White people...

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a map of right-to-work states. What do you notice about them?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are all the shittiest, poorest states! Let's, as a nation, become more like the deep South!

I swear to God the Civil War was a mistake, we should have the South to wither and die. If they were a separate country they'd be just barely outperforming Brazil.

So funny when liberals bring up the south and racism and such but totally ignore the fact that the southern racist were democrats. George Wallace ring a bell? What about the former grand wizard himself David Duke or further back like Huey P Long?

Repub Governors are running the south and bringing jobs there. The south may undergo a boom while the more liberal states deal with the fallout of their policies.

[maskedmelon]

Ideology is the death of free thought. Those who profess ideological adherence enjoy relevance inversely proportional to the number of drones advocating the same idea. That does not mean we should ignore old ideas. To the contrary, we should question all ideas, including our own, equally.

Socialism is not without rational merit, though contemporary proponents are generally disinclined to fully embrace the core principle that enables it: denial of liberty. If a state is to assume the responsibility of caring for its citizenry it must do so selectively if it is to succeed. Just as excellence acts as a vacuum on resources in a free market, failure acts the same in a system of redistribution.

Failure is endemic, cultural, untreatable, but not without a highly viable survival strategy: multiplicity. Unchecked subsidy of failed conditions necessarily results in more of those conditions, increasing the inefficiency of redistribution until the system is no longer sustainable.

Societies and markets must necessarily be regulated if they are to remain free from the inevitable ascent of excellence though. The success of individuals operating at two or more standard deviations beyond the mean is staggering relative to the mean.

Limiting success is necessary as a matter of prudence due to the scarcity and best use of resources. No matter how astute one may be in a given field, they are not so in all fields, nor are their talents nor inspirations within said fields absolute. For these reasons among others, devoting all resources or even a majority (as they would surely enjoy within a competitive environment) is unreasonable.

Similarly, individuals operating below the mean and unable to adequately care for themselves enjoy success at a radically lower level than those at the mean. Ordinarily nature would cull such individuals from the population at a disproportionate rate. An equally disproportionate birth rate in addition to the compassion of and utility for their fellow man is why such individuals have endured to this day.

In a modern society many natural hazards are removed, though the same individuals are plagued by other hazards such as illicit substances, inadequate healthcare, unsafe/unstable employment, etc. which serve to fill a small part of nature's regulation. Even without subsidy, such individuals enjoy inordinate proliferation in modern society, decreasing mean performance as they assume an ever larger share of the population.

This does not mean that low functioning individuals must necessarily be purged from society, rather that there is a rational argument for limiting their proliferation just as their is for limiting the success of high functioning individuals.


Is any of this right though?

[Nihilist_santa]

Reminds me of the r/k selection theory applied to politics Molyneux is fond of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And yet, you can't create 14 trillion for yourself out of thin area. You can't buy off politicians to override food safety regulations. This position is pure textbook. Reality says government is always owned by and for the wealthy.

Neither can you. Talented, hard-working people deserve fabulous rewards. They don't deserve to run the country or the economy. That's all I'm saying. And be careful saying "always". Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Government in scandinavian countries is extremely egalitarian and hardly owned by the wealthy. Maybe if we work hard at making our culture better some day we can be like them.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean, do you not understand basic supply and demand? Even the Marxist propaganda centers we call colleges today teach microeconomics.

Tell me more about supply and demand and the garbage science you call microeconomics. You sound like an undergrad physics student telling me how their sphere shaped rigid-body cows behave on a frictionless incline with no wind resistance. Tell me about how there's a linear supply demand curve meant to represent human behavior and its endless variables, and how it controls and isolates causality for exactly none of them, nor does it account properly for volunteerism, non-profits, irrational behavior, special interests, imperfect competition, or any number of human complexities. Every branch has a dismal track record predicting economic events. None of their models truly reflect reality, unless they are so winnowed and limited as to be useless. And this after you spend the thread bashing academia.

I'm saying this out of love for the potential economics has, that maybe some day it can stop being dogmatic witchcraft and start using the scientific method.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Neither can you.

I mean, this was not a hypothetical. The banks gave themselves $14 trillion in 2008.

Originally Posted by Lune

Tell me more about supply and demand and the garbage science you call microeconomics.

I am not a member of a union and yet somehow I have a salary, benefits, etc. Because I have skills that are valuable, and companies must compete for my labor. The price they must pay is a function of the total demand for computer programmers and the total supply.

I really think you are just trolling at this point.

P.S.: economics can never use the scientific method. There is no control group. Which is why the only valid economics is deductive economics, i.e. Austrian economics, and basically little logic like I just showed in the previous paragraph (note the absence of any numbers).

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not a member of a union and yet somehow I have a salary, benefits, etc. Because I have skills that are valuable, and companies must compete for my labor. The price they must pay is a function of the total demand for computer programmers and the total supply.

I really think you are just trolling at this point.

Because about 80 years ago unions fought tooth and nail to win those things for people who sell their labor for their livelihood. You, a laborer.

That function for your wage exists in some form, but is undefined. Economists try to define it, and fail stupendously. And since you're using principles of economics to justify big picture policy for the entire US economy, what economists think about general principles matters.

And your wage isn't purely a product of quantifiable supply and demand. There are entrenched expectations and history involved in the wage for your job that may not have adjusted to match the current reality. There are matters of access; somewhere in the world, someone exists who speaks English and will do your job half as well for about 1/5 what they pay you, but your boss or your industry hasn't found a way to connect yet. Those things effect the supply and demand, but there is no way for economists to model them.

[Nihilist_santa]

Actually that portion of your wage is clearly defined and understood in economics.

Now I am starting to think this guy is trolling as well.

People follow their interest that is what is undefined. No one is forcing Raev to work the job he does.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

Practically every major Urban center (red state or no) is liberal run. Your argument is stupid and cherry picked for that reason alone.

Once you add in the widely-known fact that there has been mass migration out of the rust belt due to the decline of the auto industry -- its a pretty brain dead talking point.

[JurisDictum]

I've not heard a good reason yet for why Bernie's policies "won't work in America"

Just a lot of reasons about why they are less likely to be voted in.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've not heard a good reason yet for why Bernie's policies "won't work in America"

Just a lot of reasons about why they are less likely to be voted in.

The homogenous cultural makeup of the democratic-socialist countries is not present in America. I love the Mexican flags being waved at the Bernie rallies and his supporters when protesting Donald Trump. That's why it wont work here and is a recipe for disaster.