zlacker

>>tysone+(OP)
If there are only 19 bones for every 20 dogs, then it doesn't matter how good a bone hunter they all are there will always be one dog disappointed and the other 19 will be grateful for the bone no matter how thin and weedy it is. Systemically the 'interest rate targeting' approach starts to tighten up policy when unemployment gets below 5% - which they consider 'full employment' even though 1 in 20 haven't got jobs.

Interest rate targeting uses an unemployment buffer to keep wages and therefore prices under control. Poverty for those in work is entirely part of the plan. To fix the poverty problem you need to fix the structural viewpoint and return to the Beveridge condition - everybody must have an alternative living wage job offer available to them so that job competition works properly in favour of people. There must always be more jobs available than people that want them, not slightly fewer.

But that then runs into what Kalecki called "The Political Aspects of Full Employment" - a recommended read if you haven't already: https://mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-em...

Truly a 'wicked problem' - tied up with the concept of power

>>neilwi+1X
>If there are only 19 bones for every 20 dogs, then it doesn't matter how good a bone hunter they all are there will always be one dog disappointed and the other 19 will be grateful for the bone no matter how thin and weedy it is.

Or, if the dogs are intelligent, they could split those 19 bones to 20 pieces...

>>coldte+bZ
That wouldn't make them intelligent at all. This idea that there should always be fairness and equality in existence is very naive.

>>throwa+v01
Okay, you are conflating fairness and equality, which are totally separate concepts.

Let's assume you are talking about sharing, as that's what the original point was about. Specifically the sharing of 19 bones among 20 dogs, by dividing up the bones.

Assumign by 'naive' you mean wrong, are you saying that it is simply a more optimal situation for one dog to go hungry?

Does the one dog always go hungry, or does one dog (but a different one each time) go hungry?

Do we just let the one dog go hungry each time intentionally, so that in future no dog goes hungry? What if then one day there are only 18 bones for 19 dogs? Do we let that dog die too?

What if a group of 18 dogs is required to take down an animal that provides enough bones, but we let the two other dogs die because sharing is naive?

Well, that pretty fundamentally calls into question rather a lot of all the principles civilisation is founded upon and which permeate nature, even (nature!).

So you better provide some amazing scientifically backed proof of that statement. No, Atlas Shrugged is not scientific proof.

>>throwa+M41
The only "civilization" I care about is me. Is it really that difficult for you to understand and accept that there are people like me out there who only care about themselves and the resources they can acquire for themselves?

The dog can die. It isn't my problem.

>>throwa+q51
Aside from the callousness of your remarks, you do realize that having 19 bones isn't an absolute, right?

Once there are only 19 dogs left, the number of bones will simply be reduced to (slightly more than) 18, because the prevailing ideology is that there must be 5% unemployment. (This is greatly simplified, of course, but that's the gist of it.)

Eventually you'll stop being lucky. And in any case, it's not always the same dog who gets unlucky. So yes, it is your problem, or at least it will be.