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

Are you confident in congress's competence?

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Imagine if you needed brain surgery. Would you ever seriously consider conducting the surgery yourself? I think that most of us would choose to leave brain surgery to the brain surgeons. There's little doubt that brain surgeons are uniquely and supremely qualified to conduct brain surgery. Therefore, we put our brains in their hands.

Now imagine that you had the option to spend your taxes yourself (pragmatarianism FAQ). Would you ever seriously consider choosing where your taxes go? Or, would you choose to leave tax allocation to your elected representatives? Do you think that congresspeople are uniquely and supremely qualified to spend your taxes? Would you choose to put your taxes in their hands?

Nobody, that I know of, debates whether people should have the option to conduct brain surgery on themselves. But ask somebody whether people should have the option to spend their taxes themselves and you might end up in a pretty big debate. Why is that?

How many people would choose to shop for themselves in the public sector? What percentage of the purse would they control? Maybe 50%? Taxpayers would spend half of the public funds themselves and congress would spend the other half? Would people who wanted to shop for themselves in the public sector be more conservative? Or liberal? Rich... or poor? Educated... or uneducated? Would professionals shop for themselves or have congress shop for them? Would brain surgeons choose to put their taxes into the hands of congress like congress chooses to put their brains into the hands of brain surgeons?

If you're worried about giving people the option to directly allocate their taxes... then you're worried about whether people are competent enough to recognize competence. Except, the very premise of voting is that people are competent enough to recognize competence. So if you trust voters to discern which candidates are the most supremely and uniquely qualified to spend their taxes... then it requires a bit of uh... flexibility... to twist around and argue that you don't trust taxpayers to discern whether or not congress is supremely and uniquely qualified to spend their taxes.

In a pragmatarian system there would be two main ways for the people to indicate that a politician is supremely and uniquely qualified to spend their taxes...

1. People could give the politician their vote
2. People could give the politician their taxes

If you trust the first way, then how could you possibly distrust the second way?

And if you don't trust the first way, then you should really want to have the option to directly allocate your taxes. It would be the only way to keep your hard-earned taxes out of incompetent hands.

Nobody wants to put their brain into incompetent hands. Why would it be any different with taxes? It seems pretty straightforward that giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes would be the best way to minimize the amount of taxes that end up in incompetent hands.
 
If you follow what the Constitution says about what the FedGov is allowed to do, it makes things a lot easier.

) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
4) Copyright protection;
5) Coining money;
6) Establishing post offices and post roads;
7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.

Taxes raised would more than pay for these items but, not all the other intrusive agencies that tinker with ever facet of our lives.
 
TL DR but I am going to address the title of the post.

I think Congressmen are too busy striking deals and bribes to even further educate themselves. They don't understand certain complex issues. I bet in the olden days, when the the country was first founded, the men were scholars of their time. They continually tried to grow themselves intellectually. I feel like these men don't. It's about money and where it goes to whom and how much, that's about it.

As to the response above me, the constitution is a mere guideline, and has been polluted for years. I think the reason being, is a document created in the 1700's cannot under any circumstance satisfy the demands of our society 200 some odd years later. A governor suggested states' governors to meet about amending the constitution. That should be done far more often, to have the document tailor to our society. I think it is prudent to think of the constitution as a perfect document made by holy men.

With that said, it is important to have rules to govern, but actions from all branches have shown that those rules do not apply. And, the people are ignorant of one very important thing, American government. I had my American government class in the summer of eighth grade only because I opted not to take the course during the year. That was it. Nothing in high school, and I got nothing in college. Shouldn't that be extremely important for everyone to know extensively? But I fear that the department of education makes sure that the people aren't really informed on how the government works.

I think the only purpose of the people is the vote, and even then I think that can be manipulated if bribed enough. It's just there so we don't revolt. I do not believe that people in Congress, or state legislature, serve for the people, but for the corpocracy and money. I feel like writing to representatives, which I have done, does nothing. They just say we are working hard, blah blah blah.

Taxes don't necessarily have to be raised. It would help no doubt. But what drives deficit spending is bank loans and demand for treasuries. Yes The Fed buy treasuries, but a lot less than people think. In 2011, The Fed owned 1.7 trillion and the private sector owned 9.3 trillion of the 11 trillion dollar debt at the time. As long as the private sector can buy more and more treasuries, meaning demand is there, we can essentially deficit spend more. In order for this to happen, is there have to be bank loans. More bank loans means a healthy economy, and more tax money, which offset the accounts at the treasury. The point of all of this, is to show that taxes aren't as important of a role that people think. I think cutting taxes, even though in some schools of thought stimulates the economy, it is actually inducing more risk onto the process of printing of money. Taxes are a safeguard persay, so slow the rate of debt expansion. There are people that are probably on these forums, that disagree. But lowering the debt to GDP ratio ensures that we can print more in the future with sustainability.

Raising taxes also increases money velocity. People horde assets to become more rich, not really don't anything. Taxing them more, the money is circulated through the economy faster (money velocity) whereby slowing the rate of inflation, benefiting even the people hording money.

Raised taxes and deficit spending would unleash all kinds of great things for the people of this country.
 
If you follow what the Constitution says about what the FedGov is allowed to do, it makes things a lot easier.

Does it really make things easier? The constitution was written by our founding fathers. Our founding fathers were government planners. Therefore, you're arguing that government planners are capable of effectively determining the proper scope of government. Which sounds a lot like socialism.

Are you a socialist?
 
Xero... it really doesn't matter what analogy you try, as you've tried a million of them.

Nothing has changed since the aliens analogy, the bible analogy and the horrific and stupid Holocaust analogy... Your idea has no value, it sucks and it will always suck.

Why you are so obsessed with such an awful concept I have no idea.
 
Xero... it really doesn't matter what analogy you try, as you've tried a million of them.

Nothing has changed since the aliens analogy, the bible analogy and the horrific and stupid Holocaust analogy... Your idea has no value, it sucks and it will always suck.

Why you are so obsessed with such an awful concept I have no idea.

I mean, here you are. Again. For the millionth time. Errr... why is that exactly? Do you read all my threads because you enjoy them? Or masochistic much? Or... are you really optimistic that my threads will eventually improve? Or... are here to warn people about my idea? Because... you're convinced that some of them might be tricked into thinking it's a good idea?
 
Nobody wants to put their brain into incompetent hands. Why would it be any different with taxes? It seems pretty straightforward that giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes would be the best way to minimize the amount of taxes that end up in incompetent hands.
Brain surgery and “allocating taxes” (which is a really simplistic way of putting it by the way) aren’t at all comparable. Brain surgery requires very specific technical knowledge and skills. Policy decisions are generally much more logical, albeit requiring a lot of detailed information to address them correctly.

A better (though still imperfect) comparison might be deciding whether to go ahead with the surgery at all. Let’s say the condition isn’t fatal, just debilitating, but the surgery could cause greater damage or even death. You the patient would make the actual decision but you’d ask the professional opinion of the surgeon, probably several surgeons to assess the risks. You might even ask other people you consider relevant too (your family, other patients etc.).

Now imagine it’s not a question of an individual patient but whether a hospital invests in the technology and training to allow them to offer a particular surgery to a particular type of patient. There could be thousands of potential patients, many of whom won’t be ill yet, so they can’t make the decision. Some board of administrators would ultimately make the call but again, they’d seek advice and information from the relevant experts to determine whether the benefits of the surgery outweigh the risks and costs.

That’s how representative democracy is meant to work. It’s impractical for millions of individual citizens to each seek out expert opinion and reach an independent conclusion, especially given a lot of political decisions are all or nothing (you can’t build 62% of a hospital or bridge because only that many taxpayers want to fund it). That’s why we elect representatives who are meant to seek the opinions of relevant experts and others directly involved in a given decision and reach the best conclusion for the people as a whole.

Now of course how the political system actually works has been massively twisted and corrupted from this fundamental concept (and we as voters are as responsible for that as anyone else) but that doesn’t make any system of individual tax allocation any more practical, nor does it make it any less subject to the same corruption, political machinations or incompetence.
 
Does it really make things easier? The constitution was written by our founding fathers. Our founding fathers were government planners. Therefore, you're arguing that government planners are capable of effectively determining the proper scope of government. Which sounds a lot like socialism.

Are you a socialist?

The Constitution is not being followed. Taking any number of the ABC agencies and show where that authority exist in the Constitution.
 
That’s how representative democracy is meant to work. It’s impractical for millions of individual citizens to each seek out expert opinion and reach an independent conclusion, especially given a lot of political decisions are all or nothing (you can’t build 62% of a hospital or bridge because only that many taxpayers want to fund it). That’s why we elect representatives who are meant to seek the opinions of relevant experts and others directly involved in a given decision and reach the best conclusion for the people as a whole.
1. Are you assuming that many people will choose the option to directly allocate their taxes? Please explain your answer.

2. Why would you build a large hospital if there's only demand for a small hospital? If you build a large hospital when only a small hospital is needed... then you've wasted people's money that could have been used to build things that were actually needed... like a larger school or police station or jail or post office or DMV or public park or bridge. Every allocation requires the sacrifice of alternative allocations. The only way it's possible to determine the most optimal (valuable/efficient) allocation of public funds is for each and every taxpayer to have the freedom decide for themselves whether any given allocation is worth the sacrifice of the alternative allocations. When you go shopping... maybe you grab a loaf of bread and put it in your shopping cart. Do you put a second loaf of bread in your shopping cart? Or a third loaf? Or a fourth loaf? Probably not because you intuitively understand that the more money you spend on bread... the less money you'll have to spend on all the other groceries that you need. Therefore, it behooves you to avoid buying more bread than you really need. Your choices are driven by a consideration of the alternative uses of your money.

3. Clearly you can't build a shorter bridge but you can build a narrower bridge. Again, it's a waste of society's limited resources to build a 10 lane bridge when only a 2 lane bridge is needed. And if people don't allocate enough taxes to build a 2 lane bridge? Well... then the people who really want the bridge can continuing giving money to the Bridge-Building-Department until the BBD has enough money to build a bridge. Haven't you ever saved up for something that you really wanted? Maybe for a computer game, computer, car, college or cottage? Responsible people have no problem giving up momentary pleasure for future benefit. If you have trouble imagining many people giving up momentary pleasure for a project that will benefit them in the future... then perhaps this will help... Star Citizen.

4. Democracy is subject to the free-rider problem....

It’s very easy to support programs that other people will have to pay for. But voters, like everyone else, should bear the costs of their own decisions. Letting people vote for expensive programs that “somebody else” will finance is a good recipe for getting people to vote irresponsibly. - Steve Landsburg, Blast from the Past
Lots of people want prostitution and drugs to be illegal. They'd certainly be happy to vote accordingly. But this doesn't mean that they'd truly be willing to spend their own money accordingly. As a result of this significant disparity between popular and valuable... massive amounts of society's limited resources are diverted away from more valuable uses and directed to less valuable uses. In order to ensure that society's limited resources are truly put to their most valuable uses... people must be free to personally valuate the alternative allocations of their own money.
 
The Constitution is not being followed. Taking any number of the ABC agencies and show where that authority exist in the Constitution.

Explain why I should trust the constitution in the first place. Like I tried to explain to you... the constitution was written by government planners. Trusting government planners to determine the proper scope of government is the same thing as trusting socialism.
 
Explain why I should trust the constitution in the first place. Like I tried to explain to you... the constitution was written by government planners. Trusting government planners to determine the proper scope of government is the same thing as trusting socialism.

The Constitution was ratified by the States. [people] The States were mean to have a continued role in shaping the rule of law but, the SCOTUS and the FedGov in general, had other plans.

But, there's still Article 5.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution was ratified by the States. [people] The States were mean to have a continued role in shaping the rule of law but, the SCOTUS and the FedGov in general, had other plans.

But, there's still Article 5.

Question: Should the government supply space exploration (ie NASA)?

Constitution's answer: ?
Market's answer: ?

What does the constitution say about the government supplying space exploration? I have no idea. Oh wait! In your first post in this thread you conveniently shared what the constitution says about space exploration. It says... absolutely nothing. Therefore, according to the constitution, it is not the government's responsibility to supply space exploration.

What does the market say about the government supplying space exploration? I have no idea. It would be easy enough to find out. We'd simply allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. If lots of taxpayers give a lot of money to NASA... then there's our answer.

Ok, now let's ask the question again...

Question: Should the government supply space exploration (ie NASA)?

Constitution's answer: No
Market's answer: Yes, it should supply $300 billion dollars worth of space exploration

Two VERY different answers. Who's answer should I trust? The constitution's answer... or the market's answer?

Well... the constitution's answer was the result of a few government planners deciding for the entire country. The market's answer was the result of millions and millions taxpayers deciding for themselves exactly how much they valued space exploration.

So I'm going to have to go with the market's answer. You would too if you thought about it long and hard enough.
 
Question: Should the government supply space exploration (ie NASA)?

Constitution's answer: ?
Market's answer: ?

What does the constitution say about the government supplying space exploration? I have no idea. Oh wait! In your first post in this thread you conveniently shared what the constitution says about space exploration. It says... absolutely nothing. Therefore, according to the constitution, it is not the government's responsibility to supply space exploration.

What does the market say about the government supplying space exploration? I have no idea. It would be easy enough to find out. We'd simply allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. If lots of taxpayers give a lot of money to NASA... then there's our answer.

Ok, now let's ask the question again...

Question: Should the government supply space exploration (ie NASA)?

Constitution's answer: No
Market's answer: Yes, it should supply $300 billion dollars worth of space exploration

Two VERY different answers. Who's answer should I trust? The constitution's answer... or the market's answer?

Well... the constitution's answer was the result of a few government planners deciding for the entire country. The market's answer was the result of millions and millions taxpayers deciding for themselves exactly how much they valued space exploration.

So I'm going to have to go with the market's answer. You would too if you thought about it long and hard enough.

As we see today, no they don't need to be.

And NASA isn't one of the ABC agencies in question.
 
The Constitution is an excellent document, a precursor in its day. But that was long, long time ago.

The world we live in, and the expectations we make of it, are no longer the same as the days in which it was conceived. Its first and foremost concern 240 years ago was the independence of themselves confronted by a royalty that made them subservient. That condition no longer exists in almost any modern, developed economy today.

In fact, the major concern should be not as regards taxation per se, but what taxation should accomplish. And having the mightiest army on earth is not the sort of primordial necessity today. (So why does it employ so much of the national budget?)

In fact, we have a society that is based upon Civil Law. To be precise, civil law tends to defend and protect personal property, whatever "belongs" to us be it our lives or our property. Historically, this was the constant in terms of defining "rights".

Elsewhere, however, another "front" was opening. That of Societal (or Social) Rights. Which is based upon the fact that we have established market-economies in which we individuals have two roles - one in the production of goods and services and another in the consumption of goods/services. We think of ourselves in terms of the society within which, based upon a market-economy, we therefore work and thrive.

In this context, the onus of societal rights become more important since they are based upon fairness and equitability. No one should be abused personally for the profit of another, either of their right to work or to work at a decent wage. We are not all equal in terms of our capacities, so clearly there are differentials in wages. The key therefore is not equality of income, but its equitability. Equity is based upon the ability to be fair and impartial.

Which means what?

It means that we all work, some harder than others, some with more proficiency (in results) than others. But our commonality as both producers and consumers are the keystones of the market-economy. It should define the limits either below which or beyond which no person should be allowed to either suffer from inequity or profit from superiority.

Which is why the taxation of income is an integral part of any code of law that defines the the lower and upper bounds of what is fair and right ... and that which is not.

When that particular code is despoiled by unfair taxation, then Income Disparity rears its ugly head - and a nation becomes one where only 10% of all workers earn almost 50% of all income generated by a market-economy ...

Which characterizes perfectly the inequity of the American economy today ...
 
It means that we all work, some harder than others, some with more proficiency (in results) than others. But our commonality as both producers and consumers are the keystones of the market-economy. It should define the limits either below which or beyond which no person should be allowed to either suffer from inequity or profit from superiority.
Seriously? Are you running for office or something? It sounds nice but it completely lacks any substance.

When wages are really low it communicates that the supply of labor is greater than the demand for labor. So what happens when a minimum wage is implemented? The supply of labor increases while the demand for labor decreases.

The original problem was too many workers and too few jobs. Your solution? To arbitrarily increase the wage. What does this accomplish? There are even more workers and even less jobs.

You look and see some poverty. And poverty is certainly bad. But your solution only results in even more poverty.

We need wages to do their job. If wages are naturally really low (too many workers, too few jobs)... then their job is to repel workers and attract jobs. If wages are naturally really high (too few workers, too many jobs)... then their job is to attract workers and repel jobs.

When you prevent wages from doing their job... the result is more poverty.
 
So what happens when a minimum wage is implemented? The supply of labor increases while the demand for labor decreases.

Nope, and as an economist, I can assure you that what happens is that the market participants shift the additional costs onto consumers. We all pay for the enhanced salary levels when we shop. (Your BigMac will cost 2.7% more. Wow!)

Which means also that the increased revenues - particularly at the lower income levels - are spent upon expanded consumption by workers, which means further that the economy grows.

You are making erroneous conclusions because you do not think through the economic impact that follows, when low-end salaries are enhanced. And which is not at all the same consequence when high-end salaries are increased - whereupon people simply bank their additional salaries (or speculate with the money), which does nothing intrinsically to enhance the economy.

It is as simple as that ...
 
It's about money and where it goes to whom and how much, that's about it.

In a democracy, it is we, the sheeple, who vote them both into and out of office.

So if we elect a horse's ass, what should be expect of them? Representation of the quality of a horse's ass.

If one thinks a dictator would be better, since it avoids all the palaver, then they should move to North Korea.

What we have is not so bad and definately improvable. But that will require a grass-roots effort and something a lot more convincing than the present electorate. Which desides to spectate politics at the mid-terms and show up for a presidential election - but only if it's someone we like.

Voting is a civic duty. And perhaps we should fine people who do not vote ...
 
In a democracy, it is we, the sheeple, who vote them both into and out of office.

So if we elect a horse's ass, what should be expect of them? Representation of the quality of a horse's ass.

If one thinks a dictator would be better, since it avoids all the palaver, then they should move to North Korea.

What we have is not so bad and definately improvable. But that will require a grass-roots effort and something a lot more convincing than the present electorate. Which desides to spectate politics at the mid-terms and show up for a presidential election - but only if it's someone we like.

Voting is a civic duty. And perhaps we should fine people who do not vote ...

Wrong. No matter how pure of a politician you put behind those doors, the establishment will do everything in their power to corrupt them, and most of them become corrupted AFTER they reach Washington.
 
Choose where your taxes go!

On a national scale, utter nonsense.

Let's fix national goals, then, and only then, at a local level of state and city/county, we can "choose where out taxes go".

Prominent in national goals should be cutting back drastically the DoD pork-barrel that presently squats on 54% of the total. See here.

With that done, we can think of the various ways in which the funds can be applied to enhance employment opportunities and Health-Care; both major concerns, but of different segments of the population.

Our children need a Tertiary Education without a $30K debt tied around their neck upon graduation. And we all need a Health-Care system that performs at a much lower cost, as do other countries of the same economic order as ours - see here: OECD: Life expectancy and total HealthCare spending (OECD countries).

From the above info-graphic, note how European countries are getting more bang for their health-care buck (acutally euros).

The US health-care system addresses the concerns of, first, BigInsurance and then the HC-practitioners who profit from exorbitant pricing for services rendered ...
 
Last edited:
You are making erroneous conclusions because you do not think through the economic impact that follows, when low-end salaries are enhanced. And which is not at all the same consequence when high-end salaries are increased - whereupon people simply bank their additional salaries (or speculate with the money), which does nothing intrinsically to enhance the economy.
Let's say that I'm hungry. I go to the farmer's market where I find Frank the farmer selling artichokes. Which is great because I really love artichokes! What do you think happens next? Do you think I simply hand Frank my money in exchange for his artichokes? Of course not. First I look at the prices... and if the prices seem reasonable... then I carefully inspect the artichokes. If I'm happy with the quality of the artichokes... I pick out the best ones and put my money into Frank's hand.

This is where you, the well-intentioned liberal economist, step in. Before Frank can put the $3 dollars that I gave him into his pocket... you take $1 dollar out of Frank's hand. Except, since I'm the one who just gave him that money... you essentially took the money out of my hand. What do you do with the $1 dollar that you took out of my hand? You put it in the hands of Frank's employees.

The thing is... the money that I gave Frank was my valuation of his productivity. But, evidently, you're certain that I overvalued Frank's productivity. Not only are you certain that I overvalued Frank's productivity... but you're also certain that I undervalued his employees' productivity.

I overvalued Frank's productivity? I undervalued his employees' productivity?

First... who in the world are you to say that I've overvalued Frank's productivity? Are you my son? Are you my father? Are you my brother? Are you my best friend? Are you my lover? Are you the customer waiting behind me? Of course not! You're some random economist who doesn't even know me or Frank. Yet, despite the fact that you don't know me or Frank... you're stupidly certain that I overvalued his productivity.

Second... I didn't even valuate the productivity of Frank's employees. Why in the world would I valuate their productivity? I'm not their boss... Frank is! He's the one who employs them. I don't employ them. I don't even know them. I have absolutely no idea whether they are the most productive workers in the world or the least productive workers in the world. Given that I'm entirely clueless about the productivity of Frank's employees... it would be utterly nonsensical and completely detrimental for me to even try and valuate their productivity. Yet... you're stupidly certain that I undervalued Frank's employees.

This isn't what you're telling me of course. What you're telling me is that I'm not thinking things through. From your perspective... the money that you took from my hands and put into the hands of Frank's employees will be quickly spent. How will it be spent? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the money isn't spent on producing a greater abundance of artichokes... what matters is that the money will be spent on something. Which is a good thing because any and all spending will "enhance" the economy. As if the reason that the sluggish economy needs stimulation has absolutely nothing to do with your mindless meddling and everything to do with inadequate demand.

When you read the Bible story about the prodigal son... does it make you happy or sad when he quickly squanders his inheritance?

Does it make you happy or sad that Esau sold his inheritance to Jacob for a bowl of soup?

Does it make you happy or sad when lottery winners quickly squander their new found wealth?

Does it make you happy or sad when natural disasters force people to spend their savings in order to rebuild their lives?

Does it make you happy or sad when you forget to back-up your work and a disaster forces you to start all over again?
 
Does Adam Smith make you happy or sad?

Capitals are increased by parsimony, and diminished by prodigality and misconduct. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Does Ludwig von Mises make you happy or sad?

Now one of the main functions of profits is to shift the control of capital to those who know how to employ it in the best possible way for the satisfaction of the public. The more profits a man earns, the greater his wealth consequently becomes, the more influential does he become in the conduct of business affairs. Profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers pass the direction of production activities into the hands of those who are best fit to serve them. Whatever is undertaken to curtail or to confiscate profits impairs this function. The result of such measures is to loosen the grip the consumers hold over the course of production. The economic machine becomes, from the point of view of the people, less efficient and less responsive. - Ludwig von Mises, Planning for Freedom

Does Ludwig Lachmann make you happy or sad?

Moreover, what is a resource today may cease to be one tomorrow, while what is a valueless object today may become valuable tomorrow. The resource status of material objects is therefore always problematical and depends to some extent on foresight. An object constitutes wealth only if it is a source of an income stream. The value of the object to the owner, actual or potential, reflects at any moment its expected income-yielding capacity. This, in its turn, will depend on the uses to which the object can be turned. The mere ownership of objects, therefore, does not necessarily confer wealth; it is their successful use which confers it. Not ownership but use of resources is the source of income and wealth. — Ludwig Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

Does J.B. Say make you happy or sad?

Taxes upon transfer, besides the mischief of pressing upon capital, are a clog to the circulation of property. But, has the public any interest in its free circulation? So long as the object is in existence, is it not as well placed in one hand as in another? Certainly not. The public has a perpetual interest in the utmost possible freedom of its circulation; because by that means it is most likely to get into the hands of those, that can make the most of it. Why does one man sell his land? But because he thinks he can lay out the value to more advantage in some channel of productive industry. And why does another buy it? But because he wishes to invest a capital, that is lying idle, or less productively vested; or because he thinks it capable of improvement. The transfer tends to augment the national income, because it tends to augment the income of the two contracting parties. If they be deterred by the expenses of the transfer, those expenses will have prevented this probable increase of the national income. — J.B. Say, A Treatise on Political Economy
 
On a national scale, utter nonsense.
Your allocation desires might be brilliant. But you have a huge problem if you're not willing to try and persuade the American taxpayers to allocate their taxes accordingly.
 
Congress is full of politicians and there is no greater scourge in this nation than politicians.
 
LvM: The more profits a man earns, the greater his wealth consequently becomes, the more influential does he become in the conduct of business affairs.

I doubt he would come to that conclusion nowadays, given the rise of the American Plutocrat Culture since Reckless Ronnie set that dynamo into action by reducing pell-mell upper income taxation.

Apparently he has had an influence on Ted Cruz. Does that tell you something about Cruz or von Mises... ?
 
Back
Top Bottom