Hang in there, Shawn. — Noble Dust

Just called my previous psych unit. Going back there, and planning a prolonged stay.

How you perceive an apple might be different to how I might perceive it. But it's still the same thing that's perceived. So yeah, we share the same language framework. — Cidat

If we're strictly speaking about perception, then there's a differential at play, being the subject.

But, yes, the object is the same in reality.

Eating the apple would seem to produce the subjective differential, for example.

Keynesian theory is always looking for where things don't actually clear.. sticky wages, uneven inflation, etc. This is where governments can step in to promote this.. it is more demand side economics, not supply side. — schopenhauer1

Keynesian economics assumes that prices are elastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that prices are inelastic. Even the prices for core goods are elastic. Again, you'd require something really extreme of an event to cause a uniform rise in (core) goods, where competition is rife.

What you might or as it seems to me, getting at, is a collusion in the market. Is that so? This is where Keynes is superior to laissez faire economic theories, with government oversight over the fluctuation in prices.

I haven't read Keynes's General Theory; but, to the best of my knowledge, they would implement in an active manner a price ceiling, if goods were becoming too expensive for all rational agents. This would be accomplished by subsidizing goods.

In neo-classical economic theories, I suspect that given they want, through laissez faire, the market to correct itself. An ideal that never really works or ever worked.

So our perception of reality is subjective? — Cidat

Depends on the language, no?

Mathematics, physics, and formal languages require no reference point as an "I". They're about as objective as you can get.

Well, that would be true if an event in the market caused a uniform rise in prices. Such events are extremely rare, or a collusion between market suppliers is complete.

But, then again, look at the increase in prices in N95 masks due to something unforeseen as Coronavirus.

"Ontophobia" is just the name I give to the mood underlying philosophical pessimism. — Pfhorrest

So, the stipulation is all encompassing? How does that work?

It's not perfect knowledge.. — schopenhauer1

Well, there's an implicit assumption made here. Let me elucidate.

If you give people $1200 and they spend it on consumer goods.. those companies start perceiving an increase in demand. — schopenhauer1

If all people started buying goods with such new disposable income, then, yes, there would be a rise in prices.

They do a calculation to see if they would make more money raising prices because they know people are buying more. They raise it enough to make more money without losing too much business.. The profit increases marginally the prices raise marginally, you have inflation. — schopenhauer1

Who does the calculation? Again, you're assuming the invisible hand is all knowing, which is a common misconception of economics.

All the companies would raise their prices.. — schopenhauer1

Yes, in an oligopoly they would, if there were some hidden agreement among participants.

this is why I said micro-decisions affect the whole thing.. all companies will eventually raise prices with increase raise in demand.. this will affect yet other companies downstream who will need to raise prices due to increased costs, and on and on. — schopenhauer1

Perfect knowledge would allow that, which leaves two things as possible, either a conspiracy or an event outside the realm of market supply or demand.

Please keep in mind, that despite the difference in names, Keynesian economics is put simply, an extension of neo-classical economics, that simply differently addresses the issue of market failures (in an active manner).

Does perception require some assumption? — Cidat

Perception requires a reference point, that will inherently be subjective. Fill in the dots.

No that's not a monopoly, that is increasing prices. Any business owner can do that. — schopenhauer1

In a market, where there is competition in contrast to a monopoly that dominates the market segment it exists in, there's can't be arbitrary rises in prices for goods provided by said rational agent.

No you can have any type of company raise prices if they perceive a higher demand. — schopenhauer1

See above.

I mean compare:

Philo-sophia
And,
Philo-sophical pessimism.

Humdrum, eh?

@Banno

Then how do you differentiate between something apropos as your position against one that is equally based on a mood, such as philosophical pessimism?

I mean, as I understand life and based on my position towards it, I don't desire to promote my existence. I'll probably die from smoking so many cigarettes, but isn't it doubly wrong to tell other people that they shouldn't promote their existence?

Philosophical pessimism derived from a feeling seems like it should be treated as a very private and personal sentiment, and ought not be shared as it were talking about the weather or something trite or mundane...

I think of it as an aesthetic understanding of the world. — schopenhauer1

Aesthetics? As in deriving joy in a position that discounts life itself?

Um, what do you call it when someone raises prices on a customer because he can make a better buck, yet still has plenty for a good standard of living? — schopenhauer1

A monopoly?

Even so, take the greed part out.. my point was describing WHAT causes the raise in prices. — schopenhauer1

Essentially, a market failure or lack of competition in neoclassical economics.

If you want, it is simply the supplier increasing prices based on a perceived rise in demand. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, that can be true.

Yes. — Pfhorrest

If so, is this some warped version of a profound distortion of ethics if it is based on a mood? Doesn't your ontophilia also commit this "distortion"?

Then again, philosophy, is defined as a love towards something. So, am I getting this right or what the hell is going on?

So yes, that is what inflation is, but it is not quite the cause of inflation. It's a necessary condition, but not sufficient. Something else besides more money, creates inflation. My theory was that because there is more money, suppliers anticipate this, or they see behaviors (like people being able to buy more), and then they see they can maximize more profit and increase their prices. — schopenhauer1

Sounds Marxist. I'm sorry; but, modern day economics is based on rationality. To say that greed dictates the evaluation of prices or even price gauging (which is abhorred in economics) sounds fruity.

Someone give @schopenhauer1 some happy pills...

I need some too.

1) How would a Keynesian and Classical economist differ in their view of government spending and aggregate demand and aggregate supply? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking about distribution of taxation or social welfare?

2) I have a premise: Inflation is due to micro-decisions of greed on the part of the supplier to maximize as much profit as possible without pricing themselves out of the market. — schopenhauer1

Inflation, classically is defined as an overabundance of money to every individual in the market, creating an inflation in prices.

Regards.

As a human, we would be considered bat-shit crazy! — Frank Apisa

:worry:

Do you realize how much space launch costs have decreased? Google it, and tell me that doesn't make mining as infeasible as it once was.

Not really, but I actually miss neocons instead of these Trump apparatchiks populating the government.

Surely, you see understand my concerns here? — creativesoul

Not really. It's been Republican dream of returning to the Moon for a very long time. Now that there's a legal framework devised you can bet the barn that the economics presented by stupendously lowered costs of SpaceX rockets to make it a reality.

Most of it has been in the works for a while now. Newt Gingrich is having a party, last I heard. This is where Republicans deserve credit.

NASA didn't want to do it with exorbitant launch costs, so guess who is going to be contracted to do launches. It starts with 'space' and ends with an X.

And, I think this is something Trump will be positively views as making America's hegemony last a long time.

China must be furious, as SpaceX can't share tech due to national security issues.

Written in 2007, now becoming a reality near you:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2007/08/23/223985/mining-the-moon/

At the 21st century’s start, few would have predicted that by 2007, a second race for the moon would be under way. Yet the signs are that this is now the case. Furthermore, in today’s moon race, unlike the one that took place between the United States and the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s, a full roster of 21st-century global powers, including China and India, are competing.

Even more surprising is that one reason for much of the interest appears to be plans to mine helium-3–purportedly an ideal fuel for fusion reactors but almost unavailable on Earth–from the moon’s surface. NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration has U.S. astronauts scheduled to be back on the moon in 2020 and permanently staffing a base there by 2024. While the U.S. space agency has neither announced nor denied any desire to mine helium-3, it has nevertheless placed advocates of mining He3 in influential positions. For its part, Russia claims that the aim of any lunar program of its own–for what it’s worth, the rocket corporation Energia recently started blustering, Soviet-style, that it will build a permanent moon base by 2015-2020–will be extracting He3.

The Chinese, too, apparently believe that helium-3 from the moon can enable fusion plants on Earth. This fall, the People’s Republic expects to orbit a satellite around the moon and then land an unmanned vehicle there in 2011.

Nor does India intend to be left out. (See “India’s Space Ambitions Soar.”) This past spring, its president, A.P.J. Kalam, and its prime minister, Manmohan Singh, made major speeches asserting that, besides constructing giant solar collectors in orbit and on the moon, the world’s largest democracy likewise intends to mine He3 from the lunar surface. India’s probe, Chandrayaan-1, will take off next year, and ISRO, the Indian Space Research Organization, is talking about sending Chandrayaan-2, a surface rover, in 2010 or 2011. Simultaneously, Japan and Germany are also making noises about launching their own moon missions at around that time, and talking up the possibility of mining He3 and bringing it back to fuel fusion-based nuclear reactors on Earth.

[...]

Mind you, there's a lot of profit out there. I just pray to the spaghetti monster that we don't start claiming planets like Mars as our own.

Russia, China, and India will all have a grand mal seizure.

According to whom? — creativesoul

https://www.space.com/trump-moon-mining-space-resources-executive-order.html
https://www.foxnews.com/science/trump-signs-order-to-support-moon-mining-pulling-resources-from-asteroids

:chin:

What reason do you have to believe that we are? — creativesoul

Uhh, Trump just made an executive order for Dick Force to plunder asteroids and the moon.

We should stop doing this shit:

https://futurism.com/the-byte/trump-executive-order-moon-asteroid-mining

I was taken care of by the Communist Party of China today. It was a good day:

I don't know; but, if I was a journalist it would sure be a firecracker.

America wen't nuts. But, wait, the Chinese virus insanity, the shithole countries downright racism will continue for 4 more years, and the DNC allowed it to happen because they think a demented man can handle the country better than a paranoid guy.

The patriotism is oozing out of me.

Oh my fucking God!

Coincidentally, I had a debate with a student on this topic today. Unfortunately, I needed to argue for private prisons, which was difficult. — Baden

Who won?

Like I said, I'm not the biggest fan of the US.

And, yes... we even have private prisons! A shitstain that will always remain on our national identity in a hundred years from now.

All those southern states wen't loony. (Never going there)

Private prisons in the United States incarcerated 121,718 people in 2017, representing 8.2% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 39%. — www.sentencingproject.org

We definitely need some oversight over this kind of shit.

A high quality of living? All that working and running around buying stuff so you can live in fear of a medical emergency bankrupting you. Not for me. — Baden

So, you get a comprehensive health insurance. What else you going to do?

I'm not the biggest fan of the US; but, where else can I move to or would it make sense to move to Europe just for health insurance?

As I understand it, the two biggest differentiating things between Europe or Canada and the United States are essentially two things:

1. Healthcare
2. Education

If the US supplied both of those without strings attached, most of the nay-sayers wouldn't have much to criticize the US about anymore, perhaps apart from starting wars.

Yeah, I'm surprised too man. At least I get my Cybertruck, when I can afford it:




Just kidding, I want a Tesla Model Y.

Beyond criticism? — Banno

Don't think so. I suppose it's a greater danger hereabouts is to deviate from a document that has provided a high standard of living, and ensures that through its defense and upholding. The rest is politics, no?

What's the alternative?