don't even go down that road.

Oh, now you're trying to use reverse psychology on me.

No, you might just be paranoid...

I'm not going to fall for it. I will not go down that road. I don't want this thread to be locked.

You're the one who brought it up in the first place...

All I'm asking you is whether it's useful or useless for tax dollars to be spent on public education. Is it useful or useless for tax dollars to be spent on combating public ignorance of useful things?

Is public education useful?

1. Yes
2. No

On the whole, probably.

But the money spent on public education doesn't come from my wallet, and I couldn't use it to buy something that would make me happy if I wanted to, so I don't realize any gains or suffer any losses.

[Xerographica]

Stop right there.

Paying taxes isn't voluntary, and I don't choose where my tax money goes once the government takes it from me.

Don't even go down that road.

I'm not sure what you think this thread is about if it's not "choosing where my tax money goes"... none of Xero's threads are ever about anything else. He raises some stuff that would make for interesting conversations... in the hands of literally anyone else... but because they are all leashed to their invisible master ("pragmatarianism") which also strictly controls Xero we have the absurdity we call this thread.

This thread is not at all about people choosing where their taxes go. This thread is all about people using their money to help communicate the usefulness of things. These two topics are very different. I know that you want to conflate the two topics so that this thread will be locked. But if you do manage to get this thread locked it really doesn't mean that you won. It just means that you recognized the weakness of your own argument, so you resorted to underhanded tactics.

Xero, I think it fairly obvious that the Two Jerseys is harmed by ignorance, it's just that it's your ignorance... I'm not really sure why anyone other than Xero is in this thread if the answer isn't "somebody is wrong on the internet" syndrome.

What are you... the Two Jerseys' representative? He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself. If he's truly harmed by my ignorance then he's perfectly free to say this. Of course, if he does say that he's harmed by my ignorance, then he'll need to explain why he wouldn't benefit from spending $1 dollar to promote the knowledge that best combats my ignorance.

[Xerographica]

Is public education useful?

1. Yes
2. No

On the whole, probably.

This has to be the most rousing endorsement of public education that I've ever come across.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm not sure what you think this thread is about if it's not "choosing where my tax money goes"... none of Xero's threads are ever about anything else. He raises some stuff that would make for interesting conversations... in the hands of literally anyone else... but because they are all leashed to their invisible master ("pragmatarianism") which also strictly controls Xero we have the absurdity we call this thread.

This thread is not at all about people choosing where their taxes go. This thread is all about people using their money to help communicate the usefulness of things. These two topics are very different. I know that you want to conflate the two topics so that this thread will be locked. But if you do manage to get this thread locked it really doesn't mean that you won. It just means that you recognized the weakness of your own argument, so you resorted to underhanded tactics.

If it's going to help you sleep at night, yeah, sure, that's exactly what we're doing...

Xero, I think it fairly obvious that the Two Jerseys is harmed by ignorance, it's just that it's your ignorance... I'm not really sure why anyone other than Xero is in this thread if the answer isn't "somebody is wrong on the internet" syndrome.

What are you... the Two Jerseys' representative? He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself. If he's truly harmed by my ignorance then he's perfectly free to say this. Of course, if he does say that he's harmed by my ignorance, then he'll need to explain why he wouldn't benefit from spending $1 dollar

"$1 dollar"?

You just said "one dollar dollar"!

Your ignorance of English means I win the thread by default! I AM THE CHAMPION, MY FRIEND!

to promote the knowledge that best combats my ignorance.

You want an explanation of why I don't benefit from spending one dollar to combat your ignorance?

Simple: because I can get the same results by clicking the "add foe" button, and will still have a dollar that I can use to buy something from the dollar menu at McDonald's.

[Xerographica]

You want an explanation of why I don't benefit from spending one dollar to combat your ignorance?

Simple: because I can get the same results by clicking the "add foe" button, and will still have a dollar that I can use to buy something from the dollar menu at McDonald's.

Imagine two products. One product is promoted, the other isn't. All else being equal, which product will win?

Imagine two ideas...

Xero's idea
Anti-Xero's idea

My idea is promoted, the other isn't. All else being equal, which idea will win?

[Forsher]

I'm not sure what you think this thread is about if it's not "choosing where my tax money goes"... none of Xero's threads are ever about anything else. He raises some stuff that would make for interesting conversations... in the hands of literally anyone else... but because they are all leashed to their invisible master ("pragmatarianism") which also strictly controls Xero we have the absurdity we call this thread.

This thread is not at all about people choosing where their taxes go. This thread is all about people using their money to help communicate the usefulness of things. These two topics are very different. I know that you want to conflate the two topics so that this thread will be locked. But if you do manage to get this thread locked it really doesn't mean that you won. It just means that you recognized the weakness of your own argument, so you resorted to underhanded tactics.

Xero, your arguments are pathetic and your rhetoric (by which I mean the way you put them together) is even less worthy of respect... I particularly looove the way that you just ignore all the good points. Consider the way you treated Salandriagado's poor posts... you either outright ignored them or just made up crap on the spot. That you continually ask people to engage in little exercises but never, ever acknowledge it when other people ask you to do something or point out that more examples of the same thing is also despicable. To quote a song, kind of, "You've done something wrong, but your desire for fame and fortune was just too strong" so you've continued in an identical fashion for years.

In contrast, the arguments that I and others make at least look like actual arguments rhetorically, change based on external inputs (i.e. the nonsense you spew forth) and aren't prone to extrapolating from key errors of fact (e.g. your views of demand, how markets work or opportunity cost... although that's going back a bit). If there's a weakness to my arguments you've never managed to identify it... and I seriously doubt you ever will: my positions are robust to pragmatarianism. You may have noticed that I use the word "absurd" a lot these days... it's because that's the most honest way of assessing the value of this thread and your philosophy in general.

But here's the best thing about this Xero. Yes, better than unchanging, fallacious and obfuscatory, goal-post shifting responses. Indeed, more desirable than the mis-use of introductory level economics jargon. I speak, of course, in the way your actions betray your professed ideology. Isn't it your thing that actions speak louder than words? Actions like this:

Yet another attempt to trick me into talking about my favorite topic. And again, I saw right through your ploy. But I do give you points for tenacity.

Any moderator that dinged this thread for talking about something of material relevance to its erstwhile topic shouldn't be moderating. And yes I suspect that there are some mods that would but they shouldn't be.

or

Can a mod pop over and tell Xero that his thread isn't going to get locked for answering questions germane to the course of discussion. These sorts of posts are becoming prohibitive and spammy, and are probably the result over enthusiastic modding:

[...]

If Xero is in fact correct that his thread will be locked if he answers such questions, I humbly submit that moderation staff rethink whatever logic is being used.

You might not have seen that second post but the first one was made right here. You should remember it. Hence, if you're going around saying stuff like "I know that you want to conflate the two topics so that this thread will be locked" I really have to believe one of "you...

1. forgot that you read that." (Implying that you don't actually care about this topic because otherwise why would have forgotten this defence of your worldview?)
2. don't actually believe that actions are the only way of revealing preferences." (Because if you did you'd have never said "I know that you want to conflate the two topics so that this thread will be locked.")
3. don't see why it is that (2) is relevant." (Which demonstrates that private judgements of usefulness of [stuff] to [oneself] can be wrong, i.e. the whole house of cards on which your philosophy is built collapses.)

More to the point, anyone who argues that

• "This thread is not at all about people choosing where their taxes go."
• "This thread is all about people using their money to help communicate the usefulness of things.

"

are different is clearly wrong or trolling through being excessively pedantic.

Xero, I think it fairly obvious that the Two Jerseys is harmed by ignorance, it's just that it's your ignorance... I'm not really sure why anyone other than Xero is in this thread if the answer isn't "somebody is wrong on the internet" syndrome.

What are you... the Two Jerseys' representative? He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself. If he's truly harmed by my ignorance then he's perfectly free to say this. Of course, if he does say that he's harmed by my ignorance, then he'll need to explain why he wouldn't benefit from spending $1 dollar to promote the knowledge that best combats my ignorance.

Re-read what I wrote. It is very clear I am telling you what I think TTJ thinks and am using the reasoning for that to make a veiled claim of "everyone here thinks you're wrong". I have much bigger sins than just speaking for TTJ.

[The Two Jerseys]

You want an explanation of why I don't benefit from spending one dollar to combat your ignorance?

Simple: because I can get the same results by clicking the "add foe" button, and will still have a dollar that I can use to buy something from the dollar menu at McDonald's.

Imagine two products. One product is promoted, the other isn't. All else being equal, which product will win?

Imagine two ideas...

Xero's idea
Anti-Xero's idea

My idea is promoted, the other isn't. All else being equal, which idea will win?

Imagine polar bears juggling penguins.

Will it play in Peoria?

[Xerographica]

Based on your statements, it looks like they're both equally wrong.

Both are horribly inaccurate.

This is making me chuckle. What in the world? In the real world, do either of you guys evenly divide your money?

[Xerographica]

Xero, your arguments are pathetic and your rhetoric (by which I mean the way you put them together) is even less worthy of respect... I particularly looove the way that you just ignore all the good points.

I have yet to see a single good point. You guys are all over the place. You guys think that there are three BEST ways to measure the usefulness of things...

1. Visible Hand (VH)
2. Democratic Hand (DH)
3. Invisible Hand (IH)

Which of these three is the traditional way of naming babies? It definitely isn't the IH. It probably isn't usually the DH. So it's the VH? Or is there another way? Is it the Whimsical Hand (WH)? So then you guys don't have a double standard, or triple standard.... it's a quadruple standard?

Check this out...

Maybe we want to get really crazy and set kangaroos loose everywhere in the world, Thomas suggests at one point. - David Biello, We Aren’t Destroying the Earth

Now there's an idea! How, exactly, would you like to measure the usefulness of this idea? Perhaps you'd like to leave it to the experts? Is this yet another standard?

1. Visible Hand (VH)
2. Democratic Hand (DH)
3. Invisible Hand (IH)
4. Whimsical Hand (WH)
5. Expert Hand (EH)

[Camicon]

Based on your statements, it looks like they're both equally wrong.

Both are horribly inaccurate.

This is making me chuckle. What in the world? In the real world, do either of you guys evenly divide your money?

In the real world, do you throw money at shit for no return whatsoever?

[Galloism]

This is making me chuckle. What in the world? In the real world, do either of you guys evenly divide your money?

In the real world, do you throw money at shit for no return whatsoever?

To be honest, he might. He doesn’t understand how the invisible hand actually works to the point I’m still asking if he gives his friends nickels when they tell funny jokes.

I never did find out.

[The Holy Therns]

I can recommend some books.

But I'm not going to spend out-of-pocket to do the publishers' advertising departments' jobs for them with nothing in return.

You'd recommend a book... but you wouldn't spend a dollar to promote it?

The fact that you're acting so baffled by someone rejecting the idea of paying to perform unpaid work for someone else is positively hilarious.