That’s true too, though I’m a bit sceptical of the sample numbers that suggest the numbers not voting by demographic. Why be scared of a second vote? You’re guaranteed a turnout now that we’ve all seen the glorious success Brexit will be two years on.
I’m now so taken with this skin in the game idea that I’m pasting a chunk of wiki to illustrate Taleb’s ideas. Something in here for everyone. Asymmetry and missing incentives If an actor pockets some rewards from a policy they enact or support without accepting any of the risks, economists consider it to be a problem of "missing incentives". In contrast, to Taleb, the problem is more fundamentally one of asymmetry: one actor gets the rewards, the other is stuck with the risks.[1] Taleb argues that "For social justice, focus on symmetry and risk sharing. You cannot make profits and transfer the risks to others, as bankers and large corporations do... Forcing skin in the game corrects this asymmetry better than thousands of laws and regulations."[6][7][8] The centrality of negative incentives Actors - per Taleb - must bear a cost when they fail the public. A fund manager that gets a percentage on wins, but no penalty for losing is incentivized to gamble with his clients funds. Bearing no downside for one's actions means that one has no "Skin In The Game", which is the source of many evils. An evolutionary process is an additional argument for SITG. Those who err and have SITG will not survive, hence evolutionary processes will eliminate (physically or figuratively by going bankrupt etc) those tending to do stupid things. Without SITG, this process cannot work. Examples Robert Rubin, a highly-paid director and senior advisor at Citigroup, paid no financial penalty when Citigroup had to be rescued by U.S. taxpayers due to overreach.[7] Many war hawks don't themselves bear any risks of dying in a war they advocate. Other ideas Minority rules. A "stubborn minority" can impose its will on the relatively disinterested majority. A halal eater, for example, will never eat non-halal food, but a non-halal eater isn't banned from eating halal. Thus, a catering company switches to serving halal meat despite its being preferred only by a tiny minority of its customers.[6][8] Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI), is where Taleb argues that being educated and "intellectual" does not always mean that someone isn't an idiot for most purposes. "You can be an intellectual yet still be an idiot. 'Educated philistines' have been wrong on everything from Stalinism to Iraqto low-carb diets." Catchy stuff.
I heard Ian Duncan-Smith on the wireless yesterday changing definitions once more. In the early days 'Soft Brexit' meant staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, whilst 'Hard Brexit' meant striking a deal with EU, but outside of those institutions. More recently, 'Hard Brexit' has come to mean a no-deal Brexit. Now, this fool claims that there is no such thing as a 'no-deal' Brexit, because we would revert to WTO rules! I think no-deal means no deal, Ian. Here's something I saw on Facebook. I have no idea how accurate this stuff is, and I'm sure the 'usual suspects' will dismiss it as Project Fear, but if it is anything like true, it's pretty scary...…. What reverting to WTO means. Who needs experts, eh? * Average trade deal takes 8 years + with many taking 10-15. * We can’t “just” revert to WTO rules we need to agree new schedules with 163 countries, including those we are already in dispute with over either borders or land. Ireland, Spain, Argentina et al! * To trade on WTO rules there must be hard borders between countries. * A hard border on the island of Ireland is illegal under the GFA. * Standard WTO tariffs will add 12% to clothes, 10% on shoes, 15% non cereal and meat foodstuffs, 50% on cereal based foods, 40% on meat. * We import 1/3 of our food from the EU and 8% from further afield. So over 40% of our food is not and cannot be produced here. That’s staples such as tea and coffee as well and fruit and veg. * There is not a single country in the world that deals wholly on WTO rules. Why not? Because it’s inefficient and costly. Think there won’t be food & fuel shortages, lack of medicines, grounding of planes, long customs queues, reintroduction of visas, job losses? Think again! Next time you go shopping just try and fill your trolley with UK produced and finished food only. Next time you buy clothes, look at the labels, try and find anything that is made here. If you do, I’d bet good money the fabric was not produced here, even if the garment was, the buttons, zips, dyes and threads most certainly weren’t. Now imagine not being able to buy any of those items for 8-15 years!!!!!! In case any of you are wondering why I feel so strongly about this; I’ve spent my working life dealing with imports and exports, working under trade agreements and WTO rules. I’ve dealt with complicated tariff and quota systems around the world. I’ve worked with a government led, EU based group on the implementation and alignment of CE standards and markings throughout the EU that lead to safer cars, clothing, accessories, electricals etc. I am a part time university lecturer in all of the above. Post from Lisa Gilding.
so you think the British public want to remain in the EU, but shouldn’t be given the opportunity to say so? Democracy at its finest.
i found this quite an interesting read about why trump has a lot of support. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/liberals-donald-trump-support
Me too - ta for posting. On the surface, seems quite likely. You could substitute Republican and Democrat with Conservative and Labour and it would stack up in a similar way, I think. All that pointing out the flaws on one side or another seems to do is entrench people deeper into their belief system of who they support and why their tribe is better than the other tribe. I'm so curious how things might be if we dumped first-past-the-post for proportional representation as a method for electing the government. We probably wouldn't get a clear winner who could ride roughshod over the losers on behalf of "their tribe". They might have to discuss, negotiate and find common ground. Never happen, obv.... Extreme left and extreme right wings wouldn't like it. They far prefer being the tail that wags the middle ground dog, and our current system makes that possible - especially when your "winning" party is weak and needs to get support from other smaller parties.
It’s too ****ing hot for what this country is equipped with and there’s no rain. ****ing Tories/EU/Lefties (strike out according to taste).
My mother and my late father both voted ‘leave’ and I feel a little aggrieved that they are ‘bastards’ for doing so, if I’m honest. You could extend Stroller’s logic to Logan’s Run territory and simply execute all the over 65s. That would immediately alleviate the stress on the Health Service, public services and housing, as well as freeing up certain jobs and ending all re-runs of ‘Last of the Summer Wine’.
To be fair if all pensioners suddenly decided to vote Labour the Tories would try and have them all killed off!
Whereas my Mum (78) is seriously pissed off that people assume she voted leave because she’s old (she didn’t).
My mum's been labelled a Leaver. Hell, you burn the EU flag in your front garden, and everyone makes assumptions
It was a generic description, Ubes. I apologise for any offence given. The age demographic split between Leave and Remain voters in this referendum was so striking that Rees-Mogg's comment about seeing the benefit in 50 years time just enraged me. I am still enraged, and feel even more strongly now than I did before that another referendum should be held, now that we know where these people are taking us. Age-based executions should be a last resort.
Apology accepted, Strolls. The thing is, though, democracy is such a great leveller of skills, intelligence and ability, innit though? I mean, some crusty leftie Master at Porterhouse has no more voting power than some amoebic docker from Thanet. On that basis, understanding and reason, right and wrong, the future or here & now are somewhat immaterial. You can vote in accordance with your humanity or your prejudices, for the greater good or for self-interest, with 20/20 enlightenment or with tunnel visioned ignorance. It just don’t matter, do it? They all count as one vote. Perhaps we should have an IQ Test before being eligible to vote, or one of them there personality test thingies? I’m sure you wouldn’t vote in favour of aged based executions, Strolls, else you’d have little time left yourself. Sorry. Largely incoherent. Tired. Been up since 4AM. Need sleep. Zzzzzzzzz.....
