Teaching Economics to Liberals - Class is in Session

[Xerographica]

This is a silly analogy. To begin with, I didn't vote for you (nor would I, no offense) as a representative to decide what to do with my money. Nor were you voted into the position by a majority of the jurisdiction in which I chose to earn my money. Nor would you last long if you started giving people's money to random causes.

I'm curious, do you support representative democracy at all?

So you're saying that congress can spend your taxes better than you can?

 

[Misterveritis]

I would say it's exactly the opposit.

Given your lean of course you would. It changes nothing. But I am not allowed to go any further.

When someone chooses a "club" to be in, they are allowing that club to do their thinking for them.

This is one of the dumbest thoughts ever. I did not ask to be in a conservative club. There is no such thing. Conservatives, self identified, have given serious though to a great number of issues. When it is clear that the underlying answers involve constitutionally-limited government with the smallest, least intrusive government possible, then it becomes obvious that one's political beliefs are conservative.

Ask a conservative what his opinion on X is, and he has to look it up.

LOL. This is actually funny. Pathetic. But funny.

Ask a independant what his opinion is, and he will do some thinking as there are no standard independant platforms to rely on.

Yeah. You have no opinions because you have no core beliefs. Unlike conservatives, independents seldom give anything any thought. Independents are wishy-washy. They always have been. They always will be. If they had any brains or convictions they would probably be conservatives.

I also find it ironic that you just quoted Rush Limbaugh while trying to prove that independants have no brains. Couldn't you have come up with something origional?

Did I? Awesome. Why reinvent the wheel. If Rush has said something brilliant that I already agree with perhaps, just perhaps, it is a part of my beliefs. Unlike you I am not required to give this one much thought. Some truths really are self-evident.

 

[Cameron]

Seems like you suffer from the same condition as CaptainCourtesy because you conveniently forgot to substantiate your claim. Taxpayers (our most productive, talented, innovative, hard-working, dedicated, focused, skilled, creative citizens) act irrationally...therefore...[this is where you substantiate your claim]

1. Taxpayers directly allocate their taxes
2. ??
3. Failure

Better yet, I'll even give you examples (though, frankly, I already feel like I am wasting my time).

Let's say of all taxpayers, 30 million decide to give money to support the welfare program. As it turns out, they give way too much money, to the point where the poor are not only getting enough to buy food, but also enough to buy iphones and other luxury products -- something no donor intended to support. Is this a worthy use of the money?

Due to the press coverage, the next year only 5 million decide to give money to support the welfare program, which sends hundreds of thousands of people in the country into starvation...

Rather than spend a small amount convincing Congress of the worth of their causes, companies now have to spend tens of millions on national advertising requesting funding for their causes -- giving a huge advantage to companies and causes that already have money, giving them a greater monopoly over the market.

As workers retire and new people with different values and views leave and enter the market, and as the media reports on the various inefficient allocations, funding begins to vary wildly from year to year, with the result that long-term planning for any organization or company becomes impossible.

I think it is beyond ignorant to claim that this would be a more efficient system than the current one.

 

[Misterveritis]

The fact that you believe that all policies and issues can be compressed into two "sides" is frightening, there is nothing "courageous" or intellectually challenging about claiming loyalty to either political party in existence currently.

It may frighten children. It probably does.

Conservatism has no political party. Both of the major political parties tend to be statists. But, as a general rule the Republican party is closest.
If there was a Conservative party I would be apart of it.

 

[Misterveritis]

I am a progressive, but not necessarily a liberal, but tend to be pretty moderate.

Kori is a progressive and is a fascist.

CC is a progressive and is just plain nuts.

Either way, progressive is a pretty broad term.

It is still a cover term for the deceptive.

 

[Cameron]

So you're saying that congress can spend your taxes better than you can?

I'm saying that Congress can spend our collective money more efficiently and effectively than we, individually, can. If I could see into the future and anticipate with certainty the actions of others, and had months of time worth to analyze all that data, perhaps I could do a better job of allocating my own tax money.

Now, since I've been so polite as to answer your question, how about answering mine from my previous post?

 

[Slartibartfast]

It is still a cover term for the deceptive.

How so? As a progressive, I am a big fan of second amendment rights, capitalism as a mechanism to increase the well being of people, I share many of the same moral views as most conservatives in terms of how I conduct my personal life, etc.

I just take the best of both worlds (as I see it), or invent new views where I don't find any of the current ones to be satisfactory.

I share many things with all sorts of ideologies and I am not just one.

How is this deceptive?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Aren't you the one who thinks that tax spending would be more efficient if everyone decided how to allocate their own tax money? Sorry, that is not an economic principle, it is at best a pretty illogical theory. And like so many economic theories, it fails by assuming that all people act rationally, while in real life, the opposite is true more often than not.

A great knowledge of economics is worth nothing without a passing knowledge of psychology and sociology.

Yay! Someone found the false premise the problem with his entire theory. Well done.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It is a fig leaf.

Independents have no brains and have no heart.
People who take a side generally have thought things through.

Closed mind? Straw man. Of course you already know it. As you said, Just saying.
Undisclosed lean? LOL

This is just you getting defensive because you got called out on your lack of logic. Those who choose an ideology, not a position on separate issues have far less intelligence than those who are independent. They lack critical thinking skills or, at the least, the desire to HAVE critical thinking skills. Either way, they have not thought things though.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It *is* a bad word that identifies bad thinking.
Progressive is a cover term the deceptive use when they mean liberal.

Demonstrates that you don't know what the word means. Ideologues tend to choose their beliefs based on their ideology, not based on any critical thinking.

 

[Xerographica]

Better yet, I'll even give you examples (though, frankly, I already feel like I am wasting my time).

Let's say of all taxpayers, 30 million decide to give money to support the welfare program. As it turns out, they give way too much money, to the point where the poor are not only getting enough to buy food, but also enough to buy iphones and other luxury products -- something no donor intended to support. Is this a worthy use of the money?

Taxpayers would be able to directly allocate their taxes at anytime throughout the year. They would go directly to the welfare website, check the fundraising progress bar, and submit a tax payment. The welfare organization would then send notice of their payment to the IRS.

You can purchase private goods at anytime throughout the year...people can make donations at anytime throughout the year...yet for some reason you think my system would be based on only allowing taxpayers to pay taxes at the end of the year? That's ridiculous.

Due to the press coverage, the next year only 5 million decide to give money to support the welfare program, which sends hundreds of thousands of people in the country into starvation...

20-30 million people died in China as a direct result of state induced famine. It was a consequence of planners...not markets. So you're the one that supports mass starvation...not me.

Rather than spend a small amount convincing Congress of the worth of their causes, companies now have to spend tens of millions on national advertising requesting funding for their causes -- giving a huge advantage to companies and causes that already have money, giving them a greater monopoly over the market.

So organizations would have to convince us that they deserve our hard-earned money? Oh..."the horror".

As workers retire and new people with different values and views leave and enter the market, and as the media reports on the various inefficient allocations, funding begins to vary wildly from year to year, with the result that long-term planning for any organization or company becomes impossible.

I think it is beyond ignorant to claim that this would be a more efficient system than the current one.

Again, taxpayers would be able to directly allocate their taxes at anytime throughout the year.

Being in favor of a committee of 538 people spending 150 million people's hard-earned money is what is beyond ignorance. Feel free to try again.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Seems like you suffer from the same condition as CaptainCourtesy because you conveniently forgot to substantiate your claim. Taxpayers (our most productive, talented, innovative, hard-working, dedicated, focused, skilled, creative citizens) act irrationally...therefore...[this is where you substantiate your claim]

1. Taxpayers directly allocate their taxes
2. ??
3. Failure

You keep making the same false premise that Krhazy pointed out. This is why, I'd imagine, most folks laugh at your theory. You seem to fail to understand the intermingling of economics, psychology, sociology, and intelligence.

 

[Xerographica]

Yay! Someone found the false premise the problem with his entire theory. Well done.

Please use your critical thinking skills to explain exactly why it's a false premise. Unless you're unable to. Then just tap dance for my amusement.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

How so? As a progressive, I am a big fan of second amendment rights, capitalism as a mechanism to increase the well being of people, I share many of the same moral views as most conservatives in terms of how I conduct my personal life, etc.

I just take the best of both worlds (as I see it), or invent new views where I don't find any of the current ones to be satisfactory.

I share many things with all sorts of ideologies and I am not just one.

How is this deceptive?

mega seems to understand how progressivism works. Mistervertitis does not.

 

[Xerographica]

You keep making the same false premise that Krhazy pointed out. This is why, I'd imagine, most folks laugh at your theory. You seem to fail to understand the intermingling of economics, psychology, sociology, and intelligence.

Explain exactly why allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would fail. Don't give me general vagueness weaksauce...others might buy it but I certainly do not.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Please use your critical thinking skills to explain exactly why it's a false premise. Unless you're unable to. Then just tap dance for my amusement.

I don't need to for two reasons. Firstly, Krhazy is doing just fine talking apart your absurd theory. And secondly, you don't seem to have enough of an understanding of economic theory for me to discuss this with you in any sort of meaningful way. You couldn't even pick out your false premise. I do believe your claims of the ignorance of economic theory of others was a bit of projection.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Explain exactly why allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would fail. Don't give me general vagueness weaksauce...others might buy it but I certainly do not.

It must truly suck to have a theory that you have based your persona on being demonstrated to be completely valueless... right from the original concept. Here's where you fail... and let's see if you can prove your position. Your false premise is that taxpayers (our most productive, talented, innovative, hard-working, dedicated, focused, skilled, creative citizens) will act rationally in allocating their money. Prove it. Go.

 

[Xerographica]

I don't need to for two reasons. Firstly, Krhazy is doing just fine talking apart your absurd theory. And secondly, you don't seem to have enough of an understanding of economic theory for me to discuss this with you in any sort of meaningful way. You couldn't even pick out your false premise. I do believe your claims of the ignorance of economic theory of others was a bit of projection.

In case you missed it...I destroyed Krhazy's critique with barely any effort. You say you don't need to critique pragmatarianism... but it's really really clear that you cannot. Actions speak louder than words. At least Krhazy made an effort.

 

[Xerographica]

It must truly suck to have a theory that you have based your persona on being demonstrated to be completely valueless... right from the original concept. Here's where you fail... and let's see if you can prove your position. Your false premise is that taxpayers (our most productive, talented, innovative, hard-working, dedicated, focused, skilled, creative citizens) will act rationally in allocating their money. Prove it. Go.

Prove that they will act rationally? EASY!! Paypal me $200. If you don't...then I've proved that people behave rationally enough with their money.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

In case you missed it...I destroyed Krhazy's critique with barely any effort. You say you don't need to critique pragmatarianism... but it's really really clear that you cannot. Actions speak louder than words. At least Krhazy made an effort.

I read your response to Krhazy. It was sorely lacking, based on your original false premise, which you STILL haven't proven incorrect. So, your response to Krhazy pretty much bounced right off his post.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Prove that they will act rationally? EASY!! Paypal me $200. If you don't...then I've proved that people behave rationally enough with their money.

Try again. We are not talking about you. You are one individual, who's individual money is irrelevant. Prove that people in general, taxpayers will act rationally. Go to it.

 

[Xerographica]

Try again. We are not talking about you. You are one individual, who's individual money is irrelevant. Prove that people in general, taxpayers will act rationally. Go to it.

Your claim is that people behave irrationally with their money. Yet...when I asked you to paypal me $200 you didn't. Did you behave rationally or irrationally with your money?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Your claim is that people behave irrationally with their money. Yet...when I asked you to paypal me $200 you didn't. Did you behave rationally or irrationally with your money?

Can't answer the challenge, can you? You are one individual, as am I. One individual is not responsible for all the tax monies allocated in this country. Prove that people in general will act rationally. You want to prove your theory? Here's your chance.

 

[Xerographica]

Can't answer the challenge, can you? You are one individual, as am I. One individual is not responsible for all the tax monies allocated in this country. Prove that people in general will act rationally. You want to prove your theory? Here's your chance.

LOL...you already proved my theory! You're a person. I asked you to send me $200 via paypal...and you didn't. Clearly you behaved rationally with your hard-earned money. Are you really going to say that you're so exceptional in this regard? I WISH!!!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

LOL...you already proved my theory! You're a person. I asked you to send me $200 via paypal...and you didn't. Clearly you behaved rationally with your hard-earned money. Are you really going to say that you're so exceptional in this regard? I WISH!!!

Still avoiding the question. You do realize that your "example" is the sweeping generalization logical fallacy. Prove that people in general will act rationally. Until you do, your theory is not worth the bandwidth it uses.