Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,286,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 150 of 595
  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's hard to evaluate the figures you provided without a source. Do you have one?
    Economists at Harvard and Berkely evaluated 40 million tax returns between 1971 and 2012

    That's not how quintiles work.
    Nice backpedal. But don't pretend like your argument up until this point has been that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor.

    Their rungs are relatively further apart, not absolutely. Let's say the median income in Q1 for Brazil is $50k a year, whereas for Q5 it's $5k a year. meanwhile for Denmark the Q1 and Q5 median incomes are $100k an $20k a year, respectively. The person making 20k a year in Denmark has further to go (80k) than the person in Brazil (45k) to get from Q5 to Q1.
    That's not what the chart shows. Try again.

    Furthermore, I could say that in Brazil the gap between Q1 and Q5 is 10x, or 1000%. Meanwhile the gap in Denmark is only 5x, or 500%. Therefore you could say that the Brazillians, not the Danish, have farther to go.

    In investing, it's ALOT harder to turn $5K into $50K than it is to turn $20K into $100K. In economics it really depends on the skills, education, and opportunities available. If you're a dirt farmer in Brazil making $5k, then ALOT of shit has to happen for you to move up to $50K. You need opportunities available to you, and finding those opportunities are probably alot harder than they are in denmark, or the US. Meanwhile, in Denmark, if you're a clerk making $20K, then all you need is some training, education, and work ethic to advance yourself. So in that regard, I would say that the advantage goes to the country with the most educational opportunities. And the USA crushes everyone else when it comes to access. We have more universities, and more top universities per capita than pretty much anywhere.

    It generally does, as do all Western countries. The issue is not HOW much education there is, but WHO has access to that education.
    Another libtard myth. it was decided during the Clinton administration that education was a right. It doesn't matter who you are, where you're from, what your parents do, or anything. If you want to go to college, you fill out a form, and the government will loan you the money.

    There are countless vocational schools, community colleges, cheap in-state tuition, and the like around the country. It's possible to get a college education for less than $150/credit. The whining on this issue from the left stems from a materialistic sense of entitlement for the residential college experience.

    Maybe if you're in a shithole in Brazil, it's touger to get into a classroom. But in the USA, anyone, literally anyone can go to school. That's another reason why the Gatsby chart is fucked.


    Ok, bye.
    So you're just gonna stand by your fact-less, information-less, data-less moans?
  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Economists at Harvard and Berkely evaluated 40 million tax returns between 1971 and 2012
    Where is the data? You can say anything you want and not back it up, but that's meaningless.
  3. #78
    BTW....wanna guess during what periods of time income inequality actually decreased??

    Spoiler:
    During the depression
    and...
    Spoiler:
    during world wars
    Spoiler:
    Spoiler:
    You want more of that??
  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Where is the data? You can say anything you want and not back it up, but that's meaningless.
    Go look it up. I'm not playing the "nyah nyah you can't believe Fox" game with you anymore. That's so fucking old.

    There was a study. By economists, at major universities. I've given you the number of tax returns evaluated, the years, and the results.

    If you doubt any of that......go find your own evidence.
  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So you're just gonna stand by your fact-less, information-less, data-less moans?
    No, that's what YOUR doing.

    First, you haven't provided any data yourself that disputes the GG chart.

    Second, you haven't actually demonstrated an understanding of what the chart says, which basically means your position can be summed up as 'I don't agree with what it shows therefore somehow it's wrong, and here's some nonsense arguments based on my misunderstanding of the chart.'
  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    BTW....wanna guess during what periods of time income inequality actually decreased??

    Spoiler:
    During the depression
    and...
    Spoiler:
    during world wars
    Spoiler:
    Spoiler:
    You want more of that??
    And...?
  7. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Go look it up. I'm not playing the "nyah nyah you can't believe Fox" game with you anymore. That's so fucking old.

    There was a study. By economists, at major universities. I've given you the number of tax returns evaluated, the years, and the results.

    If you doubt any of that......go find your own evidence.
    Well if you want to make an argument based on such-and-such data, and you can't actually provide such-and-such data, then you may as well be citing Fox News. Can you at least tell us where you heard these solid facts you reported?
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    No, that's what YOUR doing.
    False

    First, you haven't provided any data yourself that disputes the GG chart.
    So? I'm not trying to dispute the GG chart. I'm disputing the gigantic logical leaps you're taking to explain what it means.

    Second, you haven't actually demonstrated an understanding of what the chart says
    No, I haven't inferred anything more than what the chart says. Not the same thing.

    which basically means your position can be summed up as 'I don't agree with what it shows therefore somehow it's wrong, and here's some nonsense arguments based on my misunderstanding of the chart.'
    I've posed some very clear questions challenging the conclusions that YOU are drawing from the chart. Rather than answer them, your only response has been "Well...uhhh....you must not know what the chart means". Which means that your position can be summed up as "This chart is flimsy but it's the only evidence I have to support my argument, so I'll just treat it like scripture and ridicule anyone who challenges it"
  9. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Can you at least tell us where you heard these solid facts you reported?
    From economists at Harvard and Berkely
  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    From economists at Harvard and Berkely
    You obviously don't mean they called you up and told you this.

    Where did you hear it? Because if the answer is "Fox News" i'm going to be less than impressed.
  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    No, I haven't inferred anything more than what the chart says. Not the same thing.
    "

    Well since you asked the question of why the chart doesn't show how many people go up and how many go down, the only logical conclusion is that you don't understand it.
  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    I've posed some very clear questions
    They might be clear to you, but they're not clear to anyone who actually understands the chart. You obviously don't understand it, which is what makes your questions a reflection of a misinterpretation of the data and therefore nonsensical.
  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Where did you hear it? Because if the answer is "Fox News" i'm going to be less than impressed.
    Exactly. Which is why you can rightly go fuck yourself.
  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    They might be clear to you, but they're not clear to anyone who actually understands the chart. You obviously don't understand it, which is what makes your questions a reflection of a misinterpretation of the data and therefore nonsensical.
    The questions are clear to me because the chart obviously does not reflect known facts.

    For example, a known fact is that income mobility in the united states hasn't changed over the decades, even though the rungs got farther apart (income inequality increased). See the Harvard/Berkely study

    That suggests a NON-correlation between income inequality and income mobility.
  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Exactly. Which is why you can rightly go fuck yourself.
    Lol I guess that answers that.
  16. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well since you asked the question of why the chart doesn't show how many people go up and how many go down, the only logical conclusion is that you don't understand it.
    that is NOT what I asked.

    You yourself said that "one person can go up 3 quintiles, and 3 people can go down 1 quintile". right??

    So my totally valid, cogent, and compelling question here is.....how likely are people to move up or down? In your hypothetical example, you say that people are 3x more likely to move down. It would be really interesting to know the real numbers on that, and the Gatsby chart doesn't show that information.
  17. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Lol I guess that answers that.
    Ok, so again, I'm not playing that game with you. the study happened, you can look it up. I read about it when it was cited in articles that happen to appear on Fox. I don't see how that negates the validity of the data. But you apparently do, so again, go fuck yourself.
  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The questions are clear to me because the chart obviously does not reflect known facts.
    You're saying the data are fake?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    For example, a known fact is that income mobility in the united states hasn't changed over the decades, even though the rungs got farther apart (income inequality increased).
    And...?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    See the Harvard/Berkely study
    Actually I prefer to examine studies that are in front of me, not ones reported to me by Fox News. For some strange reason I don't trust their integrity as a source of information.




    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That suggests a NON-correlation between income inequality and income mobility.
    Assuming all you said above was true, it has absolutely no bearing on this conclusion whatsoever. I can't even begin to figure out how to get you to understand this, but it doesn't matter because you won't listen anyways. I'm guessing that little tutorial I gave you on how quintiles work vis-a-vis income mobility went right past you.
  19. #94
    If one variable changes over time, and the other doesn't......what do you stats-geeks call that??

    I'm pretty sure it's NOT "correlation"
  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ok, so again, I'm not playing that game with you. the study happened, you can look it up. I read about it when it was cited in articles that happen to appear on Fox. I don't see how that negates the validity of the data. But you apparently do, so again, go fuck yourself.
    It doesn't negate the validity of the data (assuming it exists), it negates the validity of the information. We don't know how accurately Fox reported these 'facts' or if the study even happened at all. Moreover, assuming the study does exist, the information has now gone through two filters (Fox News and you), neither of which is reliable, and thus it's impossible to tell how much distortion has gone on between the original data, what Fox said about the data, and your recollection of what you heard Fox say.

    So give us a link to the actual study or we'll just have to assume you're pulling numbers out of your ass.
  21. #96
    It's banana's butthurt day today.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So give us a link to the actual study or we'll just have to assume you're pulling numbers out of your ass.
    Feel free to use your google machine. And it's not what I "heard". It's what I've 'read'. I have the article open on my screen right now, and I can confirm I've reflected the numbers accurately. I've cited the data accurately, if you disagree, then the burden of proof is on you my friend.
  23. #98
    If the US is such a shithole, and Capitalism is so bad.....

    And if Scandanavia is such a paradise and socialism is so great....


    Then shouldn't it follow that Scandanavia, and not the US, would be the most desirable place for immigrants to move to??

    Got any studies on that Poop? Which country do people desire to immigrate to the most??
  24. #99
    This is a poor argument. Most people who want to go to USA are sold a dream that doesn't exist. People who choose Scandanavia have done their homework.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If one variable changes over time, and the other doesn't......what do you stats-geeks call that??

    I'm pretty sure it's NOT "correlation"

    If you made $4k as a teacher in 1920 and that put you in Q3, or you make $40k as a teacher today and are in Q3, then yes the rungs are further apart. But it's also true that if you improve your education and become a professor instead, you might make $8k in 1920 and $80k today, either of which would put you in Q2. In both cases you've gone up one quintile even though the absolute difference in income between a teacher and professor is $4k in 1920 and $40k today. This accounts for inflation and the fact that $40k now is closer in terms of real income to $4k in 1920 than it is to $40k in 1920.

    The rungs scale with overall income, which is why they use quintiles not overall income.
  26. #101
    Also....we've gotten away from this elephant in the room, but I want to re-direct your attention to the fact that the income inequality measures cited by liberal pussies are LOADED with BS data related to investment income.
  27. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If you made $4k as a teacher in 1920 and that put you in Q3, or you make $40k as a teacher today and are in Q3, then yes the rungs are further apart. But it's also true that if you improve your education and become a professor instead, you might make $8k in 1920 and $80k today, either of which would put you in Q2. In both cases you've gone up one quintile even though the absolute difference in income between a teacher and professor is $4k in 1920 and $40k today. This accounts for inflation and the fact that $40k now is closer in terms of real income to $4k in 1920 than it is to $40k in 1920.

    The rungs scale with overall income, which is why they use quintiles not overall income.
    You don't understand the data.

    I would explain why, but apparently it's sufficient to just call you an idiot and move on.
  28. #103
    Scandanvia is pretty high up in the list of places people want to go to. Considering they are small countries with no fucking sunlight, they must be doing something right.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    that is NOT what I asked.

    You yourself said that "one person can go up 3 quintiles, and 3 people can go down 1 quintile". right??

    So my totally valid, cogent, and compelling question here is.....how likely are people to move up or down? In your hypothetical example, you say that people are 3x more likely to move down. It would be really interesting to know the real numbers on that, and the Gatsby chart doesn't show that information.
    It's irrelevant to any overall conclusion based on the graph because the overall net upwards/downwards movement has to balance out.

    If, say, all cases of upward mobility in country A were due to people going up one rung, and all cases of downward mobility were due to people going down two rungs, then twice as many people are going up as going down, but they're only going up 1 notch each while the half as many people who are going down are going down 2 notches each.

    The only way such a situation would change the overall numbers is if income mobility in one country tended to involve larger leaps up or down, but that would make the index of mobility greater, not smaller, which it should.

    So, e.g., the rags to riches story of someone going from Q5 to Q1 involves a change of four quintiles, which would have to be balanced by some combination of people going down by four quintiles; generally this would involve multiple people (although it could involve a single person going from Q1 to Q5, it doesn't require it). Conversely, a one-quintile change upward can only be balanced out by a one-quintile change downwards, which limits the number of people needed to balance the equation to 1.

    So, the mobility index to some extent measures both the number of people who are mobile and the extent to which they are mobile. But these effects are additive and both contribute to the index, which they should. Parsing out the number and the extent values might be interesting, but it shouldn't change the overall shape of the graphs by much if anything. The basic moral is that no, the US doesn't suck on that graph because the index is penalising countries with large numbers of rags-to-riches stories. In fact, it's doing the opposite.
  30. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Feel free to use your google machine. And it's not what I "heard". It's what I've 'read'. I have the article open on my screen right now, and I can confirm I've reflected the numbers accurately. I've cited the data accurately, if you disagree, then the burden of proof is on you my friend.
    I have an article open on my screen that says your numbers are full of shit. Prove me wrong.
  31. #106
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Go back to your shithole.

    You wouldn't have the Internet without capitalism.
  32. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Scandanvia is pretty high up in the list of places people want to go to. Considering they are small countries with no fucking sunlight, they must be doing something right.
    Indeed. They are among the most business friendly nations on the planet.

    It's cool to look at what Scandinavia is doing and evaluate what is good and what is not. It's not cool to look at results in Scandinavia and infer that one's preferred policy is causing it.
  33. #108
    What I've gathered from the economists I read and that I've spoken with, nobody knows what causes inequality or what can change it, and income is a meaningless concept.
  34. #109
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What I've gathered from the economists I read and that I've spoken with, nobody knows what causes inequality or what can change it, and income is a meaningless concept.
    Chance + inherent difference in skill.
  35. #110
    Well yeah that about covers it in the abstract.

    The funny thing is that the concrete ideas for how to make income distribution less inequal are already in wide use. An example is like how most companies give fixed currency raises instead of percentage raises. This has the effect of costing the company the same while appearing to operate fairly while the proportion increases for the lower wages are greater than for the higher wages. But ultimately, this strategy is not used to address some elusive idea of inequality (because that doesn't matter), but to make the company more efficient.

    There are other payment strategies used in different parts of the economy, like winner-take-all for CEOs, that probably increase inequality yet are used because they still provide the most efficient results.
  36. #111
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Capitalism is the reason that "poor people" have fucking cell phones.
  37. #112
    Amazing isn't it.
  38. #113
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Amazing isn't it.
    So oppressed. Much inequality.
  39. #114
    It's not even that I like capitalism. I don't. I wish things were different. But the facts are the facts.

    I do think biases come from emotion. Like you said before, some people would rather get a slice of bread if the person next to him has a slice of bread than a whole loaf if the person next to him gets ten loaves.

    It's almost like humans are animals.
  40. #115
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    And this is an example of why I'm a misanthrope.
  41. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What I've gathered from the economists I read and that I've spoken with, nobody knows what causes inequality or what can change it, and income is a meaningless concept.
    This article seems to have some ideas garnered from people in authority.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/...ity-in-the-us/
  42. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    This article seems to have some ideas garnered from people in authority.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/...ity-in-the-us/
    Yes they have ideas, and they're trying to figure it out.


    Full disclosure, I have essentially three different experiences with economists on this.

    (1) One of my macro professors held the preferred explanation of the "traumatized worker". That is that workers are more fearful of negotiating their wages up due to the threat of being replaced by cheaper outsourced labor. I think this explanation is decent even though I don't know if it shows up in the data. It is an idea some serious economists have taken seriously. An existential problem with this explanation, though, is that it only looks bad when you look at certain data (like only US instead of global) and data in a certain way (like conflating income levels in different countries).

    She was also a fan of blaming lack of labor regulations. Lucky for us, she wasn't a labor economist, and wasn't very good and was not kept on by the university.

    (2) One of my micro professors, who specializes in the topic of inequality, said that while people have ideas about what causes it and what to do, nobody knows.

    (3) Popular economist blogger Scott Sumner argues that the data is wrong and misleading. I already covered the misleading part, but the "wrong" part includes things like the data that say inequality has been growing are flat out wrong. Once all forms of compensation are adjusted for, the change since the 70s disappears. I've seen these data in the past but I don't have them handy.



    Something else that might be the most important part of all this is that methods economists use to measure value changes in goods and services are, for a lack of a better word, abysmal. For example, computers are continually improving and adopting new services. Economists don't know quite how to measure those changes in terms that accurately compare to previous states. According to blogger at econlog David Henderson, when he began researching how other economists do it, he was surprised at how bad the methods are. It's not the the economists are making mistakes, but that nobody even knows how to do it.

    In a way, this shows us how it may be that poor people can own refrigerators and televisions and smart phones and people still call them poor. They go from being poor to being incredibly wealthy based on the method of measurement. Furthermore, the measuring is getting even harder because of how much is becoming digital. My go-to example that encapsulates all this is in music. How much time and energy and money did people spend CDs back in the 90s compared to how little people spend today for a far superior product? My personal costs decreased by >90%/month while the quality and quantity of my consumed products and services increased by some unquantifiable (but probably large) amount.
  43. #118
  44. #119
    Some of that is deeply misleading.

    However, Denmark is arguably in the top 5 capitalism friendly countries in the world, which would account for some of what it does better than other countries. Whenever politicians in the US try to move more towards some policies that Denmark has, Democrats decry how they're just helping the rich.
  45. #120
    Wanna know something super fucking cool?

    So you know how the ctrl-left hates monopolies (except when government) and hates rich people and rich corporations? Yeah well quite probably the BEST way to thwart monopolies is to have richer and more rich people. This is because there are two components that cause a natural monopoly, neither of which the ctrl-left know about, and one of those components (both, actually) are thwarted by concentrations of wealth.
  46. #121
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Wanna know something super fucking cool?

    So you know how the ctrl-left hates monopolies (except when government) and hates rich people and rich corporations? Yeah well quite probably the BEST way to thwart monopolies is to have richer and more rich people. This is because there are two components that cause a natural monopoly, neither of which the ctrl-left know about, and one of those components (both, actually) are thwarted by concentrations of wealth.
    But mah equality.
  47. #122
    Still waiting for someone to tell me why income inequality is even a bad thing
  48. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Still waiting for someone to tell me why income inequality is even a bad thing
    Yeah there's reason to believe that that which causes inequality is causing growth in prosperity for the poor and others.
  49. #124
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Still waiting for someone to tell me why income inequality is even a bad thing
    It's not, but it is a side effect of a lot of good things.
  50. #125
    I thought this was humorous, and a wee bit insightful.

  51. #126
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Sad, but true.
  52. #127


    I lol'd. I mean it's a fucking caricature and straw man and doesn't represent the pro-gov't-monopolies support so I would never suggest it as such. But it's funny nonetheless.
  53. #128
    Anyone wanna guess where Denmark ranks in 'Amount of Household Debt'
  54. #129
  55. #130
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-to-state.html

    What is in the fucking water in California???

    If this passes, do they really expect the corporations to just say "awww, damn, you got us. Alright, here's the money" ???

    Who thinks like that? And when the corporations hire less, pay less, grow less, invest less, risk less, and charge more - all things that hurt the working class - who is gonna get blamed?? Somehow it won't be the crooked misguided power-hungry politicians who bought votes by deluding the ignorant into thinking that they are Robin Hood.
  56. #131
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Same shit, different day. They can't help but try to take someone else's shit and give it to gang members as extortion money to not kill people. (Source)
  57. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Same shit, different day. They can't help but try to take someone else's shit and give it to gang members as extortion money to not kill people. (Source)
    The city council voted 9-0 in favor. That's 9 people who have no understanding of economics and aren't fit for office.
  58. #133
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The city council voted 9-0 in favor. That's 9 people who have no understanding of economics and aren't fit for office.
    Welcome to Commiefornia.
  59. #134
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...his-tripe.html

    Cuomo tweeted. “Diversity is our advantage, remember?”
    Uhh, no Chris. Capitalism, and it's side effects of superior education and innovation, is our advantage
  60. #135
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...his-tripe.html



    Uhh, no Chris. Capitalism, and it's side effects of superior education and innovation, is our advantage
    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
  61. #136
    Can anyone tell me how open borders, or any similar policy that imports poor people wholesale...helps American citizens?
  62. #137
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Can anyone tell me how open borders, or any similar policy that imports poor people wholesale...helps American citizens?
    They ran out of dead people to vote Democrat, so now they're importing.
  63. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Can anyone tell me how open borders, or any similar policy that imports poor people wholesale...helps American citizens?
  64. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Does this mean there is an explanation to follow? Or is that a sarcasm monster?
  65. #140
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Does this mean there is an explanation to follow? Or is that a sarcasm monster?
    I thought this might happen. Here's an explanation of the character: http://rickandmorty.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Meeseeks

    Meeseeks are creatures who are created to serve a singular purpose for which they will go to any length to fulfill. After they serve their purpose, they expire and vanish into the air. Their motivation to help others comes from the fact that existence is painful to a Meeseeks, and the only way to be removed from existence is to complete the task they were called to perform. Physical violence cannot eliminate them.

    They typically live for no more than a few hours, and thus two days is an eternity for Meeseeks. The longer the Meeseeks stay alive, the more sanity they begin to lose. Rick warns the Smith family to keep their tasks simple.


    If a Meeseeks is not given a purpose at the beginning of its existence it seems to default to taking the purpose of the Meeseeks before it. This is seen when a Meeseeks created for Jerry created another Meeseeks then ordered it to kill another Meeseeks it was in argument with which the resultant Meeseeks attempted to avail. The Meeseeks then wildly began pressing the box without giving orders and all the resulting Meeseeks began trying in vain to kill the rest of the Meeseeks.
  66. #141
    So is the joke that only a meeseks could answer my questions, because it will "go to any length" to fulfill it's given task?

    3 out of 10 wuf.
  67. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Can anyone tell me how open borders, or any similar policy that imports poor people wholesale...helps American citizens?
    This could be a super long post, so I'll keep is super short instead.

    Since prosperity derives from production and production derives from human capital (and raw resources), simply having more people who do more stuff makes the world better off. The math and the economic models back this up and there are some pretty sophisticated explanations that I won't get into. Example, a poor immigrant is willing to do the same job for less or an even "lower" job that doesn't exist yet for that matter. This means that there is more prosperity per head. Those that the immigrants compete with are worse off, but everybody else is better off, and the net is aggregate better-offness. The principles at play here are the same for why trade is good, why the minimum wage is bad, why voluntary transactions are good, etc..

    To make immigration work productively, the immigrants have to adopt the work ethic, so that means that welfare for immigrants is quite bad. It's bad for everybody anyways.


    However, the models from which this all derive are not comprehensive. There is reason to believe that too much immigration or too much immigration of a certain type could be negative. Example, importing labor has an indirect effect on domestically born/raised kids/teens/young adults. The models don't adjust for this. US native kids are growing up VERY different than they did just twenty years ago, with very different life skills and life lessons, because of importing labor that kids/teens/young adults would normally do. Nobody knows what the impact is/will be, but it is probably negative, and could be by a lot.

    Another example is that the most sophisticated concepts of open borders assume the doctrine of first settlement, essentially that immigrants adopt the practices of where they settle. Well, there's a threshold to that and we don't know where it is. Importing people of a different culture at a low enough rate will probably see them adopt the lifestyle of the natives, but a large enough immigrant base will flip it.

    A third counter is one Nassim Taleb has put up, using his smart maths and such. Essentially it's how minority cultures create dominant policies. He references how it only takes like 5% of a population (I forget the exact number, but it's quite low) in an area to have a particular preference for that preference to be adopted by the companies and many people at the expense of the companies and the people.



    Finally, something neat happened in my labor econ class when we covered the main models showing the net benefit for the importing country of immigrants. The professor, who is vocally pro-immigration, finished the modeling then said it shows the benefit, and somebody behind me said "according to that model", and the prof chuckled and said yeah according to that model. It's true. I think the models show most of what's going on, but not all of it. I'm generally a pro-immigration guy, but I don't foolishly assume that it's an always-good. Too much immigration can possibly do some real damage to the youth as well as really serious damage if the native culture is not adopted enough.
  68. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So is the joke that only a meeseks could answer my questions, because it will "go to any length" to fulfill it's given task?

    3 out of 10 wuf.
    I just love Mr. Meeseeks.
  69. #144
    Didn't turn out as short as I hoped, but jam packed with the best bullet points.
  70. #145
    redundant post now wuf replied
  71. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So is the joke that only a meeseks could answer my questions, because it will "go to any length" to fulfill it's given task?

    3 out of 10 wuf.
    No they'd kill you.
  72. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    They ran out of dead people to vote Democrat, so now they're importing.
    Something I think is important to consider is how people who hate western culture want as much immigration as possible. Why? Could be because they think that will result in an overturning of western culture. Are they right? Who knows? But they think it, and acknowledging that they might have a point is better than playing Ostrich.
  73. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    No they'd kill you.
    LOL

    Mr Meeseeks, make me kinder to people on the internet


    I WANNA DIE LIFE IS PAIN HE ROPED ME INTO THIS HEEEEE ROPED MEEEEE INTO THIS
  74. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Something I think is important to consider is how people who hate western culture want as much immigration as possible. Why? Could be because they think that will result in an overturning of western culture. Are they right? Who knows? But they think it, and acknowledging that they might have a point is better than playing Ostrich.
    No it's because they believe in some all mighty power spreading the word and ruling type shit that basically every empire ever has also believed in, of which none exist. They tend to turn out pretty terribly.
  75. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Didn't turn out as short as I hoped, but jam packed with the best bullet points.
    If I read it right, you're saying that immigration is great because flooding the cheapest and least skilled labor market sort of drives everybody else up ladder, and also drives prices down. I feel like I've heard this argument before, but it usually starts with "My great-grandfather came to Ellis Island in 1924....and that worked out great"

    When the US economy forced people to either get their act together or die, then by natural selection, the only people who survived had their act together.

    Then welfare and redistribution became a thing, so people aren't forced to get their act together. I believe you also hinted at this in your analysis wuf. So I believe our conclusion here is that immigration is obsolete.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •