Diligent-Road-6171 t1_j4kzvrt wrote
Reply to comment by SunChamberNoRules in German defense minister announces resignation by misana123
You're really just proving my point.
SunChamberNoRules t1_j4l06yw wrote
Then you haven't sufficiently tried to engage with the argument to understand it.
Diligent-Road-6171 t1_j4l15rh wrote
I understand the argument, the problem is that you haven't actually done the math, and your view and the policies you support are not actually backed by any data.
Even just looking at it from purely economic terms, you need reliable answers to the following questions just to begin calculating a high level estimate of the costs and benefits of the policies you support.
Since you support these benefit, surely you will be able to provide me with well sourced answers to the following questions:
1 - What is the discounted lifetime cost of this historical institutional imbalance that you mention?
2 - How many years earlier would those institutional imbalanced be fixed, if such a system as you propose (whether quotas, or anything else) were to be implemented?
3 - What is the discounted lifetime total economic cost of imposing such policies? Not just the first order costs, but also the effect it would have on present (and near future) hits of productivity, structural incentives, risks, etc...
Once you have answers to those 3 questions, then we can start looking into other effects, and other costs, but the fact of the matter is i suspect you haven't actually got reliable and well sourced answers to those questions, and that the answer you do have are not likely to support your stance.
SunChamberNoRules t1_j4l1qjt wrote
Lol no, I’m not going to do that.
Diligent-Road-6171 t1_j4l1vlb wrote
Thank you for proving me point :)
SunChamberNoRules t1_j4l20fl wrote
I ran a cost benefit analysis of further engagement with you and found it came at a huge net loss.
Diligent-Road-6171 t1_j4l247f wrote
That tends to happen when you have no arguments.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments