Originally posted by Cuivienen
Rent seekers?
never took an econ class?
Rent seekers?
never took an econ class?
Forum > General Discussion > The "Random crap that isn't worth a thread" thread
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cuivienen
So nothing to do with rent or even seeking really.
wrong on both counts.
So nothing to do with rent or even seeking really.
wrong on both counts.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Its a colloquialism I guess.
no, it's terminology.
just google "economic rent"
Its a colloquialism I guess.
no, it's terminology.
just google "economic rent"
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
I found this for a definition:
"When a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation."
And then this for examples:
"An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created, or to impose regulations on competitors, in order to increase market share."
those are both kinda wowbad definitions, but the precise definition of economic rent is something people like to fight about, considering the degree to which it exists is the degree to which many market economies are veering towards immorality. as you can imagine, one's definition starts to depend on one's economics -- though mostly everyone agrees with the classical take and then disagrees with how to apply it. if you view rentiers as an inefficient political/cultural throwback or a necessary evil, then you're probably some sort of classical whatever. if you view rentiers as cackling monopolyman stereotypes, then you're probably somewhere between neoclassical and marxian thought. if you view rentiers as coming in all stripes and a human effect of transactions themselves, then you're probably a producerist of some sort (as i'm guessing the creator of that image you posted likely is).
I found this for a definition:
"When a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation."
And then this for examples:
"An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created, or to impose regulations on competitors, in order to increase market share."
those are both kinda wowbad definitions, but the precise definition of economic rent is something people like to fight about, considering the degree to which it exists is the degree to which many market economies are veering towards immorality. as you can imagine, one's definition starts to depend on one's economics -- though mostly everyone agrees with the classical take and then disagrees with how to apply it. if you view rentiers as an inefficient political/cultural throwback or a necessary evil, then you're probably some sort of classical whatever. if you view rentiers as cackling monopolyman stereotypes, then you're probably somewhere between neoclassical and marxian thought. if you view rentiers as coming in all stripes and a human effect of transactions themselves, then you're probably a producerist of some sort (as i'm guessing the creator of that image you posted likely is).
Edited by Catullus16 on Feb 15, 2016 16:08:11
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus16
those are both kinda wowbad definitions, but the precise definition of economic rent is something people like to fight about, considering the degree to which it exists is the degree to which many market economies are veering towards immorality. as you can imagine, one's definition starts to depend on one's economics -- though mostly everyone agrees with the classical take and then disagrees with how to apply it. if you view rentiers as an inefficient political/cultural throwback or a necessary evil, then you're probably some sort of classical whatever. if you view rentiers as cackling monopolyman stereotypes, then you're probably somewhere between neoclassical and marxian thought. if you view rentiers as coming in all stripes and a human effect of transactions themselves, then you're probably a producerist of some sort (as i'm guessing the creator of that image you posted likely is).
Just to give the above some meat, I think the wowbad definition is still quite functional. An implication of the wowbad def. might include the comparison between a company advocating the implementation of new industry regulations if motivated by sincere concern to be "Not an example of rent seeking" whereas advocating industry regulations because the regs would limit rivals growth and/or entry into the industry itself as "is an example of rent seeking".
Where the fun begins is in the analysis of what motivated the player's actions and whether the facts support the argument they're telling aloud.
those are both kinda wowbad definitions, but the precise definition of economic rent is something people like to fight about, considering the degree to which it exists is the degree to which many market economies are veering towards immorality. as you can imagine, one's definition starts to depend on one's economics -- though mostly everyone agrees with the classical take and then disagrees with how to apply it. if you view rentiers as an inefficient political/cultural throwback or a necessary evil, then you're probably some sort of classical whatever. if you view rentiers as cackling monopolyman stereotypes, then you're probably somewhere between neoclassical and marxian thought. if you view rentiers as coming in all stripes and a human effect of transactions themselves, then you're probably a producerist of some sort (as i'm guessing the creator of that image you posted likely is).
Just to give the above some meat, I think the wowbad definition is still quite functional. An implication of the wowbad def. might include the comparison between a company advocating the implementation of new industry regulations if motivated by sincere concern to be "Not an example of rent seeking" whereas advocating industry regulations because the regs would limit rivals growth and/or entry into the industry itself as "is an example of rent seeking".
Where the fun begins is in the analysis of what motivated the player's actions and whether the facts support the argument they're telling aloud.
Edited by Larry Roadgrader on Feb 15, 2016 16:16:10
Cuivienen
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Just to give the above some meat, I think the wowbad definition is still quite functional. An implication of the wowbad def. might include the comparison between a company advocating the implementation of new industry regulations if motivated by sincere concern to be "Not an example of rent seeking" whereas advocating industry regulations because the regs would limit rivals growth and/or entry into the industry itself as "is an example of rent seeking".
Where the fun begins is in the analysis of what motivated the player's actions and whether the facts support the argument they're telling aloud.
You need to learn to ignore Cat and not bite on his wowbad trolling.
Just to give the above some meat, I think the wowbad definition is still quite functional. An implication of the wowbad def. might include the comparison between a company advocating the implementation of new industry regulations if motivated by sincere concern to be "Not an example of rent seeking" whereas advocating industry regulations because the regs would limit rivals growth and/or entry into the industry itself as "is an example of rent seeking".
Where the fun begins is in the analysis of what motivated the player's actions and whether the facts support the argument they're telling aloud.
You need to learn to ignore Cat and not bite on his wowbad trolling.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cuivienen
You need to learn to ignore Cat and not bite on his wowbad trolling.
you need to learn how to ignore.
sorry for mocking your ignorance, but i found it a little surprising that you've never heard of economic rents, considering you claim to have a finance degree.
You need to learn to ignore Cat and not bite on his wowbad trolling.
you need to learn how to ignore.
sorry for mocking your ignorance, but i found it a little surprising that you've never heard of economic rents, considering you claim to have a finance degree.
Cowpoker
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cuivienen
I wonder if that article is biased when they are trotting out math like 21/89=0.3%.
What does "screened" mean ? Does that mean that they ask if they are using and if they answer no, they don't actually get tested ? You are right, out of the 159 of 7600 that they deemed necessary to test, only 68 people out of the 159 managed to complete the actual drug test by showing up and testing clean. That means that 57.2% of those that were chosen to take drug tests did not show up or provide a clean sample and that would be higher then what I would have expected. It really all depends on the screening process, you can't assume that the 7,441 people that were screened and not tested where all drug free.
I wish I could remember the exact numbers that a friend shared with me about their results when attending a job fair. They had almost 90 sign up for interviews, about 30 show up and 7 of those who were willing to submit to their standard drug testing.
I still don't think it is going to save any money and I am ashamed that I missed the details of the story the first time I skimmed it.
I wonder if that article is biased when they are trotting out math like 21/89=0.3%.
What does "screened" mean ? Does that mean that they ask if they are using and if they answer no, they don't actually get tested ? You are right, out of the 159 of 7600 that they deemed necessary to test, only 68 people out of the 159 managed to complete the actual drug test by showing up and testing clean. That means that 57.2% of those that were chosen to take drug tests did not show up or provide a clean sample and that would be higher then what I would have expected. It really all depends on the screening process, you can't assume that the 7,441 people that were screened and not tested where all drug free.
I wish I could remember the exact numbers that a friend shared with me about their results when attending a job fair. They had almost 90 sign up for interviews, about 30 show up and 7 of those who were willing to submit to their standard drug testing.
I still don't think it is going to save any money and I am ashamed that I missed the details of the story the first time I skimmed it.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Just to give the above some meat, I think the wowbad definition is still quite functional. An implication of the wowbad def. might include the comparison between a company advocating the implementation of new industry regulations if motivated by sincere concern to be "Not an example of rent seeking" whereas advocating industry regulations because the regs would limit rivals growth and/or entry into the industry itself as "is an example of rent seeking".
Where the fun begins is in the analysis of what motivated the player's actions and whether the facts support the argument they're telling aloud.
see, one reason why those definitions are bad is because look at the misunderstanding they've saddled you with.
if you can ignore the oversimplification and obvious market bias, i think these are good enough:
http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/r#node-21529784
from there, you'd have to do a survey of almost every major economist since ricardo, each with their own particular take on what defines rent and how to calculate it. for the most part, theories of rent tend to be incredibly circular because presuming a definition quickly churns out a foregone conclusion. most economists agree that rent-seeking is somewhat of a bad thing (kinda), but good luck getting any sizable group to agree on much else. it's an essentially-contested concept, but that doesn't mean it's completely devoid of meaning.
Just to give the above some meat, I think the wowbad definition is still quite functional. An implication of the wowbad def. might include the comparison between a company advocating the implementation of new industry regulations if motivated by sincere concern to be "Not an example of rent seeking" whereas advocating industry regulations because the regs would limit rivals growth and/or entry into the industry itself as "is an example of rent seeking".
Where the fun begins is in the analysis of what motivated the player's actions and whether the facts support the argument they're telling aloud.
see, one reason why those definitions are bad is because look at the misunderstanding they've saddled you with.
if you can ignore the oversimplification and obvious market bias, i think these are good enough:
http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/r#node-21529784
from there, you'd have to do a survey of almost every major economist since ricardo, each with their own particular take on what defines rent and how to calculate it. for the most part, theories of rent tend to be incredibly circular because presuming a definition quickly churns out a foregone conclusion. most economists agree that rent-seeking is somewhat of a bad thing (kinda), but good luck getting any sizable group to agree on much else. it's an essentially-contested concept, but that doesn't mean it's completely devoid of meaning.
Catullus16
offline
offline
p.s. i chose the most neutral source i could, even though i would consider the economist to be significantly to the right.
Originally posted by Cuivienen
I wonder if that article is biased when they are trotting out math like 21/89=0.3%.
.3% of the 7600 that were screened before tested
I wonder if that article is biased when they are trotting out math like 21/89=0.3%.
.3% of the 7600 that were screened before tested
Originally posted by Cowpoker
What does "screened" mean ? Does that mean that they ask if they are using and if they answer no, they don't actually get tested ? You are right, out of the 159 of 7600 that they deemed necessary to test, only 68 people out of the 159 managed to complete the actual drug test by showing up and testing clean. That means that 57.2% of those that were chosen to take drug tests did not show up or provide a clean sample and that would be higher then what I would have expected. It really all depends on the screening process, you can't assume that the 7,441 people that were screened and not tested where all drug free.
I wish I could remember the exact numbers that a friend shared with me about their results when attending a job fair. They had almost 90 sign up for interviews, about 30 show up and 7 of those who were willing to submit to their standard drug testing.
I still don't think it is going to save any money and I am ashamed that I missed the details of the story the first time I skimmed it.
a "screening" is a pee test that is less acurate than an official "drug test". the ones that failed the screening were ordered to take a test. im sure those that did not show would have failed, but the numbers are still lower than i expected
What does "screened" mean ? Does that mean that they ask if they are using and if they answer no, they don't actually get tested ? You are right, out of the 159 of 7600 that they deemed necessary to test, only 68 people out of the 159 managed to complete the actual drug test by showing up and testing clean. That means that 57.2% of those that were chosen to take drug tests did not show up or provide a clean sample and that would be higher then what I would have expected. It really all depends on the screening process, you can't assume that the 7,441 people that were screened and not tested where all drug free.
I wish I could remember the exact numbers that a friend shared with me about their results when attending a job fair. They had almost 90 sign up for interviews, about 30 show up and 7 of those who were willing to submit to their standard drug testing.
I still don't think it is going to save any money and I am ashamed that I missed the details of the story the first time I skimmed it.
a "screening" is a pee test that is less acurate than an official "drug test". the ones that failed the screening were ordered to take a test. im sure those that did not show would have failed, but the numbers are still lower than i expected
Edited by foshizzel17 on Feb 15, 2016 23:55:54
Lurchy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Great illustration: http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CLASSWARFARE.png
I get what the author of that illustration is trying to say. agreed.
Great illustration: http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CLASSWARFARE.png
I get what the author of that illustration is trying to say. agreed.
Lurchy
offline
offline
Originally posted by foshizzel17
Ive always been in favor of drug testing anyone who receives welfare from the government. I applauded NC for making it happen last year. The results have been kind of shocking imo
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/ned-barnett/article60097156.html
I forgot about that!
fta:
The positive tests are only 0.3 percent of those screened. Even assuming all the no-shows were drug users, the percentage is still less than 1.2 percent. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the rate of illicit drug use among Americans 12 and older is 9.4 percent.
The day before North Carolina lawmakers saw the low numbers, Tennessee lawmakers heard the same about their drug testing program for welfare recipients. Over the last year and a half, Tennessee has screened 39,121 people, drug-tested 609 and found only 65 who tested positive. That’s 1.6 percent of the total applicant pool.
“I thought the legislation when it passed was ridiculous,” state Rep. Sherry Jones, a Democrat, told the Nashville Tennessean. “I still think it’s ridiculous. Obviously the numbers don’t justify the cost, and in other states that have done this program, their numbers don’t justify this cost, either.”
Some Republican Tennessee lawmakers said it was worth spending $23,592 on testing to keep illicit drug users from collecting an average benefit of $165 per month. Of course, that assumes people kicked off welfare don’t cost the state in other ways when they end up in jails, homeless shelters or hospitals.
Ive always been in favor of drug testing anyone who receives welfare from the government. I applauded NC for making it happen last year. The results have been kind of shocking imo
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/ned-barnett/article60097156.html
I forgot about that!
fta:
The positive tests are only 0.3 percent of those screened. Even assuming all the no-shows were drug users, the percentage is still less than 1.2 percent. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the rate of illicit drug use among Americans 12 and older is 9.4 percent.
The day before North Carolina lawmakers saw the low numbers, Tennessee lawmakers heard the same about their drug testing program for welfare recipients. Over the last year and a half, Tennessee has screened 39,121 people, drug-tested 609 and found only 65 who tested positive. That’s 1.6 percent of the total applicant pool.
“I thought the legislation when it passed was ridiculous,” state Rep. Sherry Jones, a Democrat, told the Nashville Tennessean. “I still think it’s ridiculous. Obviously the numbers don’t justify the cost, and in other states that have done this program, their numbers don’t justify this cost, either.”
Some Republican Tennessee lawmakers said it was worth spending $23,592 on testing to keep illicit drug users from collecting an average benefit of $165 per month. Of course, that assumes people kicked off welfare don’t cost the state in other ways when they end up in jails, homeless shelters or hospitals.
Lurchy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus16
those are both kinda wowbad definitions, but the precise definition of economic rent is something people like to fight about, considering the degree to which it exists is the degree to which many market economies are veering towards immorality. as you can imagine, one's definition starts to depend on one's economics -- though mostly everyone agrees with the classical take and then disagrees with how to apply it. if you view rentiers as an inefficient political/cultural throwback or a necessary evil, then you're probably some sort of classical whatever. if you view rentiers as cackling monopolyman stereotypes, then you're probably somewhere between neoclassical and marxian thought. if you view rentiers as coming in all stripes and a human effect of transactions themselves, then you're probably a producerist of some sort (as i'm guessing the creator of that image you posted likely is).
I had an econ prof who defined rent seekers as anyone who was not an (economic) entrepreneur, so essentially, if you weren't a producer of something, you were a rent seeker. In which case, it is unfair to generalize all rent seekers together, such as the author of Larry's illustration did.
those are both kinda wowbad definitions, but the precise definition of economic rent is something people like to fight about, considering the degree to which it exists is the degree to which many market economies are veering towards immorality. as you can imagine, one's definition starts to depend on one's economics -- though mostly everyone agrees with the classical take and then disagrees with how to apply it. if you view rentiers as an inefficient political/cultural throwback or a necessary evil, then you're probably some sort of classical whatever. if you view rentiers as cackling monopolyman stereotypes, then you're probably somewhere between neoclassical and marxian thought. if you view rentiers as coming in all stripes and a human effect of transactions themselves, then you're probably a producerist of some sort (as i'm guessing the creator of that image you posted likely is).
I had an econ prof who defined rent seekers as anyone who was not an (economic) entrepreneur, so essentially, if you weren't a producer of something, you were a rent seeker. In which case, it is unfair to generalize all rent seekers together, such as the author of Larry's illustration did.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
