In the end, though, none of those things seem like they would do the game any good. Maybe if they made a fixed gush that returns one land and draws one card. I could see a green gush as well.
Yep, Foil / Gush interaction could work be interesting (Rug Loam?).
Gush though? really? It really isn't as good as Standstill/Ancestral Vision ... You know how much of a setback in tempo/control it is to bounce 2 islands? Mot castable until turn 3 if you don't want to hurt yourself. You wouldn't be able to cast many early game. Good? Yes. I just don't feel like it would be broken without some kind of Fastbond Effect. Underwaterguy has a point though. I think it is the same power level as Brainstorm.
Gush is absolutely silly, but yes, the "problem" with it is that you're missing fastbond, time walk, so the power level of the card drops a bit.
Is it broken? I'm not sure. However, one thing is certain: alternative costs are dangerous in magic. Period.
Additionally, the "drawback" of Gush can be spun into great advantage...
(1) Gush saves you from wasteland without having to use a silly card like Stifle. You can also do things like bounce the two islands you're targeting with Sea Drake.
(3) Exploration, Manabond might be a close enough substitutes to Fastbond (probably exploration moreso than manabond...but 48 lands might not mind gush too much).
(5) Gush + anything with Dredge...most notably life from the Loam. Might Aggro Loam switch from BRG to RUG?
At the same time, Gush would likely create some new/interesting archetypes.
(1) GRO-A-Tog or other GRO variants (psychatog, quirion dryad, lorescale coatl & such - with gush and brainstorm)
(2) Fetch land Tendrils seems a lot better
(3) Aggro Loam, as described above
(4) Stasis (gush, quirion ranger, garruk, jace TMS, go?)
@OP: guy I know ended up with the new Liliana window cling in a pretty similar fashion. He was way excited.
In terms of me - I've got that random reaper life counter and the kiki-jiki & 8.5 tails statues from Kamigawa in the original boxes (never opened). Not that cool, but it's fun.
Slows down the velocity of money that tends to get invested into areas like blue chips that just sort of "sit" and are less active in capital generation that is seen more locally to encourage more microeconomic transactions. That's why a progressive income tax is still preferred over a flat tax, since said capital can be distributed into larger projects that multiplicative benefits to society such as infrastructure and needs based defense (we don't need the Dyson Sphere project with the Air Force trying to remain relevant).
Right - "too much" in one spot and you're back to the idle rich, idle poor, and the few classes in the middle without mobility.
Progressive over flat also makes sense from the standpoint that the marginal benefit of another dollar to someone that already has $1 million versus someone that's making $8 an hour is...rather small.
The organized elements will march on, the populist elements are fading in the cold. One of the main hubs seems to be New York now and the internet will carry on.
Definitely will. It's likely that other elements in warmer cities will continue on as well.
It's economic populism and some of the bad decisions in our social framework, such as lack of affordable education, job retraining, and upward mobility. All of which have been impacted by not dealing with the bad effects of free trade. We simply are not at Pareto efficiency. Finland has a 4% poverty rate, we as a nation are much larger with a bunch of ghettos and the like and it is growing worse in part because of the banking panic. Equally, we also have a permanent underclass.
In many ways, it's not really fair to compare the United States to a Scandinavian country. Large cultural differences, substantially lower immigration, vastly different tax structures.
In terms of Pareto efficiency - anytime the government redistributes money you've got a loss. Ideally, we don't have to employ people for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth. We can strive to be more efficient, but we'll never be perfect.
The underclass has always existed, in a way, but the idea is that there is enough social mobility such that if you're born into the underclass you're not destined to live in the underclass if you keep yourself clean and work hard. Class mobility is a huge part of the appeal of the United States.
For the last 20 years we've talked about prisons, decreasing student count in schools, abortion, gun control and ect. The very points about our economics has not been done. Where the hell was the massive debates whenever the courts ruled that people could patent DNA? I was a aghast when that went into the cold night without one smack of debate in the public media. The "culture wars" were that of the 1980's and 1990's, and economic populism is back.
I think with the economics and ect. we may see a new 1970's, much more quiet than the 60's but far more partying and politics. I mean we have to look no farther than Lady Gaga to see something I haven't seen in decades as well with the popularization of more techno related music. Disco isn't dead, it just get mutilated and remixed and poured out as some frappe of everything that's come in the last few decades.
In some ways, the budgeting and deficit issues of the past are just a macro-level display of the misunderstanding of debt.
The big problem is self-serving bias. This can go from "I'm not rich, my kids will get subsidized student loan....what?!" to "I'm not rich, I don't have a crash-pad apartment in the city" or "I don't have a boat" or "I don't have a vacation home on the Chesapeake bay."
Politically, lots of people will vote to get something for "nothing."
It is impossible for government to distribute resources efficiently. In the first place government doesn't have profit/loss feedback to let them know if what they are doing is effective. All government can do is grope in the dark, wasting resources. In the second place people rarely spend other people's money as carefully as they spend their own. Government spends other people's money on other people, how much do you think they really care about getting the most value for each dollar? In the third place not all money collected through taxes goes to projects, a substantial amount is siphoned out for administrative costs. That the efficiency argument anyway.
That is pretty much in line with my view. It's also why you see charities market themselves based on the percentage of a donation that does work versus administrative costs. You're starting to see that type of demand from the government, but it's not framed correctly.
On moral grounds, taxation is nothing but legalized plunder. The purpose of law is to defend rights to life, liberty and property. With the use of force if necessary. The law is a group of individuals organizing a collective of force to defend these natural rights. The whole is not greater then any of its parts. This collective of force is not permitted to do anything that an individual could not do. So if it's wrong for an individual to steal, it's wrong for the government to steal to. Taxes are collected through force, you don't have a choice. If you refuse to reliquish your property and resist the government will throw you in prison or kill you.
I'm not sure I really agree entirely. Without taxes, who would pay for national defense, fire departments, police forces and the like?
Money doesn't just "sit there", where do you think credit comes from? Credit should come from real savings, instead of cheap money created by the fed which allows the economy to over-extend in the wrong direction. Taxes destroy savings.
Alternatively, low interest rates destroy savings and the incentive to save. Some realize that individual emergency funds are necessary (or choose not to play keep up with the jonses and don't spend everything), but many don't have that type of discipline or foresight.
While higher interest rates might slow certain types of purchases (cars, houses), it will cause people to save. It'll also help de-leverage wall street firms. Take a whirl on google and you'll find some good explanations about how massive leveraging makes tons of money...if you don't screw up.
1.) Meaningless? Have you not SEEN the numbers for how much of the wealth in America is controlled by the upper 1%? If you refuse to acknowledge the factual truth, then I'll just leave.
So then the next question is what is fair? No one seems to have come up with a decent answer here. If you argue for something too flat we'll get communism v. capitalism debates. Not flat enough and it's not real change. Unfortunate whiplash.
2.) Recent poll numbers put Occupy support at roughly 45% of Americans at least "Slightly in favor of." That's better than any presidential candidate ATM.
In many ways, that just shows that everyone is angry about the establishment and the incestuous relationship between government and big business. It doesn't necessarily show that OWS has a platform or a way to fix the problem. People acknowledge the problem and agree efforts should be made to highlight the problem so it's addressed? That's well and good!
3.) They are fighting for a functioning Capitalism. When the rich are successful, those beneath them are supposed to reap some of the rewards. For 30 years, they lower and middle class have nearly stagnated. Economic Equality is a PERFECTLY valid concern. And again; if you insist that the economy is functioning, I'll just leave, because you're not acknowledging well publicized facts.
Sure. Data is out there. Question then is....how do we "fix" this? It's another big unanswered question. Redistribution makes some sense...but many people have huge issues with redistributing via "tax and spend." Rightfully so, in my mind.
4.) WHAT WAS THAT? The 80% of America that has been experiencing almost stagnant wages over 30 years are upset that the top 20% (actually, it's mostly just the top 1%. Nearly 75% of the wealth increase in the top 20% of the populace has been in the 1%) are acting in greedy, irresponsible manners? It may be hard to believe; but people are pissed that quality of living has gone DOWN for the bottom 50%, and that corporations have been working closely with the government to ensure that a 0 accountability system is in place. Call it communist all you like; Occupy is a movement that (Broadly speaking), supports capitalism. People always insist that the top 1% are the employers; then explain why the top 1% has grown, while the unemployment rate has risen?
Pretty much same as above. Ok, so we don't like what's going on. The numbers are there...so what are we going to DO about it. Check out the interesting article I linked in my earlier post - I think it's got a valid point - spending cascades are big problems...along with inflationary pressure.
5.) Another argument by analogy: comparing you to an ignorant hick who is afraid of change in a nation that is gradually approaching oblivion. Notice; both of those arguments are Ad Hominem, and can be considered warn or infractable by MTGS Moderation.
If you would start acknowledging the real world, maybe you could make some valid points. As it stands, you're merely dismissing the protests as a bunch of entitled kids. But Entitlement is not generally a reason to endure police brutality.
Or...you could...you know...get up and leave when ordered to do so. Then file the appropriate paperwork, win in court, and move back in. It's not hard. Not that both sides are perfect, mind you. There are bad actors on both sides.
If you listen to a bunch of interviews, it's pretty clear that many OWS protestors are upset and have a good point about many things. However, many of them sound like idiots when they're asked why they want done about the plight (or to frame a solution). That's the big issue.
That said, lots of good points. There is a compelling social commentary. The problem is that no one has really figured out how to proffer solutions...or people are too afraid to do so (no one wants to get labeled tax and spend).
Frankly, OWS doesn't need to try to turn itself into a political party or take over the agenda of a political party (tea party)...there just needs to be light shed on issues.
Some salient quotes?
The remarkable achievement of the Occupy Wall Street movement has been to make continuing silence about inequality politically unacceptable. Some have criticized the movement for not pressing specific demands. Yet most protesters wouldn’t pretend to have a sophisticated understanding of the forces that have been causing growing income disparities, or the policy experience to prescribe what might be done about them. But now that the movement has forced inequality onto the agenda, the time is ripe to focus on these issues.
Frankly, this is really what OWS needed to accomplish. They don't need to do much more...because..well..this guy is right about the relative knowledge of most protestors. If something is wrong, you can highlight the issue - now the next step is for someone else to address the issue with policy.
I’ve elsewhere called “expenditure cascades.” The process begins with the completely unremarkable fact that top earners have been spending at a substantially higher rate than before. . . Many social critics wag their fingers at what they perceive to be frivolous luxury spending. But that misses the point that all consumption norms are local. It’s not just the rich who spend more when they get more money. Everyone else does, too. . . There’s no other way to explain why the median new house built in the United States in 2007 had more than 2,300 square feet, almost 50 percent more than its counterpart in 1980. Certainly, it’s not because the median earners are awash in cash. (The median real wage for American men was actually lower in 2007 than in 1980.)
And for hilarity...the following (which is oh so true)
Republicans have never wanted to talk about inequality, and many Democrats now seem afraid to. As a congressional Democratic adviser quoted by the New York Times reporter Jackie Calmes recently put it, the party is having difficulty articulating its position “in a way that doesn’t get us pegged as tax-and-spenders.”
I'm pretty much in agreement with bocoephus. Obama has faced a load of problems, some of which have been his own making however, and I'm willing to give him another term to work them out. Maybe in a second term Congress will stonewall less but I doubt it.
Moderate here. This is pretty much my beef with Obama right now; his persistent ability to shoot himself in the foot. The degree of naivety coming out of the administration at times just appalls me. That said, Obama is a smart guy and, hopefully, he's learned his lesson.
Congress is going to stonewall no matter what. There was a time you could vote against a member of another party and still go out to dinner with them. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the case.
I'm not sure where I'm going with my vote, but I'd really like to see Obama grasp firm control of the party (especially in terms of prioritizing legislation, platform, etc.).
To start off, I don't trumpet one system being correct or one system being incorrect. Systems are tools. Use all of the tools, have a more informed decision. Of course, if we want to debate the merits of a tool, sure, let's talk. If you want to say Keynesian economics has no worth, I'll take issue with that; I'll take issue with anyone saying Hayek is totally full of it as well. Life is lived in shades of gray, not black and white. That's what I think, at least.
I'm referring to the general populace or those that may have only the most basic familiarity with economics. Kitchen-table type discussion of this subject has been truly painful in my talks with a huge number of people.
There is a huge difference between a little inconsistency and inflating bubbles that inevitably pop. Inconsistency is only natural because people’s desires and tastes are constantly changing. Which is why Austrians reject the idea that you can mathematically model human action by averaging supply and demand or by making unrealistic assumptions (perfect competition, information etc).
Right, of course there is a difference. Desires and tastes can change based on fear (rational or irrational - which is why we have a big problem when you build based on "the rational person" (they are smarter than the average person and immune to things like fear...and can think long term)), new products entering the market (sure, we can use iPods, computers, GPS as examples), or simple desires to save more money...or change based on employment. "Long Term" is also a very interesting item to discuss when you're debating assumption versus reality.
I agree - you can't make certain assumptions and end up with a model that's in any way realistic. However, you can test assumptions or model some type of "baseline" reaction and model based on that. Let's be serious, most of the interesting items I read in the past dealt with relaxing assumptions and watching the impact on the model.
And let's be serious for a moment, you can't model anything to perfection. Furthermore, your model is only as good as your information. What if the model is based on imperfect information (it pretty much has to be, right?)?
1)Goods are heterogeneous and can be divided into groups ranging from the highest to the lowest order. High order goods meaning things that take a long time to produce (Research and development, construction, plants grown by agriculture). Low Order goods, meaning things that can be made almost immediately.
I don't think goods are entirely heterogeneous if only because the features of the good that create demand may be identical.
High Order-Low Order is certainly one way to divide goods, though I'm uncertain of the point you're trying to make with this item, other than to imply time is necessarily strongly correlated to cost/price (which is something we can heavily debate).
2)The interest rate influences entrepreneurs to invest in different types of goods. A low interest rate gives an incentive to invest in factors of production for higher order goods. While a high interest rate gives an incentive to invest in lower order goods.
For what type of economy ? For starters, what's the relative high-low order shift we're talking about? We'd also have to look beyond entrepreneurs - probably the populace as a whole (people, entrepreneurs, other businesses).
One could also make the argument that low interest rates promote more risk-taking, financially, than higher interest rates (let's use leveraging in financial firms as an example - how do financial instruments fit in your system?).
The interest rate is (should be) influenced by the amount of savings. Money saved is not idle like the keynsians think. Money saved is just money put away for consumption in the future, which is necessary to pay for higher order goods.
I'm not sure I'm tracking entirely. Even so, you'll still be based on some type of demand for capital. Then we also need to determine how to define the savings rate (personal, corporate, etc.).
Money saved isn't necessarily idle (but sure, it might not be doing anything if it's sitting in my mattress). Viewing savings as an inverse of borrowing is fine - save to spend tomorrow, borrow to spend today; both are influenced by interest rates.
I don't disagree that savings is often necessary for expensive goods (which may or may not be higher order...relative to...?), though one may choose to borrow instead of save to acquire such a good. The choice between saving and borrowing might be influenced by the interest rate, but could easily be just as strongly influenced by lack of self-control, irrational spending, or a strong desire to have a particular item now (for whatever reason) versus waiting for a period.
When the fed forces a low interest rate, when there are no savings. It gives an incentive for investment into high order goods (Inflation of the Bubble), but there is no money to pay for them (Bubble Pops)! (Real estate bubble says hi) Resources just end up being misdirected and wasted in projects that can’t be paid for.
I'm not sure that's an entirely fair characterization, but, sure, in a very very general sense that should be understandable. Low interest rates mean more incentive to spend what you get and more incentive to borrow against what you'll get tomorrow. In terms of the real-estate bubble, we might also consider the impact of imperfect information clearly present in the bundling of mortgage backed securities.
I also like to think that the real estate market isn't so much based on interest rate and housing values...but rather the monthly payment that goes towards the house. Rising or lowering interest rates or housing values just provides a temporary shock where the monthly payment drops and incentives are adjusted, though the monthly payment gradually returns to equilibrium. We also see problems where certain payment plans or types of mortgages result in lower payments month to money...causing some to make poor choices.
However, even when there are low interest rates people/company still save or sit on capital for a variety of reasons.
'Higher order' is probably still worth parsing here - why might people be considering the same type(s of) higher order goods rather than on a wider variety. Question we might ask include what incentives existed, did preferences/tastes change, did the government create or cause a change, etc.?
This problem is only compounded further by the government creating moral hazard via subsidies and reducing savings further by taxing to pay for those subsidies.
That's the least of the problems the government compounds. The rational person with perfect information would not be doing silly things like leveraging 30:1...but highly educated people thought that was ok. That's why some level of regulation / rule-setting is necessary.
Back off the rules in a big way or provide incentives (or should we get out of this game and let the market do it unless there is a public health/safety reason (aka public interest) for providing an incentive?) to the wrong thing and you get all sorts of hazards. I mean, how does this seem, in any way, a good decision?
In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.
My local loam player jumps around a lot. This week he was playing a naya-loam list, and did fine with it. Oozes and Seismic Assault are mainstays in his builds. This week he had knights, which made things even more difficult.
Yeah - the way to deal with us is to stick big creatures that we can't deal with or find the answer to immediately. Assault/punishing grove can also create problems.
I might have to try the Mirri's Guile. The main thing I don't like about it is the card disadvantage.
Right, you're not really getting anything for sticking it into play, but the card quality advantage has been really significant for me (at least, from what I can tell). It pretty much flat out won me 2-3 games this week (pure card quality, selection and/or people tutoring for removal for it means they are not tutoring for real threats). Just trying to see if others had given it a shot and, if so, what they thought of it.
Some tough choices because there are lots of other ways to go about making an annoying deck like this. I could drop some of the lifegain and go keldon marauders and stormblood berserkers, but it then norin starts being less worthwhile and the deck really really changes.
I've also toyed with the following cards, but many of them end up being too cute by half.
(1) Weathered Wayfarer
(2) Genesis Chamber
(3) Cloudstone curio
Some things I should actually try to test
(1) Green soul-warden type leyline
(2) Ajani Vengeant
(3) Ajani's Pridemate
(4) Mayor of Avabruck
(5) Blade Splicer
(6) Mirran Crusader
(7) Hero of Bladehold/Oxid Ridge
(8) Gideon's Avenger (seems good with Glare, but probably too greedy)
For other people really stuck on humans (that might want to drop norin) you should really just consider playing allies since the naya allies are pretty much all human and champion of the parish gives that allies deck another desperately needed aggressive 1 drop.
I've been messing around with Mirri's Guile and it's been an absolutely house for me thus far. Unlike Sylvan Library, it doesn't eat spell snare, both let you look at the top 3, but the Mirri's Guile trigger can get stacked with the Delver trigger (good for obvious reasons). Downside, no paying 4 life for an extra card. I've been going with 1 main and 1 boarded.
I have been running the decklist that dominated the SCG events last month, except I took out the Temporal Spring and added a Surgical Extraction maindeck. This was mainly to battle reanimator and aggro-loam in my local meta.
The thing is really solid. I absolutely wouldn't cut the singleton loam from the maindeck. We have enough dig cards to justify running a singleton, and it can win games.
Yeah, Aggro Loam is cropping up in my meta pretty much just to be able to deal with me. The good thing, though, is that the versions being played locally just lose to most combo decks (Hive Mind, Reanimator being popular).
I'll probably be playing a loam main now, as well - it does just flat out win games against a bunch of decks that are greedy with manabases.
Any comments on the type of Aggro-Loam you're seeing? I'm seeing tons of scavenging ooze (this card is really, really, something you don't want to see stick on the other side of the field) cropping up (to the point where Loam might only play 2 goyfs) along with punishing-grove and raven's crime. May just need to hope I don't draw the MU locally.
You're, of course, completely right about the overarching goals of the movement, but that won't stop the anti-OWS crowd from continuing to point to radical "demands" posted by a single internet poster to prove how crazy OWS as a whole is.
Hrm. Isn't this how politics works, generally? That's how the tea party was marginalized as well (i.e. some racists support the tea party so tea party = racist) (note: I do not support the tea party).
This really isn't something that is solely an issue for OWS; it is a problem with out political system as a whole.
Clearly the people in this thread can't agree on what OWS is.
The people who are actually occupying certainly can't. What they all bag in common is (1) anger and (2) time to burn.
I really wish they were all unified in wanting to get money out of politics.. Or specific bank reform... Or some focused goal, because I'd be tempted to join them.
But there is no strong leadership, no unifying idea other than dissatisfaction. Hell, wouldn't be shocked if 5% of them were Bolsheviks.
The thing to keep in mind, however, is that nothing accomplishes more in American politics than anger. Angry people turn out to vote.
What's actually interesting is the overlap in issues between OWS and the Tea Party. There is a real opportunity there for a politician to walk the tightrope.
If you do not take into account demographics, you're basically pissing in the wind when it comes to economics. Austrian economics in particular is probably one of the least robust of the current schools because of it's reliance on intellectual history in the past. If you don't read beyond one school of economics, you're short changing yourself.
Right. The primary point I'm trying to drive home is that recent events don't "disprove" Keynesian-based theories because the United States (and others) didn't really follow that theory.
We can also look at the boom in the stock markets in the U.S. as almost directly tied to baby boom retirement savings (as retirement was largely shifted from company pensions to private/self-managed 401k/403b type accounts). What will happen when retiring boomers start selling stocks/funds to pay for retirement? We certainly don't have the demographics to support buying all of the stuff at this time.
Some of the most interesting economic research includes all kinds of interesting demographics. A long time back, I was helping with a project analyzing the Toledo voucher system. It was really nice...you had a pseudo control because you had to apply for the voucher and win based on a lottery - then you have to do all sorts of other tests for success beyond grades. Behavioral evaluations (generosity, kindness, etc) are but one example. It was really neat stuff.
No one is exposed to the austrian school anymore. The only reason I found out about it was because I was constantly getting in arguments with economic professors because what they were teaching didn't make any sense. Keynsian economics is force fed in both high school and college I'd be willing to bet that most people don't even know another point of view even exists! Which is [ridiculous] because austrian business cycle theory has been spot on for the past 100 years.
Eh, if you want exposure you get it. It's a matter of taking interest in your own education. Many low-level economics courses are so dumbed-down it's rather mind-numbing. I still remember that advance micro class I had way back in the day where we were using the relatively straight-froward concept of Lagrange multipliers (well, straight-forward for 3rd-4th year engineering students where I went to college)...the numbers really let you see what's so "wrong" with economic assumptions at times. As but one example - people might view "long term" as 3 years (and, accordingly, will not make "optimal" long-term choices; another example being failure of self-regulation).
I could see some argument for Merrow Reejerey over Lord of Atlantis in certain circumstances, but yeah, overall, most lords can only aspire to be Lord of Atlantis.
The other issue with Hamlet Captain is that you only get the +1/+1 bonus when you're attacking (Goblin General).
Goblins end up being better than Humans because they can get wide and exploit tokens with anthems (if that's even necessary - and humans can't really make tokens...).
Merfolk can explode onto the board at times. Have you ever done silly things with multiple Merrow Reejereys or by playing with Phantasmal Image?
So it's tough. Even the knight lord isn't quite the end all be all because indestructibility for other knights just isn't quite the same.
That said, I have a hilarious casual modern humans deck that does really well off and on. So many cards just randomly happen to be humans.
You're right, it's growth in the Money Supply. Not real growth as in actual productive economy growth.
How are we defining growth? The way I see it, if we have a 2% increase in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that's real, actual, productive economic growth. My other points were directed at how many think this is "not real growth" or "not enough growth."
Keynesian style economics are Mercantilist. It can not be possible to smooth out something such as the Business cycle, when it's the Keynesian system creating them.
It's not possible to entirely smooth the cycle, but the idea is that you're going to be making the peak periods less bubbly and you'll be deficit spending in weak periods to make the dip less shallow.
The ideal result is steadier, equivalent, growth. So you'll end up with the same net growth, but with less risks of boom-bust periods that cause real damage. Of course, this is all in theory.
Developing nations are not the only nations capable of seeing growth. New industry and innovation also lead to growth. Neither of which are really possible at this point in time.
Of course. My point, however, is that the developing nations are the nations that see 6-10% growth, not established post-industrial nations like the United States or the European Union.
The problem with new industry and new innovation is that, for the most part, it removes human capital from the equation through automation.
Austrian School was around before Keynes was even born, much less made a name for himself. Keynes was renaming Mercantilism as Neo-Liberalism that's all he was doing. He did not create anything new, and even Hayek went through and wrote about this, as did Mises.
Keynes ended up getting the credit because he aggregated known concepts, expanded upon those concept and also managed to popularize the concepts.
Yep, Foil / Gush interaction could work be interesting (Rug Loam?).
Gush is absolutely silly, but yes, the "problem" with it is that you're missing fastbond, time walk, so the power level of the card drops a bit.
Is it broken? I'm not sure. However, one thing is certain: alternative costs are dangerous in magic. Period.
Additionally, the "drawback" of Gush can be spun into great advantage...
(1) Gush saves you from wasteland without having to use a silly card like Stifle. You can also do things like bounce the two islands you're targeting with Sea Drake.
(2) Gush + Scroll Rack or Brainstorm (...and land tax if it is unbanned)
(3) Exploration, Manabond might be a close enough substitutes to Fastbond (probably exploration moreso than manabond...but 48 lands might not mind gush too much).
(5) Gush + anything with Dredge...most notably life from the Loam. Might Aggro Loam switch from BRG to RUG?
(6) Gush - Armageddon.
At the same time, Gush would likely create some new/interesting archetypes.
(1) GRO-A-Tog or other GRO variants (psychatog, quirion dryad, lorescale coatl & such - with gush and brainstorm)
(2) Fetch land Tendrils seems a lot better
(3) Aggro Loam, as described above
(4) Stasis (gush, quirion ranger, garruk, jace TMS, go?)
In terms of me - I've got that random reaper life counter and the kiki-jiki & 8.5 tails statues from Kamigawa in the original boxes (never opened). Not that cool, but it's fun.
Right - "too much" in one spot and you're back to the idle rich, idle poor, and the few classes in the middle without mobility.
Progressive over flat also makes sense from the standpoint that the marginal benefit of another dollar to someone that already has $1 million versus someone that's making $8 an hour is...rather small.
A final point on the 1% having too much is that you get spending cascades. Better discussion than I could provide is here
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/ows_and_inequality_how_expenditure_cascades_are_squeezing_the_american_middle_class_.2.html
Definitely will. It's likely that other elements in warmer cities will continue on as well.
In many ways, it's not really fair to compare the United States to a Scandinavian country. Large cultural differences, substantially lower immigration, vastly different tax structures.
In terms of Pareto efficiency - anytime the government redistributes money you've got a loss. Ideally, we don't have to employ people for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth. We can strive to be more efficient, but we'll never be perfect.
The underclass has always existed, in a way, but the idea is that there is enough social mobility such that if you're born into the underclass you're not destined to live in the underclass if you keep yourself clean and work hard. Class mobility is a huge part of the appeal of the United States.
In some ways, the budgeting and deficit issues of the past are just a macro-level display of the misunderstanding of debt.
The big problem is self-serving bias. This can go from "I'm not rich, my kids will get subsidized student loan....what?!" to "I'm not rich, I don't have a crash-pad apartment in the city" or "I don't have a boat" or "I don't have a vacation home on the Chesapeake bay."
Politically, lots of people will vote to get something for "nothing."
That is pretty much in line with my view. It's also why you see charities market themselves based on the percentage of a donation that does work versus administrative costs. You're starting to see that type of demand from the government, but it's not framed correctly.
I'm not sure I really agree entirely. Without taxes, who would pay for national defense, fire departments, police forces and the like?
Alternatively, low interest rates destroy savings and the incentive to save. Some realize that individual emergency funds are necessary (or choose not to play keep up with the jonses and don't spend everything), but many don't have that type of discipline or foresight.
While higher interest rates might slow certain types of purchases (cars, houses), it will cause people to save. It'll also help de-leverage wall street firms. Take a whirl on google and you'll find some good explanations about how massive leveraging makes tons of money...if you don't screw up.
So then the next question is what is fair? No one seems to have come up with a decent answer here. If you argue for something too flat we'll get communism v. capitalism debates. Not flat enough and it's not real change. Unfortunate whiplash.
In many ways, that just shows that everyone is angry about the establishment and the incestuous relationship between government and big business. It doesn't necessarily show that OWS has a platform or a way to fix the problem. People acknowledge the problem and agree efforts should be made to highlight the problem so it's addressed? That's well and good!
Sure. Data is out there. Question then is....how do we "fix" this? It's another big unanswered question. Redistribution makes some sense...but many people have huge issues with redistributing via "tax and spend." Rightfully so, in my mind.
Pretty much same as above. Ok, so we don't like what's going on. The numbers are there...so what are we going to DO about it. Check out the interesting article I linked in my earlier post - I think it's got a valid point - spending cascades are big problems...along with inflationary pressure.
Or...you could...you know...get up and leave when ordered to do so. Then file the appropriate paperwork, win in court, and move back in. It's not hard. Not that both sides are perfect, mind you. There are bad actors on both sides.
If you listen to a bunch of interviews, it's pretty clear that many OWS protestors are upset and have a good point about many things. However, many of them sound like idiots when they're asked why they want done about the plight (or to frame a solution). That's the big issue.
That said, lots of good points. There is a compelling social commentary. The problem is that no one has really figured out how to proffer solutions...or people are too afraid to do so (no one wants to get labeled tax and spend).
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/ows_and_inequality_how_expenditure_cascades_are_squeezing_the_american_middle_class_.2.html
Frankly, OWS doesn't need to try to turn itself into a political party or take over the agenda of a political party (tea party)...there just needs to be light shed on issues.
Some salient quotes?
Frankly, this is really what OWS needed to accomplish. They don't need to do much more...because..well..this guy is right about the relative knowledge of most protestors. If something is wrong, you can highlight the issue - now the next step is for someone else to address the issue with policy.
And for hilarity...the following (which is oh so true)
Moderate here. This is pretty much my beef with Obama right now; his persistent ability to shoot himself in the foot. The degree of naivety coming out of the administration at times just appalls me. That said, Obama is a smart guy and, hopefully, he's learned his lesson.
Congress is going to stonewall no matter what. There was a time you could vote against a member of another party and still go out to dinner with them. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the case.
I'm not sure where I'm going with my vote, but I'd really like to see Obama grasp firm control of the party (especially in terms of prioritizing legislation, platform, etc.).
I lost a bunch of edits. Trying to fix that now.
I'm referring to the general populace or those that may have only the most basic familiarity with economics. Kitchen-table type discussion of this subject has been truly painful in my talks with a huge number of people.
Right, of course there is a difference. Desires and tastes can change based on fear (rational or irrational - which is why we have a big problem when you build based on "the rational person" (they are smarter than the average person and immune to things like fear...and can think long term)), new products entering the market (sure, we can use iPods, computers, GPS as examples), or simple desires to save more money...or change based on employment. "Long Term" is also a very interesting item to discuss when you're debating assumption versus reality.
I agree - you can't make certain assumptions and end up with a model that's in any way realistic. However, you can test assumptions or model some type of "baseline" reaction and model based on that. Let's be serious, most of the interesting items I read in the past dealt with relaxing assumptions and watching the impact on the model.
And let's be serious for a moment, you can't model anything to perfection. Furthermore, your model is only as good as your information. What if the model is based on imperfect information (it pretty much has to be, right?)?
I don't think goods are entirely heterogeneous if only because the features of the good that create demand may be identical.
High Order-Low Order is certainly one way to divide goods, though I'm uncertain of the point you're trying to make with this item, other than to imply time is necessarily strongly correlated to cost/price (which is something we can heavily debate).
For what type of economy ? For starters, what's the relative high-low order shift we're talking about? We'd also have to look beyond entrepreneurs - probably the populace as a whole (people, entrepreneurs, other businesses).
One could also make the argument that low interest rates promote more risk-taking, financially, than higher interest rates (let's use leveraging in financial firms as an example - how do financial instruments fit in your system?).
I'm not sure I'm tracking entirely. Even so, you'll still be based on some type of demand for capital. Then we also need to determine how to define the savings rate (personal, corporate, etc.).
Money saved isn't necessarily idle (but sure, it might not be doing anything if it's sitting in my mattress). Viewing savings as an inverse of borrowing is fine - save to spend tomorrow, borrow to spend today; both are influenced by interest rates.
I don't disagree that savings is often necessary for expensive goods (which may or may not be higher order...relative to...?), though one may choose to borrow instead of save to acquire such a good. The choice between saving and borrowing might be influenced by the interest rate, but could easily be just as strongly influenced by lack of self-control, irrational spending, or a strong desire to have a particular item now (for whatever reason) versus waiting for a period.
I'm not sure that's an entirely fair characterization, but, sure, in a very very general sense that should be understandable. Low interest rates mean more incentive to spend what you get and more incentive to borrow against what you'll get tomorrow. In terms of the real-estate bubble, we might also consider the impact of imperfect information clearly present in the bundling of mortgage backed securities.
I also like to think that the real estate market isn't so much based on interest rate and housing values...but rather the monthly payment that goes towards the house. Rising or lowering interest rates or housing values just provides a temporary shock where the monthly payment drops and incentives are adjusted, though the monthly payment gradually returns to equilibrium. We also see problems where certain payment plans or types of mortgages result in lower payments month to money...causing some to make poor choices.
However, even when there are low interest rates people/company still save or sit on capital for a variety of reasons.
'Higher order' is probably still worth parsing here - why might people be considering the same type(s of) higher order goods rather than on a wider variety. Question we might ask include what incentives existed, did preferences/tastes change, did the government create or cause a change, etc.?
That's the least of the problems the government compounds. The rational person with perfect information would not be doing silly things like leveraging 30:1...but highly educated people thought that was ok. That's why some level of regulation / rule-setting is necessary.
Back off the rules in a big way or provide incentives (or should we get out of this game and let the market do it unless there is a public health/safety reason (aka public interest) for providing an incentive?) to the wrong thing and you get all sorts of hazards. I mean, how does this seem, in any way, a good decision?
Yeah - the way to deal with us is to stick big creatures that we can't deal with or find the answer to immediately. Assault/punishing grove can also create problems.
Right, you're not really getting anything for sticking it into play, but the card quality advantage has been really significant for me (at least, from what I can tell). It pretty much flat out won me 2-3 games this week (pure card quality, selection and/or people tutoring for removal for it means they are not tutoring for real threats). Just trying to see if others had given it a shot and, if so, what they thought of it.
I think this is the list, but if I miscounted, let me know.
4 Soul Warden
4 Soul's Attendant
4 Mentor of the Meek
3 Ranger of Eos
4 Champion of the Parish
4 Serra Ascendant
3 Glare of Subdual
2 Searing Meditation
2 Proclamation of Rebirth
4 Lightning Helix
4 Arid Mesa
4 Sunpetal Grove
1 Sacred Foundry
1 Temple Garden
4 Clifftop Retreat
6 Plains
1 Mountain
1 Forest
2 Path to Exile
3 Oblivion Ring
2 Auriok Champion
2 Elspeth, Knight Errant
2 War Priest of Thune
1 Ancient Grudge
1 Manic Vandal
2 Ethersworn Canonist
Some tough choices because there are lots of other ways to go about making an annoying deck like this. I could drop some of the lifegain and go keldon marauders and stormblood berserkers, but it then norin starts being less worthwhile and the deck really really changes.
I've also toyed with the following cards, but many of them end up being too cute by half.
(1) Weathered Wayfarer
(2) Genesis Chamber
(3) Cloudstone curio
Some things I should actually try to test
(1) Green soul-warden type leyline
(2) Ajani Vengeant
(3) Ajani's Pridemate
(4) Mayor of Avabruck
(5) Blade Splicer
(6) Mirran Crusader
(7) Hero of Bladehold/Oxid Ridge
(8) Gideon's Avenger (seems good with Glare, but probably too greedy)
For other people really stuck on humans (that might want to drop norin) you should really just consider playing allies since the naya allies are pretty much all human and champion of the parish gives that allies deck another desperately needed aggressive 1 drop.
Anyone else tested it?
Yeah, Aggro Loam is cropping up in my meta pretty much just to be able to deal with me. The good thing, though, is that the versions being played locally just lose to most combo decks (Hive Mind, Reanimator being popular).
I'll probably be playing a loam main now, as well - it does just flat out win games against a bunch of decks that are greedy with manabases.
Any comments on the type of Aggro-Loam you're seeing? I'm seeing tons of scavenging ooze (this card is really, really, something you don't want to see stick on the other side of the field) cropping up (to the point where Loam might only play 2 goyfs) along with punishing-grove and raven's crime. May just need to hope I don't draw the MU locally.
Hrm. Isn't this how politics works, generally? That's how the tea party was marginalized as well (i.e. some racists support the tea party so tea party = racist) (note: I do not support the tea party).
This really isn't something that is solely an issue for OWS; it is a problem with out political system as a whole.
The thing to keep in mind, however, is that nothing accomplishes more in American politics than anger. Angry people turn out to vote.
What's actually interesting is the overlap in issues between OWS and the Tea Party. There is a real opportunity there for a politician to walk the tightrope.
Right. The primary point I'm trying to drive home is that recent events don't "disprove" Keynesian-based theories because the United States (and others) didn't really follow that theory.
We can also look at the boom in the stock markets in the U.S. as almost directly tied to baby boom retirement savings (as retirement was largely shifted from company pensions to private/self-managed 401k/403b type accounts). What will happen when retiring boomers start selling stocks/funds to pay for retirement? We certainly don't have the demographics to support buying all of the stuff at this time.
Some of the most interesting economic research includes all kinds of interesting demographics. A long time back, I was helping with a project analyzing the Toledo voucher system. It was really nice...you had a pseudo control because you had to apply for the voucher and win based on a lottery - then you have to do all sorts of other tests for success beyond grades. Behavioral evaluations (generosity, kindness, etc) are but one example. It was really neat stuff.
Eh, if you want exposure you get it. It's a matter of taking interest in your own education. Many low-level economics courses are so dumbed-down it's rather mind-numbing. I still remember that advance micro class I had way back in the day where we were using the relatively straight-froward concept of Lagrange multipliers (well, straight-forward for 3rd-4th year engineering students where I went to college)...the numbers really let you see what's so "wrong" with economic assumptions at times. As but one example - people might view "long term" as 3 years (and, accordingly, will not make "optimal" long-term choices; another example being failure of self-regulation).
Nice
If only people really understood the business cycle (and that growth isn't $#@^ing constant).
I could see some argument for Merrow Reejerey over Lord of Atlantis in certain circumstances, but yeah, overall, most lords can only aspire to be Lord of Atlantis.
The other issue with Hamlet Captain is that you only get the +1/+1 bonus when you're attacking (Goblin General).
Goblins end up being better than Humans because they can get wide and exploit tokens with anthems (if that's even necessary - and humans can't really make tokens...).
Merfolk can explode onto the board at times. Have you ever done silly things with multiple Merrow Reejereys or by playing with Phantasmal Image?
So it's tough. Even the knight lord isn't quite the end all be all because indestructibility for other knights just isn't quite the same.
That said, I have a hilarious casual modern humans deck that does really well off and on. So many cards just randomly happen to be humans.
How are we defining growth? The way I see it, if we have a 2% increase in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that's real, actual, productive economic growth. My other points were directed at how many think this is "not real growth" or "not enough growth."
If people feel like playing around with GDP growth/decline information this site has some interesting charts to play with: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
It's not possible to entirely smooth the cycle, but the idea is that you're going to be making the peak periods less bubbly and you'll be deficit spending in weak periods to make the dip less shallow.
The ideal result is steadier, equivalent, growth. So you'll end up with the same net growth, but with less risks of boom-bust periods that cause real damage. Of course, this is all in theory.
Of course. My point, however, is that the developing nations are the nations that see 6-10% growth, not established post-industrial nations like the United States or the European Union.
The problem with new industry and new innovation is that, for the most part, it removes human capital from the equation through automation.
Keynes ended up getting the credit because he aggregated known concepts, expanded upon those concept and also managed to popularize the concepts.