I recommend not reading zerocred
01-02-2015 04:54 PM
#76
| |
|
I recommend not reading zerocred |
01-02-2015 05:04 PM
#77
| |
| |
01-02-2015 08:07 PM
#78
| |
|
Great article on topic. I know you said you're done. I'm just posting this in case you wish to read it |
01-02-2015 10:37 PM
#79
| |
How does the idea that "business run society beats government run society" hold any muster at all when we have countless examples of businesses ruthlessly exploiting both their own employees and society as a whole? | |
01-02-2015 11:27 PM
#80
| |
|
It isn't that business runs societies better, but that an environment of private entities within a competitive field does. A society with only monopolies would be just as bad as government. It would be government effectively |
Last edited by wufwugy; 01-03-2015 at 12:21 AM. | |
01-02-2015 11:27 PM
#81
| |
|
|
01-03-2015 06:00 AM
#82
| |
Anarchy is the way to go imo. | |
| |
01-03-2015 03:21 PM
#83
| |
|
I like some anarchistic elements, but I don't think it works as an organizing principle of the whole since baked into the philosophy is a rejection of authority. We need authority, what we don't need is mandated authority that we have no choice over. If the US were to transition to a no-tax no-govt system, it wouldn't be anarchy because we would all still choose to organize the way we already do. It would just be far more functional, prosperous, and with far fewer victims |
01-03-2015 04:08 PM
#84
| |
Well most anarchists are punk rock retards who have more in common with socialists and fascists than with true anarchists. Clearly there would be things like law enforcement and armies in a stateless society, it's just a matter of how human ingenuity would step up to fill these roles. | |
01-04-2015 02:03 PM
#85
| |
| |
01-04-2015 02:40 PM
#86
| |
Renton, I understand that this makes perfect sense to you - how could it be wrong? Do you understand that that doesn't mean it's right? | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-04-2015 at 02:45 PM. | |
01-04-2015 02:47 PM
#87
| |
| |
01-04-2015 02:50 PM
#88
| |
| |
01-04-2015 03:01 PM
#89
| |
|
I recommend not confusing economics with politics. |
01-04-2015 03:03 PM
#90
| |
The point of Not Even Wrong is that it's hard to be right. The only thing that's right is reality, not your intellect, not what makes sense, only what is. You can't tell me that you learned about special relativity or quantum mechanics and thought "oh sure, that's what I expected!" The reason they're accepted is because the evidence supports them. If you want to tell me about the wonderfully vetted out system of economics that you understand, you've just got to show me how you know you're right. Otherwise I'll just assume you're playing guessing games. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-04-2015 at 03:06 PM. | |
01-04-2015 03:03 PM
#91
| |
| |
01-04-2015 03:06 PM
#92
| |
| |
01-04-2015 03:07 PM
#93
| |
| |
01-04-2015 03:09 PM
#94
| |
| |
01-04-2015 03:15 PM
#95
| |
I won't argue with the statement that "economics" as a whole is populated with a lot of pseudoscientific shit. The OP in the thread you linked said he spent a lot of time studying Keynesian economics, so it's no wonder he came off feeling that way. However, to extend the pseudoscience umbrella to the entirety of basic economic concepts is absurd. | |
01-04-2015 03:16 PM
#96
| |
| |
01-04-2015 03:21 PM
#97
| |
|
Renton fwiw a lot of what Krugman says Keynes never said. A lot of what Krugman says he said the opposite a decade ago. The word among all the working/teaching economists I've seen is that Krugman is still brilliant in some ways, but he has abandoned a decent amount of established economics to pursue his political goals. |
01-04-2015 03:24 PM
#98
| |
I accept things like supply and demand as that has been bolstered by observation. I don't accept the sort of far out conclusions that come from assumptions that I believe are observably false like rational actors. Nor do I think it's robust to brush away how it is people make decisions by saying, "when they trade, they 'value' the thing their trading for more than what they're trading." There are examples from Behavioral Economics where people do not 'properly' value things because of loss aversion or an inability to know preferences like here: | |
| |
01-04-2015 03:29 PM
#99
| |
Admittedly, I don't know that that survey was properly conducted. | |
| |
01-04-2015 03:38 PM
#100
| |
| |
01-04-2015 03:44 PM
#101
| |
|
I very much enjoyed the Ariely stuff when I first watched it years ago |
01-04-2015 03:51 PM
#102
| |
Well I don't believe all participants in trade are rational so I guess I'll have to agree with you on the first part. As for the second part, the problem is there's just no other way to ascribe value to anything than to say it's subjective to the individual. Other than what someone is voluntarily willing to pay for or accept, any other way of valuating a good or service will be arbitrary and inaccurate. | |
Last edited by Renton; 01-04-2015 at 03:54 PM. | |
01-04-2015 03:55 PM
#103
| |
Is Sowell a good source for the fundamentals of economics, whatever they may be? | |
| |
01-04-2015 03:58 PM
#104
| |
Basic Economics is a good source for a few hundred concrete examples of how controlled or semi-controlled economies fuck things up and it's mainly about the importance of prices and what happens when they aren't allowed to naturally develop. It doesn't read like a textbook though. | |
Last edited by Renton; 01-04-2015 at 04:00 PM. | |
01-04-2015 04:05 PM
#105
| |
|
Sowell doesn't get discussed a ton in the blogosphere. I have seen him briefly discussed, but don't remember in what way. |
01-04-2015 06:21 PM
#106
| |
| |
01-04-2015 06:51 PM
#107
| |
Well the problem is since people are free to do whatever they want, nothing is going directly follow any economic model. As has been said, many participants in trade aren't rational or aren't acting on perfect information or aren't acting perfectly on the information that they have. The principles of price coordination act probabilistically on society as a whole, though. | |
Last edited by Renton; 01-04-2015 at 07:03 PM. | |
01-04-2015 07:21 PM
#108
| |
|
As usual, Renton explains it better |
01-04-2015 07:39 PM
#109
| |
|
Relevant article |
01-05-2015 05:40 PM
#110
| |
|
speaking of sowell. this is great |
01-13-2015 10:20 PM
#111
| |
|
super good interview with thomas sowell |
01-13-2015 10:24 PM
#112
| |
|
Main issue though is when he discusses Quantitative Easing. He's right that the government shouldn't intervene in the economy, but he's also wrong since the government MUST intervene in monetary policy since it holds a monopoly on money. The best solution is to dissolve the monopoly on money, but since we don't have that luxury, we've created a system where said monopolist has to do a bunch of other stuff in order to not turn everything to shit. Basic policy moral hazard. It's also a good microcosm for why government shouldn't have a say in anything. 2008 happened because the money monopolist misbehaved. Then everybody else suffered and the money monopolist claimed it could do nothing |
Last edited by wufwugy; 01-13-2015 at 10:30 PM. | |
01-16-2015 03:50 PM
#113
| |
| |
01-16-2015 04:11 PM
#114
| |
|
im not sure what exactly you're referring to, but the claim that there isn't equal pay for equal work is a myth. it's telling that the media loves the idea and sometimes show one or two data sets to make the case, yet basically no economists support the idea |
01-16-2015 04:27 PM
#115
| |
|
one example for why if you ever see somebody make a case based on a set of data, you should be skeptical: if every US citizens' incomes were doubled, poverty would be all but eliminated YET income inequality would increase. so much for journalists trying to claim that income inequality is a bad thing |
01-16-2015 04:41 PM
#116
| |
If there were a true gender or racial pay gap, then wouldn't firms be buying up all that cheap labor and outbidding all of the discriminating firms, eventually putting them out of business? | |
Last edited by Renton; 01-16-2015 at 04:43 PM. | |
01-16-2015 04:46 PM
#117
| |
|
wanna make employment for women zero? make it illegal to fire women |
01-18-2015 08:05 AM
#118
| |
No it's not. It's a proven fact. | |
01-18-2015 11:54 AM
#119
| |
|
You are confused on the definitions of proof and fact |
01-18-2015 06:09 PM
#120
| |