Comment Re:Give it up little troll (Score 1) 307
Weak, weak, weak. What a pussy you are. How about some self-control? You've conclusively lost the argument got it?
Weak, weak, weak. What a pussy you are. How about some self-control? You've conclusively lost the argument got it?
So? Now I've told you who the "others" are. None of them came to your rescue. Now tell me, why are you such a pussy that you have to involve "others" in a simple discussion about your own "opinion " that the "average " android phone is "locked"?
Ok, I apologize profusely . I thought you had some idea what you are talking about.
My apologies, I meant the expectation value. I thought it would get tedious to put expectation value everywhere. Corrected version below.
No. People expect to value a good meal more than the dollars they spend on it, that is the only reason why it is advisable to try to(1) have a good meal. If they don't, which is rare but possible, it is completely foolish to try to have a good meal for the price.
But for financial products, where you pay money and get back money, this isn't that straightforward. It only makes sense to buy a financial product when either you expect to get back more money than you paid, including time value of money (e.g. possibly mutual funds), or at least you expect to get back more money "value" (e.g. possibly insurance).
Both insurance and nice meal are justifiable by expected "value" of goods or services received that is more than that of paid. Both subjective. But as you despised all subjective looks, with that perspective, trying to buy good meal and insurance are both foolish.
(1) : "Try to" because meal might turn out to be bad.
Lotteries are rarely non-foolish, so I don't understand what you mean. Though the "value" of dreams they inspire could be considered to be larger than lottery ticket price
I'm sorry, are you putting me on? Would you seriously ask "where is nice objective dollars" in "having a good meal" or "wearing a comfy pair of shoes"?
No. People value a good meal more than the dollars they spend on it, that is the only reason why it is advisable to have a good meal. If they don't, which is rare but possible, it is completely foolish to have a good meal for the price.
But for financial products, where you pay money and get back money, this isn't that straightforward. It only makes sense to buy a financial product when either you get back more money than you paid, including time value of money (e.g. possibly mutual funds), or at least you get back more money "value" (e.g. possibly insurance).
Both insurance and nice meal are justifiable by "value" of goods or services received that is more than that of paid. Both subjective. But as you despised all subjective looks, with that perspective, buying good meal and insurance are both foolish.
Rest easier is also subjective. And completely compatible with people valuing dollars more when scarce. But incompatible with your argument that "subjective look is not worth much".
Where is nice objective dollars in "rest easier"?
Please explain what you mean by that Mr Coward who didn't dare to attack the others like you attacked me. Who are those others?
Same "others" as in your own this very post.
you are a master at baiting
Thanks.
utter waste of time.
Learn to take responsibility for your own actions.
what's your excuse?
Like I said earlier, I love proving wrong the opinionated fools with wrong and baseless opinions.
I did put it when I got time. You linked me somewhere else too. They just weren't as wrong as you are. Just accept it - I am right and you are wrong. It is really as simple as that.
BTW, why do you have to hide behind "others" ?
"Rest easier" is not consistent with "subjective look is not worth much"
Why do they rest easier if they don't value scarce dollar more?
Obviously. I was asking whether you would say it is always foolish to buy insurance since it is economically lossful. To that you said that no, you buy to avoid catastrophic loss.
I ask, economically, why does it make sense to buy insurance when it necessarily involves a statistical certainty of economic loss. Why must catastrophic loss be avoided by overpaying by buying insurance if dollar is not more valuable when scarce?
I think, and i am saying it, that without my "subjective " look, or an equivalent, insurance can never make sense. Do you disagree? And why?
And why would you overpay for avoiding catastrophic loss? Especially if you don't agree dollar is more valuable when scarce? And if you do agree, that's what I am saying, on which you say it's a subjective look and not necessarily useful.
It is not emotional, the value of dollars when scarce is practical. Do you also say that diminishing marginal value is not an economics concept too?
What is economic value of insurance then? It is a statistically certain loss, "economically" as you put it.
Without this subjective look, it is always foolish to get insurance (unless mandated by law, of course) . Is that your statement?
Overlarge insurance would be less valuable precisely for this subjective "value" reason : dollar isn't that valuable when in oversupply.
The statement surely doesn't apply to a judge. It is not a judge who is "punishing" the sinner/criminal, but the state. The judge is just the medium through which the state chooses to act.
That is one good reason why institutionalized justice is much less of an "infinite loop" than mob justice. One sees much less of an urge to revenge themselves upon police, lawyers, paralawyers, courtroom staff, judge, jury, because they act according to a system. The whole process is as non-violent and logical as such processes can be, so that baser instincts are in check. And also because there are too many of them.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro