The BEST Salad Dressing Ever (1 Viewer)

UtahBill said:

The closest I come to salad dressing is BBQ Sauce.....

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

You just haven't found the right salad dressing.

BBQ'ing is pretty much the best...so I do love me some BBQ sauce...but none of the store bought ones are spicy enough for me. That's ok though...I just grab some chilies from the garden.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

Here are the ingredients for the very BEST salad dressing ever:

1. Fresh squeezed lemon juice
2. Extra virgin olive oil
3. Raw garlic (pressed)
4. Cayenne powder
5. Oregano flakes
6. Basil flakes
7. Cumin
8. Salt

[DISCLAIMER - Please read]: By choosing to make and try this salad dressing, you are agreeing to absolve me of any and all liability and responsibility should your taste buds explode

As you can see, I didn't include any measurements. That's because my family has always approximated the appropriate amount of each ingredient to add.

I really love this salad dressing...but there's something that I love even more...economics. Why? Because it's really important for me to understand exactly why I'm 99.9% certain that if I went to my local grocery store right this second, I would be able to find all the ingredients that are necessary to make a salad dressing that would provide my friends, family and I with lots of joy, happiness, pleasure, benefit, utility and welfare.

Economics is the field of study that focuses on what can be done to try and ensure that we have all the "ingredients" that we need to maximize joy, happiness, pleasure, benefit, utility and welfare. The two main economic theories are the "market" theory and the "planned" or "command" theory.

Personally, the market theory makes far more sense to me than the "planned" theory. In fact, the "planned" theory makes so little sense that I prefer to refer to it as the "non sequitur" theory.

The market theory makes sense because...if I want to make the BEST salad dressing ever...I have the freedom to go to the store and exchange my money for the necessary ingredients. By giving my money to the cashier...I'm giving a "high five" to everybody responsible for making these products possible. My money gives them the incentive to continue using society's limited resources for my benefit. Except, clearly I'm not the only one who finds value in giving them positive feedback. The market works because it's the epitome of a group effort.

The non sequitur theory, on the other hand, makes no sense because, well, it's a non sequitur. If I go to the store, place all the necessary ingredients in my cart, and give my money to the cashier...my money...my "high five"...my positive feedback...my encouragement...my gratitude...my appreciation...my sacrifice...wouldn't go to the people responsible for producing the ingredients that I had placed in my cart...it would be redirected to the people responsible for producing fennel, bananas, tofu, plastic utensils and cheese whiz. As a result, there would be a disconnect between the demand (the premise) and the supply (the conclusion). The shelves would be overflowing with some ingredients/inputs and completely devoid of other ingredients/inputs.

Nearly all countries have mixed economies. A mixed economy is one where the private sector operates on the market theory while the public sector operates on the non sequitur theory. But do we really want the public sector to be a non sequitur economy? Why would you want to exchange your taxes for a bundle of public goods which does not even come close to matching your preferences? Why would we want the shelves to be overflowing with tanks but completely devoid of environmental protection?

In essence...economics is the study of why freedom matters. I think I know why freedom matters...which is why I want you to have the freedom to choose which government organizations you give your taxes to. I want you to have the freedom to choose whether you eliminate tanks from your "recipe" just like you have the freedom to choose whether you eliminate garlic from the recipe that I've shared with you. Should you eliminate garlic from the BEST salad dressing ever? No way! Should you have the freedom to do so? Absolutely.

Is my salad dressing truly the BEST ever? If it really is...then why would I hesitate allowing you to decide for yourself? Is your recipe for life truly the BEST ever? If you really believe it is...then why would you hesitate allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves?

Here are the three most common reasons why people hesitate:

1. Argument: People are too uninformed to make good decisions
Counter argument: If people are uninformed it's because they have a vanishingly small say how their taxes are spent. The technical term for this is rational ignorance.

2. Argument: "Important" government organizations would be underfunded.
Counter argument: How "important" a government organization is to society can only be revealed by our actions. The technical term for this is demonstrated preference.

3. Argument: It would be unfair because rich people would have more influence than poor people.
Counter argument: Given that nobody evenly distributes their money, a market economy in the public sector would be considerably more fair than the current non sequitur economy. The technical term for this is dollar voting.

Please make it a priority to understand why society's total welfare absolutely depends on you having the option not to "buy" things. If you don't like what I'm trying to "sell" to you...if you really don't "buy" it...then please, by all means, add me to your ignore list. But if you choose to do so...then your actions would be speaking louder than your words. Clearly you would value the freedom to place any government organization on your ignore list.

If you do decide to make it a priority to understand why your priorities should matter...then here are a couple of resources that might be of some interest. They aren't interesting because they are pro tax choice...on the contrary...their focus is primarily on the downside of having too many choices. But they are interesting because they assume that you have a firm grasp on why your freedom is important.

1. Here's a psychologist, Barry Schwartz, making an argument against having too many options...The Paradox of Choice. Not sure if you have to register to watch the video...but it's also available on Netflix. On the TED website you have the option to just read the transcript...but then you'd miss out on all the funny comic strips he shares.

2. Here's a paper...The Dark Side of Choice...by Simona Botti and Sheena S. Iyengar that offers a more in depth exploration of the same topic discussed by Barry Schwartz.

Both offer a lot of food for thought...so hopefully you'll take a look at them.

Is there really a BEST salad dressing? No way...and thank goodness. Life wouldn't be worth living if there wasn't room for improvement. So where's there room for improvement with my salad dressing? I have no idea. I've been too busy trying to find where there's room for improvement in my argument for your freedom.

Trying to find room for improvement is second nature to us. Not just us though...right next to me there's a cat on a blanket shifting around trying to find where there's room for improvement. The market works because we have the freedom to reward the people who've discovered exactly where there's room for improvement. Is there room for improvement in the public sector? Most definitely. So let's create a market in the public sector and give our taxes to whichever government organizations are doing the most to improve our lives.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

You're trying too hard...

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

First you need a mix economy. The military alone is constitutionally mandated.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

Also the effect of the "sequester" portion of the economy levels it out. These jobs are way to maintain some boyancy on down turns at the cost of reducing the peaks in the good times.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

Your recipe disregards market economics and is just another command economy. I don't like cumin, but you require me to put it in. I like vinegar, but you disallowed it.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

A better idea to push would be to every dollar of charitable donations given would offset every dollar of required taxes. Those that want big government to fund the projects have their wish, and those that want private sector to do the job, have their wish... And there are things the government can do better than private sector... like manage interstate commerce, run a justice system...

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

You just haven't found the right salad dressing.

BBQ'ing is pretty much the best...so I do love me some BBQ sauce...but none of the store bought ones are spicy enough for me. That's ok though...I just grab some chilies from the garden.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

...A better idea to push would be to every dollar of charitable donations given would offset every dollar of required taxes...

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

If putting a good into the constitution means that we automatically know the optimal level of funding for that good...then why would we only want national defense to be constitutionally mandated? Wouldn't it be desirable to know the optimal level of funding for education, healthcare, infrastructure and spinach? .... and your response was that national defense shouldn't be optional.

Click to expand...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

My point is...the constitution is politics...while funding is economics.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

How much funding should the Dept of Defense receive? That should only be determined by demand. How is demand determined? By people's spending decisions. If people are concerned regarding the safety of our nation...then, all things being equal, taxpayers will give more of their taxes to the Dept of Defense.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

I'm not following you. I said that people would be able to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

If there are things that the public sector can do better than the private sector...then what is your concern with allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves whether this is true?

Click to expand...

imagep said:

what we would end up with is a bunch of charities that are mostly intended just to benefit particular tax payers, while other important stuff like military spending goes undone.

I've had a number of customers who were wanting to start up their own charities for personal gain reasons. one guy actually told me that this charity that he was starting was going to be his "retirement plan".

If I was allowed a tax credit for charitable contributions, every tax dollar would go to a charity called "imagep's son's educational scholarship fund", or whatever it was that currently would benefit my family.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

I think it is a great idea. Every dollar of charitable donations is 1 dollar less required to pay in federal income tax. The question is why do you not support that?

Click to expand...

imagep said:

what we would end up with is a bunch of charities that are mostly intended just to benefit particular tax payers, while other important stuff like military spending goes undone.

I've had a number of customers who were wanting to start up their own charities for personal gain reasons. one guy actually told me that this charity that he was starting was going to be his "retirement plan".

If I was allowed a tax credit for charitable contributions, every tax dollar would go to a charity called "imagep's son's educational scholarship fund", or whatever it was that currently would benefit my family.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

The constitution requires the government to establish and pay for the military, not for education, healthcare, spinach... Below is quoted from the US Constitution Article 1 section 8. You should read it some time. The Constitution lists of all the common defense and general welfare programs the government is legally constitutionally allowed to collect taxes to handle.



The constitution is what the government contractually bound to do and not do. These are your rights as a citizen. This is not politics. This is the law of the land.

I am old enough to know people are not concerned about problems, until it is a problem. No one was concerned about a school shooting until there was that school shooting. No one was concerned about terrorists using a plane as a missile until they hijacked panes and used them as missiles. No one will be concerned about a dirty bomb, until a dirty bomb goes off.

How to decide how much goes where is not an easy decision. But that is the job of the elected congressional officials. The first step is to pay for what we utilize, and have everyone paying under that umbrella. Then, and only then, will people know the real cost of government, and then they will stop electing people that give them free things in exchange for votes. People's priorities will change when they are forced to examine the cost of government for what it actually is, not this 50% off sale we have now.


You are giving people the option of A B C or D. You are not giving them the option to put the money where they want it to be. You are giving the option of the division, and the division must be around and funded currently by the government. Like your OP... you need to buy 8 items, and you decide how much of what goes in. It does not allow for new submissions or ingredients.


I think it is a great idea. Every dollar of charitable donations is 1 dollar less required to pay in federal income tax. The question is why do you not support that?

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

I understand your argument. Then maybe their would need to be some regulations on the charitable donations to make the list to qualify for the tax exempt status.

I agree any 501c3 should not be open to this loophole to exploit it. But RedCross, Salvation Army, American Cancer Association, certain hospitals like NY Presbyterian...

This would reduce government social welfare costs, leaving more funding for those things the constituition requires the government to maintain such as an army and navy.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

Let's keep this really simple. Can government planners know the optimal amount of funding that the DoD should receive?

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

Let's keep this really simple. Can government planners know the optimal amount of funding that the DoD should receive?

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

This forces government to shrink. Why are you against smaller government?

Reduction of income tax 1:1 for charitable donations. Why are you against the tax payers having a choice through the private sector, and you instead favor the use of government planned services? Isn't that something you were against in the OP?

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

Why do you want to force the entire government to shrink? The problem has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the government.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

The problem is that people think that 538 congresspeople can possibly have enough information to determine the optimal size of each individual GO.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

When you say that you want to shrink the government...people take it to mean that you want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

And that's why markets help us make progress. We're constantly freeing up resources for new and more beneficial uses.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

1. Why do you not discuss what happens when a department is over funded?

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

2. Why do you not discuss what happens when the government borrows money that is not determined how it will be allocated by the federal government?

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

3. You are not considering the optimal sized is just smaller for everything.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

You are a socialist in capitalist clothing. You are assuming the optimal size already exists, but is just not properly allocated.

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

4. You do not trust the congress to allocate the money and budget for the nation, but you trust them to determine the correct and proper amount of taxes each person needs to pay and how much revenue the nation must give to the government. Either you trust those 500+ people and their fiscal decisions or you don't.

Click to expand...

Xerographica said:

Right now half of our nation's revenue is spent in the public sector. Why would I assume that this is the optimal distribution of resources? Maybe 100% of our resources should be spent in the public sector? Or maybe 0%? How could I possible know?

Click to expand...

Why would the Dept of Education borrow money? If they did, then they would be gambling that the taxpayers who value public education would be interested in paying off their debts. Why risk it?

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

So doesn't it seem logical using your own paradigm of choice, and the power of numbers to allow the 160M tax payers to decide how much money the government should get in the first place? Those same people would also decide how much money charities should get. Let those 160M people decide where the money goes private sector, and that would reduce the public sector amount to the total determined by the masses. If they want to give 100% they can 0% they can do that too. It offers more choices than you offer.

If they want to give to the pubic school system they can. If they want the government to manage their taxes they can. If they want to blend they can do that too.

Where is the flaw in my logic?

Click to expand...

Missed AB said:

half the government is unfunded. So that money must be borrowed. the holes would be filled with loaned money, just like it is today, and would not be allocated by taxpayers as you propose in your idea. Or do you want to shrink government's size to fit the 2.4T we currently collect?

Click to expand...