Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs

Xerographica · May 23, 2013

RGacky3 said:
.... 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.

Are you talking about participatory budgeting?

RGacky3 said:
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.

The free-rider problem is based on the fact that everybody wants the most bang for their buck. We all want to pay the least amount of money for the things that we derive benefit/utility from. In other words...we all want a free lunch. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody always has to pay.

A producer can try to maximize his profits by polluting (a negative externality). Then again, a consumer can try and maximize his profits by shoplifting. In both cases, the individual engages in harmful behavior in order to try and maximize his utility.

When somebody is smoking they are trying to maximize their utility. But when they are smoking right next to you...their smoke is spilling over into your lungs. Therefore, smoking has a negative externality. So what? So we vote on whether smoking should be illegal? We prosecute smokers to the fullest extent of the law?

The resources used to combat negative externalities have to come from somewhere. Where should they be taken from? Should the money come from my wallet or your wallet? Whose valued activities should be deprived of resources...yours or mine?

Participatory budgeting allows people to decide how other people spend their money. It's the epitome of the free-rider problem.

RGacky3 said:
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.

The only way for everyone to have an equal say would be for everybody to have an equal amount of money. Do you really believe that everybody should have an equal amount of money? If not, then you really do not believe that everyone should have an equal say.

RGacky3 said:
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.

The price of hats reflects the demand for hats. And what's demand? It's people's true preferences. It's what people are willing to forego/exchange/sacrifice/spend/give up/trade for hats. If people aren't given the opportunity to decide for themselves what a hat is worth to them...then there's no way for the optimal quantity of hats to be supplied. This means that society's limited resources will be wasted on lesser priorities. In other words, society's limited resources will be wasted.

RGacky3 said:
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.

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.

You think you know why people are poor in the US? You think you have all the right answers? You don't think that multitudes of people have wasted and continue to waste massive amounts of resources on the wrong answers? If you are so certain that your answers are so right, then why are you concerned with trying to persuade others that your perspective is correct? In a pragmatarian system, you would have the freedom to try and persuade taxpayers that public education is beneficial and they would have the freedom to decide for themselves.

What's wrong with this process of trying to persuade others? Isn't that what you are doing right now? Why not skip this process and force me to submit to your will? If you are so certain...then surely there's nothing wrong with coercion? Right?

RGacky3 said:
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.

Don't ask a barber whether or not you need a hair cut. Hospitals benefit from sick people. If there were no sick people then doctors and nurses would be out of business! If there were no fat people then personal trainers would be out of business. If there were no wars then soldiers would be out of business. So would everybody else who produces bullets, guns, tanks and aircraft carriers.

Being in business involves solving problems for other people. If you eradicate a problem, then you destroy the livelihoods of everybody who helped solve the problem. If taxpayers could choose where their taxes go...do you think there would be the exact same amount of soldiers, teachers and doctors? There's no way the allocation would be exactly the same...but there's also no way that the allocation wouldn't be better.

RGacky3 said:
This is getting sad, you're ignoring the point over and over again.

What point? Your point about plutocracy? You're the one who ignored my request for you to list 5 rich people for me to try and sell pragmatarianism to. According to your theory, it should be really easy to sell them the idea that taxpayers should be allowed to choose where their taxes go. Why in the world would they tell me "no thanks!"?

RGacky3 said:
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.

If what you're saying wasn't garbage then we would still have buggy whip factories. Do we still have buggy whip factories?

RGacky3 said:
No one is advocating a command economy.

Really? So let me know if you're advocating participatory budgeting.

RGacky3 · May 23, 2013

Xerographica said:
Are you talking about participatory budgeting?

I'm not talking about any specific system, there are many ways to do it.

The free-rider problem is based on the fact that everybody wants the most bang for their buck. We all want to pay the least amount of money for the things that we derive benefit/utility from. In other words...we all want a free lunch. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody always has to pay.

A producer can try to maximize his profits by polluting (a negative externality). Then again, a consumer can try and maximize his profits by shoplifting. In both cases, the individual engages in harmful behavior in order to try and maximize his utility.

A consumer shoplifting is not making economic profits, but either way we make shoplifting illigal for good reason, he might decide not to shoplift even without the law because he's a moral person.

A corporation however is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to maximize profits and pollute (not matter what his moral missgivings) and externalize costs.

When somebody is smoking they are trying to maximize their utility. But when they are smoking right next to you...their smoke is spilling over into your lungs. Therefore, smoking has a negative externality. So what? So we vote on whether smoking should be illegal? We prosecute smokers to the fullest extent of the law?

The resources used to combat negative externalities have to come from somewhere. Where should they be taken from? Should the money come from my wallet or your wallet? Whose valued activities should be deprived of resources...yours or mine?

Participatory budgeting allows people to decide how other people spend their money. It's the epitome of the free-rider problem.

People smoke because they enjoy it, not to maximize their utility ... not every activity is economic activity like you think. However we decide as a society that banning smoking would hurt freedoms more than it would help public wellness, and hurting freedoms, especially personal freedoms when using that freedom only effects other people indirectly and minimall is unnacceptable.

But if someone is smoking right next to you, and not being considerate, they are considered a dick, and that's good enough. However some socieites decide that smoking in public places like restaurants SHOULD BE illigal becasue the damaging effect on others is too high.

1. we should minimize negative externalities to begin with, by changing the economic structure, making those who have to live with the decisions of an economic decision those who have a say in it.

2. If someone has to pay, everyone should , that's called being a society.

3. You're gonna have MORE of a free rider problem in capitalism, given that externalities are essencailly making the public pay for private gain, at least in a more democratic system it's harder to be a free rider legally.

The only way for everyone to have an equal say would be for everybody to have an equal amount of money. Do you really believe that everybody should have an equal amount of money? If not, then you really do not believe that everyone should have an equal say.

That would be the case in YOUR system, in my system your say isn't dependant on money.

The price of hats reflects the demand for hats. And what's demand? It's people's true preferences. It's what people are willing to forego/exchange/sacrifice/spend/give up/trade for hats. If people aren't given the opportunity to decide for themselves what a hat is worth to them...then there's no way for the optimal quantity of hats to be supplied. This means that society's limited resources will be wasted on lesser priorities. In other words, society's limited resources will be wasted.

Not it isn't what people are willing to give up for hats, people will give up the least possible for the most hats, as soon as you as an individual, are in the market for buying a hat, you have to pay the market prive, not matter what you are willing to pay, the demand and supply dymanics are at a macro level, and you also have to take other things into account, cost of production and so on, but no matter what you are personally willing to pay for the hat, when you go to the store, you are paying the market price.

If your a poor person you're going to be willing to pay less, becasue you have less, if you're rich you might pay more, but it doesn't matter, if both the poor person and the rich person NEED TO BUY A HAT, they are gonna pay the market price for it.

You think you know why people are poor in the US? You think you have all the right answers? You don't think that multitudes of people have wasted and continue to waste massive amounts of resources on the wrong answers? If you are so certain that your answers are so right, then why are you concerned with trying to persuade others that your perspective is correct? In a pragmatarian system, you would have the freedom to try and persuade taxpayers that public education is beneficial and they would have the freedom to decide for themselves.

What's wrong with this process of trying to persuade others? Isn't that what you are doing right now? Why not skip this process and force me to submit to your will? If you are so certain...then surely there's nothing wrong with coercion? Right?

Jesus Christ, you're ignoring the whole issue, if you're going to take all public utilities and make them dependant on charity, then they arn't public utilities anymore,

I'm gonna repost my statement, and you can respond if you'd like.

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.

This is the issue you continue to ignore over and over and over and over again.

Don't ask a barber whether or not you need a hair cut. Hospitals benefit from sick people. If there were no sick people then doctors and nurses would be out of business! If there were no fat people then personal trainers would be out of business. If there were no wars then soldiers would be out of business. So would everybody else who produces bullets, guns, tanks and aircraft carriers.

Being in business involves solving problems for other people. If you eradicate a problem, then you destroy the livelihoods of everybody who helped solve the problem. If taxpayers could choose where their taxes go...do you think there would be the exact same amount of soldiers, teachers and doctors? There's no way the allocation would be exactly the same...but there's also no way that the allocation wouldn't be better.

The allocation would be better FOR WEALTHY PEOPLE, and worse for POOR PEOPLE, for the exact same reason I gave above in bold.

ALso if you erradicate problems people loose their liveely hoods IN CAPITALISM, in a democratic economy, you get rid of problems and the same amount of wealth can be created with less work, thus people work less accross the board and get more in return, in capitalism erradicating problems collapses capitalism, which is one of its major flaws pointed out my both marx and ricardo a long long time ago.

What point? Your point about plutocracy? You're the one who ignored my request for you to list 5 rich people for me to try and sell pragmatarianism to. According to your theory, it should be really easy to sell them the idea that taxpayers should be allowed to choose where their taxes go. Why in the world would they tell me "no thanks!"?

Yes, I'm ignoring your request because it's silly, and I'm not spending time on it, you find the rich people and email them yourself if you want to make that idiotic point you're trying to make.

If what you're saying wasn't garbage then we would still have buggy whip factories. Do we still have buggy whip factories?

Nope .... But the People that produced buggy whip factories are now producing cars, its still Capitalists, read what I said, read the actual words and tell me what part is wrong.

fmw · May 23, 2013

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.

Correction. Tax rebates aren't spending. They are a reduction in revenue.

RGacky3 · May 23, 2013

fmw said:
Correction. Tax rebates aren't spending. They are a reduction in revenue.

That's just semantics the result is exactly the same.

fmw · May 23, 2013

RGacky3 said:
That's just semantics the result is exactly the same.

Not politically.

imagep · May 23, 2013

fmw said:
Not politically.

Politically no, but as an economic function yes.

RGacky3 · May 24, 2013

fmw said:
Not politically.

Economically yeah.

Xerographica · May 24, 2013

RGacky3 said:
I'm not talking about any specific system, there are many ways to do it.

Right, you're not talking about a specific system because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There aren't a lot of options here...either I spend my money or you spend my money. When I shop for myself I spend my own money. If I can't shop for myself then you and many others spend my money. Spending other people's money does not efficiently allocate resources. Why?

Have you ever heard the expression..."I'd give my left nut to..."? For example..."I'd give my left nut to sleep with Jennifer Connelly". This has meaning because personal sacrifice is involved. But the economic significance is completely lost if I simply say..."I'd give your left nut to sleep with Jennifer Connelly". There is no personal sacrifice if I'm spending your body parts. Without individual valuation, it's a certainty that massive amounts of society's limited resources will be wasted.

Ballet voting on how society's limited resources are allocated absolutely does not work because there is no measure of preference intensity. There is no real and immediate personal sacrifice involved. There is no sense of the opportunity cost. There is no real individual valuation.

RGacky3 said:
A consumer shoplifting is not making economic profits, but either way we make shoplifting illigal for good reason, he might decide not to shoplift even without the law because he's a moral person.

A corporation however is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to maximize profits and pollute (not matter what his moral missgivings) and externalize costs.

Both shoplifting and polluting are illegal. But you think we can simple ballot vote on how much of society's resources should be used to enforce these laws. Wrong wrong wrong. If people truly benefit from these laws, then they should be willing put their money where their mouth is.

RGacky3 said:
People smoke because they enjoy it, not to maximize their utility ... not every activity is economic activity like you think.

Do you seriously not understand that enjoying something is the same thing as deriving utility from something? Seriously, please take a high school economics class. Or, actually spend your time learning about economics.

RGacky3 said:
However we decide as a society that banning smoking would hurt freedoms more than it would help public wellness, and hurting freedoms, especially personal freedoms when using that freedom only effects other people indirectly and minimall is unnacceptable.

But if someone is smoking right next to you, and not being considerate, they are considered a dick, and that's good enough. However some socieites decide that smoking in public places like restaurants SHOULD BE illigal becasue the damaging effect on others is too high.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that you cannot measure the damaging effect on others? You can only measure the damaging effect on yourself. You have absolutely no idea how much I would be personally willing to sacrifice in order try and ensure that people do not smoke in public places. The problem is that you think you do...which is what Hayek referred to as the Fatal Conceit. It's fatal because it results in massive amounts of society's limited resources being wasted on things that truly are not a priority.

RGacky3 said:
1. we should minimize negative externalities to begin with, by changing the economic structure, making those who have to live with the decisions of an economic decision those who have a say in it.

This is vague nonsense. You're incapable of being specific because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If my neighbor's music bothers me (harmful spillover = negative externality), then I can vote to try and make it illegal to play your music at a certain volume. This is me having a say in the economic decisions of others. I might disagree with the outcome, but I have absolutely no problem with this process. My problem is when ballot voting or elected representatives determine how much of society's limited resources should be used to enforce the laws/regulations that people say they want. Neither ballot voting nor elected shoppers can reflect people's intensity of preferences. Resources cannot be efficiently allocated without this information.

RGacky3 said:
2. If someone has to pay, everyone should , that's called being a society.

If someone has to buy a hat, everyone should? That's not called being a society, that's called being lemmings. In your simple mind you think people value everything equally. Your brain obviously cannot comprehend that people have different values.

RGacky3 said:
3. You're gonna have MORE of a free rider problem in capitalism, given that externalities are essencailly making the public pay for private gain, at least in a more democratic system it's harder to be a free rider legally.

Again, you either spend your own money, or you spend other people's money. Your system gives people the option to spend other people's money. Therefore, your system is the epitome of the free-rider problem.

RGacky3 said:
That would be the case in YOUR system, in my system your say isn't dependant on money.

Again, you either spend your own money...or you spend somebody else's money. Those are the only two options. In my system you spend your own money. In your system...you spend other people's money.

RGacky3 said:
Not it isn't what people are willing to give up for hats, people will give up the least possible for the most hats, as soon as you as an individual, are in the market for buying a hat, you have to pay the market prive, not matter what you are willing to pay, the demand and supply dymanics are at a macro level, and you also have to take other things into account, cost of production and so on, but no matter what you are personally willing to pay for the hat, when you go to the store, you are paying the market price.

But whether or not I purchase a hat is up to me. I decide for myself whether I have "enough" hats. What you struggle to understand is that everybody is unique. We all have different utility functions. Therefore, the supply is dependent on everybody's true preferences.

It's the exact opposite in the public sector. Whether or not I purchase national defense is not up to me. I do not decide for myself whether I have "enough" defense. My true and unique preferences do not go into the equation which determines how society's limited resources are used. As a result, society's limited resources are inefficiently allocated. Resources are wasted and value is destroyed.

Xerographica · May 24, 2013

RGacky3 said:
If your a poor person you're going to be willing to pay less, becasue you have less, if you're rich you might pay more, but it doesn't matter, if both the poor person and the rich person NEED TO BUY A HAT, they are gonna pay the market price for it.

Both the poor and the rich are going to shop around. The rich might buy expensive hats...or cheap hats...or they might not buy any hats. Are the poor ever going to buy expensive hats? Sure, everybody makes "stupid" decisions. But that's what freedom is. It's the ability to waste your own resources. But the freedom for you to waste your resources ends where my resources begin. This is how and why markets work. You can spend your money on expensive hats and I can spend my money on economics books. As a result, on one hand you're now wearing a stupid but expensive hat....and on the other hand, I'm destroying you in this economics debate. Except, you don't realize that I'm destroying you because you don't even grasp the basic economic concept of "utility".

RGacky3 said:
Jesus Christ, you're ignoring the whole issue, if you're going to take all public utilities and make them dependant on charity, then they arn't public utilities anymore,

How dense do you have to be to fail to understand that I'm not a libertarian? I'm a pragmatarian. I have absolutely no interest in reducing taxes or kicking public utilities over to the private sector. Taxes would still be mandatory...the only difference is that each and every taxpayer could choose where their taxes go. Taxpayers would have the freedom to decide how much each and every public utility was worth to them.

RGacky3 said:
I'm gonna repost my statement, and you can respond if you'd like.

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.

This is the issue you continue to ignore over and over and over and over again.

Look, you think you can grasp the labor needs of an entire country. But as we've already established... you suffer from a fatal conceit. If business owners benefit from having employees who can perform calculus...then they would benefit from spending their tax dollars on whichever public schools were teaching their students calculus.

Here's what I do know. Business owners would have to pay taxes anyways. So if they don't spend their tax dollars on public education...then they would have to spend their taxes on some other public goods. Which public goods benefit business owners the most? You think you know the answer? Of course you do...it's a symptom of your disease.

RGacky3 said:
The allocation would be better FOR WEALTHY PEOPLE, and worse for POOR PEOPLE, for the exact same reason I gave above in bold.

The allocation would be better because it would more accurately reflect people's true preferences...poor and rich alike. You fail to grasp that poor people spend money too. They buy food, hats, entertainment and countless other products/services. Poor people help determine who is rich and who is poor. If they buy a Big Mac rather than a $5 subway sandwich...then they are helping to determine who is richer.

Therefore, if Mr. Big Mac is wealthier than Mr. Subway, then this is a reflection of the true preferences of the poor. But you don't care about the true preferences of the poor. You don't care that they've already used their dollars to indicate what they want more of. You just want to give them what you think they should have more of. It's your fatal conceit again.

RGacky3 said:
ALso if you erradicate problems people loose their liveely hoods IN CAPITALISM, in a democratic economy, you get rid of problems and the same amount of wealth can be created with less work, thus people work less accross the board and get more in return, in capitalism erradicating problems collapses capitalism, which is one of its major flaws pointed out my both marx and ricardo a long long time ago.

If cancer is cured, then oncologists and everybody else involved in the process of treating cancer will have to find another line of work. Why? Because consumers, given the choice, would not spend their own money on a non-existent problem. Where's the flaw? Do you want consumers to pay oncologists even though cancer has been eradicated? Of course you do! You could care less about the true preferences of consumers. This is why your system will always result in a massive reduction in the amount of wealth that is created.

Either society's limited resources are used in ways that accurately reflect people's true preferences...or they aren't. If they are...then wealth will be created...if they aren't...then wealth will be destroyed.

RGacky3 said:
Yes, I'm ignoring your request because it's silly, and I'm not spending time on it, you find the rich people and email them yourself if you want to make that idiotic point you're trying to make.

It's your idiotic point. You're the one arguing that rich people would benefit from a pragmatarian system. Yet you can't even list 5 rich people for me to e-mail. How idiotic is that?

RGacky3 said:
Nope .... But the People that produced buggy whip factories are now producing cars, its still Capitalists, read what I said, read the actual words and tell me what part is wrong.

They are only producing cars because consumers prefer cars over horse drawn carriages. Markets work because it's up to consumers to decide what is destroyed and what is created. And whenever something is created...something has to be destroyed. We make progress when what is created is more valuable than what is destroyed. But these value decisions are unique to each and every individual in a society. Shopping gives people the freedom to decide whether something is worth it for them personally...while ballot voting is just a survey with no sacrifice. A survey is not economics...but spending your own money is.

RGacky3 · May 27, 2013

This is really getting tiring.

You havn't dealt with the points ... even if you do vote to make something illigal, that doesn't change a thing unless the enforcement agencies that deal with that are funded, which if rich people don't want it to be funded, won't get funded.

You havn't dealt with the education point, other than saying "poor people spend to" which isn't an argument, no **** they do, they need to to survive, but that doesn't mean they can actually fund a working education, they can barefuly survive.

You say taxes would be mandetory ... But if you simple decide where it goes, it's still just charity, you're still making all public services reliant on charity.

Everytime I bring up externalities you use a non-economic analogy that doesn't work.

If you're not going to be serious in your debate, then just leave it.

You are repeating yourself adnauseum, and not actually DEALING with the points, just restating your own points in different words.

Xerographica · May 29, 2013

RGacky3 said:
This is really getting tiring.

What's great is that it's entirely up to you how much of your limited time you spend on this thread. Just like it's entirely up to you how much of your money you spend on artichokes. Too bad it's not entirely up to you how much of your tax dollars you spend on the drug war.

RGacky3 said:
You havn't dealt with the points ... even if you do vote to make something illigal, that doesn't change a thing unless the enforcement agencies that deal with that are funded, which if rich people don't want it to be funded, won't get funded.

If I want something to be funded, then it's my responsibility to persuade other people that they will benefit from funding it. If I want pragmatarianism to be funded, then it's my responsibility to persuade other people that they will benefit from funding pragmatarianism.

You want to skip the persuasion part. You don't realize how much of a problem it is when people fail to see how important it is NOT to skip this part.

RGacky3 said:
You havn't dealt with the education point, other than saying "poor people spend to" which isn't an argument, no **** they do, they need to to survive, but that doesn't mean they can actually fund a working education, they can barefuly survive.

If every country implemented tax choice...would each country spend the same exact amount of money on public education?

RGacky3 said:
You say taxes would be mandetory ... But if you simple decide where it goes, it's still just charity, you're still making all public services reliant on charity.

How would it be charity when charity is voluntary? Taxpayers would still have to pay taxes and they could only spend their taxes on public GOODS. They couldn't spend their taxes on a new washing machine, or new tires for their car, or hire a new employee...they would have to spend their taxes on public healthcare or public education or environmental protection...

Do you know what the true preferences are of taxpayers? Can you predict how they would spend their taxes? I sure can't. How can anybody possibly know what the true priorities are of millions and millions of people? But I can look at the diversity of products/services in the private sector and can guess that over time the diversity of public goods would increase.

RGacky3 said:
Everytime I bring up externalities you use a non-economic analogy that doesn't work.

Externalities are not a difficult concept. They are just spillovers...some are positive and some are negative. Some are beneficial while others are harmful. Not wearing deodorant is a negative externality. Why? Because your stench can spillover onto people who are near you. Others can be harmed by your odor. Is this a non-economic analogy? If so, then why?

RGacky3 said:
If you're not going to be serious in your debate, then just leave it.

I'll leave when I cease to derive utility from this one particular use of my time. Clearly you too have derived utility from this thread or else you wouldn't have replied so many times.

RGacky3 said:
You are repeating yourself adnauseum, and not actually DEALING with the points, just restating your own points in different words.

I've stomped your arguments. It's not easy to destroy hasty generalizations. In your mind the poor are all selfless and the rich are all selfish...and everybody is either poor or rich. Except for you...right? You're the only exceptional individual in society? You're neither poor nor rich and you are neither entirely selfish nor entirely selfless.

I hate to break it to you...but other people are just as complex as you are. I know you probably won't believe it...but it's true. If you can manage to see the validity of this...then perhaps you will start to appreciate the value of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.

RGacky3 · May 30, 2013

Xerographica said:
What's great is that it's entirely up to you how much of your limited time you spend on this thread. Just like it's entirely up to you how much of your money you spend on artichokes. Too bad it's not entirely up to you how much of your tax dollars you spend on the drug war.

Everyone has the same amount of time, NOT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

If I want something to be funded, then it's my responsibility to persuade other people that they will benefit from funding it. If I want pragmatarianism to be funded, then it's my responsibility to persuade other people that they will benefit from funding pragmatarianism.

You want to skip the persuasion part. You don't realize how much of a problem it is when people fail to see how important it is NOT to skip this part.

I don't want to skip the persuasion part, if you want something funded you have to persuade people WITH MONEY, in a democratic system you have to persuade everyone involved, no matter how much money they had.

If every country implemented tax choice...would each country spend the same exact amount of money on public education?

You're dodging the issue, deal with the actual issue.

How would it be charity when charity is voluntary? Taxpayers would still have to pay taxes and they could only spend their taxes on public GOODS. They couldn't spend their taxes on a new washing machine, or new tires for their car, or hire a new employee...they would have to spend their taxes on public healthcare or public education or environmental protection...

Do you know what the true preferences are of taxpayers? Can you predict how they would spend their taxes? I sure can't. How can anybody possibly know what the true priorities are of millions and millions of people? But I can look at the diversity of products/services in the private sector and can guess that over time the diversity of public goods would increase.

It is charity, since it institutions need to beg rich people for funds to serve the public good, even if those institutions serve mainly poor people and not those rich people, i.e. they need to beg for charity, it's basically the same thing.

I do know what the true preferences are of the taxpayers, when they vote, and there is a difference between an interest and a value btw.

Private sector goods and services are in the private sector for a reason as are public goods, becasue public goods are not to be dependant or beholdant to the capitalist market, they are dependant and beholdant to the electorate, one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.

Externalities are not a difficult concept. They are just spillovers...some are positive and some are negative. Some are beneficial while others are harmful. Not wearing deodorant is a negative externality. Why? Because your stench can spillover onto people who are near you. Others can be harmed by your odor. Is this a non-economic analogy? If so, then why?

Its a non economic analogy because it doesn't cost people money to smell you.

Externalities are not a difficult concept, yet you ignore them time and again in your theory.

I've brought up the public school example, now I'll bring up the EPA.

Rich people who own industrial plants that pollute in poor areas don't care about the EPA, why should they? They live in nice clean areas, so they won't fund it, the poor people in those areas don't really have any disposable income, so they can't fund the EPA, so guess what happens, the EPA is just one dude and a desk.

The same with public schools, this problem I can repeat over and over again and you simply ignore it.

I've stomped your arguments. It's not easy to destroy hasty generalizations. In your mind the poor are all selfless and the rich are all selfish...and everybody is either poor or rich. Except for you...right? You're the only exceptional individual in society? You're neither poor nor rich and you are neither entirely selfish nor entirely selfless.

I hate to break it to you...but other people are just as complex as you are. I know you probably won't believe it...but it's true. If you can manage to see the validity of this...then perhaps you will start to appreciate the value of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.

You havn't dealt with any of the arguments.

I've never said the poor are slefless, I said they are poor, and I said they are as selfishs as the rich but can't do much about it because the rich have all the money. Nor did I say everybody is either poor or rich. These are all strawmen.

Explain how the public education system would work in your system, and deal with the problems I brought up, the same with pollution.

Xerographica · May 31, 2013

RGacky3 said:
Everyone has the same amount of time, NOT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

We would all have the same amount of money if everybody 1. was equally effective at using society's limited resources and 2. had the same exact preferences.

Do you think everybody is equally effective at spending their time?

RGacky3 said:
I don't want to skip the persuasion part, if you want something funded you have to persuade people WITH MONEY, in a democratic system you have to persuade everyone involved, no matter how much money they had.

Of course you want to skip the persuasion part. If the majority votes for the drug war, then I'll have to pay for it even if your persuasion completely failed to convince me that the drug war is beneficial. And for some reason you think it's beneficial to society when people have to pay for things that they believe are harmful to society. In other words, you think it's beneficial when society's limited resources are inefficiently allocated.

RGacky3 said:
You're dodging the issue, deal with the actual issue.

Why can't you answer the question? Is it too difficult? Here it is again. If every country implemented tax choice...would each country spend the same exact amount of money on public education?

RGacky3 said:
It is charity, since it institutions need to beg rich people for funds to serve the public good, even if those institutions serve mainly poor people and not those rich people, i.e. they need to beg for charity, it's basically the same thing.

You just said that you don't want to skip the persuasion part...but clearly you're not a big fan of government institutions having to "beg" for money. In this context, "begging" and "persuading" are the same exact thing. If a government organization wanted more money, then it would have to persuade consumers to forego the alternative uses of their money. This is the opportunity cost concept that would reveal just how much society truly values whatever public good the government organization is trying to sell.

RGacky3 said:
I do know what the true preferences are of the taxpayers, when they vote, and there is a difference between an interest and a value btw.

LOL...so tell me what my true preferences are. If you can't, then how can you possibly know the true preferences of millions and millions of people?

If you go to Walmart...can you predict what people are going to put in their shopping cart? Obviously not. Sometimes you don't even know what you're going to put in your shopping cart. Maybe you'll have a list...but the quantity of each item you purchase will depend on prices. And maybe you'll buy things that aren't on your list and forego items that are on your list. Again with the opportunity cost concept.

Shopping incorporates a ridiculous amount of information that you take completely for granted. All this information is lost like tears in rain when people we've never even met do our shopping for us.

RGacky3 said:
Private sector goods and services are in the private sector for a reason as are public goods, becasue public goods are not to be dependant or beholdant to the capitalist market, they are dependant and beholdant to the electorate, one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.

Markets efficiently allocate resources because they incorporate a trillion times more information than a small group of personal shoppers can. Consumer's spending decisions reflect their circumstances and values...and 300 personal shoppers cannot possibly know even the tiniest fraction of 300 million people's circumstances and values. This is exactly why congress cannot efficiently allocate resources.

RGacky3 said:
Its a non economic analogy because it doesn't cost people money to smell you.

Economic only has to do with things that cost you money? So spending your time on this forum is non-economic?

RGacky3 said:
Externalities are not a difficult concept, yet you ignore them time and again in your theory.

Are externalities economic or non economic?

RGacky3 said:
I've brought up the public school example, now I'll bring up the EPA.

Rich people who own industrial plants that pollute in poor areas don't care about the EPA, why should they? They live in nice clean areas, so they won't fund it, the poor people in those areas don't really have any disposable income, so they can't fund the EPA, so guess what happens, the EPA is just one dude and a desk.

Why are you leaving out the consumers who purchase the products that are made by the industrial plants? It's because of them that the owners of those plants are rich. On one hand they can have cheaper products...and on the other hand they could give some of their taxes to the EPA. What's the balance that would produce the most benefit for society? Again with the opportunity cost concept.

RGacky3 said:
The same with public schools, this problem I can repeat over and over again and you simply ignore it.

You havn't dealt with any of the arguments.

Your arguments have no basis in economics. None. Zero. Zilch.

RGacky3 said:
I've never said the poor are slefless, I said they are poor, and I said they are as selfishs as the rich but can't do much about it because the rich have all the money. Nor did I say everybody is either poor or rich. These are all strawmen.

If the rich have all the money, then wouldn't everybody be either poor or rich?

RGacky3 said:
Explain how the public education system would work in your system, and deal with the problems I brought up, the same with pollution.

Business owners have to hire employees that have a certain level of education. If there's a large pool of potential employees (large supply = lower wages)...then business owners will make more money because costs will go down. If there's a small pool of potential employees (small supply = higher wages)...then business owners will lose money because costs will go up. If business owners do not want to lose money then they will spend their money on whichever organization is increasing the supply of potential employees.

Labor is simply one of many inputs that business owners need to make a profit. The owner of a bakery needs a certain amount of labor, flour, sugar, salt, equipment and so on. If there's a shortage of labor then there's a bottleneck in the operation and Mr. Baker's profits will decrease. Therefore, Mr. Baker has a financial incentive to try and ensure that there's a large supply of relevant education.

What skills does Mr. Baker need his employees to have? Who knows better than Mr. Baker? Which is exactly why Mr. Baker should be allowed to choose where his taxes go. If public education is providing people with the skills that Mr. Baker needs his employees to have, then Mr. Baker will give public education his tax dollars. Otherwise he won't.

Do you agree or disagree with this argument by a liberal?

I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.”—No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. - Elizabeth Warren

Regarding pollution...if you're genuinely interested in the topic then you'll read this paper... Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation A Guide for Policy Makers

Mach · May 31, 2013

RGacky3 said:
Rich people who own industrial plants that pollute in poor areas don't care about the EPA, why should they? They live in nice clean areas, so they won't fund it, the poor people in those areas don't really have any disposable income, so they can't fund the EPA, so guess what happens, the EPA is just one dude and a desk..

Keeping focused on just this, rather than dismantling all the other terribly incorrect notions you have, it's largely true that to open a polluting industrial plant in the U.S. requires government, likely both federal and the local government, to approve it. So your issue must then be with government? Please understand that in the real world, big boys and girls with experience and often some amount of savvy in things economic, make choices in their best interest. If a poor city is given huge tax revenues, jobs, etc., from an industrial plant, at the cost of some pollution, they get to make that call as a populace do they not? I mean, it's their elected leaders weighing the cost/benefit, right? Who are you really mad at here, the poor city who approved it? The big corporation that provided jobs to the poor area? I can assure you that neither you, nor any individual on earth knows what's best for anyone else to any reasonable degree of accuracy. This is so profound that even if you live with someone for decades, you simply CANNOT choose best for them, and what annoys you may be the right choice for them even when you've committed your life together (!). Now, instead of a married couple with shared interests and constant itneraction, take two people separated geographically, from different cultures, different income groups, etc., how in the hell are you going to even remotely approach being able to reasonably determine what is best for the other party, when even a married couple cannot? You cannot, so stop trying. You cannot, this is not political, this is not being mean, it's a statement of fact. You should see this every day, you should be aware of it throughout your life.

RGacky3 · Jun 3, 2013

Mach said:
Keeping focused on just this, rather than dismantling all the other terribly incorrect notions you have, it's largely true that to open a polluting industrial plant in the U.S. requires government, likely both federal and the local government, to approve it. So your issue must then be with government? Please understand that in the real world, big boys and girls with experience and often some amount of savvy in things economic, make choices in their best interest. If a poor city is given huge tax revenues, jobs, etc., from an industrial plant, at the cost of some pollution, they get to make that call as a populace do they not? I mean, it's their elected leaders weighing the cost/benefit, right? Who are you really mad at here, the poor city who approved it? The big corporation that provided jobs to the poor area? I can assure you that neither you, nor any individual on earth knows what's best for anyone else to any reasonable degree of accuracy. This is so profound that even if you live with someone for decades, you simply CANNOT choose best for them, and what annoys you may be the right choice for them even when you've committed your life together (!). Now, instead of a married couple with shared interests and constant itneraction, take two people separated geographically, from different cultures, different income groups, etc., how in the hell are you going to even remotely approach being able to reasonably determine what is best for the other party, when even a married couple cannot? You cannot, so stop trying. You cannot, this is not political, this is not being mean, it's a statement of fact. You should see this every day, you should be aware of it throughout your life.

If the population allows for the plant DEMOCRATICALLY, then I have no problem with it.

But here is my point. Who funds the EPA? THe rich neighborhood doesn't need it funded, the poor neighborhood does, because they have the plant there.

Under Xerographica's system, the people who need to fund it would be the poor neighborhood, meaning it doesn't get funded, also neither does public healthcare, since rich people already have private healthcare.

But what does get funded (most likely) is stuff that benefits rich people, THAT is my point, and that's what's been ignored the whole time.

RGacky3 · Jun 3, 2013

Xerographica said:
We would all have the same amount of money if everybody 1. was equally effective at using society's limited resources and 2. had the same exact preferences.

Do you think everybody is equally effective at spending their time?

No, but it's irrelevant, people's say in a democratic society isn't tied to how effective they are at spending their time.

Of course you want to skip the persuasion part. If the majority votes for the drug war, then I'll have to pay for it even if your persuasion completely failed to convince me that the drug war is beneficial. And for some reason you think it's beneficial to society when people have to pay for things that they believe are harmful to society. In other words, you think it's beneficial when society's limited resources are inefficiently allocated.

Under your system, if a minority if rich people want a drug war it happens ... You don't even need a majority, you just need a few of the wealthy.

Why can't you answer the question? Is it too difficult? Here it is again. If every country implemented tax choice...would each country spend the same exact amount of money on public education?

Probably not, I have no idea, what's your point here.

You just said that you don't want to skip the persuasion part...but clearly you're not a big fan of government institutions having to "beg" for money. In this context, "begging" and "persuading" are the same exact thing. If a government organization wanted more money, then it would have to persuade consumers to forego the alternative uses of their money. This is the opportunity cost concept that would reveal just how much society truly values whatever public good the government organization is trying to sell.

Here is teh difference, in a democratic system, the government has to focus on EVERYONE'S VOTE, each individual counts, in your system, they only need to focus on the rich, or at least they need to focus more on those with more money.

LOL...so tell me what my true preferences are. If you can't, then how can you possibly know the true preferences of millions and millions of people?

If you go to Walmart...can you predict what people are going to put in their shopping cart? Obviously not. Sometimes you don't even know what you're going to put in your shopping cart. Maybe you'll have a list...but the quantity of each item you purchase will depend on prices. And maybe you'll buy things that aren't on your list and forego items that are on your list. Again with the opportunity cost concept.

Shopping incorporates a ridiculous amount of information that you take completely for granted. All this information is lost like tears in rain when people we've never even met do our shopping for us.

Do you think poor people simply "prefer" canned food to healthy food? Is that a "Preference choice?" Do poor people prefer living in a ghetto?

You're missing the elephant in the room here, yet again.

In a democratic system, if 70% vote for something, I know 70% prefer that.

Markets efficiently allocate resources because they incorporate a trillion times more information than a small group of personal shoppers can. Consumer's spending decisions reflect their circumstances and values...and 300 personal shoppers cannot possibly know even the tiniest fraction of 300 million people's circumstances and values. This is exactly why congress cannot efficiently allocate resources.

Efficicent FOR WHOME????

efficient only makes sence when you explain for whome it is efficient.

Economic only has to do with things that cost you money? So spending your time on this forum is non-economic?

Yes.

Are externalities economic or non economic?

Depends.

Why are you leaving out the consumers who purchase the products that are made by the industrial plants? It's because of them that the owners of those plants are rich. On one hand they can have cheaper products...and on the other hand they could give some of their taxes to the EPA. What's the balance that would produce the most benefit for society? Again with the opportunity cost concept.

No, I'm not leaving out the consumers, I'm pointing out differences in interests that coencide with differences in capital ownership.

lets say everyone in the area WANT'S the epa funded, but the rich people don't, guess what's gonna happen ... ITs not getting funded ....

If the rich have all the money, then wouldn't everybody be either poor or rich?

If you want me to be exact because you don't get what I'm saying I will, the rich have "the vast majority of the money."

Business owners have to hire employees that have a certain level of education. If there's a large pool of potential employees (large supply = lower wages)...then business owners will make more money because costs will go down. If there's a small pool of potential employees (small supply = higher wages)...then business owners will lose money because costs will go up. If business owners do not want to lose money then they will spend their money on whichever organization is increasing the supply of potential employees.

Labor is simply one of many inputs that business owners need to make a profit. The owner of a bakery needs a certain amount of labor, flour, sugar, salt, equipment and so on. If there's a shortage of labor then there's a bottleneck in the operation and Mr. Baker's profits will decrease. Therefore, Mr. Baker has a financial incentive to try and ensure that there's a large supply of relevant education.

What skills does Mr. Baker need his employees to have? Who knows better than Mr. Baker? Which is exactly why Mr. Baker should be allowed to choose where his taxes go. If public education is providing people with the skills that Mr. Baker needs his employees to have, then Mr. Baker will give public education his tax dollars. Otherwise he won't.

Here's the problem, Mr. Baker WON'T pay for public education, because the vast majority of his money won't pay for his workers, it'll pay for other peoples workers and his competitors workers.

This is exactly why you're dream didn't happen before public education, capitalists didn't come together and fund public schools.

It simply didn't happen.

Mach · Jun 3, 2013

RGacky3 said:
But what does get funded (most likely) is stuff that benefits rich people, THAT is my point, and that's what's been ignored the whole time.

1. Then why would you not be proposing the non-wealthy pay more of the (their) tax burden like much of Europe does? If you want more influence, fund it. 2. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you think it's bad that the wealthy influence government, why would the poor influencing government be a good thing? It isn't. Libertarians as usually have a more consistent approach, limit them both, equally, because neither are ideal.

RGacky3 · Jun 4, 2013

Mach said:
1. Then why would you not be proposing the non-wealthy pay more of the (their) tax burden like much of Europe does? If you want more influence, fund it. 2. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you think it's bad that the wealthy influence government, why would the poor influencing government be a good thing? It isn't. Libertarians as usually have a more consistent approach, limit them both, equally, because neither are ideal.

1. I don't understand you're question? I support progressive taxation ...

2. I don't think the poor or the rich should influence the goernment, EVERYONE should have the SAME influence no matter what their wealth, one man one vote, that's how it should work in a democracy.

Xerographica · Jun 4, 2013

RGacky3 said:
No, but it's irrelevant, people's say in a democratic society isn't tied to how effective they are at spending their time.

How effective people are at using society's limited resources isn't relevant to your theory...which is why your system would most certainly result in the massive destruction of wealth.

RGacky3 said:
Under your system, if a minority if rich people want a drug war it happens ... You don't even need a majority, you just need a few of the wealthy.

A minority of rich people? Just a few? Please be specific. If you were actually capable of thinking things through, then you would clearly see how ridiculous your arguments are. If only 10 rich people were willing to spend their taxes on a drug war, then obviously the drug war would not be considered a public good and those 10 rich people would not have the option to spend their taxes on it. Because if only 10 people benefit from a good then it can't be considered a PUBLIC good.

RGacky3 said:
Probably not, I have no idea, what's your point here.

Which is it? Probably not...or you have no idea? I asked you whether each country would spend the same exact amount of money on public education. In case you missed it, your argument is that the rich do not value public education...therefore, if you actually believe your own argument then why would any country spend any money on public education? Again we see your total failure to think things through.

RGacky3 said:
Here is teh difference, in a democratic system, the government has to focus on EVERYONE'S VOTE, each individual counts, in your system, they only need to focus on the rich, or at least they need to focus more on those with more money.

How can the government focus on everyone's vote? What trite and completely vague nonsense. If the majority votes for the drug war then the government focuses on everyone's vote? Listen, if you can't apply your argument to a specific example then please don't waste my time with it.

RGacky3 said:
Do you think poor people simply "prefer" canned food to healthy food? Is that a "Preference choice?" Do poor people prefer living in a ghetto?

Do you think I'm you? Is my username "RGacky3"? Do you think I suffer from a fatal conceit? How the f am I supposed to know the true preferences of the poor? Are their preferences all the same? When poor Mexicans cross the border...do they all head to the same exact destination? In your hasty generalization mind they probably do.

RGacky3 said:
You're missing the elephant in the room here, yet again.

Not really. I've been pretty consistent about pointing out your fatal conceit.

RGacky3 said:
In a democratic system, if 70% vote for something, I know 70% prefer that.

But you don't know how much they prefer that. You don't know what they would sacrifice for that. And you think resources can be efficiently allocated without this information. Well they can't. They really can't.

RGacky3 said:
Efficicent FOR WHOME????

efficient only makes sence when you explain for whome it is efficient.

An allocation of resources is efficient when the benefit for society is maximized. This is what free-trade is all about. I have a shortage of clothing and a surplus of food. You have a surplus of clothing and a shortage of food. I want more clothing and you want more food...so we trade. The allocation of resources becomes more efficient. We are both better off. Therefore, exchanges are mutually beneficial. If they aren't, then people can always try and find other people to trade with.

If the allocation of resources was perfectly efficiently...then nobody would trade. But people are always trading because the allocation can always be improved. Our circumstances are constantly changing. Life is dynamic and our preferences are not fixed in stone.

So your question/critique makes absolutely no sense.

RGacky3 said:
Yes.

Is spending your time studying non-economic?

RGacky3 said:
Depends.

What does it depend on?

RGacky3 said:
No, I'm not leaving out the consumers, I'm pointing out differences in interests that coencide with differences in capital ownership.

lets say everyone in the area WANT'S the epa funded, but the rich people don't, guess what's gonna happen ... ITs not getting funded ....

let's say everyone in the area wants a TV, but the rich people don't, guess what's gonna happen...nobody's getting a TV. Why not? Because only rich people have money. And only rich people have homes. And only rich people have cars. And only rich people have clothes. And only rich people have cell phones.

If consumers are willing to forego alternatives uses of their money, then the EPA will be funded. But if taxpayers aren't willing to forego alternatives uses of their own tax dollars, then the EPA should not be funded. Otherwise you're simply handing a blank check to the majority of citizens. This will certainly result in the inefficient allocation of resources. People will vote for a free lunch but this will inevitably result in a shortage of things that they value more than a free lunch. Why? Because we have finite resources. Using a resource for A means that it can't be used for B. Using a resource for a free lunch means that it can't be used for public healthcare or public education. Again with the opportunity cost concept you certainly fail to grasp.

RGacky3 said:
If you want me to be exact because you don't get what I'm saying I will, the rich have "the vast majority of the money."

Therefore, you were lying when you said that the rich had all the money.

RGacky3 said:
Here's the problem, Mr. Baker WON'T pay for public education, because the vast majority of his money won't pay for his workers, it'll pay for other peoples workers and his competitors workers.

Mr. Baker has to pay taxes, so if he doesn't spend his taxes on public education...then what would he spend his taxes on? C'mon, obviously you think you know Mr. Baker's true preferences...so tell me which public goods he would spend his taxes on and why.

RGacky3 said:
This is exactly why you're dream didn't happen before public education, capitalists didn't come together and fund public schools.

It simply didn't happen.

Again and again, I'm not a libertarian. I'm not arguing that education should be completely privatized. I'm a pragmatarian...I'm arguing that people should be allowed to choose where their taxes go. If you want to argue that taxpayers aren't going to spend any taxes on public education...then clearly you believe that you know the true preferences of taxpayers. Therefore it should be really easy for you to tell me exactly which public goods 150 million taxpayers WILL spend their taxes on.

Tell me exactly which public goods they are going to place in their shopping carts. Tell me exactly which public goods they are going to exchange their hard earned money for. Is it possible that you don't know the answer? Is it possible that you don't know the true preferences of taxpayers?

RGacky3 · Jun 4, 2013

Xerographica said:
A minority of rich people? Just a few? Please be specific. If you were actually capable of thinking things through, then you would clearly see how ridiculous your arguments are. If only 10 rich people were willing to spend their taxes on a drug war, then obviously the drug war would not be considered a public good and those 10 rich people would not have the option to spend their taxes on it. Because if only 10 people benefit from a good then it can't be considered a PUBLIC good.

Rich people havea lot moer money to fund the drug war ... so if it's a public good, and more rich people want it funded, it gets funded, if a lot of people want it funded, but they are all poor, it doesn't get funded.

I'm assuming it's a public good.

Which is it? Probably not...or you have no idea? I asked you whether each country would spend the same exact amount of money on public education. In case you missed it, your argument is that the rich do not value public education...therefore, if you actually believe your own argument then why would any country spend any money on public education? Again we see your total failure to think things through.

Different countries have different class make ups so I can't answer that.

Do you think I'm you? Is my username "RGacky3"? Do you think I suffer from a fatal conceit? How the f am I supposed to know the true preferences of the poor? Are their preferences all the same? When poor Mexicans cross the border...do they all head to the same exact destination? In your hasty generalization mind they probably do.

Well, poor people buy more canned food than the rich, poor people more likely live in ghettos than the rich? Do you think that is because the "prefer" to live in ghettos than nice neighborhoods?

What's the reason for that?

An allocation of resources is efficient when the benefit for society is maximized. This is what free-trade is all about. I have a shortage of clothing and a surplus of food. You have a surplus of clothing and a shortage of food. I want more clothing and you want more food...so we trade. The allocation of resources becomes more efficient. We are both better off. Therefore, exchanges are mutually beneficial. If they aren't, then people can always try and find other people to trade with.

If the allocation of resources was perfectly efficiently...then nobody would trade. But people are always trading because the allocation can always be improved. Our circumstances are constantly changing. Life is dynamic and our preferences are not fixed in stone.

if that is the case then Capitalism is highly inefficient, since Capitalism is all about private profit not social benefit.

Trading IS a form allocation of resources ....

let's say everyone in the area wants a TV, but the rich people don't, guess what's gonna happen...nobody's getting a TV. Why not? Because only rich people have money. And only rich people have homes. And only rich people have cars. And only rich people have clothes. And only rich people have cell phones.

... Those are private commodities, not public services, and those people will probably get TV's if they can afford them ... since capitalists will produce for a profit ... If they can't afford them they arn't getting it ... what's your point here?

If consumers are willing to forego alternatives uses of their money, then the EPA will be funded. But if taxpayers aren't willing to forego alternatives uses of their own tax dollars, then the EPA should not be funded. Otherwise you're simply handing a blank check to the majority of citizens. This will certainly result in the inefficient allocation of resources. People will vote for a free lunch but this will inevitably result in a shortage of things that they value more than a free lunch. Why? Because we have finite resources. Using a resource for A means that it can't be used for B. Using a resource for a free lunch means that it can't be used for public healthcare or public education. Again with the opportunity cost concept you certainly fail to grasp.

the less mony you have the less money you have to fund things like the EPA, they have to survive, the more money people have the more they have to fund whatever they want, they dont' need it to survive.

Do you not understand that?

For a rich person to give more to something he doesn't need to forego almost anything, he can buy everything he wants and needs and give up nothing.

Most poor people cannot.

THAT is the differece.

I grasp it, you fail to grasp the idea that consumers have different purchasing power and thus different options.

The whole "free lunch" problem isn't really a problem, at least the more democratic a society is. People won't vote for a free lunch because they have to all live with the results of a shortage.

In your system, the ones with the economic power will give themselves free lunches as long as OTHER people have to live with the results, (negative externalities).

In a democratic system with one person one vote, it's much harder to do that.

Mr. Baker has to pay taxes, so if he doesn't spend his taxes on public education...then what would he spend his taxes on? C'mon, obviously you think you know Mr. Baker's true preferences...so tell me which public goods he would spend his taxes on and why.

Again and again, I'm not a libertarian. I'm not arguing that education should be completely privatized. I'm a pragmatarian...I'm arguing that people should be allowed to choose where their taxes go. If you want to argue that taxpayers aren't going to spend any taxes on public education...then clearly you believe that you know the true preferences of taxpayers. Therefore it should be really easy for you to tell me exactly which public goods 150 million taxpayers WILL spend their taxes on.

Tell me exactly which public goods they are going to place in their shopping carts. Tell me exactly which public goods they are going to exchange their hard earned money for. Is it possible that you don't know the answer? Is it possible that you don't know the true preferences of taxpayers?

I have no idea what Mr. Baker's preferenes are, since I don't know anything about him.

You still have totally ignored my public education and EPA issue, and the incentive problems they've brought up, isntead of asking inane questions why don't you ACTUALLY deal with the issues, and make the points, YOu can't obviously.

Public Education
1. People who are wealthy enough to afford private educaiton have no incentive to fund public education. (Thus they most likely wont).
2. People who are too poor to afford private education need public education.
3. Since those who are wealthier have more money to fund things and poorer people have much less, public education will be much less funded than needed, since poor people CANNOT fund public education by themselves, and richer people have no incentive to.
4. Public education doesn't get funded in your system, even if most people want it.

EPA.
1. Wealthy people living in an upper class area who own factories in a lower class area have an incentive to keep the EPA unfunded, since the EPA regulates their factories who make a profit for them.
2. Those who live in a lower class area want the EPA funded to keep their neighborhoods clean from pollution.
3. Since those who are wealthier have a lot more money to fund things and poorer people have much less, the EPA will not get funded since the rich have no incentive to fund it, infact they have a disincentive, and the poor simply cannot spare that much money to fund it themselves.
4. The EPA doesn't get funded in your system, even if most people want it.

Now, be an adult and DEAL with the issues, I'm not giong to play your sophistry games of asking inane quesions, throwing up red herrings and building strawmen, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you'll deal with the problems within your system like an adult and engage them.

Mach · Jun 4, 2013

RGacky3 said:
1. I don't understand you're question? I support progressive taxation ...

There were a few negatives in there, someone is confused. Specifically if Europe is more regressive in taxation as justification for providing so much welfare, why are you for progressivity, and not more regressive taxes? The position that it should be massively progressive while simultaneously a welfare state is absurd, and its the cause for such much political tension and absurdity...for good reason.

2. I don't think the poor or the rich should influence the goernment, EVERYONE should have the SAME influence no matter what their wealth, one man one vote, that's how it should work in a democracy.

That's outrageous. You should have little to no say in an industry you know nothing about, with no skin in the game, and no investment in your entire life's work in that industry, etc. Same influence = mob rule, and it's wrong, ethically, morally, by design. Government should have next to nothing to want to influence in the first place, and for those things it can be influenced on it should be transparent and hard to be corrupted. Just because the mob of dumb sheep want to take my rights would not in any reasonable way mean we should accommodate them. I would guess there are two major forms of influence, outright corruption, which you will not be solving, and efforts to care out exemptions to what is government interference in the marketplace. You solve both simultaneously by reducing the federal governments influence in the market, and their overall size and power. Any corruption is less important because they can't do as much with that corruption. The need to carve out exemptions and lobby policy with loopholes and other market distortions would be reduced if government stopped distorting the market so much in the first place. Is the point. Kids telling me what's what as far as government regulation goes, those motehr****ers can call me twenty years when they know their head from their junk. Same influence my ass.

Really, please get back to me on this. Someone who has invested 20 years in their business has far, far, far more to lose than some college slacker who believes he should have the same influence. Wrong, they have less to lose and more to gain, the business has everything to lose and is just trying to keep government from TAKING their gains. Same influence would be in reality the most distorted, imbalanced prospect you could come up with. The youth always love it though, just by voting and marching you can destroy what people spent a life time earning and saving....that's quite a rush isn't it?

imagep · Jun 4, 2013

RGacky3 said:
Rich people havea lot moer money to fund the drug war ... so if it's a public good, and more rich people want it funded, it gets funded, if a lot of people want it funded, but they are all poor, it doesn't get funded.

Great point. Generally, the wealthy have more power, and more influence in our government, thus, the wealthy tend to get things more their way. Every service and expenditure of the government is the result of what the wealthy desire - welfare, our tax system, the military, medicare, medicaid, any new national monument built and all the departments of government.

Xerographica · Jun 4, 2013

imagep said:
Great point. Generally, the wealthy have more power, and more influence in our government, thus, the wealthy tend to get things more their way. Every service and expenditure of the government is the result of what the wealthy desire - welfare, our tax system, the military, medicare, medicaid, any new national monument built and all the departments of government.

So would the wealthy have more or less power in a pragmatarian system?

Xerographica · Jun 4, 2013

RGacky3 said:
Rich people havea lot moer money to fund the drug war ... so if it's a public good, and more rich people want it funded, it gets funded, if a lot of people want it funded, but they are all poor, it doesn't get funded.

I'm assuming it's a public good.

Why would you assume it's a public good? In a pragmatarian system, voters would be in charge of determining whether something was a public good or not. Why would the public vote for a drug war to be a public good if they didn't benefit from it? If they did vote for the drug war, then why would they object if only a few wealthy people funded it?

RGacky3 said:
Different countries have different class make ups so I can't answer that.

Yet you are clearly arguing that public education and the EPA would be underfunded. If different countries have different class make ups, then wouldn't the amount of revenue that public education and the EPA received depend on the country? And wouldn't, according to your perspective, the countries that adequately funded public education and the EPA be more prosperous than the countries that underfunded these two public goods?

RGacky3 said:
Well, poor people buy more canned food than the rich, poor people more likely live in ghettos than the rich? Do you think that is because the "prefer" to live in ghettos than nice neighborhoods?

What's the reason for that?

Again, I don't know exactly what the poor prefer. But I know that everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Therefore, a poor person would prefer two cans of food for the price of one. Because of this, people who supply more for less end up with more of society's limited resources.

I want the poor to have more of the goods that they prefer. In order for this to happen, taxpayers have to be allowed to spend their taxes on whichever public goods they need more of. As a result of bottlenecks being eliminated, the poor, and everybody else, will get more bang for their buck.

RGacky3 said:
if that is the case then Capitalism is highly inefficient, since Capitalism is all about private profit not social benefit.

How can capitalism be inefficient when consumers only spend their money on goods which match their preferences? The inefficient allocation of resources is when resources are used to supply the wrong quantities of goods. Markets prevent this from happening because supplying the wrong quantities of goods will result in losses.

RGacky3 said:
Trading IS a form allocation of resources ....

Trading is how we allocate resources. If a trade is mutually beneficial then the allocation is efficient.

RGacky3 said:
... Those are private commodities, not public services, and those people will probably get TV's if they can afford them ... since capitalists will produce for a profit ... If they can't afford them they arn't getting it ... what's your point here?

My point is that consumers are the driving force in a market economy. But from your perspective, somehow the wealthy are the driving force. You fail to understand that wealth is a function of consumer satisfaction. Even Michael Moore understands this basic concept...

I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? - Michael Moore

In your absurd world, he's wealthy because he's wealthy. But in reality, he's wealthy because millions and millions of people like what he does with society's limited resources.

RGacky3 said:
the less mony you have the less money you have to fund things like the EPA, they have to survive, the more money people have the more they have to fund whatever they want, they dont' need it to survive.

Do you not understand that?

The amount of money you have may or may not be an accurate reflection of how well you are using society's limited resources. Maybe somebody is poor because of their own behavior...or maybe it's because of circumstances completely outside their control. What's important here is to give as many people as many different opportunities as possible. Opportunities are created by efficiently allocating society's resources. Opportunities are destroyed by wasting society's resources. Your system will destroy opportunities because it will misallocate resources. Therefore, your system will cause the poor the greatest harm.

RGacky3 said:
For a rich person to give more to something he doesn't need to forego almost anything, he can buy everything he wants and needs and give up nothing.

It doesn't matter whether a rich person can buy 10,000 mansions...the opportunity cost of each mansion will be one factory that can employ 100s or 1000s of people. Therefore, production is the opportunity cost of consumption.

RGacky3 said:
Most poor people cannot.

Poor people, just like rich people, have to decide between consumption and production. They have to decide between spending their time at work...or spending their time with their families. Whether you're rich or poor, there are always opportunity costs.

RGacky3 said:
I grasp it, you fail to grasp the idea that consumers have different purchasing power and thus different options.

How can I fail to understand that consumers have different levels of wealth? I grasp this concept. What you fail to grasp is that many consumers sometimes give their money to the same people. As a result, there will most certainly be disparities in wealth. Why not prevent consumers from giving their money to Michael Moore? Why not prevent them from giving him positive feedback? Because it would decrease societal benefit. Yet you think we increase societal benefit by taking money from Michael Moore and giving it to congresspeople to spend. That's the same exact thing as limiting how much positive feedback people can give to Michael Moore.

RGacky3 said:
The whole "free lunch" problem isn't really a problem, at least the more democratic a society is. People won't vote for a free lunch because they have to all live with the results of a shortage.

Seriously? You just finished arguing that people have different levels of wealth. So of course people will vote for a free lunch...because they won't see the connection between the shortage and their votes. Fiscal illusion is a direct consequence of having a small group of government planners determine how massive amounts of society's limited resources are allocated.

RGacky3 said:
In your system, the ones with the economic power will give themselves free lunches as long as OTHER people have to live with the results, (negative externalities).

Michael Moore would give himself a free lunch? If you can't be specific, then don't bother making the argument.

RGacky3 said:
In a democratic system with one person one vote, it's much harder to do that.

As was noted in Chapter 3, expressions of malice and/or envy no less than expressions of altruism are cheaper in the voting booth than in the market. A German voter who in 1933 cast a ballot for Hitler was able to indulge his antisemitic sentiments at much less cost than she would have borne by organizing a pogrom. - Geoffrey Brennan, Loren Lomasky Democracy and Decision

Altruism, envy, malice are cheaper in the voting booth because the money is taken from the pockets of other people. Markets work because you're only taking money out of your own pocket.

RGacky3 said:
I have no idea what Mr. Baker's preferenes are, since I don't know anything about him.

Are you kidding me? Mr. Baker is a taxpayer...and according to your argument...taxpayers are not going to pay for public education or environmental protection. Therefore, in your hasty generalization world, the only people who value public education and environmental education are the poor.

RGacky3 said:
You still have totally ignored my public education and EPA issue, and the incentive problems they've brought up, isntead of asking inane questions why don't you ACTUALLY deal with the issues, and make the points, YOu can't obviously.

Michael Moore is a taxpayer, and according to your ridiculous hasty generalizations, he wouldn't spend any of his money on public education or environmental protection.

Or maybe he's an exceptional taxpayer? Just how many exceptional taxpayers do you think there are?

RGacky3 · Jun 6, 2013

Mach said:
There were a few negatives in there, someone is confused. Specifically if Europe is more regressive in taxation as justification for providing so much welfare, why are you for progressivity, and not more regressive taxes? The position that it should be massively progressive while simultaneously a welfare state is absurd, and its the cause for such much political tension and absurdity...for good reason.?

What causes political tension is ALWAYS, class divides, not welfare states, austerity causes political tension, selling of the commons and so on, not economic equality.

That's outrageous. You should have little to no say in an industry you know nothing about, with no skin in the game, and no investment in your entire life's work in that industry, etc. Same influence = mob rule, and it's wrong, ethically, morally, by design. Government should have next to nothing to want to influence in the first place, and for those things it can be influenced on it should be transparent and hard to be corrupted. Just because the mob of dumb sheep want to take my rights would not in any reasonable way mean we should accommodate them. I would guess there are two major forms of influence, outright corruption, which you will not be solving, and efforts to care out exemptions to what is government interference in the marketplace. You solve both simultaneously by reducing the federal governments influence in the market, and their overall size and power. Any corruption is less important because they can't do as much with that corruption. The need to carve out exemptions and lobby policy with loopholes and other market distortions would be reduced if government stopped distorting the market so much in the first place. Is the point. Kids telling me what's what as far as government regulation goes, those motehr****ers can call me twenty years when they know their head from their junk. Same influence my ass.

Really, please get back to me on this. Someone who has invested 20 years in their business has far, far, far more to lose than some college slacker who believes he should have the same influence. Wrong, they have less to lose and more to gain, the business has everything to lose and is just trying to keep government from TAKING their gains. Same influence would be in reality the most distorted, imbalanced prospect you could come up with. The youth always love it though, just by voting and marching you can destroy what people spent a life time earning and saving....that's quite a rush isn't it

Who has more skin in the game, the person who if he looses his job him and his family will become homeless and go hungry? Or the person who if that one company goes under, or that guy gets fired, just has to re-invest, since he has investments all over the place and runs a conglomerate ....

This "skin the game" is nonsense, a person who put $10,000 his whole life savings in a retirement fund is much different who put $10,000 or a pittense of his billions in a little investment.

Same influence is democracy, one person one vote, if what your aksing for is that your influence on the state should depend on your wealth then your asking for plutocracy.

BTW, PROPERTY (beyond personal possession) IS NOT A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE, it only exists with state contract and law.

Eitherway, your missing the point of this discussion, we're talking about public services, at this point, not private industry.

Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs

Xerographica

RGacky3

fmw

RGacky3

fmw

imagep

Villiage Idiot

RGacky3

Xerographica

Xerographica

RGacky3

Xerographica

RGacky3

Xerographica

Mach

RGacky3

RGacky3

Mach

RGacky3

Xerographica

RGacky3

Mach

imagep

Villiage Idiot

Xerographica

Xerographica

RGacky3