imo sweden should be like hong kong and just pile all their citizens onto a small island and teach them Cantonese
I think Japan is a bit over the top in that.imo sweden should be like hong kong and just pile all their citizens onto a small island and teach them Cantonese
You've displayed more arrogance in your post than the rest of this thread combined.since what I'm really saying is that people here could stand to have a little humility
Eh. This is a pretty weak set of arguments. Economics is not more "complicated than it needs to be". There are many things in economics, comparative advantage for example, where the results are unintuitive and initial guesses about its nature by layman are likely to be wrong or ridiculous. It's not that normal people shouldn't be talking about economics, its about how they shouldn't be talking about economics with the veneer of authority without some economic authority. Is it in any way not ridiculous for somebody to say "metamorphic rocks are such a scam, rocks just don't turn into other rocks", and expect people to hold their opinions to the same level as geologists? But that's what people, yourself included, are doing here with the field of economics.You've displayed more arrogance in your post than the rest of this thread combined.
The idea that normal people shouldn't be talking about economics is fucking disgusting. Like trademark law, economics is often made more complicated than it needs to be because that gives power to people who don't historically have the little people's best interests at heart. Incidentally, that's the third tenant of the organization that was surveyed: "The encouragement of perfect freedom of economic discussion."
It's just too bad that the selection of AEA members surveyed were paid to be there by the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative lobby. Or maybe they've totally lied about the results... they've been caught red-handed doing exactly the same thing before (edit, sorry, AFTER the article you linked was published).
Mind you, I don't think minimum wage is the best solution to the poverty problem. But if you're gonna accuse the whole forum of being navel-gazers, don't be a navel-gazer and a twit.
Except that you yourself are not presenting a single counter-argument to anyone except for one dubious survey.But that's what people, yourself included, are doing here with the field of economics.
And I don't really give a fuck that you're "more convinced of it's honesty" just because I think otherwise. "You disagree with me, so I'm going to bunker down and think I'm more right". Your profile doesn't list an age, so I'm guessing 17, 16 maybe? Anyway, cherry picking data to come up with the opposite conclusion might only be seen as an "accident" if you're a journalist who doesn't want to be sued. You're not. You should know better. You're accepting evidence that supports your claim and ignoring evidence that hurts it.But such a cut of data was most likely an accident - the economist raising the questions admits this himself. Your assertion that they're liars is so scantily backed up that now I'm even more convinced of their honesty.
To quote the article you linked again: "Saul D. Hoffman, a professor of economics at University of Delaware, examined the employment data Mr. Sabia used for a 2012 paper funded in part by the institute. Mr. Hoffman concluded that the narrow cut of data Mr. Sabia picked was perhaps unintentionally skewed".Except that you yourself are not presenting a single counter-argument to anyone except for one dubious survey.
And I don't really give a fuck that you're "more convinced of it's honesty" just because I think otherwise. "You disagree with me, so I'm going to bunker down and think I'm more right". Your profile doesn't list an age, so I'm guessing 17, 16 maybe? Anyway, cherry picking data to come up with the opposite conclusion might only be seen as an "accident" if you're a journalist who doesn't want to be sued. You're not. You should know better. You're accepting evidence that supports your claim and ignoring evidence that hurts it.
I don't really see the veneer of authority in here that's offending you so much. Maybe you're looking in a mirror?
The point is that if you're going to try shaming a large group of people, you should probably be bringing more to the table than a single survey that has even the potential of being manufactured. And at this point you're just derailing the thread, hell, you were barely meaning to talk about the topic in the first place.It's weak evidence against the EPI, but you've concluded beyond the shadow of a doubt that the EPI must be disingenuous becaue of this. In fact, you're more critical than the person who raised the criticisms in the first place, and you haven't even examined the study he was looking at at all.
Why don't you like Sanders? (An anecdote: As a part of therapy, I recently began identifying certain feelings/emotions/thoughts concretely rather than some simple abstract idea. Instead of saying "I feel bad about X" I would be asked to elaborate on what "bad" meant since "bad" isn't an emotion. So, for example, I would determine the negative emotion/feeling [guilt/shame/sadness/anxiety/etc] to better understand myself and others. And the same applies to "I do/don't like X"--what causes me to not like X? Simple "not liking" isn't valid, especially with non-opinions. It's a good exercise that applies elsewhere, and definitely helps me [and anyone, for that matter] reason out and understand things much better...)Perhaps you're correct. I'll get back to the roots of this thread.
I don't like Bernie Sanders. I'm quite sure he's a nice person to be around, but I don't agree with about 100% of all his economic policies. As far as the other candidates go, I'm partial to pretty much everyone save Clinton, Bush, or the other centrists.
I don't like Bernie Sanders because he is an inexperienced, lying, maniac preying upon naive voters who can't see through all of bullshit. He has done practically nothing after decades in congress, and when asked anything he responds with free stuff and I voted against the Iraq war. He has not done a single thing of substance in his political career, which doesn't bode well for his presidency. He wants to make America more like socialist Scandinavia, a region that holds inherently un-American values, and a region whose blind liberalism has already begun their downfall through Islamic refugees.Why don't you like Sanders? (An anecdote: As a part of therapy, I recently began identifying certain feelings/emotions/thoughts concretely rather than some simple abstract idea. Instead of saying "I feel bad about X" I would be asked to elaborate on what "bad" meant since "bad" isn't an emotion. So, for example, I would determine the negative emotion/feeling [guilt/shame/sadness/anxiety/etc] to better understand myself and others. And the same applies to "I do/don't like X"--what causes me to not like X? Simple "not liking" isn't valid, especially with non-opinions. It's a good exercise that applies elsewhere, and definitely helps me [and anyone, for that matter] reason out and understand things much better...)
And what do you mean other centrists? Clinton is perhaps centrist, although I'd consider her center-right just like Obama... Do you consider Rubio a centrist? Or Cruz? I really don't see many centrists running, if any. And Cruz and Rubio (and Bush and Clinton, for that matter) would be all be terrible for the larger future of this country.
The Republican candidates of any viability would curtail existing individual rights while promoting and signing off on disastrous political/social/economic policies, like deep cuts to necessary social services including education, health care, food/nutrition/housing, and infrastructure, and their terrifying views on religious freedom is nothing to gloss over (especially with Supreme Court roles up for grabs soon enough). At least Clinton could reasonably be seen to keep the "status quo" and not necessarily make existing systems that much worse (thought I suppose it doesn't really matter)... And who knows the foreign affair dilemmas they'll launch us into.
Ok, so you have no idea what you're talking about.I don't like Bernie Sanders because he is an inexperienced, lying, maniac preying upon naive voters who can't see through all of bullshit. He has done practically nothing after decades in congress, and when asked anything he responds with free stuff and I voted against the Iraq war. He has not done a single thing of substance in his political career, which doesn't bode well for his presidency. He wants to make America more like socialist Scandinavia, a region that holds inherently un-American values, and a region whose blind liberalism has already begun their downfall through Islamic refugees.
this criticism interests meI don't like Bernie Sanders because he is an inexperienced, lying, maniac preying upon naive voters who can't see through all of bullshit. He has done practically nothing after decades in congress, and when asked anything he responds with free stuff and I voted against the Iraq war. He has not done a single thing of substance in his political career, which doesn't bode well for his presidency. He wants to make America more like socialist Scandinavia, a region that holds inherently un-American values, and a region whose blind liberalism has already begun their downfall through Islamic refugees.
I can't really attach a link between an emotion of mine and Sanders. I guess you could say he arises annoyance in me. I wouldn't be beyond saying I'm unsettled by him, if "unsettled" could be an emotion. There are numerous reasons why, but the main one is that he reminds me greatly of Venezuela's Maduro in the same way Trump might remind some people who aren't me of Hitler. He feels like Maduro. His pushed policies are very much in "character" with those of Maduro. The way he blames business for pretty much everything is invariably Maduro to me. I can't hear him say something like "The billionaire class is hurting the small Americans and the government ought to...etc." without remembering something like "evil business leaders are conspiring to raise prices together, and that's why inflation is happening, it's not the government's fault at all" (not verbatim, of course, but this is actually a talking point used by Venezuelan state media). Given that I have some deep-seated (personal) reasons to really hate the Maduro government, I believe I can explain my irritation and foreboding feeling about Sanders.Why don't you like Sanders? (An anecdote: As a part of therapy, I recently began identifying certain feelings/emotions/thoughts concretely rather than some simple abstract idea. Instead of saying "I feel bad about X" I would be asked to elaborate on what "bad" meant since "bad" isn't an emotion. So, for example, I would determine the negative emotion/feeling [guilt/shame/sadness/anxiety/etc] to better understand myself and others. And the same applies to "I do/don't like X"--what causes me to not like X? Simple "not liking" isn't valid, especially with non-opinions. It's a good exercise that applies elsewhere, and definitely helps me [and anyone, for that matter] reason out and understand things much better...)
Sorry, I worded it poorly. The emotional tidbit was an example of a larger point. I was comparing statements like "I feel bad about X" to "I don't like X." Simply using "like" or "not like" when discussing a candidate, rather than his stances and policies and actions and such, is pointless and actually unhelpful. The emotional counterpart would be "I feel [bad/good] about X," because "good" and "bad" aren't emotions/feelings/states of mind and therefore don't help address the issue, while on the other hand identifying the emotion/etc such as happy/excited/motivated and sad/angry/anxious do help you understand the problem.I can't really attach a link between an emotion of mine and Sanders. I guess you could say he arises annoyance in me. I wouldn't be beyond saying I'm unsettled by him, if "unsettled" could be an emotion. There are numerous reasons why, but the main one is that he reminds me greatly of Venezuela's Maduro in the same way Trump might remind some people who aren't me of Hitler. He feels like Maduro. His pushed policies are very much in "character" with those of Maduro. The way he blames business for pretty much everything is invariably Maduro to me. I can't hear him say something like "The billionaire class is hurting the small Americans and the government ought to...etc." without remembering something like "evil business leaders are conspiring to raise prices together, and that's why inflation is happening, it's not the government's fault at all" (not verbatim, of course, but this is actually a talking point used by Venezuelan state media). Given that I have some deep-seated (personal) reasons to really hate the Maduro government, I believe I can explain my irritation and foreboding feeling about Sanders.
Is this a hard analysis? Hardly. Is this a compelling argument against Sanders? Definitely not. But you asked for emotional reasons for why I dislike him, and I believe this is the best I can give you.
It's pretty brazen to compare economics to any of the hard sciences, but what do you know, that subreddit does so on its sidebar...all y'all except perhaps Kalawishis need /r/badeconomics.
re: minimum wage: To my knowledge, negative income tax and Earned Income Tax Credit expansion are viewed as more effective (and more accurately targeted) means of providing basic income than minimum wage, though moderate increases are less likely to lead to problems. (Hillary's $12 minimum wage proposal is less likely to lead to unemployment problems than a $15 nationwide minimum wage--which is literally more than doubling it in some places).
Honestly, Bernie is likely to have enough opposition that his economics aren't likely to pass without support--and his social policies mean I actually wouldn't mind him nominating SCOTUS justices. I'm voting Hillary if I can because her plans seem more coherent (and less paranoid of the Fed), but if Bernie wins I'll support him to Election Day. I care more about keeping Scalia resting in peace than I do about the differences between Bernie/Hillary.
From a pure "guiding hand" principle, unions are s good thing for economics, as a strong economy needs freedom of action/decision making in order to make economically viable decisions.It's pretty brazen to compare economics to any of the hard sciences, but what do you know, that subreddit does so on its sidebar...
And I'm not sure how any proposed EITC expansion would work. Unless the credit would be distributed over time, there's a major issue of the lacking or nonexistent personal finance abilities of lower income households (which leads to future poverty, how wonderful!). Are the spending tendencies of lower income households even taken into account?
Not to mention minimum wage wouldn't be a pressing issue if unions weren't swear words to many Americans leading to the wonderful political climate we're in now... Unless unions are bad economics? Who knows.
edit: lots of corrections. Ugh.