-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 01:38:19 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  The "My Political Origins and Journey" Thread
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: The "My Political Origins and Journey" Thread  (Read 17798 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2015, 04:11:58 PM »

Mine is pretty close to Bubbly Waves', -4.75 economically, -6.05 socially. But I'd add the caveat that I don't take this kind of thing serious, as it doesn't really let you respond with any kind of nuance.
I agree that it's not very serious, but I was also surprised to see that mine seems fairly accurate.
Emily, CSM, or other interested viewers whose views are left of TRBB (since his are clear on this), what do you think about the specific aspect of the new SEC rules I quoted? Should investors be protected from themselves with income-based limits on what they can invest?
Honestly, I don’t think the primary motive is to protect small investors, though that’s an aspect. I think the primary motive is to inhibit large investments and big investors from skirting the SEC and other oversight mechanisms.
I don't hate the idea at all. I love it, actually. I wholly acknowledge that the bureaucracy involved in being a public company is absurd and keeps smaller companies from having a chance to participate. (I also believe in some level of regulation, so it's not an all or nothing situation for me.)
Actually, this mechanism would be very costly for a company to use. The bill involves a lot of red tape. I consider the red tape a good thing, because it will eliminate a number of scammers, but it will also inhibit exactly the sort of business you’re thinking of from using it.
While I agree that a person probably ought not invest his full fortune in some company (startup or not), I also wholly disagree that the government should step in and prevent you from doing so. As I said in my main post, I believe in striving to equalize opportunities for people, but I do not believe in holding their hands at every step through life. I believe people have the right to make terrible decisions. Yes, I also believe in a(n unpleasantly minimal) safety net for those who self-destruct, who fail. But telling someone what s/he can spend on something seems entirely inappropriate to me. After all, I can withdraw all my retirement funds or other investments and bank accounts and spend that money in cash on whatever I want: Triscuits, Taco Bell, used copies of Billy Joel's Greatest Hits I & II. I can turn it over to a relative or a cult or a church. If I want to stupidly invest it all in a terrible business idea, such is life. I don't think the government should prevent me from doing so.
Is the government looking for a strong economy, or is it looking to teach people object lessons, or is it looking to just leave people and the economy to do as they will with no interference regardless of the outcome?
Some people think the government should do the last of these things. This is philosophically sound, but leads to a lot of poverty, which I think sucks.
Few people philosophically think that the second should be the goal of the government, but they get distracted on individual issues into: “well, if those people did something stupid, they should pay for it or learn from it or whatever” which is reasonable but shouldn’t really be the focus of government.
If people want the government to support a strong economy that is not hugely divided into have and have-nots, it’s important for the government to keep people from dumping their money into non-productive activities. People are subject to mass-stupidity. See Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The internet is especially good at herding mass-stupidity. See the tech bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of the 2000s. We are getting better and better, with popular communication getting easier and easier, at creating stupidity bubbles.
Most businesses that end up using this mechanism, due to extraordinary costs, will be businesses that can’t find investment through the existing mechanisms, which are much cheaper. So they will be mostly fly-by-night businesses that usual investors, including angels, venture capitalists and high-risk, high return investors, reject. A few people with ideas that seem outlandish but for whatever reason catch on (pet rock) may succeed but for the most part the people who invest through this mechanism will be losing their money at a much higher rate than current small-investment losses and the winners will be people who are really good at fleecing the uneducated.
Should people suffer for being fools? Perhaps. But is it good for the economy to shift money from fools to scammers and flaky dreamers? Not really because then investment and spending is skewed toward the non-productive. It's best for investment money to be skewed toward production and innovation and for all the population, fools and non-fools, to have enough of it to buy those nice, innovative products, cycling the money back to production and innovation. If the fools are poor and the scammers are rich, then less money will be spent on basic products like food and non-luxury furniture and clothing and innovation that we all can use, driving up the cost of those products and innovations and making it harder for the non-fools but non-rich to afford them. Meanwhile, the scammers will be putting their extra money into luxury products. The sum effect being that there are more yachts in the world for the few people who can afford them but less affordable basic goods for everyone else. This is an over-simplification, but it is the effect of increased income disparities. The rich get more stuff and the non-rich get more expensive stuff.
One benefit is that is that it’s a tiny step toward modernizing the investment marketplace which is still stuck in the 19th century, though the wrong tiny step.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 04:31:21 PM by Emily » Logged
zachrwolfe
Guest
« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2015, 06:45:00 PM »

« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 07:28:00 PM by zatch » Logged
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #52 on: October 31, 2015, 11:43:33 PM »

Here's mine:

Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: November 01, 2015, 12:53:39 PM »

Emily, CSM, or other interested viewers whose views are left of TRBB (since his are clear on this), what do you think about the specific aspect of the new SEC rules I quoted? Should investors be protected from themselves with income-based limits on what they can invest?

No, I don't think someone should be able to tell you what you can do with your money.
However, if CSM is correct and well-informed (as he often is), then perhaps it's a good thing that someone is preventing people from investing too heavily.


Mine is pretty close to Bubbly Waves', -4.75 economically, -6.05 socially. But I'd add the caveat that I don't take this kind of thing serious, as it doesn't really let you respond with any kind of nuance.

No, I wouldn't place too much stock in it, either. I just like looking at these things to get a better understanding of myself and my views (sort of like that MBTI thread.)
I am apparently closest to Pyotr Kropotkin, noted anarcho-communist.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 12:54:47 PM by Bubbly Waves » Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2015, 07:20:54 AM »

Just started reading some of these posts -- such a great thread topic!  Long overdue.  Kudos, Captain!

« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 07:23:18 AM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
the professor
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 982


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2015, 08:50:02 AM »

I am a conservative (Goldwater style, in favor of liberty--not a Christian) now mainly because of the monotonous, intolerant religious left, which hates free speech and diversity. I live in academia, which is a snarky, droning, leftist mono-culture. The NPR crowd, slobbering, gilt-ridden, trust-funded, elite, never worked a day in their lives, so moralistic and self-congratulatory.

 

I respect my bros and sis's here for your Liberal views, and I try to be open and observant for good ideas.  But if any of you, even you libs, lived in the Professor's world, you would move to the right in favor of free speech real quick.

Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2015, 08:59:51 AM »

I'm all for free speech. However, just because you can say things doesn't mean you should.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2015, 09:10:56 AM »

I am a conservative (Goldwater style, in favor of liberty--not a Christian) now mainly because of the monotonous, intolerant religious left, which hates free speech and diversity. I live in academia, which is a snarky, droning, leftist mono-culture. The NPR crowd, slobbering, gilt-ridden, trust-funded, elite, never worked a day in their lives, so moralistic and self-congratulatory.

 

I respect my bros and sis's here for your Liberal views, and I try to be open and observant for good ideas.  But if any of you, even you libs, lived in the Professor's world, you would move to the right in favor of free speech real quick.


Dad was a professor, two siblings professors. I'm all for free speech of course. And very happily left as are/were 2/3 of the afore-mentioned professors. Supporting free speech is, by definition, a liberal position and neither right nor left.
Logged
the professor
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 982


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2015, 10:59:13 AM »


Indeed: please tell that to the Cornell U professor who argues against intellectual diversity and in favor or of homogenous Democratic-party faculty.

I am a conservative (Goldwater style, in favor of liberty--not a Christian) now mainly because of the monotonous, intolerant religious left, which hates free speech and diversity. I live in academia, which is a snarky, droning, leftist mono-culture. The NPR crowd, slobbering, gilt-ridden, trust-funded, elite, never worked a day in their lives, so moralistic and self-congratulatory.

 

I respect my bros and sis's here for your Liberal views, and I try to be open and observant for good ideas.  But if any of you, even you libs, lived in the Professor's world, you would move to the right in favor of free speech real quick.


Dad was a professor, two siblings professors. I'm all for free speech of course. And very happily left as are/were 2/3 of the afore-mentioned professors. Supporting free speech is, by definition, a liberal position and neither right nor left.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2015, 11:04:45 AM »


Indeed: please tell that to the Cornell U professor who argues against intellectual diversity and in favor or of homogenous Democratic-party faculty.

Sure. Sounds like a real crank. Give me his/her contact info.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2015, 05:24:29 PM »

Just started reading some of these posts -- such a great thread topic!  Long overdue.  Kudos, Captain!



Thank you. I hope you'll share your stories as well.

With respect to everyone, I hope you'll all share stories, ask follow-ups, but refrain from debate in this thread. I'm a huge fan of debate, but let's separate. I'd love to see this thread be just about getting information, context.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2015, 04:33:25 AM »

I'm all for free speech. However, just because you can say things doesn't mean you should.

Exactly!  Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2015, 07:05:41 AM »

Just started reading some of these posts -- such a great thread topic!  Long overdue.  Kudos, Captain!



Thank you. I hope you'll share your stories as well.

With respect to everyone, I hope you'll all share stories, ask follow-ups, but refrain from debate in this thread. I'm a huge fan of debate, but let's separate. I'd love to see this thread be just about getting information, context.
That's a challenge! I'll do my best.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.707 seconds with 21 queries.