These people are our future

[Lyric]

We have that rich guy, middle class guy and an armless guy from the island, and all pay a flat taxrate of 20%. Rich guy makes $500,000/yr, leaving him $400,000 after taxes. He pays the basic necessities and is left with $375,000 (or 75% of his gross income) to spend on luxuries in life. Middle class guy makes $150,000/yr, ie. $120,000-25,000=$95,000, or 63.3%. The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum after taxes and basic necessities. Progressive taxation was created to alleviate this clear discrepancy.

If this tax progression is removed, the poor suffer and the rich gain, both unproportionally. If income taxation or, in fact, taxation, government and social services in a larger sense are eradicated, only the poor (read: working class) suffer from it. The rich don't need affordable medical insurance, they can pay the bills just fine for any exotic procedures and pay without blinking. The rich don't need police or schools or fire department, no roads no libraries, nothing. They can just buy that shit if they happen to need it. All of these, however, are completely out of the reach of the general population, of the other 95%, who cannot afford them without socialized commie hippie governments.

You've left the island and the issue has become muddled with large numbers and imaginary ideas.

On the island the hard working man has created and stored many wheels of cheese and many bottles of wine over the years. He has even managed to distill liquor from his potato patch and has relatively pure vodka. He has managed to use the vodka to extract acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) from willow trees on the island (this has been done since at least 3,000 BC). He stores all of this in the basement of his hut.

He has stored ten wheels of cheese, ten bottles of wine, ten bottles of vodka, and ten bottles of aspirin. He lives comfortably because he has worked hard to create his things and store them.

The other islanders have stored 5 of everything or traded fish with him and they now have worked enough to store half as much as the other man, and the armless man has no savings, and another lazy man has no savings either.

The three working men decide they would like to help the others who cannot help themselves. They agree to pool money and form a charity. Each man will contribute 20% of their cheese, wine, vodka and aspirin and donate it to the armless and lazy men each month. The rich man contributes 2 wheels, 2 bottles, etc. The other two men each put in one wheel and one bottle, etc.

The rich man has contributed double what the other men have, but we still have a fair and flat tax system. The harder working man has still contributed more to help the needy (double), but is not discouraged from working because his marginal gain is always 80%.

If it were a progressive system, where he is asked to contribute 65% if he makes over ten wheels/month, and 85% of every wheel over 20/month, he will probably stop making cheese when he gets to ten or twenty wheels.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

You're absolutely right, only the poor do. Starting positions are not the same for everyone and resources tend to end up getting spread unevenly. We can either choose to have some sort of organization by the people for the people to ensure a more even distribution and more equal rights, or just let things be. The latter is typically called anarchy and social darwinism.

Resources also, for the most part, get spread to who produces the most. In Bill Gates case, he started out as a poor college student, and now has created something that millions of people have paid thousands of dollars to be able to use. For the most part, rich people have made their wealth in this way.

The starting positions for everyone are a (relatively) small part of the equation. If you think they are a big part, I have to assume it's because you think rich people or their families magically pulled their money out of the sky which just isn't true.

[wufwugy]

"The problem was that not only were these mortgages based on housing prices inflated by the Federal Reserve's low-interest rate policies, many of the home buyers had been granted mortgages under federal government pressures on lenders to lend to people who would not ordinarily qualify, whether because of low income, bad credit history or other factors likely to make them bigger credit risks.
This was not something that federal regulatory agencies permitted. It was something that federal regulatory agencies -- under pressure from politicians -- pressured and threatened lenders into doing in the name of "affordable housing."
The housing market collapse was set off when the Federal Reserve returned interest rates to more normal levels, but it was a financial house of cards that was due to collapse, sending shock waves through the economy. It was just a matter of when, not if."

--THOMAS SOWELL, PHD Economics, senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated from Harvard University in 1958, magna cum laude with a BA in Economics. He received his masters in Economics from Columbia University in 1959, and PHD in Economics from the University of Chicago. He has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA.

I said credible professional economists. Not a political professional Senior Fellow of a conservative think tank

There's a whole lot of people with academic economic history or positions. Some of them are credible, some of them are politicians or politically motivated. Make sure to distinguish between the two



Oh wait no you're right, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bribe politicians like Rubin and Gramm to undo the regulations keeping them from merging commercial and speculative banking, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bribe the SEC to release regulations keeping them from capping derivative leverage, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to sneak around insurance law by devising credit default swaps, and the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bet against the mortgages

Utter hogwash.

Besides, the banks own the fucking Fed anyways. You've bought propaganda, and the big bad gubmint is the scapegoat

[Lyric]

Come on, Stanford? Harvard? Magna Cum Laude in Economics? This can't possibly be right.

Look him up!

[CoccoBill]

The starting positions for everyone are a (relatively) small part of the equation. If you think they are a big part, I have to assume it's because you think rich people or their families magically pulled their money out of the sky which just isn't true.

The key words in you comment are "or their families". Do you think the wealth of the parents correlate with the eventual wealth of their children? I would argue that quite a large portion of the rich magically pull their wealth out of their parents.

[Lyric]

I said credible professional economists. Not a political professional Senior Fellow of a conservative think tank

There's a whole lot of people with academic economic history or positions. Some of them are credible, some of them are politicians or politically motivated. Make sure to distinguish between the two



Oh wait no you're right, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bribe politicians like Rubin and Gramm to undo the regulations keeping them from merging commercial and speculative banking, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bribe the SEC to release regulations keeping them from capping derivative leverage, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to sneak around insurance law by devising credit default swaps, and the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bet against the mortgages

Utter hogwash.

Besides, the banks own the fucking Fed anyways. You've bought propaganda, and the big bad gubmint is the scapegoat

Stanford University is where he works now, and his education speaks for itself. Perhaps you don't realize that only half the world thinks like you? That half the professional economists agree with me and half agree with you?

[wufwugy]

Come on, Stanford? Harvard? Magna Cum Laude in Economics? This can't possibly be right.

Yes, it can be right. All bought and sold economists have academic history. It makes propaganda much easier this way. Wall Street CEOs have some of the strongest financial cred around, but the problem is they're also some of the biggest thieves and liars.

Propagandists and thieves of this caliber are too smart to come at you with anything other than the well-dressed, well-educated smooth-talker. Step outside the echo chamber

[CoccoBill]

You've left the island and the issue has become muddled with large numbers and imaginary ideas.

I believe these numbers quite accurately represent the reality, though the "rich" in this example is really an alsoran when compared to the true elite.

If it were a progressive system, where he is asked to contribute 65% if he makes over ten wheels/month, and 85% of every wheel over 20/month, he will probably stop making cheese when he gets to ten or twenty wheels.

You're just describing a small working class economy with almost nonexistent income gaps, progressions used in the real world would hardly affect this system in any way. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the "rich" guy in your scenario would do then decide to starve to death?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

The key words in you comment are "or their families". Do you think the wealth of the parents correlate with the eventual wealth of their children? I would argue that quite a large portion of the rich magically pull their wealth out of their parents.

So let's say you invent a cure for cancer, and make millions of dollars in exchange for providing this cure for people. Once you die, should the government take all your money that you would otherwise pass down to your children? Some people are working to provide for their family for future generations, is this wrong?

[wufwugy]

Stanford University is where he works now, and his education speaks for itself. Perhaps you don't realize that only half the world thinks like you? That half the professional economists agree with me and half agree with you?

How dense are you?

Me: That's a strawberry
You: That's not a strawberry because I like apples

[IowaSkinsFan]

Do you think the wealth of the parents correlate with the eventual wealth of their children?

Sure, but I think it has little do with the fact that they are given money, and almost everything to do with the fact that they are learning, directly and indirectly, from parents that earn lots of money how to earn lots of money for themselves.

[CoccoBill]

So let's say you invent a cure for cancer, and make millions of dollars in exchange for providing this cure for people. Once you die, should the government take all your money that you would otherwise pass down to your children? Some people are working to provide for their family, is this wrong?

No it shouldn't and no it's not. I just don't think the children who are passed down this wealth are starting off equal to ones who aren't, and that they didn't create value to deserve it.

[IowaSkinsFan]

What this really should say.

How dense are you?

Me: I like Strawberries because ZOMG ITS CLEARLY SUPERIOR TO EVERYTHING ELSE, WHY USE LOGIC.
You: I like Apples, think they are better than Strawberries, here's a bunch of logic supporting this.

[IowaSkinsFan]

No it shouldn't and no it's not. I just don't think the children who are passed down this wealth are starting off equal to ones who aren't, and that they didn't create value to deserve it.

I have a question because I think there is some disconnected between what you and what I would think equality of opportunity would look like.

Does equality of opportunity mean that everyone gets exactly the same things?

[Lyric]

I believe these numbers quite accurately represent the reality, though the "rich" in this example is really an alsoran when compared to the true elite.



You're just describing a small working class economy with almost nonexistent income gaps, progressions used in the real world would hardly affect this system in any way. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the "rich" guy in your scenario would do then decide to starve to death?

What? You mean what would he do if he were starving? What? What's an "alsoran?"

The point of the island is to break it down into meaningful numbers. Let's imagine that the island has been running for 50 years and the rich guy has stored 500 wheels/bottles of everything, it doesn't change the basic ideas.

He is still accumulating wealth through work and applied knowledge and intelligence, and taxation would encourage him to stop making cheese even more if he could afford to sit on his ass for the next 30 years eating cheese and wine and trading for some fish. Taxing him will slow down his desire to work the richer he gets, and slow down his desires to trade the shit he invents if every trade is taxed.

We don't want him to slow down -- we want him to continue working hard to invent Tylenol and Swiss cheese, and learn how to make whiskey through experimentation (research). We want new islanders to see what they can have through hard work.

[IowaSkinsFan]

No it shouldn't and no it's not. I just don't think the children who are passed down this wealth are starting off equal to ones who aren't, and that they didn't create value to deserve it.

Bolded part:
I'm sure you'll just rescind this statement and I do understand im being petty because I think you added this part at the end without really thinking it through, but the entire socialist argument is that it doesn't matter if you create value or not. That because you are born in the world you should be supplied a large amount of things by the forced welfare (you can think of this positively or negatively, however you would like to) of others, even though you are giving nothing in return.

[Lyric]

How dense are you?

Me: That's a strawberry
You: That's not a strawberry because I like apples

I'm implying that his education makes it less likely that he is a political puppet. I also ask if you will concede that half of American professional economists agree with me or if I will be forced to offer evidence to support this claim.

[Lyric]

Sure, but I think it has little do with the fact that they are given money, and almost everything to do with the fact that they are learning, directly and indirectly, from parents that earn lots of money how to earn lots of money for themselves.

Correct. Kids who don't learn spend all the money and go broke.

You could imply the same thing about intelligence, and claim that kids are only intelligent because their parents were intelligent. We know that intelligence is both genetic and random -- dumb people are born to smart parents and vice versa, many of the richest men today were not born that way, including Buffet and Gates.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I find this interesting: Everyone so far in this thread seems to agree with the premise that a large % of people in the world are stupid.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Wufwugy, I do have one thing to ask you. You say there is suffering in the world, I agree. How much of this suffering would you say is the result of the actions and values of the sufferer? How much is of this suffering would you say is the result of the actions and values of the poor?

[wufwugy]

What this really should say.

You're more intelligent than this

Step outside the echo chamber. There's nothing I can say until you do that.

Go examine "debates" between biologists and creationists, or between truthers and non-idiots, or between AIDs deniers and non-idiots. Without fail, all the evidence or logic in the world does nothing for the people on the wrong side of the "debate" unless they actually step outside of their echo chamber and imagine that they could actually be wrong.

Until you are interested in the possibility of being wrong, you're not going to be able to examine any contrary points. I've gone through this humbling process a myriad of times, including when I began learning econ. Until you honestly examine hundreds of hours of research outside of your echo chamber, you really can't express a quality of opinion on the matter. I used to be inside the libertarian echo chamber; it took several months of research outside my comfort zone before I saw through the holes. This type of thing is pretty standard when engaging in any new topic.

I've seen every fact and every ounce of evidence presented to deniers on several different issues, and it never gets through unless the denier sets their denial aside for a time and tries to fully understand the other argument. If you think I haven't presented evidence for my arguments, that's partially correct, but the reason is because I discovered early on in this debate that the evidence isn't key here, but openness to examining the evidence without prejudice. That's why my response is almost always to just do a ton of research on the subject. I could post evidence all day long for my claims, but I refuse to do so on deaf ears.


But I think you're smarter than that. So here take this advice. Don't listen to a word I say. Think to yourself that I'm a fucking moron who needs to get a clue. Just make sure to step outside of the echo chamber and spend a large chunk of time examining contrary points from the most qualified sources you can find. Personally, I know how formidable echo chambers can be; I've been in several, including the libertarian one, as I said

[wufwugy]

I'm implying that his education makes it less likely that he is a political puppet.

You'd think so, but unfortunately it's not true with econ. There's way way too much financial and political incentive behind it.

Besides, the Hoover Institute kills it.

Also, what he said isn't entirely wrong. That's part of the play of propaganda. The Bush Admin did express some incentive for easier mortgages and stuff, but that's only a tiny role, and misdirects from the vast majority of what else was going on. When the banks bribe and commit fraud, you can't say it was because the Fed lowered their interest rates

I also ask if you will concede that half of American professional economists agree with me or if I will be forced to offer evidence to support this claim.

You mean economists without political, financial, or corporate conflicts of interest? Have at it, Hoss. Please find me credible economists who think the innocent ol banks were forced by big bad government to make hundreds of billions by overextending themselves and committing legalized fraud

[wufwugy]

Wufwugy, I do have one thing to ask you. You say there is suffering in the world, I agree. How much of this suffering would you say is the result of the actions and values of the sufferer? How much is of this suffering would you say is the result of the actions and values of the poor?

This is not something that can be perfectly quantified, but the answer is close to "not much"

If you're blaming the billion people who live on 1$ a day for not picking themselves up by their own bootstraps, you're duped. When it comes to somebody like you or me, there is more of a case to be made for the choices we make, but when it comes to most of what happens to people across the globe, choice is a tiny factor.

Also, after I die, can I choose to be reincarnated into the son of a billionaire? Can I choose to be genetically very intelligent and physically capable, and can I choose to not have really bad things happen to me that I can't control? I think when that happens I'll point at the unfortunate and call them lazy


The human brain is pretty amazing. It's brought into an almost entirely determined existence, yet feels like it's so powerful it can do what it wants

[IowaSkinsFan]

This is not something that can be perfectly quantified, but the answer is close to "not much"

If you're blaming the billion people who live on 1$ a day for not picking themselves up by their own bootstraps, you're duped. When it comes to somebody like you or me, there is more of a case to be made for the choices we make, but when it comes to most of what happens to people across the globe, choice is a tiny factor.

Also, after I die, can I choose to be reincarnated into the son of a billionaire? Can I choose to be genetically very intelligent and physically capable, and can I choose to not have really bad things happen to me that I can't control? I think when that happens I'll point at the unfortunate and call them lazy


The human brain is pretty amazing. It's brought into an almost entirely determined existence, yet feels like it's so powerful it can do what it wants

So if our existence is determined why make any decisions or do anything? Why try? Did I have a choice of whether I was going to become a good poker player or not?

I'd like you to answer these questions, but here's my answer. Life isn't determined, but there's a shitload of luck in it. That doesn't mean we have not control, it means that we are not in total control over the results of our actions. But this doesn't mean that we should try to make every result equal. I know that most opposers of the libertarians in this thread tend to hate analogies or at least do not like the analogies so far, but here's one we should all understand. Poker is a game of luck and skill. Even if I play a hand theoretically perfectly I can still lose money on a hand. Even if I play a hand atrociously I can still make money on the hand. I can't choose what my results are. I can choose however, what my best course of action will be to have the result most likely be making money. This is similar to life.

Do you believe life is totally determined? Tell me, did it matter what I did, would I have ended up being as successful as I am at poker? Tell me, if I decide to wager $5,000 dollars in a flip of a coin, is it already determined whether I will win or lose? Tell me, can you control what you believe in? Is it unfair that you were blessed in a scenario where you learned the truth about life where most others were put into the scenarios where they would come to strongly believe libertarian ideas? Are these the exceptions you are talking about when you say "almost entirely determined?"

[CoccoBill]

Sure, but I think it has little do with the fact that they are given money, and almost everything to do with the fact that they are learning, directly and indirectly, from parents that earn lots of money how to earn lots of money for themselves.

Are you suggesting that most children of wealthy families somehow lose all of their inherited wealth and then rebuild it all from scratch?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Are you suggesting that most children of wealthy families somehow lose all of their inherited wealth and then rebuild it all from scratch?

By the way, if you disagree with me, please take the time to read this speech.

Francisco's 'Money' Speech from "Atlas Shrugged"

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

[CoccoBill]

I have a question because I think there is some disconnected between what you and what I would think equality of opportunity would look like.

Does equality of opportunity mean that everyone gets exactly the same things?

In a completely unrealistic utopia where resources are infinite, competition isn't necessary and therefore doesn't exist, yes. An armless black woman born in Saudi-Arabia just doesn't have the options granted to Paris Hilton, no matter how much more intelligent, skilled and hardworking she may be. Do you think it's wrong to try to level the playground here, at least a little bit?

Bolded part:
I'm sure you'll just rescind this statement and I do understand im being petty because I think you added this part at the end without really thinking it through, but the entire socialist argument is that it doesn't matter if you create value or not. That because you are born in the world you should be supplied a large amount of things by the forced welfare (you can think of this positively or negatively, however you would like to) of others, even though you are giving nothing in return.

I think you're attacking a straw man here, you're labeling me as a socialist, assuming that that is the framework and rules I operate by and I have no mind of my own. Please don't do that, we are not arguing between two opposite clearly predefined ideologies which somehow represent the only two possible economic systems available, this duality very seldom exists outside US politics.

You're arguing that he reason and justification for those who have money, is that they created value to society by exchanging and creating something, right? What value have the children of these people created at the moment they inherit the wealth?

[CoccoBill]

You mean what would he do if he were starving?

You said the rich man would have no motivation to work if some of his wealth is spread around. You gave this as if it would be a legit possibility that he stop working, please explain what he would, in your opinion, do after doing that.

The point of the island is to break it down into meaningful numbers. Let's imagine that the island has been running for 50 years and the rich guy has stored 500 wheels/bottles of everything, it doesn't change the basic ideas.

He is still accumulating wealth through work and applied knowledge and intelligence, and taxation would encourage him to stop making cheese even more if he could afford to sit on his ass for the next 30 years eating cheese and wine and trading for some fish. Taxing him will slow down his desire to work the richer he gets, and slow down his desires to trade the shit he invents if every trade is taxed.

We don't want him to slow down -- we want him to continue working hard to invent Tylenol and Swiss cheese, and learn how to make whiskey through experimentation (research). We want new islanders to see what they can have through hard work.

The problem is that you're only looking at this through the rich guy's perspective. You picture you're that guy, right? You want to make sure that when you're reaching for you American Dream, there's nothing in your way to stop you. The others who don't succeed don't have the capacity and willpower to achieve your goals, hence they clearly don't deserve it. If someone with an innate disability gets left behind in the process, that's acceptable losses, since it is the rich guy who is the most important.

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.

The rich guy's continuing work is getting less and less beneficial for the society, no one has anything he wants and even with slavery, sexual favors etc. only so much of the rich man's wealth ends up generating any common benefits. What is there to stop the rich buy from abusing and establishing tyranny over all the others? The armless persons who can't support themselves will have no chance but to either die or take the food from the others, the latter of which is probably not in the interests of neither the rich nor the middle class, which is why making sure he has enough might be in their self-interests.

[CoccoBill]

By the way, if you disagree with me, please take the time to read this speech.

Francisco's 'Money' Speech from "Atlas Shrugged"

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

You do know that Atlas Shrugged is a fictional novel by Ayn Rand, a novelist known as "the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large".

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm sure Lyric will eventually concede this point but I'm wondering why its important that a shit ton, more than anyone in the world could ever need or want, is different than infinity.

It's how I learn, Lyric has provided a great framework for understanding wealth so I'm just trying to explore its robustness.

We could, in agreement, build a wonderous understanding of economics without illuminating the definition of my wealth-ceiling versus Lyric's infinity because both are essentially, and squiggly sign, the same.

But I would prefer knowing what's under every rock, shining light through every corner, bending and breaking the system in every way.

As has been stated many times over in this thread, if someone is mega wealthy, it probably means that many people have voluntarily exchanged money with them or their company in exchange for a good or service. Especially people that everyone seems to be using as examples, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Zuckerburg, etc. We use Windows because it allows us to know that our computer will be compatible with any new technology that comes up. We use facebook because it allows us to connect with people we could have never connected with before. If you don't want to use these things, you are perfectly free to do so. But what you're saying is you want to pay these people for these awesome services, then take the money, that we all voluntarily paid them, back.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it to.

Because understanding the above means knowing that Zuckerburg's wealth came from somewhere, and that somewhere to me is the idea of judged value on the organization of resources.

If I want to use that as the foundation for my understanding, I want to know everything I'm implying when I say "that somewhere to me is the idea of judged value on the organization of resources."

edit, I think a very interesting case study beyond Gates or Zuckerburg is: Anurag Dikshit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is wealthy, but what wealth did he create?

[a500lbgorilla]

Yet still not price-able

This whole idea is seriously woo woo territory. It's like thinking you can cut a cell with a knife because you can cut skin with a knife

But you can cut a cell with a knife? It just can't be the same skin-cutting knife but much sharper.

What is woo woo territory? Just wondering; a little Wikipedia link would suffice.

[a500lbgorilla]

Auto safety and technology came along well before the government got involved. I would be happy to pay $2,000 (avg cost added by regulations to each car) less for my car if the gov't stepped out of the way. Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it. Today many auto makers are making vehicles that sense a crash and apply the brakes, and are introducing new safety features at a breakneck pace because that's what car buyers value. The government does not have to force them to install these technologies!

The government being involved only makes the process slower and makes it cost more.

Where does the 2k number come from?

[a500lbgorilla]

This has been a huge problem in Britain, were we have a long history of classes. Take an upper class familoy as an example - 300 hundred year ago, their great, great etc grandfather fucked over a load of peasants and had a huge estate with a huge stately home.

300 years later his family is still living off that money. All the generations have gone to the best schools in the country, have the best connections and all the trappings of wealth. After school they go to Oxbridge and get a top degree. They go on to become become prime minister using their connections and wealth, reduce taxes (including inhertitance tax of course) and look after there chums who had the same privildges as above.

As for someone like myeslf - I might well be brighter and more motivated than the above person, but due to my great great etc grandfather being one of the people his great, great etc grandfather fucked over all those years ago, I go to a shit school and live on a rough estate. I need to leave school at 16 and get a job to help pay to feed the family....problem is there are no jobs because the prime minsters chums siphoned off all the wealth in the country in some mortgage scheme I don't understand, but has ended up losing my home etc etc

Welcome to England and the unfair weath distributution and why I think we should raise the inheritance tax higher...(obv along with other reasons).

But doesn't this kind of make sense that this is how Utopian designs intersect with reality?

That an ancestor does terrible things to guarantee his kin a better lot in life, a better chance to succeed, to cement himself as a strong link in the unbroken chain of life?

We're always going to be people, it's hard for me to imagine righting these wrongs permanently. You could do well to act today and rebalance the game which could endure for hundreds of years, but people will always move to threaten that balance.

I don't like it, but it seems like how it's going to be, to me.

[CoccoBill]

Auto safety and technology came along well before the government got involved. I would be happy to pay $2,000 (avg cost added by regulations to each car) less for my car if the gov't stepped out of the way. Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it. Today many auto makers are making vehicles that sense a crash and apply the brakes, and are introducing new safety features at a breakneck pace because that's what car buyers value. The government does not have to force them to install these technologies!

The government being involved only makes the process slower and makes it cost more.

You're using confirmation bias to prove your point. Let's phrase your argument another way: "Only Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it". That is exactly why regulation is needed; to ensure that ALL manufactured cars are safe, not just some variably sized sample of them, who decide to use that as their competing edge and marketing strategy. This in itself demonstrates, that safety is not something the auto industry is automatically interested in, unless enough people die for the general populace to notice and start boycotting them, or the government steps in. Even with regulation in place you can be sure that the mass models on the lower end of their product spectrum aim to just barely achieve the minimum baseline, since anything over that eats into their profits, ie. is bad business.

[Ash256]

Lyric, your Volvo argument, how did you know Volvo were making safe cars? If Ford came out and said they'd made an even safer car, how would you verify this? What if Chevrolet then made their "safe" car but used a completely different type of test to work out the safety of their car?

[a500lbgorilla]

As much as libertarians wish they were arguing for lower/no taxes or reduced/no government, they're unwittingly arguing for regressive taxation and special government. You cannot find one single large society in the history of the planet that didn't run on taxation, and 100% of the time the society perpetuated for some time with an effective regressive taxation model, the society became more and more totalitarian; on the flip side, when progressive taxation is pushed, the society becomes more egalitarian.

I want to know more about this.

[a500lbgorilla]

lol.. You cannot be serious? Nearly none of these things are possibly accomplished by one man in one life time. Develop medicines? Really? Do you not recognize how many thousands of years it took people to develop herbal remedies, half of which were not remedies at all but just simply old wives tales. Do you propose that this sole human is just born with the knowledge of basic architecture? How many different styles of homes do you think were created before a given culture found a relatively easy to make and safe one? What happens when Joe Islander twists his ankle after hopping down from harvesting coconuts? Hes dead.. that's what happens.

Even so, we could ignore the absurd claims to Joe's potential accomplishments and just say that he could forage for the bare minimum of fruits/nuts/vegetables per day or he could get a little extra. That little extra would allow him to have some free time in the following day or week. So yes, he can be "richer" to and extent, but just barely. And even if we go back and accept your claims of his potential accomplishments, as wuf said, he still cannot possibly be anywhere near as rich as he could be with a society to prop him up. So while you have technically countered my analogy, you have done so in the weakest fashion. As far as I can see my point still stands.

To me, this seems like how applicable the island is to reality, because it isn't one man finding himself working hard and creating a home on the first try, nor is he discovering medicines on the first try, but if you have enough mans attempting enough herbal remedies, attempting enough lumber combinations, you will find one wealth creator building homes and one wealth creator making medicines.

This post yields a question that I have: for however much society props him up, what props up society? My answer is that wealth creation leads to the opportunity to govern leads to the creation of society which leads to the opportunity for wealth creation. That every step of the way, order is increased, wealth is increased.

[a500lbgorilla]

Ok, so at some point one of you said "well the government should pay for schools through taxation, its the other stuff that they waste tax dollars on that takes away from school funding."

So I'd like a list of areas it is acceptable for the gov't to spend tax money.

In advance I would just like to point out that whatever area it is not ok (in your libertarian view) for the gov't to spend tax money on, I'll just plug into my previous argument wherever "school" was used.

Great thread, I try to do a bit with my Saturday morning but it keeps drawing me back.

This: So I'd like a list of areas it is acceptable for the gov't to spend tax money.: would be cool.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

You're using confirmation bias to prove your point. Let's phrase your argument another way: "Only Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it". That is exactly why regulation is needed; to ensure that ALL manufactured cars are safe, not just some variably sized sample of them, who decide to use that as their competing edge and marketing strategy. This in itself demonstrates, that safety is not something the auto industry is automatically interested in, unless enough people die for the general populace to notice and start boycotting them, or the government steps in. Even with regulation in place you can be sure that the mass models on the lower end of their product spectrum aim to just barely achieve the minimum baseline, since anything over that eats into their profits, ie. is bad business.

This I think is one fundamental difference in our beliefs. You think that the govt needs to protect people from companies who make bad cars. I think that it's up to every individual to decide which car they would like to buy. If they want to buy a car that is more likely to harm them, then that's their decision. And if people want to get in the car with this person, that's also their choice. I think each person is responsible for protecting themselves.

[CoccoBill]

This I think is one fundamental difference in our beliefs. You think that the govt needs to protect people from companies who make bad cars. I think that it's up to every individual to decide which car they would like to buy. If they want to buy a car that is more likely to harm them, then that's their decision. And if people want to get in the car with this person, that's also their choice. I think each person is responsible for protecting themselves.

So you're against the police force, fire department and military? Or do you have some logical criteria about what the government should protect its people from? Do you feel its optimal that the only way to know if a product is safe is to try it out first yourself? To perform your own safety testing and inspections that the product is what it claims to be, and it won't explode or cause cancer. I don't think you'd want to live in a world without regulation.

In my opinion, the role of the government is to protect its citizens, within the limits of resources and what is practical, from all threats both domestic and foreign, except from themselves. A private citizen and a corporation are not equal in their rights and power, meaning the citizen is not able to protect itself from abuse from them. This is why we need regulations, standards and accountability.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

So you're against the police force, fire department and military? Or do you have some logical criteria about what the government should protect its people from? Do you feel its optimal that the only way to know if a product is safe is to try it out first yourself? To perform your own safety testing and inspections that the product is what it claims to be, and it won't explode or cause cancer. I don't think you'd want to live in a world without regulation.

In my opinion, the role of the government is to protect its citizens, within the limits of resources and what is practical, from all threats both domestic and foreign, except from themselves. A private citizen and a corporation are not equal in their rights and power, meaning the citizen is not able to protect itself from abuse from them. This is why we need regulations, standards and accountability.

1) I do believe that the government should provide a police force, fire department, and military among other things. We don't need to tax 50% of the rich peoples income to accomplish this. We don't need to have income tax to provide these services, period. If I was unclear, in no way am I saying that we shouldn't have a consumption tax like sales tax. We do need some government and they do need money.

2) In what ways do a private citizen and a corporation not have equal rights and power? I'm not saying that this statement isn't true... I just would like specific examples so I can at least have the ability to counter.

3) The government isn't the only agency that performs safety tests on cars. For $5 a month you can go to consumerreports.com and read about any car on the market and see what they found when they thoroughly tested it for safety.

[wufwugy]

So if our existence is determined why make any decisions or do anything? Why try? Did I have a choice of whether I was going to become a good poker player or not?

I'd like you to answer these questions, but here's my answer. Life isn't determined, but there's a shitload of luck in it. That doesn't mean we have not control, it means that we are not in total control over the results of our actions. But this doesn't mean that we should try to make every result equal. I know that most opposers of the libertarians in this thread tend to hate analogies or at least do not like the analogies so far, but here's one we should all understand. Poker is a game of luck and skill. Even if I play a hand theoretically perfectly I can still lose money on a hand. Even if I play a hand atrociously I can still make money on the hand. I can't choose what my results are. I can choose however, what my best course of action will be to have the result most likely be making money. This is similar to life.

Do you believe life is totally determined? Tell me, did it matter what I did, would I have ended up being as successful as I am at poker? Tell me, if I decide to wager $5,000 dollars in a flip of a coin, is it already determined whether I will win or lose? Tell me, can you control what you believe in? Is it unfair that you were blessed in a scenario where you learned the truth about life where most others were put into the scenarios where they would come to strongly believe libertarian ideas? Are these the exceptions you are talking about when you say "almost entirely determined?"

I wasn't really referring to determinism where the Universe is governed entirely by laws of causality. That's not something I have yet been able to wrap my mind around, and part of why that is is because it's impossible to disprove determinism which could actually suggest that the only other option is determinism (most things are not dichotomies, but this one might actually be) and the illusion of free will is argument itself for some kind of lack of determinism on a micro scale or something. Even if illusions aren't real, they still exist, and are arguably then meaningful.

But that's some really really tough stuff to think on.

Anyways, I was referring not so much to philosophical determinism, but to what I'll call relative determinism, which honestly is not debatable at all. Of all the possibilities in the entire Universe, I was born in a specific place at a specific time under specific circumstances with specific biology in a specific society and things all work in a specific way. This is a massive level of determined factors that affect all of my decision making.

I'm also not looking at it like it's a dichotomy. There are more options than either extreme. Also, something to keep in mind is if existence were entirely determined, it wouldn't look or feel any different than it does right now. However, even if determinism were true, it's impractical, and I don't really care about it. The choices we make are extremely important for our lives, but we can't let that fact push us into imagining that our lives are affected purely by choice. Even if only a tiny fraction of everything we do/are/have is choice, that fraction is still practically unfathomably important.

[wufwugy]

I want to know more about this.

My references to taxation are not about any specific tax code, but about collective social and economic activity that creates different levels of effective taxation on different classes. Even without an explicit tax collection criteria (which is still unheard of in any large society) it's about power distribution and how that itself effects into economic taxation.

Policy that effects into regressive taxation consolidates power into the special, policy that effects into progressive taxation redistributes power into the general. The effects are also strongly perpetual until a massive jolt like rebellion from the general (like what happened back in 1776) or trickery from the special (like modern corporatism). When power pushes towards consolidation into the special, things like human rights and free market and all that go by the wayside due to the general being born into powerless enough positions. When power pushes towards redistribution into the general, that trend reverses, and the gap between lucky/unlucky tightens.

When it boils down to it, the reason real taxation on what people "earn" is paramount is because the deservedness "system" is imbalanced, and if we don't artificially push power towards those who don't "deserve" it, we've inadvertently created an oligarchy where the vast majority of people born into the society do so with less rights and opportunity than average

[wufwugy]

When it boils down to it, the reason real taxation on what people "earn" is paramount is because the deservedness "system" is imbalanced, and if we don't artificially push power towards those who don't "deserve" it, we've inadvertently created an oligarchy where the vast majority of people born into the society do so with less rights and opportunity than average

This point really needs to be hit. I'm not sure how many people realize that in the US, average wealth is substantially higher than median wealth. This is a regressive society where the majority of kids are born into a position below average and a handful of special kids are born into a position above average. A primary purpose of progressive taxation is to tighten the gap so it becomes fair for those who haven't even been born yet.

Puts a taint on the deservedness idea, doesn't it? When everybody gets to keep too much of what they "earned", future generations suffer

[boost]

By the way, if you disagree with me, please take the time to read this speech.

Francisco's 'Money' Speech from "Atlas Shrugged"

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

first I want to apologize for jumping in and out of this.. this thread is simply moving too fast for me to carry on in the multiple debate paths that exist. I do not mean to ignore questions posed in response to things I posted, but this is the best I can do.

That being said.. I find that this quote disproves its own main point. If the unfit heir's wealth was instead spread amongst 50 people, there is a greater chance that it has reached a fit heir. On the flip side if the potential heir is fit yet instead his inheritance is spread amongst 50 people, there is a chance it will reach some undeserving people. Pretty much by distributing the inheritance we are not rolling the dice but instead hedging our bet.

The bolded part is just silly, as the quote first suggests there are heirs of worth. Then goes on to say that you, the non-heir, could not possibly be fit to inherit this lump of wealth. Hopefully everyone can see that this makes no sense.

[boost]

Great thread, I try to do a bit with my Saturday morning but it keeps drawing me back.

This: So I'd like a list of areas it is acceptable for the gov't to spend tax money.: would be cool.

I agree, it would be cool. I can't really point a finger at anyone for not producing this list, as I admitted in my previous post that I just don't have the time to fully participate in this thread. However I would be happy with even a rough list.

Asking for this list is like asking a no-mosque-at-ground-zero'er, "at what distance from ground zero would it be acceptable to build a mosque?" Until we quantify this, the "debate" (quotes used in reference to the ground zero mosque "debate") cannot continue, at least it can't continue down this path..

[boost]

3) The government isn't the only agency that performs safety tests on cars. For $5 a month you can go to consumerreports.com and read about any car on the market and see what they found when they thoroughly tested it for safety.

Afaik, and tell me if I'm wrong, but Consumer Reports does not perform its own crash tests. But instead they use data from the government tests to inform the paying customer on the safety of a given vehicle. Crash testing is massively expensive (since each tests produces a total loss of a vehicle, and there are several tests) and is only done because the government mandates that a certain number of vehicles are given to them by the manufacturer. This price is rolled into the cost of the vehicle and becomes negligible when hundreds of thousands of that vehicle are sold. If it were left to an independent body such as Consumer Reports to do the testing, it would not costs $5 to subscribe as they would be paying tens of millions of dollars annually just to purchase the test vehicles, not to mention the facilities and the added staff of specialist, etc.

[Lyric]

I find this interesting: Everyone so far in this thread seems to agree with the premise that a large % of people in the world are stupid.

Half the world has an IQ below 100 and 98% are below 130. If your IQ is 130+ most people in the world are relatively dumb.

[Lyric]

You're more intelligent than this

Step outside the echo chamber. There's nothing I can say until you do that.

Go examine "debates" between biologists and creationists, or between truthers and non-idiots, or between AIDs deniers and non-idiots. Without fail, all the evidence or logic in the world does nothing for the people on the wrong side of the "debate" unless they actually step outside of their echo chamber and imagine that they could actually be wrong.

Until you are interested in the possibility of being wrong, you're not going to be able to examine any contrary points. I've gone through this humbling process a myriad of times, including when I began learning econ. Until you honestly examine hundreds of hours of research outside of your echo chamber, you really can't express a quality of opinion on the matter. I used to be inside the libertarian echo chamber; it took several months of research outside my comfort zone before I saw through the holes. This type of thing is pretty standard when engaging in any new topic.

I've seen every fact and every ounce of evidence presented to deniers on several different issues, and it never gets through unless the denier sets their denial aside for a time and tries to fully understand the other argument. If you think I haven't presented evidence for my arguments, that's partially correct, but the reason is because I discovered early on in this debate that the evidence isn't key here, but openness to examining the evidence without prejudice. That's why my response is almost always to just do a ton of research on the subject. I could post evidence all day long for my claims, but I refuse to do so on deaf ears.


But I think you're smarter than that. So here take this advice. Don't listen to a word I say. Think to yourself that I'm a fucking moron who needs to get a clue. Just make sure to step outside of the echo chamber and spend a large chunk of time examining contrary points from the most qualified sources you can find. Personally, I know how formidable echo chambers can be; I've been in several, including the libertarian one, as I said

I started in the liberal echo chamber. Your advice is right on the mark. It's fascinating how we tend to lock ourselves into an opinion and cognitive dissonance won't let us see anything but what we already believe.

[CoccoBill]

Half the world has an IQ below 100 and 98% are below 130. If your IQ is 130+ most people in the world are relatively dumb.

Assuming that IQ actually is a reliable measure of someone's intellect. I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't, it's merely some sort of quantification of very distinct and very limited set of cognitive skills.

[Lyric]

You'd think so, but unfortunately it's not true with econ. There's way way too much financial and political incentive behind it.

Besides, the Hoover Institute kills it.

Also, what he said isn't entirely wrong. That's part of the play of propaganda. The Bush Admin did express some incentive for easier mortgages and stuff, but that's only a tiny role, and misdirects from the vast majority of what else was going on. When the banks bribe and commit fraud, you can't say it was because the Fed lowered their interest rates


You mean economists without political, financial, or corporate conflicts of interest? Have at it, Hoss. Please find me credible economists who think the innocent ol banks were forced by big bad government to make hundreds of billions by overextending themselves and committing legalized fraud

Are you saying that no legitimate economists are conservative or libertarian? You don't think there are two legitimate sides to this ageless debate?

Are you really saying that all laissez-faire economists including Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Irving Fisher, Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, Arthur Burns, Friedrich Hayek, Homer Jones, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Simons, and George Stigler are all puppets with an evil agenda?

[Lyric]

You said the rich man would have no motivation to work if some of his wealth is spread around. You gave this as if it would be a legit possibility that he stop working, please explain what he would, in your opinion, do after doing that.

The problem is that you're only looking at this through the rich guy's perspective. You picture you're that guy, right?

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth.

The rich guy's continuing work is getting less and less beneficial for the society, no one has anything he wants and even with slavery, sexual favors etc. only so much of the rich man's wealth ends up generating any common benefits.

After he stops working he starts sitting in his house eating cheese and wine; he no longer creates wealth for society. He no longer invents anything and becomes less valuable to the island.

As investments get bigger they enjoy lower ROI. Ask Buffet or any hedge fund manager. Small funds can easily invest in high ROI investments, but when they become larger it becomes harder and harder to find good returns.

I agree that wealthy people influence government inappropriately. This is why government should not have the power to help one private business over another, it shouldn't be permitted to subsidize corn, bail out banks or auto makers, etc.

Imagine he trades away all his cheese and wine and aspirin for gold coins. He holds those coins in his hut. How did he get those coins? By creating a ton of valuable shit that all the islanders are using and enjoying.

[Lyric]

edit, I think a very interesting case study beyond Gates or Zuckerburg is: Anurag Dikshit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is wealthy, but what wealth did he create?

Dikshit provided online poker for millions of people, and each of them paid him for that service.

[Lyric]

Where does the 2k number come from?

I read it awhile back but can't remember where. I looked up the safety regulations/equipment costs and they are about $750 per car for the safety stuff alone. If you include regulations for emissions equipment the $2k figure seems reasonable.

Cost Per Life Saved By The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

[wufwugy]

Are you saying that no legitimate economists are conservative or libertarian?

Pretty much. This isn't a damn philosophy debate. It's science. Observational and demonstrable evidence. "Conservative economists" is a phrase that exists because people don't even know what fucking economics means. You can't have liberal physics or libertarian chemistry, likewise any politically delineated econ is just as retarded.

You don't think there are two legitimate sides to this ageless debate?

There's more than two, usually. Just don't fool yourself into thinking stupidity is a side. Creationism isn't a "side" in a biology debate, likewise "making shit up that is empirically refuted" isn't a side in an econ debate.

We know for a fucking fact that the policy that is most responsible for the Crisis of 08 was deregulatory. This is not debatable because the scientific observation has already been declared. Only in conservative libertarian fantasy land do we get to fabricate made-up garbage where the Crisis of 08 was magically caused by increasing regulation.

Two examples: we know for a fact that in 1999 Congress deregulated certain mergers without which the Crisis of 08 would not have even been possible. We know for a fact that the SEC deregulating leverage caps for certain banks played an enormous role in the creation and severity of the Crisis

30 minutes on google is enough time to find the wealth of proof that the claim that we've been over-regulating the banks is complete and utter trash. But don't tell that to somebody who doesn't understand the difference between empirical observation and making stuff up

Are you really saying that all laissez-faire economists including Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Irving Fisher, Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, Arthur Burns, Friedrich Hayek, Homer Jones, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Simons, and George Stigler are all puppets with an evil agenda?

Joke list is a joke. Half these guys died before a huge chunk of enormously important economic results arose, and wannabe econ Austrians are a laughingstock for a reason. We're not dealing with philosophy. We're dealing with hard science. One reason this is difficult for people to understand is that in most sciences we have laboratories with the proper controls, but in econ we lack proper controls and society itself is the laboratory. But this doesn't mean it's not just as much of a science as biology, and it doesn't mean that instead of analyzing available empirical data, we can just make shit up.

[Lyric]

You're using confirmation bias to prove your point. Let's phrase your argument another way: "Only Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it". That is exactly why regulation is needed; to ensure that ALL manufactured cars are safe, not just some variably sized sample of them, who decide to use that as their competing edge and marketing strategy. This in itself demonstrates, that safety is not something the auto industry is automatically interested in, unless enough people die for the general populace to notice and start boycotting them, or the government steps in. Even with regulation in place you can be sure that the mass models on the lower end of their product spectrum aim to just barely achieve the minimum baseline, since anything over that eats into their profits, ie. is bad business.

I don't think manufacturers should be forced to make safe products. It's ridiculous to assume that government should safety test every product made; private companies can and do test products' safety better than government.

[Lyric]

Lyric, your Volvo argument, how did you know Volvo were making safe cars? If Ford came out and said they'd made an even safer car, how would you verify this? What if Chevrolet then made their "safe" car but used a completely different type of test to work out the safety of their car?

Private companies test and report on auto safety, and they use uniform tests. Currently the most prolific and effective testers for auto safety are insurance companies, they started the the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in 1959, and they would do so with our without government's retarded interventions.

[Lyric]

This point really needs to be hit. I'm not sure how many people realize that in the US, average wealth is substantially higher than median wealth. This is a regressive society where the majority of kids are born into a position below average and a handful of special kids are born into a position above average. A primary purpose of progressive taxation is to tighten the gap so it becomes fair for those who haven't even been born yet.

Puts a taint on the deservedness idea, doesn't it? When everybody gets to keep too much of what they "earned", future generations suffer

Who decides how much is "too much," and why do you think you are entitled to any of the cheese I make with my own two hands? Why do other islanders have a right to go into my hut and take my wine and cheese that I made with my own labor?

The island would be defined as "regressive" in your view as well, because the prolific worker would skew the average wealth higher than the median wealth, even on a five man island.

[Lyric]

I agree, it would be cool. I can't really point a finger at anyone for not producing this list, as I admitted in my previous post that I just don't have the time to fully participate in this thread. However I would be happy with even a rough list.

Asking for this list is like asking a no-mosque-at-ground-zero'er, "at what distance from ground zero would it be acceptable to build a mosque?" Until we quantify this, the "debate" (quotes used in reference to the ground zero mosque "debate") cannot continue, at least it can't continue down this path..

Government should be empowered to enforce laws prohibiting murder, theft, and enslavement, maintain courts of law, and maintain a military. That's it.

[Lyric]

Afaik, and tell me if I'm wrong, but Consumer Reports does not perform its own crash tests. But instead they use data from the government tests to inform the paying customer on the safety of a given vehicle. Crash testing is massively expensive (since each tests produces a total loss of a vehicle, and there are several tests) and is only done because the government mandates that a certain number of vehicles are given to them by the manufacturer. This price is rolled into the cost of the vehicle and becomes negligible when hundreds of thousands of that vehicle are sold. If it were left to an independent body such as Consumer Reports to do the testing, it would not costs $5 to subscribe as they would be paying tens of millions of dollars annually just to purchase the test vehicles, not to mention the facilities and the added staff of specialist, etc.

The best crash tests are done by the IIHS which is a non-profit run by insurance companies. Redundant tests are also done by various governments; a complete waste of our money.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Lyric]

Assuming that IQ actually is a reliable measure of someone's intellect. I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't, it's merely some sort of quantification of very distinct and very limited set of cognitive skills.

Agreed. However, each IQ test is different, and there are no rules for questions that should be on an IQ test. It can purport to test intelligence, but the skill of the test maker and his biases are tremendously important.

[Lyric]

Pretty much. This isn't a damn philosophy debate. It's science. Observational and demonstrable evidence. "Conservative economists" is a phrase that exists because people don't even know what fucking economics means. You can't have liberal physics or libertarian chemistry, likewise any politically delineated econ is just as retarded.


There's more than two, usually. Just don't fool yourself into thinking stupidity is a side. Creationism isn't a "side" in a biology debate, likewise "making shit up that is empirically refuted" isn't a side in an econ debate.

We know for a fucking fact that the policy that is most responsible for the Crisis of 08 was deregulatory. This is not debatable because the scientific observation has already been declared. Only in conservative libertarian fantasy land do we get to fabricate made-up garbage where the Crisis of 08 was magically caused by increasing regulation.

Two examples: we know for a fact that in 1999 Congress deregulated certain mergers without which the Crisis of 08 would not have even been possible. We know for a fact that the SEC deregulating leverage caps for certain banks played an enormous role in the creation and severity of the Crisis

30 minutes on google is enough time to find the wealth of proof that the claim that we've been over-regulating the banks is complete and utter trash. But don't tell that to somebody who doesn't understand the difference between empirical observation and making stuff up

Joke list is a joke. Half these guys died before a huge chunk of enormously important economic results arose, and wannabe econ Austrians are a laughingstock for a reason. We're not dealing with philosophy. We're dealing with hard science. One reason this is difficult for people to understand is that in most sciences we have laboratories with the proper controls, but in econ we lack proper controls and society itself is the laboratory. But this doesn't mean it's not just as much of a science as biology, and it doesn't mean that instead of analyzing available empirical data, we can just make shit up.

When people being talking to me about proven facts and insisting that that science is settled and that there is no more debate alarm bells go off for me. Science is always open to new ideas, is constantly questioning reality, and nothing is ever permanently settled in science.

If you want to tell me that it is generally accepted that gravity works like this and that econ works like that -- fine -- but I think it's inappropriate to insist that the entire libertarian and conservative viewpoint regarding economics is a fairy-tale.

If you grew up in the Libertarian "echo chamber" I would imagine you know that the liberal viewpoint and its pundits are viewed with equal disdain. Krugman is considered to be an especially obvious or obnoxious puppet because he wrote a textbook that explicitly teaches the opposite of the viewpoint of his articles.

Further, it is strange that you refuse to speak about economics in simple island terms, with one or five people. It's a simple starting point that we can all understand, and an easy way to see how wealth, money, and economics works.

You claim that it does not apply, but have not offered any reasons. I have only seen a lot of arm waving, insisting that your viewpoint is correct and that libertarians are like creationists, and that economics is so complex that we can't begin to understand it on its most basic level no matter how hard we try.

[CoccoBill]

Further, it is strange that you refuse to speak about economics in simple island terms, with one or five people. It's a simple starting point that we can all understand, and an easy way to see how wealth, money, and economics works.

You claim that it does not apply, but have not offered any reasons. I have only seen a lot of arm waving, insisting that your viewpoint is correct and that libertarians are like creationists, and that economics is so complex that we can't begin to understand it on its most basic level no matter how hard we try.

I think this has mostly to do with the fact that a simplistic island scenario does not represent the incredible complexity of modern economics in any meaningful way. The basic laws that might govern a closed limited basic hand-trade system just do not apply when compared to a world full of intricate structures based not only on simple value designations and work effort, but derivatives, economies of scale, special interests, government interaction, lobbying and so on and so forth. The sheer complexity makes the whole irreducible to a point, since the laws governing this behemoth are vastly different to the model governing the basic interaction. The functionality of the free markets on a global scale is based on some basic assumptions that seem to be incorrect: it assumes that all consumers behave rationally, which many studies have shown is not true.

[Lyric]

I think this has mostly to do with the fact that a simplistic island scenario does not represent the incredible complexity of modern economics in any meaningful way. The basic laws that might govern a closed limited basic hand-trade system just do not apply when compared to a world full of intricate structures based not only on simple value designations and work effort, but derivatives, economies of scale, special interests, government interaction, lobbying and so on and so forth. The sheer complexity makes the whole irreducible to a point, since the laws governing this behemoth are vastly different to the model governing the basic interaction. The functionality of the free markets on a global scale is based on some basic assumptions that seem to be incorrect: it assumes that all consumers behave rationally, which many studies have shown is not true.

I agree that the modern world economy is complex, but to understand that complexity we can start with one man and continue adding people and complexity until we arrive at an understanding of the modern world economy. There is no reason that we can't start small and build on that, understanding one point at a time until we arrive at credit default swaps.

Claiming that the laws of economics change when the island grows to a certain undetermined size seems illogical to me. It's still a bunch of people on an island (earth), and they are still interacting with each other in similar ways. If anything, let's build the island slowly and see if the laws change at some point.

[CoccoBill]

Well to start, how do you simulate economies of scale in a market of 5 people? I think it's pretty clear that the rules change with complexity, even to the point where the "basic" governing laws become irrelevant.

[Lyric]

Well to start, how do you simulate economies of scale in a market of 5 people? I think it's pretty clear that the rules change with complexity, even to the point where the "basic" governing laws become irrelevant.

Economies of scale easily applies to the island.

Imagine a cheese maker who curdles milk in a one gallon container, strains it, and packs one wheel for aging. If he invests some of his time to create a 50 gallon container, the time (cost) to create each wheel will be less. Eventually he may curdle cheese in ever bigger containers until the time to build a bigger container outweighs the time savings per wheel.

The same applies to wine making container size and all of his basic manufacturing processes. If he is fishing he can move up from one fishing pole to 50 poles, or manufacture ever bigger fishing nets; all yield time savings through economies of scale.

Economies of scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ash256]

Who decides how much is "too much," and why do you think you are entitled to any of the cheese I make with my own two hands? Why do other islanders have a right to go into my hut and take my wine and cheese that I made with my own labor?

Wait, so the other islanders don't have the right to go into your hut and take your shit but they do have the right to throw you in jail if you commit a crime?

I don't see why you think it's abhorrent that the state has the right to take your money but cool that the state has the right to permanently take your freedom/life.

Also your foot-stomping indignation against paying taxes is completely undermined by the fact that you feel a state is necessary to "enforce laws prohibiting murder, theft, and enslavement, maintain courts of law, and maintain a military.". You either want a government or you don't. By all means advocate a small government, but realise that philosophically arguing against taxes just has you whining about your own utopia.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Wait, so the other islanders don't have the right to go into your hut and take your shit but they do have the right to throw you in jail if you commit a crime?

I don't see why you think it's abhorrent that the state has the right to take your money but cool that the state has the right to permanently take your freedom/life.

Also your foot-stomping indignation against paying taxes is completely undermined by the fact that you feel a state is necessary to "enforce laws prohibiting murder, theft, and enslavement, maintain courts of law, and maintain a military.". You either want a government or you don't. By all means advocate a small government, but realise that philosophically arguing against taxes just has you whining about your own utopia.

The government takes in, what, 10 trillion dollars a year? You think they need even 1 percent odd that to provide all these things? The only thing that would get in its way is military but i'd be astounded if anyone in this thread supports big military.

[Ash256]

^ Strawman. Even if your 1% argument is correct you're still advocating government and taxes, my assertion stands.

[Lyric]

Wait, so the other islanders don't have the right to go into your hut and take your shit but they do have the right to throw you in jail if you commit a crime?

I don't see why you think it's abhorrent that the state has the right to take your money but cool that the state has the right to permanently take your freedom/life.

Also your foot-stomping indignation against paying taxes is completely undermined by the fact that you feel a state is necessary to "enforce laws prohibiting murder, theft, and enslavement, maintain courts of law, and maintain a military.". You either want a government or you don't. By all means advocate a small government, but realise that philosophically arguing against taxes just has you whining about your own utopia.

Taxation and a small government are necessary. I am opposed to redistribution of wealth, not taxation or government per se.

[Lyric]

Wait, so the other islanders don't have the right to go into your hut and take your shit but they do have the right to throw you in jail if you commit a crime?

I don't see why you think it's abhorrent that the state has the right to take your money but cool that the state has the right to permanently take your freedom/life.

Also your foot-stomping indignation against paying taxes is completely undermined by the fact that you feel a state is necessary to "enforce laws prohibiting murder, theft, and enslavement, maintain courts of law, and maintain a military.". You either want a government or you don't. By all means advocate a small government, but realise that philosophically arguing against taxes just has you whining about your own utopia.

I am opposed to all the island people forming an armed gang and forcing the most productive guy on the island to give them half of his stuff. Charity should be voluntary, and a mob of islanders with sharp sticks taking his stuff is the same thing as modern government taking half of Bill Gate's income and giving it to banks and corn farmers and bomb makers.

It just backfires and we can't see the damage it does because we never see how productive the hard working guy would be without the huge amount of theft at gunpoint (redistribution of wealth).

The whole point of government is to stop armed mobs, not become the armed mob itself.

[IowaSkinsFan]

^ Strawman. Even if your 1% argument is correct you're still advocating government and taxes, my assertion stands.

At no point in this thread has anyone said there should be no government and no taxes.

And can we please stop using the term Strawman? lol

[IowaSkinsFan]

Just a poker analogy that I'm sure most of you will say is stupid but I think applies perfectly.

Saying its unfair that the fact that some people get lucky and our born rich and some people get unlucky and our born poor is like saying its unfair in a poker game that some people get AA and some people get dealt 72o. Would it be more fair if everyone get dealt JTs? Well, it would certainly make all decision making easier, but it would make the game pointless.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't see why you think it's abhorrent that the state has the right to take your money but cool that the state has the right to permanently take your freedom/life.

Both are completely abhorrent, so both should only be used when absolutely necessary. I will allow the state to collect taxes for the purpose of protecting me from the harm of other people. I'm pretty sure there was a time where there were no jails, and the majority of humans decided to get together and say we want to be protected from the harm of others, lets all band together and pay for police and jail to help.

[IowaSkinsFan]

In a completely unrealistic utopia where resources are infinite, competition isn't necessary and therefore doesn't exist, yes. An armless black woman born in Saudi-Arabia just doesn't have the options granted to Paris Hilton, no matter how much more intelligent, skilled and hardworking she may be. Do you think it's wrong to try to level the playground here, at least a little bit?

It's wrong to do it through force. If you want to give your money and time to help the armless black woman, I'd be very happy.

I think you're attacking a straw man here, you're labeling me as a socialist, assuming that that is the framework and rules I operate by and I have no mind of my own. Please don't do that, we are not arguing between two opposite clearly predefined ideologies which somehow represent the only two possible economic systems available, this duality very seldom exists outside US politics.

Fair enough, but do you think whether or not someone creates value is irrelevant?

You're arguing that he reason and justification for those who have money, is that they created value to society by exchanging and creating something, right? What value have the children of these people created at the moment they inherit the wealth?

They have created value for their parents all their lives. A shit load of it apparently if they are getting all of their parents money. I do not think that I will personally give all my money to my children.