An Economics Lesson for Democrats

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Cyrus:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Give me the best player in the world to face if he's gonna adopt one and the same tactic throughout our game

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I haven't read most of this thread, but your statement is clearly wrong for most poker games, especially today. That's because typical players are just not aware enough for the best player in the world to change his strategy much against them.

Now let's carry this over to world affairs. Now I'm not an expert here, but the same thing is often the case, especially in warfair.

A very good example was what was known as The Tokyo Express in WWII. This had something to do with the fighting around Guadal Canal and it referred to how the Japanese would try to resupply their troops late at night always at the same time.

Now how true this is in the world right now, I can't say for sure. But I suspect that if GWB (and who knows, he just might be the GWB that posts here) happens to have the right strategy, he won't need to change it much over the next four years.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jokerswild]

Quite the moron.

You are as bad as MMM. You don't know who Keynes was, probably have no idea of classical equilibrium theory, and probably are not even aware that monetarist policy practiced by the Bush administration is based on nothing more than faith (no imperical evidence that it works at all). Your false claims regarding the Reagan administration ignore reality. This is normal for Bush backers.If they lie often enough, they believe it becomes the truth.
You are a basic idiot. None other than US office of budget and management places the deficits square on the rob from the middle give to the rich, bankrupt the country, policies of the current administration.

No educated person should give your dribble the time of day.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You are as bad as MMM....You are a basic idiot

[/ QUOTE ]

Far better to be a basic idiot than the village idiot...eh, jokerswild?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Now how true this is in the world right now, I can't say for sure. But I suspect that if GWB (and who knows, he just might be the GWB that posts here) happens to have the right strategy, he won't need to change it much over the next four years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, so I can just coast for the next four years and let my bots run things.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If lowering them are just plain good, period, why not lower them to zero?

We'll make a libertarian out of you yet. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

Mason, thanks for taking an interest -- and for monitoring my posts so closely!

I stated <font color="blue"> "Give me the best player in the world to face if he's gonna adopt one and the same tactic throughout our game." </font>

Mason, you wrote "[That] statement is clearly wrong for most poker games, especially today. That's because typical players are just not aware enough for the best player in the world to change his strategy much against them."

Thanks for the comment.

I believe your comment is not correct, for the following reason:

I clearly referred to tactics. While, as you know, strategy is the sum of tactics. (It's more than that, actually.) One tactic possibly employed by the BPITW (Best Player In The World) in NL HE would be to go all-in in every hand. This would be a constant tactic alright, "one and the same tactic", as I clearly wrote. The sum of BPITW's tactics (that single tactic, actually) would then constitute his strategy. I submit that such a strategy would be obviously and seriously inferior for the BPITW's expectation -- even when he'd be facing average players. I further submit that the BPITW would fare better if he would adopt a different strategy, one which would entail more than one tactics.

In case you meant tactics instead of strategy, then I would submit that your statement is irrelevant. That's because you talk about the BPITW not changing his tactics much (a statement I happen to agree with) while I'm talking about not changing tactics at all. Which i find to be incorrect, as a strategy. If I, an average poker player, had to face the BPITW, I'd definitely prefer to have him follow a strategy that employed one and the same tactic throughout our game.

I might take this to the Poker Theory forum for further discussion, if you don't mind.

Now, in world affairs, as well as in everyday life, adopting one and the same tactic in response to an outside event, is rarely, if ever, the optimal strategy. (Declaring a specific possible future event X, e.g. a border violation by armed forces of the neighbour, to be a casus beli, and "promising" that X will be always followed by massive nuclear retaliation does NOT contravene the previously-mentioned premise.)

What is missing in the American administration's approach are the nuances and the tactical varieties necessary for a correct strategy against a new, strong, serious and determined opponent, as is muslim terrorism.

To give a historical example of an administration that handled things vastly differently and in a situation that entailed, at the time, a much more imminent and massive danger than muslim terrorism, I would humbly recommend a study of the American administration's workings during the Cuban crisis of 1962-3. A good start would be the published transcripts of the White House meetings and discussions.

What if if George W Bush was in charge of the US presidency in 1962? I submit that we would've had a significantly higher probablitiy of going nuclear.

Take care,

--Cyrus

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
No educated person should give your dribble the time of day.


[/ QUOTE ]

If true then is quite appropriate that you chose to respond. Will the next uneducated person care to respond?

Jimbo

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
The government has looted the Social Security fund of $1,700,000,000,000 over the past ten years; what will is do with less in the kitty?


[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

You know that no money has been "looted" from the Social Security program, this is forbidden by Federal law. The annual surpluses have been loaned to the government with interest. The only question is, will the governemnt have enough funds to repay the fund beginning in 2037 when it is projected that the fund will then be paying out more than it takes in? One alternative to insure funds are available is to decrease the rate at which different types of debt are repayed by our government. Currently politicians concentrate on reducing the National debt by repaying debt owned to private parties. One soultion is (in 2037) to shift this repayment burden back into the Social Security fund.

As long as the economy continues to grow and prosper and we balance reduced taxes with reduced Federal spending the National Debt will begin to decrease. This is up to Congress which historically has shown poor judgement in fiscal matters.

Jimbo

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!


[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Cyrus,

Where have you been the last two years of the Presidential campaign? I understand that you liberal types do not enjoy calling a revocation of a prior tax reduction a tax increase but just because you refuse to acknowledge the facts does not make the facts change. News flash Cyrus; When you want someone to pay more taxes next year on the same amount of earned income than they did the current year that is a tax increase.

[ QUOTE ]
And a bad poker player : Give me the best player in the world to face if he's gonna adopt one and the same tactic throughout our game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that Mason has already shown you the mistake in your above quote but as usual you have disputed his sage analysis in another post full of gobbledygook. You just cannot teach an old Cyrus new tricks!

Jimbo

[Jimbo]

Just a short comment on your classical equilibrium theory statement. This is pretty much supply side economics so if you simoly were bandying about fancy terms you should know that I agree with Say's Law.

Jimbo