Message from @Thomas the Sowell Train [USA]
Discord ID: 481587049942745119
Game theory pits two parties against each other to try and get the best deal for themselves. However, depending on the matrix, sometimes both parties can predict a better shared deal if they cooperate
There are many different variables and versions of game theory, some where only by cooperating both get the better deal, or others by undermining the other
jukip
<:sargoy:382978736053551104>
Game theory itself doesn't have much political weight, as it's more of a strategic and mathematic part of economics. Alexis Tsipras was hoping that using Varoufakis expertise in the field, they could secure a good debt deal with the EU, ECB and IMF
@Capitán Alatriste I'm saying, that if you understand and apply game theory in your work, you quickly find yourself in the realm of macroeconomics and it's obvious how stupid communism is.
It's like being a biologist who believes in creationism.
game theory also assumes your playing using the same set of rules and that is rarely the case irl as both sides will be willing to cheat to gain an advantage
There are very few rules in game theory
most of them being not to communicate or make your choice known
like playing poker?
@Fitzydog Not really, game theory is mostly a microeconomic issue, and it doesn't really apply to macro
🤷🏻 Either way, you've got to be retarded to still be a communist with that level of economic knowledge
```[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.
```
```An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.```
This is literally redefining what a human life is, just to support your deranged morality
Hey when morality is just a personal preference why not /s
Neil deGrasse Tyson wants a U.S. Ministry of Truth https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1031556958153666561
Stick to fucking astrophysics
Also Ana Kasparian, having called Rubin an "intellectual lightweight", now wants to debate him https://twitter.com/AnaKasparian/status/1032009839709278208
the strange thing about truth is that it can be right even from two totally different kinds of angles. so it demands that it get to be free and it up to the person that see it if it is true or not
and Ministry of Truths thends to end up as Ministry of Lies
Yeah it's a terrible idea that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of government. As soon as the wrong people are put in charge of this so called Ministry of Truth, it won't be fitting of its name any more.
Why do you think scientists are so attracted to socialism?
low understanding of it sosial impact. a lot of smart people cant human very well
witch is strange as under socialism the science tends to stop all up, and they end up relying on stealing from capitalistic nations
Scientists probably like socialism because they are good with systems and they like systems, but not knowing much about politics or economics they mistakenly believe that a planned economy is a good idea.
tl;dr - They're scientists, not people
It doesn't really matter what else you know, if you don't know at least some of the basics about economics, you're only lucky if you happen to support the policies which would actually be beneficial.
Studying economics changes peoples political opinions more than any other field of study.
are not economics the field with most conservative people in it?
Pretty much, conservative and libertarian.
Which in my opinion are the two political ideologies worth debating between.
and it said if you want to make a person conservative over night, make him rich
yea I lean as a right leaning liberteran. I want freedom to do what ever I want reasonable inside the law and that my government dont spend my tax money like a drunk sailor on shore leave
You've got Mises and Cato, both Libertarian think tanks full of economists
You see any socialist think tanks full of economists?
kenyesians aren't economists
change my mind
most of the socialist think tanks I have seen is full of hippes and delusinal dreamers that have not been outside since 1976
Conservatives and libertarians just disagree on things like military interventionism, military spending, military deterrents, trade, and social liberalism. Probably either system would sustain a society just fine but the debate is about which would be best to promote freedom.
Oh, I guess I should include immigration if we're including all the libertarians.