Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why would you assume I didn't read it?

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

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

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

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


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

[wufwugy]

Why would you assume I didn't read it?

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

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

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

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

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

Different topic.

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

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

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

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

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

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

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

Different topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wufwugy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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