History UsefulNotes / Economics

14th Nov '16 3:17:44 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** ''Wealth Is Zero Sum'': This fallacy alleges that someone can only get wealthy by making someone else poor. X's gain must be Y's loss. It's a dog-eat-dog world and business consists of grabbing the largest share of the pie one can. The fallacy is the belief that the "pie" is a fixed size. If economic value is objective, then it is finite; it cannot be created. However, that premise is wrong; economic value is relative. Thus, the pie size can be increased by increasing the supply of subjectively-valued goods. Technological progress is a large contributor to this.

to:

** ''Wealth Is Zero Sum'': This fallacy alleges that someone can only get wealthy by making someone else poor. X's gain must be Y's loss. It's a dog-eat-dog world and business consists of grabbing the largest share of the pie one can. The fallacy is the belief that the "pie" is a fixed size. If economic value is objective, then it is finite; it cannot be created. However, that premise is wrong; economic value is relative.subjective. Thus, the pie size can be increased by increasing the supply of subjectively-valued goods. Technological progress is a large contributor to this.
14th Nov '16 3:12:55 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Economics is the [[HeinsHybrid bastard lovechild of politics, sociology, and philosophy on the one hand and mathematics on the other.]]

to:

Economics is the [[HeinsHybrid [[HeinzHybrid bastard lovechild of politics, sociology, and philosophy on the one hand and mathematics on the other.]]



There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with an at least passable claim to real-world applicability, and each of which believes the others to fail economics forever. Each grossly oversimplifies different things in its attempts to comprehend the physical circumstances of human society. This one of the myriad reasons why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science". [[note]]The origin of the term, "the dismal science" for economics, is from how during the time of slavery, John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Thomas Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society. [[http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/lecturasdeeconomia/article/viewFile/7874/7415 Source (in Spanish)]][[/note]].

to:

There are a fair number of This page lists the few points which the widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with an at least passable claim to real-world applicability, and each of which believes the others to fail economics forever. economic thought can agree upon. Each grossly oversimplifies school starts from a different things in its attempts to comprehend the physical circumstances set of human society.philosophical assumptions, has different goals, and uses different methods. This one of the myriad reasons why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science". [[note]]The origin of the term, "the dismal science" for economics, is from how during the time of slavery, John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Thomas Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society. [[http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/lecturasdeeconomia/article/viewFile/7874/7415 Source (in Spanish)]][[/note]].



# '''Fallacy of Intrinsic Economic Value aka. MoneyForNothing aka. Superiority Equals Success aka. Wealth Is Zero Sum''': This fallacy consists of forgetting that the value of a good is not necessarily related to any measurable quality of this good, but is rather granted by the fact that people desire more of the good than is immediately available. Examples include:
** ''MoneyForNothing'': The government prints more money or a gold mine gives out free gold to everyone, claiming they are creating more wealth. This does ''not'' create "more wealth" because "wealth" doesn't exist inside gold or money. All it would do (holding demand constant) is lower the market price of gold, or generate inflation (i.e. more money is required to purchase the same good/s). Regarding the printing-money example, in the ''short term'' (i.e. before the inflation kicks in) this gives the issuer some extra wealth; but as time goes on the effect becomes a wealth-transfer from the holders to the issuers of the currency; holders are left with WorthlessYellowRocks.\\
Though one reason why this one is so persistent is that discovery of new gold mines has often heralded economic booms. This is not because it was intrinsically valuable, though; it was because either the money supply was insufficient to maintain a larger economy, or the country with the gold mines was made better off at the cost of its neighbors.
** ''Wealth Is Zero Sum'': This fallacy alleges that someone can only get wealthy by making someone else poor. X's gain must be Y's loss. It's a dog-eat-dog world and business consists of grabbing the largest share of the pie one can. The fallacy is the belief that the "pie" is a fixed size. If economic value is objective, then it is finite; it cannot be created. However, that premise is wrong; economic value is subjective. Thus, the pie size can be increased by increasing the supply of subjectively-valued goods. Technological progress is a large contributor to this.

to:

# '''Fallacy of Intrinsic Economic Value aka. MoneyForNothing aka. Superiority Equals Success aka. Wealth Is Zero Sum''': This fallacy consists of forgetting that the value "value" of a good things is not necessarily related to any measurable quality of this good, but is relative and determined by how much (if at all) people want it, rather granted by the fact that people desire more of the good than is immediately available.being absolute and independent of human desire. Examples include:
** ''MoneyForNothing'': The government prints Creating more money or a gold mine gives out free gold to everyone, claiming they are creating more wealth. This does ''not'' ''cannot'' create "more wealth" because "wealth" doesn't exist inside gold or money. All it would do (holding demand constant) is lower wealth". It does create inflation. [[note]] Printing money can in the market price of gold, or generate inflation ''short term'' (i.e. more money is required to purchase the same good/s). Regarding the printing-money example, in the ''short term'' (i.e. before the inflation kicks in) this gives give the issuer some extra wealth; but as time goes on the effect becomes a wealth-transfer from the holders to the issuers of the currency; holders are left with WorthlessYellowRocks.\\
Though one reason why this one is so persistent is that discovery of new gold mines has often heralded economic booms. This is not because it was intrinsically valuable, though; it was because either the money supply was insufficient to maintain a larger economy, or the country with the gold mines was made better off at the cost of its neighbors.
neighbors.[[/note]]
** ''Wealth Is Zero Sum'': This fallacy alleges that someone can only get wealthy by making someone else poor. X's gain must be Y's loss. It's a dog-eat-dog world and business consists of grabbing the largest share of the pie one can. The fallacy is the belief that the "pie" is a fixed size. If economic value is objective, then it is finite; it cannot be created. However, that premise is wrong; economic value is subjective.relative. Thus, the pie size can be increased by increasing the supply of subjectively-valued goods. Technological progress is a large contributor to this.
14th Nov '16 3:02:23 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Fields (Physical Sciences) based upon the immutable truths of the universe are, ideally, capable of perfect descriptions of reality.

Fields (Social Sciences) based upon human nature are, ideally, capable of excellent guesses at true nature of society.

Economics is based upon human nature's interaction with the immutable truths of the universe.

[[GoldenMeanFallacy This makes it very,]] [[FlameBait very messy.]]

There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with an at least passable claim to real-world applicability, and each which believes the others to fail economics forever. The major difference between these schools is in what they decide to grossly oversimplify in their bid to understand something. This one of the myriad reasons why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science". [[note]]The origin of the term, "the dismal science" for economics, is from how during the time of slavery, John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Thomas Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society. [[http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/lecturasdeeconomia/article/viewFile/7874/7415 Source (in Spanish)]][[/note]].

to:

Fields (Physical Sciences) based upon the immutable truths of the universe are, ideally, capable of perfect descriptions of reality.

Fields (Social Sciences) based upon human nature are, ideally, capable of excellent guesses at true nature of society.

Economics is based upon human nature's interaction with the immutable truths [[HeinsHybrid bastard lovechild of politics, sociology, and philosophy on the universe.

[[GoldenMeanFallacy This makes it very,]] [[FlameBait very messy.]]

one hand and mathematics on the other.]]

It is FlameBait incarnate.

There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with an at least passable claim to real-world applicability, and each of which believes the others to fail economics forever. The major difference between these schools is in what they decide to Each grossly oversimplify oversimplifies different things in their bid its attempts to understand something.comprehend the physical circumstances of human society. This one of the myriad reasons why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science". [[note]]The origin of the term, "the dismal science" for economics, is from how during the time of slavery, John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Thomas Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society. [[http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/lecturasdeeconomia/article/viewFile/7874/7415 Source (in Spanish)]][[/note]].
11th Nov '16 6:56:17 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Fields (Social Sciences) based upon human nature are, ideally, excellent and convincing guesses at true nature of society.

Economics is based upon human nature's interaction with the immutable truths of the universe, straddling a fine line between theoretical frameworks and educated guesswork.

This makes it very, very messy.

to:

Fields (Social Sciences) based upon human nature are, ideally, capable of excellent and convincing guesses at true nature of society.

Economics is based upon human nature's interaction with the immutable truths of the universe, straddling a fine line between theoretical frameworks and educated guesswork.universe.

[[GoldenMeanFallacy This makes it very, very,]] [[FlameBait very messy.
messy.]]
11th Nov '16 6:49:06 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Fields based upon the immutable truths of the universe are, ideally, capable of perfect descriptions of reality.

Fields based upon human nature are, ideally, excellent and convincing guesses at true nature of society.

to:

Fields (Physical Sciences) based upon the immutable truths of the universe are, ideally, capable of perfect descriptions of reality.

Fields (Social Sciences) based upon human nature are, ideally, excellent and convincing guesses at true nature of society.
11th Nov '16 6:47:54 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


%%
%%Copied from the recently cut down description of YouFailEconomicsForever. Please add, expand, or clarify to make the page more useful
%%

The nice thing about Mathematics and the Hard Sciences is that there is no question that 2 + 2 = 4.

The frustrating thing about Sociology and the Social Sciences is that 2 + 2 = 4 isn't even a thing.

The horrifying thing about Economics is that both of these are true.

This violent collision leaves precious few absolutes to take refuge behind, and a wide open mine field for catastrophic assumptions and mistakes - and prime FlameBait. There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with an at least passable claim to real-world applicability, and each which believes the others to fail economics forever.

The major difference between these schools is in what they decide to grossly oversimplify in their bid to understand something. This one of the myriad reasons why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science". [[note]]The origin of the term, "the dismal science" for economics, is from how during the time of slavery, John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Thomas Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society. [[http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/lecturasdeeconomia/article/viewFile/7874/7415 Source (in Spanish)]][[/note]].

to:

%%
%%Copied from
Fields based upon the recently cut down description immutable truths of YouFailEconomicsForever. Please add, expand, or clarify to make the page more useful
%%

The nice thing about Mathematics and the Hard Sciences is that there is no question that 2 + 2 = 4.
universe are, ideally, capable of perfect descriptions of reality.

The frustrating thing about Sociology Fields based upon human nature are, ideally, excellent and the Social Sciences is that 2 + 2 = 4 isn't even a thing.

The horrifying thing about Economics is that both
convincing guesses at true nature of these are true.society.

Economics is based upon human nature's interaction with the immutable truths of the universe, straddling a fine line between theoretical frameworks and educated guesswork.

This violent collision leaves precious few absolutes to take refuge behind, and a wide open mine field for catastrophic assumptions and mistakes - and prime FlameBait. There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with an at least passable claim to real-world applicability, and each which believes the others to fail economics forever.makes it very, very messy.

There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with an at least passable claim to real-world applicability, and each which believes the others to fail economics forever. The major difference between these schools is in what they decide to grossly oversimplify in their bid to understand something. This one of the myriad reasons why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science". [[note]]The origin of the term, "the dismal science" for economics, is from how during the time of slavery, John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Thomas Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society. [[http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/lecturasdeeconomia/article/viewFile/7874/7415 Source (in Spanish)]][[/note]].
11th Nov '16 6:20:14 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The nice thing about Mathematics and other Hard Sciences is that there is no question that 2 + 2 = 4.

The complicated thing about Sociology and other Social Sciences is that there's room for interpretation and debate[[note]] Are '2' and '2' satisfactory evaluations based upon sound criteria? Is there a margin for error? Are '+' and '=' the correct operations to be accounting for? Is the product of the process, 4, the problem or the solution? Are we even asking the right question in the first place (or is someone out to prove something)? And, why ask at all when the answer is so obvious? This could be an indication that someone else should be chosen to ask the questions in future - they're wasting our time - though then again, this happened back in '07 and no-one batted an eyelid. We should really look into that.[[/note]].

to:

The nice thing about Mathematics and other the Hard Sciences is that there is no question that 2 + 2 = 4.

4.

The complicated frustrating thing about Sociology and other the Social Sciences is that there's room for interpretation and debate[[note]] Are '2' and '2' satisfactory evaluations based upon sound criteria? Is there a margin for error? Are '+' and '=' the correct operations to be accounting for? Is the product of the process, 4, the problem or the solution? Are we 2 + 2 = 4 isn't even asking the right question in the first place (or is someone out to prove something)? And, why ask at all when the answer is so obvious? This could be an indication that someone else should be chosen to ask the questions in future - they're wasting our time - though then again, this happened back in '07 and no-one batted an eyelid. We should really look into that.[[/note]].
a thing.



This violent collision leaves a few absolutes to take refuge behind, and a wide open mine field for catastrophic assumptions and mistakes, and prime FlameBait. There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with a reasonable claim to accuracy, and each which believes the others to fail economics forever. The major difference between these schools is in what they decide to grossly oversimplify in their bid to understand something. This is probably one of the reasons why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science". (And few agree on that term... Economists will claim their science isn't dismal, and many other fields will claim it's not a science. The dance goes on.) [[note]]The origin of the term, "the dismal science" for economics, is from how during the time of slavery, John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Thomas Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society. [[http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/lecturasdeeconomia/article/viewFile/7874/7415 Source (in Spanish)]][[/note]].

to:

This violent collision leaves a precious few absolutes to take refuge behind, and a wide open mine field for catastrophic assumptions and mistakes, mistakes - and prime FlameBait. There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with a reasonable an at least passable claim to accuracy, real-world applicability, and each which believes the others to fail economics forever. forever.

The major difference between these schools is in what they decide to grossly oversimplify in their bid to understand something. This is probably one of the myriad reasons why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science". (And few agree on that term... Economists will claim their science isn't dismal, and many other fields will claim it's not a science. The dance goes on.) [[note]]The origin of the term, "the dismal science" for economics, is from how during the time of slavery, John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Thomas Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society. [[http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/lecturasdeeconomia/article/viewFile/7874/7415 Source (in Spanish)]][[/note]].



'''The following fallacies are always accepted as fallacies, but only if the following two points are true about the economy in question:'''
* '''First, the economy is healthy.''' Schools of economic thought greatly differ on matters relating to an unhealthy economy. For instance, a Keynesian would only accept Fallacy 1 (the Broken Window Fallacy) is a fallacy in a healthy economy. In an unhealthy economy, committing this fallacy is (according to Keynesianism) a potentially beneficial thing. Thus, all the following fallacies are controversial in an unhealthy economy.
* '''Second, any given thing is worth only what its purchaser will pay for it.''' These fallacies are based on Neoclassical economics, which is a broad designation that refers to all economic schools that accept the consensus formed in the wake of the "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism Marginalist]] Revolution" caused by the work of Leon Walras, William Jevons and Carl Menger. Basically, this approach to economics emphasizes economic subjectivism; the belief that a good is valued by a subject and that market prices for a good only come about when subjects desire them. This is a great contrast to the Classical economists like Adam Smith and Karl Marx, who argued the value of commodities are related to the labor to produce them (the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value labor theory of value]], a theory derived from the philosophy of John Locke).

With that out of the way, let's move on to the economic fallacies.

# '''The Broken Window Fallacy aka. Destruction Equals Employment aka. Digging and Filling Ditches''': [[TropeNamer Named]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window by Frederic Bastiat]], this fallacy consists of ignoring opportunity costs. Specifically, an important principle in economics is when one has an opportunity to choose between multiple outcomes, the cost of picking one outcome is having to forgo the other outcome/s. In practical situations, this means ''resources spent on one thing cannot be spent on another thing.'' Some examples include:
** ''Destruction Equals Employment'': or when someone says "breaking windows is good for the economy because people will then buy new windows, thus increasing business done by glaziers." The ignored opportunity cost is that the money used to repair windows could've been used to buy other things and the business would've gone to other merchants. On a larger scale, the belief that "war is economically productive" ignores the opportunity cost of spending resources on building bombs instead of building something else. Of course, this is profitable for the arms industry, but for the economy as a whole it isn't. There's also the minor matter that society's poorer by what was destroyed; the resources spent replacing it are used to restore lost wealth, and the society will not be able to recover whatever the damaged areas would have produced in the time between the destruction and the rebuilding had they not been damaged in the first place (A bombed factory will not produce anything while being repaired, so if it takes a week to repair the damage from a bomb, the company doing the repairs might be better off, but the company that owns the factory is poorer by both the repair bill and the loss of a week's production). A ''Raubwirtschaft'' economy based on plunder often works in the short term (Assuming the nation in question is successful in plundering others - attempting this economic model while being unable to seize resources from outside sources is worse than useless) but is unsustainable in the long run as existing territory becomes depleted of resources and conquering new territories is not possible - or would cost you more than you could rob. Cases in point: UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire and ThoseWackyNazis.
** ''Digging And Filling Ditches'': The government (or a corporation) gives everyone a job and pays them, without regard for the actual usefulness of said jobs. There are significant opportunity costs associated with the resources required to pay the people working on the newly-created jobs (because these resources could have been used to do something else, which may have been more beneficial). Let's keep in mind that the average government has to collect taxes to pay for most or all[[note]]the exception being one that own a significant portion of the means of production such as factories or natural resources, which in some extreme cases can bring in enough foreign and/or domestic revenue to fund the government, but has similar costs to society as simply taxing private enterprise and citizens[[/note]] of what it purchases (plus overhead) and thus there is also money lost by the people who had to pay taxes to pay for these jobs and everything else the government does that does not provide something useful or necessary.

to:

'''The following fallacies are always accepted as fallacies, but only if the following two points are true about the economy in question:'''
fallacies if:'''
* '''First, the '''The economy is healthy.''' Schools of economic thought greatly differ on matters relating to an unhealthy economy. For instance, a Keynesian would only accept Fallacy 1 (the Broken Window Fallacy) is a fallacy in a healthy economy. In an unhealthy economy, committing this fallacy is (according to Keynesianism) a potentially beneficial thing. Thus, all the following fallacies are controversial in an unhealthy economy.
'''
* '''Second, any given '''A thing is worth only 'worth' what its purchaser will pay for it.''' These [[note]] such fallacies are based on Neoclassical economics, which is a broad designation that refers to all economic schools that accept the consensus formed in the wake of the "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism Marginalist]] Revolution" caused by the work of Leon Walras, William Jevons and Carl Menger. Basically, this approach to economics emphasizes economic subjectivism; the belief that a good is valued by a subject and that market prices for a good only come about when subjects desire them. This is a great contrast to the Classical economists like Adam Smith and Karl Marx, who argued the value of commodities are related to the labor to produce them (the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value labor theory of value]], a theory derived from the philosophy of John Locke).

With that out of the way, let's move on to the economic fallacies.

Locke). [[/note]]

The Fallacies.

# '''The Broken Window Fallacy aka. Destruction Equals Employment aka. Digging and Filling Ditches''': [[TropeNamer Named]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window by Frederic Bastiat]], Bastiat]]. Keynesians note that "demand-side" recessions caused by insufficient consumption (such as the Great Depression of '29 and Great Recession of '08) can be fixed by putting money in the hands of people who will spend it upon goods and services. While giving them this fallacy consists of ignoring opportunity costs. Specifically, an important principle in economics is when one has an opportunity to choose between multiple outcomes, the cost of picking one outcome is having to forgo the other outcome/s. In practical situations, this means ''resources spent on one thing cannot be spent on another thing.'' Some examples include:
** ''Destruction Equals Employment'': or when someone says "breaking windows is good
money for free or in payment for useless tasks (breaking and fixing windows, etc) might be necessary in a demand-side recession/depression, paying people for useless work once the economy was healthy again would be wasteful. This is because those people will then buy new windows, thus increasing business done by glaziers." The ignored opportunity cost is could be doing useful work instead. In economics terms we would say that the money used to repair windows could've been used to buy other things and the business would've gone to other merchants. On a larger scale, the belief that "war is economically productive" ignores the opportunity cost "opportunity cost" of spending resources on building bombs instead of building something else. Of course, this is profitable for the arms industry, but for the wasteful work in a healthy economy as a whole it isn't. There's also is the minor matter that society's poorer by what was destroyed; the resources spent replacing it are used to restore lost wealth, and the society will not be able to recover whatever the damaged areas would have produced in the time between the destruction and the rebuilding had they not been damaged in the first place (A bombed factory will not produce anything while being repaired, so if it takes a week to repair the damage from a bomb, the company doing the repairs might be better off, but the company that owns the factory is poorer by both the repair bill and the loss of a week's production). A ''Raubwirtschaft'' economy based on plunder often works in the short term (Assuming the nation in question is successful in plundering others - attempting this economic model while being unable to seize resources from outside sources is worse than useless) but is unsustainable in the long run as existing territory becomes depleted of resources and conquering new territories is not possible - or would cost you more than you could rob. Cases in point: UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire and ThoseWackyNazis.
** ''Digging And Filling Ditches'': The government (or a corporation) gives everyone a job and pays them, without regard for the actual usefulness of said jobs. There are significant opportunity costs associated with the resources required to pay the people working on the newly-created jobs (because these resources could have been used to do something else, which may have been more beneficial). Let's keep in mind that the average government has to collect taxes to pay for most or all[[note]]the exception being one that own a significant portion of the means of production such as factories or natural resources, which in some extreme cases can bring in enough foreign and/or domestic revenue to fund the government, but has similar costs to society as simply taxing private enterprise and citizens[[/note]] of what it purchases (plus overhead) and thus there is also money lost by the people who had to pay taxes to pay for these jobs and everything else the government does that does not provide something
useful or necessary.work that cannot be done instead.
20th Oct '16 7:53:29 PM Ferot_Dreadnaught
Is there an issue? Send a Message


As for homo reciprocans, in real life, a human may buy from a firm, or sell to someone someone that has "done wrong" in someone else's eyes, [[ValuesDissonance but they may either not see it as wrong]], may not even ''know'' about the wrong doing, feel that the issue isn't something they could change, [[ApatheticCitizens or they simply]] [[TheyJustDidntCare do not care about it.]] In someways, the boycott can backfire if there are enough people that will support a boycotted business due to [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong beliefs that the boycotters]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy#Chick-fil-A_Appreciation_Day are the ones that are wrong.]] Another wrench in the homo reciprocans idea is that a human being might be in a position in which the costs of helping the community would be too high for them to handle. A person might shop at a big box store because of cheaper prices that they can afford, even though a better choice for the community would be the mom and pop shop in the neighborhood. However, since they cannot afford the latter, they'll do business with the former.

to:

As for homo reciprocans, in real life, a human may buy from a firm, or sell to someone someone that has "done wrong" in someone else's eyes, [[ValuesDissonance but they may either not see it as wrong]], may not even ''know'' about the wrong doing, feel that the issue isn't something they could change, [[ApatheticCitizens or they simply]] [[TheyJustDidntCare simply do not care about it.]] it]]. In someways, the boycott can backfire if there are enough people that will support a boycotted business due to [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong beliefs that the boycotters]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy#Chick-fil-A_Appreciation_Day are the ones that are wrong.]] Another wrench in the homo reciprocans idea is that a human being might be in a position in which the costs of helping the community would be too high for them to handle. A person might shop at a big box store because of cheaper prices that they can afford, even though a better choice for the community would be the mom and pop shop in the neighborhood. However, since they cannot afford the latter, they'll do business with the former.
4th Oct '16 7:31:20 AM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** ''Digging And Filling Ditches'': The government (or a corporation) gives everyone a job and pays them, without regard for the actual usefulness of said jobs. There are significant opportunity costs associated with the resources required to pay the people working on the newly-created jobs (because these resources could have been used to do something else, which may have been more beneficial). Let's keep in that the average government has to collect taxes to pay for most or all[[note]]the exception being one that own a significant portion of the means of production such as factories or natural resources, which in some extreme cases can bring in enough foreign and/or domestic revenue to fund the government, but has similar costs to society as simply taxing the private sector[[/note]] of what it purchases (plus overhead) and thus there is also money lost by the people who had to pay taxes to pay for these jobs and everything else the government does that does not provide something useful or necessary.

to:

** ''Digging And Filling Ditches'': The government (or a corporation) gives everyone a job and pays them, without regard for the actual usefulness of said jobs. There are significant opportunity costs associated with the resources required to pay the people working on the newly-created jobs (because these resources could have been used to do something else, which may have been more beneficial). Let's keep in mind that the average government has to collect taxes to pay for most or all[[note]]the exception being one that own a significant portion of the means of production such as factories or natural resources, which in some extreme cases can bring in enough foreign and/or domestic revenue to fund the government, but has similar costs to society as simply taxing the private sector[[/note]] enterprise and citizens[[/note]] of what it purchases (plus overhead) and thus there is also money lost by the people who had to pay taxes to pay for these jobs and everything else the government does that does not provide something useful or necessary.
4th Oct '16 7:29:11 AM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** ''Digging And Filling Ditches'': The government (or a corporation) gives everyone a job and pays them, without regard for the actual usefulness of said jobs. There are significant opportunity costs associated with the resources required to pay the people working on the newly-created jobs (because these resources could have been used to do something else, which may have been more beneficial). Let's not forget that no government ever makes a profit by selling things, they have to collect taxes to pay for whatever it purchases (plus overhead) and thus there is also money lost by the people who had to pay taxes to pay for these jobs and everything else the government does that does not provide something useful or necessary.

to:

** ''Digging And Filling Ditches'': The government (or a corporation) gives everyone a job and pays them, without regard for the actual usefulness of said jobs. There are significant opportunity costs associated with the resources required to pay the people working on the newly-created jobs (because these resources could have been used to do something else, which may have been more beneficial). Let's not forget keep in that no the average government ever makes a profit by selling things, they have has to collect taxes to pay for whatever most or all[[note]]the exception being one that own a significant portion of the means of production such as factories or natural resources, which in some extreme cases can bring in enough foreign and/or domestic revenue to fund the government, but has similar costs to society as simply taxing the private sector[[/note]] of what it purchases (plus overhead) and thus there is also money lost by the people who had to pay taxes to pay for these jobs and everything else the government does that does not provide something useful or necessary.
This list shows the last 10 events of 184. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Economics