/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6590169]

why arent all economists millionaires?

[Anonymous No.6590178]

the map is not the territory

[Anonymous No.6590192]

>>6590178
>not knowing how to read a map
>2014

[Anonymous No.6590216]

>>6590169
why arent all gamblers millionaires?

[Anonymous No.6590217]

>>6590216
im asking since economists are educated in how the market works, so I would guess they could use that knowledge to their advantage

[Anonymous No.6590219]

>>6590169
Why aren't all sports analysts professional athletes?
Some are, some aren't, some were.

[Anonymous No.6590229]

Can you prove they aren't all millionaires, or will be millionaires at some point in their lives?

[Anonymous No.6590234]

>>6590217
why aren't all historians kings?

[Anonymous No.6590242]

Because 'economics' is a religious institution, not a science. It gives no useful guidance to what our actual actions should be. Just like all 'social sciences'.

[Anonymous No.6590243]

Why aren't all engineers Iron Man?

[Anonymous No.6590246]

>>6590229
They are economists.

QED

[Anonymous No.6590288]

why aren't all millionaires economists?

[Anonymous No.6590307]

>>6590217
well, I know exactly how roulette works too.

[Anonymous No.6590356]

Why aren't all scientists nobel prize winners?

[Anonymous No.6590375]

Why aren't all shitposters on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.6590381]

>>6590169
>why arent all economists millionaires?
because its a far far distance between theory and practical fact sometimes

[Anonymous No.6590388]

>>6590169
because the're lazy, or stupid, or both.

[Anonymous No.6590627]

>>6590288
dubs

[Anonymous No.6590641]

>>6590169
why arent all physicists Dr. Manhattan?

[Anonymous No.6590647]

yeah, what gives?

[Anonymous No.6590661]

Why aren't all doctors healthy?

[Anonymous No.6590718]

Why aren't /sci/entists scientists?

[Anonymous No.6590990]

>>6590242
this is probably the most misguided thing i've read today. nothing academic has a normative quality. even studying ethics in philosophy has less to do with normative questions as it does, well, learning about ethical theory. the conclusions are reached by those studying the subject, not by the subject itself.

Given the tone of what you've written, i'm going to make an assumption here and surmise that you think "hard sciences" can provide "useful guidance." could you explain how?

[Anonymous No.6590991]

Why aren't clever people good at getting sex?

[Anonymous No.6592386]

>>6590169
Being successful in the business world takes a lot of talent beyond understanding the basic principles of economics. In fact, you can get that by just hiring an economist. Being an economist doesn't teach you how to have good social or leadership skills, for example, or how to budget your time wisely. Business people of course need a background in economics, but that doesn't mean that just because you're an economist you'd be good at business. Maybe a consultant, but not an entrepreneur. My analogy would be along the lines of "just because you're a biologist doesn't mean you'd make a good surgeon." That said, economists do make a good deal of money even though economics is a very academic subject. Towards the end of their career economists in the private sector make very large amounts of money.

[Anonymous No.6592458]

Why aren't all mathematicians famous like Gauß?

[Anonymous No.6592478]

>>6590234

this is probably the best analogy

but I wouldn't wanna be a king.

but who wouldn't want to be a millionaire?

[Anonymous No.6592644]

>>6592478
billionaires

[Anonymous No.6592658]

>>6592644

billionaires aren't millionaires? are you the same faggot that said trips aren't dubs?

[Anonymous No.6592673]

>>6590217
>how the market works

You're mistaking stock trading with broader economic policy. How is one supposed to make money off of advising a change in federal minimum wage laws, for example?

The economy is not the NYSE.

[Anonymous No.6592712]

>>6592478
>but who wouldn't want to be a millionaire?

It's more a question of how much is being a millionaire worth to you.

[Anonymous No.6592715]

why aren't all biologists first rate athletes who live to 100?

[Anonymous No.6592720]

Why don't chemists just turn lead into gold?

[Anonymous No.6592721]

>>6592658
>who wouldn't want to be millionaires
>billionaires

How do you not get it? The billionaires don't want their net worth to get below on billion. How fucking stupid are you?

[Anonymous No.6592723]

because they just describe the system they are a part of

Also some economists are millionaires.

[Anonymous No.6592727]

>>6590242
>Because 'economics' is a religious institution, not a science.
Actually no, economics is an extension of logic.

[Anonymous No.6592728]

>>6592727

lol, fuck off

[Anonymous No.6592733]

>>6592728
lol, u mad?

[Anonymous No.6592735]

>>6592727
>economics is an extension of logic.

This is what religious nutjob "economists" actually believe.

However, it doesn't have to be that way. There are those (though shamefully few) who study economics empirically, and that's totally legitimate.

[Anonymous No.6592736]

>>6592735
>This is what religious nutjob "economists" actually believe.
Ah yes the butthurt creationist hating anything you actually have to use logic for.

Please tell me how raising the minimum wage will "lower" unemployment.

Enjoy your logical fallacies.

[Anonymous No.6592738]

>>6592735
>baawww stupid economists with your logic
Enjoy your religion.

[Anonymous No.6592741]

>>6592736
>please argue a position you don't hold
>somehow this will prove that economists can ignore reality

God you're fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.6592746]

>>6592741
>>please argue a position you don't hold
But anon, you do hold that position.

You think emotional arguments are good enough for economics and using logic to understand these complex systems is evil and racist.

[Anonymous No.6592755]

>>6592746
>But anon, you do hold that position.

No, as a matter of fact I don't, you ridiculous moron.

>You think emotional arguments are good enough for economics

So you can't read at all then? Do you think the scientific method is nothing but "emotional arguments?" You probably do, you delusional jackass. What are you even doing on /sci/?

>and using logic to understand these complex systems is evil and racist.

What. the. fuck.

[Anonymous No.6592764]

>>6592736
>>Please tell me how raising the minimum wage will "lower" unemployment.

People won't have to work as many hours and jobs to survive. This will free up jobs for others.

Are you really so stupid you don't understand this obvious conclusion? or just trolling?

[Anonymous No.6592771]

>>6592764
>People won't have to work as many hours and jobs to survive. This will free up jobs for others.
There you go people.
The delusional leftist thinks he knows EVERYTHING about how economics works intuitively. He's completely fucking wrong yet he screams with his loud opinion that makes absolutely no sense.

He's a creationist.

>Are you really so stupid you don't understand this obvious conclusion? or just trolling?
Are you really so stupid you believe your "common sense" is superior to hard cold logic?

The minimum wage does not dictate wage rates, the labour market does that. All the minimum wage does is make paying someone less than a certain wage ILLEGAL. So if someone's labour isn't worth that much THEY DON'T GET EMPLOYED.

There's this plus the fact we have seen that the minimum wage raises unemployment basically everywhere. Look at american samoa for a perfect example of that.

Lol you actually think the state can magically control the wages of workers.

[Anonymous No.6592773]

If economics was a science, economists would be taught to be -CREATIVE-.


The soul-crushing "economics education" is meant to weed out ALL creative and inventive thought.They are told things that they must memorize and parrot so they can add their voices to a false consensus.

[Anonymous No.6592774]

>>6592755
>Do you think the scientific method is nothing but "emotional arguments?"
No, but you do apparently.

[Anonymous No.6592777]

>>6592764
>Are you really so stupid you don't understand this obvious conclusion?

>THE WORLD IS FLAT, ARE YOU THIS STUPID YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS OBVIOUS CONCLUSION
>GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, IT'S SO SIMPLE, ARE YOU THIS STUPID YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS OBVIOUS CONCLUSION

You people, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.6592778]

>>6592764
>or just trolling?

He's not trolling, he just thinks that human behavior is so simple that it can be predicted a priori from arbitrary axioms. There is a school of economists who are literally 100% certain of their conclusions without even bothering to check whether reality agrees.

[Anonymous No.6592780]

>>6592774
>No, but you do apparently.

hurr durr good one

[Anonymous No.6592781]

>>6592778
>he just thinks that human behavior is so simple that it can be predicted a priori from arbitrary axioms.
Boy, get a load of that strawman argument.

>without even bothering to check whether reality agrees.
Except for the fact we've written countless books digging up hard cold facts and showing how they agree with basic logic.

[Anonymous No.6592784]

"I KNOW YOU ARE! NYAAA!"

^typical economist rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.6592788]

>>6592784
good one
:^)

[Anonymous No.6592794]

>>6592781

If you believe that "economics is an extension of logic," then you either don't believe in science or don't understand what it is. And you also apparently don't think humans ever behave counterintuitively, which means you've never actually studied real economic behavior. In science, what is observed to actually happen trumps any argument.

[Anonymous No.6592797]

>>6592781
>we wrote lots of books

There are lots of books about unicorns and crystal magic, too. A lot of them are VERY well written.

Covering the great depression(for the 10 trillionth time since the great depression) without naming the people who wanted it to happen and profited from it just means you're a bunch of fools and cowards.

[Anonymous No.6592799]

>>6592797
>There are lots of books about unicorns and crystal magic, too.
No fucking shit you drooling mongoloid, the spent months looking up hard raw data for every single one of his books, in fact the references section takes up most of the fucking book. The data fits his model so fucking well it's shocking. It explains exactly why the GD happened in fine detail.

Stop being a pseudoscience worshiper.

>without naming the people who wanted it to happen and profited from it
Conspiracy theorist pls go.

[Anonymous No.6592800]

>>6592794
Science is an extension of logic.
Also "axioms" are empirical and rely on scientific evidence.

>And you also apparently don't think humans ever behave counterintuitively,
They do, which is strongly accounted for in austrian economics.

[Anonymous No.6592806]

>>6592799
>IT FITS THE MODEL

Too bad it explains the same things they all explain.

Absolutely nothing.

Go be angry somewhere else, vermin.

[Anonymous No.6592810]

>>6592806
>Too bad it explains the same things they all explain.
>Absolutely nothing.
Lol he came up with the exact opposite conclusion the mainstream economists came up with. No one has been able to refute him even to this day, and the evidence just keeps piling up and up.

Are you seriously this mad that intelligent people who actually study this stuff disagree with you.
Oh wait, you must know much better than them with your "common sense".
lel

[Anonymous No.6592813]

>>6592800
> strongly accounted for in austrian economics.

...and yet you still suck at being able to make any kind of predictions. It's almost like someone is manipulating the economy for their own profit.

[Anonymous No.6592821]

>>6592810
One smart man who wasn't really an economist makes accurate predictions, and you claim he was yours.

Typical economist.

[Anonymous No.6592825]

>>6592813
>...and yet you still suck at being able to make any kind of predictions

>predicted the great depression with stunning accuracy
>predicted stagflation of the 70s with stunning accuracy
>predicted the savings and loan crisis with stunning accuracy
>predicted the housing bubble with stunning accuracy when YOU FAGGOTS were saying everything is fine

Holy shit how fucking wrong can you be?

>HURRR UR ALWAYS PREDICTING COLLAPSE, BROKEN CLOCK ETC ETC
Lol no, just no.

[Anonymous No.6592828]

>>6592821
>wasn't really an economist
>phd's in economics
>taught economics at countless universities
>not really economists

top kek

[Anonymous No.6592829]

>>6592813
>It's almost like someone is manipulating the economy for their own profit.
Yeah, it's called the federal reserve.
You corporate cocksuckers support it while having the balls to claim we are corporate whores.
It's pretty hilarious how dumb you are.

[Anonymous No.6592830]

>>6592828
He wasn't an economist. He was an insider trader. That means that unlike economists, he was smart.

[Anonymous No.6592833]

>>6592829
funny how all you have is insults and bile to support your claims.

[Anonymous No.6592834]

>>6592830
>insider trader
You don't know what you're talking about do you?

[Anonymous No.6592838]

>>6592834
A very well informed man. Sure, he didn't seem to abuse it, but he was significantly better informed than you are.

[Anonymous No.6592839]

>>6592833
Facts, logic and statistics are "insults" now?

>>6592838
>mises was an "insider trader"
Well I'm glad you decided to give up on having an argument.
I accept your defeat.

[Anonymous No.6592843]

>>6592839
>"You corporate cocksuckers..."

>Facts, logic and statistics

LOL!

[Anonymous No.6592844]

>>6592843
Yeah the fact you were wrong about our predictions, wrong about the federal reserve, wrong about axioms, wrong about the great depression, wrong about the minimum wage.
Those facts.

:^)

[Anonymous No.6592848]

>>6590375

[Anonymous No.6592855]

>>6592844
>"You were wrong about us, because I say so!"

>we still can't make accurate predictions

\/\/hatever. I'm bored. Pretend you won as this page gets ignored.

[Anonymous No.6592857]

>>6592855
>>"You were wrong about us, because I say so!"
Well no, you're wrong because the facts say you are.

But believe what you want kiddo.

>>we still can't make accurate predictions
Why does the fact we have the highest successful prediction rates of any school of economics upset you so much?
see:
>>6592825

[Anonymous No.6592894]

>>6592781
>GO AHEAD EXPLAIN WHY THE MINIMUM WAGE WILL LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT
>I don't think that though
>YES YOU DO

>DON'T SRAWMAN ME YOU SILLY BOIS :3

[Anonymous No.6592896]

>>6590169
>>>/biz/

[Anonymous No.6592899]

>>6592825
>>6592834

It's a good thin that Jonathan Swift was long-dead by the time the Autistic Austrian Austerians came into being.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/how_paul_krugman_broke_a_wikipedia_page_on_economics/

[Anonymous No.6592902]

>>6592799
>stop being a pseudoscience worshiper
>Says the man who thinks fitting data to models is science

Toppest Kek

[Anonymous No.6592903]

>>6592720
WE'RE WORKING ON IT!!!!

[Anonymous No.6592919]

>>6592899
>he ACTUALLY believes the CPI accurately measures inflation
How does it feel to be the ultimate sycophantic corporate tool?

>salon
LOL

>Austerians
I bet you think high tax increases and slightly decreases in spending increases count as "austerity".

Please swallow cyanide.

[Anonymous No.6592920]

>>6592894
>you're actually still posting
:^)

>>6592902
>le strawman faec

[Anonymous No.6592923]

>>6592771
>There's this plus the fact we have seen that the minimum wage raises unemployment basically everywhere. Look at american samoa for a perfect example of that.

Correlation not equaling causation is pretty basic critical thinking, Anon.

Raising the minimum wage aligns with brief spikes in unemployment, but also with lower unemployment in the long-term.

In addition to the reason that other Anon gave, it also puts more money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it. This drives up aggregate demand, which eventually results in more jobs created than lost.

And it results it greater median wages as well, as less-attractive jobs must raise wages to compete for workers. A guy isn't going to wade through shit for a living if an easier job pays just as well.

[Anonymous No.6592933]

>>6590169
because getting rich usually involves taking chances which are almost always in favor of failure but you occasionally get a lucky few that make it and make it big.

Of course no sane person would take this chance if they knew just how much is against them, but often it's a last resort idea possibly to stay afloat.

Most huge modern millionaires are the results of their parents mind you.

[Anonymous No.6592937]

>>6592923
>Correlation not equaling causation is pretty basic critical thinking, Anon.
>CORELDRAWCASHUN DUN NOT EQUAL CAUSATION

I can taste the Euphoria from here.

The causation is beyond fucking clear.
In fact the same DAY American Samoa raised their minimum wage a large portion of the people on the island LOST THEIR JOBS.
The same fucking day.

>but also with lower unemployment in the long-term.
Unemployment is sky high in america and europe.

There are countless countries around the world with no minimum wage whatsoever and a much lower unemployment rate.

>it also puts more money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it
No it doesn't, it takes money AWAY from them. If they don't have a job in the first place there is no money to be spent.

>This drives up aggregate demand, which eventually results in more jobs created than lost.
Holy fuck, not this debunked keynesian bullshit again. Pic related.

You people are seriously this fucking stupid you don't understand basic economics.
You're worse than creationists who spew their ignorant bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6592939]

>>6592933
>Most huge modern millionaires are the results of their parents mind you.
This is empirically false.

Most millionaires and billionaires started out poor or middle class.

[Anonymous No.6592941]

>>6592899
>salon
How does it feel to be such a vicious hate filled person?

[Anonymous No.6592942]

>>6592939
Sure, back in the early 1900s. I bet you most of them now are built off their father's businesses and what not.

Maybe in the tech industry you'll find newer millionaires that got rich off their ideas.

[Anonymous No.6592948]

>>6592942
>Sure, back in the early 1900s.
No, now actually.

Google the statistics.

Also there's no reason to tax these people whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.6592952]

>>6592948
Why wouldn't you tax them? The only valuable ones are the ones that actually employ people.

[Anonymous No.6592960]

>>6590718
I only come here for the football

[Anonymous No.6592963]

>>6592952
>Why wouldn't you tax them?
Because it wouldn't benefit me whatsoever.

>The only valuable ones are the ones that actually employ people.
Even the ones that just sit on their money, not even in a bank are still raising my living standards by increasing the value of the currency I use thus lowering prices(for everything, INCLUDING capital goods which other entrepreneurs can use to invest much easier).

This would only happen under a deflationary currency, but we have a very inflationary currency thanks to central banking.

[Anonymous No.6592996]

>>6592937


>There are countless countries around the world with no minimum wage whatsoever and a much lower unemployment rate.
And much lower median incomes and standards of living.

>No it doesn't, it takes money AWAY from them. If they don't have a job in the first place there is no money to be spent.
the drop in employment is nowhere near the net increase in money paid to employees.

Keynes did have a flawed model (most importantly believing inflation was tied to demand), but believing this isn't a demand crisis requires a blindfold.

[Anonymous No.6593011]

>>6592948
There's a reason in that it allows for greater government spending without increasing the money supply or taxing those who would start spending notably less in response.

[Anonymous No.6593014]

>>6592996
>And much lower median incomes and standards of living.
Oh you you agree minimum wage increases don't help unemployment then?

also
>And much lower median incomes and standards of living.
Really?
Singapore and Hong Kong?
Germany?
Parts of Europe?

Also in first world countries hardly anyone makes the minimum wage anyway because their economies are that productive. How in the world would increasing the minimum wage help these people whatsoever if their wages are much higher than minimum wage anyway?

Does being THIS WRONG make you THIS MAD?

It's incredible you think the state can magically dictate wage rates.

>the drop in employment is nowhere near the net increase in money paid to employees.
Doubtful, and if this was the case, why don't you just print money and give it to these people to spend instead of increasing unemployment by increasing the minimum wage?

>but believing this isn't a demand crisis requires a blindfold.
This is a supply crisis, we have the greatest amount of spending and debt in the history of the human race. Artificially created demand is what fucking caused the housing bubble and you're dumb enough to think MORE money printing would fix this mess?

[Anonymous No.6593019]

>>6593011
>There's a reason in that it allows for greater government spending
Good, that's what we NEED. Government spending is the problem in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6593071]

>>6593014
>Oh you you agree minimum wage increases don't help unemployment then?
No, only that countries exist with lower minimum wage and higher employment.

>How in the world would increasing the minimum wage help these people whatsoever if their wages are much higher than minimum wage anyway?
Because wages would start rising from the bottom-up to compete with other jobs. See my other post.

>It's incredible you think the state can magically dictate wage rates.
It most certainly can influence them.

>Doubtful, and if this was the case, why don't you just print money and give it to these people to spend instead of increasing unemployment by increasing the minimum wage?
That's what welfare (or in an ideal world, a guaranteed basic income) is for. A sufficient minimum wage gives those on welfare an incentive to become more productive.

>This is a supply crisis
"Job creators" are making more money than ever - If there was any demand to expand, they would be doing that right now.

Spending on the lower and middle class is substantially down, not up, and it should be higher during a recession. Austerity just makes the problem worse.

>>6593019
Not remotely. There is tons of waste, but our current economic woes are due primarily to insufficient spending on education and welfare .

[Anonymous No.6593107]

>>6593071
>No, only that countries exist with lower minimum wage and higher employment.
and are doing much better than other countries, but whatever

>Because wages would start rising from the bottom-up to compete with other jobs
The minimum wage isn't a floor below wages, it doesn't work like that.

>It most certainly can influence them.
Yes, negatively, only negatively.

>A sufficient minimum wage gives those on welfare an incentive to become more productive.
Lol but it does the opposite, it gives them the incentive to NOT work.

>"Job creators" are making more money than ever
No motherfucking shit you dumb cocksucker, because you printed trillions of fucking dollars and gave it to them without them actually having to work for it. Do you even know what the federal reserve is?

>If there was any demand to expand, they would be doing that right now.
Wrong, the structure of production is beyond fucked, the only possible way to actually make profit now is to gamble on the stock market, not actually be productive.

>Spending on the lower and middle class is substantially down, not up,
Are you insane? It's substantially UP. Everyone spent all of their money, they even got into fucking debt to spend even MORE money. Look what fucking happened you banker whore.

>Austerity just makes the problem worse.
Austerity created the most productive year in american history after we cut spending, taxes, regulations and inflation after world war 2(when keynesians begged us NOT to) which set the stage for the post war boom.

You don't know what you're talking about.

>but our current economic woes are due primarily to insufficient spending on education and welfare .
AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
Holy fucking shit.
Teachers get far more than anyone else in their same skill range and their wages keep going up, we've spent billions on college subsidies and it has provided nothing but womans studies degrees.

What we need is PRODUCTION of actual resources and CAPITAL GOODS.

[Anonymous No.6593145]

>>6593107
Historically and globally, nations with greater social spending have higher median income relative to hours worked. See Scandanavia, France, Canada, and post-war pre-Reagan America.

>Lol but it does the opposite, it gives them the incentive to NOT work.
By what logic?

>Austerity created the most productive year in american history after we cut spending, taxes, regulations and inflation after world war 2(when keynesians begged us NOT to) which set the stage for the post war boom.
And "high taxes, high" spending resulted in the most prosperous time in American history, which lasted for decades (unlike the short-term gain after tax cuts), which promptly reversed when Reagan slashed social spending and taxation.

>No motherfucking shit you dumb cocksucker, because you printed trillions of fucking dollars and gave it to them without them actually having to work for it. Do you even know what the federal reserve is?
Even prior to the stimulus and bailouts we had the wealthy making increasingly more while everyone else made less. Money naturally accumulates at the top in a free market, because the more you have the easier it is to increase your income and the less of your income you proportionately spend. It's the governments responsibility to redistribute part of this wealth back at the bottom to help growth continue for everyone and not just a few.

[Anonymous No.6593153]

>>6593107
Teachers get far more than anyone else in their same skill range and their wages keep going up, we've spent billions on college subsidies and it has provided nothing but womans studies degrees.
Paying to support privatized education is the problem. It escalates prices, which is why PUBLIC education needs greater government support.

[Anonymous No.6593154]

Most economists are armchair economists. Of the economists that are real economists, I'm business, accounting, banking. Or academia, I'd guess that almost all of them are millionaires.

[Anonymous No.6593160]

>>6593145
*high taxes, high spending

[Anonymous No.6593173]

>>6593145
>Historically and globally, nations with greater social spending have higher median income relative to hours worked.
This is empirically false. The amount of mental gymnastics that went through your head to come up with this bullshit is outstanding.

>See Scandanavia,
They are successful due to their previous free market policies, that's where they created most of their wealth.

>France,
An absolute SHITHOLE right now.

>Canada,
I AM canadian and we have LOW spending compared to other nations, in fact we're one of the most free market nations on earth.

>and post-war pre-Reagan America.
TOP LEL
America has far MORE spending since it went off the gold standard in 1971. In fact they have spent more than basically any country on earth. See pic.

Why do you continue to fucking lie?

>By what logic?
They get free money not to work?

[Anonymous No.6593181]

>>6593145
>And "high taxes, high" spending resulted in the most prosperous time in American history, which lasted for decades (unlike the short-term gain after tax cuts),

This is WRONG.

The 1950s actually had LOW taxes compared to today. Look at this study. Or even ask anyone from 1950s how high their taxes were.

You're so dumb you don't even know this.
Also you just skipped a gigantic thing that proved you wrong.
The most austerity in the history of the country provided the biggest increase in economic production.

>Even prior to the stimulus and bailouts we had the wealthy making increasingly more while everyone else made less.
NO SHIT YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 100+ YEARS

They're always doing this, the entire bubble happened because YOU wanted this to happen.

>Money naturally accumulates at the top in a free market
No it doesn't. We don't have a free market whatsoever. We have a controlled market by central bankers. This is what you wanted, and this is what you got.

>It's the governments responsibility to redistribute part of this wealth back at the bottom to help growth continue for everyone and not just a few.
The government is what created this "income inequality" in the first place you brainwashed plebeian.

>>6593153
>Paying to support privatized education is the problem
I agree we should completely abolish public(violent) education and allow people to decide what schools they want to go to. This would cause the price to go down like it was in the 1950s.

[Anonymous No.6593183]

>>6593145
>Money naturally accumulates at the top in a free market
We have nothing close to a free market right now.

[Anonymous No.6593192]

>>6593145
The more free a market is the higher average income and living standards it's people have.

[Anonymous No.6593217]

>>6593173
>An absolute SHITHOLE right now.
France has less poverty and higher median income relative to hours worked than the US does.

>I AM canadian and we have LOW spending compared to other nations, in fact we're one of the most free market nations on earth.
>America has far MORE spending since it went off the gold standard in 1971. In fact they have spent more than basically any country on earth.
You're equating total spending with social spending. Much of the US' high spending is due to our bloated defense budget and supporting unsustainable private healthcare and education systems that should be public. Our financial support for the poor is pathetic.

>They get free money not to work?
Read again. I claimed that MINIMUM WAGE (not welfare) created incentive to work.

>The 1950s actually had LOW taxes compared to today. Look at this study. Or even ask anyone from 1950s how high their taxes were.
The 1950s had more PROGRESSIVE taxation. The wealthy were taxed more (as much as 90%), the rest less. Now we keep shifting more of the tax burden onto those who can't afford it, and growth is shrinking as a result.

>No it doesn't. We don't have a free market whatsoever. We have a controlled market by central bankers. This is what you wanted, and this is what you got.
We have a mixed system, but it's still a capitalist system, and that results in economic in equality for the reasons I just described.

>I agree we should completely abolish public(violent) education and allow people to decide what schools they want to go to. This would cause the price to go down like it was in the 1950s.
This is the opposite of what I was saying and completely foolish. Privatization of education just widens the divide between the haves and have-nots.

[Anonymous No.6593227]

>>6593192
What is the definition of "free" on that graph? What policies are considered "restrictive"?

[Anonymous No.6593232]

>>6592919

After hyperinflation failed to materialize, the Austerians are now reduced to conspiracy theories about how to unskew the official CPI figures.

[Anonymous No.6593235]

>>6592937

>In fact the same DAY American Samoa raised their minimum wage a large portion of the people on the island LOST THEIR JOBS.

Cool Story Bro.

[1/2 No.6593253]

>>6593217
>France has less poverty and higher median income relative to hours worked than the US does.
No, it doesn't, it has high unemployment rate and it really fucking sucks for people there.

>unsustainable private healthcare and education systems that should be public.
They shouldn't be "public". You shouldn't threaten private doctors and private educators with murder you sadistic piece of shit. We need a free market in healthcare so the prices will come down like it used to be.
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html
We really need a revolution against you people, seriously, there's no other option at this point. You want to take away our rights.

>Read again.
Okay, how would destroying potential job opportunities give an incentive to work?

>The 1950s had more PROGRESSIVE taxation.
Actually no, read the study, you're dead wrong.

>The wealthy were taxed more (as much as 90%), the rest less.
No they weren't actually. Also the "wealthy" back then were those that made what would amount to billions of dollars today. Today the "wealthy" mean anyone who makes over 100k. Over all everyone including the rich(who mostly used loopholes to not pay taxes) paid MUCH less in taxes, also the economy was much more free.

>Now we keep shifting more of the tax burden onto those who can't afford it
There should be no tax burden at all.

[2/2 No.6593262]

>>6593217
>We have a mixed system, but it's still a capitalist system,
By your retarded logic, the soviet union was capitalist because it had some market activity and it's failures are the complete result of capitalism.

>and that results in economic in equality for the reasons I just described.
No, the "inequality" comes from sadistic pieces of shit like you forcing me by the point of a gun to use a currency that constantly LOSES VALUE while my savings, wages get destroyed and you print trillions and give it to your banker and corporate friends.
This is literally the reason why everything sucks for the working class right now and it's your fault. Kill yourself.

>This is the opposite of what I was saying
I know.

>Privatization of education just widens the divide between the haves and have-nots.
Kill yourself. You advocate state run indoctrination camps. You support forcing people to pay for these camps in taxes. I support letting people decide on their own what kind of education they get which results in much lower costs of education over all(the 50s had basically no state supported college loans and it was incredibly cheap for people, everyone could afford it).

We need to start killing people like you who want to violently prevent people from educating themselves.

>>6593227
>What policies are considered "restrictive"?
More socialist/anti-business/anti-market policies.

>>6593232
>After hyperinflation failed to materialize,
Why would there be hyperinflation.
We've been exporting our inflation to the rest of the world because we have the world reserve currency.

Do you even know what the petrodollar is you sadistic cunt?

Also, what about the fact massive inflation has happened in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran etc the past few years? Do you retards just ignore it exists?

>the official CPI figures.
LOL you mean the ones that don't even include OIL, GASOLINE, HOUSING AND MOST FOODS

Lol holy fuck.

[Anonymous No.6593266]

>>6593253
>We need a free market in healthcare
Information asymmetry prevents this. The scale is simply to large for patient signalling; we saw this in the US with insurance companies spending massive amounts of money on a bureaucratic screening system. There needs to be some government intervention in health insurance, this is basically micro 101

[Anonymous No.6593271]

>>6593235
>doesn't even know what american samoa is
Lol holy fuck

http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2011/07/06/minimum-wage-law-backfires-american-samoa
www.financialgod.com/how-the-federal-minimum-wage-crushed-the-economy-of-american-samoa/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/1/imposed-minimum-wage-hikes-hurt-economies-in-ameri/?page=all

It's always cute to see you retards support policies that hurt you.

[Anonymous No.6593276]

>mfw econfags take their beliefs as seriously as fundamentalists take their religious beliefs

[Anonymous No.6593279]

>>6593266
>Information asymmetry prevents this.
Not this retarded fallacy again.

>insurance companies
>in a free market of healthcare
You really have no idea do you.

[Anonymous No.6593281]

>>6593279
The pic does not address information asymmetry whatsoever.
It's not a fallacy, it's a basic market failure explained in micro 101.
>free market will not have insurance companies
I hope you don't mean this, because:
First, yes it will.
Second, a world without insurance would be horrible.

[Anonymous No.6593285]

You will never see a scenario where all ecnnomists are milionnaires / no one is poor / whatever as long as this shit remains the same.

Free markets they say ; capitalism , freedom ,Central banks , inflation ; TOP LOLZ

[Anonymous No.6593286]

>>6593281
>The pic does not address information asymmetry whatsoever.
No but these do
http://mises.org/daily/1135/Markets-and-the-Information-Problem
http://mises.org/daily/1035

The image explains why healthcare is so expensive in america. It didn't used to be.

>it's a basic market failure
Yes a market failure that was the result of government.

>I hope you don't mean this, because:
They would exist but they would be very minimal and over used for catastrophic things.

Most medical procedures would be paid for out of pocket because the price would be so low.

[Anonymous No.6593287]

>>6593279
>information asymmetry is a retarded fallacy

Then why did the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics go to three people who studied it extensively?

[Anonymous No.6593288]

>>6593285
>Free markets they say ; capitalism , freedom ,Central banks , inflation ; TOP LOLZ
EBIC SIMBLY EBIC

:DDDDDDD

[Anonymous No.6593290]

>>6593287
Because the Nobel Prize is a politicized joke now.
Al Gore and Obama won the Nobel Prize.
Seriously.
Thanks for showing your ignorance and blind trust in retarded institutions like this.

[Anonymous No.6593296]

>>6590169
Why aren't you shitposting on /biz/?

[Anonymous No.6593300]

>>6593286
>the mises institute
This is <span class="math">extremely[/spoiler] fringe economics.
I'm not sure I can take any of it seriously, especially since they lack mathematical rigor and don't make their assumptions clear.
It's classified as /phil/ in my book.

[Anonymous No.6593303]

>>6593290
Obama won the nobel prize for being an adept of true pis man ; Respect obama , an american president

[Anonymous No.6593304]

>>6593290
>confusing the peace prize with prizes for specific fields

[Anonymous No.6593307]

Please go to the Hayek & Mises board:
>>>/hm/

[Anonymous No.6593310]

>>6593300
>This is extremely fringe economics.
There are competing schools of economics. Please stop appealing to authority.

Read the articles though, you may learn something.

>they lack mathematical rigor
They don't they do use mathematics, when needed. Most of economics actually has very little math. Those that pretend human behavior can be modeled using math alone end up being dead wrong, like keynes, see:
>>6592937

>don't make their assumptions clear.
They make it extremely clear.

>>6593304
The nobel prize

A man who actually thinks wasting scarce resources a pretend alien invasion would fix the economy won the nobel prize.
This man is is the progressive's god basically even though he's so fucking wrong.

[Anonymous No.6593311]

The so-called "Nobel Prize in Economics" isn't even a real Nobel Prize.

Nobel wanted to award prizes to those that HELPED HUMANITY. Economics does the opposite.

[Anonymous No.6593313]

>>6593307
What exactly do you hate about us libertarians?
Seriously?

>>6593311
>Economics does the opposite.
Riiiiggght, the thing that brought billions of people out of poverty doesn't help anyone.
Great.

[Anonymous No.6593314]

You faggots better be saging this thread.

[Anonymous No.6593315]

>>6593313
> What exactly do you hate about us libertarians?
you don't want to talk about science or math

>>>/biz/
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6593320]

>>6593315
Neither do liberals.

[Anonymous No.6593322]

>>6593320
I don't like them either then.

>>>/biz/
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6593323]

>>6593322
Then what is your political ideology?
>hurr I don't have one

You must have some opinions.

[Anonymous No.6593328]

>>6593323
This question belongs on /pol/, I agree with this anon
>>6593322