[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 54 KB, 594x411, blisstree-cain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3976926 No.3976926 [Reply] [Original]

Notice how the "wouldn't it be better if scientists/engineers ran government" have all but disappeared after this guy came under the spotlight.

Also dubs.

>> No.3976931
File: 2.42 MB, 320x240, compsci.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3976931

He's not a scientist.

CS != science

>> No.3976941

>Notice how
They did?

>> No.3976942

Just because you have an educational background in a stem field doesn't mean you are a scientist/engineer.

Computer science isn't even science anyway.

>> No.3977611

A government run by scientists and engineers doesn't make a government good, or even efficient. People who promote public good, and have a reasonable amount of aptitude should be in government.

>> No.3977626

>>3976926
Not an Atheist.
All scientists are Atheists.

>> No.3977631
File: 163 KB, 500x474, usa vs china.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3977631

>>3977611
but.. but... technocracy!

>> No.3977635

They disappeared about 75 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

>> No.3977642

not the whole government, but things related to STEM fields should be managed by people with STEM backgrounds

>> No.3977643

>>3977611
Maybe not a scientist, but someone like the author of this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

>> No.3977655

>>3977611

I'm somewhat inclined to agree. Certainly I agree that just putting scientists and engineers in charge won't necessarily solve anything, and if it did it wouldn't be because they were scientists and engineers. I just don't know if having the will to do good and reasonable aptitude are enough to make a successful government.

>> No.3977674

>>3977631

It should be pointed out that one of the main reasons China is having such an insane boom right now is that they have a very large working population relative to the size of their non-working population (the elderly and children), largely due to their one child per couple restriction. It's the same thing that happened in the US with the baby boomers. However, they're in for major trouble when the current workforce becomes elderly and the working population is something along the lines of half of the non-working population (obviously it won't be exactly that, but it won't be a lot more). Caring for the elderly will become outrageously expensive compared to GDP.

They're doing a fine job in the short term, but they're creating an untenable situation. It's a bit like Reaganomics in that sense. Just don't be fooled into thinking it's a viable solution for long-term prosperity.

>> No.3977691

Herman Cain seems to advocate replacing some of the income tax with a national sales tax. I think thats a really good idea.

>>3977674

Yeah, I dont think their growth is sustainable. What they will likely do is continue modernizing until the populace as a whole has the same standard of living as european countries or America. Then their growth will level out.

>> No.3977693
File: 59 KB, 594x411, Herb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3977693

Hitler

>> No.3977696

What a horrible idea. Scientists/engineers don't understand ECONOMICS.

>> No.3977701

>>3977643
Eliezer Yudkowsky actually happens to be the pinnacle of Intelligent Design. He only claims to be the product of evolution to remain approachable to the rest of us.

>> No.3977705
File: 147 KB, 746x662, faggotron.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3977705

Look at op's political test results he posted on /pol/.

I saved it because I recognized his name& wanted to ruin a tripfag.

>> No.3977707

>>3977691
>I think thats a really good idea.
how so?

>> No.3977712

>>3977691
I probably disagree with Cain on most things, but like how he wants to simplify taxation. If there is one best form of taxation, then it should be the only one needed.

>> No.3977714

>>3977707

An income tax encourages people to not make money. A consumption tax just encourages people to not spend money. The overall effect is that people save more money, and thats really good if you want an economy to make technological progress or make the economy as a whole financially stable.

Im pretty sure America is anomalous in that we dont have a state wide sales tax.

Herman Cain also thinks we should lower corporate taxes. Which I again think makes some amount of sense.

>> No.3977717

>>3977712
>Simple
>Fair
Unfair taxation -> Revolution. The unwashed don't like being fucked.

>> No.3978172
File: 353 KB, 667x670, 1298593997003.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3978172

>>3976926

very related OP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSJFbOfA4SE&feature=related

>> No.3978175

>>3976926
ran gov?

No.

inform gov?

hell hes.

>> No.3978177
File: 140 KB, 3119x1873, 1294921702594.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3978177

>>3978172
Fuck yeah Tyson.

>> No.3978181

>>3977714

Comprehensive income tax is best tax (not regressive or proportionate)

Also, all forms of investment need to have aligned tax rates, lower corporate tax than other tax is distortionary

>> No.3978196

He doesn't act like a scientist or engineer. He acts like a politician.

Point still stands, deal with it.

>> No.3978200

>>3978181

How is a comprehensive income tax the best?

I think it would be a good to have a Negative Income Tax as well.

>> No.3978206

>>3978200

Income tax is simply an all-inclusive system. There's a work/leisure distortion but it's not any more of an issue than a consumption tax. The issue with consumption tax is that it's regressive and it would be very hard to make it proportionate. I do like the idea of a negative income tax, but it's not been done properly before. Needs a bit of experimentation first.

Also I'm going to bed

>> No.3978271

>>3978206

I guess youve gone to bed but Ill answer anyway. Im going to bed too, and Ill check for responses when I wake up.

Ive heard so many times that a consumption tax is regressive. I never understood that. Im guessing its because poor people spend a larger proportion of their income on necessities than richer people. But that doesnt mean rich people just dont spend money.

I could understand placing a higher consumption tax on luxury goods to even the playing field though. I know you expressed skepticism about a NIT, but, its very simple. You give poor people money. I think thats great a great welfare system in general. I think it would be great if we had a very generous NIT. As in, one that is potentially not even generating revenue for the government.

A Generous NIT and a increased consumption tax on luxury goods is extremely beneficial for poor people. Im really excited just thinking about this honestly.

I dont think its right to tax people who arent participating in the economy. If someone made a lot of income but didnt spend it. I think its morally wrong to tax an isolated person. It implies you owe something simply for existing.