Ecomp :)

Post-sardonic Beaver-Looking Cunt, Does Multimedia, Cyberbully, he/them, Noble Rat, Very Healthy Neurotypical Guy™, AI Soothsayer, Utopian, Council Member, 4HL

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@fletcherkathy8 @fx6uun @Hereticalturf Women stop being women after menopause? That sort of person can't get pregnant, so I suppose they're not women to you?

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@jona_net -abolish religion

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@NeoRothbardian Yes but some kinds of theft, like taxation, is okay.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@sleepingbvby Why are the bad fishers the only ones left at the pond?

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@AlphaMageSos @MehdiBetata @Idubbbz Or if you beat the shit out of someone, you get a harsher sentence if you're doing so because they're black or because they're transgender. This is actually Canada catching up to US laws. The US implemented this exact provision for hate crimes related to gender-identity in 2009.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@AlphaMageSos @MehdiBetata @Idubbbz Yeah it does let you do that. Bill C16 made misgendering someone an aggravating factor in discrimination lawsuits and hate crimes. It's like how you're still allowed to call black people the N-word, but if a government agent calls their employee the N-word they can sued for that.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@NekoKirito7 Taxation is theft but some forms of theft are okay. Like taxes.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@maulisetia @NekoKirito7 I don't think that humans will invent new jobs that AI can't do, but I also don't think that's a bad thing. I was being very genuine in my previous comment. I would much rather not have to work for a living.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@maulisetia @NekoKirito7 I agree. It will be much better for our quality of life when we have the economic position of a pet and no longer have to work.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon I think it's clear that labour scarcity in the west is basically going to be solved in about 50 years or so, I'm not at all worried about lazy workers, just in making the transition as nice as possible for the most people.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon As a socialist, I agree that just giving cash would probably be best. Even a WIC-card I would guess to be suboptimal.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon Listen, your solution aligns with my goals too. I think it would probably be better than having to police rations in fact. We only disagree on whether this constitutes a market intervention, but we both agree that it should happen.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon Which doesn't change the fact that the WIC cards play a part in the total aggregate price.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon It doesn't create need, it creates demand, because demand is limited by purchasing power.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon What you're saying is that instead of lowering supply for the rich(rationing), we should increase demand from the poor(wic-cards). What happens to the price for each group in each scenario?

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon Yeah, and if you just artificially set the prices for poorer people lower, and the prices for richer people higher, it has the same exact effect. The good is going to sell out regardless, I agree.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@SnakeHoppe To induce demand for the national currency

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon Any existing law, but you're asking for how I would handle it, right? In my scenario, there would be a law against doing many of the things you talked about.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon What's effectively happening here is that the Good's price is being set higher for people who don't get the wic-card and the price is being set lower for people who do get the wic-card. It affects purchasing patterns identically.

[Ecomp :) @EcompVideo]

@Lormif1 @BobMurphyEcon And that's exactly why it's different.

Regardless of the semantics, I think treating over-consumption of rations as a crime is an adequate answer to your question.