UK elections thread

[wufwugy]

they gave you the pencil. everybody else gets a pen.

[rong]

Exit polls look awful for labour. Tories actually gained 9 seats, labour lost a further 19.

[eugmac]

​Ugh.

[Renton]

Stimulus is basically like having a patient who needs a blood transfusion so your solution is to take a liter of blood out of his leg, spill 1/3 of it on the floor, and inject the rest back into his arm. This whole idea of improving the economy by making sure that saved money gets spent is absurd. Man I would get along so much better with socialists if they would just leave economics out of their arguments. If your position is that rich and middle class people's money should be given to the poor because that's only fair, then let that be your position. At least it would be an honest one. This article claims that "every <food stamp> dollar in the U.S. generates $1.73 in real GDP increase" as if that were even knowable, let alone true.

In reality every dollar that the government taxes and spends elsewhere incurs an opportunity cost. Had the dollar not been taxed, the taxpayer would have done the following with it:

1) Spent the money on consumer goods and services, improving his standard of living and stimulating the economy.

2) Invested the money in himself or in others, creating new jobs and stimulating the economy.

3) Put the money in a bank, where it would be loaned with leverage to start and grow other businesses, lowering interest rates, creating new jobs, and stimulating the economy.


A simple math problem for the above:

Stimulus Value = Benefits - Opportunity Cost - Waste

In order to be positive, the value of the benefits of the stimulus has to exceed the opportunity cost + the waste. I already went into what the opportunity cost is. The waste is much easier to calculate, and it includes the following:

1) Every paid man-hour of a government official associated with disbursing/enforcing the stimulus.

2) The opportunity cost of each of these man-hours. If they were working in the private sector they would be doing other productive work instead of this.

3) Every physical resource used by a government official associated with disbursing/enforcing the stimulus. This includes fuel, electricity, land, buildings, the use of roads, and the like.

4) The opportunity cost of each of these uses. It's a little more complicated than the opportunity cost of a person's time. In this case the cost is the fact that more resources are needed by the economy, raising the cost of resources for all. Leasing office space costs more when there are fewer vacant spaces to lease. Petroleum costs more when more people are vying to use it. Governments use a huge amount of such resources.

5) Rent-seeking. Whenever there is a stimulus, unless it is given out by random lottery, would-be recipients of the stimulus will actually spend a lot of money and time to position themselves to have a greater chance of receiving stimulus money, or to increase the amount that they get. All of these costs apply directly to the equation, as they wouldn't have been incurred but for the stimulus.


So basically the government's entire role in the stimulus is waste. I want to stress that it is waste only in terms of the formula I've laid out. Of course, if the benefits exceed the opportunity cost + waste, then the waste wasn't a waste at all. In other words, then the stimulus value would be positive and the government's role in the stimulus cannot be considered a net waste.

The reason I made this post is not to decry all stimulus spending, but to establish that the benefits need to be vast in order to exceed such heavy costs. I believe a good analogy is a NLHE cash game with a very high rake. An extremely good player might have a large edge on the field, but still lose because the rake is too damn high.

[wufwugy]

just saw this joke, figured id post here

Paradise: A place where the humor is British, the cook is French, the mechanic German, the lover Brazilian, and evething is organized by the Swiss.

Hell: A place where the humor is German, the cook British, the mechanic French, the lover Swiss, and everything is organized by Brazilians.

[rong]

Stimulus is basically like having a patient who needs a blood transfusion so your solution is to take a liter of blood out of his leg, spill 1/3 of it on the floor, and inject the rest back into his arm. This whole idea of improving the economy by making sure that saved money gets spent is absurd. Man I would get along so much better with socialists if they would just leave economics out of their arguments. If your position is that rich and middle class people's money should be given to the poor because that's only fair, then let that be your position. At least it would be an honest one. This article claims that "every <food stamp> dollar in the U.S. generates $1.73 in real GDP increase" as if that were even knowable, let alone true.

In reality every dollar that the government taxes and spends elsewhere incurs an opportunity cost. Had the dollar not been taxed, the taxpayer would have done the following with it:

1) Spent the money on consumer goods and services, improving his standard of living and stimulating the economy.

2) Invested the money in himself or in others, creating new jobs and stimulating the economy.

3) Put the money in a bank, where it would be loaned with leverage to start and grow other businesses, lowering interest rates, creating new jobs, and stimulating the economy.

A simple math problem for the above:

Stimulus Value = Benefits - Opportunity Cost - Waste

In order to be positive, the value of the benefits of the stimulus has to exceed the opportunity cost + the waste. I already went into what the opportunity cost is. The waste is much easier to calculate, and it includes the following:

1) Every paid man-hour of a government official associated with disbursing/enforcing the stimulus. Except for the fact that this cost already exists to a large extent. We aren't talking about more or less government, we're talking about increasing spending as opposed to reducing it. I very much doubt every (any?) person/department/building etc within the government is being used at full capacity. You could even argue that we've extracted value by heading toward full capacity.

2) The opportunity cost of each of these man-hours. If they were working in the private sector they would be doing other productive work instead of this. Well we're talking about a recessionary environment, so it's a bit of a leap to assume they could even find work in the private sector. It's just as feasible that you'd be adding another body to the dole queue. You'd actually be reducing the demand for labour and putting downward pressure on wages at a time when inflation would be beneficial due to high debt levels. But as this is an extension of the first point which I say is a much smaller effect than one might imagine so I'd say my comments are as irrelevant as yours.

3) Every physical resource used by a government official associated with disbursing/enforcing the stimulus. This includes fuel, electricity, land, buildings, the use of roads, and the like. Same again.

4) The opportunity cost of each of these uses. It's a little more complicated than the opportunity cost of a person's time. In this case the cost is the fact that more resources are needed by the economy, raising the cost of resources for all. Leasing office space costs more when there are fewer vacant spaces to lease. Petroleum costs more when more people are vying to use it. Governments use a huge amount of such resources. Same again.

5) Rent-seeking. Whenever there is a stimulus, unless it is given out by random lottery, would-be recipients of the stimulus will actually spend a lot of money and time to position themselves to have a greater chance of receiving stimulus money, or to increase the amount that they get. All of these costs apply directly to the equation, as they wouldn't have been incurred but for the stimulus. Can't argue with this one.


So basically the government's entire role in the stimulus is waste. I want to stress that it is waste only in terms of the formula I've laid out. Of course, if the benefits exceed the opportunity cost + waste, then the waste wasn't a waste at all. In other words, then the stimulus value would be positive and the government's role in the stimulus cannot be considered a net waste.

The reason I made this post is not to decry all stimulus spending, but to establish that the benefits need to be vast in order to exceed such heavy costs. I believe a good analogy is a NLHE cash game with a very high rake. An extremely good player might have a large edge on the field, but still lose because the rake is too damn high.

You seem to have based all of this on taxing a dollar and then spending a dollar minus expenses. This is not a question of wealth redistribution. The point was to borrow to invest, when borrowing at an extremely low rate, and reduce taxes at the same time. This is effectively spending that otherwise wouldn't happen and spending in itself is beneficial, not just because it passes wealth around in the form of profit from every exchange, but it creates demand which creates a demand spiral and it's this multiplier that has been particularly underestimated. You've also ignored the benefits of inflation in a economy with high levels of both personal and national debt.

Now I can imagine you saying right now that if you were to do that you'd be better off giving the money directly to people than allowing the government to spend it. But the imperfections of markets and the high level view that a government can take allows them to focus that money where it will have the greatest effect and ensure people don't just pay down debt with it which would be awful for acheiving growth.

[Renton]

Except for the fact that this cost already exists to a large extent. We aren't talking about more or less government, we're talking about increasing spending as opposed to reducing it. I very much doubt every (any?) person/department/building etc within the government is being used at full capacity. You could even argue that we've extracted value by heading toward full capacity.

Is your point that the government is already a huge waste sitting idle, so we might as well use it? I was talking from a theoretical point of view, for every new responsibility the state takes on, more people and resources are necessary. If the state did less things, there would necessarily be fewer people and resources utilized, who could then do other productive things in the economy.

Well we're talking about a recessionary environment, so it's a bit of a leap to assume they could even find work in the private sector. It's just as feasible that you'd be adding another body to the dole queue. You'd actually be reducing the demand for labour and putting downward pressure on wages at a time when inflation would be beneficial due to high debt levels. But as this is an extension of the first point which I say is a much smaller effect than one might imagine so I'd say my comments are as irrelevant as yours.

In the event that the government doesn't heavily tax rich people and corporations, there will be more private sector jobs. Yes, it is certainly true that the low end of wages could decrease, but that only would mean that the current state of spendthrift government is creating a artificially-high wage standard for people. That's basically government 101: deficit-spend to make a certain voting bloc *currently* have a higher standard of living so they will vote you into office. Then either inflate the currency as a hidden tax to all or take on heavy debt because who cares what happens in 20 years, you got elected and mission accomplished.

You seem to have based all of this on taxing a dollar and then spending a dollar minus expenses. This is not a question of wealth redistribution. The point was to borrow to invest, when borrowing at an extremely low rate, and reduce taxes at the same time. This is effectively spending that otherwise wouldn't happen and spending in itself is beneficial, not just because it passes wealth around in the form of profit from every exchange, but it creates demand which creates a demand spiral and it's this multiplier that has been particularly underestimated. You've also ignored the benefits of inflation in a economy with high levels of both personal and national debt.

Now I can imagine you saying right now that if you were to do that you'd be better off giving the money directly to people than allowing the government to spend it. But the imperfections of markets and the high level view that a government can take allows them to focus that money where it will have the greatest effect and ensure people don't just pay down debt with it which would be awful for acheiving growth.

I think you make good points within the environment of centrally planned borrowing rates. Borrowing is an aspect of commerce that needs to be a free market more than almost anything else. Yeah, when interest rates are held to absurdly low levels that are nowhere near free-market, it's going to screw up incentives all across the board. It's also going to create business cycles and excessive inflation. In a way, you justify stimulus spending because the value of saving and investing has become so diminished in this environment. I wouldn't say inflation is a good thing or bad thing in and of itself, but it's certainly a thing that seems to be less hurtful to the poor than to the middle class and rich, since the poor are less likely to have savings.

[rong]

IS the market that governments borrow from free?

[wufwugy]

This is effectively spending that otherwise wouldn't happen and spending in itself is beneficial, not just because it passes wealth around in the form of profit from every exchange, but it creates demand which creates a demand spiral and it's this multiplier that has been particularly underestimated.

This isn't true. There is nothing inherently beneficial to spending. It does signal where supply investment is best allocated, but that is different than what you're saying. Disregarding that this signaling is bad when it comes from centralized forces, spending increases costs because it reduces supply. When government throws money at consumption, it is really just shifting costs, usually upon the fiscally responsible, like savers. Additionally, Krugman loves talking about the fiscal multiplier (or at least used to), but it has no evidence to support it. Besides, if it was true, we'd all be billionaires since it would mean the more we spend the more our incomes increasingly outpace our spending.

Now I can imagine you saying right now that if you were to do that you'd be better off giving the money directly to people than allowing the government to spend it. But the imperfections of markets and the high level view that a government can take allows them to focus that money where it will have the greatest effect and ensure people don't just pay down debt with it which would be awful for acheiving growth.

If they use it to pay down debt, it means the reason they aren't spending is because of their indebtedness. As far as I can tell, the drag of household debt on the economy was denied by zero economists until Krugman and co. started fighting for welfare programs. Even then, Krugman and co. never denied it, but instead just stopped mentioning it since it undermined their position on fiscal policy.


If you want to get even deeper, temporary stimulus isn't even a thing. Markets are not fooled by the temporary. If the government says it's going to spend more now but keep things "balanced" by spending less later, the markets account for this and end up not budging. If you follow central banks, you see this happen in real time all the time, but a fiscal example is the census employment in 2010. There was a significant expansion in employment just to take that census, but the markets knew the jobs were temporary and would disappear, so it didn't affect growth.

[rong]

If it is, ie the UK government borrow at the going rate for the perceived risk, and we can borrow at an extremely low level and invest it and get a positive return which simulates the economy and causes inflation resulting in reducing the real value of the money it borrowed, it seems retarded to me to not do it.

[rong]

This isn't true. There is nothing inherently beneficial to spending. It does signal where supply investment is best allocated, but that is different than what you're saying. Disregarding that this signaling is bad when it comes from centralized forces, spending increases costs because it reduces supply. When government throws money at consumption, it is really just shifting costs, usually upon the fiscally responsible, like savers. Additionally, Krugman loves talking about the fiscal multiplier (or at least used to), but it has no evidence to support it.

Evidence:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1367.pdf

Besides, if it was true, we'd all be billionaires since it would mean the more we spend the more our incomes increasingly outpace our spending.



If they use it to pay down debt, it means the reason they aren't spending is because of their indebtedness. As far as I can tell, the drag of household debt on the economy was denied by zero economists until Krugman and co. started fighting for welfare programs. Even then, Krugman and co. never denied it, but instead just stopped mentioning it since it undermined their position on fiscal policy.


If you want to get even deeper, temporary stimulus isn't even a thing. Markets are not fooled by the temporary. If the government says it's going to spend more now but keep things "balanced" by spending less later, the markets account for this and end up not budging. If you follow central banks, you see this happen in real time all the time, but a fiscal example is the census employment in 2010. There was a significant expansion in employment just to take that census, but the markets knew the jobs were temporary and would disappear, so it didn't affect growth.

.

[wufwugy]

I should add that the idea that the government can uniquely borrow and invest when the private sector doesn't is not true. When there are signals for positive ROI, private entities scramble to invest. When private entities are not doing this, it means there are no more reliable sources for positive ROI. The government can't just start investing and turn negative ROI into positive.

Governmental fiscal expansion is really just a huge cost, and that's why so many private entities hate it.

[rong]

This isn't true. There is nothing inherently beneficial to spending. It does signal where supply investment is best allocated, but that is different than what you're saying. Disregarding that this signaling is bad when it comes from centralized forces, spending increases costs because it reduces supply. When government throws money at consumption, it is really just shifting costs, usually upon the fiscally responsible, like savers. Additionally, Krugman loves talking about the fiscal multiplier (or at least used to), but it has no evidence to support it. Besides, if it was true, we'd all be billionaires since it would mean the more we spend the more our incomes increasingly outpace our spending.

We just disagree here.



If they use it to pay down debt, it means the reason they aren't spending is because of their indebtedness. As far as I can tell, the drag of household debt on the economy was denied by zero economists until Krugman and co. started fighting for welfare programs. Even then, Krugman and co. never denied it, but instead just stopped mentioning it since it undermined their position on fiscal policy.

Paying down debt reduces the money supply which is not beneficial to growth. I a recessionary environment growth is the most important thing, it reduces the value of debt in real terms. The reason people pay down debt as opposed to investing is fear. The fear is a self fulfilling prophecy.


If you want to get even deeper, temporary stimulus isn't even a thing. Markets are not fooled by the temporary. If the government says it's going to spend more now but keep things "balanced" by spending less later, the markets account for this and end up not budging. If you follow central banks, you see this happen in real time all the time, but a fiscal example is the census employment in 2010. There was a significant expansion in employment just to take that census, but the markets knew the jobs were temporary and would disappear, so it didn't affect growth.

.

[rong]

I should add that the idea that the government can uniquely borrow and invest when the private sector doesn't is not true. When there are signals for positive ROI, private entities scramble to invest. When private entities are not doing this, it means there are no more reliable sources for positive ROI. The government can't just start investing and turn negative ROI into positive.

Governmental fiscal expansion is really just a huge cost, and that's why so many private entities hate it.

"The UK’s benchmark government borrowing rate touched a historic low of 1.396 per cent on Thursday morning, as the ripple effects of central bank action in the face of low inflation spread worldwide. " Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef568030-a...#axzz3ZUzyfWJ4

Most businesses can not borrow at this rate so effectively opportunities exist for the government that do not for businesses.

[wufwugy]

.

That paper is not saying what you think it's saying. The multiplier is below 1 and it's about what happens during contraction.

Most businesses can not borrow at this rate so effectively opportunities exist for the government that do not for businesses.

And do what with it? Throw it down the drain? Borrowing just to accrue larger costs does nothing positive.

[OngBonga]

Looks like the Tory wankers are gonna hold.

[Luco]

Wow. Ed, nick and nige all resign.

Majority government again is nice, regardless of which party.

[rong]

You gotta give credit to the tories. They got an unexpected majority and force the resignation of the leaders of their 3 biggest competitors. That's not a bad a day at the office.

[wufwugy]

Does having a Tory majority mean that Tories will enact Tory policies more than previously or are there other backstops or considerations that will moderate the government more than a coalition might?

[rong]

They can pretty much do as they like. On the list is abolishing the human rights act.

[wufwugy]

What explanations are there to explain this outcome? Obviously it looks like Shy Tory effect, and explanations I've seen are the economy has been getting noticeably better so people simply voted with their wallets or that there is fear of too much SNP influence in a possible coalition sans Tory.

I can't believe I watched two hours of live coverage last night. I'm such a doof. I love politics though, and Britain's politics do matter for Murika.

[Hoopy]

Wow. Ed, nick and nige all resign.

Majority government again is nice, regardless of which party.

It's been entertaining to watch the results come in.

I guess we're getting a referendum on Europe in the not too distant future.

[wufwugy]

What do you guys feel about the EU concerns?

[eugmac]

My personal feeling is that the EU referendum thing is just Cameron's bluff to try to get what he wants out of Merkel.

[eugmac]

Also swing UKIP mouthbreathers to vote Tory, I guess that is even more important.

[rong]

Exactly that. But he could end up with egg on his face and we may end up isolated. Bare in mind ukip git the third highest vote tally. Who knows what we may do. I think it would also lead to the break up of the UK because the issue of Scotland not being guaranteed entry to the eu had an effect on the independence vote so if we're out I can't see Scotland staying with us.

[Hoopy]

What explanations are there to explain this outcome? Obviously it looks like Shy Tory effect, and explanations I've seen are the economy has been getting noticeably better so people simply voted with their wallets or that there is fear of too much SNP influence in a possible coalition sans Tory.

I don't think people could see Ed Miliband as PM, the leader of any party is hugely important and many people's votes are swayed by them.

FPTP also plays a significant role obviously.

Conservatives & Labour gained seats from the Liberal Democrats while swapping seats between themselves in England.

SNP destroyed Labour in Scotland with Liberal Democrats suffering as well. Conservative unaffected.

Lib Dems got murdered this election. Tuition fees played a large part in that imo, I remember many people I was at Uni with voting for them just for that issue.

[rong]

A huge impact overall was the media bias toward the conservatives. It was as bad as I be seem it. Personal attacks on miliband, giving the tory party an easier ride in interviews. It was actually quite pathetic but this British public is quite thick and are very easily swayed.

[rong]

But I'm assuming wuf your question is regarding the shift from polls to outcome? People uncomfortable admitting they want to vote tory I guess. Or maybe those unsure eventually succumbing to the fear campaign that the jocks would hold labour to ransome.

[Hoopy]

A huge impact overall was the media bias toward the conservatives.

Indeed, Rupert Murdock in particular has far too much power.

[rong]

Yeah, the times and the sun together have a circulation of 2.2m. That's a he'll of a lot.

[wufwugy]

Do the Tories want to leave the EU? If so, why?

[rong]

A lot of tory mps and party members want to leave. Although a renegotiation of terms of membership might suffice. But there's no geting out of it now, in 2017 we will have a referendum.

Main reasons are free movement of labour, ie immigration and those pesky foreigners taking our jobs and benefits (I love how they take both) and are a drain on our services. Secondly it's down to a general dislike of the fact that many laws are passed down from the eu and lots of people kick off over the fact that effectively a foreign power is dictating laws, many of which are small things, in Britain.

What they want is the freedom to trade without relinquishing any political control. And Hey, who wouldn't want that.

[wufwugy]

I think the only thing I like about the EU is its attempts to increase movement between borders. The monetary union is a disaster. At least it's not a fiscal union. Within 50 years, though, I bet it will be. Then 60% taxation will seem below normal.

I wish the US would go back to the Articles of Confederation. While I am anti-government on all levels, I think federal governments are an order of magnitude worse since they all but eliminate competition between regional governments.

[OngBonga]

Seriously though.

A pencil.

[wufwugy]

Why is Scottish independence bad?

[Luco]

The coalition was political suicide for the lib dems, they lost this election 5 years ago when they reneged on their tuition fees promise.

I agree with hoopy re ed milliband, this may have been a totally different story if David milliband had won the leadership instead.

Conservatives are going to use their majority to change constituency boundaries and cement their position, they will be hard to beat in 2020

First past the post was murder for ukip but awesome for snp

[Keith]

The coalition was political suicide for the lib dems, they lost this election 5 years ago when they reneged on their tuition fees promise.

on the plus side they probably got better pensions than they would have got without being in government.

I agree with hoopy re ed milliband, this may have been a totally different story if David milliband had won the leadership instead.

again you could say that this was a political shooting themselves in the foot moment when the unions used their block votes to get a sympathetic Ed the leadership instead of David.if spitting image was still going i'm sure he'd have experienced the same treatment that John Major received from them.

Conservatives are going to use their majority to change constituency boundaries and cement their position, they will be hard to beat in 2020

those boundary changes were already voted through during the last parliament and from the description are designed so that each seat represents a similar number of voters.

First past the post was murder for ukip but awesome for snp

you could also say it didn't help labour either as UKIP took quite a lot of votes from labour and in the north a lot of tories appear to have tactically switched to ukip putting UKIP into second place in many Labour seats

[Hoopy]

Conservatives are going to use their majority to change constituency boundaries and cement their position, they will be hard to beat in 2020

First past the post was murder for ukip but awesome for snp

This election has got me thinking more about voting systems than any other political issue. It seems to me that FPTP is a inherently flawed system because it doesn't accurately represent voters wishes.

The Conservatives got 37% of the vote but they've got an majority even when 63% of the voters didn't want them. Like Luco says you have to watch out for gerrymandering all the time with FPTP. Also voting for a 3rd party often hurts you overall, e.g. voting for a centre-left party will often take away a vote for the main left wing party which helps the right wing party. So people end up voting tactically rather than for who they want.

We need single transferable vote, proportional representation or schulze method.

[eugmac]

The downside is that with proportional representation, hardly anybody ever wins a majority (over 50%), so you have coalitions a lot of the time. Actually this is probably a good thing. But it's boring for people, because there's no clear winner, and everything is always a compromise.

[Hoopy]

The downside is that with proportional representation, hardly anybody ever wins a majority (over 50%), so you have coalitions a lot of the time. Actually this is probably a good thing. But it's boring for people, because there's no clear winner, and everything is always a compromise.

It would certainly be harder to get laws passed than it is now. And people are so used to labour or tory that the first election could be very surprising if everyone understand how it worked.

[OngBonga]

This tactical voting thing is bollocks. I voted for Dr Taylor, an independant, because I thought he'd be most likely to challenge the Conservative MP. But Dr Taylor came in 4th, behind Labour and UKIP.

I also voted against Kidderminster having its own council, but it was a 4:1 landslide in favour. So 80% of my town just voted for their council tax bills to go up. Morons.

As for FPTP debate, people should be careful what they wish for. If we had Proportional Representation, UKIP would have a lot of seats.

[rong]

You can't assume the votes would be cast the same way on both systems. I guarantee the greens would have received more votes in a pr system.

[OngBonga]

Well yeah, Greens would've got my vote in PR.

I don't necessarily have a problem with UKIP having power in proportion to their vote. But I guarantee you that a lot of people will have a problem with this.

[wufwugy]

It's window dressing. IIRC somewhere a little under 60% of the country voted center-right. A center-right party has a slim majority. UKIP is the real loser here under this vote design.

I don't think a more proportional or transferring vote would provide much change. If anything I'd rather be looking for disincentives for uninformed voting participation. I'm not sure how you can do that though. Maybe something like the only eligible voters are net taxpayers. Gotta keep in mind that the extent to which democracy doesn't work is the extent to which people support popular ideas that are wrong.

[OngBonga]

Maybe something like the only eligible voters are net taxpayers.

Erm no. Taking the vote away from people is not progressive democracy.

[wufwugy]

Erm no. Taking the vote away from people is not progressive democracy.

I think there are no good answers here. It's part of the inherent contradiction of democracy. It's wrong for people who don't pay taxes to have any say in government, but it's also wrong for government to have any say in the lives of people who don't vote.

So, really, the goal should be to get better results regardless of this problem. Something like I proposed would do some good on that since it would effect into a reduction of the power of the state because people who net pay in taxes dislike the state more than the general voting population.

[OngBonga]

It's wrong for people who don't pay taxes to have any say in government, but it's also wrong for government to have any say in the lives of people who don't vote.

This is just plain wrong. By extension of this, those who pay more tax will then argue they deserve a bigger say. Someone who pays £100k in tax should get ten times as many votes as someone who pays just £10k, right? Wrong.

You can't just say hey you don't pay tax, you can't participate in democracy. Elections are not a privilige that is earned, they are a basic right that should only be taken away from people in exceptional circumstances, otherwise it undermines the core values of democracy.

Besides, everyone pays tax, even those who try not to. I get a fortnightly payment off the state, that's taxed. I then go and buy food, most of that is taxed. I go and have a pint, I pay tax. Hell, they've even got me paying tax on my fucking poker now.

We don't allow prisoners to have the vote. I think that's disgusting. So you're not going to get me on side when it comes to suggesting only net taxpayers can vote.

[wufwugy]

You didn't read what I said.

[OngBonga]

Alright I read it again and I'm none the wiser.

blah blah only net taxpayers should get the vote, blah blah fuck that it won't work, what am I missing?

[wufwugy]

The first part of your post was countering half of my statement, disregarding the qualifying second half. The second part of your post was mistaking instances of paying taxes for net tax pay.

[OngBonga]

Ok so by net tax pay you mean people who pay more into the system than they take out, right?

How does this even work? Is it worked out yearly, or over a lifetime? Do those who need emergency treatment from an NHS hospital that costs more than their tax value lose their vote? What about someone who has a nervous breakdown and leaves their job? What about someone like me who just can't be bothered? Why shouldn't I be able to participate in democracy? Why shouldn't I be able to vote for a party that will change things to suit my views? If the Greens were in, then I would be a net taxpayer.

You can't take the vote away from people based on tax, that is not democracy, that is elitism.

[OngBonga]

And if you agree with me, then idk what you're on about and don't really care.

[wufwugy]

Ok so by net tax pay you mean people who pay more into the system than they take out, right?

How does this even work? Is it worked out yearly, or over a lifetime? Do those who need emergency treatment from an NHS hospital that costs more than their tax value lose their vote? What about someone who has a nervous breakdown and leaves their job? What about someone like me who just can't be bothered? Why shouldn't I be able to participate in democracy? Why shouldn't I be able to vote for a party that will change things to suit my views? If the Greens were in, then I would be a net taxpayer.

You can't take the vote away from people based on tax, that is not democracy, that is elitism.

You still have not understood what I said. Democracy is an inherent contradiction. I pointed out one reason why, and you countered me as if what I said wasn't about a contradiction.

[OngBonga]

wtf is an "inherent contradiction"? Are you calling me an oxymoron?

[wufwugy]

Democracy is an inherent contradiction because it espouses two philosophies in opposition to each other simultaneously. It attempts to empower the people, but its method for doing so disempowers the people. It tries to merge public and private, which is untenable. The US deals with this contradiction a lot in fights between religious freedom and civil rights. Privately owned property and state owned property do not coexist without contradicting each other in instances where they're both relevant.

This is ultimately the reason why the western governments have gradually gotten more power over time. State owned property wields a stronger sword than privately owned property, so the majority of the time they combat each other, the state side wins. People hold on to the democratic principle of "of the people, by the people, for the people" even as it gradually slips away since the state is absolutely not "the people".

[OngBonga]

It attempts to empower the people, but its method for doing so disempowers the people.

Well democracy doesn't seem to me to be the problem here, the problem is the method.

The public vs private thing, I'm not quite sure why that makes democracy contradictory. I get where the contradictions are, I just don't get why it's democracy that's contradictory. It looks to me like economics is inherently contradictory. Democracy doesn't put these philosophies in opposition, they already are in opposition. Democracy is just the means of determining control in as fair and civil a way as possible. Democracy isn't trying to merge anything, it's purely a means to an end, which is for one party to emerge in overall control.

You know what, it smacks me in the face as I type that last sentence. Overall control. We have the power to disempower. You're right.

I'll celebrate this moment with a bong.

[wufwugy]

Cheers

[rong]

I still don't think this is an inherent problem with democracy, but rather a problem with our version of democracy. In our form of democracy we are indeed choosing who we give power. But the point of democracy is that we choose what powers they have and that's the bit we seem to have lost. It should be about electing someone who can best make complex decisions and deal with the administration of enforcing the rules and policies the we have agreed they should. But instead once elected they pretty much do as they choose. Part of this is a lack of choice which fptp and the typical two party system it creates. But an elected government should be acting our policies which we have chosen. It shouldn't be picking a master, it should be choosing a leader who pulls us all in the direction we want to head.

[wufwugy]

The contradiction is in the basic fact that the state and the people are antithetical. Democracy was originally about removing the aristocracy from the state and replacing it with commoners, but this doesn't change the fact that the body of the state and the body of people are two different things, with different motives and different needs. The way we currently glorify democracy is as a tool of empowering the people, and the irony is that the state is the current primary disempowering force of the people. It doesn't matter who makes up the state because the state by its most basic function has different prerogatives than the people. Every elected official could be Einstein and the state still wouldn't lose this structure.

The better way to illustrate the contradiction of democracy is the dynamic between state policies and privately owned property. Where property is private, the state has no jurisdiction, but the state has to have jurisdiction if it's a democracy. Inherent contradiction of democracy. It is still just as much an authoritarian state as any other, one that just tends to be more amenable to the average person than a dictatorship.

[rong]

The state only has the powers that the people allow it to have. Which means the people have overall control. This is fundamental to the very idea of democracy and choosing to pass some power and responsibility to a central elected figure is not relinquishing control but deciding how best to weald it. I really don't see a contradiction at all.

[Renton]

The problem with democracy is that each person has a single vote regardless of whether they contribute anything to society. As a result, all states trend toward welfare states because the low-income vote is the cheapest to secure. States are all about creating an entrenched victim class that never gets out of lower income quintile and is generally happy with the state as long as nobody touches their free shit. Pure popular democracy is especially problematic where individual freedom is concerned, as the majority of the world currently believes some really unsettling shit about religion, crime and punishment, and media censorship.

[wufwugy]

The state only has the powers that the people allow it to have. Which means the people have overall control. This is fundamental to the very idea of democracy and choosing to pass some power and responsibility to a central elected figure is not relinquishing control but deciding how best to weald it. I really don't see a contradiction at all.

The premise is flawed. The state doesn't have just the power the people allow it to have. If that was true, it would also be true of dictatorships, since dictatorships exists ultimately on "the power the people allow them to have".

[rong]

That doesn't make any sense. The clue is in the name.

[wufwugy]

Democracy gives people more power than other major forms of government by giving one specific extra avenue to policy change. Dictators still rule by will of the people, just with the tools of the people more limited than democracy. But this doesn't change what the nature of the state is.

Which gets into the crux of why I always talk about markets. People rightly believe democracy is better than other forms of government because there is greater amount of choice to the people. So why do people not also rightly believe that markets provide even better social organization since they provide an even greater amount of choice to the people?

Rilla realized this at one point which is why his main argument was that without government you can't have the security for markets to exist. I disagree, but I was happy to see the acknowledgement that markets are what people love about democracy but substantially more effective.

[Keith]

they gave you the pencil. everybody else gets a pen.

ong was one of the few people who got to sign his ballot paper.