|
ECONOMY,US_FILEPHOTO:Committee on Ways and Means posted:Part-Time Nation code:
So, ~90% of new jobs since 2009 have been part-time. I want to get an idea of how long I can expect the post-crash employment malaise to hang around. Can anyone recommend some papers or articles? From what I've read so far, there's quite a few factors at play. I'm hoping someone can save me some time and point to like a single comprehensive meta-analysis or something.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2013 03:31 |
|
|
# ? Apr 17, 2024 20:42 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:What is the MMT explanation of bitcoin? With no tax liability assesed in the fiat currency nobody ever needs to hold bitcoins, so why should they continue to hold value? This is old but I read this yesterday and it's literally an MMT explanation of Bitcoin so here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fair-price-of-a-bitcoin-is-zero-2013-12 (I think this is actually a pretty dumb analysis but whatever)
|
# ? Dec 4, 2013 00:04 |
|
A couple of neat links I found today: Illustration of the different values of the political left vs. right. There's one for the US and for the world, useful as a reminder for when you're talking to someone and want to use arguments that appeal to their values. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/ Looks like ALEC is having funding problems after a lot of companies pulled their support after they pushed Stand Your Ground laws. The most important thing, in my opinion, is the talk of their sister project the "Jeffersonian Project" (in the fine tradition of stealing everything you can, changing your name when you get caught, and doing it again) and the proposal that ALEC leaders (who are often legislators) had to swear loyalty to the organization first. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/alec-funding-crisis-big-donors-trayvon-martin It's a huffpo link, but while Americans support drug testing people on government benefits, they really support drug testing Congress. Useful anytime that drug-testing chestnut shows up, especially if you can link all the times a (usually liberal) lawmaker proposes the law and it gets shot down. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/drug-testing-congress_n_4373472.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
|
# ? Dec 5, 2013 02:13 |
|
Pierat posted:This is old but I read this yesterday and it's literally an MMT explanation of Bitcoin so here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fair-price-of-a-bitcoin-is-zero-2013-12 I posted this on my Facebook and got some very positive responses. It's almost like there are a ton of people out there who are really interested in economics, but the only thing they've been exposed to is Austrian economics and Ron Paul. It's kind of like someone who has gotten caught up in pseudoscience seeing Carl Sagan for the first time. "Whoa! Real economics is AWESOME!"
|
# ? Dec 5, 2013 19:43 |
|
DarkHorse posted:A couple of neat links I found today: This chart is total garbage. Democrats and communists have radically different ideologies predicated on totally different grounds; Democrats are much closer to Republicans (and American liberalism closer to American conservatism) than either are to socialists or communists. Nationalism is not inherently right-wing, the nationalism of oppressed and marginalized nationalities (for a few quick examples, Palestine, Quebec, Brittany, Catalonia, Black Nationalism in the US) are often left wing or strongly left-wing. The idea that Democrats are pacifists is totally ridiculous, Democrats are completely willing to participate in imperialist wars and interventions. Democrats supporting fair trade or workers beyond lip service would also be a novelty. There are extremely few differences between the US and world versions besides swapping the color scheme (I highly doubt those (unsourced) poll percentages are the exact same in the US and the world as a whole). Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 5, 2013 |
# ? Dec 5, 2013 22:03 |
|
Rogue0071 posted:This chart is total garbage. Democrats and communists have radically different ideologies predicated on totally different grounds; Democrats are much closer to Republicans (and American liberalism closer to American conservatism) than either are to socialists or communists. Nationalism is not inherently right-wing, the nationalism of oppressed and marginalized nationalities (for a few quick examples, Palestine, Quebec, Brittany, Catalonia, Black Nationalism in the US) are often left wing or strongly left-wing. The idea that Democrats are pacifists is totally ridiculous, Democrats are completely willing to participate in imperialist wars and interventions. Democrats supporting fair trade or workers would also be a novelty. Also, the "World" and "US" versions are practically identical, even down to the statistics showing x% in favor of Gay marriage and stuff. They even have a Labour party in the US version.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2013 22:06 |
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Also, the "World" and "US" versions are practically identical, even down to the statistics showing x% in favor of Gay marriage and stuff. They even have a Labour party in the US version. I had just checked the world page and was adding this to my post as you posted this. I would love to see how exactly that chart got put together besides "I think this is true so I'm going to slap it on here".
|
# ? Dec 5, 2013 22:09 |
|
Rogue0071 posted:This chart is total garbage. Democrats and communists have radically different ideologies predicated on totally different grounds; Democrats are much closer to Republicans (and American liberalism closer to American conservatism) than either are to socialists or communists. Nationalism is not inherently right-wing, the nationalism of oppressed and marginalized nationalities (for a few quick examples, Palestine, Quebec, Brittany, Catalonia, Black Nationalism in the US) are often left wing or strongly left-wing. The idea that Democrats are pacifists is totally ridiculous, Democrats are completely willing to participate in imperialist wars and interventions. Democrats supporting fair trade or workers beyond lip service would also be a novelty. There are extremely few differences between the US and world versions besides swapping the color scheme (I highly doubt those (unsourced) poll percentages are the exact same in the US and the world as a whole). The Right Wing is just as incoherent, rural stockbrokers? Really?
|
# ? Dec 5, 2013 22:23 |
|
Because my wife is a wizard, we have somehow managed to convince a bunch of people to come to our house and listen to debates, speeches, presentations or something, and have something resembling dinner party. The plan is to show youtube videos (or audio) that might get people to think a little bit about ~issues~. The real goal is to stop going out and spending money for a bit. In any case, I would like some suggestions on content that explores the failures of capitalism and alternative views on life -- with kid gloves. I have my doubts whether this will work, but I would like to work up to discussions concerning Israel/Palestine, unions, structural issues in the US political system, socialism and related movements, and so on. Basically, I want to introduce ideas that are controversial to many of these people that posters on this forum wouldn't think twice about.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 01:01 |
|
I'm reading a lot of stuff about the United Nations General Assembly demanding the release of Nelson Mandela in 87 with the U.S. and U.K. rejecting it. I can't find gently caress all about it from credible sources though. Were Reagan and Tachter that despicable? This comes from left wing friends but i don't accept bull just because it comes from my political spectrum.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 01:04 |
|
Kudaros posted:I would like some suggestions on content that explores the failures of capitalism and alternative views on life -- with kid gloves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 01:21 |
|
Mans posted:I'm reading a lot of stuff about the United Nations General Assembly demanding the release of Nelson Mandela in 87 with the U.S. and U.K. rejecting it. He was a left-wing violent revolutionary. Why would Reagan and Thatcher support his release? edit: Pierat posted:This is old but I read this yesterday and it's literally an MMT explanation of Bitcoin so here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fair-price-of-a-bitcoin-is-zero-2013-12 Well it is an MMT explanation Soviet Space Dog fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Dec 6, 2013 |
# ? Dec 6, 2013 01:33 |
|
Mans posted:I'm reading a lot of stuff about the United Nations General Assembly demanding the release of Nelson Mandela in 87 with the U.S. and U.K. rejecting it. I couldn't find any information about UN General Assembly Resolutions on anything in 1987 (apparently, they didn't pass anything between something about Morocco and Western Sahara in 1979 and a measure on merecenary forces in 1989), but certainly the UK under Thatcher would have been despicable enough to block anything in that area: This is a poster used by the Federation of Conservative Students in the late 1980s, when Thatcher was still Prime Minister (and when Cameron was high up within that group ), and she called the ANC terrorists regularly. I'm not sure about Reagan and the US; but the official Conservative party opinion (if not the majority one) in the UK was that Mandela was a terrorist and that sanctions against South Africa would hurt rather than help the elimination of apartheid...
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 01:41 |
|
IceAgeComing posted:the official Conservative party opinion (if not the majority one) in the UK was that Mandela was a terrorist and that sanctions against South Africa would hurt rather than help the elimination of apartheid... This was the official Ronald Reagan position as well.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 01:55 |
|
Mans posted:I'm reading a lot of stuff about the United Nations General Assembly demanding the release of Nelson Mandela in 87 with the U.S. and U.K. rejecting it. Heres the text quote:[The United General Assembly] Demands again that the racist regime end repression against the oppressed people of South Africa; lift the state of emergency; release unconditionally Nelson Mandela, Zephania Mothopeng, all other political prisoners, trade union leaders, detainees and restrictees and, in particular, detained children; lift the ban on the African National Congress of South Africa, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and other political parties and organizations; allow free political association and activity of the South African people and return of all political exiles; put an end to the policy of bantustanization and forced population removals; eliminate apartheid laws and end military and paramilitary activities aimed at the neighbouring States: Dug up the voting record. 129 Yes, 3 No and 22 Abstentions. The No's were the United States, United Kingdom and Portugal (not surprising considering South Africa's role in Angola). kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Dec 6, 2013 |
# ? Dec 6, 2013 02:07 |
|
Rogue0071 posted:This chart is total garbage. Democrats and communists have radically different ideologies predicated on totally different grounds; Democrats are much closer to Republicans (and American liberalism closer to American conservatism) than either are to socialists or communists. Nationalism is not inherently right-wing, the nationalism of oppressed and marginalized nationalities (for a few quick examples, Palestine, Quebec, Brittany, Catalonia, Black Nationalism in the US) are often left wing or strongly left-wing. The idea that Democrats are pacifists is totally ridiculous, Democrats are completely willing to participate in imperialist wars and interventions. Democrats supporting fair trade or workers beyond lip service would also be a novelty. There are extremely few differences between the US and world versions besides swapping the color scheme (I highly doubt those (unsourced) poll percentages are the exact same in the US and the world as a whole). The poll numbers are useless garbage of course.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 04:14 |
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Heres the text Look at the abstains too, they're almost all Western/Northern Europe.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 04:58 |
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Heres the text The Portuguese president who was in charge back then is the same muppet who is governing Portugal during the worst economic crisis since the dictatorship Thanks a lot for the confirmation.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 05:33 |
|
I'm done with politics.
Earth fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jun 18, 2014 |
# ? Dec 6, 2013 05:56 |
|
Kudaros posted:Because my wife is a wizard, we have somehow managed to convince a bunch of people to come to our house and listen to debates, speeches, presentations or something, and have something resembling dinner party. The plan is to show youtube videos (or audio) that might get people to think a little bit about ~issues~. The real goal is to stop going out and spending money for a bit. Structural lessons on our political system? Let me tell you about FPTP and how it's loving awful! Youtube User CGPGrey has an awesome simple set of videos on the subject (and a bunch of other really cool videos too): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo The 4 Part Playlist I recognize that's long, so if you're going to show any one video beyond the problems of FPTP, I'd recommend either the Alternative Method or MMR videos. Still, getting people to consider electoral systems is like telling people you want to talk to them about paint drying, no matter how important it may actually be. Everyone should agree that making our elected officials representative of the people is a good thing. --- Other videos I would recommend to ease in: RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us - An excellent video about how money isn't the only or most important motivator. Michael Sandel: What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets - Michael Sandel wrote a really good book examining how market forces, when applied to civic considerations, can distort the moral underpinnings of those decisions. Invites people to think critically about the influence of markets and how it's often touted as (but rarely is) unbiased. Highly recommended, a bit longer though.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 07:18 |
|
Kudaros posted:Because my wife is a wizard, we have somehow managed to convince a bunch of people to come to our house and listen to debates, speeches, presentations or something, and have something resembling dinner party. The plan is to show youtube videos (or audio) that might get people to think a little bit about ~issues~. The real goal is to stop going out and spending money for a bit. Sounds a bit like you're having an Asteroids Club meeting. In as much as you want people to change their views, psychology suggests that dining together, and identifying common threats, will really help facilitate an open atmosphere. How common threats can make common (political) ground
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 14:06 |
|
I'm in a climate change debate elsewhere with someone who insists on applying groupthink or information cascade to the overwhelming consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Isn't this just a convenient escape hatch when you don't agree with a given consensus? What's the best approach to refuting this? I'm framing my response around the argument that a) the amount of physical evidence and the volume of research eliminates groupthink as the facts and body of knowledge surrounding climate change clearly and decisively speak for themselves, and b) the objectivity of scientists by definition (vs consumers) minimizes the likelihood of influence via groupthink. Any suggestions/direction or references on why you can't just arbitrarily drop the groupthink definition on any bunch of people who happen to have reached the same conclusion? What are the criteria for distinguishing groupthink or an information cascade vs simply connecting the dots with science and research?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 18:00 |
|
Scientific consensus is not groupthink because there's a more or less agreed-upon set of rules and standards (i.e., the scientific process) that scientists follow. When people follow these rules and draw differing conclusions, there's scientific debate. When people follow these rules and draw the same conclusions, it's scientific consensus. In order to argue that scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change is groupthink, your opponent would have to explain how and why climate scientists as a whole were able to subvert nature of the scientific process so that no one could overthrow their theories, and how and why this subversion has escaped the scrutiny of scientists as a whole. In other words, they have to actually explain why it's groupthink, not just assert that it is.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2013 18:16 |
|
Earth posted:Congratulations on marrying a wizard. I'm pretty keen on finding a doctor who wants to settle for me, but I bet marrying a wizard would be pretty awesome too. Everyone I know has known me to challenge their thinking along these lines. They expect it to, so this is a great way to start. Thanks! Mo_Steel posted:Structural lessons on our political system? Let me tell you about FPTP and how it's loving awful! Youtube User CGPGrey has an awesome simple set of videos on the subject (and a bunch of other really cool videos too): This is great material. I like youtube users who condense things down and I'm sure the 'audience' will appreciate it too. We could do this over multiple parts or something. Bob Nudd posted:Sounds a bit like you're having an Asteroids Club meeting. In as much as you want people to change their views, psychology suggests that dining together, and identifying common threats, will really help facilitate an open atmosphere. Never heard this one before, but it's a neat idea. I might use this early too to demonstrate the potential value of these meetings.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2013 16:37 |
|
Kudaros posted:In any case, I would like some suggestions on content that explores the failures of capitalism and alternative views on life -- with kid gloves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM
|
# ? Dec 7, 2013 17:57 |
|
Bob Nudd posted:Sounds a bit like you're having an Asteroids Club meeting. In as much as you want people to change their views, psychology suggests that dining together, and identifying common threats, will really help facilitate an open atmosphere.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2013 03:34 |
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I don't really understand this concept. When you have one side that acknowledges reality, and another dedicated to denying it, focusing on real data to progress the discussion doesn't sound like a viable approach. Typically, each side thinks it's the one that sees reality and the other is dedicated to denying it.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2013 19:15 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Typically, each side thinks it's the one that sees reality and the other is dedicated to denying it.
|
# ? Dec 9, 2013 01:15 |
|
PerniciousKnid posted:In 2013 America, all the Republicans I know respond to mention of issues like climate change with something along the lines of "experts don't know poo poo", which, I don't have a response for other than to acknowledge that the person has no interest in discussing in good faith. Getting people to discuss in good faith is the central challenge. All people everywhere will indulge in motivated reasoning and my-side bias when dropped into polarizing arguments, for well understood psychological reasons. If the conditions of the discussion are changed, then so will people's discursive style. Two factors seem to be especially important in facilitating discussions that transcend tribal binaries: firstly, establishing shared interests by identifying common threats, and then fostering openness by breaking bread together. This is how you press the disarm switch for the motivated reasoner in your head. I imagine that most discussions you've had with Republicans haven't happened under these happy conditions, and so there'll be all sorts of biases and fallacies bouncing around and both sides get to go away thinking that the other is intransigent and willfully ignorant.
|
# ? Dec 9, 2013 12:43 |
|
I've got a debate-lite thing coming up in which I will be handling some arguments against the flat tax. I've already got a few things (including having calculated the point of inflection between the typical flat tax rates and our current taxes, marginal propensity to consume, the marginal utility of money), but there's one graphic I remember seeing a while back. The graph shows how much households at the various income percentiles spend on things like food, transportation, and so on, but I haven't had any luck in finding it. I think it showed the amounts in dollars and illustrated how so many expenses are not linear. It may have just compared the top 20% to the bottom 20%, but I want to say it had at least three categories. Can anyone help me with this?
|
# ? Dec 9, 2013 15:55 |
|
So I heard my roommate talking about how Gandhi was pedophile and allowed his wife to die while taking medication himself. I spent some time poking around and found one mention of his alleged pedophilia but it seems to be conjecture from his son (or grandson). He used to sleep with doors open, naked with a naked young woman (to test his celibacy). A Huff Post article was the story but the pedophilia accusation was taken out of the article after it was posted. Is this allegation considered bullshit? I'm aware of his views on the caste system but the pedophilia was a new one to me. For the record my roommate is a bit of a jackass who can't follow current events or politics for poo poo.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 04:01 |
|
I think you have to put that in the "bullshit until, at a minimum, somebody is willing to put their name behind the accusation" box. The exception to this pseudo epistemology is the "probably-true-open-secret" box when there's some evidence everyone can see (e.g. Marcus Bachmann is gay) and/or many many people a couple steps removed say the same thing (e.g. Jeremy Piven is a douche), but those don't apply here.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 16:51 |
|
This may seem like a weird question - mostly because libertarians are not a particularly formidable foe in general - but what is a good, simple rebuttal to the glibertarian idea that "no, [bad thing] couldn't happen because competition would make sure that firm went bankrupt etc."? "The world isn't perfectly competitive" doesn't work because then they go off on one about artificial government regulations. "But look, [bad thing] actually happens!" along with evidence seems to spark a similar response. Essentially I'm just looking for a quick rebuttal to save time.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 20:27 |
|
Externalities.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 20:30 |
|
TNSAAFM (There's no such thing as a free market)
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 20:41 |
|
Unlearning posted:This may seem like a weird question - mostly because libertarians are not a particularly formidable foe in general - but what is a good, simple rebuttal to the glibertarian idea that "no, [bad thing] couldn't happen because competition would make sure that firm went bankrupt etc."? What bad thing are you talking about? If it's stuff like pollution or the tragedy of the commons then yes, externalities. If it's "making botulism infested food is fine because consumers will find out about it and not buy it" point out that there will be some delay in the consumers finding out and that may not be small, and meanwhile tons of people are dead, plus information asymmetry.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 20:46 |
|
Unlearning posted:This may seem like a weird question - mostly because libertarians are not a particularly formidable foe in general - but what is a good, simple rebuttal to the glibertarian idea that "no, [bad thing] couldn't happen because competition would make sure that firm went bankrupt etc."? The "The harm would be unacceptable" argument is a moral argument, so it requires them to adopt your moral stance (unlikely), but they should at least be willing to agree that some level (acceptable or not) of harm occurs, since bankruptcies aren't instantaneous. Once you agree on what functionally will happen (some amout of harm will happen for some amount of time), if they still think it is ok, and you think it is not, you can safely just call them a monster and conclude the conversation.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 20:54 |
|
In an Econ 101 world, they'd be right. Similarly, in a Physics 101 world a basketball could bounce forever, a rolling cart would never stop and gravity acts with a force of 32f/s^2. In later classes, we mix things up a little bit by adding in inconvenient stuff that make the math more difficult. The same basketball becomes more difficult to analyze when you no longer assume that it's perfectly elastic, it gets worse when you no longer assume that the surface is perfectly rigid, it gets even harder when you no longer assume that the ball's rotation is zero and so on. In Economics, we start to mix things up by adding inconvenient stuff like externalities. The same economic relationship becomes more difficult to analyze when you no longer assume that all parties have perfect information, it gets worse when you no longer assume that the supply and demand curves are beautiful straight lines in the shape of an X, and so on.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 20:55 |
|
I need some data on college enrollment statistics, specifically data on the number of full time and part time students separated out by gender and I have no idea where to even look. Can someone at least point me in a general direction?
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 21:04 |
|
|
# ? Apr 17, 2024 20:42 |
|
rscott posted:I need some data on college enrollment statistics, specifically data on the number of full time and part time students separated out by gender and I have no idea where to even look. Can someone at least point me in a general direction? NCES IPEDS has exactly what you need. If you are confused on how to use the system, then give them a call and they should help.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2013 22:29 |