/sci/ - Science & Math

Because socialism for the rich

keynes

because assholes are still making people shell out $100 for a 75mhz calculator

>>3696878

Where is the capitalism exactly?

I'm not falling for this shit. 0/10

Too much regulation and retarded monetary system.

Capitalism isn't failing. The nation-state is. Capitalism is doing an awesome job in the developing world (especially asia). Captalism would be doing great in North America too if it weren't for the extremely regressive border policies of a certain country there.

>>3696898
"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets"

pretty much everywhere, unless you're using the fundamentalist libertarian definition of capitalism

>>3696926

You just eliminated all states. That is exactly what I was looking for. Kudos.

>>3696935
yep, anarcho-capitalist troll, good job -- you almost had me

>>3696908

"Rapacious Mercantilism"

>>3696878
It isnt failing, but it has certain well known flaws that we've done a better or worse job of containing. In the aggregate we're living in abundance - historically - in our modern capitalist welfare states with relatively free markets, social security and socialized healthcare etc..

Nobody uses absolute capitalism. Governments are sometimes inclined to regulate markets in the interest of some group of people without knowledge or concern for the consequences on the economy as a whole.

If capitalism is failing, how comes it's working for people who work their asses off and aren't as overpaid as Americans? (ie: China)
You don't really think sitting on your ass all day is worth $100k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOwt12de1Qw

there, those are your answers

Because of the falling rates of profit. Due to capitalist competition, companies have to constantly improve the means of production, and therefore invest more and more in into the means of production. This means that less and less companies will be able to pay as much for the means of production and therefore collapse, taking away jobs. This also means less and less companies will be able to create companies as they would have to invest more, so we start having less and less jobs.

The only rational solution is to switch to the socialist mode of production.

What's the definition of "success"?

The natural progression of capitalist markets is consolidation (as mandated by the benefit of economies of scale). Thus the inevitable result is one or two multinational companies dominating every business area. But the larger a company becomes the bigger and more catastrophic the impact of their demise will be. So what we end up with are a limited set of too-big-to-fail companies; either lacking proper competition to deliver pareto optimal allocation of resources or else regular occurances of catastrophic booms and busts and immense human suffering in the aftermath.

>>3697051

> rational
> socialism

Pick one.

>>3697095
>libertarian
>reality-based

>>3697121

> socialism
> reality-based

Pick one.

ITT: man-children who fail at running their own lives think they can run a society.

>>3697142
>herp derp joke's on you, I was only pretending to be a libertarian

>>3697137
socialism is inefficient, libertarianism is so stupid it has never been tried

Bush launched a foreign war, tripled the national debt with Defense Department spending and slashed taxez to nex to nothing.

Capitalism didn't failed. It got mugged.

>>3696878
crony capitalism =/= capitalism

>>3696878
if capitalism is failing, it is because we have re-prioritized society into being fair, rather than merit based

capitalism is only really good for merit based economies, not "fairness"

>>3697051
which has never, ever worked for any sustained first world economy...

yeah, that's real rational

>>3697262
>i don't pay taxes, so therefore Bush must have slashed them to zero

fuck you, man, fuck you. some of us pay out the ass

>>3697307

that is because you are either too cheap or too stupid to hire a decent Accountant.

>>3697307
I say you pay way too little so let's just go back to the tax rates under Ike the Suchiolist

>>3697340
jew detected

>>3697285
> crony capitalism =/= capitalism
crony capitalism = corporate socialism

...because the "plan" under capitalism is to mine the earth hollow, to produce sports cars and Playstations until the entire system collapses. It isn't about elevating humanity or putting science to its best use, it's all about the production of useless baubles. It's about promoting an insane, endless appetite for consumption and materialism.

>>3696897
you should take a look at the TI-Nspire it's the version 1 of a handheld machine that should have been on sale since 2003!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-Nspire

it's the same price as a TI-89 or less.

the people who buy the TI-89 are dumb faggots, and the people that buy the Nspire when they have a laptop are also faggots.

in b4 laptop can't into exams.

because we haven't had a free market since...ever.

except in the american west in the 1800s.

>>3697345

> you pay too little
> i should decide how much you pay

Haha. Poor person detected.

>>3697142
ITT: dumbass doesn't realize that anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism are humble positions

we don't know how to run society. so let's get out of everyone's way and let them do what they want.

>>3697400
Thats a constitutional republic for you. The m-jor-ty decides how much everyone pays, and free advice: poorfriends and workerfriends are the maj-ri-y. (I'm not one of them though)

m-a-j-o-r-i-t-y is a verboten word - why?

>>3697440
which is why democracy is fucking retarded.

common law master race.

Why has communism failed?

>>3697451
because it assumes people will gladly work for the good of the nation.

>>3697450
Fascist pigs like you need to be exterminated like rats.

>>3697451
because some people are more "equal" than others

>>3697462
>Believe nobody should control others
>Fascist

>>3697469
>believes that kritarchy will ever amount to anything but either fascism or theocracya

>>3697483
>Control, force and manipulation is wrong
>We have to institutionalize it to prevent it

What I've learned from this thread:
>Capitalism works, but LOL MAJORITY RULES
>Socialism is dumb
>Libertarianism is FULL RETARD
>no one is qualified to discuss economics on /sci/

>>3697504

Capitalism and Libertarianism are close cousins.

ITT: self dialogue of a psychotic

>>3697508
Armed robbery and Libertarianism are close cousins.

>>3697548

Gang rape and socialism are close cousins.

>>3697548

Not really.

>>3697497
>believes anarchy and might makes right is preferable to state monopoly on violence

>>3697554
my business is robbing weak people. I should be free to do so. it is business, it benefits the market, I contribute by spending my hard-earned gains in my community, and I compete with other robbers to provide the superior robbery service. I employ 25 other robbers that are depending on me to feed their families. Regulating what I do is unfair and ultimately bad for the economy.

don't trample my freedom douchebag.

>>3697577

Mutual trade is not robbery.

>>3697577
And capitalism makes it work because there will be a market for protection from hoodlums like you. You might even find when the market has matured that its more profitable for you to start your own protection organization!

>>3697588
nope, robbery is robbery.

did you think I was making an analogy?

mutual trade is like consensual sex... you need someone around willing to keep it consensual.

we usually call that regulating and enforcing agency a government, and it best step in when I rob, defraud, or murder your stupid anarchist ass.

>>3697613

You can make the same argument the forceful action by government is tyranny.

>>3697621
absolutely, so long as all people are barred from participation in government.

otherwise you're just making a false argument.

feelings of disenfranchisement aren't necessarily the same as real disenfranchisement.

>>3697548

HAHAHAHA OH WOW

what the hell do you think government is? it's force. that's it.

everybody does what the government says because if they resist enough they'll either be thrown in a rape cage or killed.

>>3697640

And?

>>3697642
are you 18?
you'll grow out of that one day.

>>3697564
>associating "might makes right" with anarchy when that's exactly what democracy is
>thinking I support anarchy

>>3697661

Do you have a point? Other than personal attacks?

>>3697661
what? you can't deny what i've claimed.

you can dance around it and chant "social contract" in the hopes that i'll fall for you wordplay i guess.

don't pay taxes? ask an employer to hire you for $6/hour because nobody is hiring thanks to the minimum wage? get shot.

that's what happens.

>>3697662
absence of government monopoly on violence subverts the rule of law and results in might makes right
absence of government monopoly on violence results in anarchy

>>3697681
it wasn't a personal attack, 18 is an awesome age.

so full of energy and passion.
a bit dumb, but you'll learn.

the government is you, and me. If you don't feel represented or don't wish to be responsible for its actions I'd suggest a move somewhere else, or perhaps make the effort to participate.

you won't be leading any revolt, because the vast majority doesn't agree with you. Mostly because they aren't 18 anymore.

>>3697686

the tribal highlands of Afghanistan is pretty much free of government interference

>>3697721

People tend to get more conservative as they grow older. So no, that's not the case.

>>3697735
conservatism != libertarianism

>>3697721
>the government is you, and me. If you don't feel represented or don't wish to be responsible for its actions I'd suggest a move somewhere else, or perhaps make the effort to participate.

isn't going to work. libertarians have been fighting the battle for less government for centuries. i know of a way to end statism, but it's definitely not from within the institution itself.

>you won't be leading any revolt, because the vast majority doesn't agree with you. Mostly because they aren't 18 anymore.

right. i have to wait for new generations to be born and hope that they're not brutalized as kids. my stance won't change as i age. you're not going to make me doubt myself by calling me immature.

>>3697735
nope, the center tends to shift left over time is all.

our conservative baby boomers haven't changed their attitudes much during life, but what was radical leftism in their day is staunchly conservative now.

>>3697750

Of course not. But they vote for candidates who parade Libertarian ideals(whether they practice them or not).

>>3697766
i hate the tea party.

they're confused republicans that think they're libertarians. they do nothing but hurt the cause.

>>3697758

It depends on a few factors, one is polling questions. The country a whole is center left, the old people are center right.

>>3697756
I'm not trying to make you doubt. I don't know you or care about your personal failures.

>>3697779

maybe, but i don't see any other reason sans trolling.

>>3697776

What cracks me up is they don't want obama care, but they want governments hands of medicare. I agree, they are not helping.

>>3697786
I've noticed that unhappy high-schoolers are often anarchists, unhappy 18-30 somethings are often libertarians, and unhappy 30-40 somes are often dead.

it isn't really important, just that making a habit of feeling excluded from society results in one being excluded from society. If you don't need society we don't actually want you around. You aren't that important by yourself. Neither am I.

>>3697766
That's because Reagan sold them on small government back in the 80s and they havent groked that present day "conservatism" of e.g. a Rick Perry or a Ron Paul is approaching a radical libertarianism not so very different from ideas who used to mostly be spouted by young punks with mohawks. If it ever were to be implemented in the real world they'd have a rude awakening.

>>3697806

Why?

>>3697814
Why what? Try to use full sentences.

successful revolutions are almost always carried out primarily by a minority, including the american revolution. you don't need 51% of the people to carry out a successful revolution.

>>3697827

> If it ever were to be implemented in the real world they'd have a rude awakening.

why?

>>3697832
It works if you have the military entirely on your side, otherwise you've got an arms problem.

revolution in the US probably isn't a viable option, which doesn't matter since most of the population would happily support killing the few revolutionaries.

>>3697788

> of


Haha.

>>3697852
in fact many of us are hoping for a violent tea party movement... the south is past due to have it's ass kicked again.

>implying this is capitalism

failing capitalism is why

>>3697835
Well with a narrow reading of the agenda of e.g. Perry and Paul we'd get rid of Social Security and Medicare and that would throw the reality of being a senior back to what it was before the New Deal, i.e. a shitty deal.

An expansive reading of the "libertarian" agenda we have abolishment of the fed and of conventional law enforcement and conventional judiciary - replaced by some drugged out experiment in Libertarian arbitration. Chaos, suffering and the disintegration of civil society ensues.

I'm willing to bet most small-government libertarians aren't business owners.

business owners want less regulation for themselves to be sure, but they sure as hell don't want their competitors or customers regulated less.

it's a problem, and ignoring it identifies one as not a capitalist, but an employee.

>>3697876

so your making the case that if they took away entitlement programs, we would have chaos.

Right.

>>3697884
I'm not that anon, but that's likely what would happen.

sick and elderly and broke people likely won't shoot your ass, but their relatives will.

anyone that's realized that they one day may be sick or old or poor is likely to join in.

>>3697804
this seems like more attempts at bullying to me.

i don't want to be a "part" of today's society. so i'm going to be doing what i can to change it. that doesn't include the political process though.


>>3697898
exactly why i don't support voting. ron paul is going to make things worse because people aren't going to just give up the shit they've stolen.

>>3697884
No, my proposition was that if we took away SS & Medicare seniors would suffer gravely, and if we took away conventional law enforcement and conventional judiciary we'd have chaos.
>learn2readforcomprehension

>>3697898
but... but... in the glorious libertarian utopia no one will care about their relatives because they are finally free of government tyranny!

>>3697907

So you're attacking a strawman, tons of Libertarians support local police.

>>3697906
I'm not trying to bully you.

I am telling you that if you act as you talk we don't want you.

our government will hunt you down and kill you because that's what we pay them to do.

don't get the wrong idea, I don't want you to change. I do want you to be responsible for your actions.

>>3697912

Actually, most libertarians take great care of their families. It's YOUR family that I don't give a fuck about.

>>3697933

at least you're using that kind of language. it's honesty like that which will set the world free.

>>3697950
freedom is a very subjective term.

true and complete freedom is a lonely place to be, but nobody lasts long there so it won't be a problem.

>>3697928
No, I clearly said that was under an "expansive reading" of the Libertarian agenda. Once again learn2read4comprehension.

But that's the only version of Libertarianism that pretends to solve the "problem" of government "coercion" that seems to be your core beef with conventional government, so we have to assume that you support that version of Libertarianism? Right?

>>3697957

Not necessarily.

>>3697950
Well in all fairness you are advocating treason against the United States of America and the US constitution. Treason is a crime and criminals are supposed to be hunted down by law enforcement.

>>3697906

who are 'They' and what have they stolen? there are 400 families that have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the whole country. And I'm pretty sure they got it by at more or less Capitalist means.

>>3697987
It's a yes or no question - either you support it or you dont. You should know the answer if you're not terminally confused about your "libertarianism".

>>3698002

Its definitely not a yes or no question.

>>3698009
The implied question was whether you support conventional law enforcement (state monopoly on violence) and a conventional judiciary or if you support some form of Libertarian style arbitration.

>>3698024

Depends

>>3698028
You're a pussy or an idiot.

>>3698038

Or you're trying to over-simply things

>>3698052
>you're trying to over-simply things

this should be /sci/'s banner

>>3698052
Look, you had every chance to tell us what you support in your own words, you opting to clam up indicates that you either dont know your shit re: the issue at hand or you're to pussy to argue your position.

>implying the goal of capitalism is anything

>communism

>>3698068

I'm not clamming up, you just haven't presented any case. You're talking about vague generalities in a complex world. Sorry, that's not an argument i would partake in.

>>3698117
So long, pussy boy

>>3696878
Because it used up all it's intellectual resources and has gotten stuck in an intellectually devoid feedback loop, where every micro-theory feeds on the prior micro-theories historical significance, creating a constantly shifting valuation that has no prescience on the current economic conditions.

In other words, thinking you can perscribe what humans value as singular and in groups, with algorithms, ultimately creates a false facade of data that is arbitrarily defined based on prior algorithmic definitions.

Essentially, capitalism is chasing it's meta-self.

Capitalism is a bunch of rats on a wheel driving the wheel towards a cliff. It's only a step up from Feudalism for fuck's sake.

>>3698149

Socialism is a bunch of rats on a wheel driving the wheel towards a cliff. It isn't even a step up from Feudalism for fuck's sake.

Capitalism is not failing. The world economy is growing and thousands of people have been escaping poverty every day.

YOU have been living in a bubble. The value of American labor has been outrageous. The market is fixing this problem. It just seems like failure when YOU are the problem.

>>3698153
Oh god, a trip-fag and a tea-bagger in one faggy little package, go fuck off.

>>3696878

I haven't read a single goddamn post in this thread, but here I go.

>Why is capitalism failing?

The answer is actually quite simple, it's not. It's a very successful economic model. It works like a charm. The only problem is, it wasn't designed around human happiness. It's goal is not to make the populace happy. It's kind of like this quote on education:

It is only from a special point of view that "education" is a failure. As to its own purposes, it is an unqualified success. One of its purposes is to serve as a massive tax-supported jobs program for legions of not especially able or talented people. As social programs go, it’s a good one. The pay isn’t high, but the risk is low, the standards are lenient, entry is easy, and job security is pretty good...in fact, the system is perfect, except for one little detail. We must find a way to get the children out of it.

-Richard Mitchell "The Undergroung Grammarian"

>>3698163
>The value of American labor has been outrageous. The market is fixing this problem.

spoken like a true globalist corporate CEO.

so long as homogenization of standards of living for the poorest 99% of the world is your goal you're absolutely correct... but if 99% of the world enjoys roughly the same comforts, isn't that back-door socialism?

and if we wish to maintain the disparity we call superiority, shouldn't we ban companies from outsourcing our jobs to countries where people will work in unsafe conditions for a dollar or two a day?

or do we really want to force americans to compete with people in mud huts for every penny? I'm sure the people in the mud huts don't mind, but americans will soon have something to say about it.

>>3698178

But thats EXACTLY what the goal of capitalism is. People are free to buy and persue what they want.

This means things like Mcdonalds, which is bad for you, but people buy it because it makes them happy.

Billions upon Billions of dollars in entertainment.

And not to mention that you are implying that there is such thing as objective standards of happiness

>>3698191

Okay go ahead and ban our companies from outsourcing.

Do you think other countries would be so foolish as to overlook the cheap labor in China? of course they wouldnt. This means that Global Corporations out of other countries would simply take over and beat out American companies because they can produce things at half the price.

You dont UNDERSTAND capitalism.

BECAUSE ANARCHY OR MARXISM OR SUMTHIN

JEEZ OP xD

Is that the type of answer you were expecting OP? Because you're so fucking wrong it hurts.

>>3698209
I understand it fine.

we've gone from a relatively closed market to a wide open one.

banning outsourcing wouldn't work without similar bans on imports of consumer goods.

protectionist policies don't do a damn thing if we lock the front door and leave the windows open.

>>3698219

Protectionist policies dont do a damn thing period.

>>3698149
>implying capitalism wasn't a regression from feudalism
>implying economics being the prime focus of society is a good thing
>implying the dichotomy betixt capitalism and socialism isn't a farce
>implying capitalism and socialism aren't both radical chaotic liberal ideologies that promote disunity and class warfare

Hey guis! What going on o-

Oh.

Guys, why don't you rationally discuss politics? Why do you have to be emotionally driven by your idea of how a society should run?

>>3698232
they seem remarkably common around the world for something that just doesn't work.

>>3698143
Here, I Made a graph illustrating this phenomenon.

>>3698198

>not to mention that you are implying that there is such thing as objective standards of happiness

Dr. Harris would like a word with you...

>>3698247

Yea. Lots of things that dont work are employed around the world.

>>3698249

What... why did...

What does the Dow Jones have anything to do with anything? Why did you use like... real GDP or something?

Also what is an intellectual resource to begin with?

>>3698249
And another

>>3698266
pakistanis for example

>>3698264
Sam Harris is a crank. You can't arrive at objective morality rationally.

>>3698272
And one more for good measure.

>>3698143
>>3698249
>>3698272
>>3698279

Hmmm... this intrigues me...

Would you mind elaborating on this, if you could?

>>3698270
Screw you.

We're observing how meta-data about the economics can only absorb and allocate a finite amount information without feeding into itself creating looping and useless information.

Thus, creating a real limit to grow because no one can figure out how the fuck to compare anything.

THATS WHY.

>>3698290

There is a reason he didn't post the Nasdaq.

In iterated prisoner's dilemmas, the best strategy is to cooperate unless your opponent defects. If two companies are deciding prices, they are obviously better off cooperating and putting high prices. Undercutting your opponent's prices will get you only a short term gain until she defects, leaving you worse overall. So I guess Adam Smith was wrong about the invisible hand and capitalism fails?

>>3698290
Imagine our economic system is like a Windows 95 operating system.

It sits there, allocating resources to the 'user', and the user is able to multi-task.

At some point however, the 'programs' the 'user' runs begin to come into conflict.

Barring an upgrade to the hardware, the software(programs) need to maximize the utilization of the resources of the machine.

Inevitably, they try to efficiently use the CPU at 100% capacity, but the programs whether selfish or not, will lack the 'eco-system' knowledge to do this, and will resemble the ups and downs once the free resources have been gobbled up.

>>3698294
looks like the nasdaq grew much higher in 2000, then shrank and did as the others do

>>3698291

You arent observing anything. You drew a line on a graph about the stock market, which happens to have no grown in the last decade. The stock market has gone equivalent periods of time without change in the past, like during the 70s.

If you want to talk about economic growth you look at production and spending, and not the stock market.

You have said anything with any substance to it.

>>3698309

I understand biological carrying capacity in general, but could you explain the nuanced application of it to economics in specific and any other relevant information to this end?

>>3698313
I OBSERVE AND REPORT. YOU DECIDE.

>>3698279
>>3698272
>>3698249

This actually reminds me of some of the work by Geoffery West and some other friends of his regarding how both organisms and companies have life cycles and efficiencies in their components that relate to size. He however uses the data to show how in cities this behavior is actually very different and could lead to bad results if we are not careful. Where did you get your data on economic carrying capacity? Is there academic lit on it?

Below is what I got from Geoffery West

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyCY6mjWOPc

>>3698295
Someone make a rebuttal to my post or else capitalism without regulation loses.

>>3698321
Clearly, if there is a finite limit to the amount of information that can be presented and digested, then there is a intellectual carrying capacity that will limit growth, due to the inability of the current understanding of economic theory to deal with the inability of the current understanding of economic theory to deal with the inability of the current understanding of economic theory to deal with the inability of the current understanding of economic theory to deal with the inability of the current understanding of economic theory to deal with the inability of the current understanding of economic theory to deal with the inability of the current understanding of economic theory to deal with the inability of the current understanding of economic theory to deal with the inability of the current theory.

>political science isn't science

>>3698294
This is economic theory sir, it is a soft science. My axioms do not need to be inviolable to be applicable and used frequently.

>>3698335

Yeah but, you didnt observe anything besides a graph going flat.

>>3698349

> if there is a finite limit to the amount of information that can be presented and digested, then there is a intellectual carrying capacity that will limit growth

This is assuming growth and information have any kind of connection. If I know how to make guitars, and I make guitars every year, it requires no new information and the economy will grow.

I think you are operating under the assumption that an economic theory is something someone came up with, and then implemented as a policy. That the economic behavior didnt exist before the theory. Economic theories, like, any other scientific theories, describe something that exists regardless of whether the theory does. You keep talking about the current economic theory handling things. The economic theory is just something that people like me learn about it school. Investors and business people operating, would operate the same way regardless if the theory did or didnt exist.

>>3698349

.....So... you're saying our inability to accurately predict market trends leaves us with an inefficient allocation of resources that limits our economic growth beyond a point dictated by a proportion relative to our ability to predict market trends?

>>3698294
Also, the NASDAQ COMP. index changes annually, so to make it appear as if things are growing, so you won't see the same shift.

http://www.nasdaq.com/indexshares/historical_data.stm

>>3698373
No. You're confusing the GUI with the software.

The software bloats because of faster hardware. It may be doing more things, but it's peak efficiency was already located.

You may be able to run more and more software, but the hardware, the fundamental amount of intellectual resources capable of allowing these softwares to interact is limited.

In other words, I will repeat as I said before, there is a limit to the amount of historical meta-data you can use to keep the system functioning at peak efficiency for growth.

Due to the algorithmic interference of the base level of information, you're feeding off of meta-data that has been fed off of meta-data, etc.

This is an interference pattern. Each new point in your system is a super-position of not just the 'value' but the meta-value, which is what, at the time, we perceived to be it's value.

Economics reaches a carrying capacity as illustrated in these graphs, because ultimately the 'value' is a reconstruction of prior 'value' which is etc.. yo dawg.

If you don't get what this is, tomorrow I will tell you today I valued you based on what you expected me to value you tomorrow based on what today's value was expected to be tomorrow.

If you arn't seeing how the 'value' of a product is dependent on it's current valuation model, then you have essentially reached the economic carrying capacity.

>>3698383
I would say yes, after very very very very very very carefully parsing parsing parsing parsing parsing of your contract langauge langauge langauge langauge langauge langauge langauge langauge langauge..

You can see why shit like dark pools and other automated trading bots exist.

>>3698294
This is economic theory sir, it is a soft science. My axioms do not need to be inviolable to be applicable and used frequently.

>>3696878
Symptom, meet diesease:

http://www.businessinsider.com/secrets-secrets-sketchy-market-moves-lead-sec-to-seek-high-frequency-
trading-algorithms-2011-9

>>3698466
And just a plain ole news search

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=qu
ants+trading

Thats all, capitalism, folks.

>>3698413

None of this makes any sense, and Im not going to take the time to talk about this anymore.

You dont even need to accept basic economic theories to see why those graphs go flat:

Investors dont have confidence in the market. Just like they didnt during many recessions, each which had causes more real and physical than some hypothetical information limit.

>>3698458

Thats not what axiom means. I think there are only three Economic Axioms, and they are the following:

1. A = A
2 If A > B and B > C then A > C
3. If A > B then A > B regardless if C exists.

The greater than signs refer to preferences.

If you refer to an axiom and you refer to anything else, you arent using the word right.

>>3697384
whats the point of science if it isn't about making peoples lives better, space ships can be considered useless materialist bauble. They already are when people complain about private space flight.

>>3698483
You're wrong.

Economic axioms are things, such as, a consumer will always make a rational decision.

You and I both know this is bullshit, but believing this allowed Economists to model behavior.

Another great one, actually pertinent to the discussion, is that all information is transparent.

Lets grant you this axiom, with the caveat that although all the information is transparent, it's construction is arbitrary, and often times forced, by prior valuation.

A good example is NFL contracts, particularly during the draft.

The initial valuation, of the number 1 pick in the draft, essentially sets the level to which all subsequent valuations are pegged, along with particulars for each position.

You can see that the initial valuation is an arbitrary construct, because IT IS FUCKING FOOTBALL.

>pic related, it's a Bio-Economist.

>>3698191
Outsourcing destroys disparities in other countries. Other countries aren't poor because we put factories there, they are poor exactly because we haven't. A dollar or two a day in bad conditions is still better than how they used to live otherwise they wouldn't choose to work in a factory they would just continue what they do.

>>3698538
Doesn't know the definition of rational.

>>3698344
No rebuttal? I guess capitalism loses. Debate over, sage this thread out of existence.

>>3698483
I realize, that when you are an ardent believer in 'Econometrix' you have a hard time understanding what you're actually doing outside of your confined quarters.

It's quite simple. The Economy is an aggregate valuation engine. This engine is supposed to be fine tuned to what people value. What people value is supposed to be fine tuned to what an individual values.

But there is an extreme disconnect between what a individual values and what the economy values, as there are multiple levels of information pathways for the individual values to aggregate.

The economic engine is tuned by what we refer to as "Economists", These are people who try to run the Economic engine, in such a way, as to maximize the aggregation of the individual values into economic valuations.

However, this engine is serverly limited by the understand of the economists AND their historical understanding of this engine. As the CURRENT engine runs based on HISTORICAL tweaks to that same engine.

This can be paralleled as to a person who ate Burger King yesterday, got foot poisoning, and no longer wants to eat at burger king. This person's values changed in an arbitrary manner, and it is up to the Economist to take into account this new value set, even when the old value set, was tuned to expect this person to eat burger king.

I realize you have trouble dealing with how abstract economics actually is, and feel more comfortable dealing with statistics, but you should try to venture out in to the real world and actually view how people value the world around them.

>>3697051
Marx's prediction on this was wrong, margins do become slim but he didn't predict the creation of new markets.

>>3698178
>The only problem is, it wasn't designed around human happiness. It's goal is not to make the populace happy. It's kind of like this quote on education

People buy things that make them happy, you buy the food you like and watch the tv you like, the capitalist makes what the consumer wants and the consumer wants what will make him happy.

>>3698563
Its that people will make the optimal choice when presented with a specific set of information.

This is what it means in economic terms.

It is a axiom used by economists to models economic behavior.

It's violated, obviously, all the time.

>>3698602
wrong

>The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.[4] For example, this may involve kissing someone, cheating on a test, using cocaine, or murdering someone. In rational choice theory, all decisions, crazy or sane, are postulated as mimicking such a "rational" process.

>>3698578
You can make the same argument against evolution.

The axioms I listed above describe economic rationality. "People are rational" isnt an axiom in itself. Rationality is defined by the three axioms I listed, just as they are in Mathematics.

Its very hard to prove some one is being irrational. Its very easy to assume they are being irrational, because its very easy to not understand what someone's values are. If you see a fat person on the brink of diabetes eating ice cream, it might appear irrational to you if you dont value ice cream, and you value health. Even if someone says "I value A > B" and then they behave in a way that maximizes B, it doesnt suggest they are irrational because they could have been lying, or they themselves might not understand their own values.

I dont know whether the axioms about economic rationality are true its very plausible that people arent ratioanl, but I dismiss most claims that people are naturally irrational because there is simply no way to know.

So some guy mentioned that the market was at a limit, and another guy said that happens every few decades or so.

I only took a semester in economics, but th obvious answer is this:
>The limit gets raised when the technological paradigm shifts, allowing for further production without need for reduction.

Using another guy's computer analogy, it's the same thing as realizing the computer is running the processor at 100%, and then upgrading from an i5 to an i7.

to answer the OP, capitalism appears to be failing because the next advancement in industrial technology/production has not yet occurred.

I like how people still defend this system saying it's not "capitalist" enough. The same argument was used in Soviet Russia to defend Communism, stating that it wasn't "communist" enough.

The key to capitalism is not competition and fairness, but the exact opposite. Crushing competition and dominating the market. All laws that say they'll "deregulate" the market, do nothing of the sort. They simply allow the corporations to eliminate the competition so they are allowed to merge and become more powerful.

When the rich get richer the poor do not also get richer as a result. They will always get poorer. The idea is to make most people believe that the corporations interests on the top 1% is in the same interests as the public on the bottom 95%.

>>3698692
Corporations are the children of the state. Of course the state (corporations) will remain a state.

>>3698656
Indeed, but the hardware has it's own limit, so what is being described by:

>>3698249
>>3698272
>>3698279

is a software limit. I'm conservative, so I choose not to wave a magic wand and say that technology will come and save us.

>>3698692
how exactly is a business supposed to 'crush' small businesses?

big businesses are in a cartel selling product at an inflated price. i take out a loan and start a new business selling it at a lower price. in 1 month i have come to dominate the market from nothing. the end.

>>3698713
so the problem is, by switching all market control to advanced algorithms, we have reached a theoretical limit of market equitability as corporations auto-buy/sell, with algorithms no longer able to make superior guesses since everyone else uses algorithms too?

>>3698627
If you're schizophrenic, sure.

But we're talking about how historical valuations are reflecting not just implicit value, but modeled value, and how modeled value is build into the historical data, and cannot be removed, per force.

Its akin to saying the historical data is compressed by a lossy format. The data we evaluate is not just an aggregate of the economic value of an object, but it's super position of the historical models.

This leads to the aforementioned graphs showing a marked sigmoid fluctuating around a carrying capacity.

Again, this theory ignores any magical wands that increase the baseline capital in the system.

>>3698618
It's still a false axiom, either way you define it.

>>3698732
After long contemplation of your markedly acute question of the pertinent subject matter, I would say yes.

But that is not to say, that the past 50 years is any different, the change is what the other part of the equation, which is the vast availability of capital.

But back to the algorithms, one you've reached the traction point, the same kind of point you see in discontinuous systems, like water boiling, where you've commenced boiling, but had to expend a specific amount of energy to do that, you start the observable trend.

The roiling in our scenario is ultimately the feedback loop, as these algorithms are not merely moving money around for profit, they're also massaging the 'data' in a manner that they, and other's, feed off of.

So you have these crack quants sitting in a basement somewhere, writing algorithms not just to make money on the 'natural' ebb and flow of markets, but to make money on the unnatural algorithmic trading.

In other words, it develops into a predator prey relationship, which each side (multiples) trying to find the optimal take away, but never being able to because the historical data was massaged by the historical algorithms, that no longer work because, surprise, a new algorithm found a weakness.

You can see this kind of behavior in Copyright law, where for all intents and poiposes, it is impossible to stop people from hearing and copying data.

>>3698692
I'm a firm believer in supply side economics - the rich get richer and the wealth trickles down to the poor. John Galbraith described it as the horse and birds approach - if you feed the horse enough oats, some of oats will show up in the horse-shit for the birds. Excellent!

>>3698782

> hearing, copying ≠ selling as your own, or making profit without permission

>>3698810
You're a moron.

Anyways,

If anyone (aside from the moron) wants to understand how economic systems currently work, read these books.

>>3698828
> confirmed for not having read those books

Because production naturally outpaces demand, so planned obsolescence must happen. but nobody wants to buy broken products for expensive prices. So the economy fails anyway.

>>3698837
You want relevance?

1. The quants:
Describes the rise of mass use of algorithms to value and grade various assets, particularly CBOs and CDS, and how the initial markets were set. The Big Short is a great compliment to that, and I may be confusing the two. Get both.

2. The Information:
Explains the multiple ways in which information is encoded, and how Claude Shannon pioneered the field with his definitions of information akin to entropy. Leads to a good understanding of how current economic information, that appears explicit, is actually encoded by previous valuations of the information.

3. Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
This is the basic understanding of the math that is required to see how algorithmic trading is encapsulating itself. Explains Godel's destruction of mathematical axioms, demonstrating that there was no complete and consistent set of mathematics with a finite number of axioms. Forgive me if I completely mangle that discription, I'm not a mathematician.

>>3698896
GEB is the only one i have read (and i am a mathematician); it has absolutely nothing to do with understanding economics, and barely talks about self reference in the context of dynamical quantitative systems. axioms and the incompleteness theorem have nothing at all to do with finance.

i can only conclude you're trying to intimidate people with complex books in the hope that nobody calls you out on it. if i asked you to explicate exactly which sections of GEB are relevant to economics and why, you would undoubtedly fail.

>>3698936
I can only conclude you don't understand economic systems and feedback loops.

>>3698936
Also, none of those books are geared towards prosetylizing a specific view point, so why they'd be intimidating, I have no idea.