Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Moda, why don't you start a new thread about a worldwide carbon tax? I think that would be an interesting discussion all on its own.

Probably because I don't think I know much/enough about how it would actually work.  All I have is hair-brained ideas about what might work, but I really have no idea how to track/capture/tax carbon usage on a world-wide basis.

I hope you can understand how I and others might be hesitant to support an idea whose proponent admits he has no idea how it might work and hasn't really thought about any of the details. The devil's in them, as they say.

Regarding popularity, I think there's something to be said for good enough ideas not needing advertising campaigns. Not always, but if something is well-known but nonetheless still isn't catching on, that may be a sign it's simply not a very good idea. Maybe the seed is there and needs to be re-worked, but if you really think about it, popularity is the "capital" of the political world the way profit runs the world of business. In the same way that a profit-starved business goes under, an unpopular idea fails to gain much traction in the world's legislative bodies.

I don't understand how bridge or dam construction works.

I don't understand rocket science.

I don't understand tactical military operations.

The list goes on and on. 

If I didn't think you'd love the idea, I'd follow this up with a statement that maybe we should just abolish any government that we don't understand .



Mountaineer...

Everything is a matter of degree and balance against other factors.  I think exterminating human beings is a bit too high of a "tax" to apply to us.

moda0306 wrote: I don't understand how bridge or dam construction works.

I don't understand rocket science.

I don't understand tactical military operations.

The list goes on and on.

But you wouldn't expect to be able to convince me of any positions you held on these subjects you admit ignorance of, would you? And without knowledge of these subjects yourself, how could you hope to hold an intelligent opinion on controversies in those subjects, let alone advocate for a specific position on one of these controversies, especially to someone who DOES know even a little bit about the subject?

It's sort of the same with a carbon tax. It seems rather intellectually lazy to advocate for it but then admit that you haven't really thought much about it and aren't qualified to hold a real conversation on the subject.

This is just me, but I almost feel an intellectual duty to avoid holding opinions on subjects on which I am ignorant. I feel like I have to understand at least the basics if not a lot of the specifics before I'm really qualified to have an opinion worth sharing.

But that's probably the engineer in me talking.

Pointedstick wrote: This is just me, but I almost feel an intellectual duty to avoid holding opinions on subjects on which I am ignorant. I feel like I have to understand at least the basics if not a lot of the specifics before I'm really qualified to have an opinion worth sharing.

But that's probably the engineer in me talking.

Amen brother!  My sentiments exactly.  But then again, I'm also an engineer. 

On the other hand, I expect some who read what I have to say on some subjects think I'm unqualified to hold an opinion.  Oh well .......

... Mountaineer

PS,

I understand what you mean, but taxes are part of life that we know, at worst, leave our economy alone enough to grow.  I'm just applying a bit more complication because we'd need an international treaty on this.  Treaties are another complex subject, but they, at worst, simply don't do that much harm.

What I do know is that taxes have the ability to alter behaviors and collect funds.  If altering behaviors is our goal, as would be collecting funds to pay "economies" that produce oxygen, then taxes are one relatively reasonable option.

Likewise, if two cities are across a river of lava from each other, I may not know the engineering details of building a bridge at all, but when I see many of the bridges that go over land and water, with some hesitance, may I assume the government may build over a river of lava?  I think they could probably figure it out.  I don't think I have to know how they'd do it to be an advocate for figuring it out.

I'm not necessarily saying carbon taxes are the best method, but taxes tend to curb certain behaviors and collect revenues, which will at least partially solve certain problems contributing to climate change.  I'd love to be more of an expert on it before I comment on it, but when I hear the weak arguments from the right on why we shouldn't act (based on what seems to be either less information or an angry bias against government), I feel bringing up these topics for them to retort on might, at the very least, be a gauge for me as to how analytical they're truly being.

moda0306 wrote: Likewise, if two cities are across a river of lava from each other, I may not know the engineering details of building a bridge at all, but when I see many of the bridges that go over land and water, with some hesitance, may I assume the government may build over a river of lava?  I think they could probably figure it out.  I don't think I have to know how they'd do it to be an advocate for figuring it out.

Sure, but advocacy is easy. Anyone can do that. It's not your job to do the hard work and figure it out; that's somebody else's job. Understand that you're basically asking people that you acknowledge are more knowledgeable and skilled than you to take time out of their busy schedules to determine the merit and feasibility of your idea--which is informed more by excitement or urgency than knowledge tempered by experience.

What I'm saying here is that you can't hand-wave away the complicated and crucially important implementation details--whether it's a bridge over lava or a worldwide tax treaty--and expect your argument to meet with anything but skepticism, especially among a crowd of engineers whose brains are wired to tease apart the details of complicated systems to evaluate whether or not things will work. When you say things like, "I know it must be hard, but just do it!" or "I'll come up with the idea, and you figure out how to do it!" you trigger the neuronal paths in our brains that get exercised when an ignorant manager tells us to design a car with no wheels or a computer that gets its electricity from air. It casts you in the role of the pointy-haired boss who has the all the power but none of the knowledge.

I mean, I badger Kshartle about this! If you want to propose something new, unusual, or controversial, the burden is on YOU to figure out the details if you want to sound intelligent and have any chance of convincing people. The implementation details are what matter. The idea is shit. Anyone can have a vague, nebulous idea. Banging out the details, coming up with a logical plan, working out potential problems, and figuring out a way to tie it all together so it actually works using the resources you have on hand is what separates the dreamers from the makers.

This turned into a general PSA for how to earn the respect of an engineer, but I think it's broadly applicable to many fields of life, especially for liberals who in my experience tend to be dreamers more than makers. It's a lesson I think could bring them tremendous power if they would ever listen to it.

Pointedstick wrote: I mean, I badger Kshartle about this! If you want to propose something new, unusual, or controversial, the burden is on YOU to figure out the details if you want to sound intelligent and have any chance of convincing people. The implementation details are what matter. The idea is shit. Anyone can have a vague, nebulous idea. Banging out the details, coming up with a logical plan, working out potential problems, and figuring out a way to tie it all together so it actually works using the resources you have on hand is what separates the dreamers from the makers.

Ohh please PS this is not even close to reality. What are you even talking about with regards to me? What details do I need to figure out for you and everyone else? I need to figure out the details of how hitting people and stealing from is wrong? If I can't explain to them how the cotton will be picked then we shouldn't free the slaves?

Ohhh please. It's that nonsense that actually entrenches people in their immoral beliefs. They feel justified in supporting failed ideas (like violence solving their problems) because you think you need convince them that non-violence will work better. You try to argue a moral issue from an effects standpoint like the libertarians do. The hypocriscy is so obvious that the left/liberals/statists lick their chops and own that argument. They devastate libertarians when the libertarians give up the moral high ground....which they do over and over, as moda has pointed out dozens of times.

Badger me on it? Come on man. I don't feel badgered. I feel sad that you come to the defense of the initiation of force. 

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Likewise, if two cities are across a river of lava from each other, I may not know the engineering details of building a bridge at all, but when I see many of the bridges that go over land and water, with some hesitance, may I assume the government may build over a river of lava?  I think they could probably figure it out.  I don't think I have to know how they'd do it to be an advocate for figuring it out.

Sure, but advocacy is easy. Anyone can do that. It's not your job to do the hard work and figure it out; that's somebody else's job. Understand that you're basically asking people that you acknowledge are more knowledgeable and skilled than you to take time out of their busy schedules to determine the merit and feasibility of your idea--which is informed more by excitement or urgency than knowledge tempered by experience.

What I'm saying here is that you can't hand-wave away the complicated and crucially important implementation details--whether it's a bridge over lava or a worldwide tax treaty--and expect your argument to meet with anything but skepticism, especially among a crowd of engineers whose brains are wired to tease apart the details of complicated systems to evaluate whether or not things will work. When you say things like, "I know it must be hard, but just do it!" or "I'll come up with the idea, and you figure out how to do it!" you trigger the neuronal paths in our brains that get exercised when an ignorant manager tells us to design a car with no wheels or a computer that gets its electricity from air. It casts you in the role of the pointy-haired boss who has the all the power but none of the knowledge.

I mean, I badger Kshartle about this! If you want to propose something new, unusual, or controversial, the burden is on YOU to figure out the details if you want to sound intelligent and have any chance of convincing people. The implementation details are what matter. The idea is shit. Anyone can have a vague, nebulous idea. Banging out the details, coming up with a logical plan, working out potential problems, and figuring out a way to tie it all together so it actually works using the resources you have on hand is what separates the dreamers from the makers.

This turned into a general PSA for how to earn the respect of an engineer, but I think it's broadly applicable to many fields of life, especially for liberals who in my experience tend to be dreamers more than makers. It's a lesson I think could bring them tremendous power if they would ever listen to it.

I think we mostly agree.  I really WANT people to be informed, or to be informed myself, when articulating my case.  It's also going to be somewhat necessary to get public support (though I'd argue, once again, rock-solid scientific evidence isn't nearly as useful as "nice-sounding" things to the public).

I guess where I differ is when discussing the "burden of proof."  I agree, as a functional matter, the person with the new ideas bares the burden of proof.  However, in reality, if we truly measure property as being at least somewhat legitimate, and pollution as aggression against my (or "community") property, putting the burden of "proof" on the people trying to measure risk and prove pollution is going to play into the hands of the polluters, simply because pollution is part of the "stats quo."

I guess I'd put it this way:

"You, as an "owner" of a factory farm, the land around it, and part of the river that flows into my city, don't have to really "prove" ownership of land other than 1) you bought it from someone, and 2) the government recorded you as owner, but I have to PROVE, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the pollution in the river in my town is from your factory?  That's rich."

Obviously, the burden of proof is always, naturally, going to be on the party trying to prove a nebulous risk.  However, though the burden of proof may, naturally, be on them, the burden of risk-management responsibility as it pertains to pollution, often, is on government agencies.  I don't know exactly what my odds are of dying (though actuaries have measured some of the key indicators).  Does this mean I can just complain that life insurance agents aren't "risk engineers" and I won't buy life insurance for my family?  No.  If someone has presented a well-thought-out-but-intellectually-incomplete case for a massive financial impact happening to my family in a given event, at some point, the burden is on me.

I realize with risk, we are in a messy area.  I usually have stayed away from Global Warming threads mainly because I don't know much about it, myself.  It's not like macro-econ where I feel like I can articulate positions and history pretty well.  This one got me thinking though.  I guess I've been shooting from the hip a bit.  Risk is just one of those areas that I feel we can discuss from a Risk Mgmt 101 perspective rather than jumping into whether 95% of scientists think it's happening vs 85%, and what that means.

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I mean, I badger Kshartle about this! If you want to propose something new, unusual, or controversial, the burden is on YOU to figure out the details if you want to sound intelligent and have any chance of convincing people. The implementation details are what matter. The idea is shit. Anyone can have a vague, nebulous idea. Banging out the details, coming up with a logical plan, working out potential problems, and figuring out a way to tie it all together so it actually works using the resources you have on hand is what separates the dreamers from the makers.

Ohh please PS this is not even close to reality. What are you even talking about with regards to me? What details do I need to figure out for you and everyone else? I need to figure out the details of how hitting people and stealing from is wrong? If I can't explain to them how the cotton will be picked then we shouldn't free the slaves?

Ohhh please. It's that nonsense that actually entrenches people in their immoral beliefs. They feel justified in supporting failed ideas (like violence solving their problems) because you think you need convince them that non-violence will work better. You try to argue a moral issue from an effects standpoint like the libertarians do. The hypocriscy is so obvious that the left/liberals/statists lick their chops and own that argument. They devastate libertarians when the libertarians give up the moral high ground....which they do over and over, as moda has pointed out dozens of times.

Badger me on it? Come on man. I don't feel badgered. I feel sad that you come to the defense of the initiation of force.

K,

You've stated in the past that the best way to present your position to people is to get them to acknowledge that theft/murder are wrong, show them that this is what the government is doing, and that the rest will tend to click.

In the face of that NOT working with most people here, PS, myself, and others, have badgered you about details of what is "right or wrong" in a world where we ALL try to abide by NAP, much less one where many people don't.

All the badgering about definitions, hypothetical examples, animals, "stewardship," how to establish and maintain property "rights," dispute-management, children, special-needs people, etc, have all been us "badgering" you, in a sense.

We don't have to get into it any further than that on this thread, but I think these are the areas PS would say that he (or I) have been "badgering you" about new ideas that few people agree with.

Yeah, I think we are indeed pretty much in agreement, moda. But when it comes to climate change, again, I think risk mitigation is a lot more important to consider than risk assessment. Even if step one is acknowledging that burning buried carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere is warming the earth (probably true), that doesn't really help me figure out a way to stop or reverse it in a way that doesn't have (ahem ) externalities of its own.

…Because there are a lot of interrelated risks. If we implement a global carbon tax treaty, and it works, and we and shut down our fossil fuel economy, there's a lot of risk to people who are fed with fossil fueled agriculture. There's the risk to sick people who are healed with petrochemical products, There's the risk to civilization itself vis-a-vis its forward progression and support. That exponential curve of progress that perhaps not coincidentally coincided with fossil-fueled industry may flatten or go negative.

There's the risk that our global treaty may backfire and worsen other problems. With this treaty, realize that every nation has an incentive to cheat in order to give their own domestic industries an edge over foreigners who hobble themselves with the taxes and less energetic power generation technologies. This could well start a global war. Stranger and stupider things have caused the nations of the world to arm up for battle.

Desert wrote: Generally, most people I encounter tend to underestimate the difficultly of what they're proposing.  They don't think enough about unintended consequences and risk.  Much of the world embraces simplism, in my opinion.

Even simple things often have an enormous amount of design and thought behind them. It's often easier to design something complicated yet ultimately fragile than something that's simple, effective, and stands the test of time.

Pointedstick wrote:

Desert wrote: Generally, most people I encounter tend to underestimate the difficultly of what they're proposing.  They don't think enough about unintended consequences and risk.  Much of the world embraces simplism, in my opinion.

Even simple things often have an enormous amount of design and thought behind them. It's often easier to design something complicated yet ultimately fragile than something that's simple, effective, and stands the test of time.

Simple things like burning fossil fuels in massive amounts to move our vehicles and heat our homes?

moda0306 wrote: All the badgering about definitions, hypothetical examples, animals, "stewardship," how to establish and maintain property "rights," dispute-management, children, special-needs people, etc, have all been us "badgering" you, in a sense.

We don't have to get into it any further than that on this thread, but I think these are the areas PS would say that he (or I) have been "badgering you" about new ideas that few people agree with.

PS' posts are replete with calls for action plans of how things will work in the absence of government. This, despite the fact that I don't call for the abolition of government, just that people stop advocating the inititation of force to solve their problems. The abolition of government would just come naturally. He and I have argued that it's important to convince statists to drop the advocacy of violence by explaining to them how much better things will work in it's absence. I dissagree. People have been talking to statists about that their entire lives. He's no doubt discussed it at legnth with statists. The libertarians have tried this. It's always a failure because it's a false argument.

The moral argument might be a loser....but the argument from effects is certainly a loser.

You guys are debating carbon tax or whatever now. I was going to stay out but he tried to draw me in a couple times and succeeded. I will share with you the results of a carbon tax:

Everyone will get taxed for breathing. Wealthy businessmen will lobby the masters to decree their competitors polluters. The goal will be to tax their competitors away. Productivity will decrease and costs will go up...making us poorer. They will give a lot of the money to their friends (financial supporters) to start up green companies (that will produce no profit and require more theft from you to keep going). They will keep a bunch of money for themselves to buy more guns to point at you, pay for their spying efforts and build dungeons to put you in.

Giving your master additional sanction to violate your rights and rights of others because you think it will end in a better world is, my God man, laughable.

If you understand what rights are what is good moral behavior and what is wrong, evil behavior you really don't have to spend a lot of time seeing this idea is a loser.

Ask Mountaineer if an evil tree can bear good fruit.

That's why I focus on the moral argument. The discussion of who will pick the cotton is interesting but if you discuss that with someone who doesn't realize right from wrong they just stay stuck in the mindset that ends justify the means. Even though their evil means never acheive their goals....that won't stop them from trying.

Kshartle wrote: I will share with you the results of a carbon tax:

Everyone will get taxed for breathing.

I bet you $1,000 to $10 this won't happen.

TennPaGa wrote:
IMO, to state that something has "too many variables to accurately model" misses the forest for the trees.  Everything has too many variables to accurately model.  However, many important questions can be answered with models that are not "correct".

TennPaGa
I still think the more variables you add to a system, the less confidence you will have in the model output.  In scientific experiments, you must hold all variables constant while varying the one variable you are trying to study.  However in dynamic multivariable experiments, that become difficult if not impossible.

As an engineer, I always viewed economics as merely the study of human behavior and thus I figured economics didn't lend itself to modeling very well.  After taking a microeconomics class I altered my views.  Most microeconomic models only involve a few variables and it's possible to hold many if not most of the variables constant in your experiment thus the models developed to explain the interaction of variables in microeconomics is logical and borne out by repeatable experiment.  As a simplistic example, consider a 1 variable model (does lowering price lead to greater sales with all other variables being the same).  But when you start to enlarge the scope of what you're studying, (Macroeconomics) you have to introduce many more variables, and the value of many variables are only SWAGS, you have models with a wide margins of error.  Eventually if you add enough variables, the margin of error becomes so great the model becomes basically worthless. 

To use a climate example, weathermen can predict the next days weather pretty well.  But extend the forecast to 2 days, 3 days ...7 days, and more variables come into play til forecasts become basically worthless for periods greater than 10 days.  If we accept that predicting the weather is extremely difficult 10 days into the future, what are the odds we can accurately model the weather accurately 10, 20, 30 or 100 years in the future given the hundreds of variables involved in long term climate change?  If you tweak any one of a hundred variables involved in these models you will get wildly divergent model predictions.  But these are the results what one would expect is any dynamic multi-multi variable system whether it be climate science, economics, medical research, etc.

 

Kshartle wrote:I don't call for the abolition of government, just that people stop advocating the inititation of force to solve their problems.*

* With lots of arbitrary exceptions on which everyone will have a different opinion, but about which you're in complete denial.

Edit: Okay, that was snarky.  Actually this is one of your better posts.  I have no problem with avoiding the use of force when possible, and advocating for that is a correct (from my perspective) and perfectly acceptable (I would imagine from everybody's) position.  It's much better than declaring that you're endowed with all the answers about how everyone should behave, and that yours is the only correct model for society.

moda0306 wrote: I think we mostly agree.  I really WANT people to be informed, or to be informed myself, when articulating my case.  It's also going to be somewhat necessary to get public support (though I'd argue, once again, rock-solid scientific evidence isn't nearly as useful as "nice-sounding" things to the public).

I guess where I differ is when discussing the "burden of proof."  I agree, as a functional matter, the person with the new ideas bares the burden of proof.  However, in reality, if we truly measure property as being at least somewhat legitimate, and pollution as aggression against my (or "community") property, putting the burden of "proof" on the people trying to measure risk and prove pollution is going to play into the hands of the polluters, simply because pollution is part of the "stats quo."

I guess I'd put it this way:

"You, as an "owner" of a factory farm, the land around it, and part of the river that flows into my city, don't have to really "prove" ownership of land other than 1) you bought it from someone, and 2) the government recorded you as owner, but I have to PROVE, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the pollution in the river in my town is from your factory?  That's rich."

Obviously, the burden of proof is always, naturally, going to be on the party trying to prove a nebulous risk.  However, though the burden of proof may, naturally, be on them, the burden of risk-management responsibility as it pertains to pollution, often, is on government agencies.  I don't know exactly what my odds are of dying (though actuaries have measured some of the key indicators).  Does this mean I can just complain that life insurance agents aren't "risk engineers" and I won't buy life insurance for my family?  No.  If someone has presented a well-thought-out-but-intellectually-incomplete case for a massive financial impact happening to my family in a given event, at some point, the burden is on me.

I realize with risk, we are in a messy area.  I usually have stayed away from Global Warming threads mainly because I don't know much about it, myself.  It's not like macro-econ where I feel like I can articulate positions and history pretty well.  This one got me thinking though.  I guess I've been shooting from the hip a bit.  Risk is just one of those areas that I feel we can discuss from a Risk Mgmt 101 perspective rather than jumping into whether 95% of scientists think it's happening vs 85%, and what that means.

Moda,

I am going to make my comments not to try to advance a position or prove anything but merely to explain a couple of things that likely helped form my worldview.  Maybe it will help explain why I say some of the things I do. 

My perception, is that you think big business is inherently bad (poor choice of words perhaps - you can substitute unethical, greedy, self-serving, etc. if you like).  My experience is the polar opposite.  I was fortunate to work after graduating from college with arguably the best (in several measures over a long period of time) chemical company in the world.  During my entire career with that company, over 30 years in various technical, manufacturing, administrative, safety, occupational health, and environmental roles as a technical person, supervisor and manager, I was never once asked either covertly or overtly to do anything that could be considered unethical or potentially harm an employee, neighbor or the environment.  Were we perfect?  No.  But the company operated at the cusp of knowledge in fulfilling those objectives with the best technology available and always investigated mishaps to learn how to prevent recurrence.  In fact, even the least unethical act usually would get you fired immediately.  I knew one very well thought of and productive engineer that got fired for falsifying an expense report for literally a couple of dollars gain and another who was asked to leave because he threw a cup of coffee on the ground when the manufacturing facility that he was assigned to was trying to make a major improvement in environmental performance.  My company made substantial improvements in the safety and environmental areas - we were the safest (i.e. best accident and injury performance) company in the world long before the US government created OSHA or the EPA.  In fact, my company wrote most of the material that became government regulations when those agencies were formed.  My company, over 200 years ago, instituted benefits for widows of men that got killed on the job, long before the government cared about such things.  My point - ethics and good company "behavior" toward neighbors, customers, employees and the environment do not have to come from government.  The responsible behavior came because it was the right thing to do, made  money and met societal needs - at least at the company that I worked for.  That is one reason I think a carbon tax would not be a good idea - there is little incentive for the government to use the money wisely.  The funds, no matter what would be stated at the outset, would likely end up in the general revenue fund like so many other of our taxes have over the years.  Basically, I am a strong proponent of never voting to increase taxes, no matter how noble the reason seems to be, because, as the old adage states "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and our government's track record certainly is leading us to hell on earth (entitlement programs, war, political unrest and divisiveness, over regulation, un and underemployment, etc.).  I hope this helps explain my worldview.  I understand that everyone has not been blessed to work for such a "high class" company and may have had some very different experiences than I have had.  Yes, I am sure I have biases because of my experiences, but I really do try to be objective when considering new ideas.  However, as an engineer, I am trained to never sub-optimize.  I am trained to try to think of all possible unintended consequences and to design so they do not occur.  So, as Pointedstick indicated, dreaming big ideas is fine and necessary, but, and this is a big but, they do need to be implemented in a very well thought out practical, and economical manner.  That is exactly why NASA was so successful at putting a man on the moon after Kennedy gave the great speech - the idea was reduced to an incredibly complicated series of detailed steps that were well tested.  A carbon tax, with my training on thinking through potential outcomes, is frought with so many problems on so many levels it is almost incomprehensible that it would have a good outcome for humanity.  Of course, that is all just my opinion.

... Mountaineer

TennPaGa wrote:
Sure, the topic is complicated by the funding issues, but no more so than for any other organized human endeavor.

For example: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research

I agree.  I'm a physician and, over the years, have gradually come to understand the severe limitations, conflicts of interest, and flat out dishonesty that occurs in medical and pharmaceutical research.  It's this understanding that makes me a little bit skeptical of climate change science.

Again, I'm not saying that the theory isn't true, just that there's likely to be a lot of bad data for various reasons.  I could of course be completely wrong.  I have not scrutinized the literature on the subject and am probably not really qualified to even if I wanted to. 

I also feel like the climate change issue sort of distracts from some of the more obvious environmental/resource issues we face in the here and now, like pollution, water and food shortages, energy conservation, and environmental sustainability in general.   

Also, I would expect that if the (unknowable) truth is the "there is nothing to worry about" story, there will still be funding available under the guise of "are you sure?" for quite a while (I'm guessing decades).

That's probably true, although the more fear, the more funding, I think. 

I'm not against funding this research, I just think we need to be realistic about it's limitations.