Brandon Robison

 

Bashiok, Blizzard’s Community Manager, gave us this little gem last week (and I just saw it now):

Stop thinking about how awesome this game could be. Just imagine it’s a new M. Night Shyamalan movie. Sure Sixth Sense was amazing and Unbreakable had it’s moments, but this right here is the sequel to The Village … or The Happening … or Signs … or any of the movies besides the two I first mentioned. So just like, lower those expectations, but still definitely buy the game please, and everything will be just fine. K?

Comparing Diablo III not just to a crappy Shyamalan movie, but to the sequel of one of those movies? Yikes. And it seems like a bad way to say things even if he was joking. [source]

 

I’ve heard people say about rich people, “They couldn’t have gotten where they are without the masses buying their products — if we hadn’t bought what they were selling, they wouldn’t be rich.” This is followed by some assertion that the rich person owes society something in return.

But here’s the problem with that. That rich person already gave us something — they made us wealthier by providing a great product or service. Millions of people have been made wealthier by using Amazon. Millions have been made wealthier by using Apple and Microsoft and Google and Facebook products. Millions have been made wealthier by shopping at Walmart. The list goes on and on.

In the end, if you added up all the wealth that’s been created on the consumer side of the equation by companies who have multimillionaire or multibillionaire CEOs, you’d probably find that “wealth inequality” is a total misnomer. These individuals society so readily vilifies have not only made themselves incredibly wealthy, but they’ve made us wealthy as well.

 

Economists have come up with graphs to explain how wealth is created, and they’ve coined some terms they like to use to describe it, and these terms can be confusing to the non-economist. But it’s really quite simple.

If you’re a buyer/consumer: If you purchase something and pay less for it than you’d be willing to spend on it, you are wealthier.

If you’re a seller/producer: If you create and sell something for more than it cost you to create and sell it, you are wealthier.

Any time a voluntary transaction takes place, wealth is created on one or both sides of the deal.

(A side note: Newton’s laws of motion start to break down in certain situations, but they are still applicable and accurate to most of the phenomena we can experience or describe in the physical world. In the same way, there are of course some caveats to trade and wealth which I have no intention of addressing here, because in the vast majority of cases what I’ve written above is applicable and accurate.)

Next post: wealth inequality.

 

I can’t decide who is crazier, conservatives or liberals. To demonstrate, here are some caricatures of both.

Conservative: The welfare system is broken. Social Security is broken. These systems are too complex for the government to manage them; they should be left up to the market. But I support the military — I even think it should get more money, because it keeps us safe and defends our freedom!

Liberal: Oh the injustice!– we lock up millions of drug users and deport innocent “illegal” immigrants every year, not to mention we are waging several unjust wars* and the CIA spies on us! But the government should manage the health care system, because corporations are corrupt.

* I hardly ever hear this particular complaint anymore, now that a Nobel Peace Prize winner is the Commander-in-Chief.

 

Yesterday I overheard the tail-end of a conversation between two women. The concluding statement was something like, “And you know him — He likes to analyze everything because he’s a teacher.” She said it as if being a teacher causes one to be an analyzer.

Statements like this are commonplace. We (myself included) think them and make them all the time. The problem is they’re not always correct. In fact, I think they’re often completely backwards. How did the women know that his being a teacher caused him to analyze everything? Instead, maybe it was his analytical nature that carried him down the path to teacher-hood.

You might think I’m nit-picking here (I’ll grant I do that a lot), but I think this everyday “trivial” thing actually has some potentially big consequences.

Take, for example, higher education. Most people think that you go to college to “get educated” or “get smarter.” But what if the cause-and-effect here is backwards? What if it’s not “going to college makes you smarter” but “being smarter makes you go to college”? There’s a lot of evidence that the correct way to look at college is, in fact, the latter of those two phrases — enough evidence that I know someone writing a book on the subject. If enough people (particularly those in charge of public policy) think “college makes you smart,” then policies get pushed that encourage college-attendance. But if it’s being smart that makes you go to college, maybe there are a lot of people going to college who shouldn’t be. Anyway, I’m not going to discuss this example any further, because soon enough we’ll be able to read an entire book about it.

I merely want to encourage you to try to pay attention to all the times in the day that people make claims that “x causes y,” and then stop, and really think about it. Question it. Say to yourself, “Does x cause y, or does y cause x?”

 

In light of today’s news, I thought about writing up a post expressing my views on the issue*, but it would take me more than about ten minutes, and I just don’t have that kind of time right now. Instead, I’ll post the following Internet classic.

  1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
  2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
  3. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
  4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
  5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
  6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
  7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
  8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
  9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
  10. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

* Briefly: “Allowing gay marriage” and “disallowing gay marriage” are both Bad Things; no, those aren’t  the only two options. But since the overwhelming majority of people think those are the only two options, then I guess “Allowing gay marriage” is the less bad of the Bads. So practically speaking, today’s news is good news, I guess. But it’s not ideal.

 

If I have enough time (or to be honest, enough motivation), here are some of the blog posts I’ll write:

  • My thoughts on The Grey
  • My thoughts on any of the many TV series I’ve watched over the past year — there are quite a few
  • My current reading queue, which has changed quite a bit since the last update
  • My thoughts regarding having worked for the US Army for the past two years*, sans top-secret information
  • A basic economics lesson: how wealth is created
  • Frances the Mute deserves a post
  • Why voting is silly
  • Why you should vote for me when I run for _______
  • And I really need to put together a prominent disclaimer for people who stumble onto this site that they should be wary to take anything I say or write too seriously

* My first day on the job was 16 Feb 2010.

 

My Ph.D. microeconomics professor, Walter Williams, wrote the following syndicated column, which was published in the Deseret News in April 2009:

Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.

The same full-length quote was then restated in the LDS General Conference six months later by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, one of the Tweleve Apostles in the LDS church.

Does that mean I can now consider the other writings of Dr. Williams scripture?

“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”

 

The White House set up this neat little system where you could “petition the government.” If you’re like me, you’re already skeptical, and I’ve only given you one sentence.

Well, here’s how it works, in detail. And here’s my simplification: You come up with an issue you think the White House should address, you enter the details in their online system, then you try to get 25,000 people to sign onto your idea. If it reaches 25,000 people, the White House has said they’ll respond to your petition.

As we all know, Chris Dodd is a douchebag moron hack corrupt individual (in regards to his involvement with the RIAA/MPAA), so somebody thought, “Let’s have the White House open up an investigation on this guy!” The petition easily got the 25,000 necessary “signatures,” and this is how the White House responded:

The White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action.

What am I missing? Isn’t the point of the Executive branch to enforce laws?

Oh well. Hope and change.

 

I guess these “interviews” conducted by Stephen Colbert aired last week, but as usual, I’m a few days behind. No matter. I had no idea that Maurice Sendak, the renowned author of the classic children’s book Where the Wild Things Are, was such a hilariously grumpy misanthrope. Anyway, just watch the two-part interview (about 14 and a half minutes).

 

© 2012 brandonrobison.com Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha