Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A "D" coming from Mr. "I don't know shit about economics but totally trust me guys I went to school for public finance" means nothing to me.

So find somebody whose opinion you trust and ask them to grade your work.

I don't need to. I already know what it says; and in fact I have managed to frustrate you because you keep thinking you can truly reveal preference through your system, something Samuelson tried, and you haven't been able to with me.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

For reference, this is the assumption made by revealed preference according to the Wiki:

Revealed preference models assume that the preferences of consumers can be revealed by their purchasing habits.

Your model assumes you can reveal the preference of people by making them purchase "votes" and "rankings".

This is no different from Samuelson and other's basic assumption about revealed preference.

[Xerographica]

So find somebody whose opinion you trust and ask them to grade your work.

I don't need to. I already know what it says; and in fact I have managed to frustrate you because you keep thinking you can truly reveal preference through your system, something Samuelson tried, and you haven't been able to with me.

Samuelson never tried to prove that DV is more effective than BV. Why would he try and prove this when he genuinely believed that markets aren't at all necessary?

[Galloism]

I don't need to. I already know what it says; and in fact I have managed to frustrate you because you keep thinking you can truly reveal preference through your system, something Samuelson tried, and you haven't been able to with me.

Samuelson never tried to prove that DV is more effective than BV. Why would he try and prove this when he genuinely believed that markets aren't at all necessary?

I mean, what you've argued for here has no resemblance to a market, and eschews many elements of a market, which, according to you, will reveal preference better than a market, so... maybe?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't need to. I already know what it says; and in fact I have managed to frustrate you because you keep thinking you can truly reveal preference through your system, something Samuelson tried, and you haven't been able to with me.

Samuelson never tried to prove that DV is more effective than BV. Why would he try and prove this when he genuinely believed that markets aren't at all necessary?

Samuelson didn't try that, but he did try a more fundamental theorem behind your system, something you have been saying your system actually does, which is reveal preferences.

In this sense, you are fundamentally much like reveal preference theorists in that you want a solid solution to a person's ranking through consistencies. I know you have been frustrated at my dishonesty in your tests and you have tried to block every attempt at me being able to use dishonesty and get me to reveal my true valuations in your system, which you haven't been able to, which has made you salty about it.

[The South Falls]

Let's not turn this into r/iamverysmart, y'all.

Xero, I truly respect your persistence. While I think what you're saying is stupid, you have fought for two straight weeks against everyone. Good job.

[The Holy Therns]

Let's not turn this into r/iamverysmart, y'all.

Xero, I truly respect your persistence. While I think what you're saying is stupid, you have fought for two straight weeks against everyone. Good job.

Let's be fair, this thread is just an extension of the general line of discussion Xero has pursued throughout his entire time on NS.

So really, he's fought for six straight years against everyone.

[Hammer Britannia]

Let's not turn this into r/iamverysmart, y'all.

Xero, I truly respect your persistence. While I think what you're saying is stupid, you have fought for two straight weeks against everyone. Good job.

Let's be fair, this thread is just an extension of the general line of discussion Xero has pursued throughout his entire time on NS.

So really, he's fought for six straight years against everyone.

Not to mention the years, perhaps even a decade, he has fought on nearly every forum on the internet, trying to sell this snake oil.

We're just fighting his six long year last stand

[Xerographica]

Samuelson never tried to prove that DV is more effective than BV. Why would he try and prove this when he genuinely believed that markets aren't at all necessary?

Samuelson didn't try that, but he did try a more fundamental theorem behind your system, something you have been saying your system actually does, which is reveal preferences.

In this sense, you are fundamentally much like reveal preference theorists in that you want a solid solution to a person's ranking through consistencies. I know you have been frustrated at my dishonesty in your tests and you have tried to block every attempt at me being able to use dishonesty and get me to reveal my true valuations in your system, which you haven't been able to, which has made you salty about it.

The point of these experiments is to test the difference between BV and DV. Why are you motivated to be dishonest? It's because you don't want these experiments to prove that DV is more effective than BV. But you're just delaying the inevitable.

[Dogmeat]

Not to mention totally outside the scope of their powers.

Here are numerous prominent economists, including three Nobel laureates, explaining to the Supreme Court that free-riding is a real problem. If it is in the power of the Supreme Court to ignore their input and abolish compulsory dues, then it was also in their power to leave compulsory dues alone but give employees the freedom to earmark them.

It's possible for the Supreme Court to strike down a law, or rule a practice unconstitutional. It is not possible for the Supreme Court to establish a law, which is what you're suggesting they do.

All of which is far removed from you elaborating on your email correspondence.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Samuelson didn't try that, but he did try a more fundamental theorem behind your system, something you have been saying your system actually does, which is reveal preferences.

In this sense, you are fundamentally much like reveal preference theorists in that you want a solid solution to a person's ranking through consistencies. I know you have been frustrated at my dishonesty in your tests and you have tried to block every attempt at me being able to use dishonesty and get me to reveal my true valuations in your system, which you haven't been able to, which has made you salty about it.

The point of these experiments is to test the difference between BV and DV. Why are you motivated to be dishonest? It's because you don't want these experiments to prove that DV is more effective than BV. But you're just delaying the inevitable.

Indeed, you found me out!

Any more insights, armchair psychologist and telepathist?

[Xerographica]

Here are numerous prominent economists, including three Nobel laureates, explaining to the Supreme Court that free-riding is a real problem. If it is in the power of the Supreme Court to ignore their input and abolish compulsory dues, then it was also in their power to leave compulsory dues alone but give employees the freedom to earmark them.

It's possible for the Supreme Court to strike down a law, or rule a practice unconstitutional. It is not possible for the Supreme Court to establish a law, which is what you're suggesting they do.

Did the Supreme Court strike down the law that says that people should be forced to pay for things that don't match their preferences?

[Galloism]

It's possible for the Supreme Court to strike down a law, or rule a practice unconstitutional. It is not possible for the Supreme Court to establish a law, which is what you're suggesting they do.

Did the Supreme Court strike down the law that says that people should be forced to pay for things that don't match their preferences?

They struck down the regulation (not law) that stated that public employees must associate with those for whom they choose not to, on the basis of freedom of association under the first amendment.

Let's not invent things not in the constitution shall we?

[Xerographica]

Did the Supreme Court strike down the law that says that people should be forced to pay for things that don't match their preferences?

They struck down the regulation (not law) that stated that public employees must associate with those for whom they choose not to, on the basis of freedom of association under the first amendment.

Let's not invent things not in the constitution shall we?

Can you substantiate your claim with a quote?

[Bombadil]

I mean Xero never answered this but here's a simple experiment I posted before..

You have 10 cars and 1 car at traffic lights, whenever the lights change the same number appear. So when the initial 10 move another 10 appear and another individual car appears.

BV.. 10 cars will vote to move and 1 car becomes two cars, eventually moving when they outvote with 11.
DV - we can equalise with money, thus each car has $1.. and there's no practical difference except people are wasting money for the same effect as BV. Or we equalise on sides so the 10 cars have $1 each and the individual has $10 - now no one moves at all.

So.. BV everyone moves with no money wasted. DV either money is wasted to no effect or no one moves at all.

BV is clearly better.

It's not really about whether DV reveals truer preferences, it's really about the desired outcome.. and we've shown time and again that the outcome is generally poorer with DV.. doesn't have to be all the time, just one is enough to be honest.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Seriously Xero, if you think I've spent all this effort into actually saying that ballot voting is better than your system, a system that is essentially reveal preference theory but with a money ballot, then you are into some deep state conspiracy bullshit world where you must also think I am working with Jews and the Illuminati to prove your idea wrong because you think of yourself as the next Alex Jones, a warrior trying to topple down the evil democratic government and their ballot voting systems.

[Dogmeat]

It's possible for the Supreme Court to strike down a law, or rule a practice unconstitutional. It is not possible for the Supreme Court to establish a law, which is what you're suggesting they do.

Did the Supreme Court strike down the law that says that people should be forced to pay for things that don't match their preferences?

I haven't read the ruling, but I'm pretty sure they didn't.

But please, Xero, elaborate on your email correspondence. The one you definitely didn't make up.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They struck down the regulation (not law) that stated that public employees must associate with those for whom they choose not to, on the basis of freedom of association under the first amendment.

Let's not invent things not in the constitution shall we?

Can you substantiate your claim with a quote?

It is literally the Supreme Court ruling which you can see in Oyez.

Holy shit, you're talking about a case you really haven't seen the ruling on?

[Galloism]

They struck down the regulation (not law) that stated that public employees must associate with those for whom they choose not to, on the basis of freedom of association under the first amendment.

Let's not invent things not in the constitution shall we?

Can you substantiate your claim with a quote?

My bad, it was freedom of speech.

The First Amendment, made applicable to the States by
the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids abridgment of the
freedom of speech. We have held time and again that
freedom of speech “includes both the right to speak freely
and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v.
Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977); see Riley v. National
Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 796–797
(1988); Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,
471 U. S. 539, 559 (1985); Miami Herald Publishing
Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256–257 (1974); accord,
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475
U. S. 1, 9 (1986) (plurality opinion). The right to eschew
association for expressive purposes is likewise protected.
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984)
(“Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom
not to associate”); see Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at
12 (“[F]orced associations that burden protected speech
are impermissible”). As Justice Jackson memorably put it:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,
it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what
shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or
act their faith therein.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) (emphasis added).
Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they
find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional
command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be
universally condemned. Suppose, for example, that the
State of Illinois required all residents to sign a document
expressing support for a particular set of positions on
controversial public issues—say, the platform of one of the
major political parties. No one, we trust, would seriously
argue that the First Amendment permits this.
Perhaps because such compulsion so plainly violates the
Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved
restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling
speech. But measures compelling speech are at least
as threatening.

...

When speech is compelled, however, additional damage
is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into
betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent
individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is
always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark
free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary
affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require
“even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law
demanding silence. Barnette, supra, at 633; see also Riley,
supra, at 796–797 (rejecting “deferential test” for compelled
speech claims).
Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other
private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns.
Knox, supra, at 309; United States v. United Foods,
Inc., 533 U. S. 405, 410 (2001); Abood, supra, at 222, 234–
235. As Jefferson famously put it, “to compel a man to
furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and
tyrannical.” A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, in
2 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 545 (J. Boyd ed. 1950) (emphasis
deleted and footnote omitted); see also Hudson, 475
U. S., at 305, n. 15. We have therefore recognized that a
“‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights’”
occurs when public employees are required to provide
financial support for a union that “takes many positions
during collective bargaining that have powerful political
and civic consequences.” Knox, supra, at 310–311 (quoting
Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 455 (1984)).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... ily&wpmm=1

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Can you substantiate your claim with a quote?

My bad, it was freedom of speech.

The First Amendment, made applicable to the States by
the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids abridgment of the
freedom of speech. We have held time and again that
freedom of speech “includes both the right to speak freely
and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v.
Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977); see Riley v. National
Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 796–797
(1988); Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,
471 U. S. 539, 559 (1985); Miami Herald Publishing
Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256–257 (1974); accord,
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475
U. S. 1, 9 (1986) (plurality opinion). The right to eschew
association for expressive purposes is likewise protected.
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984)
(“Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom
not to associate”); see Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at
12 (“[F]orced associations that burden protected speech
are impermissible”). As Justice Jackson memorably put it:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,
it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what
shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or
act their faith therein.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) (emphasis added).
Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they
find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional
command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be
universally condemned. Suppose, for example, that the
State of Illinois required all residents to sign a document
expressing support for a particular set of positions on
controversial public issues—say, the platform of one of the
major political parties. No one, we trust, would seriously
argue that the First Amendment permits this.
Perhaps because such compulsion so plainly violates the
Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved
restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling
speech. But measures compelling speech are at least
as threatening.

...

When speech is compelled, however, additional damage
is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into
betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent
individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is
always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark
free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary
affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require
“even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law
demanding silence. Barnette, supra, at 633; see also Riley,
supra, at 796–797 (rejecting “deferential test” for compelled
speech claims).
Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other
private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns.
Knox, supra, at 309; United States v. United Foods,
Inc., 533 U. S. 405, 410 (2001); Abood, supra, at 222, 234–
235. As Jefferson famously put it, “to compel a man to
furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and
tyrannical.” A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, in
2 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 545 (J. Boyd ed. 1950) (emphasis
deleted and footnote omitted); see also Hudson, 475
U. S., at 305, n. 15. We have therefore recognized that a
“‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights’”
occurs when public employees are required to provide
financial support for a union that “takes many positions
during collective bargaining that have powerful political
and civic consequences.” Knox, supra, at 310–311 (quoting
Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 455 (1984)).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... ily&wpmm=1

It's both, from your quote:

The right to eschew
association for expressive purposes is likewise protected.
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984)
(“Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom
not to associate”); see Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at
12 (“[F]orced associations that burden protected speech
are impermissible”).

They just decided to talk more extensively about speech, but association is also implied to have been abridged.

[Dogmeat]

Can you substantiate your claim with a quote?

My bad, it was freedom of speech.

The First Amendment, made applicable to the States by
the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids abridgment of the
freedom of speech. We have held time and again that
freedom of speech “includes both the right to speak freely
and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v.
Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977); see Riley v. National
Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 796–797
(1988); Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,
471 U. S. 539, 559 (1985); Miami Herald Publishing
Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256–257 (1974); accord,
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475
U. S. 1, 9 (1986) (plurality opinion). The right to eschew
association for expressive purposes is likewise protected.
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984)
(“Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom
not to associate”); see Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at
12 (“[F]orced associations that burden protected speech
are impermissible”). As Justice Jackson memorably put it:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,
it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what
shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or
act their faith therein.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) (emphasis added).
Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they
find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional
command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be
universally condemned. Suppose, for example, that the
State of Illinois required all residents to sign a document
expressing support for a particular set of positions on
controversial public issues—say, the platform of one of the
major political parties. No one, we trust, would seriously
argue that the First Amendment permits this.
Perhaps because such compulsion so plainly violates the
Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved
restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling
speech. But measures compelling speech are at least
as threatening.

...

When speech is compelled, however, additional damage
is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into
betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent
individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is
always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark
free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary
affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require
“even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law
demanding silence. Barnette, supra, at 633; see also Riley,
supra, at 796–797 (rejecting “deferential test” for compelled
speech claims).
Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other
private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns.
Knox, supra, at 309; United States v. United Foods,
Inc., 533 U. S. 405, 410 (2001); Abood, supra, at 222, 234–
235. As Jefferson famously put it, “to compel a man to
furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and
tyrannical.” A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, in
2 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 545 (J. Boyd ed. 1950) (emphasis
deleted and footnote omitted); see also Hudson, 475
U. S., at 305, n. 15. We have therefore recognized that a
“‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights’”
occurs when public employees are required to provide
financial support for a union that “takes many positions
during collective bargaining that have powerful political
and civic consequences.” Knox, supra, at 310–311 (quoting
Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 455 (1984)).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... ily&wpmm=1

Look at this Xero, Gallo substantiated a claim immediately with relevant data, and admitted error.

This is why people take him seriously.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Let's not turn this into r/iamverysmart, y'all.

Xero, I truly respect your persistence. While I think what you're saying is stupid, you have fought for two straight weeks against everyone. Good job.

Let's be fair, this thread is just an extension of the general line of discussion Xero has pursued throughout his entire time on NS.

So really, he's fought for six straight years against everyone.

Honestly speaking, it has been the same thread, over and over again. All that changes are the subjects, but ever since he started posting, it's been about this idea. Quite the fixation. This is but the latest incarnation, and the batshit-est one yet because instead of keeping it in NSG, it has spilled toxic waste into Technical, and Moderation even.

He should have given up a long time ago. Or as soon as the mods told him that no, his idea is not something that interests the site. Not once, or twice, but multiple times. The truth is he got his answer a long time ago. He just doesn't like it because it proves his take is shit but eh. Some people don't go down easily, not even when they have been proven wrong. A fucking hydra of a thread.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I am still waiting on your proof that your system does something else rather than Samuelson's idea of revealing preferences, which you said "any economist with half a brain would refute it".

Your system is not donation voting, so you can stop bullshitting me Xero. For years you have argued that your system would reveal preferences and would rank shit in order of priorities, you even said so in this thread. So it sounds awfully similar to Samuelson's argument for reveal preference theory.

[The Two Jerseys]

Xero, are you ever going to explain why I shouldn't DV for my true preference of getting myself a set on the lifeboat since I have no chance of winning, even though the supposed point of your system is to "reveal true preference"?

[Bombadil]

Xero, are you ever going to explain why I shouldn't DV for my true preference of getting myself a set on the lifeboat since I have no chance of winning, even though the supposed point of your system is to "reveal true preference"?

Xero's only belief here is if you have more money you deserve your seat, that's it. If a drunk lottery winner buys all the seats to better ensure his survival then he gets all the seats and everyone else can sink.

Much as if people allocated taxes the rich would have a lovely road system and security and everyone else can suffer. Which effectively already occurs already since politicians vote according to their campaign donor interests over the electorate.

Remove any practical outcome and assume pure intentions then DV probably does determine intent better but in reality it only has use in certain cases, certainly not all.

But bees..