There was talk about renaming the Krugman thread for this purpose, but that seems to be going nowhere. Besides which, I feel the Krugman thread should be left to discuss Krugman while this thread can be used for more general economic discussion.
Discuss:
- The merits of competing theories.
- The role of the government in managing the economy.
- The causes of and solutions to our current economic woes.
- Comparisons between the economic systems of different countries.
- Theoretical and existing alternatives to our current market system.
edited 17th Dec '12 10:58:52 AM by Topazan
Yes, for the same reason as it would cause a significant increase in job quits and other similar behavior: People would no longer feel shackled to their current economic arrangements.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And we don't want that. The bosses see their employees have things like free time and a family life and they ask: "Why don't you work like you're running out of time? Why don't you work like it's going out of style? Why don't you work like you need it to survive? Why don't you work every second you're alive?"
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Why don't you cleave for life to the person you married in your teens that you can only barely stand to look at any more? You need to be tied to them economically otherwise you might STRAY FROM MARRIAGE.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Because I don't want to end up a bitter old man who built his entire life around his work and now has nothing.
Way too many of my relatives on the Canadian side are like that. Bitter and angry because they poured their lives into a job that gave them next to nothing back, and now they have nothing to do with their time because they never even bothered to try cultivating hobbies.
Not Three Laws compliant.And these are the same people who despise the idea of gov't assistance. They want their jobs back, not a guaranteed income.
WHERE'S MUH CHEEZ? DEY TURRK RR CHUUUZ!
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Its more like "They got cheese for free, and we didnt? Someone should take their cheese away. Everyone should make their own cheese."
edited 1st Dec '16 2:22:38 PM by DeMarquis
It's a mash-up of the "they took our jobs" South Park scene and Who Moved My Cheese?
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThe single most patronizing piece of management propaganda ever written.
Yikes. Reading that article, i could see the virtue in the story if it was about businesses in an industry as a whole: yeah, you're going to have to anticipate change and be ready when it comes, adapt or die. But to frame it in the context of labor-management, it's just insulting because it treats the mice as having no agency and no pushback. Corporate Governance should be a feedback system, not scientists screwing around with rats in a maze towards some unknowable outcome.
Having no agency or pushback is actually a fairly accurate assessment of the condition of your average corporate employee.
I get the feeling that the book was supposed to just be a message about how employees and managers need to be adaptable, but that doesn't stop it from being patronizing and frankly not very useful.
Should-Read: Izabella Kaminska: The Taxi Unicorn’s New Clothes
…on revenue of $1.4 billion, a negative 143% profit margin. Thus Uber’s current operations depend on $2 billion in subsidies, funded out of the $13 billion in cash its investors have provided.
Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares…
I read that article earlier. Man, I didn't realize how heavily Uber was subsidizing its business model. That's clearly unsustainable, especially when its overt objective is to monopolize its marketplace, doing exactly the thing it decries in the taxi systems it's ostensibly trying to replace.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Uber: The Microsoft of personal transportation.
It seems the trend of a lot of these silicon valley outfits that they survive off of investor goodwill.
A lot of places were considering legislating UBER out of business, by requiring aspects of their company to comply with taxi cab regulations.
Apparently they don't have to. UBER is going to eat itself to death and control will return to normal taxis.
I think their only option may be to switch to driverless taxis before it's too late.
I suppose that explains Uber's push for driverless cars.
I for one will not be sorry to see Uber go.
edited 2nd Dec '16 11:39:03 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI prefer my city's car 2 go network. When they get driverless, it is going to be really cool.
Economic growth in the United States: A tale of two countries
Still doesn't change the fact that lower-income right wingers are continuously screwing themselves and it's about to get worse for them, by their own hands. At least poor left-wingers often live in blue states that will ameliorate the coming class purge.
Well, there is something to be said for voter accountability. So, in theory, trump will be looking out for the people who voted for him.
It's a really bad election system, one that essentially forces people into a choice between two very bad representatives, compared to what they could have got.
Well, around here, a sales price must be compared to the lowest previous price, regardless of the original price.
This article on 538 is several months old, but it's still probably one the best summaries of basic income I've found. It talks about all the varied history and politics surrounding Basic Income, but perhaps more importantly it also talks about the studies that have been and are being done on it.
The general gist seems to be that while past studies showed great promise, but there is still a lot that we don't know about that hopefully these later studies will shed light on.
One of the things that I also find personally amusing is that apparently one of the things that killed the negative income tax in the US was the finding that it caused an increase in divorce.