https://i.redd.it/l11teliiv9ky.jpg
Printable View
^Do you see forcing companies to move their production to the US as being beneficial government involvement?
Good question. Is there forcing? I'm not sure I see forcing. What I do see is incentivizing, so I'll address that.
A lot of that which incentivizes companies to move abroad in the first place is the US government having big disincentive policies and the other countries not. The US government has in part caused the problem due to its intervention in the first place.
To make the case for government intervention, one has to make the case for a more efficient accounting of asymmetric information. I'm not sure I can do that. However, it is possible that there are types of things that for some reason markets don't account for costs and benefits as well as basic human intuition. An example could be how it is very hard to quantitatively show the effects of a disruption in national sensibilities, yet intuitively it is easy to see how that's a big deal.
This gets at one place where I diverge from open-borders economists. They use some simple economic models to show why totally free movement benefits the world. I don't think it does because of unintended consequences like subversion of liberal institutions that are necessary for growth and stability.
I'm not sure if this is any sort of answer. This is the one area that I consider the strongest counter to totally free markets. It's partly something I got from Nassim Taleb, that intuition is better at explaining very complex systems than quantitative models. It can be the case that some things about civilization are so complex that a sort of strongman approach with Grandma's intuition would yield better results than one that uses the best science has to offer.
This probably isn't the case for a great number of things (which we've seen in history), but it could be the case for something like this: markets tend to construct a society around consumerism while basic human intuition might tell us that's no way to construct a long-lasting and prosperous society. The intuition on this might be right. Markets might be unsustainable for unquantifiable reasons. For example, it can be the case that long-term prosperity requires standard gender roles, and markets liberalize gender roles to the point of eventual civilization destruction. I really just don't know. It's an idea I've been batting around.
That's actually a really good tweet. I do think that the whole "free rhetoric" is nonsense but this is usually a result of arguing against it & saying it's not free the taxpayer pays for it results in an image of the rich paying for the poor to go to uni. So why are there no cartoons on the internet of really rich peoples children being funded to go to university by the poor. It's a fairly bullshit concept but feels to me that it works to get the point across, too easily rebutted? I imagine not & even if so I could make some bullshit criteria that says otherwise whilst being persuasive.
Well you're right, forcing is most likely not a good term, I think that's just how he wants to portray it. Another way to put it might be paying them to invest domestically, that is using tax payer money to incentivize it. Either way, actively intervening in the way markets operate. A lot of it probably is just Trump taking the credit for things that have been in the works for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...reator/514466/
https://time.com/money/4640938/donal...almart-amazon/
You mean corporate taxes? I'd think the main reasons to outsource are to avoid taxes and exploit lower production costs elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Interesting to hear you say that. My understanding was that before you were fervently against any kind of government interventions and regulations, and all for free trade, not just domestically. What made you change your mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Hold on, Taleb said that? Where? The Nassim Taleb who wrote The Black Swan? My understanding is that he has on the contrary quite vehemently argued against trusting intuition, due to all the cognitive biases we have. Favoring intuition over hard science amounts IMO to rather just following your feelings and emotions than bothering to study the issue. I'm sure the models we have with incomplete information are limited at best, but still better than a guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Might or might not, just having an intuition says nothing about which is more likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I mean this with the highest respect possible, but it does sound like you're battling with cognitive dissonance, between your belief in free capitalism and trying to reconcile this with Trump supporting command economy and protectionism.
Yeah. And some. A reason for a large degree of cheaper production outside of the US is taxes and regulations that increase the cost of US labor. On a side note, this is one reason why the US "immigrant" labor picture is distorted. It operates more on a black market, sidestepping some regulations and taxes, while indigenous laborers tend to not do that, which results in artificially constructed non-competitiveness that harms those following the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
There is also the flip side of other governments greatly subsidizing for their benefit. Responding to a bad government with free markets isn't necessarily a good idea. Instead that's more about replacing bad government with free markets. Even if the US government does everything right domestically, foreign governments can still fuck the US over by intervening in their own markets. In this case the US government intervening to create a more fair playing field is probably of benefit.
For a spell I was totally open borders. My first change on that was because I wrongly believed free markets are open borders. They're not. In fact I think borders would be more fiercely enforced by private interests freely operating in markets than they are now by governments. My move towards somewhat tight borders is because of unintended consequences I've come to through higher-order logic. Some economists denigrate conservatives for how they used to believe in the liberal ideas regarding immigration yet now don't. My response to this is "what happens when that liberal view of immigration undercuts liberalism in the first place; thus leaving less robust liberalism, which results in a net gain in cost"? That's basically the point I'm at now. I do think free markets can handle it, but we don't have free markets, so we have to be smart about how we construct our nation-states.Quote:
Interesting to hear you say that. My understanding was that before you were fervently against any kind of government interventions and regulations, and all for free trade, not just domestically. What made you change your mind?
He's tweeted it a few times. I'll post if I come across again.Quote:
Hold on, Taleb said that? Where? The Nassim Taleb who wrote The Black Swan? My understanding is that he has on the contrary quite vehemently argued against trusting intuition, due to all the cognitive biases we have. Favoring intuition over hard science amounts IMO to rather just following your feelings and emotions than bothering to study the issue. I'm sure the models we have with incomplete information are limited at best, but still better than a guess.
Could be. Cognitive dissonance is rampant, even among those who say they don't do it much (especially among those who say they don't do it much).Quote:
Might or might not, just having an intuition says nothing about which is more likely.
I mean this with the highest respect possible, but it does sound like you're battling with cognitive dissonance, between your belief in free capitalism and trying to reconcile this with Trump supporting command economy and protectionism.
All those things I said I still think free markets can handle them better; I can't fully explain why not. I recall when I first questioned it in some way was from what Taleb said. Also I never thought Trump was into the "command economy and protectionism" thing. If I thought he was, I wouldn't have predicted the economy responding so well to his election. I know pundits say he's a protectionist, but when was the last time they were right? It does not appear that investors think he's a protectionist, and they represent the best information we have on the issue. This assumes the pejorative connotation of "protectionism," the one where policy is meant to protect but instead hurts.
I found one instance in which Taleb claims when a system is sufficiently complex, Grandma's Wisdom understands it better than scientific calibrationQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-...e15#.hk2h7emkp
lmao'd my ass off at 1:40. Notice the shot cut immediately after he appeared to have gone off on one of those glorious tirades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaNZ4Gm1ylM
Interesting read, but it left me a bit confused. What he talks about are emergent properties of complex systems, and the ways a small intransigent minority can influence outcomes for the whole system. Sounds logical. He doesn't in any way explain what he means by "scientific intuition" or "snap scientific judgment", to me those sound oxymoronic. It kind of seems like that's what he believes scientists criticizing him on his views on GMOs must be doing since they disagree with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
His grandmother thesis seems to be this:
"An idea does not survive because it is better than the competition, but rather because the person who holds it has survived! Accordingly, wisdom you learn from your grandmother should be vastly superior (empirically, hence scientifically) to what you get from a class in business school (and, of course, considerably cheaper). My sadness is that we have been moving farther and farther away from grandmothers."
Alright, why not. Evolution of knowledge. A few things come to mind though. As with evolution of species, it does not guarantee that any feature or allele is more "correct" or more perfect, just that if it has an effect on survival, it will be better adjusted to it's environment. If the wisdom is wrong but harmless, meaning believing in it won't decrease your chances of survival, I don't see why evolution would select against it. Assuming this "evolved knowledge" to necessarily be more "true" than a scientifically derived fact is bollocks IMO. I'm sure some grandmother wisdom is correct, like that those berries are safe to eat and those others are not, but grandmother wisdom also tells us that the sun revolves around the flat earth. Not outright convinced, but an interesting read nonetheless.
He can be very confusing at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Regarding the grandmother wisdom being better, I think it's only valid when a system is both sufficiently complex and insufficiently understood. Which berries that kill you is something science can figure out well. Perhaps this is a decent example:
What does science tell us women want in men? If we were to develop the "perfect man" using only that which is comes through empirical data, we'd probably have a mess on our hands. But if you ask Grandma, she'd probably get you close to something great with just a couple sentences. Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Cough cough the efficient market hypothesis would like to have a word cough cough obama's liquidity trap gasps for breath cough cough obama said manufacturing cant come back because no magic wand then POOF like magic trump ramps them up cough cough
Yeah I think we can safely say that it's not the case with simple cases, where the variables are known and understood. If we limit this to just complex situations that are poorly understood, obviously science more or less breaks down. I'm still a bit hesitant to outright claim that intuition fares better, at least in a consistent way. What grandma says about men is based on her personal preferences and experiences, and can be pretty much anything. Both science and intuition can get things horribly wrong, but with science at least there are checks and balances that should give an idea how reliable the prediction is, whereas with intuition there's none. With all the cognitive biases we have, where science does not have answers I'd rather just admit to not (yet) knowing, rather than trusting intuition, especially with something like public policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I dunno, I need to read more about this. Trying to find some more stuff I stumbled on this, high recommendation:
http://nassimtaleb.org/2015/05/video.../#.WMQzF6IY1HY
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also from '79
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U
Making sure all students are treated fairly and not discriminated against seems like a top priority to me. Not sure what I expect from the president of the Family Policy Alliance of Kansas. Names like family alliance are synonymous with afraid of changes and things that are different. Equal rights for all as long as you're the same as us.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, I'm not a fan of stronger states rights in education when you have states like Texas fucking up history books and states like Missouri still exist.
Explain the relevance of EMH here. I'm assuming it's applicable to the Obama's economy statement and not the latter but just wanted to confirm.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Explain how manufacturing coming back is a good thing. It gives jobs to people at the cost of the consumer (i.e. cheaper imports with tariffs). If we were effectively set up to compete in manufacturing we would have done so already. Seems like we're manufacturing competitiveness (pun intended!) via tariffs which American consumers will pay for in the long run.
It's a huge priority. That's why we want to stop the deeply unfair system created by government.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
The EMH tells us that the world prefers President Trump to President Clinton or Obama. What has it been, like a 14% increase in stock values since the world realized we would go in the direction of a Trump economy instead of the expected Obama/Clinton one?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
I'm sure if you wanted to you could go back and dig up Wuf saying this type of thing was awful. But then when Trump became god he changed his mind and says economists do this sort of thing badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Good thing we're not doing what I said was wrong to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
What I have said is that unilateral deregulation of trade is a dominant strategy. In simple terms, I believe that to be the case. Where I have changed is that I've acknowledged we're not dealing with simple terms.
That pesky k.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It strikes me as fairly obvious as to why it's bad. Maybe the argument of it fucks us but it fucks you more may apply but I very highly doubt it at best it might fuck everyone but mostly yourselves.
The funny thing about this sort of local & national protectionism that's happening across Europe is that even the people who tuk r jubs are mad that people r tuk der jubs.
In a perfect world, any sort of protectionism would likely be bad.
Here's an example of how perfectly sensible theory meets up with the real world to find it's wrong: the classical school believes that in a lassez-faire market the labor market can always be at full employment because wages can freely adjust. But in the real world, wages don't adjust because humans aren't robots (we HATE wage cuts). A similar type of thing can be said to be going on regarding trade. An economy that loses jobs in one sector while increasing total potential jobs is likely to increase its unemployment for unintended, human behavior reasons. Some protectionism is arguably a good thing because some disruption can cause even greater inefficiency. Creating Detroits is a big problem that the models don't address.
It's right when you like it wrong when you don't.
Gotcha.
On the youtubes
Waiting for wufwugy's "But ... COST!!!" defenseQuote:
This channel makes me appreciate my country even more than I actually should. I live in the Netherlands where we do have very good and modern infrastructure. But a lot of Dutch people take that for granted, and keep complaining about the little things. When I think about it, I realise that I'm very lucky that our government prioritizes maintaining and modernising of all the infrastructure. I'm used to it, so sometimes I just forget that it could be much worse in other places around the globe.
I wish the US would look at other countries and pick the good examples, such as renewable energy, modern public transport, single payer healthcare, investing in good education for everyone (children are the future), less car oriented road designs and more seperate cycle paths in suburbs and city centres (there is enough space, and more people and children will be motivated to cycle to their destination like in the Netherlands, so the obesity rate will drop), etc. So much money is used for military, even if it could be spent on better purposes. I genuinely hope that Justice Democrats will succeed and come in power so the US can catch up with the most (advanced) countries of Europe, Asia, Australia and South-America. This way it will be a win-win situation.
This is the vid in question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJP9zsWWqcY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi9M7DRazI
The deep state is attacking TrumpCare© /s
You're usually a thinker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOXXXM9Im4gQuote:
The key to happiness
Cant' wait to see the look on Maddow's face when they finally announce there was no link between Russia and the Trump campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Don't think that will ever happen though. It will remain a perpetual question at least through next election cycle.
What's the best part of that video? Was it when Ryan made a mistake in his explanation or when Jimmy got many things wrong and was smug about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Both Ryan's repeated and intentional "mistakes" and Jimmy's smugness about it, quality shitposting yo
It ain't just Fake News, it's Fake Reality
https://i.imgtc.com/S4bUxmY.jpg
Pride is a fucking sin and these sinners should be ashamed of themselves, not proud.
Why is it always used that therefore white pride must be good rather than all the others are incredibly stupid? The only one that has merit in existing is gay pride and that'll become counter productive soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I demand brown hair pride.
Surely gay pride is heterophobia?
The reason that has merit is because it isn't a physical or cultural thing, it is a mechanism that spreads awareness and as a result allows people to be who they are. That being said the more accepted being gay becomes the more stupid gay pride becomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My problem with all this pride bollocks is that we're all fucking different for lots of different reasons. Two gay men have there sexuality in common. So what? Why is that worth celebrating, though it's not worth me hi fiving other men I see who are also six foot tall? I don't see men with big noses having a festival.
I guess the bummers can see this as progress. That's what homosexuality is to me. An aspect of a person like height, hair colour etc. If that's not acceptance, I dunno what is.
Yeah it is but not everyone shares the same views as you.
Fortunately. I need the ants to go and pay their tax so I can get stoned and moan about (not literal) slave culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Haha great shareQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
30 minutes of quality shitposting
Just don't get your panties all up in a bunch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQkP3tzmf1Y
Ok, more like 20
Imagine ALLLLLL the peohpleeee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uPItQT9m9g
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/2...parents-racism
Racism & Xenophobia are more serious than violent depraved rape.
Superintendent must be from Sweden.
Brexit, a resounding success
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IJktDe8oww
MFW Trumpcare goes down
https://i.imgur.com/RSk7PaX.gif
I love this slow moving disaster for Trump as he continues to realize what the Presidency is and how wrong he... who am I kidding? Old dog's going to use the same tricks until he goes down in flames.Quote:
Meanwhile, House Freedom Caucus members seemed to dig in further. Upon hearing that White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and President Trump were compiling a “shit list” of those who opposed the bill, an aide working for the hardline conservative caucus responded, “Meh.”
I recommend consuming more informed media. Things are swiftly revealing that this was a tactic to delegitimize Ryan (and other stuff).
Yes, more (((informed))) media.
I'll stick to just the headlines, thanks.
That's actually a decent strategy as long as you get the sources right.
And I have. My source is on and off observation of Donny and the recognition that he is, was, and will be a failure in the position of President.
Mike Pence when?
If you can come up with acceptable parameters for how to gauge this, I'll give you 10 to 1 on a two week avatar bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Open your eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sick of winning yet?
Turns out when you spent the last 7 years being Statler and Waldorf and now you're suddenly in charge of the show, the show falls apart real fucking fast...
Trying to pass Trumpcare this quickly is amateur hour and brings me back to this:
https://pics.onsizzle.com/these-smug...e-10514962.png
I think I'll turn this into a safe space for hallucinations.
It wasn't already that for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I've learned that when you're right, the way you convince people is by delegitimizing antagonists and letting your protagonist crowd come to you. I've tried a different way here. It doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
This is the shitposting thread...it's a safe space for all
Also, Paul Ryan genius revealed
Genius like Wiener?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Nah it's more of a 4D chess thing. By making himself look like an idiot trying to pass a huge bill with no prep time, and in the process totally embarrassing Trump, he's going to be kicked to the curb, which will make it all the easier to revive his career when Trump gets impeached. At that point, he'll be able to say 'see he never liked me, therefore I'm ok'.
Total genius.
Bunch of geniuses in office right now
Lemme know if you don't want a safe space.