Today I got told that I am the...

[KrazyHorse]

I should ask this as an interview question...

[Kuciwalker]

Me.

[KrazyHorse]

It's the classic mistake that people make. Confusing the average value with the marginal value. But more confusing because intertemporal exchanges mess with people's heads...

[curtis290]

First off, if you've listened to me at all, you'd know that profit isn't much of a concern of mine. I'm not like you. I have values, and I believe in society. Not just the market and dollars.

The market is what tells us how much OTHER PEOPLE value our services, you moron. When something has value to somebody he should be willing to pay for it. If he's not, then perhaps it's not as valuable to him as he claims.

This is just funny. You see the word 'value' and you can't even conceive of it pertaining to anything other than the market. When I said value, I meant it in the traditional sense of the word. I value our nation, our people, our culture, sacrifice, honor, integrity. That's not about market value.

Second, maybe in the short term, but we don't know that in the long term. In the event of a financial catastrophe, I'd prefer to be an economy that produces real things as opposed to one entirely based on 'high value' finance. Have you noticed how well Brazil is doing right now compared to Iceland?

Spectacularly badly, actually

GDP (PPP) per capita (2009 est):
Iceland: 38000 USD
Brazil: 10500 USD

UN HDI (2007 est):
Iceland: 0.969
Brazil: 0.813

First, those stats are out of date, especially the HDI. Anyways, we are comparing a first world socialist country to a third world country, so yeah, Iceland's will be higher. But would you mind telling me about the growth rates of those two countries since the crisis? About how the crisis has effected each of those two countries? And about their prospects for growth over the next couple of years?

Third, you're referring to 'value' only in terms of monetary value. Money has value only as long as we believe it has value. They are pieces of paper that can be used in exchange for goods and services. We have seen times in history when financial crises have caused money to only have value in its ability to serve as fuel. But actual things, such as factories that produce goods or farms and their crops, have inherent value. They provide people with goods they need to survive. I would take this over money. If money becomes worthless, it would be much better to live in an economy that has the means to produce real things, rather than a bunch of empty office buildings and starving white-collar workers.

You ****ing moron, the money represents the value that people place on services provided. By buying the services of a high-value individual (investment banker) I am saying that I value his services more than I do the services of a number of low-value individuals (agricultural worker). The value of the service exists independently of the unit of account used to denominate it. We could denominate things in sheep if you'd like, and I would provide services relating to promises to exchange various quantities of sheep at various times under various conditions. It would simply be more inconvenient. No matter what numeraire you choose, people who manufacture or farm are generally less valuable than people who do other things because PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE MORE TO GET THE SERVICES OF PEOPLE DOING OTHER THINGS.

You just...don't...get it. You paid no attention to my argument. I don't know if that's because you're extremely close-minded or because you're just not that smart. The value in a currency exists only as long as we believe in it. If the currency becomes worthless, than getting paid 100 million marks as opposed to 15 million marks doesn't make a difference. There is inherent value in goods though. So if there is a crisis, and a currency is worthless, I don't care about my salary. I care about access to food and the essentials goods I need to survive. I would definitely prefer to be a farmer in this situation rather than a starving white-collar worker.

Now, in a more practical sense, an economy that is more based on agriculture and industry is going to be better off in the long-term than one based entirely off of finance. The one based on finance of course will be more prone to financially crises, but also, the economies that are based on producing actual goods will be better in the long term because people will always be willing to exchange currency for goods. As long as the market still functions, they will always be able to sell their goods. If it doesn't, than at least they will have those goods. So, in the event of a financial crisis, the countries that are more inclined to finance are going to struggle, the ones that produce goods will be better off. This is why Germany, Europe's manufacturing power, is doing much better right now than the UK, whose economy is based on finance. And why Iceland is in the ****ter, while Brazil, an economy on the rise which is not so financialized but has plenty of resources and produces goods, has much better prospects for growth.

As a portion of our GDP, manufacturing and agriculture have grown much, much smaller. Finance has grown much, much larger. Fewer people live in the countryside, and fewer people work in factories. More and more Americans push paper in meaningless white-collar office work that only exists because how highly financialized our society has become and our bloated financial sector.

If the work is meaningless and valueless then why are PEOPLE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT?

Because the financial sector plays with our money. It makes money by moving other peoples' money around through its many conduits, creating wealth through instruments of debt that are supposedly failsafe because of new financial technologies. Because in this era (the past 20-30 years) we live in a high financialized, neoliberal society in the midst of a global credit glut, there is a lot of money to be had in the financial sector. There is a lot of speculatory activity since people know they can make money simply off of rises in asset prices. This does NOT mean that this type of work has INHERENT meaning or value. I'm not talking about monetary value, which is fleeting, I'm talking about social value.

You do not produce a good or do anything that serves society. We were doing just fine when our financial sector was small and tightly controlled, when bankers played golf all day and had two hour lunches with a bunch of martinis. Sure, in the 90s and 00s, finance did well for itself, and made a lot of money off of other peoples' money. But that doesn't mean it does anything of INHERENT value. And it doesn't mean that the financial industry is based on sustainable practices, or that it will exist in this form in the future. It's hard to find people outside of Wall Street and a few places in academia where people actually think our financial sector is completely sustainable or that it doesn't need to shrink.

So maybe people have been willing to pay for it in the past, when the banks were rolling in money, but they certainly won't be willing to pay for it in the future. Heck it's actually difficult to get a job as a consultant these days.

Okay, then you admit you were blatantly lying when you said "we don't make anything anymore"?

CLEARLY it was a hyperbole.

As a portion of our GDP, manufacturing and agriculture have grown much, much smaller.

And yet not only do we still make stuff, we make more stuff than ever before. Why, exactly, should we lament the fact that a bunch of people no longer make stuff if the remaining people are picking up all of the slack and more, and are even doing so without having to work longer hours?

We have the ability to produce more. But our economy is not oriented towards that end. Look at how small Germany is and how much it produces. If we wanted to, we could move towards a more agricultural and industrial economy that dwarfs our current amounts of production. Would this guarantee us short-term profit? No. Would it guarantee us long-term profit? I'm not sure. Would it give our people more meaningful work? Yes. Would it enable us to have a serious war-time economy, one that can produce the amount of weapons necessary for a much larger, better-funded military? Certainly.

[Kuciwalker]

That said, the marginal effect should be proportional to the time the investment is held, which aligns with my intuition that consumption deferred for long periods benefits society more than consumption deferred for short periods.

[Kuciwalker]

CLEARLY it was a hyperbole.

And CLEARLY not only is it strictly false, but there's no reasonable sense in which it's remotely true.

We have the ability to produce more. But our economy is not oriented towards that end. Look at how small Germany is and how much it produces. If we wanted to, we could move towards a more agricultural and industrial economy that dwarfs our current amounts of production.

So what?

We don't actually need more food. We don't actually need more physical stuff. The poorest Americans have more material wealth than three-quarters of the ****ing planet.

Would it give our people more meaningful work? Yes.

What makes work meaningful? I like my job as what you call a "paper-pusher" (which is a really bizarre way of characterizing it). I would be extremely unhappy if I were forced to earn my living doing some sort of manual labor instead.

Would it enable us to have a serious war-time economy, one that can produce the amount of weapons necessary for a much larger, better-funded military? Certainly.

WTF? How is this a good metric of "how should we organize our society"? I don't want a larger, better-funded military! I want us to stop invading countries and killing people!

[Hauldren Collider]

I can't be bothered to read the thread so I'll try to contribute in less time-consuming ways:

[curtis290]

CLEARLY it was a hyperbole.

And CLEARLY not only is it strictly false, but there's no reasonable sense in which it's remotely true.

Again, manufacturing and agriculture are a much smaller portion of our GDP. Less people are in farms and factories. We outsource much of the work we used to do or we hire illegal Mexicans to do it instead. So much more of our workforce is dedicated to pushing papers. So yeah, we don't make anything anymore.

We have the ability to produce more. But our economy is not oriented towards that end. Look at how small Germany is and how much it produces. If we wanted to, we could move towards a more agricultural and industrial economy that dwarfs our current amounts of production.

So what?

We don't actually need more food. We don't actually need more physical stuff. The poorest Americans have more material wealth than three-quarters of the ****ing planet.

Yeah but most of that food is crap. Farming is good honest work. I would prefer a much larger portion of our workforce working on farms even if it was more inefficient and it made us 'poorer.'

I agree we have more consumer goods than is necessary. But we could definitely build a lot more tanks, planes, and artillery with a larger industrial sector.

Would it give our people more meaningful work? Yes.

What makes work meaningful? I like my job as what you call a "paper-pusher" (which is a really bizarre way of characterizing it). I would be extremely unhappy if I were forced to earn my living doing some sort of manual labor instead.

Most people working in office jobs such as yourself don't like it. And yes, you probably wouldn't want to work in a factory because you're not used to it. But for people used to working in factories, the work itself (not wage) is preferable to being a paper-pusher.

Would it enable us to have a serious war-time economy, one that can produce the amount of weapons necessary for a much larger, better-funded military? Certainly.

WTF? How is this a good metric of "how should we organize our society"? I don't want a larger, better-funded military! I want us to stop invading countries and killing people!

That's where we disagree then. We should organize our society based on what is good for our culture and people, and we should pursue national greatness. We should leave our mark in history. That is the point of a nation, that should be the goal of a people. So that means creating a much larger military and building a serious space program.

[KrazyHorse]

That said, the marginal effect should be proportional to the time the investment is held, which aligns with my intuition that consumption deferred for long periods benefits society more than consumption deferred for short periods.

a) The truly marginal effect is 0
b) It's not proportional; it's limited by the duration of a perpetuity.

[Kuciwalker]

Again, manufacturing and agriculture are a much smaller portion of our GDP. Less people are in farms and factories. We outsource much of the work we used to do or we hire illegal Mexicans to do it instead. So much more of our workforce is dedicated to pushing papers. So yeah, we don't make anything anymore.

P. P. P. P. P. P. Therefore ~P!

Yeah but most of that food is crap.

And yet for some reason people consistently prefer it! Why, exactly, do you think you know better than each of hundreds of millions of people what food would make them happier?

Farming is good honest work.

This is so vapid and empty I don't even know where to start.

I would prefer a much larger portion of our workforce working on farms even if it was more inefficient and it made us 'poorer.'

How about you go work on a farm, then? Why do you think it would be right to make tens or hundreds of millions of people do what you would prefer them to do?

I would prefer a much larger portion of our attractive female workforce working on giving me blowjobs.

I agree we have more consumer goods than is necessary. But we could definitely build a lot more tanks, planes, and artillery with a larger industrial sector.

WHY THE **** WOULD WE WANT TANKS, PLANES, OR ARTILLERY? THEIR ONLY PURPOSE IS TO KILL PEOPLE AND DESTROY STUFF. AS LONG AS WE'VE GOT ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE DON'T INVADE US, WHY DO WE ****ING CARE?

Most people working in office jobs such as yourself don't like it. And yes, you probably wouldn't want to work in a factory because you're not used to it.

I don't want to work in a factory because I enjoy doing things that are at least moderately intellectually stimulating. You are obviously unfamiliar with that sort of experience.

But for people used to working in factories, the work itself (not wage) is preferable to being a paper-pusher.

Oh for ****'s sake, then let them make the ****ing choice! This isn't a damn civ game and it would not only be impossible, but also completely monstrous for you to force tens or hundreds of millions of people to do what you wanted just because it suits your idea of a neat country.

That's where we disagree then. We should organize our society based on what is good for our culture and people, and we should pursue national greatness. We should leave our mark in history. That is the point of a nation, that should be the goal of a people. So that means creating a much larger military and building a serious space program.

Holy **** you're actually a Nazi WTF WTF WTF.

[KrazyHorse]

We have the ability to produce more. But our economy is not oriented towards that end. Look at how small Germany is and how much it produces. If we wanted to, we could move towards a more agricultural and industrial economy that dwarfs our current amounts of production.

So what?

We don't actually need more food. We don't actually need more physical stuff. The poorest Americans have more material wealth than three-quarters of the ****ing planet.

Better response: people value the services more than the goods whose consumption is foregone in order to pay for them. This is their revealed preference. The only source of value is the needs/wants of human beings, and they themselves are the best judge of their utility functions.

Would it give our people more meaningful work? Yes.

What makes work meaningful? I like my job as what you call a "paper-pusher" (which is a really bizarre way of characterizing it). I would be extremely unhappy if I were forced to earn my living doing some sort of manual labor instead.

Precisely. However, you are going to have a hard time explaining to a ****** why you enjoy intellectual work more than pounding blocks together.

Would it enable us to have a serious war-time economy, one that can produce the amount of weapons necessary for a much larger, better-funded military? Certainly.

WTF? How is this a good metric of "how should we organize our society"? I don't want a larger, better-funded military! I want us to stop invading countries and killing people!

Better response: No, it would not. The most efficient way to build a military is the same as the most efficient way to provide any other government activity: through taxation with as little deadweight loss as possible, and then through purchase of the required goods and services on the open market.

[Kuciwalker]

a) The truly marginal effect is 0
b) It's not proportional; it's limited by the duration of a perpetuity.

I was not being precise.

[Kuciwalker]

Better response: people value the services more than the goods whose consumption is foregone in order to pay for them. This is their revealed preference. The only source of value is the needs/wants of human beings, and they themselves are the best judge of their utility functions.

I wasn't going to go after his idiotic idea that labor that doesn't provide a concrete benefit he can immediately perceive is valueless, since he'll just dismiss it with "lol money != value!"

[Solomwi]

Holy **** you're actually a Nazi WTF WTF WTF.

Uh, you hadn't picked up on that already, Kuci? Need an incredible military, the only sacrifice that counts is for your country, economic activity best directed toward state goals, blah, blah, blah.

[Kuciwalker]

I've tl;dred the vast majority of his posts because they are insufferably dull.