1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Trivia / Latest Posts

RE: Trivia

-M- — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:38:50 GMT

1. Sea

2. Essense

RE: Trivia

Nuclearcow — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:17:12 GMT

Salt is a preservative, it was once pressed into coins as a currency, its a needed element in our diet. Slaves were bought with salt (original of the 'not worth your wage in salt' saying). Roman soldiers were paid in salt and some cultures considered it as sacred or religious.

So to answer your other question, Mr. M, if you keep earning an above average rate of return, you will raise the averages up to what you're earning. Which will eventually make you earn average. Errr.. right? lol.

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:05:14 GMT

[quote][b]-M- (9/4/2008)[/b][hr][quote]Salt of the Earth!!!!!![/quote]

Any whys?[/quote]

You didn't ask why. But I will say that it was used as a primitive monetary system, prolly for dietary reasons (??). It was quite a valuable commodity to have back in those days!

Actually, since this is a trivia thread, I will admit I based my answer on the fact that I knew that the word "salaray" actually has it's roots in the Latin word for "salt" ! :)

RE: Trivia

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:30:09 GMT

The "Law" of Averages . . .

RE: Trivia

-M- — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:19:27 GMT

[quote]Salt of the Earth!!!!!![/quote]

Any whys?

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:07:18 GMT

The Salt of the Earth!!!!!!

RE: Trivia

-M- — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:49:15 GMT

What geographical feature of the earth can we blame for the blessing/curse of coinage (modern money is a direct decendant of coinage)?

Why is it statistically improbabble to earn an above average market rate or return?

RE: Trivia

Tosk — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:55:36 GMT

Ok, Ok ... I'm working on it! So far the closest I have gotten is French Whore ...I need more time to refine the scent ... :D:D:D

RE: Trivia

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:37:13 GMT

Could I get a cigar-scented candle with that sweaty stripper on borrowed money?:P

RE: Trivia

-M- — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:06:25 GMT

you cant choose between a rock and a hard place. They both are same. Bad is big governement, but a necessary evel perhaps of a democratic beurocracy. So ye...

Borrowing is preferable to increase in rate of taxation, bcz taxation penelizes incentives to produce. Ideally the borrower will not spend the borrowed money on strippers, but rather on infrastructure, which will lead to additional tax reciepts in the future even without the need to increase the rate of taxation. But borrowing as a constant solution is not good either.

RE: Trivia

RabiAkiva — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:45:47 GMT

to cut spending can also harm the economy. A good policymaker must read the situation. The generalities are much subtler than just presented. A tax raise can have different effects in different situations. So can lending, so can cutting expense.
Besides, economics is not such a hard science that the models we work with are very accurate to predict what will happen or even fully explain what is going on.

RE: Trivia

jerm — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:37:24 GMT

I think the idea is that raising taxes would harm the economy and actually decrease revenues. Unfortunately, borrowing the money weakens the dollar and thus... harms the economy. The only solution is to cut spending and we know how eager pols are to do that.

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:12:32 GMT

What is worse for Americans:

Democrats that tax current tax payers excessively to fund their programs?

or Republicans that borrow excessively for their programs, thus putting the onus on tax payers - many of whom are not even voting age yet - of the future?

Isn't American government grande? :w00t:

RE: Trivia

jerm — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:49:30 GMT

:sigh: I remember the washing machine when I was a kid (20-25 years ago) was almost exactly the same as the washing machine we have in our house. Yes, they have come some way but a long way? I hardly think that a little bit more efficient over 30 years would constitute large innovation. I just don't think there's much more "way" to go. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, only that the cost isn't higher because there hasn't been that much innovation. All the bells and whistles (innovations) on washing machines, make them more expensive. The average washer owner doesn't have to buy those "innovated" products so they can afford the lower end models which are still better than laundromat washers, hence M's point. Do I really have to explain it that much?

A real innovation will be when a single machine can wash, dry and fold your laundry. Now [i]THAT[/i] would be an innovation, and at first, pretty darn expensive.

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:23:52 GMT

[url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar08/foods0308.htm]Food production has especially come along way in recent years.[/url]

:)

[url=http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=185]I think you are wrong jerm, innovation in Washing Machines is NOT lagging[/url] :P

For one they are far more efficient than they used to be. I guess innovation is something that anyone can define. ;)

RE: Trivia

jerm — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:51:50 GMT

Locus, innovation in washing machines is lagging. A washer today is not much different than a washer from 20 or even 40 years ago.

M, innovation in most areas has increased significantly. TV's, computers, even how food is produced has come leaps and bounds from even 10 years ago.

[quote]If enough people are warried that our current societal trajectory is unsustainable then not enough innovation has happened to accomodate the current population in harmony with its ecosystem.[/quote]

Since when is perception of the masses the reality of the situation? People are worried because they are told to be worried, plain and simple. That doesn't mean our current trajectory is sustainable. In fact, I think I'd agree that innovation is slower than growth currently.

RE: Trivia

-M- — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:30:57 GMT

Innovation does not nessesarily lead to cheaper products.

Ex. Modern health care is more expensive than the health care in 19th centure or the 5th. Yet we have enjoyed considerable innovation in that area.

What leads to cheaper products is an oversuply in material or human capital. When you get more of the same, that same competes for the limited pool of consumers, which tends to lower the asking price.

Confusion may also arise when looking at substitute product innovation as opposed to genuine innovation. Appartment housing is a substitute innovation to single family housing. So an introduction of such a substitute leads to lowering of the mean housing square footage price. Genuine innovation on the other hand lets people experince something completely new. An example of such may be the invention of the wheel or the transistor. Once invented, they will be endlessly copied & substituted and thats when the price starts coming down.

As to the statement that innovation has not kept up with population growth... this is evidenced by the current alarm that we may be overburdening our own ecosystem. Since there is no way to mesure rate of genuine innovation, we are left with an approximation. I suggest that the alarm level of the general population is such an approximation tool. If enough people are warried that our current societal trajectory is unsustainable then not enough innovation has happened to accomodate the current population in harmony with its ecosystem.

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:26:05 GMT

What do you mean innovation has not kept up pace, thus we get ever cheaper products.

I hardly think innovation is lagging. Additionally, are you suggesting that innovation would necessarily lead to more expensive products? Because I would think that innovation would actually lead to more economical, less expensive, higher quality products.

RE: Trivia

-M- — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:58:29 GMT

Well... Doc, you nailed it pretty tight.

I had it in a much less specific way but along the same lines.

Innovation has not kept up pace with population increase, result being evercheaper products. Production requires input of human & material capital. So if a washing machine has gotten cheaper, we have to thank globalization & our brothers in china for being able to transfer their cheap labor into sving for the average consumer.

RE: Trivia

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:26:08 GMT

[quote][b]-M- (7/23/2008)[/b][hr]Man wasnt that easy. NC you got the reason right, it being that washing machines being affordable. But why them washing machines have gotten so affordable?[/quote]

(a) Plenty of cheap (one could argue "slave") labor in plenty of the lower-income countries? (b) Incredibly modern global logistics and transport? (c) robotics, computers and other factors that have made building components in sub-factories, then shipping them to assembly factories much cheaper; (d) more streamlined retail chains = the elimination of the Mom & Pop style retailer by the hyper-specialized, high-volume, low margin mega-mart style retailers. In sum: Globalization & Neo-liberalism *Ackgh! Pphtooie!* [can't believe that word actually came out of my Broca's area . . .]

And all this despite the increase in commodity (silicon, copper, zinc, etc.) prices over the past few years.

ADDIT: the unforeseeable downside of the extinction of the laundromat? Even further dwindling of fertility, increasing in suicide/alcoholism/general Durkheimian "anomie" . . . Why? I met my wife in a laundromat! :D

RE: Trivia

-M- — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:11:13 GMT

Man wasnt that easy. NC you got the reason right, it being that washing machines being affordable. But why them washing machines have gotten so affordable?

RE: Trivia

Nuclearcow — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:06:13 GMT

Because its not very cheap and isn't very convenient.

Most people can afford their own machines for laundry in the comfort of their own home. Why spend a lot elsewhere where you can spend a lot (maybe equally or lesser in the long run) for something more convenient?

RE: Trivia

-M- — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:47:08 GMT

1. Why a laundrymat is a disapearing business model?

RE: Trivia

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:36:40 GMT

[quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (7/22/2008)[/b][hr][quote]and not even just in recent historical context, but in natural historical context.[/quote]

But joe doesn't live in that context, he lives in this one...You are what you eat, and you are a product of your environment. What do you think would happen if you transported cro-magnon man into the 21st certury? You have to account for that...[/quote]

Hypothetically, the evolved psychological mechanisms inside Joe, and making him "tick" emerged during that natural historical context. Some good examples that are pretty well substantiated empirically:

The Westermarck Effect; the Sex-Bias in Jealousy Effect; sex-differences in spatial ability and hand-eye coordination; discounting future costs in the face of present short-term benefits; phobias (not too many AIDs phobias, but people still phobic of spiders and snakes even when they live in Manhattan); inability to account for actual risks of a low-probability event that has catastrophic effects (e.g., the effects of infrequent flooding on flood plains, or beaches). We think we totally blank slates but we not.

RE: Trivia

jerm — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:33:32 GMT

You scientists may have more in-site than I so please share but, has the modern Homo Sapien been around for millions of years? I thought we didn't arrive onto the scene until 250K years ago. That's a long time but wasn't there something that singled our our "race" of Homo Sapiens, the one's with stout minds and creative thinking, about 50K years ago? Since then, how long have humans lived in villages for security? What's good for the Erectus isn't necessarily what's good for the Sapien is it? Could it be that we moved from hunter gatherers to more complex communal units because something in us desired more security than our previous "versions" did. As populations increased as conditions improved and technological breakthroughs came about, these communities grew eventually into what we have today. Could this security instinct combined with many other instincts of this great ape have led to investing? Happiness is not the only need or motivation of human beings. While it may facilitate happiness if done correctly, happiness is not the primary purpose behind investing.

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:26:54 GMT

[quote]and not even just in recent historical context, but in natural historical context.[/quote]

RE: Trivia

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:49:03 GMT

Relative deprivation is my point.

For millions of years, we were "happy" without sidewalks, concrete, writing, currency, rank, ascriptive status, markets, etc.

If we really want to answer the question as to whether investing in a house is a good strategy for an average Joe, I maintain we must place average Joe not just in immediate socio-economic or cultural context, and not even just in recent historical context, but in natural historical context.

It is only be stepping back from the blinders of Civilization that we can see just how uncivilized we really are, and how much we suffer unnecessarily as a result of it.

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:03:12 GMT

ok, that's all fine and good doc, but what's your point?

I'd still rather have financial security than not have it? Common sense tells me that much. I'd rather have that comfort level than leave certain things out on a whim, that might cause me great stresses because my bank accounts are a bit slim.

RE: Trivia

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:07:24 GMT

LC, you miss point: Why one want financ secur? Cause it (putatively) facilitate "happy" more than financial insecurity.

"Well-being," "comfort," "security," "joy," "Peace," call it what you will, the point is: a positive psychosomatic state which is congruent with the organisms evolved reward-seeking strategies, which are the primary mechanisms which have (in general) led to improved reproductive fitness during the organism's natural history, and which in interaction with the individual's socialization context lead to "secondary values," or the actual motives that play out in the critters mind and behavior. Example: sexual gratification is a primary value; going on spring break is a secondary value which emerges through the interaction of the human species-typical primary value of sexual gratification and the N. Am Uni/mid-class socialization context.

"Financial Security" in and of itself has no direct utility. It has utility because it pushes our "buttons." Happy buttons, comfort buttons, satisfaction buttons, whatever you wanna call it.

You should check out Maslowe's Hierarchy of Needs on wiki.

RE: Trivia

-M- — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:30:00 GMT

So I'ma reinstalling Civ back, & while waiting for that to get done I got bored & thought to give me answer.

Is a house an appropriate investment for the average Joe?

No. This is due to simple premisis of diversification. Investments ought to be diversified in order to reduce risk of substantial loss. When any single asset represents a considerable chunk of one's portfolio, and a major downturn, such as the latest troubles in housing & credit markets, does occur, and that downturn happens to be in the sector of one's concentration, he will suffer unnessasary stress.

With house prices ranging from $100,000 and up, and average Joe income ranging from $19,000 and up, it is clear to see that for the average Joe an investment in a house will tie up several years worth of income in a single asset. For most average Joes, their house is their only valuable asset.

True that a house has utility other than an investment asset. Possibility of living in it being one of those utilities. So a bad investment strategy it may be, a house is not always a bad purchase. Just make sure that you are not buying the house for the single purpose of investing.

There are several yardsticks to go by:

Is this house your only homestead?

Are you likely to move w/in the following few years?

What stage in you life (are you a 20 year old or 50 year old) are you at?

What is the condition of your career (are you likely to get fired? are you a bad worker?)?

Etc, and so on. One customizes it for oneself to determine whether he is likely to be selling that house in forseeable future. If one determines that moving on to another location will be the case, then he is much better off renting. This is the better choice even after all the pro's of owning a house that the "friendly" realtor will tell you about. Do not gamble, if you are not a proffessional gamler. Thinking that you can always resell a house is a common folly. Even if the realtor is your friend (best man, best friend, etc) dont trust him. Chances are all his facts are common rhetoric that he gets stamped with during training, courtesy of assembly line tactics so pupular among businesses.

LC is the winner for getting the answer right, although not the reason :P

RE: Trivia

-M- — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:19:51 GMT

[quote]have you read Sapolsky's "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers?" Are you an academic?[/quote]

No, never read his stuff, although I might have come accross his ideas in my various readings. No I am not in academics, not professionally.

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:59:49 GMT

Financial security. Why can't you numbskulls get that through your thick skulls!!!!!!!! :w00t: People don't invest because of happiness, they invest to try and provide themselves and their families for a financially secure future. That has quite little to do with happiness and very much to do with comfort of living, which IS NOT equal to happiness.@!#%$@#^#$%@"#$!@#!$#@!#$.

[quote]Lets face it: the majority of us have very little real influence in what happens in the stock market. [/quote]

Yeah Scip, kinda like voting for the President of the USA, no? :cool:

RE: Trivia

jerm — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:29:28 GMT

Scipio, I see what you are saying now but that does not negate the value of investment. If you're a day trader and there's a bad day on the market, it may very well make you miserable for a while. If you're an average bloke who puts money into an IRA so his money increases over long periods of time, a bad day is a blip on the radar. Even a bad decade is not terribly significant.

My point about whether happiness is the purpose of life is to point out that even if investment doesn't make one happy per se, and happiness isn't the end goal, there is great value in investment. That is, happiness isn't the only reason one should invest. I also disagree that there is no general purpose in life. I'd argue that contributing to mankind is at least one purpose of life (at least one that secular and religious peolpe can agree upon :)). People find purpose when they believe they are contributing. Whether they are or not is something each individual needs to figure out. Investing is one way of contributing.

RE: Trivia

Nuclearcow — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:50:48 GMT

I wasn't sure I was going to jump in on this philosophical debate, but I decided to play along too. :P

As far as happiness goes and material wealth... IMO, it is often the reason how wealth is acquired that often determines how happy they are afterwards. I recently watched the movie, There Will Be Blood, which is about an oil tycoon and his up and coming fortune and at the end, the guy was material-wealthy beyond belief, but miserable. I don't know if the movie was totally fiction or based on a true guy or whatnot, but the lust for wealth, success, etc, drove this man and in the end when he had it and then some, he was miserable. I think thats very much like many people in the world.

On the other hand, if someone's priorities are being a decent person, or a decent parent, or anything similar, and wealth happens through hard work, or good luck, lottery, inheritance, etc, etc, I'd make a total guess that that person will be a more happy person than the oil tycoon example above. I tend to think its the lust and desire for wealth over other things that often makes someone miserable. Maybe its just the priorities one has that often determines his happiness.

A personal example. When I visited India, I saw many in extreme poverty and some of those people smiled so much and seemed so happy. Why? I think its because wealth, while desired, wasn't amongst their most valued or desired things. Maybe it was family, or their faith or who knows... but most seemed awfully happy despite any poverty.

Interesting debate, fellas :)

RE: Trivia

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:34:25 GMT

[quote]He may be able to relate (successfully transfer) his illusion/perception through sustained/constant interaction, which explains how families come to share similar world views & mood is contagious.[/quote]

Exactly! Muk have you read Sapolsky's "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers?" Are you an academic? If not, you oughtta be!

ADDIT: and Jerm, you are right about "happiness" being hard to define, even within the parameters of one fairly consistent "culture," let alone across cultures. That is where multi-disciplinary folks like myself who like to check to see for corroboration between multiple different measures (psycho-physiological, health, social, psychometric, behavioral). The science of studying happiness or well-being is frankly still in its infancy: reason being, the dogma that has persisted (as I pointed out above) since the Renaissance that material wealth = happiness/well-being.

Ironically, this idea has grown as religious notions of happiness in an afterlife have waned, and as ideas of happiness from being a patriotic member of a tribe has also ebbed and flowed.

I find it fascinating to read about people's personal lives in the 18th and 19th century. It is remarkable to hear about what it was that made them "happy." Granted, what we have to read are the records of the exceptionals more than the averages, but . . . what I notice is that we have got more petty, self-interested, shallow, uncritical, non-reasoning, tribal, lazy, undisciplined . . .

[quote]Is this not just a tangent to the main point about investment though? Is the purpose of investment to make one happy in the first place? The purpose of investment is to make one feel more secure, nay, be more secure.[/quote]

I would argue that it most definitely is NOT a tangent to the initial question Muk posed. This is because, another way of looking at publicly traded stocks is not as a constellation of free moving entitites ruled entirely by their individual free will, and acting rationally in their own self-interest, but instead as a system that intrinsically favors the uber-powerful, and intrinsically exploits the rest.

Lets face it: the majority of us have very little real influence in what happens in the stock market. Collectively we might, but then each of us has only a very tenuous influence on the collective actions of all of us peons. In contrast, the Warren Buffets of the world have power equivalent to Ancient World Monarchs. If Buffet wants a particular thing to occur on Wall Street, he very well may have the actual agency to make it happen by virtue of strategic buying and selling.

Putting it this way, the "purpose" of investing is not to serve the interests of the hundreds of millions of little guys, but to serve the interest of the few score big guys. Put in that perspective, we should not be surprised if plenty of little guys (at least half?) wind up getting more displeasure from their investing activities than pleasure.

RE: Trivia

-M- — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:48:36 GMT

Jerm

There is no ultimate purpose to life. Life just is. If you, as an individual, choose to make something the purpose of your life, then that something becomes the purpose of your life so long you continue to support the idea or continue to exist.

In your assesment of investments you are overlooking the existance of risk. Risk of an investment is multiplied when that investment is represented in easily transactable/transferable entitities (not sure if that is a proper term for it) such as money. Purpose of money is to facilitate asset transfers, side effect being that it also makes the risk (posibility of loss) easier too.

RE: Trivia

jerm — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:35:06 GMT

I wonder in that empiricle evidence how happiness is defined. The thing is, when you think about it, happiness is such an abstract principal, I don't know how one would measure it. What does happiness even mean? I tend to agree that money would not be the main determiner of happiness however. It may have some effect on one's stresses in life.

Is this not just a tangent to the main point about investment though? Is the purpose of investment to make one happy in the first place? The purpose of investment is to make one feel more secure, nay, [i]be[/i] more secure. A net result of knowing that you are in fact more secure is that you will have the freedom to be happy. We are all a part of these larger "investments" in many facets of humanity. Belonging to a nation state is an investment. You'll contribute to this nation in some way in exchange for a degree of security. Wherever the state has less influence, the much more hazzardous life becomes. Wild animals, bandits and simply having to provide for yourself is a stressful existence. I do not argue that one cannot be happy in such a situation but I would say that one has more freedom to be happy with a level of security. Losing family members to disease, wild animals and even bandits does not contribute to one's happiness. While investments and therefore security may give one the freedom to find happiness, one does not necessarilly find it but the option for its pursuit is there.

The other question is, is the purpose of life to find happiness?

RE: Trivia

-M- — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:23:46 GMT

I agree w/Doc's assesment that being better off financially does not nessesarily translate to being better off psychologically.

My theory is that what we humans call happiness may actually lie in ignorance. If you suppose that posessing more information will put additional burden on one's psyche (knowing that a tiger is aiming for you specifically out of all of the herd is infinitely more stressful than just knowing that the tiger is aiming for the herd in general. Even better is not being aware that a tiger is out on a hunt at all), then better off people have more things to warry about courtesy of their fortune (they have more assets/information to warry about).

At the same time a well off person is happier than a poor person in absolute terms bcz he can afford more enjoyment of life (he can tickle his senses with more toys), but each additional unit of enjoyment delivers everdeminishing unit of bliss (law of deminishing returns), while his warries increas at a constant rate. Hence the illusion/perception of being unhappy, and one's illusion/perception is his reality. The fact that he cannot fully share his perception with a fellow human creates the myth of him being happier in the observing crowd. He may be able to relate (successfully transfer) his illusion/perception through sustained/constant interaction, which explains how families come to share similar world views & mood is contagious.

RE: Trivia

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:43:42 GMT

The jury may still be out, as you say. But I'll take my financial security, thank you. :P

RE: Trivia

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:40:04 GMT

There is some fairly sound empirical evidence (sparse, but sound) that: (a) as a populations standard of living (read median income) goes up, its "happiness" does not go up. This appears to be widely generalizable across populations. If you combine non-quantitative evidence from meta-analyses of literature and historical narrative the magnitude of the proof for this effect multiplies significantly. (b) people who have more money do not exhibit more "happiness" per se. They simply worry about other things. Similar issue with the use of humanities evidence.

I would not argue with the point that "not enough money" is a definite source of disturbance, and psychsomatic trauma. The problem is that, what is defined/considered to be "enough" is not a fixed point. You make $30K you want $50K. Once you get to $50K you want $75K. Once you get to $75K you want $100K and so on.

As an evolutionary psychologist, I'm convinced this is a good example of a misfit between our evolved nature and our modern context.

There was nothing the least bit like "currency" throughout most of human, let alone primate natural history. A granary, let alone a bank account, may well present a human mind with a kind of goodie-bin that it was not really "designed" by natural selection to cope with effectively.

Ever since the Renaissance, burghers, kings, peasants, and everyone else have operated from the assumption that being "better off" would naturally tend to be better for people.

It is axiomatic that being so destitute that you are malnourished, do not have adequate shelter or health care or protection commensurate with the standards of your society is harmful to a person. But what about simply being impoverished? What about being simply "not well off," or "just below middling," or "only middle of the road," and so on up the gradient? Is there a linear effect? Does x units more affluence generally tend to manifest as XY units of greater well-being? The jury is still out in large part.