No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Xerographica said:

The division of labor really isn't an argument against consumer choice.

Click to expand...

Except I said no such hing.

Xerographica said:

I have absolutely no problem with compulsory taxation.

Click to expand...

It's not simply a matter of some level of taxation needing to be compulsory. It's a matter of contributions to public goods needing to be compulsory. ie, you do not get to decide whether or how much of your tax monies contribute to some public good.

Xerographica said:

It has absolutely nothing to with how tight or loose the labor market is.

Click to expand...

Of course it does!

You're saying that hiring is zero-sum. The only way that would be possible is if the labor market is so tight, that the government could only hire a very strict number of employees.

"Normal" (and current) unemployment is around 5%, which means around 8 million people are officially looking for work. Millions more have part-time jobs, and are looking for full-time jobs. Millions more would love to move to the US to work.

There are cases where public and private sector employment are in competition. Contrary to your claims, that happens, wages go up, and everyone gets more creative and efficient. One example is discussed here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nst-the-private-sector-everybody-wins/387460/

If you're a programmer in the public sector you can't also be a programmer in the private sector. If you're a programmer for the DoD you can't also be a programmer for the EPA. If you're a programmer for Google you can't also be a programmer for Microsoft.

Click to expand...

So what?

If the military needs a programmer, they will hire programmers, or train enlistees. If the EPA needs to hire programmers, they'll hire programmers. If Google needs to hire more programmers, they will hire programmers.

If the labor market for programmers gets tight, then wages for those jobs increase, employers get resourceful, and sometimes workers get the message in time and start to retrain.

In fact, I'd say it would be beneficial to *cough* invest public funds in job retraining.

By the way, you do know that the same situation exists in the private sector, yes? According to you, it's an untenable situation for Google and Yahoo and AOL and Microsoft and a bunch of tech companies to all expand their workforces simultaneously. And yet, that certainly was the case for many years -- and still is. Go figure.

You can't explain the point of knowing the demand for Netflix? The demand for Netflix determines how many programmers it can compete away from other endeavors. If the demand for Netflix isn't known, then how can society know how many programmers Netflix should have?

Click to expand...

Society doesn't know.

Go ahead, tell me. How many programmers does Netflix need right now? Next week? 6 months from now? Should they look for work at Netflix itself, or Amazon's S3 facilities? What skills do they need? What programming languages should they know? How much experience is required for those jobs?

the_recruit said:

Except I said no such hing.

Click to expand...

the_recruit said:

experts serve an important function in guiding policy.

Click to expand...

A division of labor means that everybody is an expert in one area and not an expert in all the other areas. Again, a division of labor is not an argument against consumer choice.

the_recruit said:

It's not simply a matter of some level of taxation needing to be compulsory. It's a matter of contributions to public goods needing to be compulsory. ie, you do not get to decide whether or how much of your tax monies contribute to some public good.

Click to expand...

I already know that I can't choose where my taxes go. I'm arguing that I should be able to choose where my taxes go. Like I already explained in this thread, it's the only way that QIRE won't be violated.

Visbek said:

Go ahead, tell me. How many programmers does Netflix need right now? Next week? 6 months from now? Should they look for work at Netflix itself, or Amazon's S3 facilities? What skills do they need? What programming languages should they know? How much experience is required for those jobs?

Click to expand...

What's the point of knowing the demand for Netflix? If you can't explain something as simple as supply and demand... then please admit and acknowledge that you're really ignorant about economics.

Xerographica said:

A division of labor means that everybody is an expert in one area and not an expert in all the other areas. Again, a division of labor is not an argument against consumer choice.

Click to expand...

Stop being obtuse. I'm not arguing against 'consumer choice'. I'm arguing against the notion that laypeople (taxpayers) should make direct decisions regarding how tax money is spent - because they don't have the specialized knowledge to make such decisions.

Xerographica said:

I already know that I can't choose where my taxes go. I'm arguing that I should be able to choose where my taxes go. Like I already explained in this thread, it's the only way that QIRE won't be violated.

Click to expand...

Again you misunderstand me. I'm explaining to you why taxpayers should not be able to choose individually whether/how much of their tax money contributes to public goods (because - for the third time now - without compulsory contributions to said public goods, said public goods will be underfunded).

ttwtt78640 said:

The problem is that states, counties, cities and towns like "free" federal funding much more than they like raising their own taxes to fund those wonderful things.

Click to expand...

Very true which is why they will have to be gradually weaned off the federal teat.

the_recruit said:

Stop being obtuse. I'm not arguing against 'consumer choice'. I'm arguing against the notion that laypeople (taxpayers) should make direct decisions regarding how tax money is spent - because they don't have the specialized knowledge to make such decisions.

Click to expand...

I am arguing for consumer choice. So if you're not arguing against consumer choice then...

Let's try something different. Imagine if every single US citizen was a hard-core vegetarian. How much meat should be supplied? Now imagine if every single US citizen was a hard-core pacifist. How much defense should be supplied?

Clearly it wouldn't make any sense to supply meat to people who had absolutely no interest in it. Doing so would be a waste of valuable resources. By this same token, it would be a waste of valuable resources supplying defense to people who had absolutely no interest in it.

Of course you can argue that defense is necessary for our survival. But that would obviously be from your non-pacifist perspective. The trick to life is learning to step outside your perspective.

If people are free to choose where their taxes go... and it turns out that you want a lot more defense than everybody else does... then who are you to force everybody to conform to your wants? Why not simply move to a country that does supply your preferred level of defense? Same thing if it turns out that you want a lot less defense than everybody else does.

Seriously trip out guy and wrap your mind around the fact that you have absolutely no clue how much defense everybody truly wants. Your ignorance doesn't even bother you.

Are you familiar with the cave allegory? I'm Socrates trying to lead you out of the cave. Of course I can't promise that you'll be happy with the reality of other people's preferences for public goods. But are you necessarily happy with other people's preferences for private goods?

the_recruit said:

Again you misunderstand me. I'm explaining to you why taxpayers should not be able to choose individually whether/how much of their tax money contributes to public goods (because - for the third time now - without compulsory contributions to said public goods, said public goods will be underfunded).

Click to expand...

If people can choose where their taxes go... and the tax rate stays the same... then it's pretty impossible for all public goods to be underfunded. So if defense is underfunded... then logically one or more other public goods... such as public healthcare or welfare.... are going to be overfunded.

None of the tax dollars are going to stay in the pockets of taxpayers. All the tax dollars are going to be spent in the public sector. Then you'll see and know people's priorities. And then, and only then, can you tell people that their priorities are wrong.

AlbqOwl said:

Very true which is why they will have to be gradually weaned off the federal teat.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that we now have the major party for a bigger federal government and the major party for a huge federal government vying for control of the federal government that is a great plan.

Xerographica said:

What's the point of knowing the demand for Netflix? If you can't explain something as simple as supply and demand... then please admit and acknowledge that you're really ignorant about economics.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's pretty clear that I'm not the one lacking understanding here.

Competition for labor, and a lack of perfect information about job openings and required skills, is a normal part of any labor market.

The idea that we cannot increase government spending, because doing so will damage the private market for labor, is beyond absurd. Especially when we've been reducing the number of government employees for years.

You clearly don't understand the implications of your own argument. Sad!

ttwtt78640 said:

Except for the fact that we now have the major party for a bigger federal government and the major party for a huge federal government vying for control of the federal government that is a great plan.

Click to expand...

The wild card is a President and his team who actually want to reform government and make it work for the people again instead of just for itself. But with the Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, and the Left all opposed to that and attacking him on every front, whether he can get through that to accomplish something remains to be seen. Whether those of us who want him to succeed have the staying power to support him in the face of all that remains to be seen. If we falter, he can't succeed. If we are timid and hold back to avoid the difficulty of it, he can't succeed.

James972 said:

and to create it with the Constitution and then watch the USA become the greatest most saintly country in human history by far because of small govt.

Click to expand...

You mean wasteful and horribly funded, according to the data.

Your one-liner responses evidence your inability or unwillingness to really refute points and defend your own. If all you can do is re-iterate platitudes, then so be it.

Visbek said:

Sorry, but it's pretty clear that I'm not the one lacking understanding here.

Competition for labor, and a lack of perfect information about job openings and required skills, is a normal part of any labor market.

The idea that we cannot increase government spending, because doing so will damage the private market for labor, is beyond absurd. Especially when we've been reducing the number of government employees for years.

You clearly don't understand the implications of your own argument. Sad!

Click to expand...

It's easy enough to determine which one of us doesn't understand the implications of my own argument. If people could choose where their taxes go... what would happen to the tax rate?

Xerographica said:

It's easy enough to determine which one of us doesn't understand the implications of my own argument. If people could choose where their taxes go... what would happen to the tax rate?

Click to expand...

What would probably happen is what already happens: People would demand more benefits and services from the government than could be paid for by tax revenues.

Meanwhile, most Americans don't have the time and energy to pore over the list of all the federal programs. Nor is that a bad thing, because we are a nation of 319 million, and tracking that spending is a full-time job. That's one reason why we have elected officials with staffs, to do that for us.

More to the point: You still don't understand that federal spending and hiring is not a zero-sum game. Do you even understand what I mean by that? If so, they why don't you understand that the federal budget is not a zero-sum game?

Mach said:

Your one-liner responses evidence your inability or unwillingness to really refute points

Click to expand...

which point was not perfectly confuted????

the_recruit said:

you do not get to decide whether or how much of your tax monies contribute to some public good.

Click to expand...

why not??? That's the very idea of freedom. Every person should be free to decide how much to pay and for what. Why would you assume central govt Nazis would know better how much to spend and on what and therefore should be empowered to steal our money at gunpoint?

Visbek said:

What would probably happen is what already happens: People would demand more benefits and services from the government than could be paid for by tax revenues.

Click to expand...

So does the tax rate increase... decrease... or stay the same?

Visbek said:

Meanwhile, most Americans don't have the time and energy to pore over the list of all the federal programs.

Click to expand...

total BS of course. GOvt spends about $50,000 per household. Ask each family if they are getting $50,000 in value from liberals and whether they'd like get a fat refund for not funding the wasteful and harmful programs.

Xerographica said:

So does the tax rate increase... decrease... or stay the same?

Click to expand...

Dude.

If you are building up to what it says in your signature, then what you're suggesting is sheer insanity.

You'd have big states like New York, California and Florida dedicating huge amounts of federal tax dollars to local programs. (That is, if they could figure out which ones they are...)

You'd have people throwing millions of tax dollars at potato salad parties just because it's funny.

The poor would be pretty much screwed, because they don't have tax dollars to allocate.

The rich -- who already have incredibly disproportionate political power -- will basically have almost all the power now. They will pay almost nothing -- why would they? The end result will be, as discussed, massive shortfalls in revenues.

The average taxpayer doesn't have the time or energy to decide how to allocate tax dollars. There are 430 federal departments and agencies, and at least 1600 separate funding programs.

I mean, really. 40% of citizens can't be bothered to vote once every 4 years. You really think they're going to put in the effort to sort through 1,600 programs?

Oh, that's another advantage to the rich -- who can pay an accountant to spend a week poring over the list to find the handful of programs they want to fund.

And again, you are avoiding the key issue: Federal spending is NOT ZERO SUM. Thus, the entire premise of your first post is false.

Visbek said:

Federal spending is NOT ZERO SUM.[/B] Thus, the entire premise of your first post is false.

Click to expand...

it worse than zero sum actually. For example, govt taxes at gun point to spend money on assumption it can spend more wisely that owners of money when as a monopoly bureaucracy it cant so there is a net loss.

Visbek said:

And again, you are avoiding the key issue: Federal spending is NOT ZERO SUM. Thus, the entire premise of your first post is false.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to address the key issue but you keep avoiding my simple question. If people could choose where their taxes go... what would happen to the tax rate? Would it increase, decrease or stay the same?

Do you not understand the question?

Xerographica said:

I'm trying to address the key issue but you keep avoiding my simple question. If people could choose where their taxes go... what would happen to the tax rate? Would it increase, decrease or stay the same?

Do you not understand the question?

Click to expand...

I understand that question.

I answered that question.

Your signature also makes your agenda clear.

I also pointed out that your fundamental premise is flawed. When you understand that, let us know.

Ikari said:

If I’m thinking just of myself and that I’d like more X and I don’t care about Y, perhaps that makes sense. If I’m Netflix that probably doesn’t make sense and is not beneficial. Netflix has to care about the X and the Y because its subscriber base is more than one individual. You can say, well if enough people want Westerns and dictate their money be spent that way, then democracy in motion and they are appeasing their customers. But they are playing only to a subset, and the money they then have to spend on securing licenses may mean that they end up losing many more license agreements out of other genres and the people who enjoy those may end up so upset that they unsubscribe, thus costing Netflix money.

From Netflix’s perspective, what they want to know is the number of Westerns they need to secure to keep you from unsubscribing, anything else can then be used to ensure that other people who enjoy other genres also do not unsubscribe. Making themselves into a “market” per say may actually cause them to lose money. They try to aggregate buying decisions and purchasing power to ensure the most number of licenses and shows across the many genres to ensure that people keep paying their monthly bill. In essence, it’s your QIRE again. Where does Netflix reinvest in in order to keep profits high? It may not be where “market” incentives would drive it to.

Which is, in many ways, why government is not a market, why it is not a business, nor can it be taken for one.

Click to expand...

Or even better, Netflix is for net neutrality because it reduces their costs and puts the burden on everybody else.

Visbek said:

I understand that question.

I answered that question.

Your signature also makes your agenda clear.

I also pointed out that your fundamental premise is flawed. When you understand that, let us know.

Click to expand...

The OP didn't make my agenda clear? "How many places are missing a market? The public sector is missing a market. Taxpayers can't decide for themselves, with their own taxes, which trade-offs are acceptable."

If there was a market in the public sector, then congress would still be in charge of the tax rate. The difference is that taxpayers would be in charge of funding congress. So congress would lose funding if taxpayers weren't happy with the tax rate.

I'm sure that you've heard the expression... as happy as a kid in a candy store. The kid is so happy because, thanks to consumer choice, there are lots of affordable products that closely match his preferences.

If people can choose where their taxes go... then there would essentially be two stores... a private store and a public store. Logically, the happier a consumer is in one of those stores, the more money that they'll want to spend in it. If consumers are happier in the public sector then they'll want to spend more money in the public sector and they'll want the tax rate to be higher. The private sector would shrink and the public sector would expand.

My theory is that honesty is the best policy. Because... producers really are't mind-readers. It should be pretty clear that consumers are going to be more honest in the public sector. It really won't be "one-price-fits-all". The amount of money that people will pay for goods will accurately reflect their true valuations. This means that the supply in the public sector will be closer to consumers' preferences. So the tax rate will go up. Eventually we'll spend all our money in the public sector.

With that in mind, this statement of yours... "you are avoiding the key issue: Federal spending is NOT ZERO SUM"... is entirely nonsensical. With my system eventually all we're going to have is government spending. Therefore, don't argue at me like I'm trying to deprive the government of funding.

Northern Light said:

It's an old paradigm that if someone gains another person has to lose. Take your example of the arts. You're completely segregating artists from the rest of society, when in fact the creative class are needed in order to innovate. Someone who is painting pictures may also be hired to help create innovative gaming environments, for example. The very systems we use on a daily basis, like computers, have software environments that were conceived of by artists.

The whole premise is too simplistic. The government is not a market and shouldn't be considered one. Programs aren't just funded based on demand or immediate utility.

Click to expand...

This is so simplistic as well. The arts will exist without Government support especially when the budget its less then $170m a year. Rather what we are seeing at the in the art world is less then 33% of Americans actually do activity related to art funded by NEA.

The very systems we use today weren't paid for by NEA, either.

What if that $170m a year went to SCHIP or Medicare or whatever Government program? Which one has more value for tax payers?

faithful_servant said:

Really?? Two more punches on my New York Sub Shop punch card and I get a free sandwich. YAY for a free lunch!!!!

Click to expand...

and you over paid for your other sandwhiches to get it. Welcome to a marketing scam.