Hi, Sam Stone! -- I Pit the Blathering Bullshit about Stock Market movements

Yeah, but you can fault him for taking the easy way out, leaving them twisting in the wind.

This is a reasonable argument to make in April 2018. It would have been absolutely delusional during the Great Recession. No harm if you don’t want to put in the effort, but if you have a cite, I’d love to see it!

You can do a search. Click the “Advanced Search” in the upper search button. Thence, you can filter specifically for posts by Sam Stone, set the range to 7 years old and older, and put in a keyword like “infrastructure”. You will get more than one hit.

However, I strongly discourage this. You would have to actually read his tedious, annoying fecal matter. For instance, this delightful excerpt is kind of close:

I’m familiar with how to perform a search, but thank you. You already seem to understand the reason I opted not to. You may think it rude that I was requesting Voyager do work that I was unwilling to do myself. But this was not my intent: since Voyager seemed to be referring to a specific post, it seemed possible he would have the cite handy or have a shortcut in mind to find it.

Here is the thread. Post 93 is what I mean.

This is from early 2009, not exactly a time of full employment anywhere.

This thread from 2010 is interesting also. Nothing about employment there, but he does predict that our excessive stimulus spending compared to Europe would wreck the US economy. I think this is before Europe chose austerity. As it turned out stimulus beat austerity quite nicely, and we don’t even have to note how horrible the economy has been since 2010.

This one is pretty dreadfully out of touch,

The “Demoxrat” Party has gone hard left? What kind of shit-stained bubble does one have to abide to be thinking that? I think maybe he used to be kind of articulate, but his braincells are dropping like flies.

Then, we see him respond to irony,

(Follow marshmallow’s link to get the joke.) … with his insane hard-line Austrian-school economics. He has a one-track mind, and where that track leads, no one wants to go.

I hates von Mises to pieces!

Rundown of various theories of the rise of nativism in the US by the economist Noah Smith.

Once upon a time, Sam was able to engage with such arguments.

I thought I showed great forbearance. :slight_smile: I asked the question
"According to you, Obama’s excessive regulations held back the stock market. In fact the Market Quadrupled! What would it take for you call Obama’s economy a success? The stock market Quintupling? Sextupling??"
But nitwit was unable to compose a quick answer. Should I have reposted the question once a week? I think waiting nine whole months showed admirable patience. If he can’t come up with an answer in the next 12 months or so, I may re-ask the question in 2019.

Similarly, I mentioned Braess’s Paradox as a very simple but intriguing example where "free markets" cannot produce an optimal result. It was intended to refute the kindergarten-level of economic “thinking” Stone and his ilk engage him. He posted back some gibberish implying that there was a simple refutation to Braess’s Paradox. I was intrigued enough to ask for a preprint. That was several years ago. I’ve not been nagging him — Google suggests that I’ve not asked him for his refutation since 2015. So …

"Hi Sam! I’d still like to hear more about your refutation of Braess’s Paradox. Google can’t find it – Did you publish on the Dark Web?"

Eh, you can see the simplicity of Connedservative group think re: economics by their slavish devotion and purposeful misunderstanding of the Laffer curve.

*Damn *that cursed reality and its persistent refusal to conform to their ideology!

He had it all figured out, but the damned margins in the “post reply” box were too small.

There is no need to refute Braess’s Paradox. A private road network can optimize traffic according to any number of performance metrics and could incentivize behavior in a way that is not accounted for in Braess’s Paradox.

The paradox is not even a paradox in a meaningful sense. Sticking with traffic applications, why should anyone assume that the addition of a roadway would decrease travel times? Why would the subtraction of a roadway be assumed to cause an increase?

Why can’t I just assume that given property ownership and constraints, a given manager can either arrange resources in an optimal or suboptimal way? There is nothing paradoxical about that. There is nothing to suggest that a government manager of roads would avoid suboptimal arrangement of resources any more readily than a private manager. Indeed, your cite pulls case studies where government managed sub-optimality is revealed after a road closing.

If conservatives were slavishly devoted to the Laffer curve they would understand that there are points on the curve at which marginal increases in tax rates can yield higher revenues. Or maybe they understand that and want the revenues to fund wars and ICE busts.

If leftists understood the Laffer curve, they would be slavishly devoted to the notion that there are points on the curve at which marginal decreases in tax rates can yield higher revenues. Or maybe not and their slavish devotion to taxing the rich is about envy and not running a responsible government.

I said “purposeful misunderstanding”, as in the oft-repeated mantra of “lowering tax rates increases tax revenues because more money is available for private investment to increase jobs and boost the economy” bullshit.

As far as myself, trust me I recognize a simple revenue-maximization function when I see one. But I’m not the one telling the economically illiterate… the basic connedservative in the street… that this relationship is sacrosanct and holds true in all cases, no matter how low marginal rates fall.

For example, the Treasury Secretary runs with this bullshit:

"When the Social Security and Medicare trustees warned last week that both programs are ontenuous financial footing, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchinsaid: “The administration’s economic agenda — tax cuts, regulatory reform and improved trade agreements — will generate the long-term growth needed to help secure these programs and lead them to a more stable path.” "


Pure laffer curve ideological bullshit. Just like the tax cut debate, driven by a complete, and willful, misunderstanding of the theory.

We’re going to have to nominate you for Stupidest Doper. I’ll give you credit for clicking on the link, but I doubt you understood what you read even as well as Nitwit Stone did.

In Braess’s Paradox, an entrepreneur builds a bridge, extracts a profitable toll which travelers are happy to pay, and transit time between two points worsens for everyone.
Use the Zoom button on your browser and reread the preceding sentence until you understand it.

Government intervention doesn’t cause the paradox — in the purest form of the paradox, government intervention is the only remedy.

To forestall a cycle of rejoinders which would hijack the thread, note that the purest forms of Braess’s Paradox depend on scarcities, e.g. that there are geographic constraints on the building of competing roads or bridges.

In fact such constraints are not uncommon in automotive traffic networks: doubling the width of a street or avenue in Manhattan is not a simple undertaking. And, as the Wikipedia article points out, traffic engineers are sometimes startled when a real-world road closing (rather than a mathematician’s blackboard musing) actually speeds up traffic! (In Farnaby’s cartoon world where that closed road has a private toll-collecting owner, the road closure could not be “legally” enforced.)

Nobody claims that Braess’s Paradox, or its necessary constraints, applies to all economic activities. But it is an interesting reductio ad absurdem demonstration that the kindergarten-level economic model that hyper-libertarians like Farnaby and Stone insist on, shows laughable ignorance.

I clicked on the link and found something with narrow applications and unrealistic constraints and made a meta-critique of your claim. You resorted back to a “pure form” of the paradox because it is only within that framework your complaint makes sense.

I will continue to pile on your opioid-addled Boomer musings. Do you think government technicians are out there optimizing traffic flows and intervening in instances of Braess’s paradox? How fucking laughable is that premise to begin with? Again, the studies in your own cite point to instances in which sub-optimality of government traffic management is revealed by a coincidental road closing. If government was optimizing traffic flows as you apparently believe they are, they would have closed the road purposefully because they are such wise technicians. Lol get real Boomer.

No economic model I subscribe to claims that market outcomes are optimal for an arbitrary performance metric.

IDK about Sam Stone, but my preferred economic system is optimized for voluntary exchange based on property rights. I make no absurd claims that traffic will be optimized to minimize transit time. Do you believe traffic will be optimized for transit time under your statist system?