12-29-2017 08:49 PM
#24901
| |
| |
12-29-2017 08:50 PM
#24902
| |
| |
12-29-2017 08:53 PM
#24903
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Why do you think I say it looks like something an intern put together? |
12-29-2017 08:53 PM
#24904
| |
| |
12-29-2017 08:56 PM
#24905
| |
| |
12-29-2017 08:57 PM
#24906
| |
| |
12-29-2017 08:58 PM
#24907
| |
I'm really not sure if any type of interaction on here is some type of autistic chess game for you and the only goal is to annoy people. Like you quote the one part of my response that is obviously just an example and completely irrelevant to my point and then you respond to that... I'm conflicted because you are a known troll but I honestly don't give you enough credit for being this elaborate in your trolling. | |
| |
12-29-2017 09:04 PM
#24908
| |
Yeah, you forgot to mention they also made a sport out of cooking jews, blaming them for every single bad thing that happened. Spoon, had you not seen the more recent posts, all extremes are bad, mmmkay? Nazis = fascists as fuck. Totally take their supposed socialism out of the window. Since you like to quote wikipedia, here goes: | |
| |
12-29-2017 09:05 PM
#24909
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Sounds not thought through. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 12-29-2017 at 09:10 PM. | |
12-29-2017 09:09 PM
#24910
| |
![]() ![]()
|
It is truly fascinating how one can quote fascism in the way that it is an exact definition of Marxism and socialism yet rationalize why it somehow is not Marxism and socialism. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 12-29-2017 at 09:18 PM. | |
12-29-2017 09:18 PM
#24911
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
12-29-2017 09:20 PM
#24912
| |
![]() ![]()
|
It's like, "Hey do we not like this thing? Yeah we don't like it? Okay let's call that fascism." |
12-29-2017 09:24 PM
#24913
| |
It's like "Hey let's notice that thing whenever someone else does it, but let's be completely oblivious whenever we do it." | |
| |
12-29-2017 09:27 PM
#24914
| |
| |
| |
12-29-2017 09:28 PM
#24915
| |
| |
12-29-2017 09:37 PM
#24916
| |
| |
12-29-2017 09:44 PM
#24917
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
12-29-2017 09:44 PM
#24918
| |
And in a sick twist of faith, poopadoop and Jack Sawyer have been the least annoying FTR members as of late. | |
| |
12-29-2017 09:46 PM
#24919
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
12-29-2017 09:47 PM
#24920
| |
Also facing the fact that nobody here is going to experience black and white communism or capitalism in their lifetime I think it's kind of funny how excited you guys get by which unicorn dick you're gonna get fucked with in the near future. | |
| |
12-29-2017 09:49 PM
#24921
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Caring so much about the abstract really does seem to be retarded. |
12-29-2017 10:13 PM
#24922
| |
"The goal of socialism is communism," is a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin. I may have been mistaken in assuming most everyone would have known that. | |
| |
12-30-2017 07:17 AM
#24923
| |
12-30-2017 07:18 AM
#24924
| |
12-30-2017 09:03 AM
#24925
| |
"That's more or less the guiding principle of how to get someone to type out paragraphs and paragraphs in response to like a five-word sentence." | |
| |
12-30-2017 11:13 AM
#24926
| |
| |
12-30-2017 12:59 PM
#24927
| |
For someone who uses the phrase à la without knowing what it means you are quite the stickler. | |
| |
12-30-2017 03:24 PM
#24928
| |
Wuf, why do you insist on the either or fallacy regarding what makes Scands have relatively successful societies? | |
12-30-2017 04:08 PM
#24929
| |
![]() ![]()
|
The balance point idea has merit when it comes to managing peoples political and social sensibilities. When it comes to identifying likely causes of changes in well-being, we're looking at what works and at what doesn't work. Generally speaking and in terms of economics, free market capitalism encapsulates what works and socialism and welfare don't. As an example, I'll discuss this in terms of the models used in labor economics. In those models, generally speaking, the more welfare somebody gets that isn't tied to production, the less demand that person has to produce. Since production is the source of economic well-being, this means the model shows welfare is a drag on well-being. To show welfare benefiting well-being, it would need to be shown how it increases production. Now, there are probably some iterations of welfare that could be beneficial, but those aren't the ones that countries have adopted.* I don't know of any widely used models that show welfare acting as an incentive to produce instead of disincentive. |
12-30-2017 05:15 PM
#24930
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I should clarify that it isn't that the education system is "stable waste" but that much of the promotion of it (via government and people) is stable waste. Per Caplan, about 5% of people *should* go to college. The rest of us (which includes me) would lead more productive lives if incentive structures created by policy (and beliefs) weren't so geared towards college. |
12-30-2017 05:35 PM
#24931
| |
I'm not absolutely convinced that these things that create good by balancing out unfettered free markets are only able to do so because people believe they do so-- however, I think you make a good case for this, and I'm happy to land on "economic models can tell us a lot, but externalities stop being externalities once we leave the lab." By this I mean, the models either need to account for people's perceptions, as they stand, or they are not useful in enacting policy. | |
12-30-2017 05:55 PM
#24932
| |
On one hand I think I agree that the religion of higher education leads to waste, but on the other, capitalism does create this endless need for growth. And this growth isn't just limited to the bottom line. The incentive to produce is contingent on the belief that you can improve the lot of you and yours. From that we get the idea that your living standards will improve throughout your life, but more importantly that your children will have better opportunities which will open the door to standards of living beyond what you yourself will ever reach. | |
12-30-2017 06:02 PM
#24933
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Is it that capitalism creates an endless need for growth or that people innately have insatiable desires and capitalism is one method to manage the resources? |
12-30-2017 06:08 PM
#24934
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I no longer say the world would be a better place if markets were freer. Even though I do think that, I don't frame it like that because I think that the freeness of markets reflects what people believe and what people want. We get the society we create, and what we create derives from what we believe and where we put our efforts. We demand free markets in dating because we believe those markets should be free, and we don't demand free markets in healthcare because we believe those markets should not be free. |
12-30-2017 06:29 PM
#24935
| |
| |
12-30-2017 06:43 PM
#24936
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I think it matters because it's the idea behind capitalism being driven by humans versus capitalism driving humans. A common criticism of capitalism emerges from the idea that it drives humans and things would be hunky dory otherwise. The base assumption of economics is that this is not the case; instead humans have essentially unlimited desires. From one frame, capitalism is a tool; from a different frame, capitalism is a culprit. |
12-30-2017 08:08 PM
#24937
| |
If you're only talking about economic well-being I'm sure you're right, but I don't think economic well-being and quality of life are as closely correlated as we'd like them to be. Once you reach a level of economy where everyone's basic needs can be met, I don't think you're doing much for quality of life by trying to maximize productivity. | |
| |
12-30-2017 08:32 PM
#24938
| |
I think your characterization of capitalism as a tool is accurate-- however I do think, sticking with the analogy, a tool can enable an abundance of good to the extent that you have an even bigger problem than the tool was initially crafted to solve. That said, I think you're right, making the distinction is important, else people be tempted to flush the baby with the toilet water. | |
12-30-2017 09:17 PM
#24939
| |
| |
12-30-2017 09:52 PM
#24940
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I generally agree. Though this appears to be adjusted for if we use a comprehensive enough view of "economic." The concept is essentially about resource allocation. And happiness does derive from resource allocation. That doesn't mean we know which allocation yields greater happiness. Freely choosing producers and consumers seems to be the most useful mode of "determining" what that allocation is. |
12-30-2017 10:15 PM
#24941
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I should add that the popular idea regarding automation and it causing a supposed need for welfare assumes distributional effects of wealth that I think are false. An owner of automated production can only gain as much monetary representation of wealth as how much those who consume his products give. If consumers are so poor because of automation because they no longer can labor, it means the business owners would also be poor since consumers have no ability to purchase. This is akin to mass destruction of wealth and production, yet that is obviously the opposite of what people are trying to think of when they think of the effect of automation on wealth distribution. |
12-30-2017 10:32 PM
#24942
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Fucking bingo. |
12-30-2017 10:37 PM
#24943
| |
lol fucking cuck | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-30-2017 at 10:40 PM. | |
12-30-2017 10:39 PM
#24944
| |
![]() ![]()
|
That aint even the worst of it |
12-30-2017 10:43 PM
#24945
| |
| |
12-30-2017 10:46 PM
#24946
| |
![]() ![]()
|
That's Nate Hydrogen to you. |
12-30-2017 10:46 PM
#24947
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
12-30-2017 11:01 PM
#24948
| |
| |
12-30-2017 11:25 PM
#24949
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I went through a spell of thinking that the mental differences between the sexes is due to environment. Fortunately that wasn't a source of real problems for me. Other things take that mantle. |
12-30-2017 11:34 PM
#24950
| |
Related to this and what I said, I'll give an example that didn't happen to me but that happened to a little cousin. I say little, but he's almost 20. Fuck I'm old. | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-30-2017 at 11:50 PM. | |
12-31-2017 01:54 AM
#24951
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Would he have liked it if she sent him a dick picture? This is one thing I don't really get that guys do. I've never felt the need to send someone a dick pic. I also wouldn't be all that keen to receive unsolicited pictures of cunts either so maybe I'm the odd one... |
Last edited by Savy; 12-31-2017 at 01:58 AM. | |
12-31-2017 02:04 AM
#24952
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
12-31-2017 02:21 AM
#24953
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
12-31-2017 10:38 AM
#24954
| |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-31-2017 at 10:41 AM. | |
12-31-2017 12:50 PM
#24955
| |
God, not being able to easily quote is obnoxious. | |
12-31-2017 12:57 PM
#24956
| |
Regarding religion: | |
12-31-2017 02:23 PM
#24957
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for the rec. My thoughts currently are along the lines of I think human psychology and the human condition are innately religious, and I believe this is revealed in secularism too. The most prominent secular drama are embedded with meta-heroes and moralism, for example. Do you know Jordan Peterson? |
Last edited by wufwugy; 12-31-2017 at 03:45 PM. | |
12-31-2017 02:51 PM
#24958
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I didn't mean to suggest that owners' wealth is constrained by labor but constrained by consumption. We see this in how the owner of McDonald's doesn't make a buck if a consumer doesn't buy a burger. The labor element is because I think the popular criticism of automation posits that this would reduce wealth among workers but not wealth among owners. I'm not sure that is possible, in aggregation, since it would mean less stuff is being bought. The labor/capital stuff you're referencing, with strikes and such, is micro, firm-specific. I'm thinking in macro terms not micro terms, if that helps. |
12-31-2017 03:01 PM
#24959
| |
![]() ![]()
|
BTW this is not a model I would use. I am referencing it here because I believe it is a model used by many concerned about automation and propose a need for welfare to counter. The first reason I don't like this model is because it seems to assume that wealth is money (it isn't) and that labor is wealth (it isn't). Wealth is best thought of in terms of production and product. A man buying a car is not less wealthy by doing so. He's actually more wealthy since he values that car more than he values the production-symbolized-by-the-currency-he-used-to-buy-it-with. The populist view is that only the person who gains the money from the transaction experiences wealth increase. |
12-31-2017 03:44 PM
#24960
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
12-31-2017 03:47 PM
#24961
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
12-31-2017 08:36 PM
#24962
| |
Was there ever an explanation of why the forum double posts and fucks up quotes and edits sometimes? I was gone a long time. | |
| |
12-31-2017 11:11 PM
#24963
| |
edit, quotes and almost anything else outside of quick reply stopped working for me about a month ago. | |
| |
12-31-2017 11:29 PM
#24964
| |
I'm not as concerned with the AI revolution as I am with the AI revolution happening with governments still being stuck in the industrial age. They're still idealizing low unemployment rates, continuous growth and maximum wealth when I think the obvious goal should be universal unemployment. I don't think your analogy to the industrial revolution will hold water. This not an entirely uninformed opinion, but it is speculative enough that I don't want to dive into it (and I'm very drunk atm) but I see the job market taking a massive nose dive within our lifetimes and there won't be new jobs to replace them. You could create fake jobs though government subsidiaries, which would be retarded. Or you could create unnecessary jobs by restricting deployment of AI in certain areas, which would be even more retarded, or you just figure out how to distribute wealth. | |
| |
12-31-2017 11:44 PM
#24965
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Yeah we are probably in for some stuff that nobody predicts that well. |
12-31-2017 11:44 PM
#24966
| |
![]() ![]()
|
i did the whole switch thing that mmm said to do, that jack told him to do i think. it works. i forget what it is. mmm or jack migth know. |
01-01-2018 05:34 PM
#24967
| |
Happy new year people! Do something productive and also good this year! | |
| |
01-01-2018 05:39 PM
#24968
| |
Check these vids out oskar, they might help you | |
| |
01-01-2018 05:59 PM
#24969
| |
| |
01-01-2018 07:48 PM
#24970
| |
Resident asshole takes YouTube by storm! | |
| |
01-02-2018 12:51 PM
#24971
| |
Wuf, regarding AI, you seem to assume that AI will be ubiquitous in the sense that it will be a consumer good. This could be the case, but I think the more convincing prediction is that we're much more likely to see a singular entity when the dust settles. This is because singularity is not a stable state of being, it's the spark at the start of an exponential intelligence explosion, which is likely to result in, from our perspective, god like abilities. Should we be able to control it, or build it in a way in which it's interests remain aligned with ours, there is no reason to think that control will be democratized. Whoever gets there first, whether it is a government, an individual, a corporation, etc, they will be incentivized to stop all contenders from getting to singularity. | |
01-02-2018 05:22 PM
#24972
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I probably agree with some of that regarding what ultimately will happen with AI. I really have no clue what the future world will look like with strong AI. |
01-02-2018 05:34 PM
#24973
| |
We don't know how current AI's (machine learning implemented toward a specific goal) do what they do. We only know that we told them to keep pecking away randomly, trying to maximize some given parameters. The programmers who create that software do not create the middle bits of the code, which can be the vast majority of the running code. They only create the method to create new code and a goal. | |
01-02-2018 06:21 PM
#24974
| |
![]() ![]()
|
I find the concept of singularity difficult to wrap my head around. |
01-02-2018 06:30 PM
#24975
| |