Exposed beyond the shadows
You take the cup from me
Your dirt removes my blindness
Your pain becomes my peace
JoC.
Wednesday
Sunday
random quote off a forum
People make lawyer jokes because they are disgusted with themselves. Lawyers offer only two services, really: conflict resolution, and interpretation of legislation which these days is written mostly in plain english. Seeing a lawyer is an admission that, as a person, you've failed at one of these tasks.
This is in the context of litigation. Of course there are exceptions - in cases of uneven power, for example a person vs a company. Or when you're dealing with a truly insane person, for whatever reason, but in that likelihood that person should already be in a mental institution =p
The OP then uses this as an analogy to why people dislike speculators.
The nature of speculation is to apply greater financial resources, combined with a certain degree of risk, to essentially make money at the expense of others without adding value to the economy.
- and goes on to explain that resentment towards speculators is based on the fact that someone is getting rich doing things which any person can do, if he was dedicated enough. the fact that it's "easy money" and seems to be created out nothing is what fuels the resentment, making it somehow immoral.
This deals somewhat with the ethics of speculation. The basic premise is that you buy low sell high. One way you could argue is that nothing of value is being created - the item being bought and sold is essentially the same before and after, and yet there are costs to be paid for each transaction, so essentially speculators add nothing to an economy and in fact are just a drain and waste of resources.
The other way you can argue it is - none of the transactions were forced : both parties at each step of transaction definitely feel that they are getting "value" out of it.
In a sense the more transactions there are in an economy, the higher the total wealth the society has. Lets give a hypothetical example, a farmer plants wheat and sells it to a baker for 100 dollars. The wheat is obviously worth less than 100 dollars to the farmer, and more than 100 dollars to the baker, so "value" is created. With the 100 dollars he has the farmer buys a television. To the farmer the television is worth more than 100 dollars - to the television seller, it's worth less than 100 dollars.
With each transaction you could argue that value is indeed being created, just by the goods changing hands, because the goods are valued differently according to each person's judgement.
This is in the context of litigation. Of course there are exceptions - in cases of uneven power, for example a person vs a company. Or when you're dealing with a truly insane person, for whatever reason, but in that likelihood that person should already be in a mental institution =p
The OP then uses this as an analogy to why people dislike speculators.
The nature of speculation is to apply greater financial resources, combined with a certain degree of risk, to essentially make money at the expense of others without adding value to the economy.
- and goes on to explain that resentment towards speculators is based on the fact that someone is getting rich doing things which any person can do, if he was dedicated enough. the fact that it's "easy money" and seems to be created out nothing is what fuels the resentment, making it somehow immoral.
This deals somewhat with the ethics of speculation. The basic premise is that you buy low sell high. One way you could argue is that nothing of value is being created - the item being bought and sold is essentially the same before and after, and yet there are costs to be paid for each transaction, so essentially speculators add nothing to an economy and in fact are just a drain and waste of resources.
The other way you can argue it is - none of the transactions were forced : both parties at each step of transaction definitely feel that they are getting "value" out of it.
In a sense the more transactions there are in an economy, the higher the total wealth the society has. Lets give a hypothetical example, a farmer plants wheat and sells it to a baker for 100 dollars. The wheat is obviously worth less than 100 dollars to the farmer, and more than 100 dollars to the baker, so "value" is created. With the 100 dollars he has the farmer buys a television. To the farmer the television is worth more than 100 dollars - to the television seller, it's worth less than 100 dollars.
With each transaction you could argue that value is indeed being created, just by the goods changing hands, because the goods are valued differently according to each person's judgement.
Tuesday
Friday
Wednesday
10/90 principle
Not even sure if there's such a thing.
An interesting idea which always turns up everywhere it seems. Do you spend time / effort preparing for the 90% of the time when things go right, or the 10% of the time when things go wrong?
Both sides can be argued of course. For example say you have a farm, and there's a 90% chance of good weather on any given year, and 10% chance of bad weather. Is the majority of your equipment going to focused on getting the most you can out of a year of good weather, or focused on salvaging what you can of a year of bad weather?
Say a hospital, is the majority of your equipment and staff going to be dedicated towards enchancing the comfort and care to the 90% of patients who come in with treatable problems, or are you going to dedicate the majority of your equipment and staff towards the 10% of patients that come in critically injured and probably going to die anyway?
Argument 1 : you should prepare for the 90% scenario, otherwise you're just spending time on the 10% situations that you cannot salvage anyway. Argument 2 : you should prepare for the worst case scenario since in the best case scenario you are going to do fine anyway no matter what.
There is always the temptation to play to your strengths, improve them further, and rely on them more and more. That's the 90% scenario.
Yet spending too much time on the 10% cases might even lead to a self fulfilling prophesy : not being fully prepared to take advantage of a "good" outcome might cause it to change into a "bad" outcome, in which you have to take the emergency measures which you have so carefully prepared for. To see what I mean, just look at the two examples above.
An interesting idea which always turns up everywhere it seems. Do you spend time / effort preparing for the 90% of the time when things go right, or the 10% of the time when things go wrong?
Both sides can be argued of course. For example say you have a farm, and there's a 90% chance of good weather on any given year, and 10% chance of bad weather. Is the majority of your equipment going to focused on getting the most you can out of a year of good weather, or focused on salvaging what you can of a year of bad weather?
Say a hospital, is the majority of your equipment and staff going to be dedicated towards enchancing the comfort and care to the 90% of patients who come in with treatable problems, or are you going to dedicate the majority of your equipment and staff towards the 10% of patients that come in critically injured and probably going to die anyway?
Argument 1 : you should prepare for the 90% scenario, otherwise you're just spending time on the 10% situations that you cannot salvage anyway. Argument 2 : you should prepare for the worst case scenario since in the best case scenario you are going to do fine anyway no matter what.
There is always the temptation to play to your strengths, improve them further, and rely on them more and more. That's the 90% scenario.
Yet spending too much time on the 10% cases might even lead to a self fulfilling prophesy : not being fully prepared to take advantage of a "good" outcome might cause it to change into a "bad" outcome, in which you have to take the emergency measures which you have so carefully prepared for. To see what I mean, just look at the two examples above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)