Social Social Thread - Talk About Anything (You Are Allowed to Talk About)!

[Zantetsu]

It's actually pronounced B.H.L.M.R.O

5 cookies to whoever finds out/remembers what each letter means. My 12 year old mind was pretty stupid

 

[Surri-Sama]

it has something to do with three letters of your name...and something else....AUGH I KNOW THIS

 

[th3kuzinator]

The urge to speak his name in the way that makes it sounds like Blur-mo is too great ... I too call him Blur-mo ...

I used to call you WenObular. When oh bu lar. Sounded pretty bo$$

Wenbobular came as a shock at first but now its alright.

 

[Battlecow]

So guys

The melee peeps have tried to start a subreddit on reddit. They think it'll bring people in or something? IDK. Point is y'all should subscribe to it if you do reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/

 

[DMoogle]

INCOMING

This simply isn't the case. If insurance wasn't there people would shop around and look for banks that are in line with their personal risk preferences. I mean, we see this exact effect happen already with things like hedge funds/mutual funds/ETFs already.

No way, and even if they did, the VAST majority of the population is absolutely TERRIBLE when it comes to risk and money management. There are many elements to evaluate, and few of them that people understand. Moreover, many people don't know how to perform their due diligence, or are unwilling. I'm guessing people who invest in hedge funds probably do do their due diligence more than people who don't, but IIRC you can't even invest in hedge funds unless you have a net worth of >$1M or have a mid-six figure income.

Their loss? Yeah, but it simply comes down to how much we should protect the "innocent," which really means ignorant. It concept I don't like it, but when there are SO many people who make irresponsible choices, I think it's an ethically necessary evil.

So how often should they be protected? IMO it basically comes down to a simple, yet very difficult to answer question: will government regulation be more efficient than the market? The government has a terrible reputation for its inefficiency, but there are many instances where the market is worse (and obviously there are many, probably even more, instances where the market is better). Each situation needs be evaluated individually.

For an example of an inefficient market, take a look at homeopathy (in case you didn't know, it's a form of alternative medicine). Homeopathy does not work, period. The theory behind it is garbage, and studies show no difference between homeopathic products and placebos. Yet it's still a big multi-million dollar industry, and IIRC it's getting bigger. People who buy homeopathic products are giving their money away to people who aren't adding value to society, and the primary reason for that is that people just don't know it doesn't work. It's a combination of the industry not having enough negative attention (unlike, for example, the tobacco industry) and people not researching their products. So, would you not agree that the homeopathic industry should be regulated? At the very least, disallow them from making outrageous medical claims (e.g. "take this homeopathic pill and your cancer will be cured!")?

Consumer protection regulation is particularly unnecessary because the market can fulfill that function. I know that when I want to buy something, I often go read reviews online. I'm so glad the government makes people do these reviews ... oh wait.

That's just an example to demonstrate the principle.

I read reviews for nearly everything I buy too. You and I are like-minded in that regard, and because of that, you and I have an edge over most people, because your average Joe doesn't look up everything they buy. Fortunately, I think part of it is generational/cultural, i.e. our generation is one that emphasizes research more than previous generations.

I loled at "I'm consistently surprised by how many smart people say less regulation = better". I can just say I'm surprised people can say more regulation is better. Do you disagree that less regulation is better in 99% of cases? Sure, we can have a grand debate about the other 1%, but from your generalized statement above it seems you don't even believe the principle in general (first welfare theorem).

I'm attacking people who are making blanket statements. I neither disagree nor agree with your 99% figure. Like I said, each case should be individually evaluated (and re-evaluated as the market evolves).

I'd sure like to have your powers of sight into alternate futures. Plenty of people disagree with this.

Anyway, it's important to note that government regulations/interventions and poor monetary policy has a large part in causing the financial crisis.

Both the banks and the government regulations were at fault. The government regulations forced (or maybe just strongly encouraged, I'm not entirely sure) banks to make bad loans, the banks repackaged them and sold them off overseas at a premium as good loans. This sometimes involved fraud (I'm a little fuzzy on this part).

A saw "Too Big to Fail" (HBO movie) a little while ago, and it gave me a better understanding of what happened. The acting was really good too, you should check it out.

Anyway, without a government bailout (FWIW I absolutely HATE the idea of the government cherry-picking businesses to give bailouts to... or even the idea of bailouts in general. It makes me cringe. But it's what is pragmatic in practice, not the principle, that matters), the banks were going to collapse, no doubt about it. No individual was going to buy them out, and why would they? The banks in a terrible financial position after the housing market tank.

Does that mean that it was unprofitable for the government to buy them out? No. See, if the banks collapsed, then all the companies that relied on banks for their short-term borrowing needs are suddenly and unexpectedly without cash. That was one thing in the movie that really shocked me... the CEO of General Electric, the largest non-bank company in the world, speaking in terrified tones about how their inability to borrow would **** up EVERYTHING. Obviously the movie scene was probably the dramatization, but the point still stands. So if these banks aren't able to lend, then the entire economy comes to a screeching halt, i.e. EVERYONE is affected. (EDIT: Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve, spent a solid portion of his academic career studying the Great Depression. He thinks that the implications of this crisis would have been worse (different, obviously, but worse). He's a smart guy, and if anyone should be considered a true expert, it's him).

So, while it may not be profitable for an individual to to bail out the banks (because his individual return isn't going to be anything special), he's saving everyone else. It's may be -EV for him but it's +EV for everyone else, the non-investors. But if everyone is an investor (i.e. through the government bail-out) to save everyone, then it can be +EV.

Again, I hate the idea of bailing out individual companies, but it's what's practical that matters.

Obviously it matters tremendously now. But if Full Tilt had revealed this before the DOJ shutdown, would you have pulled your money out? Would everyone else have pulled their money out?

I don't know if I would have, although I'm leaning toward no. I doubt the majority of people would, but they would probably lose a significant chunk. I'm not sure how many people left UB/AP after the superuser scandal, but it would probably be a lower % than that.

Man, not sure if I have the willpower to make another big post if you challenge everything I say. But, questioning things is good for society, and I like to think, so fire away.

Oh yeah and I hope you read this whole post because I spent a while making it.

 

[Wenbobular]

I used to call you WenObular. When oh bu lar. Sounded pretty bo$$

Wenbobular came as a shock at first but now its alright.

Better than people I've met who know my name is Wenbo thinking it was Wenbular ... -_-

 

[Battlecow]

Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve, spent a solid portion of his academic career studying the Great Depression. He thinks that the implications of this crisis would have been worse (different, obviously, but worse). He's a smart guy, and if anyone should be considered a true expert, it's him).

I'm not an economist, so I try to stay out of these things, because me giving an opinion would be like Ben Bernanke going into the Match-up chart thread and giving his opinion on Falcon vs. Kirby. That being said, I have one (rather obvious) bone to pick with your post- you can't just say "X is a smart guy who has studied this as much as anyone. He says Y." I'm sure that ballin' could find a number of smart, qualified guys who would oppose Bernanke on that; giving one opinion proves nothing. You have to show that there's a consensus among the experts to show that such a thing can safely be said.

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not an economist, so I try to stay out of these things, because me giving an opinion would be like Ben Bernanke going into the Match-up chart thread and giving his opinion on Falcon vs. Kirby. That being said, I have one (rather obvious) bone to pick with your post- you can't just say "X is a smart guy who has studied this as much as anyone. He says Y." I'm sure that ballin' could find a number of smart, qualified guys who would oppose Bernanke on that; giving one opinion proves nothing. You have to show that there's a consensus among the experts to show that such a thing can safely be said.

You neglected to mention the fact that the Bernank has a HUGE incentive to say bailouts were necessary.

INCOMING
No way, and even if they did, the VAST majority of the population is absolutely TERRIBLE when it comes to risk and money management. There are many elements to evaluate, and few of them that people understand. Moreover, many people don't know how to perform their due diligence, or are unwilling. I'm guessing people who invest in hedge funds probably do do their due diligence more than people who don't, but IIRC you can't even invest in hedge funds unless you have a net worth of >$1M or have a mid-six figure income.

Hedge funds are just an example. The same thing happens with ETFs, mutual funds, stocks in general, etc. In the particular case of commercial banks, it would be easy for one bank to advertise "25% reserve ratio" or whatever to emphasize to the consumer that money is safe there. Some people might ignore this and go with the 1% reserve bank, but that's their choice to make.

Their loss? Yeah, but it simply comes down to how much we should protect the "innocent," which really means ignorant. It concept I don't like it, but when there are SO many people who make irresponsible choices, I think it's an ethically necessary evil.

So how often should they be protected? IMO it basically comes down to a simple, yet very difficult to answer question: will government regulation be more efficient than the market? The government has a terrible reputation for its inefficiency, but there are many instances where the market is worse (and obviously there are many, probably even more, instances where the market is better). Each situation needs be evaluated individually.

Probably?

You don't explain here how each situation needs to be evaluated. In fact, economists have a method for this evaluation - it's called the first welfare theorem. So long as the conditions of that theorem are satisfied, the market provides a Pareto efficient result.

For an example of an inefficient market, take a look at homeopathy (in case you didn't know, it's a form of alternative medicine). Homeopathy does not work, period. The theory behind it is garbage, and studies show no difference between homeopathic products and placebos. Yet it's still a big multi-million dollar industry, and IIRC it's getting bigger. People who buy homeopathic products are giving their money away to people who aren't adding value to society, and the primary reason for that is that people just don't know it doesn't work. It's a combination of the industry not having enough negative attention (unlike, for example, the tobacco industry) and people not researching their products. So, would you not agree that the homeopathic industry should be regulated? At the very least, disallow them from making outrageous medical claims (e.g. "take this homeopathic pill and your cancer will be cured!")?

Sure, YOU might think homepathy is a waste of money, but who are YOU to tell ME what to do with my money? If I get mental comfort or placebo effect from these products, then I might think that it is money well spent.

Last claim is pretty clear fraud so I don't see the problem.

I read reviews for nearly everything I buy too. You and I are like-minded in that regard, and because of that, you and I have an edge over most people, because your average Joe doesn't look up everything they buy. Fortunately, I think part of it is generational/cultural, i.e. our generation is one that emphasizes research more than previous generations.

Sure. But it's not just the consumers who have an incentive to find out about this stuff. The suppliers also have an incentive to make consumers find out how their product is superior.

And if consumers are STILL oblivious, then maybe they just don't care enough to shop around. In which case, them purchasing the more expensive products is actually an efficient outcome - they are paying for convenience.

I'm attacking people who are making blanket statements. I neither disagree nor agree with your 99% figure. Like I said, each case should be individually evaluated (and re-evaluated as the market evolves).

Besides your lack of evaluation criteria, you're setting yourself an impossible problem here. If you can't make any generalizations it's going to be extremely difficult to figure anything out.

Both the banks and the government regulations were at fault. The government regulations forced (or maybe just strongly encouraged, I'm not entirely sure) banks to make bad loans, the banks repackaged them and sold them off overseas at a premium as good loans. This sometimes involved fraud (I'm a little fuzzy on this part).

Fannie/Freddie and the government encouraging home ownership had an impact. But the biggest thing was the Fed holding interest rates too low. See chart from this link:
http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/was-considerable-period-or-measured.html

A saw "Too Big to Fail" (HBO movie) a little while ago, and it gave me a better understanding of what happened. The acting was really good too, you should check it out.

Heard a lot about it. I'm still skeptical of a popular portrayal of the events though.

Anyway, without a government bailout (FWIW I absolutely HATE the idea of the government cherry-picking businesses to give bailouts to... or even the idea of bailouts in general. It makes me cringe. But it's what is pragmatic in practice, not the principle, that matters), the banks were going to collapse, no doubt about it. No individual was going to buy them out, and why would they? The banks in a terrible financial position after the housing market tank.

I disagree that bailouts were the pragmatic thing to do. But EVEN IF they were, you have to consider the moral hazard issue - i.e. think beyond just the current situation. If your child is yelling and screaming, you could give him some candy to shut him up, but in the long run this is probably a bad idea. Same thing. If banks know they will get bailed out, then they will be more likely to take risks.

Does that mean that it was unprofitable for the government to buy them out? No. See, if the banks collapsed, then all the companies that relied on banks for their short-term borrowing needs are suddenly and unexpectedly without cash. That was one thing in the movie that really shocked me... the CEO of General Electric, the largest non-bank company in the world, speaking in terrified tones about how their inability to borrow would **** up EVERYTHING. Obviously the movie scene was probably the dramatization, but the point still stands. So if these banks aren't able to lend, then the entire economy comes to a screeching halt, i.e. EVERYONE is affected. (EDIT: Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve, spent a solid portion of his academic career studying the Great Depression. He thinks that the implications of this crisis would have been worse (different, obviously, but worse). He's a smart guy, and if anyone should be considered a true expert, it's him).

Bernanke and the Fed were instrumental in causing the crisis, so pardon me if I don't trust him to fix it. Anyway, studying the Great Depression is going to be useless if you're using the wrong models and ideas. Another example: http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-resolve-stimulus-debate-use-data.html

So, while it may not be profitable for an individual to to bail out the banks (because his individual return isn't going to be anything special), he's saving everyone else. It's may be -EV for him but it's +EV for everyone else, the non-investors. But if everyone is an investor (i.e. through the government bail-out) to save everyone, then it can be +EV.

Again, I hate the idea of bailing out individual companies, but it's what's practical that matters.

One of the benefits of the market is that unprofitable firms, i.e. firms that allocate resources inefficiently, lose money and go out of business. This frees the way for firms that can allocate resources efficiently. Bailing out unprofitable companies simply continues the misallocation of resources.

I don't know if I would have, although I'm leaning toward no. I doubt the majority of people would, but they would probably lose a significant chunk. I'm not sure how many people left UB/AP after the superuser scandal, but it would probably be a lower % than that.

Superuser scandal is a million times worse than just knowing Full Tilt doesn't keep all deposits on hand. Full Tilt's problem only becomes apparent in an extreme situation where everyone takes money out at once (which unfortunately actually happened), but the Superuser thing affects the game itself. Much worse if you ask me.

Man, not sure if I have the willpower to make another big post if you challenge everything I say. But, questioning things is good for society, and I like to think, so fire away.

Oh yeah and I hope you read this whole post because I spent a while making it.

I used to spend insane amounts of time making Debate Hall posts, but I haven't gone in there for a while. Hoping to keep it up and not relapse.

 

[asianaussie]

stopitstopitstopitstopit

you have to be a special kind of person to enjoy creating or reading those bigass posts, and im not one of those people anymore

 

[Sangoku]

^this. I just read about the homeopathy part and I think you're wrong ballin, as homeopathy claims to have an effect in addition to placebo. I mean they really state there is a beneficial effect intrinsic to the pill, not just your mind thinking it's going better because you ate something. That's why it could never cure serious stuff like cancers and so on. Therefore homeopathy is a fraud.

 

[The Star King]

I'm not an economist, so I try to stay out of these things, because me giving an opinion would be like Ben Bernanke going into the Match-up chart thread and giving his opinion on Falcon vs. Kirby.

Yeah, he would probably say something ridiculous like +3 Kirby on Dreamland

stopitstopitstopitstopit

you have to be a special kind of person to enjoy creating or reading those bigass posts, and im not one of those people anymore

Don't read it, then >_>

 

[ballin4life]

stopitstopitstopitstopit

you have to be a special kind of person to enjoy creating or reading those bigass posts, and im not one of those people anymore

Sorry you're compelled to read my posts.

^this. I just read about the homeopathy part and I think you're wrong ballin, as homeopathy claims to have an effect in addition to placebo. I mean they really state there is a beneficial effect intrinsic to the pill, not just your mind thinking it's going better because you ate something. That's why it could never cure serious stuff like cancers and so on. Therefore homeopathy is a fraud.

Maybe it's fraud. It depends on what they promise. But in general if someone wants to pay for it then they are getting some psychological benefit from it. Just because you wouldn't pay for it doesn't mean that someone else can't enjoy it.

 

[Sangoku]

They are indeed getting some psychological benefit, but as I said, it is not more than placebo. And sellers say it has an effect independent to the placebo effect.

And I don't get your last sentence. Do you mean that if someone is part of a sect and pay for it, he's not being frauded because he's happy to be a member?

 

[Korrupshen]

I don't know if anyone seen this, but Congress is planning on passing a BULL**** bill called "S.978" which prevents us from streaming any time of copyrighted media onto the internet. That means no more game reviews, no more let's plays, no streaming tournaments, no ssb videos, etc etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hytigOSjJxc

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/show

 

[Battlecow]

According to what I've heard-

It was already illegal, but now it's criminal instead of civil- i.e. the government can go after you where before only the companies in question did.

In our case (streaming SSB) it wouldn't matter anyways because Isai's stream doesn't have an economic value of $2500 or greater, so it's not illegal in that regard.

It will never be enforced on the gaming community because no one gives a **** about streaming video game matches

 

[The Star King]

"Planning on passing"? I heard it likely won't pass.

It will never be enforced on the gaming community because no one gives a **** about streaming video game matches

Youtube videos/channels have been taken down for video games before.

 

[Battlecow]

Youtube videos/channels have been taken down for video games before.

When? And was it Nintendo, for as small a deal as an ssb64 match?

 

[The Star King]

When? And was it Nintendo, for as small a deal as an ssb64 match?

I can't think of any specific examples, but I'm sure I've heard of some cases. I think I remember some quite famous Let's Play Pokemon videos being taken down. Maybe somebody here knows what I'm talking about.

However, it's usually not Nintendo. They have said in the past that they support people uploading/streaming their games IIRC. So I don't think you're wrong about it not affecting Smash 64. I just think it could for other video games.

 

[dandan]

easier to be outside of the us and not under that bill :D

 

[ballin4life]

They are indeed getting some psychological benefit, but as I said, it is not more than placebo. And sellers say it has an effect independent to the placebo effect.

And I don't get your last sentence. Do you mean that if someone is part of a sect and pay for it, he's not being frauded because he's happy to be a member?

Yes. If you're happy to be a member, then that's a good thing.

I don't know if anyone seen this, but Congress is planning on passing a BULL**** bill called "S.978" which prevents us from streaming any time of copyrighted media onto the internet. That means no more game reviews, no more let's plays, no streaming tournaments, no ssb videos, etc etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hytigOSjJxc

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/show

I don't understand this. It seems like this would only apply to movies. The video game itself is copyrighted, but you're saying images of the video game are too?

 

[Sangoku]

Yes. If you're happy to be a member, then that's a good thing.

Ok, surprising from someone coming from the US. I admire your opened mind.

inb4 I get trolled by patriotics.

 

[The Star King]

Yeah, because if you're from the US, it automatically means that you're a bigoted jerk. ballin4life sure is a special guy.

EDIT: Answer key. In case Battlecow accuses me of changing answers.
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. No
8. No
9. Yes
10. No

 

[Dsc]

have you dirty americans tried tim tams and shapes before?

 

[ballin4life]

why would we trust food from australia, the land of vegemite?

tim tams pretty good though

 

[ciaza]

Tim Tams are like the most amazing biscuit ever on par with oreos.

Milo is goddamn amazing too.

 

[Dsc]

Vegemite is horse****.
Shapes are godly, esp bacon and cheese.

 

[ciaza]

You're not Australian if you don't like vegemite.
Shapes are cool, but there are better Aussie foods like Weet-bix. We like wheat so much we condense it into biscuits and then eat it for breakfast.

 

[Sangoku]

I said if you're good at it.

I remember a video of somebody hatching a perfect shiny Togepi in like 20 mins. And catching a near-perfect Heatran in like 10.

I didn't know you could RNG pokemons. Does this work in red version too? I might try to get a perfect team if yes. Where could I find guides?

 

[SSBPete]

I'm with dsc, cheese and bacon shapes are a god-sent

 

[ballin4life]

Tim Tams are like the most amazing biscuit ever on par with oreos.

Milo is goddamn amazing too.

Tim tams are way better than oreos. Too much vegemite corrupting your tastebuds.

 

[ciaza]

Stand alone I'd agree. Oreos with milk however is a whole different story.

 

[clubbadubba]

If it weren't for a book called 'the giggle treatment' i read when i was little, I would have no idea that by biscuits you meant cookies.

 

[malva00]

msn group has been down for a while XD

if anyone is interested, you can join FAKE BOOMLAND, the 2nd group I created (not the original name). I've had both FAKE BOOMLAND and Smash64 North America! on my buddy list to see which one is more reliable

add group1060420@groupsim.com for FAKE BOOMLAND

 

[NovaSmash]

msn group has been down for a while XD

if anyone is interested, you can join FAKE BOOMLAND, the 2nd group I created (not the original name). I've had both FAKE BOOMLAND and Smash64 North America! on my buddy list to see which one is more reliable

add group1060420@groupsim.com for FAKE BOOMLAND

this group is down too or offline

 

[ciaza]

I just joined it, so it's not down.

Note that the answer to the join question is case sensitive

 

[malva00]

I just joined it, so it's not down.

Note that the answer to the join question is case sensitive

it wasn't down, but now it is XD

 

[ciaza]

>_>

It's a good thing we have the first one as a BACK-UP.

 

[KnitePhox]

I didn't know you could RNG pokemons. Does this work in red version too? I might try to get a perfect team if yes. Where could I find guides?

smogon.com

i used to be a tourney *** in this, and many other games too...
SMASH IS THE BESTEST tho

 

[Sangoku]

Thanks for the site, I might look at it if I feel like being a poké tourneyfag.

 

[ballin4life]

So no posts from battlecow yet about the anniversary of America officially starting its PWN of the British?