Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Question (Score 1) 503

> What you say would be true if any form of addiction were a choice. But it's not. Even addictive behavior is governed by brain chemistry so it is, in fact, chemically induced.

ALL behavior is governed by brain chemistry, NOTHING is a choice, in the philosophical sense, the brain is an bio-electrochemical computing device.

Yet none of that matters in the free market analysis of modern day microeconomics. Utility is utility, whether that is earning money, playing video games, or taking any drug.

'Addiction' does not alter the fundamental theorems of welfare economics in any way. A free market leads to an optimum where everyone is better off, and no one is worse off, and no one can be made better off without anyone being made worse off. Furthermore, any violation of the free market assumptions (such as criminalising drugs, which is a negative externality on drug users) means that people COULD be made better off without making anyone else worse off.

At best, 'addiction' should be a medical or health issue, not a criminal, and not an economic issue. Addiction, from an economics point of view, is simply the difference between a person's stated preferences, and their revealed preferences.

You should concern yourself only with your own drug taking, and not force your beliefs on others. Let people make choices that provide them with maximal utility, as long as they aren't impacting on you, it's none of your business.

Comment All this talk of scientific basis for law (Score 1) 609

and yet not one mention of economics, which is the scientific study of human choices.

The FREE market (not just any market, but only FREE markets) guarantees that everyone is better off than they started, but nobody is worse off. Not only that, but that any market that isn't free means people could be made better off without making anyone worse off.

And real markets can be made to approach (in the mathematical sense) free markets with the right taxes and subsidies.

Free markets lead to pareto optimal outcomes, but any pareto optimal outcome can be obtained with the right lump sum transfers.

So, the scientific basis for law should (imho) be one with laws that result in free market outcomes, and redistribution through wealth taxes and basic income.

But, for some reason, the IT crowd that visits slashdot is generally anti-economics as a science altogether.

So, how do you possibly hope to have a rational scientific basis for society and law when the one science that studies utility and human choices is rejected by the majority of the so called 'scientific' crowd?

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

LOL... compare themselves to physists... what an elitist retard you are. This is your real problem, thinking you are special when you actually have very little value.

As for the last 8 years... wtf was free market about all that? The problems are all due exactly to the violations of the free market assumptions.

You're the type of guy that looks at say the failure of the soviet union and says that's proof that the free market doesn't work... and yet, in your arrogance and stupidity you think this is wisdom.

Look, until you can prove the fundamental theorems yourself, you are literally unable to meaningfully comment on this... My knowledge cannot compete with your ignorance, that you are so proud of.

Good luck with autism dude.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

Well, I have honours in Engineering, and studied economics afterwards for fun... I also play the guitar, and surprisingly that hasn't made me any less capable as an engineer.

Seriously, who educated you so stupid as to think that a person can only do one subject? You really got a problem, a cognitive bias that your field is the end all and be all of human knowledge... it's incredibly stupid... you are incredibly stupid... probably some autistic physics freak like sheldon and has trouble understanding the most basic aspects of human interaction... no wonder you can't understand economics.

Actually, the proof shows that you require those 'axioms' to achieve a (pareto) optimal outcome... and if any of these axioms are violated, the outcome is *not* optimal, and people could be better off without anyone else being worse off... so, your understanding of these 'axioms' and how it fits with the theory is what is wrong...

Economics then goes on to show how the real market violates these 'axioms' and how much dead weight loss those violations create...

An idiot like you thinks you could improve the world by banning designer clothes, because you have no fashion sense and assume that others should not be free to make those choices... so, you add limits to a free market that only cause social loss... You would somehow try and force physicists to get paid more than NBA players... and not realise that produces lower social utility... you are biased, because you think you are king shit because you studied physics... in reality, you are an autistic retard and don't even know it.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

Actually, when I say that they aren't axioms, they are... it's just that your refutation of them is wrong... and your understanding of them is wrong.

A better analogy might be the spherical point mass moving in a frictionless vacuum on a frictionless plane and then claiming it's irrelevant because cars aren't spherical point masses moving on a frictionless plane... no shit... the market isn't a free market... the free market is the optimal market, and all markets that aren't free are necessarily worse (friction is real in physics)... and so, the majority of economics is studying the deviation from the free market, and what that costs society.

You're still an ignorant idiot unknowingly talking nonsense, but for slightly different reasons.

Problem with people like you, is that you think the solution is to create more friction, to make more barriers to entry and other such nonsense, because you reject the free market because the real world isn't a free market... and act like your knowledge in an unrelated domain makes you smarter instead of ignorant and dangerous.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

> Sure, I read many of those axioms: "If market participants have all the same information..." (like, goldman sachs gangsters have no more info than my grandma) or:"If consumer utility functions are rational..." (that's why nobody wears designer clothing, ever). Very reasonable, that's why we just came out of the greatest recession since WWII. Very reasonable according to one guy who studied economics and has always been frustrated by being snubbed by those in scientific faculties.

See... none of these are axioms of the fundamental theorems of economics... You're speaking complete nonsense, and the worst part about it is that you don't even know it... and even worse, it sounds like a reasonable argument to any person as clueless as you... it's why I said I can't compete with your ignorance.

It's like claiming that physics is incorrect, because how can the speed of light be the maximum velocity when v=at? It might sound reasonable to someone with no knowledge of physics... and you think you're smart pointing it out, because you have no idea of how stupid you are being.

> And I don't really want to know what bizarre academic path might lead a (supposed) engineer to study economics.

The funny thing is, that learning another discipline removed none of my engineering knowledge... strange that, huh? That you can learn many things in this life, and learning one thing does not make you worse at the first thing... It's like you feel that if you studied economics you'd be less able to do physics... maybe that's true for you, with your limited abilities?

> "If consumer utility functions are rational..." (that's why nobody wears designer clothing, ever).

HINT: rational in a mathematical sense... there's nothing irrational about desiring designer clothing... only you.

Also, there's a deep link between AI and economics... economics studies choice making agents, AI is about creating choice making agents.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

> And "hard" scientists don't really say that you shouldn't study economics, they just say that you should take it for what it is: something like literature or music, entirely subject to personal opinions, bias and political views, without any scientific value.

Actually the fundamental theorems are entirely mathematical in nature... there is no room for personal opinion, bias or political views... and in order to falsify a mathematical proof you must either find an error in the mathematical steps (unlikely because of the scrutiny applied to them) or reject one or more of the axioms (again, unlikely, because they are so very reasonable)... but without knowing either the axioms, the proofs or the theorems, you are no better than a chimp to judge them, and explains why your argument is bananas.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

It's unlikely that those physics students have any knowledge of economics or its theorems and so they are literally unqualified to answer that question... in fact, it would only demonstrate their collective cognitive bias against economics... it's a kind of (unwarranted) elitism... a bias you apparently suffer from.

You might find a similar bias from a bunch of economics students, who would consider esoteric physics theorems useful only in as much as it can generate wealth for society... no more or less, and of no particular practical importance.

Those with double majors in physics and economics however would be qualified to answer and would likely disagree... at least as far as the fundamental theorems were concerned... as an engineer who has studied economics I disagree with your assessment... the theorems follow mathematically from the axioms, and the axioms are reasonable... the proofs are as tight as the halting problem.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

No, I think he's definitely correct... the wealthy hoard their wealth and try to extract as much as possible from everyone else, always has been and always will be that way. Some things are finite (or practically so), and will remain that way.

With automation comes the possibility that a few elite owners of capital (who will own all the worlds robots and AI) will come to rule the world with everyone else starving... ie, the robots will serve only the few who will lord it over the rest of us, as they no longer need us in any way.

A free market solutions cannot solve this problem, as the wealthy will not willingly give up their wealth in the form of a tax, so the solution must be by force... however, at this time, they also own the media, and therefore consensus, and so the government, who have the monopoly on force to demand this tax... so, it's unlikely that this solution can be passed "democratically" either...

I'll leave the solution to this problem as an exercise for the reader... however, history has many examples where the wealthy ignored this problem, and it doesn't usually end so well for them... unfortunately, it doesn't generally go all that great for anyone else either. So, there is hope that they might accept this type of solution before it gets to that point, out of self preservation... but they might have other solutions too that won't be so palatable (bread, circuses and FEMA camps).

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

> Only when you define "free market" as something that is literally impossible. Not impossible as in "we'll never get people to do that", but logically self-contradictory. Perfect information doesn't exist, transaction costs exist, markets are not necessarily easy to enter and exit, monopolists are not impossible.

That is correct, the free market rests on the four assumptions, perfect competition, perfect information, no externalities and rational actors... and when any of the assumptions fails, the market fails, because it is no longer a free market... but, rational actors can basically be assumed, and for each of the others there are fixes, or the market approaches perfection asymptotically (at n^2 for number of competitors, for example)... So, the fact that the real market is not a free market doesn't stop us approaching it or applying regulation, taxes and subsidies to make it arbitrarily free market like.

> A one-time tax? Because the second fundamental theorem works on the assumption of a single lump-sum redistribution of wealth. A standing redistribution distorts the market.

Also correct... but I believe a wealth tax and basic income are about as close to non-distortionary lump-sum transfer as you can get... and the ways in which it isn't probably don't matter, because despite the theory in which we can't compare utilities, we actually can tell (at least there is wide ranging agreement) that bill gates is better off than rambling street hobo guy.

Or rather, I defy you to find a redistribution solution that closer fits the 2nd welfare theory... after all, it does require the impossible task of the redistributors knowing everybody's utility functions... net wealth is about as close as you can practically get.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

No, you really are an idiot arguing about something you literally know nothing about.

The axioms are things like, choice making agents prefer some things over other things and there are limited number of things... concepts that can easily be expressed as formulae and manipulated mathematically to derive proofs in the forms of the fundamental theorems..

Do you really believe we would have more Einsteins if we just paid physicist more? Maybe they'd stop being NBA players and crack zero point energy or something? LOL... And you think monkeys are qualified to answer these questions?

Talking to you about economics has about as much utility as trying to talk to a monkey about quantum chromo dynamics... or trying to explain the halting problem to them.

I cannot compete with your ignorance... you win this argument.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

> The rich people will consider your wealth tax and reject it.

This is quite correct, so you need to provide an economic incentive for them to accept it... unfortunately, the solution to that problem can get quite messy... if they're smart, they'd accept it voluntarily before the population gets out of control... history is full of examples

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

You're arguing from ignorance... The theorems are mathematical proofs based on very reasonable axioms, as good as any proof I've seen in mathematics, physics and engineering (my usual domains).

If you'd actually read microeconomics you might have some reasonable point to make, but you don't.

The fact is, there's no good reason why a PhD physicist should make more than an NBA player. Clearly there's enough incentive already to produce PhD physicists... and it's really not clear that more money would create more physics geniuses, nor that that is the best allocation of resources.

The free market maximises free choice within resource constraints after all.

Rather, for some reason, there is a propaganda amongst the "hard" sciences to not study economics... it's actually quite a shame.

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 940

No... you don't need need to remove capitalism or the current system... the free market is the most optimal way of allocating resources (vis the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics)... however, a tweak is required to allow the benefits of automation to be shared amongst all while allowing the incentives capitalism generates to operate, and I believe that is a tax on wealth (tax on the ownership of that capital) to be redistributed as a basic income (vis the second fundamental theorem of welfare economics).

So... free market with wealth tax and basic income would give us an automated post scarcity utopia.

Slashdot Top Deals

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...