Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Republicans Are Upset About The National Debt Again

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by studegator, Jan 19, 2021.

  1. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist Premium Member

    7,882
    909
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    This jobs issue is what I was thinking about too. If the government subsidizes jobs for 5% of the populace that simply can’t find jobs, what are those people going to do?

    If it is something really useful, well then they should have already been getting paid to do it. If it’s not useful, what is the value? I hadn’t even thought of the third option that you bring up here: the job might actually be counter-productive destroying wealth.

    It could be better to just go with a UBI and let the individuals make the choices.
     
  2. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist Premium Member

    7,882
    909
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    Saw this article a bit ago, and it made me think of you. Seems relevant here.

    Everything We’ve Learned About Modern Economic Theory Is Wrong
     
  3. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,569
    560
    443
    Apr 24, 2007
    My generation?? Wow, it's looks like we are going to have to come up with a new "ism". Should it be Agism or something else? Either way it's just another of liberals preaching tolerance until you disagree with them or won't drink their kool aid.

    Please give me a minute to find where I said anything about people not wearing masks.

    It's funny, or sad depending how you look at it that you call me sanctimonious. You listen to Fauci and the other idiots tell you that they have the all the answers and all we have to do is listen to them and we'll all be fine. You think problems are fine as long as you can blame someone or gain political advantage from them.

    Here's some sanctimony for you: It's an F'ing virus. It's going to spread, that's what they do. Protect yourself. Let people do what they do: develop treatments ad vaccines. You don't ruin the lives of 99% to save less than 1%.
     
  4. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    16,720
    1,751
    808
    Apr 8, 2007
    Not everything useful is valuable to those who have the means to pay for it. Food banks provide great value to our communities. They are largely staffed by volunteers. Same for battered women's shelters, free tax services for seniors at the library, the list goes on. A whole host of valuable work getting done in America without any compensation.

    Markets are very good at efficiently allocating resources when dealing private goods. Private goods are not the only goods, and markets are inefficient at providing any other type of good.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. SeabudGator

    SeabudGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,038
    1,118
    528
    Apr 23, 2014
    Great book called "Generation Psychopath". Basically children of the Greatest generation. The Greatest generation was raised during the depression and fought in WWII. Their children, the boomers, were raised when the United States was the only industrialized nation still standing (Europe and Japan/Asia/Russia had to rebuild factories, countries and the US was 80% of the world economy). These folks were born on third base and thought they hit a triple. Born in a booming world economy built by the Greatest Generation, many then became hippies in their twenties (selfish, entitlement) and followed that up by becoming Gordon Gecko "Greed is good" in their late 40s/50s.

    Obviously gross generalizations but the entitlement is consistent then and now with dismissive comments about protecting a fellow human being from significant danger by simply wearing a mask. We are losing more Americans a day to the corona virus than we lost in WWII, but this generation doesn't care. Conserve gas, buy war bonds? These folks would have headed to Canada (hippies, claimed bone spurs like Trump or sold arms to Hitler). COVID-19 deaths: Americans dying faster than our soldiers did in WWII
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist Premium Member

    7,882
    909
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    I don’t disagree Phil. I am still skeptical that the government can identify millions of valuable jobs that are just waiting for someone to do them. I’d rather just give the people the money, and give them their 8 hours a day back to find something useful to do.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. vaxcardinal

    vaxcardinal GC Hall of Fame

    6,695
    577
    423
    Apr 8, 2007
    well they can rake leaves out west so that we dont have all those fires.:confused:
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,569
    560
    443
    Apr 24, 2007
    I have read that book and agreed with much of if. That time frame was my early years. My formative years were the 70’s when gas prices doubled in the early 70’s and then again by about 60% in the late part of the decade. Inflation was horrible, many of friends dads lost their jobs, some more than once.
    It wasn’t uncommon for friends at UF from 78 to 81 to have to go home because their parents couldn’t afford to pay their way anymore. Most hippies were on their way to their next grievance by then or figured out that they couldn’t live off dad and burn reefer their whole life. Although even I admit, that thought is seductive to an 18-22 year old.

    I had to work through college and fortunately I always worked hard enough that my bosses kept me around. Of course, that was all out of my thought process so I was usually working scared of losing the job in the next cut. I’m not not about good jobs either, I’m talking $2.00 an hour jobs.

    There was another book I read similar about how families would build successful businesses and then their kids and grandkids would ruin it within two generations. I can’t remember the name of it but it was interesting.
     
  9. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    9,696
    1,733
    1,383
    Sep 14, 2008
    Yeah, who knows. These days all you hear is throw out the old because it doesn't work and make some totally new program. Everybody assumes it will work perfectly even though we have a long history of government programs not doing that. The jobs programs made sense in the 1930s, but they were really just a replacement for unemployment insurance and welfare that didn't exist at the time. There was such a high level of unemployment that you could get good workers on these infrastructure projects, so we got a benefit from the public spending. These days we don't have high unemployment and we have these other programs, so we are talking about a portion of the population that maybe marginally employable and that we might better serve with other programs. UBI is sort of the same thing where it's a choice between just paying people some basic subsistence level wage or a portion of that versus what we do already with direct payments for benefits or vouchers. Historically we have thought that it's better to directly pay for the person's benefits to landlords, grocery stores, etc rather than give them the money and they spend it on booze and cigarettes. We have something similar to UBI already now with the EITC and there are whole industries around getting you to spend that money on shitty used cars, TVs, etc as if tax refund time is Christmas. If that's the typical behavior then you still end up with people on the streets who blow their UBI on other stuff rather than rent. Also nobody else has shown that UBI works on a national scale, only some positive feedback with small experiments. I don't think we should be the ones to pioneer that effort since smaller countries are far better able to micromanage such programs than the U.S. government.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    9,696
    1,733
    1,383
    Sep 14, 2008
    And even if you did get some value back from it, you would still have much higher costs to build a bureaucracy to manage it than you would with just sending out checks or vouchers. The benefit is supposed to be that these people are more employable because they have been working in the jobs program and maybe learning some new skills so they would be more likely to be hired than someone that has been unemployed for 18 months. I think it would help in some cases, but it's hard to argue that if someone is otherwise unemployable at a minimum wage job that this is going to help in the majority of cases. The government isn't going to suddenly turn them into far more productive people in most cases. There are usually other problems there with their capabilities or personality that are blockers to them having a good work history.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    16,720
    1,751
    808
    Apr 8, 2007
    One of the interesting things I've seen in the kids who were graduating during the recession is that of the ones who stuck to the dreams and lived at mom and dad's house while they held out for a job that matched their qualifications, many of them ended up with a job that matched their qualifications. And a lot of the ones who had to get a job to make ends meet didn't have the free time (or energy) to keep looking for a better job and are mostly stuck doing low paying hourly work. They've fallen off the high-flying track and it is hard to get back on it once you've missed your entrance.

    There is something to be said for just giving them money and letting them use that time to find something useful to do. (you kind of have to trust people to do that, and some aren't as willing to extend that trust)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. slayerxing

    slayerxing GC Hall of Fame

    4,286
    701
    483
    Aug 14, 2007
    Says the pro lifer. Typical. People like Fauci are just trying their best in a tough situation where half the country feels like they know best and can ignore everything they say like there are no consequences. Fauci himself would say he doesn’t have all the answers. But I can assure you he knows more than you. But hey thanks for going out and keeping the economy going. I’ll give your username to all my friends and coworkers who have lost loved ones so they can thank you for your sacrifice and hard work. /s
     
  13. docspor

    docspor GC Hall of Fame

    3,576
    1,275
    633
    Nov 30, 2010
    Guy seems late to the party. Economists & psychologists have been demonstrating very consistent (& now predictable) deviations from EU theory pretty much since the inception of EU. I can think of at least 3 nobel prizes given for that work. There would have been a 4th but Tversky died. When I saw the title I was steamed b/c my pet peeve is when people say a theory is wrong b/c it fails to predict. that certainly is not a good quality in a theory, but it does not make it wrong. Turns out the body of the article seems to know better. I have actually proven a long standing theory wrong, which is a rare thing. A theory is wrong if it is internally inconsistent & this one was.

    Any time you have a theory that can make pt predictions in MANY diff contexts, clever folks can find exceptions. An early, famous EU paradox even fooled the guy who identified it. Oh, here it is.


    From these pairs of gambles, which two do you choose?


    [​IMG]


    I agree with the nobel prize winner (in econ) who is not an economist & made his career showing deviations of EU theory who sez EU theory is the most important theory in social sciences. Notwithstanding that assessment, I think a more fundamental flaw in EU theory is that it assumes people know what will make them happy or happier. It is becoming clear that people suck at knowing what makes them happy. &, this circles back to my view of the world. EU theory is an amazing theory of rational decision making, but it is deductive in nature. People are not very deductive. They are inductive - they learn by trial & error. (a nobel winner has a great example that shows even chess masters are pretty inductive).

    I'll end by defending econ. That guys premise is pretty whack in my opinion. Individuals can be really stupid & irrational. Put stupid, irrational people in a mkt & they insta converge on an equil. even if every individual is clueless. This has been demonstrated 1000s of times with participants ranging from kids in African villages to PhDs in econ to "dumb" automatons in simulations.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    11,852
    4,256
    1,723
    Nov 25, 2017
    Got it. Piece of cake.

    Your reluctance was silly.

    BTW: they told me there would be no math.
     
  15. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist Premium Member

    7,882
    909
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    I agree. The behavioral economists have, IMO, shown real irrational / biases behavior at the individual level, but this doesn’t scale up to the market level.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1