Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 252

Thread: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

  1. #191
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No, it's just an example of the violation of private property rights by a second party.

    The government exists to protect those property rights from intrusion by othesr.

    Ain't got a damn thing to do with any socialist "externalities" or "interalities" or hangnails, either.



    Not demonstrated.



    No, if damage from so-called acid rain is proven, the transgressor needs to make reparations.



    Taxes produce inefficiency in the economy.

    Free markets product economic efficiency.

    Naturally, one can never produce more electricity than is used. It's gotta go somewhere, fast.
    The problem is that it is INCREDIBLY inneficent for each single person to bring up their case that their property was harmed by another companies actions. (like acid rain)

    Only the wealthy would be able to fund that type of endevour, and it gets even more complicated when there is pollution in one state harming someone else in another state, and each industry that pollutes needs to have their pollution input factored in....

    so its very odvious that there needs to be a government mechanism to handle all of that.


    And you aren't making much sense by agreeing that a company should be sued by the government if it violates regulations, but refusing to aknowedge taxation to reduce negative externalities.

    but thats fine :P ive made my point, thats what matters

  2. #192
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    This is mere inaccuracy. The nonexistence of free markets is in fact the precise reason for the existence of taxation: the correction of market failure. The presence of negative externalities in the capitalist economy is indeed a form of such market failure.
    Just remember that this market failure is the exception in a capitalist economy, because normally government intervention does increase inneficencies.

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Just remember that this market failure is the exception in a capitalist economy, because normally government intervention does increase inneficencies.
    No, it doesn't. More often than not, the government is a critical agent in stabilizing the overall market, which is why capitalism has always relied on a mixed economy. For example, consider trade policy. Unrestricted market competition is not in the ultimate interests of the "weaker" participants, so traditionally, it's been typical for countries to use the state sector to extend protection over infant industries and thus facilitate their development and eventual ability to compete with others, thereby maximizing dynamic comparative advantage.

  4. #194
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    No, it doesn't. More often than not, the government is a critical agent in stabilizing the overall market, which is why capitalism has always relied on a mixed economy. For example, consider trade policy. Unrestricted market competition is not in the ultimate interests of the "weaker" participants, so traditionally, it's been typical for countries to use the state sector to extend protection over infant industries and thus facilitate their development and eventual ability to compete with others, thereby maximizing dynamic comparative advantage.
    Even if the "weaker" participants will be run out of bussiness, the resources that the company used will go to more efficent companies, which is by definition more efficent.

    And once again, tariffs simillar to what this country had for its fledgling industries was helpful in making them more efficent in the long run. However, that is a very limited role, and America had its government protection much longer then what was needed more max efficency.


    I am not saying that government intervention is NEVER makes the market more efficent, but simply that it is not the norm. Look at how industries function today, and most types of government intervention DO make the industries less efficent.

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    The problem is that it is INCREDIBLY inneficent for each single person to bring up their case that their property was harmed by another companies actions. (like acid rain)
    Oh.

    I see the problem.

    You've never heard of "class action lawsuits".

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    so its very odvious that there needs to be a government mechanism to handle all of that.
    We call them "courts".

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    And you aren't making much sense by agreeing that a company should be sued by the government if it violates regulations, but refusing to aknowedge taxation to reduce negative externalities.
    Sure I am.

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    The nonexistence of free markets is in fact the precise reason for the existence of taxation:
    So, when translated into English this means....governments tax because government interference in free markets makes the markets less efficient and therefore the government need to tax them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    the correction of market failure.
    Government's don't need to correct market failures.

    Market failures in the free market are self-correcting.

    Government's make markets fail and make market failures worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    The presence of negative externalities in the capitalist economy is indeed a form of such market failure.
    No, that some people can handle freedom isn't a failure of the market, it's their very own and personal failure.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Even if the "weaker" participants will be run out of bussiness, the resources that the company used will go to more efficent companies, which is by definition more efficent.
    I didn't refer to "companies" I referred to industries. The protection of infant industries as a whole is actually a necessary practice precisely because of underdeveloped resources, often spawned through over-reliance on the agricultural sector which causes the consequent result of neglect of industrial development. Protection of such industries maximizes dynamic comparative advantage in the long-run rather than static comparative advantage in the short run, to oversimplify things somewhat.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    And once again, tariffs simillar to what this country had for its fledgling industries was helpful in making them more efficent in the long run. However, that is a very limited role, and America had its government protection much longer then what was needed more max efficency.
    Actually, government protection was a critical factor in American development, as well as British development. It's simply a reality that the "powers" of the world relied extensively on a variety of interventionism that they today disavow for the development of other countries, which is why the "Washington Consensus" is so blatantly hypocritical. For example, consider Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder:

    Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the “official historians” of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

    Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.
    You can see why there would be an interest among some in avoiding acknowledgment of this reality, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I am not saying that government intervention is NEVER makes the market more efficent, but simply that it is not the norm. Look at how industries function today, and most types of government intervention DO make the industries less efficent.
    Markets are plagued by many more problems than is immediately evident: information asymmetries, negative externalities, various disequilibria, etc. On the whole, I'm inclined to regard them as a rather inefficient means of resource allocation. However, the state has and continues to function as an integral agent through bringing about stabilization and a host of other benefits to said markets. For example, have a look at Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty:

    [The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).
    This doesn't change the fact that I despise this role and the very existence of the government more than any rightist here; I merely acknowledge that this major role is a necessary condition of the continued existence of capitalism. On that count, I might not object to an attempt to implement laissez-faire; it might bring capitalism down faster.

  8. #198
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I didn't refer to "companies" I referred to industries. The protection of infant industries as a whole is actually a necessary practice precisely because of underdeveloped resources, often spawned through over-reliance on the agricultural sector which causes the consequent result of neglect of industrial development. Protection of such industries maximizes dynamic comparative advantage in the long-run rather than static comparative advantage in the short run, to oversimplify things somewhat.
    While it is proven that infant industry protection is critical in a global environment, your long run assertion on comparative advantage goes a bit to far. As any industry gains market share/capital, the need (and most definitely the desire from the institutions) for such direct subsidization diminishes. Take the US financial institutions for example; once once the balance sheets are strong enough to stand without extremely low rates, they are going to pay back their TARP bill. The transition from "government supported" to "market supported" leads to greater growth.

    Actually, government protection was a critical factor in American development, as well as British development. It's simply a reality that the "powers" of the world relied extensively on a variety of interventionism that they today disavow for the development of other countries, which is why the "Washington Consensus" is so blatantly hypocritical.
    The style of the protection has evolved recently. Now there is a $500 billion + military industrial complex (US), along with lending facilities, and (quite possibly in the US) free health care. Not lagging far behind are the lobbying capabilities. The SEC, FDA, DoA (see Monsanto), etc... are the other faucets for corporate interests.

    Markets are plagued by many more problems than is immediately evident: information asymmetries, negative externalities, various disequilibria, etc. On the whole, I'm inclined to regard them as a rather inefficient means of resource allocation.
    Government intervention displays unintended consequences of its own. Business decisions being made by politicians, slow paced progress, and the ever increasing propensity for corruption (made possible by those generous government salaries) are worse IMHO. Rent caps in NYC for apartments is a great example.

    This doesn't change the fact that I despise this role and the very existence of the government more than any rightist here; I merely acknowledge that this major role is a necessary condition of the continued existence of capitalism. On that count, I might not object to an attempt to implement laissez-faire; it might bring capitalism down faster.
    You are correct, capitalism as we know it, let alone the proverbial laissez-faire, are extremely dependent on the political climate. Anti-fraud legislation is probably the most important government action for capitalism to exist. The very private property rights granted by the US Constitution (fifth and fourteenth Amendments)allow capitalism the advantage over other political-economic systems such as anarcho-socialism.

    I do believe there are legitimate roles for government intervention. I hate the idea of politicians making business decisions. They would be just as effective picking fashion trends.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 06-18-09 at 10:17 AM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #199
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    But free market competition isn't a negative externality, so I didn't notice that it was another question :P

    If you want, you can say that driving others out of business is, but then expanding your own production more efficency would have to be a positive externality.
    So no government intervention needs to be done in that scenario to reach an efficency market equalibrium.


    But when you look at things like pollution, there is actual ways to guess what level of taxation is nescesary to reach a more efficent situation. If anything, an estimated taxation or regulation against things that have negative externalities is better then doing nothing.

    Because then we would still have lead paint, poissonous pesticides ect. Those are all examples of externalities, and I think we can all agree that our economy is more efficenct with regulations against them.
    It's obvious that you're just making stuff up. From Wikipedia, "In economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction." Other transportation companies were put out of business because of Henry Ford, so he did in fact produce a negative externality. Should Henry Ford have paid for that externality?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  10. #200
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    No, it doesn't. More often than not, the government is a critical agent in stabilizing the overall market, which is why capitalism has always relied on a mixed economy. For example, consider trade policy. Unrestricted market competition is not in the ultimate interests of the "weaker" participants, so traditionally, it's been typical for countries to use the state sector to extend protection over infant industries and thus facilitate their development and eventual ability to compete with others, thereby maximizing dynamic comparative advantage.
    But making the country as a whole weaker. By protecting the industry it means that the people of the country are excluded from the purchase of the better products of that industry.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •