Weather Channel Founder says"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in History

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said company's can't or don't rip people off, I am saying ones that do will not prosper. I asked you to give me an example and you can't. Even if you think people are getting ripped off they may feel that the product or service to them is worth the price.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, insurance industry is a lot of scam. I mean, katrina, half the people got denied because it got classified as flood for which they didn't have coverage, and half got denied cause it got classed as thunderstorm for which they didn't have coverage.

ok I made up some specifics but the fact is the insurance companies screwed everyhone in katrina and insurance in general is a scam and somtimes it is government forced (auto), sometimes private market forced (mortgage), and sometimes people just want to get screwed over, and then sometimes it works out for people cause you can't screw everyone 100% of the time cause then the dumbos catch on.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

People demand and pay for products they think they value and shun and don't buy products they don't think they value. This notion that some companies and people rip people off and laugh all the way to the bank is an observation of reality.


I never said company's can't or don't rip people off, I am saying ones that do will not prosper, making clear that I don't understand what "ripping off" means. I asked you to give me an example and you laughed that the absurdity of my posts. Even if you think people are getting ripped off they may feel that the product or service to them is worth the price. Why should YOU be the one to decide, besides the fact that you have information which, if given to consumers, would make them not desire the products?


Not once did I say the free market cures all ills. I said free market capitalism fuels the best economies and the most prosperous nations throughout history. Inida and China are recent examples of economies that became more prosperous by allowing for more free market competition.

My point was and still is that outside of laws and resources to protect our persons and property from theft or destruction and our basic rights government intervention makes a system less effecient, not more, despite the fact that I have not defined basic rights or property or explained why the government should do that but not other things.


[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
People demand and pay for products they value and shun and don't buy products they don't value. This notion that companies rip people off and laugh all the way to the bank is a Marxist fallacy.

I never said company's can't or don't rip people off, I am saying ones that do will not prosper. I asked you to give me an example and you can't. Even if you think people are getting ripped off they may feel that the product or service to them is worth the price. Why should YOU be the one to decide?

Not once did I say the free market cures all ills. I said free market capitalism fuels the best economies and the most prosperous nations throughout history. Inida and China are recent examples of economies that became more prosperous by allowing for more free market competition.

My point was and still is that outside of laws and resources to protect our persons and property from theft or destruction and our basic rights government intervention makes a system less effecient, not more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

This is basically the same argument that comes up when talking about organized crime. When it's pointed out that organized crime only thrives in an environment filled with regulation (and hence, black markets) people invariably claim that "the mafia isn't just in black markets."

You *can* make money off of petty crime; bank robberies, protection rackets, purse snatchings. But you're not *creating wealth* that way. You're not going to make it on the Forbes 400 list. And while you might "make money" over the short term, such activities are -EV long term.

It's the same thing for ripping off customers. You might make some money short term, but it's -EV long term. Mark1808 said such actors do not "prosper" and "thrive". These are obviously long-term assessments.

[xorbie]

Honestly pvn, I'm surprised you would resort to supporting that post.

[ QUOTE ]
But you're not *creating wealth* that way. You're not going to make it on the Forbes 400 list. And while you might "make money" over the short term, such activities are -EV long term.

It's the same thing for ripping off customers. You might make some money short term, but it's -EV long term. Mark1808 said such actors do not "prosper" and "thrive". These are obviously long-term assessments.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "-EV", it does not mean what you think it means.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly pvn, I'm surprised you would resort to supporting that post.

[ QUOTE ]
But you're not *creating wealth* that way. You're not going to make it on the Forbes 400 list. And while you might "make money" over the short term, such activities are -EV long term.

It's the same thing for ripping off customers. You might make some money short term, but it's -EV long term. Mark1808 said such actors do not "prosper" and "thrive". These are obviously long-term assessments.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "-EV", it does not mean what you think it means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? This is a standard poker situation. Something can make money short term due to variance but be a losing proposition long term.

[xorbie]

No, it's not a standard poker situation at all. The problem is that without very strong regulatory/oversight institutions (governmental or otherwise, institutions that have power and use force), ripping people off is very +EV short term. The only way one could consider it -EV in the long run has nothing to do with variance and more to do with the fact that people would eventually catch on.

The poker equivalent would be playing extremely nitty, which is very +EV until people catch on and actually exploit you, by which time they may already be cleaned out.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's not a standard poker situation at all. The problem is that without very strong regulatory/oversight institutions (governmental or otherwise, institutions that have power and use force), ripping people off is very +EV short term. The only way one could consider it -EV in the long run has nothing to do with variance and more to do with the fact that people would eventually catch on.

The poker equivalent would be playing extremely nitty, which is very +EV until people catch on and actually exploit you, by which time they may already be cleaned out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is a very important and neccesarry function of Government to protect our property and our rights. Without this protection we would look a lot more like Russian capitalism!

[tomdemaine]

As part of my bid to get more MSPaint into Politics.




How quickly you get caught determines the crossing point but given long enough there will be one.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it's not a standard poker situation at all. The problem is that without very strong regulatory/oversight institutions (governmental or otherwise, institutions that have power and use force), ripping people off is very +EV short term. The only way one could consider it -EV in the long run has nothing to do with variance and more to do with the fact that people would eventually catch on.

The poker equivalent would be playing extremely nitty, which is very +EV until people catch on and actually exploit you, by which time they may already be cleaned out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is a very important and neccesarry function of Government to protect our property and our rights. Without this protection we would look a lot more like Russian capitalism!

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree that you haven't defined rights or explain why this should be the scope of government power or how this jives with your other complaints.

[xorbie]

tom,

Obvious problem is that:

1) Crossing point can be 15-20 years down the line or otherwise allow you to make a lot of money so that it doesn't matter.

2) Can't automatically make money the honest way, "cutting corners" will ALWAYS save money in the short run.