Rubio fucking laying down the law on Russia and the Middle East.

So I'm watching the debate on Youtube.

Kasich's opening weak.

I'm so out of touch with economics these days that all that empty jargon didn't even register. I just accepted it as legitimate.

Basically Friedman is just assuming it will pay for itself without substantial evidence.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8143062

Thoughts, Meta?

Just sent that article to a couple of economists from various fields; had a reply from one in behavioural:

"As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending."

This is a great example of why everyone should be cautious about dynamic models.

Maybe Bernie's health plan will improve productivity so much it pays for itself.

Maybe Jeb's tax plan will improve productivity so much it pays for itself.

Neither are especially likely. Budget projections shouldn't include wacky magics.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8143062

Thoughts, Meta?

It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

I'm intensely sceptical of that. The healthcare economists I've talked to in the past tend to think is somebody if promising you cheaper healthcare they're also promising you healthcare of a lower quality. And, of course, there's the fact that a multi-payer system--as opposed to a single-payer one--is also capable of constraining pharmaceutical costs.

I mean that as more of a "I don't have time to account for everything."

The point is you're still assuming the validity of certain preconditions such as empiricism, physicalism, probability, et cetera.

other than whatever you've decided upon.

Which is exactly the point. Deciding upon the definition allows you to reach objective conclusions according to that definition. The only way we reach objective conclusions in any other area--health, physics, economics--is by assuming the value of certain tenets within the definition.

WE WILL KILL THE TERRORISTS AND REPEAL EVERY WORD OF OBAMACARE

The shitty thing is that Obamacare was a conservative policy which came out of the Heritage Foundation in the 80s. And of course both parties end up doing a fucking 180 on it.

"probably"

Excuse the fuck out of me for prefacing myself with uncertain language; I'm not in the business of making absolute claims.

You're a capitalist meta, you should know that hydroponics will never replace traditional agriculture as it'll always be cheaper and thus yield a greater profit.

Unlike you, it would seem.

I'm sure exactly the same was said when the luddites were worried machines would replace them. The whole point of investment is development; if hydroponics drastically increases yields then input costs will become less of a factor.

An influx of synthetic meat would just make real meat a highly sought after luxury good in the west.

And highly expensive. . .

What's your point?

Three hours?

Fuck that noise, I'll watch the highlights.

Fuck it, you guys will just have to update me.

Fucking CNN stream is fucked.

Fuck I missed it, what happened?

Assuming

EXACTLY.

But fine, what are the 'right' epistemic assumptions that prove that morality is objective?

Wrong question; assumptions lead to objective facts, assumptions don't prove the existence of objectivity. The key is finding the best definition of morality--not the right one--and my contention is one which fundamentally minimises negative consequences is the most sane and most rational.

I at least like Turkey's rationale regarding a higher power, that makes it simple.

The problem I have with this is that it requires you to understand the nature of a supernatural being, which I don't find to be a convincing claim. If you ask a Christian "Would it be moral if God ordered you to rape and pillage?" they will most likely say "No". They'll then try to justify it with some rather flimsy claim that God wouldn't order such a thing in the first place, which requires nothing short of substantial knowledge of his nature.

But they reach that conclusion through reason. The presumption that God is a moral being leads them to conclude he wouldn't order such things; so why not cut out the middle man and go straight to reason in the first place?

you have liberals and conservatives on 80%

Liberals are the centre of British politics, not the Left btw.

you're late as FUCK britboy

jim is so based

I've been watching Jim for ages, now. I was just on the IA archive to see if I missed anything.