/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9542529
i'm a fan of sci-hub and against for-profit publishers, but when you say something like "We unironically have to get rid of capitalism" you sound like a retard

>>9542529
maybe we should tax rich people more so that our entire civilization critically depends on them I'm sure then our government will have enough power to do something about the rich people

>>9542538
>, but
I'm gonna stop you right there and not read the rest of your comment. There is no "but".

>>9542541
Sounds like you "hate big government". Why don't you tell me what time in American history you think was the greatest? Would it perhaps be sometime between the 40s and 50s?

>>9542541
>we should tax rich people more
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a leech.

>>9542550
1776-civil war, modulo slavery

>>9542529
Go to a good university and you don't have to worry about it.

>>9542560
Yeah, because they're paying for it with taxpayer and student cash. Literally corporate welfare. That's why they charge $30-50 for a fucking five page paper.

>>9542529
I'm all for free access to academic research, but let's be honest, it's not like normies actually read the papers, or understand them if they do, and the industrial researchers probably get access through their companies.

>>9542549
i read your whole comment and it was dumb

>>9542538
stop sucking capitalist dicks you fucking faggot, till your mother is sold on the market as a cheap commodity that she is

>>9542549
>>9542529
>Fucktard: example post

>>9542529
Or invent ways to lower the cost of research

>>9542572
Can I buy anon's mother futures?

Oh look, it's another "/sci/ bashes economics then proceeds to be fucking clueless when discussing it" episode

>>9542580
Anon's mom won't stop going down any time soon, so I wouldn't if I were you.

We unironically have to get rid of capitalism, and replace it with tribalism.

private enterprise and "rich people" are necessary so ventures can come from some place besides just the government. It's a necessary way to allocate resources.

>>9542529
The problem is you can't really replace capitalism globally without something like a benevolent AI overlord that just takes over everything. Humans in charge will end up using whatever you try to replace it with for their own benefit (especially on the scale you'd need it at, it has worked in small groups of selected people) and the proletariat will end up not working as hard as the ideal, so you'll get the downsides of communism without the upsides of it.

>>9542572
i don't retard. you are just jumping to conclusions because you only understand extremes

Oh the horror. Capitalism views people as commodities and not special snowflake crystal-tuned beings.

Still beats starving to death because said hippy shits are trying to de-industrialize farming and now the yield is 1% of last year.

>>9542593
>literally sucking capitalist dicks
>hurr durr you only understand extremes

are you retarded?

>>9542580
anon will sell it to you for 10 cents

>>9542603
>Still beats starving to death

yeah no healthcare and 50 million poor starving americans despite having the highest gdp in the world is certainly the beacon of capitalism

>>9542604
>literally sucking capitalist dicks
>We unironically have to get rid of capitalism
those are both extremes. because i didn't agree with one you jump to the conclusion that i must agree with the other. that's why you're retarded. stay mad though

>>9542564
It's not for normies. It's for people trying to do important scientific work. And again, that's because those companies are paying through the nose.

>>9542579
It's not the research that's expensive. It's the fucking journals.

>>9542603
>anything but capitalism means shut down all industry

And replace it with what?

>>9542666
Literally. Anything.

>>9542668
Supercapitalism?

>>9542696
That's still capitalism.

>>9542707
Capitalism Xtreme?

>>9542529
>Calling yourself a scientist or engineer
> Not being a technocrat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bqPXqYWHlE

>>9542529
I think the problem comes from capitalism being applied to a market whose product is capable of being cheaply copied and redistributed. When no scarcity exists, the only way to make a profit is by creating artificial scarcity.

Are the people that provide content to the journals compensated for their contributions? No.

The youtube business model pays the content providers based on how many views the content attracts. The money comes from advertisers. There are no subscription fees.

Imagine if people had to pay to use youtube and the content providers had to pay to upload content while also not getting compensated for quality work. No sane person would agree to do this.

I could understand the journal model if some of the subscription fee cashflow was used to compensate the content providers.

Why are scientists cucking themselves?
Is it just a meme that has persisted from the days of paper and ink?

>>9542727
>When no scarcity exists, the only way to make a profit is by creating artificial scarcity.
scarcity always exists

>I think the problem comes from capitalism being applied to a market whose product is capable of being cheaply copied and redistributed.
like Cosmo or The Enquirer, right

>The youtube business model pays the content providers based on how many views the content attracts. The money comes from advertisers. There are no subscription fees.
They also lose money even with several orders of magnitude more customers.

The problem is that there aren't enough people to read these journals. Things in low demand can be very expensive to produce. This is true across all industries since you have to pay producers enough to convince them to not do something else, like work at McDonalds and collect welfare. (Only partially joking.)

>I could understand the journal model if some of the subscription fee cashflow was used to compensate the content providers.
This could definitely be done. Also reviewers could be compensated. This is not going to make it cheaper, because it is not going to increase demand. We don't have a supply problem we have a demand problem. Printing materials and distributing them is for all intents and purposes a "solved problem." That's why a paperback novel of several hundred pages is like $5, and the author actually gets paid.

>>9542529
We should replace finance capitalism with producer capitalism, nein?

>>9542529
I might be wrong, but i think the pay publishers asking for is justified because they do peer review.

Capitalism doesn't exist anywhere.

Chomsky pointed out last year that US system is a state-subsidized plutocrazy.

- The elite gets the riches while the taxpayers foot the bill.

Thats technically nothing like capitalism.

>>9542845
the publishers do nothing. the peer reviewers are all volunteers

>>9542878
oh, i thought they're getting paid to do that.

>>9542529
problem is with copyright law, it's absurdly long, should be a few years at the most

>>9542727
>When no scarcity exists

>>9542618
Better solution than creating an economy that cannot respond to supply changes: break up the partnerships between universities and journals that allow for journals to charges hundreds of dollars for a complete subscription. ArXiv is free and it does just fine.

>>9542727
...Dude.
>>>/his/

>>9543092
That's not the problem. All research council / funding body grants and projects are post evaluated using metrics which take into account not only the number of publications, but also the 'quality of the journal', meaning that one publication in a good journal will ALWAYS trump 20 papers that have been put onto Arxiv (which doesn't feature peer-review as far as I know).

The authors themselves wouldn't give a shit about the journals, unfortunately their career depends on publishing in the expensive ones. My last publication fee for an open-access article was around 5000 pounds.

>>9542529
Why are you blaming the economic system instead of the actual motherfuckers that are trying to wreck your nation?

>>9543178
>motherfuckers
Do you need to swear?

>>9543182
>Do you need to swear?

hell yes.

>>9543182
uh oh it's the cuss police lmfaoooooo

>>9542538
this x1000

>>9542549
>>9542572
What's up this invasion of commietards lately?

Sci-hub is cool, in fact I'm the one who told you guys about it, but it's illegal as it should be. You're not entitled to anything, the fact that you think you are means you have an exaggerated feeling of self importance. And like I said before YOU STILL HAVE ACCESS TO IT so there's literally no reason for you to bitch. You can freeload, without being productive at all and you're STILL complaining.

But either way, politics belongs on /pol/ not /sci/.

>>9542727
You clearly now nothing about economics so please stop embarrassing yourself.

>>9542538
This

>>9542618
>It's for people trying to do important scientific work
Ah you mean like sharing articles on /pol/ that "show" how inferior niggers are?
Anybody who does actual research already has access through their universities.

>>9542772
>scarcity always exists
If digital files can be scarce, piracy really is theft.

>>9542727
You're completely right, but you didn't say "Capitalism is perfect" so you're going to have to leave.

>>9543448
What is this fucking reddit

>>9543569
Being able to satisfy a want or need is not proof of a lack of scarcity.

There is a gap between "satisfaction of wants and needs" and "goods and services which would satisfy the aforementioned." Scarcity is this gap. If you want to download a "digital copy (not stealing because I define property in a totally different and fair way dude)" then you need
1) a computer
2) electricity
3) an internet connection
4) storage capacity
and so does whoever is holding onto the file (definitely legal because they define property in a totally novel way that's more philosophically sound than those stupid capitalists' greedy definition).

The fact that you can close this gap is not proof of a lack of scarcity.

>>9543346

Ah, the standard capitalist war cry "muh you don't anything about economics!" Actually, Marx predicted many of the things that are happening in capitalism now and capitalist economists policies that they won nobel prizes for have had disastrous consequences and directly led to the recession of 2008. I'll take science and reason over meme economics thank you very much.

>>9543606
Oh, those poor journals, having to host some small PDF files. They must be dying from how expensive bandwidth and storage are these days.

>>9543634
What does that have to do with anything?

>>9543615
we haven't lived under capitalism since FDR

>>9543342
>What's up this invasion of commietards lately?
It's called the skeptic movement, and it predates 4chan.

>>9542538
It extends beyond OP's misgivings. It has turned humanity in soulless consumerists, destroying any notion or culture that diverges from this. It produces inferior people, science, technology, and planet. I don't really care about broad, emotive ethnical arguments. They're hollow. But inferiority in every aspect of everything...

>>9543732
having to buy stuff turns you into a soulless consumerist, so the government should buy it for you...?

>>9542529

it's not the issue of capitalism it's the issue of the government working for the benefit of corporations instead of the benefit of its citizens. fix corrupt government and the problems will cease

>>9542529
Let's just suspend copyright law for 20 years instead. Fuck science journals, fuck MSM, fuck Microsoft, fuck Hollywood, fuck the RIAA, and fuck you.

>>9543794
The government works for corporations because the government runs on tax dollars of corporations in order to pay for all the stuff commies and their ilk demand the government provide. When you have set up your society to depend on the existence of wealthy people then of course the government will serve and protect them.

I think the issue extends further than capitalism, and has more to do with the complexification of society due to societal, demographic and technological advancements.
The task of governement has become so complex that the role of society is to make sure everything doesn't explode, and in so tries to fit everyone in boxes so that they're easier to control within the system, within the rights it still has upon the citizens.
If you want to change society into something you deem more "humane", you don't have to "change" it, but rather to revert back to a previous state of development. Going into another economic model wont cut it if we still have to manage billions of people that have access to this level of information and so many ways to fuck things up.
You'd either have to cull the numbers of people, revert back to pre-information age or get rid of rights.

>>9542902
Copyright law should ONLY apply to people doing one of two things with someone else's work:

1: Trying to make money off of it
2: Claiming it as their own

THAT IS IT.

>>9542845
1: Peer-review is literally the cancer killing science and

2: Paywall journals are some of the most corrupt institutions in society and should be executed by firing squad.

>>9543178
You mean the capitalists? I thought I was.

>>9543342

>>9543655
It has everything to do with everything. Their ONLY SOLE excuse is to make a killing extorting educational institutions and scientists.

>>9544557
So I guess one of these scientists, physicists, or mathematicians should start their own journal and fix the problem. Since everyone is being extorted they'll happily switch over. What's the problem? Apparently it's dirt cheap to run a journal. So anyone could do it. Get cracking, anon.

>>9544552
I think he's trying to say "hate the players not the game" as in it's not the system's fault, it's the bad people, which is dumb because there's always going to be bad people.

>>9542529
>copyright is crony capitalism
>patent trolling is crony capitalism
>planned obsolescence is crony capitalism
Is about time I say.

>>9544561
>The myth of volunteerism and easy overthrow of monopolies
Oh to be as delusional and naive as a libertarian!

>>9544594
That's exactly why you don't use systems that not only reward shitheads, but do so preferentially like the inverse meritocracy that is capitalism.

>>9544798
>overthrow monopolies
?????

>hey guise send me papers I'll publish them without charging
>ok here
FUCKING MONOPOLIES

>>9542529
I sell my Ju mother + whoever she wants to bring with her.

>>9544822
MAGNETIC MONOPHONIC CAPITALIST!

>>9544561
It's not exactly easy to get the reputation to make people who aren't paying for anything themselves care.

>>9542582
ty for speaking up for us. math and econ major here and the board makes me want to blow my brains out sometimes.

>>9542549
based

>>9544986
Tell me about it. I largely blame how economics is typically taught, but I've seen people on /sci/ just say plainly incorrect things while at the same time insisting that the whole field is either trivial or nonsense. It's quite sad and pretty frustrating

>>9542529
https://www.thebalance.com/top-sites-for-crowdfunding-scientific-research-985238

You can fund science right now.

>>9544553
All the most wealthy countries are capitalist.

>>9542529

better dead than red

>>9543727
Being skeptic is good, but I'm a bit skeptical about a skeptical 'movement'.

>>9545847
The "skeptic movement" isn't actually a movement for skeptics, it's just a different orthodoxy.

>>9543342
Knowledge should be a right, and not a privilege.
I'm entitled to the knowledge, and so is everybody else.
Fuck off you boot-licking scum.

>>9546136
>Knowledge should be a right, and not a privilege.
>I'm entitled to knowledge, and so is everyone else
>Fuck off you boot-licking scum
If you're entitled to the product of others' labor, you're the boot and he is the boot-licker, so your insult makes no sense and reveals your position to be at best incoherent and at worst intellectually bankrupt.

>>9542564
Easy to say for you, but even when you go to a good uni, you won't have access to every journal. I'm all for journals, but the prices have gotten so ridiculous and it's not benefiting anyone but the publishers. They don't give back the money they get, it's bullshit that you pay €50 for fucking 20 pages and it all goes to their pockets.
Scihub and libgen are godsend for everyone interested in science. I donate every month (and you do too if you're from yuropoor since it's grants/scholarship).

>>9546148
But they totally need that money to keep running! Don't you know how expensive bandwidth is these days, and how much they pay editors?

>>9546146
>you're the boot and he is the boot-licker
Only under capitalism.

>>9546152
No, under capitalism neither party is forced to interact due to "entitlements" so there is no boot.

>>9546158
That's right. In capitalism, the correct term is "getting fisted by the invisible hand".

>>9546158
"Entitlements" only exist under capitalism.
A laborer wouldn't have to be entitled under a communist economy.

>>9543605
Thanks for the gold my man.

>>9546165
>entitlements only exist under capitalism
>>9546136
>I'm entitled to the knowledge, and so is everybody else.

you guys sort it out among yourselves

>>9546176
Under capitalism, entitlement has the following definition:
believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

and this is the definition you're working with, so I used the other meaning, initially, and then used your working definition.

>>9546185
>I am telling you what you believe and then attacking that position I just made up
cute

>>9546200
>I am telling you what you believe
Not a far stretch considering you're a capitalist and this is what you consider entitlement.

>>9543735
This x300000
Communists don't understand that their ideology only works for robots hardwired to learn and do nothing else

>>9546158
>"entitlements"
Are a dumb meme by economically illiterate conservitards. Even from a capitalist perspective "entitlement" spending is an investment which pays back. Trickle down economics cost money. It's like throwing cash away.

Why do normies keep pasting this "This time it will work" meme?
You do realizes that things tend to fail only to be later, when we have learned from those mistakes do those things succeed. Saying socialism will fail because of human nature is such a copout You could easily have a socialist system with incentives (thumbs ups for example) .

>>9546249
>anon in 1902:
>"oh, powered flight, yeah sure, this time it will work. this stupid pipe dream has killed dozens of people already and it only could work in theory"

>>9546241
Can you say this again, only coherently?

>>9546265
Communism doesn't even work in theory.

>>9546249
>You could easily have a socialist system with incentives
The real problem IMO is the transition. It'd be very hard to get the super-rich to give up everything, and if you try to do it without them, they'll put their power towards destroying anything you try since it hurts them so much. If you have a violent revolution to destroy the wealth so no one has it, you have to live with the repercussions of that.

>>9542538
You are a total fucking cuckold. There is a reason most modern advancements in science were done by Soviet Russia and the US Government.

>>9542557
>modulo
That must mean something different to you than it does to me. Maybe you meant to say "minus"?

>>9546365
>they'll put their power towards destroying anything you try since it hurts them so much
Delusions of grandeur. "Rich people" would happily give you whatever you want if you would shut the fuck up for five minutes and let them get richer because you're concerned about money and they're concerned about durable wealth. And so long as you keep going to them to get money to pay for muh health care and muh food stamps and muh housing, the State is always beholden to them, because the State also wants you to shut the fuck up and you have already admitted you're incapable of providing for yourself.

The transition away from capitalism is a march to an aristocracy (not necessarily hereditary) via State capitalism. Incidentally, State capitalism is what we're living in today, and why so many people hate it is because it's a headlong rush into some kind of neofeudalism.

What protects "rich people" from you is the government, and though this is literally the most basic observation an ape could make, you are utterly incapable of making it, and instead demand stronger government to take more from "rich people." It's only when people in government are as dumb as you that society collapses, and "rich people" don't want that, so they have to totally corrupt the democratic process to ensure politicians aren't so fucking retarded. Which then leads you to complain about "corruption."

If you want to threaten "rich people", eliminate patents, eliminate copyright, fuck zoning laws, eliminate taxation of corporations, stop providing so much motherfucking welfare and gibs. These are all the tools "rich people" use to prevent anyone from rising up to challenge them. Taking back "what's ours" from "rich people" means that society critically depends on rich people to exist—it doesn't depend on you at all—so all social forces will align to preserve rich people. Hence aristocracy.

>>9543342
>Lately
Please fuck off, /pol/.
>>9545579
Socialist*

>>9544615
>"It's not REAL capitalism."

>>9544615
>real capitalism exists outside my mind

Absolute retard, "crony" capitalism is the only possible capitalism

>>9546423
Real capitalism has never been tried!

>>9546444
I think real capitalism existed in the US before FDR. It was definitely tried, but the US's version of Hitler decided to get rid of it and we've been sucking ever since.

>>9546448
Nope, it wasn't perfect so it's not the real deal.

>>9546415
>eliminate taxation of corporations
>because there's no people who get/got rich from corporations

But how scientific research is funded?

>>9546491
Taxes

>>9543342
>What's up this invasion of commietards lately
>its either capitilism or marxist communism
Go back to /pol/ dude, saying capitalism has issues or even saying we need to not use a capatlist system isnt the same as saying we should be communists.

>>9546504
Nice try, Vlad.

>>9546466
>people being wealthy is bad even though I want to take from wealthy people to give myself more wealth than I have but it doesn't count when I'm increasing my wealth

>>9546503
So shouldn't people who pay for the research own the result?

>>9546538
We should tax the wealthy more to fund better schools, since obviously you can't read.

>>9546546
No, why they should if you are paying it with taxes. If you want to own the result fund it yourself or find someone who does

>>9546561
>it doesn't count when I increase the wealth of people I like then it's good

>>9543615
you are part of a cult

>>9546572
Sure showed him.

>>9544969
And THAT is exactly why publications aren't cheap. You're paying for the reputation that was hard to get and the peer review process and all of the nitty-gritty of scientific paper publication.

They're making a killing, which means a lot of people have thought about making a killing as well. If it was easy, there would be a whole lot of respectable journals, they would have to compete for scientists, and the price would go down. It doesn't, though, because it ain't easy.

>>9546561
higher tax rates != higher tax revenue

Higher tax rates discourage investment and encourage shady money hiding practices. There have been countless examples of lower tax rates yielding higher tax revenues. That's not to say higher rates CAN'T yield higher revenues, but still.

You should really read an economics 101 book. I suggest: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3023.Basic_Economics

>>9546406
i am a us govt scientist. stay asspained though faggot

>>9546288
Entitlement spending is an investment which pays back over time. Tax breaks and corporate welfare are money pits that cost tax players obscene amounts of money for virtually no payback. For instance it's cheaper to house the homeless than what the US is doing right now. Universal healthcare is also cheaper than the current system in the United States. Conservative policies are fiscally irresponsible and not based in reality. They don't even make sense from a capitalist perspective because they don't save money or shrink the government.

>>9546406
Assuming youre correct about that information do you think that its because of communism or
lack of ethics during scientific procedure?

Lets just keep this dogs head alive why not?
Lets launch this dog into space where ittl die from heat death.

Not to mention the threat of being sent to the gulag for the scientists. Which instilled a sense of necessity into achieving scientific progress, making it not an act of discovery but an act of survival.

>>9546683
I disagree with the premise that tax breaks cost money since I disagree with the premise that money I or anyone else makes through personal effort and sacrifice of any kind is actually "partially" the government's money. Corporate welfare is a major problem but I have gone to some lengths several times in this thread to indicate where it comes from any why taxing rich people more will not get rid of it; again, briefly, if society depends on rich people for its core functions (where "core" means "pay for my school pay for my meals pay for my healthcare pay pay pay) then it is a straightforward logical consequence that the organizing principle of society (the government) will strive to protect that which it depends on.

> For instance it's cheaper to house the homeless than what the US is doing right now.
So that's your position, that economic efficiency is what we're after?

>Universal healthcare is also cheaper than the current system in the United States.
So that's your position, that economic efficiency is what we're after?

>Conservative policies are fiscally irresponsible and not based in reality.
I don't know what policies are "conservative" and which policies are "liberal," and even if such a measurement were possible it would be extremely surprising to find that one policy type were uncorrelated with "reality" since I don't know how to correlate a policy with "reality."

>>9546727
>So that's your position, that economic efficiency is what we're after?
Me personally no. I'm a technocrat. i think using economics for resource distribution doesn't function correctly in the 21st century. However, in terms of economic systems "Free market" capitalism that conservatives are in favor of is the least efficient and least effective model besides Soviet style state capitalism. Free market polices tend to increase the size of the government and increase government spending while offering comparatively worse services than liberal or social democratic polices tend to. I don't view any economic model as being very efficient or healthy but conservatism happens to be one of the worst. Regardless, they all tend to lead to mounting debt and inefficiency in the long run.
see the video here for more information about technocracy. >>9542718

>>9546716
>Lets just keep this dogs head alive why not?
>Lets launch this dog into space where ittl die from heat death.
A lot of people died getting the US to the moon. They've done just as many unethical things as the Soviet Union and the Nazis did. they only difference is the US won and they lost.

>>9544541

>>9542529
I think capitalism is good at everything except science.

>>9546806
>"Free market" capitalism that conservatives are in favor of is the least efficient...
That's funny because it's literally a theorem of mathematics that free markets are the most efficient form of resource allocation, for certain definitions of "free" and "efficient". Also, "conservatives" are not a monolithic group and there is significant disagreement about core market issues such as whether drugs or abortion should be illegal (you may recognize these as "markets"). Also conservatives are not libertarians.

>Free market polices tend to increase the size of the government and increase government spending while offering comparatively worse services than liberal or social democratic polices tend to.
Well this is very hard to understand. I think it's because you kind of toss around buzzwords like "free market" and "conservative" without having any definite meaning behind them other than "stuff I don't like." That said, I do agree that leaving the market to provide services instead of the government _may_ cause the market to offer worse services in any particular case as a function of overall social preferences. But the opportunity costs of providing better services in particular cases—say, nationalized health care or policing, for certain definitions of "better"—are paid by being worse everywhere else. You might think this is "worth it" because you have a certain set of preferences but I hope you can understand not everyone will share your preferences.

>see the video here for more information about technocracy
There is really nothing to see. Technocrats are the same people that brought us stagflation and ridiculous educational costs through all their retarded meddling. If you cannot trust me to run my life, how can you trust me to vote for the right technocrat? And if you do not trust me to vote for the right technocrat, so you will just install them, then I can reject your entire social order on first principles; see the Declaration of Independence.

>>9542529
>“In the past Sci-Hub has recovered from all tries to hit its IT infrastructure and, if anything, the lawsuits against Sci-Hub have brought more interest and media attention to [it],” Tzovaras writes. “I predict that the same thing will happen now.”

Literally nothing happened. The thing you need to understand about capitalism is that it's evolution on an economic scale rather than biological. It's not going anywhere, all you can do is tune the parameters, which is exactly what sci-hub is doing. They are a competitor in a capitalist market that's eventually going to force changes when ACS et al get tired of hiring lawyers only to have sci-hub keep using different domains and slipping through the cracks. This happened already with music over a decade ago, and now music is basically free if you have an ad blocker, and only costs a few seconds and a handful of braincells to everyone who doesn't.

>>9542529
/g/ here.
I haven't read the article in the OP, but scihub is always accessible at http://80.82.77.83

>>9546936
>only costs a few seconds and a handful of braincells to everyone who doesn't.
If I compare the 60s and 70s music scene to today's then I think the cost has actually been very high in terms of quality and innovation.

>>9546916
Tell that to Elon

>>9546938
This. I'm not even an engineer, but I prefer practical solutions over the overly philosophical hurr durr capitalism is bad discussions.

It is pretty easy and cheap to keep the method of sci-hub going with todays technology.

Get a big HD and VPN and share those torrents. Help decentralize the data and keep it available for other people. Even if they get a hold of sci-hub eventually something else will take it's place.

>>9546936

We also have to get rid of evolution. New organisms will be designed by experts and proclaimed by the central committee.

>>9546938
It's a tad harder to memorise though.

>>9546931
>. Technocrats are the same people that brought us stagflation and ridiculous educational costs through all their retarded meddling.
Technocrats don't believe in economic based solutions to problems. We don't support loans or the use of money which we referrer to as debt certificates or tokens.We advocate the use of energy certificates based on the productive output. So, I doubt we have any part in what happened to the US post war. We aren't social democrats or communists. Watch the video of you want to understand how technocracy works.

>>9547054
>We don't support loans
Wrong.

>>9547034
Ctrl + D on any browser, faggot

>>9546624
higher tax rates ~ higher tax revenue

higher tax rates
= wealth redistribution
= increased # of consumer spenders
= increased # of market decisions made
= increased # of investment decisions made
= growth
= increased tax revenues

when corporation tax is ~10% of tax revenues, as it is in most western countries. the burden of supporting government services and national investment is weighted too heavily on sales and income taxes, rather than profits. which means effective businesses (who innovated and makes lots of profits) don't contribute to the wider economy, instead they accumulate capital, which promotes wealth disparity, which reduces the # of market decisions, that innovation the business made is frittered away in terms of it contributing to the overall economy.


essentially tax policy, which is a product of capital (lobbying / party funding), promotes wealth disparity, which reduces the # of decision "nodes" in a market, making any market increasingly less efficient, which ultimately results in a market reset: (stock crash, revolution, bubbles, hyper-inflation, etc.)

during wartime, the government prevent financial capital accumulating in useless pools, using bonds, debt, drafts, asset seizing etc. to put towards growth, all be that growth is in creating mostly unproductive things such as nukes / subs / jets etc. despite the products having no value, directing the entirety of nations capital to what is literally "anything" produces as a by product: jets, radar, fission, etc.

>>9542727
>Why are scientists cucking themselves?

Scientists don't pay to have their papers published, and they don't particularly give a shit about access. They and anyone who matters can have access to their papers at any time. They just care about the journal as a way of formalizing the fact that the work has been checked to some degree and providing a standardized system for recording citations. Scientists get paid by their university and by government grants. They have zero interest in pushing for compensation from journals.

>>9547054
>We don't support loans or the use of money which we referrer to as debt certificates or tokens.We advocate the use of energy certificates
oh it's totally not money

>>9542529
Just learn to torrent, if you are so smart.

>>9546946
just because there's more trash music doesn't mean people aren't still making original pieces.

>>9544553
>what is Keynesian economics?
>inb4 it failed
No Arabfags being cunts with their oil made it fail, not the concept itself. It is what got us out of the great depression and into an era of surplus.

>>9546504
>we should adopt this other system i haven't bothered to create yet

>>9547189
Just because there's more people without access to affordable healthcare doesn't mean there aren't still amazing insurance plans

>>9547191
>It is what got us out of the great depression and into an era of surplus.
that and bombing all of our major industrialized competition then charging them for rebuilding their country

>>9547191
Whether trickle down or trickle up economics works depends on where in the economic cycle you're at. Neither is superior because they deal better with very different eceonomic scenarios.

>>9547234
Supply-side economics never works except as a tacit admission that
1) markets work, but we don't want to wait for them to work and we have an oracle that tells us what the market would want if we had waited (never true but some people really want to believe this)
2) taxes are too high and we'll sneak this complicated policy in instead of unpopular tax breaks (coincidentally or not, looks like cronyism)

There is an argument to be made for Keynesian spending in the sense that some kind of systemic shock stifles aggregate demand "unreasonably." Things are actually fine, but no one believes it. Take a market crash example: why panic? We have exactly the same durable goods, services, etc., today as yesterday. No reason to panic in a market crash. Anyway. So we can stimulate aggregate demand at a price (which is probably cheaper than having to wait and there's little risk of a "confidence death spiral" so to speak).

However, the opposite problem, that there's some kind of "unreasonably short supply", cannot happen. If demand exceeds supply then prices rise until demand has been pushed back enough to match existing supplies. But this increase in prices will yield more profits, which will be used to expand supply. This is the entire point of markets.

So if the argument is that the price mechanism has failed and we need to stimulate supply it's definitely worth looking into why, exactly, the price mechanism is failing. For instance rent control, "price gouging" laws, etc. In this case the better remedy is not to stimulate supply but to remove the impediment to the operation of the price mechanism.

By the way the reason pricing mechanisms can fail in practice is that government regulation protects larger businesses from competition so that when prices rise there's less need to use this to expand supply because there's less danger of competition thanks to your government putting up barriers to entry or killing mobility. These are usually state and local regs.

>>9547141
It's not money because it can't be exchanged between people. It has a set experience date and is based on energy production not economic value. It isn't money in the traditional sense. It only exist to provide feedback on which goods and services people are interested in nothing more.
>>9547059
No we don't. Debt is a product of a price systems or the exchange of debt tokens which we don't support.

>>9547227
>that and bombing all of our major industrialized competition then charging them for rebuilding their country
you're goddamn right

>ignoring this whole fucking debate
>using sci-hub at the university instead of logging into library access
h a i l s a t a n

>>9546564
We do fund it with our taxes.

>>9547753
>he pays taxes

>>9546416
The only countries that have money for social programs are capitalist ones.

>>9544798

Yeah because wikipedia has not proven to be a viable model.

You fucking idiot.

>>9542529
We also need to replace science with woo
>>>/x/

>>9542529
You unironically should jump off a helicopter with a little help.

>>9547951
elaborate

>>9546151
And the peer review proccess is just top-notch with these high-profile journals! Totally worth it if you ask me.
https://forbetterscience.com/2018/01/15/

>>9546491
>>9546503
↑ this
>you fund research with tax monies
>you have to pay to read the results

>>9547125
That's a gross oversimplification. In reality, the actual revenue depends on a lot of things and cannot accurately be predicted.

For example
higher tax rates
= lower potential reward of investment, while risk remains the same
= lower profit margin for companies, including struggling ones, which could mean bankruptcy
= lower employment
= lower # of consumer spenders
= lower # of market decisions made
= lower # of investment decisions made
= no growth
= lower tax revenues

Still, I am not saying that this is the case EVERY TIME. I'm saying that it is a lot more complicated than you think.

>>9548030
No, that's not elaborate at all. It's pretty simple.

>>9548461
It's fairly simple. Revenue by the US Federal government as a function of GDP is essentially constant over time. Taxes can be avoided and people do avoid them.

>>9542538
Agreed. Communism is brainlet tier.

>>9548750
>the only options are capitalism and communism

>>9546136
There are no such thing as "universal rights". Freedom, whether negative or positive is something that is earned.

>>9548755
Communists have monopolized "anti-capitalism", so basically yeah.

>>9542712
Bingo bongo. This man's got the right idea.

>>9546504
The Marxist communism that everyone spouts thinking that will be in place if communism is adopted is just Hegelian Marxism. A type of Marxism that pushes materialism and paying attention to "the working class" and only that class. As in the rich and impoverished are still a thing but "TWC" is blinded by each other and materialism so much they don't pay those other classes any mind. So rich stay rich and poor stay poor and those who are vocal just buy things and give money away to try to blind themselves to it.
Which is actually what we are doing today anyways.

>>9542529
If you have a better economic system ready at hand, please!

Otherwise, stfu retard.

Yes, keeping scientific articles behind paywalls is absolutely terrible. But the reason behind that is not "muh capitalism".

Next time THINK before you post.

>>9550741
>"this tastes like shit"
>"if you have better ingredients ready at hand, please, otherwise stfu retard"

>>9550796
The choice is nutrition that tastes like shit or starving to death while eating your lack of solution

>>9550796
>food analogy

>>9542529
(((Capitalism)))

>>9542538
Fpbp

>>9546416

>>9542529
>people work and spent a huge amount of time into their publication
>companies provide money for said people to do their work
>publisher provides a platfom
>hurrrr education has to be for everyone because most of the sub100 niggerkids have the right to read
Bookprinting and Gutenbergs work was a mistake, a shame that plebs are allowed to read and do science

>>9548763
exactly

>>9551491
kek

>>9551683
>people work and spent a huge amount of time into their publication
>journals deserve the money for this hard work

>>9551683
you don't know how research works and most of it is not done by companies

>>9551683
>People work extremely hard producing research
>Journals and companies profit off there handwork for doing barely anything.
Capitalists think that this okay.

>when the authors dont upload to a preprint server

>>9552461
>letting people see research for free
What are you, a communist?

>>9552466
please learn what that word means before using it

>>9551683
This only makes sense for fields with lives at stake, like medicine. There's no reason to limit access to physics papers.

>>9550796
That analogy is so bad I am honestly worried about you

>>9542529
I'm fairly certain that most of the time when people complain about capitalism and say they want communism, it's actually nazism that they truly desire but they're too much of a bitch faggot to say so.

But that's not cool among all the numales you hang out with in coffee shops. Viva la revolution!

>>9542772
>scarcity always exists
>...
you cant just hop on over that you fucking faggot
what do you mean scarcity always exists? On everything? You think you can compare the scarcity of valuable minerals to pappers that can be cheaply copied?

>>9553118
No, but I can compare the scarcity of people willing to go get the minerals to the scarcity of people willing to pay for collecting, reviewing, archiving, and distributing papers.

>>9552909
That analogy is what he said, so thanks for making my point.

>>9552909
If you have a better analogy ready at hand, please!

Otherwise, stfu retard.

Next time THINK before you post.

>when capitalism is obviously failing but the solution is to double down on capitalism and make more fidget spinners

>>9553148
>willing
mfw

Why makes circles when i can kick the squares...

>>9553024

>>9552219
Selfless service. Beyond selfishness, if they spread that knowledge it benefits everyone. They probably have a job to get them through life anyway.

>>9547882
It's make believe

>>9555422
?

>>9543474
>only children like me who are in university should have access to scientific articles
lol

>>9542608
>50 million
Why does the left always pull numbers out of their ass? Also have you ever heard of EBT. Capitalism may not be perfect but ITS STILL THE BEST SYSTEM THATS EVER BEEN TRIED

>>9556036
lol

>>9556029
Having a collective perspective

>>9556177
And that means journals don't need to have that perspective?

>>9556177
let's say i paint a pretty picture (or write a science paper) I'd like everyone who would like the opportunity to have my data for free, because it's good for everyone and has knock on effects. Like someone else reads my paper and makes connections that would have laid dormantly undiscovered, going on to create more and improve knowledge. All of humanity benefits instead of blocking the information flow, hampering innovation and discovery.

>>9556191
nothing stops you from doing this

literally nothing

>>9556198
Yeah. That is infact correct...
Nothing stops everyone else either, except it it's not happening.

>>9556185
at what cost

Muh profiteering
https://youtu.be/R3Xh9gRWUWI

>>9542529
shit, now i lose all the papers i used for debunking race deniers

>>9543615
Look, Marx didn't even know math, none of his concepts are useful in any way, you can't calculate use value and surplus value, they might as well not exist. And predicting that there will be economic crisis is easy if you don't need to tell when, how, and which securities should I short so I can get rich off of it.

>>9556228
rational conclusion:
>I guess we don't want it as much as we say we do, words are cheap after all
irrational conclusion:
>we unironically have to get rid of capitalism
media's reporting of a conclusion:
>we could have nice things if it weren't for those meddling russians

>>9556276
What is 'it'?

>>9556228
>it's not happening
Maybe there's a paper on arxiv that explains why no one is making any papers available for free.

>>9542529
I'm aware of the imperfections with capitalism, but what system would work better?

>>9556334
The way

>>9556325
Did not say nobody is. But everybody is not. So innovation is held back. This goes beyond science papers too.

>>9542529
Do you even know what capitalism really is about?? Hint: nobody forces scientists to continue publishing in the most hostile journals.

>>9556520
i refuse to post in "hostile journals" but even non-hostile journals are typically behind paywalls. All the best journals in my field are IEEE, ACM, or AIAA and they are not open access unless you want to pay crazy high fees that most employers would not pay

I don't give a fuck about anyone or anything. If I'm researching something and what I need to know is behind a paywall; I'm circumventing it like I have been doing since I was 5