Printable View
Economics is really tough, therefore economists don't know shit.* They've a better sense than anyone not studying Economics, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Edit: Alright, I can't be so grandiose. They know some things. I'm pretty sure a lot of micro stuff is pretty solid.
*Let me put it this way: It's much easier to convince everyone that you're right, than to actually be right.
The fundamental axioms of all fields are unprovable. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
It is a misconception that the goal science is to make "true" statements. Truth is beyond the realm of the scientific process. It never comes up. It's not that science is "unconcerned" with truth, so much as science is completely devoted to disproving false-hood. The notion that disproving falsehood is in any way logically linked with creating truth or finding truth is a non sequitur. Failure to prove statement false is not a proof that the statement is true. It's just an open door for another attempt to prove falsehood.
The goal of the scientific process is to make falsifiable statements and try as hard as we can to observe that they are false, and to report all experimental observations, without bias.
There is no such thing as an inertial reference frame?
SMH
***
@wufwugy: The intelligent things you have to say are all tainted by the knuckleheaded stuff you throw in when you get heated.
Sadly the first paragraph shows the author making at least two mistakes about macroeconomics. Then he goes to say macro isn't a science. He could be right, but we're not going to know that from people who get macro wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Since he mentioned it a few times in the article, "forecasting" is not what macro does. To loosely quote from memory a macroeconomist, Scott Sumner, "If a model could predict a recession it would be changed so that the recession was no longer predicted". This means that recessions happening has no bearing on the veracity of macroeconomic claims. That's also assuming political policy is that which textbook economics might advocate in the first place, which is far from the case.
Macro uses the scientific method constantly. Every form of claim-making and discovery does. Some have just real shitty tools.
What is the scientific method?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
How does Macro use the scientific method?
Sorry, upon re-read... this sounds like I'm being rude. I don't mean it to be harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I mean that I'm trying to get some understanding of what you're saying, wuf. Every time I start to think you have a consistent point, you thrown in some comparison or analogy that leaves me thinking that you're just pushing a half-baked idea that you don't really understand and that you overvalue.
So I'm torn over what you're saying. I know you're a brilliant guy. I want to learn what you're passionate about. It's always good to dig someone's brain when they're talking about what they love.
I want to learn from you, but I have a personal hang up about the vagueness of your analogies and metaphors. That could be my problem. :/
***
It's absurd to say, XXX is not a science. Science is a process, and can be used by anyone in any field. If you have kids, or once were one, then you know the process of scientific inquiry starts very early. The hypotheses may be unstated, but the experiments and conclusions are quite real. It's always been the case that old statements are discarded for new statements. All the old statements were wrong, and it stands to reason that all the current statements will be old statements someday.
One I've mentioned before.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
In 2013, the US enacted fiscal austerity and monetary expansion. The Keynesians, headed up by Paul Krugman, said this this fiscal austerity would cost IIRC ~600k jobs over the next year. Market Monestarists, headed up by Scott Sumner, said it would not because of the monetary offset the Fed declared it would engage. Krugman said this would be a test of Market Monetarism (since Krugman loves the "us vs them" bullshit). Sumner said it wouldn't because clearly that's not how you test a dynamic broad system, but that it would be a test of the specific predictions and claims for why.
So, Keynesians said the economy would slow down in comparison to the fiscal austerity while Market Monetarists said it would stay the same or possibly speed up slightly because of the monetary offset. 2013 happened, it sped up slightly. Krugman acted like it never happened, Sumner continued doing what he does.
This is an example of forming a question, developing a hypothesis, making a prediction, running a test, and analyzing the results. It's a whole lot easier when you have a lab, but this is still the scientific method.
Were they being scientific when they rolled out this theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
When I say Economics is not a science, I say it because it cannot follow the process.
This guy basically lays out the process
http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/co...nomics/cn2qy3p
It appears the math professor couldn't handle the fact that in economics:
We have models, wherein all the rules and mechanisms are clearly defined;
We have the real world, where it's a lot harder to boil things down to a few transparent mechanisms.
We use the former to clarify our thinking about the latter.
Models are fully-articulated artificial economies where the researcher has full control over the preferences, the production functions, and the trading arrangements. We then figure out properties of those model economies, identify key transmission mechanisms, and poke them to see how they react.
Then we reason by analogy to the real world.
And if you think the assumptions don't reflect the real world along some first-order dimension, you build a competing model where you have different trading arrangements, or different utility functions, or different production functions, or whatever. Then you see how far from the benchmark your model takes you.
It's a very strong method, but it isn't the scientific method.
It's not just you. I know I do this. Like everybody, I say things that make sense to me, but that doesn't mean they make sense to others. I also try to do more than one thing at a time, so I will often in one post say something clear, something speculative, and something in an attempt to rebut potential arguments against, all without clear transitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This is what an argument looks like. One that doesn't have any grounded experiment to fall back on.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There's an incredible book that really demonstrates what a Scientific argument looks like: The Histology of Neuroanatomy by Santiago Ramon y Cajal. Basically around 1900, new methods for treating and staining brain sections were discovered, these methods highlighted and lowlighted different aspects of the underlying neural structure. On top of this evidence, grand arguments were had about what any of it all meant. It really is a beautiful book that works through all the evidence, all the sorts of explanations for the evidence, how the best arguments were settled on by Cajal, and (outside of the book) how they were eventually demonstrated true.
There's no good in you and I fighting over Economics in this way until we agree on what a Science really looks like. This would be a great example of one to talk about.
Anytime you're able to say "this was wrong" or "this was right", you've engaged the scientific method.
Is it fair to say the scientific method has such a narrow definition that it must be conducted stringently in a lab while science communicators like DeGrasse Tyson say things like how kids engage the scientific method all the time?
Science is an argument.
Yes, one were we tease Nature to settle it for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Holy fucking no.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
This is true.
I meant to say science. The method is techniques. It's all still philosophically scientific discovery. Unless you want to say that "science" is exclusively formal.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Is this science:
"If I poke myself with this stick, I will feel pain." Commence poking, document feelings, evaluate them.
I say yes, I'm sure Rilla will mash keys to say no.
Science is exclusively the practice which allows us to turn natural reality into human understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
We've done this pretty successfully in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. When a physicist makes a human statement about gravity, it's pretty robust because of the methods we used to craft that statement. No statements in economics are crafted by this method.
Statements in economics are crafted through a method of rigorous argumentation and observation. But they fail to have a way to let Nature come in and have its say. There is no step that checks with Nature to make sure we're not way off base.
Humanity is nature. Society is nature. Money doing things is nature.
Sure, especially when you start going into "what if I poke myself with a finger. What if..."Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Because you're testing your statements.
You've said like 4 different times in this thread that economists have a hard time experimenting on an Economy. This kid has an easy time experimenting on himself. You see the difference, of course.
Yes, which is why you need the scientific method to explain them.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you say, "This was right," then you are not within the realm of scientific statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Once again: Failure to disprove is not the same as confirmation of proof.
Take the result over the Higgs Boson. They withheld publication of failure show there was NO Higgs Boson (at a specific energy) until their statistical significance was 5 sigma. That means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once. (In this case, the experiment includes the millions of trials they used to reach the 5-sigma significance, and not merely 3.5 million more trials.)
So the report didn't say, "We found a Higgs Boson." The report said, "We tried to show there there is no Higgs boson yet we continue to observe this anomaly in our results which is rather nicely explained by the theory of the Higgs boson. We were pretty sure that was a false reading, or a fluke or something else besides a Higgs. So we tested a million cajillion times and we simply can't shake this anomaly." We conclude that our experiment fails to disprove the existence of the Higgs boson.
This is NOT confirmation of the Higgs. (Understand that no Higgs boson has ever been directly detected. What has been observed is the decay of a high energy particle which is has an energy and lifespan predicted by Higgs and others.)
Saying there is a 0.00000001% chance that a statement is false is still infinitely more uncertain than saying that a statement is true.
You're really both right here. Rilla wants the subjects of the study to be more rigidly controlled and all the operating factors to be specifically accounted for.
So does wuf.
Reality defies this.
Rilla: Then your statements are weak and you shouldn't hold them in such high esteem.
Wuf: Well, WTF, man! This beast is charging and we need to start understanding it by any means.
*characterization to emphasize my perspective
I agree with both.
Yeah, but arguing with wuf could keep me alive for a century.
im a drug
@wufwugy: What are your thoughts on my ideas about pockets where other economic systems offer advantages over the prevailing system?
I read over your posts twice and was unable to decipher exactly what your proposal is. I'd be happy to give my thoughts if you provide more clarity on what you're looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
One of the themes in the thread that I read is the one-sided, capitalism is the best, angle.
But all around me, I see examples of trade economics which are not based on the direct transfer of goods, even within the capitalistic society. It seems to me that there are pockets where different economic systems offer various advantages.
I'm curious if you agree to that statement, and could you elaborate?
By pockets, I mean anything from a household which shares all their goods, to a business that has shared office supplies, to executives and politicians making "you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" exchanges. Any example where non capitalism trade is chosen, even though we live in a capitalistic society.
Why do you think this choice is made?
What are the perceived advantages?
Are those perceptions amiss?
I propose to educate myself about economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think this is an astute observation. I'm gonna pull from a Milton Friedman lecture here, where he says that even the Soviet Union was a capitalist country, just not a free-market capitalist country. I think he was getting at the most basic criteria of "capitalism" in that it's about using capital for exchange. But I honestly don't know because that's a somewhat strange statement to me, especially since capital =! money. But whatever, he knew what he was talking about more than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Regardless I think I know what you're getting at. I'll explain.
I am oftentimes merging the definitions of capitalism and free-market economics in these threads. It seems natural to me since the contemporary definition of capitalism is where assets are privately owned, which it seems to me to necessarily mean it is a free market unless there are some extenuating circumstances that make it not so (like a "private" monarchy or something).Quote:
By pockets, I mean anything from a household which shares all their goods, to a business that has shared office supplies, to executives and politicians making "you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" exchanges. Any example where non capitalism trade is chosen, even though we live in a capitalistic society.
Why do you think this choice is made?
What are the perceived advantages?
Are those perceptions amiss?
On to your question. It seems you're referencing a variety of different ways people organize themselves. You listed several examples, I'll list another: one corporation with one owner contrasted with another corporation where everybody shares ownership. There is an unknown quantity of different ways that people can organize themselves in a society.
The proposal of markets as an organizing principle is that it includes them all. It includes the ones we have, the ones we've thought about, and ones we haven't thought about. In a market, because people have the power of choice over their own circumstances, they are free to choose whichever organizational structure they want. We see this in our current societies since most aspects of our lives involve areas where we have a wealth of choice. When we talk about markets in political contexts, we're arguing for the margins, the areas in which that choice doesn't exist. The diagnosis from people like me is that we don't have that choice because of government mandates. The theory for why this can be the case is because government is a violence monopoly that collects revenues through taxation, which makes it largely immune to the desires of individuals and small groups. This is especially egregious to the pro-market person since it is individuals and small groups that innovate best.
When I say "market", I mean any area in which individuals are reasonably free to choose. When I say "capitalism", I usually just mean market, but that might be my confusing mistake. The TLDR is that I think markets include any variety of choices people may make.
If you wish to go the textbook route, that is recommended and you would quickly become knowledgeable. If you want to go the "snippets from the pros" route, this is the best blog I know of: http://econlog.econlib.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Its encyclopedia section is legit. I read an example on Sumner's blog about marginalism, yet I had no clue why that example was one of marginalism. I read the wiki entry on it and was none the wiser. Then I read the econlib entry and it became clear. I also understood some other examples of marginal utility that I previously had not. It was nice to go from a state of confusion to understanding so clearly.
@wufwugy
This is highly confusing. I think you should be more tedious when choosing your words when talking about these concepts.
A) It would make it easier to understand you
B) You can waste less time clarifying your statements
C) You'll sound like an expert who has deeply considered the concepts and understands them to the fullest
You think I should be more tedious?
I won't argue that I could be easier to understand. That's definitely true. Communication through text is a skill I feel I lack. There is probably a way that I could spend less time clarifying my statements. But I think the opposite of (C). It's because of how deeply I've considered these concepts that I feel free to call capitalism and markets the same thing. Granted, that is very confusing to others and doing so is a mistake on my part.
I mean you should be more tedious when choosing between these particular words to ensure that you use them in such a way that is in line with the definitions your audience assumes. Or choose to not use them when they will confuse the audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you really believe that these concepts are identical, then I suggest to choose a word which best conveys that meaning and to use it consistently. I accept the onus of figuring out your intention, if you are consistent.
For me, Capitalism is not "the" market. These are very different things which are not even on the same conceptual plane.
Capitalism is one type of economic strategy. Socialism and communism are competing examples of economic strategies (or whatever terminology). These are strategies, or ideals, which are asserted to guide a network of wealth distribution.
The world market is the agglomeration of all wealth distribution networks, and is itself a single network. Likewise, all the subnets which compose it act independently to the extent that they have self-rule.I don't know at what point it's super-macro economics to consider the world economy as a single entity or sub-micro... as pertains to my questions of local pockets.
My point is that the idealogy which drives a human endeavor is not the human endeavor. Furthermore, I feel that it is dangerous and subtle to conflate the two.
They say that when somebody says you're doing something wrong, they're right. I'll keep what you say in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I intend to rustle your jimmies further :snickerface:Quote:
For me, Capitalism is not "the" market. These are very different things which are not even on the same conceptual plane.
Capitalism is one type of economic strategy. Socialism and communism are competing examples of economic strategies (or whatever terminology). These are strategies, or ideals, which are asserted to guide a network of wealth distribution.
Capitalism is economics. Adam Smith created economics. Marx and his progeny is faux-economics. If it is thought that Marx, socialism, or communism adds to the understanding of economics (other than providing information about what doesn't work), then it is likewise that astrologists add to the understanding of astronomy and cosmology.
http://i.minus.com/iesVnRfX8PBFB.gif
I think this touches on something super cool.Quote:
The world market is the agglomeration of all wealth distribution networks, and is itself a single network. Likewise, all the subnets which compose it act independently to the extent that they have self-rule.I don't know at what point it's super-macro economics to consider the world economy as a single entity or sub-micro... as pertains to my questions of local pockets.
I do not think I am conflating the two. I think I'm arguing for the framework that drives the human endeavor.Quote:
My point is that the idealogy which drives a human endeavor is not the human endeavor. Furthermore, I feel that it is dangerous and subtle to conflate the two.
This is more hogwash, really. I mean... I can assume that you have a point, but why do you make me pull it out of you?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Capitalism is not economics. I have already described many examples of economic exchange which are not capitalistic.
Tell me how me sharing things with my family is capitalism. We don't charge anything for the sharing, we don't expect anything in return, not even future sharing. There is trust between us which holds this bond in balance. This is a very micro-scale example, obviously, but I have explored less micro examples of market exchanges which are not based on the direct exchange of capital. Ergo, they are not capitalistic in nature, even though they are made by capitalists.
***
To equate what Marx wrote to any real-world government is a false comparison. To say that socialism and communism are identical is equally scandalous. Socialism is voluntary sharing. Communism is enforced sharing.
If you keep uniting words' definitions when there is practical and historical reason to treat the concepts separately, then that is a bold move which demands results. You're stripping nuance from these concepts. You need to show that the nuances are irrelevant, or at the very least distracting from a deeper understanding.
What is the benefit of this unified perspective on understanding things?
I was just mostly trying to show you how frustrating I can be. I'm not sure I would want to argue that capitalism is economics even though I think I would make that case if I was pushed into a corner. I would do so by claiming that capitalism is the only branch that successfully describes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods. I think markets are the philosophy behind it all and are the best known framework to deal with when it comes to economic behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Don't read too much into this. It would mean I've been way too successful with my arguments and I'm pushing the edge as much as I can.
There is less nuance to the concepts than it may seem. Socialism and communism have the same philosophic framework. Communism differs only in that it's more rigorous and an extreme version of the philosophy. Since the USSR fell, socialism has sprouted up in redefined ways by people who benefit from their capitalist roots yet don't seem to realize they're trying to give their socialistic emperor new clothes. The claim that socialism is not forced sharing arises out of the capitalist view, where capitalists would be free to share communally. Socialism is by definition forced sharing. Capitalism allows communal sharing.Quote:
***
To equate what Marx wrote to any real-world government is a false comparison. To say that socialism and communism are identical is equally scandalous. Socialism is voluntary sharing. Communism is enforced sharing.
If you keep uniting words' definitions when there is practical and historical reason to treat the concepts separately, then that is a bold move which demands results. You're stripping nuance from these concepts. You need to show that the nuances are irrelevant, or at the very least distracting from a deeper understanding.
What is the benefit of this unified perspective on understanding things?
I think a mistake people make is saying that instances where communal sharing is chosen is socialism. You can technically get away with this if you wish to disregard everything else at play. The reason is that markets are the reason why there can be choice for communal sharing, and markets are not a product of enacted socialism. I think it is disingenuous to argue for socialism by such a myopic definition. Historically it has been an entirely different thing. The world split in two because of it, and we're the progeny that lives to tell the tale of which side lost and which side won.
I think your desire to examine more than just "capitalism" is the right approach. I think it shows the type of intellectual rigor it takes to come to the right conclusions.
I call "non-capitalistic" behaviors philosophically similar to markets because of the amount of choice they involve and the lack of mandates. Granted, when families are viewed on a micro scale, this framework is not sufficient. My rationale is that children are children. However, when viewed as a whole, families exhibit market behavior just like any corporation.
I don't think there's any practical difference between taking something and giving it back or not taking it in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxe...or-rich-1.aspx
The rich "working more" and "being more productive" sounds a bit emotionally loaded, different work is just valued differently, and different exchanges have different volumes. I don't see the volume (in material, economic or resource terms) of an exchange having any direct correlation with the productivity of the transaction. The US fiscal policy has long been to redistribute to the wealthy "job creators". Whether redistribution should be done at all is a separate issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The USSR was a dictatorial command economy with rampant corruption, it had very little to do with socialism or marxism. According to Marx socialism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution", and communism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If production and productivity is high enough to support everyone, why would there be a need for growth? Crime, for example, is mostly created out of need, and that would in theory remove the need. But I digress.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Like MMM said, to me this also feels like you're dodging and muddling my question about why is the distribution as it is. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you're talking about, and that I just lack the understanding. Again, my understanding is that the US tries to stimulate the economy by giving tax cuts to the rich, assuming it will trickle down to the poor and help everyone. The IMF says no. So, should I understand your comment about "the distribution being as it is, because it is as it is" as saying that there indeed is no trickle down?
BTW the discussion about economy being science made me think of this: https://xkcd.com/435/
That is true in a sense, but I made my point in the context of redistribution.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Well, it's economics. Production and productivity are prosperity.Quote:
The rich "working more" and "being more productive" sounds a bit emotionally loaded, different work is just valued differently, and different exchanges have different volumes. I don't see the volume (in material, economic or resource terms) of an exchange having any direct correlation with the productivity of the transaction.
It has not. It has been and is currently the opposite. Per capita, the rich pay more than everybody else and receive less in benefits/services. This difference is not by a little either. When you compare somebody who makes 10k to somebody who makes 10MM, our tax and welfare policies are off-the-charts progressive. The left says this is okay for two reasons: (1) the rich can bear it, and (2) the poor are oppressed. Neither of these are true. (1) is mildly true, but only in a vacuum. Yes, the richer somebody is, the more easily they can pay for necessities, but this has little bearing on the health of the economy. Redistributive policies distort incentives and hinder capital in some complex ways that make for an economy that works less well than otherwise. (2) is not remotely true. The poor's incentives and ability to improve their lot are greatly hindered by redistributive and most regulatory policies.Quote:
The US fiscal policy has long been to redistribute to the wealthy "job creators". Whether redistribution should be done at all is a separate issue.
Production is not high enough to support everybody and it is unreasonable to think that society ever hits a constant where it would be. Furthermore, it is capitalism that brings these resources to people and puts them together in wonderful ways. It's capitalism that gives us every great piece of engineering we have. Would it not be foolish to at some point say "okay capitalism got us this far, but we should stop doing it so we can maintain the current status forever"? The irony is that the USSR tried that, and it went backwards.Quote:
The USSR was a dictatorial command economy with rampant corruption, it had very little to do with socialism or marxism. According to Marx socialism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution", and communism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If production and productivity is high enough to support everyone, why would there be a need for growth? Crime, for example, is mostly created out of need, and that would in theory remove the need. But I digress.
The USSR was corrupt because it was centrally commanded. Socialism is also a central command. People are trying to tiptoe around it and say it's not, but the bottom line is that a society based in "social ownership" requires central command. This is seen in the US and in your country, where we all have "social ownership" through our vote, but that vote goes to a central command. We are lucky that our governments do not intervene in as many ways as the USSR did.
The real dichotomy to work with is state versus non-state. That's when we start seeing divergence in how the societies organize. The USSR fully embraced the concept of the state while the US (at least initially) mostly embraced the idea of a limited state. Every meaningful rendition of national socialism has embraced the state.
The IMF study examines effects. Trickle-down does not mean that if the rich have more money then the poor will have more money. Trickle-down is not even a theory. It is a comment that was once made in an attempt to illustrate a way of understanding the effects of marginal tax rate reductions. When those marginal rate reductions have been put in place, the results have been great and quite "trickle-down-y". Most of the best stretches the US economy has had over the last 50 years were when marginal rates were reduced. The theory is sound and the data backs it up. The US has out-performed all the European countries that did not enact supply-side reforms over the last 40 years. The UK has recently been doing it, and it has been going great for them. Germany did it back in the 90s and it turned their horrible economy into the healthiest on the continent.Quote:
Like MMM said, to me this also feels like you're dodging and muddling my question about why is the distribution as it is. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you're talking about, and that I just lack the understanding. Again, my understanding is that the US tries to stimulate the economy by giving tax cuts to the rich, assuming it will trickle down to the poor and help everyone. The IMF says no. So, should I understand your comment about "the distribution being as it is, because it is as it is" as saying that there indeed is no trickle down?
The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens. Removing taxes from the equation means the government is NOT beholden to the citizens to maintain the essential income it needs to operate.
So the gov't needs $ from the citizens. How shall the citizens choose to divide this burden among themselves?
Taking a flat tax across the board will cripple the finances of the lowest wage earners, while barely effecting the highest wage earners.
Sure this is fair... in a way... but there are other ways to be fair.
Do you propose a flat tax? What do you propose?
***
As a side note:
In America, the government is composed of citizens, elected by vote, with limited terms (in most cases). To call out the government as an "other" entity, of which you are not a part, is a personal choice here. We are all invited into the political sphere. Choosing to opt out and point fingers is your right. That choice says a lot about your commitment to your rant, IMO.
Taxes are indeed the most effective way to ensure the flow of money to the government, but they are not that effective at providing the power of mitigation by the citizens. This is backbone behind why some people favor a free market without government involvement. The arguments I've been making ITT and in other threads are based on the idea that citizens cannot mitigate policy that well when it is supported by taxes but that they can do so in a market system where choice is a powerful tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think you've got this backwards. Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore. Any government that could operate would be one whose revenues are by choice, and that is when it would be beholden to the citizens.Quote:
Removing taxes from the equation means the government is NOT beholden to the citizens to maintain the essential income it needs to operate.
A tax regime has very little accountability to its citizens. Entities that gain from the choice from consumers have a ton of accountability to those consumers. This is why we see businesses all over the place constantly adapting to the wishes of their consumers, yet only once in a blue moon do we see the government adapt. Everybody applauds when SCOTUS finally made gay marriage legal, but the truth is that gay marriage would have been legal for any who choose it forever ago if there was no government involvement in the first place.
I like a flat tax. It causes fewer market distortions, deters special interest rent seeking, and eliminates the "divide and conquer" strategy that is used to increase taxes by having multiple brackets.Quote:
So the gov't needs $ from the citizens. How shall the citizens choose to divide this burden among themselves?
Taking a flat tax across the board will cripple the finances of the lowest wage earners, while barely effecting the highest wage earners.
Sure this is fair... in a way... but there are other ways to be fair.
Do you propose a flat tax? What do you propose?
The media is not accurate in their descriptions of flat taxes harming the poor. They almost never assess the real incomes and definitely never provide sound economic theory. The real incomes of the poor are higher than people think because of lots of redistribution and their social mobility is much lower because of the same redistribution and regulation. The claims that a flat tax hurts the poor are hush-hush about the fact that the only way it could is if it meant the poor received fewer benefits that they did not earn. A flat tax is a tax cut to everybody, which is the best sort of fiscal return to citizenry. No flat tax proposals I know about apply to people at the poverty level, and it's not like the redistributed benefits are helping the poor anyways. We have created so much welfare over time that if it worked the economy would be incredible.
I don't favor taxes on income or capital. Sales, property, employee-side payroll, and land are the most economically sound ones I know of, but they all have their drawbacks. Income and the various capital taxes incentivize some really crappy behavior and have the opposite effect than they're meant to.
But it's not. Nobody can opt out. We can choose to not participate in policy but we cannot choose to not participate in funding whatever policies are in place.Quote:
***
As a side note:
In America, the government is composed of citizens, elected by vote, with limited terms (in most cases). To call out the government as an "other" entity, of which you are not a part, is a personal choice here. We are all invited into the political sphere. Choosing to opt out and point fingers is your right. That choice says a lot about your commitment to your rant, IMO.
I bet if you went line by line in the laws of the nation, you would find you disagree with a hefty chunk of them, probably the majority of them. Then if you thought you wanted to change them, you would realize that your power to do so is tiny. This is where the market comes in. You would then have the ability to choose which businesses and policies you wish to support with ease. You could opt out of eating at McDonald's, but you cannot opt out of the monopoly on violence.
A vast majority of what the government takes responsibility for would be better handled in the private sector through voluntary commerce. In my opinion the U.S. government's role should be much more limited than it is, but it seems like we should all be able to at least come to the agreement that $6 trillion in gross spending is excessive. That's 36% of the GDP. Do you honestly think that the benefits Americans are getting back from the state are comparable to that cost? And the saddest part is that 36% is actually low compared to most European countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
As to how I feel about the tax code, I don't have that much of a problem wtih progressive taxation. The worst taxes are the corporate taxes which aren't really progressive at all, they're essentially a direct tax on economic growth, and growth happens to be crucial to people of all incomes. Inflation is another really awful tax that is regressive, affecting all of us equally, but hurting the poor the most as a percentage of their living standards.
I do see broad benefits to a flat tax purely from the perspective of greater simplicity. The unbelievably labyrinthine tax system causes a lot of people to evade or overpay without even knowing it, and allows the shrewd (often i.e. those who can afford excellent tax counsel) to dodge a lot of taxes. In other words, the more complicated the code is, the more regressive it necessarily is as well. The middle class gets fleeced in practice due to this.
The political system is well-insulated from the voter. Unless you one of the like 15% of the country who lives in a swing state, your vote doesn't even count. The legislature has had abysmal approval ratings for decades. The "is the country going in the right direction or the wrong track" poll has been wrong track by a landslide since the beginning of polling time. The government is absolutely a "they" entity. Every aspect of the U.S. government is a two party joke, all the way up to the SCOTUS, where practically every meaningful vote ever has been 5/4 based on whatever the party of the two-term president is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The only way you can say that we take part of the credit for the actions of the state is if you're making the (flawed) argument that since we aren't in open French Revolution-style revolt, then we're in tacit approval of what it does.
IDK what you mean by power of mitigation, but it doesn't sound like the financial power to which I was referring. I did not mean to imply that financial was the only form of power at the gov't's disposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So you just said that the ONLY way for public bureaucracy to make money is by taxation?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Have you heard of government owned industries?
You must have. So this use of language is intentionally misleading, or intended to to stir an emotional response.
{I deleted everything past this because it seems pointless to argue definitions over basic words that are common parlance.}
This conversation is not educational for me; I'm sorry if I wasted any of your time.
You're suggesting that citizens being forced to finance the government is what gives them mitigation capacity. Unless I misread what you originally said.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Your point is included in what I said. A government owned industry would gather its revenues by consumer choice. If it was not by consumer choice, it would be taxation. In this case, the taxation would come by the means of forced consumption, but that still is a tax (SCOTUS ruled as much in the ACA case a few years ago).Quote:
So you just said that the ONLY way for public bureaucracy to make money is by taxation?
Have you heard of government owned industries?
You must have. So this use of language is intentionally misleading, or intended to to stir an emotional response.
I have not attempted to mislead or evoke an emotional response.
I think we're just getting started. A week or so ago, it appeared to me that you said something along the lines of not being interested in understanding the philosophy and function of government. The confusion that you have with my post is what I think includes the philosophy and function of government. To repeat the main example: when you thought I hadn't considered government owned industries, I actually had because they fall into either category of consumer choice or forced consumption/taxation.Quote:
{I deleted everything past this because it seems pointless to argue definitions over basic words that are common parlance.}
This conversation is not educational for me; I'm sorry if I wasted any of your time.
I'm not talking about how tax dollars are used or whether that use maximizes efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I wouldn't argue that the use of tax dollars maximizes efficiency in any way BESIDES the flow of money.
Although, I think history has shown every day for 150,000 years that nothing needs to be perfect in order for societies to run. It just needs to be good enough.
Do I wish taxes were used more efficiently? Yes. Am I bothered by the fact that there are inefficiencies? No.
The only stuff that bothers me is getting information out of context. Blah blah, so-n-so spent $XX,000 on a private jet. I used to care, but too many times, the context made me regret it. The world is complicated. I'm not claiming to understand how professionals could better do their job; I'm just curious as to what they do and why.
Don't be sad, bro. You can reconcile cognitive dissonance in other ways. I was raised Catholic; we train in guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I'm not aware of the specific laws to which you refer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
My gut says:
Stifle a little growth vs. provide access to a slightly more robust infrastructure.
Surely there must be a balance.
Inflation is a tax?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I thought inflation was... idk... a weird consequence of the free market and burgeoning wealth.
Are you sure it's a tax? Which state's representatives proposed inflation? What year?
Did wufwugy take over your account, too?
I can't argue that anything as complex as America's tax code is an absurd thing to call a law. If the citizens can't understand the law - which is reasonable since even tenured experts in economics only understand parts of it - then it's scandalous to expect them to understand how to follow the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Problem with the middle class is that almost everyone in America thinks they're middle class.
Most Americans think the classes are like this: impoverished < middle class < 1% - if they believe there's class in America at all.
Sorry, no.
We both know that the only way you get to vote for President is if you are in the electoral college.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I don't see how this ties in to taxes. It's the House of Representatives that creates all tax laws. The executive can only ask for something to be done. There is much precedent for this request to be ignored.
I don't really see how taxes tie in to making sense of an economic system with complicated non-capital trade mixed in with capital trade. Taxes provide capital for non-capital goods. This is a part of the economy. To say that business or people do not receive benefit from taxes is not swaying me.
I accept that some things for which we are taxed could be run better by private organizations, but I don't see why you feel that it's such a big deal.
(And I completely disagree on roads. Terrible idea. I'll pay taxes for roads, zoos, public parks, schools, libraries, police, fire, medical services, wildlife reservations, clean food, clean drinking water, clean air if it comes to it, etc.)
You tell me the system is broken, but at worst, I see a system that is sub-optimal.
I hope you mean 1789, or thereabouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
That is your choice. Attend your community council meetings. Attend City Council meetings. Run for local office. Write your state legislators a letter. Schedule an appointment to meet with their staff, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
*sigh*
etc.
Pros and cons. Two party hurts a third party, but what the parties stand for has swung 180 degrees over the years, so it's kind of a moot point to suggest that any particular ideology is excluded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
The only way? I am a verbose person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Tacit approval? Doesn't sound very scientific.
You did.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If my point is included in what you said, then your use of words is misleading to the point of conversation stopping in every post.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore."
False. Governments can operate using money from state-owned corporations. The consumers are outside the country, as the state exports all of the goods.
Any prevarication on your part to alter the meaning of that sentence after you posted it is a waste of our time.
blah, blah...Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That thing you wrote meant the opposite of the literal reading... again. I'm glad I wasted the time taking you seriously, just so you could tell me how you meant the thing you didn't write.
:wall:
:lynch:
Then please clarify what you meant here:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens.
I don't think that's the case. I have not improperly used words in this exchange.Quote:
If my point is included in what you said, then your use of words is misleading to the point of conversation stopping in every post.
Here's the full quoteQuote:
"Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore."
You are saying I said the first part but not the second part.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This is consumption by choice. These state-owned corporations would be receiving revenues by the choice of the people in foreign countries to consume those exports.Quote:
False. Governments can operate using money from state-owned corporations. The consumers are outside the country, as the state exports all of the goods.
Maybe it was wrong for me to have earlier admitted that I have on occasion used a word or two in a way they're more extremely defined (while still being philosophically accurate), because it seems now you're seeing it where it isn't the case. I'm using standard definitions. It is the logic you use that I'm disagreeing with, yet it seems that you're brushing that off by assuming I'm just making up definitions or something.Quote:
That thing you wrote meant the opposite of the literal reading... again. I'm glad I wasted the time taking you seriously, just so you could tell me how you meant the thing you didn't write.
Then the government is not beholden to its citizens for its income.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I present to you a situation where the state is taking 37% of the stuff by force, owning about as much of the land, and almost certainly not returning to the people a value anywhere remotely comparable to that, and your response is a flip dismissal of "inefficiencies." Obviously one need not be bothered by inefficiencies if they are small, which is your implication. They're not small, they're mammoth.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Again with the diminutive language. How has the state earned the benefit of the doubt from you? Stilfling a lot of growth vs provide access to shitty, obsolescent infrastructure would be more accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I agree there should be a balance. But taxing corporations and capital gains is extremely misguided. There are better ways for the state to make it's nut. Taxing employers is just an attempt at subterfuge, putting degrees of separation between a citizen and the tax burden. It's a very popular tax because people by and large do not understand how business works. They believe that a corporation will hire the same number of people at the same wage whether there's a 25% corporate tax or no tax at all.
Free market inflation 1) doesn't exist / never has existed and 2) wouldn't be a tax because it would be related to the amount of economic growth there is. In fact, it is quite likely the case that in an actual free monetary market that saving money in a shoebox would have a annual return.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The inflation we experience is a tax because the state controls if it happens and how much it happens. It also controls how much banks lend by arbitrarily setting interest rates to a level that is usually below what market would be. Then the state insures banks against runs or even bails them out completely with tax dollars when they fail. This creates a generally fucked up system where banks can take crazy risks that they would never dream of taking in a free market. A side effect is excessive inflation, which we all experience like a sales tax as we watch prices of goods in the economy continually increase.
I really don't understand what you mean by this. Taxes provide capital for non-capital goods? Please elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I won't spend much time on what you put between the parentheses because that could take days. I will say that its interesting that things like zoos and libraries made it into the illustrious 13. Private sector can't cage wildlife and charge a buck for its view? The internet has already supplanted libraries. You seem to have a pretty large bias for what you believe only the state is capable of providing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I feel it is a big deal because monopolies suck. Every time the state decrees that it and only it can provide a good or service to people, that sucks and should be avoided at all costs. We should be extremely particular with which services we subject to that restriction.
So since I'm not completely upending my life in an attempt to move one of the gigantic boulders of party lines a few millimeters, I have no right to complain?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I didn't mean to be flip. I kinda was, though. I grant you that. I'm trying to keep my frustration with wufwugy's use of language as a separate frustration in this conversation. I could have done better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Did I misunderstand when you said 37% is too high, but still less than comparable European governments? I thought you were kinda tongue-in-cheek saying that your opinions on the size of that number needed context.
Context for the number means everything.
Why is 37% too high?
What is the target you prefer?
Again with apologies, then. I'm sorry for any tone I had in my prior post. Thank you for continuing the conversation, despite my rudeness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Why I give the state the benefit of the doubt:
I've met a lot of politicians, first of all. Those conversations have left me feeling a lot of respect for people who do a job that is damn near impossible, but whom do it nonetheless.
The government is composed of people. Those people are dedicated to their job and want to make things "better." They may be under-qualified to handle the immensity of the problems they want to solve. Still, they are trying to help.
You and I disagree on the function of government, a bit. If your system was the prevailing system, I would afford you the benefit of the doubt just the same. The system is too complex for me to pretend to know what's best. I am one person with highly eccentric views on a lot of topics. Why should I expect my ideas of society to mesh with the society as a whole?
Also, I have taken advantage of my right to receive unemployment benefits and "food stamps" (in quotes because the current name of the program doesn't reflect the nature of the program.) I was not trying to be a leach on society. I paid the taxes for those welfare benefits. They kept me afloat and fed for a while. Ultimately, taking those welfare services played a role in my choice to go back to college and get a degree in Physics. I do not need those services anymore.
***
I would need to see some data, in the appropriate context, to change my opinion as to the degree of bad that the 37% rate represents or the degree of good that the state of infrastructure represents.
I couldn't agree more that the taxes should be taken once, and not over and over in multiple steps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I mean sales tax OR income tas, OR corporate tax. Don't take taxes out of my money twice. Lump it all together into one chunk.
If you're taxing my employer, which is a tax on me, then get rid of the income tax AND the sales tax.*
I don't care if you still take the 37%, or whatever the number is. I just want to have the actual amount of taxes I'm paying to be transparent as a single line-item on my finances.
*disclaimer: I am not a trained economist, and this idea may be stupid for reasons I don't currently understand.
Ugh. It's not a tax. This is misleading use of language. It is like a tax in some ways, but it is not a tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Why is maintaining a certain rate of inflation considered to be a net gain?
***
For the record, that bailout was paid back in full, with interest. It played out like a government loan. It was a dangerous gamble on the part of the gov't, maybe. It worked out in the end.
I think too big to fail is too big to allow, personally. (taken from a protest sign, but I like it.)
Taxes are capital. I think I can let that slide w/o further explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
The non-capital goods are things like: The public availability of transportation means that a company can hire from a wider pool of potential employees. These employees are willing to travel longer/further to their job because the difficulty/time to do so is lessened. This allows the employer to select the best potential employees from a larger pool. Statistically, this means the employer has access to higher quality personnel. However, it's a non-quantified advantage.
Things like: the FDA minimum standards on food safety. This means the average health of employees (and employers) is increased a non-quantified amount due to a lack of sick-days and other illness related work-slowages.
Zoos make the list only if they're free to the public to enter, like the St. Louis Zoo. I feel the net cultural public good from having parks and museums open to the public far outweighs the cost. If these services are provided through grants or non-governmental funding, then that's grand. If they're not, then I support the government stepping in and ensuring public access to the artifacts of history / wonders of the natural world. Fostering inquisitiveness seems like a huge net benefit to the society (in my biased opinion).Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
This is a complicated view I hold whereby the notion of private property is abused a bit. I am aware of the dissonance.
It stems from this: Who can own the Mona Lisa?
For me, there is an argument that says the seminal works of human creativity belong to all the humans (after a suitable amount of time after the creator has died / themselves and/or their family profit from the work, etc.).
I accept that the internet is replacing libraries. As such, I am a proponent of net neutrality. It is looking more and more like the corporate world is going to fail to recognize this is linked to the right to "free and open access to information."
***
The best point here is the, "only the state is capable of providing," bit.
Which bring up the question:
Why (historically) are services provided for by taxation?
Why are the specific services offered by the current regime?
Which of these motivations has since been solved in a different manner?
I'd like to further explore this line of thought.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Of course, you have the right to free speech. I'm certain you know that I respect your right to express yourself however you see fit. (Accepting that you don't hurt anyone but maybe yourself.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
However, your choice to criticize from the sidelines rather than get involved says something about the perceived amount of passion you express vs. the actual amount of passion you are willing to commit to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I believe 6 trillion dollars is an unbelievable amount of money to take out of only 300 million people's pockets. I brought up the point that its low compared to western euro nations only to show how gross those nations are, not to make the U.S. look good. To be fair to them, they are at least providing a much more comprehensive welfare state. The U.S. just spends the money on weapons and bureaucracies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The largest share of the money, about 1/3 and growing, goes to an ineffective healthcare program. Maybe the ACA will improve on that, but medicare has been an unmitigated disaster. It's way too expensive for the limited amount of benefit it provides. It's also going to ruin the budget more and more every year now that baby boomers are dying off.
The stuff you like about the U.S. government is actually a pretty small percentage of the budget. Welfare benefits for poor people are like 15%. Transportation is 4%. "Defense" is about 15%. Yes, the U.S. spends a comparable amount of money on maintaining unnecessary military bases and building defunct warplanes to what it spends on the poor.
Education is another noble cause that is killing the budget. Education is primarily funded at the state level, and a lot of states are struggling to pay for it, with CA and IL notably being in pretty fucked shape. And for all of the expenditure, the U.S. scores abysmally in education stats compared with other developed countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The state prints money to pay for things, then we have to pay more for products. It's like a sales tax, only worse because at least you can dodge sales tax by not buying anything. Excessive inflation perverts incentives by discouraging people from saving (generally a good, prudent habit). There's nothing to be gained by "maintaining" any rate of inflation. The act of controlling it centrally is exactly the problem. Inflation or deflation is fine if its market-based, because that means it comes as a result of voluntary exchange. It's not fake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Taxes are not capital. Capital is defined in wikipedia as a "type of good that can be consumed now, but if consumption is deferred an increased supply of consumable goods is likely to be available later." In other words, capital is property that can be used to create or facilitate the creation of new property. A hammer is capital. A printer is capital. A person's skillset is human capital. Money, if invested and earning a return, is capital. You could argue that the infrastructure built by the state or the education granted to children in public schools are both forms of capital that the state builds. Very little of what the state does increases capital, and much of what it does actually destroys capital. For example, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes are directly destructive to capital. The defense budget is destructive except for the rare cases that it results in new technology. The police budget is mostly destructive, since the vast majority of it's resources are spent prosecuting and subsequently jailing non-violent people.
I don't doubt there are benefits to the non-capital stuff you mention in the quoted paragraph, but it's hard to believe that the value of them compare with the outright destructive things the U.S. government is doing with your money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The FDA could also be blamed for millions of needless deaths due to the unbelievably slow and expensive process it takes to approve pharmaceuticals. Economic analysis requires considering unseen factors like this. The vast majority of the food supplied in the U.S. comes from large corporations with a lot to lose. It is not worth it for them to produce dangerous products and suffer the backlash that comes with making someone sick. The gains from FDA approval are minor at best, and again, we pay dearly for those gains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
1. Because there's no other way to provide a service to someone against his will than to expropriate him and take away his other choices.
2. Inertia. It seemed like a good idea for the government to provide the services hundreds of years ago, and the institutions have stuck. As I mentioned earlier in the thread. The government adds and adds, but it very rarely subtracts.
3. I'm not sure I understand the question. In theory the government seeks to provide mandatory services whenever the services are difficult to exclude. This is called the free rider problem. At one extreme is a product like pizza, which can easily be handed to some people and not others. At the other extreme is border defense, in which everyone benefits from it whether they contribut or not. Basically the less excludable the service, the more necessary it is believed that government should necessarily provide it.
The other motivations for government programs are largely patronizing. Pension programs are an example of this. If you approached each American and offered to allow him to opt out of S.S. and Medicare, and thus to not have to pay the SS and FICA taxes, 95% would snap accept. Now this could be argued that people are subjectively valuing money now over money 40 years from now. But proponents of SS/Medicare believe that human beings are frail and must be compelled to consider their futures because they are incapable of doing so on their own. This type of nanny logic is responsible for a huge amount of prevailing policy in the United States.
You're going down a weird logic path based on the mistake in believing taxation makes government beholden to its citizens. That is like saying a guy who takes something from you is beholden to you because you're affected by his taking.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Taxation has the opposite effect of what you claim. It makes the citizens beholden to the government.
Also get over your kick of saying I'm using words wrongly. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and being nice when I conceded that I could have been clearer. I haven't been using any words wrongly. Instead I've been using them in ways of more understanding than is colloquially standard. You're basically complaining about having to learn more about what these words mean.
I guess I just can't get on the same page with either of you on the issue of how to characterize taxation.
I don't see it as an inherently bad process.
It seems like the bottom line is that taxation is voluntary in the sense that the government is composed of citizens. So all tax laws come from the citizens. Once it's a law, then it's not voluntary to follow or not.
I obviously agree that it is illegal to avoid paying taxes. Yes, you face fines, imprisonment, whatever legal ramifications whenever you break the law.
The disagreement seems to be on the origin of the laws and whether it is self-government.
***
Whether or not all taxes are good is not in question. Just whether taxation, as a process, is good.
I don't think we're going to meet each other on this perspective. So we should move on.
I'm not sure I see how it's that important a question to agree on, anyway.
Personally, I'm a bit exhausted with the conversation and I don't even know what questions to ask.
Many laws are unjust and involuntary. Was slavery voluntary for black people? It isn't as if they subject every tax law to an annual popular vote to see if they should remain with us. Political influence isn't distributed evenly. People in small states have more say. People in swing states have more say. People in Iowa have far more say. The rest of the country is against farm subsidies, but Iowans are in favor of them, and since they hold the most important primary, the laws are hence untouchable.
People with money have more say than people who don't. Rich donors are able to buy the congressional votes needed to erect barriers for their competitors or to get juicy no-bid contracts. In many cases they get >10000% returns on their bribes.
Even if the country were actually run democratically, anyone with a minority opinion would be subject to the majority, so the laws are still involuntary for up to 50% of the population. Democracy really really sucks when the majority of people are crazy.
Taxation is not voluntary by definition. No amount of trying to bend words will change that.
It's okay to take time away. These can be exhausting. For when you return, I'd like to respond to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Let's use analogy. Let's turn McDonald's into a tax regime:Quote:
Whether or not all taxes are good is not in question. Just whether taxation, as a process, is good.
Every week, you write a check to McDonald's based on your income. If you do not write this check, McDonald's comes to your house with a force far stronger than anybody else has and either coerces you to write the check or puts you in prison. Every week, McDonald's distributes food to its taxpayers. It choose how to based off its revenues that it receives from taxes. There are no consumers, only people who stand in line and get their food stipend. There is no menu for individuals to choose from, because we vote. After much deliberation, the people who choose to partake in the voting process set up all sorts of rules about how the food is distributed. The poor get $5 of food for every $1 they are taxed, the rich get $1 of food for every $5 they are taxed. The fat are given 40% of their food in salads, 40% in burgers, and 20% in fries. The thin are given 60% in burgers, 30% in fries, and 10% in salads. Food can be exchanged for stamps, and those stamps can be exchanged for different food.
The rich don't like this setup. The fat don't like it. The thin and poor love it. Those who make a lot of stamp exchanges are split. The rich and fat make up a coalition of 43%, thin and poor make up 43%, and the stamp exchangers make up 14%. The rich and fat know they will never get along with the thin and poor, so in order to change the laws, they lobby the stamp exchangers. They construct a coalition of the 43% rich and fat with 8% from the stamp exchangers for a total of 51% of all voters. The deal they strike reduces the amount of salads distributed to the fat while increasing the burgers, reduces the amount of dollars taxed of the rich, and give a handful of better exchange rates for the 8% that made up the heavy stamp users.
The thin and poor are livid. Some of the other stamp exchangers are also livid. They attempt to create a new coalition to undo the changes. The 43% thin and poor are solid, 6% of the stamp exchangers are solid, and they just need a small portion of the 8% stamp exchangers to hit 51%. But wait, the 8% got deals they really like. The fat and rich gave them all sorts of concessions in order to enter the previous coalition, and there's little this new coalition can offer them to change their minds. The new coalition changes strategy: it tries to break up the fat and rich group. The campaigns work. A chunk of the fat group, making up 5% of the total vote are convinced that they should go back to more salads. The new coalition is complete and they're about to overturn the rules created by the previous coalition. But just before they can do that, the stamp exchangers who got a dynamite deal in the rule change are LIVID and they spend gangbusters to break up the thin and poor group. All they need is to just dent it, and the new coalition can't reach 51%.
I'll stop here because you get the picture. If this was a college course, it would be called Political and Policy Operations of Tax Regimes and Democratic Votes 101. The process creates a situation where nobody gets what they want except for tiny groups of special interests who get exactly what they want on specific items. The claim that democracy is dictatorship of the 51% is not entirely correct because what really happens is the small 1-2% groups on the margin are necessary for any coalition of 51%. This not only creates oppression of the minority, but also creates oppression of the majority. If 49% of people hate a new policy while 47% love a different policy but they can only get that policy by bending over backwards for the small remaining 4% in order to get their coalition, you're left in a compromise where a bunch of rules are passed at the same time, with many rules that up to 90% of the voters may not like.
Let's change gears a little here. What kind of food industry would this McDonald's create? Well, it would likely become the only or majority distributor of food since most people would not choose to buy food from any businesses since they already pay in taxes to McDonald's for food. Every fast-food joint would disappear, and all we'd be left with are likely high end boutique restaurants with rich clientele.* The dynamism of food compared to today would be easily cut down to degrees nobody would want to admit. The variety and quality would sink to the Marianas Trench. No more small Teriyaki, BBQ, delis, or Mexican joints because low revenue businesses couldn't compete with the tax regime. Food is never fast anymore because the lines at McDonald's are ridiculous. McDonald's no longer has to please its customers since it receives their funds by mandate instead of choice, so their quality and quantity of service and products drop dramatically.
Again, I'll stop here. Please absorb this information. At every step of the way in turning McDonald's into a food source with tax power, the entire food system gets worse and more complex. This spreads to more than just food though, as I explained in the asterisk below, it indirectly creates things like class disparity. Every dynamic I listed is super standard in our current bureaucracies and landscape of any industries with heavy intervention from the government. This can be contrasted to the areas that most people currently believe the government should be involved, and we can see that those things are likely just as bad now as our food industry would be if McDonald's was a tax regime.
You personally say you love the great infrastructure and amenities we get from government. But I'm telling you, those are nothing compared to how great they would be if the government did not intervene. We know this to be true because we know how the markets function and how governments function. The foundational difference between the two is that one operates on taxes and the other operates on consumption choice. That small difference is as big as the difference between a planet and an atom.
*This is a main way we get disparities between classes or various groups. Tax regimes with laws based on the democratic vote are more easily contorted by those with lots of a resource, be they wealth, a group identity, or a rent-seeking interest. How ironic is it that the government that we all try to use to eliminate such great disparities is itself the cause of them?
I only read half, but it sounds like you take issue with the democratic voting system more than the concept of taxation.
It is only because of tax that democracy can be a thing. I certainly wouldn't say "taxation without representation", so it wouldn't be that I think democracy is worse than taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I like that my opinion has changed somewhat since this thread began. I now believe in a much smaller and less interfering state. But I still want one for some things.
I guess my issue is the ability for people to fall through the cracks of an unregulated world and get stuck in the arse end of life.
For example, let's assume no min wage or employment regulation.
Min wage would be the minimum for someone to get by. So for example, a girl gets knocked up with no family or partner to support her. She needs to work to feed/house/clothe the kid.
That means she will accept a wage that allows her to just about exist and take care of child. Shed also work every hour available to do this.
So the minimum wage (and I mean the lowest that anyone would take) is underpinned by this desperation.
This won't include spare cash for self improvement and education. Why would it? The market will look for the lowest wage it can pay and pay it. So this individual would be stuck in this rut for life.
This is just one random example of how many people could get stuck in this situation.
With no state to support those who fall on difficult times through circumstance or one poor decision a whole bunch of people could end up here. Having that safety net reduces the chance of this happening. I think that's important.
So I agree that the state needs to be reigned in and regulation reduced. But I always want a safety net, and want health care and some form of subsidy for those that screw up at a bare minimum. And still stand by education, defence, policing to be part of it.
I guess utilities is a step too far, but infrastructure such as roads and rail networks should be part of it.
My thoughts pretty much exactly. Making sure people aren't left stranded is essential. That's what creates crime, poverty, ghettos, sickness etc and results with huge loss of productivity. Unless of course we're talking about social darwinism and feel it's ok for them to just die off.
I want no part with a nanny state. There are definitely limits to where I want the state to stick its nose in, but I also think there are parts in which I think its nose is needed. Not all people are concerned how they harm others when they're reaching for their goals and taking care of themselves, and somebody needs to keep them in check. The best solution I'm aware of is a government with central policing. I don't care if it's optimal with regard to efficiency and I don't care how much your local police force is corrupt and useless, in many places it's been shown to work and can most likely therefore in other places too. The key is it needs to be available for everybody, not just those who can afford it.
I don't care what the number of regulations is, important is that there's enough of them and they're smart. The legislative process should be a science and evidence based PDCA cycle. Laws and regulations should undergo continuous improvement and refinement based on results and metrics.
On the above two points, I just want to point out that heavy taxation hurts charity in a major way.
I think a state providing support is far better than charity doing so. Charity might cover it, we can decide that the state will cover it.
That's great.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I think quoting people and changing the text without making note of it is a criminal offence.
I don't intend to make this a big debatey post. I wanted to respond to a couple things specifically, but felt that if I didn't go line by line, it wouldn't work that well.
Would you feel the same if you believed that regulations are responsible for increasing the amount of people who hit the arse end of life?Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I think we have a false narrative. You know how simplistic use of data by the media always shows that even the highest minimum wage in the US is still not enough to "get by"? Yet those receiving minimum wage or below it are "getting by".Quote:
For example, let's assume no min wage or employment regulation.
Min wage would be the minimum for someone to get by.
That's how a market-set "minimum" is. We have a lot of these already. Like a good computer programmer has a market-set minimum wage range. Nobody can quantify exactly what it is at any point in time, but it's definitely a bit higher than any known mandated minimums.Quote:
So for example, a girl gets knocked up with no family or partner to support her. She needs to work to feed/house/clothe the kid.
That means she will accept a wage that allows her to just about exist and take care of child. Shed also work every hour available to do this.
So the minimum wage (and I mean the lowest that anyone would take) is underpinned by this desperation.
I might be a little confused on what you're getting at, because what you've said here seems to be an argument against your thesis of needing a "safety net" mandate.
I'm happy you said this, because it opens the door for explaining why economists don't think this is the case.Quote:
This won't include spare cash for self improvement and education. Why would it? The market will look for the lowest wage it can pay and pay it. So this individual would be stuck in this rut for life.
I guess I'll hit the three different things you said specifically:
It always does. Nobody's net inflow and outflow are absent of fluctuations or inefficiencies. It can be astounding what people think their necessary spending habits should be. That said, this point isn't terribly important, since I'm trying to focus on macro instead of micro, but I figured I'd mention it just for comprehensiveness.Quote:
This won't include spare cash for self improvement and education.
It will also look for the highest wage it can pay. I get what you're saying, and what I'm saying here is a little contrarian to that, but I want to make the point that market behavior is multi-faceted. If a business is looking for certain types of workers yet it is unable to get those workers, one of the strategies to aiding in getting those workers is to raise the offered wage. Combine this sort of competition with the marginalism that businesses already operate with, and you get a situation where the wages are also as high as they can be. Saying the market shoots for low wages or me saying it shoots for high wages is missing the ball, because what it's really doing is shooting for optimized wages.Quote:
The market will look for the lowest wage it can pay and pay it.
If you only pay attention to one thing in this post, make it this part. I used to completely agree with you on this. It's super standard populous narrative, and it makes sense. But I don't think I have ever seen an economist say this, and I have seen them say the exact opposite.Quote:
So this individual would be stuck in this rut for life.
The "rut" that people get in, is unemployment. The primary tool that people have to increase their skills and their income is what they gain while working. The popular belief is that academic education is the best way to increase skills and earnings, but it is second to work experience. Education is very valuable, but work experience is far more efficient. It's ironic that we're sending a bunch of low-skill people to school when the most cost-effective way for them to get skills is to instead send them to work. It doesn't even matter where you're working. Every job I have heard of includes the ability to have your wages raised, to move into higher positions, or develop skills to move diagonally. Probably the only aspect of this that education is better is efficiency in breaking through some wage ceilings, but by that time, we're far away from any sort of "arse end fallen through the crack" thing.
Because of this, all "safety net" policies that disincentivize work, regardless of the wages, have a deteriorating effect on the skills and earnings capabilities of the poor. If somebody takes a "bare minimum" job, they are learning new skills, and those new skills are what turn that "bare minimum" into a surplus. The macroeconomic rut is unemployment, not low wage employment.
My personal theory is that the major subsidization of education is the foundation for why we have this problem in the first place. Back when the government didn't intervene in college or local schools, it was commonplace for young people to enter the work force and expect to remain in it until they would retire. Their wages, skills, and job descriptions would increase the whole while. But today everybody is over-educated, over-subsidized, and people are doing "entry-level" work ten or twenty years later than they normally would, after they've already established the expenses of adulthood.
FWIW I think public education is the bane of our existence. I've always wanted to make a mega post on it, but I don't think I ever will. But to give a little taste, public education does so much wrong for us, from anywhere from creating a ridiculous sub-culture mentality in youths that influence us all as we grow, to wasting enormous funds and time on educating people on things they will never use, to making it impossible to work in many fields because they only hire grads because of over-supply.Quote:
This is just one random example of how many people could get stuck in this situation.
With no state to support those who fall on difficult times through circumstance or one poor decision a whole bunch of people could end up here. Having that safety net reduces the chance of this happening. I think that's important.
So I agree that the state needs to be reigned in and regulation reduced. But I always want a safety net, and want health care and some form of subsidy for those that screw up at a bare minimum. And still stand by education, defence, policing to be part of it.
I guess utilities is a step too far, but infrastructure such as roads and rail networks should be part of it.
The data is not conclusive that these things are created by people "falling through the cracks". As for the common claim that poverty increases crime, ghettos, and sickness, I think the only one the data may one day conclude is true is for sickness. The data linking poverty and crime has not been holding up lately, and there are much better explanations for ghettos.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
What we know is that economics can help understand this. The field can't explain everything about why ghettos and their facets exist, but it is well documented that those regions are among the most regulated and subsidized. Which is interesting since economic predictions are that this is what would happen if you regulate and subsidize something a lot.
There are two big issues with this: (1) what you're describing is how it would work in a poorly functioning system. Nobody is arguing that the state can't do a whole bunch of stuff and then have some of that stuff work better than others. That's standard variation. It should be expected that if you have violence monopolies, you're going to have varying outcomes based on other factors. Also, your claim that some places work well because of their violence monopolies (like where you live) is not accounting for the many other variables that academics believe to be more applicable, like variations in level of cultural homogeneity.Quote:
I want no part with a nanny state. There are definitely limits to where I want the state to stick its nose in, but I also think there are parts in which I think its nose is needed. Not all people are concerned how they harm others when they're reaching for their goals and taking care of themselves, and somebody needs to keep them in check. The best solution I'm aware of is a government with central policing. I don't care if it's optimal with regard to efficiency and I don't care how much your local police force is corrupt and useless, in many places it's been shown to work and can most likely therefore in other places too. The key is it needs to be available for everybody, not just those who can afford it.
(2) Admitting a reduction in efficiency is admitting that your way is not the right way. Even an annual 0.1% increase in efficiency by a market system is enough to develop a more functional and moral system than the status quo. Not engaging efficiency is subsidizing ourselves at the expense of our progeny, so to speak. Of course, we're not dealing with numbers so tiny because the real amount of efficiency, growth, and innovation that the markets bring is far greater than 0.1%.
I agree that our approach should be science and evidence based. That's what this is all about. I think the science is telling us that limiting government works best.Quote:
I don't care what the number of regulations is, important is that there's enough of them and they're smart. The legislative process should be a science and evidence based PDCA cycle. Laws and regulations should undergo continuous improvement and refinement based on results and metrics.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Regulation by monopoly is antithetical to the endeavor of producing positive results. Unintended consequences and moral hazards are unavoidable when regulation is used, it doesn't matter how "good" they may be. It's like hydrating by drinking salt water.
That said, regulations can certainly be less bad. For example, if Jeb Bush gets elected president, he may pursue an education voucher system by national mandate. A law like that would have unintended consequences and thus be worse than having no mandate on education in the first place, but it would have much lower unintended consequences and produce fewer moral hazards than the current existing mandates.
That link has such a great quote from Bastiat:
Quote:
There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen
On bubble hysteria
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29826
Quote:
What it does show is that people are very receptive to data that supports their preconceived bubble theories. And this is a part of my anti-bubble theory. I’ve done posts on how the Economist magazine once bragged that it correctly predicted a bunch of housing bubbles, whereas the article it cited was actually totally, spectacularly WRONG about the future course of house prices in a number of countries. Prices actually rose in markets where they predicted declines. And yet the Economist put their “successful” prediction into an ad for the magazine. Someday China will have a big crash, and the people who have been predicting it for a long time will say, “I told you so.” And I’ll say, “Market prices rise and fall, that’s what markets do.”
Hey, look what's coming!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I_-ADGrKQo
This will probably be influencing my questions and whatnot in the near future.
That might be fun. I'll watch it. If they stick to the textbooks it should be quite informative
You could check this out. It's done by two legit PhDs who blog at MarginalRevolution
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrUniversity
Could you provide a link?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not really saying they work because of them, maybe more like despite them, but in the process the local brand of "violence monopoly" is ensuring a lot of basic necessities for everybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't see how any regulation automatically prohibits all increases in efficiency. There's been quite a bit of regulations for the past few hundred years and yet we've had a pretty good run of increased efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That seems a bit inane. Unintended consequences [can] occur when not all the variables and dependencies are known, but they occur everywhere, not just with regulation. We learn more about them every day and we can learn from our mistakes. Hence the PDCA cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm totally cool with this, my fear (and the reason I started this thread) is that many/most of the regulations are borne out of blatant economic fallacies, and not science and evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I can't. I don't remember exactly what the data was looking at either. It probably had something to do with how the steady drop in crime the US has had for decades doesn't correlate well with changes in wealth. My opinion on this is not backed by data like would be needed to say one way or the other, but I do know that the data is inconclusive on why crime has been dropping. My personal opinion is differences in regulation, welfare, and cultural sensibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Do you think it is possible that people would get more of what they need if they were not subjects of a violence monopoly?Quote:
I'm not really saying they work because of them, maybe more like despite them, but in the process the local brand of "violence monopoly" is ensuring a lot of basic necessities for everybody.
We've had this despite all the regulation. You could probably say the government doesn't intervene in most ways in the West and markets have been mostly embraced for lots of things. The flip side of this was seen in the rise of socialism, where the government intervened everywhere and the societies all went to shit. What I advocate for is to take our free market principles and apply them to more things. Food and software/hardware are far more robust industries than education and healthcare and security, and what I've learned about economics tells me that the operating principle for why is that food and software/hardware don't have a whole a bunch of government regulation while the other three have a ton. We can even get into specifics, like how many targeted government regulations of healthcare restrict supply which in turn increase prices. Today the narrative is that prices are way too high and we need government to solve it, all the while the real cause of high prices is government intervention into the market in the first place.Quote:
I don't see how any regulation automatically prohibits all increases in efficiency. There's been quite a bit of regulations for the past few hundred years and yet we've had a pretty good run of increased efficiency.
This is a fantastic case for why markets work better than monopolies. There are indeed unintended consequences to everything, but the reason they're so much more harmful in government is that when a monopoly creates a mandate, those unintended consequences are locked in stone. It takes forever for them to change. Compare how slowly the legal monopoly reacts to problems with how quickly businesses operating in markets react. There's no comparison. The scientific approach is the one that allows for more robust change. Monopolies are awful for this.Quote:
That seems a bit inane. Unintended consequences [can] occur when not all the variables and dependencies are known, but they occur everywhere, not just with regulation. We learn more about them every day and we can learn from our mistakes. Hence the PDCA cycle.
Just like how our ability to choose the food we buy makes a more robust food industry, an ability to choose what legal arbitration to live by would make for a more robust legal system. Market advocates are not interested in doing away with rules. Our sensibilities tend to be conservative and rule-based. What we advocate for is a dissolution of monopolies.
I think that if governments pursued the scientific approach, they would just keep privatizing more and more things until eventually everything was private. Monopoly regulations are just not conducive to a robust scientific approach. At the very least, they'd be signing a whole bunch of "freedom laws" not unlike freedom of speech, etc. They would be things like "the state shall make no law regarding the production, distribution, or consumption of goods".Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
The scientific community is arguably the best example in existence of markets at work. It's totally decentralized, totally open to any individuals and any companies. Its robustness comes from the peer review. Businesses in a market get their robustness from a similar thing to peer review: choice of consumers.
Imagine how swiftly the scientific community would be destroyed if government intervened. If government regulated the peer review process, we could kiss the whole thing goodbye.
What are your thoughts on the patent office, NSF, FDA, etc.?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It seems to me that these are government regulatory systems which are intended to act as another layer of peer review.
Peer review is great when it works, but there are, sadly, just as many lazy people, liars and hacks in the scientific community as anywhere else. There are too many examples of outright fraudulent claims which have passed through multiple layers of peer review. History has taught us over and over again that a policy of skepticism is always best.
The libertarian community is pretty split on IP laws, there's a lot of good debate to be found on youtube about it. The only consensus seems to be that they suck and are counter productive as they currently exist but ultimately might be necessary in some form. I'm not well-read enough to take a side on it.
In a broad sense, I support any institution that means to do anything as long as its revenues do not come through coercion. Within that environment, I would not personally support lots of different institutions with my efforts, but I think they should be allowed to gather the support of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
As to your specific question, I'm not well-versed in IP to be able to give details explaining the effects of any specific positions. However, I think these sorts of things would work just fine in a market. I'll use the FDA as an example.
Let's imagine there is no FDA anymore. Individuals and businesses are allowed to sell any food they want. Do you think that this would open the door for businesses to start selling contaminated food? I do not. I think doing so would be a death knell. If consumers do not trust a food source, that source is likely to go out of business, which means the source will make itself trustworthy. The likely main way that companies would show their trustworthiness is by endorsements from other companies that specialize in food safety. There would likely only be a handful of these companies, since they would require a ton of capital, experience, and prestige to operate, but they would all have meaningful niches and be in competition with each other. I think instead of seeing labels like "FDA approved", we would have labels like "Safety Company A approved" or "Safety Company B approved". Enough consumers would have opinions of these brands, and their choices would reflect. Groceries would develop contracts with these companies for those reasons and others.
That's all a long way of saying I think the market can do what the FDA does just fine. I also think the market can do it much better, since that's what markets do. The "better" would include things like costing less to the taxpayer (since the businesses wouldn't receive revenues based on tax and would be more efficient and priced into the products themselves), and having higher standards in determining approval. While the FDA is full of good people and good policy ideas, if shit hits the fan and a whole bunch of people get sick, it does not lose its funding. But if Safety Company A approves a product and it kills some people, the company will be at threat of going bankrupt. The safety companies would know this, and their risk assessments would determine that they need to be even more sure that the products they endorse are safer than what we currently get in from the tax-funded FDA.
Indeed. I completely agree. Imagine what it would be like if any hacks or charlatans got monopolistic power of the scientific review process. Instead of merits rising to the top and the scientific community weeding out the bad even though at times the process is turbulent, we would have long dark ages.Quote:
Peer review is great when it works, but there are, sadly, just as many lazy people, liars and hacks in the scientific community as anywhere else. There are too many examples of outright fraudulent claims which have passed through multiple layers of peer review. History has taught us over and over again that a policy of skepticism is always best.
The free market is a way to keep the bad people from rising to the top. Tax regimes seem to encourage bad people rising to the top. Even if they don't encourage it, the amount of damage a bad person can do when given power in a government monopoly is far greater than in any business in a free market. A lot of people hate the Koch brothers. Let's assume that hatred is not ill-founded. How many people have they killed? How many have they jailed? How many have they made sick? How many have they beaten up? How many have they imposed moral beliefs on their personal lives? The answer to those questions is a number much smaller than what happens when a bad person has monopolistic legal authority.
I should add that I think people should be allowed to influence others with aggressive measures. What I'm getting at is that what I initially said could be construed as saying it should be okay for a child molestation ring to exist and even though I wouldn't support it, I think others should be allowed to support it. While I think that is true, I also think people should be allowed to support a company that finds child molesters and shoots them in the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't adhere to the non-aggression principle like many libertarians. The principle I am against is tax regimes handing down legal mandates. I have no problem with rules established through personal choice, community choice, contracts, or insurance and arbitration companies. I just don't support only one entity having a monopoly over violence and law.
Rilla and I argued about this a lot because he thinks that if there isn't a violence monopoly then one will just arise. I don't necessarily agree, but that is a reasonable argument to make. Regardless, if he's right, it still wouldn't negate the principle a violence monopoly should be restrained in certain ways. Of course, I think that if a monopoly is capable of restraining itself, it necessarily means a market would more easily execute as much and more restraint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0&feature=youtu.beQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Something to get you started.
And for the scientist mind in you, money and goods and services and debt et all are useful work. You got 100 bucks, you command 100 bucks worth of work. You've produced 100 widgets, you can trade 100 widgets worth of work (pray someone values your work like you do). Though it's a fuzzy exchange.
This is good. It's important to not extrapolate too much from it though. For example, if an economy is running too sluggishly, lowering interest rates will help it. This makes it seem that if interest rates are low, then the economy is not sluggish. But that's not true. Oftentimes, low interest rates are a sign of a sluggish economy even though lowering interest rates is a tool that is often used to turn a sluggish economy around.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Another example is that since one person's spending is another person's income, many people think you can just increase spending to grow an economy and make it more productive. That also isn't true. These two examples are of what happens when some is understood about economics, but not enough is understood. I do that constantly, but I hope I do it less now than I used to.
Also I don't think the business cycle theory as presented in the video is complete. You can't say that the business cycle is caused by credit or that credit causes a bubble. Sometimes it's probably like this, but there are mitigating factors. For example, economies with stable currencies don't have these sorts of things. I don't really understand why except that a currency monopoly controls the nominal economy, which makes it able to keep lots of the reduction in demand for credit from turning into reduced nominal growth. Or something to that effect.
I wish you people could get your point across using less words. This thread has become really difficult to keep up with. I've given up.
The video falls apart in some around midpoint. Like he discusses redistribution like it's an exclusively good thing since the money can be used to pay more debt, but doesn't account for the productivity reductions this entails will just makes total debt even worse. Also he seems to say the only problem with stimulus is that it increases government debt, but again it reduces productivity so much that it makes total debt even worse. Fiscal austerity also isn't net negative. It doesn't decrease productivity.
I also disagree with the "beautiful deleveraging". Currency manufacturers are capable of doing so much more than is presented. By using monetary tools to keep nominal growth stable, they can keep debt deleveraging from exiting their sectors. Not everybody develerages at the same time until the central bank drops the ball and reduces nominal growth from trend.
His final three points are stellar. Economic policy should be all about incentives that increase productivity. Sadly most legislators and voters do not believe this, or at least they don't know how to effectively achieve this.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/c87d2c592...axzfo2_250.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You do realise that "fewer" and "less" have identical meanings, right? Is this just some cultural joke that I'm not getting?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But this is the Internet so who gives a fuck.
Good example though.
I couldn't give fewer of a fuck.
Fewer is correct when the thing is countable, and less is correct when it isn't countable. For example, you can have less rice, less gasoline, less water, but you can only have fewer kilograms of rice, fewer gallons of gasoline, fewer bodies of water. U.K. has fewer residents than the U.S, but has less crime per capita.
I couldn't give fewer fucks?
I must've missed this English lesson at school.
Anyway, I can't count your words. It's beyond infinity, therefore "less" is correct.
Lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_wQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga