|
Lol if you think most baby decisions are more than "I'm tired of all these contraceptives and I'm married/in a relationship anyways, we'll see what happens" Most are probably less thought out than that.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Unless someone had to get help from doctors to get pregnant, it is pretty safe to assume that children are an accident. Even the religious types with lots of kids don't plan it. They just accept the results of a high risk lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Most people don't make their babbymaking decisions based on a hypothetical job market twenty years in the future. Maybe they should, it's not really a hypothetical that the job market in 20 years is going to be a disaster for those unlucky enough to be born with the right resources/skills/connections
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
call to action posted:Maybe they should, it's not really a hypothetical that the job market in 20 years is going to be a disaster for those unlucky enough to be born with the right resources/skills/connections "I'm just a temporarily embarrassed connected dude, so by the time my kid is grown I'll be able to help them out."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
If you're well-off now, chances are you'll be able to give you children enough of an advantage in life (education, capital, connections, etc.) that they'll probably end up well-off as well. If you're a working class chump up to your neck in debt and living paycheck to paycheck, then having children is pretty much rolling the dice and hoping for the best. Ain't our system a thing of beauty?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Lol if you think most baby decisions are more than "I'm tired of all these contraceptives and I'm married/in a relationship anyways, we'll see what happens" "Well it's just what you do at this point in life." call to action posted:Maybe they should, it's not really a hypothetical that the job market in 20 years is going to be a disaster for those unlucky enough to be born with the right resources/skills/connections Counterpoint: Kids are a valuable resource and support system for when people get older so asking people not to have children could hurt them in the long run. Also, its impractical to expect people to die alone just because the economy MIGHT be rough when the kids get out of college. That's just not how people operate. A better idea would be to demand that the government do its loving job and support more than just the top 10%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
projecting trends into the future more than a year or two out (and then only in broad strokes) is very unreliable. 20+ years? Lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
The rich get richer has been a pretty solid trend for the last 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:The rich get richer has been a pretty solid trend for the last 50 years. Historically that can only go on so long before the pitchforks and torches come out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Historically that can only go on so long before the pitchforks and torches come out. Except this time, the rich have an army of robots to defend themselves against the peasants... coming to a theater near you in 2018
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:The rich get richer has been a pretty solid trend for the last 50 years. Exactly. Even setting climate change and automation aside (which, lol), capitalism is pretty clearly in some sort of crisis (or more accurately, it's finally reaching the first world)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
What are opinions here on Krugman's championed New Trade Theory? This post does a p good job of summarizing it: http://www.economicthought.net/blog/2014/03/krugmans-alternative-theory-on-trade/ Basically it calls for an end to fetishistic globalism and the pursued-at-all-costs efficiency benefits of comparative trade specifically, but neo-classical economics generally. Instead, it focuses on developing domestic industry through a blend of protectionist policy (presumably in industries the country has low opp. costs in, but not the lowest) and the same free-trade policy in every other industry. Effectively, its about regaining the power to design a country's economic composition, something sordidly lost when capital learned to fly. This, to me, seems like a great way to guarantee a higher standard of living for the increasingly dangerous and disenfranchised working classes. But its not without its downsides. This type of policy would be ridiculously complex and nuanced. Ntm it's never been implemented anywhere as of yet. So, there's a problem selling something to a policymaker when the options presented to them will likely be one neo-classical econ fart-sniffer saying "Doing nothing is the surest way to maximize efficiency, and it works and I can prove it", and another guy who like can't even get all the presentation boards out of his car without chewing up their corners and has to sit the guy down and explain that while the fart-sniffer is technically right, its a fundamentally near-sighted thing to do and if he likes his head where it is, squarely between his shoulder and not on some block, that worker's welfare is something he should seriously consider. EDIT: Also, I think the working classes have showed that they're interested in protectionism. Maybe NTT is a level reaction to that trend that isn't inherently racist? http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39315098 almost there fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
All I ever needed to know about Krugman was summed up in his columns smearing Bernie
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:What are opinions here on Krugman's championed New Trade Theory? Industrial policy is the general phrase used for this sort of interventionism, and is generally supported by economists on paper, unfortunately it doesn't really have a good track record in practice. Going down the historical list of things that count as industrial policy reveals a big list of failure. Japan is the only real success story and that turns bad after the 1970s, Latin American ISI protectionism had mediocre results at best, British socialist industrial policy in the 1960s and 70s was a gigantic failure and gave the phrase its present negative connotation. The closest you get to real success in a fully-developed country is Germany, and even there the level of active state planning in the present is very limited, it's more like the country is coasting on the effects of successful industrial policy of the past https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_policy
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Historically that can only go on so long before the pitchforks and torches come out. And how close are YOU to set aside the shitposting and refined sugar and start slaughtering the upper classes while living like a hunted dog? Nobody is going to revolt in a country which actually matters, those days are gone outside of shitholes which only serve as resource mines for the west.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Rime posted:And how close are YOU to set aside the shitposting and refined sugar and start slaughtering the upper classes while living like a hunted dog? Nobody is going to revolt in a country which actually matters, those days are gone outside of shitholes which only serve as resource mines for the west. I rather agree, society maybe 2 missed meals away from anarchy but crappy calories are cheap and even our government isn't so stupid as to let 20 somethings starve. If it's kill or starve, sure, the poor rise up. Otherwise you'd be shocked what people can be convinced is normal and tolerate as long as they can be convinced it's temporary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Industrial policy is the general phrase used for this sort of interventionism, and is generally supported by economists on paper, unfortunately it doesn't really have a good track record in practice. Going down the historical list of things that count as industrial policy reveals a big list of failure. Japan is the only real success story and that turns bad after the 1970s, Latin American ISI protectionism had mediocre results at best, British socialist industrial policy in the 1960s and 70s was a gigantic failure and gave the phrase its present negative connotation. The closest you get to real success in a fully-developed country is Germany, and even there the level of active state planning in the present is very limited, it's more like the country is coasting on the effects of successful industrial policy of the past Thx for bringing this to my attention. From the limited reading I've done on it so far Industrial policy seems to have met with limited success, but that's not necessarily a bad thing imo. Of course interventionist policy is less efficient and more costly than offshoring production to some country that has lower opp. costs, but that's beside the point. I guess I just fail to see how, for example, if the gov't protected the auto industry in the US, how that wouldn't lead to higher levels of gainful employment. Yes, it would be more expensive for Americans to buy a car and it would be costly for the gov't when compared to free market alternatives, but surely this would only be so in the short-run? It reminds me of when Ford paid his employees enough to buy a T-model for themselves; the wage/price differential eventually equalizes no?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:Thx for bringing this to my attention. From the limited reading I've done on it so far Industrial policy seems to have met with limited success, but that's not necessarily a bad thing imo. Of course interventionist policy is less efficient and more costly than offshoring production to some country that has lower opp. costs, but that's beside the point. I guess I just fail to see how, for example, if the gov't protected the auto industry in the US, how that wouldn't lead to higher levels of gainful employment. Yes, it would be more expensive for Americans to buy a car and it would be costly for the gov't when compared to free market alternatives, but surely this would only be so in the short-run? It reminds me of when Ford paid his employees enough to buy a T-model for themselves; the wage/price differential eventually equalizes no? Yeah, it would increase employment (although with automation not by all that much) but it would probably retard quality and innovation in that sector. IMO doing some kind of intervention to shore up the competitiveness of America's manufacturing sector would be worthwhile, but that's only assuming the policies work, and they probably wouldn't increase employment to nearly the degree you want in any case. You're better off setting up a dedicated WPA-style government make-work program if you want that
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
call to action posted:So do people looking to have kids these days just not care that their kids will probably never work a "real" job, or...? You should not be worried about the job market, but about climate change, because there is no way in hell we will not be blowing right past the 2 degrees limit in the coming decades. It's already loving over parts of the world in the middle-east and Africa and the worst has yet to come. Just lol if you want to bring a new kid in that world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:Thx for bringing this to my attention. From the limited reading I've done on it so far Industrial policy seems to have met with limited success, but that's not necessarily a bad thing imo. Of course interventionist policy is less efficient and more costly than offshoring production to some country that has lower opp. costs, but that's beside the point. I guess I just fail to see how, for example, if the gov't protected the auto industry in the US, how that wouldn't lead to higher levels of gainful employment. Yes, it would be more expensive for Americans to buy a car and it would be costly for the gov't when compared to free market alternatives, but surely this would only be so in the short-run? It reminds me of when Ford paid his employees enough to buy a T-model for themselves; the wage/price differential eventually equalizes no? No not really. Cars would become more expensive for everyone, which would transfer welfare from all americans to americans connected to the car industry. Auto workers would be somewhat better off while most other americans would be somewhat worse off. Overall employment would probably not change much - some jobs created in the auto industry would be netted out by jobs lost elsewhere due to people having less purchasing power. That's a permanent structural effect of the policy. On top of that, the US enacting protectionist measures for its car industry would almost certainly result in our trading partners retaliating. That would probably result in lower car sales by american companies internationally, and higher prices for all sorts of imported goods for Americans. edit: Poor people get hosed the hardest by that dynamic. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Krugman is a neoclassical hack that constantly shifts his beliefs to be firmly mainstream or an acceptable level of radical depending on who's asking. New Keynesian is just a brand name for neoclassicals that believe in fiscal policy during crises, but only for a very limited window. The Obama stimulus is a great example of New Keynesian policy: You had humongous deficit spending for a single year that concentrated on bailouts, and calls for making a full shift from fiscal to monetary policy before hyperinflation or whatever hits right after the stock market was safe. I'm almost certain that Trump and the rise of nationalist populism, rather than any actual intellectual discovery on his part, was what made him shift opinion this time. I recommend Steve Keen and Bill Mitchell for blogging economists that actually seem to understand (and be able to explain with math&stats if you're into that) what has been happening post-2007. Coincidentally though, at least Mitchell is in fact calling for an end to the free movement of capital (and nationalization of banking, because over 90% of money creation is done by private rather than central banks and only when it's profitable for them) and both think that economic policy should be decided on the same scale as currencies are used, no smaller or larger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Krugman can go gently caress himself, he effortlessly pivots from "we needed more recovery spending, we're in a liquidity trap, workers need help" to "gently caress these WHITE MEN for voting for Trump, economics says they deserve to die"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
call to action posted:Krugman can go gently caress himself, he effortlessly pivots from "we needed more recovery spending, we're in a liquidity trap, workers need help" to "gently caress these WHITE MEN for voting for Trump, economics says they deserve to die" Pretty butt hurt there wasn't any real math or evidence behind Bernie's economic plan huh? Because that's pretty straw there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Some of his ideas are probably fine if you are hoping to extend capitalism a few more decades or whatever, but yeah, he basically falls under Clinton-era economics and continuation of the status quo, also the election cycle broke his brain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Pretty butt hurt there wasn't any real math or evidence behind Bernie's economic plan huh? Because that's pretty straw there. Iirc, it was, "Large Input → Large Output," and a de facto campaign ad yet Krugman's initial criticism was lazy Appeal to Authority bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Appealing to the consensus of reasonable experts is a different beast than an appeal to authority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Appealing to the consensus of reasonable experts is a different beast than an appeal to authority. To paraphrase Steve Keen, mainstream economists aren't experts on the economy, they're experts on a model of the economy that doesn't apply to the real economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Appealing to the consensus of reasonable experts is a different beast than an appeal to authority. Yes, lets just all pretend that economy is a natural science and not a social science deeply rooted in ideology and philosophical debates. Sure nothing bad could come of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
uncop posted:To paraphrase Steve Keen, mainstream economists aren't experts on the economy, they're experts on a model of the economy that doesn't apply to the real economy. Pointing this out is like pointing out everyone has an rear end in a top hat. It's true, but not a particularly earth shattering arguement. Assholes (like models, or ideologies) do vary by quality and condition. That's the place to do real meaningful criticism. Things like that hemmroid is sticking out or you need to wipe more (this or that assumption is garbage). Just saying it's an rear end in a top hat, not so meaningful. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Appealing to the consensus of reasonable experts is a different beast than an appeal to authority. You might have a point if economics wasn't such a laughably corrupt and terrible field.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
uncop posted:To paraphrase Steve Keen, mainstream economists aren't experts on the economy, they're experts on a model of the economy that doesn't apply to the real economy. The dirty little secret of models is that all models are wrong. But they're useful so we keep them around. It's a question of what can you use one for? What can't you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:No not really. I fail to see how you're coming to these conclusions. The long-run Philips Curve shows that price levels eventually meet wage levels again and equalize at the natural rate of employment. If anything it actually leads to an increase in real wage levels over the long term. Also, saying that this type of policy would do anything to transfer wealth from all Americans to Americans connected to the car industry, is again, the point. The 1% pay for half of what the US gov't receives in income tax, so gently caress em. The point is that protectionist policy would do wonders in shrinking the wealth gap. I agree on the trade wars point tho, but trade wars aren't necessarily inevitable and more often than not they're lose-lose. That's all game theory and I suppose with the right diplomatic channels you could greatly reduce the chances of that sort of stuff happening. EDIT: Also for all of you making GBS threads on Economics academia, I feel your pain. But that's not to say that some portions of the economics community (albeit not the mainstream community) recognize its faults and are trying to develop a pluralistic economics more grounded in the real-world than abstract models. You'd be glad to hear that this field of economics calls itself "Post-Autistic Economics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics They've since rebranded and started calling themselves "Real-world Economics" (b/c the autistic community was understandably kinda offended) and I recommend their stuff. poo poo's refreshing in the current age of Neo-classical heterodoxy http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/ almost there fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Pointing this out is like pointing out everyone has an rear end in a top hat. It's true, but not a particularly earth shattering arguement. Assholes (like models, or ideologies) do vary by quality and condition. That's the place to do real meaningful criticism. Things like that hemmroid is sticking out or you need to wipe more (this or that assumption is garbage). Actually models are supposed to apply to the thing they're describing. Like, it's completely different when your model produces slightly incorrect predictions due to some simplifications and when your model predicts the opposite of reality. (For example, seeing "The Great Moderation" as a sign of increasing stability instead of an incoming debt crisis, or predicting that austerity increases private spending) Another thing is that "serious" economics is currently married to a single family of models (DSGE) and does not accept that non-DSGE assholes can be judged on the same terms as DSGE assholes. DSGE cannot fail or be replaced, it must simply be fitted to new data by introducing new magical variables as needed. That is what makes macroeconomists experts on a model rather than the economy, they religiously avoid modeling reality when it's not internally consistent with their false understanding of the economy and consider choosing reality over consistency not to be "serious" economics, Accretionist posted:The dirty little secret of models is that all models are wrong. But they're useful so we keep them around. Obviously. My point was that all that mainstream macro models are useful for is keeping up the reputation of professors and paying their salaries. And enabling policy choices that might not work for the general public but certainly benefit some people. uncop fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
uncop posted:Actually models are supposed to apply to the thing they're describing. Like, it's completely different when your model produces slightly incorrect predictions due to some simplifications and when your model predicts the opposite of reality. (For example, seeing "The Great Moderation" as a sign of increasing stability instead of an incoming debt crisis, or predicting that austerity increases private spending) That's quite the claim. I'm not going to pretend to be an economist or in a particularly good position to criticize economics, but my gut feeling is to not disagree. However, I try to not use my gut for drawing conclusions. Mind expanding a bit on why this is true and what you're basing this on? Any good reading from some I assume post-modern/post-structuralist econ critics on the field of macroeconomics and/or economic models in general?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
call to action posted:So do people looking to have kids these days just not care that their kids will probably never work a "real" job, or...? I hope that by the time I have kids, we will have implemented a basic income, so that I and my children don't have to work. We aren't going to have enough jobs to keep upholding a protestant work ethic anyway, might as well go for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:That's quite the claim. I'm not going to pretend to be an economist or in a particularly good position to criticize economics, but my gut feeling is to not disagree. However, I try to not use my gut for drawing conclusions. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/its-time-to-junk-the-flawed-economic-models-that-make-the-world-a-dangerous-place https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/WP-Trouble.pdf The first link is a Guardian article on the paper that's behind the second link. The paper is pretty well written and darkly humorous, I've read it. Paul Romer is a long-time insider on academic economics and all of a sudden went public with this scathing review of the state of macroeconomics. Abstract posted:For more than three decades, macroeconomics has gone backwards. The treatment of identification now is no more credible than in the early 1970s but escapes challenge because it is so much more opaque. Macroeconomic theorists dismiss mere facts by feigning an obtuse ignorance about such simple assertions as "tight monetary policy can cause a recession." Their models attribute fluctuations in aggregate variables to imaginary causal forces that are not influenced by the action that any person takes. A parallel with string theory from physics hints at a general failure mode of science that is triggered when respect for highly regarded leaders evolves into a deference to authority that displaces objective fact from its position as the ultimate determinant of scientific truth. EDIT: Gotta add to this that Steve Keen, a man who predicted 2007 in the 1990's, and a respected university professor in the middle of producing a mathematical model based on a bunch of observable macroeconomic truths and the principles of complexity theory, is currently begging for money on Patreon, because that sort of macroeconomic research does not get actual funding. The model is real btw, he shows it off during lectures that have been recorded on Youtube. uncop fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I hope that by the time I have kids, we will have implemented a basic income, so that I and my children don't have to work. We aren't going to have enough jobs to keep upholding a protestant work ethic anyway, might as well go for it. Basic income even if it happened probably wouldn't keep up with inflation, and most people on it would probably live like people on welfare/food stamps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I hope that by the time I have kids, we will have implemented a basic income, so that I and my children don't have to work. We aren't going to have enough jobs to keep upholding a protestant work ethic anyway, might as well go for it. Civilization will literally end before this comes to pass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Civilization will literally end before this comes to pass. I notice a lot of "basic income is going to save us" going around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
And it's countered by a lot of articles with 'holy poo poo basic income is going to gently caress up everything' Usually op eds written by people who's entire life is dedicated to collecting monetary wealth. Guess who has more money to spend buying politicians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:18
|
|
