>Yes, that's called liquidity. And stop using the term society. It is abigous and poorly defined and no giant wiki link will change that.<
You need something that is loosely defined to describe something that is complex beyond clear definition.
The term society is still applicable to describe a list of varying factors (beyond economics) that unite a population body in a certain territory.
Differing philosophers have tried their hands at it. Imo, the most successful of them probably was Regis Debray.
>The government can't own workers. That's called slavery.<
Well, forgive my loose wording, but I meant the work done by the worker which can be bought.
I still think you are playing along the wording and little nitpicks in order to avoid discussing the meat of the matter.
>Spending money on education increases the supply of human capital in the economy and increases the long term output of the economy; WMDs don't do that. I'm not really sure why you consider total output 'progress' rather than the change over time and then talked about education and WMD.<
But the matter is still there.
You can increase production capacity all you like, but it is all for naught if mores are such that most of what is produced is garbage.
>Conclusions are always limited in their usefulness. What's wrong with that?<
Well, there is limited and there is severely limited.
If you limit the scope of your vision to economics, you'll have a very hard time arguing about politics which must take other matters into consideration too.
>Many economic variables can be measured. GDP and GNP are good examples. I'm not really sure why they have to 'exist in vacuum'. But you keep making bizzare claims and contradictions so I'm used to it.<
What I mean is that economy is influenced by diverse factors (including religion, war, how much education is valued, social ranking, the list goes on and on).
You can simply look at the economic variables and think they give you plenty of information to see the whole, but the economy is not the whole, it is a piece of the system.
>Conclusions are always limited in their usefulness. What's wrong with that?<
Well, its like saying: We will never be perfect so lets never try to improve ourselves.
Its a pessimistic take.
Our conclusions will never be infinite in scope, but that doesn't entitle us to sit on our Laurels and not try to increase it.
>What group can be trusted with everything? What's your point?<
The government at least, is elected and has to answer to the electorate.
In my view, thats more reliable than a group of wealthy individuals who isn't.
>to maximize economic efficiency and economic welfare government intervention in these areas is justified<
You know, part of the philosophical idea is transcendence or to go beyond the models we make to represent reality and come up with better ones.
I think you've become a bit fixated on the economic model and should try expending your horizons.
>I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. Why is it one or the other?<
By definition an atheist believes that god can't exist.
An agnostic just asserts that he can't know either way.
You can't both believe that a god doesn't exist and admit that he might, but you can't be sure.
>No, the government just needs money.<
Not if the government controls certain companies.
>This is a debate? Really? I thought it was more like me correcting you on your false statements and that's about it.<
Thats not possible.
You tend to limit yourself to economics and therefore, what you can correct me on is severely limited.
>You can still believe in things that you are not absolutely sure about without faith because you might have some evidence to justify that belief.<
And what constitutes evidence?
What you see with your senses?
Can you bring me any solid justification that some supra genius entity is not simply creating a fake reality for you to live in, fooling you at every turn?
>I support 'self-contained' economies? Really? And here I thought open economies with trade and labour mobility were good and added economic efficiency. I'll just add that to the list of things I didn't know I suppored.<
See? Tunnel vision, I'm telling you.
I'm not talking about self-contained as in no outside trade.
I'm talking about self-contained as in: the concept of 'economy' existing by itself without other things to support it.
>Wheretf did this come from? What's with all these bizzare accusations. I haven't said anything about how others should run their lives, all I have stated is what is best for the economy.<
You called people who can't save idiot.
I'm not prepared to make that claim.
I think they might be limited in that respect and might need assistance or a solid change of mindset, but I wouldn't be prepared to say that they have no intellect.
>Yeah, sure they do... And i'm sure they worship dead jesuses and ped-- (wait, can't say that or OMAC will censor me) and i'm sure they blow up buildings and start witch hunts as well.<
Actually, I find atheists most amusing in their attempts to oppose organized religion.
I mean, what is the point of outright offending religious folks when there is nothing to be gained from the offense?
Some (such as yourself) go further and get the funny notion that because we can't be sure of a creating god, ethics should go out the window dismissing any value it might have for a specie that need to live in organized society.
>Cupidity? Yes well I agree that economic expansion driven by someone's love life isn't a good idea. Oh, you mean stupidity! So stupid economic decisions are bad? Wow! Way to go Capn Obvious! What's your point?<
No, I mean cupidity.
The desire of amassing wealth for the sake of amassing wealth.
The view of money and possessions as an end rather than a mean.
>No, I really don't have morals. I'm not constrained by them like other people.<
Such a noble pursuit.
One then has to wonder how it is that they didn't throw you in jail and throw away the key already if you organized your life in this way.
Must have been fear that kept you in line.
>Of course I'm in denial; I'm an atheist; I deny the existance of god.<
Then, you can't be an agnostic. Sorry.
>Ah so you agree that rich have a lower propensity to consume than poor people. Wow! You agree with my simply, blatantly obvious statement that somehow caused all your posts and these random accusations of what you think I believe.<
Yes, they also encourage the use of credit cards (even, or actually, especially when they know the owner of the card is an irresponsible spender) and bombard us with ads in order to leech at our income with useless gizmos.
>Yes, there are criminals out there. What's your point? Actually why bother asking, you never have any point.<
No, I'm sure that in your rigid economic view of the world, I don't have much of a point to make.
Like I said before, this discussion with you is a waste of time.
shame on me for perpetuating it.
>Yes, that would definatly happen if you weren't smart enough to make food consumption tax exempt. There are positive externalities associated with the nutrition of food so it would make sense to subsidise food rather than tax it.<
you'd have to go beyond food.
You'd have to make one for clothing, housing, basic furniture and other basic commodities I can't think of right now.
I'd be a buraucratic nightmare.
>Ooh! Maslov's pyramid! I've never heard of that before! Oh wait I have! What are you, an art's student / philosophy student / former IB student?<
Actually, the model is of interest in that it is true enough that if lower level needs are not met, higher level considerations go out the window.
But if you must know my curriculum, I hold a bachelor of computer sciences and also a specialization in statistics.
I like perusing works in philosophy and history as a hobby, because I'm aware that my scientic interest is too narrow to make me a balanced person if I hold myself only to it.