What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Syt]

Apparently Trump floated the idea of selling Puerto Rico. Of course everyone ignored it, but let's say it was actually put up for sale (and for the sake of argument, Puerto Rico itself and the international community seemed to be fine with that). Who would be most likely to buy it?

Us, and we'd use EU money for it 

It could be like the French DOM/TOM thingies.

[viper37]

But economists has convinced people that the world they describe is the world "as it is", whereas the same realist presumption is not extended to, say, gender theory.

if you don't describe the world as it is, you are indoctrinating people.  You are teaching them to believe in some alternate vision of society that should be the realtiy, according to the teacher's pov.
Only by describing the world as it is can you have a good grasp of what is working and what is not.  If more of our politicians were to think like this, it would avoid costly mistakes.
A good economist would never tell you a private healthcare system is the best in the world, nor would he tell you a public healthcare system is the best in the world.  He would teach you about market forces and how they operate in the presence -or lack of - government intervention, and from there, you form your opinion, and try to find ways to improve on this aspect (or on many other aspects of society, and generally speaking, economists aren't really interested in micro-economics like such, macro seems to be the more popular subject).

[grumbler]

You can't "describe the world as it is" because we don't know what the world is.  We have fragments of data that allow us to postulate about the things we don't know for sure, but it is a conservative boogeyman that humans are omniscient enough to "describe the world as it is."

[viper37]

When pushed, they fall back on utilitarian arguments - where they find can at least hope to find allies among the STEM champions and the business school alumni.

that is another debate.
People are free to choose whatever field of study they want, and within academic limits, how far they want to go in that field.
Once that choice is made, if a particular field of study results in 0% unemployment rate and another in 65% unemployment rate, don't you see there is a problem there?  Shouldn't some programs have more restriction on admission and graduation? 

In business admin undergrad, roughly 1/3 of candidates go through their 3 years and end up with a diploma.  For the master's degree in finance, it's even lower, and many are forced to retake classes more than once (which looks pointless to me, the way the classes are set up, sometimes it feels like its being done on purpose, like asking a near impossible question to solve in an exam, until the teacher has given the proper explanations, and then asking the exact same question the following term, knowing 3/4 of the class is the same as last fall  )
But, ya got to admit it works, to a point.  Even without a specific title, people will find a job immediatly upon completing their studies.
Compare this with some social science study fields where students will endlessly complain about tuition fees being too high because they can't afford to pay this on their meager wage packing groceries...  And we have a problem that is absent from any discussions in these studies.
It's even more critical when the State pays a large portion of the tuition fee: we basically pay a lot of money so students can end up doing work they could have done without these studies and spending half their time unemployed.

[viper37]

Apparently Trump floated the idea of selling Puerto Rico. Of course everyone ignored it, but let's say it was actually put up for sale (and for the sake of argument, Puerto Rico itself and the international community seemed to be fine with that). Who would be most likely to buy it?

I did post this a few pages ago...   
Quebec or Canada should buy it and turn it into a tourist resort (and like I said, it's an idea that's been floated before, about Turk&Caicos, but I do not remember how serious it was). 

Assuming we did, we would channel our tourists from Cuba and the Dominican Republic toward Puerto Rico.  Less exodus of capital that way.  Theoritically.
Practically, I think it would be a money pit.  The island currently need a lot of infrastructure repairs after being neglected for so long, and they have societal problems that need to be fixed, like reducing the unemployment rate by creating high quality jobs for the locals. 

But then you end up with a big problem: the costs of living increase, and suddenly, despite the climate, tourists are again diverted toward Dominican Republic and Cuba where it's cheaper...
Also, on a practical standpoint, knowing 1st hand how Quebec and Canada treat their remote regions, they'd be left dirt poor with some occasional money being funneled to the island to theoritically help the locals while really helping friends of the party currently in power and be told to take the scraps and wag their tail in happyness.
Also, they speak english&spanish.  We'd have to invest in a decent schooling system that teaches them a superior language

[viper37]

We have fragments of data that allow us to postulate about the things we don't know for sure, but it is a conservative boogeyman that humans are omniscient enough to "describe the world as it is."

Science is in constant evolution.
Let me rephrase it though.
Economics should describe the world as it is, based on the data we have, not based on the way we want it to be, absent of any rational explanation.

When you start talking about the slavery of work, saying how we haven't evolved since the Romans, how we are no better than the former slaves of the Deep South but just ignorant about it, you aren't postulating an hypothesis based on fragmented data, you are postulating a false theory that can not be demonstrated empircally.

And I didn't pull this out of my ass, both of these are arguments I've had with the far left in recent years.  The first one was debated a few years ago with the candidate of a party I would describe as far left but that Oex would consider mainstream left; the last one was just last week with a philisophy student on Facebook.

These are the kind of arguments coming up every now and then.

The question of tuition fees has been debated ad nauseam during the last student strikes, when some teachers openly advocated violence as the solution to resist the intrinsic violence of the system.

Again, this is not supported by empirical data, but it is thought in some faculties.  You may believe it is just another analysis based on fragmentary data, I believe it to be indoctrination.

[Syt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HuX5jelk20

"Like, people don't remember. Nobody ever heard of it until I came along. Nobody remembered it for a long time, or they didn't use it at least. I use it all the time. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. You know you say that, and people say, 'I didn't know that.' But he was a Republican."



And it doesn't seem to be a new thing. Here's a Time article from 2017 (25 years ago): https://time.com/4708749/donald-trump-abraham-lincoln-republican/

[Tonitrus]

Well to try and be fair, Jay Leno has taught us that he may not be wrong in that analysis.

[Sheilbh]

"He's doing tremendous work and getting recognised more and more, I notice"

[grumbler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HuX5jelk20

"Like, people don't remember. Nobody ever heard of it until I came along. Nobody remembered it for a long time, or they didn't use it at least. I use it all the time. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. You know you say that, and people say, 'I didn't know that.' But he was a Republican."



And it doesn't seem to be a new thing. Here's a Time article from 2017 (25 years ago): https://time.com/4708749/donald-trump-abraham-lincoln-republican/

Remember, he's the guy who thought George Washington missed the boat by not renaming Mount Vernon after himself, because who remembers Washington, who had nothing named after him.

[grumbler]

We have fragments of data that allow us to postulate about the things we don't know for sure, but it is a conservative boogeyman that humans are omniscient enough to "describe the world as it is."

Science is in constant evolution.
Let me rephrase it though.
Economics should describe the world as it is, based on the data we have, not based on the way we want it to be, absent of any rational explanation.

Economics can only describe an artificial world of rational actors, because the way the world is in economic terms, with irrational actors, is literally indescribable.

When you start talking about the slavery of work, saying how we haven't evolved since the Romans, how we are no better than the former slaves of the Deep South but just ignorant about it, you aren't postulating an hypothesis based on fragmented data, you are postulating a false theory that can not be demonstrated empircally.

Good thing I don't say any of those things, then, isn't it?

Strawman much?

And I didn't pull this out of my ass, both of these are arguments I've had with the far left in recent years.  The first one was debated a few years ago with the candidate of a party I would describe as far left but that Oex would consider mainstream left; the last one was just last week with a philisophy student on Facebook.

Anecdotal evidence is massively unpersuasive.

The question of tuition fees has been debated ad nauseam during the last student strikes, when some teachers openly advocated violence as the solution to resist the intrinsic violence of the system.

Again, this is not supported by empirical data, but it is thought in some faculties.  You may believe it is just another analysis based on fragmentary data, I believe it to be indoctrination.

What "some teachers" did or said is of no interest or utility in a discussion like this.  You can make absolutely any argument you want by using "some people said" as your evidence. 

[Sheilbh]

Economics can only describe an artificial world of rational actors, because the way the world is in economic terms, with irrational actors, is literally indescribable.

Economic history? Behavioural economics? Basically economics as a branch of the humanities, not with the (false) pretensions of a science.

[viper37]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HuX5jelk20

"Like, people don't remember. Nobody ever heard of it until I came along. Nobody remembered it for a long time, or they didn't use it at least. I use it all the time. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. You know you say that, and people say, 'I didn't know that.' But he was a Republican."



And it doesn't seem to be a new thing. Here's a Time article from 2017 (25 years ago): https://time.com/4708749/donald-trump-abraham-lincoln-republican/

[viper37]

Economics can only describe an artificial world of rational actors, because the way the world is in economic terms, with irrational actors, is literally indescribable.

Individuals are irrationals.
As a mass, investors are rational, in their own way: they will invest/divest in what they perceive to be
their best interests.

Good thing I don't say any of those things, then, isn't it?

I would not caracterize you as a raging leftist, nor an enable of such people.

Anecdotal evidence is massively unpersuasive.

Yeah, Oex used to say the same thing.
Perspective tends to change when you are litterally surrounded by 11 or 12 very small and nice guys asking you very politely to spontaneously leave the work place they invested

What "some teachers" did or said is of no interest or utility in a discussion like this.  You can make absolutely any argument you want by using "some people said" as your evidence. 

Yes it is.  There are no data on what each individual teacher is telling his class.  But there are results: mass of raging leftists ready to commit vandalism and attack peaceful people in the defense of their ideals are coming out of these classes.  That is sufficient to ask questions.

It's your choice to not ask yourself these questions.  Your country will be first to go down in flames, it will give me a little bit of time to finish my preparations.

Then again, Trump is a very stable genius, and the fact that 1/3 of your country still support him has no meaning at all.  You did assure me 4 years ago I was over-reacting and nothing bad would happen   Excuse me if I don't rely on your wise judgement

[Maximus]

Once that choice is made, if a particular field of study results in 0% unemployment rate and another in 65% unemployment rate, don't you see there is a problem there?  Shouldn't some programs have more restriction on admission and graduation? 

No, education is not only -- or even primarily -- about employment. Research is especially not about employment.