Bernie Sanders, Economically Indefensible.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

I don't give a crap about Bernie's economic thoughts. I'm voting for him because he's one of the only candidates who's taking a very active role in supporting the LGBT community. And unlike Hillary, he isn't a laughing stock right now.

Well then have fun when you can't afford your wedding. Hillary is pro lgbt btw.

Hence the 'laughing stock' part.

But what I found most entertaining about your OP is that you think Sanders is one of the worst candidates in 2016. Behind people like Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee? Are they not the idiots of America right now?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm totally in favor of open borders, and disagree with his interpretation of the idea, but he's still the best candidate out there. Better "let's not open the borders, but raise wages," than "deport the fuckin mexicans and fuck the minimum wage."

[Yorkvale]

Jesus Christ, Supply and Demand is an economic factor. It isn't the end all be all shtick of economics.

Tilting at another windmill.

You want an example? The universe. Does it end? No? Well then in that context, space is the final frontier and resources are infinite.

Indeed. But not accessible, and accessibility is an aspect of availability of a resource. If there's plenty of a resource left, but you can't ever get to it, there is functionally no resource left.

But In fact many scientific methods can be used to replicate and replace resources faster than we use them,

Speculative, and not a supportable suggestion. Indeed, most of history suggests we're riding a bubble.

and there's also this thing called recycling.

Entropy. Recycling will always result in a loss of efficiency.

For sure, it's usually better than starting fresh, but it's not the same as having unlimited resources.

Economics works best when you assume scarcity, that much is true, because that way goods and such are shipped to where they would best be used.

That doesn't happen.

Goods are shipped to where they have the greatest exchangeable value - not where they would 'be best used'... or where demand is greatest, or where they are most needed.

That doesn't mean economics is a zero-sum game.

No, it doesn't.

The fact that available resources are finite means that economics is a zero-sum game.

and it is reasonable to believe that Human Life in it's entirety as well as all the resources we use on a day to day basis can in fact be used for a very lengthy time period. Long enough that it won't matter to humans before the sun goes out. However, it has been argued that we can stop the sun from going out as well.

Irrelevant. The price of my house isn't really affected by the expected lifespan of the sun.

It IS, however, massively affected by the amount of available housing on the market (especially in that area), and the amount of demand for accommodation.

It is also largely influenced by the amount for available resources ... both in supplies and - more importantly - in land.

And land is an even better example than oil, for the zero-sum game. If one person owns all the land (simplifying - before you start tilting at that windmill, too) - where are you going to build your house? The land-baron is rich, and everyone else is poor.

I have apples.

You have peaches.

I prefer peaches to apples, so I personally value peaches more. You value apples more

I trade my apples for your peaches. Each of us is now better off than we were before, as we have each acquired something we value more for something we value less.

The number of apples and peaches haven't changed, so in that respect it is zero-sum but the economic positions of all involved has increased, so not zero sum. The resources are put to their most efficient use. Which is determined by people.

If you're trading something you have for something you want, you must want the other thing more (place more value on the other thing) than the thing you have. If the trade is completed, you are made better off. Not zero sum.

That's all it means. If each person in the system can be made better off than before without making another person in the system equally worse off than before, its not zero sum. The 'sum' increases as trades are made.

[Yorkvale]

Well then have fun when you can't afford your wedding. Hillary is pro lgbt btw.

Hence the 'laughing stock' part.

But what I found most entertaining about your OP is that you think Sanders is one of the worst candidates in 2016. Behind people like Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee? Are they not the idiots of America right now?

He's the worst candidate with a shot at winning.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Hence the 'laughing stock' part.

But what I found most entertaining about your OP is that you think Sanders is one of the worst candidates in 2016. Behind people like Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee? Are they not the idiots of America right now?

He's the worst candidate with a shot at winning.

There's this guy named "Donald Trump" you really need to look up.

[Yorkvale]

He's the worst candidate with a shot at winning.

There's this guy named "Donald Trump" you really need to look up.

People don't take him seriously, the GOP doesn't want him, and no liberal or centrist in hell would vote for him. He's popular with far right wingers and people who don't know how to vote. Bernie Sanders has liberal support, centrist support, and some progressive right wing support. Wider range of votes, and people generally take him seriously.

If it was Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election.......idk what I would do.

Regardless, my hypothesis and hope, is that Hillary Wins as expected and nothing changes, maybe some lobbyists in Washington do some good for entrepreneurs.

In my heart, it will always be Obama/Bill Clinton 2016.

[New Werpland]

Be careful when responding to Pruss, our previous heir to Ripoll was sent on the path to deletion through his endless qualms with him.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1. Not feasible for most due to a combination of insecurity and inability to negotiate from a position of no power.
2. Not feasible for most people for the same reasons, plus the need for startup capital. Venture capitalists are handy, but you can't count on them, particularly after so many got burned when the tech bubble burst.
3. Not feasible for most people.

Essentially, you seem to be saying that those with new and exciting ideas will succeed (Yay!), but those who simply want to be able to go to work, do a decent skilled job that they trained for, take some pride in whatever they're producing, then go home and raise their families in peace are shit out of luck...in other words, the vast majority of the American working and middle classes. Your future is great for the best and the brightest, which I take no issue with, but it's a fucking disaster for everyone else who isn't in that class. It's an elitist system, and consigns millions to scratch for poverty wages. The rest of your post is empty rhetoric and pro-libertarian talking points that aren't worth responding to.

That's ridiculous. ANYONE can freelance. And if people think that service is unique and useful, freelancers can charge whatever. See heres the cool thing about being a freelancer/entrepreneur/intrapreneur. What you are doing, is a niche thing. It isn't like trying to compete for that accountant job. It's like cooking a meal inherently different from everyone else's. If people like it, they would pay anything that is reasonable for the experience they get from it because you don't have a competition for that thing. It isn't like two retailers trying to sell the same pair of jeans. The competition you have, is other people who have more appealing products or services. If you make a product or service that is good, people will consider it invaluable and pay you your worth. So no, a race to the bottom type thing doesn't happen to freelancers. At worst, no one cares about your service, you get no revenue. Solution? Think of something better. Slavery won't be a thing.

Intrapreneurship is simply a smaller scale version of entrepreneurship fit for people who don't have that kind of risk taking personality. You're right in that everyone can't be an entrepreneur. It's not for everyone, however, intrapreneurship and freelancing are. Intrapreneurship can be learned by anybody really. Anyone can learn to be more creative, anyone can think of a niche thing they can do that can be helpful to someone or a group of people. The only excuse, is "I'm not comfortable without my damn 9-5" and that, I think, is a terrible excuse.

Also, you don't need insane amounts of money to start a business. You can crowd fund, you can ask a friend to go into it with you, you can chat on online forums with other entrepreneurial minded people, you can take out a loan, you can use your savings, whatever. In fact, some businesses don't require any amount capital, or a very minuscule amount of it. You can do it solo as well to lower costs, do it yourself type of deal.

There are no excuses except not wanting to change.

1. Anyone can freelance. Not everyone can do so successfully. The worst, yes, is that people don't want your services. Since only the services of a limited number of people will be wanted, this leaves others in the dust. Good for the successful freelancers, but what happens to those who are good, but not as good as the competition, or even those who simply don't market themselves successfully? You're the one making the suggestion, so you come up with a solution for them.

2. No, not everybody can think of a niche thing that they can do, not everybody can be more creative, not everyone is suited to this sort of thing. That's so out of touch with how human beings actually work that I'm not sure where to begin. You have a certain number of people in each generation who provide the ideas, others who provide funding if they like the ideas, and millions of people who don't have the creativity or financial means to do either, but will happily go to work in order to build these things that other people are coming up with, or sell them, or stock them, or what have you. These are the jobs that we're losing.

3. Great. While you're waiting for the crowdfunding to come through (or not, since in your society, there's going to be increasingly greater competition for funds, and not everyone is a born salesman no matter how good their ideas are), you've been turned down by your stingy (or poor) relatives and friends, and you're being turned down by the bank due to a lack of credit history, how are you going to pay rent? Bills? Put food on the table? Deal with an unexpected expense or illness?

[Grave_n_idle]

Tilting at another windmill.



Indeed. But not accessible, and accessibility is an aspect of availability of a resource. If there's plenty of a resource left, but you can't ever get to it, there is functionally no resource left.



Speculative, and not a supportable suggestion. Indeed, most of history suggests we're riding a bubble.



Entropy. Recycling will always result in a loss of efficiency.

For sure, it's usually better than starting fresh, but it's not the same as having unlimited resources.



That doesn't happen.

Goods are shipped to where they have the greatest exchangeable value - not where they would 'be best used'... or where demand is greatest, or where they are most needed.



No, it doesn't.

The fact that available resources are finite means that economics is a zero-sum game.



Irrelevant. The price of my house isn't really affected by the expected lifespan of the sun.

It IS, however, massively affected by the amount of available housing on the market (especially in that area), and the amount of demand for accommodation.

It is also largely influenced by the amount for available resources ... both in supplies and - more importantly - in land.

And land is an even better example than oil, for the zero-sum game. If one person owns all the land (simplifying - before you start tilting at that windmill, too) - where are you going to build your house? The land-baron is rich, and everyone else is poor.

I have apples.

You have peaches.

I prefer peaches to apples, so I personally value peaches more. You value apples more

I trade my apples for your peaches. Each of us is now better off than we were before, as we have each acquired something we value more for something we value less.

The number of apples and peaches haven't changed, so in that respect it is zero-sum but the economic positions of all involved has increased, so not zero sum. The resources are put to their most efficient use. Which is determined by people.

If you're trading something you have for something you want, you must want the other thing more (place more value on the other thing) than the thing you have. If the trade is completed, you are made better off. Not zero sum.

That's all it means. If each person in the system can be made better off than before without making another person in the system equally worse off than before, its not zero sum. The 'sum' increases as trades are made.

Nope. Because, as you admit yourself, the amount of resources (which, for some reason, we're assuming is somehow equitable) doesn't change.

As I said, you're confusing money and resources. While they can be exchanged one for the other, one of them is effectively infinite, but the other has finite limits.

You're looking at the amount of money increasing and saying that it's not zero-sum - and of course, that's true. But that's because money has no intrinsic value. If a dollar was suddenly worth ten dollars, a dollar worth of apples would cost ten dollars.

And so you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone can be part of the 20% (where basic math shows that can never work), but it's because you're ignoring the fact that the 20% who control all the resources will always have that advantage over the 80%.

And that's why, even though household income might have a much higher dollar value now than it had in the 50's - single wage households are a rarity (and why income inequality is increasing).

[Yorkvale]

That's ridiculous. ANYONE can freelance. And if people think that service is unique and useful, freelancers can charge whatever. See heres the cool thing about being a freelancer/entrepreneur/intrapreneur. What you are doing, is a niche thing. It isn't like trying to compete for that accountant job. It's like cooking a meal inherently different from everyone else's. If people like it, they would pay anything that is reasonable for the experience they get from it because you don't have a competition for that thing. It isn't like two retailers trying to sell the same pair of jeans. The competition you have, is other people who have more appealing products or services. If you make a product or service that is good, people will consider it invaluable and pay you your worth. So no, a race to the bottom type thing doesn't happen to freelancers. At worst, no one cares about your service, you get no revenue. Solution? Think of something better. Slavery won't be a thing.

Intrapreneurship is simply a smaller scale version of entrepreneurship fit for people who don't have that kind of risk taking personality. You're right in that everyone can't be an entrepreneur. It's not for everyone, however, intrapreneurship and freelancing are. Intrapreneurship can be learned by anybody really. Anyone can learn to be more creative, anyone can think of a niche thing they can do that can be helpful to someone or a group of people. The only excuse, is "I'm not comfortable without my damn 9-5" and that, I think, is a terrible excuse.

Also, you don't need insane amounts of money to start a business. You can crowd fund, you can ask a friend to go into it with you, you can chat on online forums with other entrepreneurial minded people, you can take out a loan, you can use your savings, whatever. In fact, some businesses don't require any amount capital, or a very minuscule amount of it. You can do it solo as well to lower costs, do it yourself type of deal.

There are no excuses except not wanting to change.

1. Anyone can freelance. Not everyone can do so successfully. The worst, yes, is that people don't want your services. Since only the services of a limited number of people will be wanted, this leaves others in the dust. Good for the successful freelancers, but what happens to those who are good, but not as good as the competition, or even those who simply don't market themselves successfully? You're the one making the suggestion, so you come up with a solution for them.

2. No, not everybody can think of a niche thing that they can do, not everybody can be more creative, not everyone is suited to this sort of thing. That's so out of touch with how human beings actually work that I'm not sure where to begin. You have a certain number of people in each generation who provide the ideas, others who provide funding if they like the ideas, and millions of people who don't have the creativity or financial means to do either, but will happily go to work in order to build these things that other people are coming up with, or sell them, or stock them, or what have you. These are the jobs that we're losing.

3. Great. While you're waiting for the crowdfunding to come through (or not, since in your society, there's going to be increasingly greater competition for funds, and not everyone is a born salesman no matter how good their ideas are), you've been turned down by your stingy (or poor) relatives and friends, and you're being turned down by the bank due to a lack of credit history, how are you going to pay rent? Bills? Put food on the table? Deal with an unexpected expense or illness?

There are a minute minority of people that can't do anything that I've listed. They don't make up the middle class, in fact I very much doubt they make up the majority of the lower class. In fact I find your attitude more snobby and elitist considering how little faith you have in people.

The amount of people who can't do anything that I've stated exist in ANY economic system. I support, a negative income tax that covers the cost of living. But if you can't do ANYTHING, then you shouldn't feel entitled to the median income. Simply something you can live off of.

[Yorkvale]

I have apples.

You have peaches.

I prefer peaches to apples, so I personally value peaches more. You value apples more

I trade my apples for your peaches. Each of us is now better off than we were before, as we have each acquired something we value more for something we value less.

The number of apples and peaches haven't changed, so in that respect it is zero-sum but the economic positions of all involved has increased, so not zero sum. The resources are put to their most efficient use. Which is determined by people.

If you're trading something you have for something you want, you must want the other thing more (place more value on the other thing) than the thing you have. If the trade is completed, you are made better off. Not zero sum.

That's all it means. If each person in the system can be made better off than before without making another person in the system equally worse off than before, its not zero sum. The 'sum' increases as trades are made.

Nope. Because, as you admit yourself, the amount of resources (which, for some reason, we're assuming is somehow equitable) doesn't change.

As I said, you're confusing money and resources. While they can be exchanged one for the other, one of them is effectively infinite, but the other has finite limits.

You're looking at the amount of money increasing and saying that it's not zero-sum - and of course, that's true. But that's because money has no intrinsic value. If a dollar was suddenly worth ten dollars, a dollar worth of apples would cost ten dollars.

And so you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone can be part of the 20% (where basic math shows that can never work), but it's because you're ignoring the fact that the 20% who control all the resources will always have that advantage over the 80%.

And that's why, even though household income might have a much higher dollar value now than it had in the 50's - single wage households are a rarity (and why income inequality is increasing).

No, it's not money, it's continuous exchanges. And because people can endlessly exchange and become better off in the long run with their lives, economics is not zero-sum. In fact, you are the one equating wealth to money. Money isn't the same as wealth.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1. Anyone can freelance. Not everyone can do so successfully. The worst, yes, is that people don't want your services. Since only the services of a limited number of people will be wanted, this leaves others in the dust. Good for the successful freelancers, but what happens to those who are good, but not as good as the competition, or even those who simply don't market themselves successfully? You're the one making the suggestion, so you come up with a solution for them.

2. No, not everybody can think of a niche thing that they can do, not everybody can be more creative, not everyone is suited to this sort of thing. That's so out of touch with how human beings actually work that I'm not sure where to begin. You have a certain number of people in each generation who provide the ideas, others who provide funding if they like the ideas, and millions of people who don't have the creativity or financial means to do either, but will happily go to work in order to build these things that other people are coming up with, or sell them, or stock them, or what have you. These are the jobs that we're losing.

3. Great. While you're waiting for the crowdfunding to come through (or not, since in your society, there's going to be increasingly greater competition for funds, and not everyone is a born salesman no matter how good their ideas are), you've been turned down by your stingy (or poor) relatives and friends, and you're being turned down by the bank due to a lack of credit history, how are you going to pay rent? Bills? Put food on the table? Deal with an unexpected expense or illness?

There are a minute minority of people that can't do anything that I've listed. They don't make up the middle class, in fact I very much doubt they make up the majority of the lower class. In fact I find your attitude more snobby and elitist considering how little faith you have in people.

The amount of people who can't do anything that I've stated exist in ANY economic system. I support, a negative income tax that covers the cost of living. But if you can't do ANYTHING, then you shouldn't feel entitled to the median income. Simply something you can live off of.

I have ENORMOUS faith in people. What I don't have is an expectation that everyone's going to be able to do the same jobs. I can't do tool and die or assembly line work. My brain doesn't work that way. It's a difficult, demanding job that requires the ability to learn a skill set and then apply it consistently. I'm in awe of people who have that capability, and value their incredible contributions to society. You're looking to cast them out into a world where that's no longer good enough, and where their talents are meaningless unless they can independently sell themselves to those who desire their services.

Have you actually met any factory workers? Lived in a working class or blue collar middle class neighborhood? Gotten to know them, their hopes, their dreams, their goals for their future and the futures of their families? Do you know what it's like to be part of the working class? Do you understand the vital role that they play in American life? Do you understand what it would mean to suddenly tear this from them, to force them to fight for scraps of funding from wealthy entrepreneurs, and to starve if they can't come up with an idea to sell?

Have you actually gone outside and talked to people outside of your own social and economic circle? If so, did you listen? Did you understand what they were saying? Did you try? Or do they exist merely as theoretical constructs within your plans for the ideal society, divorced from any actual humanity or existential reality?

[Geilinor]

I have ENORMOUS faith in people. What I don't have is an expectation that everyone's going to be able to do the same jobs.

Everyone can't do the same job but most people can do something and they are.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

"Indefensible ideology, anti-common sense" seems to be an NSG motto. One the OP appears to have embraced.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I have ENORMOUS faith in people. What I don't have is an expectation that everyone's going to be able to do the same jobs.

Everyone can't do the same job but most people can do something and they are.

True. However, the future being proposed here has no room for people who do certain jobs. These ideas would make the collapse of the auto industry in the United States look like an economic blip in comparison.

[Geilinor]

"Indefensible ideology, anti-common sense" seems to be an NSG motto. One the OP appears to have embraced.

Mind if I adapt that to my sig?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

"Indefensible ideology, anti-common sense" seems to be an NSG motto. One the OP appears to have embraced.

Mind if I adapt that to my sig?

Zaroor.

[Daburuetchi]

Sitting back and doing nothing about America's ludicrous levels of income inequality and while muttering about Kuznet curves or the need to lower taxes when corporate profits are at an all time high the only thing that's anti common sense. So is the notion that more capitalism will save the planet when it's lack of regulation that cause the world economy to nearly collapse in 2008.

[MERIZoC]

You are, in fact, allowed to make more than one thread on these forums.

True, though I would prefer that Yorkvale's fascination with Senator Sanders work itself out in just one.

Ah. I had been under the impression he just kept changing the title and OP. Understood.

[MERIZoC]

True, though I would prefer that Yorkvale's fascination with Senator Sanders work itself out in just one.

He's not fascinated with Sanders.

He's fascinated that so many people are fascinated with Sanders. Have you seen the memes? It's a freaking cult.

#ronpaul2012

[Apollinis]

He's not fascinated with Sanders.

He's fascinated that so many people are fascinated with Sanders. Have you seen the memes? It's a freaking cult.

#ronpaul2012

Hey hey hey, don't be so quick to dismiss him. I've got a pretty strong suspicion that 2012 is really looking up to be Ron Paul's year.

[Plzen]

Again, do you seriously believe that there are enough freelance positions for 120 million people?

Do you seriously believe there are that many niches?

What part of "the number of things that people can do but machines can't is rapidly decreasing" is giving you the most problem? All employees, freelancers or not, are doomed to be replaced, except for a tiny minority of people in meaningful decision-making positions.

Economically, most people simply aren't worth the cost of keeping them alive in conditions befitting basic human dignity anymore. The available choices are, keep them propped up with somebody else's money, or reduce the bulk of the populace into economic serfs.

I prefer the first option, if you don't mind.

[Daburuetchi]

Bernie Sanders is the worst candidate possible in 2016. His beliefs and economic proposals are outdated and inexcusable.

The idea that the vast levels of income inequality in America is ultimately bad for the general welfare of society, wanting to raise taxes when wealth has not in fact trickled down at a time when corporate profits are at an all time, acknowledging the fact that the planet is dying as a result of global warming and proposing to regulate wall street after going though the worst economic crisis since the great depression makes him the worst presidential candidate? This is ludicrous and the rest of the world is laughing at America

[MERIZoC]

Bernie Sanders is the worst candidate possible in 2016. His beliefs and economic proposals are outdated and inexcusable.

The idea that the vast levels of income inequality in America is ultimately bad for the general welfare of society, wanting to raise taxes when wealth has not in fact trickled down at a time when corporate profits are at an all time, acknowledging the fact that the planet is dying as a result of global warming and proposing to regulate wall street after going though the worst economic crisis since the great depression makes him the worst presidential candidate? This is ludicrous and the rest of the world is laughing at America

If only they were instead of quietly following in its footsteps.

[Godular]

As I read through this thread and note yorkvale's increasing departure from reality, I ponder whether this is in fact some experiment to tear a hole in the fabric of space-time that can allow travel between universes.

But that would just be another border to close.