Was there a thin line between science and magic historically?
Pic related, this fucker singlehandedly invented calculus and yet considered his "research" in alchemy/prophecy/supernatural math to be his most important work
>>46173686
Prior to the industrial era? Yes. There was also a thin line between science and religion
>>46173713
Same fagging myself because I just remembered, in fact pseudo-science and magic science lasted well into the 19th century, especially due to the occultist movement. Harry Houdini was a famous skeptic who went around exposing sham pyschics and mediums and shit as a personal quest.
>>46173713
>There was also a thin line between science and religion
I found the correspondence between Galileo and his daughter made a fascinating read on that matter.
Or the problems of Leibnitz trying to reconcile his research and his faith.
>>46173770
It's still hilarious to me that even through all his research on evolution, Darwin was actually an incredibly devout Christian and saw himself as simply illuminating Gods methods. The thing that made him finally doubt god?
Parasitic Wasps
>>46173765
I always thought it was weird that belief in straight up magic/occultism became popular whenever there was a sudden surge of scientific progress/thought
Ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the late Industrial era, etc.
>>46173808
>Parasitic Wasps
Why?
>>46173949
Because it made him question why a benevolent God would ever make a creature so cruel
>>46173994
Ironically because the God is Darwinist.
Survival of the Fittest.
>>46174014
It always amuses me how popular culture misappropriated "survival of the fittest" as some form of pseudo-scientific justification of individual "might makes right", which totally misses the point.
>>46173949
He couldn't reconcile a just and merciful God with something as horrific as the parasitoid wasps reproduction cycle
>>46173887
We see it today too. There's more pseudo science out there than ever before. And the scary part is I'm having trouble telling which is which sometimes
.
>>46173686
If magic would exist, then the study of it would be just another science. So yes. Also, someone mentioned religion. It used to be that religion didn't mean "invisible friend", it used to be how people actually thought stuff was and how the world worked. Which is just what science is the study of.
>>46173686
>singlehandedly invented calculus
Who is Leibniz?
>>46174201
Because cooperation is collectivism and communism, obviously. Only individual matters.
>>46174201
It does not miss the point at all you silly psuedo-intellectual, "might makes right." What counts as might is however contextual.
>>46173765
I mean, that shit has never really gone away. Plenty of people sincerely believe in ghosts. Astrology and homeopathic medicine are big business. There are still devoted skeptics who go around trying to expose them but it doesn't stop people wanting to believe in supernatural phenomena.
>>46174201
Communist detected. Go back to Russia/Cuba/China!
>>46173686
>>46173686
The scientific discipline basically evolved out of "well shit, this magic spell didn't work, why not?"
>>46174014
The fittest, is NOT the strongest. Do it, and you end up in an evolutionary DEAD END.
>>46174201
That's actually the correct and original sense of the phrase. It was coined by the classical liberal philosopher Herbert Spencer in order to draw a comparison between his own ideals of competition in human economic activity and Darwin's trendy theory of natural selection. The implication he was going for is that laissez-faire capitalism is the natural order of the things.
Though I mean yeah it's not something Darwin ever said or condoned himself and it's almost as heinous a misappropriation of biology as going around talking about human alpha and beta males.
>>46173949
See these Anons:
>>46174241
>>46173994
Darwins and many other naturalists had their faith violently shaken and many of them outright just stopped believing in god the more and more they learned about the natural world.
Simply because the more they learned about nature the more they understood how truly, absolutely, offensively horrific, cruel and unsympathetic it was to any sort of compassion, kindness or love and many naturalists either LOST any respect in the idea of a god or realized there was none and the natural world arose of it's own making.
This pattern continued well into the late 19th century as another famous instance was a South Pole naturalist who studied PENGUINS of all things. He was so disgusted by the creatures behavior: homosexuality, thievery, cannibalism, necrophilia, pedophilia, rape, etc.. That he refused to publish his journal on penguins.
The big deal was that people for a long period of time didn't really know anything about nature- it was all a mystery to them and they filled in the gaps with fables and assumed the "best" in God's plan.
Bed Bugs.
Male Bed Bugs have functioning penises and Female Bed Bugs have functioning Vaginas, but Male Bed Bugs find it easier instead to use their penis as a SPEAR to impale females in their abdomen in hopes the sperm reaches the womb through the wound.
Neither Bed Bug receives pleasure from this act and the female often dies of infection, but yet the males do it.
During the medieval times, philosophers, inventors and alchemists saw knowledge as a way to become closer to God. It was also paid and approved by the Church.
Take the philosophical stone. It was not merely a way to turn lead into gold. The purpose of it was to restore Mankind to its pre-fall era before the First Sin.
>>46173686
Modern chemistry basically descended from alchemists' experiments (a lot of trial and error and "huh, this doesn't make sense, but it's neat").
There's pre-scientific falsifiability and post-scientific falsifiablity, so basically after Karl Popper NOPE.
>>46175411
Not even that, in the case of chemistry. You basically can't draw the line between early chemistry and alchemy.
>>46175368
It's a different statement. If you have to modify it for clarity, it's worse.
And might has nothing to do with how some species males run in to have sex with females while the stronger males duke it out over mating rights.
>>46173686
What today we call science was in pre-modern times referred to as 'natural magic'.
Attempting to compel supernatural agencies to do your bidding and puttering about trying to reduce herbs and minerals to their essential virtues in your alembic were essentially different approaches to the same end.
>>46173686
Before the secular age, science was religion, and vice versa. Newton was an alchemist, a hermeticist, and a believer in the Monad. A wizard, in other words.
>>46175452
>Male Bed Bugs find it easier instead to use their penis as a SPEAR to impale females in their abdomen
Rule 34.
>>46173686
Newton may have been severely damaged by mercury fumes at that point though.
But yes scientists have dabbled in alchemy and the like. Most rich people at the time also did so. Just one branch ended up a fruitful pursuit.
>>46175452
God does exist, and he just can't stop the ride.
Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition.
Good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because naturally in man the discretion of reason predominates.
All material made up of two principles, male and female - male stronger, female imperfect.
Hence man is a little world, because he is an extract from all the stars, planets, earth & elements. The cosmos is the greatest world, the world of man the next greatest, and that of woman the smallest & least. Male seed contains the nature, quality, character & essence of beings, & may be looked upon as an invisible or hidden man.
Woman, being nearer to Nature [seen as lower quality] furnishes the soil in which the seed of man finds the conditions required for its development. Man, although born of woman, is never derived from woman, but always from man.
Recipe: If the sperm, enclosed in a hermetically sealed glass, is buried in manure for 40 days & properly "magnetized", it may begin to live & move. If artificially fed with the "arcanus sanguinis hominis" [secret human blood-principle] & allowed to remain in the manure in a continually equal temperature, it will grow into a human child, such as born by a woman.
>>46173686
Magic in the western context is best understood as negotiating. You negotiate with the elements, with spirits, with God, with saints, etc to get what you want.
Science was seen as negotiating with the elements and the world around you. Essentially you did X, Y and Z and you got a reaction or a result. Applying acids to ores was the same as putting shit in your lover's boots and walking backwards through the village to make him in love with you.
>>46175508
God created many wonders. And a couple of horrors.
>>46175452
Whats the name of that species of wasp that mind controls cockroaches so that it can lay its eggs in them so that when the baby wasplings hatch they get a living meal?
Why should God care about failed creations? You give him too many human characteristics and morality.
>>46175368
Yes it does. In the context of Darwinian evolution, the "fittest" organism is just the one that's best adapted to breed in a given environment. It has nothing to do with moral righteousness; the only thing that matters is whether the organism lives long enough to reproduce. Parasites like tapeworms are "fit", because they are the best at surviving and reproducing in environments with lots of healthy hosts.
If Social Darwinists were actually consistent with biological Darwinism, they would laud so-called "welfare sponges" for finding a successful survival strategy within the context of modern society. Remember: in Darwinism parasites are as "fit" as primary producers. It doesn't matter if the parasite destroys its host - lots of biological parasites do the same thing. All that matters is reproduction.
>>46175533
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp
ah found it. Read the reproductive behavior section.
Stop conflating science with scientific knowledge. They're not the same thing.
Science is the specific methodology of critical thinking, experimentation and consensus that we've found works best for uncovering effective knowledge of the world around us. Knowledge is not scientific because it involves radiation instead of ghosts. Knowledge is scientific because it was reached via the scientific method.
If there was a repeatable experiment that provided consistent evidence of the existence of ghosts, then the existence of ghosts would become scientific knowledge. But since all attempts at such experiments have returned negative results (or else used flawed methodology), scientists have long since dismissed the possible existence of ghosts.
>>46175452
You could technically make an argument that God didn't make nature as fucked-up as it is today, it just became that way after sin entered the world and then everything wasn't human started going whack. I don't think it says anywhere in the bible that sin is a purely human thing, just that humans started it (or at least started it on earth. Lucifer kinda beat them to the punch for being the first sinner).
If you see evolution as God's method, I don't think that would be such a far leap.
>>46173686
> this fucker singlehandedly invented calculus
He did not. He did however supress any information stating otherwise on the british islands (read a bit about him, he was one of the biggest dicks in history). His fomulas were actually worse than those from the continent, leading to a widening scientific cap between continent and islands. The latter were years behind.
>>46175500
>Before the secular age, science was religion,
Correct, and your prize-An inquisition
>>46174014
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
>>46173686
>Alchemy
You realize that prior to Lavoisier, alchemy and chemistry were the same thing, right? Medieval scholars ACTUALLY succeeded in turning lead into gold through some chemical process that wasn't fully understood until later times.
>Supernatural stuff
Yeah, fucking everyone did that. Look at Pascal, or Descartes (the latter being more famous for his philosophy than his math despite being very influential in the latter). In fact, as late as Einstein it was very common for scientists to also write philosophical stuff. Materialistic atheism only very recently became the default position for scientists, and even then there's still the (sadly unpopular) branch of philosphy of science. Newton wasn't the madman we recently like to depict him as.
>>46173808
>Parasitic Wasps
I don't blame him. Honey bees are bro tier, they just make honey and pollenate flowers and don't mess with you as long as you don't mess with them. Wasps exist solely to fuck you up.
![TvyamNb-BivtNwpvn7Sct0VFDulyAfA9wBcU0gVHVnqC5ghmf8VEVNiDGMBdUzqji4_cDEJzvLlmOEjvVhI[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/z9QELgr.jpg "TvyamNb-BivtNwpvn7Sct0VFDulyAfA9wBcU0gVHVnqC5ghmf8VEVNiDGMBdUzqji4_cDEJzvLlmOEjvVhI[1].jpg")
>>46175452
>This pattern continued well into the late 19th century as another famous instance was a South Pole naturalist who studied PENGUINS of all things. He was so disgusted by the creatures behavior: homosexuality, thievery, cannibalism, necrophilia, pedophilia, rape, etc.. That he refused to publish his journal on penguins.
You know when his report was finally published? 2012!
I know what guy you're talking about. His research on Adèlie penguins (pic related). And there's another fact about them: to get laid, penguin men often engage in the exchange of pebles. You know that cutesy Don Bluth movie "the penguin and the pebble"? Based on Penguin prostitution. But here's the kicker: sometimes the men spend some time collectiong loads of stones... but never get sex in return.Just like with humans
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/ad-lie-penguins-are-sexually-depraved-little-pervertshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8ZHbuCUP3M
That doesn't stop penguins from being my favorite animals though.They're not that different from us.
>>46175892
Oh, citation needed? I do remember hearing something about how he stole some formulas from Leibniz and blocked him from patenting them as his own.
>>46176104
You mean gold plating?
>>46176186
Yeah, if you want to make it sound less spectacular. But that was pretty much the height of alchemy before Lavoisier made it chemistry.
>>46176226
Dunno, they did interesting things with elements before, destilling phospherous from piss, but you are right insofar as it being one of the few cases where the discoveries were any use, usually they'd end up in a book along with other "useless" knowledge.
>>46175531
brutal.
Basically, people who see magic as being 'unpredictable' and 'unknowable' don't know shit. Ancient people scienced the shit out of magic, as best they could. Rituals are called rituals for a reason - they're precise steps.
In fact, in most fantasy series I read, magic is a known quantity too. Harry Potter is the most widely read book series ever and magic is generally strict and formulaic.
I don't know how the 'magic is mysterious' meme keeps spreading.
>>46176293
>usually they'd end up in a book along with other "useless" knowledge.
As is always the case with young sciences. Freud was very recent, but even though we call him the father of modern psychology a lot of his theses were debunked (hell, Westermarck outFreuded Freud when it came to mommy issues!). And who knows how much we hold for absolute truth today that will be debunked in a matter of years, decades or centuries? The widely spread belief of the quantum vacuum being an actual vacuum has already been debunked, for starters.
>>46176384
>I don't know how the 'magic is mysterious' meme keeps spreading.
Because of people who want magic to exist in real life, so they pretend it stays hidden behind the mystery curtains whenever science points out that it's nowhere to be seen.
>>46173686
Dude didn't invent calculus.
He invented it TWICE because he forgot how to do it and had to reinvent it
>>46176517
No, I mean it pops up in RPG discussions too. "magic doesn't feel magical in this RPG!"
magic has NEVER felt like whatever the fuck that kind of person was looking for.
>>46173686
There wasn't any line. Theology is a science. Crowley was perhaps the last great mystic, and his work frankly makes more sense than a lot of modern physics.
The issues is narrative. What we believe is not what is true, but what fits the narrative that the powers that be have delivered for us. Notice that people still take Marx seriously when he was objectively, provably wrong about 90% of his predictions. It isn't about truth, it's about continuing a narrative.
>>46176517
>they pretend it stays hidden behind the mystery curtains whenever science points out that it's nowhere to be seen.
That describes stuff like auras, crystals, tarot, and other new age bullshit, it's impossible to prove it does or doesn't work.
>>46175452
How any person could survive childhood and expect God to be Mr. Rogers instead of Dennis Leary is unimaginable to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_KDAicF0Yo
>>46175390
>devoted skeptics
Keeping the fedora market afloat as they go.
>>46175452
Bed bugs are engineered as a punishment for mankind. They are little bundles of evil that follow us everywhere to reminds us that there is sin, and it will forever plague us.
>>46173808
The death of his daughter had a significant influence as well, I believe, but that might have been the final straw, rather.
>>46176658
>Notice that people still take Marx seriously when he was objectively, provably wrong about 90% of his predictions.
People weren't really interested in Marx for his predictions.
>>46176384
Because the idea of magic outside of the western catholic world exists too, and in certain mythologies (read: everything involving germans and nordics) magic IS a mysterious, unpredictable, scary force.
>>46176583
If he invented calculus, then who did the credit/debit system?
>>46175485
Boyle was the first to push for a separation and distinction between chemistry as a science and alchemy as pseudoscience/hogwash, if I'm not mistaken. And he was a contemporary of Newton.
>>46176811Jews
>>46175485
Funnily enough, 'al' means the in Arabic which the woird comes from. The Arabic 'al-kimiya' comes from the Greek 'chemia' which means black magic.
>>46176749
Literally 90% of Marx is him predicting the move towards Communism (classless stateless society) as a result of technological and social innovation.
The actual results have been literally the opposite. Every major power has tried Socialism and said "wow, this fucking sucks dick," and then become Capitalist.
Marx was literally wrong. He had it backwards. The revolution is happening, but it isn't communist, it's capitalist.
>>46177019
I thought every major power tried socialism and capitalism, decided that each had their merit, and formed a society of mixed socialism and capitalist ideals?
I mean, fuck, you're hard pressed to find a first world place that doesn't have government run roads. Or water.or hospitals
>>46177092
Almost.
Except forMurica.
Then again, you did say major power.
>>46177092
>a society of mixed socialism and capitalist ideals?
Do... do you think that's the world we live in now? Social-democratic welfare benefits were the carrot that capitalist societies used to entice the proles away from threatening to go all soviet. Now that socialism has been thoroughly and comprehensively defeated we're entering a bold new era of hyper-capitalism.
>>46177092
That's not socialism though, states did that before socialism was even an idea and even small gubmints types want roads to be maintained by governments.
What we do however see is pre-Marxian proto-socialism arise and change societies. Napoleon III, for example, identified as socialist and a great part in his popularity came from his pamphlet "on the elimination of pauperism", which was a semi-utopian project to end poverty in France. He did not end it but he did greatly reduce it (ironically while at the same time opening up the market).
The mistake is assuming that there was no socialism before Marx, and Marx is the end-all-be-all of socialism. If anything, he was the Nostradamus of socialism.
>>46177165
Oh, on the subject of Napoleon III, Marx was highly critical of him. Despite the former calling himself a socialist, the latter described his regime as the first bourgeois regime in Europe.
>>46177147
you significantly overestimate the competence and permanence of these organizations.
Especially since they are incentivized to capitalize on short term gains to compete with other short term gains capitalizers.
>>46176861
Naw.
Venetians, but they were pretty much the same.
>>46175452
>imperfect world created by a perfect being
top demiurge
>>46177201Merchants of Venice
>>46177181
If everyone is bourgeois doesn't that accomplish the same?
Let foreigners be the lower class, then everyone in country is middle class
![1281340707142708[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Z5MrPGz.jpg "1281340707142708[1].jpg")
>>46177201
>>46177220
Mama mia, muh florins! It's like anudda Napoleonic invasion!
>>46177221
>If everyone is bourgeois doesn't that accomplish the same?
I think his complaint that, after the final expulsion of the Bourbons and final abolition of the nobility, the power was concentrated with the bourgeois rather than the proletariate. I don't get his problem though, Napoleon III reintroduced universal suffrage.
I'd say he's one of history's most underrated rulers and an example of socialism done right. Before Marx even.
>>46176043
To be fair, the various inquisitional offices were a lot tamer than most people imagine.
>nature is cruel
>ergo god cannot be real
I don't even believe in God, but isn't post-Eden Earth supposed to be a volatile proving ground full of terrible things according to the Bible? Why wouldn't nature be cruel in such a world?
>>46177294
it's not that it's cruel, it's that it's fucked up.
Nature is the magical realm we joke about.
The piss trees are real.
>>46175561
>If Social Darwinists were actually consistent with biological Darwinism, they would laud so-called "welfare sponges"
They do. It's just that they won't praise them until they suck up a few millions individually.
>>46173686
>Was there a thin line between science and magic historically?
That's a pretty broad question, isn't it? What's true for Newton might not be true for a different time and culture.
The relationship between science, magic and religion is a long-running debate in anthropology, made especially difficult by the fact nobody can define those words with any precision. I think the general consensus is that the categories all blur together. That doesn't mean magic always resembled modern science as you understand it, it might mean that "science" often resembled magic, and they both resembled religion.
>>46176155
>sometimes the men spend some time collecting loads of stones... but never get sex in return. Just like with humans
Someone needs to make a sadfrog of a penguin male
>>46177019
>Literally 90% of Marx is him predicting the move towards Communism (classless stateless society) as a result of technological and social innovation.
Actually, most of his work was on the benefits and structure of communism. Only the Manifesto really pushed the idea that communism was an inevitability (something that makes sense to a wide-eyed communist dreamer that has literally never seen any implementation of communism or socialism in his lifetime).
>The actual results have been literally the opposite. Every major power has tried Socialism and said "wow, this fucking sucks dick," and then become Capitalist.
Incorrect as hell. Turns out that modern societies love socialism. Countless European countries have taken to it, as well as Japan. Turns out that when you broaden a socialist program as much as possible, it actually does a lot to help out the common people (kind of like how when laws get out of capitalism's way, things go well). Socialist programs generally tend to fail, or be a half-measure, when they are highly selective (our college welfare program sucks balls in comparison to Denmark's, who allows for pretty much anyone to sign up for it).
>>46177543
>Turns out that modern politicians love socialism
Fixed.
>>46176384
Anything like rituals and something that can be quantified and reliably reproduced simply isn't magic, it's a previously unknown force of the universe that happens to have been named magic by the people who discovered and use it.
It's pretty simple you moron. If it is something that can be measured, it no longer falls under the domain of the supernatural, because it's clearly a natural force.
>>46177560
>Thinks Norwegians hate socialism.
They only hate Muslims, yo.
>>46177604
The reason they don't hate it is because it's kept itself afloat by selling oil to the world. All Socialism does is corrode the wealth generated by Capitalism. It's a cycle of bouncing between them. Capitalism grows so decadence flourishes, then Socialism grows so decadence declines.
>>46176384
The rituals that were practiced in the old times always had unpredictable results because there was no rhyme or reason to the rituals. Like raindances, these rituals had no actual effect on anything, people just thought they did. That's why they were considered magic.
>>46176811
>>46176861
>>46177201
Wikipedia points to this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Pacioli
>>46177656
Yes, in Venice.
>>46177631
>All Socialism does is corrode the wealth generated by Capitalism.
Food stamp programs are profitable by the state in virtually every single system they've been implemented in. That in itself proves you wrong. Subsidy programs have also proven successful. Social security (pre-cap), universal healthcare... even Denmark's whacky heroin program has proven to be profitable.
Why do people keep claiming this BS?
>>46177560
>Turns out that modern politicians love socialism
Tocqueville predicted this 200 years ago. The American Republic will stand until Congress realizes it can bribe the people with their own money.
>>46177604
One fuels the other, friend. There's a reason labor-like parties across Europe are disproportionately popular among the Muslim population and generally do very little to stem the tide of mass migration. While I do believe in a certain degree of social security for all (I for example see no problem in public schooling, public health care and ensuring nobody is homeless), essentially socialism punishes the productive while rewarding the unproductive. To Muslims this sounds fucking great because it is essentially state-enforced Jizya in their eyes.
>>46177733
Because people don't realize how inherently efficient and beneficial having priorities other than profit can be. FOR profit.
>>46175490
Redpill me on unnatural magic
>>46177816
>While I do believe in a certain degree of social security for all (I for example see no problem in public schooling, public health care and ensuring nobody is homeless), essentially socialism punishes the productive while rewarding the unproductive.
By that logic, charity punishes the kind and rewards the unfortunate.
But that's stupid fucking logic.
The problem with this mindset is that it assumes, falsely, that all social programs have to be built for the poor and unproductive. The truth is that if a country went in whole hog, it would be quite easy to make socialist programs that help people at every rung of society.
Universal income, for example, not only helps the unproductive, but also the poor and ambitious; the hard-working, but unfunded; and the charitous, but poor. That it helps a few shitty assholes is pittance in comparison to the good it could do... but austere assholes like to try and keep welfare programs small, so they focus them on the poorest (and thus create incentive to cheat).
Instead of thinking of it as "paying unproductive people", I wish more conservatives like me saw it as a "keep the idiots off to the side" tax instead. Because I'd love for them to just stay home and jack off like morons, instead of roaming the streets committing crime. It would actually have a cost benefit to the businesses in my area.
Science as we know it is seeking understanding through observation. Observe, look for common denominator, see what else have this denominator, predict what would come out of it judging by this denominator, see if you are right. It truly shaped up relatively recently, but everyone uses rudimentary scientific method trying to figure out what would happen if this and that.
Magic and mysticism, conversely, is complete bullshit composed of nothing but fallacy, delusions, wishful thinking and outright lies. If magic was real, it would be just another force of nature to be subjected to science.
>>46178019
>charity punishes the kind
No you double nigger, because charity is done out of volition rather than redirecting the efforts of the state to force the hand of others. Charity relies on neither force nor state intervention, which is why I prefer charity and church-funded actions over state intervention.
>The problem with this mindset is that it assumes, falsely, that all social programs have to be built for the poor and unproductive.
Which is why I mentioned three social programs I unconditionally support, right?
>Universal income, for example, not only helps the unproductive, but also the poor and ambitious
And how does it help them more than, say, universal education or scholarships for the better quality private universities?
>Because I'd love for them to just stay home and jack off like morons, instead of roaming the streets committing crime.
Citation needed on it significantly reducing crime with enough justified reduction of police funds to result in a net profit. Last time I checked, the grand majority of petty crime in the West wasn't committed by people who are starving. We have eliminated starvation decades ago. This is merely the utopian, naïve idea of ending a problem by simply throwing money at it.
>>46178019
>all social programs have to be built for the poor and unproductive
Not him, but this is indeed a silly myth. Even a productive person can be stricken down by accidents and bad fortune against which he failed to insure himself, and individual insurance is always limited. What is limited liability if not social security and charity towards failed entrepreneurs so that they may make another, hopefully more successful, attempt at fortune?
Not sure about universal income. It could easily spiral into hyperinflation if constructed poorly, and its effect certainly would depend on how the society would approach it on cultural level.
>>46178100
>No you double nigger, because charity is done out of volition rather than redirecting the efforts of the state to force the hand of others
The state always forces your hand, you megafaggot. That I'm not allowed to murder people inherently limits the amount of freedom I have, but it's a loss of freedom that benefits more than it harms.
>Charity relies on neither force nor state intervention, which is why I prefer charity and church-funded actions over state intervention.
It relies on social manipulation and brainwashing. I don't consider that an improvement over legal mandate, by any measure.
>And how does it help them more than, say, universal education or scholarships for the better quality private universities?
Universal income has all the same benefits of universal education (as in a system with paid education, that too becomes an option), as well as more (money can be used for a lot).
>Citation needed on it significantly reducing crime with enough justified reduction of police funds to result in a net profit.
Look up Denmark's heroin program. They give free drugs to people. Saved the populace in taxes, because it turns out that giving people heroin is WAY cheaper than paying a police force to hunt them down after robbing people, and paying theft insurance, and the medical costs, and all the other shit associated with the crime. And robberies have gone down significantly there.
>>46178194
>Not sure about universal income. It could easily spiral into hyperinflation if constructed poorly, and its effect certainly would depend on how the society would approach it on cultural level.
Unless we print money, which is hyperinflation, by design it could only benefit the bottom, because if everyone is taxed for it, you need to have very low income for handouts to outstrip your taxation.
![Santa+Maria+degli+Angeli+meridiano%252C+Roma[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/L1jliC0.jpg "Santa+Maria+degli+Angeli+meridiano%252C+Roma[1].jpg")
>>46173713
Behold! The thin line between science, religion and magic!
"Shouldn't that be a triangle?" you may ask. Well fuck you, it's a line.
>>46178246
>Unless we print money, which is hyperinflation, by design it could only benefit the bottom, because if everyone is taxed for it, you need to have very low income for handouts to outstrip your taxation.
The fear is that
1. availability of unconditional income will mean part of labour will be withdrawn from the market, making this economic input more expensive and driving prices up.
2. in contrast it's safe to assume that unconditional income would be entirely spent on consumption since it would be unlikely to be high enough to allow saving, even if low earners would feel inclined to do so. Increased or unlowered demand would also promote increase in prices
3. both of the above would lead to universal income shrinking in real terms, putting political pressure to increase it in a discretionary matter or (worse) index it for inflation
Universal income is a beautiful thing in theory, for an economy with enough capital to sustain it and backbone to use it without it becoming unsustainable under its avarice.
>>46178246
>Unless we print money, which is hyperinflation, by design it could only benefit the bottom
Incorrect on every measure.
1. We already print money all the time. It doesn't inherently cause hyperinflation
2. It benefits the bottom and middle class... essentially anyone that could benefit from the value of a basic wage. Only the top-tier wouldn't benefit from that influx (because that amount of money is less than pittance to them).
>>46176384
Because charlatans in real life need to protect their bullshit from scrutiny.
>>46178423
>It doesn't inherently cause hyperinflation
That's because freshly printed money doesn't end up with people who would spend it (on anything else than more money).
I guess we will see if mr Draghi is bad enough dude to do helicopter money as he mentioned he might.
>>46177983
Back in the days? Banking, money-lending and homosexual conduct.
>>46178478
>That's because freshly printed money doesn't end up with people who would spend it (on anything else than more money).
Even if it did, it would eventually end up in the hands of someone spending it on more money anyways.
That's the part Reaganomics didn't take into account. Rich people will get all the money in the end. Giving it to poor people to start means that they get to make use of it before Rockefeller does.
And when the poorest do well, the rich do well as well.
>>46178528
>Even if it did, it would eventually end up in the hands of someone spending it on more money anyways.
Emphasis on "eventually", and not necessarily.
As it turns out you can, in fact, sit on piles of cash for months on end, although it's not as tangibly pleasurable when the cash is just information stored in bank's databases.
>>46178614
>As it turns out you can, in fact, sit on piles of cash for months on end, although it's not as tangibly pleasurable when the cash is just information stored in bank's databases.
Only 12.5% of your banked funds sit inside that vault. The rest is invested into loans and other funds, depending on the bank.
And do you think the guy that owns that bank and holds that money is poor?
>>46178528
>Rich people will get all the money in the end
nothing wrong with this
>>46178689
Investment into loans just means switching a few variables in a database. Nothing of direct consequence for the real economy or consumer prices unless it gets spent on building a house or a factory.
>>46178724
>nothing wrong with this
Don't disagree, but it's part of why I don't understand how capitalists are against welfare programs.
>>46178739
>Investment into loans just means switching a few variables in a database. Nothing of direct consequence for the real economy or consumer prices unless it gets spent on building a house or a factory.
It's profit for the bank, idiot. Money making more money. Even if it takes little effort, it's the bread and butter of our economy. And universal income would boost that immensely.
>>46176710
>Fedora
Truly, this buzzword is 4chan's greatest invention. A non-argument to defend something no argument could.
>>46175092
A loser
>>46178819
>it's part of why I don't understand how capitalists are against welfare programs.
Because it can end in the hands of a diffeent rich person, obviously.
>>46178857
At least he scored and was not an autist.
>>46177543
>Actually, most of his work was on the benefits and structure of communism.
What? No it bloody wasn't, Marx spent barely any time discussing the hypothetical structure of a communist society as he considered doing so to be utopian speculation. The vast majority of what he wrote was criticism of capitalism and discussion of how it functioned. The remaining portion of his writing tended to be criticism of other socialists and their ideas.
>Turns out that modern societies love socialism.
Socialism != Welfare
>>46178974
>Socialism != Welfare
Agreed, just like Democracy != vote.
>>46178819
>It's profit for the bank, idiot. Money making more money. Even if it takes little effort, it's the bread and butter of our economy.
Interest is the profit. Money themselves are a responsibility. And since, as you point out, bank management and shareholders tend to be rather well off, they also tend to save more, which again does little to bring inflation up.
Bread and butter of economy? Not so much. Well maybe just butter as it does grease it along.
>And universal income would boost that immensely.
It would boost consumption. People would go out and buy stuff. This would certainly increase sales of stuff, it would increase profits of people who sell stuff. It would also force prices up for reasons already stated. And question remains to be answered whether increase in prices would invalidate idea of the universal income in the first place. I sincerely do wish it worked well, and am looking forward to seeing it put into practice somewhere, both to see the experiment and in hopes that it might improve lives of some people, but there are risks.
>>46179126
>And since, as you point out, bank management and shareholders tend to be rather well off, they also tend to save more, which again does little to bring inflation up.
I REALLY don't think you know how banks work. The point is that they take your money to invest it, and give you a small amount of the profit they make in its investment (interest).
They don't make money if they just sit on it. That's not how banks work. That'd be like a pizza place buying pizza ingredients so they can avoid making pizzas.
>It would also force prices up for reasons already stated.
Will it jack the prices up enough to make it impossible to survive? No way. Sure, costs will go up. But businesses will still have to have costs low enough to drum up customers. And now that everyone has money to spend, there is a larger customer base for every possible product and industry.
Therefore, there's a lot of incentive to keep prices low as well.
We honestly don't know how much it'll affect the prices. But the rise in minimum wage did nothing but help Seattle, despite the rise in costs as well. Turns out that businesses get more business when workers have more money.
>discussion of magic, science and religion is OP's prompts
>after a few false starts /tg/ fails to take the flame bait and instead discusses economics
It only could have been better, possibly, is if it had become a /tg/theology thread.
>>46179229
>They don't make money if they just sit on it. That's not how banks work. That'd be like a pizza place buying pizza ingredients so they can avoid making pizzas.
I dare you to give me an example of what you think bank's balance sheet looks like on asset side.
And you can, while you're at it, take a look at correlation between quantitative easing and stock indices.
>>46179371
>I dare you to give me an example of what you think bank's balance sheet looks like on asset side.
The shifting of money from one account to another. That money then being used by the holder of the new account.
Do you think that people get loans so they can sit on the money themselves?
>>46179488
>Do you think that people get loans so they can sit on the money themselves?
Some people take loans to fund their consumption, others to fund their industry. Banks also have other investments that simple loans to store the wealth they command in though.
>>46179693
Also, loan funded consumption is cancer that is bad for the bank and the debtor alike and ends up costing the taxpayer regardless, be it in social programs or crimefighting expense.
