|
paragon1 posted:The biggest economic actors by far in the PRC are state owned enterprises. Private Companies Are Driving China's Growth
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
And who could forget left-wing icon George H.W. Bush's resolution of the savings and loan crisis through nationalization of their debts, what a socialist thing to do, bailing out the people because they trusted financial institutions
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:We're at like 5% unemployment which is considered full employment by economists. There's not an enormous slack of applicants. Some industries may be over saturated sure, attorneys for one, but the economy as a whole is not. Underemployment is the problem right now - there are a great number of college educated people who would be much happier not working retail or other minimum wage labor. There is a reason I specified high paying jobs when I said what I said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:And who could forget left-wing icon George H.W. Bush's resolution of the savings and loan crisis through nationalization of their debts, what a socialist thing to do, bailing out the people because they trusted financial institutions You mean nationalizing the risk and privatizing the benefits? Truly a man thinking of the common people. Btw both Bushes were trash Presidents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You mean nationalizing the risk and privatizing the benefits? Truly a man thinking of the common people. yeah it's not like S&Ls were mutual associations between regular people or anything I mean they were trash Presidents but even the elder Bush knew a good nationalization when he saw it
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:yeah it's not like S&Ls were mutual associations between regular people or anything He made all of America pay for the benefit of the savings and loan members. Man, such a man of the people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Alright, the whole "article" is basically an ad for the Nicholas Lardy guy's book. Have you read said book?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:We're at like 5% unemployment which is considered full employment by economists. There's not an enormous slack of applicants. Some industries may be over saturated sure, attorneys for one, but the economy as a whole is not. The unemployment rate isn't especially helpful for understanding the state of the economy. It only counts people actively looking for a job. People who give up on finding a job (which tends to happen if it takes longer than a year) aren't counted. A long-enough recession—which is what we have now—can see "unemployment" go down even if absolutely nothing changes, simply due to people giving up. Much more useful is the employment-to-population ratio:  From the OECD, that's a chart of the employment rate of U.S. residents 15 years of age or older. Notice we're 3.3% less than 2007. That's what, 6 million people worth of "slack"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:The unemployment rate isn't especially helpful for understanding the state of the economy. It only counts people actively looking for a job. People who give up on finding a job (which tends to happen if it takes longer than a year) aren't counted. A long-enough recession—which is what we have now—can see "unemployment" go down even if absolutely nothing changes, simply due to people giving up. We also have an aging population so it's normal for the employment percentage to go down as people retire. I imagine they don't account for all of that but probably a significant portion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The BBC should be privatized. I don't think emptyquoting is allowed in D&D, so: you're a moron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The BBC should be privatized. what the gently caress idiot rear end poo poo is this
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
*looks at private british press* Ah, clearly a model to be emulated. We should make all our news and media outlets like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:You do know that nationalizing some industries and operating them for the public benefit and enrichment isn't "pure" communism right? you're missing out if you never try the pure poo poo at least once
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:00
|
|
at the idea of "pure" communism, btw)
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm not saying that a GBI will destroy the economy. I'm giving examples of how it could be damaging should it turn out to be bad. We frankly don't know whether it's good or bad right now. A week ago you were saying the GBI was generally better than the minimum wage in theory and we should support that. Now you're saying that for all we know the GBI will tank GDP by 20% (in other words, be the second-worst economic disaster in US history after the Great Depression). Does that mean last week you thought a $15 minimum wage might be even worse than the Great Depression? Not even the anti-minimum wage literature you had read supported that possibility. Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen. Actually the hardest social programs to attack are ones that are given to everybody as a right, like Social Security and Medicare and public education, or the UK's NHS. If you even suggest cutting Social Security you will get destroyed at the polls because "I worked for it and I paid taxes on it, I earned it". Means-tested benefits that only go to the poor are the ones that are easy to whip up the public into hating because they're paying taxes and some unemployed loser is getting free stuff. Remember that one of the Brexit lies was "if we stop paying the EU we can spend that money on the NHS Oh dear, you didn't actually believe us did you, of course we're not going to spend that on the NHS after all" That's why introducing means-testing is a common tactic of "fiscally responsible conservatism" even though it adds cost, reduces efficiency, and is redundant (because income taxes are already a type of means-testing). They sell it as saving money because "the rich don't need free schools/healthcare/retirement benefits" with the eventual goal of kicking more and more people off the program who will then oppose "welfare for takers" and vote to cut welfare so they can pay lower taxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:You're still wrong about this. If you leave your high paying job to work on something you enjoy more, someone will fill that role who values their money more than their happiness (or who is genuinely fulfilled by that work). High paying jobs aren't a thing that people will just stop doing, and if you want an example of that, just look at something we call recorded loving history. poo poo, I thought maybe it wouldn't happen this time but there it is. Always the answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
I would love to be able to do my minimum wage job at the comic store and not worry about bills because it is the only job I've ever had that really makes me happy but it doesn't pay very much that's my thoughts on why id like a GBI namaste harambe
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:He made all of America pay for the benefit of the savings and loan members. Man, such a man of the people.  Letting tens of billions of dollars in the form of the life-savings of tens of millions of people get destroyed overnight is how you kick off a Great Depression, dude. E: Also, it's not "all of America", fully half of income tax receipts come from the top 1%. This is a typical scare tactic to obfuscate who is paying for what, that you would use it here is revealing. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's why introducing means-testing is a common tactic of "fiscally responsible conservatism" even though it adds cost, reduces efficiency, and is redundant (because income taxes are already a type of means-testing). They sell it as saving money because "the rich don't need free schools/healthcare/retirement benefits" It's really cool that this was a Clinton campaign talking point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:We also have an aging population so it's normal for the employment percentage to go down as people retire. I imagine they don't account for all of that but probably a significant portion. Wow, you are desperate aren't you?  Same data, same source, reset for only the population between 15 and 64 years of age. We're still looking at over 5.5 million fewer jobs than we should have. Your nitpickery reduced my initial estimate by 8.3%. You must be very proud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's really cool that this was a Clinton campaign talking point. Yeah that's one of the reasons I supported Sanders over Clinton in the primaries, because means-testing is wasteful and counterproductive. Only like 15% of American households make above $125,000, just pay for school for everyone rather than adding a layer of bureaucracy to save 15 cents on the dollar and give opponents a wedge to turn people against it. Get that 15 cents back by increasing the top marginal tax rate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:High paying jobs aren't a thing that people will just stop doing, and if you want an example of that, just look at something we call recorded loving history. Right? People work high-paying jobs for longer hours than they strictly have to to survive because they want luxury or status. People who can afford more luxury without working than they'd ever want or need still work high-paying jobs for status.  "I just got my Obamacheck for a cool 15 grand, gently caress you Marriott hotels you can take your multimillion dollar seat on the board of directors and shove it, I don't need your chump change!"*economy collapses as everyone gets high and watches music videos all day* VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
That isn't a failure of communism that's a failure of totalitarianism. Read up on Mao and The Great Leap Forward; Mao deliberately killed or drove out the best and brightest only to declare himself infallible. Him, an individual person, who could not possibly know enough about every single subject to make every decision for China. It was a pretty big cause of the Great Famine, on top of that. It wasn't a failure of communism or central planning; it was a failure of Mao. He also created a system where it was most beneficial to lie your face off to the Chairman about literally everything, which led to him not even knowing about certain problems. Seriously, read about China and its problems. You are absolutely not allowed to question any decision Mao ever made. Some government policies still haven't changed. His plan to fight erosion was to plant poo poo loads of trees but without any single bit of regard for what climate the trees preferred. The guy legit had no loving idea what he was doing but ran the entire country the way he wanted anyway. Sorry, but that isn't the failure of communism and is a very poor argument against government programs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Man, I'd wish you'd stop trying to be my psychiatrist. I welcome novel research on the matter. I'm not content to sit back and wait for others to do it. If love to see more experiments done and would vote for them if given the opportunity to try limited, local experiments. There is no advantage to limited, local experiments and the fact that you refuse to even bother attempting to accept that is evidence that I am not strawmanning you. Go ahead, list the politicians you want to see elected that are willing to enact a basic income and/or raise minimum wage. Also please denounce all libertarian politicians who refuse to accept empirical evidence. quote:The BBC should be privatized. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE my rear end. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Someone here or on an adjacent thread put it great a few months ago: they were educated as a researcher but couldn't make a living doing that so they work some office job. So according to capitalism, they are a Contributing Member of Society, yet in reality they contribute nothing to the society at large. If they could leave that without having to worry about losing their food, home, or healthcare, and work on research full time, both they and society would benefit much more than through their current job. So it's about much more than the aggregate wages "abandoned." How many kids would have better upbringings because a parent could afford to stay home? How many more people would volunteer their time and labor? How many people would use the opportunity to get an education? All of these improve society, it's not all about the numbers on the paycheck. Right now, these are exclusively the realm of the well-off, and yet when they choose to do these things, miraculously the economy doesn't implode. Why would it when the poor can do them as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Look, it was those folks' fault for living in an era before bitcoin. Shoulda lost it all rather than subjecting the nation to the original sin - redistribution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I would love to be able to do my minimum wage job at the comic store and not worry about bills because it is the only job I've ever had that really makes me happy but it doesn't pay very much that's my thoughts on why id like a GBI namaste harambe But have you considered next quarter's productivity numbers? That's what really matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The BBC should be privatized. Lmao you are a gigantic moron
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:you're missing out if you never try the pure poo poo at least once I tried Anarcho-primitism once and woke up in a tree
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
My favorite impure communist nation is Norway. They nationalized their oil industry in 1972 after some big deposits were found in the North sea. Today it's 22% of GDP, and that's after oil prices have crashed. Basically a quarter+ of their economy has been run bureaucratic dictat for decades, pouring profits into a heavily diversified sovereign wealth fund, now the largest in the world. The lesson for me (especially taking into account what the thread already pointed out about the nature of corporations) is that tightly-integrated command economies interacting within a larger market economy is a successful pattern, and it can work even if you draw the magic circle around an entire economic sector.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen. We're already straight up giving money to people who aren't working via Medicare, food stamps, and countless other programs. If we can't generate jobs for them to do that pay a living wage, and we won't just kill them as surplus mouths, what else do we want to do? ToxicSlurpee posted:How do you sustain it? Not emptyquoting. Eat the loving rich. You want to pay for socialist policy? Let's get back to Eisenhower's 1950's tax rates for a starter. 90%/52%/25% top marginal tax rates for income/corporate/cap gains, although I'd crank the cap gains up closer to 40%. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The BBC should be privatized. Why? No, seriously, why? Profit motives are a huge problem in news media, and it's why journalism is a dying field. As someone who professes a deep longing for empiricism you should be advocating for more news sources that operate like the BBC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why? The BBC manages to be loving terrible anyway without any profit motives, so i'm not sure you're losing much of value by privatizing it. What was the last piece of good journalism the BBC did anyway? Channel 4 has done much better pieces recently despite being a commercially funded but publicly owned entity, which presumably is what the BBC would end up as.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Maybe when Gary Johnson loses the presidential election, self-professed libertarians across the nation will go on a spree of organized school shootings, reducing the youth population by 20%. We just don't know the consequences of letting libertarians be part of society. The utilitarian thing to do would be to jail all libertarians until we can perform studies showing they aren't unhinged potential serial killers. Ideally in New Mexico.ToxicSlurpee posted:That isn't a failure of communism that's a failure of totalitarianism. Read up on Mao and The Great Leap Forward; Mao deliberately killed or drove out the best and brightest only to declare himself infallible. Also it's kind of disingenuous to use Mao as an argument against Communism, seeing as Maoism (and other offshoots of Leninism) is pretty much the exact opposite of Marxist Communism, and it's a vanishingly small amount of internet leftists who support the former over the latter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:We're already straight up giving money to people who aren't working via Medicare, food stamps, and countless other programs. Something I've been wondering for a while: is there a good reason to have capital gains separated from regular old income, tax-rate-wise? I know the "encouraging investment" line, but the fact that investment turns your money into more money is encouragement already. Also I would like to see governments start experimenting with a wealth tax, but that would need to involve a better way to track down offshore assets. spoon0042 posted:But have you considered next quarter's productivity numbers? That's what really matters. This is really one of the big problems with Utilitarianism. Once you accept the idea that human well-being can be reduced to a single common currency, and that that currency can be quantified, you tend to grab hold of the nearest easily-quantified property of your society and treat it like Utility in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:This is really one of the big problems with Utilitarianism. Once you accept the idea that human well-being can be reduced to a single common currency, and that that currency can be quantified, you tend to grab hold of the nearest easily-quantified property of your society and treat it like Utility in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Ah, good old Yud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Ah, good old Yud. Don't even get me started. e: gently caress it, I'm going anyway. For some reason every STEM person (or STEM fan, in Yudkowsky's case) who tries to do ethics just ignores everything actual ethicists have done and tries to "solve" the whole field without knowing any of the common arguments and their rebuttals, and invariably they end up making some "Jeremy Bentham with a concussion"-tier theories that sound like they were created by an evil computer in a TV show. I already mentioned my issues with the "common currency" and quantifiable utility ideas, but there's also the plague of sum-ranking in all these theories. Even if we accept that people's well-being can be reduced to "utilons," there's no reason to decide that the right way to optimize things is "maximize the total number of utilons." Distribution matters, and ignoring that gets you into situations like Nozick's utility monster, where everything should be given to one person if they just like things more than everyone else. When loving Nozick is dunking on you, you have hosed up. And then Yud goes even further with his idiotic ideas about magical supercomputers, where he decides that one super-controversial theory in quantum mechanics is obviously correct because it supports his worldview, while the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which can actually be mathematically derived from literally any theory of quantum mechanics from Shrodinger on) is obviously "just a theory" because He tries to derive philosophy from science, despite knowing nothing about philosophy and nothing about science (to say nothing about his knowledge of philosophy of science, which appears to consist entirely of "I saw a portrait of Francis Bacon once"), and it's just embarrassing that a community of "rationalists" has coalesced around his idiocy. Guys, there are materialist theories that actually think about what they're doing, your choices go beyond "weird statistics cult" vs. "going to church with my parents." Expand your horizons. gently caress. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
He isn't even good at being utilitarian. That poo poo with torture and dust specks. Jesus. Pure ideology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Our zoo had baby basilisks and I was like "ahhhhhh!" But then they didn't try to convince me of anything using bad math and were just cute little lizards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
If you're doing a job that is so critical that you quitting would be worse than millions living in poverty, and currently the only thing keeping you there is the threat of being impoverished yourself, then it sounds like the free market is not doing a very good job of allocating resources. Indeed, how is a true free market in labor even possible when one party is negotiating under threat of death? It seems to me that your "empiricism" and your faith in liberalism are at odds here. e: Yes I know that you were speaking about aggregates and my phrasing is awkward in light of that, I may as well pre-emptively avoid quibbling on that front. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Our zoo had baby basilisks and I was like "ahhhhhh!" But then they didn't try to convince me of anything using bad math and were just cute little lizards. I'm glad for that and also that they did not turn you to stone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:11
|
|
