Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

I wish you people could get your point across using less words. This thread has become really difficult to keep up with. I've given up.

[wufwugy]

The video falls apart in some around midpoint. Like he discusses redistribution like it's an exclusively good thing since the money can be used to pay more debt, but doesn't account for the productivity reductions this entails will just makes total debt even worse. Also he seems to say the only problem with stimulus is that it increases government debt, but again it reduces productivity so much that it makes total debt even worse. Fiscal austerity also isn't net negative. It doesn't decrease productivity.

[wufwugy]

I also disagree with the "beautiful deleveraging". Currency manufacturers are capable of doing so much more than is presented. By using monetary tools to keep nominal growth stable, they can keep debt deleveraging from exiting their sectors. Not everybody develerages at the same time until the central bank drops the ball and reduces nominal growth from trend.

[wufwugy]

His final three points are stellar. Economic policy should be all about incentives that increase productivity. Sadly most legislators and voters do not believe this, or at least they don't know how to effectively achieve this.

[OngBonga]

You do realise that "fewer" and "less" have identical meanings, right? Is this just some cultural joke that I'm not getting?

[a500lbgorilla]

You do realise that "fewer" and "less" have identical meanings, right? Is this just some cultural joke that I'm not getting?

[rong]

Ong

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/edu...s-versus-fewer

[rong]

But this is the Internet so who gives a fuck.

[rong]

Good example though.

I couldn't give fewer of a fuck.

[Renton]

Fewer is correct when the thing is countable, and less is correct when it isn't countable. For example, you can have less rice, less gasoline, less water, but you can only have fewer kilograms of rice, fewer gallons of gasoline, fewer bodies of water. U.K. has fewer residents than the U.S, but has less crime per capita.

[rong]

I couldn't give fewer fucks?

[a500lbgorilla]

I couldn't give fewer fucks?

Depends on if you can give half a fuck.

[OngBonga]

I must've missed this English lesson at school.

[OngBonga]

Anyway, I can't count your words. It's beyond infinity, therefore "less" is correct.

[rong]

Lol

[rong]

I think plural vs singular dictates fewer or less.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's countable versus degree.

Less sand versus fewer bits of sand.

[rong]

I think that's pretty much the same thing as I was saying.

[a500lbgorilla]

No, because I dunno what you're saying and I know what I am saying.

[OngBonga]

There's less bullshit and fewer wankers.

Today I learned something.

Also, I have a new bike. £30 from some dodgy guy in Stourbridge. He had a shitty little house in an estate and a swimming pool in his garden with his three children playing in it. He had a hottub with fish in it. His knuckles were touching the floor. He seemed like a nice guy.

Oh wait, this isn't the random thread. Sorry. Carry on about capitalism, I'm vaguely following.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

On the topic of safety nets.

This is an important concept that needs to be addressed. I don't disagree at all with the idea that society needs safety nets, and I don't think claiming it's okay for a lack of safety nets would convince anybody. However, the kicker is that welfare is not a safety net, while market policies are safety nets. Here are a few examples illustrating why this is.

Unemployment insurance epitomizes the concept of welfare for the purpose of safety nets for any who "fall through the cracks". When we examine what unemployment insurance actually does, however, it is an incentive to not produce. It turns robust capital into less robust capital. When viewed in a vacuum, unemployment insurance may look like a safety net for each individual from their own anecdotal perspective, but on the macro scale, it makes the economy worse and increases the probability and severity of "falling through the cracks" in the first place. As we've seen over the last few years, employment is depressed when job-searchers receive enough unemployment benefits. When those benefits run out, there are noticeable boosts in employment growth. This means that the "safety net" of unemployment insurance isn't a real safety and suppresses production. For these reasons, any real safety net policy cannot reduce production incentives.

So what increases production and production incentives? Many things, one example of which is unemployment insurance and a lower minimum wage. Let's take two different economies, one where when people lose their jobs, they go on unemployment insurance and when benefits run out they take another job (which is almost always lower paying than the job they lost), and one where when people lose their jobs, they take other jobs for lower wages soon after or within a reasonable time frame. In the economy with unemployment insurance, people are paid to not produce and when they started producing again it is usually lower pay and with lost skills. In the economy without employment insurance and now wage floor, people are paid only when they produce. Skill loss is less and the lower pay is less long-lasting.

What I hope I've illustrated is how welfare does not provide a safety net, and that the real safety net is the economic power actors in markets have. A restriction of actors' freedom in a market, even when meant as a "safety net", has the opposite effect, making the economy less stable, labor conditions more fragile, and deteriorating the real embedded safety nets.


I've posted this link several times in the past. It's the type of welfare system that would do the least amount of damage to production and stability. I think in a free market, it would be redundant and less good than just a regular market, but it's about six billion times better than any welfare system anybody today has.

http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/4...oss-the-market

[wufwugy]

I would like to comment on the line from Marx that was posted a while back: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".

In effect, this is capitalism. By mandate, it's communism. Marx, or at least the socialist left that followed, believed that capitalism created an ever perpetuating class of haves at the expense of the have-nots. By now we know this isn't true. We still do have some supposed "haves" and some supposed "have-nots", but we know that capitalism isn't the cause of this and we also know that capitalism is the most effective known solution to this. Regardless, the rise of the socialist left didn't have the history or sound economic theory that we do today, so it developed a different theory, one that says since the assumption is that freedom creates more power disparity, the solution to the problem of haves and have-nots is mandates. This coincides with why every iteration of socialism since its birth has restricted freedom and supported centralized powers with welfare agendas.*

Capitalism is the opposite. It says freedom is good and it has been demonstrated to be more effective than any imaginations at promoting prosperity for the have-nots. That's not an embellishment; poor people have smart phones. Capitalism has been enormously more effective than even Adam Smith could have fathomed. The concept economists have for why this could be the case is exactly what Marx wanted: each according to his contribution. Economists view capitalism's effectiveness mostly emerging from the meritocracy it creates, where workers are capable of getting more by contributing more.

Marx was right in that each should get according to his contribution. But his prescription was antipodal. Capitalism is what effects this meritocracy; socialism is what strips it away.



*The more aggressive versions of socialism have been violent. It should be noted that in socialism, violence isn't ideologically wrong. It is extremely effective at subverting freedom and installing states that can enact the socialist paradigm. Baked into the philosophy is the idea that if violence creates such a state, it's good. The Bolshevik revolution was not a bastardization of socialist philosophy like many today would claim. It was standard engagement of the philosophy. Perhaps a way to see how this is the case is that capitalism is ideologically against violence, while socialism requires a monopoly on violence to engage its agenda.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your notion that being unforgiving to honest, hard-working people leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

***
As someone who has taken unemployment benefits, and gone through the goddamn ringer on keeping up with their demands while learning to take advantage of the wealth of job-finding resources they had to offer, I can say that it's no easy ride for free money. There's no slacking and avoiding an active daily job search unless you commit fraud. They audit your claims to a certain extent to look for fraud.

I'm not saying people don't abuse the system. I'm certain they do.

I'm saying, in my personal experience, limited though it is, that office was filled with people using the computers and waiting in line for personal meetings with employment workers. It was a room of strained hope and desperate smiles. It was full of people trying their damndest to get back into the system, not people slacking on a free dime.

***
Without data to put this into perspective, we're just sharing anecdotes.

Here's the first 3 links on googling the phrase, "what percent of welfare is abused"
Huffington Post
ThinkProgress
wikipedia

Looks like that abuse of the system you describe amounts to ~2% of all welfare transactions.

Those economic powers can change in ways that leave a person or a region of people on the losing end of the stick. They are perfectly willing to retrain and find a new job, but they need to feed their kids while they take a few weeks to do so.

What I hope I've illustrated is how welfare does provide a safety net - one that compliments the free market.

[wufwugy]

Your notion that being unforgiving to honest, hard-working people leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

***
As someone who has taken unemployment benefits, and gone through the goddamn ringer on keeping up with their demands while learning to take advantage of the wealth of job-finding resources they had to offer, I can say that it's no easy ride for free money. There's no slacking and avoiding an active daily job search unless you commit fraud. They audit your claims to a certain extent to look for fraud.

I'm not saying people don't abuse the system. I'm certain they do.

I'm saying, in my personal experience, limited though it is, that office was filled with people using the computers and waiting in line for personal meetings with employment workers. It was a room of strained hope and desperate smiles. It was full of people trying their damndest to get back into the system, not people slacking on a free dime.

***
Without data to put this into perspective, we're just sharing anecdotes.

Here's the first 3 links on googling the phrase, "what percent of welfare is abused"
Huffington Post
ThinkProgress
wikipedia

Looks like that abuse of the system you describe amounts to ~2% of all welfare transactions.

Those economic powers can change in ways that leave a person or a region of people on the losing end of the stick. They are perfectly willing to retrain and find a new job, but they need to feed their kids while they take a few weeks to do so.

What I hope I've illustrated is how welfare does provide a safety net - one that compliments the free market.

I'm not talking about fraud or abusing the system and I said that things like unemployment insurance look good on the anecdotal level. Almost everybody who has been on welfare has benefited from it in isolation. But this has no bearing on how the system as a whole functions. Who here would not benefit if they received $5k in their bank accounts every month from the government? No one. Every individual would benefit from this greatly. But the economy as a whole would become a disaster and everybody would end up being worse off than they otherwise would be without that extra $5k. This sounds like a contradiction but it's not a contradiction and is well established consensus in macroeconomics. The unemployment insurance example was meant to illustrate part of why this is true.

I'm talking macroeconomics, and the first thing you do is call me a prick. Most of what I post here I don't make up. I just bring concepts I learn from economists to this board. If you wish to have a productive discussion, you have to assume that you have something to learn.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Almost everybody who has been on welfare has benefited from it in isolation. But this has no bearing on how the system as a whole functions.

So...
People who use it say it's great,
But
people who don't use it are hurt more than the people who use it are benefited?
Overall, it's -EV.
Is that what you're saying?

Is it enough to only consider raising the mean? Doesn't the variance matter, too?

Doesn't the fact that we're talking about providing a service that desperate people need and appreciate play a part?

I get that numbers are callous. I don't get why that means we should act callously.

***
The rest is really another non-sequitur. That terrible $5k plan is terrible.
However, it's not comparable to welfare or unemployment insurance.

the first thing you do is call me a prick.

This never happened. That's not even my kind of insult.
Now that you mention it, though, you are a tiny stab, sometimes...
almost cutting, but just grazing the surface.

(That's my kind of burn.)
;p

[wufwugy]

So...
People who use it say it's great,
But
people who don't use it are hurt more than the people who use it are benefited?
Overall, it's -EV.
Is that what you're saying?

Is it enough to only consider raising the mean? Doesn't the variance matter, too?

Doesn't the fact that we're talking about providing a service that desperate people need and appreciate play a part?

I get that numbers are callous. I don't get why that means we should act callously.

***
The rest is really another non-sequitur. That terrible $5k plan is terrible.
However, it's not comparable to welfare or unemployment insurance.

The $5k plan is perfectly comparable. Every element for why it is terrible is also present with unemployment insurance. The unemployed seeking employment are market actors just as much as the employed, and they are subject to the same elements of supply, demand, incentives, etc. When an economy is structured in such a way that the unemployed are paid for unproductive behavior, its eventual effect is that it will be more difficult for them to find productive work and when they do it will be of lower quality or for less compensation. I already went into detail for this but you swept it aside, so whatever.


Safety nets are defined as policies that help people when they lose their jobs. Unemployment insurance is this type of safety net in a vacuum, but because it decreases the productivity of overall capital, it is bad for the economy, which necessarily means it is not a real safety net when all factors are accounted for. However, an elimination of the minimum wage is a real safety net since it also "helps people when they lose their jobs" since it means there is more available work, and it increases production and the overall productivity of capital, which means that the economy is overall better, which means the probability and severity of the downtrodden is reduced, making no minimum wage a true effective safety net policy.

This never happened. That's not even my kind of insult.
Now that you mention it, though, you are a tiny stab, sometimes...
almost cutting, but just grazing the surface.

(That's my kind of burn.)
;p

I assumed you meant as much since the first thing you said is I'm being unforgiving to the down-trodden. On the contrary, the policies I propose provide that safety net that welfare doesn't. Welfare looks like it's a safety net on the surface, but when you dig deeper it does not behave as such. Market policies (like lower/no minimum wage) appear to not be safety nets on the surface, but when you dig deeper they behave as safety nets.

[Renton]

The problem with your (MMM) anecdote about benefiting from the welfare state is that it presupposes an identical universe except with you not having the unemployment benefits. In a world where the state doesn't take 40% of the shit, you would probably have had a much easier time finding work, and would have had a much lower cost of living to cover in the meantime. By the way, when you were working you paid a 6% unemployment tax.

Only the employer pays FUTA tax; it is not deducted from the employee's wages.

Yeah that's good for a chuckle. It comes from the employer's magic money box and has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on how much he budgets to pay his employees, or on the number of employees he can hire.

Anyway there's nothing to stop you from buying your own unemployment insurance from the private sector, and if you have a decent job it will probably be highly competitive with the 6% rate you were already paying.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The problem with your (MMM) anecdote about benefiting from the welfare state is that it presupposes an identical universe except with you not having the unemployment benefits. In a world where the state doesn't take 40% of the shit, you would probably have had a much easier time finding work, and would have had a much lower cost of living to cover in the meantime.

Dude, it's purely anecdotal. It only serves to explain why I think the benefits of this particular service are good.
It's not an argument for anything but why my POV is what it is (right now).

The %-age of money isn't important to either of us. What's important to both of us is that the money is well-spent. We agree that the money is not being particularly well-spent.

***
Probably...? :/
You're gonna need a distribution function to go along with that probability to sway me.

By the way, when you were working you paid a 6% unemployment tax.

Yes. I read the forms which I signed when I was hired. It's like a super power of mine.

Yeah that's good for a chuckle.[...]

I don't know how this relates to the current discussion, or that anyone disagrees with that point.
Am I missing something?

Anyway there's nothing to stop you from buying your own unemployment insurance from the private sector, and if you have a decent job it will probably be highly competitive with the 6% rate you were already paying.

Right. And?

People should do this if they want the service, right? But people don't do this. That's the reality. If private agencies and/or charities can provide the same or comparable service, then by all means... let them. However, if they don't, then having a short-term safety net for everyone is OK with me. Obv. I want it to be not corrupt, if possible, please.

[Renton]

Probably...? :/
You're gonna need a distribution function to go along with that probability to sway me.

Let's just say that I am highly confident that the unemployment rate and median income would be dramatically improved if the state wasn't squandering so much of our resources. I don't know the exact probability, but it's safe to say that there would be many fewer people in your predicament.

I don't know how this relates to the current discussion, or that anyone disagrees with that point.
Am I missing something?

Most people in support of this tax would disagree. They enact this employer-side taxation, along with other taxes like the social security tax (another 6%) and the corporate tax because they believe the money just comes out of the profits. It takes this kind of "money from nothing" belief to support a majority of taxation and economic policy.

People should do this if they want the service, right? But people don't do this. That's the reality. If private agencies and/or charities can provide the same or comparable service, then by all means... let them. However, if they don't, then having a short-term safety net for everyone is OK with me. Obv. I want it to be not corrupt, if possible, please.

Yes, you think everyone should be made to overpay for a service whether they want it or not. You believe they are incapable of making the correct call. I guess I'm a little more optimistic about people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Let's just say that I am highly confident that [...]

I'm not questioning your confidence. I just want to see the data that led you to this confidence, so I can judge for myself.

Most people in support of this tax would disagree.

What have I said that led you to think that I would agree with them?
OR
What does their opinion elucidate about my opinion?

I feel like you're attributing ideas to me based on stereotypes and not based on what I've said.
Case in point:

Yes, you think everyone should be made to overpay for a service whether they want it or not.

What I said is that I like the service. I want the service provided efficiently.
Not for nothing, but it seems like you're trying to rattle me by putting the word "overpay" in there. I doubt you believe that is the language I would use to describe my position.

You believe they are incapable of making the correct call. I guess I'm a little more optimistic about people.

Am I supposed to feel bad for being a bit cynical about people acting for their own long-term benefit?
:/
This is one of those things that I would buckle on if asked to provide data, so feel free to call me out on that. However, look around. With the tiniest preparation, most people could solve or avoid their own biggest problems. Yet they don't.

One the one hand, serves them right for failure to plan ahead. On the other hand, no one can foresee all the challenges that will crop up. I don't believe the system should ignore this human problem, nor should it cater to it. It needs to be a balance.

***
This discussion is so emotionally loaded.
I guess with the word sentiment in the thread's title, I should expect as much.

[OngBonga]

There's no slacking and avoiding an active daily job search unless you commit fraud. They audit your claims to a certain extent to look for fraud.

I'm not saying people don't abuse the system. I'm certain they do.

This is an interesting use of the word "fraud". It implies I'm a fraudster. I have to exaggerate my job search in order to meet the requirements. Am I committing fraud? Well no, because the only part where I actually sign is the part where I say I've done no work since I last signed. If I lie when I make that declaration, then I am committing fraud. That's because it's made clear where you sign that providing false information is fraud. To say one applied for a job when one didn't, that is not fraud, not unless someone actually makes you sign a declaration making it clear that lying will be fraud. Fraud is not just lying to obtain money, if that was the case then everyone who fills in their time sheet at work to say they worked until 5pm when actually they stopped working at 4.50 then dicked about on facebook for ten minutes is committing fraud, because they are obtaining money by means of deception. Would the employer pay them for the final ten minutes if the employee was honest about what he did as the day closed out?

In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Fraud is both a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud and/or recover monetary compensation) and a criminal wrong (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities).

Here's the definition of fraud, according to google. Note the use of the words "unfair" or "unlawful". The money you claim as a result of your deception, if you lie about your job search efforts, is neither unfair nor unlawful. It's a basic right.

The day lying about job search actually becomes criminal fraud is a very worrying day indeed. That's a lot of people at the bottom of the food chain who are now at risk of going to prison.

[rong]

Or they could just stop abusing the system and actually look for a job.

[OngBonga]

Or they could just stop abusing the system and actually look for a job.

I'll get a job when they legalise weed.

The fuck am I going to work in a shitty factory and being miserable for the rest of my life, just because it's illegal to smoke a fucking plant. I'd sooner be poor and happy. I don't consider that I'm abusing the system. I consider that I'm stopping the system from abusing me. The system doesn't allow me to go and live in the woods and kill deer to survive. The system deprives me of a natural life. The least it can do is provide me with the bare minimum required to survive, ie food and rent.

Here's what they should be doing...

Two tiers of unemployment benefits. Those who can't be arsed, who can't satisfy the job search requirements, give them less money. I wouldn't argue at getting less money if it meant I didn't have to go through the fortnightly stress of telling some patronising cunt how I've spent 30 hours a week looking for a job, when really I've been playing poker, watching nature documentaries, and sunbathing.

But no, they want to make the unemployed look like cunts for not wanting to be part of their corrupt system. And people like you dan lap it up. Here you are saying get a fucking job.

No. My life does not belong to the system. Yours might, but mine doesn't. If you're happy, then good for you. I'm happy, so good for me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Ong: If you are giving false information to acquire a gain, then that's fraud.
Plain and simple.
That mental gymnastics whereby you pretend that you're entitled to the money while not preforming their requirements is absolute BS.
You're only entitled to the benefits of the program to the extent that you follow the program.

I would not be at all surprised to find some fine print on something you've signed which says exactly as much.

If you even remotely believe that you are correct, then I suggest you have a meeting with your favorite legal representatives and have a chat with them about it.
Let me know the results, please.

[Renton]

I'm not questioning your confidence. I just want to see the data that led you to this confidence, so I can judge for myself.

The theory backs up my case more strongly than the data. There haven't really been any post-industrial states that haven't robbed their citizenry blind. There is plenty of data to correlate the size of the tax burden inversely with the rate of economic growth, though. And reams of data that make a causal link between rate of economic growth and reduced unemployment / increased median wage.

What have I said that led you to think that I would agree with them?
OR
What does their opinion elucidate about my opinion?

I feel like you're attributing ideas to me based on stereotypes and not based on what I've said.

I'm assuming your in favor of a welfare state based on the opinions you've expressed in this thread. Belief in economic fallacies generally goes with the territory. I'm not accusing you of falling prey to those fallacies, merely suspecting you are. The objective was to get you to respond with why those fallacies aren't fallacies, or that you want a welfare state for a different reason entirely that doesn't rely on fallacy-based reasoning. We can cover more ground that way than if I have to verify every bullet point of your position before I criticize it. No offense is intended.

What I said is that I like the service. I want the service provided efficiently.
Not for nothing, but it seems like you're trying to rattle me by putting the word "overpay" in there. I doubt you believe that is the language I would use to describe my position.

You wouldn't. Overpay is appropriate though because there is no market feedback for what you pay for the service. It's a completely arbitrary amount of tax for a completely arbitrary amount of benefits. The mechanism with which the benefits get established or altered is completely unrelated to the means with which the tax gets increased or decreased. Yes surely there is a committee which manages the budget of the unemployment program, but that committee has no ability to affect the necessary on-the-fly changes to the program itself, since those changes have to be routed through the political system. It's a total clusterfuck in which the 6% tax might create a massive surplus or a massive deficit depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Am I supposed to feel bad for being a bit cynical about people acting for their own long-term benefit?
:/
This is one of those things that I would buckle on if asked to provide data, so feel free to call me out on that. However, look around. With the tiniest preparation, most people could solve or avoid their own biggest problems. Yet they don't.

One the one hand, serves them right for failure to plan ahead. On the other hand, no one can foresee all the challenges that will crop up. I don't believe the system should ignore this human problem, nor should it cater to it. It needs to be a balance.

It's reasonable to be realistic about the fallibility of human beings. I'm with you there. But don't you think part of the reason why people are so bad at thinking ahead is because of the existing incentive structure? I think the welfare state predisposes people to excessively risky behavior. I also think that the absence of the welfare state will foster prudent human beings, in time. But mainly I just believe that people ought to be free to fuck up their lives, and free to face the consequences of that. I support everyone's decision to have 6% more money at the cost of a lack of unemployment insurance if they want. Or to spend only 2% of their income on a lighter benefits package. Or to spend 10% of their income on a premium package. I think in a world where the state doesn't take care of everyone, people would come to understand the value of insurance.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm assuming your in favor of a welfare state based on the opinions you've expressed in this thread.

Why not just ask me what my thoughts are, rather than assume?

Belief in economic fallacies generally goes with the territory. I'm not accusing you of falling prey to those fallacies, merely suspecting you are. The objective was to get you to respond with why those fallacies aren't fallacies, or that you want a welfare state for a different reason entirely that doesn't rely on fallacy-based reasoning.

You suspect that I'm foolish?
Ouch, bro. Very ouch.

We can cover more ground that way than if I have to verify every bullet point of your position before I criticize it.

You're just waiting for the opportunity to criticize me?
While I'm here asking questions to figure out what are the strengths and weaknesses of my knowledge of economics?
the internet
What if I answered your physics questions like this?

No offense is intended.

I'm not offended; I'm bored.

[OngBonga]

@Ong: If you are giving false information to acquire a gain, then that's fraud.
Plain and simple.
That mental gymnastics whereby you pretend that you're entitled to the money while not preforming their requirements is absolute BS.
You're only entitled to the benefits of the program to the extent that you follow the program.

I would not be at all surprised to find some fine print on something you've signed which says exactly as much.

If you even remotely believe that you are correct, then I suggest you have a meeting with your favorite legal representatives and have a chat with them about it.
Let me know the results, please.

Ok, so you're saying that claiming 15 minutes of wages when you don't actually do any work is fraud? Because that is "giving false information to acquire a gain", assuming you claim to have worked during this time, perhaps by means of clocking out at 5.00 instead of 4.45. Right?

Sure there's fine print that tells me I need to do this and that. Sure they can sanction me if they can prove I'm not meeting these conditions. Does that make it fair? No it doesn't. What choice do I have? Get a job? See my last post.

What people seem to ignore is that a lot of people who are long term unemployed are actually unemployable. You wouldn't employ them if you were running a business, because most of them are stupid and lazy. Why should I have to work just because I'm smart and potentially productive? Why should I suffer a life of misery while stupid people laze around watching Jeremy Kyle? Why should I submit half my waking life to the elite for them to make billions?

I don't like the system. So, do you think the system should provide for people like me? Or should I just be left to die so the working class can pay less tax?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ok, so you're saying that claiming 15 minutes of wages when you don't actually do any work is fraud? Because that is "giving false information to acquire a gain", assuming you claim to have worked during this time, perhaps by means of clocking out at 5.00 instead of 4.45. Right?

Yes. This is fraud. We can imagine certain jobs or circumstances where this may be moot. However, claiming you fulfilled your part of a contract while not having truly done so to the best of your knowledge and interpretation of the contract is fraud. Sure, I can see the difference between fraud of $5 and fraud of $5M. I do not equate them in severity.

If you are under a voluntary contract, then your signature is your uncoerced promise to fulfill that contract.
If you do not uphold your promise to the full extent of your good faith, then you've made yourself a liar.

If you don't see this as fraud, then I'd love to hear your explanation of the situation when the roles are reversed and someone is demanding that you uphold your half of a contract when they have obviously and intentionally not upheld their half.

[...]I don't like the system. So, do you think the system should provide for people like me? Or should I just be left to die so the working class can pay less tax?

I think if you're not working to help yourself, then you have no right to ask for anyone to pay your way. However, if you're actively trying to help yourself, but have personal struggles of whatever kind, then my opinion changes.

Honestly, I would bet a lot of money that if you were cut off from your "provisions" that you would not, in fact, die. I bet you would find a way to not die for many, many years.

You can go anywhere in the world and live there if you only sacrifice a couple of years to your hated system.
I doubt you could get a permanent visa in many countries, given your current unemployment and its length. With a bit of effort, though, I am confident that you could change this. You just need a vision of your future that you love and the will to fight for that future.

[Renton]

Points taken. I'm dealing with some very stupid people in twoplustwo politics and it is possible that my frustration is seeping from that to my posts in this thread. It is not intentional.

To be fair to your physics analogy, physics isn't a subject that laypeople are as susceptible to forming wrongheaded emotionally-charged opinions about. In my questions to you I presented some minimal hypotheses that I fully expected were wrong, and would have accepted any response from you (a physicist) as correct. The trouble with economics is that people with little interest in learning about the subject nonetheless feel the need to form strong, unyielding opinions. It's understandable considering it affects everyone so much and it's a key part of politics. There just isn't as much of an authority imbalance with this subject, considering I'm not an economist and you're not a rank novice in these matters yourself.

[wufwugy]

Pretty sure I need to read Heinlein

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/697...f-man-advances

[wufwugy]

Here's an analogy to how unemployment insurance helps individuals in a vacuum but because it hurts the overall market, it hurts individuals more than it helps.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...yee_theft.html

TLDR: every patron being given free stuff from employee theft benefits from it. However, employee theft comes from employers, and some of those patrons are themselves employers, which means they are hurt more by an economy with employee theft than one without. Additionally some of the patrons are employees, which means they are employed by employers who have a finite amount they can pay their employees, which means the patrons receive lower compensations and are hurt more by an economy with employee theft than one without. Furthermore, some of the patrons are unemployed, and they desire employment from a potential employer, which means that employee theft hurts their chances at finding this employment since employers have higher costs and cannot hire as many employees.

If you are a patron that receives something from employee theft, you benefit in that isolated instance. But since you exist in an economy with employee theft, you are harmed by its existence more than you are benefited. Likewise and by the same elements, if you receive unemployment insurance, you benefit in that isolated instance. But since you exist in an economy with the deteriorating productivity of unemployment insurance, you are harmed by its existence more than you are benefited. These are still true even though at any point you can say "But I would benefit by having this thing!"

Economics is not unlike physics, where the micro and macro behave differently.

[MadMojoMonkey]

*yawn*
theft

Can we be finished with the sensational language? I can't speak to the persuasive advantage it may provide with a different audience, but it's shaving away credulity with me.

***
The $5k story is not comparable because it gives the $5k to everyone. This would, presumably, drive a wave of inflation as supply/demand balances with the changing buying power of the $.

Welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance are designed to be temporary programs which are offered to a small percentage of the society.

The impact on the greater economy is not comparable.

[wufwugy]

*yawn*
theft

Can we be finished with the sensational language? I can't speak to the persuasive advantage it may provide with a different audience, but it's shaving away credulity with me.

***
The $5k story is not comparable because it gives the $5k to everyone. This would, presumably, drive a wave of inflation as supply/demand balances with the changing buying power of the $.

Welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance are designed to be temporary programs which are offered to a small percentage of the society.

The impact on the greater economy is not comparable.

Read things before you comment on them. Have some self-respect.

[Renton]

Actually welfare, food stamps, and unemployment make up a pretty small part of the budget. Medicare is what we should really be talking about, it's something like 2/3 of the federal budget and growing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Actually welfare, food stamps, and unemployment make up a pretty small part of the budget. Medicare is what we should really be talking about, it's something like 2/3 of the federal budget and growing.

What fraction of the budget is your goal?
deja vu, amirit?

What is up with Medicaire?
Anything besides our general agreement that excess is bad?

I can see an argument that excess is incentivized by any bureaucracy. Budget allocation is scandalous at best in almost any large organization. It becomes advantageous to always overstate your budget needs in order to grow your microcosm of the larger network.
Do you get what I'm saying? Is it spurious?

***
IMO, state-level societies are immeasurably complex*. I think some form of social safety net is a good thing. I think it doesn't much matter which combination of programs suits a particular society, so long as there is some workable combination.


*Something like 3.2 {wows / (minute * person)}, IIRC. Just for perspective, that means if someone is telling you how complex society is, you are likely to say, "wow" about once every 18.75 seconds.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why would you assume I didn't read it?

I read the links you posted, as well.
Obviously, I'm against stealing. If a person steals from their employer by giving away free goods, then that's a person who is stealing, too. If that was your whole point, then I agree that it's bad.

Where you lose me is that you're making a direct comparison between actual, quantifiable theft by individuals and a bureaucratic program funded by taxation. These are very different things.

My point is that your story is an anecdote which explains why you feel the way to do (right now).
It's not evidence.
It is not convincing or persuasive.

***
self respect? I'm baffled as to what this has to do with anything. It seems like a personal attack.
I am disappoint.


You couldn't have a more patient student. Yet, many of the questions I ask are met with a stark lack of data and emotionally loaded assumptions. Words and ideas have been attributed to me which I have not said and do not espouse. These things make the learning process slower and more difficult.

[wufwugy]

Why would you assume I didn't read it?

I read the links you posted, as well.
Obviously, I'm against stealing.

You had me fooled. You blew my point off as if I was using sensational language to say what you now say is theft.

If a person steals from their employer by giving away free goods, then that's a person who is stealing, too. If that was your whole point, then I agree that it's bad.

No, that's not my point. Tell me what my point is.

Where you lose me is that you're making a direct comparison between actual, quantifiable theft by individuals and a bureaucratic program funded by taxation. These are very different things.

Different topic.

My point is that your story is an anecdote which explains why you feel the way to do (right now).
It's not evidence.
It is not convincing or persuasive.

I link you to a economics professor who has been teaching for a few decades. He used an anecdote merely as an illustration for a broader issue that has been established before that anecdote existed. I then use that to explore our specific topic, and like you have with the last several issues, you just seem to brush it off without considering it more deeply.

self respect? I'm baffled as to what this has to do with anything. It seems like a personal attack.
I am disappoint.

You couldn't have a more patient student. Yet, many of the questions I ask are met with a stark lack of data and emotionally loaded assumptions. Words and ideas have been attributed to me which I have not said and do not espouse. These things make the learning process slower and more difficult.

Then stop portraying such belying behavior. There is virtually no direct evidence of anything in macro. Data-mining is virtually worthless in macro. You say I'm not bringing you worthwhile things, yet when I do it seems you hop to disagreement regardless. Maybe I'm the asshole here, but the types of things you're saying suggest you're not putting much effort into considering the arguments.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You had me fooled. You blew my point off as if I was using sensational language to say what you now say is theft.

No, that's not my point. Tell me what my point is.

Different topic.

The language of theft is off topic. We're talking about whether or not unemployment insurance is, on the whole, helpful or hurtful to the society as a whole. Furthermore, we're exploring whether the net -EV for the society as a whole dominates the net +EV for the few who use the program (or if it is a + at all).

Since what I guessed you meant was wrong, I don't know what link you're making between employee theft and anything else.

Help me with the context, then. I don't understand your metaphor.

I link you to a economics professor who has been teaching for a few decades. He used an anecdote merely as an illustration for a broader issue that has been established before that anecdote existed. I then use that to explore our specific topic, and like you have with the last several issues, you just seem to brush it off without considering it more deeply.

His anecdote expresses why he feels the way he feels (right now), and is not a compelling argument for why I should feel anything. Furthermore, even if I had the same feeling, it gives no notion of whether this feeling is in line with a helpful model of reality.

Yes, I brushed it off. I will brush off any attempt to elucidate which relies on emotionally charged language as its foundation.

If you can only discuss your field in these terms, then I guess I understand why you think I'm being flippant with you.

Then stop portraying such belying behavior. There is virtually no direct evidence of anything in macro. Data-mining is virtually worthless in macro. You say I'm not bringing you worthwhile things, yet when I do it seems you hop to disagreement regardless. Maybe I'm the asshole here, but the types of things you're saying suggest you're not putting much effort into considering the arguments.

I dont know what I'm belying. I just want a conversation with the emotions stripped out of it so that we can learn what all economists would agree on, without dispute. If there is no subset of the field for which this occurs, then I am bored of the field and it can exist w/o my input, like so many things in this world.

My competitive advantage is in focusing on logic-based systems. I am flummoxed by emotion-based systems. I have nothing to offer that someone else couldn't do better.

If the field of macroeconomics is truly this untested, then I'm absolutely bored with the conversation and I'm sorry if you feel I wasted your time.

[wufwugy]

The language of theft is off topic. We're talking about whether or not unemployment insurance is, on the whole, helpful or hurtful to the society as a whole. Furthermore, we're exploring whether the net -EV for the society as a whole dominates the net +EV for the few who use the program (or if it is a + at all).

This isn't what we're exploring. We're exploring why something that is +EV in a vacuum is no longer +EV when other factors are applied. If it was correct that UI benefits are +EV outside of their vacuum, it would also mean that welfare benefits would produce prosperity and the more of them we have the more prosperity we would have; therefore, if only we could give everybody $5k every month, we would all be super well off and the economy would be gangbusters.

Since what I guessed you meant was wrong, I don't know what link you're making between employee theft and anything else.

Help me with the context, then. I don't understand your metaphor.

Go back to my post on that. In just one paragraph I outlined how employee theft is +EV in a vacuum but -EV when outside the vacuum.

His anecdote expresses why he feels the way he feels (right now), and is not a compelling argument for why I should feel anything. Furthermore, even if I had the same feeling, it gives no notion of whether this feeling is in line with a helpful model of reality.

The link is just about employee theft. The way economists use blogs is to provide small tidbits from credible perspectives.

Yes, I brushed it off. I will brush off any attempt to elucidate which relies on emotionally charged language as its foundation.

Except this never happened. Are you high? No, seriously, are you like really high right now? You initially said theft is not theft then you quickly said theft is theft and now you're saying theft is not theft. You don't realize you're saying this because you're not paying attention. You tell yourself you're paying attention, but your posts say otherwise.

I dont know what I'm belying. I just want a conversation with the emotions stripped out of it so that we can learn what all economists would agree on, without dispute. If there is no subset of the field for which this occurs, then I am bored of the field and it can exist w/o my input, like so many things in this world.

Economists agree on most areas of the field with as little dispute as is possible. You haven't yet shown that you seem to care what that is though. Granted, the stuff that most economists talk about is not the undisputed. Here's a neat intro to the concept:



Take some time and go through several videos on that channel. It's mostly short and simple material from a whole host of different econ PhDs.

My competitive advantage is in focusing on logic-based systems. I am flummoxed by emotion-based systems. I have nothing to offer that someone else couldn't do better.

If the field of macroeconomics is truly this untested, then I'm absolutely bored with the conversation and I'm sorry if you feel I wasted your time.

It's as if you think these comments aren't total crap. Protip: they're total crap.

[Renton]

MMM I'm pretty sure the point of wuf's post wasn't to compare theft to welfare in the sense of them both being morally wrong. It was to suggest that someone receiving free shit from the system can actually be worse off for it. He wasn't even talking about theft for direct personal gain. Most of the employee theft in that story was giving free shit to customers to make them happier and inflate the tip.

That part of it is is quite analogous to the welfare state. Politicians stand to gain a lot by offering handouts to anyone who wants them. They get campaign contributions from big corporations so the corporations will have a favor in their pocket to cash in once their guy gets elected. They get votes from working class people if they promise to throw them something. The money has to come from somewhere. We can toil at this all day as to whether that constitutes theft, but the analogy to employee theft is clear.

[Renton]

Sorry I badly misquoted the medicare budget, counting it with other mandatory spending to make up about 2/3. This includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, student loans, and interest on the debt. Medicare is the biggest chunk of that and is about 24% of the total budget.



(video is from 2012, but it applies today to an even greater extent)

I don't know what the correct percentage medicare should be. I do know that seniors in the U.S. are rapidly becoming the most affluent age bracket and it makes me question the necessity of spending 24% of a multi-trillion budget on their healthcare when most of them do not need the money.

[OngBonga]

More about "abusing the system".

If I were that way inclined, I'd be pretending to be too ill to work. If I could convince a doctor that I suffer from something like, hmm I dunno, cannabis psychosis, then I'd get more money. Furthermore, there was a time I was growing weed. During this time, my income was untaxed, and therefore off the books, so I could have claimed benefits. But I didn't. Because that is actually wrong, in my opinion. Growing weed isn't wrong. Pretending to look for a job in order to ensure I can eat and pay my rent, that isn't wrong. I have no intention of getting a job. Why should I waste my time and that of employers by applying for jobs I have no intention of holding down?

Those who work assume those who don't want to work are lazy. That isn't true. I'd love to be doing something more productive with my life. But I'm happy enough being unproductive, and yes I believe the system owes me survival at the very least.

[OngBonga]

You seem to think lying under contract is fraud. It's not. Lying under contract is in the vast majority of cases a civil issue at worst. Maybe the jobcentre could sue me for not meeting my contractual obligations. But it's not fraud. You seem to have a very broad idea of what fraud is. Fraud is criminal. Breach of contract is not.

If you are under a voluntary contract

This is also arguable. I am not under a voluntary contract. If I don't sign, I either have to beg my friends and family to provde my food or shelter, or go without. To say I choose to be subject to their conditions is wide of the mark. I am subject to their conditions because my options are limited. This isn't voluntary.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You seem to think lying under contract is fraud. It's not. Lying under contract is in the vast majority of cases a civil issue at worst. Maybe the jobcentre could sue me for not meeting my contractual obligations. But it's not fraud. You seem to have a very broad idea of what fraud is. Fraud is criminal. Breach of contract is not.

Nits picked. What you're doing is indecent and unethical by my standards.

Quibbling over which law you're breaking is of marginal interest. Still, I may be confusing different laws, and that's a fair point.

This is also arguable. I am not under a voluntary contract. If I don't sign, I either have to beg my friends and family to provde my food or shelter, or go without. To say I choose to be subject to their conditions is wide of the mark. I am subject to their conditions because my options are limited. This isn't voluntary.

You are making a whole slew of choices which perpetuate your circumstances.

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if you had some friend crashing on your couch who keeps assuring you that he's looking for a job, while you pay for his food and rent. What if you found out he was lying to you?

***
In what way are you prevented from living where weed is legal?
Is there anything beside a few years of sacrifice that prevent you from living there?

I'm getting at the fact that it's not like you are living in North Korea and can't leave. If there is any impediment to your emigrating to a nation which is more in line with your beliefs, I'd wager it's something you could overcome if you worked for it.

[OngBonga]

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if you had some friend crashing on your couch who keeps assuring you that he's looking for a job, while you pay for his food and rent. What if you found out he was lying to you?

No. This isn't a fair comparison. Am I on your couch? No I'm not.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot properly. When I was working, was I happy for my tax to be spent on unemployed people? Yes I was. It keeps crime lower and keeps unemployable people from the workplaces.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What is to be discerned by your selective answering of questions?

[OngBonga]

What is to be discerned by your selective answering of questions?

Patience...

[MadMojoMonkey]

Patience...

touche'

[OngBonga]

In what way are you prevented from living where weed is legal?

Money, friends, family, culture, language...

Is there anything beside a few years of sacrifice that prevent you from living there?

Money, ok I can make money if push comes to shove. Friends, I can make friends, learn a language, adapt to new cultures. But family...

Also, do you know of any countries with a shortage of weed growers? Most nations want their immigrants to be useful to them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Family is compelling.

I am frequently overwhelmed by my lady's choice to stay with me in St. Louis over returning to her family in Hawai'i. That said, they still visit each other a couple of times a year.

Even still. Living under oppression is a greater daily concern than even family. It's not as if you'd be out of contact, anyway. Skype is a thing. It's no substitute for a hug, but it's much better than complete absence.

Also, do you know of any countries with a shortage of weed growers? Most nations want their immigrants to be useful to them.

I'm certain you have other skills. If you can grow one plant, I'm sure you can grow others. As I understand it, they do most of the work themselves.

This is exactly what I meant by a few years' work. You'll need to sacrifice yourself to the long term goal and maintain enough employment to be considered a craftsman in some field. I'm sure botany would suffice.

[OngBonga]

I do have friends in Portugal who are growing. The whole family upped and moved.

I'd like to leave England, but I do not believe that any other nation on the planet owes me a thing, whether that's a job, or benefits. I didn't choose the UK, this is my home. For me to leave here, I'd need a stable well paid job to go to.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I do have friends in Portugal who are growing. The whole family upped and moved.

I'd like to leave England, but I do not believe that any other nation on the planet owes me a thing, whether that's a job, or benefits. I didn't choose the UK, this is my home. For me to leave here, I'd need a stable well paid job to go to.

From the sound of it, even the UK has paid up anything they might have owed you.

No one chooses their childhood, but we all choose our adulthood. You can't blame the outside for your circumstances beyond a certain point. You have the social mobility to put yourself wherever you see yourself.

In a way, it's kind of messed up that some people would sacrifice everything they know to have a shot at what you have, yet, you see it as oppression. I'm not saying anything with that other than the world is a messed up place and perspective matters.

[OngBonga]

I'd like to study, either environmental science, or natural science. That's my most likely path to productiveness. But I'm woefully underqualified for university, so it's a long road. I am looking into it though to see if it's realistic, and in what time frame.

I don't really want to be doing nothing with my life, I'd just rather this than a dead end job.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd like to study, either environmental science, or natural science. That's my most likely path to productiveness. But I'm woefully underqualified for university, so it's a long road. I am looking into it though to see if it's realistic, and in what time frame.

I don't really want to be doing nothing with my life, I'd just rather this than a dead end job.

Ultimately, university is just paying a bunch of people to motivate you to do things you already want to do.

I'm saying that all you need is the textbooks and a schedule that you adhere to. Read the textbook. Do the homework.
The professor is mostly a companion who tells you to work harder.

Time frame is irrelevant. Or at the very least, it will work itself out. Just keep moving forward.

[OngBonga]

I see being told I can't smoke a plant as oppression. I don't see anyone telling me I can't smoke cabbage, even though it's likely to be equally as dangerous. I could be earning a decent income.

They owe me a living.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I see being told I can't smoke a plant as oppression. I don't see anyone telling me I can't smoke cabbage, even though it's likely to be equally as dangerous. I could be earning a decent income.

I get that. This is why is masochistic of you to be resigned to remain in that culture.

They owe me a living.

lol.
entitlement.

[OngBonga]

lol.
entitlement.

They have taken away viable options for me to be happy and productive. This isn't about entitlement. It's about compensation.

[JKDS]

I can't keep up in the thread either, but someone said something about the scientific peer review process and it being good.

It's not, it's complete shit. http://www.vocativ.com/culture/scien...ic-publishing/

With the exception of physics, most sciences are trapped by a few businesses, with reform anticipated...but far away.

[wufwugy]

I can't keep up in the thread either, but someone said something about the scientific peer review process and it being good.

It's not, it's complete shit. http://www.vocativ.com/culture/scien...ic-publishing/

With the exception of physics, most sciences are trapped by a few businesses, with reform anticipated...but far away.

Dude, this article doesn't show a dysfunctional peer review process. The best case it could would be tangential in that government subsidies to universities are indirectly making participation in review more exclusionary than it otherwise would be. But of course it wouldn't do that since it seems the author wants government to take it over and make it "free".

Paywalls for publications are not bad. If we didn't have paywalls, we'd still be watching just variety shows on three fucking channels on small tube screens.

The peer review process is extremely robust. If it wasn't, we'd be seeing a collapse of scientific institutions themselves.

BTW this is an example why data alone illuminates nothing. You can find any graph to tell you any story you want.

[JKDS]

I see something about fraud. Fraud is, generally, lying for pecuniary gain.

But it's much more complicated. That's more of a test to see if you should be thinking "hrm, better make sure I'm not doing fraud".

It's jurisdictional based, but I've seen it have as many as 9 different elements, that each need to be met.

Also, not fulfilling a contract is likely just a breach of contract. But falsely claiming to have fulfilled it is a completely different story.

[OngBonga]

I assume that claiming to have fullfilled the contract would be signing a statement to the effect of "I hereby state that to the best of my knowledge the information I have provided is true and complete", rather than showing a man a list of jobs "applied" for which he nods at then asks if I've had any replies?

I'm very cautious about what I actually claim by signature, I read the statements carefully.

[JKDS]

Signatures or whatever only matter in an evidentiary sense. If you're accused of fraud, you say "not uh", and they have no proof...then you win. In 'murica (using English common law), they have to show you lied, knew you were lying, intended on them relying on your lie, and more. But if all they got is "well, I think he lied", then everyone has a good laugh and you go your merry way.

But a signed writing isn't an element of fraud, so it's not necessary to prove guilt. It could be any lie for pecuniary gain, so long as it met the other elements are met.

[JKDS]

It should be noted that signed writings matter a great deal in contract and property law generally, just not so much for criminal fraud.

[JKDS]

I'll retract part of my statement, but the point that peer review is still in need of vast improvement still stands.