Show me a link that isn't government-invented propaganda.

Yeah, and I'm not justified in calling you a conspiracy theorist.

So we have structurally deficient infrastructure that isn't up to current construction standards (as a result of having those standards increased), and you don't think it's a good idea to improve upon it to achieve those standards? Sure, "structurally deficient" doesn't necessarily mean "dangerous", but so what? Are you saying we should honestly wait up until a point where our infrastructure deteriorates to such an extent where it would become dangerous to utilize it? Why not be proactive and keep everything up to snuff before everything collapses?

No, I'm not suggesting that we should wait until a bridge or whatever is literally dangerous. The point is that the information being used to argue for this apparent under-investment is biased, and the group peddling it has a clear stake in its widespread acceptance.

The point is that rebuilding what is currently perfectly-serviceable infrastructure would be a gross mis-allocation of resources.

Does there really need to be "evidence" to suggest that improving infrastructure promotes growth? You're improving infrastructure--I mean, it seems tautological to me. You're building your civilization. Unless I'm missing your point.

It's essentially a subtle form of the broken-window fallacy, which states that you can increase aggregate wealth by breaking people's windows. Because then they will need to call up a guy who makes windows, have it fitted and then the money with circulate et cetera, et cetera.

But this is fallacious precisely because of that mis-allocation I mentioned above. You'd be essentially forcing resources into an endeavour that you've only managed to make productive by your prior destruction. You're creating a need for something unnecessarily, and then arguing it promotes growth.

This isn't a problem you have with Sanders as much as its a problem you have with our campaigning procedures.

Sure, but I'd hardly call thinking Sanders would be a regulation/subsidy man "speculation". He did, for instance, vote to bar a website promoting Yucca Mountain as a potential nuclear waste site. I don't know about your priors on nuclear energy, but that seems heavy handed to me.

In what ways?

Are you asking how trade unions misbehave, or about the benefits of works councils?

Could you name me some other candidates who are also proponents of wage subsidies, as opposed to minimum wage? If not, this isn't much of a point, unless you honestly think that a better solution to the issue is to do nothing at all. Which would be crap.

Republicans generally have a bias to raising the EITC before raising the MW. But, as you said earlier when I "speculated" about Bernie's platform, details are ubiquitously in short supply. Doing nothing at the federal level isn't entirely infeasible as a solution, either; if the EITC isn't going to be expanded, then it'd be better to allow the states and cities to determine their minimum wage. Doing nothing, and leaving it at $7.25/hr, it better than hiking it across the country to $15/hr which both Clinton and Sanders support.

So you're saying that less people should be going to college and pursuing degrees?

Well my main point was that Sanders' contention that college is unaffordable is mostly incorrect, but if you're asking if I think less people should go to university then yeah, I do. Tertiary education is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff at the end of high school (or in my case, sixth form) and it's clearly failing in that regard if half of all the US's graduates are over-educated for their jobs. And, not to mention, it harms those who do get an appropriate degree by inflating the supply of degrees across the economy.

No doubt some tweaks could be made to the labour market itself, but the only credible long-term solution is to fix the failing primary and secondary public schools and make it so less people practically need to go to university.

All he's saying is that college is too expensive, which it is.

The problem isn't that the cost of college per se is too high, it's that you can't file for bankruptcy with your student loans. As usual, I don't have very many details to go on. 

Why would there be?

I think you're underestimating the capacity for mainstream economics to reach a consensus.

I'm less concerned about the economy than I am concerned about the public's quality of life, which is harmed when there's such inequality, but that's just me.

The two really aren't separable. I think, at the very least, you have to say that inequality increases public unrest but we also know how much people mis-perceive inequality. I mean, the US has a fucking high standard of living. Inequality obviously hasn't brought that crashing to the ground.

I really didn't want to touch upon any points involving economics, but this part just seems too silly, again. Come on. Abolishing corporate taxes?... It would end up paying for itself?... Has this idea really not been debunked before?

Yes, and I didn't claim it would pay for itself. Cutting corporation tax would result in a some partial re-gain of lost revenue as all the benefits I've mentioned take hold, but it wouldn't cover the cost of the actual loss. To which, you either cut spending or make-up the revenue with something actually progressive like a land tax or a bump in the top bracket of income tax.

How is giving corporations even more money going to help anyone but themselves in the long run?

I gave you a list of benefits with a source. Whether or not you think corporations should have a certain amount of money is irrelevant; workers are the ones who pay the tax in the end, regardless. It's just a horrible tax. I mean, who the fuck thought it was a good idea to try and tax the rich through taxing a company's profits.

Having the majority of your infrastructure being under current standards is still not good either. If our power system was up to date I'm sure the amount of power outages would be reduced due to them being built to handle the amount of power being used now. If what you said is true about it not being able to meet current standards then why continue using it the way it is when it's no longer up to standards? Structurally deficient or not having an infrastructure that's outdated is just as bad. It's creating problems and it can be dangerous.

You seem to be completely missing the point; repairing perfectly serviceable infrastructure not only makes zero sense, but it largely can't be done unless you want to blow a couple of bridges up and then re-build which is a whole other level of stupid.

How wouldn't that boost the economy

Broken-window fallacy.

Quote from: Mad Max on July 04, 2015, 12:44:39 AM

LOLOLOLOL

Why do you think it's okay to be a shitlord when you're convinced you're correct? You haven't addressed a single point I've made, and you're always pulling the holier-than-thou horseshit on Challenger when he says practically what you've just said.

Because I don't give a fuck about you guys, and you guys don't give a fuck about me. So what's the point?

So what's the point?

That you're a hypocrite. Given the fact that you don't give a fuck, I have no idea why you feel the need to don the sanctimony and throw around the Standards of the Serious Boardβ„’ every time somebody does something you don't like.

Whether you give a fuck or not, at least be consistent. And if you're not going to contribute to the discussion, stop wasting your own time.

The point is that rebuilding what is currently perfectly-serviceable infrastructure would be a gross mis-allocation of resources.

Fair enough.

But this is fallacious precisely because of that mis-allocation I mentioned above. You'd be essentially forcing resources into an endeavour that you've only managed to make productive by your prior destruction. You're creating a need for something unnecessarily, and then arguing it promotes growth.

I'll have to remember this fallacy for anti-natalist discussions...

But yeah, I see what you mean now. Just, when you say "growth", I think you mean "net growth". Fixing a problem is growth, incontrovertibly. Whether it's a net growth is a different story, and I'm sure that's what you meant there...

I think whether or not it's a good use of money comes down to opinion, so...

Sure, but I'd hardly call thinking Sanders would be a regulation/subsidy man "speculation". He did, for instance, vote to bar a website promoting Yucca Mountain as a potential nuclear waste site. I don't know about your priors on nuclear energy, but that seems heavy handed to me.

I haven't been paying attention to the nuclear debate, really. From what I understand... those against it believe its too potentially dangerous, and those for it think they're uneducated and don't understand how it works. Personally, I've been taught that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be playing with and that it isn't being taken seriously as a source of energy (courtesy of middle school science education), so as a result, I haven't really delved into it. I guess I should, now that it's a hot button...

Anyways...

Quote

In what ways?

Are you asking how trade unions misbehave, or about the benefits of works councils?

The former.

Republicans generally have a bias to raising the EITC before raising the MW. But, as you said earlier when I "speculated" about Bernie's platform, details are ubiquitously in short supply. Doing nothing at the federal level isn't entirely infeasible as a solution, either; if the EITC isn't going to be expanded, then it'd be better to allow the states and cities to determine their minimum wage. Doing nothing, and leaving it at $7.25/hr, it better than hiking it across the country to $15/hr which both Clinton and Sanders support.

... agree to disagree

Well my main point was that Sanders' contention that college is unaffordable is mostly incorrect, but if you're asking if I think less people should go to university then yeah, I do. Tertiary education is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff at the end of high school (or in my case, sixth form) and it's clearly failing in that regard if half of all the US's graduates are over-educated for their jobs. And, not to mention, it harms those who do get an appropriate degree by inflating the supply of degrees across the economy.

in my opinion, it's not that less people should be getting degrees--it's that getting a degree shouldn't be essentially mandated by the state if you want to be well-off in your society

so to that end, i guess i would be opposed to making college "affordable", if it would essentially turn a college degree into a requirement--however, it's hard for me to say that, considering that i still highly value education

i don't believe that the main function of schooling should be to land somebody a well-paying job in the future
it should be to educate the public, period

and if that's what you want to do--be educated, then yeah, i think they have the right to do so without spending a lifetime's worth of money

Quote

Why would there be?

I think you're underestimating the capacity for mainstream economics to reach a consensus.

perhaps

I mean, the US has a fucking high standard of living. Inequality obviously hasn't brought that crashing to the ground.

Well, relative to what? Bangladesh? Sure, but I don't think that's a terribly fair comparison. You speak of misperceptions--how can we be sure that your perception is objective?

When I look at the 46 million people on food stamps in this country, I question our standard of living a little bit.

The former.

Unions can benefit "insider" workers at the expense of non-unionised workers by pushing the wage rate above the equilibrium rate, they can fall prey to corruption fairly easily, they engage in socially disruptive activities.

The evidence isn't exactly clear on the effect of trade unions, but that's why I support works councils. We don't really know whether or not trade unions are a net-negative or -positive, whereas works councils are fairly clearly beneficial to labour interests.

in my opinion, it's not that less people should be getting degrees--it's that getting a degree shouldn't be essentially mandated by the state if you want to be well-off in your society

I agree, which is why I think primary and secondary education should be sorted out before we start handing out a degree to anybody who can hold a pencil. If you're just relying on an inflated supply of degrees, you're essentially pushing the problem down the line.

When I look at the 46 million people on food stamps in this country, I question our standard of living a little bit.

A 15.3pc participation in the food-stamp programme isn't unexpected, given the anemic growth at the moment.

mother of god meta just ended Max's career

what does that even mean?

I'm kind of hoping John Kasich makes it into the top spots though. I think he'd be good.

Oh hell yeah.

meta, we should just remove serious and post le ebin maymays in the flood all day with RC

PINEAPPLE

OOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH