Super Bowl is another grift

[955876]

Whether someone paid for it is irrelevant.

Ummm that fact it’s paid for makes it, ummm, not free.

I bet you think “free college” is free as well.

People understand you didn’t pay so it’s free to you. You seem to miss the entire concept of “no free lunch” however.

What a shocker.

[Kodiak]

Vendors bring lunch precisely to attract attendees. They want to sell their product, so a "free lunch" is incentive. And it's free. Whether someone paid for it is irrelevant. It's free to me.

LOL. You really can't help yourself from doubling down on stupid.

"No free lunch" is an economic concept that even third graders can understand. Just because you don't doesn't make it a "tired meme"

A vendor buying you lunch isn't really free in a true, economic sense. You're giving access to the vendor - the lunch is not free. There are no truly benevolent acts (not even charity!) - EVERY transaction is a quid pro quo. You do not get something for nothing.

[955876]

And even in nature there is empathy and shared resources,

There isn’t empathy and shared resources in our society?

Sure seems to me there is.

[COR-TEN]

Vendors bring lunch precisely to attract attendees. They want to sell their product, so a "free lunch" is incentive. And it's free. Whether someone paid for it is irrelevant. It's free to me.

LOL. You really can't help yourself from doubling down on stupid.

"No free lunch" is an economic concept that even third graders can understand. Just because you don't doesn't make it a "tired meme"

A vendor buying you lunch isn't really free in a true, economic sense. You're giving access to the vendor - the lunch is not free. There are no truly benevolent acts (not even charity!) - EVERY transaction is a quid pro quo. You do not get something for nothing.

Doubling down on stupid is your expertise.

Keep up with the capitalist perspective as though no other exists. Yes, you do get something for nothing. It's an aspect of life you seem to ignore because it doesn't fit into your narrative.

And fuck off with the ad hominem attacks. It's like you can't have a conversations without insulting someone. As they say, if you have no facts, pound the table. Only in your case, insult.

[955876]

You live up in NY if I recall correctly.

Did you partake in the subway riots protesting having to pay a couple bucks to ride “public” transportation?

Waaaaaahhh. I shouldn’t have to pay. It should be FREE!!

Oh the injustice...

[Kodiak]

We have gotten into the bad habit of socializing losses and privatizing gains. The Fed is a large part of this too.

Taxpayers made a pretty nice return on the bank "bailouts", so how exactly did we socialize the losses? Also, last I checked Lehman and Bear are still out of business.

It's overconfidence and hubris. It's happened before and will happen again. But Wall Street has also been a huge driver of our economic growth the past 50 years. The benefits of financial innovation are not free, and not without some bumps in the road. Michael Milken - the junk bond king - went to jail and cause the S&L crisis. Today that is a huge market, and responsible for jobs and growth because companies that don't have the capital are now able to access the market.

You're probably paying 3-4% on your mortgage, more than half the rate your parents saw in the best of times. So despite leading to the Great Recession, the MBO/CDO markets continue to "socialize gains" for millions of homeowners EVERY YEAR.

And I'm not suggesting that the Great Recession should be tolerated or is unavoidable. But Wall Street's job is to make money, and the a-political consistency of that is a very good thing for policy makers, business owners and investors.

[VeritasSteel]

You guys are pathetic.

Vendors bring lunch precisely to attract attendees. They want to sell their product, so a "free lunch" is incentive. And it's free. Whether someone paid for it is irrelevant. It's free to me.

The concept is still bullshit. And what separates us from lions and gazelles is humanity and civility, but most free market proponents cherry pick to support their narrative. And even in nature there is empathy and shared resources, you dumbfucks. The analogy is worthless.

CORE two of the psychological quirks in humans are at play here. Human beings have disdain for things and people that are needy. Things that are pulling away from our resources (time, money, offspring) that have no discernable value are to be avoided or chased away. Caveman wiring. The quirk comes in that we ourselves do not want to be that needy person or seem needy so we have this need for reciprocity. In that, we always want to do something in return for someone who has done something for us. All humans do it not matter the culture.

We generally do not like salespeople because they need something from us, they bypass that by giving us something for free and we, in turn, feel at a subconscious level the need to at least hear what they have to say with favorable ears. Remember the Moonies? They made billions by stop asking for handouts (neediness) instead they would pin a .02 flower "gift" on you. Then you would respond by giving them a quarter or a dollar because of reciprocity. Beware of the free, most times it is a trap to get your inhibitions lowered in order to get your to pay it back.

That said the only thing free I do not question is an open bar at a wedding. Kinda already paid for it by showing up in a suit and sitting through whatever that was.

[Kodiak]

Doubling down on stupid is your expertise.

Keep up with the capitalist perspective as though no other exists. Yes, you do get something for nothing. It's an aspect of life you seem to ignore because it doesn't fit into your narrative.

And fuck off with the ad hominem attacks. It's like you can't have a conversations without insulting someone. As they say, if you have no facts, pound the table. Only in your case, insult.

LOL. You're literally arguing against a simple and well-known economic concept. It's not about capitalism, much less unique to capitalism.

It's been explained several times by several people. You are W.R.O.N.G. You don't need to be insulted as you're doing a very good job of making a fool of yourself all on your own. But not being stupid tends to be a really effective defense against insults.

[COR-TEN]

You guys are pathetic.

Vendors bring lunch precisely to attract attendees. They want to sell their product, so a "free lunch" is incentive. And it's free. Whether someone paid for it is irrelevant. It's free to me.

The concept is still bullshit. And what separates us from lions and gazelles is humanity and civility, but most free market proponents cherry pick to support their narrative. And even in nature there is empathy and shared resources, you dumbfucks. The analogy is worthless.

CORE two of the psychological quirks in humans are at play here. Human beings have disdain for things and people that are needy. Things that are pulling away from our resources (time, money, offspring) that have no discernable value are to be avoided or chased away. Caveman wiring. The quirk comes in that we ourselves do not want to be that needy person or seem needy so we have this need for reciprocity. In that, we always want to do something in return for someone who has done something for us. All humans do it not matter the culture.

We generally do not like salespeople because they need something from us, they bypass that by giving us something for free and we, in turn, feel at a subconscious level the need to at least hear what they have to say with favorable ears. Remember the Moonies? They made billions by stop asking for handouts (neediness) instead they would pin a .02 flower "gift" on you. Then you would respond by giving them a quarter or a dollar because of reciprocity. Beware of the free, most times it is a trap to get your inhibitions lowered in order to get your to pay it back.

That said the only thing free I do not question is an open bar at a wedding. Kinda already paid for it by showing up in a suit and sitting through whatever that was.

Thanks for being civil.

It's all about assigning value. For free market proponents, value is placed on everything, and economic theory needs to add up. But life isn't about adding up. Or economic theory. I realize much of life is based on give vs get, but again. Life is not about that, nor it should be. And hasn't been. But those that can't see past that always invent stupid phrases that try to describe their view of life, and then decry those that don't see it the same way.

[Professor Half Wit]

I'm just happy to get the meaning right. A lot of people think hoi polloi means the high and mighty when it means the opposite and I've seen that mistake in "respectable" publications.

In any case Roger Goodell is still a piece of shit.

They confuse “hoi polloi” with “hoity toity,” which is not Latin as far as I know. Am I right on this, half wit?

Also, Roger Goodell is slime, scum, and vermin. Just to be clear.

I'm gonna guess hoity toity is a made up locution. Hoi polloi is greek. Sadly, I don't know any latin despite my adventures in ancient greek.

[Kodiak]

It's all about assigning value. For free market proponents, value is placed on everything, and economic theory needs to add up. But life isn't about adding up. Or economic theory. I realize much of life is based on give vs get, but again. Life is not about that, nor it should be. And hasn't been. But those that can't see past that always invent stupid phrases that try to describe their view of life, and then decry those that don't see it the same way.

No, a theory is, like literally, about making sense and "adding up". When it doesn't, it normally ends up in the trash.

Can you even come up with one example where a person takes an action that doesn't provide some sort of benefit? You're just spewing nonsense now because you stepped in it, bad, and don't know how to quit when you're way behind.

"No free lunch" is an invented stupid phrase? Good lord, man, take a break from the internet.

[Professor Half Wit]

Can you even come up with one example where a person takes an action that doesn't provide some sort of benefit?

Posting in this thread?

[COR-TEN]

Can you even come up with one example where a person takes an action that doesn't provide some sort of benefit?

Posting in this thread?

All I can say is that if humanity only did shit for personal benefit - give for get - then humanity wouldn't be where it is today. We'd still be Neanderthals. And even neanderthals knew the meaning of community.

[Professor Half Wit]

Can you even come up with one example where a person takes an action that doesn't provide some sort of benefit?

Posting in this thread?

All I can say is that if humanity only did shit for personal benefit - give for get - then humanity wouldn't be where it is today. We'd still be Neanderthals. And even neanderthals knew the meaning of community.

I assumed he meant no benefit for anyone, neither oneself nor another. Easy enough to postulate actions in which one sacrifices one's own good for the good of another, but here the genus of action belongs to those intended to secure a benefit.

An example of an action intended to benefit no one, neither oneself nor another, would be an aesthetic who denies himself pleasure, but not for the good of another. It does happen, but such cases are rare.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

"Can you even come up with one example where a person takes an action that doesn't provide some sort of benefit?

Posting in this thread?"

OK, you win this thread today for that zinger even though it provides you no benefit.

As to the comment that the bailouts were beneficial to taxpayers, the poster is ignoring the harm caused by the moral hazard in the first place which was unqualified buyers getting loans they could never pay back. Had a bailout never been implied (by past bailouts such as Chrysler, Lincoln Savings and Loan and the Greenspan put) none of those financial institutions would have taken that risk. They did knowing that their losses would be public and their gains private.

The other thing that was not discussed was inflation and worsening of national debt.

If you were going to bail out anyone it should have been those owed money by Goldman Sachs not Goldman Sachs.

I can't believe anyone here is defending Goldman Sachs. The only difference between them and Lehman is they were better connected not better.

Once better connected means better, we are fucked and living in a kleptocracy. That's part of what's causing problems with college tuition and the "value" of diplomas.

[El Kabong]

Posting in this thread?

All I can say is that if humanity only did shit for personal benefit - give for get - then humanity wouldn't be where it is today. We'd still be Neanderthals. And even neanderthals knew the meaning of community.

I assumed he meant no benefit for anyone, neither oneself nor another. Easy enough to postulate actions in which one sacrifices one's own good for the good of another, but here the genus of action belongs to those intended to secure a benefit.

An example of an action intended to benefit no one, neither oneself nor another, would be an aesthetic who denies himself pleasure, but not for the good of another. It does happen, but such cases are rare.

But isn't the aesthetic getting something out of denying himself pleasure?

[El Kabong]

Can you even come up with one example where a person takes an action that doesn't provide some sort of benefit?

Posting in this thread?

All I can say is that if humanity only did shit for personal benefit - give for get - then humanity wouldn't be where it is today. We'd still be Neanderthals. And even neanderthals knew the meaning of community.

Actually, Neanderthals aren't our ancestors, they are a different evolutionary line.

I watched a show one time about these pre-human ancestors of ours. It seems back in the day that sabre-toothed tigers liked to eat us. With CGI they showed a poor individual being attacked and killed. Later, they showed a sabre-toothed tiger attacking a community, and all the members of the tribe banded together and drove the tiger off. We had to learn that individually we get eaten by a sabre-toothed tiger, but together, we can be safer. That sense of community, too, is give-for-get. As we help our peeps, we also get help when we need it.

But the "No such thing as a free lunch" thing. One of the things economists have to do is track where resources and money are going. Someone (a lot of someones) had to produce the food that went into your lunch, expending their own time, resources, and money in the process. The restaurant had to pay for the food, so money had to leave the restaurant's account and go into the accounts of the food producers. The restaurant then had to prepare the lunch expending its own time, resources, money in the process. Your interviewer had to pay for the lunch, so money left his or his company's account. Just because you didn't spend any money or put in any work for the lunch, doesn't mean a lot of other money and products didn't have to change hands to make it happen. So those transactions still have to be tracked. That's all the phrase means! There's nothing nefarious about it.

[Professor Half Wit]

All I can say is that if humanity only did shit for personal benefit - give for get - then humanity wouldn't be where it is today. We'd still be Neanderthals. And even neanderthals knew the meaning of community.

I assumed he meant no benefit for anyone, neither oneself nor another. Easy enough to postulate actions in which one sacrifices one's own good for the good of another, but here the genus of action belongs to those intended to secure a benefit.

An example of an action intended to benefit no one, neither oneself nor another, would be an aesthetic who denies himself pleasure, but not for the good of another. It does happen, but such cases are rare.

But isn't the aesthetic getting something out of denying himself pleasure?

First off, I brain farted and spelled it wrong. An ascetic is not an aesthetic.

Second, an ascetic is, technically, someone who forgoes any form of pleasure. This could be for religious reasons, but it could be just to do it. Tried to come up with a weird case that would fit the notion of doing something for no benefit. One could forgo all pleasure for its own sake. In this case one does it not as means to some further end. "But isn't the ascetic getting something out of denying himself pleasure?" No, not if forgoing all pleasure is an end in itself for the ascetic. It would be awfully weird were someone to develop an economy of ascetics.

[COR-TEN]

Free Lunch = Perks.

For those that like to subscribe to an ideology that doesn't recognize that. People get free shit all the time. And those at the top get a lot of free shit. Making bucketloads of money simply because they have bucketloads of money. Sitting on their asses around $30K conference room tables discussing wine, when they don't deserve half the free shit they get. And yes, It's not free because someone is paying for it, but it's free to them. They aren't giving, but are getting way more than their fair share. It's an expense they don't have to bear, whereas others do. But "there is no free lunch" is a nice free market talking point with no basis in reality, regardless of man made economic "theory."

And BTW, Neanderthals have been discovered to have genetically crossed with homo sapiens. So yeah, they fucked, had children, and passed DNA to humans to this day.

And just to carry on with the theme, fuck you dumb ass sheep. Keep being led around by your nose with a dollar bill.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Actually Neanderthals are your ancestor if you're white as it shows up as 2-3% of most Caucasian DNA analysis and to a lesser extent in other groups. They're not your ancestor if you're subsaharan African..maybe. Another group like this are the mysterious Denisovans. Denisovans apparently interbred with modern humans, with about 3–5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians and around 6%.

If you're interested in some hard core off the charts primal violence that would make Tarantino and Argento squirm, read about the Y-chromosome bottleneck. Shit happened about 8000 years ago that left one man for every seventeen women in the world. Having local pro football teams beat the shit out of each other is a much better proxy.

Speaking of ascetism there is nothing wrong with and a lot right with not being into money and in many ways it's a good antidote to consumerism (which is not capitalism). But if you're going to claim to not be into money, then walk the walk and don't be jealous of those who are because that means you are too and you're not being honest with yourself. A real ascetic is indifferent to the wealth of others. I could give a shit about how much money a sports team owner has. But I do care if he is cheating the taxpayer and ripping off the middle class.

[955876]

Free Lunch = Perks.

For those that like to subscribe to an ideology that doesn't recognize that. People get free shit all the time. And those at the top get a lot of free shit. Making bucketloads of money simply because they have bucketloads of money. Sitting on their asses around $30K conference room tables discussing wine, when they don't deserve half the free shit they get. And yes, It's not free because someone is paying for it, but it's free to them. They aren't giving, but are getting way more than their fair share. It's an expense they don't have to bear, whereas others do. But "there is no free lunch" is a nice free market talking point with no basis in reality, regardless of man made economic "theory."

And BTW, Neanderthals have been discovered to have genetically crossed with homo sapiens. So yeah, they fucked, had children, and passed DNA to humans to this day.

And just to carry on with the theme, fuck you dumb ass sheep. Keep being led around by your nose with a dollar bill.

Your post wreak of bitterness & jealousy.

Also funny how you can make blanket statements about what people you dont know “deserve”.

SMMFH...

[955876]

There's nothing nefarious about it.

Core always manages to find a boogeyman.

What he doesn’t realize is that the boogeyman that would fill the void of the one he wishes so desperately to replace would be bigger, badder, and far more sinister.

[COR-TEN]

I could give a shit about how much money a sports team owner has. But I do care if he is cheating the taxpayer and ripping off the middle class.

Some people simply don't know the meaning of "fair," justifying theft in the name of ideology. Then insult those that believe our society is a rigged, zero sum game.

[955876]

Maybe you could define “fair” then...

[Dan Smith--BYU]

It's not a zero sum game over time. Because of medical and scientific progress. People living in the lowest 5% economically have far better lives than royalty a hundred years ago. If you visit any home of a 19th century robber baron or plantation owner, typically they lost half their kids to diseases and often their spouse in childbirth. They did not have electricity (until later), antibiotics (I'd be dead), they often had unsanitary water and no air conditioning and the fastest transportation was a horse or a train. Obviously they weren't entertained by TV or Internet, and it was reading by candelight or telling stories for fun.

There is a free lunch but is the meta-free lunch of capitalism+time. There is no microeconomic free lunch.

There is no universal definition of fair, but I think it's reasonable to define taxing middle class people to make billionaires antifragile as unfair. I can't precisely define pornography but I'm pretty should that a gangbang video featuring Asa Akira on YouPorn qualifies.

I think if you're well into middle age and you respond to every minor disagreement and the world in general by raging on about all the injustice in the world, it's time to reassess your philosophy of life. Go ahead and reject money but don't resent someone who is working overtime so he can take his family on a vacation to the Caribbean. By the way most people are into money but not into theft and they aren't the same thing.

[955876]

By the way most people are into money but not into theft and they aren't the same thing.

There are those that can only justify someone else’s wealth by rationalizing they “stole it” off the backs of someone else.

And then in a twist of irony, the only solution they can come up with for raising the wealth of those who are less fortunate is to steal it from someone else.

It’s pretty obvious who the ultimate beneficiary is in a system such as that.

And in case you didn’t know already, it isn’t that less fortunate person.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Of course the beneficiary is the demagogue who gets power and gets to indulge their messiah complex.

On second thought, I'm not sure if that Asa Akira gangbang video is really pornography. I'm going to have to watch it a few more times and I'll post my final verdict after I take a nap.

[955876]

So was it the yellow fever that kept you home today from work or are you on the night shift?

[COR-TEN]

I think if you're well into middle age and you respond to every minor disagreement and the world in general by raging on about all the injustice in the world, it's time to reassess your philosophy of life. Go ahead and reject money but don't resent someone who is working overtime so he can take his family on a vacation to the Caribbean.

I'll just say this :

Sitting on their asses around $30K conference room tables discussing wine, when they don't deserve half the free shit they get.

I've been there, done that. I've reaped the benefits of perks and "free lunches" right and left. I'm not jealous. That has nothing to do with it, but it's a an easy quick retort. Shooting the messenger is easier (and better) than facing reality.

[955876]

I had a meeting today with someone from Vanguard. During our chat she literally said well, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Had a private chuckle to myself when she said it.