Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
But it is usually confirmed with the observed data of others. Other observed data is accepted, not to mention expected, in order to corroborate the conclusion of the observed data. Yours does none of that.
Um... I've presented observed data that supports my position. It's not my job to make your argument for you. You're doing the equivalent of demanding that I prove a negative (ie: Failing to present data countering my position somehow proves that I'm not considering all the data when arriving at my conclusion). If you believe there's data which counters my position then you need to find and present it.
What "observed data" are you talking about that isn't confirming my conclusions?
But to do that you really have to present a counter which covers the same set of data and adequately explains them.
No, I really don't. I am allowed to take the datum you give me, compare it to the datum that I have collected and form my own conclusion.
Great! Then do that. I'll wait.
The end. What I don't do is tell everyone, and I do mean everyone, that they are wrong for disagreeing with me.
When said disagreement is not accompanied with any sort of logical rational, then it can be safely dismissed.
Why, for example, do people borrow money from pawshops or payday loans every single month, only to pay it back on payday? Clearly, they could have more money if they didn't do this than if they do, but they do it anyway. And not just once in awhile, if they have an unexpected expense. The same people habitually do this month after month.
Is this something you have observed? I would love to know when and where you observed it.
Yes. I've observed this personally. If you've ever watched any of those pawn shows, you also know it's true. You could also read sites like this one
or this one
in case you still aren't convinced. Most customers of pawn shops and payday loans are repeat customers. Do your own searching if you aren't satisfied with mine (again, I'm not the one who needs to disprove my own position). These industries (and btw, the credit card industry) rely on repeat customers. People who are constantly borrowing money to make it through the month are how they make most of their money. And as I've said repeatedly, it's an irrational set of choices for anyone doing that regardless of their income level.
My point is that people make those irrational choices. They tend to keep spending until they literally can't spend anymore. The function and use of these lending industries should constitute strong evidence for this. The conclusion I'm drawing from this is that simply giving people more money doesn't solve this problem. Most people will simply increase their spending. In fact, one can also conclude that people *can* live on the income sources they have, but have a psychological need to be in debt as much as they can prior to stabilizing at that spending level. This is clear when you consider someone who gets a $500 payday loan every month, and pays $100 in interest on it once the first comes around and they get paid. They do this every month, meaning that they're actually living on $100 fewer than they earn each month. They can live on that much, but when they have the opportunity to borrow money they will do it anyway. The net effect is that they decrease the actual money they have to live on, but fulfill the need to feel like they're spending as much as they can (or at least, that's how I see it).
Do you have another explanation which better fits those data? I'll point out again that this isn't about how much money people make. The same behavior occurs with credit cards for those with higher incomes. How many people do you know who make good salaries walk around with their credit cards maxed or near to maxed? So they're paying hundreds of dollars in interest every single month, which suggests that they could have lived on the income they earn, but for some reason were compelled to spend much more money until they reached the maximum they could borrow and only then reduced their spending to what they could afford (which is now lower than it would have been had they not gone through the process in the first place.
There's abundant evidence to support the behavior pattern I'm talking about.
yet we try to assume that everyone acts rationally with their spending habits (including things like food stamps)
Who is we?
We is everyone who attempts to argue for spending on benefits based on the assumption that those who receive them will spend them in the ways we want them to. As I observed way back in the beginning of this thread, for most recipients of food stamps, the food stamps don't actually affect the total dollars they spend on food each month. It does affect the dollars they spend on other things though. We look at our "food insecurity" statistics (or whatever we're calling it this year), conclude that a lot of people could cover that shortage with just a little bit of extra money available for food, provide them with that little bit, and then are stunned when those we're providing for are still just a "little bit short" when it comes to food each month.
My suggestion is that the problem isn't the funding side, but the spending side. Which is why I suggest that methods which actually provide food for people rather than money (or stamps, or whatever) that can be used to purchase food might be a better way to go.
see, this is what your whole post boils down too. The rest is just verbal diarrhea and emotional masturbation on your part, which is unnecessary, and is why I don't take you seriously
So do you agree with what I said though? The rest of my posts exist because people keep insisting that I'm wrong, forcing me to write over and over and over again all the different arguments and examples and rationals supporting what I'm saying. If you agree with my statement that people don't spend money rationally, so we should not approach funding for things like food stamps as though they do, then we're good, right?
See, the "Data" is what you have "Observed", but you didn't take notes, or have witnesses, or a control group. Stop acting like you are the final arbiter of truth.
I'm not claiming to be the final arbiter of anything. I'm expressing my opinion and giving support for why I think my opinion is correct. It's up to those who disagree to provide an alternative opinion/explanation and support their position. But what I run into is people who argue endlessly that I'm wrong, demand endless "proof" from me, but never actually bother to present a counter position, much less support for one.