Printable View
He wasn't talking to reporters then, but I agree with what you're saying here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
One possibility is that they've been recording reporters for a long time without showing their hand and that this is a teaser to the upcoming fake news awards.
Do you mean 'context cues'? Why yes they do. That's why I pointed out it would be strange to say "I would..." and then not qualify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Their only mistake is insisting he said "I do..." without indisputable proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Trump just got caught on his 2000th lie. How does that compare?
Ok then.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Right. The media would have claimed he was referring to Kim Jong Un the baker who lives down the street. Fuck off.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Of course you hear what you want, and other people hear what they want. I just can't tell; it could be one or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If I clearly heard "I'd" , then I would say so. If I clearly heard "I do" I'd say that too.
https://i.imgur.com/2csopzY.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://i.imgur.com/xhz8Yug.png
Smooth with the condescension there.
I've said it before, and I'll said it again: There is no cure for liberalism.
The mainstream media in the United States regularly makes up complete and utter bullshit for their stories. It's because of the advertising model they use and the fact that there's nothing holding them accountable. So yes, I do not put it past them to suggest he was talking about A when he was obviously talking about B.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Stephen Miller: Let me tell you the truth about Trump that I see.
Jake Tapper: No I don't want to do that.
Oh sorry I thought you would prefer to know the scientific terminology used by linguists rather than the google terminology used by idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yup, that was pretty much it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Granted, when you're asked to do an interview, the interviewer pretty much sets the agenda. Anyone who goes on Tucker whatshisface learns that the hard way too.
In case you skipped over it, when you search for context cues, the first result is context clues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But it's typical of liberals to deem anyone they disagree with as idiots, regardless of the situation, so it doesn't surprise me that you'd do the same here.
Edit: There are also more .edu results for clues compared to the cues version by a factor of almost 2:1.
In case you're a fucking idiot who thinks being the first thing that comes up in a google search makes it somehow right, it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
At some point as a mod and all, I think I'm supposed to suggest people not call each other insulting names or issue warnings or some shit like that.
Sounds like something a cuck would do. Not that I'm calling you that.
The Associated Press Stylebook gives context clues.
Just admit that you heard it somewhere and ran with it and leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Linguists who invented the term used 'cues'. They still do.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...c+context+cues
Laypeople who heard 'cue' and thought they heard 'clue' changed it to 'context clues'.
And it doesn't matter because everyone knows it's the same basic idea behind both terms. It was fun watching you google yourself silly over it though.
I was never a fan of Bill O'Reilly, but when Tapper said that I remember thinking "man even O'Reilly would probably let the person give his side of the story."Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The reason O'Reilly would do that? To boast himself with "I'm always fair" or whatever I've seen him do before. Regardless, it might be case that a person telling something O'Reilly disagrees with might have gotten more voice than Tapper gives to somebody he disagrees with.
I haven't watched enough of Tapper to form a solid opinion, but he was a bit dickish in that interview with Mueller I agree. O'Reilly (again my relatively inexperienced judgement) was a counter-puncher and wanted to hear your side so he could attack it. Tucker whatshisface (again not a big watcher) seems to be more like Tapper in that he'll cut you off and badger you. Other interviewers just nod politely at everything. So they all have their own style I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://i.imgur.com/pqONjVq.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://i.imgur.com/3cgQjoJ.png
Feel free to keep digging yourself into a hole on this.
https://i.imgur.com/8BCM7SF.png
The usage is 57:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years for general usage and 23:1 in favor of "context clues" over the past five years in published papers.
On "I" vs. "I'd", sounds like "I" to me.
Facts don't matter regarding how people feel. Frame things the way you want people to think. Even if Trump and Kim are at each other's throats, simply saying "I really like the guy, he's a great guy, we like each other, we have a good relationship" makes that more a believed reality.
You're confusing (again) scholars who coin a term with laypeople who change it to something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I love that your scientific arguments rests squarely on the shoulders of what you learn from google. Can't wait till you start citing wiki.
Scholars don't use google for research. Students and laypeople do.
This is one search engine scholars use:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...c+context+cues (553 hits)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...+context+clues (26 hits)
Since you're good at math, you'll quickly see that's about a 21.3:1 ratio of academics who publish using 'cues'.
What happens is that students, and a lot of other laypeople, hear 'context cues' and think they heard 'context clues'. Then they go to google to learn about it cause they're not sophisticated enough to use a proper scientific search engine.
And then later, some guy who knows nothing about the topic but heard 'context clues' being used by someone else and wants to win an argument with some guy who does know, uses google search numbers to prove he's not alone in his ignorance.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how Google Scholar works or what its purpose is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Pubmed is hardly a representative source for the issue at hand. Moreover, your lack of quotation marks shows you have no idea to use the tools that you're describing or what the difference is between using them and not, but since you've clearly been proven wrong and just want to yap, I'll let you yap in the CUCKposting thread if you decide you want to continue on this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
How gracious of youQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Just trying to avoid clogging up this thread and moving that discussion to another one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...30515894169601Quote:
I, as President, want people coming into our Country who are going to help us become strong and great again, people coming in through a system based on MERIT. No more Lotteries! #AMERICA FIRST
I wouldn't know cause i don't use it. And the only people I do know who use it are people who don't know any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Just a guess, but I imagine this is the first time you've heard of pubmed, much less seen it. Interesting that you're so quickly able to judge its relevance though.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
hahaha. Now comes the changing of the topic to ad hominen.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
That's your happy place buddy. You go there.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Back to our regularly scheduled MAGA:
https://i.imgur.com/vrTHpqG.jpg
hotties for trump you say
Edit: (nsfw) + spoiler tags - spoon
I threw in a spoiler tag since the thread isn't posted as NSFW just to make sure that the non-liberals (aka people who work) don't lose their jobs over some fine, white ass.
omg i just said "speaking of hotties for trump" after you posted pic of his hot daughter (that he totally wants to bang). omg the freud.
lucky for us trump told us quite explicitly that he does not want to date his daughter. he would only date her if she was not his daughter. however, if we let our imaginations run wild, this actually means he thinks about banging his daughter all the time (and probably does while kushner and melania are off at a mother-son brunch)
it's the free market looking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
gubmint woulda gotten around to adding that spoiler tag in six months. and the sad sack employee who just wants to get home to his dog would have added quote tags instead.
RoflQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're not wrong.
https://i.redd.it/zmncanavh2801.jpg
"brb" /tiff's dad
I'm not playing when I say she's my favorite first daughter.
i wonder if trump ever calls melania "ivania" on accident (during secks ofc) becuase he's thinking of his dawghter.
Their marriage is a lie anyway, and she wants out. He's too busy fucking porn stars anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
are his daughters porn stars? otherwise, fake news
I'm looking forward to the Lifetime drama "Kushner and Kim." A radioactive romp where Jared confesses of his napalmic love to a power-hungry dictator with a heart of uranium one.
"MLK's Niece: 'Outrageous' That Critics Are 'Unjustly' Calling Trump Racist"
kek <--- this one
kek
kek
kek
kek
kek
kek
kek
Michael Wolff Source: He Printed A Third-Hand Story I Told Him That I Got From Someone On A Beach
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/...someone-beach/
Quote:
Twenty years ago, the now-defunct Brill’s Content took a hard look at Wolff’s book Burn Rate, a memoir of his time as a dot-com hustler, and charged that one of his characters was actually a composite of three people. Likewise, seven of Wolff’s main characters and six others who were either portrayed in or familiar with events in his book claimed he “invented or changed quotes,” and none remembered him taking notes on or taping their discussions…
Personally, I’ve enjoyed reading Wolff over the years. You can call him many things (see the preceding paragraph), but never dull. I do not know Wolff nor can I vouch for his credibility. Though I should add that a mutual acquaintance of ours, after spotting an anecdote he’d casually tossed off to Wolff turn up in Fire and Fury, reported this to me of Wolff’s seemingly slack methodology: “[He got it] from me, which I got from a woman on the beach in Florida, who heard it in a carpool line. Literally. I had no idea he was including it. That guy is a serious bullshit artist. Wow.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...n-address.html
This feels like it's more about calling attention to themselves rather than denouncing Trump.
Apparently their "everything white is racist" agenda doesn't' have as much clout now that Barry is gone, and now they're scrambling for the spotlight again.
Sheilas and blokes, we have a new GOAT
https://i.imgur.com/b3etAkI.gifv
Well we know Justice Ginsburg is already planning her boycott: nap time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16...sex-abuse.html
Can someone tell me how Twitter is still in business?? I've read enough stories about people losing their entire livelihood after one distasteful tweet to know that nothing good can ever come from posting on Twitter.
They most likely will not be in business in another 5-6 years. They have been on the downswing financially for quite a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But then who will protect all the accounts dedicated to pedophilia and terrorism while deleting the accounts that challenge the ctrl-left and del-media?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I’m sure some other shithole will pop up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://i.imgur.com/ou3UafG.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The results of Trump's physical are in...
Quote:
Jackson says he ended up testing Trump's cognitive ability at the president's request.
This is expected to bring about a 0% decrease in democrat challenges to Trump's sanity.Quote:
Jackson says he's seen the president every day, sometimes several times a day, during the presidency and had "absolutely no concerns about his cognitive ability."
Antagonists thinking you are insane when you are actually sane is a powerful position to be in.
My favorite part of this is "at the president's request."Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
San Francisco is a confirmed shithole.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/15/sa...efecation-map/
Quote:
There is an ongoing debate currently going on in the country about what locations can be classified as shitholes. The debate sprung from a report that Donald Trump referred to some third world countries as “shitholes” in a meeting with lawmakers last week.
While the debate might rage on as to what constitutes a “shithole” of a country, one thing is not up for debate: the American city of San Francisco is a shithole.
We know this thanks to an interactive map created in 2014 called Human Wasteland.
The map charts all of the locations for human excrement “incidents” reported to the San Francisco police during a given month. The interactive map shows precise locations of the incidents by marking them with poop emojis
Now that's smart
http://i.magaimg.net/img/2d1p.jpg
I'm gonna do a Trump impression here and parrot what I just saw on Fox & Friends.
Suppose you're an 18 year old looking to work an entry level job to pay for college. The market wage is $11/hour, and McDonalds is more than happy to offer you $11 per hour. That should be the end of it.
Instead, you have these pussies marching with signs demanding $15 per hour instead of working for $11.
The irony is....if they win, as they have in many libtard US cities.....then the job goes away entirely. It's trivially easy for McDonalds to just replace these entry level workers with iPads.
I'm of the opinion that the above is common sense, and it completely boggles my mind how many people cannot see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
However, there are also plenty on the left who believe that the above is exactly how it's supposed to be with the caveat that the government should provide them with a basic income once those jobs are gone. As best I can tell, the idea is that working for less than $15/hour (or whatever they come up with at the time) is somehow inhumane and that they are owed a living wage, regardless of whether or not they actually work, simply by virtue of being human.
Where should this money come from? According to them, it should come from those who make a lot more money. If we just taxed the rich even more, then there would be plenty of money to just hand out to people who aren't working thanks to job loss from minimum wage hikes, etc.
Along similar lines, even if minimum wage stayed the same, there's going to come a time when automation starts taking a lot of jobs. The trucking industry is a big one in the United States that's at risk, and it's an enormous issue in terms of the number of jobs that are going to become obsolete all at one time. This is going to be a serious problem because there aren't going to be nearly enough new jobs to replace those that are going away, and the jobs that are going to appear are going to require a higher level of skill, intelligence and overall ability than the jobs that are being replaced.
This is a real issue that is going to need to be addressed in some way because we're going to end up with a large class of people without employment thanks to automation. Unfortunately for the left, the solution can't just be to tax the fuck out of people who are higher up on the food chain, but they're so stuck on that idea (especially with regards to the more short-term issue of the minimum wage) that they can't see that.
Not understanding simple economics or incentives does not help the situation.
So we're potentially facing a really tricky situation where we're going to have millions of people without work or the ability to find work, even if they want to work, simply because there will be such a diminished demand for the labor. That means that the cost of human labor will go down (as always happens when supply > demand), and that cost will certainly fall below whatever minimum wage is at the time. That means that it will become illegal for millions of people who want to work to actually work.
And then we're really going to be fucked.
What's your endgame, spoon? I mean... assuming all production can be automated at some point, and that no manual labor will be needed in any industry, only skilled labor.
Given a society that overproduces basic resources with effective cost per person so low that only a tiny % (if any) of the population is needed to maintain that production, then what?
What does that look like? Do people keep seeking out new, ultimately trivial (from a healthy survival POV), jobs for themselves?
Even if you abolish minimum wages, it's not going to fix the underlying problem. People are just not going to work for the wages you'd have to settle for if you want to compete with a touch screen at McDonalds or a self driving truck, because that wouldn't be $11 an hour. Try a week.
It's a difficult subject because on the surface laissez faire capitalism looks really convincing. You earn money, and that's your money. Why would anyone have the right to take that away from you? Well, it's complicated.
You've just touched on why all the paranoia about greedy corporations is overblown.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
McDonalds could have installed touchscreen order kiosks years ago. They didn't. Why? Because the market wage allowed them to hire a person, and still sell their product at a competitive price. And in that situation, a human being is always preferable to a machine. Creating jobs, employing people, connecting with the community and generating personal success stories increases their goodwill, and that has a value.
But when the government fucks with the market via a massive minimum wage hike ($15 is a fucking lot), now you've removed McDonald's abilitty to continue to sell it's products at competitive prices. The government has inserted a cost that is larger than the value of goodwill.
My name's not spoon, but I'm chiming in anyway. Short answer: there is no endgame.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Education becomes more important. Hopefully you'll be retired by then.Quote:
I mean... assuming all production can be automated at some point, and that no manual labor will be needed in any industry, only skilled labor.
Given a society that overproduces basic resources with effective cost per person so low that only a tiny % (if any) of the population is needed to maintain that production, then what?
It looks exactly like it does right now.Quote:
What does that look like?
If the economy demands more skilled labor than manual labor, then the workforce will evolve to compensate. it's been happening forever, why would you expect it to stop?
I have no interest in anything you've ever said on this forum, and I find your presence here to be toxic to intelligent discourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If not for my strict belief in freedom of expression, I'd have banned you months ago. You belong on reddit, not FTR.
Automation has always happened but never at the scale it's happening at today. You can't try to look at the past when you are going to have machines that will be capable of doing virtually every single job humans are doing today. And that's not just driving, warehouse work and miscellaneous manual labor. Stock traders are being replaced by machines. Surgeons are already largely working with robotics. One highly specialized surgeon can do the job of 10 surgeons by working around the globe through a screen. It probably won't be that long until you can replace that one guy with a machine. It's not like there will be less jobs. There will be no jobs. And that should be a great thing! But I don't see how it's going to work without some type of redistribution system like universal income.
If that was to happen, it would mean that humans no longer have a comparative advantage over machines. In that case, it may be that jobs are the last thing we should worry about since it would likely mean AI would be more advanced than humans. Your premise would also mean that humans aren't consuming.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The hypothetical scenario in the zeitgeist today cannot happen because it is a contradiction in terms. It can't be that business owners get wealthy by using machines and consumers need subsidization in order to consume the products that make the business owners wealthy.
The "solution" to tax and redistribute doesn't even address a real problem, and the tax would just result in a net negative due to efficiency loss at best. This scenario, which is the contemporary narrative, cannot happen: automation makes business owners better off and consumers need subsidies in order to buy what makes business owners better off.Quote:
Unfortunately for the left, the solution can't just be to tax the fuck out of people who are higher up on the food chain, but they're so stuck on that idea (especially with regards to the more short-term issue of the minimum wage) that they can't see that.
100% untrueQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I can tell you're thinking about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
We can't predict the future details, but the past has shown us that as resource allocation becomes more efficient, people gain more resources and get creative about using their comparative advantages. An example of the latter is how it's because of efficiency gains of machines that the service sector even exists. Another example, how many people are employed in the software/hardware creation of computer technology? Well, there would be zero if not for efficiency gains (and related sector job declines) made by machines in respective sectors. Even what a teacher does depends on a lot of efficiency gains created by machines that came with associated job declines. Over time, the changes in jobs (and consumer wealth) has been net gain by a lot.
This scenario details some quite sizable efficiency gains. Where are those gains going?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What is the evidence the change is different now?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
If there are no jobs because of efficiency gains, does that mean that consumers and producers alike would have all the resources they ever wanted (or that AI Skynet'd us)?
Lol, he doesn't dispute that he's a toxic idiot, he just disputes that he's not an interesting toxic idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Well played.
Greedy corporations wuf. DuhQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
AI is more advanced than humans in many sectors. It is much worse than humans in many others. But that really doesn't matter. When I say AI or automation, I don't talk about a general AI, I just mean the level of AI necessary to do certain specialized tasks.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I know what you're getting at. It's not like the money vanishes, but it will go to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. It will be the current situation exacerbated. If you want a visual, look at Mumbai.
I should rephrase this. A comparative advantage is something you have with yourself. It's where you are better at one activity than you are another activity. Comparative advantages relate to each other. That's why countries trade. Even if one country can make more of two different goods than another country, they each specialize in their comparative advantages and end up with more total resources by doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Where does the money that business owners gain come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What about Mumbai is related?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Star Trek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yep.
To make it more clearQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It's about as real as the perpetual motion machine.Quote:
This scenario, which is the contemporary narrative, cannot happen: automation makes business owners better off and consumers need subsidies from the business owners in order to buy what makes those business owners better off.
Or 2 + 2 = 5
No see, you don't understand. We'll just take the money from the rich. They have more than they need as it is, and knowing that their money will be taken will just make them want to produce more and more.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Simpson's did it!Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
1:40 - 2:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxO83ne8Sic
It has one of the most picturesque divides in wealth. You have homes with heli pads and 3rd world shacks where naked children scavenge for food in the same city. It's been experiencing massive economic growth in the last 10 years, but the large majority are only spectators to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not saying that is something we need to worry about in the next 10, 20 or even 50 years, but gradually you'll get to a point where average joe will simply not be needed. It will always be more efficient to put a machine in his place. So, you could say, since he can no longer pay, demand goes down, and prices drop. But if your income is zero, any price is too high.
What is the free market no-welfare outlook for people whose entire job sector disappears? Transportation and warehousing is a sizable sector that probably won't follow projections, but will almost certainly disappear from the job market within 20 years. Where do you see someone who has driven trucks for 25 years go after that sector dies down completely? I'll give you that in the long run maybe new sectors will open up, but what is your theory on what will happen to those individuals?
If income is zero, there is no market. Which hurts buyers just as much as sellers. So there you go, now you don't have to worry about a wealth divide. Everyone's broke.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
In other words, the scenario you're describing is impossible.
The same thing that happened to all the workers in all the ash-tray factories over the last 100 years. they survived.Quote:
I'll give you that in the long run maybe new sectors will open up, but what is your theory on what will happen to those individuals?
There is no cure. You're trying to talk sense into zombies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It seems like such an obvious concept. If all the jobs are eliminated through automation....and no one can afford to buy anything.....then what are the robots gonna make, and to whom will they sell it?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
How the hell do people manage to think around this??
Brawndo has electrolytes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I would like to know some details. I'm not asking for you to provide them since you may not have them, just saying I would like details. If it is through market capitalism that people are getting wealthy in Mumbai, it necessarily means the consumers of the good/services of the capital owners are getting wealthy. I'm not saying this is the case in Mumbai; it could (and may) not be an example of market capitalism. Even so, when it comes to the poor scavenging food in the streets, context is needed. Thomas Sowell's fundamental question "Opposed to what?" is good here. Even if a very poor place undergoes decades of 10% real growth, there will still be poor people scavenging for food for some, most, or all of those years.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
If there is no work for humans due to efficiency gains and humans are still the dominant market force (which is what is being posited), it means people have everything they want. This is because it would mean that humans are consuming the goods/services produced in the markets yet humans are unable to use their human capital to make themselves better off.Quote:
I'm not saying that is something we need to worry about in the next 10, 20 or even 50 years, but gradually you'll get to a point where average joe will simply not be needed.
Something else worth mentioning is how the concept of a "job" is simply formal and doesn't fully represent use of human capital. Human capital is essentially a human's ability to work (with hands, with mind, etc.). I'm not sure how productive discussing this now would be (unless you want to), though I figured I would mention it. There are lots of interesting things in there. Like how with enough efficiency gains, we might not think in terms of jobs, we might not use money, stuff like that.
The changes are marginal. Most (all) industries are continually losing jobs due to efficiency gains. Because this never happens all at once and because there are marginal differences between people, an industry can go from robust to nothing over the span of several decades without causing much displacement above average. In your scenario, the most common response is along the lines of the 25 year trucker would usually keep his job just fine while new truckers would not be hired. An experienced trucker is more valuable than an inexperienced one. At first, automated trucking will only be used at the lowest level of skill. Over time that will gradually increase.Quote:
What is the free market no-welfare outlook for people whose entire job sector disappears? Transportation and warehousing is a sizable sector that probably won't follow projections, but will almost certainly disappear from the job market within 20 years. Where do you see someone who has driven trucks for 25 years go after that sector dies down completely? I'll give you that in the long run maybe new sectors will open up, but what is your theory on what will happen to those individuals?
Actually it doesn't mean they have everything they want, but that they have everything they want that they are capable of gaining by using effort and resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
With enough efficiency gains, people would prefer to do things and give things away for free. There are costs to putting prices on things. With enough efficiency gains, people would get more subjective benefit from not pricing something than by pricing something. We see this in action already, like with Bill Gates. It costs him more subjectively to not do all the charity work he does. This is showing us that Bill Gates gets more benefit out of helping people eradicate a disease than he does the amount of his monetary wealth it costs him. Not only does Bill Gates not want to make more monetary wealth off of eradicating disease, but the subjective benefit is so great that he prefers to spend monetary wealth for his subjective emotional-type gains.
Something I think worth thinking about.
naaaahh, every dude in a tie is just another Gordon Gecko. Tax that bitch
In your face Barry!!!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...73134655987716
First comment is he's a racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And they wonder why we're winning.
lol I saw that and thought the exact same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Banana, if you knew what Bill Gates thinks about taxation, you'd get an aneurysm.
That system works if you look at people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Shuttleworth, but it's not universally true that people who come to great wealth are going to put money into humanitarian aid. To go back to Mumbai where Mukesh Ambani, estimated at 41bn net worth builds himself a 1bn mansion and then decides he doesn't want to live in it because it doesn't quite meet his idea of feng shui or something along those lines. So you have this bizarre monument to wealth in a city where the per capita income is $3k. Even if you look at it purely economical, I have a hard time believing that that kind of expenditure is equal to... anything else really. The people who built it got paid, but that's where it ends. Compare that to taxing the fuck out of that guy and putting the money into humanitarian aid for the region and education. People are a resource, right? If you have more people with a higher education and practical skills, that has to be good for the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The one thing I'm curious about is... you guys want welfare completely gone, right? So what would happen to people who currently rely on welfare? And let's cut that down to the those who are not gaming the system but genuinely cannot be employed. There has to be at least one, right?
I've argued many times that any humane society will provide economic safety nets for the disabled and those afflicted by hardship.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
But that's been taken WAAAAAAYYYY to the extreme.
Take a guess at how much money the food stamp program spends on regular Pepsi. It's supposed to be a program to keep people from starving, instead its keeping people in cheetos.
Where are the fake news awards????
I can only speak for myself, but no. I want welfare to be changed to a format that gives incentives to become self-sufficient for those who can instead of giving incentives to stay on welfare indefinitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Let's break people who currently rely on welfare into two groups: people who genuinely can or cannot be employed. For the first group, refer to the above. For the second group, charity is more efficient with less waste and better results than government-mandated programs. However, this second group is a tiny, tiny fraction of the current expense on welfare. I'd probably prefer some sort of combination of government and charity forms of help from the position of a fiscal conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The bold section above is a great example of what I'm talking about here. It's literally tax dollars subsidizing Pepsi in this example you're giving here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I made the Bill Gates point in the context of the idea that there is so much prosperity that there are no jobs. Not everybody is kind-hearted or philanthropic. In a world with so much efficiency and so much prosperity that nobody can even work, any amount of philanthropy would be more than enough to make that a better off world than if it was less efficient and people had to work. But it's whatever, I don't think revisiting this will yield much so you can respond and I'll listen and leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
So the people get money for doing nothing? Wouldn't that reinforce their desire to do nothing while encouraging them to do more nothing and get more subisides for their more nothing? I get how this sounds too cynical to be real, yet that is how these things go down in practice. And it makes sense in theory. What that theory also says is that getting people to earn money will have the opposite effect than the above by making them want to earn and even earn more.Quote:
The people who built it got paid, but that's where it ends. Compare that to taxing the fuck out of that guy and putting the money into humanitarian aid for the region and education.
So, what does that mean? It means that welfare with strings attached is a better idea than with no strings attached. In general, people agree with that. But wait, you have to compare the gains of that with the cost of creating and maintaining the system. And we know that the costs are worse when done through taxation than when done competitively, so doesn't that give us our answer?
Depends on what it costs to get that. If the costs are low enough, yeah it's good. How do we get the lowest costs?Quote:
People are a resource, right? If you have more people with a higher education and practical skills, that has to be good for the economy.
We should keep in mind that a lot of what is being proposed with aid is along the lines of "people are not doing what we think they should, so let's help them so they will do what we think they should." Let me illustrate this with an anecdote. One of my good friends grew up as a missionary in Africa. He spent a tremendous amount of time there, like half of his childhood and teenage life and he ALWAYS talked about how much he loved it there. He now teaches English in Korea. Back when he was making the moves to start teaching English in Korea I asked him why he wanted to go to Korea instead of Africa since he loves Africa so much. He essentially told me that teaching in Africa is a nightmare because the native population despises education. In general, they actively believe education to be a negative thing and that subverting education (like cheating) is a virtue, according to his substantial experience. Is spending more on education gonna change that? Are people who do not like education going to start liking it when the Cultured Saviors show up to change the Unwashed Barbarians, or is it more likely that the shithole education system they already have derives from their negative values about education?
That's a great question. Before I respond to it, let's step back for a second.Quote:
The one thing I'm curious about is... you guys want welfare completely gone, right? So what would happen to people who currently rely on welfare? And let's cut that down to the those who are not gaming the system but genuinely cannot be employed. There has to be at least one, right?
Lots of words have been said on this board on the topic of government and markets. My position has always been based on only this one foundation: it is better to have a competitive system decide rather than a monopoly decide. I've always thought people who need help should be helped. What I propose is that using a competitive system rather than a monopoly is a more effective way to do that. So, here is what I believe:
Results are better when individuals, families, and communities make the decisions relevant to them than for a tax-based government to make their decisions for them. This is better because the former functions like a competitive market and the latter functions like a monopoly. That is better because economic theory teaches that competitive markets more effectively increase quantity and decrease price while also increasing quality. This theory, while used in markets of goods and services with money, applies just the same to any system where people have preferences and resources are allocated.
So, here's my answer to your very good question that needs to be answered.
What amount of money greater than what people would freely choose to give to those they think need it should the government tax and give to people the government thinks need it? My guess is that when people think upon this question, the answer is inevitably zero. If it is greater than zero then that means that somebody thinks the government that is supposed to represent the people should technically NOT represent the people. So, we can move past this, because we know the government should tax and spend zero percent more on welfare than the people think the government should.
That leaves us with an x amount of money that people think should go to welfare. So then the question is are we better off in aggregate if the government spends that as the government sees fit or if the individuals spend it as the individuals see fit. A superficial view says no we are not better off because that implies that each individual thinks that the government knows better than the individual does about the individual's preferences. A more in depth view looks to economic theory IMO, which says that results will be better if competitive rather than if non-competitive.
Is that tonight?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
supposed to beQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
OH SHIT.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand