• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teaching Economics to Liberals - Class is in Session

cmakaioz said:
Actually, I can and did prove it's not a fact that a given individual is always the best qualified to decide how well that individual's money is spent. See, back here in the real world, it is possible to define goals in empirical terms...for example

"I'd like to purchase the largest quantity of item Y for my finite sum of money Z." With a goal so defined, anyone capable of counting said items is capable of measuring the success of different options.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. A while back I told you that economics boils down to one question..."Is it worth it?". Nobody can answer that question for you. You can give your money to as many experts as you like...but only you can know whether it was worth it to give them your money. If it wasn't worth it then you stop giving them your money. If it was worth it then you continue to give them your money. But just because something is worth it to you doesn't mean it's worth it to me...and vice versa. This is why we should be tolerant of other people's values...which is why taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

cmakaioz said:
I don't know you well enough to accept the task of effectively spending $200 applied to YOUR goals. Based upon your posts thus far, I'm pretty confident I wouldn't want to know you, either.

In any case, as you have failed to correctly identify what a fact is, failed to answer all visible challenges to your mistaken premise, and shown no signs of improvement any time soon...Thou Art Flushed. Have a Nice Life.
Click to expand...

You can't flush me! I know for a fact that it's worth your time to converse with me! It's been scientifically proven with tons of empirical evidence. You have nothing "better" that you could be doing with your time. Discussing economics with me is the most valuable thing you've done all year! LOL

You don't get it...do you? By "flushing me" you're simply proving my point. You can't flush me from anybody's life but your own. You can't make that value judgment for anybody but yourself. You know why? Because in economics...perspectives matter! CLASS IS IN SESSION!!!


 
xpiher said:
I disagree since some subjects are beyond the avg understanding that most people possess. Most will follow their ideology/emotions rather than appeals to reason. That's why "change we can believe in" was so effective.

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
Click to expand...

Liberals will put their taxes where their hearts are and conservatives will put their taxes where their brains are. Will there be any exceptions to this rule? Of course...there are plenty of liberals with brains just like there are plenty of conservatives with hearts. The point is...we all stand to benefit as a nation when taxpayers are given the freedom to decide what exactly the government does that is worth their sacrifice.
 
Xerographica said:
Liberals will put their taxes where their hearts are and conservatives will put their taxes where their brains are. Will there be any exceptions to this rule? Of course...there are plenty of liberals with brains just like there are plenty of conservatives with hearts. The point is...we all stand to benefit as a nation when taxpayers are given the freedom to decide what exactly the government does that is worth their sacrifice.
Click to expand...

Again, disagree for the same simple reason I gave previously. People do not have the capacity to completely understand what is and its not needed in a myriad of areas. Simple case is military spending. Another one would be law enforcement and EPA (say what you will, the agency is needed to properly investigate and recommend).

Edit I know that of such a system were implemented there would be groups created to recommend tax allocation but IMO that would be a waste of resources. I suppose that a similar system at a, smaller scale would be wonderful. For instance x% of your money is taxed for social spending i.e. welfare. If you donate that money yourself, that money would not be taxed (or taxed at a much lower rate). This would be in addition to the charity tax credit given under our current system

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
Again, disagree for the same simple reason I gave previously. People do not have the capacity to completely understand what is and its not needed in a myriad of areas. Simple case is military spending. Another one would be law enforcement and EPA (say what you will, the agency is needed to properly investigate and recommend).

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
Click to expand...

The point is, there's infinite value in trying to help them understand why they need something. It's their money...they sacrificed to earn it. If you want them to spend their money on the EPA then it's up to you to help them understand why it's valuable for them to do so...even if you have to draw them a diagram. If you want your priorities to matter to other people...then it's your responsibility to share your perspective with them.

You know why you wouldn't have to persuade me to give any of my taxes to the EPA? Because I love nature...Priorities in Peril.

What I'm doing here is trying to persuade you that your perspective should matter in the public sector. No matter how absolutely fundamentally right I believe I am...if I can't persuade you to do something...then you shouldn't have to do it. You know why? Because maybe I'm wrong.

We all have extremely limited perspectives which is why it's very important that we solely rely on the power of persuasion to encourage people to change their priorities. The more solid evidence that you have to support your position...the easier it will be to persuade people to change their priorities.
 
xpiher said:
Edit I know that of such a system were implemented there would be groups created to recommend tax allocation but IMO that would be a waste of resources. I suppose that a similar system at a, smaller scale would be wonderful. For instance x% of your money is taxed for social spending i.e. welfare. If you donate that money yourself, that money would not be taxed (or taxed at a much lower rate). This would be in addition to the charity tax credit given under our current system
Click to expand...

With standard fundraising practices...non-profits receive $5 for every $1 they spend on fundraising. If fundraising is good enough for non-profits organizations...and people have to pay taxes anyways...then fundraising is good enough for government organizations.
 
Xerographica said:
With standard fundraising practices...non-profits receive $5 for every $1 they spend on fundraising. If fundraising is good enough for non-profits organizations...and people have to pay taxes anyways...then fundraising is good enough for government organizations.
Click to expand...

You have more faith in humanity than I do. Also, how do you deal with the free rider problem?

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
xpiher said:
You have more faith in humanity than I do. Also, how do you deal with the free rider problem?
Click to expand...

It doesn't require any faith in humanity...it just requires the economic understanding that we all benefit as a country when people are giving the freedom to maximize their utility. When people are given the freedom to get the most bang for their buck...resources are put to their most productive and valuable uses. This is the basis for prosperity.

Think about it...if your comparative advantage is in rocket science...but your parents forced you to study music...then our prosperity as a nation would be diminished. Your parents limited your freedom to maximize your utility. The bad economist would say...well...we need more musicians while the good economist would say...only you can discover what your comparative advantage is in.

The public sector has a comparative advantage. But in what? A committee of government planners cannot answer that question. Voters cannot answer that question. That question can only be answered by giving 150 million of our most productive citizens the freedom to maximize their utility in the public sector.

People would still have to pay taxes so the free-rider problem isn't applicable...Libertarianism and the Free-rider Problem.
 
Last edited:
Xerographica said:
My definition of irrationally allocating money is when somebody intentionally wastes their money. For example, if you literally flush your money down the toilet...then from my perspective you would be behaving irrationally with your money. Do you disagree with my definition? If so...please offer your own definition of irrational behavior with one's own money.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but a subjective definition with absolutely no substantiation for my challenge. You would need to define, OBJECTIVELY, irrational and waste, and show how it applies to the theory you are discussing... something that you have not done. Therefore, your "definition" is irrelevant. Please show how taxpayers would be rational/efficient in allocating money for government spending. No definitions, unless you decide to define "rational/efficient from an OBJECTIVE standpoint, not from "your opinion". Just the example/description of how taxpayers would demonstrate doing this. GO.
 
Xerographica said:
Let's say you're my personal shopper for food and clothing. Initially I give you $300/month...but then decide that I'm not happy with your food choices. So I would directly spend my money on food and only give you $50/month. Well...given that I'm being well fed...it wouldn't make sense for you to spend any of that $50 on my food. Therefore, you would just spend that $50/month on my clothing.

We're simply talking about supply and demand here. There would be no "overall" budget...because we would be decentralizing the budget. Each government organization already has its own budget so this isn't a problem or a difficulty. Taxpayers would respond to shortages of the things they valued. 150 million taxpayers can more effectively respond to shortages of public goods than 538 congresspeople congresspeople can. Taxpayers have to pay taxes anyways...so why wouldn't they use their taxes to try and ensure adequate levels of the public goods that they value?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing you posted addressed a single damn thing I said. Thanks for proving my first point about your inability to play in the big leagues.

I point out how your lunatic plan results in Congress essentially losing its Constitutional right to spend money and instead being turned into a commitee of plugging holes like a little dutch boy and that steaming load of **** is how you reply. I've seen pathetic responses before, but your's takes the recent cake.

And by the way, you just admitted Congress goes out the window as we completely move away from an actual budget. On your more second round of idiocy. A seriously decentralized government would be EXTREMELY inefficient. You'd have to duplicate things in every department. Waste would go through the roof. Furthermore, you just proved my point about why your plan is stupid. Your argument requires that everyone who pays taxes be constantly checking funding levels. I'd mock the sheer lunacy of your plan, but I think people already realize just how half-baked it is. On top of that, without reliable funding, it's going to be impossible to plan anything more then a few days out.

Your perspective is extremely limited. ALL our perspectives are extremely limited. We ALL only have partial knowledge...but we are each touching different parts of an elephant. Therefore, we each have access to different bits and pieces of information.

My blog is evidence of how much thought I've put into the consequences of pragmatarianism and this page reveals just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the amount of research I've done on the subject...Unglamorous but Important Things.
Click to expand...

You have done absolutely nothing of value there. And you are still unable to prove how your plan doesn't make Congress into 535 little dutch boys plugging leaks with their fingers.

This proves my entire point
Click to expand...

Read my first line reply to you. There's not much more I need to say here.

You really aren't worth anyone's time here.
 
Last edited:
Xerographica said:
Just in case you guys aren't reading each other's posts...thought I'd juxtapose your arguments. CaptainCourtesy, as you can see, cmakaioz was kind enough to argue that taxpayers would not give their taxes to congresspeople "who have not demonstrated that they share the interests of the decider in question."

In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers would be able to choose whether they A) gave their taxes to congress (their personal shoppers for public goods) or B) directly allocated their taxes themselves. Why would they directly allocate their taxes themselves? Well...as cmakaioz indicated...it would be because they did not feel that the congresspeople shared their interests.

Why give your taxes to a representative that does not share your interests? It would be irrational to force people to give their taxes to representatives that did not share their interests. Not only is it irrational...but it would irrevocably harm the economy. We want the supply of public goods to be shaped by the demand for public goods. We all stand to benefit when the two are as closely aligned as possible. That's how economics works.

If there's a demand for more public education...then we don't want congress spending more money on NASA. That would represent an inefficient allocation of limited resources. If you believe that congress knows better than you do then you would certainly still have the freedom to give your taxes to congress. But please show some tolerance and allow us nonbelievers to directly allocate our taxes ourselves.
Click to expand...

cmakaioz said:
Please refrain from lying about other posters and what they have written. I made no such statement.

The statement you quoted was in reference to your scenario of people not giving out money to strangers, and your MISTAKEN conclusion that this somehow magically demonstrates that individuals always know how best to spend their money most effectively.

Had you actually asked me directly about congress, I'd point out that congress doesn't ask for anyone's taxes. Rather, taxes are forcibly extracted from the subject population, and you either pay them or risk having men with guns eventually haul you off to prison.

Unless you come clean on your misrepresentation, you're flushed into my troll file.
Click to expand...

As cmakaioz pointed out above, he said no such thing. Your comments had nothing to do with what he said. This is you, again, using a straw man logical fallacy, and a bad one at that. Because you theory has been shredded so completely, you seem to be resorting to dishonesty. Very sad.
 
Grant said:
Your methods?

Your "method" was to attack another poster through a third party.

This is the way of the wuss.
Click to expand...

My "method" was to challenge a poster on proving his position. You don't like that? Tough ****. YOUR "method" was to make an ad hom. Probably be a good idea if you stopped doing that.
 
Misterveritis said:
Somewhere you missed a step or two. With experiences and age comes the ability to recognize patterns. Do you know what heuristics are?
Click to expand...

I explained things quite clearly. Your black/white thinking prevented you from recognizing that. Not my problem.
 
Misterveritis said:
You missed the creation of the United States, for starters.
Click to expand...

And you're saying that's a bad thing?

Btw... your statement above is not accurate. The Founders were, at their core, progressives.
 
Misterveritis said:
I can learn from anyone. I know that I am right. In 20-30 years more years you might have the wisdom to see it. Or not.
Click to expand...

And I know you are wrong and I am right. I suspect that you will still believe your inaccuracies in 20-30 years. That's what happens with a closed mind.
 
Misterveritis said:
You proved it yourself when you chose not to give him your money.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I ignored his irrelevant analogy. He has proven himself wrong by being unable to answer my challenge... as have you.
 
Misterveritis said:
It is dated and one of the books is very hard to ready but you might want to start with the short version of the Wealth of Nations. It can help you understand that which your heart already knows but that your liberal mind does not want to accept. In addition to the one paragraph AdamT discovered there are nearly 900 more pages that lay out how our ability to act in our self interests has led to the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest numbers of people in history.
Click to expand...

STILL refusing to answer the challenge? I know, a position so weak demands the diversions that you are using. Extreme conservatives tend to support weak positions such as these, and then refuse to defend them when challenged. It's OK. I'll just keep asking and watch you all scurry about.
 
Misterveritis said:
His core beliefs are Marxist.
Click to expand...

You define Marxist as anything you dislike.

Furthermore, you define Communism as anything self proclaimed Communists have done. Like those capitalist, private property, highly stratified class society, export reliant Chinese.

Your definitions are flat out wrong.
 
Misterveritis said:
CC, it is in your blind spot. I believe you are incapable of seeing the truth. You know that you can spend your money better than anyone else. But you cannot bring yourself to accept that you are not alone. Everyone can spend their money better than anyone else. You have not challenged his theory. You have demonstrated its fundamental soundness. It is only your blindness that prevents you from seeing it.
Click to expand...

Then it would be so easy to accept my challenge and demonstrate, clearly, how tax payers would be rational/efficient in allocating money for government spending, wouldn't it? Yet you guys have avoided this challenge like the plague. It sinks your position like a lead weight, so if I were you, I'D avoid it too. I know you can't accept this, as, like Xero, it causes intense cognitive dissonance, since much of your failed ideology hinges on irrational theories such as these.
 
Still can't believe these folks are hanging on to the idea that people would spend their time checking funding levels of government programs.

Do they realize just how expensive it would be and what a waste of government time merely to keep those websites updated?

In their poorly thought out quest for efficiency, they just created a monster of waste. Clearly some people here never learned the concept of unintended consequences.
 
xpiher said:
its actually much easier to do what you complain about when 1 group controls all the business. Ever wonder why it took so long for America to get to the place it is today? Because it took that long for the companies to amass that power.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure it had nothing to do with putting most of our resources into expansion for a century. I'm sure it had nothing to do with being relatively isolated while Europe had a couple of very rough internal spats, to say the least, that literally brought their house down. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the billions Uncle Sam sunk into R&D during those disputes, which pushed technology forward by leaps and bounds, which businesses essentially got for free. And I'm sure it nothing to do with the simple fact that after those little disputes we were virtually the only power left standing in the West to fill in the power vacuum left behind. Oh yes, it was JUST American business that did all the work, spent all the money, and made all the sacrifices. It had nothing to do with the American People or Uncle Sam. :roll:


I'm not taking AtlantaAdonis's side here - because it takes both supply (your position) and demand (his position) for this to work - but what you've just posted is beyond believable.
 
I'm not going to read through 25 pages of mindless dribble about the lean someone decides to show or the ridiculous idea of tax payers allocating funds.

How about you follow through on your promise to educate and tell me what should be done to fix the economy.
 
I'm not taking AtlantaAdonis's side here - because it takes both supply (your position) and demand (his position) for this to work - but what you've just posted is beyond believable.
Click to expand...

You've seen enough of my post to know that I'm pretty pragmatic and thst I was replying to the underline premises that socialism makes it easier for corruption that he complained about. It had nothing at all to do with what you responded with

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
xpiher said:
You've seen enough of my post to know that I'm pretty pragmatic and thst I was replying to the underline premises that socialism makes it easier for corruption that he complained about. It had nothing at all to do with what you responded with
Click to expand...
It actually did seem kind of odd to me that you would make such wild accusations but what can I say? It was early in my day (no excuse, I know) and I missed that nuance. When I went back and checked you're quite correct. :3oops: Thanks for not laying into me as you could have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom