Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "MentisWave" channel.

  1. ​ @LoganLS0  We just need to try some more and it will surely be the real progressive taxation this time.
    43
  2.  @RamboSnoop  "So the problem is that humans are corruptible, but this time they will not be corrupted"
    19
  3.  @adriant240  > Why aren't their lives improving? Increasing productivity won't make matters better. Most third world countries are absolutely bullshited with inflation and socialism, unironically. This is why their lifes are "not improving". In reality their lifes are improving, absolutely they are improving (extremely slowly, but there is a clear rise in life expectancy and economic status in many third world countries), but the economic growth the increase in productivity boosts they have is literally eaten by the absurd money printing and terrible government decisions. I myself live in one of these countries.
    15
  4.  @adriant240  You don't reasearch "their ideology", that's why you have the impressions you have. This or you are being malicious here. Libertarians wrote A LOT, and I mean, A LOT, about corporations, their inneficiencies and the relationship between big corps and the state and how this is a problem. You just don't know absolutely nothing and states things on internet like you did.
    7
  5. ​ @Sumoniggro  In all fields it should be possible to show your skills. In philosophy for example I can just ask you about the vision of some authors that are foundational to your thoughts, and then you can say it to me and, if I know their writtings, I would know right away that you are right or wrong about it (or if not, I will just read the books and know for a matter of fact). As an anedoctal example, recently I just discussed with a doctorand in philosophy that was talking crap about Rothbard (which she did not readed), so it was kinda easy to spot the flaws in her reasoning, as well as why she was wrong. The title she received did not protected her from the truth.
    4
  6. > people only want to tax the rich not because they got wealth unfairly; but that having wealth is unfair when theres limited wealth and some ppl are liyerally starving to death Unfair according to who? People who thing we should tax the rich are usually the first to spit on natural law and objective ethics, this is a dirty cruel joke to say the least. And wealth is not a zero-sum game, you should advance at least 1 century in your economics.
    2
  7. ​ @VladLad  There is not an investment "guaranteed to go up" but investments backed up by the state, and those come at the expense of the general population. Owning a house is "impossible" not because some rich guys are buying land (this is of course part of the cause tho), but because the american productivity is going up and up and the wealth of the society is not going up with it. Taxes, inflation, regulatory policies and socialism are eating all the resources more, and more, and more, and they will eat more and more and in the end they will just blame the rich again.
    1
  8. ​ @elLooto  ["The effects of a given policy is almost provable mathematically (either with calculus or geometry). This isnt the issue. The issue is lag. The effects of a policy is more like throwing a rock into a pond; you get ripples that spread out through the economy over time which affects different sectors at different timings. Now imagine someone throwing a handful of gravel into a pond: you know pretty much whats going to happen, but the ripples start in different sectors, and affect other sectors at some lagged time later. Eventually, if you stop chucking rocks, the ripples will fade away."] So, they are not "almost provable mathematically", no? This is the basic implication of not being to prove mathematically the consequencies of that given policy and the way it will be applied. Also, the whole idea of them being "provable mathematically" is unsound.
    1
  9. ​ @elLooto  Fair enough. But you are conflating physics (which concerns itself to be able to identify mathematically the general laws that governs physical systems) with economics that are a human field and do not possess such capacity. Every single model in physics has the objective to be able to generalize to a class of phenomena and be able to apply to it, so the laws should be able to precisely describe what will occur in the pond when you throw the rocks into that pond (even if they don't give you the exact answer of how many ripples would form and their exact waveforms), we still know how they will behave and we are able to predict correctly what will happen. If physics where unsound we would not be able to build structures or machines, computers would be impossible, so we know for the efficiency on actually predicting physical phenomena very accurately that physics is not unsound (and, if some event in reality contradicts a physical prediction, the whole theory is generally revisited and can change drastically). When we are talking about economy, however, the mathematical models do not possess such predictable power (as they more than often just fail), and they also can't be expressed as general laws as they are arbitrarily constructed to fullfil a target and model an entire society at once (if we are talking about macroeconomy, at least), from them no generally appliable rules that can break the entire theoretical basis can be drawn or refuted, they can only fail or be reasonably succeed at the time. What you are saying is that the models can't even be applied to real world because they are unable to be proven due to the ripple effect, but to even prove that they are accurate descriptions of economic behavior you need to apply them into the real world in a way that is sound, that's why a possible implication of this is that these models are unsound. Obviously, this do not means that economics don't have fundamental laws that describe market processes, but integrating these laws with the economic mathematical models is another beast that requires integration and epistemic justification.
    1
  10.  @ahampurushahasmi6040  It is not more indeterminate, we literally use it in our every day lives. What I hate is when people try to bring stupid analogies into the table to justify their positions, like conflating a natural science like physics with human science like economics and trying to draw parallels.
    1