The Viper Room - NO SCRUBS

[filghy2]

Anyhow, he told me that living in the U.S he didn't really see the whole "loud American" stereotype that much but when he was back home Americans stuck out like a sore thumb.

To be fair, the great majority of Americans I've met have been pleasant and normal people, though there's obviously quite a few of the other kind. I've always assumed that the kind of Americans who travel were less likely to be the narrow-minded kind.

I'd say Australians and New Zealanders are more similar to one another than people in different parts of the US are.

[filghy2]

So you know man, there go hundreds of years of Flighty's "economic theory" out the window.

And what exactly is the economic theory that story is supposed to disprove?

FYI, there is a perfectly good economic theory that covers what you described. It's called the principal-agent problem, which occurs when somebody charges another person to act on their behalf, but that other person has different motives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princi...3agent_problem

[broncofan]

To be fair, the great majority of Americans I've met have been pleasant and normal people, though there's obviously quite a few of the other kind. I've always assumed that the kind of Americans who travel were less likely to be the narrow-minded kind.

I'd say Australians and New Zealanders are more similar to one another than people in different parts of the US are.

I thought it was a possibility but I didn't want to have assumed that as I haven't been to New Zealand and have met a total of two New Zealanders in my life.

I'd also assume those traveling are less likely to be narrow-minded but there is a possibility that for a subset something comes across when they're a fish out of water. An American not surrounded by other Americans maybe has expectations about the way things should be done that really caught his eye. Or he was just trying to explain why he was happy living in the U.S. but had seen some ugly Americans at home and so it was just rationalization.

Nick does illustrate some basic concepts with a few of his anecdotes. There was another anecdote where he discovered the time value of money. I'm only talking about Nick in the third person because I know he appreciates that;

[broncofan]

-Once I didn't buy insurance because I considered myself a low risk.

-Once I was selling lemonade and I raised the price but people started buying a lot less so I reduced it again.

-Someone I know bought insurance and seemed to take more risks because he knew he was covered.

-One time the interest rate went up and my friend Bill, a pudgy baseball player who knew a lot but was uncoordinated, decided it was a better time to save than consume.

A friend of mine got one of the first licenses to sell medical marijuana in the state. The state was issuing very few such licenses and he was the only seller for miles and miles. It seemed like he could sell his medical marijuana for almost any price he wanted because nobody was there to undercut him.

[broncofan]

-A good buddy spent 9,000 to fix his car and it still wouldn't work. He was so disappointed. When it was pointed out to him that he only had to spend 1,000 dollars more to get it working he said, "I have to spend 10,000 dollars to get my car working?"

I pointed out to him that he's already spent the 9,000 whether he walks away or not. The 9,000 dollars is irrelevant to his decision about whether to spend 1,000 if he knows the 1,000 will get his car working. After all the 9,000 is sort of ummm not floating anymore. I'm gonna name this fallacy the "that money is already wasted" fallacy.

[Nick Danger]

You really are a classic American blowhard - equal parts arrogance and ignorance. All piss and wind, as they say.

To be fair, the great majority of Americans I've met have been pleasant and normal people, though there's obviously quite a few of the other kind.

Personal insults - the last refuge of the out-argued.

And what exactly is the economic theory that story is supposed to disprove?

What I've basically been saying all along without coming right out and saying it is that NONE of your theories stand up when the cold, hard light of business corporeality shines in their face with the blinding intensity of a thousand suns. If economics could be broken down formulaically, we'd have no need of economists anymore, would we. But economics becomes pseudo-science when confronted by corruption, salesmanship, unscrupulous investment devices, war, dishonesty, inefficiency, or even the fury of a woman scorned.

There are a few common sense principles we've followed over here in Blowhardistan that have resulted in your country being subservient to ours, Flighty. Wherever you are, we Americans work harder than you, longer than you, and with more diligence.

Why? Because of the uber-capitalist nature of our society. The rewards are larger, and when government is done right here, the financial safety net is smaller-to-nonexistent. Common sense - Americans HAVE to work to survive, and if they want the lifestyle that's constantly being shoved down their throats as the acceptable standard by both the media and their peers, they have to work harder and smarter. HAVE to. In other first-world countries, you have...other options. The British dole system, for example. Socialized medicine - in the USA, if you get sick or hurt, you better damn well have a job because that's probably the only way you're going to have medical insurance.

Of course liberals will try to convince you that this is an unfair system. They don't have to convince me, I KNOW it's unfair. Therein lies its strength. In the USA, we're not going to lower the common denominator to the level of the majority, we're going to keep elevating it as high as we can, and it's up to the individual to either keep up, or become a loser. We throw the word "loser" around over here with abandon, it's the worst thing you can be in the USA. Even criminals are above losers, at least they're doing something to advance their position.

So yeah, we're a pretty abrasive lot in general, Flighty. I personally don't know anyone running a business, or even managing someone else's business, who isn't perfectly capable of getting downright nasty with someone if they're doing business like a scrub. That kind of hardass attitude gets reflected into other areas of society. If you want to find the kind-hearted, sentimental portion of our population, you'll find them in school, or at home vacuuming the living room and scrapbooking the last holiday get-together. Just don't be around when their husband gets home, because he's going to be in a shitty mood already.

[Nick Danger]

A friend of mine got one of the first licenses to sell medical marijuana in the state. The state was issuing very few such licenses and he was the only seller for miles and miles. It seemed like he could sell his medical marijuana for almost any price he wanted because nobody was there to undercut him.

If you happen to live in Nevada, Bronco, I bet I know your friend.

I thought it was a possibility but I didn't want to have assumed that as I haven't been to New Zealand and have met a total of two New Zealanders in my life.

I'd also assume those traveling are less likely to be narrow-minded but there is a possibility that for a subset something comes across when they're a fish out of water. An American not surrounded by other Americans maybe has expectations about the way things should be done that really caught his eye. Or he was just trying to explain why he was happy living in the U.S. but had seen some ugly Americans at home and so it was just rationalization.

Nick does illustrate some basic concepts with a few of his anecdotes. There was another anecdote where he discovered the time value of money. I'm only talking about Nick in the third person because I know he appreciates that;

I do appreciate it. Or more to the point I don't mind it, especially when Stavros does it. I can just visualize him sitting in some tiny darkened room in backwoods England somewhere, reading my replies all red-faced and regretting his commitment to not setting me straight ever again.

I haven't had any experience of the whole "Ugly American Abroad" phenomenon. To be frank, my friends are all reasonably sophisticated and polite and would never act abominably under any social circumstance. When I travel I'm hyper-conscious of the social expectations of the place I'm visiting, I do the reading. And in the real world, I'm actually a very quiet person, I rarely speak unless spoken to.

But this thing must happen or it wouldn't be a thing. So all apologies, we really wear people out over here and they get very few vacations. Of course, we have our own problem with this sort of thing in the USA. Can't count the number of times I've gone to a convenience store and found out I couldn't get a cup of coffee because there's an entire bus full of Japanese tourists standing in line for cigarettes all at the same time. But that's easy enough to forgive, there's another store down the street.

-A good buddy spent 9,000 to fix his car and it still wouldn't work. He was so disappointed. When it was pointed out to him that he only had to spend 1,000 dollars more to get it working he said, "I have to spend 10,000 dollars to get my car working?"

I pointed out to him that he's already spent the 9,000 whether he walks away or not. The 9,000 dollars is irrelevant to his decision about whether to spend 1,000 if he knows the 1,000 will get his car working. After all the 9,000 is sort of ummm not floating anymore. I'm gonna name this fallacy the "that money is already wasted" fallacy.

Not sure what the name of that fallacy is either but it falls into the category of sending good money after bad. Maybe your friend wasn't so confident that the next $1,000 was going to get the job done if the first $9,000 didn't.

Your friend's best option there, if he needed the car back, would have been to go ahead and pay the $1,000 and write "paying under protest" on THEIR copy of the repair order. Then he would have been good to go ahead and take them to court. Another option would be to submit a letter (and retain a copy of course) to the repair shop that he is disputing the bill. They would keep the car but they aren't allowed to sell it while the dispute is ongoing.

[broncofan]

Of course I screwed up the sunk cost fallacy example. I was doing it based on memory but I still think the example illustrates the general principle which is that a decision should only be based on what you have to gain or lose by the prospective expenditure when past expenditures can't be recovered.

Most examples I just saw show people wanting to spend more money as a way to protect a bad investment which is irrational and probably the more likely mistake. If the money they spent is gone, then their new decision is justified or not by what they have to gain prospectively.

Blah. In the example I came up with, they wasted 9k and didn't want to spend 1k more because they had already wasted money even though they had assurance the additional expenditure would solve the problem. If the previous expense says nothing about their chance of getting the car fixed with the 1,000 dollars, then the decision should rest on whether the new expense is worthwhile. I am exiting the Viper Room and having a beer at a local pub bc I screwed that one up.

In PA there are a bunch of medical marijuana retailers and growers but the licenses are somewhat limited. Although it's unlikely to occur the federal government could prosecute any one of these people for violation of the controlled substance act. At least that's my understanding of it. The DOJ will probably never go after these people but it's enough of a threat that I know of several people who didn't want to risk it.

[broncofan]

There are a few common sense principles we've followed over here in Blowhardistan that have resulted in your country being subservient to ours, Flighty. Wherever you are, we Americans work harder than you, longer than you, and with more diligence.

Seriously, you're embarrassing me. In Pittsburgh we have yinzers and even they don't talk like this. They will say yinz guys goin to the stillers game? They may not know what to do with the second person plural (neither do I but yinz is not the answer) but they're not assholes. We're an abrasive lot? We work hard? Trust fund kids don't work at all. Their great grandparents did. Our society has all kinds of problems and to the extent anyone believes the crap you just said it's worse than I thought.

If you cobbled together the funds to travel abroad you would stick out like a sore thumb. I'm pulling your application to Mar a Lago. The Donald wants your vote but he doesn't want you hacking up his golf course and hitting on his daughter (that's his job).

[Nick Danger]

Seriously, you're embarrassing me. In Pittsburgh we have yinzers and even they don't talk like this. They will say yinz guys goin to the stillers game? They may not know what to do with the second person plural (neither do I but yinz is not the answer) but they're not assholes. We're an abrasive lot? We work hard? Trust fund kids don't work at all. Their great grandparents did. Our society has all kinds of problems and to the extent anyone believes the crap you just said it's worse than I thought.

If you cobbled together the funds to travel abroad you would stick out like a sore thumb. I'm pulling your application to Mar a Lago. The Donald wants your vote but he doesn't want you hacking up his golf course and hitting on his daughter (that's his job).

LOL - you must run with a different crowd than I do, Bronco. I don't know any trust fund kids. Even the handful of obscenely wealthy people I do know are self-made.

Speaking of which, I thought you said you were Australian. Now apparently you're in Pittsburg. Did I misunderstand you or are you an Australian in Pittsburg?