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 ... 979899 100101 ... 502
2941
« on: November 14, 2015, 10:01:49 PM »
But this statement isn't inherently true.
It's an empirical conclusion; I can show you the research, if you want.
Eh, I'm always prepared to be proven wrong. I'm interested now.
NBER
How does this support the conclusion that social benefits of higher education isn't justified by tax funding? All this study concludes is that there is a tangible, positive effect from increasing the supply of college-educated workers.
"A percentage point increase in the supply of college graduates raises high school drop-outs' wages by 1.9%, high school graduates' wages by 1.6%, and college graduates wages by 0.4%." Those social benefits are incredibly small.
2942
« on: November 14, 2015, 09:51:37 PM »
But this statement isn't inherently true.
It's an empirical conclusion; I can show you the research, if you want.
Eh, I'm always prepared to be proven wrong. I'm interested now.
NBER
2943
« on: November 14, 2015, 09:43:04 PM »
But this statement isn't inherently true.
It's an empirical conclusion; I can show you the research, if you want.
2944
« on: November 14, 2015, 09:35:45 PM »
Uh, when did we go from college tuition to funding scientific research?
I said the society-wide benefits of higher education don't justify its funding through a general tax. You said that argument could be applied to any "socialist" idea or proposal; I said, no, because things like science funding are sufficiently beneficial to justify a general tax. It's a practical consideration of a certain funding model, which is ultimately unjustified.
2945
« on: November 14, 2015, 09:23:43 PM »
It IS a necessity in today's job market.
It really, really isn't. The wage premium on a college education indicates that, yes, if you can you should go for it. But why does that justify the appropriation of income from the whole population to pay for the concentrated benefits individuals will enjoy?
The positive externalities of higher education are incredibly low; taking money from people to pay for my higher education is immoral.
This logic can basically be applied to anything resembling socialism.
Not really. . . The positive externalities of basic science research are incredibly high, which justifies government funding. It's a practical question, not an ideological one.
2946
« on: November 14, 2015, 03:40:39 AM »
Worst terrorist attack on western soil since 9/11 I believe.
2004 Madrid Train Bombings had a (thus far) higher death toll.
2947
« on: November 14, 2015, 02:58:36 AM »
It IS a necessity in today's job market.
It really, really isn't. The wage premium on a college education indicates that, yes, if you can you should go for it. But why does that justify the appropriation of income from the whole population to pay for the concentrated benefits individuals will enjoy? The positive externalities of higher education are incredibly low; taking money from people to pay for my higher education is immoral.
2948
« on: November 14, 2015, 02:55:38 AM »
who the FUCK wants to file for bankruptcy
People who can't pay their debts, perhaps? Filing for bankruptcy allows individuals to either have their debt discharged or restructured, which is usually better than having a fucking huge debt burden lingering unchanged over your head regardless of your finances.
2949
« on: November 14, 2015, 02:52:34 AM »
You'd still be a terrible person for not wanting your wealth to help future generations get an education.
Wealth doesn't just sit in a vault, y'know. It cycles through the economy.
2950
« on: November 13, 2015, 11:03:55 PM »
Islamic countries were peaceful and flourishing, and we saw the rise of some of brilliant mathematicians, science, and art.
1. Because Christendom was mired in stagnation for the entirety of the Crusades, and the Muslim World was the only one which saw any degree of progress? 2. Because Jews and other minority groups weren't treated poorly in places like the Ottoman Empire? 3. Because "Muslim scientists" and "Muslim mathematicians" are things? No, none of those things are true.
2951
« on: November 13, 2015, 10:59:43 PM »
Although I'm not so sure I'd be so quick to blame religion, which I'm seeing most people do. This seems more political/ideologically motivated.
One of the survivors who escaped from the Bataclan stated that one of the gunmen mentioned Syria. Obviously a response to France's involvement there.
Guess what? They're all muslim!
Okay, so does that mean we should say that all christians are like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church?
No, that's not even remotely what was implied.
2952
« on: November 13, 2015, 10:58:26 PM »
Although I'm not so sure I'd be so quick to blame religion, which I'm seeing most people do. This seems more political/ideologically motivated.
How is fundamentalist Islam not political, ideological and religious at the same time? The distinction is irrelevant, the point is that people are being murdered by individuals who hold an incredibly twisted view about reality.
2953
« on: November 13, 2015, 10:45:57 PM »
Today, we are all French.
2954
« on: November 12, 2015, 02:28:52 AM »
Fucking look at it. The "this is the serious board comments" are valid; how anybody can buy into such partisan bullshit is beyond me.  1. Worst rate of job creation since Herbert Hoover? Surely, if we're using this metric, Herbert Hoover should be classed as worst? Nevertheless, how much influence do you expect a president to have over job creation when his entire tenure saw a mild recession, a productivity boom and then a massive recession? 2. Oh no, he vacationed. 3. Most of the deficit was due to tax receipt shortfalls following the recession; although the Bush tax cuts no doubt played a role. 4. Who in their right mind opposes bank bailouts in the middle of a recession? First of all, the bailouts have been paid back. Second of all, no, bankers didn't cause the Great Depression.
2955
« on: November 10, 2015, 01:06:33 AM »
You do realise this map is formed by how people voted? That's probably not a great proxy for underlying ideology.
2956
« on: November 07, 2015, 09:52:22 PM »
I don't.
2957
« on: November 03, 2015, 06:01:12 PM »
leftist economic policies
I find that pretty hard to believe, to be honest. Sure, it's probably the case that most -right and far-right parties have conservative economic policies (UKIP), but some don't (National Front). Hell, when it comes to UKIP voters, most of them support the complete renationalisation of the railways by a wide margin. I also find it hard to believe that policy has been more "left-wing" for the past couple of decades. In the UK at least, almost all of post-1980 politics has been defined in the shadow of Thatcher. Sure, we had a couple of "lefty" policies such as the introduction of the minimum wage, the renationalisation of railways under Blair and recently Osborne's implementation of a living wage, but it doesn't seem like UKIP has risen because of these things in any significant way. Especially since the Great Recession, pretty much all of Continental and British politics has been phrased in terms of austerity, fiscal overreach by prior governments, monetary restraint (not so much Britain) etc.
2958
« on: October 28, 2015, 08:46:46 PM »
Fuck this, I'm not getting into another discussion on gender.
2959
« on: October 28, 2015, 07:16:23 PM »
Dude, the biggest item listed in your source is "overpriced" medication.
2960
« on: October 28, 2015, 12:49:53 AM »
2961
« on: October 27, 2015, 08:24:16 AM »
The first U-turn on Tory policy I'm glad to see.
Yeah, you see I wasn't sure if I was just missing something here or if slashing tax credits was indeed a really bad idea.
It uh, certainly looked like one at face value <.<
It's not a bad idea. It's fucking horrendous. Even the Adam Smith Institute and Tory grandees like Nigel Lawson are calling for a reversal.
2962
« on: October 27, 2015, 07:36:09 AM »
The first U-turn on Tory policy I'm glad to see.
2963
« on: October 24, 2015, 02:55:07 AM »
If we can come to the conclusion we have no free will
I think we have free will!
Free will != the ability to make choices.
2964
« on: October 24, 2015, 02:54:35 AM »
call it free will or not My point being that it is not. we are what we are. That's not giving an important philosophical question the total respect it deserves.
2965
« on: October 23, 2015, 11:02:00 PM »
Our minds are stochastic -- effectively random -- and so our will, while entirely deterministic, is effectively free and undetermined.
Something either stochastic or determined--or both--is not anything which can be called a "will".
2966
« on: October 23, 2015, 09:57:53 PM »
I support rehabilitation for precisely the reason that free will does not actually exist.
2967
« on: October 23, 2015, 01:19:15 AM »
meta wears curlers to bed
I told you that in confidence.
2968
« on: October 23, 2015, 01:05:53 AM »
Which isn't actually all that unreasonable a claim for a politician to make.
The Grand Mufti was an antisemitic cunt who will be remembered for inciting the Intifadas.
2969
« on: October 23, 2015, 12:30:48 AM »
Actually, don't, you narcissistic fucks.
I hate all of you anyway.
2970
« on: October 22, 2015, 10:47:05 PM »
so then nobody pays taxes?
Raise the top income bracket if you really want to make back up the revenue. Fuck it, institute a land tax too. Just don't use corporation tax, because it fucking sucks. Especially as a way of taxing the haves over the have-nots
Pages: 1 ... 979899 100101 ... 502
|
Show Posts