|
A friend of mine is studying intro economics and for the factors of production, entrepreneurship is listed. I know that land labor and capital are well established factors but for entrepreneurship it's always been a "maybe." Looking around online I see a lot of "some economists say it's a factor" What's really going on?
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Entrepreneurship is a bit of a buzzword these days. Really it's a part of capital. Also re minimum wage, given that our economies are based so much on consumption higher wages result in more money spend. Low income earners don't horde the extra money, they spend it boosting the economy overall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Nibbles141 posted:Entrepreneurship is a bit of a buzzword these days. Really it's a part of capital. I figured. Do some economists actually try to perform quantitative analysis on entrepreneurship? Sounds like a mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Schumpeterians do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:A friend of mine is studying intro economics and for the factors of production, entrepreneurship is listed. Dr. Arbitrary posted:I figured. Do some economists actually try to perform quantitative analysis on entrepreneurship? Sounds like a mess. It's Austrians and other non-mainstream groups who posit that. I'm not an economist but from what I've heard and read some of the work is legitimate, and some is bullshit justifying capitalist hero worship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:A friend of mine is studying intro economics and for the factors of production, entrepreneurship is listed. I suspect it's different kinds of economists talking. Schumpeter talked quite a lot about business cycles and influenced a ton of people. He was very into entrepreneurship figuring into production. Since, he's answering the closer-to-micro question, "how does all this 'capital' actually get arranged into something productive?" Macro models can get a bit more extract. A lot of traditional models just represent everything using a CES production function. Entrepreneurship would get lumped into something like a technology term. But those models are looking at a different part of the problem. Dr. Arbitrary posted:I figured. Do some economists actually try to perform quantitative analysis on entrepreneurship? Sounds like a mess. falcon2424 fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
So I'm fairly dumb with the whole math thing, but is there a way to mathematically debunk the flat tax in a short, simple way so as to make the flat tax advocate feel dumb and for you to walk away feeling  I basically want to phrase it in such a way as to highlight the disparities between how much a person would have over, rich v. poor, after taxes in a flat tax system, i.e. - $30,000 - 15% = $25,500, while $130,000 - 15% = $110,500. One person basically lost a car payment or rent and the other barely felt it; I'd like to express that in a non-moral, non-emotional way, since the argument for a flat tax is that it's "fair" since everyone pays the same percentage and who are you to say how much money they can keep and they earned it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Dystram posted:So I'm fairly dumb with the whole math thing, but is there a way to mathematically debunk the flat tax in a short, simple way so as to make the flat tax advocate feel dumb and for you to walk away feeling I'm not sure of the theories exact name, but it basically goes that the less money you have, the more valuable it is. To someone with zero dollars, 10,000 dollars is a stopgap against homelessness and starvation; of highest value. To someone with a billion, its not even another car; completely unessential. Marginal utility of money?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:I'm not sure of the theories exact name, but it basically goes that the less money you have, the more valuable it is. Diminishing marginal utility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know if there's an easy way to show "see this guy lost more marginal utility" mathematically without appealing to empathy whatsoever because a libertarian's response would just be something like "but they paid less money in taxes than the rich don't you like that  ?"The problems with it are a combination of diminishing marginal utility (definitely the biggest one) and the fact that the rich tend to make a lot of their money on things that are not salary, like investments or stock options or other things like that. (Do any of the flat tax ideas account for that? I don't generally get past the salary-level discussions with people who advocate for them myself.) I guess you could do something like take an agreed-upon lower bound (the poverty line?) as the absolute baseline of maximum utility, the salary at which someone should *just* be able to support themselves with no savings or luxury, and compare how a flat tax affects someone with respect to that, so someone making $30k is now only 1.25X the poverty line or whatever whereas someone making $130,000 is still 5.5X the poverty line. Are there better economic tools for showing this? I'm not exactly an economist by trade here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Quick question - are there any arguments against polygamous marriage that's not based purely on morality? I can't readily come up with any so I'm thinking ideally we should support it like gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
There are legal difficulties, like how do you manage divorce, child custody, power of attorney, inheritance, insurance, etc. among all the participants. A lot of that is because many many different legal relationships have been bundled together into a package called "marriage" and the current system just has no way of grappling with such a different sort of arrangement. Another I've heard is that it's an arrangement that is prone to exploitation an inequity, though that could conceivably be due to culture and upbringing rather than an intrinsic part of polygamy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Yeah, I've always thought that if polygamy were just suddenly completely legalized there'd be big legal entities kinda like credit unions or co-ops where everyone is "married" and therefore gets a tax break and other benefits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Dystram posted:So I'm fairly dumb with the whole math thing, but is there a way to mathematically debunk the flat tax in a short, simple way so as to make the flat tax advocate feel dumb and for you to walk away feeling I wrote this for a different thread but it might be what you're looking for: 100 people go to see a movie. The first 50 pay 75 cents for their ticket, they spend the majority of the next two hours working at the concession stand or sweeping floors. If they're caught watching the movie they're berated. After all, if they have time to watch a movie then they have time to earn enough money to pay more for their ticket. The next 25 pay 5 dollars apiece for a ticket. They each spend a portion of the movie working the projector, repairing the popcorn machine and working as security. The movie is ruined for them though because they spend so much time dealing with people in the first group of 50. The next 15 pay 12 dollars each for their ticket. They spend a portion of their time at the theater maintaining the projector or keeping concessions running. They get to see almost all of the movie unless something goes wrong. The next 5 pay 23 dollars each for their ticket. They are responsible for keeping the projector and concessions running, they don't actually do any of the work, they delegate all tasks to members of the previous 3 groups. They get free sodas and nicer seats than the first three groups. The next 4 pay 50 dollars each for their ticket. Their job is to pick the movie. They get an entire meal and unlimited soda. Their seats are unbelievably comfortable. The last person pays 343 for his ticket. His job is to have the theater named after him. His meal is decadent and he drinks the finest beverages. He sits in a golden throne. He has security guards who keep the bottom 95 from even getting near him. At the end of the first day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 75 cents. They take home $10.25 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 5 dollars. They take home $28 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 12 dollars. They take home $48 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 23 dollars. They take home $65 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 50 dollars. They take home $94 The last takes 672. He paid 343. He takes home $329 After doing a little math they find the magic number, 25% At the end of the second day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 3. They take home $8 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 8 dollars. They take home $25 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 15 dollars. They take home $45 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 22 dollars. They take home $66 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 36 dollars. They take home $108 The last takes 672. He paid 168. He takes home $504 At the end of the third day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 10. They take home $1 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $23 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $50 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $78 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $134 The last takes 672. He paid 10. He takes home $662 At the end of the fourth day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11. They take home $29 The next 25 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $29 The next 15 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $29 The last 10 get hung by their necks from the projector booth. Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Dystram posted:So I'm fairly dumb with the whole math thing, but is there a way to mathematically debunk the flat tax in a short, simple way so as to make the flat tax advocate feel dumb and for you to walk away feeling I usually go with some version of this: Marginal Utility (MU) and Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) are important concepts here. MU is the idea that as income increases, the utility garnered from each additional dollar starts to decrease. Cost of Living in the US ranges, basically, from $15k to $25k. Accordingly, the first $15k to $25k are Food & Shelter dollars. The last $160,001 to $170,000 are Scotch & Savings dollars. Thus, taxing high utility/Food & Shelter dollars is more individually harmful than low utility/Scotch & Savings dollars. And MPC is the idea that as income increases, the proportion spent of each additional dollar starts to decrease. Food & Shelter dollars get spent but Savings goes to stocks, mutual funds, REITs, etc. which are generally less stimulative than consumer spending. High MPC dollars support demand and thus their taxation is more economically harmful than that of low MPC dollars. Accordingly, a progressive income tax scale biases against taxing high MU, high MPC dollars in order to minimize individual/economic harm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:The moral of the story: Maybe progressive taxation isn't a terrible idea. That's good but I have to nitpick, only 10 bourgeois pigs are dealt revolutionary justice, not 15.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:That's good but I have to nitpick, only 10 bourgeois pigs are dealt revolutionary justice, not 15. Dammit, I actually spent a lot of time checking the math on this. It's actually based on US income and taxation stats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Dammit, I actually spent a lot of time checking the math on this. It's actually based on US income and taxation stats. If we're nitpicking your math, this line has an arithmetic error too quote:The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $13
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If we're nitpicking your math, this line has an arithmetic error too I appreciate it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:A friend of mine is studying intro economics and for the factors of production, entrepreneurship is listed. Basically, the Austrian School considers entrepreneurship a part of their market process theory in that they find new ways to profit in the market due to "radical indifference", or a lack of knowledge of such things existing due to the costs of discovery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
So I got myself into an argument after a high school acquaintance posted this lovely wank of an article using an example of a kid saying "my grandparents survived the holocaust, therefore white privilege is Not A Thing!". I posted in response, "Think about how it sounds when this freshman at Princeton talks about what his GRANDPARENTS dealt with as if it were a sign of the strength of his own character or that he knows what it's like to have a difficult life." One of her friends responded like 30 minutes ago saying, "You can interpret it however you want. But I think his point is that he is priveleged now, perhaps, but his grandparents had to struggle, quite a bit. He isn't saying that HE is some great person because of that, he is only attempting to dispel the idea that every white person comes from an easy life that extends back through the annals of history." Currently I have quote:1) I don't think you'll find people who literally think that 'every white person comes from an easy life that extends back through the annals of history', except in Republican strawmen of anything to the left of the Tea Party (very much like what the author of this article portrays), and written down, and I was wondering, is to say what this freshman is saying (and the author writing) to fundamentally miss the point of what privilege is?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:So I got myself into an argument after a high school acquaintance posted this lovely wank of an article using an example of a kid saying "my grandparents survived the holocaust, therefore white privilege is Not A Thing!". Well. You totally will find those people. They don't represent everyone, but they're out there, and this is how you'll probably come off if you pursue this argument over privilege on facebook. Your second point is literally "Yeah maybe YOUR family faced hardship but you can't generalize to all the other lucky people" and that's exactly expressing the view that white people come from an easy life extending down through the annals of history (except this dude's family). White privilege isn't about one person getting into Princeton and another not. It's about white people not having to deal with a whole lot of obstacles that, for instance, black people do and not recognizing that their reality is different. For example - getting treated differently by police. So in a sense the dude is missing the point. White privilege isn't a statement about whether he or his family faced hardship or whether white people in general face hardship. But almost everyone who has ever uttered the phrase "white privilege" in casual conversation or on the internet has also probably missed the point and is also likely a gigantic self-righteous douchebag. edit: To be clear - please don't be one of those people. =(
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Well. While that's certainly what it was originally intended to be about, you're right that there's no shortage of people who use "white privilege" as an excuse to dismiss other people's opinions and lecture at people. As I said in the GBS thread, this is a bunch of Princeton students trying to out be-oppressed each other. They all deserve ridicule or better yet to be ignored.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:While that's certainly what it was originally intended to be about, you're right that there's no shortage of people who use "white privilege" as an excuse to dismiss other people's opinions and lecture at people. As I said in the GBS thread, this is a bunch of Princeton students trying to out be-oppressed each other. They all deserve ridicule or better yet to be ignored. Ah, I see. Maybe I shouldn't have pursued the argument in the first place (though the author of the article is pretty awful).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
It kinda sounds like you're mixing up white privilege with privilege in general. White privilege, like the other posters' said, is the bias towards whites and against everyone else that pervades a lot of our society due to one group historically holding all the power and the other not, and the prejudices that have grown up around that. His story doesn't really have much to do with that. The guy's grandparents were massively oppressed, sure, but that really has nothing to do with his reality now, where he's economically and socially privileged in both obvious ways (he goes to Princeton) and subtle ways (he's not black or gay or a woman etc). His grandparents' struggle doesn't somehow apply transitively to him and allow him to not acknowledge any of this because "hey my ancestors had it pretty rough!" Long story short he completely missed the point of what "check your privilege" actually meant and how it can be used as a tool for self-reflection and instead just threw a tantrum. EDIT: This is kinda pissing me off because he's the exact sort of person who needs to actually think about this sort of thing but he's just dismissing it as the stupid Tumblr PC reverse-racism-wharrgarbl meme thing the internet has made it. They're not saying you're less of a person because you have privilege they're saying you need to acknowledge that some people don't have it as good as you and the reason this happens isn't purely because they're lazy bums and we live in a perfect meritocracy like this guy thinks. Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 18:47 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
I didn't respond to the guy I was arguing with (yet), but he edited in this part of his reply:quote:You could say that he is priveleged that his family was able to make it to America, and priveleged (or lucky) that his father in turn did well enough to be able to send him to Princeton, but at the same time, nobody just "gets in" to Princeton. And I quote: "That’s the problem with calling someone out for the “privilege” which you assume has defined their narrative. You don’t know what their struggles have been, what they may have gone through to be where they are. Assuming they’ve benefitted from “power systems” or other conspiratorial imaginary institutions denies them credit for all they’ve done, things of which you may not even conceive." v He hasn't indicated in his post that he doesn't think institutional racism actually exists, though it might be worth an ask. Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 18:57 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Well if they don't think institutional racism or sexism exists then you'd better start there, what with it being heavily studied, documented and existing for a really long time. If you can do that (well done), it's pretty simple just to say 'Well now imagine your life not having to deal with that. It's not necessarily a boost to your ability but when others have that millstone around their necks you can see my point.'
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
I don't really get how they think "power systems" are conspiratorial or imaginary. I mean nobody stands up and says "hey let's keep all those blacks oppressed", it's just kinda baked into society, but it does happen and we can measure it and have done tons of studies on it. Really if he's so delusional that he thinks America is a perfect Ayn Rand-y meritocracy you might as well stop arguing.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I don't really get how they think "power systems" are conspiratorial or imaginary. I mean nobody stands up and says "hey let's keep all those blacks oppressed", it's just kinda baked into society, but it does happen and we can measure it and have done tons of studies on it. Yeah, since he quoted that part from Tal's rant, it might be an indicator that he agrees with it (and again that this argument isn't worth pursuing further).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
I always liked John Scalzi's RPG analogy: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/quote:Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
One technique that I find is useful for self reflection if you can be really honest with yourself is the "but technique" In a sentence, 'but' can be used to indicate a deviation from the expectation. This sentence should sound normal to you: "I bit into an apple, but it tasted like meat." On the other hand: "I ate a sugar cube, but it was sweet." That sentence should have made you do a double take, you should feel a twinge of confusion. Remember that feeling, it's what you're looking for. "I have a white coworker, but he went to college" "I met a black man today, but he's not on welfare" "Paul is Japanese, but he's good at math" The first and third one may have given you a twinge of confusion, but the second one might not. That's because it doesn't really deviate from expectations that a white coworker went to college or that a Japanese person is good at math. This technique isn't perfect, but you can try it out and maybe learn a little bit about how you think.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
cbirdsong posted:I always liked John Scalzi's RPG analogy: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ That... is an amazing analogy. Easily one of the best things I've picked up in this thread!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
I dunno if this has been posted yet, but it was linked in a follow-up from the guy who made the SWM video game analogy. It's...pretty comprehensive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
No doubt Tal could benefit from a bit of self reflection. It's certainly true that, for example, his grandfather, the wicker basket mogul, benefited from half of his housing expense really being savings and the other half being tax free. This was a benefit unavailable to an otherwise comparable black family since most developments specifically prohibited african american families in the 50s and 60s eve if they could find a bank that would issue a mortgage. As a side note, there's no indication in his piece that the people to whom he is speaking are black, but that's beside the point. Beyond that though, he benefited from having grand parents who worked all those hours, having parents who went to college, who raised him well, and who were able to support him to the point that he got into Princeton. Those are things they did, not him. His only accomplishment in that regard is winning (as Warren Buffet calls it) membership in the lucky sperm club. The problem is, as I read Tal's piece (as ridiculous as it is) the people he's arguing against aren't suggesting he reflect on those things. They're telling him to shut up, because he's white and his opinions don't matter. While I understand the idea behind privilege theory, every time I've ever heard someone say "check your privilege" (usually but not exclusively on Tumblr) it's used dismissively as code for "shut up, whitey." I would be not at all surprised to learn some people at Princeton are using it this way. I've seen it happen at other universities. Of course, just about anyone at Princeton also has some considerable lucky sperm club privilege of their own. It's like two millionaires at the country club arguing over whose grandparents had it worse.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:No doubt Tal could benefit from a bit of self reflection. It's certainly true that, for example, his grandfather, the wicker basket mogul, benefited from half of his housing expense really being savings and the other half being tax free. This was a benefit unavailable to an otherwise comparable black family since most developments specifically prohibited african american families in the 50s and 60s eve if they could find a bank that would issue a mortgage. As a side note, there's no indication in his piece that the people to whom he is speaking are black, but that's beside the point. Beyond that though, he benefited from having grand parents who worked all those hours, having parents who went to college, who raised him well, and who were able to support him to the point that he got into Princeton. Those are things they did, not him. His only accomplishment in that regard is winning (as Warren Buffet calls it) membership in the lucky sperm club. While it's possible that he's ranting against people using it as a cop-out to invalidate everything he says, I get the feeling from his writing that he's just your average pompous self-obsessed Republican who takes any suggestion that he might not have earned everything he has in life as a personal affront to his manhood or whatever. I think a few people probably did in fact tell him to check his privilege in a dumb way IRL, and the rest came from the internet and unwarranted self-importance.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:While it's possible that he's ranting against people using it as a cop-out to invalidate everything he says, I get the feeling from his writing that he's just your average pompous self-obsessed Republican who takes any suggestion that he might not have earned everything he has in life as a personal affront to his manhood or whatever. I think a few people probably did in fact tell him to check his privilege in a dumb way IRL, and the rest came from the internet and unwarranted self-importance. Those are not mutually exclusive. This whole episode I think is a good illustration of what a terrible argument device "check your privilege" actually is. Even when used in a non-dismissive way (although I have never observed this usage in the wild) it immediately is going to put the people you're trying to convince on the defensive and starts the whole conversation with the premise that you believe there is something wrong with them rather than something wrong with the way others are treated by society.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Those are not mutually exclusive. This whole episode I think is a good illustration of what a terrible argument device "check your privilege" actually is. Even when used in a non-dismissive way (although I have never observed this usage in the wild) it immediately is going to put the people you're trying to convince on the defensive and starts the whole conversation with the premise that you believe there is something wrong with them rather than something wrong with the way others are treated by society. Yeah but that only happened recently once the term became a dumb meme. I think back before everyone and their dog knew it was associated with SJW's (and before people started using it as an instant invalidate-your-argument-free card) it actually had some function and might have gotten people who had previously never thought about it to at least consider it. But yes now it's just a stupid reactionary statement that causes stupid reactionary responses and it's pretty much completely useless and counterproductive all around.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Yeah but that only happened recently once the term became a dumb meme. I think back before everyone and their dog knew it was associated with SJW's (and before people started using it as an instant invalidate-your-argument-free card) it actually had some function and might have gotten people who had previously never thought about it to at least consider it. "Think about what you're saying" was always way more direct than the phrase ever could be, especially when used against people who did not already learn privilege theory.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Anyone have a link to that memo (or a blog discussing it) where the internal finance people were saying how businesses should only target the super rich since the middle class and below have no more money to be worthwhile?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Anyone have a link to that memo (or a blog discussing it) where the internal finance people were saying how businesses should only target the super rich since the middle class and below have no more money to be worthwhile? Pretty sure you're thinking of the Citibank plutonomy report, which you can find by searching those terms! (First Google page is a bunch of mediocre blogs hosting it)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:35
|
|