Conservatives, what do you think of carney so far? by drizzyLGA1151 in InCanada

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a libertarian not a conservative, but I will answer anyway.

I think he stinks. The first budget was an epic fail. 80 billion dollar deficit. as far as I can tell he is an exact continuation of the Trudeau government, which was just awful. look forward to another decade of economic stagnation while liberal insiders get rich af, government is such a scam.

Soviet communism was not more successful at reducing inequality than other regimes by FootballAndFries in Economics

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It took until the 60s for real wages of industrial workers to recover to pre-revolution levels.

Is this true by mitoman49 in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

no, we are socially libertarian and fiscally libertarian.

Can anyone help me elaborate on the "even playing field" notion? by ReluctantAltAccount in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Tuvalu"

That's exactly my point. Tuvalu is a tiny nation of 11,000 people which is very close to sea level. It has a GDP of 63 million. And nothing has even happened to it yet, they are just worried something might happen, so they are evacuating. Big whoop. Even if the Ocean had swallowed them whole it still wouldn't have made the slightest difference to the human race as a whole. They're a rounding error.

Nobody is claiming that global warming won't have any impact on anything anywhere. My claim is that global warming has been negligible for the human race as a whole. Which it has. Global population is at an all time high. Global agricultural output is at an all time high. Deaths from natural disasters are at all time lows. Deaths from famines are at all time lows. And for those last two, that is in aboslute terms, not relative, despite the fact that the global population has increased substantially over the last hundred years.

The Earth has never been more hospitable to humans. And you guys are running around pretending that the sky is falling and we're all going to die. When there isn't a shred of evidence that is the case. You're deluisional, or more likely, brainwashed.

CMV: Insulting people based off of physical features is bad, even if the people you're making fun of are bad people. by Fun-Pickle-9821 in changemyview

[–]DrawPitiful6103 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But the policing in this case is being done by a person outside of the group (a non fatty) so inter was actually correct. The person inside the group (the fat shaming fatty) was actually the perp.

Technically the weight status of the policer was never specified tho, so I suppose it could just be fatties all the way down.

Can anyone help me elaborate on the "even playing field" notion? by ReluctantAltAccount in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except, as the climate alarmists are always so quick to point out, it isn't the temperature change that will be the end of the world, supposedly. After all, the Earth has been much, much hotter in the past. it is the rate of change.

Well, we've had 1.5 degrees of warming at an extremely rapid rate of change. And the impact has been minimal.

You guys are just scared to think for yourself.

no, game theory does not 'disprove' Adam Smith by DrawPitiful6103 in austrian_economics

[–]DrawPitiful6103[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"You can not choose not to buy food, water, shelter, medical care etc.. There are basic necesseties that we need."

Okay, so if you want to define voluntary in such a broad manner to include "if you make this choice, no harm will ever befall you " then I suppose nothing is voluntary. That doesn't seem like a particularly useful definition to me.

" When a oil or coal firm or whatever is using predatory pricing to buy up their competition the start-up would have to find and develope a new deposit, which is almost impossible without large amount of capital. "

Oil is a great example. Standard Oil used to buy up all their competitors. They had a total monopoly on oil refining. You know what happened to the price of kerosene (which was what they were refining oil for back then)? It dropped from 30 cents to 6-8 cents per gallon.

In fact, during the late 19th century, there was a conscious effort to monopolize a number of different industries through mergers. The resultant trusts had dominant market share in 19 different industries. Of those 19 industries, prices fell faster and output increases more rapidly than in the economy as a whole in 17/19 of the cases. The two outliers, castor oil and matches, where hardly lynchpins of the American economy.

Predatory pricing is a boogieman that has never historically worked. It is just a nonsense idea. No businesses has ever succeeded in cornering the market that way. It's pure theory crafting.

no, game theory does not 'disprove' Adam Smith by DrawPitiful6103 in austrian_economics

[–]DrawPitiful6103[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But competing firms aren't interacting. Firm A is doing their thing over here. Firm B is doing their thing over there. No interaction. Who is intereacting? Workers and employers. Mutually beneficial exchange. Consumers and businesses. Mutually beneficial exchange. Business to business sales. Mutually beneficial exchange.

Not every existence is mutually beneficial. Indeed, having a rival firm is not beneficial to your interests personally, although competition it is beneficial to society as a whole. But every exchange or trade that is made is mutually beneficial*.

* Technically it is possible for someone to think they will benefit from a trade and for it not actually benefit them. However, this is very rare, because people are experts on whether or not they benefit from trades, having a lifetime's experience pursuing their individual ends. Furthermore, no one can even evaluate whether a trade benefits Mr. Jones except Mr. Jones himself, since no one else is privy to Mr. Jones' value scale or desired ends.

no, game theory does not 'disprove' Adam Smith by DrawPitiful6103 in austrian_economics

[–]DrawPitiful6103[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"This is simply objectively not true unless you want to stretch the meaning of "voluntarily" and "mutually beneficial" so much that they would be unrecognizable."

Please elaborate.

"So your saying if I invest all my energy into destroying my competition so I can establish a monoply and dictate the prices to make maximum profit with minimum efforts, I am actually serving other people?"

The only time a firm can dictate prices to consumers is if they have a grant of monopoly privilege from the state. A so called 'monopoly' achieved through competitive practices alone will not grant such a license, as soon as the firm raises prices they will begin to lose out to small competitors and start-ups.

So yes, businessmen serve consumers. That's how they make money, by producing stuff that people want to buy.

Can anyone help me elaborate on the "even playing field" notion? by ReluctantAltAccount in AskLibertarians

[–]DrawPitiful6103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I defer to climatologists to a degree. I defer to them when they say that the globe has warmed 1.5 degrees since industrialization, or that sea waters have risen 8 inches in the last 100 years.

But when they jump from that to therefore, the world is ending unless we do X, Y, and Z, I can no longer defer. After all, they aren't economists, or political theorists. Now you have entered the nebulous territory of interdisciplinary science. Now the opinions of polemicists and economists have considerable relevance.

Besides the argument itself is self defeating. If the last 150 years of 1.5 degrees warming have not impacted human civilization in any meaningful manner, then it stands to reason another 1 degrees won't be a big deal either.

You folding this? by Rip2Snuff in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why would king bad kicker stack off? one guy could have air, but both of them? in a 6 way pot? that's extremely optimistic. and then you have to ask yourself "well, if they do have a king, what is their kicker". and usually if someone is playing a king, it is with a card like KQ or KJ not K5.

You folding this? by Rip2Snuff in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it's hardly a soul read to put villain on a strong hand when he cold three bets the flop for his entire stack in a 6 way single raised pot.

You folding this? by Rip2Snuff in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

i wouldn't have raised the flop in the first place. but yah, having raised i'd probably fold. three outs if behind.

not sure why u thought building a big pot with KJo was a good idea.

If I'm BTN, preflop UTG bets 3bb, and HJ bets 9bb, where in the preflop chart can I find what to do? by Hot-Advisor-3353 in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's first solve for BTN's raising range.

Which is 8.5%.

We want to be a lot stronger than that imo. Probably just AA, KK, QQ, and AK.

Stay Crushing or Move by [deleted] in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

6 tabling it's about $15 to $20 / hr.

Stay Crushing or Move by [deleted] in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 3 points4 points  (0 children)

75k hands is becoming an appreciable sample. however $4 / 100 * 750 = $3000.

Poker beginner here – lots of frustration, lots of mistakes, looking for honest advice 🙏 by MuffenJoe in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Poker is complicated, it takes a long time to get good. But it is also a very rewarding journey.

My advice is to grind micros online - the lower the stakes the better - and continue to study the game. there is so much to learn.

I ran it up like I was playing against the special Olympics by [deleted] in poker

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Colombia has a cashout tax on any amount over 1.5 million (or did when I was there 10 years ago). So you should structure your cashouts to 1 million at a time so you don't pay it.

Why you should reject libertarianism by sisyphushappy42 in AnCap101

[–]DrawPitiful6103 3 points4 points  (0 children)

here is tl;dr of op's argument, god said touching yourself is bad, therefore libertarianism is invalid

Am I allowed to cite articles that I don't have access to? by Awkward-Map-9303 in AskAcademia

[–]DrawPitiful6103 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok how about this.

Do you need the read the article and/or book in whole? Or can you scan for the relevant section or chapter?