751–760 of 761 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
b/c making the tax code more fair/logical would not improve things? your comment does not make sense.
I agreed with your statements. Since they are sane and would improve things, you are in the wrong comment thread.
Pardon my ignorance, but how does this differ from an earned income tax credit? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/buffett-minimum-wag...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly how is it a plus? The goal isn't to make a nominal "unemployment" statistic go down; it's to create valuable things. Your comment makes me think "a receding tide lifts all boats".
People will create what they want to create. For some people growing a nice garden and working on cool stuff around their cheap house will mean more than creating something "more valuable" to society at large. Creation of value or productivity should not be the standard we measure societies by, but instead equity and happiness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know whether you're saying "supporting a Basic Income is entailed by basic economic literacy" or "basic economic literacy precludes a Basic Income".
sorry. basic economic literacy precludes a Basic Income see Ludwig von Mises
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sorry. basic economic literacy precludes a Basic Income see Ludwig von Mises
'k, well, I'm going to go with "Milton Friedman was not economically illiterate ", whether or not he was actually correct...
Many other people don't have economic literacy in the first place – and if they did have it, some of them would change their minds about Basic Income and other issues, rather than ignore economics to focus on their social-moral philosophy. One reason that would happen is plenty of people don't have a very strong social-moral philosophy in the first place, don't care about it much. And some would even change their social-moral philosophy itself, for the better, if they understood basic economics.
Spreading basic economics isn't a total cure-all alone, but it's a great step. Many people would notice the conflicts between economics and some of their other ideas. Some of those people would then have some success resolving the conflicts and reaching reasonable economically-informed conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? I can't see any less superficial connection than that they are both about giving away money.
So you view a program that gives away money to some people and a program that gives away money to all people, as so completely unrelated as to be utterly incomparable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being wasteful, in my mind, is wasting resources, energy, effort etc. for slight conveniences and superficial benefits. Most of the things people do are wasteful, but I think what's important is a matter of degree. And no, not being able to convince people to buy into that is completely irrelevant to the argument. Where is the computer you were using before now? Chances are that someone else is using it, which more t…
Being wasteful, in my mind, is wasting resources, energy, effort etc. for slight conveniences and superficial benefits. And who gets to decide which conveniences are "slight" and which benefits are "superficial"? Sounds like nice work if you can get it. Where is the computer you were using before now? Chances are that someone else is using it Not likely. Computer recycling centers return the materials to manufacturer…
By that I did not mean to suggest that there's is or should be a universally enforced definition of what is "slight" or "superficial". I meant to point out that no matter how you define those words the definition of wastefulness depends on it. How you choose to implement it is a matter of values.
> Not likely. Computer recycling centers return the materials to manufacturers so they can be used as raw materials for new production. They don't resell the systems as-is.
There are various ways to go about recycling computers. Even if your computer was sent straight to a manufacturer to have its raw materials extracted, it would be better if it was given to someone in need of a computer for immediate reuse.
> If your definition of "wasteful" is "putting things in landfills instead of recycling them", you could have just said so.
"Throwing away" was admittedly not very carefully worded, try "getting rid of it in a way that does not guarantee continued use". Never mind that millions of tons of electronics go into landfills every year.
> This is quite true. But you're failing to ask the next question: why are people readily throwing their old stuff away? Because the new stuff is perceived by them to have better functionality. (This is not just true for computers; it's true for pretty much everything, cars, houses, clothes, etc.) They may be wrong, but who made you the judge of that?
Why anyone is throwing their stuff away in favor of new stuff is besides my point. Perhaps they don't realize the consequences, or they ignore them on the basis that they won't personally have to face them.
> You are completely ignoring the benefit to me of having my current laptop instead of my previous one. You're basically saying that people should be satisfied with old, outdated products that don't work very well compared to new ones, just so that we can avoid manufacturing new ones. If you want to make that tradeoff for yourself, fine, go for it. But if you expect other people to accept your definition of what are "slight conveniences and superficial benefits" that don't justify buying new stuff, you're going to need to do a lot better than just pointing out that people buy a lot of new stuff.
I am not ignoring that there is a benefit to you having a new laptop, and I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. All I am saying is that the shape of our society largely depends on our general lack of interest in the consequences of what we do with discarded products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or.... you could still run, but not as a Republican or a Democrat?
And lose, like everyone else who tried. When was the last time a president wasn't a Republican or a Democrat? That's right, when he was a Whig.
You mean like everyone else who's tried before moving to public funded elections, with restrictions on campaign donations?
Of course I can't guarantee that one change will result in a third-party getting meaningful representation, but it's at least a start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being wasteful, in my mind, is wasting resources, energy, effort etc. for slight conveniences and superficial benefits. And who gets to decide which conveniences are "slight" and which benefits are "superficial"? Sounds like nice work if you can get it. Where is the computer you were using before now? Chances are that someone else is using it Not likely. Computer recycling centers return the materials to manufacturer…
> And who gets to decide which conveniences are "slight" and which benefits are "superficial"? Sounds like nice work if you can get it. By that I did not mean to suggest that there's is or should be a universally enforced definition of what is "slight" or "superficial". I meant to point out that no matter how you define those words the definition of wastefulness depends on it. How you choose to implement it is a matt…
Perhaps not, but you did appear to be suggesting that some people should be able to tell other people what is "slight" or "superficial", instead of everyone getting to decide that for themselves. If everyone gets to decide for themselves what is "slight" or "superficial", then we basically have the situation we have now; but you don't seem satisfied with the situation we have now.
it would be better if it was given to someone in need of a computer for immediate reuse.
Not necessarily; there would have to be sufficient benefit to the person re-using it. You keep on ignoring that part of the equation.
try "getting rid of it in a way that does not guarantee continued use"
Same comment here: you're assuming that continued use is actually a benefit for whoever is using the item. What if it isn't?
I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do.
Huh? Saying that people are not taking proper account of the consequences of their actions is telling people what they should do--it's saying they should take proper account of the consequences. If you're not willing to own that statement, then you should stop harping about the consequences.