SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the better-than-growing-up-to-be-a-sink dept.
Scientists at Kings College London performed a longitudinal study to test the 'Pareto principle' and found that adults who were greater users of public services were most likely to have had a low score on the intelligence and impulsivity test administered at age three.
"About 20 per cent of population is using the lion's share of a wide array of public services," said Prof Terrie Moffitt, of King's College and Duke University in North Carolina. "The same people use most of the NHS, the criminal courts, insurance claims, for disabling injury, pharmaceutical prescriptions and special welfare benefits.
"If we stopped there it might be fair to think these are lazy bums who are freeloading off the taxpayer and exploiting the public purse.
"But we also went further back into their childhood and found that 20 per cent begin their lives with mild problems with brain function and brain health when they were very small children.
"Looking at health examinations really changed the whole picture. It gives you a feeling of compassion for these people as opposed to a feeling of blame.
"Being able to predict which children will struggle is an opportunity to intervene in their lives very early to attempt to change their trajectories, for everyone's benefit and could bring big returns on investment for government."
Full Paper: Childhood forecasting of a small segment of the population with large economic burden DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0005
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Thursday December 15 2016, @09:59PM
Perhaps so, but if I accept your premise I'll have to conclude that the entire field of economics is filled with third rate hacks. They entirely fail to recognize the value of leisure and the importance of producing as much of it as possible. By the time they get to the level of setting social and economic policy, they can't even realistically aspire to third rate. They seem to be unable to even consider the value of families needing only one income or even the value of families.
BTW, there is nothing humane about capitalism. It does it's best to completely ignore the humanity of it's actions. It cares not if you produce because you enjoy it or because you live in abject terror that you and your family will starve, so long as you produce. It cares not if the benefits of your production go mostly to you or to a robber baron who has bent you over a barrel, so long as you produce.
Once you can no longer produce, it loses all interest in you unless you somehow inspire others to produce more for your benefit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:50PM
That's the very nature of this Universe. Accept it.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday December 16 2016, @05:10AM
I'd really LOVE to see you attempt to prove Capitalism from first principles!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @08:40AM
There you go:
https://mises.org/library/human-action-0 [mises.org]
It's better than anything the third rate hacks who call themselves economists.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 18 2016, @06:15AM
You call that first principles? If it is indeed because of the nature of the universe, a derivation from first principles would need to take into account the speed of light in a vacuum and all of the other constants. It should be derivable from quantum theory or Relativity.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday December 16 2016, @03:53AM
They entirely fail to recognize the value of leisure
Thou art an ignorant fool. Marx and Mises accept that leisure has an economic value. Mises simply says everything is a decision between two choices, you value the leisure activity more than the reward you could have received from working that time so you hit the beach; or the rent is coming due and you really need the cash this month so you volunteer for some OT and the beach has to wait because you value the warm/dry abode more than the day on the beach. Marx isn't quite so clear of course but doesn't dispute the value of leisure activity and that it does enter into economic calculation.
So since both ends of the spectrum of economic thought disagree entirely with your notion, you may now double down. It is the usual tactic for your ilk.
BTW, there is nothing humane about capitalism
More ignorance trying to bluff its way to being accepted as superior moral sentiment. Try actually reading some Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc. sometime. I'll give you a hint. Mises' magnum opus is named Human Action for a reason. It isn't really about capitalism or economics, it is about how humans act, interact and make decisions
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday December 16 2016, @05:05AM
So you'r citing Marx as a capitalist? I find that a HUUUUUUGE stretch. And yes, since the context was capitalism, I do think it's reasonable to think I am talking about capitalists. I've noticed that Marx (or rather, his writing since he's dead) isn't frequently consulted when the U.S. considers economic policy.
As for Mises, yes, he acknowledges that individuals may choose leisure over labor, but doesn't recognize the value to society in that decision or in making sure the decision is available. Then note how U.S. economic and social policy is designed around making sure there is always a labor surplus such that economic forces cannot dictate offering more leisure and better pay..
I find it odd that you do not know the difference between human and humane. Look it up.
As for Friedman, I guess you agree with him that we should implement something resembling the universal basic income?
The tone of your reply suggests that I've struck a nerve.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday December 16 2016, @06:04AM
So you'r citing Marx as a capitalist?
Of course not. Reading is fundamental. I said, "both ends of the spectrum of economic thought disagree entirely" as in Capitalism on one end and Marx on the other. It should also be noted that while Marx is not a Capitalist he did write his major work analyzing the topic; largely incompetently of course. The spectrum between Marx and Mises covers pretty much all economic thoughts impacting policy discussion in $current_year. And I was hammering home the fact they all disagree with you. Every serious economist of the last few hundred years and me in one group and there is you, hopelessly outgrouped into a lonely wasteland. Sad! :)
Mises ... doesn't recognize the value to society...
Because he rejects the whole notion of 'value to society' in favor of seeing individuals making an endless series of A-B decisions. If two choices have differing value to the individual who made it, that is sufficient for his purposes. If you picked some activity that isn't working for money it is assumed you believe that you benefited from it, that you assigned it a higher value than the economic gain you could have acquired by working, higher than the good or service you could have traded that labor for. To take up the question whether you are "wrong" (what Marxists typically call "false consciousness") would typically require a privileged "God's eye view" and "God" to make the judgment... or the passage of time and your own reconsideration of your choice. You need to return to Marx's economic theories if you want social value considered, or at least Keynes. Humans do things to satisfy their wants, that is the purpose of human existence. Economic activity alone is meaningless, it can only be considered as a means to the end of satisfying human wants. As it is for most living things, the prime human drive is mating and reproduction for example. Nobody ever (we can hope not at least) made a profit by marrying and having children, we engage in economic activity to permit that non-economic activity to occur and other human desires.
As for Friedman
He was a smart guy, but obviously fallible. And he was not a Austrian economist, he was trying to create a middle ground between Marx and Mises that can't in fact exist and bought into basically the same fallacious argument about most labor becoming unsalable that I take on elsewhere in this discussion.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday December 16 2016, @08:46AM
Marx is not a Capitalist he did write his major work analyzing the topic; largely incompetently of course.
Am I to understand that you cited an economist that you consider incompetent to refute my claim that the field is packed with third rate hacks? Curious!
You appear to be suggesting that Marx, the incompetent economist agrees with you. Time for a re-think perhaps?
Friedman was a smart guy who agreed with me but nobody agrees with me? Did he fall through the crack in the universe while you were typing? Is he Schrodinger's cat in disguise?
Now, looking at Hayek, he said
There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law.[104]
Sounds like he was not exactly in disagreement with me after all. (BTW, he also supported universal healthcare)
We seem to be running out of Scotsmen. Speaking of which, don't bother to bring Smith up unless you're ready to dissolve a hell of a lot of unwisely granted corporate charters.
Of course, the list of economists you rattled off are all dead. Unless seances work a hell of a lot better than I think, none of them are actually in the field anymore.
Perhaps it's time for you to get some sleep.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday December 16 2016, @04:33PM
We seem to be running out of Scotsmen.
No, you are still unable to read. That text you quote doesn't clearly support "basic income". He is speaking of those suffering "extreme misfortune". And he correctly notes the much less prone to abuse method of dealing with the problem with "or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community" where government doesn't establish a Right to other people's stuff but instead relys upon The People being of the Religious and Moral sort envisioned by the American Founders who are capable of dealing with the problem of "extreme misfortune" in the private sector. He understands why it can't scale to everyone simply being paid for existing. He knows his Kipling [kiplingsociety.co.uk].
And he is right that social insurance is a public good. Knowing that failure won't cause starvation and death does inspire more people to take risks, for example. Knowing an unfortunate accident won't leave you a beggar is a good thing. Knowing an upheaval in the markets that causes mass layoffs won't leave you and your children homeless bums is a good thing. What you can't do is simply pay people to not work, as we do now. The issue is having the government do these tasks quickly leads to a sense of entitlement vs accepting charity in hard times.
The root problem with you rabbits is you see excess resources as freely available, thus any restriction is greedy people who are trying to deny you what should rightly be yours. But the world doesn't work that way. Freely hand out the resources generated by the productive and soon the entire world comes flooding in wanting in on the scam. This continues until the stupid nation that adopts this policy either become too poor to continue or imports enough people to no longer be the nation of fools who started the project. America and Europe seems intent on attempting to bring on both failure modes at the same time. Disaster!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday December 17 2016, @02:57PM
I see that like most fundamentalists, you read your holy texts VERY selectively.