Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs

Xerographica · Dec 31, 2012

There are quite a few replies to this thread ... ...but so far nobody has replied with the most succinct response: concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

Here's a short video that helps explains the concept...

There's a very easy solution to the problem of rational ignorance. Can you guess what it is?

If anybody is interested in learning more about legal plunder...the Foundation for Economic Education is an excellent resource.

Xerographica · Apr 6, 2013

grip said:
Pure capitalism is NOT consumer sovereignty, rather it's the top 1% controlling everyone else with necessities and manipulating the system, laws and government. I never said anything about social manipulation of funds. The government is suppose to break up monopolies (too big to fail) and be a system of checks and balances, not be in league with corporate interests above average citizens.

Yeah, maybe you should watch this video.

grip said:
Go preach your pure free market is the only fair system to someone naive enough to believe that the top earners aren't ego driven, power hungry, greedy blind.

A. Only the top earners are interested in maximizing their utility
B. The free-rider problem is a real problem

Do you believe A or B? You can't believe both. Why can't you? Because the free-rider problem states that the average citizen is interested in maximizing his utility.

Xerographica · Apr 16, 2013

head of joaquin said:
Nope. You are making the mistake of aggregation. On the whole two nations that trade are better off due to comparative advantage than they would be if they didn't (or they wouldn't be trading). However, within each nation the benefits and burdens aren't allocated equally. The rich in this country make more money by exporting capital and jobs, because they own capital, and the current trading regime benefits capital in advanced countries and burdens workers, especially low skill workers.

That's one reason low skill workers wages keep falling. It's not a coincidence. It might not matter to you or the owners of capital, but it matters to them. Frankly it's pretty stupid to promote a policy that benefits the rich and burdens the poor. It's reversoworld.

Obviously you haven't seen this video. Watch it and then try again.

RGacky3 · Apr 18, 2013

1. Cutting spending is NOT a dispersed benefit, only cutting taxes is.
2. Taxes are progressive.
3. Not all spending effects everyone the same, i.e. spending in the form of tax rebates for large corporations is different then public school spending.
4. People vote not because they're INDIVIDUAL vote will change the outcome, it's collective decision making, something some economists somehow can never grasp yet psychologists and antrhopologists have known forever.
5. The reason people are not informed or invovled in politics has nothing to do with the innate nature of elections (look at other countries where people ARE more informed), it's due to the fact that the US electorala system is corrupt and disfunctional, and people know that.
6. You're assuming that people don't have principles and vote on principles.

Any video or person that just talks about "spending" should be just dismissed offhand, there is no "spending," you have to look at specific programs on their own, and look at their own merits.

Xerographica · Apr 19, 2013

RGacky3 said:
1. Cutting spending is NOT a dispersed benefit, only cutting taxes is.

The benefits of taxes should greatly exceed the (opportunity) cost of taxes. This is why taxpayers should be able to shop for themselves in the public sector. Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Allowing people to shop for themselves weeds out the producers who fail to provide consumers with the maximum value.

RGacky3 said:
2. Taxes are progressive.

Fine, as long as taxpayers can shop for themselves.

RGacky3 said:
3. Not all spending effects everyone the same, i.e. spending in the form of tax rebates for large corporations is different then public school spending.

If the public school system has been churning out taxpayers...then I'm sure that taxpayers will give their taxes to public schools.

RGacky3 said:
4. People vote not because they're INDIVIDUAL vote will change the outcome, it's collective decision making, something some economists somehow can never grasp yet psychologists and antrhopologists have known forever.

Collective decision making (voting) does not reflect people's intensity of preferences. Economists understand that resources cannot be efficiently allocated without people's intensity of preferences. Shopping allows people to reveal the intensity of their preferences. Why is it so difficult for you to understand the value of allowing people to shop for themselves?

RGacky3 said:
5. The reason people are not informed or invovled in politics has nothing to do with the innate nature of elections (look at other countries where people ARE more informed), it's due to the fact that the US electorala system is corrupt and disfunctional, and people know that.

It's called rational ignorance. Google it.

RGacky3 said:
6. You're assuming that people don't have principles and vote on principles.

Can you provide an example?

RGacky3 said:
Any video or person that just talks about "spending" should be just dismissed offhand, there is no "spending," you have to look at specific programs on their own, and look at their own merits.

Right, the amount of money that the public school system receives should depend on how much value that it is creating for society. That's why each and every taxpayer should be able to decide for themselves exactly how much of their own tax dollars they give to public education.

This is such a simple concept. The question is...how effectively is the public school system using society's limited resources? In other words...how much value are they creating? The only way we can know the answer to this question is by allowing taxpayers to choose how much of their own tax dollars they spend on public education. The more money that they are willing to pay...the more value that public education is creating.

Right now you have this absurd notion that we can determine merit/value in the absence of taxpayer's individual valuations. You think we can simply analyze the statistics in order to determine how much value public education is creating for society. You know why that's ridiculous? Because valuation is not external to people. How much people value something can only be found within people. It is their willingness to sacrifice for public education that communicates exactly how much they value public education.

Here's an economics joke...

Two economists walk past a Ferrari dealership. One economist stops and points at a Ferrari and says, "I want that." The other economist replies, "no you don't."

Do you get the joke? Can you explain to me why it's funny?

RGacky3 · Apr 22, 2013

Xerographica said:
The benefits of taxes should greatly exceed the (opportunity) cost of taxes. This is why taxpayers should be able to shop for themselves in the public sector. Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Allowing people to shop for themselves weeds out the producers who fail to provide consumers with the maximum value.

You don't pay taxes so that YOU individually can get most bang for your buck, that isn't the point of taxes, its a communal thing, obviously if I don't have AIDS, or know any one with AIDS, me supplying money to AIDS research gives me little bang for my buck, but from the stantpoint of society, society as a whole benefits more taxing my and using some of it for AIDS research than just not taxing me.

You're missing the whole pint of the public sector.

Fine, as long as taxpayers can shop for themselves.

They can, just not with their taxes, that is for the public.

If the public school system has been churning out taxpayers...then I'm sure that taxpayers will give their taxes to public schools.

Not if they can afford private school, why should they pay for poor people's kids?

Collective decision making (voting) does not reflect people's intensity of preferences. Economists understand that resources cannot be efficiently allocated without people's intensity of preferences. Shopping allows people to reveal the intensity of their preferences. Why is it so difficult for you to understand the value of allowing people to shop for themselves?

It isn't difficult, I just see all the problems with it. Economists also understand externalities and the role of economic activity that is democratic and public.

It's called rational ignorance. Google it.

That has nothing really to do with what I said, point is you fix the democratic system, not just scrap it entirely.

Can you provide an example?

People who believe in universal healthcare will vote for universal healthcare even if they have a great private healthcare service.

Right, the amount of money that the public school system receives should depend on how much value that it is creating for society. That's why each and every taxpayer should be able to decide for themselves exactly how much of their own tax dollars they give to public education.

This is such a simple concept. The question is...how effectively is the public school system using society's limited resources? In other words...how much value are they creating? The only way we can know the answer to this question is by allowing taxpayers to choose how much of their own tax dollars they spend on public education. The more money that they are willing to pay...the more value that public education is creating.

Right now you have this absurd notion that we can determine merit/value in the absence of taxpayer's individual valuations. You think we can simply analyze the statistics in order to determine how much value public education is creating for society. You know why that's ridiculous? Because valuation is not external to people. How much people value something can only be found within people. It is their willingness to sacrifice for public education that communicates exactly how much they value public education.

Here's an economics joke...

Two economists walk past a Ferrari dealership. One economist stops and points at a Ferrari and says, "I want that." The other economist replies, "no you don't."

Do you get the joke? Can you explain to me why it's funny?

Jesus Christ, ok.

1. You don't analyze statistics, you vote and then that decision that passes the electoral process is done.
2. Value for society cannot be measured ONLY in the market place.
3. Individuals don't measure (in the market) value for society, they measure value for themselves.
4. Wealthy individuals will have much more say over what is worth spending on than not.
5. That leads to plutocracy.
6. That leads to a permanent class system.
7. That means no democracy and essencially plutocracy, a government run by and for the rich.

What about that don't you get, and why do you keep ignoring the giant elephant in the room.

Xerographica · Apr 22, 2013

RGacky3 said:
You don't pay taxes so that YOU individually can get most bang for your buck, that isn't the point of taxes, its a communal thing, obviously if I don't have AIDS, or know any one with AIDS, me supplying money to AIDS research gives me little bang for my buck, but from the stantpoint of society, society as a whole benefits more taxing my and using some of it for AIDS research than just not taxing me.

Then how do you propose we determine how much money should be spent on AIDS versus cancer research? Or cancer research versus Alzheimer's research?

What you fail to understand is that allowing people to shop for themselves allows them to concisely communicate their circumstances. All things being equal, if more people are harmed by cancer than Alzheimer's...then cancer research would get more funding. How absurd would it be if it was the other way around? Why would you want Sjogren's to receive more funding than Alzheimer's?

Again and again, you struggle to understand what it means for resources to be efficiently allocated. If I say that public funding should be efficiently allocated among the disease research organizations...my meaning is that the amount of public funding each organization receives should reflect how harmful each disease is. Prioritizing by pervasiveness will maximize the value we derive from the discovery of cures. Therefore, as I've said before, the "efficient allocation of resources" is the distribution of resources that will produce the most value for society.

RGacky3 said:
You're missing the whole pint of the public sector.

You're missing the whole point of economics. Economics is all about the efficient allocation of resources. If the distribution of resources fails to take into account individuals' valuations of their circumstances...then resources will not be efficiently allocated and we will not maximize the amount of value that we, as a society, derive from our resources.

The point of the public sector is that there are some goods, public/collective goods, that people can benefit from without having to help pay for. You would know this if you've ever read The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure by Samuelson. That paper provides the definitive theoretical justification for the public sector. In case you missed it, Samuelson was Nobel Prize winning liberal economist. In case you missed it, my arguments will always be superior to yours given that I've thoroughly read economists on both sides of the debate. While you, on the other hand, haven't even read the economists on your side of the debate.

RGacky3 said:
They can, just not with their taxes, that is for the public.

If they can't shop for themselves in the public sector then resources will not be efficiently allocated. Unfortunately, given that you're clueless about economics...the "efficient allocation of resources" has absolutely no meaning to you. In your fantasy world, you think congress can reach inside your head and pull out exactly how much you value various uses of society's limited resources. Actually, you're so detached from reality you think that one use of a limited resource is as good as any.

RGacky3 said:
Not if they can afford private school, why should they pay for poor people's kids?

So the public school system produces a multitude of taxpayers...yet these same taxpayers who have public schools to thank for their wealth wouldn't spend a dime of their tax dollars on public education? Instead, they would send their kids to private schools and spend their tax dollars on national defense? That's what they learned in public schools?

Somebody has to benefit from the millions and millions of dollars we spend on education. We don't just educate people so that they can spout random facts. We educate them so that they can get jobs and create jobs. So if the public education system isn't producing taxpayers...and it's not producing the employees that taxpayers hire...then we would certainly stand to gain by shifting public funds away from public education.

RGacky3 said:
It isn't difficult, I just see all the problems with it. Economists also understand externalities and the role of economic activity that is democratic and public.

So name some public finance economists who you've actually read. Better yet, share some passages from them.

RGacky3 said:
That has nothing really to do with what I said, point is you fix the democratic system, not just scrap it entirely.

Who said anything about scraping it entirely? Democracy (voting) and economics (shopping) each have their respective uses. If we want to determine how much money to spend on something...then this is clearly the realm of economics (shopping). Everything else falls under the realm of democracy (voting).

Here's a simple quiz for you...

1. Should drugs be legal? (democracy/economics)
2. How much money should be spent on the war on drugs? (democracy/economics)
3. Should abortion be illegal (democracy/economics)
4. How much money should be spent on public healthcare? (democracy/economics)
5. Should we go to war with Iran? (democracy/economics)
6. How much money should be spent on a war with Iran? (democracy/economics)

RGacky3 said:
People who believe in universal healthcare will vote for universal healthcare even if they have a great private healthcare service.

Eh? You said that I assume "that people don't have principles and vote on principles." I asked you to provide an example and this is your example? If people truly believe in universal healthcare then they will be willing to put their own tax dollars where their beliefs are.

"Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also" - Matthew 6:21

RGacky3 said:
Jesus Christ, ok.

1. You don't analyze statistics, you vote and then that decision that passes the electoral process is done.
2. Value for society cannot be measured ONLY in the market place.
3. Individuals don't measure (in the market) value for society, they measure value for themselves.
4. Wealthy individuals will have much more say over what is worth spending on than not.
5. That leads to plutocracy.
6. That leads to a permanent class system.
7. That means no democracy and essencially plutocracy, a government run by and for the rich.

What about that don't you get, and why do you keep ignoring the giant elephant in the room.

What a failure. In case you missed it...your objective was to explain how congress determines exactly how much public funds should be spent on public education. Try again. I'm curious how you'll ignore the preference revelation problem...

Voting and other democratic procedures can help to produce information about the demand for public goods, but these processes are unlikely to work as well at providing the optimal amounts of public goods as do markets at providing the optimal amounts of private goods. Thus, we have more confidence that the optimal amount of toothpaste is purchased every year ($2.3 billion worth in recent years) than the optimal amount of defense spending ($549 billion) or the optimal amount of asteroid deflection (close to $0). In some cases, we could get too much of the public good with many people being forced riders and in other cases we could get too little of the public good. - Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabarrok, Modern Principles of Economics

RGacky3 · Apr 23, 2013

Xerographica ... Come back when you have dealth with the issues I've ACTUALLY brougut up.

1. Value for society cannot be measured ONLY in the market place.
2. Individuals don't measure (in the market) value for society, they measure value for themselves.
3. Every market decision includes externalities which affect society which are not priced in.
4. Wealthy people generally have much more bargaining power in market transactions, so much so it becomes almost coercive.
5. Wealthy individuals will have much more say over what is worth spending on than not.
6. That leads to plutocracy.
7. That leads to a permanent class system.
8. That means no democracy and essencially plutocracy, a government run by and for the rich.

So far ALL you're doing is restating you're position in different ways, I don't give a ****, deal with the opints I've BROUGHT UP the problems with your plutocratic system.

So, now, deal with the points I've brought up, I don't want to read paragraphs of sophistry and analogy, I want you to actually have a proper discussion and DEAL with the problems I've raised.

Xerographica · Apr 23, 2013

RGacky3 said:
Xerographica ... Come back when you have dealth with the issues I've ACTUALLY brougut up.

I've explained why the issues you bring up fail to reflect even a basic understanding of economics

RGacky3 said:
1. Value for society cannot be measured ONLY in the market place.

It can only be accurately measured in the market place

RGacky3 said:
2. Individuals don't measure (in the market) value for society, they measure value for themselves.

You're the only one who knows how much you value public education. Sure, I can guess how much you value public education...but obviously there's going to be a disparity between my guess and the actual amount. The only way I can know how much you truly value public education is by observing how much you're willing to sacrifice...give up... exchange... trade... for public education. The more you're personally willing to give up for public education...the more you value it. How much is everybody willing to give up for public education? The efficient allocation of resources depends on this answer. Resources cannot be efficiently allocated without it. Without it, we won't be able to derive the maximum amount of value from our resources.

RGacky3 said:
3. Every market decision includes externalities which affect society which are not priced in.

Again, externalities (spill overs) are either positive...or negative. They are either a benefit...or a cost. Pollution adversely affects you...therefore it is a cost. But maybe you benefit from driving a car. So do you stop driving your car? This is the realm of individual valuation. Your individual valuation...when you consider how much you're willing to sacrifice...is where you "price in" how much you benefit or are harmed by things that spill over into your circumstances.

A drug addict breaks into your home in order to steal items to pay for more drugs. What is the cause of this negative externality (harmful spill over)? Is it because there aren't enough police? Is it because there aren't enough jails? Is it because the courts are too lenient? Is it because drugs are illegal? Is it because we aren't spending enough money on education?

How much do you value your safety? How much do I value your safety?

RGacky3 said:
4. Wealthy people generally have much more bargaining power in market transactions, so much so it becomes almost coercive.

Can you offer an example?

RGacky3 said:
5. Wealthy individuals will have much more say over what is worth spending on than not.

Well yeah...everybody who spends even a dime agrees that wealth should not be evenly distributed. The distribution should reflect how well people use society's limited resources. The more efficiently that somebody uses society's limited resources...the more resources that they should be able to use.

RGacky3 said:
6. That leads to plutocracy.

Allowing people to shop for themselves leads to prosperity. Why? Because how society's limited resources are used will reflect people's circumstances. When people can't shop for themselves...then a small group of government planners will determine how society's limited resources are used. Given that government planners can't even begin to have accurate knowledge of people's circumstances, the distribution of resources will not reflect people's circumstances. The allocation of resources will be inefficient. Value will be destroyed.

RGacky3 said:
7. That leads to a permanent class system.

How absurd. Giving a million dollars to an average joe will ensure that he'll always be a millionaire? LOL.

These economic facts have certain social consequences. As the critics of the market economy nowadays prefer to take their stand on "social" grounds, it may be not inappropriate here to elucidate the true social results of the market process. We have already spoken of it as a leveling process. More aptly, we may now describe these results as an instance of what Pareto called "the circulation of elites." Wealth is unlikely to stay for long in the same hands. It passes from hand to hand as unforeseen change confers value, now on this, now on that specific resource, engendering capital gains and losses. The owners of wealth, we might say with Schumpeter, are like the guests at a hotel or the passengers in a train: They are always there but are never for long the same people. - Ludwig M. Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

RGacky3 said:
8. That means no democracy and essencially plutocracy, a government run by and for the rich.

It means that you can't vote on how your neighbor spends his tax dollars. If you want your neighbor to spend his tax dollars on war...then you'll have to persuade him that he'll benefit from doing so.

RGacky3 said:
So far ALL you're doing is restating you're position in different ways, I don't give a ****, deal with the opints I've BROUGHT UP the problems with your plutocratic system.

So, now, deal with the points I've brought up, I don't want to read paragraphs of sophistry and analogy, I want you to actually have a proper discussion and DEAL with the problems I've raised.

In your fantasy world...there are only rich people and poor people...and the rich are all evil and the poor are all good. So let me guess...you're a poor person? You're good because you don't want to earn your neighbor's money? Or maybe you're exceptional? Maybe you're the only person between two extremes? Maybe everybody you personally know is exceptional? LOL.

imagep · Apr 23, 2013

RGacky3 said:
8. That means no democracy and essencially plutocracy, a government run by and for the rich.

Some people believe that to be a good thing. Only they prefer to pretend like it is a meritocracy instead of the plutocracy that it really is.

Xerographica · Apr 24, 2013

imagep said:
Some people believe that to be a good thing. Only they prefer to pretend like it is a meritocracy instead of the plutocracy that it really is.

I have the neatest trick to get you to shut up. Ready for it? What are your thoughts on the preference revelation problem? Is it a real problem? If it's not a real problem...then who made it up?

RGacky3 · Apr 25, 2013

Xerographica said:
It can only be accurately measured in the market place

No it can't, social value isn't valued AT ALL in the market place, or if it is, not nearly accurately, (if it was eco friendly cars would be cheaper since they have less cost to society in the form of pollution).

You're the only one who knows how much you value public education. Sure, I can guess how much you value public education...but obviously there's going to be a disparity between my guess and the actual amount. The only way I can know how much you truly value public education is by observing how much you're willing to sacrifice...give up... exchange... trade... for public education. The more you're personally willing to give up for public education...the more you value it. How much is everybody willing to give up for public education? The efficient allocation of resources depends on this answer. Resources cannot be efficiently allocated without it. Without it, we won't be able to derive the maximum amount of value from our resources.

Actually personally I don't value it at all, in a market sense, since I have no kids, and I'm done with school ...

Now I would VOTE for society to have an institution and have it publically funded through either taxes or public industry, but due to things like game theory or the tradgedy of the commons I wouldn't "pay for it" individually ... why should I choose to pay for other people's kids unless I know there is an institution to ensure that the cost is really communal and the benefits are as well.

Again, externalities (spill overs) are either positive...or negative. They are either a benefit...or a cost. Pollution adversely affects you...therefore it is a cost. But maybe you benefit from driving a car. So do you stop driving your car? This is the realm of individual valuation. Your individual valuation...when you consider how much you're willing to sacrifice...is where you "price in" how much you benefit or are harmed by things that spill over into your circumstances.

A drug addict breaks into your home in order to steal items to pay for more drugs. What is the cause of this negative externality (harmful spill over)? Is it because there aren't enough police? Is it because there aren't enough jails? Is it because the courts are too lenient? Is it because drugs are illegal? Is it because we aren't spending enough money on education?

How much do you value your safety? How much do I value your safety?

Thats rediculous, pollution from MY INDIVIDUAL CAR doesn't adversely affect me at all, the collective polllution for all the cars do, and me stopping driving won't change that one iota, unless there is a collective decision that everyone will stop, or drive less, and that is enforced, otherwise me stoping driving will only deprive me of a car and not change the pollution problem one iota.

As far as the drug addict, you know what the solution is? Rich people (as they already do) will have private security and walled in neighborhoods, why would they pay for poor people's saftey? And poor people can't afford security so they stay vulnurable, to REALLY fix the problem you need collective decision making, one man one vote. Or they might just use the public money to only defend rich neighborhoods, or inprison drug addicts, they dont' have to worry about their kids, their kids have rehab ...

THAT's the sort of society you're pushing for.

Can you offer an example?

Walmart goes into a town, puts a lot of people out of buisiness, now the the bargaining chips are all in walmarts hands, they are the main employer, other jobs simply arn't around, so people have to work for little with little bargaining power (unless they unionize).

Well yeah...everybody who spends even a dime agrees that wealth should not be evenly distributed. The distribution should reflect how well people use society's limited resources. The more efficiently that somebody uses society's limited resources...the more resources that they should be able to use.

But not everyone that spends a dime things that the wealthy should control public policy.

Also capitalism never has been and sin't a meritocracy, you cant only use societies resources if you already had them, which is why capital begets capital, much more than skill begets capital, or brining value to society begets capital.

Allowing people to shop for themselves leads to prosperity. Why? Because how society's limited resources are used will reflect people's circumstances. When people can't shop for themselves...then a small group of government planners will determine how society's limited resources are used. Given that government planners can't even begin to have accurate knowledge of people's circumstances, the distribution of resources will not reflect people's circumstances. The allocation of resources will be inefficient. Value will be destroyed.

You havn't addressed the problem, or are you simply PRO-Plutocracy?

How absurd. Giving a million dollars to an average joe will ensure that he'll always be a millionaire? LOL.

Nope, but a person with a million dollars has a real shot at it, and his odds of being a millionaire forever is MUCH MUCH MUCH higher than someone making $18,000 a year.

It means that you can't vote on how your neighbor spends his tax dollars. If you want your neighbor to spend his tax dollars on war...then you'll have to persuade him that he'll benefit from doing so.

That's the whole point of tax dollars is they are collective effort ... If it's just "you do whatever you want" then it isn't tax anymore, it's just ... you're money.

In your fantasy world...there are only rich people and poor people...and the rich are all evil and the poor are all good. So let me guess...you're a poor person? You're good because you don't want to earn your neighbor's money? Or maybe you're exceptional? Maybe you're the only person between two extremes? Maybe everybody you personally know is exceptional? LOL.

Where did I assume ANY of that in ANY of my arguments?

You havn't dealth with anything, all you've done is restate your arugment.

But lets see, do you think plutocracy is good?

RGacky3 · Apr 25, 2013

Xerographica said:
I have the neatest trick to get you to shut up. Ready for it? What are your thoughts on the preference revelation problem? Is it a real problem? If it's not a real problem...then who made it up?

It isn't a real problem, voting, one man one vote can EASILY reveal preferences, and it can do it more equitably than one dollar one vote.

Xerographica · Apr 25, 2013

RGacky3 said:
No it can't, social value isn't valued AT ALL in the market place, or if it is, not nearly accurately, (if it was eco friendly cars would be cheaper since they have less cost to society in the form of pollution).

You've repeatedly said that social value isn't accurately measured in the private sector...but you've also repeatedly failed to explain how it's accurately measured in the public sector. You think Rand Paul knows how much you value the environment? Or do you think it doesn't matter whether you value the environment more than you value public education?

RGacky3 said:
Actually personally I don't value it at all, in a market sense, since I have no kids, and I'm done with school ...

So you wouldn't give any of your taxes to public education? You'd give your taxes to the Dept of Defense instead? Why is it so hard for you understand that how you spend your time/money reveals what your true values are?

RGacky3 said:
Now I would VOTE for society to have an institution and have it publically funded through either taxes or public industry, but due to things like game theory or the tradgedy of the commons I wouldn't "pay for it" individually ... why should I choose to pay for other people's kids unless I know there is an institution to ensure that the cost is really communal and the benefits are as well.

Do you think everybody bears the same opportunity costs of participating on this forum? Do you think everybody receives the same exact amount of benefit from participating on this forum?

I think the problem is that you live in a black and white world. If you benefit from something...then so must everybody else. If something is a cost to you...then it must be a cost to everybody else. I think perhaps my nickname for you is going to be Mr. Hasty Generalization.

RGacky3 said:
Thats rediculous, pollution from MY INDIVIDUAL CAR doesn't adversely affect me at all, the collective polllution for all the cars do, and me stopping driving won't change that one iota, unless there is a collective decision that everyone will stop, or drive less, and that is enforced, otherwise me stoping driving will only deprive me of a car and not change the pollution problem one iota.

Mr. Hasty! Yes, because nobody makes the decision to bike to work...or carpool...or take public transportation! Nobody makes the effort to reduce their carbon footprint! No vegetarian cares about preventing the death of one more animal! They just don't like the taste of meat! LOL!

RGacky3 said:
As far as the drug addict, you know what the solution is? Rich people (as they already do) will have private security and walled in neighborhoods, why would they pay for poor people's saftey? And poor people can't afford security so they stay vulnurable, to REALLY fix the problem you need collective decision making, one man one vote. Or they might just use the public money to only defend rich neighborhoods, or inprison drug addicts, they dont' have to worry about their kids, their kids have rehab ...

THAT's the sort of society you're pushing for.

Mr. Hasty! You're so right...the rich could care less about the well being of other people! It's only the poor who care about the well being of other people. That's why they're poor! You must be extremely poor...because I'm sure you've given everything away to other people less fortunate than yourself.

RGacky3 said:
Walmart goes into a town, puts a lot of people out of buisiness, now the the bargaining chips are all in walmarts hands, they are the main employer, other jobs simply arn't around, so people have to work for little with little bargaining power (unless they unionize).

Walmart doesn't put a lot of people out of business...consumers do. Consumers can either go to small mom and pop stores and pay more...or they can go to Walmart and pay less.

Consumer sovereignty is a really difficult concept for you to understand.

RGacky3 said:
But not everyone that spends a dime things that the wealthy should control public policy.

Then wouldn't that influence their spending decisions? Oh wait, you don't think there's a correlation between people's values and their spending decisions.

RGacky3 said:
Also capitalism never has been and sin't a meritocracy, you cant only use societies resources if you already had them, which is why capital begets capital, much more than skill begets capital, or brining value to society begets capital.

The accumulation of capital depends on consumers. Again, you struggle to comprehend consumer sovereignty. Sure, a capitalist can bet a lot of money on a business venture...but whether that business is a success or failure is entirely up to consumers. It's in their hands. They've got the whole world in their hands. If they reach into their pockets and dollar vote for that business...then and only then will capital beget capital. But only because it begot value for countless consumers!!!

RGacky3 said:
You havn't addressed the problem, or are you simply PRO-Plutocracy?

In case you missed it...I'm pro consumer. I'm for the person who makes the sacrifice to have the freedom to say what their sacrifice is for.

RGacky3 said:
Nope, but a person with a million dollars has a real shot at it, and his odds of being a millionaire forever is MUCH MUCH MUCH higher than someone making $18,000 a year.

Nobody can be a millionaire forever. And apples don't always fall near the tree.

RGacky3 said:
That's the whole point of tax dollars is they are collective effort ... If it's just "you do whatever you want" then it isn't tax anymore, it's just ... you're money.

It's money that a taxpayer can spend in the public sector. It's money that nobody will try harder to ensure that it doesn't get wasted.

RGacky3 said:
Where did I assume ANY of that in ANY of my arguments?

Whenever you use the words "rich" or "poor" you're Mr. Hasty.

RGacky3 said:
You havn't dealth with anything, all you've done is restate your arugment.

I've dealt with all your nonsense. Show me your receipts and I'll show you what you value. Show me your ballots and I'll show you what you like on facebook.

RGacky3 said:
But lets see, do you think plutocracy is good?

I think it's good when resources are used in a way that accurately reflects society's values. I think it's good when we know where society's heart truly is.

Wouldn't you want to know where England's heart truly is? What about Brazil? Where's their heart at? What do they value most? Defense? Are they scared of being invaded by...Argentina?

First we learn where a country's heart is truly at...and then we'll know how much room there is for improvement. Or maybe we'll just move to the countries that most closely share our true values? And maybe the countries with the best values will be the most prosperous?

Xerographica · Apr 25, 2013

RGacky3 said:
It isn't a real problem, voting, one man one vote can EASILY reveal preferences, and it can do it more equitably than one dollar one vote.

So who made the problem up? Conservatives...liberals...libertarians?

RGacky3 · Apr 25, 2013

Xerographica said:
You've repeatedly said that social value isn't accurately measured in the private sector...but you've also repeatedly failed to explain how it's accurately measured in the public sector. You think Rand Paul knows how much you value the environment? Or do you think it doesn't matter whether you value the environment more than you value public education?

Yes, because Rand Pauls job isn't to maximise profit its to represent his district and make the social issues there better .... if he doesn't he gets voted out.

So you wouldn't give any of your taxes to public education? Youd give your taxes to the Dept of Defense instead? Why is it so hard for you understand that how you spend your time/money reveals what your true values are?

It isn't hard to understand, it just isn't actually correct (at least it's not the whole story).

Do you think everybody bears the same opportunity costs of participating on this forum? Do you think everybody receives the same exact amount of benefit from participating on this forum?

I think the problem is that you live in a black and white world. If you benefit from something...then so must everybody else. If something is a cost to you...then it must be a cost to everybody else. I think perhaps my nickname for you is going to be Mr. Hasty Generalization.

You're the one making the generalization, I'm saying that in the private sector, WHY THE HELL would I pay for someone elses education?

Mr. Hasty! Yes, because nobody makes the decision to bike to work...or carpool...or take public transportation! Nobody makes the effort to reduce their carbon footprint! No vegetarian cares about preventing the death of one less animal! They just don't like the taste of meat! LOL!

Yes they do .... And what? that isn't going to solve the problem.

Mr. Hasty! You're so right...the rich could care less about the well being of other people! It's only the poor who care about the well being of other people. That's why they're poor! You must be extremely poor...because I'm sure you've given everything away to other people less fortunate than yourself.

No it isn't just the poor ... the poor care about themselves and the rich care about themselves ... except the RICH are the only ones with the means to provide for their wishes, and under your system they'd be the ONLY ones that would even benefit from public policy ....

Walmart doesn't put a lot of people out of business...consumers do. Consumers can either go to small mom and pop stores and pay more...or they can go to Walmart and pay less.

Consumer sovereignty is a really difficult concept for you to understand.

Game theory, that's why everyone can be against Walmart, but still shop, because without collective action, all you're doing is being sucker paying higher prices, while if everyone else shops at walmart it doesn't get shut down, so you'll shop as well, UNLESS you can do collective action, that's what the public sector is.

Then wouldn't that influence their spending decisions? Oh wait, you don't think there's a correlation between people's values and their spending decisions.

It depends what you mean by "values." Point is in you're system it doesn't matter what people think, the wealthy still control public policy.

The accumulation of capital depends on consumers. Again, you struggle to comprehend consumer sovereignty. Sure, a capitalist can bet a lot of money on a business venture...but whether that business is a success or failure is entirely up to consumers. It's in their hands. They've got the whole world in their hands. If they reach into their pockets and dollar vote for that business...then and only then will capital beget capital. But only because it begot value for countless consumers!!!

I get consumer sovereignty, and you fail to understand the significance of control of capital.

Also yeah, it's up to consumers to buy what they need, which they will do no matter what, but still ONLY CAPITAL CAN BEGET CAPITAL.

In case you missed it...I'm pro consumer. I'm for the person who makes the sacrifice to have the freedom to say what their sacrifice is for.

That doesn't answer the question .... are you pro-plutocracy?

Nobody can be a millionaire forever. And apples don't always fall near the tree.

Sure they ... and apples don't always fall near the tree but they generally do.

It's money that a taxpayer can spend in the public sector. It's money that nobody will try harder to ensure that it doesn't get wasted.

Wasted in THEIR OWN CONTEXT ... obviously my money being spent on public education is wasted in my eyes, because I'm done with school and don't have kids, but it's not wasted societally.

What don't you get about that?

Whenever you use the words "rich" or "poor" you're Mr. Hasty.

Read what I ACTUALLY say.

I've dealt with all your nonsense. Show me your receipts and I'll show you what you value. Show me your ballots and I'll show you what you like on facebook.

I guess poor people value cheap food and rich people value fine food.

Also in POLITICS (as opposed to facebook), you only get one vote per election.

I think it's good when resources are used in a way that accurately reflects society's values. I think it's good when we know where society's heart truly is.

Wouldn't you want to know where England's heart truly is? What about Brazil? Where's their heart at? What do they value most? Defense? Are they scared of being invaded by...Argentina?

First we learn where a country's heart is truly at...and then we'll know how much room there is for improvement. Or maybe we'll just move to the countries that most closely share our true values? And maybe the countries with the best values will be the most prosperous?

You're not answering the question ....

RGacky3 · Apr 25, 2013

Xerographica said:
So who made the problem up? Conservatives...liberals...libertarians?

You ... everyone else understands the point of a public sector, whether or not the agree with it.

Xerographica · Apr 26, 2013

RGacky3 said:
You ... everyone else understands the point of a public sector, whether or not the agree with it.

I made the preference revelation problem up? Why would I do that? The Nobel Prize winning liberal economist...Paul Samuelson...used the problem to argue that taxes could not be voluntary. You would know this if you had bothered to read his definitive theoretical justification for the public sector...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. In case you missed it...his paper has been cited over 5000 times.

That paper is only two pages long. Why not read it? Why not actually learn something about public finance? Then perhaps we can have a more informed discussion than you simply crying over and over about plutocracy.

RGacky3 · Apr 29, 2013

Xerographica said:
I made the preference revelation problem up? Why would I do that? The Nobel Prize winning liberal economist...Paul Samuelson...used the problem to argue that taxes could not be voluntary. You would know this if you had bothered to read his definitive theoretical justification for the public sector...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. In case you missed it...his paper has been cited over 5000 times.

That paper is only two pages long. Why not read it? Why not actually learn something about public finance? Then perhaps we can have a more informed discussion than you simply crying over and over about plutocracy.

I have no idea ... Look, I'm not going to read it, I have stuff to do, you havn't ONCE answered the problems I've brought up, you havn't dealt with any of the issues. I'm not gonna waste my time learning about your pet theory when you can't even deal with basic problems that have been pointed out in the begining.

Xerographica · Apr 29, 2013

RGacky3 said:
I have no idea ... Look, I'm not going to read it, I have stuff to do,

Right now you're shopping for yourself. You're choosing to spend your time on Y rather than on X. I want taxpayers to be able to shop for themselves. I want them to choose to spend their tax dollars on X or Y.

Why are your priorities important? This is what you completely fail to grasp. Even when you sacrifice X for Y...even when you forego the opportunity to read Samuelson's paper in order to spend your time on Y...you still fail to understand why people's true preferences are important. You still fail to grasp the significance of the opportunity cost concept.

Resources cannot be efficiently allocated without people's true preferences. If people can't shop for themselves, then society will not maximize the value it derives from its limited resources.

RGacky3 said:
you havn't ONCE answered the problems I've brought up, you havn't dealt with any of the issues.

Of course I have. You just fail to grasp economics. Why? Because you obviously have more important things to do than read 2 page papers written by Nobel Prize winning liberal economists.

RGacky3 said:
I'm not gonna waste my time learning about your pet theory

A perfect example of the depth of your ignorance. Samuelson's paper doesn't discuss my pet theory...it provides the definitive justification for the public sector. He provides the economic foundation that you clearly are missing. Because you are missing that foundation, you think that your critiques are somehow relevant to allowing people to shop for themselves. They really aren't. And until you learn the actual economic arguments that support the public sector...you'll simply be spouting irrelevant and ignorant nonsense.

RGacky3 said:
when you can't even deal with basic problems that have been pointed out in the begining.

If you don't bother to read what economists have written...then how will you know whether a problem is fundamental or trifling? In case you missed it...Samuelson is a liberal economist. He dedicated his life to providing economic arguments that support your own ideology. But you're too clueless to even realize which side of the debate he's on.

the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive. - Paul Samuelson

I've read the actual liberal economic arguments that support the public sector...while you obviously have not. If you haven't even read what the economists on your side say...then obviously you've never made the effort to read what the economists on my side say. Therefore, until you make it a priority to actually learn about economics, your arguments will always reflect your ignorance.

RGacky3 · Apr 30, 2013

Xerographica said:
Right now you're shopping for yourself. You're choosing to spend your time on Y rather than on X. I want taxpayers to be able to shop for themselves. I want them to choose to spend their tax dollars on X or Y.

Why are your priorities important? This is what you completely fail to grasp. Even when you sacrifice X for Y...even when you forego the opportunity to read Samuelson's paper in order to spend your time on Y...you still fail to understand why people's true preferences are important. You still fail to grasp the significance of the opportunity cost concept.

Resources cannot be efficiently allocated without people's true preferences. If people can't shop for themselves, then society will not maximize the value it derives from its limited resources.

I understand why priorities are important .... BUT

1. Value for society cannot be measured ONLY in the market place.
2. Individuals don't measure (in the market) value for society, they measure value for themselves.
3. Every market decision includes externalities which affect society which are not priced in.
4. Wealthy people generally have much more bargaining power in market transactions, so much so it becomes almost coercive.
5. Wealthy individuals will have much more say over what is worth spending on than not.
6. That leads to plutocracy.
7. That leads to a permanent class system.
8. That means no democracy and essencially plutocracy, a government run by and for the rich.

You havn't answered these ... infact you havn't even attempted, most of the time your response has ONLY been a repeat of your theory, or some analogy ... here is an example of a response you tried to pass off as a "response"

#3

Again, externalities (spill overs) are either positive...or negative. They are either a benefit...or a cost. Pollution adversely affects you...therefore it is a cost. But maybe you benefit from driving a car. So do you stop driving your car? This is the realm of individual valuation. Your individual valuation...when you consider how much you're willing to sacrifice...is where you "price in" how much you benefit or are harmed by things that spill over into your circumstances.

A drug addict breaks into your home in order to steal items to pay for more drugs. What is the cause of this negative externality (harmful spill over)? Is it because there aren't enough police? Is it because there aren't enough jails? Is it because the courts are too lenient? Is it because drugs are illegal? Is it because we aren't spending enough money on education?

How much do you value your safety? How much do I value your safety?

You totally ignore the fact that also PUBLIC market decisions have externalities, and you ignore the fact that the Externalities I CAUSE I DON'T NEED TO PAY FOR. so for example if I live in manhattan and I own a factory in flint, I'm rich the people there are poor, I'm gonna pollute, and pollute the as much as I can, becasue I dont' have to breath the air, now when it comes to tax day I'm not gonna give money to the EPA, but who will? Oh the poor people in flint, who barely have enough to pay rent and eat .... is the EPA, REALLY getting money in that situation? So what can flint do, basically nothing more than beg some rich people to have mercy on them. Infact you know what I'll do, I'll give my tax dollars to cops that stop people in flint from protesting pollution, and I have a **** load of money ....

Do you see the problem there?

You didn't even begin or try to address the issuein your "response," THAT is why I'm not gonna spend time reading your links, you havn't even attempted to deal with the issues that were brought up.

Xerographica · May 17, 2013

RGacky3 said:
I understand why priorities are important .... BUT

Why are priorities important?

RGacky3 said:
1. Value for society cannot be measured ONLY in the market place.

Value can only be determined by how much you personally are willing to spend/sacrifice/trade/exchange/give up. The alternative is to measure your values by how much of my money/time you are willing to spend. Those are the only possible options.

RGacky3 said:
2. Individuals don't measure (in the market) value for society, they measure value for themselves.

Errr...over and over you've failed to explain how you can measure value for society. Society is simply a collection of individuals. Society is you, me and everybody else. How can I measure value for you? How can I know how much value you place on this forum?

RGacky3 said:
3. Every market decision includes externalities which affect society which are not priced in.

Public education has positive externalities...but if you don't know how much you value public education...then who does?

RGacky3 said:
4. Wealthy people generally have much more bargaining power in market transactions, so much so it becomes almost coercive.

Wealthy people have more economic freedom because the masses want them to have more economic freedom.

RGacky3 said:
5. Wealthy individuals will have much more say over what is worth spending on than not.
6. That leads to plutocracy.
7. That leads to a permanent class system.
8. That means no democracy and essencially plutocracy, a government run by and for the rich.

Ok, let's try a new approach. Clearly you believe that the wealthy will really benefit from a pragmatarian system. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that the wealthy would be happy to support pragmatarianism. So give me a list of 5 wealthy individuals and I will e-mail their foundations and ask them to support pragmatarianism. If they do decide to support pragmatarianism...then this will strengthen your case. If they do not decide to support pragmatarianism...then you'll have to explain why they failed to see how they would benefit from doing so.

RGacky3 · May 21, 2013

Xerographica said:
Value can only be determined by how much you personally are willing to spend/sacrifice/trade/exchange/give up. The alternative is to measure your values by how much of my money/time you are willing to spend. Those are the only possible options.

No, you can do it democratically, i.e. one man one vote, as opposed to one dollar one vote, in the former you are giving up the ability to vote for something else, but for that to happen you need democracy to be meaningful and actually apply to economics.

The difference between one man one vote and one dollar one vote is that it's universal.

A poor person spending $1000 will change his ENTIRE existance, it might mean he is evicted, doesn't eat enough for a while, has to work an extra job, or something, and a poor person investing $5000 is a HUGE risk that if it goes wrong he could end up in the gutter.

A wealthy person spending $1000 is nothing, its chump change that doesn't alter his life one iota, the same with investing $5000, there is almost no actual risk.

However on the market the amounts are the same. A poor person has to risk his whole life or spend enough to threaten his way of living to match what a rich person can do without eaven noticing.

One man one vote however means that they can have equal say.

Errr...over and over you've failed to explain how you can measure value for society. Society is simply a collection of individuals. Society is you, me and everybody else. How can I measure value for you? How can I know how much value you place on this forum?

I've explained it over and over again, democratically. Also market cost is not the same as value, since people have different values yet market costs are universal, it costs the same price for a person who loves hats to buy a hat and someone who hates hats .... a bottle of water costs the same for someone who is dying of dehydration and someone who has tons of water.

somethings are better valued by markets, somethings are better valued democratically, other things dont' need to be valued in that way.

Public education has positive externalities...but if you don't know how much you value public education...then who does?

Again, of coarse everyone knows how much they individually value public education ... the point of PUBLIC education, is that things benefit society overall, that don't directly benefit some individuals.

If public education was left to private funding, it would basically be broke, since rich people have private schools, and poor people don't have money.

Wealthy people have more economic freedom because the masses want them to have more economic freedom.

... no, it's because they control the means of production .... You can only buy things from people that have the means to produce things.

Ok, let's try a new approach. Clearly you believe that the wealthy will really benefit from a pragmatarian system. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that the wealthy would be happy to support pragmatarianism. So give me a list of 5 wealthy individuals and I will e-mail their foundations and ask them to support pragmatarianism. If they do decide to support pragmatarianism...then this will strengthen your case. If they do not decide to support pragmatarianism...then you'll have to explain why they failed to see how they would benefit from doing so.

Knock yourself out, go on forbes website and start emailing.

Xerographica · May 21, 2013

RGacky3 said:
No, you can do it democratically, i.e. one man one vote, as opposed to one dollar one vote, in the former you are giving up the ability to vote for something else, but for that to happen you need democracy to be meaningful and actually apply to economics.

If you vote for marijuana to be illegal...all we know is that you want marijuana to be illegal. There's absolutely no indication of how much you would be willing to personally sacrifice to try and ensure that marijuana is eradicated from the face of the earth. How much public education would you be willing to forego? What about public healthcare? What about defense? Is it really that difficult for you to understand the opportunity cost concept? Maybe you think it's perfectly fine if voting was like so...

Public healthcare: Yes/No
Public education: Yes/No
Public transportation: Yes/No
Environmental protection: Yes/No
Police: Yes/No
Firemen: Yes/No

Everybody checks "yes"...therefore we now know how society's limited resources should be used? Why is it so difficult for you people on the left to understand that we have finite resources? If somebody is fighting a fire at a retirement community, they can't simultaneously be arresting people for possessing marijuana. If somebody is off fighting a war in Iran, they can't also be teaching kids in Alabama. Everything has an opportunity cost. If people can't decide for themselves what they would personally be willing to sacrifice...then it's a given that society's limited resources will be wasted on less important uses.

RGacky3 said:
The difference between one man one vote and one dollar one vote is that it's universal.

It's a survey. You think that a survey can effectively determine how society's limited resources should be used. The free-rider problem is a genuine problem because people are self-interested. Everybody is tempted to allow other people to pick up the tab. Surveys do not capture exactly how much people would be willing to personally sacrifice for what they want. The only way to know what people would truly be willing to sacrifice would be to give them the freedom to shop for themselves.

RGacky3 said:
A poor person spending $1000 will change his ENTIRE existance, it might mean he is evicted, doesn't eat enough for a while, has to work an extra job, or something, and a poor person investing $5000 is a HUGE risk that if it goes wrong he could end up in the gutter.

A wealthy person spending $1000 is nothing, its chump change that doesn't alter his life one iota, the same with investing $5000, there is almost no actual risk.

However on the market the amounts are the same. A poor person has to risk his whole life or spend enough to threaten his way of living to match what a rich person can do without eaven noticing.

One man one vote however means that they can have equal say.

Your lack of logic is laughable. If you think that people should have an equal say, then clearly you believe that people are equally effective at determining how society's limited resources should be used. But if that is truly the case, then it doesn't matter whether people have an equal say. Why doesn't it matter? Because your say would be just as good as mine. Why should it matter if I'm penniless but you're a millionaire? If your say is just as good as mine, then you're going to spend your money just as effectively as I would have. Even if our wealth was reversed...there would be no discernible difference in the outcome.

RGacky3 said:
I've explained it over and over again, democratically. Also market cost is not the same as value, since people have different values yet market costs are universal, it costs the same price for a person who loves hats to buy a hat and someone who hates hats .... a bottle of water costs the same for someone who is dying of dehydration and someone who has tons of water.

People who hate hats don't buy hats. But this is an absolutely meaningless concept to you. In your absurd world...people who hate hats should have to buy hats...just like people who hate war should have their own tax dollars spent on war.

RGacky3 said:
somethings are better valued by markets, somethings are better valued democratically, other things dont' need to be valued in that way.

What total nonsense. Sometimes we want resources to be efficiently allocated...and other times we do not? Sometimes we want to maximize the amount of benefit we derive from our limited resources...and other times we do not? Sometimes we want supply to equal demand...and other times we do not? Sometimes we want the distribution of resources to make the most sense...and other times we do not? Sometimes we want the allocation of resources to reflect our unique circumstances...and other times we do not?

RGacky3 said:
Again, of coarse everyone knows how much they individually value public education ... the point of PUBLIC education, is that things benefit society overall, that don't directly benefit some individuals.

If many individuals truly benefit from public education...then many individuals would truly be willing to spend their own tax dollars on public education. If many individuals are not willing to spend their own tax dollars on public education...then maybe they derive more benefit from other public goods. How could this possibly be a difficult concept?

RGacky3 said:
If public education was left to private funding, it would basically be broke, since rich people have private schools, and poor people don't have money.

So why do we currently have public education? Because poor people vote for it? After they become rich as a direct result of their public education...they then vote against public education?

If public education truly makes many people better off...then many people should be willing to spend their own tax dollars on public education. You can't make the argument that only poor people benefit from public education. Because if they are still poor after receiving a public education...then clearly public education is not worth the cost.

Effective public education should give people more opportunities. It should open more doors for poor people. As a direct result, we should have less and less poor people. If we don't have less and less poor people...then public education is failing to open doors for poor people. If public education is failing...then why should people be forced to pay for failure?

RGacky3 said:
... no, it's because they control the means of production .... You can only buy things from people that have the means to produce things.

How soon you forget that you believe that people are equally effective at determining how society's limited resources should be used. According to your own beliefs...it shouldn't matter who controls the means of production. Clearly your beliefs are absurd because it does matter who controls the means of production. Markets works because consumers determine who controls the means of production. Command economies fail because consumers do not determine who controls the means of production.

RGacky3 said:
Knock yourself out, go on forbes website and start emailing.

No, you pick the individuals. It's your theory that the wealthy will be the primary beneficiaries of a pragmatarian system. If I'm going to prove your theory, then the least you can do is pick the 5 wealthy individuals that you want me to sell pragmatarianism to.

RGacky3 · May 22, 2013

Xerographica said:
If you vote for marijuana to be illegal...all we know is that you want marijuana to be illegal. There's absolutely no indication of how much you would be willing to personally sacrifice to try and ensure that marijuana is eradicated from the face of the earth. How much public education would you be willing to forego? What about public healthcare? What about defense? Is it really that difficult for you to understand the opportunity cost concept? Maybe you think it's perfectly fine if voting was like so...

Public healthcare: Yes/No
Public education: Yes/No
Public transportation: Yes/No
Environmental protection: Yes/No
Police: Yes/No
Firemen: Yes/No

Everybody checks "yes"...therefore we now know how society's limited resources should be used? Why is it so difficult for you people on the left to understand that we have finite resources? If somebody is fighting a fire at a retirement community, they can't simultaneously be arresting people for possessing marijuana. If somebody is off fighting a war in Iran, they can't also be teaching kids in Alabama. Everything has an opportunity cost. If people can't decide for themselves what they would personally be willing to sacrifice...then it's a given that society's limited resources will be wasted on less important uses.

.... People can propose budgets and vote on them .... or propose bills dedicating a certain amount of money to a certain project and vote on them .... AS THEY DO ALREADY IN DEMOCRACIES!!!!

It's not that difficult.

It's a survey. You think that a survey can effectively determine how society's limited resources should be used. The free-rider problem is a genuine problem because people are self-interested. Everybody is tempted to allow other people to pick up the tab. Surveys do not capture exactly how much people would be willing to personally sacrifice for what they want. The only way to know what people would truly be willing to sacrifice would be to give them the freedom to shop for themselves.

The free-rider problem is essencially the same as the externality problem. But given that EVERYONE'S VOTE is the same the free-rider problem would be less of a problem. Especially since in the capitalist market, maximizing negative externalities isn't a possibility it's a NECESSITY, you MUST do it to maximize profits.

Your lack of logic is laughable. If you think that people should have an equal say, then clearly you believe that people are equally effective at determining how society's limited resources should be used. But if that is truly the case, then it doesn't matter whether people have an equal say. Why doesn't it matter? Because your say would be just as good as mine. Why should it matter if I'm penniless but you're a millionaire? If your say is just as good as mine, then you're going to spend your money just as effectively as I would have. Even if our wealth was reversed...there would be no discernible difference in the outcome.

Everyone should have equal say so that everyones interests are included in the decision making .... if it's just mine, then my interests are included and yours arn't, that's the issue ... not who is more effective at determiniting societies resources, if it's just me it's effective FOR ME, but a society should be run for everyone in the society.

People who hate hats don't buy hats. But this is an absolutely meaningless concept to you. In your absurd world...people who hate hats should have to buy hats...just like people who hate war should have their own tax dollars spent on war.

No, you're missing my point, I was explaining how market prices work, they dont' change on individual taste, no matter what your opinion of hats are, how much you love or hate them, the price is the same if you need one.

What total nonsense. Sometimes we want resources to be efficiently allocated...and other times we do not? Sometimes we want to maximize the amount of benefit we derive from our limited resources...and other times we do not? Sometimes we want supply to equal demand...and other times we do not? Sometimes we want the distribution of resources to make the most sense...and other times we do not? Sometimes we want the allocation of resources to reflect our unique circumstances...and other times we do not?

you're missing the problem, efficiently allocated FOR WHO'S BENEFIT ... to make sure it's societies as a whole, everyone needs to have equal say.

Markets only allocate efficiently to benefit those with the most money.

If many individuals truly benefit from public education...then many individuals would truly be willing to spend their own tax dollars on public education. If many individuals are not willing to spend their own tax dollars on public education...then maybe they derive more benefit from other public goods. How could this possibly be a difficult concept?

It isn't a difficult concept, it's just incomplete, you're ignoring wealth differences, people who NEED public education are people who can't afford private education, and they are the ones that don't have enough money to fund public education, people who can afford private education won't pay to educate other people's kids.

So why do we currently have public education? Because poor people vote for it? After they become rich as a direct result of their public education...they then vote against public education?

If public education truly makes many people better off...then many people should be willing to spend their own tax dollars on public education. You can't make the argument that only poor people benefit from public education. Because if they are still poor after receiving a public education...then clearly public education is not worth the cost.

Effective public education should give people more opportunities. It should open more doors for poor people. As a direct result, we should have less and less poor people. If we don't have less and less poor people...then public education is failing to open doors for poor people. If public education is failing...then why should people be forced to pay for failure?

We have public education because in our society its considered a public right, and we voted for it, and people understand that somethings belong in the commons, as opposed to the market.

Education makes people better off, if poor people are still poor after receiving a public education then perhaps there are other factors, but statistics show that people who get an education are better off.

People arn't poor in the US because of education, there are other factors, your logic is moronic.

hospitals should help people stay healthy, there are sick people in hospitals, thus hospitals are a waste of time ... of COARSE that doesn't work, that's the type of logic you're using.

This is getting sad, you're ignoring the point over and over again.

How soon you forget that you believe that people are equally effective at determining how society's limited resources should be used. According to your own beliefs...it shouldn't matter who controls the means of production. Clearly your beliefs are absurd because it does matter who controls the means of production. Markets works because consumers determine who controls the means of production. Command economies fail because consumers do not determine who controls the means of production.

No consumers don't determine who controls the means of production, the people who control the means of production determine who consumers can buy from, and then consumers choose from between them.

No one is advocating a command economy.

Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs

Villiage Idiot