What major social barrier will fall in the next 50yrs? (Womans Lib, Civil Rights, ..)

[soulcougher73]

war on drugs.

 

[zinfamous]

Obviously: Human - kitchen appliance sexual identification will become fully recognized.

 

[Nebor]

You might want to go back and check up on what economics thinks about rational behavior. First, rational behavior does not mean getting the most goods or services, it can also mean achieving social stability, improving equality, etc, all of which can involve the opposite of what you are saying. Rational actor models make no claim as to what goals are acceptable or unacceptable. So in short, your description of what economics says is wrong.

Second, research quite clearly shows that people frequently do not act 'rationally', which kind of renders your point moot anyway.

Rational behavior generally refers to maximizing one's utility. While it's possible that one could value giving to charity more than receiving Ferrari's, most economic models are built around selfish behavior aka homo economicus. You essentially admit as much in your second paragraph. And while people "frequently" don't behave rationally, they do behave rationally the majority of the time. You can argue for the exception all you want, but it will remain the exception. When you build incentives around exceptions, you wind up with misaligned incentives for the majority and broken systems.

EDIT: I can see now that you were just drive by shitting all over the thread, never mind.

 

[1prophet]

You're all doomed



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

 

[Munky]

There won't be one.

I just put down the biggest privilege that needs to be eradicated. Really, all privileges, be it white, male, class, etc. need to be eliminated. There may not be a group of people we recognize today as being a privileged class.

That's the kind of mentality resulting from the "we're all equal" delusion. Equalist zealots don't believe in things like human bio diversity, biological gender, evolution and selection pressure, and repeatedly continue to demonstrate an infantile grasp on human nature.

Equality is a social construct. All these things you call "privilege" is empirical evidence that we're not all equal.

 

[ultimatebob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRT62J80iyI

So... Shooting people in the ass will be legal in the future? Cool.

 

[fskimospy]

Rational behavior generally refers to maximizing one's utility. While it's possible that one could value giving to charity more than receiving Ferrari's, most economic models are built around selfish behavior aka homo economicus. You essentially admit as much in your second paragraph. And while people "frequently" don't behave rationally, they do behave rationally the majority of the time. You can argue for the exception all you want, but it will remain the exception. When you build incentives around exceptions, you wind up with misaligned incentives for the majority and broken systems.

Nope, sorry. Rational choice theory explicitly reject the kind of relative value judgment you're trying to make, instead trying to describe a consistent pattern of behavior as opposed to a specific choice like you're trying to make. For example if an actor chooses A over B one time, a rational choice model assumes he will choose A over B the second time, all other things being equal. It does not matter what A and B are. This is a fairly common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It's not about building incentives around exceptions, it is just that you don't know what the theory and all is talking about.

Not to mention on top of all that, most economists recognize that rational choice models do not actually reflect market behaviors, instead using them to look at specific phenomena in isolation. That was what my second paragraph meant. People frequently break the boundaries of even such a basic statement of rationality, which still has nothing to do with money.

The important thing here is to remember before you talk about what economics is based on you should probably understand what economics is based on.

 

[Nebor]

Nope, sorry. Rational choice theory explicitly reject the kind of relative value judgment you're trying to make, instead trying to describe a consistent pattern of behavior as opposed to a specific choice like you're trying to make. For example if an actor chooses A over B one time, a rational choice model assumes he will choose A over B the second time, all other things being equal. It does not matter what A and B are. This is a fairly common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It's not about building incentives around exceptions, it is just that you don't know what the theory and all is talking about.

Not to mention on top of all that, most economists recognize that rational choice models do not actually reflect market behaviors, instead using them to look at specific phenomena in isolation. That was what my second paragraph meant. People frequently break the boundaries of even such a basic statement of rationality, which still has nothing to do with money.

The important thing here is to remember before you talk about what economics is based on you should probably understand what economics is based on.

You seem pretty content to talk past me, so I'll leave it. I'm pretty confident in my knowledge of economics. You're intentionally discussing something that I'm not.

 

[Hugo Drax]

After WWIII we will be living a socialist lifestyle in huts wearing leaves for clothing.

 

[fskimospy]

You seem pretty content to talk past me, so I'll leave it. I'm pretty confident in my knowledge of economics. You're intentionally discussing something that I'm not.

So long as you are confident and happy, I guess that's what matters.

 

[Nebor]

So long as you are confident and happy, I guess that's what matters.

Pretty much. My sample size is 1. I do have a BS in economics, and my MBA had a focus in managerial economics. You're just repeatedly arguing for the exception, and implying that I said things that I didn't. You seem satisfied in doing so, and I'm confident & happy, so I think we're both good. This is a win-win!

 

[Moonbeam]

You seem pretty content to talk past me, so I'll leave it. I'm pretty confident in my knowledge of economics. You're intentionally discussing something that I'm not.

Your job would be to explain what that is and what he's talking about and why it's off the mark if it is.

 

[dmcowen674]

What major social barrier will fall in the next 50yrs? (Womans Lib, Civil Rights, ..)

..Gay marriage

seems like every 50yrs or so a major social barrier falls.

Whats next?

Gay Marriage social barrier has not fallen yet.

 

[OverVolt]

Your job would be to explain what that is and what he's talking about and why it's off the mark if it is.

Eh... its not really.

 

[Ranulf]

What a silly thing to say. Of course it is sustainable.

Yes, yes it is....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state

' for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."'

As for the original topic, my bet is the war on drugs will end with at least decriminalization.

 

[MagickMan]

Rational behavior generally refers to maximizing one's utility. While it's possible that one could value giving to charity more than receiving Ferrari's, most economic models are built around selfish behavior aka homo economicus. You essentially admit as much in your second paragraph. And while people "frequently" don't behave rationally, they do behave rationally the majority of the time. You can argue for the exception all you want, but it will remain the exception. When you build incentives around exceptions, you wind up with misaligned incentives for the majority and broken systems.

EDIT: I can see now that you were just drive by shitting all over the thread, never mind.

Yep, there is no actual conversation here, the trolls like him ruin it for anyone who tries.

 

[xaeniac]

Could we imagine the horror if income inequality disappeared in the next 50 years.

It's nice to dream, but very unlikely to happen. Name a country where this exists. This is an unfair world and we are leaving in it, however let us all attempt to maximize our opportunities. No matter how much some preach to "level the playing field" making it a fair world. And the fact that individuals believe this is a pipe dream and fairy tale from aristocrats that BS spill from their mouths.

 

[xaeniac]

Education pays for itself with higer prosperity overall in society.

With globalization pushing manufacturing to (ultra)low-wage countries, if you do not want the US to slip to that level you will need some other kind of motor to drive your economy to replace manufacturing. Only an educated populace can provide that; you can't all go have your hair and nails done at each others' beauty salons and shit like that.

Can you provide an example? Or will America be the first utopia to accomplish this in the future.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, yes it is....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state

' for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."'

As for the original topic, my bet is the war on drugs will end with at least decriminalization.

lol, I remember these arguments before where they would count the benefits of Medicaid, CHIP, etc as 'disposable income' while not counting health insurance benefits from 60k+ jobs, or their 401k benefits, etc, etc. In short, they are putting their finger on the scales, and doing so deliberately.

Basically it's yet another example of the contempt that the right wing has for its audience. They lie to you and you lap it up.

Also, this is why people don't read Zerohedge. (how are those Zerohedge gold and inflation predictions coming? lol)

 

[piasabird]

Freedom of Speech.

 

[ralfy]

Consider the barriers that will rise given peak oil, global warming, and long-term economic crises.