|
Econ101 is precious because it's really oversimplified and tosses people who take it out into the real world, where its simple model doesn't work. It'd be like if I only take basic physics, only had working knowledge of frictionless surfaces, and demanded to be taken seriously as an engineer.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
The US is the richest country in the world and if it had the social will, it could with some process improvement support all its citizens on financial inertia alone. So who deserves services? Who doesn't deserve services?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Econ101 is precious because it's really oversimplified and tosses people who take it out into the real world, where its simple model doesn't work. It'd be like if I only take basic physics, only had working knowledge of frictionless surfaces, and demanded to be taken seriously as an engineer. All surfaces are frictionless unless specified otherwise. This floor? Nobody told me there's friction, so there isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Econ101 is precious because it's really oversimplified and tosses people who take it out into the real world, where its simple model doesn't work. It'd be like if I only take basic physics, only had working knowledge of frictionless surfaces, and demanded to be taken seriously as an engineer. Not usually. "ECON 101" in this forum is most often used by people who have a problem with the way economic realities line up with their ideology and don't understand ECON 101 anyway. Classical economics is like a basic aerodynamics model that explains why a paper airplane can fly in a stable fashion. It's not close to sufficient for explaining a Boeing jet, but not irrelevant either. To put it simply, if basic mechanisms of supply and demand didn't work the economy wouldn't work. Period. Trumpet the accomplishments of government all you want but it simply doesn't regulate most details in the market. Not even close. Classical economics still explains a lot of what's going on a lot of the time. The problem with Econ 101 is when people turn it from "often a decent model" to "always a perfect model that the world must follow". That's one thing libertarianism does and the absolutism there outs it for the hack ideology that it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
Like infinite supply and demand you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Like infinite supply and demand you mean? The assumption that people generally want more stuff and businesses generally want to produce it for them is hardly extreme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The assumption that people generally want more stuff and businesses generally want to produce it for them is hardly extreme. Well, until you take it to extremes anyways. I'm actually kind of impressed that someone was able to walk into the thread and make a one-line post about how they don't like minimum wages and get taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
"I would like to have a car!" "I would like to sell you a car! What's your price range?" "I have thirty-five dollars." "Hmm, yes, a thirty-five dollar car, I will get right on designing that." The system works!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:"I would like to have a car!" The minimum wage is an illusion of the market, they can totally take out a loan and sell their first born daughter to slake their infinite needs. Rumpelstiltskin Economics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Well, until you take it to extremes anyways. I, too, am impressed that people want to argue with libertarians, here in the libertarian thread. Nolanar posted:"I would like to have a car!" Electric bikes are within an order of magnitude or so of that 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Classical economics is like a basic aerodynamics model that explains why a paper airplane can fly in a stable fashion. It's not close to sufficient for explaining a Boeing jet, but not irrelevant either. And similar to economics, the teachers insist that the model they describe is far more correct than it actually is when it's actually vastly oversimplified. http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:I'm actually kind of impressed that someone was able to walk into the thread and make a one-line post about how they don't like minimum wages and get taken seriously. We're starved for good debate. Jrod is off at his race realist conference or wherever, that Pinochet apologist hasn't shown up for a while, asdf is asdf, and so on. Plus this guy didn't waltz in and try to blow our minds with "taxation is theft," he came in with some pretty common Conventional Wisdom about the minimum wage, so he might be open to honest debate. We should be able to argue with him while avoiding the Watermelon Question until we know it's warranted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The problem with Econ 101 is when people turn it from "often a decent model" to "always a perfect model that the world must follow". Right, the thing you do. It's dumb I agree. asdf32 posted:The assumption that people generally want more stuff and businesses generally want to produce it for them is hardly extreme. Nolanar posted:I think you guys are being too hard on Shayu. He hasn't shown the disingenuousness of Jrod or had an instant meltdown like knows-nothing, and he seems to actually be reading your posts and thinking about them. We should give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Shayu is all right. I had wayyyyy stupider opinions at 20 than he does. He's just a bit naive, nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Karia posted:And similar to economics, the teachers insist that the model they describe is far more correct than it actually is when it's actually vastly oversimplified. Actually this is a case of it being obfuscated which is also common in economics (see any ideological interpretation). Wings work because they push a large mass of air downwards which pushes the plane back up. That's actually easier than the common airfoil explaination. The aerodynamic model I was referring to is basic stability. If a plane tilts down it picks up speed which tilts it back up or if it tilts right dihedral causes the right wing generates more lift tilting it back. That compares to basic supply and demand principles in the market. The difference in the market though is that we actually still rely on these principles all the time, whereas a jet has sophisticated systems which doesn't need to. If the market couldn't generally produce, price and distribute things like toothpaste, ball bearings and iPods or if businesses didn't generally reinvest to expand or innovate we just couldn't and wouldn't have a market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Let's just ignore the pretty much constant market failures that occur without government regulation and control of the currency tho
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right, the thing you do. It's dumb I agree. Yep I tend to use stuff that's true as a basis for beliefs. VitalSigns posted:Let's just ignore the pretty much constant market failures that occur without government regulation and control of the currency tho No let's not. Let's remind ourselves that government intervention does lots of good things while not being stupid enough to credit it with doing everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Good things like child labor laws and the minimum wage, yes
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually this is a case of it being obfuscated which is also common in economics (see any ideological interpretation). Wings work because they push a large mass of air downwards which pushes the plane back up. That's actually easier than the common airfoil explaination. It's a case of "nobody really understands exactly how this works because it's so complicated. Here's a couple of models that kind of represent what's going on, but we're not going to present adequate information on when they apply." Both the Bernoulli and Newton principle are kind of true: it's just that they're both simplified models and it's very important to understand when they can be used. So, too, are supply and demand curves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Good things like child labor laws and the minimum wage, yes Pretty far down on the list actually compared to basic rule of law, education, infrastructure, economic crisis management, etc because when you get the basics right it turns out wages go up and parents stop sending their kids to work. When you don't, it's hard to stop those things regardless of the law (see any poor country with nominal labor laws). If you think minimum wage has anything to do with most wages in the economy you're bordering on the thing I called stupid above.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Pretty far down on the list actually compared to basic rule of law, education, infrastructure, economic crisis management, etc because when you get the basics right it turns out wages go up and parents stop sending their kids to work. On the other hand, the history of all industrial society
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:On the other hand, the history of all industrial society Right, which shows that labor laws only work after a society is well off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
What? No it doesn't? Unless you have a really, really high opinion of gilded age America. Or a loose definition of well off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
It doesn't show that, because labor laws were only adopted after society was already more than well enough off to provide for everyone, yet didn't (because the free market doesn't provide for those without money). But I'm glad you now agree that in a well off society like ours, we can pass laws such as the minimum wage to correct for the failure of the allegedly self-correcting free market to supply workers with enough to live on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It doesn't show that, because labor laws were only adopted after society was already more than well enough off to provide for everyone, yet didn't (because the free market doesn't provide for those without money). You're relentlessly ignorant and not even internally consistent. The Market, never ever ever ever guarantees a fair outcome. The fact that some people don't get a living wage would only appropriately be called a "failure" if you were stupid enough to think it does. We have a market economy because it very often does things we want, not because it necesarily must. Yes labor laws were adopted after society was rich enough to support them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If you think minimum wage has anything to do with most wages in the economy you're bordering on the thing I called stupid above. oppositeofreality.txt
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes labor laws were adopted after society was rich enough to support them. Society was rich enough to feed everyone for hundreds of years before that, especially in America. It was rich enough to feed everyone just a few years before the New Deal also while people were literally starving to death on the streets. You're making your usual just-world error where you assume that because things happened a certain way it was because it was the perfect time in this, the best-of-all-possible-worlds We passed labor laws because we finally achieved the political power necessary to do so, not because "the market" made us rich enough for it to just happen. And we passed more when the complete failure of industrial capitalism left the forces of capital in disarray, leaving the government to be seized by and work on behalf of common humanity for the first time ever. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Society was rich enough to feed everyone for hundreds of years before that, especially in America. It was rich enough to feed everyone just a few years before the New Deal also while people were literally starving to death on the streets. You're making your usual just-world error where you assume that because things happened a certain way it was because it was the perfect time in this, the best-of-all-possible-worlds Sorry. "Well off enough" of course is subject to the judgment of culture and human nature, neither of which are as generous as we might like. I look forward to discovering which emotionally/ideologically charged direction this point sends you off on next.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
You know you can't play that card when your posts are also ideologically charged right? Because its impossible to do it from some mythical neutral ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
But if we hadn't passed those laws right then, and miserable conditions continued as they would until we finally did, then you'd be saying we "weren't well off enough" yet. Or do you just take the Rothbard position that all labor laws did nothing because industry coincidentally selfregulated and decided to establish those standards on their own seconds before the laws were signed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Shayu posted:I'm not really in favor of any restrictions with regards to wages. Shayu posted:We could employ more people and it'd be beneficial to low skilled laborers like teenagers. Shayu posted:All I'm saying is that you'd see more employment over-all in the economy, not that if you didn't have a minimum wage Walmart would suddenly want to hire an infinite amount of people. Let's see if we can't probe a bit deeper and get past the outer narrative here. You are opposed to the minimum wage. You claim you are opposed because without it we could employ more people and low skilled labourers would benefit (presumably because we WOULD employ more people) You also claim you are opposed because you'd like to see more employment overall So, taking this as a base, if we could demonstrate that a high minimum wage would lead to more employed folks than no minimum wage, would you support it? If you continue to oppose it in this scenario, why? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But if we hadn't passed those laws right then, and miserable conditions continued as they would until we finally did, then you'd be saying we "weren't well off enough" yet. Industry absolutely does not self regulate labor rights in the same sense it doesn't self regulate prices or quality. It's the interaction with the other side of the labor and goods market which checks prices, quality and wages. In the case of labor rights it's literally morally wrong to tell a hungry family to not send their kid to work. Same thing with dad and the unsafe mine. When that family has real economic options that reality changes and this is all independent of any notion of political power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Will America ever live down the mortal guilt of banning child labor, establishing a safety net, and universal education. The shame. Those 10-year-olds had all this coal-mining ability, wasted 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
"It's a good thing to try to feed and house everybody but I'm opposed to anything that would actually accomplish that. The most moral policy decisions are the ones that will literally lead directly to people starving to death in the streets and dying of easily preventable illnesses." - Libertarians
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The US is the richest country in the world and if it had the social will, it could with some process improvement support all its citizens on financial inertia alone. Oh that's simple! Who deserves services? Non-libertarians. Who doesn't deserve services? Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Oh that's simple! Nah, improving their lives with services they hate is both more just and more hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Nah, improving their lives with services they hate is both more just and more hilarious. Just because we give them the services doesn't mean they deserve them. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Just because we give them the services doesn't mean they deserve them. It actually probably annoys them even more when you tell them you explicitly know they don't deserve the service but you're going to be benevolent and extend it to them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Anyway Shayu is obviously about 18 year old and has never worked in their life so I don't know why y'alls is biting on their "I just got a D in Econ 101" level idiocy. Because there's something really easy to just snap him out of it and we're trying to find it. It's toilets by the way. Hygiene facilities are the absolute cut off. McDonald's has just enough toilets to avoid being crushed. Adding enough employees that there are more people using toilets is insane, now adjust for other things like space on a spreadsheet, management's patience/attention, personal space, and number of fry cooks it takes to fry fries at the friers. Then, having accounted for the fact that McDonald's employees START as assembly line drones and have to learn to cover for each other because it's actually faster for them to do so. Look. Libertarians are insultingly stupid when they take it for granted that minimum wage laws would handicap a McDonald's manager such that she's no longer able to find the most effective way to run a loving McDonald's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
As an aside the thing I don't get about extreme ideology is the expectations. The absolutism is based on absurd expectations. Who surveys human history and concludes that near utopia is around the corner if only we removed __________.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:In the case of labor rights it's literally morally wrong to tell a hungry family to not send their kid to work. Same thing with dad and the unsafe mine. When that family has real economic options that reality changes and this is all independent of any notion of political power. No, what's morally wrong is holding a family hostage through poverty so you can force them to be your slaves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:45
|
|