This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 767778 7980 ... 502
2311
« on: February 19, 2016, 05:27:51 AM »
Probably run in front of traffic.
2312
« on: February 19, 2016, 05:25:18 AM »
ety
2313
« on: February 19, 2016, 05:19:14 AM »
whilst drinking artisan coffee that could have only been made possible through financial and capital markets
Commodity markets* 
2314
« on: February 19, 2016, 12:50:01 AM »
It brings back fond memories of playing Bad Company 2's multiplayer on the 360.
2315
« on: February 19, 2016, 12:40:03 AM »
Advantages/disadvantages, and why I shouldn't prefer renewable energy instead.
It basically boils down to people being irrationally fearful of nuclear power; when a plant goes into meltdown, there's mass hysteria because anything with the word "nuclear" in it means "this will fuck you up if it fails". Just look at the 2011 "disaster" in Japan, where not a single person died. Compare this to the amount of people who have died in collapsing coal shafts or whatever. In terms of efficiency and readiness, nuclear is currently positioned much better than renewable energy to supersede fossil fuels.
2316
« on: February 18, 2016, 10:57:32 PM »
...are there any books on economics that aren't boring as fuck?
No. . . In all seriousness, it depends on where your interests lie. At least with books aimed at more of a layman audience, more often than not they will be framed in a way which is more political or historical than explicitly economic. Popular/layman books which are explicitly about econ (like Greg Ip's Little Book of Economics) tend to be even drier than academic papers, at least in my own experience.
2317
« on: February 18, 2016, 10:19:34 PM »
I'd love to read some of the papers you have on US economic history. The four I'd recommend for U.S. history are: - Davis, "An Annual Index of US Industrial Production, 1790-1915", 2004. - Romer, "The Nation in Depression", 1993. - DeLong, "America's Only Peacetime Inflation: the 1970s", 1997. - Davis and Kahn, "Interpreting the Great Moderation", 2008. Reading academic papers can be a massive turn-off for people new to the subject. I still grumble at the thought of having to read through one, so my main advice would be to approach it slowly and allocate at least a few days for each one to churn through it properly. Even if you don't really manage to translate the jargon or pick up on the mathematics, you should still be able to glean the substantive facts. I'd also recommend Alan Greenspan's paper on the 2008 financial crisis, although that's not really 'history' it will almost certainly be on a level with the Great Depression in terms of how much it will be studied in the future. Do you know of some good guides that can introduce a laymen to the language of economics?
Best bet there really is an introductory textbook. Mankiw's is more about macro than micro though, so shop around. If you read specific terms that keep cropping up in books and papers that you can't really figure out, chances are a site like Investopedia will have a good definition of it.
2318
« on: February 18, 2016, 09:35:06 PM »
In terms of economic history, the book I'd recommend starting with is Deaton's The Great Escape: Health, Wealth and the Origins of Inequality. It's a nice introduction to how economic development has played out over the course of human history. Guns, Germs and Steel, while not explicitly a book about economics, is a must. Acemoglu's Why Nations Fail is also worth reading.
If you want to know more about U.S. economic history--specifically regarding business cycles--then check out Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz's A Monetary History of the United States. I also have some papers on specific periods of U.S. history, if you're interested just let me know and I'll post a bunch.
EDIT: Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money is a very good look at the history of the financial system, and one of its main selling points is that Ferguson managed to win a $98,000 bet with a hedge fund manager by predicting in early 2007 that there would be a recession within five years thanks to the research he did for the book. His other book, Civilization, is also one I like but it's less well-accepted academically.
In terms of micro you're probably best off just picking up a textbook and working your way through. Mankiw's is the go-to. I have a lot of papers on the microeconomic role of government--things like pensions, healthcare, infrastructure, regulation, etc. If you're interested let me know.
2319
« on: February 18, 2016, 09:27:15 PM »
Coming right up.
2320
« on: February 18, 2016, 08:03:59 PM »
Policy Six: Embrace nuclear energy as the primary alternative energy source to oil
*cough*
Ayy, will update the list some time today. That will definitely be on it.
2321
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:28:08 PM »
So basically you're on the spectrum
The god spectrum.
10/10 comeback.
2322
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:19:55 PM »
What system?
PC innit bruv
2323
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:52:39 PM »
Has anybody else got it? Thoughts on it?
2324
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:36:33 PM »
I must know.
2325
« on: February 17, 2016, 05:53:26 PM »
A not-insignificant number of people really think that raising the minimum wage even a penny will spell disaster And, similarly, there are a lot of people who think not raising it would be a disaster. Not only is the federal minimum wage ham-fisted, and better left to the lower scales of government, but proposals for the expansion of programmes like EITC are far superior when it comes to poverty reduction. Which, as I'm sure you'll agree, is the ultimate aim here. Just on an empirical view, Rubio's proposed policies are far and away superior to Sanders'; somebody on his team has been reading the literature coming out of the Hamilton Project, and who isn't having their fiscal/monetary policies dictated to them by MMTs. Americans are dumb and easily misled. Not really; the problem is that your political systems caters to more extreme candidates in how its structured. Americans are no dumber than any other given population; I mean, come on, you're world leaders in science and technology.
2326
« on: February 17, 2016, 05:42:22 PM »
But the rhetoric against raising the minimum wage is that ANY minimum wage increase is the end of the world.
And you have conservatives here telling you otherwise. Why are you opting to use the strawman/dumb argument over the argument that is being presented to you right now by conservatives who are probably more intelligent than the average Republican voter?
2327
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:59:33 PM »
Would $10 not also result in the catastrophic unemployment of minimum wage workers, too?
No, that's the point. An increase of $2.75 is a lot smaller than an increase of $7.75.
2328
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:47:55 PM »
At what rate is it acceptable to raise the minimum wage?
The best work on an appropriate minimum wage policy has probably been conducted by Dube at UMass (note: Dube is on the Left politically). The conclusion is basically that if we're going to keep setting minimum wages at the federal level, it should probably be gradually raised to $10/hr.
2329
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:37:33 PM »
Is that not the purpose of minimum wage - the minimum amount of money you need to live on?
The purpose is whatever we define it as. I think, broadly, the minimum wage ought to be considered a single tool in our anti-poverty kit. What's the point of having a minimum wage if we're going to double it at the federal level and cause significant disemployment effects across the country? The minimum wage has a role to play when it comes to things like combating asymmetric labour markets--assuming they are a significant factor--and reducing churn in low-skilled markets, but there's nothing inherent to it which makes it the go-to anti-poverty policy.
2330
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:34:29 PM »
what tools keep people with roofs their heads, food on their table, and clothes on their back?
In the short-run? Policies like EITC, or Rubio's anti-poverty plan which is basically a more powerful EITC. Expansion of TAA benefits is also a very good idea when it comes to protecting workers from trade shocks. Over the long-run? Investment in education and structural improvements, ensuring jobs are available, promoting a stable family structure, increasing access to parenting education, encouraging on-the-job training programmes (especially for the young), promoting delayed child-bearing etc. Does the minimum wage have a role to play in any anti-poverty strategy we choose to pursue? My personal hunch is yes, but it's a nuanced role.
2331
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:28:05 PM »
just that their minimum wage should reflect the cost of living so they can..y'know...live.
But why do you view minimum wage policy as having this unrealistic goal to fill? We're talking about setting a price, and when you set a price you have to hit an equilibrium point. The point the minimum wage--if we have one--must target is the point at which welfare gains from higher income meets welfare losses from disemployment. And that equilibrium point could leave us with wages far below some contrived standard of living we want to shoot for.
2332
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:25:08 PM »
The kind of company who is paying minimum wages isn't interested in paying those people more. Pay is based on productivity, and has tracked it well for as long as we've had data on it. Minimum wage is code for "if I could legally pay you any less, I would" This would be true in a monopsonised labour market. There are three problems with this, though: - There's not a lot of evidence for monopsony labour markets, but if they exist they're certainly in low-skilled labour markets.
- It doesn't necessarily follow that the minimum wage is an appropriate policy response; even if it is, the minimum wage certainly shouldn't be judged on some quality of life metric. That's not how markets respond to policy, and it will likely lead you down a bad road.
- In terms of poverty reduction specifically, minimum wages are actually pretty poor tools compared to government transfers.
2333
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:15:04 PM »
it would just increase their margins.
Not so, it would raise wages, investment and employment. Labour demand is highly elastic.
2334
« on: February 17, 2016, 04:01:08 PM »
New Report Undermines Right-Wing Media Claim That Higher Minimum Wages Threaten Job Creation Lol. Except the report doesn't do that, and such a claim isn't right-wing.
2335
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:34:57 PM »
Um, because I like it and it would meet everyone's needs?
But what about the issue of cost constraint via narrowing of accessibility? What about lifestyle bias? Consumption of drugs? Hell, what about quality of care? Why are you choosing a single-payer system over an account-payer system or multi-payer system?
2336
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:05:52 PM »
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.
I disagree.
Why?
Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.
And the better option is?
I think single-payer is out best option.
Yes, but why?
2337
« on: February 17, 2016, 12:35:52 PM »
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.
2338
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:44:43 AM »
The part I initially quoted and the part you conveniently cut out. What you quoted are supporting statements,
What he said doesn't support your interpretation, though. Not being able to take the religion out of marriage =/= all marriages being religious. His point is that you can't take the religion out of marriage because there are going to be at least some marriages which are explicitly religious for those getting married. He's saying that, short of mass indoctrination or cultural shifts, marriage will be at least in part religious for the foreseeable future. That's why Verbatim's comment is relevant, because Door responded in the context of religion potentially being removed from marriage entirely. I have no idea why you think Door thinks all marriages are religious; if anything, given his political views, marriages are most likely going to be nothing more than a contractual agreement with subjective meaning painted over the top. After all, he wants government out of marriage.
2339
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:39:10 AM »
And who claimed that it was going to be removed everywhere?
That was literally the impetus behind this line of conversation. The first thing that was said on the matter was Verbatim calling for the removal of religion from marriage entirely.
And I'm contesting Doors claim that all marriage is religious, verbatims claims have nothing to do with this line of conversation.
He didn't even say that though. . . Religious folks will have religious marriages, secular folks will spend thousands of dollars on ceremonies they don't even really believe in. It's all marriage. Different groups just have different ceremonies. Like, what fucking thread are you even reading?
2340
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:34:35 AM »
And who claimed that it was going to be removed everywhere?
That was literally the impetus behind this line of conversation. The first thing that was said on the matter was Verbatim calling for the removal of religion from marriage entirely.
Pages: 1 ... 767778 7980 ... 502
|
Show Posts