Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:30 pm**

Are you being deliberately stupid CS?

I am fed up of telling you that you have misrepresented me when you write "If a wealthier society is determined by virtue of the sheer quantity of goods and services available". It was through deliberately uncharitable interpretation that you got there, and it is through dishonesty that you are continuing to repeat this even after I have multiply disabused you of the claim.

Even so, I don't know what you hope to achieve with that wealthiest nation on earth thing. As things stand the wealthiest nation on earth by your own measure gives out foodstamps even to its soldiers. In 10 years or so it will be replaced in that position by one that doesn't even have universal indoor plumbing. Most economists would use GDP per capita at PPP to decide the matter, in which case Qatar and Luxembourg top the list (no foodstamps for soldiers in those places).

The statements you made certainly rely on some applicable scheme.
Is it your claim that "Because the immigration laws are not properly enforced, that very situation is a common one, and it has caused quantifiable harm to American workers and their families. American workers would have those jobs." is going to be demonstrable using no concepts that suddenly stop working under extreme hypothetical situations?

Just so you can have this thing straight .....
1) No, feel free to use your own interpretation of these concepts.
2) Bear in mind, I have told you repeatedly that I am just reporting the normal uses for these, which is why I had a link for the objection you raised about wealth being measured in different ways between the aggregate and the individual.
3) Just make sure you are good and clear about exactly what they mean because right now I don't feel like I owe you any charitable interpretations.
And if you are starting from scratch, don't forget you will be needing a pretty complete set. If you skip Frictional Unemployment or Money Supply.

But above all else, before you hit that submit button think about one thing... Whatever you are going to present... can it be used to imply that all poverty can be fixed by printing a million dollar banknote for every person in the country? If you don't pass that test, you done fucked up.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:48 am**

Alright, the present tack clearly isn't getting anywhere useful...

So, below I copied your copy of my claims. Tell me then, what fact(s) have you reported upon that, when considering my claims in light of, places the truth of any one in question? In other words, which of the following are you saying isn't true, and what grounds your doubt?

1. Immigration and trade policies have decimated their hope by eliminating opportunity.

2. Because the immigration laws are not properly enforced, that very situation(undocumented workers being hired and costing the employer far far less in overhead) is a common one, and it has caused quantifiable harm to American workers and their families. American workers would have had those jobs.

3. Trade policies have cost American workers their jobs.

4. American workers would have more spendable income and the economy would be more robust as a result of more money being in the hands of more Americans.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:39 pm**

No, you've set us on a different course of justifying wide conceptual arrangements and you need to see it through. You aren't happy with my use of any concepts, and I already mentioned that I stole my usages from economists. So now you need to justify those economic claims which you have already made, with your own alternative concepts. I'm sure you weren't bullshitting with all that metacognitive endeavours that aren't for the faint of heart stuff.

I vote we concentrate on the easiest one ...

4. American workers would have more spendable income and the economy would be more robust as a result of more money being in the hands of more Americans.

... but feel free to go for another if you sense some sort of trap.

Explain the full conceptual schema behind this claim please. Just like you required me to. That schema will need to be capable of validating the other claims later.

Remember, if you end up unable to describe why handing out free million dollar notes to the poor doesn't fix poverty, you fucked up.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:17 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote:No, you've set us on a different course of justifying wide conceptual arrangements and you need to see it through.

If you insist. Your misunderstandings are growing in both number and complexity...

It's not so much that I asked or wanted you to 'justify'(scare-quotes intentional) your conceptual scheme. Rather, I tried to grasp your use of the key terminology that you apparently think/believe makes your case against the statements of mine that initiated your participation here. I asked you to define your terms and I did so as the only means possible for my understanding your ground for the charges you levied towards me. That tack has proven unfruitful. I strongly suspect that your attitude will get in the way no matter which route is taken. Time will tell...

Here's a reminder of the aforementioned charges...

1. You... ...don't understand a word that actual experts write about trade, and don't believe their conclusions.

2. Trying to retain low value-add work at high pay demonstrates a profound failure to understand the concept of productivity and its role in economic progress.

3. Your comments on NAFTA demonstrate quite easily that you have no interest in experts explaining economics.

4. You have the same respect for expert testimony in this matter that climate science deniers have in their thing.

5. The phrase "Efficiency has nothing to do with economic progress" is basically equivalent to "It's snowing in March, global warming is a lie!".

6. You must have no grasp of the subject to be able to use those words in that order, and no respect for the work of people who research these things.

Now... it's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating. Understanding X and disagreeing with X are not mutually exclusive circumstances. Let X be economic jargon, and/or any particular economist who thinks/believes and writes like you. Getting back to the schema, since you insisted. Let's focus upon our agreement...

Do we agree that economic growth is had when a society is wealthier. Societal wealth includes having not only an increase in the sheer amount of goods and services available, but also the ability to be able to purchase them(society must also be able to afford them)?

You aren't happy with my use of any concepts...

False.

...you need to justify those economic claims which you have already made...

4. American workers would have more spendable income and the economy would be more robust as a result of more money being in the hands of more Americans.

What needs to be justified? The American workers in question once had but lost good jobs. The replacement jobs are not as good. That's just the way it is/was. When those Americans had more money, they spent more money. When they spent more money, they could do more things to increase their own happiness and the happiness of their family/friends. When they had more money, they could also save more money. When one can save money, it makes them less worried about their financial situation. That's just the way it is/was.

When more money is spent in the marketplace by a greater number of people, the economy is more robust.

...Remember, if you end up unable to describe why handing out free million dollar notes to the poor doesn't fix poverty, you fucked up.

Sigh.

May I suggest that you abandon this bit?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:03 pm**

creativesoul wrote:
...you need to justify those economic claims which you have already made...

4. American workers would have more spendable income and the economy would be more robust as a result of more money being in the hands of more Americans.

What needs to be justified? The American workers in question once had but lost good jobs. The replacement jobs are not as good. That's just the way it is/was. When those Americans had more money, they spent more money. When they spent more money, they could do more things to increase their own happiness and the happiness of their family/friends. When they had more money, they could also save more money. When one can save money, it makes them less worried about their financial situation. That's just the way it is/was.

When more money is spent in the marketplace by a greater number of people, the economy is more robust.

You didn't like my description of economic growth. I am expecting you to deliver your description. But to be getting on with I will just assume mine applies until you provide clarification. I will not expect any further heckling from you on that subject if you have failed to show what your grand metacognitive endeavours have provided on this matter.

As an aside, have you thought through any negatives on this position for yourself? Did you really think about it or are you just working off some common sense hunch?

You argued this point in relation to immigration, claiming that immigrants take jobs from Americans and bid down wages.
Economists object on multiple grounds, you are committing what's known as the lump of labor fallacy

Then there's all the standard problems of protectionism in which you shield your companies and workers from international competition which creates misaligned incentives to seek rents from further protection rather than address productivity deficits.
If you protect producers from the effects of market competition, by definition you transfer price setting powers from consumers to producers, which pushes up prices for consumers and easily eats the benefits to your wider economy that those Americans with their subsidised incomes are providing.

If you want, you can say that all construction jobs must go to union labor, and no immigrants can join the union without correct papers. But that invites corruption and rent-seeking which is bad for the economy.

If you force a company to maintain a factory which earns pitiful returns on investment in its current configuration or location, you deter all further investment from both that company and others within your jurisdiction. This is a long established fact. You might consider the fate of Italy where it is almost impossible to make any workers redundant - seriously, if you persuade a judge that your employment was terminated for mere economic reasons the judge can and routinely does order the employer to re-hire the workers with back pay. This (and some other pretty severe problems) has contributed to that country's terrible economic performance in the last 20 years. If your claimed rule worked, they ought to be doing much better than Germany which scrapped a raft of weaker but similar regulations to restore competitiveness and productivity after becoming the "sick man of Europe" following re-unification and the launch of the Euro.

Here's an article from way back (1999) when that was a pretty big issue.
http://www.economist.com/node/209559
Ask yourself this, when was the last time you heard a sentiment such as "Thus the biggest economic problem for Europe today is how to revive the German economy."
FWIW, it was 3 or 4 years later that they finally (and rather painfully) reformed their labour markets which restored healthy economic growth by giving workers less protection.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:28 pm**

bobevenson wrote:Sorry, but the USA should not be a public soup kitchen. ...

But I thought you one of the soup-drinkers bob?

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:06 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote:
You didn't like my description of economic growth.

That's not what I said, nor does it necessarily follow from what I said.

You argued... ...that immigrants take jobs from Americans and bid down wages.

You're quite mistaken, yet again. This is becoming habitual. I've been ignoring the overwhelming majority of your non-sequiturs, but it seems that that tack also needs to be changed. That's not what I argued, nor does it necessarily follow from what I argued. That is to say that you've offered a non-sequitur, and that is a fallacy. Speaking of fallacies...

Economists object on multiple grounds, you are committing what's known as the lump of labor fallacy

I read the link earlier, out of curiosity. Now, you've offered a different one. Interesting move, but probably irrelevant. Just so you know, not all things commonly called "fallacy" meet the strict academic criterion for being one. Regardless...

Evidently economists have culled out a common presupposition and/or thought/belief that some of the folk who argue against immigration have/hold. This so-called 'fallacy' doesn't rightfully apply to what I've written. If you feel otherwise, then demonstrate it, and make your case. I'm telling you that it is indeed the case that American based companies can and do hire undocumented workers, and they do so for one predominant reason; it tremendously increases their profit margin by virtue of tremendously reducing their cost. Call it what you like. Those things are happening, despite anyone who claims otherwise. Because they are happening, my statements are true. Those claims are also falsifiable/verifiable. If the economists studying these matters would like to look in the right places, they'll certainly find plenty of undocumented workers.

That is not to say that that is the only prevailing set of circumstances that has caused an overwhelming number of Americans to no longer think/believe that it is possible for them to be able to live a comfortable life. Rather, it is but one of many, and they're all connected by virtue of one singular common operative tenet...

Profit is the sole motive.

I'm telling you that economic jargon doesn't even begin to address my own arguments on the matters at hand. In fact, it's entirely incapable of doing so. Here's a bold claim for you:Economics is nothing more than a justificatory method(a conceptual scheme created and intended) to justify causing unnecessary quantifiable harm to less fortunate working class people. Economic talk doesn't even consider unnecessary harm. It doesn't even consider the idea of one having power over people that they do not care about. By your own admission, your jargon isn't meant to talk about such matters. However, it most certainly is ethical/moral discourse.

This thread could be a means to get into all of that, however, it's intent is merely to shed some much needed light upon the demonstrable causes of many Americans' grief. I've simply been reporting upon the case at hand(the ways things are/were). In doing so, I'm developing a few different aspects.

Then there's all the standard problems of protectionism in which you shield your companies and workers from international competition which creates misaligned incentives to seek rents from further protection rather than address productivity deficits.

All I can do is laugh and shake my head. There's so much that could be said about the purported notion of 'competition'.

It is quite appropriate here to remind that we write the laws, and by doing so we create the rules governing these socio-economic matters.

International 'competition' is and always has been created by those with legislative powers. That's just the way it has always been. Recently, in the last fifty or so years, those elected officials were either knowingly acting in ways that would quantifiably harm millions upon millions of Americans, or they were completely ignorant that that legislation paved the way. Given that we're discussing American government and it's effect/affect upon the American people, neither is acceptable. These things not only need to have light shed upon them, but they actually need to become an integral part of everyday citizens' narrative/governmental perspective.

The legislation in question includes any and all pieces that allowed and/or actually subsidized the efforts to end American based production/manufacturing and move those operations overseas, in addition to any and all pieces of legislation which allowed and/or subsidized any foreign product to be sold in the US marketplace that is manufactured in sub-standard conditions. By "sub-standard", I mean American standards. That is, any and all sets of conditions that violate American civil rights, environmental, and/or labor laws.

Competition between foreign and domestic workers/companies requires abiding by precisely the same set of rules.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:01 pm**

creativesoul wrote:
You argued... ...that immigrants take jobs from Americans and bid down wages.
You're quite mistaken, yet again. This is becoming habitual. I've been ignoring the overwhelming majority of your non-sequiturs, but it seems that that tack also needs to be changed. That's not what I argued, nor does it necessarily follow from what I argued. That is to say that you've offered a non-sequitur, and that is a fallacy. Speaking of fallacies...

I've taken the liberty of highlighting some portions of the otherwise entirely unedited quote below which demonstrate you are bullshitting.

creativesoul wrote:There are untold numbers of undocumented workers, many Mexican, in the building trades and manufacturing sectors. Because an undocumented worker has little to no legal recourse against poor employment conditions, s/he is much easier to take advantage of by employers whose sole motive is profit. Because illegals cost far far less, the same employers will use them. Because the immigration laws are not properly enforced, that very situation is a common one, and it has caused quantifiable harm to American workers and their families. American workers would have those jobs. American workers would have more spendable income and the economy would be more robust as a result of more money being in the hands of more Americans. In addition, the building trades(particularly private housing and commercial construction) work in a hierarchy which fosters the ability of an entire workforce of undocumented workers to displace what would have otherwise been American workers. In such situations, just like the manufacturing scenario, if profit is the sole motive, then margin is increased by virtue of reducing cost. Undocumented workers cost much less. Since the laws aren't properly enforced, this happens without recourse or fear thereof, and causes quantifiable harm to not only those American workers and their families, but the American economy on a whole. American based businesses suffer as well, for they have less potential customers. This goes to show that illegal immigration and undocumented peoples, including but not limited to Mexicans, is a problem that has direct negative socio-economic affects/effects upon American lives. However, not all negative American sentiment towards Mexicans and Mexico result from the above. Some have nothing to do with people coming here and taking jobs, but rather the jobs being taken elsewhere.

I paraphrased you far more accurately than you did me with your repeated straw man shit about wealth. So fuck your hypocrisy, I don't care for it.

creativesoul wrote:I'm telling you that economic jargon doesn't even begin to address my own arguments on the matters at hand.

Lies. You made a strong claim that Americans having more money for these jobs is good for the economy. You sullied yourself with economic claims, don't blame me.

If you want to use your own special definition of "economy" that nobody else means by that word you need to do that thing you are so hypocritically avoiding. Which is define the terms.

creativesoul wrote: There's so much that could be said about the purported notion of 'competition'.

It is quite appropriate here to remind that we write the laws, and by doing so we create the rules governing these socio-economic matters.

Sure. There was an English king once called Canute who told the tides to stay out. That was a law, didn't work, his feet got wet.
Hugo Chavez decided that Bolivarian Socialism was superior to economic laws of supply and demand. He took a decently middle income country and turned into a shit hole by ignoring them. They currently have to weigh their cash to buy stuff because the wads of bills are uncountably huge.

Ignoring this stuff because you don't like it doesn't make it stop describing basic human behaviour that you have no control over. This tendency of yours is just like those of people who claim climate science is all a giant fraud to perpetuate something - especially so now you have updated your views with "Economics is nothing more than a justificatory method(a conceptual scheme created and intended) to justify causing unnecessary quantifiable harm to less fortunate working class people." which is exactly the sort of thing those guys say.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:39 pm**

You'll have to do much better than that Danger...

I'm not interested in your rhetorical drivel. Quote me and show how the statement(s) in question aren't true.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:52 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sure. There was an English king once called Canute who told the tides to stay out. That was a law, didn't work, his feet got wet.

How DARE YOU.
Knut was a Dane! Son of Sweyn Forkbeard,

You misunderstand the story of Knut.
He was so fed up with sycophantic ministers, that when one was stupid enough to say that Knut was so powerful as he has become king of England, Norway and Denmark, that he could command the tides.
Knut was asked to be taken to the shore to demonstrate to them he was mortal and only human.

In any event it is just a myth.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:02 am**

creativesoul wrote:You'll have to do much better than that Danger...

I'm not interested in your rhetorical drivel. Quote me and show how the statement(s) in question aren't true.

I already did that.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:34 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote:
creativesoul wrote:You'll have to do much better than that Danger...

I'm not interested in your rhetorical drivel. Quote me and show how the statement(s) in question aren't true.
I already did that.

No, you haven't. Evidently you and I work from two entirely different notions regarding what counts as a valid objection. Nothing you've written qualifies. I stand by everything I've said.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:48 am**

I'm wondering if there is any point? After all, I entered this point out that populists like Farage, Trump and yourself invariably rely on the public to ignore all expert advice about their simple sounding plans having unfortunate consequences.

Given that your position now seems to be "Economics is nothing more than a justificatory method(a conceptual scheme created and intended) to justify causing unnecessary quantifiable harm to less fortunate working class people." I think it is fair to say you are advising people to ignore expert advice about a complex world and choose instead simple solutions.

You have shown that you are going to dismiss every reference I make to particulars of the matter as jargon in exactly the same way that that racist chap calls everything he doesn't like cultural marxism. And, like your mentor, you will demand explicit details of concepts from others, but have no intention of providing your own after rejecting everything.

So the details of why economists say that your 21st C. resurrection of Smoot-Hawley will create less work and money for those American's you choose to protect than it takes from those you push the costs onto aren't really all that important. You will not accept as legitimate any view contrary to your own, no matter how expert the source.

And that is fine. It was basically my point. You've lived entirely up to expectation.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:24 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote:I'm wondering if there is any point? After all, I entered this point out that populists like Farage, Trump and yourself invariably rely on the public to ignore all expert advice about their simple sounding plans having unfortunate consequences.

Expert economists?

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:48 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote:
...Given that your position now seems to be "Economics is nothing more than a justificatory method(a conceptual scheme created and intended) to justify causing unnecessary quantifiable harm to less fortunate working class people." I think it is fair to say you are advising people to ignore expert advice about a complex world and choose instead simple solutions.

A complex world?

Nah. Complex map? Sure.

The complexity of a map doesn't guarantee accuracy. That is true... obviously so. The complexity of economics guarantees neither accuracy or ability to report the facts(the socio-economic events/situations that we find ourselves within at the moment).

I mean look at this next set of assertions...

You have shown that you are going to dismiss every reference I make to particulars of the matter as jargon in exactly the same way that that racist chap calls everything he doesn't like cultural marxism. And, like your mentor, you will demand explicit details of concepts from others, but have no intention of providing your own after rejecting everything.

One who has no intention of setting out one's own concepts does not do so, unless accidentally. Surely you do not think/believe that all that stuff I wrote prior to your entry was accidentally written...

Philosophy Now Forum

Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Re: Thinking Things Anew