/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1758371]

Any economist in here at the moment? Would subsidizing minimum wage jobs help put the economy back on track rather than throwing in a $50 billion stimulus plan?

[Anonymous No.1758384]

I don't remember that fromt he movie.

[Anonymous No.1758388]

No.

Inb4 Paul Krugman.

[Anonymous No.1758392]

>>1758384
it wasn't, first thing that came to mind when I thought about economy

[Anonymous No.1758391]

Stimulus = better for unemployment because it creates new jobs
Subsidized = better for underemployment, doesnt create new jobs until the money filters through the system, and even then the companies might sit on the money rather than hire

[Anonymous No.1758402]

>>1758388
>He thinks governments create jobs

[Anonymous No.1758408]

>>1758371
if and only if it subsidized new jobs and not current ones.

[Anonymous No.1758413]

Depends on how it's implemented, but theoretically you would be giving money to the poor classes, who tend to spend more money instead of save, which would increase consumer demand (more cashflow), which is something that is low right now.

However, subsidizing minimum wage jobs even a little bit would cost ridiculous amounts of money, methinks.

I don't think employers would do anything about it DIRECTLY because it's not coming out of their pocket, but I think salary/hourly pay raises would decrease because employers would overall consider workers to be making more.

[Anonymous No.1758419]

[Anonymous No.1758421]

Minimum wage jobs are not that important to the economy. Anything the government did to try to basically underwrite the economy into health would either be laughably inadequate or would bankrupt the government, or both.

[Anonymous No.1758430]

Protip: diverting resources from productive activities to non and counter productive activities will hinder economic growth, not help it.

[Anonymous No.1758443]

>>1758413
would probably cost as much as welfare, subsidize minimum wage jobs decrease welfare budget.

[Anonymous No.1758451]

I'm taking microeconomics (not an economist, sorry), and from what I gather government interference seem to have either NO consequences (like if a price floor/ceiling is placed inaccurately), or numerous NEGATIVE consequences leading to surpluses and deficits, with lots of resources allocated to the wrong places.

From what I gather it seems best if the government just sticks to essential social services (police, firemen, military, etc.) and does as little economic tinkering as possible. A big reason for the problem is that politicians only think in the short-term (what will get them elected) and couldn't care less about the long-term issues (which they can blame on whoever takes office after them).

[Anonymous No.1758464]

>>1758451
Yes, yes, your first paragraph is correct.

But the free market can handle fire departments and police too.

(Inb4 shitstorm. Bring it on, statistis.)

[Anonymous No.1758479]

>>1758464

You nigger have any empirical data for that?

[Anonymous No.1758482]

>Would subsidizing minimum wage jobs help put the economy back on track
Help'd in third world countries like Argentina and Uruguay. They barely felt the economic meltdow.

[Anonymous No.1758488]

>>1758479
Somalia. http://mises.org/daily/2066

But seriously, how about, the free market handles EVERY OTHER business better than government.

[Anonymous No.1758514]

>>1758464
If we leave police to the free market, we'd end up with differing groups of police competing for our payments. While this might lead to better police, how is it different than a gang?

[Anonymous No.1758523]

>>1758514
How is the State different from the most powerful gang driving all others out of business?

[Anonymous No.1758532]

>>1758523
It provides you with infrastructure, border control, police, prisons, court houses, keeps corps in check, and at least doesn't officially wants to harm you.

[Anonymous No.1758539]

>>1758523

The people are the ones in power over the state?

Really? REALLY? This wasn't obvious?

[Anonymous No.1758555]

>>1758523
Ummm...it is subject to internal and external scrutiny?
Public offices are....public?
It spends its money on public infrastructure and not drugs, hookers and fast cars?

[Anonymous No.1758560]

>>1758451
First of all, politics is normative. Allocative efficiency is one among many considerations. While government interference may lead to losses in social surplus, it might help achieve some other criteria worth considering (such as redistributing from rich to poor).

Second, where a market failure occurs, interference may improve the situation. Natural monopolies, externalities etc.

And of course, the public goods problem.
>>1758464
The free market leads to the underproduction of public goods. You're welcome to present and argument why this is not the case.

>>1758479
Austrian economists usually reject appeals to empirical data. After all, economics is far too complex to allow for falsification and testability. Instead, we begin with some true axioms (lol) and derive our economic theory from it.

[Anonymous No.1758563]

>>1758532
I'm sorry but why wouldn't private companies provide infrastructure or want to harm you? Now, if you're talking about privatized police versus government police, the gang argument makes sense. But no one ever says letting the free market handle roads would be gangs handling roads. This was about the police.

So, if privatized police = gangs, then what is the government police except the most powerful gang?

Sure, the government does a lot of other stuff too. But those can all be handled by the market (or shouldn't be done in the first place), and the gang argument is irrelevant to them.

>>1758539
>The people are the ones in power over the state?
this is what statists actually believe.jpg

[Anonymous No.1758562]

>>1758523
Most importantly, it is the only line of defense against environmental harm by the corps.

[Anonymous No.1758574]

"The state" is the free-market solution to the public goods problem. Check mate, libertarian faggots.

[Anonymous No.1758579]

I was against this proposal
But the economy seems to have turn around and we're not heading to another recession after all. Maybe the mention of the stimulus plan has reactivated the economy.

[Anonymous No.1758585]

>>1758560
>Implying there are public goods.
>Implying underproduction can be empirically detected.
>Implying the government is producing the right amount of security
>Implying this even though CRIME RATE
>Implying the government can know what the right of security is.

[Anonymous No.1758587]

>>1758574
Christ is the evolutionary solution to the species problem. Checkmate, atheists.

[Anonymous No.1758600]

>>1758560
>Implying Austrians reject all tests and falsifications
>Implying Austrians never write about economic history
>Implying Austrians never use economic history to demolish Keynesianism

[Anonymous No.1758605]

>>1758563
>I'm sorry but why wouldn't private companies provide infrastructure or want to harm you?
Because their interests are strictly financial and only serve the interests of the shareholders.
I never trust anyone who does things only for the money.
A corporation might wish to rid himself of a specific segment or group of a specific population for damaging its sales for some reason, and it can with no police forces present.
Also, indirectly, a corp can simply choose to provide with a product/service of minimal manufacturing cost which could be detrimental to the public's health.
>Now, if you're talking about privatized police versus government police, the gang argument makes sense. But no one ever says letting the free market handle roads would be gangs handling roads. This was about the police.
Straw man much?
It would be gangs handling roads.
Nothing stops them from assembling them in a manner which controls movement, and thus the economy to their best financial interests.
>This was about the police.
Any privately owned police would answer only to their owners. They're not police officers, they're mercenaries. Fuck this.
>Sure, the government does a lot of other stuff too.
Yes, such as keeping us safe and providing with the environmental benefits that we require in order to function as a society.
Public infrastructure are not naturally occurring phenomena.
>But those can all be handled by the market
No, and shouldn't be.
>(or shouldn't be done in the first place),
No.
>and the gang argument is irrelevant to them.
Lolno.

[Anonymous No.1758615]

>>1758488
somalia being a veritable haven for intelligent libertarians.

This is one of those phases the grown ups talked about. You'll grow out of it and probably be voting democrat within 10 years.

[Anonymous No.1758631]

I'm an anarchist. I refuse to accept I hold citizenship of any country, as I have signed no document, and never gave permission to be subject to these laws.

That said, if you seriously believe life without one government is going to be better than one with, you're fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.1758634]

>>1758605
>He thinks all private corporations are gangs
>mfw

[Anonymous No.1758635]

>>1758560
>While government interference may lead to losses in social surplus, it might help achieve some other criteria worth considering (such as redistributing from rich to poor).

Eh, in theory. Let's say apartments are so expensive that only the rich can afford them (only people paying at or above the equilibrium price get to live in them).

The government decides to step in and allow everyone the ability to get an apartment by setting a price ceiling on how much apartments can charge for rent.

What this means:
Quantity supplied drops--because apartment owners can't make as much and get out of the business.
Quantity demanded increases--because the demand curve just opened up and lots more people are able to afford it than before.
Shortage--Quantity demand outnumbers quantity supplied.
Poor allocation of resources--those few apartment businesses still in the game are going to find other ways to make money (jacking up secondary prices like deposits, fees, parking passes, new paint, etc.).

It's still only the rich who can afford it, so all we've done is cover up the problem by creating the illusion that the poor can afford it too.

[Anonymous No.1758638]

>>1758634
>Implying I ever implied that
If anything, libtards think all private corps are the ultimate good.

[Anonymous No.1758643]

>>1758634
>he thinks they aren't
Look at what shell are doing in niger, where there are no laws to hold them back.

[Anonymous No.1758646]

>>1758638
>he doesn't realize the implications of his own rhetoric

[Anonymous No.1758649]

>>1758643
>he thinks libertarians want to legalize murder
>he thinks anarchists want chaos

[Anonymous No.1758650]

You libertarians, all you care about is money. This world deserves a better class of criminals. And I'm gonna give it to them.

Libertarians worship money, and by doing so, are no better than engineers.
GTFO my /sci/.

[Anonymous No.1758656]

>>1758646
>He imposes his own fallacious interpretation to my rhetoric

[Anonymous No.1758660]

>>1758585
>Implying there are public goods.
There are. National defense, for instance. Non-excludable and non-rival.
>Implying underproduction can be empirically detected.
Irrelevant.
>Implying the government is producing the right amount of security
Strawman. (ie, no, didn't imply that)
>Implying this even though CRIME RATE
Strawman
>Implying the government can know what the right of security is.
False dichotomy. It's not "Either the state gets it right or we rather have nothing".

>>1758600
>Implying Austrians reject all tests and falsifications
True. Massive confirmation bias going on over at the Austrian camps. The "cannot falsify economics" is usually pulled out when Austrian bullshit is falsified.
>Implying Austrians never write about economic history
Of course they do. To find confirming instances of their ideology and to ignore disconfirming instances.
>Implying Austrians never use economic history to demolish Keynesianism
Keynesianism has its flaws but it's so superior to Austrian economics, it's ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.1758663]

>>1758635
>I don't know how to economics

really, take a class or something before you come up with stuff like this.

-The housing market didn't stop because prices dropped
-supply matches demand
-Shortage would be temporary
-more regulation, problem solved

[Anonymous No.1758672]

>Human rights concerns by Shell

>In the beginning of 1996, several human rights groups brought cases to hold Shell accountable for alleged human rights violations in Nigeria, including summary execution, crimes against humanity, torture, inhumane treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention.
>In particular, Shell stood accused of ­collaborating in the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other leaders of the Ogoni tribe of southern Nigeria, who were hanged in 1995 by Nigeria's then military rulers.[36]
>The lawsuits were brought against Royal Dutch Shell and Brian Anderson, the head of its Nigerian operation.[37]
>In 2009, Shell agreed to pay $15.5m in a legal settlement [36].
>Shell has not accepted any liability over the allegations against it.[38]

>In 2009, Shell was the subject of an Amnesty International report into the deterioration of human rights as a consequence of Shell's activities in the Niger Delta.
>In particular, Amnesty criticized the continuation of gas flaring and Shell's slow response to oil spills.[39]

I would love to see this happen to a small town of white middle class libertarians in a post-governmental world, when an oil company discovers the town is situated above a multi-billion dollar oil deposit.
We'll see what your lives are worth to them.

[Anonymous No.1758675]

>>1758663
>-The housing market didn't stop because prices dropped
I never said that.

>-supply matches demand
No, because charging the equilibrium (where the supply and demand curves cross) would be ILLEGAL, as it's above the price ceiling.

>-Shortage would be temporary
And how's that working out?

>-more regulation, problem solved
Didn't regulation *start* this problem?

[Anonymous No.1758688]

>>1758660
>Keynesianism has its flaws but it's so superior to Austrian economics, it's ridiculous.
>Economist who thinks pyramid building and war is good superior to anything

[Anonymous No.1758696]

[Anonymous No.1758697]