QuoVadisHomines @ QuoVadisHomines @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

387

Joined

1 mo. ago

Because of a lack of admins/mods not due to low users or money

Thank you for clarifying what you previously meant

To be fair that's a much more easily defensible position.

I heard a guy at a restaurant the other day talking about someone who was "reddit famous". His party had no context for what that meant. I felt bad for that guy

I come here because I am fairly positive most are actual humans. A lot of the real idiots on reddit are bots looking to increase engagement.

Fish don't exist taxonomically speaking.

Which means 54% cannot write a competent book report hitting the major plots and themes.

This is literally an article about an NJ democrat who was arrested at a protest where other NJ democratic party politicians were arrested. My 2nd choice for governor, Ras Baraka, was arrested there as well. McIver was trying to prevent this illegal arrest.

The issue isnt that no one is doing anything it is that not enough of us are.

We were talking about whether large sweeping economic changes are a bad idea and whether incremental changes are better. You were arguing against that and I used minimum wage as an example.

Im tired of explaining things to you, so let's stop here.

My town was one of the wealthier in the USA at the time and had a substantial population of immigrants from Korea/Japan/Taiwan so it made sense as a third language offering for the kids who were going back to Asia.

A ton of American kids took it because their parents were in finance and pushed it.

edit: It wasn’t commonly offered in NJ schools in that time. That might have changed in the decades since I graduated

Went back and read this. I stand by my position. You also should read what I wrote because you are replying to points Im not making at all.

You have already made it clear you have never studied economics in an academic setting which means you do not really know anything about the subject just like I do 't know astrophysics because I did not study it.

Why would I waste my time reading posts from someone who starts out antagonistic and shows no understanding of the subject or its history?

I don't think you are following this thread at all.

Large sweeping economic changes are usually bad. Medicare for all wouldn't be a sweeping change unless we immediately banned all private insurances which M4A would not do. M4A would be increasing the efficiency of the American economy which is what economists want.

Large sweeping economic changes would be things like adding $5 to the federal minimum wage all at once. The economy would likely grow from an incremental move that added $5 over the course of a few years but spiking it hard and fast will kill a lot of businesses that would have been fine with $1/yr over 5 years. It does not help to increase the minimum wage if it causes rapid widespread unemployment (note: I am absolutely not arguing against a minimum wage increase just against a rapid shift).

It's a joke about their writing system

Yes my public high school had it as a language back in the late 1980s/early 90s. This would be New Jersey, USA.

You already made your lack of understanding and education clear, why are you doubling down on that?

Economics is the study of the distribution of scarce resources. It isn’t inherently focused on money and Marxist economics is a thing.

Maybe dont reply and instead address your educational shortfalls.

they’re literally a poverty cult based on empirically proven wrong axioms

Here’s where the fun begins because the highlighted portion above makes it clear you have never at any point taken a course in economics.

“printing money creates inflation”,

It does which is why monetary policy is important to focus on.

“rising the minimum wage creates unemployment”

This isn’t that common as most of the studies done recently suggests this is not the case. There are some who still maintain that in specific situations this can occur but it isn’t as common as you state.

“public expenditure in healthcare, pensions and education is bad for the economy”.

Please provide either a valid academic source for this or an opinion piece printed in a credible newspaper from an actual economist (eg Robert Reich is not an economist while Krugman and Mankiew are)

You should do the opposite of what most economists preach.

This is the clearest sign you have no education in the field. I have a buddy who focuses on healthcare economics why would you ask him about trade policy? That’s like asking your dentist if you beed elbow surgery.

No, Im saying sweeping economic changes come with unforeseen consequences which is why many/most economists dont push for massive sweeping change.

This isn’t “bullshit excuses” as you are focusing on the potential political gains and I am talking about the economic problems that could come about from sweeping economic changes.

When the New Deal passed the USA was a larger portion of the world economy and it was growing.

Really large sweeping economic changes tends to have significant unexpected problems created from them. It would be bad if we lifted everyone up and then destroyed our ability to maintain that new status in the process.

Voters want conviction. Republicans have it, and Democrats don’t.

Agreed