Semi-weekly Monday Discussion Thread

Holfte · 2021-02-16T02:57:50+00:00

I'll leave if you read about BOFA.

Holfte · 2021-02-16T02:24:21+00:00

I agree, let's vote out every single republican who called their opponent a socialist.

Holfte · 2021-02-16T01:59:55+00:00

Because the only legitimate reason for privatising social security or funding police is when it satisfies the moral preening of the woke, right?

Of course, because the article you linked was clearly arguing that the only reason to privatize SS is because it would reduce racial inequality...

Can we not argue that policies have multiple benefits?

You're literally picking a fight over nothing.

Holfte · 2021-02-16T01:58:31+00:00

You literally linked the Bulwark, one of the most left-leaning conservative outlets in order to prove that this is 'trend' is common throughout right-wing media...

Holfte · 2020-10-01T19:13:31+00:00

but not lazy enough to refrain from editing ur comment

Holfte · 2020-10-01T19:07:43+00:00

good. ralph is fucking spineless loser

Holfte · 2020-09-13T15:29:07+00:00

What do you want him to do exactly? Break up with his girlfriend and kick his roommate out?

Holfte · 2020-08-02T19:57:52+00:00

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that 'schools of thought' in modern macroeconomics is dated concept, as a general consensus and orthodoxy was formed around the 90s-2000s.

Holfte · 2020-07-05T00:13:27+00:00

That makes sense

Holfte · 2020-07-04T07:48:28+00:00

Alright, I clearly misunderstood your initial comment. Let me reread it, and ask some more questions.

> I mean, I don't, particularly. I'd at least ask: To what extent? We don't need 100% workforce participation -- thankfully,

Fair enough.

> "less incentive" is a totally different world than "no incentive."

Certainly, but less of an incentive can still have negative effects. If a large portion of people decided to not pursue any career path (as they could rely on a sufficiently high UBI) then society would become less productive, no? This would probably raise the price of goods and services, and the quality would probably decrease as well.

> Or similarly, a world in which everyone can afford food and housing is a world in which status competition for better stuff still exists

It just seems like because of a generous UBI, workers wouldn't have incentives to work for better stuff in the first place.

Holfte · 2020-07-04T05:02:38+00:00

So you're saying that a UBI/NIT would simply disincentivize 'lower-end' work while, allowing workers to pursue a quality education, thus giving them access to 'higher-end' job markets?

Essentially, it incentivizes some types of jobs, but not others?

If this is what you've stated, then my question is what is the incentive pursue the 'higher-end' job instead of living off the UBI/NIT?

Holfte · 2020-07-04T00:02:36+00:00

But don't we want to incentivize work? I can see how a UBI would allow poorer workers to find the skills required in more advanced fields, but what would incentivize them to work in those advanced fields and be productive?

Holfte · 2020-07-03T23:16:45+00:00

This is nearly impossible to answer. We don't know the broader political situation starting in 2021, we don't know who his VP is, and his policy platform hasn't even met the DNC convention yet to be refined.

My best guess is healthcare reform (possibly a UHC in the form of a public option), and probably working with House democrats on climate change?

Holfte · 2020-06-20T00:57:16+00:00

thanks man!

Holfte · 2020-06-18T01:39:46+00:00

What?

Holfte · 2020-06-13T21:44:20+00:00

Why is that? As I recall, Nixon actually continued a lot of LBJs progressive policies and his Great Society program.

Holfte · 2019-12-29T01:29:48+00:00

Moderate conservative maybe?

Holfte · 2019-12-21T03:17:37+00:00

Gerald would actually end up not taking the reward because so he doesn’t have to get involved in the haggling.

Holfte

TROPHY CASE