While I'm generally opposed to fiscal stimulus or extensive tax-and-spend policies, it's quite clear that a reasonable and intelligent policy for government expenditure can create economic growth. For instance, on every dollar spent on physical infrastructure, $1.92 is returned.

Politics seems to be heading in an increasingly polarised direction. There does exist a position where government activities can be beneficial, and austerity (which is a big thing in the U.K.) can be harmful.

/funfact

I'm not a terribly anxious or angsty person. In fact, I'm probably much less so in comparison to those around me. Things don't normally make me feel uneasy or on edge to an exceptional degree, but there is something that makes me feel absolutely terrified: death.

It isn't what comes after death, or even the process of dying, but the implications of it. I have no problem, in principle, with the idea that life comes to an end. Some of the people I admire most - Christopher Hitchens and Bertrand Russell, specifically - have commented on the temporary nature of life and, agreeably, reached the conclusion that it's for the best.

Bertrand Russel, in particular, thought the value of life lay exactly in its potential for non-existence. It is, in essence, a question of economics when you involve the idea of scarcity. I feel that people like Hitchens and Russell are allowed to say things like this, because they were both at least marginally famous and intelligent and consequential throughout their lives. They had impact.

The idea that I could - or, more correctly, probably will - live my life in a mostly inconsequential way is terrifying. The idea that I could die a nobody, and leave no impact from my existence is anathema to everything I could ever want. I look at my parents and where my friends seem to want to go, and the thought that I could follow a similar path really does make me anxious.

I want power, no doubt for partly megalomaniacal reasons, but I don't mean power in a raw sense. I want my life to have been of some influence to the world as a whole; I want it to be remembered as something of consequence. Something which had the capacity to cause a significant change. Is this idealistic? Maybe, but I'm not particularly bothered about the content of the change, I merely desire the capacity or the position to make such an alteration in the first place.

I thought I'd post this because it seems relate-able to most other people, even if for different reasons. Essentially, death scares me because it means an end to my influence, my Will to Power.

I tried to warn you.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 24, 2014, 01:24:37 AM

Next up, the TTIP.

Alrighty, humour me.

How is that going to be a good thing?

No, I'm saying it's something which also needs to be fixed.

It would generally be okay if it weren't for the Invester-State Dispute Settlement arrangement, and the lax environmental regulations.

I think that "mentality" is blown way out of proportion. Are CEOs greedy? Absolutely. As are shareholders, I think the executives and shareholders of most large companies, however, realise that paying their workers a pittance isn't a viable business solution and - if they didn't want to pay employees what they're "worth" - they could just automate regardless of the minimum wage, which is why I want to see a citizens' income instituted.

The point isn't necessarily to rectify or fix the process of automation or the rate of wage-labour, merely to make the transition a bit "smoother". After all, provided a citizens' income, earning $5 an hour is better than $0.

.....Isn't a guaranteed minimum income the same as having a minimum wage, something you don't think should exist?

No, because a minimum wage is predicated on the idea that an individual is employed, whereas a guaranteed minimum income, or negative income tax, isn't. It's essentially combining all the various welfare programmes into a flat rate based on how much one is earning.

Then McDonalds and everybody else would just change like $1 an hour.

I've already dealt with a similar accusation.

People wouldn't pay wage-rates like that because there exists an equilibrium. After all, who would buy the capitalists' stuff if they were all paid $1 an hour?

Thanks for proving you're delusional.

I'm sure meta could show examples from the real world too.

The mechanisation of agriculture is probably the best example.

Although, this time is difference because it's an alteration to the entire labour force, not just the labour engaged in a specific sector which can be moved.

and then people are paid 5 dollars an hour, and poverty skyrockets. the greedy fags at the top get richer, and then a fracking civil war breaks out in the US. I don't know about you, but I don't wanna see a civil war, and the destruction of progress happen,

If everybody's being paid 5 dollars an hour, who's purchasing the produce of the "greedy fags"? Not to mention, you're forgetting the massive consumer surplus that comes with automation, because of falling prices.

Nonetheless, the abolition of the minimum wage would be made much, much easier to handle if it were accompanied with a proper reform of the welfare system, preferably along the lines of a citizens' guaranteed income.

From the WSJ.

If there’s a silver lining for McDonald’s in Tuesday’s dreadful earnings report, it is that perhaps union activists will begin to understand that the fast-food chain cannot solve the problems of the Obama economy. The world’s largest restaurant company reported a 30% decline in quarterly profits on a 5% drop in revenues. Problems under the golden arches were global—sales were weak in China, Europe and the United States.

So even one of the world’s most ubiquitous consumer brands cannot print money at its pleasure. This may be news to liberal pressure groups that have lately been demanding that government order the chain known for cheap food to somehow pay higher wages.

[. . .]

The McDonald’s earnings report on Tuesday gave a hint at how the fast-food chain really plans to respond to its wage and profit pressure—automate. As many contributors to these pages have warned, forcing businesses to pay people out of proportion to the profits they generate will provide those businesses with a greater incentive to replace employees with machines.

By the third quarter of next year, McDonald’s plans to introduce new technology in some markets “to make it easier for customers to order and pay for food digitally and to give people the ability to customize their orders,” reports the Journal. Mr. Thompson, the CEO, said Tuesday that customers “want to personalize their meals” and “to enjoy eating in a contemporary, inviting atmosphere. And they want choices in how they order, choices in what they order and how they’re served.”

That is no doubt true, but it’s also a convenient way for Mr. Thompson to justify a reduction in the chain’s global workforce. It’s also a way to send a message to franchisees about the best way to reduce their costs amid slow sales growth. In any event, consumers better get used to the idea of ordering their Big Macs on a touchscreen.

Charlie's either messing with us or needs to grow a bigger set of bollocks.

I need Google Translate for this thread.

FOUR BOB AN' TUPENCE GUV'NOR.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 22, 2014, 02:15:19 PM

Quote from: Fedorekd on October 22, 2014, 02:13:20 PM

>tfw you'll never be able to logic deductively like that

wait what

I'm saying your subjects include a lot of deductive logic.

Of which, I am largely incapable.

What subjects are you doing?