Are there any occupations/professions that you violently dislike, so much that..

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances ever discovered. Tobacco companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to cover up scientific research on the horrible health effects, including lying to Congress about it while under oath, on national TV. Their products provide very little recreational value to consumers, once they get addicted. This is probably the most useless and morally bankrupt industry in America.

It was once a major North Carolina employer, but not any more. We can live without merchants of death.

No, alcohol is not so bad for you in moderation, is less addictive, can have some positive medical benefit (red wine), and can have positive social benefits. Like most other products, it's a mix of good and bad. Also, the manufacturers never claimed that it could do no harm.

 

So who should we blame, shun or hold responsible for that? Those labourers that are at the bottom of that industry just trying bringing food on the table? When there aren't enough jobs around? Really?

 

Locally, we went through that debate for years. Bottom line is, at the end of the day, you're morally responsible for the consequences of what you do for a living. There's no way around it.

 

Here is a paper authored by Mas Colell. He has served in the cabinet of the Spanish government.

He has written multiple textbooks on economics.

http://www.econ.upf.edu/~mcolell/research/art_006.pdf

The problem is these guys who deal only with mathematical handwaving are responsible for real world policy decisions, and the lives/livelihood of millions of people.

 

I agree those people have to morally deal with the consequences of their work. But I for one wouldn't end a friendship with a mate who needs to make a living and this is his only choice (at least on the short term). Its kind of absurd in my book to end a good friendship because of that. Should I tell them they can come over for coffee again if they're quitting and become homeless?

 

What about people who work in food industry and produce potato chips or CocaCola?
Pringles and Cola have NO health benefits, in fact they are harmful to people.
Sure, it's not as bad as smoking and addictive (although one could argue that, and rightfully so), but it still is harmful.

 

So fucking what? Like I said one economists' work does not say shit about the approach of every other economist. Reading that guy's stuff doesn't change that, so I don't see why you think it is proving your point.

 

Slick salespeople are annoying when they're working but I'm sure they're fine off the clock.

I can't really see myself befriending any wall street type people or anyone who makes a living by lying and manipulating people out of money.

 

Some scientists say Pringles should be banned, because of acrylamides in production.

Personaly, I think ANYONE wearing hideous 80s golf sweaters should be banned :-/

 

What about those people who are manufacturing those sweaters? Isn't that what this thread is about btw

 

I can't imagine being friends with someone who has the mindset, "I'll do anything to make money, no matter how much it hurts other people." I think I would have picked up on that lack of character before they took the cigarette plant job.

A purist about such things could end up with an extremely small number of friends. Maybe even an empty online friends list? jk

 

Economists aren't all evil. Neither are they all saints.
1st politicians are sometimes terrified of them. Either academic ones, or bank ones.

There's lots of different economic theories. Sometimes they clash.
Economics IS a scientific methodology in that you can get hard data produced by the models and stuff.

Economists themselves SHOULD argue that the fiscal economy isn't the "real world" economy. They *should* argue that they just aim to get the fiscal circumstances right. And then the rest of the job is up to others.

Where it gets poisonous is when you have some economists advocating unemployment to keep inflation down etc. These shouldn't be considered to be real economists. They're just scumbags and charlatans.

Basically, some/many economists manipulate economic theories for political ends. Which is what really discredits it.

 

What about the 'consumers' who buy the porn and basically are the ones that make the industry possible?

 

I'm not a purist about people's jobs, and I have no friends on Hipforums

 

fuck em. How much money do they need for a bowl of rice a day!

Its allright for them to moan. Its so hot in Wongdonglongland they don't even NEED sweaters, let alone have to pay good money to buy them.

:-/

 

Not sure, probably not. Yeah, most likely not. That is the only industry where I draw the line.
And human trafficking, of course xD

 

k here's a paper authored by Ben Bernanke


The word "proposition" turns up 16 times and "proof" 4 times.

 

But the thing is you projected that mindset onto that people. They don't always have a choice when there aren't any jobs available and they have a family to support. They don't 'do anything to make money'.

Please explain first how it is proving your point about all economists. Thanks in advance

 

I am not suggesting that this criticism applies to every single economist but merely pointing out that this is a very endemic problem.

Quite a few prominent economists have so much faith in their assumptions that mathematical proofs derived from these assumptions are considered sufficient evidence. In the hard sciences this sort of evidence would barely qualify as a hypothesis.

Unfortunately the stakes might be even higher in economics, as public policy which is adopted on the advice of defunct economists may lead millions of people into poverty and privation before any action is taken.

 

What about someone who loses their job, has children to support, and the only job they can find is working for a tobacco company in a factory setting (as in, not someone working in marketing and actively trying to get people to consume tobacco)? Your outlook seems very black and white to me.