-1=e^ipi

Obviously I was referring to the boiling point. A cup of coffee well above ambient temperature is different from the entire atmosphere being warmer. Okay, let's see... If I use the August-Roche-Magnus formula for the Clausius-Clapeyron relation at 338 K, I get a saturation vapour pressure of 171 atmospheres. Mass of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.15 x 10^18 kg. Mass of the Earth's oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg. So the atmosphere can hold at most 62.9% of the Earth's oceans at that temperature in this highly idealized case (obviously it is much less once you factor lapse rate and the fact that the atmosphere won't be at 100% relative humidity). So there will still be ocean left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly "A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively. This market situation gives the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors, so a natural monopoly situation generally leads to an actual monopoly. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence creating high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity."

Gender issues are not a zero-sum game. Men are over twice as likely to get murdered in Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11561-eng.htm If this is the case, it is in large part arguably due to gender roles. If men and boys are conditioned from a very young age that their feelings and concerns do not matter at much, they need to quit complaining, 'man up', 'grow balls', etc. then one of the coping mechanisms is to bury one's emotions and become emotionally numb. Gender conditioning starts very young. Studies have been done where people are put in a room with a crying infant. If the infant is a girl, individuals are more likely to respond to the crying. I'll see if I can find a link. 1. I don't self identify as an MRA. 2. You are generalizing MRAs if you think they all blame exclusively women for the higher suicide rate. Many blame gender roles and social conditioning (which arguably is the result actions by both men and women). I have never done this. Heck, I have never intentionally looked at porn. Please don't generalize males based on your personal experiences. As prevalence of porn has increased, rape, murder and assault rates have decreased. If anything, the evidence suggests that access to porn reduces violence. Heck, some former members of Jihadi groups have admitted that one of their motivations for joining was the promise of sex and 72 virgins (and these individuals were generally culturally conditioned not to look at porn, have sex outside of marriage, etc.). Nope. 3 males. ... except I'm not doing this. Thinking that both women's issues and men's issues should be addressed by society (as well as the issues of non-binary people) is having 'no sympathy' for women? That makes no sense. I agree. My point was that humans have been on an evolutionary trend towards monogamy due to the increase in brain size, which requires more years of nurturing and education to take advantage of. So while humans are more monogamous than chimpanzees, humans are less monogamous than swans. Yep. I think this is why you see that individuals that have stronger family bonds / support tend to be more conservative in their views on a social safety net and support for the poor. Our inadequate social safety net means that people that don't have a supporting family for whatever reason fall through the cracks. Some do, most don't. I would argue that places like Canada and Sweden aren't. See my thread on the patriarchy being an unfalsifiable flying spaghetti monster.

Good thing I never made such claims.

Yeah, there is basically a 100% probability of that. But I think most people would prefer 2-5 degree increase than ISIS. That's why I made things more extreme. You want a more realistic scenario? Okay. How about: 4 C global temperature increase vs ISIS establishing a caliphate that encompasses the Middle East and North Africa? I'd pick the 4 C temperature increase.

Philip Oreopoulos has been doing studies to look at resume name bias for years. Here is one: http://oreopoulos.faculty.economics.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Why-Do-Skilled-Immigrants-Struggle-in-the-Labor-Market.pdf He often finds that foreign names are discriminated against when it comes to resume acceptance. Though there are some exceptions (such as Asian sounding names in engineering). He also finds that males are discriminated against (if you look at the regression tables it is more significant than the foreign name bias). A recent study has found that women have a 2:1 hiring advantage in STEM fields. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract So there is evidence that there is name bias when it comes to these things. Heck, many posters on this site have admitted that they would have a hiring bias towards women (see the 'In defence of feminism' thread).

Yes. Obviously not, there hasn't been sufficient time for to adapt given the rate of technological change. Who is arguing for this 'myth of progress' in this thread? No one. The fact that humans started attempting agriculture before the end of the last ice age doesn't demerit the fact that agriculture didn't take off until the end of the last ice age. I hope I'm not included in your 'our'. Your model of reality treats population density as exogenous. Why was population density high in the first place? Because of agriculture. Agriculture caused higher population density, not the other way around. Who in this thread is denying this? And here I thought that people are individuals, and it is individuals that have power. But I guess according to progressive SJW logic, Steven Harper is a white male with power, therefore I have power... somehow. Could you please define immediate-return hunter/gatherer groups? So the fact that the frequency of conflicts increases as population density increases somehow causes evolutionary psychology to fail? 1. This doesn't refute the statistics by CAFE, it just compliments it. 2. Men are less likely to report domestic violence than women due to social stigma. 3. All groups like CAFE want to do is point out that there is violence against men and women and both issues need to be addressed. But there is basically zero support for male victims despite them making up a significant share of total victims. I read/skimmed the 'report' a while ago. It doesn't have thorough statistical analysis or original research or try to test hypotheses. Rather it is just takes dogmatic approach where it seeks a certain conclusion and then looks for whatever random statistics support the conclusion. It reeks of confirmation bias.

Interesting article. Let's discuss its implications. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/08/a-white-guy-named-michael-couldnt-get-his-poem-published-then-he-became-yi-fen-chou/ "Hudson, who is white, wrote in his bio for the anthology that he chose the Chinese-sounding nom de plume after “The Bees” was rejected by 40 different journals when submitted under his real name. He figured that the poem might have a better shot at publication if it was written by somebody else. “If this indeed is one of the best American poems of 2015, it took quite a bit of effort to get it into print, but I’m nothing if not persistent,” reads his unabashed explanation. Anecdotally, Hudson’s calculation was correct. The literary journal Prairie Schooner, one of nine places to receive a submission from “Yi-Fen Chou,” accepted “The Bees” and three other poems for its Fall 2014 issue. The poem was referred to Best American Poetry, where Alexie came across it, and wound up in the collection, where Brooklyn-based writer and snarky Tumblr poetry-commentator Jim Behrle found it and posted it to his site." For those who think that discrimination against white males (in the context of job hiring, university applications, publications) is just limited to affirmative action, you are wrong.

That would be me. See second post.

I never claimed otherwise. But keep ignoring the points I make if it makes you feel better.

Unless you live underground and use geothermal energy to cool yourself. Anyway, if not 50 C, how much temperature increase would make you indifferent to global warming or ISIS taking over? 30 C? 10 C? 5 C?

And here I thought this thread was discussing the ideal distribution of tax burden. But I guess you are running out of arguments so now you are trying to appeal to popularity. Because you are looking at it in terms of an accountant paying taxes, not in terms of how it affects human behaviour (incentives to save, invest, consume, work, find loopholes, etc.). Pointing out other complications to the tax structure does not demonstrate that a marginally progressive tax isn't a complication.

Wow you are getting desperate. This doesn't make sense. You can have a flat or even regressive tax system generate enough revenue if you set the tax rates high enough. For example, a flat tax of 60%. Yes and no. There are other complicating factors but as explained in this thread, progressive taxation adds to the complexity and creates a lot of perverse incentives. Maxwell's equations are very compact: Yet in our world, they have a lot of implications. Consumption taxes encourage savings, which is desirable if your country's savings rate is below the optimum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_savings_rate A 25% VAT is desirable since the developed countries closest to the optimal level of savings have a 25% VAT (Norway, Sweden, Denmark).

Just because the difference is arguably small doesn't mean that fairness isn't desirable. You want a more extreme example? Okay. Let's say we have 2 individuals. One individual works for a banking firm and earns $50,000 per year for 10 years. A second individual works as a research scientist trying to cure cancer and earns $10,000 per year for 10 years. At the end of the 10 years, the researcher cures cancer and earns an additional $400,000. So in both cares we have the individuals earning half a million dollars in 10 years. But the second person pays a higher amount of tax. Not only is it unfair, but it discourages innovation.

Well given how badly the West has handled the Arab spring and the Syrian civil war (funding Islamists) and it was arguably Putin's political maneuvering that prevented Obama & Co from invading Syria to remove the supposed chemical weapons of the Assad regime, I don't really see how Russia gaining more influence is such a big deal. Russia has no reason to do this. Russia doesn't have popular support of Western Ukraine and the Baltic States. It does have popular support of Crimea are arguably Eastern Ukraine. They would have to cross an ocean to get the the battlefield, so I say no.

This doesn't refute what I wrote. But continue with appeal to motive or appeal to emotion arguments if you want.

This makes no sense. Free trade agreements don't pay for public goods or deal with natural monopolies.

Probably. EI is messed up to, but that's beside the point. Replace fisherman with any profession, it doesn't really matter. Point is that if you take two individuals that have the same income, a marginally progressive tax taxes the individual with higher income variance more. If you factor in inefficient credit markets, then this means that the effectively poorer individual is paying more in taxes.

You have a strange definition of greed. The sun won't last forever, and as far as we can tell, neither will the universe. Everything is unsustainable. Or perhaps quality of life as a function of population density is initially increasing, reaches a maximum, and then decreases. So while Bangladesh may be worse off per capita if its population increases, Canada may benefit from an increase in population.

Exactly. Our overcomplicated progressive tax system causes all this needless time and energy wasted to move money around in order to pay lower taxes. Edit: I looked it up, and apparently accountants make up about 1% of the Canadian labour force. Also, with respect to my earlier example of the two fishermen, if you account for the fact that credit markets are inefficient and that individuals tend to smooth consumption over time, then the fishermen that earns $60,000 in one year and $40,000 in another year is effectively poorer than the individual who earns $50,000 in two years. So the fisherman that is effectively poorer pays more in tax. So the progressive tax is effectively regressive in this case.

To benefit from economies of scale. Due to our low population density, we have to pay more per capita for public goods (military, roads, etc.) and we have less competition (look at telecommunications). Obviously, too fast a rate of population increase results in physical capital depreciation, and one also has to look at the quality of immigrants.

Wow, that sounds completely messed up. Hopefully you find happiness in Hong Kong.

So which country do you plan to emigrate to Machjo?

Wow, everyone's an expert in this thread! It's amazing. Everyone just knows, no doubt at all. If you guys are so convinced about the effects of a corporate tax cut, could you please give me a testable economic model that predicts your effects and the empirical data in support for it? @ Cybercoma - with respect to simply looking at the correlation of 2 parameters over time, you can't really draw too much information from that since you don't know if there is causality and there are a lot of things that have changed over time. If you plot atmospheric CO2 and the inverted corporate tax rate you will find a positive correlation, that doesn't mean CO2 causes the corporate tax rate to drop. With respect to your question, I think you are asking the wrong question. A reduction in the corporate tax rate would cause the long run level of output to change, not the long run growth rate. In the short run you would have a change in the growth rate, but not in the long run. So rather you should ask 'is a reduction in the corporate tax rate good for economic output in the long run?'. With respect to the effects of corporate tax rate, from memory, the corporate tax rate has (for the most part) a lower marginal increase in tax revenue for a given marginal cost the the economy than income or sales taxes (I think a lot of the reason is due to how it affects investment). I'm not really sure it makes sense to have a corporate tax: 1. It makes things more complicated. 2. It acts as double taxation when combined with income tax, so is more distortionary. 3. The well-being of the people in a society is what matters. Inequality in among people in your society should be of primary concern, not inequality of corporations. Income taxes are a far more direct way of dealing with income inequality. But I guess to most people, corporations are these abstract concepts that aren't people, so there is not cost to them if you tax corporations. Many people think it allows them to have their cake and eat it too (more tax revenue without any cost to them). Anyway, here are some links to studies on the effects of different forms of taxation in Canada. It did not take long to find, google is useful. https://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Commentary_324.pdf http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/bev-dahlby-012-3.pdf http://www.ieb.ub.edu/files/PapersWSFF2015/WSTAX2015Ferede.pdf It appears that the marginal cost of corporate taxes is higher than the marginal cost of income taxes for Canada and for all provinces except Quebec (although the 2015 study suggests its true for Quebec now as well).