BF2S Forums Investment

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Sucks 4 u, we have it here

Funny too, because my argument against raising the minimum wage is that the price increases to offset the wage increases would wipe out the value of said minimum wage increases. Voila!

That's an extremely extremely simplistic understanding of the labour market, inflation, and wage equilibrium. I can't be bothered to explain it. Read this:

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1150 … e-on-adas/

It's the first result on google.

Last edited by Pochsy (2020-05-08 17:50:40)

Gini coefficients are next week's topic. We need to build a base knowledge of "supply and demand" this week.

What you're describing is a zero sum game in economics, which is demonstrably not the case for a number of reasons related to how production and wealth function in the real world. You've taken your political philosophy, which is that for someone to win someone must lose, and applied it to a global economic order after years of neoliberalism. The alternative, that rising tides raise all boats, is the idea behind minimum wage increases, which enfranchise people to increasingly participate in the economy, drive demand, increase production, and the overall wealth of not only themselves, but those above them in the hierarchy.

We're down to a fundamental worldview difference here, but I'll say this: it works in politics, but not in an economic order established by neoliberal policies.

Pochsy wrote:

What you're describing is a zero sum game in economics, which is demonstrably not the case for a number of reasons related to how production and wealth function in the real world. You've taken your political philosophy, which is that for someone to win someone must lose, and applied it to a global economic order after years of neoliberalism. The alternative, that rising tides raise all boats, is the idea behind minimum wage increases, which enfranchise people to increasingly participate in the economy, drive demand, increase production, and the overall wealth of not only themselves, but those above them in the hierarchy.

We're down to a fundamental worldview difference here, but I'll say this: it works in politics, but not in an economic order established by neoliberal policies.

No, I don't believe in zero-sum economics. That's dilbert's domain. Yes, some wage growth will occur. Person Y is going to probably demand a raise in order to stay out ahead of Person X.

The real way to increase wealth is not via wage increases, it is through productivity gains. Productivity gains make products cheaper to produce so they can be distributed more widely. These gains are why we were able to move off the farm and into the cities. It's why food is cheap and plentiful, and why smart phones are also widely available. Some of it is cheap foreign labor, sure, but automation and mechanization have enriched all of mankind.

and the same automation will soon punt all of those mcdonald's workers asking for a raise into the unemployment line. it's almost as if a huge proportion of the population in the next 10-15 years are going to need a UBI.

uziq wrote:

and the same automation will soon punt all of those mcdonald's workers asking for a raise into the unemployment line. it's almost as if a huge proportion of the population in the next 10-15 years are going to need a UBI.

Nah, we've dealt with automation and mechanization shocks before. Work will be found.

Pochsy wrote:

Maybe I can offer an over simplified example from the real world:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal … 613f52766d

Henry Ford wasn't a dumbass. Why did he pay his workers more than he had to? Spoiler: he wanted to make himself better off!

That's a myth

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

dilbert has explained it to jay in exactly the same terms every single time jay trots out this example.

he's read it somewhere and, math genius he is, can't apply any analytical thinking to the problem. it's a prescribed formula.

up there with 'america has 330,000,000 people, this issue is a statistical error'. you won't connect with reason any time soon.

dilbert, the guy that believes in zero sum economics? Pochsy is accusing me of thinking zero sum. Guess anything with numbers really does fly over your head.

dilbert is basically a socialist in economic terms. i don't recall him ever being pro-zero sum.

Yes, and socialists tend to be zero sum. They believe that for the rich to be rich they must have stolen it from the poor.

But no, he literally believes in zero sum economics. He believes that the balance of trade is paramount and that if China is exporting more than they are importing they are impoverishing the net importer. He's stuck in pre-Adam Smith mercantilism.

Yeah, futurists have been saying that for the past 100 years.

The only benefit to a UBI is that in theory it replaces all other forms of transfer payment. Instead of having money prescribed separately for food, shelter, school, health care, etc. it gets lumped together in a single payment. The person receiving the payment can then take it and spend it however they want. When Pochsy says that "even the right wing is coming around", this is why they are. It's because it removes a ton of bureaucrats and depoliticizes personal choices. The nanny state is reduced. People are left to their own devices and are forced to become responsible for their own decisions. In this scenario, spending remains static and the state is reduced. This is the only type of scenario "the right" will be on board with.

Jay wrote:

The only benefit to a UBI is that in theory it replaces all other forms of transfer payment. Instead of having money prescribed separately for food, shelter, school, health care, etc. it gets lumped together in a single payment. The person receiving the payment can then take it and spend it however they want. When Pochsy says that "even the right wing is coming around", this is why they are. It's because it removes a ton of bureaucrats and depoliticizes personal choices. The nanny state is reduced. People are left to their own devices and are forced to become responsible for their own decisions. In this scenario, spending remains static and the state is reduced. This is the only type of scenario "the right" will be on board with.

Its been shown UBI allows people to do what they want, work if they want, be artists if they want, study, whatever, its all productive for the individual and the nation.

Traditional benefits just lock people into benefit dependency and out of work and life. They achieve nothing.

Wouldn't it have been great if instead of having to attend a govt facility, eat, shower and bunk with other men, sit around playing Xbox and hoping you didn't get sent off to a war in return for free food, free accommodation and free college you could have just been given a UBI and free college?
It works fine in most countries.

Transpose your two posts - we should maximise productivity but marginalise people who are made redundant by productivity gains. We should automate all production and send any remaining work abroad. Let the people who lose their jobs starve.

It makes no sense but little of what you say ever does.
You just parrot snippets you've picked up here and there, none of your thinking is thought out or joined up, you have no thought-through ideology, no reason or ethics to speak of.

Recently:
Jay: All medical-govt advisory and planning panels should be shut down,the medical community should be disbanded,  anyone who wants to be a doctor should be free to practice as one, the free market will sort it out.

Also Jay: This virus thing is the medical community's fault, they've been unprofessional, didn't get together as a group to plan for pandemics, warn the government and present them with a plan, its their fault.

This is how I picture your thought process:

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-05-08 20:04:15)

Jay wrote:

Yeah, futurists have been saying that for the past 100 years.

And its happened, children don't need to work 80-hour weeks any more, the average person in a developed country can work a 30-40hr week and have a nice life, everyone can take 3-4 years out to do a degree, there is so much food 30% gets thrown in the bin, the average teenager can expect to own a car, most people have access to free or affordable health care, may contagions have been eradicated.
Sometimes it might not seem like it but it has happened.

Not in America obviously, most of the benefits have flowed only to the top 1% or 0.1% over the last ~40 years, the average person has probably gone backwards

I've always been a little sceptical of UBI even though it's gained a lot of traction in some parties and especially youth movements. The main logic seems to be that if you were to strip all benefit arrangements existing today then you could replace that system with a flat UBI to everyone. I see a lot of potential problems here with disabled or low income households being off worse than they were before. Additionally, considering the fact that over the last two or three decades the welfare state has been slowly dismantled all over Europe I doubt the notion that we'll continue to prosper enough to finance such a system. I also have doubts about related proposals such as the 6 hrs / 4 days workweek. I'm sure everyone here can say from personal experience a lot of jobs don't allow for this possibility.

Then again I'm not an expert on these subjects, though I don't have the time or energy to delve into it in detail. If anyone has a (shortish) presentation I should watch...