Obama wins, saves economy single-handedly while defeating economy-hating Republicans

[KrazyHorse]

I grabbed one of the shorter paragraphs at random:

"The family that owns the land were so impressed by what was possible, that they decided they didn't want to share crop or lease the land anymore, but rather work it themselves. (Something I was happy to see happen, as too often farming, at least the actual work involved, is looked down on here simply because farmers tend to be poor and dark skinned.)"

What the **** does this have to do with anything, you utter nincompoop? Summarize your ****ing argument. Where do the elasticities go, in your theory?

[KrazyHorse]

Are there 3x leveraged EVIL ETFs as well? This intrigues me.

We have an interview question around leveraged ETFs and rebalancing periods...

[Kidlicious]

What the **** does this have to do with anything, you utter nincompoop? Summarize your ****ing argument.

The concept of rewarding work means nothing to you.

[Al B. Sure!]

The concept of rewarding work means nothing to you.

labor theory of value is so arbitrary

[Hauldren Collider]

The concept of rewarding work means nothing to you.

Oh boy! Kidicious sighting in an economics article! Prepare to be floored.

I eagerly await his incoherent ramblings and accusations of malpractice and malevolence.

[Al B. Sure!]

I remember when we spent 5 pages trying to teach him what opportunity cost means

[KrazyHorse]

Kiddy is the one guy albie can own in an econthread

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not quite convinced. Maybe if you had just used the caps lock a little more, it would persuade me. Anyway, I really don't care about long-term economic consequences, and I'm not so silly as to preach about moral burdens when I hardly know a thing about the situation--I only know what I know about sweatshops from a college class taught by a hyper-liberal professor years ago, and I'm sure I should take even my memories with a grain of salt. But it's not like some suit at Abercrombie & Fitch sat down and said, "you know, I feel bad for those Indian Dalits. I think I'll build a factory there." No, he said "how can I produce these goods a little cheaper? I know, I'll hire some Indians to build a factory and have the local dirt-muckers work double shifts for a pittance. If any of them agitate for better treatment, my boys can just axe them and hire others without any of that Union BS." IE, an exploitative attitude. It was exploitative when they did it in Victorian England, it's exploitative when they do it in the modern third world. It appears to have made England a much stronger country in the long run, and it may very well do the same for India, Indonesia, Vietnam and wherever else our tacky little consumer goods are made. I hope it does. But that doesn't change the basic exploitative relationship. I suppose this is mostly a semantic argument on my part.

Taking this tack, you end up having to explain why exploitation is wrong. Exploitation as you describe it isn't wrong, as far as I can see.

[Aeson]

I grabbed one of the shorter paragraphs at random:

"The family that owns the land were so impressed by what was possible, that they decided they didn't want to share crop or lease the land anymore, but rather work it themselves. (Something I was happy to see happen, as too often farming, at least the actual work involved, is looked down on here simply because farmers tend to be poor and dark skinned.)"

This was included because it was part of the storyline... and because was dealing with rents. You could consider it a sarcastic referral to your claims of "rent-seeking". As for being brief, it's not my fault you aren't capable of reading a few paragraphs. But since I am so generous, and willing to instill "rent seeking behavior" in those around me, I will help you out even though I don't have to:

"Who are you to tell [skilled person] which particular job/wage they should seek?"
"No rent seeking behavior has been observed as a result of my not squeezing every last penny I can out of the natives."
"You're an *******."
"Sounds like you're worried the natives will start getting uppity."

(I will leave off for now since any more text and you are likely to have your brain explode or whatever is keeping you from reading it yourself in the first place. Pathetic rent-seeker wanting other people to read for you. )

[Aeson]

I grabbed one of the shorter paragraphs at random:

"The family that owns the land were so impressed by what was possible, that they decided they didn't want to share crop or lease the land anymore, but rather work it themselves. (Something I was happy to see happen, as too often farming, at least the actual work involved, is looked down on here simply because farmers tend to be poor and dark skinned.)"

This was included because it was part of the storyline... and because was dealing with rents. You could consider it a sarcastic referral to your claims of "rent-seeking". As for being brief, it's not my fault you aren't capable of reading a few paragraphs. But since I am so generous, and willing to instill "rent seeking behavior" in those around me, I will help you out even though I don't have to:

"Who are you to tell [skilled person] which particular job/wage they should seek?"
"No rent seeking behavior has been observed as a result of my not squeezing every last penny I can out of the natives."
"You're an *******."
"Sounds like you're worried the natives will start getting uppity."

(I will leave off for now since any more text and you are likely to have your brain explode or whatever is keeping you from reading it yourself in the first place. Pathetic rent-seeker wanting other people to read for you. )

[Aeson]

Where do the elasticities go, in your theory?

If you could further explain which specific elasticities you are referring to it would be helpful. You seem to be offering a sociological theory to deride the act of paying a worker their marginal product (as best deduced by me, the employer) by claiming they will become "rent-seekers" because of it. I am having trouble deducing which specific elasticities (a term I admit I am not very familiar with) that you feel support your "rent-seeking" argument, and have provided real life examples of how quite the opposite of "rent-seeking" has resulted from the specific acts you deride. If the elasticities are there, and simply aren't having the effect you theorize they should, I can't tell you why that is.

[Elok]

Taking this tack, you end up having to explain why exploitation is wrong. Exploitation as you describe it isn't wrong, as far as I can see.

I don't know if it's "wrong" so much as "less right." I believe gambling is wrong, but Nevada's economy would collapse without that revenue. Sometimes you have to live with a certain degree of evil--in this case, the long hours and reputedly rather coercive bosses that sweatshops come with.

[KrazyHorse]

Good God, Aeson has gone ahead and posted yet another sequence of immense posts that nobody is going to read.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know if it's "wrong" so much as "less right." I believe gambling is wrong, but Nevada's economy would collapse without that revenue. Sometimes you have to live with a certain degree of evil--in this case, the long hours and reputedly rather coercive bosses that sweatshops come with.

How the hell are long hours an evil?

And anybody who thinks that gambling is, in itself evil is going to be operating on a different wavelength from those of us who don't see a problem with mutually agreed-upon echanges, no matter how incomprehensible the motives of one or both parties may seem to us.

[Hauldren Collider]

MASSIVE ****ING WALL OF TEXT

*runs away screaming*

No I will not read that.