/sci/ - Science & Math

We will not follow in your footsteps, OP. Thanks for the advice!

>>3442476
Yes, it is really hard to study economics.

does it count if i study math and economics 4 hours a day and then smoke weed for 8 hours a day if i still go to grad school and become an intelectual giant

>>3442490
>implying it gets harder the more to the right you go.

>2011
>being OP
>never having sex

ISHYGDDT

>studying math
Nothing above normal calculus has any meaningful value. All non-computational mathematics is a waste of time.

>>3442499
All math is computational, and math above calculus has plenty of uses. Don't blame your stupidity on math.

>>3442499
5/10

>>3442492
Well, you know, when you have to actually conform to other people's reality, it gets difficult.

>"economics is the hardest science"

- jon von neumman

if he said it, I'll go with it.

>>3442520
It the one with the most bullshit, unrealistic assumption.

>>3442541

hardest science. period.

deal with it?

>economics
>mfw OP actually believes the marxist indoctrination camps that pass for economics in this corrupt society are worth wasting time on and you aren't better off studying abstract mathematics, completing an MBA and auto-didactically researching economics yourself

>he thinks economics is anything more than meaningless hoodoo invented by society's elites to justify the decadence of high society, which exists at the expense of 99% of the human race

in soc what's better, VLA special assault rifle, or Gp 37?

>>3442563

austrian school is worst school
its a faith, it doesn't use empiricism because it thinks you can know economics a priori


ipso facto, austrian school is worst school

modern economics use real data and empirical tests, get it together guys

>>3442499

> Complexity theory has no value
> Field Theory has no value

victoriassecretangelslaughing.jpg

Even I must laugh at these economics threads.

> algebraic geometry has no value

oh wait, it's true

>2011
>not studying pure mathematics

ISHYGDDT

>>3442635
GP 37 by a long shot. The subsonic rifles all suck, of course it doesn't help that most of them come with an integrated silencer which further fucks with the weapon.

>>3443425
Accepting the limitations of statistics is not the same as rejecting statistics, sorry bro.

Also, the problem isn't capitalism, it's corporatism.

>>3443514

Whats wrong with corporations?

>>3443593
Nothing the problem arises when the government starts regulating them or putting regulation that they would like, or when they give corporate welfare. Welfare and corporate welfare cause the same things laziness and reward for failure.

>2011
>Not masturbating 16 hours a day and sleeping for 8

>>3443593
Different anon here.

My problem is with large corporations which control too much of the market and cause distortions in the market, aka deviations from free markets.

>>3443777

Thats true. I can agree to that.

What do we do? We do regulate corporations to resolve this problem?

I feel like, so long as a large corporation is still operating in good nature, the market problems arent significant. Like, japanese automakers, I believe are passionate about their business practices. They dont do evil things, and they work hard to make their manufacturing processes better.

I dont think that could be said about every industry. In some industries there are very obvious failures.

>>3443886
I think a couple of things are required.

First, we need to dispel this horrible idea that it's ok to be filthy rich, that it's your right to be allowed to be filthy rich. Related: we need to dispel the myth that being allowed to maybe become filthy rich is a required incentive. It is not.

Second, as for concrete laws that I would like to see passed. Limit the amount of money that you may gift each year, and institute large inheritance taxes for the wealthy.

>>3443912

>First, we need to dispel this horrible idea that it's ok to be filthy rich, that it's your right to be allowed to be filthy rich. Related: we need to dispel the myth that being allowed to maybe become filthy rich is a required incentive. It is not.

>Second, as for concrete laws that I would like to see passed. Limit the amount of money that you may gift each year, and institute large inheritance taxes for the wealthy.

I feel kind of torn. Because I feel like, on one hand, it is bad when their is great income inequality. But, I feel like that is the symptom of something I cant quite identify. What cultural, or moral, trait is commonly accepted, that allows people to make that much money?

I feel like its not right to force caps on companies, or have inheritance taxes.

>2011
>Having a summer break longer than a month

ISHYGDDT

>>3443938
>What cultural, or moral, trait is commonly accepted, that allows people to make that much money?
Freedom

>>3443965

So you think we just need to not let them do that? Limit freedom?

>>3444017
>>3443965
Different anon from:
>>3443912

I used to feel like that, but then I got over myself.

I see nothing wrong with heavy inheritance taxes on the rich. Oh noes - you still get millions of dollars and can live a life of relaxedness and never work again, but you don't get all 10 mansions. Whatever shall you do.

>>3444066

If you feel it should be somehow down to the state to decide who gets to keep what of their own possessions then you should fuck off to North Korea.

>>3444078
I'm sorry. I do not believe that people have the right to be as rich as they can get in a laissez-faire environment. Taken to the ridiculous extreme, what if one man owned all the land? What is the distinction between him and a dictator for life? None.

Obviously there are limits on the wealth of a single person. I recognize this fact. It's time for others to as well.

>>3442563
Conspiracyfag detected

>>3444066

I think the problem has less to do with how you feel about rich brats, and more to do with the ethics behind just taking some guy's money because he has a lot of it.

If you believe you should take rich people's stuff, why not just have an inheritance tax of 100% on everyone. That way everyone will be benefiting from their relative's wealth equally.

>>3444089

> Taken to the ridiculous extreme, what if one man owned all the land?

I dont think thats possible.

>>3444078
This so hard.

>>3444107
>If you believe you should take rich people's stuff, why not just have an inheritance tax of 100% on everyone. That way everyone will be benefiting from their relative's wealth equally.

Because it's in the culture that people get to pass things on. It's hard to change culture overnight. Also the practicality of trying to enforce such nonsense on anything but the top 1% of the population.

>I dont think thats possible.
Why? Ever hear of the robber barons?

>>3444089

>what if one man owned all the land?

That is exactly what you are suggesting. That's what happens when the state owns the land.

>What is the distinction between him and a dictator for life?

They're fundamentally different. One is motivated by profit and the other is motivated by control. Dictators cannot be bought out because they own all the money. If you allow someone to decide who gets to be rich and how rich they can be then you're creating a system where hatred rules.

>I'm sorry. I do not believe that people have the right to be as rich as they can get in a laissez-faire environment

The alternative which you are suggesting basically means that one person gets to decide who is rich. That is much worse.

>>3444123
>>3444107
And seriously, you know how almost all media in the US today is owned by only 3 people / 3 corporations? Come on now. It's not that implausible.

>>3444128

3 accountable companies>>>>>>>>1 non accountable government

>>3443912

Ok now as long as a "filthy" rich person is spending their money and not holding it, it gets placed back in the economy.
Where they spend it is their choice and as some people try to say they spend it on crack and whores then I guess its going to the lower class then.
If they spend it in another corporation then it goes over there part pays for that company to run machines, human machines, materials and part goes to the people who make sure the company runs. some of it ends up in another "filthy" rich guys bank account and then gets put at the top of the cycle to repeat this process.
If they spend it in local stores and what not buying furniture or contracting or painting and other usually middle class operated businesses it goes to them.
If they donate it; it goes to whatever the fuck they want to help out socially out of freedom of choice. What they see as a necessity to advance in due to maybe a family member dying of cancer and them wanting to help the cause or wanting to help natural disaster victims.
They get taxed already and some of their money undeniably does go to social programs.
What extravagant lifestyle do you disagree with their wealth isn't generally an inheritance if they are "filthy" rich. Its generally gained by a little bit of luck and some asskicking to the top. The money they gained resulted from this and they spend it back into our system or another country's system.
The only reason I can see is if you think our money transfers to another country and is lost, but if this is the case do you oppose foreign aid?

>>3444126
I'm sorry. I believe that small, targeted policies aimed at reducing the wealth gap are moral. I believe large wealth gaps are bad for most people in the society, and as resources are scarce and finite, it is well within their moral right to demand that the more fortunate, especially those born into it, must share.

>>3444123

>Because it's in the culture that people get to pass things on. It's hard to change culture overnight

Yeah but is the culture bad? Is it bad culture that I get to give people stuff when I am alive? Is it bad that I get to give people stuff on the condition that I die? It just seems like a long chain of acceptable things.

>Why? Ever hear of the robber barons?

I mean... all the land in the country? Under one person? All of it? Ive got a friend from Taiwan, where land represents wealth, but, its still owned by a lot of different people. The fact is people need land, or need a place to be, and so they will aquire that land. I think it implies an impossible amount of money to own all the land. Like, the more land one buys, the more pointless it becomes to buy land, and the more expensive the land becomes to buy.

>>3444089
It really isn't up to the government to decide that.

As much as corporations and big business are corrupt and incompetent, so is the government.

>>3444128

>And seriously, you know how almost all media in the US today is owned by only 3 people / 3 corporations? Come on now. It's not that implausible.

Wait wait wait...

Okay, there arent nearly enough media companies today. HOWEVER... I thought it was more than 3. Also, comparing the market share of an industry, to all the land on earth, is not equivalent.

>>3444136

That's because you haven't worked a hard day in your life and have come to the same conclusion as millions of other middle class liberals.

>it is well within their moral right to demand that the more fortunate, especially those born into it, must share.

Why? Explain the reasoning behind this. Not the moral reasoning, because that's utter garbage. The actual reasoning.

I worked 50 hours a week in a fucking steelworks before dragging myself to university at the age of 25. Don't talk to me about people deserving things, because income and wealth were down to "deserving" then the vast majority of people wouldn't have a penny.

You sicken me.

>>3444162

Of course there's more than three, he's talking out of his arse.

Socialism is based on envy. It's bizarre how so many people become attached to it, particularly people who have benefited solely from the free market and have never had to live the lifestyle they want everyone else to have.

>>3444136

Resources are only scarce and finite to those who think they are. Assuming we're talking about the U.S.A. I have little to no sympathy for adults who didn't go to college and complain about being poor. To make a blanket statement about the ones I've met they talk about how they were born poor and they government is making it so they die poor. No they are the cause to that. Only talking about the ones I've met but they generally didn't give a shit about high school. Complained about not getting accepted into colleges; not going to community college to redeem themselves. Went to a minimum wage job and continue to bitch about how the man is taking them down. I feel sorry for their kids though, have to live with being poor because their parents made the same mistakes their parents probably made. I hope the kids try harder though.

>>3444168
I worked doing heavy labor and operating heavy equipment for ford. My parent's were amazingly poor.

Want to keep going with this pissing contest?

The basic problem goes back to Locke and his quintessential and ur-justification of private property. The basic idea is that if I collect a bunch of apples and let them go to waste, no one has the right to demand the apples, even when they're going to waste, because they're free to go collect their own apples. Perfectly reasonable. However, apples are not a limitless resource. Locke had a copout immediately following that passage. He said that the new world (America) had plenty of free farmland - anyone could go get free apples.

However, in today's world, all the farmland is owned by someone (not the same person, but none is unowned). Thus, your wasting of apples directly harms me because I am unable to enjoy those apples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#United_States

>>3444202

That's great.

The world doesn't run on apples. You've managed to quote someone who lived a few hundred years before the idea of capitalism.

Look. If you honestly think the alternative is better than the current system then go see its application in person. Travel to eastern Europe and places in Asia. South America is good too.

Someone at the top deciding who gets how much of what is never a good idea. If you honestly believe that this is somehow a better alternative to a free market then I really can't expect a decent debate from you because you clearly have no life experience.

>>3444202

No if I waste apples and people demand more apples than me and my rich buddies wasted then more apples will be grown. This results in me being able to waste apples and you still being able to buy them assuming you got some money by working.
Welcome to capitalism

>>3444221
You really need to read more.

John Locke (play /ˈlɒk/; 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704)

Adam Smith (baptised 16 June 1723 – died 17 July 1790 [OS: 5 June 1723 – 17 July 1790])

>>3444221
>If you honestly believe that this is somehow a better alternative to a free market
You seem to be confused. I am advocating free markets.

Free markets != laissez faire.

To be honest people that spend this much time and money on college are idiots.

Most of you will never amount to anything anyway. Why burden yourself with being overqualified.

Math and Econometrics H.BSc here.

I sleep all day and study whenever the fuck I want.
Feels pretty ok.

>>3444233

;_;

>>3444232

Thats interesting, I had to wikipedia the exact definitions of those two. As far as I can tell wikipedia says in a free market the government has the right to tax and enforce contracts and ownership. Via Laissez faire just means do whatever you want.

Seems like a very contrived difference. Is that the difference you recognize?

>>3444233

Congrats on being lazy I hope you dont start a family I would hate to support them as you continue to go on have a 18-22 year olds job the rest of your life.
Overqualified assumes that people don't need specific degrees to acquire specific jobs. You know the ones that pay well. But anyway lol

>>3444259
The difference I "recognize" is that laissez faire applies to people who think that free markets sustain themselves, and who think that free markets solve all problems.

I feel that the government needs to intervene in the following situations / problems
- monopolies and "too big to fail"
- acquiring free information is not free,
- cost barriers to entry,
- people are not fully rational agents, but instead boundedly rational,
- tragedy of the commons, externalities, freeriding problem,
- people's time horizons differ and/or are too short,
- inheritance is inherently unfair,

The key difference is that I recognize free markets as an incredibly useful means to an ends, the end of a materially happy and wealthy population, whereas some people have become dogmatic about "free markets" and have missed the end goal of making for a materially wealthy and happy population.

>>3444286

I think, I pretty much agree with your sentiment.

Free markets dont real so we have to for it.

>>3444314
>>3444286
Oh, and add in that I am afraid of the political system becoming corrupt with sufficiently large wealth differences. Sufficiently large wealth differences just fuck with everything, so that needs to be kept under control to prevent corruption.

>>3444286
Inheritance is justified. The person passing it on earned it and should decide where the money goes. Just because some poor family that didn't acquire as much wealth in their life time can't do the same because they did not accumulate as much wealth does not justify this.

This is a capitalist, corporatist, and democratic crisis.

What we need is a benevolent dictator and communism.

>>3444325

Its worth noting, that in the United States we have very low income tax, and we have very high corporate tax. I think maybe that gives corporations an incentive to interfere with government. They have to pay taxes, so they work to control where there taxes go.

I thinks backwards to tax corporations and not individuals to begin with. People will work. People will always work. People have time, energy and desires and they will work whether they get taxes or not. Conservatives dont understand human motivation when they complain about taxing the rich stifling business.

Not that I like income tax to begin with. I am just saying it makes more sense.

>>3444325

If there is no government there is no corruption without the government. If a market is truly free then the government has no say in it no control over. It cant play favorites. If something with no power becomes corrupt i dont give a fuck.

>>3444325

If there is no government there is no corruption within the government. If a market is truly free then the government has no say in it no control over. It cant play favorites. If something with no power becomes corrupt i dont give a fuck.

>>3444357

But, what if markets... for example.. naturally operate in a way that is not optimal? What do we do about it?

>>3444357
The word "free" in "free markets" does not mean free from regulation. It is a description of the agents in the market, that there are a large number of "free" aka independently acting agents in the market.

>>3444352
>>3444357
Anarchist detected. Conversation aborted.

>>3444349
Meh. If you have high taxes on the rich individuals, or on the rich corporations, you'll have the same interference of the rich in the government. I see no difference.

>>3444418

Maybe. I dont know. I am just spewing ideas.

Maybe corporations have the resources and capacity to interfer with government. While there is a sort of fortunate "tragedy of the commons" among rich people lobbying congress. Demographic lobbys are smaller than corporate ones.

Anyway this seems like a good time to mention Hauser's law. Which states that regardless of how much you tax the rich (whether it be 92% or 30% as we have seen in history), federal revenue from these people remains at 19.5%

>>3444404

Anarchists are worth talking to.

>>3444373

You have the consumer counteract it. If they are providing an suboptimal product or producing it in an unfit way; you get people to join in with you boycotting the product. There on things that bogle my mind that were supported in the past. Redistribution of water is a large one. At least to the mileage that we are sending it now. They only way they could of pulled that off is with some help from the government. Now that there is dependence on it due to people moving to lands that were not naturally inhabitable we created problems. Management of the water supply which leads to privatization of water supply down the road that people never wanted corporations to take the road down. But if the government says they are going to keep a keen eye on the corporations they intrust with it they are one providing wealth and power to a corporation and two still support unmaintainable life. From some reason trust is still given to the government.
A simpler one would be bailouts, if the businesses weren't bailed out they would have failed. They should have just failed maybe someone buys rights to the company not the government and brings it back up again. Maybe the other supplier gains a temporary increase in power due to competition being erased this allows them to hire more and produce more in the time of need.

>>3444443
>Maybe corporations have the resources and capacity to interfer with government. While there is a sort of fortunate "tragedy of the commons" among rich people lobbying congress. Demographic lobbys are smaller than corporate ones.

Interesting idea. I could support this.

>>3442476

Implying I want to be working on wall street with a bunch of cocaine addicted retards who would sell their soul for more short term investments.

>>3444404

Umm fuck no; the government should give people the ability to unionize and petition a businesses practices without getting murdered. Unions should not be able to inhabit the government although. If the conditions demanded are by a large enough population of a specific workforce then they will have the power to receive a deal that betters their lifestyle by doing this.
If a company sends overseas to counteract unions then get petitions rolling and take that company down. The problem isnt within the government not regulating money it's in where people spend their money. They spend at some market to get something and throw it in the magical cash register or new automated check out line without caring where it goes to. The middle-lower class is accountable for just about every "filthy" rich individual out there.

>>3444460

>you get people to join in with you boycotting the product

So your solution to problems like... car pollution... is boycott cars?

Health care? Boycott healthcare?

What about, not problems, like things that are not bad, but they could be better. Like water flouridation, or subsidies. How does one boycott then?

>>3444514
To add, you have the freerider problem, which shuts down such ideas as completely unpracticable.

>>3444514

Starting with car pollution, are you wanting to boycott oil or the cars themselves. Either way limit car use as much as possible if a car pollutes the environment more than another car take this into consideration. Get others to do the same. If a car with high pollution doesn't sell well opposed to a low polluting car a company will take this into account depending on how much it hit them. When you are boycotting certain cars to discourage pollution make sure to report every single buyer you know that made their choice based on this. A comprehensive list on why that product didn't sell in their hands will help to change their minds over time.

As for health care it is probably the hardest thing to boycott, because it has so many twist and turns in how much it costs the provider and how much danger you're putting yourself by dropping it for a temporary amount of time. Certain health care providers will recommend prescription drugs that are cheaper to them by deals they created with certain companies. This is where the loops start because if they didnt do this it would have cost you more in the first place. We need to have direct questioning with health insurance companies as people and not behind closed doors. Not threatening them with a public option but learning how they operate moreso maybe so could provide a little more insight to me. But if everything's out in the public and we know who's doing right and who's doing wrong then we can proceed to switch to the one doing right. And if you show the potential customers creating a profit gain/neglect while the insurer cleans up their practices you can convince a company to act better.
Water fluoridation should not occur and subsidies should not occur in a free market.

>>3444532
Unions do not need dues to unionize they need dues to encourage people to join by giving them benefits or to infiltrate the government. A problem should give people enough reason to join a union. The government should not be adhering to union practices that is where you develop a party gap. This party goes with the unions for votes against the bad bad america killing corporations. This party goes with the corporations for votes against the bad bad america killing unions.

>>3444622

>Either way limit car use as much as possible if a car pollutes the environment more than another car take this into consideration. Get others to do the same. If a car with high pollution doesn't sell well opposed to a low polluting car a company will take this into account depending on how much it hit them.

Sure, which is why corporations like Toyota respond to consumer demand and make a prius, that doesnt mean that 30,000-40,000 people a year dont die from air pollution related diseases. And what about the fact that there are a ton of people who ARENT demanding cleaner cars and end up polluting anyway? And what about people who cant afford to make choices like what kind of car they want?

I guess to say we dont need government, because people demand what they want doesnt really have anything to do with government, because regardless of whether government exists people will demand what they want. But if people have been demanding what they want all along, then we should have the problems we do have today, like the fact that people are dying and developing illnesses as a result of air pollution.

> But if everything's out in the public and we know who's doing right and who's doing wrong then we can proceed to switch to the one doing right.

What information are you putting out in the open exactly? And if something needs to be put out in the open, doesnt that entail you need a third party to do that? Such as... the government?

It just seems really silly to me to talk about problems that exist in markets, and then say the solution is a freer market.

>>3444680

>Unions do not need dues to unionize they need dues to encourage people to join by giving them benefits or to infiltrate the government.

How are dues a benefit?

They need dues because the union costs money to exist.

> A problem should give people enough reason to join a union.

Not if the problem is being solved by a union which already exists.

>>3444682
>Sure, which is why corporations like Toyota respond to consumer demand and make a prius, that doesnt mean that 30,000-40,000 people a year dont die from air pollution related diseases.
So what you're saying is that air pollutions levels have gone down by people buying priuses over other cars? Is this not progress? I'm sorry the company hasn't got to the point where making only low pollutant cars will be profitable to them yet. That is there is still active research and not enough customer demand yet.
>citation please on the number

>And what about the fact that there are a ton of people who ARENT demanding cleaner cars and end up polluting anyway?
you have to get people to demand it and I dont mean sit and the kitchen and bitch about it. Think about it this way; what form of logic are they using to come up with a different outcome to question than you. You say they just don't care, but they still ask why should they care. Do you think they value a human life less than you or do you think they have different information pertaining the subject. If the first then congrats on being the most sympathetic person on the internet or if you think the latter you need to try to educate people get stories on the evening news. If you have a large rally that actually demands something that is able to obtained by shifting the publics interest out of one supply(cheap cars go go) to another supply(more environmentally safe cars) then you will make the news and the blogs and all that shazam.

>And what about people who cant afford to make choices like what kind of car they want?
Give me an example of where you actually need a car. You can take buses/bike if you really support a cause. It might mean you might have to get to work early, but is it not worth the protest?

>What information are you putting out in the open exactly? And if something needs to be put out in the open, doesnt that entail you need a third party to do that? Such as... the government?
The information that they use to determine how much of a profit they turn from a specific plan. You do not need the government to do this hell you could use the government to do this I wouldn't even care, but that's never where they focused on. You can obtain this although by gathering a large group of people and I mean large and pooling portions of each others money together to create insurance without seeking profit. The problem here lies in the dependence of health insurances plans deals with certain companies of medicine; if you get a large enough group I believe you could get a company to back you for publicity's sake.

>It just seems really silly to me to talk about problems that exist in markets, and then say the solution is a freer market.
You can't sell insurance across state lines this creates a smaller pool of money for an insurance group to acquire. The bigger the pool of money the smaller hit it gives an insurance company to cover timmys brain surgery. Undercover practices are the biggest problem with a free market. The more localized a business the less undercover it is though. You can have a free market with a localized businesses running it free market is peoples choice. Over time in the 19th-20th century we decided to change to a more industrialized economy.

>Implying that economics, the study of a system that is part of the basic framework of society, is worthless.
>Implying that economics is not among the most amazing applications of mathematics.

If they made an economics major that was ultra intensive mathematics, a study of mob mentality/psychology, and a history of economics it would be the most amazing major in existence.

>>3444694

Unions should not cost money to exist.

Union dues may be used to support a wide variety of programs or activities, including: Paying the salaries and/or benefits of full-time or part-time union leaders and/or staff; union governance; legal representation; legislative lobbying; political campaigns; pension, health, welfare, and safety funds; and/or the union strike fund.
Union leaders shouldn't need to be paid. Union governance umm ok meet in a chatroom? Legal representation is interesting what laws are you actually bringing up. Because the unions should demanding the conditions not laws already put in place. Fuck legislative lobbying for both unions and corporations; ok done. Political campaigns fuck giving the government enough power to where unions and corporations support different campaigns. Why should a union provide pension, health care, welfare, and safety funds? The people in the union should be in charge of their own money if they go on strike not have it placed in some union strike fund.

>>3444825

>So what you're saying is that air pollutions levels have gone down by people buying priuses over other cars? Is this not progress?

No, I wasnt saying that, but I suppose air pollusion has gone down marginally as more priuses take the roads. The real problem is people are physically damaged by pollution, and seeing as that still happens I dont see it as real progress.

Here is a link that I recalled:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/global-health-risks.html

It doesnt refer to 30,000-40,000 annually. I think I mixed that up because I remember a claim that more people die from air pollution deaths that car accidents, and car accidents account for 40,000 deaths in the United States annually. Nonetheless, that citation refer to many equally if not more dangerous statistics.

>You say they just don't care

I cant afford to go out and rally for public attention for every political issue. I also dont think we should live in a world were people need to do that kind of thing to NOT suffer from air pollution related diseases. Like so many things, its very easy to sit back on the internet and say things like "Consumers should rally, whine, bitch, complain, threaten, boycott, until they get their way" as if that is the simplest and nonsensical approach to this problem.

>Give me an example of where you actually need a car.

To get to school. To get to work. Before you can say some inaccurate remark like "Well actually if you just wake up immensely early and take a convoluted system of public buses and walking to get to where you need to go" realize that it comes at an immense personal cost to do the alternatives. If it didnt come at a cost, we wouldnt be driving our own cars to begin with.

cont

>>3442492
it does.

applied computation technology is the only thing that matters right now

>>3443425
uh.

friedman was in line with the chicago school of thought.

>Not using Ito calculus to make money on Wall Street

I seriously hope you guys don't do this

>>3444831

>The information that they use to determine how much of a profit they turn from a specific plan.

What are you talking about. Who determines their own profits? Anyway, that kind of information is already available in the company's financial statements which are already publicly available.

> You can obtain this although by gathering a large group of people and I mean large and pooling portions of each others money together to create insurance without seeking profit.

Yeah, and when has anyone been able to do something like that?

>You can't sell insurance across state lines this creates a smaller pool of money for an insurance group to acquire

While true I dont think this explains the problems of health care.

>Unions should not cost money to exist.

Well, they do cost money to exist. Unions do do a number of things like healthcare funds, and legal defense funds. Thats the reality. And if you believe in the free market its hypocritical to be saying what should or shouldnt cost money.

>>3444906
Car excess is not the only PM2.5 pollutant

Rallying is not the simplest solution; probably the least simple solution. It takes time and effort that come from the desire to commit yourself to a problem because you think it is a truly evil practice. Instead of a seeing a number on the daily news going fuck and calling on your congressman who already saw the numbers and thought hey i know how im gonna get my votes.
If you think a company could produce a car like the prius for as much as a high pollutant don't you think they would? It would mean being the first on the market with a better for the environment affordable car. Do you know how much profit they make?
It would not be an inaccurate remark. It would be someone not willing to give up convenience for cause, which is what giant corporations know people act that way and makes businesses decisions in alignment with that. I don't think 20-30 minutes is too early. If you say what if they're in a rural area. Well then im going to say hey if theyre in a rural area wouldnt pollution be less dense?

>>3444941

Companies make estimates on how much profit they are going to make. To do this in the health care field you'd have to go through a series of probable occurrences and how many you could fund. Compared to what you're charging. If a company says they will insure you for a one thing in contract then this is the only place where the government should step in.

When has the last time someone tried something like that?

It was one example of how government interferes negatively to health care. Say 75 brain surgeries need to done in the united states in a given year. Also assume that Colorado has to account for 10 of these. Having a relatively small population to other states and having to deal with the financial burden of more procedures from an expensive operation puts a health insurance company at risk saying they will cover it. This is a regulation that needs to go away that was only put in place of people scared of too big to fail.

See the rest of post in which i refer to the two things you tried to counteract me with