Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iduno]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Reelya]

It's almost like there is some hidden cost... ... some not well-defined catch-22... ... some *reason* why naked capitalism is BAD, and you really should NOT seek to extract the absolute highest value the market can bear, to the point where there is no excess that can be saved!

It's almost like those wasteful safety nets are necessary!

That can also be stated in game-theory, with the Nash Equilibrium. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, the stable-state (Nash Equilibrium) is that nobody cooperates. What regulations and safety nets do is either force or incentivize people to stay in the "cooperate" state.

Understanding the Nash Equilibrium is the best counter-argument to free market zealots, because you can put real numbers to it.

[ChairmanPoo]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Noone with whom I actually have the closeness to talk about these issues thinks that the whole clapping thing is anything else but a hypocritical move by western goverments. Healthcare workers are paid in clapping now. People are made to clap to the heroes/cannon fodder and they feel better. Afterwards they'll stop being heroes and will again be regarded as "priviledged" again. So cuts and oppression will go on.

Inefficiency is not always a BAD thing.  Try explaining that to an economist though.  "savings" is an inefficiency, because that is money that is not being immediately re-tendered

I dont think inefficiency is the right word. I'd call it redundancy. You want redundancy because it helps in case something unexpected happens.
IE: IIRC Saturn 5 engineering carried a great deal of redundancy measures. And if you think about it, given the endeavour, it makes a lot of sense

[Reelya]

In those cases, redundancy makes sense because of a cost/benefit analysis, since the cost of failure is so high, the investment is worthwhile.

In terms of economics, you can see whether a redundant measure is worthwhile in a payoff matrix. If the chance of some failure is 10%, and the cost of failure is $1 million then the average cost is $100,000. So it's worth spending up to $99,999 on preventative measures if it prevents this failure from occurring.

[wierd]

No, inefficiency is the correct word.

Remember, the goal of capital is to get even more money, and be even more successful (in terms of market share owned, product pushed, total market cap, etc.)

We can start with two identical businesses, A and B.

Business A decides that things like worker satisfaction, a quality paycheck, a pension plan, etc-- are all essential to running a proper business.

Business B decides that those thing are for chumps, and takes most of the money that those kinds of projects would need, and reinvests it vigorously into the business in the form of advertising, directed sales marketing, etc.


Business B grows much faster than business A.  The workers at business A are happier, but there are fewer of them compared to business B, because Business B is eating up all the market with its rapid growth.  People fucking hate working for business B, but they are the one hiring, so that is where they work.

Several decades pass.

Business B is now a megacorp, and business A gets bought out by them.


Had business A also fucked its workers, like B did, they would be neck and neck in the market, barring some radical development by one or the other.

Allowing your employee to "live", instead of being essentially wage slaves to the company, is how you make an ineffective business.  So sayeth the god of Mammon.

Then, there is the larger "whole economy" angle.

An economy is strong when lots of money is exchanging between lots of hands.  When people start taking money out of that system (such as by putting it in a savings account), that money is not doing economic work.  It is thus less efficient than money that is freely circulating, for many of the same reasons that the contrivance between businesses A and B suffers, only now it is international governments and their economies. 


This is why the imperative to always "Make due with LESS than what you actually need" is ever present. Everyone else is doing the same thing, and if you fail to do that, your enterprise/government will fall behind the others.

But, then comes a major disaster, and the whole thing implodes, because it is over-taxed all the time AT THE BEST OF TIMES.


The worshipers of mammon feel that such catastrophes will never happen. Always do. They see that promise of ever greater, infinite wealth generation-- and consider the human expense justified. They never consider that the bottom can fall out from something as tiny as a virus, or as simple as a lack of rainfall--  It's been the connecting thread of every sprawling mega-civilization in recorded history.

Reelya is correct, that regulations are the way to mitigate it-- but the people in love with money **HATE** that, because they see opportunity if they can circumvent those regulations, and "the things those were meant to prevent can never happen again."

See also, why they repealed Glass-Stegal, and no Network Neutrality later-- 

*THEY NEVER LEARN.*

[McTraveller]

An economy is strong when lots of money is exchanging between lots of hands. 

Just so I make sure, you are saying this is a misunderstanding that is perpetuated, yes?  Because it's been demonstrated many many times that the strength of an economy is not related to the flow of money. 

In fact, an economy that relies on high volume to be functional is, as we are seeing today, very very fragile.

I agree on basically all the other counts:  when you have a system that rewards a local maximum of revenue, rather than a global maximum like ability to weather a disruption in trade volume without reducing quality of life, you get a system that is very fragile with respect to disruptions in trade.  (Here of course I am using "trade" to mean any kind of economic exchange.)

I would like to live in a world where you could promote global maxima instead of local without resorting to punitive regulations like we typically see.  This is why I've toyed around with ideas like "simplify the tax code: everyone pays 50% in income tax, and everyone gets their per-capita share of 80% of that; the other 20% is used for public services".  This would put an incentive on everyone doing well, and do it without arbitrary nominal limits.  It would also serve as UBI, it would eliminate the need for welfare programs, etc.  If you earn $0, you still get your "public share" of the overall society's income.  If you earn $30B, you get to keep half and still be stupid rich, but the other half goes to everyone.  In the US, with a GDP of $20T, this would be a "public share" of $8M / 330, or a little more than $24000 per person, per year.  That's your UBI of $2k a month, right there, with no regressive tax scheme required.

[TamerVirus]

There seems to be increasing evidence to suggest that COVID is attacking the circulatory system or the blood itself as more and more doctors and scientists are seeing increased blood clotting complications in patients; strokes and the like in younger patients

[nenjin]

Also seeing chatter that smokers are less likely to contract the virus or at least suffer from it? Sounds like bullshit to me. And I say that as a smoker.

[scriver]

...That's sound like the opposite of what we know, right? They've been reporting smokers as a risk group since it was only a Chinese internal epidemic

[Doomblade187]

Smoking causes respiratory trauma, so it would increase your risk of complications at the very least.

[sluissa]

I'd like to see the source of that chatter, but I'm wondering if it might not be associated with the recent realization of how widespread it actually was based on antibody tests.

I can imagine a situation where smoking might actually discourage the virus from taking hold in the lungs, just by making the lungs a more hostile place. But still weaken the system enough that if the virus did take hold, symptoms and consequences would likely be worse.

But that's pure conjecture.

[Iduno]

Also seeing chatter that smokers are less likely to contract the virus or at least suffer from it? Sounds like bullshit to me. And I say that as a smoker.

I've heard the opposite for months? Having weaker lungs and heart puts you at risk.

I can imagine a situation where smoking might actually discourage the virus from taking hold in the lungs, just by making the lungs a more hostile place. But still weaken the system enough that if the virus did take hold, symptoms and consequences would likely be worse.

Viruses don't care about hostile environments, because they aren't living. Short of denaturing the proteins of the virus, you can't do much to it physically. And if your body is that hostile, you're already long dead.

[Starver]

There seems to be increasing evidence to suggest that COVID is attacking the circulatory system or the blood itself as more and more doctors and scientists are seeing increased blood clotting complications in patients; strokes and the like in younger patients.

That worries me a little, with it coinciding with something about me.

I'l always used to suffer nosebleeds a lot. Had my nose cauterised twice (both times, both nostrils, so x4 really). No known blood issue, and in fact there was no problem being a blood donor.

And, being a donor, I found (with no real logic behind it) I'd only start to get nosebleeds when due to next donate, then not afterwards. Really I can only imagine it was psychosomatic/similar rather than "bring on the leaches!" time...

For the last few years (since they investigated reduced periods between donations) I had basically no nosebleeds of note. As mentioned here recently, however, they've not 'reminded' me to get an appointment, and I've held off because presumed hayfever symptoms (actually, so far, much less serious this year[1]) might confuse things.

But I've had a couple of bleeds. Out of the blue. Not spawned by sneezes (and no real nasal hayfever effects - eyes and roof of mouth are the current indicators) and as if the body has decided it's ready (and overdue) to lose some of the old claret, and if it aint gonna be through a needle in my arm it's gonna be by the old-fashioned way again.

(To be realistic, I know it's likely just coincidental. I'd suggest it was stress-induced but, on the whole, I'm probably a little less stressed than my usual level of "totally in denial" what with fewer net immediate unsortable things to consider unworthy of worrying about in the first place.)


The question is, though, what clotting/stroke complications are they saying COVID is perhaps forcing? It could as likely be over-clotting as underclotting (both produce strokes, of different types; though you can also get both types at the same time), so I'd want to know more before I start to look up the phone number of Hypochondriacs Anonymous or anything.



[1] Strangely. Unless self consciousness of the issues is somehow overriding my normal high-pollen reactions. Who can say?  Sample of one ≠ proper study.

[ChairmanPoo]

Its not frequent but there are reports of strokes, etc...

[McTraveller]

Too bad we don't have Trek-style transporters and their bio-filters.

EDIT: wouldn't you have to look at the difference in rate of strokes with COVID compared to rate of strokes with any other affliction as a co-morbidity?  I mean, any illness is going to stress the body and increase probability of other complications, right?