Unions (2 Viewers)

[funkshen]

I think you are missing my point some intangible concepts are not deciscions, they just occur, or have no relevance on deciscions.

Look, I know some people seem to have this intense desire to be able to explain, measure and categorise everything in life (as a statistician I am accutely aware of that). But it isn't always so. I think to argue the economy, or economics is some science that can explain, measure and account for anything in the universe not only laughable but also a little bit sad.

To take the most intangible concepts there are, God and Heaven, how can economics account for them? Sure, I accept it can attempt to account for their influence on humans - but those things themselves - if they exist - economics can't possible adequately measure who or what god is, or what heaven may or may not be. To go back to a more agreeable intangible concept of love, I for once second don't accept that Love itself is a deciscion, or that economics can account for it beyond some crude accounting method. Edit: love is more than the sum total of the effects it has on my deciscions.

hey guys, economics as the study of cause and effect in the production, allocation and consumption of real resources can't explain god or heaven.

oh wait, it can (try to)

you're attacking a strawman of what the economic mode of thinking is.
1) no one is saying some decisions aren't (quasi)autonomic. indeed, the (irony?) of rational choice economics is that the decision between outcomes (that are known in advance i.e. no uncertainty) are predetermined. you have a set of preferences (that are transitive, complete and continuous) that you satisfy, consciously or not. so really, there isn't much choice at all, which is probably closer to the truth than any economist would like to admit. as a result, love can easily be considered within this framework, albeit imperfectly. no one except an autist would claim otherwise. economics is simply a model for understanding the world around us and what we do in it (and, you know, most of what we do is patently economic.)
2) economics isn't measurement (although measurement is obviously a crucial component of the economic epistemology).

im sorry if this is your smoking gun in favour of whatever half baked transcendental idealism you're espousing.

 

[townie]

we're talking about economics, not 'the economy' (which you seem to equate with GDP. what about all the lovers at home such as yourself doing work that they are not compensated for with money). this is obviously cause for confusion for you. economic is the study of decision making and cause and effect relationships in the production, allocation, and consumption of resources (such as time)

townie, if you are an economic illiterate, why are you having a discussion on labour economics?

and my point is not everything can be reduced to , or account for by "decision making and cause and effect relationships in the production, allocation, and consumption of resources (such as time)"

I can discuss whatever I like

 

[townie]

hey guys, economics as the study of cause and effect in the production, allocation and consumption of real resources can't explain god or heaven.

oh wait, it can (try to)

you're attacking a strawman of what the economic mode of thinking is.
1) no one is saying some decisions aren't (quasi)autonomic. indeed, the (irony?) of rational choice economics is that the decision between outcomes (that are known in advance i.e. no uncertainty) are predetermined. you have a set of preferences (that are transitive, complete and continuous) that you satisfy, consciously or not. so really, there isn't much choice at all, which is probably closer to the truth than any economist would like to admit. as a result, love can easily be considered within this framework, albeit imperfectly. no one except an autist would claim otherwise. economics is simply a model for understanding the world around us and what we do in it (and, you know, most of what we do is patently economic.)
2) economics isn't measurement (although measurement is obviously a crucial component of the economic epistemology).

im sorry if this is your smoking gun in favour of whatever half baked transcendental idealism you're espousing.

look, whatever, if you want to live this sad pathetic life where economics is the be all and end all, good luck with that, I prefer to enjoy myself and accept that there are some things are beyond fitting into a scientific framework

 

[funkshen]

and my point is not everything can be reduced to , or account for by "decision making and cause and effect relationships in the production, allocation, and consumption of resources (such as time)"

and no one seriously pretends otherwise. so what's your point?

I can discuss whatever I like

i asked why.

look, whatever, if you want to live this sad pathetic life where economics is the be all and end all, good luck with that, I prefer to enjoy myself and accept that there are some things are beyond fitting into a scientific framework

i haven't once implied that everything fits neatly into economic or scientific frameworks. they're models. they're analytical tools. they help us think. you keep strawmanning me, and economics, and attacking my character. why?

 

[townie]

and no one pretends otherwise. so what's your point?

oh ok: I'll just leave this here

everything is the economy.

i asked why.

none of your damn bussiness frankly

 

[townie]

nice edit bro

 

[funkshen]

ok, so you've established that you can quote out of context, and that you get outraged if someone is curious as to why you're commenting on labour economics when you don't know much about it, and that you respond to congenial and cordial discussion with petulence

nice edit bro

the only amendment to the sections you quoted was the addition of the word seriously. how scandalous

 

[OzKo]

The Economics of Love

http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/the-economics-of-love-20120607-1zyh5.html

Mind you, this is extremely crude but it's economics nonetheless.

Think of Nicola and her predicament at the moment. Her decision on an issue relating to love will be a decision which uses economics whether she likes it or not. You don't realise it, but any decision you make does have economics involved.

Falling in love may not be economic, but whether you pursue it or not is economic.

 

[townie]

OK, i've resolved not to feed the trolls any longer, you sir are a disgrace

 

[townie]

The Economics of Love

http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/the-economics-of-love-20120607-1zyh5.html

Mind you, this is extremely crude but it's economics nonetheless.

Think of Nicola and her predicament at the moment. Her decision on an issue relating to love will be a decision which uses economics whether she likes it or not. You don't realise it, but any decision you make does have economics involved.

Falling in love may not be economic, but whether you pursue it or not is economic.

*shakes head* I think thats a very sad way to view life

 

[funkshen]

Falling in love may not be economic, but whether you pursue it or not is economic.

even that might be taking it too far. i think the weaker claim (how you pursue it is economic) is more agreeable.

*shakes head* I think thats a very sad way to view life

whats with all the judgements? no one is telling you how to live your life. we have only suggested that there are modes of analysis (such as economics) that are conducive to the better understanding of the way that you, or anyone else does. when it comes to love, no economist will tell you who and who not to share it with. they might, however, give a you a sober analysis of the prospects of that loving relationship. in doing so, a lot of sadness might even be prevented.

 

[OzKo]

*shakes head* I think thats a very sad way to view life

As funkshen said, the aim isn't to predict life or how to live it.

It's a way to explain why you made a certain decision. Life is subjective and an irrational decision for one person may be rational for another.

They aren't grounds to dismiss the usefulness of economics though.

 

[townie]

*bangs head against wall*

I never dismissed its usefulness I just dismiss the claim that everything can be reduced to fit into it

 

[townie]

If the aim of a policy is to mitigate climate change, and you impose a policy which won't have a sizable effect, how do you justify cutting jobs?

You must have misconstrued my argument. Just because an extra cost is imposed doesn't mean that the best way to recoup the desired revenue is to cut labour. They are independent to each other.

There is good reason to impose a tax on tobacco because the cost of health care is passed onto the tax payer. Considering that you are well aware of the health effects of smoking, why do I have to pay for your health care. You, as the consumer have been granted the information and have chosen to ignore. Considering that, you should rightfully pay. Unlike the carbon tax, a tax on tobacco is justified so any job losses, if they were to arise, are acceptable.

That assumes that I accept the premise that the carbon tax won't be effective, I obviously don't

Taxes on tobacco raise more than the cost to the health system. Indeed one study suggested smokers save money as they die earlier requiring less long term care or pensions in an aging population. Why should my taxes go towards your pension because you made the choice to want to live longer? (edit: obviously being the socialist I am I do want to support that thru taxes, but I think the personal choices and tax thing throws up too many problems like this)

 

[funkshen]

*bangs head against wall*

I never dismissed its usefulness I just dismiss the claim that everything can be reduced to fit into it

any thing can be reduced to fit into it
but the validity of the conclusions is inversely proportional to how far reduced the thing really is - what kernels of truth are discarded in the process of reduction.

ergo, you can reduce the great intangibles, your love or religion, to economics and derive conclusions. but how valid are the conclusions? how applicable are they? well, you probably had to do a lot of reducing. so it they might not be very valid, or applicable: they might not explain a whole lot, and as a result be very useful. it's no surprise there isn't a thriving subdiscipline of lovonomics or godonomics.

but this has been my point all along. when you reduce most things - the vast, vast, vast majority of things - you don't lose much (although you lose some - economics is a model, after all, not reality.) thus the supreme usefulness of economics. that's why "it's the economy, stupid."

as a sidenote, many things related to god or love are reducible. for instance, why are census figures on religious subscription in germany not representative? because of church taxes, levied through the federal income tax system, on those who identify with a religion. why do those in crushing poverty have so many babies (an act of love, surely?). because children are an investment good, and parents maximise future returns in doing so (children are a form of social security, and the high infant/teen mortality rates makes them a risky investment and therefore explains high fertility rate and, as a sidenote, the reduced investment in youngest child and female child education). in freakonomics, levitt and dubner argue for the causal relationship between abortion rates and crime rates. this might be ugly to you. this might seem sad, or pathetic. but this is the real world we're talking about, and surely knowledge of the real is supremely valuable? as James Stuart Mill put it "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied".

i have been nothing but congenial and cordial to you townie. i'll chalk up your grumpyness to it being an ungodly hour for reasonable discussion.

 

[townie]

No you can chalk it up to the fact I dislike you by all means

 

[OzKo]

That assumes that I accept the premise that the carbon tax won't be effective, I obviously don't

Taxes on tobacco raise more than the cost to the health system. Indeed one study suggested smokers save money as they die earlier requiring less long term care or pensions in an aging population. Why should my taxes go towards your pension because you made the choice to want to live longer? (edit: obviously being the socialist I am I do want to support that thru taxes, but I think the personal choices and tax thing throws up too many problems like this)

If you die earlier, then what's the point of providing for your health care? You have already accepted your fate.

In an ideal world, I wouldn't subject taxpayers money to self-inflicted harm but we live in Australia so it's a moot point.

Anyway, I think this thread has deviated away from it's original purpose. We've made our points and I think we can leave it there.

 

[funkshen]

technically this thread was over after the first post answered the original question

 

[townie]

In an ideal world, I wouldn't subject taxpayers money to self-inflicted harm but we live in Australia so it's a moot point.

That would make for an interesting (and unworkable) health system.