Minimum income - good thing or bad?

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Not really. He made a broad assumption about how the majority people would react, and he was wrong.

Ok, even if he was wrong, he was accounting for human behavior. No one is saying it's perfectly correct. You can take something into consideration and still be wrong. (I'm not saying he was wrong, just saying that he considered human behavior).

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

We don't design programs to predict the behaviors, we have programs as a result of their behavior - they are reactive, not proactive.

Even programs designed as a reaction will still be impacted by future actions. They are both reactive to the past, and proactive for the future.

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Why did they come to that conclusion, how did they make that choice? What shaped their decision Those are all questions that Psychology, and Sociology ask and attempt to decipher. You can't understand the results if you can't understand the variables involved.

Yes, I just said that understanding the results requires critical thinking. Letting people do what they want does not.

[other_evolved]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

It's not a science. I refuse to acknowledge it as one, and laugh when people try to justify it's existence beyond a subset of sociology. Does it have it's place? Sure, but it's not a science in the modern sense of the word.

I never said it was like physics, or chemistry but it's more than just a subset of sociology. It's more related to mathematics than the hard sciences.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

I never said it was like physics, or chemistry but it's more than just a subset of sociology. It's more related to mathematics than the hard sciences.

And we all know what a sham mathematics is.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

I never said it was like physics, or chemistry but it's more than just a subset of sociology. It's more related to mathematics than the hard sciences.

No it's not.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Which was the same question I asked, though I suspect you are expanding the scope to include private sector?

If so, I do agree - generally there are no incentives for any entity to voluntarily reduce itself. IMO, where government and private sector differ however is that the private sector is driven by profit and failure to do so will directly correlate to a reduction in their size, perhaps to non-existence. Therefore, they are required to be in tune with what the market wants.

Or monopolize it, and give you no other options, but sure. Government tends to be more responsive to the direct needs of individuals because it isn't driven by profit..directly.

And who is this 'market' is that the mysterious entity I spoke of before who isn't accountable to anyone?

Originally Posted by Joekerr

The government does not operate under similar restrictions. Therefore, I would like to see it curtailed and reduced. A smaller government is a better government in my view.

Based on...?

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I'm not anti-government though - I do believe they have a part to play. I just don't agree with all the extra parts they've grabbed recently and seem to feel is theirs to play.

Ah.

[other_evolved]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

No it's not.

That's a nice opinion that happens to be wrong. Economics attempts to use mathematics to explain various behaviors. It is absolutely rooted in mathematics.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

That's a nice opinion that happens to be wrong. Economics attempts to use mathematics to explain various behaviors. It is absolutely rooted in mathematics.

It's not an opinion, it's absofuckinglutely a social science, regardless of how it tries to quantify behaviors. And it's a pretty shitty one at that. No consensus, no hard rules, no control variables - it's shit, and I feel like the crazy guy in the room when I have to point that out to people.

Yeah, I'm aware that your job relies on some belief in this field, which only means to justify it's own existence and move towards a "free" market economy.

[other_evolved]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

It's not an opinion, it's absofuckinglutely a social science, regardless of how it tries to quantify behaviors. And it's a pretty shitty one at that. No consensus, no hard rules, no control variables - it's shit, and I feel like the crazy guy in the room when I have to point that out to people.

Yeah, I'm aware that your job relies on some belief in this field, which only means to justify it's own existence and move towards a "free" market economy.

So, your position is that economics has nothing to do with math? I know you have a tendency to fly off the handle on things, but slow down and read what I'm saying/typing. I'm not disagreeing that the "soft sciences" do not play a major role within economics. That's what the term ceteris paribus means with regards to economics....it's a catch all for many of the theories/formulas within econ. It's also not a perfect, or settled science....much like mathematics, physics, etc. Your relative lack of understanding on the topic doesn't put you in a position to state that it's not a science at all, or that math is not involved.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

I hate these conversations - economics is a joke.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the...does-not-exist

Economics is hardly a joke, but it's also not a science.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

So, your position is that economics has nothing to do with math? I know you have a tendency to fly off the handle on things, but slow down and read what I'm saying/typing. I'm not disagreeing that the "soft sciences" do not play a major role within economics. That's what the term ceteris paribus means with regards to economics....it's a catch all for many of the theories/formulas within econ. It's also not a perfect, or settled science....much like mathematics, physics, etc. Your relative lack of understanding on the topic doesn't put you in a position to state that it's not a science at all, or that math is not involved.

To the bold - I didn't say that. Read what I wrote previously. Economics is not even a soft science, it's a subset of sociology. Pretending that because it focuses on something tangible (money) somehow makes it more attuned to other sciences and studies is one of the biggest stretches I've seen you (or anyone else in this thread) make.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

So, your position is that economics has nothing to do with math? I know you have a tendency to fly off the handle on things, but slow down and read what I'm saying/typing. I'm not disagreeing that the "soft sciences" do not play a major role within economics. That's what the term ceteris paribus means with regards to economics....it's a catch all for many of the theories/formulas within econ. It's also not a perfect, or settled science....much like mathematics, physics, etc. Your relative lack of understanding on the topic doesn't put you in a position to state that it's not a science at all, or that math is not involved.

If you're an Austrian School of Thought, then yeah.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Economics is hardly a joke, but it's also not a science.

Hey, when start taking 'theories' off a napkin as a rule - yeah, it's a joke.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Hey, when start taking 'theories' off a napkin as a rule - yeah, it's a joke.

So because you disagree with one theory of economics, the entire study is a joke? Lol that's probably the dumbest line of thinking I've ever read.

Well shit, there's a theory that states that staring at dark energy harms the universe. I guess astronomy is a joke now too.

At one point in time, there was a theory that mercury was an effective way to treat all sorts of ailments. Medicine is a joke as well.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Generally speaking, I support more of a private sector influence in the market and a reduced government influence (while acknowledging that government is still needed - I simply want it smaller). But which government would actually voluntarily reduce itself? Partially why I think I should run for politics, but realistically, I have little interest and see little personal reward.

If you have private sector running for their own interests (as they always do), then they will automate the crap out of everything and lay off everyone as it's the cost efficient thing to do and betters their bottom line. That's why if you give companies tax breaks, they won't hire more people - they'll invest in technology to automate more jobs and lay more people off.

It's not a matter of government being reduced, it's a matter of private companies need to be regulated otherwise they'll do things that benefit no one but themselves. The whole subprime mortgage crash is a direct result of private companies looking after themselves. They knew they were selling shit but as long a they made money, they didn't give a crap. Who bailed them out? The govt.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Z K

If you have private sector running for their own interests (as they always do), then they will automate the crap out of everything and lay off everyone as it's the cost efficient thing to do and betters their bottom line. That's why if you give companies tax breaks, they won't hire more people - they'll invest in technology to automate more jobs and lay more people off.

It's not a matter of government being reduced, it's a matter of private companies need to be regulated otherwise they'll do things that benefit no one but themselves. The whole subprime mortgage crash is a direct result of private companies looking after themselves. They knew they were selling shit but as long a they made money, they didn't give a crap. Who bailed them out? The govt.

In the joke discipline known as economics, they refer to situations such as that as the tragedy of the commons theory.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

In the joke discipline known as economics, they refer to situations such as that as the tragedy of the commons theory.

I was an Econ major in college... which was ages ago. I totally forgot about this theory until you brought it up.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Which was the same question I asked, though I suspect you are expanding the scope to include private sector?

If so, I do agree - generally there are no incentives for any entity to voluntarily reduce itself. IMO, where government and private sector differ however is that the private sector is driven by profit and failure to do so will directly correlate to a reduction in their size, perhaps to non-existence. Therefore, they are required to be in tune with what the market wants..

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Or monopolize it, and give you no other options, but sure. Government tends to be more responsive to the direct needs of individuals because it isn't driven by profit..directly.

And who is this 'market' is that the mysterious entity I spoke of before who isn't accountable to anyone?

So in your opinion, there is no option if a monopoly is formed? What flaws do you see with that. And that rarely happens by the way, yes, in part due to government, but I never said government should not exist. You seem to have this airy fairy ideas about life - I feel like you would be best buddies with my current prime minister who seems to adopt a similar life outlook. I know you are incapable of admitting you are flawed, so I'll point out a few:
1. Monopolies only work when consumers continue consuming that which they are supplying.
2. In the case of a necessity (say electricity), if there are no alternatives (there are), but say there weren't...again, if consumers were willing to support the smaller entrant for a time, the monopoly would have to adjust. Short term, they could try to undercut, but if consumers said screw it, we'll support the little guy, then there would no longer be a monopoly.
3. You almost always have other options. If you choose to consume that good, pay the price. Don't cry to me. You generally don't have to consume that good.
4. Governments do what they think will get them re-elected, not what the people need. They are not sensitive to that, nor do they much care deep down. What they care intensely about is getting re-elected so they can continue to dip into other's pockets like the parasite they are. So they will act in the interests of certain people, only if they feel it will work in their interests ultimately. You have a far too altruistic viewpoint of government.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

The government does not operate under similar restrictions. Therefore, I would like to see it curtailed and reduced. A smaller government is a better government in my view.

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Based on...?.

Based on my view. I'm not certain how you could have failed to read that above, so I've bolded it for you. My opinion is as valid as yours. I take the opinion that I'm able to best decide for myself how I wish to spend my money and for what I wish it to be spent on. I do not believe that a few elected people are capable of making better decisions with my money on what I really need. Therefore, I prefer them to take less, and offer less. Less safety nets. But offer the basics - education, police/fire, roads, military, and health care.

If you believe that the government is better able to spend your money than you, all the more power to you. But that is why I wish for a smaller government.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Z K

I was an Econ major in college... which was ages ago. I totally forgot about this theory until you brought it up.

Ha yeah I was economics and statistics.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Z K

If you have private sector running for their own interests (as they always do), then they will automate the crap out of everything and lay off everyone as it's the cost efficient thing to do and betters their bottom line. That's why if you give companies tax breaks, they won't hire more people - they'll invest in technology to automate more jobs and lay more people off.

It's not a matter of government being reduced, it's a matter of private companies need to be regulated otherwise they'll do things that benefit no one but themselves. The whole subprime mortgage crash is a direct result of private companies looking after themselves. They knew they were selling shit but as long a they made money, they didn't give a crap. Who bailed them out? The govt.

I'm starting to side with economics being shit if this comes from an econ major.

As if all companies can be automated and no private companies care about their employees or customers for that matter. Or that a company able to survive only on the merit of the goods or services they provide only benefits themselves? What kind of circular reference is this? The fact that they exist means they benefit others. If their product or service wasn't needed or wanted by others, they wouldn't exist.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Z K

If you have private sector running for their own interests (as they always do), then they will automate the crap out of everything and lay off everyone as it's the cost efficient thing to do and betters their bottom line. That's why if you give companies tax breaks, they won't hire more people - they'll invest in technology to automate more jobs and lay more people off.

It's not a matter of government being reduced, it's a matter of private companies need to be regulated otherwise they'll do things that benefit no one but themselves. The whole subprime mortgage crash is a direct result of private companies looking after themselves. They knew they were selling shit but as long a they made money, they didn't give a crap. Who bailed them out? The govt.

And should they have bailed them out? No. It's not as though those evil corporations were forcing you poor Americans to buy those garbage products. No. Don't sell yourselves short - it was your greed, plain and simple. You wanted more. Faster. So you bought figuring you could make a quick buck, or you took the loan because you wanted a bigger house that you realistically couldn't afford if the market moved up.

No, I have no sympathy in this scenario - you all should have suffered the consequences of your actions - it would have done wonders to correct the self entitlement I see now. It would have corrected the spending behaviours as well. But no, the government intervened and what did people learn? Not much. Just that their actions have little consequence. Wonderful.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

No it's not.

Yeah, the proofs I had to do in Biology and Geology were INSANE!

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I'm starting to side with economics being shit if this comes from an econ major.

As if all companies can be automated and no private companies care about their employees or customers for that matter. Or that a company able to survive only on the merit of the goods or services they provide only benefits themselves? What kind of circular reference is this? The fact that they exist means they benefit others. If their product or service wasn't needed or wanted by others, they wouldn't exist.

You obviously can't automate everything. Private companies do "care" about their employees, they have to in order to keep them motivated, on board, and working. However, if you think a company will keep you on board out of the kindness of their hearts, then you'd be mistaken. If, suddenly, your job can be done cheaper and just as effective (or perhaps even more effective), they'd be stupid to not go that route. A for profit business's main directive is to increase shareholder value for it's shareholders.

20-30 years from now if self driving technology becomes viable and widespread, you think trucking companies will keep paying truck drivers because they'd feel bad if they let them go?

You think Uber and Lyft would continue to pay drivers?