/sci/ - Science & Math

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3043293]

Hey Friends

So Dan Ariely came to ASU today and I recorded the whole lecture. It was really interesting.

Like I promised I threw it up on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSyFkwu_ic

There isnt live video, but I made graphs of what he drew on the board while he talked and put them in the video. The rest are just blurry images I took. So if you are going to watch it, dont just listen to it.

Picture related.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3043317]

BUMP, I know at least some of you guys are interested in this.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3043347]

Final bump, and then I am waiting until tomorrow to repost

[Anonymous No.3043351]

Perhaps you should give a bit more information for those who weren't here yesterday. Who he is, why he's important...

[Anonymous No.3043355]

lol who was the dumbass that said the top 20% own 40% of the wealth?

You hear like 80%, 90%.. then 40% out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.3043367]

I hate lectures like this. Do they ever get to the point?

I would be happy if they just stood there and stated a sequence of fact then left without answering anyone's stupid questions.

[Anonymous No.3043369]

I hate lectures like this. Do they ever get to the point?

I would be happy if they just stood there and stated a sequence of facts then left without answering anyone's stupid questions.

[Anonymous No.3043371]

=/= science

[Anonymous No.3043374]

>>3043367

I disagree. It can be mildly insightful if you aren't aware of this information.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3043375]

>>3043351

Okay.

Okay, so Ive noticed from my time on /sci/ that some people really hate the whole field of economics. And the idea is that economics is all bullshit and all the models and ideas arent realistic. To those people, Dan Ariely is like, their savior, because, Dan Ariely's work is mostly about seemingly irrational behavior, and cheating. He also talks about research that apparently contradicts traditional economic ideas. Ideas such as, money will always incentivize certain activities.

Fortunately, he had a Q&A, and someone asked him about whether behavioral economics contradicts traditional economics. I got to ask a question about a specific research. He didnt really answer me perfectly well, but, overall I am pretty impressed, and I am pretty happy with his work.

[Anonymous No.3043379]

>>3043371

It's not, but it's interesting and grounded nontheless. We have a religious debate thread or IQ thread multiple times a week, why don't you bitch about those when the time comes and ease up on a thread that's actually providing decent information.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3043380]

>>3043377

Well, I dont know what to say. It does have research. Let me tell you all about this guy named Dan Ariely...

[Anonymous No.3043377]

>>3043375


>>implying economics has research

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3043376]

>>3043355

Did you hear the guy who said "hobby"?

[Anonymous No.3043389]

>>3043380

but what are they really trying to find that could have an impact on the world

i go to the store, buy something
give the money
store is restocked

you CANT explain that

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3043391]

>>3043389

I just...

I just dont understand..

[Anonymous No.3043398]

>>3043391

trolled, exactly, you CANT explain dat niggaA

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3043400]

>>3043398

[Anonymous No.3043553]

I respect you good sir. Take this free bump.

I watched Ariely's TED talk. It was actually pretty good.

[Anonymous No.3043680]

I was with him up until the religion section.

He made the claim that religion has evolved strong mechanisms for deterring the "what the hell" effect, along with various other social phenomena. Now while the findings do marginally suggest this, the problem is that separate experiments have shown that the same effect occurs significantly less in nonreligious persons and that said people are much less likely to commit immoral acts in general, particularly when there's no one watching.

This is a strong counterexample to religions ability to alleviate social ills, as he mused, and, in fact, suggest that theistic belief is a source of criminal behavior.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045100]

>>3043680

Do you mean religious people will sooner go through the "What the hell" effect than the non-religious? Or do you do mean something else?

One of the questions was by some guy who seemed obviously to be an atheist irked by the notion religion could be doing some good.

I said earlier I think hes doing some great work, but I still feel like I have to take his conclusions with a grain of salt because all of his experiments are done really quick in a lab. He gets interesting results, but it might be difficult to come to certain conclusions about reality based off those results. Which was what I was aiming for in my question but I dont think he understood.

Obviously there are other ways to alleviate the "what the hell" affect other than catholic of jewish confession. He should look into that maybe.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045148]

Okay, final of all time bump.

[Anonymous No.3045149]

dan ariley is such a moron. all he does is do the same simple expiriments psychologists were doing in the 1950's and then says: OHHH LOOK PEOPLE AREN'T RATIONAL! WHO WOULD HAVE EVERY THOUGHT!

[Anonymous No.3045182]

>>3045100
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that his findings about confessionals resetting the "what the hell" effect are totally accurate. But my point was exactly what you paraphrased at the beginning; that there's significant evidence which shows that the religious will turn to "immoral" acts (if we take breaking the law, cheating, etc. etc.) with higher priority and subsequently commit said acts at a higher rate than the non-religious.

I don't deny that these results could be indicative of something entirely different, like, perhaps, that a person's level of religiosity tends to be inversely proportional to their intelligence, and low intelligence is what turns people toward immorality. But this leaves open the question of whether religion is the cause of low intelligence or if low intelligence prompts fervent religious belief. I'd suggest the former, though I'm sure there's truth to the latter as well. If this is the case, then it proves the same point as above.

One of my biggest qualms with experimental economics is that the theoreticians in that field, more so than any other field I've seen, will look at a body of evidence and come to the most superficial, frivolous conclusions. That's what I suspect is occurring here.

[Anon No.3045191]

>>3043293
>implying anyone wanted his stupid book

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045224]

>>3045149
>>3045182

I think thats my criticism to.

"Okay, you discovered people did something weird, its very good work, now demonstrate how you came to those conclusions"

There is a joke about economists being really good at explaining how they are wrong. Its because we are thinking things like, "They are rational so they will do A", but then it turns out "they are rational so they will do B." It doesnt have anything to do with people being irrational. Im worried these behavioral economists could be making foolish conclusions like "A is rational, person did B, thus person is not rational"

>>3045191

Well I did at least. And at least like, as many people as he had books.

[Anonymous No.3045242]

>>3045149
>WHO WOULD HAVE EVERY THOUGHT!

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045263]

>>3043375
Don't have time to listen to the lecture and can't be arsed to wiki. Is he an introduction to behavioural type?

[Anonymous No.3045264]

>>3045149
>>3045191
>>3045224

Oh hi, people who havn't even read the fucking book. Here's one of the things he points out: For example, most people would not drive an hour further to buy a car for $10 cheaper if one cost $4000 and the other cost $3990. Yet the same person would work for $10 an hour.

How is this not a totally fucking valid point that isn't entirely ecologically or academically valid?

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045279]

>>3045264
Well... people have different utility functions when it comes to earning money and losing money.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045284]

>>3045263

I dont know if he is an intro the behavioral economics. Behavioral economics is kind of a new thing. He definitely gives lectures in a way easy to understand for everyone though.

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045291]

>>3045284
So like Econ 101?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045294]

>>3045264

>Oh hi, people who havn't even read the fucking book.

I wish I had a book to read ;_;

>Here's one of the things he points out: For example, most people would not drive an hour further to buy a car for $10 cheaper if one cost $4000 and the other cost $3990. Yet the same person would work for $10 an hour.

What does "yet the same person would work for $10 an hour?"

Driving for one hour does not imply the only cost is an opportunity cost of $10. There is also a cost of time, gasoline, security, effort, etc

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045299]

>>3045291

I wouldnt even say that. He isnt talking about anything traditionally known as economics. If you took an intro to Micro or Macro economics course at my university, that wouldnt help you at all with Dan Ariely.

Dan Ariely doesnt even have a degree in economics. He has a masters in Business Administration. I think that might be a better title for his work. A blend of economics and management.

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045327]

>>3045299
Sounds pretty cool.

>>3045294
>Driving for one hour does not imply the only cost is an opportunity cost of $10. There is also a cost of time, gasoline, security, effort, etc
I thought about this too. But usually someone has costs in commuting to work, so that kinda gets ruled out. The difference between search costs of savings should be quite small in comparison to the costs of commuting?
The only thing I can think of is perception. $10 of $4000 seems small even though it is in absolute terms, equal to opportunity cost of wages.
I think my lecturer once said that irrationality is rational, and that if irrational behaviour is based on false beliefs which are not challenged, then the consumer maximises his utility... a complete cop-out lol

[Anonymous No.3045370]

> SNSD thread on /sci/

많이 사랑해!

[Anonymous No.3045373]

>>3045294
>cost of time

1 hour of employment = $10 earned
1 hour of driving = $10 saved

Don't start talking shit about other minor variables. I work in transport planning and most planning policies are entirely centred around a simple "value of time" analysis. The example I typed was off the top of my head, but resembled a point made in the book. If I remember correctly, people would vastly undervalue their potential savings in this situation.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045397]

>>3045327

> But usually someone has costs in commuting to work, so that kinda gets ruled out. The difference between search costs of savings should be quite small in comparison to the costs of commuting?

Im not sure I totally understand. But, I think $10 is $10, even if its a small percentage of $4000. Thats one of the rules on rationality in economics

If A > B, than A > B despite whether or not C exists.

The existence of C doesnt change our preferences between A and B. With that said, this is one of the more controversial rules of rationality in economics.

>I think my lecturer once said that irrationality is rational, and that if irrational behaviour is based on false beliefs which are not challenged, then the consumer maximises his utility... a complete cop-out lol

I would kind of agree. But I wouldnt assume anyone is being irrational. I would just think someone is being rational in a way I dont understand. Let me tell you an example of some economists on the east coast.

Some economist asked the question "Why dont people walk on stairs?" The question flew in the face of economic ideas, because, if taking one step on the stairs gave you a certain amount of benefit (being closer to your location), for a certain cost (energy), then it should be worth it whether you are on an escalator or not. People were being seemingly irrational. The economics departments of many top schools shut down trying to figure out this puzzle.

I thought the idea was funny, because it implied that economists for a second were considering the behavior where a person walks up to a stair case, takes the first step, and then stands there motionlessly because "the next one isnt worth it" was rational.

They eventually came to the conclusion that people werent benefiting in terms of distance. They were benefiting in terms of time. And the escalator was a more efficient walking technology.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045410]

>>3045373

I think the cost of time is different than the amount of money you could have made at work during that time. Its not a realistic comparison.

With that said, it doesnt make your "value of time" analyses worthless. Its very important to make very large and general, although inaccurate assumptions like that.

>implying my employer does it so it must be true.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045411]

>>3043293

I am vaguely familiar with Ariely, and I am aware that he has no studies in economics. Which means I know he is a communist/socialist.

I will give this lecture a try and imagine I will laugh a lot. Why are you interested in him? He is not an economist, he is simply a lolchologist.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045428]

>>3045411

Oh God not you. Shit's'bout to get COMPLICATED.

>mfw in 10 minutes when limes are comments

Studying economics has nothing to do with being a socialist. There have been socialistic and capitalistic economists. And capitalistic and socialistic non-economists.

How much economics have you studied liberty? Thats not ad hominem, Im just wondering.

>hy are you interested in him? He is not an economist, he is simply a lolchologist.

He doesnt have to be an economist to be interesting. Lawrence Krauss is a cool guy, but hes just a puny physicist!

[Anonymous No.3045456]

>>3045428
You are being trolled so that you know.
It's usually trolling when someone mentions socialism or communism because they generally don't even know what those words mean.

Waching that vid btw, lets see if i give a comment in 50 min, once i'm finished.

[Silver !jnCyt37zkI No.3045471]

>dead weight loss on a positive side of the supply and demand curve
>dead weight
>positive side
Son, do you even know what dead weight loss is? I JUST finished my Microeconomics final not an hour ago, and studied all yesterday Plus, who says you actually know the levels of demand? For all I know everyone picked one up as a paperweight, no pun intended. You call yourself an economist or is that picture just supposed to be funny, because it's absolutely retarded.

Maybe his objective was to get people to read it, not to make money.

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045473]

>>3045397
I always take the stairs because burn off calories. Factor that in the utility function and their entire thing is moot. The problem with our social science is the number of assumptions we have to make, and how we aggregate before individualising to a representative agent >_>

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045512]

>>3045456

Is he trolling? I saw him in some thread the other day about health care. He could have been trolling them too.

>>3045471

Am I not allowed to do it on the right triangle? I dont know, I havent had to worry about dead weight loss in like, a year. I just assumed the area would be the same on the left and right.

I dont know the levels of demand, I just drew vague straight line. It could be wrong. The demand will take that direction, even if the shape is different.

Even if he just wanted people to read it and not make money, there is a welfare loss none the less, because its scarce. We dont sell things because we are all greedy capitalist pig-dogs. We sell things because they are scarce and we need to allocate them.

I was making a really lame joke. Its like, not even a joke. Its just me applying economic ideas in an inappropriate chunk of life.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045521]

>>3045428

His lecture so far is based upon "inequality." Which first means that inequality of wealth is immoral, bad, a meanie pants things to happen. That premise is pointless and hilariously subjective.

I have a B.S. in economics.

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045532]

>>3045512
>Am I not allowed to do it on the right triangle? I dont know, I havent had to worry about dead weight loss in like, a year. I just assumed the area would be the same on the left and right.
I don't know about straight lines, but when you get to more advance micro, the functions are exponential, parabolic etc ie curved, so no, you can't really.

[Anonymous No.3045533]

>>3045291

lol economics 101? understanding it is pretty simple but thats only in hindsight. its not always limited to economics too >_> only really called economics because thats where it seems to be applied most.

if anything... study experimental economics :D very fun.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045536]

>>3045456

> implying i do not know the definition of communism/socialism because i do not accept your altered definition

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045542]

>>3045473

>I always take the stairs because burn off calories.

Believe it or not, that does get factored in. Its just that variable flips from being negative to positive. BUT, I bet, I bet your feelings about burning calories changes over time, which means we need a function for the coefficient attached to burning calories. Shit's complicated.

Its true, the number of variables and assumptions makes this kind of stuff impossible to predict.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045553]

>>3045521

>His lecture so far is based upon "inequality." Which first means that inequality of wealth is immoral, bad, a meanie pants things to happen. That premise is pointless and hilariously subjective.

>I have a B.S. in economics.

Troll! You are such a troll! EVERYONE LOOK AT THE TROLL! HES TROLLING SO MUCH!

[Anonymous No.3045562]

>>3045521

where did you get your degree? how much math did you take? just wondering... i'm doing a ba :( and im one semester of econometrics and statistical economics away from finishing the major.

dan ariely is just funny if anything watch for humor

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045563]

>>3045553

Are you telling me I am listening to the wrong link?

[Anonymous No.3045575]

most of the experiments he mentioned in the lecture were in his book "upside of irrationality"

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045579]

>>3045563

No, but I am saying:

He didnt make any moral statements about income inequality. He did say

1. Most people consider perfect equality bad
2. Most people have a poor ideal of how inequal things are

That is it. Milton Friedman possed by Ayn Rand's ghost could have said the same thing.

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045584]

>>3045521
>His lecture so far is based upon "inequality." Which first means that inequality of wealth is immoral, bad, a meanie pants things to happen. That premise is pointless and hilariously subjective.
Inequality can be equitable and sustainable. Discussing whether inequality exists or not is not taking a stance and it is rather objective; actually stating which kind of inequality (including the lack of it) is being political.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045585]

>>3045579

If you were to guess, would you say he is against the wealth "inequality"? And would you say he is trying to decrease it?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045589]

>>3045585

Im not going to answer you, because I dont feel his personal opinions have anything to do with his research.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045595]

>>3045584

He did much more than say wealth inequality exists.

[Silver !jnCyt37zkI No.3045596]

>>3045512
Dead weight loss has to do with the allocation of resources and mostly used in monopolies because their maximum profitability is made before allocative efficiency. You can not "over allocate" them and have dead weight, you're thinking a loss of profit, as in if the seller sold at that price he would have made that much money. But on the same graph, note that if the price were at 15 dollars, the quantity demanded would be zero, hence him not selling anything. If the price was at $7.50, then the quantity demanded would be half as much as people who would have taken them. He obviously gave them out because he wanted people to just read them for the sole purpose of learning what's in the book, not to make money.

Also, you say that there is a scarcity in his book. Yes, there was, and it would have been smart for him to sell it for a dollar or something so that people who were really interested in reading it would actually do so and spend that dollar, because I can assure you that many people just grabbed a book because they can, but if they had the value of it less than a dollar, then they wouldn't.

>field too long

[Silver !jnCyt37zkI No.3045599]

>>3045596
Now, I haven't watched the lecture but I'm listening to what you're saying about what he's saying in regards to Economics "not existing", term used loosely, but I hope you know what I mean, that it's an irrational and untrue concept. In the sense that we teach it, the accuracy of the graphs and such are not actually viable sources of information that one can gather actual data and such. We teach straight lines the same way that we give examples that come out to whole numbers in math, so that it can be learned and checked easier. In the real world, god forbid any integral coming out to an exact number, or the marginal cost of each product turning out to increase at an exact rate.

To say that the actual CONCEPT of Economics, in that the Economy can not be measured, predicted, etc with the use of tools given, like your supply and demand picture in your original post, do not mirror the real world, is a foolish claim, as they have shown time after time that it exists. Some call Economics a theory, yes. But that's like saying Evolution is only a theory, and that it may not actually be real. I'd like to meet an employed biologist that doesn't believe in evolution.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045600]

>>3045595

Well he said a lot of things. It was an hour and 14 minutes of lecture. Do you think any aspect of this lecture indicates his research was contaminated by his personal opinions?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045604]

>>3045589

and that he is absolutely trying to lower this evil meanie pants "inequality."

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045612]

>>3045600

I just started when I responded to this thread. I am also not listening to it constantly. I will pause and come back several times.

[Silver !jnCyt37zkI No.3045618]

>>3045596
>find out that you have a B.S. in it
welp I don't know why I wrote all that shit. Assumption of ignorance, I guess.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045629]

>>3045596

>Dead weight loss has to do with the allocation of resources and mostly used in monopolies because their maximum profitability is made before allocative efficiency

Unfortunately Im just going to have to disagree. When I was in intro to micro and I had to do dead weight loss problems. They were just as much about monopolies as they were about market failures. Price floors and price ceilings create dead weight loss. Mispricing things creates a dead weight loss.

> But on the same graph, note that if the price were at 15 dollars, the quantity demanded would be zero, hence him not selling anything.

I think thats more a problem with my crappy graph than reality. I would have paid $15. Amazon sells it for $10. Demand isnt that elastic that no one would pay $15

>Yes, there was, and it would have been smart for him to sell it for a dollar or something so that people who were really interested in reading it would actually do so and spend that dollar, because I can assure you that many people just grabbed a book because they can, but if they had the value of it less than a dollar, then they wouldn't

Thats exactly what I think.

>We teach straight lines the same way that we give examples that come out to whole numbers in math, so that it can be learned and checked easier. In the real world, god forbid any integral coming out to an exact number, or the marginal cost of each product turning out to increase at an exact rate.

I also more or less agree entirely.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045637]

>>3045618

Liberty and I are two different people.

[Silver !jnCyt37zkI No.3045661]

>>3045629
>Price floors and price ceilings create dead weight loss. Mispricing things creates a dead weight loss.
The point I was trying to make is that monopolies often induce dead weight loss. Of course there are other ways, and the two examples you gave are also examples of under allocation of resources.
>But on the same graph, note that if the price were at 15 dollars, the quantity demanded would be zero, hence him not selling anything.
I'm just looking at what I saw.
>other two points
Yes, yes, good, good. Also it probably had a lot to do with me not knowing you had a B.S. in Economics. You probably know a shit load more than I do. No, not probably, you do.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045665]

He is absolutely trying to plug in personal beliefs here. He tries to say that people would not stop working if they were taxed at a very high rate. He based this by saying that the idea that people do not want to work if possible is 100 percent wrong. Just a large gap in logics used to get his wants across.

He then goes on to say that they get paid the same even though they know half the earnings are erased. This is another attempt to spin.

[Silver !jnCyt37zkI No.3045668]

>>3045637
I read
>>3045553
and thought it was you saying you have it. Carry on then.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045676]

>>3045665

Liberty, I got a question.

If you got 100% of your income, but the tax went to the "lets give Liberty whatever he wants act of 2011" how hard you would you work?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045688]

>>3045676

What tax? If I am getting 100 percent of my earnings I would have no taxes.

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045689]

I am greatly pleased that I'm not the only economics guy in here. Jesus, I thought this board was entirely physics nuts.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045696]

>>3045688

No its a 100%, so you have no income. But there is a 100% efficient mechanism which allocates stuff to you exactly how you would spend the money. It even has a given budget constraint of how much you worked.

[Silver !jnCyt37zkI No.3045697]

>>3045676
>>3045688

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045700]

>>3045689

Onion what do you study?

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045706]

>>3045700
Econ BSc at the LSE

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045709]

>>3045696

Of course not. Why would I allow others to find out my purchases, savings, etc?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045724]

>>3045709

I forgot to mention. "The department of giving Liberty anything he wants" is completely and perfectly classified. In fact, they kill anyone who has ever worked in it or heard of it.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045732]

>>3045706

Oh cool. I kind of wish I went there. When I was applying to go to school. I went to their funny non-american application page and just thought "Eh, Ill just go to the big school right next door instead"

[Silver !jnCyt37zkI No.3045736]

>>3045724
Why would someone kill someone because they know something the government made?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045743]

>>3045724

I do not support others having access to my funds spending and saving. I do not support initial acts of aggression either.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045766]

>>3045743

I got a question Liberty. I know you spent money on internet.

HOW DOES THAT FEEL? I KNOW INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FINANCES. YOU ARENT PERFECTLY SECURE. I WAS ENGINEERING A PLOT TO KILL YOU AND EVEN WORSE. STEAL ALL YOUR MONEY. THE OPERATION RESTED ON AN UNKNOWN VARIABLE, WHICH WAS WHAT AMOUNT OF LIBERTIES INCOME WAS SPENT ON INTERNET ACCESS.

>mfw when

In reality, some people dont put an infinitely high value on their precious financial secrets. And in reality, tax money isnt spend on orphan mercenaries. Right, people would prefer if they personally had the money that was taxed. But when the tax money isnt used on infinitely bad things, they arent 100% disappointed. Which was why the person who made $1 with a 50% tax worked harder than the guy who made 50 cents. Because he wasnt totally bummed that part of his income went to helping someone else.

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045767]

>>3045732
UCL? Kings?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045775]

>>3045767

No, Arizona State University, WP Carey school of business

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045786]

>>3045766

No you do not.

Did he preface the scenario by saying where the taxes went? Did he say the taxes would be spent exactly how US taxes are spent?

[onion !SoShiBOy1A No.3045794]

>>3045775
lol how is that next door?
Anyway, good to meet you dude.

[Anonymous No.3045805]

do this book, then talk.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045816]

>>3045786

>Did he preface the scenario by saying where the taxes went? Did he say the taxes would be spent exactly how US taxes are spent?

Yes, he said something about them going back to the university.

No, the taxes werent spent exactly how the US taxes were spent, and they didnt need to be. The way the US taxes can only alter the the amount of additional (or negative) work people will be willing to do. Maybe if they were spent exactly how the US spends taxes, the person would work as if they made 50 cents. Or maybe even they wouldnt work.

The point is taxed money doesnt evaporate. It goes towards something, and that something might be something the tax payers appreciate to some degree, and thus they are willing to work a little bit more given the tax, but not as much as if there was no tax.

>>3045794

I live in Arizona, I meant, its next door to me.

Good to meet you too. If you are leaving, hopefully Ill see you in the future.

[Anonymous No.3045821]

>>3045805
>not mankiw
WHY.jpg

[Anonymous No.3045823]

Finished.
I thought that it was really interesting.
Those experiments he did were really interesting.
It's silly how irrationally people actually behave in their lifes.
These types of studies are important to figure out what motivates people and whta doesn't.
Nothing too special if you were to think these things rationally, but the thing is that most of the time people don't think like this.
Not regretting waching this.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045830]

>>3045816

Then they know how the taxes were spent. So they consented to them. This is the opposite of real taxes.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045848]

>>3045823

I agree. But I want to emphasize something

Just because people dont behave in a way that matches your concepts of rational behavior. Doesnt mean they are behaving irrationally.

Just sayin..

>>3045830

Knowing where they go =/= consent.

If I broke into your house, and used your kitchen to make you breakfast. That would be preferable to if I broke into your house, used your kitchen to make you breakfast, and then I threw that breakfast in the trash right in front of you

>mfw I do such an act whilst shouting "what now Liberty? What now?"

[Anonymous No.3045850]

>>3045830
Do you live in africa or something?
In US you know how your tax money is spent, much like in any western nation.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045859]

>>3045848

They did the job knowing where the money went without the force of the gubbmint backing the tax. They consented in every sense of the word.

I would never "prefer" you breaking into my house. The fact that you would is very telling.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045871]

>>3045859

Im going to ignore the first set of word things you made.

Here are two options Liberty, you must pick on of the two. And you can refuse to pick one.

Bundle A (I break into your house, I make you breakfast)
Bundle B (I break into your house, I make breakfast, then I eat said breakfast)

Which is it? A or B?

I presume you and your Randian mother didnt anticipate a socialist such as myself was going to break into you house and you two pre-emptively poisoned all your food.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045874]

>>3045871

You cannot refuse***

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045876]

>>3045850

What?

Your taxes are not the same from the second you start working, nor does the company paying you have a choice to not tax you (unless you consider threat of force including assault, kidnapping, murder, and theft to be "choices"). The taxes change sometimes daily as the money is allocated differently quite often coupled with the money being spent with interest. And on top of that, you cannot opt out of the taxes.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045885]

>>3045871

Again, false dichotomy. Any person that initiates an act of aggression against me will be met with force of my self-defense.

[Anonymous No.3045888]

>>3045876
You can opt out from taxes. You do this by giving up the services you are getting for them, this means leaving tthe nation.
Or is it so that they have banned people from leaving?
Taxes are used for all sorts of services you don't have right to those if you don't submit to the rules of the country.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045907]

>>3045885

lets pretend you decided to try out Yoga and you were trapped in a strange position we will refer to the "Precious morning lotus flower auto fellatio" because of that, you are completely vulnerable and incapable of self defense.

You are right, my examples are not at all economically realistic (you would never ever do yoga), but you, having an economics degree (which I of course trust you were completely honest about) must know that all economic models are unrealistic. They are all hyper extreme perfect concepts. It is a false dichotomy, but if you were to say that this dichotomy doesnt have a preference, than the entire concept of economics crumbles, including your stupid stupid free market ideas.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045910]

>>3045888

If I could opt out then I would not be open to any initial acts of aggression by the state. I can opt out like a kidnapped person can opt out of rape by not trying to escape.

Opting out requires no cost to you. It is illegal to leave the country with a large sum of cash unless you tell them and prove to them how you got it. I can't simply leave.

The idea of the social contract us hilarious in logic and wording. There is no such thing as a contract with no terms and no agreement. I do not agree to anything by sliding out of a vagina. I do not agree to anything by turning 18. I do not agree to anything by not leaving the country.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045916]

>>3045907

This assumes that self-defense cannot happen if the aggressor has stepped ten feet away from you or that the act ended 10 minutes ago.

I do not support a free market.

[Anonymous No.3045932]

>It is illegal to leave the country with a large sum of cash
Well stealing is illegal.
You got that money because of the tax funded services it's only logical that you can't just gather the fruits and move out.
You can leave i didn't know that US goverment kills people that move to other parts of the world

You born and stay alive because of the taxes, you grow up safely because of taxes, then you refuse to pay taxes and expect everything free.
And you call other people socialists.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045947]

>>3045932

I got that money for having demand. And I already paid the taxes for the "privilege" to make it.

> implying life began only after taxes were created
> implying i want any service paid for by others
> implying i can opt out of the "benefits"
> implying there are even benefits

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3045952]

>>3045916

Im no longer replying. I am going to go to ace hardware and buy the tools it takes demonstrate I am an alpha level industrialist who will earn everything I deserve via the economic manifest destiny outlined by God himself.

Ill be back in half an hour

If you want, you can think about what your preferences are given you are over come, or defenseless because you cannot defend yourself against my gun, which becomes more powerful the more unrealistic and absurd the economic ideas wafting through the aetheral medium are.

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3045967]

>>3045932
Well it's more funny, because he keeps blathering about having rights to non-aggression and private property and assumes that these exist without related obligations.

It's what happens when people pretend that solipsistic masturbation is quality reasoning.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045970]

>>3045952

If you shoot me and it ends my life processes, then I would be dead. In other news a person that gets raped has been raped, a person that gets stabs has been stabbed, a person that etc has been etc etc etc etc......

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3045979]

>>3045967

I said I have rights? Which post was that? Link it.

> this reply coming up should be good

[Anonymous No.3045990]

>>3045947
> implying life began only after taxes were created
No, but it was stone age then, i guess you want that then
> implying i want any service paid for by others
So you are okay with people stealing from you, no police or military for you, they will be happy to take your shit.
> implying i can opt out of the "benefits"
Leave the country
> implying there are even benefits
Military, police, laws, roads and other shit like that.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from leaving the country, no one will kill you, just pack your things and move. That is easy in todays world.
But you are too big of a wus so instead you just whine in the internet.

Oh and US is "democracy" so you could also vote for no taxes, majority rules there so there is nothing stopping you from doing that.

[Anonymous No.3046011]

>>3045979
Not getting the shit beaten out from you by the stronger group is a right.
First thing that comes into my mind.
Your right to not be a slave is another.
The right to even have property or money.
Etc. Etc.
That is the world we live in, deal with it

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046026]

>>3045990

> implying society only evolved because of taxes during the stone age

> implying nobody gets stolen from with our massive military and police forces

> implying i am allowed to simply leave

> the military creates backlash, the police are corrupt and do not stop crime or find those that commit crimes, laws take away Liberty, roads are shit and private roads exist to this day

I will not be allowed to simply leave, I will be detained for the attempt.

The US is not now and never has been a democracy, The US was founded as a constitutional republic and still is.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046035]

>>3046011

Proof of these rights?

[Anonymous No.3046044]

>>3046026
>I will not be allowed to simply leave, I will be detained for the attempt.

No wonder you don't want to pay taxes, you are a criminal.
What did you do, murder? Fraud? Rape?
Only criminals will be detained when they try to move abroad.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046051]

>>3046044

Incorrect. I will be detained because I am leaving with a large sum of money. That is not a crime.

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3046068]

>>3045979
All of them. The ones where you tacitly assume you have the right to hold an opinion, or more generally the ones where you imply that you have the right to opt out of the state of nature in which you find yourself.

Certainly, you are free to do so but you are not at liberty to do so.

Of course, all you ever do in these arguments is dissemble anyways and make absolutely certain that all of the blithering contradictions and poor definitions are hidden from scrutiny. Arguing in bad faith is the first thing you probably learned out of the von Mises/Hayek playbook.

[Anonymous No.3046071]

>>3046035
Well at least where i live they are pretty basic rights, i'm seriously thinking that you live in
somalia when you will be detained if you try to leave (probably by the other nation) and you don't
think there is right to life or property rights.
Seriously just give yourself in to the local police force.

[Anonymous No.3046088]

>>3046051
>I'm doing crime but i'm not doing crime.
Seriously?
If you are going to commit crimes then you are doing crimes, is that too hard for you?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046089]

>>3046068

Which one did I say I had rights or that rights exist? Just give me the link and quote. I will wait.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046098]

>>3046088

It is not a crime to have a large sum of cash while leaving the country. not a crime = not a crime How simple are you?

[Anonymous No.3046101]

>>3046089
>Incorrect. I will be detained because I am leaving with a large sum of money. That is not a crime.
>That is not a crime.
There is one, you are presuming that you have a right to be criminal.

[Anonymous No.3046105]

>>3046098
Then why would you be detained if it wasn't crime?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046106]

>>3046101

Where did I say right or that rights exist there?

[Anonymous No.3046107]

Hey economists, if someone creates a business and they and they close that business because they lost a bunch of money from trying to run it, should they be given money from society as recompensation for they money they no longer have?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046109]

>>3046105

> implying people are only detained if they commit a crime

Oh you!

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046115]

>>3046107

Nope.

[Anonymous No.3046120]

>>3046109
Then what the hell are you even talking about, either you can leave or you don't.
You are not detained in the US if you are not criminal, you might be stopped but you are allowed to leave.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046130]

>>3046120

> saying, not just implying, that if you are detained you are detained because you committed a crime

Amazing logic you have there.

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3046134]

>>3046089
Apparently "All of them." is too difficult for you to parse.

The mere fact that you, if taken at your word (which is most likely the issue here), are tacitly assuming all manner of individual liberties which are upset by the purportedly unnatural manifestation of government.

Asserting that the government is engaging in an act of aggression to you by restricting your liberties is a tacit assumption that such liberties exist, whether you decide to explicitly state it or not. Again, it's all very well hidden in the background, but it's there.

Feel free to argue that this isn't the case, but then it simply implies that you're arguing in bad faith and thus aren't really saying anything of substance.

[Anonymous No.3046147]

>>3046130
Do you have any evidence where US just detains non criminals for fun because i'm getting tired of your bullshit.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046153]

>>3046134

> implying you saying that makes it a truth

> implying liberties are rights

> implying I am arguing in bad faith because I do not agree with you

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046156]

>>3046147

Do I have proof where one person was detained without committing a crime? Are you actually asking me this?

[Anonymous No.3046172]

>>3046156
Yes, detained so that he can never leave the country and extended periods of time, also laws that allow it.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046183]

>>3046172

Oh, you are redefining detained.

[Anonymous No.3046196]

I INTERRUPT THIS THREAD WITH SOME RUDIMENTARY ALGEBRA:

Why is |x| < 1 iff -1 < x < 1. This is partly serious because I'm retarded and can't get an intuition for why this is.

[Anonymous No.3046210]

>>3046183
well you have to be detained to prevent you from leaving and there needs to be some law to support it, otherwise you can just sue.
Also you could just leave without the money, it belongs to the country anyway.
You are just whining at this point.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046219]

>>3046210

> belongs to the country

Haha.

[Anonymous No.3046237]

>>3046219
If you can't leave -> The money belongs to the county
If you can you are just lying criminal
Well if you think it doesn't then you are assuming rights you don't seem to have.
Also i don't know how it's in somalia, but here in civilized countries we can leave the country even with money so your point is moot.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046251]

>>3046237

can't just leave =/= can't leave

[Anonymous No.3046277]

>>3046251
Well if you don't have anything more to say, i must conclude your trolling to be sub par, 3/10 because i posted this many times.
Please come back when you have some actual arguments and learn to read what you are saying.
On a second thought please don't

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046289]

>>3046277

Why would I need to say more. You argued against something I did not say.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3046292]

Hello friends. I have returned from my economic spiritual quest. I was in a swamp, and the sun was setting. The visability was quiet low. Via my finally honed economic Qi I could feel the lack of market equilibrium. It was getting late and I knew I must be close to home, but some how I could not find my way out. It was then that I noticed something in my peripheral vision. It was the source of these problems. An evil spirit had been dwelling this swamp turning it into a monument of regulation. It was the spirit of FDR. Through his influence I had been walking in circles. I drew my mighty sword, kneeled down and prayed to Adam Smith..

Something something something

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046296]

>>3046292

I do not believe you.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3046312]

>>3046296

Then we are even.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3046316]

>>3046312

I disagree.

[Anonymous No.3046323]

>>3046292
>I have returned from my economic spiritual quest. I was in a swamp, and the sun was setting

Trained in the ways of economics by master Yoda?
""And well you should not! For my ally is the economy. And a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us… and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this… crude matter! You must feel the economy around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock… everywhere! Even between the land and the ship."

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3046339]

>>3046323

Yes thats right.

I met Karl Marx, I forgot to mention that. But like his ideas, he was just an illusion.

[Anonymous No.3046791]

>>3045521
Oh gawd.

You're one of THOSE people.

It's too bad they've made it so easy to get degrees these days. It's incredible that someone can complete four years of higher education and not learn anything.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3046864]

>>3046791

Yeah but he is totally lying. He has no degree.

[Anonymous No.3047143]

>>3046864
Oh that's good. I was very worried for a moment.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3047163]

>>3046864

False.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3047175]

>>3047163

Correct.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3047179]

>>3047175

False is correct. Agreed,

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3047189]

>>3047179

Incorrect that false is correct. Disagreed

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3047199]

inb4 my double major

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3047209]

>>3047199

I dont believe you exist because:

You can take economic assumptions to the most extreme extent in all your beliefs, yet in the face of a hypothetical situation even the slightest bit unrealistic, you refuse to answer it on those grounds.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3047212]

>>3047209

Extremes are where you find your actual beliefs.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3047215]

>>3047212

That... that means absolutely nothing. What does that mean?

[Anonymous No.3047232]

>>3047199

HOW FUCKING LONG HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN ARGUING FOR? I THOUGHT I SAW THIS THREAD GOING LIKE 5 HOURS AGO.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3047241]

>>3047215

Simple example: I happen to be against theft.

How can I determine if my statement is my true belief? First I try to find any situation where I would not oppose theft. I find none. I think of the most ridiculous least valuable item for theft, a penny, a kernel of corn, a blade of grass. Do I support theft of those items on any situation? NOPE. I went to an extreme to find my actual belief, and it stayed true, according to my original hypothesis.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3047242]

>>3047232

I actually posted it last night. Its about 19 hours old. We havent just been sitting here arguing.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3047259]

>>3047241

Okay, Im going to ask this, and if you dont answer one of the provided answer, Im done talking.

Bundle A (your car is stolen, you find $20 on the ground)
Bundle B (your car is stolen, you misplace $20 and lose it)

Do you prefer bundle A or bundle B?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3047266]

>>3047259

Correlate the question to something.

[Anonymous No.3047270]

did anyone notice in op's pic the quantity ranges from 0 to $20?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3047274]

>>3047266

Nope, thats it. I am done talking. There is no fucking way you ever studied economics. No fucking way. There are two options, you didnt pick either one. Im done. If you ever want to initiate a conversation that doesnt start with "Bundle A" or "Bundle B" I will not be replying.

>>3047270

Aw darnit, you are right. Crap.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3047284]

>>3047274

There is no motivation to pick between two choices you give on here. You give no reference to the choice, so I do not answer them. In economics (that which you have no studied) there is motivation given for choices.

I look forward to the amazingness that is less posting by a person that supports theft of labor.

[Anonymous No.3047294]

>>3047284
honestly, the question he posed was pretty introductory level material

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3047301]

>>3047294

Introductory to what and in what context?