/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 396 KB, 500x497, keynes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 03:43:33 2017 No.9336691 [Reply] [Original]

So apparently Trump's tax plan that was just passed cans the waiver deduction for gradschool

Therefore if the price of your Ph.d/Masters is 80k but they waive it and give you a stipend you will be taxed on 100k overall wealth instead of the 20k you were supposed to be taxed on,

what affect will this have on the overall economy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 03:53:52 2017 No.9336699 The tax plan is fantastic. What's even better is how much it triggers the redditors Also, what's the joke in your picture OP? I don't get it

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 03:54:33 2017 No.9336701 File: 50 KB, 800x533, eea6d177140426812bbcaeb3ebf67303.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] People always complain it's too saturated, remove the fat. Trump did, now they still complain. Give him a break! He's working really hard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 04:06:57 2017 No.9336714 >>9336691 >tfw undergrad senior damn, should have done my bachelor's in STEM

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 04:12:31 2017 No.9336722 >>9336701 >remove the fat did they cut any defense spending? corn subsidies? Also, Trump didn't do anything yet, this was a House bill, written by GOP reps. He'd probably sign it if it passes the senate which it looks like it will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 04:21:35 2017 No.9336727 Couldn't the schools just restructure their contracts so you get a 20k salary? And forget about the price of the degree and the stipend.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 04:27:51 2017 No.9336733 >>9336699 Copypasta? I don't get why that's Keynesianism, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 04:32:29 2017 No.9336735 >>9336733 >>9336699 >just print more Spaghetti

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 04:41:26 2017 No.9336747 >>9336733 >copypasta Nice try though lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 05:40:57 2017 No.9336800 >>9336733 >Copypasta amazing

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 07:59:55 2017 No.9336966

>>9336701
>House has an okay bill
>Trump wants the House bill
>Senate has a dogshit bill
>they still have to pass it because the Senate are a bunch of neocuck traitors, so it's either the Senate bill with some minor House additions, or nothing
>everyone on r/pol/ starts screaming "Yass, Trump, we did it, based!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:16:44 2017 No.9337214 >>9336691 >Tax reform that mainly benefits the rich The world is laughing at the US

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:18:38 2017 No.9337220 >>9336699 >The tax plan is fantastic why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:20:40 2017 No.9337227 >>9337220 B-because Trump... MAGA... Shillary's emails...

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:21:41 2017 No.9337231 >>9337220 Can't you read? He said because it triggers Redditors.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:27:56 2017 No.9337243 >>9336699 dude, senators were literally HANDWRITING IN riders they wanted right before the passed it. Regardless of your political leanings this bill is dumb as shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:52:49 2017 No.9337315 >>9336699 You’re literally retarded. I expect no better from /pol/.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:20:52 2017 No.9337374

>>9336691
The economy will negatively impacted eventually, but this is simply part of Trump's plan to cripple American science.

First, he crippled the budgets of the funding agencies like the NSF. This is not just anti-climate science. Every field is getting less money. The computation budget at LLNL was halved in the most recent budget.

Now, he want to cut off the supply of scientists. Scientists are already picking a less profitable career than one in industry. But now if they want to pursue it they'll have to go into massive debt. This gamble works for doctors because their careers are pretty lucrative afterwards. Scientists are never going to make enough money to pay back a decade of student loans.

So people won't become scientists. Personally, I'll have to do the money to see if I can keep going forward in my PhD. If I don't get a really good fellowship or internship it may not be sustainable for my wife and I.

So with no money and no science, Trump will have succeeded in crippling American science. But what his tiny, decaying brain doesn't realize is how much industry depends on science. People in industry don't operate in a bubble. In computing, their is a huge industry presence. They read the papers, they recruit the graduates, etc. If they can't get this from America, they'll go to Europe or China, along with the scientists.

Can't wait to Make China Great Again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:23:59 2017 No.9337377 >>9336691 Can someone explain me how do you spend your "waiver" and what the hell is it? Also as we know all academia is basically leftypol, so why arent you happy to pay more taxes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:26:30 2017 No.9337381 >>9337374 >China When will this meme die?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:29:34 2017 No.9337391 >>9337374 Yeah, publicly funded research has generated so many great, useful scientific discoveries in the past decade such as...such as....gimme a minute...uh...

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:32:17 2017 No.9337395
File: 177 KB, 900x1200, DPCRiu_U8AA18Lu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9337377
Schools charge tuition to attend the school. Most PhDs recieve a "package" akin to a hiring package. This typically includes a stipend for ~18k a year and free tuition in the form of a tuition waiver. The wavier is worth a lot more than the stipend, usually.

You cannot spend it. You never see it. You just don't have to pay tuition.

>happy to pay more taxes
perhaps the picture will make it clearer for you

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:39:18 2017 No.9337407 >>9337395 Can schools just take you for phd for free then?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:39:54 2017 No.9337410

>>9337381
Maybe this will clear things up for you.
https://www.top500.org/lists/2017/11/

>>9337391
>absence of evidence is evidence of absence lmao
A decade is a tricky timeline. It's hard to tell how important discoveries will become in the first decade after someone publishes papers about them. We know that public research has funded many important discoveries historically though. Why are you singling out the last 10 years? Do you think something changed?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:41:13 2017 No.9337414

>>9336691
People will be happy that their taxes are lower today and wonder why we don't have a publicly available cure for some superbug tomorrow.

On the bright side though, private sector research is about to blow up, and people who managed to get through their programs before the reform going to get filthy rich due to less future competition entering the workforce, and from corporations tending to focus on finding 50 different kinds of chemo for various problems instead of outright trying to deliver a cure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:44:32 2017 No.9337420 >>9337410 >https://www.top500.org/lists/2017/11/ Arent supercomputers the thing of the past, as now scientists use distributed clusters? Generally speaking, totalitarian corrupt shithole can't produce anything creative, including scientific researchers.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:51:19 2017 No.9337433

>>9337410
It's retarded to tax Allergan or Intel so that instead of buying lottery tickets like new clinical trials or CPU manufacturing processes, we can instead buy lottery tickets that, I don't know, sets can be theorized more efficiently or we can finally get to the bottom of the mystery of finch gender identities.

"Public research" has been a meme since the 80's.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:52:10 2017 No.9337436

>>9337407
If you're asking if schools can simply make tuition $0, I'm pretty sure they won't do that.

Right now, money still moves when a student has a waiver. The student's PhD advisor brings in research money in the form of grants, and some of this money goes to the school to pay the student's tuition.

Another solution, of course, is to lower tuition to a reasonable number. But then schools won't have money to create a new fucking Office of Diversity.

>>9337420
>scientists use distributed clusters?
Sounds like a supercomputer to me.
Considering that the Supercomputing conference attracted 15k people this year, I would say that supercomputing is not dead.

If China continues to pour money into computing while we continue to decrease it, no amount of creativity will make up for the gap. We won't even have researchers, let alone creative ones.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:53:02 2017 No.9337440 >>9336691 the senate version doesn't the house version does it still has to go through reconciliation

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:54:27 2017 No.9337444

>>9337407
It's illegal to give away high value items for free in an attempt to avoid paying taxes. They'd have to actually turn around and value PhDs/programs at $0 to justify the school/student not needing to pay taxes for the exchange of services. Kind of like how a business can't just give you a house or car and you or they pay no taxes on the exchange, your parents can't just give you all of their stuff before they die and leave an empty will to avoid paying an estate tax, or how lottery winners can't just take 100% of the money they've won. None of that flies. Well, unless you're making the exchanges behind closed doors, that is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:54:35 2017 No.9337445 >>9337440 Also most schools are already saying they'll just make tuition cost 0 for grad students instead of doing waivers if the bill goes through with the change

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:55:07 2017 No.9337447 >>9337220 It's a good bill cause Democrats hate it!! Unfortunately Republicans also hate it but we can ignore that. See guys! We measure our winning by how much the other side hates us! We're winning! So much winning!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:56:29 2017 No.9337451 >>9337447 >It's a good bill cause Democrats hate it!! sadly, this is how many people think now. and they actually call themselves patriots

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:56:50 2017 No.9337453 >>9337433 Do you have some strange auto-correct that changes some words to "lottery tickets?" I'm having a tough time reading this. >>9337445 Proof?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:57:52 2017 No.9337455 >>9337444 Then perhaps PhDs should be treated as employees. We already are, in some regards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:58:18 2017 No.9337457 >>9337436 So basically they need to pretend to spend more money to receive more funding? >>9337444 Well, it is technically free now, are you saying that giving something for free to selected people is illegal in the us?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:59:17 2017 No.9337459

>>9337453
All research is a gamble (otherwise it wouldn't be research). Private sector research is focused on useful things, while public sector research is focused on whatever people want to write grants about. Tax dollars come from somewhere. Therefore when you tax, you move money from the former bet to the latter.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:03:18 2017 No.9337465

>>9337453
>Proof?
Well you caught me. Half of that's an assumption. My uni says they're talking about it and my friend at Oregon State said they're going to make tuition $0 if that's what happens.

But I doubt it will be in the final bill so it's not exactly something that needs to be worried about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:06:03 2017 No.9337473 >>9337410 >absence of evidence is evidence of absence lmao Not even your own people would buy that excuse. Try writing a grant paper with that line of reasoning you fuckhead.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:07:09 2017 No.9337475 >>9337459 >Private sector research is focused on useful things Such as, how to make the absolute most possible money for whoever is paying for the research

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:07:21 2017 No.9337477 >>9337451 > It's a good bill cause Democrats hate it It is a good heuristic tho.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:07:49 2017 No.9337478

>>9337457
>giving away something for free to selected people is illegal in the us
Depends on the value of the thing being given away. That established value of the thing you're giving away plays a part in determining if it's a taxable item and parties involved in the exchange of that item are responsible for paying taxes on the exchange.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:08:42 2017 No.9337480 >>9337475 This is just another way to say that private researchers are focused on how to create the best product for consumers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:09:10 2017 No.9337482 >>9337475 Yes, people pay money for useful things that make their lives better. That's why we have money. And why corporations generally sell things for money.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:09:24 2017 No.9337484

>>9337459
I see. You are one terrible writer, my man.

But yes, research is a gamble. Private sector research is focused on questions that will have some market value for the company funding it. And it also needs to be something that will pay off quickly.

Publicly funded research can answer bigger questions, with perhaps less profitable answers. Things like origin of the universe type questions.
Don't you see value in understanding how our world works?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:09:57 2017 No.9337485 >>9337478 Do sports people also receive a "waiver" to pay for the participation in tournaments?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:10:08 2017 No.9337486 >>9337477 it's not though. think for yourself mang

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:10:38 2017 No.9337489 >>9337473 Pick a (hard) science and we can discuss how publicly funded research impacted it, and how that field eventually lead to some discovery that benefitted you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:12:19 2017 No.9337495 >>9337486 If you start thinking for yourself about every government decision you just won't have enough time for anything else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:13:26 2017 No.9337498 >>9337480 Wrong. They wanted to make the most profitable product. >>9337482 No, they pay for things that they think will make their lives better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:13:45 2017 No.9337499 >>9337495 if you don't have enough time to think about something, then you should refrain from drawing a conclusion about it

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:14:08 2017 No.9337500 >>9337495 Easy. Liberal arts lead to the discovery of the fact that white males are evil, and it benefits me because I am not white.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:14:44 2017 No.9337501 >>9337495 You don't have to think about every government decision, but it doesn't make sense to voice an opinion you didn't think about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:14:59 2017 No.9337503 >>9337480 >>9337482 >they think shareholders care more about them than they do lining their own pockets https://youtu.be/sW_7i6T_H78 Just one example out of many showing how wrong you are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:15:44 2017 No.9337505 File: 6 KB, 150x131, 1339233372825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9336691 >Americans have to PAY for their PhD and live from crumbles left from their stipend Never fails to make me laugh

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:24:39 2017 No.9337523 >>9337503 The pollution problem is only overpopulation problem. What do you want, to halt design of new gadgets?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:25:50 2017 No.9337526 >>9337503 Btw it only proves that companies make better and better stuff, thats why people throw old phones away and by new ones.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:26:51 2017 No.9337531

>>9337498
>No, they pay for things that they *think* will make their lives better.

So why do you think you know their lives better than them?

>>9337503
1900's America and 2000's China were gross and polluted. 1950's America and 2050's China were/will no longer be starving and rich enough to start bitching about pollution. Priorities shift, for corporations and customers, but only after industrial and tech advancement address people's top ones first.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:29:15 2017 No.9337538 >>9337531 >a river catches fire >entire lakes become anoxic >birds die out in droves >bitching about pollution

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:30:41 2017 No.9337540 >>9337538 People never cared about the environment, there just were much fewer people in the past.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:31:05 2017 No.9337542

>>9337531
>So why do you think you know their lives better than them?

That's not what I said. I said that they don't know what will make their lives better. Rather, advertisers pretend to know what will make their lives better and many people fall for it.

The point is that public demand is never going to lead to a company wanting to research basic science. But basic science research often benefits people. So the government should fund it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:34:31 2017 No.9337548 >>9337542 If it benefits people, can you ask them to voluntarily donate to your researches?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:35:56 2017 No.9337553 >>9337540 In the 50s people started caring. Idk if it's because of kuznet's or if it's because they started actually noticing the damage they were doing.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:36:08 2017 No.9337554

>>9337538
>First child starves to death due to bad harvest
>Second child gets trampled by cows
>Get infection due to shitty clothing and harsh winter
>Can't afford antibiotics because they aren't even discovered, much less mass produced
>Die

Pre-industrialization was shit too. That's why people put up with the pollution and messy production that let us get to a better life. If you were minimizing your carbon footprint from the start, above all else, civilization would've never gone anywhere.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:38:39 2017 No.9337557

>>9337542
>The point is that public demand is never going to lead to a company wanting to research basic science. But basic science research often benefits people. So the government should fund it.

And unresponsive government bureaucracies will fritter away money on pointless grants to whoever's got the best connections, taking money from people who would invest or donate more responsibly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:38:50 2017 No.9337558 File: 145 KB, 936x728, i can kek forever.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9336733 >Copypasta?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:41:01 2017 No.9337566 >>9337548 That sounds incredibly volatile. How is a lab supposed to secure funding for a 50 year project from individual donors? Especially for something that's never going to turn a profit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:41:57 2017 No.9337569 >>9337455 Yes! And let us unionize!

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:42:58 2017 No.9337572

>>9337485
They compete in the tournaments for free because they're "student athletes" and sign contracts where they agree that their labor is valued at $0 and that they are not employees. The schools are taxed for giving them scholarships, though, and as a result when student athletes receive allotment checks for housing, food, etc. they may notice the total amount they receive doesn't add up to the value of a full scholarship less the costs of tuition.

So I guess if you really wanted, you could rearrange grad student scholarships and funding to be more akin to student athlete set ups, but it still doesn't change the fact that Uncle Sam is coming for those tax dollars. They'll just tax the school up front instead of collecting it from the students' stipends after. That way you can be blind to the tax hit like the athletes are.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:44:50 2017 No.9337577

>>9337554
Most of those things don't really have a lot to do with carbon.
We just should've used the precautionary principle a little more. For example, when plastics were first invented people started making everything out of plastic.
Obviously you have to start somewhere, but spraying carcinogenic chemicals everywhere, dumping chemical waste directly into water systems (etc) and just generally being careless is a bad idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:46:16 2017 No.9337581 >>9337455 You probably should, but that opens up a can of worms that most Universities would aim to squash quickly because they value the free labor.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:46:34 2017 No.9337582

>>9337557
It's true that money get's wasted sometimes, but the point is that the basic science research is not going to be done by private companies. Even if you gave the companies all that tax money back, there is just research that they would never perform.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:49:33 2017 No.9337588 >>9337566 Names on buildings seem to have a pretty good track record.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:54:23 2017 No.9337596 >>9337588 all that gets you is the building

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:57:39 2017 No.9337604

>>9337588
Now that I think about it, charities already fund research which is what you are describing. So yes, that's a good idea as well.

I'll have to think a bit more about what sorts of research a government may be able to do that a private organization wouldn't.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:03:00 2017 No.9337612

>>9337596
>>9337604
> HHMI spends about $1 million per HHMI Investigator per year, which amounts to annual investment in biomedical research of about $825 million.
>The institute has an endowment of $18.2 billion, making it the second-wealthiest philanthropic organization in the United States and the second-best endowed medical research foundation in the world.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute

Gates or Bezos could singlehandedly endow 5 of those, in whatever fields they want. And that's not even counting the world's 2000 other billionaires.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:06:14 2017 No.9337617

>>9337612
So you're proposing our billionaires pay for basic research?
Hey, I'm kind of liking that idea.
We could call it a "tax" or something...
They could fund committees of scientists that choose which research to fund, call it the National Science Foundation or something...
Now we just need to convince the billionaires.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:07:23 2017 No.9337618 >>9337604 keep thinking smart guy >>9337612 and yet they don't >>9337617 lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:09:36 2017 No.9337624 >>9337612 Yeah, I see the benefits of such an organization. Just read a bit about the Science Philanthropy Alliance as well. What about defense spending. Surely the government should fund that sort of research, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:09:39 2017 No.9337625 >>9337617 You know two important differences? Consent and responsibility.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:12:36 2017 No.9337635 >>9337625 and yet you can't propose a viable alternative

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:17:09 2017 No.9337648

>>9337635
I think you should consider the philanthropy model. Like really consider it.

If you think it is so unviable, I'd be curious as to why you think so. A bit of research shows that research is being funded this way. So why shouldn't we rely on it more heavily, and reduce government spending?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:20:31 2017 No.9337656

>>9337635
That is my viable alternative. If basic research is so desperately underfunded, billionaires will vainly steer their money to get buildings or particles or theorems or whatever named after themselves. Some currently do that.

Meanwhile, in this world of unlimited wants and limited resources, they will also steer money towards practical things like fighting malaria or teaching Indians to poo in loo.

Governments do the same thing when trading off between basic research funding or paying for a 90 year old's hip replacement. It's just that that system produces worse results overall due to weaker accountability.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:23:25 2017 No.9337666

>>9337648
because richfags don't just give all their money away for science, because if they did they would not do a better job distributing it than NSF, because it still wouldn't be nearly enough money, and because its not a good idea to just wait and hope that they fund things

>>9337656
they won't though, and most of them don't care about naming shit after themselves. look if you can convince them to give more money to research, thats great, but its not a viable alternative to govt funding. it would just be supplementary

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:26:29 2017 No.9337676 >>9336699 >man Trump sure is doing great for the economy reddit btfo >btw what's a Keynesian You couldn't build a better bait if you tried

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:28:50 2017 No.9337688 >>9337648 >We should give money to people and things based on their marketability and not their deservedness The philanthropy model is terrible and should only be used on things you want to sabotage.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:43:56 2017 No.9337739

>>9337624
>fund that sort of research
I work in medical supply distribution, and we have a huge account with the DOD (Bases have hospitals) so I can tell you from first hand experience that the Department of Defense is one of the most ass-backwards organizations bureaucratic wrong-headedness in human history.
They will never do anything the easy way if a much more convoluted and pain in the ass alternative exists.
So yes, a government SHOULD invest in R&D in the interest of national security. The problem is when you get things like the military industrial complex that is less interested in R&D and more interested in financial and political aspects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:46:04 2017 No.9337745 >>9337739 i have worked in DOD research and most of the bureaucratic things that get in the way are the result of very strict security policies, not financial and political reasons

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:02:47 2017 No.9337786 Its ok. While America becomes great again, the rest of the world can work towards the progress of humanity. By the time your dark ages are over, there should be plenty of jobs for you scrubbing toilets in China.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:14:17 2017 No.9337810 >>9337220 because democrats don't want the country to burn to the ground so it makes them mad

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:16:09 2017 No.9337812

>>9337420
>Generally speaking, totalitarian corrupt shithole can't produce anything creative, including scientific researchers.
luckily china doesn't need to produce them now. send all the rich kids to america because they're the only ones who can afford phds, then bring them home once they're done.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:32:09 2017 No.9337853

>>9337745
>not financial and political reasons
I was referring more towards the actually industries themselves, and how many people are employed by the military industrial complex. Think about how much money has been dumped into the F-35, and what they got for it. There are a lot of people who have jobs because of those projects, and there are a lot of people who get rich because of those projects. There's a vested interest in maintaining that, or inflating it wherever possible by the people who benefit from it. I'm thinking that bureaucracy pops up because there is money and politics. Maybe I'm conflating it a bit.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:39:59 2017 No.9337874

>>9337853
Military is a third rail. You can't make a rational argument about the worth of a military project without being branded a pacifist libtard who supports radical Islam and worships every night to the alter of satan and Clinton.
The lobbyist's work is 90% done, all that remains is depositing the cheque.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:51:17 2017 No.9337901 >>9336733 the solution to keynesians are always print money.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:52:44 2017 No.9337902 >>9337901 keynesian would plant crops to invest in future dinners

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:58:55 2017 No.9338074 >>9337902 >erhm I forgot to plant more crops after I printed more spgahetti >but I need da spaghetti now! >I couldn't find the spaghetti crop so I just printed more

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:01:01 2017 No.9338078 >>9337625 so you think a billionaire REALLY needs every cent he makes?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:09:07 2017 No.9338106
File: 1.71 MB, 606x423, 848.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9337617
This is the direction we're going, where scientific enterprises are directed and funded by VC bloated techbros instead of informed experts. They get excited about some far future idea, do some inexpert math, and then offer millions in funding to whomever takes up the project. The people working on it surely know that this is an obvious dead end, but if dumb billionaires want to give them funding, they aren't going to say no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:11:11 2017 No.9338110 >>9338078 No, but government doesnt need it either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:13:11 2017 No.9338115 >>9338074 >erhm i decided not to plant crops last season cause seeds are a waste of money >but i need to eat now! >i guess we'll just borrow more food from china

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:31:25 2017 No.9338157
File: 39 KB, 592x102, ZIMBABWE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9336733
>I don't get why that's Keynesianism, though.

Austrians were so thoroughly ass-ravaged by the Keynesians that they need to make shit up in order to make themselves feel better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:35:06 2017 No.9338165 >>9338157 They're not ass-ravaged because they don't have enough self awareness to realize they're retarded

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:36:01 2017 No.9338168

>>9336691
Being in academia, I have heard a lot of my colleagues whining self-servingly about how the tax plan will affect us. I try not to listen to that type of stuff.

It's hard to say what the real effect on the economy will be here. Maybe it means phd programs will be more selective and start rejecting the worst students who are currently being accepted.

If that's all that happens, I'm OK with it. It will still probably hurt me but I won't whine. The truth is, society can afford to tell the bottom 20% of grad students to fuck off and get a real job.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:37:49 2017 No.9338173 >>9337395 That's not how tax brackets work brainlet

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:46:30 2017 No.9338204

>>9337220
It gets rid of the estate tax. I don't benefit from this in any way, but I've always thought that it was bullshit that the money you've been saving up to give your kids better lives can be taxed, even if you do have to be a multimillionaire for it to go into effect.

It also gets rid of state tax exemptions, which hurts in the short term (or the long term if high tax states are adamant about remaining so) but encourages states to lower their taxes as well. I live in a high tax state (MD) and I'm fine with this, although I'm sure our legislature will take forever to lower our state taxes and make us suffer just to prove some partisan point to Drumfy.

I'm a monarchist by the way and I think it's immoral for me to vote, so don't try to lump me in with the republicans on both sides of the aisle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:48:10 2017 No.9338212 >>9338204 >I'm a monarchist by the way and I think it's immoral for me to vote in all my years on 4chan this is the most fedora thing i've ever read

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:49:14 2017 No.9338216 >>9338212 I don't think it's immoral for everyone to vote, just myself and other monarchists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:49:24 2017 No.9338217 >>9336722 It did

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:51:23 2017 No.9338220 >>9338212 >>9338216 I should clarify that by saying "other monarchists who reject the legitimacy of democratic elements." Obviously it's quite possible to have democracy in a monarchy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:51:37 2017 No.9338221 >>9338216 lol ok

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:18:36 2017 No.9338385
File: 1.15 MB, 640x360, snapcity.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9336727
>And forget about the price of the degree and the stipend.
Then they cannot engage in the funny accounting that allows them to have way more administrators than is needed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:16:28 2017 No.9338695 >>9337420 Supercomputers are distributed clusters

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:19:06 2017 No.9338700 >>9337214 It literally can't benefit anyone else. The bottom 50% don't pay net taxes. Tax cuts can only benefit the people who pay the taxes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:23:04 2017 No.9338716 Grad students should just form a nonprofit charitable corporation. then enjoy tax exempt status.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:25:39 2017 No.9338721 File: 14 KB, 274x184, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9338716 The church of KEK

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:27:40 2017 No.9338731 >>9338721 If Harvard and Yale can be non profits and dodge taxes. Then grad students across the country should be able to do the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:28:14 2017 No.9338733 >>9338700 go away mitt

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:39:06 2017 No.9338767 >>9338731 whaaaaaaaat, they're non-profit? grad students should unionize

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:40:37 2017 No.9338769 >>9338767 there is a union GAU. they negotiate with my uni every year and get us better stipends and benefits and less fees

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:41:24 2017 No.9338774 >>9338769 Can they do something?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:42:15 2017 No.9338776

>>9338767
of course they're non-profit. all for-profit schools are literal scams that leech tax dollars. one of the biggest problems in education but republicans would never do anything about that cause muh laisse-faire capitalism

>>9338774
about the bill? probably not much other than complain

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:46:38 2017 No.9338791 >>9338776 then what's the point

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:48:18 2017 No.9338795 >>9338791 of complaining? politicians do sometimes change their votes based on how much people complain

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 22:52:28 2017 No.9338894 File: 41 KB, 463x278, 23042304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9336699 the triple dubs of good b8

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:16:32 2017 No.9338930

>>9337220
primarily because it triggers redditors and "lefitsts".
you should see on /pol/ how they're celebrating the net neutrality repeal because it "triggers reddit" even though it will undoubtedly result in /pol/'s destruction. if some conservative talk radio host told them their suicides would trigger the left, they'd kill themselves en masse within the day.

>>9337391
>in the past decade
brainlet detected: you won't know inside of a single decade whether a discovery was useful or not. Let alone whether or not it is profitable.
Great example is the LASER, which carries 6-7 different multitrillion dollar industries to this day. When it was developed, it had no practical application.
funny thing about businessmen is they unrionically believe that they are the smartest amongst us.
An NIH-funded nanotransfection project literally brought dead tissue back to life a couple months ago, think that could be useful? A NFS-funded battery project created a material that stores a voltage but doesn't explode even if cut in half while in the circuit. Could it be useful?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 07:26:02 2017 No.9339429 >>9336691 lmao america where would I get my lols if not you

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 09:42:26 2017 No.9339618 File: 231 KB, 934x534, zi350se1wbpx[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9336699 Oh boy I can't wait for tax cuts for the super rich even though I'm in poverty!

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:44:41 2017 No.9340046 >>9337391 I lol'd it really is sad the average person has no clue how we're in basically a golden age of bio discoveries, though

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:47:22 2017 No.9340049 >>9336699 >redditor >says the cuck from r/the_donald back to le leddit friendo

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:52:10 2017 No.9340058 >>9337381 It's not a meme trumpcuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:54:17 2017 No.9340063 >>9337444 >land of the free

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:54:51 2017 No.9340064 >>9336699 >having schadenfreude drive your political views I remember being 15.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:55:15 2017 No.9340066

>>9336691
it stills has to go through reconciliation, which it may still pass there though hopefully not.

The point of the tax plan is to give corporations tax cuts and blow up the deficit so that welfare and obamacare get cut.

i doubt companies will stop having chinese factory slaves, so there wont be a big job increase overall.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:58:03 2017 No.9340070 >>9336691 >Trump's tax plan You mean ALEC and CATO's tax plan

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 14:07:32 2017 No.9340087

>>9338157
>>9338165
>Austrians were so thoroughly ass-ravaged by the Keynesians that they need to make shit up in order to make themselves feel better.
>They're not ass-ravaged because they don't have enough self awareness to realize they're retarded
Really? It seems like, even though we "got thoroughly ass-ravaged", our economy is completely average compared to other West European countries

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 14:15:09 2017 No.9340101

It's great. We have too many people getting bachelor's who should be going to trade school, too many people getting master's who should be getting bachelor's, too many PhDs who should be getting master's instead. Removing government guarantees on student loans would be even greater.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 14:20:01 2017 No.9340103 File: 699 KB, 1221x768, s9vpasx4gssz.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9339618 found the soy boy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 14:37:07 2017 No.9340134 >>9340087 We're talking about the Austrian school of economics, not the country of Austria

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 15:18:58 2017 No.9340210 >>9340103 >hurr if you don't like something that's bad for you then you're a wimp

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 15:27:00 2017 No.9340225 >>9340103 imagine having this picture saved on your computer and thinking you aren't a soyboy

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:39:50 2017 No.9340633 File: 3.06 MB, 1469x4950, 1510459892081.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:45:18 2017 No.9340644 >>9340633 there is just no way this is worth reading

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:47:05 2017 No.9340651 >>9340064 But I thought most leftists were solely motivated by the thoughts of their grandparents weeping at what they were doing to undermine the society they endured a war for.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:47:13 2017 No.9340652 File: 409 KB, 1860x887, The Real Political Spectrum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9340644 Welcome to /x/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 05:45:07 2017 No.9341711 >>9338157 >one of the key schools behind the marginal revolution is retarded I think you have the wrong idea on who e exactly is retarded here

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 10:52:31 2017 No.9342173 >>9337220 Because it cuts corporate taxes down to 20% and will create a massive influx of business stateside. sci/ really is retarded...

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 10:58:45 2017 No.9342185

>>9338385
>>9336727
This. Why the hell are sci/ and the rest of liberals/self-described intellectuals complaining that an increase in taxes is Trump's fault? Oh I forgot, they're actually idiots and can't understand that colleges are just using them to get more funding and pay less taxes. The people being hurt the most will be college administrators. They will either have to eat the bill or risk losing the their cheap labor supply in the form of grad students.

Stop being hypocritical croniest bitches, learn who is actually using who in society, and straighten up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 11:00:00 2017 No.9342188 >>9338733 He's factually right though?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 11:01:55 2017 No.9342193 >>9338776 Except public universities ARE for profit in everything except name. Just like mega-churches and the NCAA... Stop letting colleges scam you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 11:03:10 2017 No.9342200 >>9337374 Thanks for the input retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 14:20:41 2017 No.9342615 >>9342173 >Because it cuts corporate taxes down to 20% and will create a massive influx of business stateside. It will work this time? Why is That? What's different now compared to Busch era tax cuts or the Ronald?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 14:30:53 2017 No.9342652 >>9342173 Those most affected by the tax cuts are the companies already making lots of profit, which were stockpiling money before and will now stockpile even more. Why would that create jobs?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 14:34:46 2017 No.9342663 >>9342652 It's called "trickle down" economics. I bet your just too much a of a triggered liberal Reddit fag to understand why this will make America great again, were draining the swamp and people like you are running out of places to hide in it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 14:37:56 2017 No.9342673 >>9342663 >It's called "trickle down" economics. Oh, I forgot about this theoretic concept invented by rich people, which has never worked even though it was tried a hundred times >draining the swamp More like keeping it well hydrated

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 14:40:55 2017 No.9342678 >>9342663 magatards have really made it hard to distinguish satire

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 14:42:11 2017 No.9342684 >>9342678 You're not wrong. >>9342673

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:01:22 2017 No.9342722

>>9342663
"Trickle down" has never been put forth by any serious economist. It's a leftist myth term to deride banks which they don't understand.

When rich people have more money, there is more money in the bank. When there is more money in the bank, there is more money to lend to up and comming people who are trying to start businesses, buy houses, or get educated. By having more money to lend, it is cheaper to extend credit to people, so poor people can more easily leverage debt to climb the social ladder.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:46:41 2017 No.9342802

>>9342722
>When rich people have more money, there is more money in the bank. When there is more money in the bank, there is more money to lend to up and comming people who are trying to start businesses, buy houses, or get educated. By having more money to lend, it is cheaper to extend credit to people, so poor people can more easily leverage debt to climb the social ladder.

Then how come it's never worked out that way in all the times we've implemented policy that is supposed to lead to it? Why has it only ever resulted in more wealth going to the wealthy and causing the banking system to nearly collapse?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 17:23:32 2017 No.9343046 >>9339618 >as much as a man who invites a strange to bed his wife So, cucks are called cucks(cuckolds) even by Karl Marx. It's in fact an irony that they follow marxism. Guess they do love being called cucks.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 18:28:13 2017 No.9343167

>>9342188
no

>>9342193
false. and i didn't get scammed, went to public uni and got phd with no debt

>>9342173
>people actually believe this

>>9342663
i hope for you sake you're trolling

>>9342722
change "rich" to "poor" and "lend" to "spend" and you'd be on the right track

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 18:52:01 2017 No.9343210

>>9338204
>estate tax

As of 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) only requires estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $5.45 million to file a federal estate tax return and pay estate taxes.

Also plenty of ways to mitigate or ignore it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 19:38:50 2017 No.9343317 >>9343167 Yeah, you don't have a phd

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 20:54:20 2017 No.9343491 File: 36 KB, 629x504, 401A28EA-4632-4679-A959-2C584229E90E.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9339618 >implying I’m in poverty Only brainlets are poor

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 21:26:51 2017 No.9343545 File: 72 KB, 935x1134, IMG_0372.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9337447

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 21:36:48 2017 No.9343563

Turns out when 99% of people in college postgrad are unabashed socialists a right wing standing government doesn't give a shit about them or their babby ass academic tax breaks

we pay taxes for every little shit we do in general society your lift isn't different

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 21:37:35 2017 No.9343564
File: 6 KB, 401x351, tax22.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9337220
It helps me, a humble fork lift driver. It punishes wealthy home owners in California and people in grad school. Interestingly those are two groups that wanted to lower my wages by importing more Central Americans because MUH DIVERSITY.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 21:40:26 2017 No.9343572

>>9343564

My favorite little nugget of knowledge out of all of this that I was never aware of, was that higher tax blue states could scam the federal system by raising their own state taxes to crazy rates while deducting that from federal income tax

So literally enjoying all of the federal benefits, their higher state benefits, and yet paying less on the first account

The nanny state of Cuckifornia is about to get its reckoning because state income tax deduction is getting slashed

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 21:56:22 2017 No.9343612 >>9343564 >by importing more Central Americans because MUH DIVERSITY. source?

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:11:32 2017 No.9343649
File: 61 KB, 1024x1024, 1024px-Supply-demand-right-shift-supply.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9343612
Source for what? That lefties want high rates of immigration from Spanish speaking countries or that immigration drives down wages? Both are self evident. Talk to a lefty about closing the border. They'll act like you're some kind of Jefferson Davis/Hitler hybrid instead of someone who just wants a living wage. As far as wages being deppresed by immigration either common sense or being able to look at supply and demand curves will tell you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:17:48 2017 No.9343665 >>9343649 >sense i'm on the left and i dont want what you are saying the lefties watn

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:23:32 2017 No.9343681
File: 137 KB, 600x347, indymedia.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9343665
Great. I believe Bernie Sanders once echoed a similar sentiment.

https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0

Maybe if more liberals took after you two instead of pushing for open borders and dumping all over labor then the left could actually win elections.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:27:25 2017 No.9343687 >>9343564 I like how the right wants free markets until it means competition in the market they compete in. Then they want to prevent anybody willing to work for less than them to be banned from entering the country.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:30:31 2017 No.9343696

>>9343572
How is that substantively different that writing off business expenses? If a business owner with large profit margins decides to fund a new project with their money, they get to write it off. If the state of California wants to spend money on a project, they can write it off as well.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:31:25 2017 No.9343699

>>9336691
>if the price of your Ph.d/Masters is 80k but they waive it and give you a stipend you will be taxed on 100k overall wealth instead of the 20k
Exactly as it should be. Currently, grad school education is an indentured-servitude-for-credentials scheme, except for the rich.

The colleges have no intention of actually charging this $80k to most of their students. It's just a threat they hold over their heads: "You better work for us for peanuts, or we'll charge you far more than you can afford and you won't be able to get your degree!"

It's scummy dealing, and ensures that most Ph.Ds and Masters degrees go to third-rate men, who have no better prospects than trading the prime years of their life for increasingly hollow credentials.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:37:22 2017 No.9343714 >>9343649 >lefties want high rates of immigration from Spanish speaking countries What? They just dont think building a border wall is a worthwhile expenditure.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:40:46 2017 No.9343726 >>9343699 How does taxing it higher solves this

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:42:28 2017 No.9343734
File: 474 KB, 889x500, favela_1_wide.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9343687
>Then they want to prevent anybody willing to work for less than them to be banned from entering the country.

Yes! Now you're getting it. Though conservatives might call me a populist.

I'll make you a deal. Since you want me to compete in a global market you won't mind if we make some othet changes right? First my medical costs are too high. I'd like to be able to hire doctors from France and India. I'd like the residency requirements for them dropped too. I should be able to get cheaper medical care that way (though US doctors will make less). Also I want to order drugs from India and not worry about patents. In fact just scrap the FDA. Copyright law is protectionism so anything Hollywood has ever made I get to watch for free (just like in China). I think passing the bar is racist (or someting). Any law degree should work in the US. I'd like to be able to hire a lawyer from Brazil if I want. Driving is a choice, if you dont want to risk getting hit don't drive, so dump mandatory auto insurance. Also I can't afford a house. Dumping all building codes and zoning laws would really help with that. Apologies if my new favella drives down your property value.

Anyway after you deep six all the laws that make housing and medicine and everything else so expensive then we can talk about dumping the laws that protect my wages.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:46:19 2017 No.9343742 File: 271 KB, 382x448, 1501746942948.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9340651 Who? The Baby Boomers? They got us here! Fuck em is what I say, I'm sick of paying for their mistakes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 22:50:18 2017 No.9343751 File: 83 KB, 567x580, pence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9343714 Yet they support sanctuary cities and are strongly opposed to deporting illegals, sorry, "undocumented dreamers" and neither of those are the same as building a wall.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:03:36 2017 No.9343782

>>9343726
The colleges can't stop their graduate programs, and won't give the students enough extra to pay the income taxes on $100k compensation. They'll have to lower their prices on graduate tuition until they can afford the tax bill, which will put it within range for students to pay with debt, savings from taking a few years off to work in industry, or with other part-time jobs than serving the college.

They'll still be able to hire graduate students, but only if they offer them a competitive wage for the kind of work they're having them do, and they'll have to live with the possibility that graduate students will just pay the tuition from other resources and spend their out-of-class time pursuing their own interests rather than the college's.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:15:12 2017 No.9343800

>>9343696

Because your contribution to your state income tax goes back into state benefits you have access to. You already have access to your federal benefits (like the rest of the country). If you have a higher state tax, you have a higher deduction, and can write that off. It's having your cake and eating it too on a broad basis.

It doesn't even make any sense as a deduction.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:24:30 2017 No.9343817

>>9342652
You're joking right? I own a small business and I'll now be able to hire more personnel and expand my business with far less risk. This is all thanks to this tax bill.

You people have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and lack any real world experience. Cutting corporate (C-corp) taxes will shift the incentive of high earners/owners/shareholders to invest more in business to save money on taxes. The business will then hire more and build on itself to make more revenue to make it a worthwhile investment and at least surpass the risk free bond rate of 3.1%.

This is what "trickle down" is actually referring to.

>>9342663
>>9342673
>>9342678
>>9342684
>>9342722
>>9343167

Banks don't insure money saved above $250k, and even then money in the bank will never match inflation or the risk free bond rate. So, rich people invest in diversified portfolios to reduce systemic risk. This is usually a mixture of stocks and bonds. Now that the corporate rate has been lowered to a competitive level, this will pull overseas money back home and place a larger balance on stocks rather than bonds. This increases economic activity, spending, and creates jobs.

This is Econ 101 fellas. Stick to stem and let the business owners and finance guys talk about taxes. Oh, and Reagan's plan did work. It would've worked better if he didn't spend so much. But, we're in our state today because of Clinton, Obama, and yes Bush Jr.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:29:40 2017 No.9343828 >>9343572 Exactly!!! This will finally make an even playing field and do more to lower the income gap than the Dems ever could.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:30:24 2017 No.9343829

>>9342678
This is the inherent flaw with the anonymous discussion that the internet has allowed. On the one hand it promotes unfettered free speech, which is good. On the other hand, no accountability for honesty, and the lack of tonal context provided by text communication, muddles the degree to which you can assess the sincerity of any comment. Not only does it obfuscate clarity, it actively PROMOTES insincere dialogue. Then, in turn, the satire is interpreted by people who identify with the ideology being satirized as being an earnest articulation of those ideas. Those ideas then propagate with real sincerity by suggestible idiots, which then forces the satirists to be even MORE absurd. Then this cycle feeds back into itself until you have Donald Trump.

Internet communication desperately needs reform. Don't even get me started on Twitter.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:31:02 2017 No.9343830

>>9343817

They think "trickle down" means:

>Business gets tax cut
>Business takes that money and literally goes and gives sacks of free money to people who need it for their next pair of jordans and gram of pot

I don't think 90% of this country understands what invested capital is. It's a travesty economics aren't taught across the board in HS.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:35:33 2017 No.9343840
File: 144 KB, 248x450, 1503165418475.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9343829

>Internet communication desperately needs reform. Don't even get me started on Twitter.

Let me guess, you want to grant power and control to some large entity in government to """"""regulate"""""" and control speech on the internet. And this power will surely not be abused by the first person with an agenda and desire to contort the politics their way.

This gets so tiring. Crazy pills tier. You can't trust humans so stop giving them more fine grained control, keep things decentralized and let the system sort itself out. You're on 4chan for fucks sake.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:36:38 2017 No.9343841 >>9343830 Half the country has a double digit IQ. You literally can't even understand a business plan with that. "Teaching everyone X" is not a cure-all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:36:59 2017 No.9343842 >>9337315 /pol/ is unironically smarter than this board if you take away the shilling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:37:15 2017 No.9343843 >>9343696 States with low state income taxes are effectively subsidizing states with high state income taxes.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:39:19 2017 No.9343845

>>9343841

Ok, but every time I hear "X percent of the country controls Y percent of the wealth", or "company gets Z tax cut", people immediately interpret that as these big fat cats getting wads of more cash to sit on rather than the reality of these companies sitting on assets reinvested into the economy to work in other ways.

They aren't hording piles of gold no one has access to, Scrooge McDuck tier, that capital is working its way in the economy. I would wager big time that at least 80% of this country has that misconception because they aren't even taught the fundamentals of economics and investment.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:39:57 2017 No.9343846

>>9343830
Ikr? GDP is a measure of Economic health and is comprise of Government spending, Consumer spending, Investment spending, and Net Export Income. Most Social programs (the majority of US gov spending) are essentially transfer payments or have little net added value to the GDP. Yeah, it can ensure more consumer spending, but this shrinks overall cash flows and is like putting the economy on dialysis (it's only a matter of time before things get bad).

If you decrease G spending and increase I spending, this creates income for both investors and wage earners. Effectively creating just as much consumer spending (or more) and growing the economy faster than the inflation rate and, thus, creating wealth.

If more people understood this, Our country would run a lot smoother.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:44:19 2017 No.9343850 >>9343845 What's even weirder is that they don't realize that it benefits them directly if all they do is create a small IRA or retirement plan. Rich people don't own every share. Most shares are owned by regular people with investment portfolios.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:46:51 2017 No.9343854

>>9343845
That's definitely frustrating, but people have the Scrooge McDuck view of wealth because pop culture depicts it that way. Sadly, that's also the only way pop culture can depict it, because the reality of distributed equity and reinvested profits are literally inconceivable to a large fraction of people.

An earnest, thorough explanation in an economics class not only gets lost on those people, it'll piss off an additional fraction that feels it's not intrinsically fair that some people have more money then get more money for "having" money.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:47:02 2017 No.9343855 If universities are smart, they will do away with this bullshit tuition for gradstudents and treat them like employees or apprentices if you're in a field that matters a damn like the sciences, math, and engineering.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:51:33 2017 No.9343863 >>9343850 I'm a young man with an IRA. Shit's literally so fucking cash.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:56:27 2017 No.9343868 >>9343863 >literally Don't be in cash if you're a young man. Even at current valuations, Vanguard's forecast for median 10 year real return on equity averages around 5%.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:58:51 2017 No.9343870 >>9343855 That's the interesting part they don't complain about. Being treated like new slaves since universities have so much control over them while hording pay in administration. Even adjunct professors are treated like shit pay and benefits wise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:59:01 2017 No.9343871 >>9343868 I was making a silly joke about how it's making good return. My investments are in a nice mutual fund somewhere. Thank you for the advice.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:03:59 2017 No.9343880

>>9343840
Nice strawman, but no. I'm just saying that all systems have flaws that can be exploited and that it'd be smarter for the people controlling the infrastructure of the internet to reform the system in a way that propagates better communication, and suppresses garbage.

I know I said I shouldn't, but Twitter is the perfect example. Because the information packets that propagate the best on Twitter are simple posts that are self contained to the allotted 140 characters or less, the most successful articulations pertaining to any idea are inherently going to be reductive. You cannot reduce complex political ideas to 140 characters or less, so all political conversation on Twitter gets whittled down to its least nuanced iteration, the lowest common denominator.

Of course I'll acknowledge that people can post links, and have running posts, but it's a mathematical, evolutionary truth that things that propagate more efficiently dominate the landscape in which they compete. That is to say that it's a mathematical, evolutionary truth that only the simplest ideas are going to dominate Twitter, and because it's so huge, the population itself has begun to think about all issues with less nuance.

There are similar issues with 4chan, even though I greatly prefer it. But yes, I think the anonymity doesn't actually realize itself in a way that's very productive. Not saying I know what to do about this, the only thing I know to do is to point out these flaws. It took a long time between the printing press and journalistic standards, and we're in a similar paradigm with the internet.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:05:35 2017 No.9343883

>>9343863
>>9343871
Good for you! And remember, because of compounded interest, the earlier you save the more money you'll make down the line.

Also, I'd suggest researching ETFs. They're non-actively managed mutual funds that have been proven to be on par with actively manged portfolio's but with a much lower cost to hold. I've read that some only cost 15% of net gain, which is awesome.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:14:55 2017 No.9343903

>>9343880

>Nice strawman, but no. I'm just saying that all systems have flaws that can be exploited and that it'd be smarter for the people controlling the infrastructure of the internet to reform the system in a way that propagates better communication, and suppresses garbage.

Interesting way to try to reword it but yes, you are asking for a select cabal of people who you deem governors of the internet to control what kind of discourse is made or information disseminated. And as it always is in that kind of situation, it will be abused. Things will devolve to thought control and propaganda.

Why are you so concerned about what a private company like twitter makes on the internet? The short tweets are the core of their product. People can go on it, or not, as they wish. Who cares if it's a dumb way to communicate politics, it isn't for you to decide whether that is universally detrimental or worthy of being restricted.

You see the consequences of free, decentralized speech (without considering the benefits), I see the constant peril in trying to give a group of human beings power over controlling what can be said and how, because that is always abused.

And it's funny you mention journalistic standards because those are devolving in the same way, there really isn't any clean way to try to "control" the internet so trust that nature will work it out. We've always had large scale misinformation it's just way easier to disseminate and access now. At the same time the truth is factually there and those with critical thinking can see and access it and that shouldn't be tampered with.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:17:25 2017 No.9343909

>>9343883
As a /biz/raeli, I have to offer a correction here.

You're probably referring to passive or index funds, which just buy entire portions of the market. They do have lower expenses (some only cost 0.05% or less per year) and do generally outperform actively managed funds (which try to pick stocks but fail to underperform over the long term, after factoring in costs).

However, index funds come in both ETF and mutual fund flavors. The main difference is that ETFs can typically only be bought in whole shares while mutual funds require more money but, beyond that, can be bought as fractional shares. You can compare the ticker symbols VTI (an ETF) and VTSAX (an equivalent mutual fund, minimum investment $10k) to get an idea of what I mean.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:21:31 2017 No.9343913

>>9343817
Earnestly interested in this. How well do you think this ideology really works in practice? What potential flaws do you think can be exploited in an unregulated system? How do you deal with monopolization of human needs that are inelastic in demand? How do you deal with monopolies in general? And how does this all play out if markets overseas are undercutting our ability to compete on this level? How do you account for the ever increasing wealth inequality in America? Especially compared to other countries where the general population has public services that outperform our privatized iterations of the same services like health care? And what do we do about automation and political corruption?

I'm open to being educated on all of this, but it seems like there are huge holes in buying into this ideology dogmatically, some things operate better when not driven by profitability, and there seem to be countries where the overall population is doing better, and the economies are growing faster. I live in Wisconsin, and the comparisons between us and the very comparable, but slanted more towards a capitalist/socialist hybrid, Minnesota seem to indicate that higher taxes and better regulation leads to a better economy. And that seems to be a more scientific and observable truth, where yours seem to be more hypothetical. If I saw that ideology working I'd buy it, but under one system it seems to observably work better. Red states are doing worse than blue states, right?

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/size-red-blue-economy

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:28:53 2017 No.9343923

>>9343913

There are tons of other factors that can dictate a state's politics. In many ways an economy can succeed in spite of policy that may be otherwise detrimental to its growth.

Coastal states, which are often blue and a little more big government, are also highly urbanized and located in shipping ports and high trade centers that bloat their GDP, even though a lot of that trade and commerce concerns products or interests derived from or consumed by states in the interior. Tons of confounding factors.

The United States as a whole is also decidedly more free market than the rest of the Western world and that has registered in huge economic gains over the past few decades, even if that's slowed in recent years.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:31:16 2017 No.9343932

>>9343870
Exactly. The university gets to squeeze every ounce of labor out of them with none of the rewards real employment brings. When I was in gradschool I was expected to be essentially BASFs research bitch while my advisor made 300K a year. When I complained and said I'm not getting properly compensated he gave me a bullshit song and dance how BASF is giving me this glorious slaving education and how good of a job the dean and provost's managed the grant organization with them.

If this destroyed the notion of gradSTUDENTS and ushers in the age of meaningful gradschool being a good damn job which it is, then tax the fuck out of those tuition waivers so the universities are forced to make a change.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:38:00 2017 No.9343941

>>9343903
>Interesting way to try to reword it but yes, you are asking for a select cabal of people who you deem governors of the internet to control what kind of discourse is made or information disseminated.

Guy, we're never going to make headway if you keep intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying in the most unfavorable way you can, while making no earnest effort to understand my actual meaning. The systems that control the spread of information on the internet are already private, and they've already devolved into a sort of thought control and propaganda. I'm not saying the government should control all communication. I'll repeat that. I'm not saying the government should control all communication. I'm merely saying that the monopolies of the infrastructure of the internet: Twitter, Facebook, 4chan, Google... They have a responsibility to observe the flaws in their systems and try to rework them in ways that propagate better communication.

Think about this. The consequences of government regulating the laws of road transportation will devolve to control of trade conducted through the highway infrastructure. So it'd be better to have privately owned roads that have laws that are less regulated, even in the case where the different laws result in more car crashes and more traffic jams. The logic there is pretty weak. Now again, I don't think the internet should be controlled by the government, but it'd be nice if we had systems that work better, instead of systems that work worse.

>And it's funny you mention journalistic standards because those are devolving in the same way

That's literally my point. With the shift in paradigms of human communication, those standards have been obliterated for now.

>there really isn't any clean way to try to "control" the internet so trust that nature will work it out.

But this is where you're wrong. A change in the philosophy of what makes the internet function better can result in a better system and landscape.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:38:22 2017 No.9343943 >>9343909 You may be right. I have to find the article, but it's been a while since I last read it. Possibly on Forbes

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:43:39 2017 No.9343948

>>9343923
But just looking at it across the board, it's clear that one system is actually working better, even in states that aren't on the coast. How could it possibly be that every time one implementation is better than the other it can be explained by a fluke? I'll point you again to WI vs MN. How do you account for the fact that the state in the same region with comparable populations, geography, culture, and people operates much better than the other in an opposing system implemented by a different ideology? Isn't it better to accept the actual science? If it's a matter of variables, wouldn't there be more counterexamples than there are examples?

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:49:02 2017 No.9343959

>>9343941

The mere existence of "flaws" doesn't deserve drastic measures to correct them that may destroy the benefits. Let's not call it government anymore if you don't want to, you want those with power to exert it and control speech. It's authoritarianism and that has only ever worked out one way.

I love the internet for the kind of chaotic action you seem to really despise, the fundamental basis of the internet revolves around deregulation and lack of control. It's really interesting you'd even say you love 4chan while seeming to resent its foundation as anonymous, decentralized, and as barely regulated as legally possible.

I don't want other people deeming what is and isn't meritous of being said I want to be allowed to examine what is said on its own merits and make a judgement like a free human being. It isn't always pretty but the alternative is very ugly.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:51:26 2017 No.9343964

>>9343913
Never said no regulation, just that we are over regulated as it is. Healthcare is a good example. I used to be a Biomedical Engineer in medical research. Trust me, it's a long story, but over regulation of the industry has lead to many cost overruns and further monopolization of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

Also, we still have the highest quality medical care in the world. The metrics used for quality of care that rank other countries' services are heavily biased in their favor (w/ metrics like diversity of doctor's race/sex; equity of care as in wait times are the same for everyone, but if the wait time for everyone is shit then that's a bad metric). If you actually break down those studies, we have the fastest services, shortest wait times, highest survival rates for most known illnesses, etc. We just cost the most. (Also, death rates aren't a good predictor for healthcare quality as we have higher rates of car crashes, suicides, homicides, etc. than most 1st world countries. When corrected for particular diseases like any type of cancer, we have the highest survival rates.)

In addition, total healthcare spending per capita is highest in American, including existing publicly funded services. The only country with higher public spending (i.e. through tax dollars) is Norway, and that's a marginal difference. The fact is, Medicaid and Medicare are extremely inefficient and there is a lot of waste. And this doesn't even touch the VA... as that is counted as defense spending in our country. The point is, as it stands we need less government in our healthcare system to reduce costs, not more.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 00:55:16 2017 No.9343970

>>9343948

The states you listed also have the worst income inequality in the country. That isn't evidence of a successful system. They house the headquarters of corporations with offshore accounts that aren't burdened by their taxation but get claimed on their GDP regardless. You are looking statewide whether they are "blue" or "red" but not dividing the state voting trends by income level and gross contribution. People can flood into successful states succeeding under a different system and then influence the politics after the fact. Just like California is experiencing an exodus while Texas is seeing an influx.

Macroeconomics take years and decades to manifest from action to result and they are highly complicated, state policy has a negligible effect compared to federal policy.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:02:18 2017 No.9343979

>>9343964
It's my understanding that we pay more in private health care, AND more in public health care, individually, while less people have access to it and a slew of other metrics. Because we have public ER's we're always dealing with extremely expensive worst case scenarios, whereas if everybody had baseline care we could catch these problems earlier and fix them before they cost the taxpayers that much more in public funding. And again, that doesn't even include the fact that we spend more in private health care per capita as well.

From just looking at the numbers, it looks like public health care is better both ethically as well as economically, so I simply don't understand how ideological claims without proper evidence is winning in your mind.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:02:59 2017 No.9343982

>>9343970
Bingo. Also, just because a state is red it doesn't mean that it is mostly right leaning people that live there. The Black population is mostly concentrated in southern red states, but the tend to be hardcore democrat and non voters. They also are biologically more susceptible to cardiovascular disease and diabetes than white people with the same diet and exorcise. Compound that with bad diets/habits and you receive a very costly population. At least, in terms of healthcare and Medicaid spending.

I'm the BME, and I've worked in sickle cell research. Not trying to come off as someone bigoted against Blacks (cause I've worked to help them), it's just a reality that they are currently a medical cost burden.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:07:42 2017 No.9343996 >>9343970 I only listed two states, and one is doing better by all sorts of metrics. Unemployment, job growth, and GDP, and including the environmental aspect, MN has more regulation and a better ecosystem as well. Do you have sources for what you said?

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:09:42 2017 No.9344000

>>9343979
We spend more in total like I said before. But, we spend more in private because we simply offer procedures/devices/etc. that aren't allowed to be had in other countries. Even in Canada, they aren't even allowed to have certain procedures even if they choose to pay completely out of pocket. That's how public entities keep costs down, but it also dries up the market in said countries and the service provider move or cease to exist as a licensed profession.

I agree about baseline care. But, that is a much more complicated issue than just cost and has a lot to do with culture and just ignorance of people who either don't seek care, or seek it when it's not needed because someone else is footing the bill (why Medicaid and Medicare cost so much).

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:15:25 2017 No.9344007 >>9343734 You don't think some of these analogies are really a stretch? Regulating what people are allowed to market as edible is the same as refusing to allow international labor competition, for the sole purpose of inflating the price of labor?

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:18:51 2017 No.9344009

>>9343959
>you want those with power to exert it and control speech.
More like, I want the systems monopolizing the landscape of communication on the internet to reform their infrastructure in a way that makes better communication as opposed to worse.

The things that makes 4chan great are fact that communication isn't limiting the size of the ideas communicated, like Twitter, and it's not motivated by popularity, like Reddit, it's motivated by both argument.The threads that last longer and are more visible are the threads where people disagree and are communicating about it. That's good for speech. But the absolute anonymity is what makes it so wrought with intellectual dishonesty. Reddit doesn't have that problem to the same degree, but it's still basically anonymous.

I think the mere fact of having a username with a post history can hold people more accountable. Then you can tell who is earnest and who is a troll. That simple change is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Nothing drastic, just recognizing what's good and what's bad and favoring the good over the bad.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:26:43 2017 No.9344015

>>9343734
>First my medical costs are too high. I'd like to be able to hire doctors from France and India.

Malpractice runs rampant. Infection and disease and failed surgery.

>Also I want to order drugs from India and not worry about patents.

Diseases don't get treated properly, people constantly fucking up their whole lives on unvetted drugs.

>Also I can't afford a house. Dumping all building codes and zoning laws would really help with that.

Skyscrapers are built with no fire contingencies, and that can't withstand earthquakes.

You have an ideological believe that blinds you from how these things would realistically play out. There are actually countries that don't have regulations like this and they fucking suck. If you're going to put your fingers in your ears and ignore actual evidence then what is the point of even having an opinion? Curate your belief with evidence and logic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:30:19 2017 No.9344020 >>9340046 yeah discoveries such as uh... uh wait i got this...

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:31:24 2017 No.9344021

>>9336691
Negligible. Grad students are a very small fraction of the population and there are too many of us as it is. It's not like people that would otherwise be good at research won't develop research skills outside of grad school. In addition, grad schools will likely up their stipend/lower their tuition in response.

That being said, the senate plan leaves grad school education untouched. Only the house plan gets rid of it. There's a good chance that after consolidation, waivers will continue to not count towards income.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:37:14 2017 No.9344026

>>9344000
>has a lot to do with culture and just ignorance of people

That is absolutely a problem we can agree on, but entails bigger, adjacent issues like education, and school funding, which then ropes in politics, and it's all operating in a landscape where, yea, there are demographics that are observably doing worse by every metric.

Idk, I'm just looking at the numbers and everything I see says that while there are flaws in all health care systems, public ones function better in many regards, for much cheaper, and for everybody. I'm open to a separate private option for those that want to spend more for top care, but I just don't see the evidence that pushing it further into the private sector is good in any way.

I think the evidence supports socializing things that are inelastic in demand, or basic human needs, while keeping private option open, and also keeping things not necessary for a healthy productive person in the private sector. I'm a fan of a sensible, statistically informed hybrid between these two poles. People on the far left that advocate communism and shit all over the real virtues of capitalism are incredibly stupid, yes, but the notion that radical deregulation and privatization is good in all cases is just as stupid in my eyes. There are virtues in both, and we as a culture, nationally and eventually globally, need to recognize and reconcile them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:38:00 2017 No.9344027 >>9344015 Shouldn't people be free to choose cheaper and riskier alternatives? Why do you feel that value judgements need to be made for them?

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 01:46:22 2017 No.9344033

>>9344027
Not exactly. In order for people to even make a choice in the first place they have to be educated enough to assess the risks. If all they see is a flashy add with a cheaper product, funded by profits obtained through manipulation tactics, that deliberately exploits their lack of education through misinformation, that's going to play out very badly. And not only is that certainly what would happen, it's what already does DESPITE the regulations we do have.

If you want to go to a country without rule of law and without systems of regulation, be my guest. They pretty much ubiquitously suck balls, and people that only see to the edges of the bubble of the only system they know take that for granted. We live in a pretty decent place, and the things that are keeping it from being much much better are the people fucking the populace with enough money to exploit the political system. It's even funded a pretty successful propaganda campaign that has people saying "it's a good idea to get rid of building codes and the FDA".

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 03:24:31 2017 No.9344111

>>9344026
I disagree. Everything I've learned, both in school and in industry, has pointed to the exact opposite. Private options will always be more efficient, produce better quality for cheaper.

We're at an impasse here, but both private and public organizations are still organizations run by people. Private organizations have to compete for your dollar though, and every argument you've listed against private industry was caused by some sort of government interference.

This will always be something that bothers me. You're proposition to end said problems are to cut out the middle man and give direct and total control of a service to those who were just bribed in give a private organization a monopoly/oligopoly before. You're are literally trading a hard earned monopoly for a default monopoly every time you socialize a program. It makes no sense what so ever, and no the evidence doesn't support it.

The only role the government should play is the watch dog and the barrier to monopolistic actions. That's it. Once the watchdog becomes the provider, no one stands in the way of unjust actions or piss poor performance.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 04:00:27 2017 No.9344148

>>9344111
You can literally look at a plethora of other nations that have functioning systems that apply socialist principles to certain sects of their economy. I'm sorry, but you're just ignoring the facts that don't support your beliefs. I say germany has a better economy by all metrics and they're farther down the spectrum of socialized needs, and you'll just spout the same dogmatism. Not to say it's just that simple, but if you categorically cannot recognize that there are many places where socialized subsystems flourish and outperform their privatized counterexamples, you're just delusional. You're playing with hypotheticals in your head when we have real world examples of good socialized systems and bad privatized ones. And certainly, I have and will continue to recognize the virtues of capitalist ideas, as well as its pitfalls, and same for socialism.

There are so many examples of unregulated systems producing horrible results, and you admit yourself that we need a "watch dog" and a "barrier to monopolistic actions". There are more flaws in laissez faire markets than just monopolies. We cannot allow human needs to be distributed based on profit margins. It's stupid and dangerous, and there are real examples of why it's bad, and why the opposite approach is good. Take accountability for your ideas, don't just ignore the evidence so you don't have to grow. We have observable data, and we can route the system in a way that reflects that, so there really is no excuse for you to resist the scientific approach to the economy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 04:03:47 2017 No.9344154 >>9336699 >The tax plan is great >I don't understand the joke Wanna know what sort of stunning conclusion I drew from your post?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 04:05:25 2017 No.9344156 >>9336966 Last time I went to look at pol there wasn't a single thread about politics, it was all race garbage and arguing over who was white. It's a black hole for independent thought.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 04:20:53 2017 No.9344169 >>9337391 The way things work is many great and useful scientific discoveries are done through publicly funded research, and then private corporations are allowed to steal it and claim it as their own. Prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 04:26:01 2017 No.9344173 >>9344111 >Private options will always be more efficient, produce better quality for cheaper. Then why do over 90% of business ventures fail? I'm not seeing that abysmal track record from the public.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 07:07:39 2017 No.9344301

>>9344007
>>9344015
No compromise huh? Great you win. But if you want to keep all that shit that makes it too expensive to live here then you can't ask me to accept lower wages. Scream muh racism and muh free market all you want. I make $15/hr I can't afford all your "safety" and pc policies.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 07:19:39 2017 No.9344312

>>9344033
I CAN NOT AFFORD YOUR PATERNALISM. IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.

The FDA probably kills as many people as it saves anyway.

Asprin helps with heart disease? Can't advertise it for 20 years, millions die in the interim. Folic acid helps pregnant women and their babies? Can't advertise it for 20 years, millions of unhealthy babies in the interim. Phage therapy treats incurable pathogens? Too bad, it's hard to regulate so millions die of bacterial infections.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 10:30:59 2017 No.9344612

>>9344173
That's because that 90% is inefficient or poor quality. That failure is normal, and desireable.

Remember that everytime you buy something, you profit. You wouldn't buy it if you didn't value it more than the money you spent. If you can buy something for far less than you value it at, then you profit by a whole lot. Only the businesses that can provide you and themselves a decent profit can survive. This is desirable, because maximizing profit for all makes society more wealthy.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 10:51:16 2017 No.9344658

>>9344612
>Remember that everytime you buy something, you profit. You wouldn't buy it if you didn't value it more than the money you spent. If you can buy something for far less than you value it at, then you profit by a whole lot. Only the businesses that can provide you and themselves a decent profit can survive. This is desirable, because maximizing profit for all makes society more wealthy.
That's a childish view of economics and only holds for elastic, competitive markets.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 11:04:08 2017 No.9344690 >>9344312 You do realize experimental treatments are a thing for a reason right? They don't feed pills to just rats and monkeys all day for a decade and call it safe.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 11:05:03 2017 No.9344692

>>9344111
>I disagree. Everything I've learned, both in school and in industry, has pointed to the exact opposite. Private options will always be more efficient, produce better quality for cheaper.
Then you never took an introductory econ class. Almost every market that you interact with is monopolistic competition, which by definition do not maximize efficiency.
>This will always be something that bothers me. You're proposition to end said problems are to cut out the middle man and give direct and total control of a service to those who were just bribed in give a private organization a monopoly/oligopoly before. You're are literally trading a hard earned monopoly for a default monopoly every time you socialize a program. It makes no sense what so ever, and no the evidence doesn't support it.
Except the government does not exist to generate profit for itself, so a principle issue with monopolies--unfair pricing---is nonexistent. The flip side of this is there is no motive to keep costs low, but privatization is not the only solution to that. Moreover, healthcare is a natural oligopoly with an inelastic demand curve on most products, so most of the idealized capitalist arguments simply don't work here.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 11:10:47 2017 No.9344707

>>9337377
The university decides not to charge you money for tuition. That's it.

This bill makes it so that you're taxed on money someone thought about asking you for but then decided not to.

Also lefty people want taxes when they make sense and are equitable. This is neither.

>>9337391
We wouldn't have CRISPR without publicly funded science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 11:17:09 2017 No.9344719 >>9337617 >So you're proposing our billionaires pay for basic research? no, jackass, they already do

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 11:42:28 2017 No.9344766 >>9336699 People who haven't even read Mankiw but still express opinions on economic policy should be lined up and shot.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 12:03:41 2017 No.9344803
File: 308 KB, 1000x956, 1511761814677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The joke is the Senate/House originally wanted to tax G.I. bill recipents. But with the military telling them to fuck off they instead went after civilians because the U.S. population is just dumb enough to allow it without too much resistance.

In terms of affecting the U.S. economy the fallout from such an action will not be sudden. But expect the obvious consequences of grad student entries (mostly domestic) per year to drop while the rate of overall grad publications (not necessarily just STEM) will decrease.

The less obvious consequences will be that Silicone Valley and other tech companies will probably see this as an opportunity to lobby for increase in foreign workers as they can tangibly argue that an even higher lack of qualified domestic applicants exist directly due to the tax bill. And either the government will allow it or say no which will get Silicone Valley to expand itself in other countries such as Canada (which they already in talks for because of Trump's stance on foreign immigration).

This will of course decrease America's prominence in tech and cause either the Trump administration (assuming he makes it to a full 8 year term) or the next couple of administrations to have political bad blood with Canada for "stealing" America's jobs. Causing some future trade dispute which will then force Canada to lean more on its second biggest trade partner...China (which is also a derivative of it's biggest foreign immigrant population that being Asians) for help economically.

Feel free to screen cap this post for posterity. All the information stated are fairly easy to conclude and a few Google searches can be easily back up these claims. Too lazy to post it all but if you want to include the post in a later expansion feel free.

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 13:47:03 2017 No.9344966

>>9344312
>>9344301

I'm not saying it doesn't need reform, but hey, imagine there was a diet pill that worked, but 20 years later 70% of the people on it got kidney cancer.

>>9344690
This is also a good point.

Not to mention, a huge factor in the overpricing of life saving drugs is corporate greed and monopolization. But I will grant you that reform would be good, especially for approving generic drugs that would drive prices down.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 13:59:02 2017 No.9344999 >>9337220 Getting rid of the Obamacare mandate actually saved my family's finances

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 14:07:35 2017 No.9345023 >>9344658 Most markets are elastic and competitive, so this isn't too big of an issue. Calling it "childish" is a bit much, when you admitted it was true for many markets.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 14:41:27 2017 No.9345133 When can we ship off idiots who stopped at rational economics and never finished behavioral economics off to concentration camps, gas them, then burn them in ovens?

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 15:19:52 2017 No.9345215

>>9345023
>Most markets are elastic and competitive, so this isn't too big of an issue. Calling it "childish" is a bit much, when you admitted it was true for many markets.
No, most markets---at least the ones consumers interact with daily---are monopolistically competitive, but that's still heavily distorted. High ed is a monopolistic market with inelastic demand, as is most of the healthcare industry, so to pretend that the consumer is getting efficient outcomes in those markets is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 15:30:30 2017 No.9345245 >>9336699 This is bait

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 15:33:15 2017 No.9345249 >>9345245 It's not, he's been defending it somewhat articulately for a day now. Not that he's right, but I do think he's sincere, if in fact it's the same guy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 16:59:29 2017 No.9345469 >>9345215 I agree those particular markets, Higher Ed and Health, are inelastic. What proof have you offered that most markets are inelastic? Is there any easy way to prove it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 17:03:21 2017 No.9345481 >>9345469 I didn't say that most markets are inelastic, I said they were monopolistic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 17:20:37 2017 No.9345540 >>9336699 >it triggers the redditors /pol/ logic is truly something special

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 22:17:25 2017 No.9346082 >>9343317 yeah i do fag

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]