The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Jim Cramer scheduled to be guest on Thursday's "The Daily Show"
Now, what was the reception to what Roubini had to say? People didn't believe him because they did not want to believe that people like Greenspan were wrong. Afterall, we were all making a killing and we were being told that 'now' was different from 'then' and there was no reason things would not continue to grow with no major bust in the 'now.' It's those sorts of gains along with conceit about our own acumen and abilities being superior to those who lived 'then' that lead to what seems like willful blindness. Of course the blindness is obvious, after the fact. It is always thus with bubbles.
As for CNBC, is it widely watched in Europe? If not, how did they influence Europeans to join the parade? And why were news organisations such as the BBC unable to make things clear for their consumers? Again, it's because the consequences of what was happening in the US, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere with banking and the financial markets piling onto the boom(s) were not at all obvious to the vast majority of participants, from the lowly saver to the heads of central banks. What hold did CNBC have on European banks, financial institutions, regulators, business leaders, and consumers?
CNBC could be as stodgy, grounded, and interested in serving the public interest as the BBC, and they still would likely not have materially changed what happened. Lampooning them does make for some entertaining television though.
Of course it was obvious, but nobody wants to be the person who points out the Emperor has no clothes. So they all waited until the naked Emperor was cornholing them.
It makes me smile thinking of how much money people have lost.
Interestingly enough PBS is government run and doesn't rely on advertisers. Can you see where we could all think you are ignoring a BIG difference there, whether deliberately or not. What is the relative viewership, btw of PBS compared to the rest?
And where exactly does it say PBS has a patent on the word "news".
Isn't it odd how government-run news sources are actually better than their advertising-funded counterparts?
There's a bullseye.
Now, what was the reception to what Roubini had to say? People didn't believe him because they did not want to believe that people like Greenspan were wrong. Afterall, we were all making a killing and we were being told that 'now' was different from 'then' and there was no reason things would not continue to grow with no major bust in the 'now.' It's those sorts of gains along with conceit about our own acumen and abilities being superior to those who lived 'then' that lead to what seems like willful blindness. Of course the blindness is obvious, after the fact. It is always thus with bubbles.
I would argue that the coming recession was obvious. What wasn't obvious was the exact timing and form the crisis would take. I could have told you that consumption driven largely home equity loans was not sustainable. I think I made several posts containing that exact message years ago. I cannot claim to have known at the time how bad the decline would be or when the crash would actually happen. I suppose it's not particularly clairvoyant to predict that at some point in the future there will be a recession.
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
Apparently not, since they've destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth. At least this will probably be the end of excessive mathematization in finance, because it's apparent doesn't work. I guess it is back to gimlet-eyed appraisals of people who trudge into your bank wanting a loan.
The problem is most of the big executives walked away with big bonuses while the profits were high and still have that money. They have no reason to behave any differently unless there are consequences for them or unless we move away from bonuses based on extremely short-term performance.
Imagine you see this coming, but you realize that your choices are:
a) Say something and get fired.
b) Squeeze out a few more quarters' worth of bonuses by playing along
Well... I'd love to believe that had I been in a position to make that choice, I'd have chosen a), but I'm not so sure. It's certainly not the the rational utility-maximizing choice unless you value your conscience an awful lot.
There were a very few who described the Imperial wardrobe. Their views were discounted.
There's very few who described it its entirety. A larger number pointed out specific problems, without putting everything together.
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
There were a very few who described the Imperial wardrobe. Their views were discounted.
Peter Schiff was going on about it for quite a while. In general, those with heterodox views were pretty accurate about what was happening because they had no stake in the status quo model.
That housing prices were out of whack was obvious to me back in 2002 when I returned to NZ for a while and heard what my friends were paying for a home.
Apparently not, since they've destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth.
Even the best and the brightest can make mistakes, and those mistakes are usually far more costly than those made by us proles.
You don't get it do you? They aren't the best and brightest. They're ambitious fakers, who were seduced by groupthink into doing incredibly stupid things. That's patently obvious from the way they treated critics not even two years ago. You must have met these people: so insanely ambitious that they will abandon all intellectual integrity and do what the man says to the point of ruin. Every society has them, and they are dangerous and stupid. Why do you think the quality of politicians is so terrible?
History repeats itself endlessly. A paradigm of organization becomes dominant, despite its very obvious flaws. The bovine ambitious then scramble like rats to get on board and viciously defend the paradigm against all criticisms. When things start to go awry too many people have too much invested in the status quo and will simply pretend that nothing is wrong. Then the crash, during which the same people will desperately attempt to deflect blame and act as if they are still the only people capable of running things.
This is what you get when you allow sheeple to run things. Ironically, it is the exact opposite of what markets are supposed to promote, since markets are supposed to stop us from putting all our eggs in one basket.
You have to laugh. It really is a tale told by an idiot.
The problem is most of the big executives walked away with big bonuses while the profits were high and still have that money. They have no reason to behave any differently unless there are consequences for them or unless we move away from bonuses based on extremely short-term performance.
Sure, but the problem is that people who are self described conservatives were nothing but.
One feature of conservatism is distrust of universalizing models when applied to human affairs. Too often this slips over into anti-rationalism, but the basic point is sound. We do not know enough about human behaviour and motivation to trust things like the mathematical models people were using to guide their lending and investments. To assume that these things would work is simply to make the same mistake that people (correctly) accused Marxists of making in the 20th century. There was a distinct lack of the virtue of prudence.
Business is really at the core an art, not a science, and it will remain so for the forseeable future. The scientific mode of thinking is an immense boon, but not a replacement for traditional business virtues, like the ability to make snap decisions based on the "look" of things. In the end, business agreements are made between people who have to trust each other, and that requires old fashioned business sense. Those who have it do well, those who do not, do not. But it likely cannot be taught.
You don't get it do you? They aren't the best and brightest.
Who is, then? The top graduates of Ivy League schools are "the best and the brightest" in an American context.
How can you believe that? They are not. This is a myth. The Ivies do not select for intelligence or prudence, but for a certain kind of ambition and drive. Witness the insane amount of work that people put in to their applications. The one thing they do not have is a lot of self doubt, and sometimes that is needed.
A friend of mine taught at Harvard, and his students were given an essay topic asking why they deserved to be at Harvard. Most of them were hilariously bad and self righteous pieces of drivel. The only good ones were the very few that simply admitted they didn't deserve it.
And there's your problem. The selection method isn't working, is it? It isn't putting prudent, thinking people into positions of authority. Perhaps you need to rethink your society and its values.
But no, Americans are incapable of that because they aren't a people who value self-criticism or self-awareness.
You didn't answer my question. If the top graduates of the Ivy League (as admittedly flawed as they are) aren't "the best and the brightest", who is? It seems like you're pining for a better elite that doesn't actually exist.
You didn't answer my question. If the top graduates of the Ivy League (as admittedly flawed as they are) aren't "the best and the brightest", who is? It seems like you're pining for a better elite that doesn't actually exist.
I'm not pining for anything. I simply do not really care. It is of theoretical interest alone. I find your country and its values hilarious and stupid.
You're missing my point. It is that these people are intrinsically bad on account of their character. Any intelligent people who were not like that or less like that would be better. It isn't about worrying about who's better, but of preventing the knowably worse.
William F Buckley once said that he would prefer to be ruled by a random group of people picked from the Cambridge phone book than by the professors at Harvard. He was quite right, although I'm not sure he appreciated why.
So I mean the kind of people who would be thrown up by an alternative selection process that reduced the insane level of competition. As I've said before, the best way to do this is to have a cut off point that only the bright can reach, and then distribute college places by lot. That way, you would be getting a more diverse group of intelligent and thoughtful people, which is the whole point.
I find your country and its values hilarious and stupid.
You act as though New Zealand is really that different.
Oh we aren't that great, but we are a practical people, and at least we aren't mediaeval-minded retards. Candidates for Prime Minister aren't required by the public to grovel before some fictional Hebrew deity, and, while having founding documents, we do not pretend that some 200 year old piece of paper is a universal guide to the basic organization of our society. Yes we aren't particularly cultured, but we aren't ostentatiously and outspokenly vulgar either.
New Zealand's politics is for the most part far more grown up than anything you have. We have at least managed universal healthcare, which is the mark of a developed society. And while New Zealanders may not be politically sophisticated, they aren't willfully clueless.
Tweet
Comment