Gyroscopic Investing

smurff wrote: Ironically, the judge blocked it because it was too lenient!  As in, not all the retail outlets that serve food were covered by the law.  Under the new law, 7-11 convenience stores could still sell 64 oz sugary  double big gulps, whereas the  bodega convenience store across the street was limited to 16 oz sugary drinks.  Lattes and other sugary milk drinks were not covered.  Fruit juices, which can have more sugar per ounce than sodas, were not covered. 

To get past the courts they might wind up taxing all sugary at outrageous rates (as high as 100%,  based on size) instead.

I would phrase it as the law being blocked due to the irrationality of the exceptions, not the overall leniency. There were also some good call-outs for the non-delegation doctrine; the law would have much better legal footing it were done directly by the city council rather than them granting authority to unelected bureaucrats.

Now the mayor of NY has moved on to trying to require businesses that sell cigarettes to keep them completely out of sight. I used to have a robotic vacuum cleaner that would keep going until it hit an immovable object and then just change direction but continue to clean. I think that it was called the "Bloomberg" but I'm not sure.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... n/1997503/

I am getting ready for him to kick down my door and start force feeding me broccoli!

Now this behavior has a name..."choice architecture" or "libertarian paternalism".

It isn't so much that freedom of choice is eliminated,  its just that it makes less easy to make impulsive decisions with negative repercussions.

For example, people could still walk into a supermarket and buy donuts but maybe they would be located somewhere in the store that doesnt get as much traffic. Right now stores capitalize on human weakness to sweet doughy things by placing them in all the high traffic areas. Pure profit motive on the part of the store is influencing people to make decisions that are detrimental to their health.

Why is the profit motive of the store any less nefarious than what Bloomberg is doing? As long as humans still have choice, it is just using a different metric besides profit to influence peoples consumption.

Simonjester wrote: Libertarian paternalism sounds like an oxymoron, it smells like somebody just came up with a new name for progressive nanny state interference. Nudge people into making better choices as defined by who? government? nudge, push or force, the governments record for knowing whats best is beyond dismal,

I will take a profit motive over a coercive one any day, i already have the ability to make choice to buy or not buy. i don't need to be nudged (or forced) in any direction and sure as hell wouldn't presume to know better than other people what their choices should be, or to delegate responsibility to know whats best for other people to some government entity..

Even a profit motive that capitalizes on taking advantage of known human weaknesses? That is slightly evil as well.

Why should profit motive dictate human decisions...historically this has never been the case for human societies.

Simonjester wrote:

doodle wrote:
Even a profit motive that capitalizes on taking advantage of known human weaknesses? That is slightly evil as well.

Why should profit motive dictate human decisions...historically this has never been the case for human societies.

i am planning a vacation and i would like to visit this planet where profit motive has never dictated human decisions.. do they send space ships to pick people up? how do i book a trip?

yes... even if the profit motive capitalizes on known human weakness ([sarc] something government would never do[/sarc])

Caveat emptor for products and government alike

So the maximization of economic profit will in all cases provide for the best social outcomes? I mean the purpose of the exonomy is to serve society, and not the other way around right? This gets into questions that the field of behavioral economics deals with. In other words how rational are we as homo economicus?  And how perfect is the information we are working with?

Simonjester wrote: the maximizing of educated consumers will provide for the best social outcomes, forcing people to make the choices you think are best does not in any way educate a consumer, and sometimes getting burned or learning the hard way is the only education that works.. and what is a burn to me may still be a good deal to you..

new words like libertarian paternalism and exonomy don't change the fundamental nature of the argument you are making from the one you made when you were quoting Marx and the Communist manifesto, you want the government (who is some how supposed to know whats best in a world of imperfect information) to make decisions for us... because individuals don't know what is best for themselves or have imperfect information.

educated consumers requires educated citizens, "Recent City University of New York statistics reveal nearly 80 percent of the city’s high school graduates can’t read" funny how the politicians who want the power to micro manage the lives of individuals are in charge of the education system that produces citizens without even the basic skills (pre-basic skills if you think critical thinking is a basic skill ..and you should) poorly educated people needing a nanny because they are to poorly educated by their nanny to succeed without one, is a sad state of affairs

Simonjester wrote: educated consumers requires educated citizens, "Recent City University of New York statistics reveal nearly 80 percent of the city’s high school graduates can’t read"

Do you have a source for this statistic?

Simonjester wrote: it has been quoted (and mis-quoted and corrected) by a number of media story's lately, i did a quickie Google search and only the stories came up not the original NY city university study.. but even if its off by a long way which is unlikely, the failure of education in America and especially in the city's is still pretty. well established

Would changing the process of signing up for a 401k at work from opt-in to opt-out be forcing anyone to do anything? Why is the former staus quo preferable than the latter if we know the benefits that such a savings plan has for individuals? Why does everything have to end in a Marxist prison camp?

Is putting cigarettes out of sight at a grocery prohibiting people from buying them anymore than blacking out strip club windows prohibits people from entering that establishment?

Simonjester wrote:

smurff wrote:

Simonjester wrote: educated consumers requires educated citizens, "Recent City University of New York statistics reveal nearly 80 percent of the city’s high school graduates can’t read"

Do you have a source for this statistic?

it has been quoted (and mis-quoted and corrected) by a number of media story's lately, i did a quickie Google search and only the stories came up not the original NY city university study.. but even if its off by a long way which is unlikely, the failure of education in America and especially in the city's is still pretty. well established

It's easy to poke fun at New York City, but any claim that 80% of an American population (all NYC high school graduates) can't read  needs some substantiation or clarification.  A stat like that would put NYC high school graduates on the same level as the people of Eritrea, Honduras, and Zambia.  If 80% can't read, that means a literacy rate of 20%, almost impossibly low when you consider that even Wikipedia shows the United States as a whole has a literacy rate of 99%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... eracy_rate

So I went online and looked it up; that's NOT what the original report said, although certain alternative news venues like Russia Today, have editorialized it to mean something outrageous. 

On the CBS local news page, the editors point out that they've changed their headline to accurately reflect the content of the report, presumably after many readers pointed out errors in logic and math.  Anyway, the article itself says something very different about the 80% stat:  Some 80% of NYC high school graduates who arrive to enroll in City University's community college system have not mastered the skills to do college level work:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/ ... -colleges/

That's not the same thing as saying 80% of NYC high school graduates can't read.  News flash:  Not all NYC high school graduates try to enroll in community colleges.  (About 74% of NYC high school graduates go to colleges of all kinds, which is higher than the national average of 67%.)

Specifically, the written article says that about 11,000 NYC high school graduates have not mastered those specific skills.  (Let's ignore for a moment the fact that many of those 11,000 may be people who have graduated from high school ten to twenty years ago--they're included in that stat.)

In 2011 (latest stats), just over 52,000 (52,069) students graduated from NYC high schools:

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/685 ... 061112.pdf

The CBS local news article (which doesn't say what year their stats are from, so let's assume they're from 2011) says that 11,000 of them don't quite have the skills for college level work.  If you do the math, that actually means, at worst (or at best, depending on how you see it) only about 20% of all high school graduates are in that category of people whom CBS local news claims are in need of remedial help--which is still not the same as illiterate, or "can't read." 

That's almost the opposite of what the echo chamber has replicated all over the internet.  Doing a bit of basic math, not even statistics, we went from a huge 80% of NYC high school graduates being unable to read (with presumably 20% of students able to do so), to only 20% of high school graduates needing remedial help (with presumably 80% of high school graduates not needing this help). 

BTW, the group of people needing the remedial help includes disabled people, dyslexic and other learning disabled people, as well as orphans and others who made it through foster care.  It probably includes people who were cut-ups all through school and made the decision to settle down and learn.  NYC includes a large percentage of immigrants, so the group needing remedial help probably includes many people who struggle with English as a second language, as well as those who will be the first ever in their multigenerational family to attend college. 

I'm actually proud such people have the audacity to even consider enrolling in college.  It gives me hope knowing that NYC has a community college system with a program to support them.

It seems like the CBS local news fact checkers, and all the Internet "news" venues that piled on to repeat the silly headline, need a bit of remedial study themselves--in basic math and common sense.

You have to wonder about media that would report lies like this.  I agree with doodle, all encouragement from a government official or agency does not lead to a Marxist prison camp.

It's one of us--I think it's Medium Tex--who has as his motto something about not believing everything you read in a newspaper.  I'd add the Internet news to that quote.

Simonjester wrote: @ smurf.. news sources should always be questioned regardless of where they publish, especially when they have outrageous claims... like i said the headline i put in quotes was reported and mis-reported and had to be corrected by those who got it wrong.
the sloppy reporting doesn't change the fact that the quality of education is in decline or that the people who want, or who politicians feel need, their lives micromanaged are a product of that system..

the question is does the kind of restrictions on soda being proposed help?, or work at all? do they give any value in return for all the government dollars spent? do they improve or slow the local economy? have they spotted and dealt with the unintended consequences? or (since i suggested it) would having a better education system do a far better job toward getting a better healthier population, which is the result they seem to want.

i am happy you agree with doodles straw-man about Marxist labor camps, but since no body argued in favor of the opinion that everything government does ends up resulting in one... there isn't much to dispute there

re - Bloomberg, i am not from NY and don't know his record as a mayor, he may be a great one, so great these little nanny state rules that we hear about are a minor eccentricity and easily over looked compared to the whole picture. or maybe they're not? i really don't know

doodle wrote: Now this behavior has a name..."choice architecture" or "libertarian paternalism".

It isn't so much that freedom of choice is eliminated,  its just that it makes less easy to make impulsive decisions with negative repercussions.

For example, people could still walk into a supermarket and buy donuts but maybe they would be located somewhere in the store that doesnt get as much traffic. Right now stores capitalize on human weakness to sweet doughy things by placing them in all the high traffic areas. Pure profit motive on the part of the store is influencing people to make decisions that are detrimental to their health.

Why is the profit motive of the store any less nefarious than what Bloomberg is doing? As long as humans still have choice, it is just using a different metric besides profit to influence peoples consumption.

We get it, you don't understand what "Libertarian" means.  You don't need to keep reminding us.

Hi WiseOne, I'm still here, but I choose not to participate because I don't really enjoy all the libertarian fist pumping and rhetoric.  I think Bloomberg is a fine mayor and has created a lot of positive change in NYC, to be honest.  Personally, I think it's a good idea to have someone that understands the main driver of our local economy is Wall Street, and understands the business there running things.

Cheers,
Storm.

Simonjester wrote: Libertarian paternalism sounds like an oxymoron, it smells like somebody just came up with a new name for progressive nanny state interference. Nudge people into making better choices as defined by who? government? nudge, push or force, the governments record for knowing whats best is beyond dismal,

It's not an oxymoron when it benefits society in the long-run.  For example, switching opt-in to opt-out for retirement plans.  That will put less pressure on SS in the future when it needs to be modify to stay sustainable.

Just like we cant have both open borders and a welfare state, we cant have both libertarianism and a welfare state.  So the compromise is "libertarian paternalism".  You still have a choice, just the default one is in your best interest.  If you think you're smarter than the average bear, you have the freedom to prove it instead of being dragged off to a Siberian prison camp.

Storm wrote: Hi WiseOne, I'm still here, but I choose not to participate because I don't really enjoy all the libertarian fist pumping and rhetoric.  I think Bloomberg is a fine mayor and has created a lot of positive change in NYC, to be honest.  Personally, I think it's a good idea to have someone that understands the main driver of our local economy is Wall Street, and understands the business there running things.

But why do these experienced business-types always have to be such social authoritarians?  It's so persistently annoying.  What is it about the ultra rich that always makes them want to micro-manage other people?  Insecurity?

Simonjester wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:
It's not an oxymoron when it benefits society in the long-run.  For example, switching opt-in to opt-out for retirement plans.  That will put less pressure on SS in the future when it needs to be modify to stay sustainable.

Just like we cant have both open borders and a welfare state, we cant have both libertarianism and a welfare state.  So the compromise is "libertarian paternalism".  You still have a choice, just the default one is in your best interest.  If you think you're smarter than the average bear, you have the freedom to prove it instead of being dragged off to a Siberian prison camp.

i am not entirely convinced there aren't situations where this sort of justification for regulatory intervention aren't acceptable or beneficial, i am still libertarian leaning and not a complete anarchist  ....yet....  we do need some government,

but i wonder if this is the best example, lots of people starting out are living week to week and only one automotive break down or small setback away from not being able to make it, for them cash in hand is king, and being a know nothing guy who doesn't pay attention or forgets to opt out could leave them in trouble.. car not fixed, late for work, fired from job, = no job, no benefits, dismissal on employment record etc, are you one hundred percent sure that making the choice opt in is better for everybody who knows so little that they need to be pushed? or best for a majority of them? or best for enough of them to justify it? and when you do have a plan what do they get signed up for? most no nothings end up with the default choice and the default choice in 401ks is seldom if ever the best or wisest option, do we really think what ever the latest investment strategy being pushed as the default is the best? 

i would rather see "libertarian paternalism" used to push people to be making their own informed choices over pushing what ever choice government or any other authoritarian thinks the best choice is.

I think the goal of libertarian paternalism is to help people make informed decisions, not tell them what to do:

"The goal of Nudge is to show how choice architecture can be used to help nudge people to make better choices (as judged by themselves) without forcing certain outcomes upon anyone, a philosophy we call libertarian paternalism."http://www.nudges.org

There is a certain role that active consumer protection and advocacy must play in our complex and sophisticated world. There is no way that lay people have the time or specialized knowledge necessary to adequately evaluate every transaction they enter into. Just your average credit card agreement would take a week to read all of the fine print.

You could make the argument that the market would sort this out eventually, but at what cost and over what time period? How many individuals could an unscrupulous business dupe before the marketplace caught on at which time they could simply form another shell corporation and start all over again? What effect would this have on the trust factor that is so necessary to a functioning economy? In the past, economic transaction happened between known entities within small communities based on simple products. Today commerce is much more impersonal. With these changes, slight modifications to the marketplace are necessary I think.

Also, corporations spend billions every year trying to apply behavioral principles to shape individuals wants and consumption patterns. They dont just offer a product and sit back to see if people want it, they shape that demand through advertising which uses subtle forms of subconcious mind control if you will. How is that behavior benign? Why don't libertarians see the subtle behavioral and psychological forms of mind control that business exercises over its consumers.

Businesses get a direct access into my life wherever I look....billboards, television and internet ads, magazines, newspapers, radio etc. etc. You cant escape it...advertising is literally force fed to you.

Storm wrote: Hi WiseOne, I'm still here, but I choose not to participate because I don't really enjoy all the libertarian fist pumping and rhetoric.  I think Bloomberg is a fine mayor and has created a lot of positive change in NYC, to be honest.  Personally, I think it's a good idea to have someone that understands the main driver of our local economy is Wall Street, and understands the business there running things.

Cheers,
Storm.

Thanks Storm!!  Yes, I can assure the rest of you that there are no prison camps here.  It's an enjoyable place to live, with its good and bad points just like everywhere else.

One problem with pure Ayn-Rand style libertarianism is that populations of people making personal decisions have an effect on everyone else.  If you choose not to participate in Social Security and then don't plan for your own retirement, you will eventually become a burden on society.  Letting you starve on the streets might be what Ayn Rand would advocate, but it's not going to happen and it shouldn't.  The same logic applies to things like seatbelt laws and yes, guzzling gallons of soda every day and becoming obese.  This is what motivated the sugary drinks law.  And yes, doodle is right.  How personal is a decision when corporate advertising, which you find even in public schools, is such a pervasive influence?

I hope though, that people can respect the fact that there are a range of political views represented on this forum.  I have learned a great deal from reading the "other discussions" threads, but they can get a bit, shall we say, divisive.

So far, it looks like those who actually live in New York and generally like Bloomberg (per posts in this thread) outnumber those residents who don't.

Simonjester wrote:

doodle wrote: Also, corporations spend billions every year trying to apply behavioral principles to shape individuals wants and consumption patterns. They dont just offer a product and sit back to see if people want it, they shape that demand through advertising which uses subtle forms of subconcious mind control if you will. How is that behavior benign? Why don't libertarians see the subtle behavioral and psychological forms of mind control that business exercises over its consumers.

Businesses get a direct access into my life wherever I look....billboards, television and internet ads, magazines, newspapers, radio etc. etc. You cant escape it...advertising is literally force fed to you.

Also, politicians and government spend billions every year trying to apply behavioral principles to shape individuals wants and voting patterns. They don't just offer a product and sit back to see if people want it, they shape that demand through advertising which uses subtle forms of subconscious mind control if you will. How is that behavior benign? Why don't people who want big government solutions see the subtle behavioral and psychological forms of mind control that government exercises over its consumers.

gavernments get a direct access into my life wherever I look....billboards, television and internet ads, magazines, newspapers, radio etc. etc. You cant escape it...advertising is literally force fed to you.


fraud is illegal and should be, trying to convince somebody that the thing of value you are selling (product or government) is worth the value you exchange for it is a part of life, i am not keen on advertising or the manipulative tricks of the advertising/marketing trade, i have seen/read much of the same stuff you have that has convinced you it is evil, but just because they use them it doesn't mean i am a slave or victim, and if i know their tricks i am even less effected by it or not influenced at all..  (i just cant help myself, every time social engineering a better society comes up i end up at the conclusion better humans are the answer and better education seems the only way to get them..)

"The goal of Nudge is to show how choice architecture can be used to help nudge people to make better choices (as judged by themselves) without forcing certain outcomes upon anyone, a philosophy we call libertarian paternalism.

this is a better description.. so far the only example i can come up with that meets that criteria is marking cigaret packs with warnings about health dangers, there may be more where the push is toward informed decisions and not forcing outcomes, but i don't see Bloomberg's bans or some of the other examples given so far as meeting that criteria or producing any benefit above the cost, corruption and unintended consequences they will have..

Most kids can identify hundreds of corporate brands by the time they enter elementary school. Most adult Americans probably can't even identify the vice president. The tentacles of corporate influence on our lives and decisions reach much deeper than you give credit for... Profit isnt bad, but it doesnt always result in the best outcomes. Economic growth doesn't benefit society if all it leads to is obese, fearful, and alienated individuals. The reality is that there is a war on for your mind. You may think that your decisions are entirely personal but I can assure you that all of us have been programmed from birth.

Corporate power over our lives has grown immensely in the last 50 years. What Bloomberg is doing in my opinion is a healthy counterbalance.

doodle wrote: Most kids can identify hundreds of corporate brands by the time they enter elementary school. Most adult Americans probably can't even identify the vice president. The tentacles of corporate influence on our lives and decisions reach much deeper than you give credit for... Profit isnt bad, but it doesnt always result in the best outcomes. Economic growth doesn't benefit society if all it leads to is obese, fearful, and alienated individuals. The reality is that there is a war on for your mind. You may think that your decisions are entirely personal but I can assure you that all of us have been programmed from birth.

Corporate power over our lives has grown immensely in the last 50 years. What Bloomberg is doing in my opinion is a healthy counterbalance.

I think another thing that contributes to obesity is too much time sitting in front of the computer. It also causes people to become alienated from each other. For the good of society I therefore propose that internet usage be restricted to a certain number of minutes per today.

But only in New York City.

Down here in the South we'll stay on as long as we damn well please.

notsheigetz wrote: I think another thing that contributes to obesity is too much time sitting in front of the computer. It also causes people to become alienated from each other. For the good of society I therefore propose that internet usage be restricted to a certain number of minutes per today.

But only in New York City.

Down here in the South we'll stay on as long as we damn well please.

With a basket of deep-fried crawfish and a plate of red velvet cake on the desk, no doubt. 

notsheigetz wrote:

doodle wrote: Most kids can identify hundreds of corporate brands by the time they enter elementary school. Most adult Americans probably can't even identify the vice president. The tentacles of corporate influence on our lives and decisions reach much deeper than you give credit for... Profit isnt bad, but it doesnt always result in the best outcomes. Economic growth doesn't benefit society if all it leads to is obese, fearful, and alienated individuals. The reality is that there is a war on for your mind. You may think that your decisions are entirely personal but I can assure you that all of us have been programmed from birth.

Corporate power over our lives has grown immensely in the last 50 years. What Bloomberg is doing in my opinion is a healthy counterbalance.

I think another thing that contributes to obesity is too much time sitting in front of the computer. It also causes people to become alienated from each other. For the good of society I therefore propose that internet usage be restricted to a certain number of minutes per today.

But only in New York City.

Down here in the South we'll stay on as long as we damn well please.

Bloomberg isnt stopping people from drinking as much soda as they want. Your analogy is falacious.

doodle wrote: Bloomberg isnt stopping people from drinking as much soda as they want. Your analogy is falacious.

Fair Enough. We'll amend the law to say you can stay online as long as you want but you have to log off every 30 minutes.

Is that less falacious?

And the 30 minute figure is also open for debate. The law should be flexible.  Surely New Yorkers will think this is reasonable as it appeals to the common good.