MoreSEMI

Just because they fully developed doesn’t mean the argument they are presenting isn’t logical. It might not be, and that might be because they aren’t fully developed, but you would never know. You must treat every argument you hear as if were generated in good faith. Saying that you can’t rely on them to understand their own shortcomings in their own logic is inconsistent with the idea of logical debate in the first place. How would one ever know the difference between someone who is not convincible vs a non convincing argument. And the idea that young people should just adhere to values is not only inconsistent with the idea that the elders are more logical, since that is merely an appeal to authority, but also won’t be an argument that a young person will listen to, since in your own words, they are irrational.

In the case of the US I think you mean Amtrak is nationalized? But that’s passenger rail. The us has a private freight rail system, which is from what I understand, is one of the best in the world.

Uuuu, While the analogy is nice, I doubt that taxes are decided upon like an engineer deciding on damping coefficients. An engineer has a specification and tries to hit that spec. I have a hard time believing that’s how taxes are set. I would like carbon taxs/credits to be decided upon that way. But if you look at the real systems it’s obvious they weren’t designed that way. Finally, you are correct that you need to be careful in choosing the metric. I think I would also question the desirability of dampinh, which it seems like the other poster was trying to say. The market being dumber is a slower response in your analogy. They want a sports car, not a rolls.

I think it depends. If the union is voluntary its not forced. But often membership isn’t voluntary. The relationship between you and your employer, however is. Many people choose not to work for defense companies for example.

“ The spoils of technology went straight to the top while workers switched to new jobs that pay horribly.”

I have a hard time believing you believe that most people switched to a worse paying job. Did peoples material quality of life improve or not?

Agree, the language is problematic. But unfortunately companies sometimes use the law to take away that right. Additionally, right to repair sometimes means going beyond the default state and requiring companies to go the extra mile, so that is where the langauge may also stem from.

Inflation is a really bad example of a failure of economic theory. First, just because the field might understand how to avoid inflation, doesn’t mean that is actually implemented. And secondly, until recently inflation as measured by cpi has been low to zero for the last decade. I think a sense of proportion needs to be exercised here.

This is what REALLY bugs me about Germany in general. There is a cultural belief that germans are data driven and unemotional in their decision making. That they are the wise leaders who run the EU. They do not have the populist issues like the UK with brexit or the chaos that france has. They are not like the consuming americans who vote for trump. And yet, the reality of the energy policy demonstrates that Germany is nọt immune to this kind of traps. They prefer to shut down nuclear power plants and yes install many renewables.

They didn’t actually do the math. The point is while renewables may generate 50% of energy, the other half comes from coal which must be turned on when there is no sun or wind, which is so polluting even in comparison to natural gas, that it destroys the overall mix. You can estimate coal as around 700g/kwh(just look at poland when the sun isn’t shining) which divided in half gets you pretty close to Germany’s average of 300g. Had Germany switched to natural gas, they would be much closer to the UK, which did not have an energy transition.

China really only started prospering after the creation of special economic zones, no? And today while there heavy state influence at the largest firms, the rest of the country pretty much operates in a market system, or do you disagree?

What bothers me about this right here is that at one time or another one of these was heralded as THE solution that would alleviate poverty. Why is it always food stamps, minimum wage, and ubi? I thought minimum wage would have solved/alleviated the food problem. It seems to me that there is a general failure to acknowledge the big picture. Being impoverished means lack of resources. I say pick one general solution, either ubi or negative income tax, and let the poor choose what they need. It does a real disservice to the poor to always be for every policy that is notionally meant to help them. It seems disingenuous and not very well thought out. As Eminem famously said,”these goddamn foodstamps won’t buy diapers”.

You implied that due to lack of positive right’s you had no inclination to care about the negative one. As a result I was led to believe that you didn’t understand the difference and why it may be the case that people care more about one than the other due to the core philosophical difference between them.

There are positive and negative rights. Everything you mentioned in the first sentence is a positive right while the second is a negative right. A right to healthcare implies that someone else must provide it(unless you meant that someone is actively preventing you from recieving healthcare). The right to 3d print an object does not mean someone must provide a 3D printer to you.

I meant to ask if the theory is true, it should work for any number, until marginal propensity to spend is equal amongst everyone. My point being that a theory should be general. One person could argue for 17$ while the other argues for 15$. I don’t see how one would using a general principle would decide which value is correct.

If that’s true why not raise the minimum wage to 30$? Why not 100$?