Tories axe academic freedom

[Fake Boris]

Don't worry Boris, Harper is running on borrowed time.

Matter of fact, before the Harper Boys jump all over me, I'm taking new avatar bets on the next election.

Harper vs. Ignatieff = Iggy win

Any takers?

Err... no.

[Ben Kenobi]

I also understand that despite this, the effect on the lives of billions of people is real. These guys are probably responsible for much more disruption than the few dozen millions going to humanities departments ever will.

Umm, I would disagree with that. I think philosophy majors like Marx and his clones are responsible for far more deaths worldwide. Try several hundred million and you'd have it about right.

[Fake Boris]

Umm, I would disagree with that. I think philosophy majors like Marx and his clones are responsible for far more deaths worldwide. Try several hundred million and you'd have it about right.

You're a masterful ironist, aren't you?

[Asher]

Please don't quote him.

[Elok]

"Whynot" is a fun last name. What constitutes "business research" anyway? Product R&D? Surveys? Demographic number-crunching? All the business majors I ever met were undergrads, and I never knew them to do anything but drink.

And what do philosophers do with research grants? My guess is that most of it goes toward buying pot. You can buy a lot more liquor than marijuana with the same amount of money, so I support this move.

[Wezil]

You can buy a lot more liquor than marijuana with the same amount of money, so I support this move.

Are we talking strait quantity or potency?

The former I would have to agree but the latter may be debatable.

[Fake Boris]

The SSHRC gives (top, 4+ GPA) grad students money to live with while they study. They also fund some professors' research. Philosophical research doesn't cost much to begin with, but here some of the things you can use the money for:

a)invite specialists for "panels", pay plane and hotel. I know, this one is a lol, but networking is part of philosophy like anything else
b)pay students to read books and articles for you, write a résumé
c)translate obscure books (you need to pay for a perfect copy of the original manuscript being made and sent to you and stuff like this)
d)have someone translate your research in other languages

etc...

[Elok]

Are we talking strait quantity or potency?

The former I would have to agree but the latter may be debatable.

This is true; marijuana has a stronger effect and takes a lot longer to wear off. But we must bear in mind that you get a lot more research done while drunk than while stoned. Your drunks are typically quite active, whereas stoners only investigate "can I eat this whole bag of Fritos before this hysterically funny informercial ends?" That's completely unnecessary research, as U.S. scientists found the answer to it decades ago. And we didn't even need pot to do it.

[Wezil]

This is true; marijuana has a stronger effect and takes a lot longer to wear off. But we must bear in mind that you get a lot more research done while drunk than while stoned. Your drunks are typically quite active, whereas stoners only investigate "can I eat this whole bag of Fritos before this hysterically funny informercial ends?" That's completely unnecessary research, as U.S. scientists found the answer to it decades ago. And we didn't even need pot to do it.

Lots to think about. I think I need to run an experiment.

[KrazyHorse]

KH, we're in a worldwide recession.

I understand that often money just gets reshifted, but when the mistake is massive, the disruption costs everyone.

Yes, it does. Now you're getting closer to something reasonable. To first order the losses from the recession is the integrated output gap until recovery. However, much of the output gap is not true deadweight loss. Also, what is your counterfactual? A world where no recession happened? How do you know what would have been the case? And even so, how big are the benefits accrued from increased financial efficiency?

[Victor Galis]

The common folk aren't going to be paying my salary so they don't get a say.

You seem to be totally ignoring the current bailouts. Even if you don't end up working for a company being bailed out directly, you'll probably work for someone who would have lost big if AIG and the others went down.

Subsidy to me is actually quite high. Assuming that the out-of-province tuition is the full cost I was subsidized by the QC gov't to the tune of 9k a year for 3 years or so. Add in some from the feds to make it 12k a year over 3 years. 36k, and they haven't recovered anything from me in ~7 years. At 8-9% (?) for a non-subsidized loan to a science student I'm 65k in the hole to Ottawa and QC. There's a good chance they won't ever see any of that money back.

You left; it's kind of irrelevant what you studied. Heck, if studying philosophy made you more likely to stay in Canada, they'd be recovering some of their money even if they taught you nothing.

Are you so stupid that you actually believe that stock market losses = real wealth destruction?

I believe stock market crash = fall in capital gains tax revenue.

Yes, it does. Now you're getting closer to something reasonable. To first order the losses from the recession is the integrated output gap until recovery. However, much of the output gap is not true deadweight loss. Also, what is your counterfactual? A world where no recession happened? How do you know what would have been the case? And even so, how big are the benefits accrued from increased financial efficiency?

Yeah, but a part of the output decline prevented by the stimulus spending and bailouts is deadweight loss. We just traded some inefficiencies for other inefficiencies.

[KrazyHorse]

Even if you don't end up working for a company being bailed out directly, you'll probably work for someone who would have lost big if AIG and the others went down.

Even somebody as dull as you should understand that prior history has nothing to do with forward returns. If, e.g. Goldman went down I would work for somebody else.

Heck, if studying philosophy made you more likely to stay in Canada, they'd be recovering some of their money even if they taught you nothing.

This assumes that the average filosofer is not an ongoing drain on everybody else. I dispute that.

I believe stock market crash = fall in capital gains tax revenue.

And stock market bubble = ?

Yeah, but a part of the output decline prevented by the stimulus spending and bailouts is deadweight loss. We just traded some inefficiencies for other inefficiencies.

What is your point?

[KrazyHorse]

I like how this is a progression of stupid assertions to less stupid ones as I gradually debunk each claim in turn.

Fakeboris puts up the most retarded assertion possible.

I correct him and then he changes to the next most retarded position available.

I correct that and vickie posts an even less retarded position (though still with plenty of residual retardedness).

Is it true learning or simply blind evolution? I'm mainly a functionalist, so I'll be optimistic.

[Victor Galis]

Even if you don't end up working for a company being bailed out directly, you'll probably work for someone who would have lost big if AIG and the others went down.

Even somebody as dull as you should understand that prior history has nothing to do with forward returns. If, e.g. Goldman went down I would work for somebody else.

You assume someone would take their place. I don't. The financial sector has grown way beyond the size it needs to be. Without the subsidy it might return to its historical size.

Not only that, the massive amount of moral hazard implicit in the government's actions will cause the surviving financial companies to continue taking enormous risks to generate big profits in the short term.

This assumes that the average filosofer is not an ongoing drain on everybody else. I dispute that.

Unless the government is paying his salary, he's not a drain on the government. If it is, and he's not producing anything of value, you have a point.

And stock market bubble = ?

Further proof that illusory paper values do have some impact on real things like tax revenues.

What is your point?

We don't know if the deadweight loss increased or decreased as a result of the crisis without additional info.

[KrazyHorse]

You assume someone would take their place. I don't. The financial sector has grown way beyond the size it needs to be. Without the subsidy it might return to its historical size.

This subsidy is already disbursed. Only the promise of future subsidies can maintain a sector above its non-subsidized size.

Further proof that illusory paper values do have some impact on real things like tax revenues.

Tax revenues are transfers. I thought we were already clear on this? Bubbles and crashes actually raise revenues due to the one-sidedness of capital gains, by the way.

Not only that, the massive amount of moral hazard implicit in the government's actions will cause the surviving financial companies to continue taking enormous risks to generate big profits in the short term.

Too bad this isn't even close to verified in what's actually happening. You see a far lower level of leveraging today than previously. The governments actions are serving to reduce the inevitable overreaction to crashes. Risk premia are still high, leverage is low.

Unless the government is paying his salary, he's not a drain on the government.

This is absolute nonsense. The poor are drains on the public purse because they consume more in government services than they pay in taxes. Note that I don't have a problem with this. I am wholly in favour of larger amounts of income redistribution (I would avoid high marginal tax rates at the top, however; my ideal tax and benefit system would be large per-person transfers to the public in money with a flat consumption/earned income tax rate + no tax on capital gains; the two are equivalent, of course).

We don't know if the deadweight loss increased or decreased as a result of the crisis without additional info.

I thought that's what I said 20 posts ago.