"Big corporations claim they need tax breaks to "create more jobs". Why doesn't our government just give breaks to companies who actually hire and retain more employees and none to those who do the opposite?"
Rather than hanging out in the insular subreddits, it'd be nice to infuse at least a few well-argued points of economic literacy in posts on the main page, which attracts by far the most eyeballs.
Why anarchy fails
I've noticed that the people who use reddit the most aren't the most intelligent breed. The site is owned by the same people who own Vogue magazine. That should be enough to show why.
There are pockets of good people, but the majority (like in the real world) are ignorant. r/politics is dominated by progressives from Daily Kos, and anything non-liberal is almost instantly doomed.
In my experience, the safest thing to presume in Western countries is that anything and everything is dominated by hysterical social democrats until proven otherwise, much like how, say, Saudi Arabia is dominated by devout Muslims.
Besides, I seriously doubt that, even if you did manage to win a few arguments (which, IMHO, should be looked at like formal poitical debates in the sense that your opponents and their supporters will never convert, but the real battleground is with the independents and swing voters) you'd be picking up the influencial members of society. The ganders I've taken at that site and it's cousin Digg seem to strongly suggest a "bored college kid" demographic.
I've never really had the time or interest to read blogs. much less the subsection 'reddit'.
Sometimes I will read some of the various scientific blogs by knowledgeable academics, but politics and 'personal' stuff is just pure boring.
This is probably one of millions of people who thought they were the first to think about the idea of incentives. Or the first to repeat someone else's opinion about it. And the millionth to ignore the issue of tradeoffs or multiple variables. Which comes about when people spout off things without knowing that economics has addressed the issues ad nauseum. It's like the 'prime mover' or 'where is the crocoduck?' argument used in arguments about creationism.
In fact, I really despise politics in general. Because it is so full of ideology, statements based on assumptions, and virtually no curiosity to get to the bottom of a problem.
It's like the 'prime mover' or 'where is the crocoduck?' argument used in arguments about creationism.
Prime mover arguments are not used for 'creationism'.
"Prime mover arguments are not used for 'creationism'."
It is only one argument as far as I know.
It is used for a number of positions. But creationism (or 'intelligent design') is one of those.
That's why I stick to f7u12 :D