Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums

Mo-

Members
  • Content count

    2,810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

About Mo-

  • Rank
    King
  • Birthday 08/31/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

9,505 profile views
  1. Is insurance a scam?

    Insurance is a zero sum game. Insurance policies will always be tilted in favour of the insurer because they look to make a profit, which is only natural because they are offering the service of assuming your risk and then paying out based on that risk. It’s pretty much a commercialized of hedging. Big financial services companies actually sell each other insurance all the time in the form of interest rate swaps so that their risk positions end up neutral.
  2. just binged stranger things 2

    1. Show previous comments  5 more
    2. cubster

      cubster

      So all episodes really are available? That's awesome. I went to download this first episode and saw the entire list and had a bit of a squeal but wasn't sure if it was all or just weird links lol

    3. Ishavemychesthair2

      Ishavemychesthair2

      Just finished season 2.  Well all but 6 minutes of the last episode.

    4. Mufasa

      Mufasa

      I thought it was great.

  3. The Investments Thread

    It would by definition dilute the other shareholders shares too. The only way to dilute share ownership is to issue new shares to new investors. You wouldn’t see any loss in value as the new cash from investment would either be held as an asset or pay off other liabilities, leaving your net equity position the same. The only change that would occur is both you and the other fellow would have less significant stakes in the company.
  4. This questions goes beyond economics and more towards politics and the make up of a society. Each society has its own social contract defined by its culture whether enshrined in law or otherwise, but we have the capacity to discern between which systems have historically been more beneficial for mankind. People of course have their own definitions of beneficial and best, but from an economical viewpoint the free market has always been the best solution to nearly all economic issues. I read a study (forgot which one) about how in societies with ineffective government protection rackets thrive, because by default, due to the notion of a monopoly on violence not existing, violence also becomes part of the market. The result is people pay racketeers for protection (mafia or gangs) and they do in fact protect people from other racketeers because they have a financial interest. This same arrangement technically exists between people and governments in stable countries except the government has successfully monopolised the racket and call it taxes instead of extortion.
  5. There are some aspects of the economy that don't need to be laissez faire (police, army, etc)
  6. This already technically occurs to an extent. The thing with university places supply is extremely elastic and educational investment is already becoming a thing where people give student loans and apply financial analysis to them in order to supply a credit rating. Usually though people are only willing to finance people who're attending strong universities because they have the lowest financial risk, so inevitably universities with bad career prospects will simply cease to exist (University of Greenwich and Kingston for example).
  7. This is true, yet the government can provide a greater incentive for people to take these subjects. Say for example in British culture people didn't like maths, further financial incentive would tilt more people towards maths. There are ways the government can harness the free market because in the real world there isn't perfect information which is generally a requirement for a free market to exist. Students could be told "studying art history is a great career!" by teachers when in reality not that many people with art history degrees get the chance to work in anything meaningful. Has this information been available to them before they'd likely have made different life choices. University has several other benefits even professional qualifications like the CPA or CFA or CS can't fill (even though they can provide credibility). Firstly, they show an extended determination and interest in the subject, 3-4 years isn't a short commitment. Secondly, they show the student can interact with people from different backgrounds. Thirdly, they show, for the most part, some sense of independence. Fourthly, most students will complete a research project or dissertation in their final year, which in many degrees (e.g. Engineering or medicine) can require the use of complex practical equipment that costs thousands of pounds.
  8. I don't find fault with government funding of education if there is a shortage in the country of a specific skill set. But as you said there are far too many Mickey Mouse degrees and the current system of funding costs the tax payer far too much. Ideally elite universities would operate as non profits, use the profits from research they sell and invest that into giving scholarships to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Also technically speaking, if Student X from whatever background has high grades and is granted a place at Oxbridge in Subject Y which has an expected starting salary of £Z,000 and the course costs £A,000 a year including living costs, then investors will be more willing to lend the £Z,000 to the student because there is an expected return. This would turn universities into places of professional education as opposed to places of seeking knowledge (as they traditionally have been), but now people are able to get that knowledge online for free so professional education is the niche that should be filled tbh.
  9. Last film you watched?

    make nachos at home by getting some tortilla wraps from the shops, brushing them on both sides with oil, chopping them into little triangles and putting them on a baking tray in the oven at 200c for about 3 minutes. You then want to take them out, flip them, and smother them in grated cheese and pop them back in for another 3 minutes. Before this you can either prep some guacamole or salsa for tasty dips.
  10. worker productivity is far higher when your workers are happier and healthier, which means you can create a better service and product than your competitors and thus profit more. Take this theory in reverse and the same thing happens, which means the minimum an employer has to pay an employee is a livable wage or else they'll find very few people willing to work for them.
  11. It is in employers self interest to pay employees a livable wage. Wages for unskilled labour have lots and lots of price pressures in both directions, but the most distinctive upward pressure on wages is providing a livable wage with the most downward pressure being competition. In the case of South Asian workers in the Gulf: millions of these individuals viewed the opportunity to work in the Gulf as far better to working at home. They aren't expected to pay rent, transport or food costs. The bulk of them are men going as contracted workers in order to receive a far more competitive salary than they would back in South Asia, with nearly all of their salary being sent back in remittances to their family members. In Pakistan for example the minimum wage is 15,000 rupees a month, which is roughly $1700 a year. In contrast, the average monthly remittance from the UAE to Pakistan is $320 million a month, which translates to approximately $3200 a year per Pakistani in the UAE, a roughly 88% higher wage. Bear in mind, these are remittances, so it is separate from whatever money they might spend in the UAE. Is this a slave wage? In the context that their family lives in Pakistan and their cost of living is that of a family living in Pakistan, it is the opposite. An unskilled worker in the UK on the other hand has to support the cost of living in the UK, so naturally employers will pay a higher wage.
  12. Random Islamic Questions

    No evidence that they did in the Qur'an or Hadith so it can't be said for certain.
  13. Minimum wage disincentivises hiring low skilled people. Say you're a manager at a construction company. Every person you hire will have hiring costs (health and safety training, registering them with HMRC, etc.). Naturally in this scenario, a worker willing to work longer hours is worth more to the company because you get the most out of those fixed costs. Thus it becomes cheaper to hire someone willing to work 16 hours a day rather than two willing to work 8 if you have to pay all the same hourly wage. Alternatively, it could simply be cheaper to go for the automated option which was more expensive than manual labour before, but now has become cheaper thanks to an increase in minimum wage. Your assumption is that everyone will keep their jobs or hiring patterns will remain the same. Yes but the green belt prevents houses from being built. Right now, only something like 2.27% of England is actually built on. If the government released green belt lands for development we probably wouldn't have a housing crisis. For us to run out of land we'd need like 45 times our current population and by the time that occurs we'll probably have interdimensional doors for people's homes. You brought up homelessness: in London 52% of homeless people are foreign nationals, of which 28% are EU nationals. Furthermore, since Romania joined the EU, Roma Gypsies have migrated to every major EU city and set up begging rings and gangs. Not all migrants are joining the labour pool.
  14. Poverty in the UK emerges namely down to luck, not working hard enough or bad regulation. How many people can answer a telephone and book appointments, and how many can build an aeroplane? Almost anyone can do the first task whilst very few can do the second, which is namely down to both luck and working hard. Then let's look at examples of policies like the minimum wage, migration from poorer EU states, drug policy and the green belt. Minimum wage makes it more expensive to hire workers who work less hours for example, because in order to make savings on a forced increase in variable costs you can only reduce fixed costs (cost of employing someone) or profit will go down. Most economists are opposed to minimum wage hikes, even those who trend more to the left. Migration from poorer EU states also includes homeless people and begging gangs. Without checks at the border we can't really stop Roma people coming, who often do operate begging rackets in UK cities. Current drug policy means users of crack, heroin and other substances could face a criminal record. How many employers hire people with criminal records? A CRB check with flags will make employment way harder to attain. Then the green belt. We are legally not allowed to build on land in the green belt or much of the countryside. The primary cost for building houses now is in fact land. Green belt policies force market scarcity which makes home ownership far more expensive. We also have low interest rates which excaberate the problem because people can use the cheap mortgages to leverage buying a property.
×