sardia wrote:Tyndmyr is in favor of setting government interests rates to tackle inequality? Why is it more effective than expanding transfer payments that we already have?
Not particularly. I would mostly simply advocate that we end a lot of price setting/inflating behavior(including pushing interest obviously artificially low), as that tends to have nasty side effects. Fixing the existing problem before proposing a new system is much neater and, while not particularly fast, less likely to burn lots of cash or go wildly awry.
sardia wrote:Leady. How much do you make? How do you feel about your tax bite?
enough and it hurts when I look at it. I'm also one of those people who essentially self limits because of it - screw losing shed loads of free time to get 50% of incremental earnings
See also, why not to bother pursuing management. Who needs more stress and headaches for marginal gains?
Mutex wrote:I like the implication that only "lefties" would have a problem with restricting people's right to breed.
This sentiment always really troubles me. Creating a new life is a right? The future welfare of the children created isn't of any concern?
We used to have strict cultural restrictions on childbirth and childrearing. Sometimes they were even codified by the state. Now having a kid is a "right." Cant interfere with muh bodily autonomy, and who gives a shit about the long term incentives created.
Well, yes. I do not treat them as a right, per se*. But I don't think we can have any real state-run system to limit reproduction that doesn't trample on a number of rights. Forced sterilization was a pretty horrible attempt at it not all that long ago...and hell, even forced lobotomizations aren't that ancient. Even if, in theory, reproductive limits offer rewards, it is highly likely that any real world implementation would go terribly amok.
*Because from a naturalistic perspective, you only have a "right" to raise whatever kids you can keep from dying, etc. Evolution rewards viable offspring only.
CorruptUser wrote:Personally I'm more of the opinion that, while taxes hurt my income, I probably get so much more than I pay in, indirectly. Sure, I'd rather pay (numbers made up) 0% on 60k than 30% on 60k, but I'd rather pay 30% on 60k than 0% on 20k. People look at taxes and it's AMAGAD GUBMENT STEELIN MA MONEE. They never seem to notice how much of that money can from government in the first place. All the revenue that Walmart makes, how much of it was from foodstamps? How much of your revenue came about due to public education, or the public education of your employees? How much came about due to research funded by grants? How much came about from all the other government programs. Sure, we can turn around and argue about whether spending several billion more to build yet another aircraft carrier is really going to bring more benefit than opening up 10,000 more spaces for medschool, but no one can really say they owe the government nothing.
Even if this is true, this in no way demonstrates that those programs are desireable, or better than alternatives.
The existance of a system does not justify the continued perpetuation of it forever and ever.
Dauric wrote: Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:No I am saying that since Walmart is the one that ends up with the food stamp money, they are the real beneficiaries of the welfare system. If I have everyone $100 for rent, I'm really giving $100 to the landlords...
Or Walmart's suppliers are the real beneficiaries. Or the employees of those suppliers. Or the people who sell things to those employees.
There is no end.
While I see your point, I would argue that there is indeed an end. If I have $100 in cash I have a greater flexibility in how I use it than I do if I have $100 in food stamps. While the food stamps do benefit those who have them that would otherwise have nothing, Wal Mart reaps the benefits of opportunity that the initial beneficiary did not get when they turn those stamps in to the government in exchange for regular currency. The initial beneficiary can only buy food with that $100, Wal Mart can use that money towards whatever the company wants.
Money being fungible, this is irrelevant. Even if they could only turn them in to buy more food, food stamps are a sufficiently small subset that it would not affect purchasing at all. It would only introduce another layer that would require government management for no additional gain. It's not ever very relevant to the buyer, because...money is fungible, and all people need to eat. It only matters if the people stop purchasing food...which would be...bad.
Ormurinn wrote:I do have concerns about IQ drain due to differential fertility, but that seems to be slight, and hopefully we'll have widespread genetic engineering before it becomes a problem (whether that genetic engineering is politically feasible is another matter)
You know what, forget it.
Outcomes are not strongly genetic. Oh, sure, genetics are a factor in everything, but nutrition, education, culture, etc are vastly, vastly more important. The vast majority of people are not hitting their genetic limits. As such, I do not think that (other than the generic benefits of genetic diversity), genetics are really that important to progress. Perhaps when we've hit the lower hanging fruit it will be, but I don't see why it should be a modern day concern.
@Orm: What I find also find so amazing about the absurdity of the statement you just made is that you linked something that largely refutes the claim you're trying to make.
sardia wrote:Is that related to iq decreasing as man developed society and peace? I remember reading about how a bigger brain related to aggression and a violent ancient life.
I've read the opposite; that times of peace require more cooperation/collaboration, which requires more social skills, which requires a bigger brain.
If anything, aggression is usually associated with lower intelligence, as it is both A ) very energetically costly, and B ) very risky.
Depends on the kind of aggression. Warfare within one's own kind...actual, organized warfare is different from say, competing for a mate or what not. And yeah, while aggression of some kind is really common in the animal kingdom, the outliers on the intelligence scale tend toward violence. Chimps, dolphins, great apes, etc all have very complex, surprisingly violent behavior as part of their social norms.