roastpotatothief

with artistic training or brain stimulation we could look beneath the intrinsic nature of qualia to see the raw associations that make them up, just as a musician hears the individual components in what, to most fans, is a wall of sound. “It should be possible to experience parts of those underlying structures directly, just as we can learn to experience the individual overtones of a sound,”

The proposition, then, is that redness, pain, and the other qualities of experience are a blurred view of a dense thicket of relations. Red is red not because it just is, but because of a vast number of associations that we have learned or been born with.

Hit and runs have been in the news a lot lately. More people need dashcams. But most people have no urgent need to buy one, and they are hassle to install.

This is an easy one for the government to fix. Decree that every garage must offer to do dashcam installation during routine services. Optionally, decree that they must do it for no extra charge.

When a good portion of people take up this option, there will be a critical mass of carmeras on the roads. Hit and runs will become very risky. When people know there is a chance the accident has been recorded, they will not run.

Uniquely, this solution does not enable ubiquitous surveillance by the state, because dashcams are not internet-connected.

It will also be useful that other types of accidents and events will be recorded. People will hesitate before doing anything violent or illegal in the street, when footage can be easily sent to the gardaí or the media. This includes dangerous not-illegal driving, searching for missing people etc.

This is simple, free, and necessary. It must be done now.

It seems obvious that buying a house is financially better then renting. The monthly cost is usually similar (this is because the market adjusts to keep them similar. If renting were more expensive, everyone renting could afford to buy. They would do that which would push up house prices and push down rents. Buying can theoretically be more expensive than renting (imagine a society made up only of poor workers and rich landlords, where house prices are set by what landlords can afford) but usually housing pressure pushes up rental prices first, to match the most people can afford, then housing prices rise slower, because of the bottleneck of the difficulty in getting mortgages. When rents are much higher than mortgages that means the government and banks are severely hindering people who have the means to get mortgages from getting them, probably to the advantage of investment funds and other cash buyers) and one results in eventually owning an asset while the other does not.

But to verify this, a thought experiment is required.

1. you are already renting a house
2. you buy a house
3. instead of living in the new house, you rent it out to someone else.

So here you have a situation which is financially identical to buying and living in a house, but you are still renting. The rent you receive offsets the rent you pay. (please, all the people who like nitpicking, ignore the different tax implications etc for now.) This house is a financial investment that can be compared against others, like savings accounts and stocks. It's possible to study if the return in investment would have been better had you chosen a different investment.

The capital investment is the deposit. If you invested the deposit amount in whatever, then added to it the mortgage amount every month, you would accumulate some wealth. I'd the wealth you accumulate from the house is greater, accounting for the profit the bank extracts from your investment through interest, then you should buy the house. That is the test.

(of course there are other benefits to owning your own house but they are out of scope. this is a purely financial argument)

The bank takes a huge cut of your profit. You might pay the bank in interest double what you pay the seller. So you pay for the house three times. That is worse than the cut taken by a broker of any other investment.

Cash buyers (investment funds) do not pay 3x the price of the house. So maybe you're better off investing in housing through an investment fund!

I don't actually know if it is usually better to buy than to rent. I have never done this calculation. I only know that most people assume so, without ever doing the calculation.

One possibility is that the market self-adjusts so the buying and renting (taking your deposits for the house and investing it in something else) are equally profitable.

I suspect that the market is set by what investment funds (not people) are willing to pay. So house prices are set so that they are equally profitable for them as other investments. This means houses are less profitable than other investments for non cash buyers. It means most people should continue to rent, instead of buying, and just invest their money better.

This article feels a but unfinished, like there is something missing it overlooked. Maybe someone else can spot it. I think more thought or research, or putting more minds together, is needed.

We have this problem, especially since the Covid educational chaos, that examiners are under pressure to inflate grades. This is understandable and happening for good reasons.

It predictably creates the problem that there are too many people scoring 100% on tests. With many people on identical marks, universities cannot select the students with the best aptitudes.

They are starting to do lotteries. This is unfair. It means that the whole leaving cert has failed to do its job of testing students for eligibility for university. It is not properly filtering students into courses by aptitude. If universities are going to do lotteries to select students, we don't need a leaving cert at all.

The solution is old and well known. the exams are written using whatever scoring system is deems appropriate for that subject. It does not need to be out of 100. Then the results are converted into percentiles, using the bell curve. This means that the best 1% of students get a mark of 100, the worst 1% get 1, and the median/average students get 50. All the other marks follow the same pattern.

(To be kind, it might be decided to give all the worst 10% of students a mark of 10. There might be gaps where for example a mark of 71 does not exist, only 70 and 72, but that is easily dealt with by the simple algorithm.)

There will be no grade inflation. The whole annual stress and debate becomes obsolete and we can focus on the many real issues and problems with the leaving cert.

Percentiles and statistics (L-estimators in this case) are very common in the adult world. L-estimators are fundamental to medicine, engineering, science, etc. It is good that students and teachers become familiar with them. This method is not complex or weird or confusing. If students get used to it, it will help them understand the world better and perform in their careers.

Most people believe that as house prices rise, this is good for home-owners. It seems obvious, that if you own something, and the price of that this rises, you become richer. You have made a profit.

But it is not true.

I cover the case where all houses increase uniformly. For example x → px where p>1 or x → x+Δx where Δx>0. Conversely if the price of your house is increasing while the prices of other houses are decreasing, you can indeed make a profit, and benefit from the price change.

When you buy something, then sell it for a higher price, you make a profit. But when you sell a house, you normally selling it to buy a most expensive house. So the profit is sunk into another asset. You can never obtain your profit in cash.

If the price of your house rises while you are living in it, then you sell it to buy a more expensive house (the usual case), then the price of the new house has also risen by at least as much. You would have been as well (or better) off if house prices has remained stable.

The people who can make money from housing inflation are people owning multiple houses, people who downsize, people who become homeless, the estates of people who die and have no children. Investment funds are the big beneficiary of housing inflation, because they are free to buy and sell all of their assets.

In fact if house prices were kept stable by progressive government policy (for example continuous adjustment of to mortgage term limits, loan-to-value limits, or property taxes, similar to what central banks do with interest rates) then investment funds would sell their housing stock in favour of more profitable assets. This would be an even greater benefit to society (including home owners) from stable house prices.

The biggest loser is of course first time buyers.

There are other effects. You could argue that governments benefit from increased taxes. Estate agents and solicitors benefit from higher fees.

The other winner is banks. The profit a bank makes from a mortgage is directly proportional to the price of the house. So banks benefit not from price changes but from maximising prices. (Banks benefit even more from high interest rates and long mortgage terms, at the expense of home-owners. But these factors also influence house-prices. So the above generally true but not a simple relationship).

The above is not a unique feature of the housing market. It is an example of inflation. As assets increase uniformly in value through inflation, it seems like asset holders are making profit. When you sell the asset you make more money, but money is useless unless you use it to buy another asset. The price of the new asset has also increased by the same amount. So the holder reaps no benefit from the increase. That's why economists say that the value of the asset remained the same but the value of money decreased.

So this result for the case of housing is not surprising. It is an example of inflation at work.

The main effect of housing inflation is a transfer of purchasing power (and in the long run, of money) from people buying and selling houses to banks and investment funds.

In Ireland we used to have a violent police force. They often killed people. They were kind to the majority and abusive to the minority. They protected the government, not the people. It was just like France.

The people protested, for many years. They forced the government to disband the police. In 2001, a new peaceful police was created.

It worked very well. Today, Ireland is peaceful.

Change is possible.

I've noticed a pattern, that wealth is privacy. If you take for example how people live.

1. Homeless, outdoors. No privacy at all.
2. Shared apartment
3. Private apartment with shared outdoor space
4. Private house
5. Gated community
6. Gated private estate

Or how people travel.

1. Walking in the street in full public view
2. On a bus or train or aeroplane
3. In a car
4. In a private convoy surrounded my staff, or in a private jet.

The poorest are always in public, in everything they do. The wealthiest are never seen, except when they choose to appear. There is a continuum in between of increasing wealth meaning increasing privacy.

But there are other possible perspectives. Wealth is the freedom to waste.

With wealth you can buy many things and leave them idle or dump them. You can travel and live and eat in wasteful ways. You can hire people to work for you, doing things you don't really need.

Things which are expensive are (to a large extent) so because their production is wasteful. The rich can utilise more expensive things.

So the problem with too much global consumption - too much emissions, electricity usage, mining, etc - is really a problem of too many rich people. There is no point restricting or banning these things - people will just find other ways to be wasteful - maybe even worse ones. The only way to solve these crisis is reduce wealth, by reducing inequality.

Wealth is power over people. Wealth is required to compel people to do things, to directly pay them to do your bidding, or to access the fruits of hours of labour through purchases. There is also bribery, access to lawyers etc, which allow more wealthy people to exert more power over their peers and society.

Are there other ways to understand wealth?