The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.

How much of this deal do you agree with?

Most to All
2
50%
Most
1
25%
Half
0
No votes
Some
0
No votes
Some to None
1
25%
 
Total votes: 4

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Red »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 5:26 pm Cut offs like this will always be arbitrary, whether you set them or not.
Well how do you minimize arbitrariness?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 5:26 pm Because there is a demand for prostitution.
There's also a demand for meat. Does that mean we should be catering to it?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 5:26 pm You can always require them to have checks that they have to pay for and put on their driver's licenses, to pay special taxes, and to do other unpleasant things that they'd much rather not do.
So make them have to go through this long illustrious process to deter?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

Red wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 5:50 pmWell how do you minimize arbitrariness?
I'm not really sure, besides being informed. A statistician or other data expert might be able to show which variables are most important for a certain outcome, maybe an innocent people killed per dollars saved quotient or something, but I'm pulling this out of my ass.
Red wrote:There's also a demand for meat. Does that mean we should be catering to it?
No, but I don't think prostitution is nearly as harmful as animal agriculture, and regulating it would not be catering to it. Do you thing meat moguls want regulations requiring them to uphold higher standards of living for animals?
Red wrote:So make them have to go through this long illustrious process to deter?
Exactly, deterrence and passive aggression (in a different sense of the word) are almost always unilaterally better than direct action because they don't provoke the feeling of being cornered and the rash action which comes with it in your foes. Think about tobacco versus marijuana. Which one do people want? Which one is outright banned and which one is just strongly discouraged and made painstaking?
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Red »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:23 pm I'm not really sure, besides being informed. A statistician or other data expert might be able to show which variables are most important for a certain outcome, maybe an innocent people killed per dollars saved quotient or something, but I'm pulling this out of my ass.
Well like come one, you're a math guy.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:23 pm No, but I don't think prostitution is nearly as harmful as animal agriculture, and regulating it would not be catering to it.
It's not as harmful, but it's still harmful. I'm not sure if allowing it is really offering anything to society.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:23 pm Do you thing meat moguls want regulations requiring them to uphold higher standards of living for animals?
No, but I'm not really sure how that's relevant.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:50 am No, but I still think the sheer quantity of people outweighs it. I doubt that there is a person in the United States the military could not capture.
There are other means of influence. A Corruption and lobbying comes to mind.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:50 am Do you mean tax evasion? I don't think most rich people see that it is easier to pay taxes than wage war because as we've agreed, they've got a keener sense of rational self interest and the American military budget is fucking huge.
Tax evasion is not that hard and it's not waging war against USA :D Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they don't use military to chase tax evaders(?).
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:50 amBecause what isn't necessary to the common people will not hurt them once more expensive.
It's connected anyway. And if you put higher tax on these things, "the rich" will pay more for them, more money goes to budget, but less money "the rich" will allocate in investments, which are more productive, than government spendings.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:50 amIf something has such potential for demand, forward thinking investors will pursue it anyways. There may be a higher threshold for entry, but only a ridiculous degree of taxation would justify not investing in an obviously useful venture.
It's not true for the same reaasons that "obstacles for doing business don't matter, good business will handle them". No, there are thresholds for all inventions before they can become common, as there are thresholds of efficiency in business.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:50 am It is possible to reassess and a separate law could mandate it.
I don't think that even government officials have crystal balls or know better what will be succesful, and what not, than actual investors. And this all provided that official really want to be reasonable. Spending money you don't own, on things that won't be for you, is the most careless way of spending the money.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:50 am The European welfare state clearly shows that it can and does.
They had to be rich enough to not to collapse immediately after introducing social benefits. I don't say it's impossible, I don't think it's better, whatever better means.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:50 am These are other significant factors. Also, allocation by who?
By those who care at least
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:50 am Agreed, but I find it difficult to compare the industrial era to the modern first world. The technology for the welfare state was much less developed in the industrial era than it is now and there are also far more people now.
The laws of the economy don't changed though. I admit, that the productivity thanks to technological development is unprecedented, so economies can handle more. Still it doesn't mean that we should do it. What amount of people has to do with anything?
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 6:03 amTax evasion is not that hard and it's not waging war against USA :D Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they don't use military to chase tax evaders(?).
Which is why the degree of tax evasion should alter the degree of consequence. More tax evasion, more military.
mkm wrote:It's connected anyway. And if you put higher tax on these things, "the rich" will pay more for them, more money goes to budget, but less money "the rich" will allocate in investments,
Investments back into the useless things they are producing. Do you think that a successful video games drives studios to invest in a new video game or better industrial technology?
mkm wrote:which are more productive, than government spendings.
Citation?
mkm wrote:It's not true for the same reaasons that "obstacles for doing business don't matter, good business will handle them". No, there are thresholds for all inventions before they can become common, as there are thresholds of efficiency in business.
Great ideas will trump them though. The degree of taxation on the rich in the United States has not saw a lack of new products.
mkm wrote:I don't think that even government officials have crystal balls or know better what will be succesful, and what not, than actual investors.
Which is why you embed it in the law to be a scheduled activity and have academic experts take care of the decision making.
mkm wrote:And this all provided that official really want to be reasonable. Spending money you don't own, on things that won't be for you, is the most careless way of spending the money.
While having your own assets at risks provides motivation to spend efficiently, it does not necessarily provide wisdom, not that politicians are wise :lol:. Still, there are wise neutral parties that can assess these things.
mkm wrote:They had to be rich enough to not to collapse immediately after introducing social benefits. I don't say it's impossible, I don't think it's better, whatever better means.
Do you think Red is running for president of Somalia? What makes you think that the United States is not wealthy enough to uphold a welfare state (or some aspects of it).
mkm wrote:By those who care at least
You think it is useful to have uninterested parties manage resources, or am I misunderstanding? Like what I proposed with evaluating useless goods?
mkm wrote:The laws of the economy don't changed though.
Except huge economic crashes have demonstrated that government intervention can bring economies back to their feet.
mkm wrote:I admit, that the productivity thanks to technological development is unprecedented, so economies can handle more.
Agreed.
mkm wrote:What amount of people has to do with anything?
I should have been more clear: the GDP per capita in the USA, for example, has grown faster than the population, meaning there are more excess wealth now than there was before. Justification:

US Population 1900: 76,212,168 people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census
US Population 2017: 324,459,463 people http://www.worldometers.info/world-popu ... opulation/
Growth: About 4.25 times larger

US GDP per capita 1900: $4,096.00 http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... ta-in-1900
US GDP per capita 2017: $59,495.34 https://www.statista.com/statistics/270 ... er-capita/
Growth: About 14.5 times larger


Edit: I am going to use a smaller interval when I get home, because I realize that I don’t know what the inflation is on the 1900 GDP Per Capita. The result is less dramatic, but still there, which makes sense. Sorry about the confusion.

US Population 2000: 281,421,906 people https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tab ... l?src=bkmk
US Population 2017: 325,719,178 people https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/ ... /PST045216
Growth: About 1.16 times larger

Fourth quarterUS real GDP 2000: $12,679.338 billion https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
Fourth quarter US real GDP 2017: $17,286.497 billion https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
Growth: 1.36 times larger
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm Which is why the degree of tax evasion should alter the degree of consequence. More tax evasion, more military.
Note that the tax evasion may be legal in the sense, that tax laws are so complicated that you can get away with it. That's why they propably invented that horrendous tax avoidance clause.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm Investments back into the useless things they are producing. Do you think that a successful video games drives studios to invest in a new video game or better industrial technology?
Don't you think that evermore demanding video games are one of the driving forces for, let's say, Intel, to make progress? It all go hand in hand.
Besides, people play video games, i.e. use them. It's against the definition of useless as it can be. And video games are not toys for "the rich", or your notion of "the rich" is wider than I expected.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm Citation?
For? The heuristics is that it's self correcting system. If business is not productive, it doesn't generate income, because it fails in making people pay for their products and services, because people don't need them or they too expensive. Productive business is the one that lasts, because in the end it's efficient in satisfying people's needs. The competition incorporates "natural selection" into business, giving people choice and way of elimination unproductive business, and the way of promoting productive business. Directly, in the most reliable way.

You may also see that Index of Economic Freedom correlates with GDPpc growth and wealth in general.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm Which is why you embed it in the law to be a scheduled activity and have academic experts take care of the decision making.
It's very hard or impossible to plan these things. It's system of zyllions of feedbacks within, and no one has sufficient information and even access to sufficient part of these feedbacks to make good decisions. Besidew, academics usually suck at doing business too.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm While having your own assets at risks provides motivation to spend efficiently, it does not necessarily provide wisdom, not that politicians are wise :lol:. Still, there are wise neutral parties that can assess these things.
There is no single evidence of it, and all heuristics say otherwise.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm Do you think Red is running for president of Somalia? What makes you think that the United States is not wealthy enough to uphold a welfare state (or some aspects of it).
I think there is no point in wasting that accumulated wealth, and time hasn't come yet.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm You think it is useful to have uninterested parties manage resources, or am I misunderstanding? Like what I proposed with evaluating useless goods?
To contrary, let people who are involved and take the risks make the decisions.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm Except huge economic crashes have demonstrated that government intervention can bring economies back to their feet.
You're talking about bailouts? It wasn't smart thing long-term. That crash was because of bad business decisions (here in banking system), in the free market crash due to bad decisions is a good thing that separates "good" businesses from "bad", and government just didn't let that happen. It's even more complicated since banking system is so strongly regulated and the governement has so strong power over it, that you rather can make it an example how government is bad at doing banking business :D
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm I should have been more clear: the GDP per capita in the USA, for example, has grown faster than the population, meaning there are more excess wealth now than there was before. Justification:

US Population 1900: 76,212,168 people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census
US Population 2017: 324,459,463 people http://www.worldometers.info/world-popu ... opulation/
Growth: About 4.25 times larger

US GDP per capita 1900: $4,096.00 http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... ta-in-1900
US GDP per capita 2017: $59,495.34 https://www.statista.com/statistics/270 ... er-capita/
Growth: About 14.5 times larger


Edit: I am going to use a smaller interval when I get home, because I realize that I don’t know what the inflation is on the 1900 GDP Per Capita. The result is less dramatic, but still there, which makes sense. Sorry about the confusion.

US Population 2000: 281,421,906 people https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tab ... l?src=bkmk
US Population 2017: 325,719,178 people https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/ ... /PST045216
Growth: About 1.16 times larger

Fourth quarterUS real GDP 2000: $12,679.338 billion https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
Fourth quarter US real GDP 2017: $17,286.497 billion https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
Growth: 1.36 times larger
Ok, I thought that you're making a point that there so many people, that povety is around the corner, while it's the opposite.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

What do you think about taxing land rather than business transactions? I know some other people on the forum support that, but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.

Also, who do you think should be taxed? I suspect that if it is less affluent people, they will simply spend less, decreasing demand and supply, and increasing price, in the same way you have worried would happen with taxes on the rich?
mkm wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 9:04 amNote that the tax evasion may be legal in the sense, that tax laws are so complicated that you can get away with it. That's why they propably invented that horrendous tax avoidance clause.
Do you think that means there can never be a concise law of taxation?
mkm wrote:Don't you think that evermore demanding video games are one of the driving forces for, let's say, Intel, to make progress? It all go hand in hand.
Do you think everybody needs good Intel processors? Or is it a smaller demographic of researchers, simulators, and animators that will need that? You don't hurt the majority of people by making their video games more expensive.
mkm wrote:Besides, people play video games, i.e. use them. It's against the definition of useless as it can be.
That is not the sense in which I have been using useless. I mean it in the sense that x is useless if removing x from the lives of the majority of people will not detract from their quality of life.
mkm wrote:And video games are not toys for "the rich", or your notion of "the rich" is wider than I expected.
Never did I claim that video games are just for rich people or that useless things are things that rich people would like to waste their money on. What I am claiming is that taxing video games does not hurt the majority of people in the same sense that taxing razors would, as one is not integral to the quality of life of citizens and the other is.
mkm wrote:For? The heuristics is that it's self correcting system. If business is not productive, it doesn't generate income, because it fails in making people pay for their products and services, because people don't need them or they too expensive. Productive business is the one that lasts, because in the end it's efficient in satisfying people's needs. The competition incorporates "natural selection" into business, giving people choice and way of elimination unproductive business, and the way of promoting productive business. Directly, in the most reliable way.

You may also see that Index of Economic Freedom correlates with GDPpc growth and wealth in general.
Okay, that makes sense.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:08 pm
mkm wrote:It's very hard or impossible to plan these things. It's system of zyllions of feedbacks within, and no one has sufficient information and even access to sufficient part of these feedbacks to make good decisions.
But reach people magically do have access to sufficient information making the same decisions?
mkm wrote: Besidew, academics usually suck at doing business too.
Incentives drive shrewd businessmen to learn the knowledge of academics by experience. Academics have a formula education in this field minus the incentive to work selfishly (unless they too are business owners) and even if they do have inferior wisdom, retired successful business people could fill this niche.
mkm wrote:There is no single evidence of it, and all heuristics say otherwise.
I'm not sure what I mean there: it would probably be better to say that businesspeople are driven to wisdom by incentive, but that does not mean that the same wisdom could be acquired otherwise.
mkm wrote:To contrary, let people who are involved and take the risks make the decisions.
And those people will choose selfishly, which is often concurrent to some environmental risk far worse than higher prices for consumers.
mkm wrote:You're talking about bailouts? It wasn't smart thing long-term. That crash was because of bad business decisions (here in banking system), in the free market crash due to bad decisions is a good thing that separates "good" businesses from "bad", and government just didn't let that happen. It's even more complicated since banking system is so strongly regulated and the governement has so strong power over it, that you rather can make it an example how government is bad at doing banking business :D
Strongly regulated now, as a result of the crash?
mkm wrote:Ok, I thought that you're making a point that there so many people, that povety is around the corner, while it's the opposite.
No, I just think we are much closer to the welfare state, even without automation, than we were in the industrial era, justifying your position then, and more so mine now.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm What do you think about taxing land rather than business transactions? I know some other people on the forum support that, but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.
Or in general taxing capital, rather than income and transactions. I don't have either, but it sounds like a good idea. It gives an incentive to be active in the economy and discourages keeping your resources unproductive.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm Also, who do you think should be taxed? I suspect that if it is less affluent people, they will simply spend less, decreasing demand and supply, and increasing price, in the same way you have worried would happen with taxes on the rich?
Yeah, my complaints apply to taxes in general :D I would propably drop income tax, but keep small VAT.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm Do you think that means there can never be a concise law of taxation?
I believe it can, but many different taxes with progressions to milk "the rich" more and separate rules for tax breaks don't help.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm Do you think everybody needs good Intel processors? Or is it a smaller demographic of researchers, simulators, and animators that will need that? You don't hurt the majority of people by making their video games more expensive.
I think that Intel processors wouldn't be so good and cheap if not video games industry and people who play games. Also, while it wouldn't hurt people, it could make them less happy, since people play video games for fun.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm That is not the sense in which I have been using useless. I mean it in the sense that x is useless if removing x from the lives of the majority of people will not detract from their quality of life.
Is having fun a part of quality life?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm Never did I claim that video games are just for rich people or that useless things are things that rich people would like to waste their money on. What I am claiming is that taxing video games does not hurt the majority of people in the same sense that taxing razors would, as one is not integral to the quality of life of citizens and the other is.
Personally I don't see how razors are integral to my quality of life, but can come up with some arguments for video games.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm But reach people magically do have access to sufficient information making the same decisions?
If I said that no one has sufficient information to set the prices of bread in shops, would you ask whether shop owners magically possess such knowledge too? :) They only need to have information locally.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm Incentives drive shrewd businessmen to learn the knowledge of academics by experience. Academics have a formula education in this field minus the incentive to work selfishly (unless they too are business owners) and even if they do have inferior wisdom, retired successful business people could fill this niche.
(...)
I'm not sure what I mean there: it would probably be better to say that businesspeople are driven to wisdom by incentive, but that does not mean that the same wisdom could be acquired otherwise.
It's not even the lack of knowledge. Information is too restricted to make such central planning efficient.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm And those people will choose selfishly, which is often concurrent to some environmental risk far worse than higher prices for consumers.
I partially agree. In ideal situation, if people value clean air, they would buy more expensive products and services via "clean" businesses. The problem is that in this case most people may not have tools to distinguish "clean" business from "unclean" or may fall victim of false advertising. Here government may just force the standards. On the other hand there could be nongovernment institutions that could collect such data... It's complicated.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm Strongly regulated now, as a result of the crash?
It has been one of the most regulated areas since a long time.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 3:55 pm No, I just think we are much closer to the welfare state, even without automation, than we were in the industrial era, justifying your position then, and more so mine now.
You are right at the part that we can afford much more now. I would wait for automation, and we will get there faster, if we hold our horses with social benefits for now.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 8:25 amOr in general taxing capital, rather than income and transactions. I don't have either, but it sounds like a good idea. It gives an incentive to be active in the economy and discourages keeping your resources unproductive.
That's a good point. I'm kind of leaning away from the income tax now.

I know a few people favor this mean of taxation on the forum. If you see this, could you refer me to some resources to learn more about it?
mkm wrote:I believe it can, but many different taxes with progressions to milk "the rich" more and separate rules for tax breaks don't help.
Agreed.
mkm wrote:I think that Intel processors wouldn't be so good and cheap if not video games industry and people who play games. Also, while it wouldn't hurt people, it could make them less happy, since people play video games for fun.
Why do you think video games are making people non-negligibly more happy? I'd suspect that low, but non-zero video game usage produces the most joy because it doesn't remove focus from real life commitments which provide long term joy or security. This would correct the extra cost problem as such people would run through video games mores slowly, giving them more money to spend on processors.
mkm wrote:Is having fun a part of quality life?
Yes, but I suspect that video game usage follows a sort of bell curve for its impact on the quality of life (unless they are professional players). Plus, I doubt net fun has increased since the invention of video games, it probably just got redistributed.
mkm wrote:Personally I don't see how razors are integral to my quality of life, but can come up with some arguments for video games.
Unkempt facial hair can affect your chances of being hired in the job market.
mkm wrote:If I said that no one has sufficient information to set the prices of bread in shops, would you ask whether shop owners magically possess such knowledge too? :) They only need to have information locally.
As would an academic researching the local bakeries.
mkm wrote:It's not even the lack of knowledge. Information is too restricted to make such central planning efficient.
Then how are sprawling international corporations so successful?
mkm wrote:I partially agree. In ideal situation, if people value clean air, they would buy more expensive products and services via "clean" businesses. The problem is that in this case most people may not have tools to distinguish "clean" business from "unclean" or may fall victim of false advertising. Here government may just force the standards. On the other hand there could be nongovernment institutions that could collect such data... It's complicated.
Frugal people would still buy against their interests with unclean products. People often self-sabotage or don't care because they won't suffer the environmental disasters humanity has been setting up for a while.
mkm wrote:You are right at the part that we can afford much more now. I would wait for automation, and we will get there faster, if we hold our horses with social benefits for now.
I'm worried that there might be violence once automation can provide the welfare state as more and more people become unemployed. There may be an attempt as the living standards decline for people with no jobs, replaced by machines, until there is a violent pushback for a living wage or other welfare benefits. Having a welfare state beforehand will ease the transition.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm could you refer me to some resources to learn more about it?
Unfortunately I never was that much interested in the topic to have a favourite and precise go to book. I would just confirm my libertarian-ish bias anyway :D
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm Why do you think video games are making people non-negligibly more happy? I'd suspect that low, but non-zero video game usage produces the most joy because it doesn't remove focus from real life commitments which provide long term joy or security. This would correct the extra cost problem as such people would run through video games mores slowly, giving them more money to spend on processors.
You may be right. I just don't see escapism as a bad thing, especially if people do this voluntarily. I also don't aspire to tell people what makes them non-negligibly more happy.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm Yes, but I suspect that video game usage follows a sort of bell curve for its impact on the quality of life (unless they are professional players). Plus, I doubt net fun has increased since the invention of video games, it probably just got redistributed.
Quality of life and fun are tough to measure. Wealth for example made a lot people eat without limits and become fat, does it mean that wealth lowers the quality of life and therefore we should make people poor to the point where they don't stuff their faces?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm Unkempt facial hair can affect your chances of being hired in the job market.
It applies to jobs which expose you directly to the client.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm As would an academic researching the local bakeries.
But why would you pay an academic researcher for something that works well on its own? Also that academic researcher could do something useful instead.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm Then how are sprawling international corporations so successful?
Do you think corporations follow central planning within their model of management? How much data CEO of a company receives?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm Frugal people would still buy against their interests with unclean products. People often self-sabotage or don't care because they won't suffer the environmental disasters humanity has been setting up for a while.
That's a discussion for another topic. I'm an optimist in that matter. The invention of a pendrive saved more trees than any environmentalist organization. There will be better and cleaner sourced of energy soon, especially when fossil fuels become relatively expensive.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm I'm worried that there might be violence once automation can provide the welfare state as more and more people become unemployed. There may be an attempt as the living standards decline for people with no jobs, replaced by machines, until there is a violent pushback for a living wage or other welfare benefits. Having a welfare state beforehand will ease the transition.
We can deal with it when it really occurs. Also automation makes everything much cheaper, so people will have to work less hours anyway to make a living. Consider also that automation is a process that start quite some time ago, and unemployment rates are quite good and stable (I dare to say that there is a problem with unemployment in countries that try too hard to make their citizens happy), despite the fact that many jobs no longer exist.
Post Reply