/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3028359]

Why are the people on this site leftists?

Don't you people know that corporations are the main drivers of technological progress?

64% of the American SciTech sector is private

[Anonymous No.3028376]

Most of 4chan is comprised of teenagers.

[Anonymous No.3028391]

Because the reality has liberal bias.

And corporations only play nice when forced to. Pure capitalism is indistinguishable from fascism.

[Anonymous No.3028395]

>>3028376
Yeah that explains a lot

But I thought this board was made up of people in college.

I would have thought they would be capable of rational independent thought.

[Anonymous No.3028397]

Because the right wing, at least in America, is in bed with the religious fundamentalists.

Frankly, due to their purported profit motive, it should be the right wing who are pushing for technology. But no, it goes against their superstitions.

It does make sense that the left wing would be more in favor of the pie in the sky sciences, with practical applications in decades or never.

[Anonymous No.3028405]

If there was ever a thread where /sci/'s resident economist was actually needed, this is it.

[Anonymous No.3028407]

>>3028395
>Board made up of college kids
>Expecting conservatives

laughingcowcheese.gif

[Anonymous No.3028412]

>>3028395
>But I thought this board was made up of people in college.
Almost entirely freshman/sophomore morons with terrible grades nowhere close to graduating. There's a reason why republicans tend to be older. When you grow up and start learning how shit actually works, you ditch the retarded pot-laden ideas.

/Farther right grad student

[Anonymous No.3028415]

>>3028391
Wow the lack of facts and rational thought in this post is appalling.

Please stop mimicking things you hear and think for yourself child.

Also how do you Explain SpaceX a company thats only goal is to colonize space, not make a profit?

[Anonymous No.3028419]

>>3028395
>ad homs, ad homs everywhere
thread confirmed for troll

[Anonymous No.3028420]

>>3028407
More like libertarians

but I guess im wrong

[Anonymous No.3028439]

>>3028397
But there are multiple groups on the right.

[Anonymous No.3028441]

>>3028397
>It does make sense that the left wing would be more in favor of the pie in the sky sciences, with practical applications in decades or never.
Please, they'd rather take money from actual tech companies and the people that work there and hand it to worthless sacks of shit with 9 kids from 10 different fathers.

Throwing a few bucks at some "green energy research" and college grants is a big net loss when you had to take the money away from the productive members of society first.

[Anonymous No.3028445]

>>3028412
that must also be why they are far more likely to have a 4 year degree

[Anonymous No.3028447]

and how much of those "private" companies subsist on federal contracts?

hmmmm?

[Anonymous No.3028452]

>>3028359

Logic is not a strong suit for the people on this site.

[Anonymous No.3028455]

The single most effective method of distributing goods and services is the free market. That being said there are a few necessary regulations.

[Anonymous No.3028456]

>>3028415
>Also how do you Explain SpaceX a company thats only goal is to colonize space, not make a profit?

It's not quite that clear-cut.

http://www.spacex.com/company.php

[Anonymous No.3028473]

>>3028359
Probably because the universe is asymmetrical

[Anonymous No.3028474]

>implying that modern liberalism did not create the sci tech sector by pumping it with federal dollars to subsidize the growth of the American economy under the guise of halting communism


sure is simplistic jingoism in here

Try actually understanding how western society works

[Anonymous No.3028479]

gb2 >>>/new/

[Anonymous No.3028493]

>>3028359

Because the education system has been co-opted by the state, giving intellectuals a big push to develop state oriented philosophies.

[Deist No.3028500]

>>3028447

This. "Private" industries in america seem to be just developing technology for military contracts.

OP, i dont know why you're conflating being left leaning with hating corporations.

[Anonymous No.3028512]

>>3028493
But Republicans hold about half of the power of the state.

So why is it mainly democratic ideas in schools?

[Anonymous No.3028519]

>>3028500
Except apple, Google, Microsoft, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, IBM, ect...

[Anonymous No.3028524]

>>3028439

True, but in the US, they are mostly under the Republican umbrella. And the religious lobby within that party is powerful enough to pretty much steer the whole thing.

>>3028441

There are decent argument against the welfare state. But it's hardly a partisan issue any longer, since Republicans are just as interested in big government as Democrats. And since they're both going to take my money anyway, I have to choose; my money has to go to either; the oligarchs of the Republican party, or the idealists of the Democratic party; I'd rather it go to the people who are going to fund environmentalism and theoretical science.

[Anonymous No.3028525]

>right-wingers scientifically confirmed to usually respond to emotions rather than logic
>left-wingers scientifically confirmed to usually respond to logic rather than emotions

But of course this was brought to you by the gosh-durn no-good liberal left-winger soviet stalin science, not the good, patriotic, god-fearing Only Good Science.

Now, go back to /new/.

[Deist No.3028528]

>>3028512

Rational self interest. When you're in college and poor, you would like more government help. When you leave college and get some money, you dont want people to take your money.

[Anonymous No.3028554]

>>3028525
>Says liberals are swayed by logic instead of emotion
>Forgot inexperienced nobody got elected present by a combination of hope, change, and being marginally black.

[Deist No.3028557]

I dont see why there is all this arguing of the left vs the right. The entire thing seems rather clear cut and simple.

The left is correct in that the government has no place interfering in your life. How dare they pass laws legislating their morality on you.

The left is correct in that the free market, with some commonsense restrictions, is the best way to allocate resources to everyone.

The republican party is bought and paid for by their corporate masters and religious lobbies. The religious among them want to legislate their morality on everybody else. The corporations want the republicans to give them grants, subsidies, and tax loopholes.

I really do not see how anyone in America could support the right wing. They are literally retarded, most of the presidential candidates from their side don't believe in evolution. They dont get laughed at for that, on the right its considered a credible position.

[Anonymous No.3028565]

>>3028519
All of those companies owe the entirety of their being to the government. Um, computers?

And LOL fucking private aerospace companies? Are you fucking kidding me? The entire industry was developed on the backs of the American taxpayer. SpaceX is not reinventing the wheel (or rocket, as it were.)

[Anonymous No.3028566]

>>3028525
I'd say that reflects positively on Conservatives, because logic cannot motivate an action or policy. It's impossible to deduce from logic what you should do or refrain from doing, so if conservatives base their decision on feelings, that means they are considering the right domain of thought. Leftists who "respond to logic" to choose policy are abusing logic by definition. The study would seem to indicate that Conservatives respect logic by not misapplying it and acknowledge that human feelings drive policy decisions.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028576]

I aint no laftist.

Honey, go git my gun, some city slicker called me a "laftist" or sumpm

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3028584]

>>3028566
This word salad is delicious.

[Anonymous No.3028586]

>Because the reality has liberal bias.
If that was true you wouldn't need to invest so much time and effort into leveling the playing field, it would happen naturally but it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.3028597]

>>3028576
Good, you're here. Set right those people that have gone wrong.

[Anonymous No.3028600]

>>3028566
>It's impossible to deduce from logic what you should do or refrain from doing
That's exactly what I meant.

Logically, it's thought to be pretty fucking stupid to shitty up the only known place you can live in.

Emotionally, it feels pretty fucking clever to enjoy your time and not care about the future.

[Anonymous No.3028607]

>>3028584
That's a nice argumentum ad lapidem. If you disagree with my central contention, perhaps you could give an example of how the correct policy stance can be chosen through logic?

[Anonymous No.3028616]

>>3028512

>But Republicans hold about half of the power of the state.

That is nearly irrelevant to why people in teachers are more liberal, and republicans are becoming increasingly prostate. Look at classical liberalism. Look at how Bush expanded the federal government's role in schools.

>So why is it mainly democratic ideas in schools?

Because schools are intertwine with the state. Therefore philosophies that uses the state are very prevalent.

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3028627]

>>3028607
I would have to operate under the presumption that the word 'logic' held an intelligible meaning for you, and I daresay that seems quite unlikely at the moment.

[Anonymous No.3028631]

http://vimeo.com/4798314

[Anonymous No.3028635]

>>3028525

Liberals got their asses handed to them on a daily basis on /new/, god damn was it embarrassing...

Because of this moot got butthurt, and being the fucking jew he is, he went on to delete the whole board.

[Anonymous No.3028636]

>>3028600

>Logically, it's thought to be pretty fucking stupid to shitty up the only known place you can live in.

Really? If this is inferable from logic, perhaps you'd care to supply that logic? How do we derive from logic that it is "pretty fucking stupid" to "shitty up the only known place you can live in?"

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028641]

>>3028597

a'ight, I'ma a do it in a silly 'ol acsunt too.

The truth ais... Iunno whai dis has got to be an ishue. aint ait in the intrast of both corpurations and the guvment fur there to be technological progress?

I dun feel like dis ais a lef er right ishue.

[Anonymous No.3028644]

>>3028600
>thinks subsidizing nigger procreation is somehow preferable to some temporary pollution

[Anonymous No.3028648]

>>3028359

>Conservatives hate change.

>The entire fucking universe is about change.

>mfw Universe has liberal bias.

Conservatives are the shit-tier and scum of universe.

They all have an intrinsic understanding of the fact that they are shit and scum, which is why they rage so hard.

[Anonymous No.3028654]

>>3028627
I'd say the evidence currently weighs in favour of *you* not understanding logic, what with your continual employment of fallacies and the general tendency that seems to be present in liberals.

That aside, perhaps even if I'm the basest sort of moron, you could still deign to provide your reasoning rather than just making an assertion?

[Anonymous No.3028660]

>>3028636
> How do we derive from logic that it is "pretty fucking stupid" to "shitty up the only known place you can live in?"
Ah, okay, now I see where you're coming from.
Lost interest in trying to pursue any kind of discourse, because taking that step is beyond you.
Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.3028672]

>>3028641
>aint ait in the intrast of both corpurations and the guvment fur there to be technological progress?

Okay, I'll take this one. Technological progress is not always in the best interest of government. Let's say a device is invented that blocks all satellite surveillance within a 2.5km radius and can be built for about $50 with parts from Radio Shack. That would certainly throw a wrench in things, wouldn't it?

I would agree that governments and corporations are both generally for technological progress. But in certain areas, that support either lessens or becomes outright opposition.

[Anonymous No.3028676]

>>3028648
Its not DONT CHANGE FUCKING ANYTHING.

its more of a "Don't fix whats not broken" viewpoint

[Anonymous No.3028687]

>>3028648
>Conservatives hate change.

No. Conservatives hate change that does not profit them. Same as everyone else, really.

[Deist No.3028691]

>>3028672

Of course the government likes that idea if they're the ones developing it and they classify it.

Eventually it will be developed somewhere, there ARE other countries, its in their best interest for it to be developed here first so they can plan to deal with it.

It is ALWAYS in the interest of the government (as it is originally conceived, a organization meant to service its citizens)

[Anonymous No.3028694]

Only 64%? That sucks, considering the the private sector has a much bigger share of the revenue

[Deist No.3028699]

>>3028676

>Humans die
>People die and starve all the time
>Pain and suffering run rampant

>Not broken

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028700]

>>3028672

>Let's say a device is invented that blocks all satellite surveillance within a 2.5km radius and can be built for about $50 with parts from Radio Shack. That would certainly throw a wrench in things, wouldn't it?

Hyee weell.. that be true, an thats some real trubble we go-

*ahem*

I mean.. Yeah thats a real concern. I think once we start getting into the specifics we can find circumstances, where the government, or individual companies or industries might attempt to block the development of certain technologies. But you cant make generalized statements about the government or companies.

People just need to be aware of that. And as citizens and consumers we should fight those kind of behaviors when we see them.

Thats just what I think, and I think we mostly agree.

[Anonymous No.3028704]

>>3028616

>republicans are becoming increasingly prostate
>increasingly prostate
>prostate
Rofl

/thread /news/ is this way ------>/int/

[Anonymous No.3028711]

>>3028700
resident /sci/ economist, stop being so fucking reasonable.

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3028714]

>>3028654
No, I don't fight with straw men. But we'll just cover the basic point:

Your original post, was not a coherent argument but merely a tissue of opinions and value judgements sewn together with strong, assertive language.

I can vaguely see the notion of not deriving an "ought" from an "is" hiding in there, but it's severely handicapped by the fact that you've transcribed the original post in harsher and more overt language than that in which it originally was presented.

So no, I don't care to discuss your views on preferring absolute emotion over absolute logic since neither notion is grounded in anything but your fantasies.

[Anonymous No.3028718]

>>3028691
>its in their best interest for it to be developed here first so they can plan to deal with it.
>It is ALWAYS in the interest of the government

No. It is sometimes in the interest of government that a technology or technological product is never developed or is suppressed as quickly as possible after its development. Again, technological progress in general, yes. All technological progress, no.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028724]

Here is just an example.

I play the drums. And I go through drum sticks pretty quickly. I think my drum stick expense is like $150 annually. Now, in the last 100 years there have been some technological advancements in drum stick technology. They are made out of wood, but to increase durability nylon and metal tips have been invented because they dont wear down like hickory or maple will with high impacts.

Ive always wondered:

"Couldnt we build drum sticks with roughly the same size and mass out of metal? Which would greatly reduce the costs to the consumer?"

I cant figure out why this hasnt happened yet. It must be feasible to test and prototype, and the drum stick market is semi-competitive (like all market). Is this some shifty-eye back door mutual understanding all drum stick manufacturers think?

Whats up with that?

[Anonymous No.3028728]

>What's the first thing you should do when you see a conservative?

>Shove their head an a meat grinder where it belongs.

u jelly?

[Deist No.3028729]

>>3028718

Always. All technological progress. Always in their best interest that it be developed. Always.

I think you and I differ in what we view the government's role in society is though. It would take a long and involved discussion for me to explain my views to you.

So you're right going by your paradigm, i'm, if not right, at least internally consistent in mine. I wont argue the point i just assert my disagreement.

[Anonymous No.3028741]

>>3028714

You're just immune to reason. You just look at any reasoning you don't like and say "that's nonsense" or "that's incoherent." How am I supposed to respond? There is obviously nothing I can say or do but point out the fact that you are an intellectual cripple who refuses even to allow that words have meanings, because those apparently are woeful "absolutes."

Go climb a wall of dicks.

[Anonymous No.3028744]

>>3028729
I think the problem is that I am speaking of government as in "the governments, in general, that exist now," and not of the very ideal of government as I think it should be. My ideal government would not support all technological progress, for various reasons. But I see where you're coming from.

[Anonymous No.3028745]

>>3028391
no, pure capitalism has an informed populace (which could easily be achieved by wikileaks) which has a moderate degree of autonomy (the current internet generation fills this role very nicely)

any corp acting greedy or seemingly acting greedy/immoral is actively shunned and their products not bought. it's literally COSTLY to be greedy at that point

also you are an idiot

[Anonymous No.3028750]

>>3028724
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=metal+drumsticks

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028752]

>>3028729

What about in Nazi Germany, trying to suppress the usage of radio as that would give citizens knowledge about the reality of the war?

Technology gives people advantages, whether thats a person, a populace, a government, or a company, and sometimes one group wont want the other group to have such an advantage. I think that makes sense.

There is an inevitability aspect "I dont want this to have this technology, but, its going to happen, and if I work to oppose it Im just going to look stupider than its worth."

[Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM No.3028767]

>>3028745
>pure capitalism
An idealized system that will actually exist around the same time that pure communism comes into being.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028777]

>>3028745

You can never be informed enough to have a real free market.

For example, when you go see a doctor, despite how available the entire history of medicine is to you, you still have to trust the doctors diagnosis as genuine.

I just wanted to point out that this problem will always exist.

When it comes to, like, car companies, if you knew everything, you could say "Hey wait a minute, this corrola is priced at a rate that will likely generate .046% profit margins. ARE YOU TRYING TO RIP ME OFF? Im going to go next door, which will cost me $40 of time and energy so I could deny such a greedy car company such as yourself my business!" but thats just stupid.

[Anonymous No.3028783]

64% ???

Is that significantly different from 36% ??? Let me think about my basic statistics here...

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3028786]

>pic related

[Anonymous No.3028790]

Umad, conservatives?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028792]

>>3028790

Yeah but what percentage of engineers are republicans?

[Anonymous No.3028793]

>>3028786
Yep, I'm so mad that I made you misfire through pure rage.

in before deleted

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.3028796]

>>3028777
A free market doesn't necessitate omniscient actors.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028801]

>>3028796

No, but it necessitates symetry of information, and even if the car company doesnt know everything, the consumer certainly knows less than the car company.

[Anonymous No.3028802]

>>3028792

Engineers aren't /sci/entists. If you want to discuss engineering, go here:
>>>/y/

>see what I did there

[Anonymous No.3028803]

>>3028790
>he thinks Republicans are conservatives

[Anonymous No.3028807]

>>3028803
>The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal."

[Anonymous No.3028811]

>>3028801
No, neoclassical models necessitate symmetry of information.

Also, there's nothing wrong with profit that comes as a result of voluntary exchanges.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028812]

>>3028802

YOU TRICKED ME. I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE ENGINEERING BOARD. YOU CANT DO THAT TO ME. IM NOT SOME QUEER LIKE YOU. HOW DARE YOU SEND ME TO SOME FAGGOT CARTOON GAY HAVEN. YOU THINK YOU ARE SO FUNNY. WELL YOU ARENT. YO-

>Oh I see what you did there.

[Anonymous No.3028821]

>>3028807
>he thinks conservatives are conservatives

[Anonymous No.3028823]

>>3028801
It doesn't necessitate symmetry of information either. You're just making up arbitrary requirements that are not actually a part of the definition of free market.

[Anonymous No.3028827]

>>3028821

[Anonymous No.3028831]

>>3028359
We need a bit of both...A corporation's motive is purely for profit, a scientists wants to help, but also needs money to survive and live. This goes hand in hand.

However, endeavors such as space exploration (no profit motive besides maybe sparse space tourism), alternative fuels (Until markets crash when fossil fuels becomes truly scarce, nothing can beat it by price) and other such ideas won't get the attention they really should.

So, we need a little of both for humanity's sake.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028837]

>>3028811

Im not going to claim neoclassical ideas are perfect, but I think its true that you need a decent amount of symetry of information for a market to be free.

If you could convince the entire populace that Cinnamin toast crunch is God's gift to mankind, and that I have to hire at least 12 arch bishops to pray round the clock for Jesus himself to deliver each bowls worth to my firm and that justifies my price of 50 billion dollars per box. If there was perfect asymetry and everyone believed that piece of information, I could successfully run my Cinnamin Toast crunch business at 50 billion dollars a box (maybe I wouldnt want to, but I could)

Also, Im not saying there is implicitly something wrong with someone making profit, but the one guy said there was. And if there is, in an unrealistic world where people can compete there should be a competitive firm willing to price it at a point where they will make 0 profit, which would be a better deal.

[Anonymous No.3028840]

>>3028831
>space exploration (no profit motive besides maybe sparse space tourism)

Asteroid mining.

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.3028841]

>>3028801
No, it doesn't. A free market is characterised by the absence of coercion, consumer/producer information assymetry is not coercive.

Under your definition, it's not a free market if a firm has access to better information than its competitors, thus being able to make more correct predictions and hence respond to consumer demand.

[Anonymous No.3028850]

>>3028821

Perhaps you meant this jokingly, but the self-applied labels "liberal" and "conservative" really aren't very meaningful. A clear distinction can be drawn between ideologies, but self-applied labels are largely influenced by social identity and groupthink.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028853]

>>3028823

I dont think I am just making that up. Thats a concept thats been instilled in me by my professors. And it makes sense to me too.

As wikipedia says "Several Nobel Prizes in Economics have been awarded for analyses of market failures due to asymmetric information."

I do believe Arrow was one of those nobel prize winners, and he proposed this idea.

[Anonymous No.3028860]

>>3028777
Well isn't the internet changing all that? Is the internet not the free market at work and at its best?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028864]

>>3028841
See>>3028853

Yes under my definition its not a free marked if a firm has access to better information than its competitors.

For instance, in the stock market, to prevent fraud, you have to operate only off publically known information.

[Anonymous No.3028868]

for everyone pissing on capitalism
go to pretty much any primarily communist or socialist state

>stand in line for tickets to get fish
>every day
>Standing in line
>in the cold
>with no medical care

[Anonymous No.3028871]

>>3028853
Your post seems to be completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not "free market" implies "no information asymmetry."

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028880]

>>3028860

I think the internet definitely helps. And thats a really good thing. But its only minimizing a problem that can never really go away.

No matter how many inside reports that circulate the internet, a smart, and completely well informed insider at a company cant be made completely helpless.

[Anonymous No.3028891]

People innovate, not corporations.

Even if what you were implying were true - that innovation without capitalism is nonexistent or severely limited - I wouldn't care. People matter more than profit.

[Anonymous No.3028895]

>>3028880
soooooooooooooooooo
all secret immoral dealings, or a significant number of them, can be kept secret regardless of the number of people "in" on it?
have you watched loose change recently sir

also also
>implying that even a completely government run economy would be immune to corruption or illegal activities.

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.3028899]

>>3028864
Insider trading != fraud.

[Anonymous No.3028902]

>>3028837
Your neoclassical classes are clouding your thinking. Perfect competition is just a model. In reality, competition is the process where firms in the same market try to offer more compelling products at better prices than their competitors. There will always be some product differentiation and that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.3028904]

>Why are the people on this site leftists?

Most of them are below the age of 24 and therefore ignorant, without jobs, living with their parents, etc.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028907]

>>3028871

Okay, this goes back to an issue I was facing earlier.

Does free market, just mean, an untampered market? Some people (like what it says on wikipedia) say a free market has to have no barriers to entry.

I find there are two definitions for "free market"
1. A market in which people are free to do whatever they want, this is so broad that free markets include the markets that fail, and thus I would say "Markets should not always be free"
2. A market that mets an infinite number of impossible criteria, such as infinite buyers and sellers, perfect competition, completely symmetry of information, no barriers to entry, etc. In which case i would say "free markets dont exist"

So which definition are we working with?

[dUnK !!mcRsdBM7ATI No.3028914]

>>3028899
Hello again.

[Anonymous No.3028919]

>>3028837
Well, you set up that one Cinnamon toast crunch argument to be too unrealistic. We all have an intrinsic sense of value through the measurement of time.
"How long would it take me to do something like this and is it worth it?" kind of questions.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028922]

>>3028895

>all secret immoral dealings, or a significant number of them, can be kept secret regardless of the number of people "in" on it?

What does "in on it" mean? There is a lot of crazy information, like operation northwoods, that is just publicaly ignored. Wikileaks releases stuff, and thats great, and its available to everyone. Does that mean its looked at by everyone? No.

I think the internet can reveal a significant amount of information, that is well... extremely significant. That doesnt make the public as informed as the person the public is getting informed about. Even if the entire public cared and paid attention.

[Axel the Possum No.3028927]

So, assume for a moment that our solar system evolved a little differently. For whatever reason, Venus, one of the more Earth-like planets in our neighbourhood, didn't develop its extremely thick atmospheric clouds and, instead, developed to a level more similar to Earth.

Now it's the modern day and we have ourselves in a unique position: A world in our solar system besides our own is hospitable. Not just kind of hospitable in the sense that we could maybe terraform it with time or live there in sealed colonies, but rather actually hospitable enough that you could, unprotected, walk on its surface.

How would we get there? What would we do? How would you go about establishing a second world for humanity inside our own solar system if the whole "terraforming" bit has been done for you already? Would you even recommend colonizing it, if we find it has an ecosystem?

Life doesn't have to have evolved on Venus for this proposition, but it certainly adds a new dimension of interest, regardless of how developed it is. Better if we assume it's not intelligent, though.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028942]

>>3028899

I consider it a type of fraud. Why do you have to give me a hard time? Like I said something completely opposite to the truth?

Here is something wikipedia says
"Trades made by these types of insiders in the company's own stock, based on material non-public information, are considered to be fraudulent"

Im not saying its bad, or evil, but I am implying, that its at least partially considered "fraud"

As if that was central to my whole argument or something, you just respond to that detail.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028949]

>>3028902

I dont understand.

I believe perfect competition is just a model, and unrealistic. I even said that it was unrealistic in that post.

The rest of that I dont see the relevance.

[Anonymous No.3028956]

>>3028907
To me a free market is what results from free exchange and private property. This would lead some to say that markets should not always be free. Then we can argue on those points and whether intervention could help or if it would only make things worse.

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.3028961]

>>3028942
There's not much else to respond with, other than, "Your definition is wrong."

Lots of things are legally defined as fraud which aren't and vice versa, insider trading is one of them.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3028962]

>>3028919

I know I set it up too unrealistic. I have fun exaggerating the hell out of these examples. In my example, the firm has left the market convinced that it would be impossible for them to do something themselves, and it is not worth it. That is asymmety. If they did, correctly understand they could do it themselves, the information would be a little bit more symmetric.

[Anonymous No.3028971]

>>3028907

Free market just means that there's no coercive interference in individual dealings. The State does not interpose between private actors in their voluntary exchanges but only ensures that such exchanges are voluntary and enforces the terms of negotiated agreements. That's it.

[Anonymous No.3028977]

I like you, resident /sci/ economist
you make sense and you express ideas neatly (at least from my perspective)

[Anonymous No.3028984]

>>3028907
I would agree with your first criteria with a few modifications and those are:

A free market must be:
- free from coercion, government bailouts or handouts. - No government intervention besides basic laws protecting against fraud, protecting property, coercion and effectively theft.
- Individuals have the freedom of association
- The existence of few black markets since there is no reason to hide transactions in a free society.

Feel free to add or modify

[Anonymous No.3029007]

>>3028860
It is in fact not. The internet is heavily regulated by the government to prevent ISPs from restricting access to pages containing political discourse inconsistent with their parent companies ideologies, or to prevent certain companies from buying preferential treatment from them.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029016]

>>3028971

>Free market just means that there's no coercive interference in individual dealings

Well, I just dont think thats what the real definition is. But that sounds similar to what definition #1 is. So my response is going to be, sometimes there should be external coercion into a market.

>>3028977

Aww, thank you..

>>3028984

I would view anti-fraud laws, and property rights as partially coercive.

I would subtract the freedom of association. It doesnt seem worth specifying.

If there are black markets, I think that implies the market that isnt black, isnt free.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029023]

>>3028956

Yeah I would say, some markets should not be free.

[Anonymous No.3029025]

Because fuck rich people and the schemes they use to stay rich

[Anonymous No.3029035]

>>3028359

1. the right in the US is poisoned with religion, a strong deterrent for intelligent people

2. the left in the US is moderate compared to other countries, it would even be considered a right in many.

[Anonymous No.3029036]

>people advocating any form of government
>mfw

[Anonymous No.3029048]

>>3028777

Efficient market theory matched with bounded rationality; read up on both

[Anonymous No.3029057]

>>3029016
why shouldn't markets be free from coercion? Would you mind being denied the freedom to find the best quality weed your money can buy? Or how about the best kind of beer?

[Anonymous No.3029065]

>>3029036
>people still seriously consider anarchism a viable form of societal organization

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029075]

>>3029057

Well I would mind being denied those kinds of options. But thats not really what I was referring to.

Sometimes markets fail, for a large variety of reasons, and you have to handle them on a case by case basis.

When it comes the health care industry example, am I better off, in the circumstance that my insurance is using the money I paid them, to pay my doctor not to give me service? Its a completely free market, where my doctor, my insurance and I can each do whatever we want. However, I am left with a doctor, who is in a (natural) incentive structure to NOT make me healthier.

[Anonymous No.3029098]

>>3029065
>the few examples of a "anarchist societies" in history have worked fine (Somalia notwithstanding)
>implying governments aren't the root of EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM in the world today. I'm not even fucking joking.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029119]

In light of my comment on health care I made this little diagram.

[Anonymous No.3029125]

>>3029119

>insurers want to get money by making doctors do nothing all day

who the fuck gave these people this power

[Anonymous No.3029131]

>>3029075

That's too much of a strawman to make the argument viable. Try giving me real life examples where someone providing a service such as medical care is not willing to do his or her best to provide a customer with good care. It's the guys name on the line bro. On top of that, if the government is to come in and remove any of that risk of being able to lose your job then the guy can perform as shitty as he wants and still maintain his career, despite his shitty reviews.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029145]

>>3029125

I would say customers

>>3029131

Oh God, why do you think mal-practice is so expensive? Some doctors dont care. I remember my healthcare professor (who is a doctor) once gave the example of a doctor, who had to certify giving a baby a IV of sugar water because the baby was hypoglycemic. Rather than coming to the hospital, he went and played Golf and the baby was deaf dumb and blind for life.

Or how about those millions and millions of dollars Doctors bill medicare for procedures they didnt have do to? Or those doctors who intentionally neglect problems, because they will get worse in the future and it will give the doctor an excuse to charge more?

That was my attempt to provide real life examples. I hope it meets your standards.

> if the government is to come in and remove any of that risk of being able to lose your job then the guy can perform as shitty as he wants and still maintain his career, despite his shitty reviews.

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.3029146]

>>3028359

OP, /sci/ is full of "leftists" because we are techno-utopian futurists, ranging from libertarian socialist to dictatorial rule-by-computer in flavor. We believe that the venerable "Start Trek future" is not only reasonable, but perfectly do-able.

This sort type of forward-thinking pisses conservatives off because it goes against their philosophically constrained and pessimistic view of human nature - radical pragmatist types who don't believe that speculating about the techno-social long run is worth the effort. Sometimes this world view is caused by a religion that they follow, sometimes its because they read too much Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman.

Although I will submit to their credit that when pushed into a corner on the issue, most conservative-pragmatist-economist types are able to reasonably agree that IF the technological superstructure of a society were advanced enough so as to effectively eliminate resource scarcity and maximize energy efficiency (or alternatively, make recycling and re-purposing of resources very cheap as compared to constant resource extraction) then there is no reason NOT to move towards some sort of communistic planned economy based on local time-preference needs and the submission of requisition plans. Pretty much any project from the individual to the supra-national level would be approved so long as it didn't cause a significant conflict of interest with the existing infrastructure.

Again, seeing how the above scenario is one in which the Fundamental Economic Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_problem)) is all but solved, conservatives would rather balk at it's apparent pipe-dream qualities instead of change their attitude about human existence and help work to MAKE it a reality.

[Anonymous No.3029149]

>>3029065
>doesn't know anarchism is defined as an ABSENCE of a societal organization

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029160]

>>3029145
What year are you?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029166]

>>3029160

Second year undergraduate.

[Anonymous No.3029168]

>>3029146
Libertarian here. Love Ayn Rand; bitch loved technological progress.

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029176]

>>3029166
So you're not in your upper division yet?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029194]

>>3029176

What do you mean by upper division?

Im in mostly 300 level classes. Which Im not sure if qualifies as upper division. I think that is the cusp of upper division by my universities standards.

[Anonymous No.3029199]

>>3029149

There would be loads of organisation in an anarchist society.

It's just that none of it would be mandatory.

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029210]

>>3029194
Which university? Phrased >>3029176 wrong.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029214]

>>3029210

Arizona State University
WP Carey School of business

Do you study economics too?

[Anonymous No.3029216]

>>3029168
Another Libertarian here, but I don't particularly like Ayn Rand. Some people are actually surprised to discover that not all libertarains are Objectivist.

[Anonymous No.3029219]

>Universe has liberal bias.
Tell that to victims of natural disasters.

[Anonymous No.3029225]

>>3029166

Undergrad...Way to shoot your academic credibility in the face.

As to the original question, I don't think it's accurate to quantify as leftists or Neocons.

Those of the board that are actually intelligent and want forward progress are going to take the best of both American stylized parties and say "screw the rest."

The problem that we have in America is the old electoral structure in America that keeps attempting to recycle old ideologies and practices (both bad) rather than actually coming to the younger generations for our input.

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029235]

>>3029214
Yes. UCSD
I'm the guy yesterday with the whole definition of unemployment thing.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029247]

>>3029225

If Im wrong, Im wrong, whether I am the best economist, or some guy who doesnt know economics at all, doesnt change the credibility of what I say.

I do think I make mistakes, and I appreciate it when some of my peers like Mickey, EconGuy, or that masters student who lurks corrects me.

>>3029235

Oh! Did we have a difference of definition? Did I say it was like, people have been unemployed for a period of time, and you said it was people seeking employment?

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029252]

>>3029247
Yes, and then some stuff after that.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029257]

>>3029252

I heard something recently that reminded me of that conversation.

I heard some one complain that the government rigs statistics like that. I forgot why. I think it said the statistic is measured by calculating the number of applications of unemployment benefits or something. I forgot.

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029284]

>>3029257
Probably because it's easier to measure

[Anonymous No.3029287]

>>3029168
>>3029216

Point taken, but what i was trying to get at is that oftentimes there is a certain vocal type of conservative out there who would rather have short-run social darwinism run amok, then have humans working together trying to reduce the effective level of resource scarcity. These are also the types of folks who are vastly ignorant of the big historical picture of human-technology interaction. It's pretty much a given inevitably that should we avoid nuking ourselves into extinction, we will become an interplanetary cyborg species that can expand non-parasitically into new biomes without anything more sever than temporary and isolated inceidnets of "resource scarcity". We will look back on this era in history and laugh/cry and the absurdity of it all, kicking ourselves the whole time for not working toward that future sooner.

>1200: He believes that there's another continent on the planet besides Eurasia(laughing-girls.jpg)

>1500: He believes that the earth revolves around the sun, which is just one of the thousands of other stars we see at night (laughing-girls.jpg)

>1700: He believes that carriages will one day power themselves down the road with giant steam-boiler contraptions (laughing-girls.jpg)

>1820: He believes that light travels in particles (laughing-girls.jpg)

>1910: He believes that a single atom contains a shit-load of bound energy (laughing-girls.jpg)

>1920: He believes that earthquakes are caused by drifting tectonic plates (laughing-girls.jpg)

>1950: He believes that a computer will one day fit in your hand and display multicolored 3D graphics, and also that the universe is expanding (laughing-girls.jpg)

>1990: He believes in affordable fusion energy and 99% efficient solar panels (laughing-girls.jpg)

>2011: He believes that one day resource scarcity will be effectively reduced by technology, and spark a golden age for humanity (laughing-girls.jpg)

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029297]

>>3029284

What year are you?

Also, do you plan on using that trip in the future? (its nice to see familiar faces)

Im not convinced the government isnt rigging stuff, Im going to have to do some research in the future.

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029327]

>>3029297
Kinda complicated, first year in college, I'm a junior, have 2 years left....

Ya, tired of lurking economics and math threads and anonymously correcting people.

Neither am I but it usually seems that things like that are usually a combination of everything from manipulation to ineptitude.

[Anonymous No.3029345]

>>3029327
so when you've been in college for a while you'll realize that it's not so much the year or courses people have taken.

It's about what they know, and how they think.

soliciting your thoughts on patents as they pertain to this topic.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3029358]

ITT

[Anonymous No.3029360]

>>3029327

>anonymously correcting people
>correcting people
>correcting


>Imply your opinion of economic philosophy is the only valid one because you're a grad student and therefore somehow better than everyone else, regardless of weather they are just as familiar with the topics at hand as you are

>mfw this is the appeal to authority fallacy
>also mfw economics is not a science and is simply politics with numbers

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029370]

>>3029360
>Imply I correct people's economic philosophy

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029369]

>>3029345

I know you were soliciting me, but my intermediate micro economics professor just defended his thesis on patents.

He made a model that measured the value of a patent given how many patents the first patent was based on.

He found that the lower the number of citations in a patent, the higher the value.

What that means is the first patent for the internal combustion engine, was completely original, and had a high value. The patent based off the internal combustion engine, that was a bit more efficient, had less value than the internal combustion engine, and the patent based off that one had even less value because its improving the design marginally less.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029376]

>>3029369

werent soliciting me*

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029386]

>>3029345
What topic are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.3029395]

>>3029369
Sounds cool, link please.

So the austrians always say that there would be more innovation without patents (because e.g. corporations would be able to allocate funds otherwise used for lawyers). In my (admittedly brief) survey of history, however, I have found that not to be the case. Is this consistent with your own knowledge, and if so, how do you justify the contradiction here?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029402]

>>3029395

Sorry I dont think there is a link. He talked about it after the class begged him to. Its not on the internet.

You know, Im not really sure how I feel about patents. I guess they are cool because they give inventors an incentive to come up with stuff. But I think that applies to real inventions. I dont really believe in intellectual copy rights.

Anyway, patents and copyrights seem to be excessive today. I think its because the copyright holding companies seem to be able to lobby the government for long periods of time.

[Anonymous No.3029416]

>>3029402
do you know how they work in the high-tech industry?

Give his name I can probably get it through my uni. You only have one phd thesis.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029417]

>>3029411

I dont know. My neighbor used to work at motorola and intel and he has a few tech patents.

His name is Fernando Levia Bertan
Arizona State University
Hes from argentina and he used to study at RIT I think.

[Anonymous No.3029422]

>>3029369

That thoery sound dumb as fuck. Why would I pay more for the patent to the old inefficient junk when I could have the patent to the new improved ultra-efficient version (even if it is a derivation work)? The interest is higher for a better design.

It sounds like your professor butchered the application of marginal utility and ended up with a thery that is mathematically sound by is totally disconnected from reality. Either that or your professor lives in a world where the technology-production curve get destroyed back to zero ever 5 seconds.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029428]

>>3029422

The new patent isnt for a new efficient engine. Its for an application of that engine that isnt more efficient.

Patent 1 is "A"
Patent 2 isnt "A+1"
Patent 2 is "Given A, +1"

So if you want to make an A (which is an awesome thing), it will give you 90 million utils. Patent 2 will give you 9 utils, given you already have Patent A

[Anonymous No.3029434]

>>3029425
>very valuable socially
>valuable socially
define. Not being a prick; just have no idea what that word could mean in a rigorous (aka meaningful) sense.

>>3029422
basically he showed that there exists correlation between two things. Then he speculated on its nature. Such are the ways of science (google naive realism). It is totally connected to reality (in a way that no math ever can be), even if the conclusion seems to me unjustified.

[Anonymous No.3029438]

>>3029428

Ok but if you don't have already have patent 1/A, then patent 2 is worth 90,000,009 utils. And over time there will reach a limit where the orginal patent is no longer valuable, and the derivitive works will become the new "original", being valuated based on the relative existning technology, and so in a way become "de-marginalized" and become more valuable. Think about comupters for a second and you'll see what I'm talking about. A patent for a DEC terminal from the 1970's is worth jack diddly shit compared to the patent from an ihone, even though it's a (very) derivative work

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029442]

>>3029434

Yeah, I want to point out. THis wasnt his hypothesis. He came up with a model that (I assume) accurately predicts the value of a patent.

This wasnt like his internet guy thought experiment. It was real research

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029453]

>>3029438

Sorry for mixing and matching "Patent A" and "Patent 1"

I dont think Patent 2 is worth 90,000,009 utils. Its worth nine. 90,000,009 is the total utility, which is the combination of the utility each brings you.

An Iphone is nothing without the technology its based off. The technology its based off, is still fairly valuable without the technology based off it.

I dont know anything about these DEC terminals, so its hard to understand the analogy

[Anonymous No.3029467]

>>3029453

a DEC terminal is a green screen with a network interface and a keyboard. It was a way to remotely access the room-sized mainframe computer, from a different room than the mainframe. This is where we get the idea of a "terminal server" from. Wikipeida that shit

[Mr. Dr. Professor Economist !kltjFCOGEI No.3029473]

>>3029434
Sorry I deleted my post.

I meant that while economically we can put a price on life but that does not mean that emotionally people will accept that.
We as a society try become more efficient but we try to take care of the disabled and weak (like children).
Emotionally people shouldn't accept the idea that people will die every year, even a few people, due to the fact that we can easily make a cure but don't want to pay for it.

If I were to express this mathematically it would be that we value life depending on the immediacy of death (probability, likelihood of dying) as a curve that approaches infinity as it becomes more immediate.

On the individual level economics is based on trying to maximize utility and death is the ultimate loss of utility. We may be able to accept that some people live worse lives because they have less money and might even die in the long term because they can't afford regular checkups and quality in their consumption but when peoples lives begin to rapidly increase in value in people's perception when the cause can be easily explained, accurately fixed at only financial costs to the individuals observing (also combined with human pity such as looking at sad pictures of people).

In short "socially important" would be how the value of something changes base on peoples emotional perception of it.

Sorry If I'm all over the place.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3029476]

>>3029467

Does apple have to pay royalties for the iphone patent, because it is based on the DEC terminal?

I was thinking of another way of putting it.

A cup cake is like the first patent. The icing is like the second patent. The icing depends on the existence of the cup cake (eating icing alone is a sin of man kind against God)

[Anonymous No.3030648]

Scientists tend to be more left wing, engineers tend to be more right wing.

One is generally employed by academic and publicly funded institutions, the other big (often resource or defense) corporations. Different mindsets.