Economics Thread

sturg33 said:
economics is math

math isn't political

some political parties understand math better than others

feel free to contribute something
Click to expand...

Tu quoque, bro. That's not an argument.

Economics is a lot more than "math". Math itself, as a science of value arbitrations, is itself political. Political parties have nothing to do with this question.

Let's try again.
 
OK

Want to comment on anything about economics or want to continue down your philosophy 101 shtick? Although I do understand that the only economic argument a socialist is capable of is philosophical, so I get it
 
sturg33 said:
OK

Want to comment on anything about economics or want to continue down your philosophy 101 shtick? Although I do understand that the only economic argument a socialist is capable of is philosophical, so I get it
Click to expand...

To take a page from you: "cool"

This is why I quit this sub-board. Your brittle obtuseness is boring, and your bitter self-righteousness is grating.

This is a discussion about economics. The core-concept of what constitutes "economics" is relevant to this discussion—certainly a lot more than your inane pot-shots at 57 and the "math-poor left". And economics is a social science, irreducible to mere algebra, where attempts are made to study the "productive" relationships amongst irrational actors, and between those actors and an irrational universe; it is, like any science, by nature political, because it concerns the relationships between humans, their self-organizational gestures, and their attempts to structure the world around them (which is the definition of "political", btw).

This could have been an interesting back-and-forth. Instead—since you are so inveterate in your pearl-clutched presumptions that you see no other option but to douche-nozzle about "philosophy 101 shtick", and delude yourself that you're scoring points on me somehow—it's further proof of the bad-faith pretenses with which you began this thread, and moreover of the utter pointlessness of this "Real Talk" board.

Enjoy the remainder of your circle-jerk.
 
Dude... I don't think value, supply and demand, and exchanges of goods/services is political.

You do.

You said that.

I don't agree.

Clearly you want a philosophy back and forth and I'm simply not interested in that.

I'd like to talk about real world economic examples. I've asked you to contribute. You refuse.

We can go back and forth about whether economics is a political issue all day, but that is not the point of this thread. it's to talk about economic issues happening in the world.

So, you can contribute by responding to my posts or posting your own... or you can try to spend 20 posts with me getting me to admit that economics is actually political. Let's say I do... can we get back to the point of the thread?

No?

Didn't think so
 
Here's me contributing to this thread

Now comes the new NBER working paper, “People Versus Machines: The Impact of Minimum Wages on Automatable Jobs” by Grace Lordan and David Neumark (bold is mine):

Based on CPS data from 1980-2015, we find that increasing the minimum wage decreases significantly the share of automatable employment held by low-skilled workers. The average effects mask significant heterogeneity by industry and demographic group. For example, one striking result is that the share in automatable employment declines most sharply for older workers. An analysis of individual transitions from employment to unemployment (or to employment in a different occupation) leads to similar overall conclusions, and also some evidence of adverse effects for older workers in particular industries. … Our work suggests that sharp minimum wage increases in the United States in coming years will shape the types of jobs held by low-skilled workers, and create employment challenges for some of them. … Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that increases in minimum wage will give incentives for firm to adopt new technologies that replace workers earlier. While these adoptions undoubtedly lead to some new jobs, there are workers who will be displaced that do not have the skills to do the new tasks. Our paper has identified workers whose vulnerability to being replaced by machines has been amplified by minimum wage increases. Such effects may spread to more workers in the future.

From the leftists who favor higher minimum wages, I'd like to discuss this most recent data... I assume you don't
 
Again, the fact that you don't think that "value"—which is not inherent, but definitionally conditional relative to the interactions between human beings, within human structures—is "not political" is proof that either you don't understand what "political" means, or this thread was founded on bad-faith. Either way, it's clear all I can expect is self-righteous smarm from it.

Smarm, and, I guess, willful or accidental ignorance—the latter clear in your "minimum-wage" bait, since I've countless times noted that I'm not a believer in the palliative effects of minimum-wage increases, absent other structural measures.

So again: have fun in circle-jerk land. I don't find participating on this side of the board "productive", and every time I dip a toe back in y'all prove it anew.
 
jpx7 said:
Again, the fact that you don't think that "value"—which is not inherent, but definitionally conditional relative to the interactions between human beings, within human structures—.
Click to expand...

Again - the fact that we're now a dozen posts on this proves to me that you're not interested in discussing anything but semantics
 
Nah, he's quite right. As I've said before, talking about economics with you is futile because you treat a few favored precepts--which amount to, yes, politics--as immutable laws of the universe. A conversation on those terms comes up pretty lame in short order.
 
Julio3000 said:
Nah, he's quite right. As I've said before, talking about economics with you is futile because you treat a few favored precepts--which amount to, yes, politics--as immutable laws of the universe. A conversation on those terms comes up pretty lame in short order.
Click to expand...

lol I think the reason the conversation goes nowhere is because I post data... tough too argue against it... easier to ignore
 
I managed rent homes in Lake Summerville and Brenham, Texas at one time that were mostly HUD homes. Literally saw daughters of residents get pregnant so they can get their own HUD assistance and move out on their own. Really sad.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I managed rent homes in Lake Summerville and Brenham, Texas at one time that were mostly HUD homes. Literally saw daughters of residents get pregnant so they can get their own HUD assistance and move out on their own. Really sad.
Click to expand...

Welfare creates dependency
 
I think there are a lot of places the current system could be improved. Centralizing some of the benefits and adding a sliding-scale phaseout instead of a hard cutoff would be a good place to start if the goal is incentivizing work. Likewise addressing child-care concerns.

There are some pitfalls to discussing US programs through the lens of Europe, though. Most prominently is the fact that some services (health care, most prominently) are already under the government umbrella and change the calculus considerably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
I had kinda dropped this strand, but it leads to some interesting questions.

So sturg puts forth the EU when asked what a free market looks like. Follows up with this:

I wouldn't classify to free trade as a "rules based system."

But it's hard to find a more "rules based system" than the EU. Like I wrote before: member states can trade with member states without trade duties, etc. But there are rules. Boy, are there rules. Arguably, nobody likes rules more than the EU. I was hoping for a little more constructive engagement here.
 
Julio3000 said:
I had kinda dropped this strand, but it leads to some interesting questions.

So sturg puts forth the EU when asked what a free market looks like. Follows up with this:

I wouldn't classify to free trade as a "rules based system."

But it's hard to find a more "rules based system" than the EU. Like I wrote before: member states can trade with member states without trade duties, etc. But there are rules. Boy, are there rules. Arguably, nobody likes rules more than the EU. I was hoping for a little more constructive engagement here.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, I do not have nearly the knowledge on global trade that I'd like so I'm studying up on it now.

I am firmly against tariffs though much like I'm against taxes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top