Author Topic: Wealth distribution  (Read 7109 times)

Re: Re:
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2013, 11:58:35 PM »
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Quote from: "AxisMundi"

Allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go will reveal what they are willing to pay for government regulations.  The demand for regulations will determine the supply of regulations.  That's how we'll ensure that we'll have an optimal amount of rules.  With the optimal amount of rules we'll maximize freedom and minimize the amount of people digging through garbage cans.

This premise of your argument falls apart once you realize that individuals have no clue what is best for them. The government is not omniscient about what people need, no, but they are an organized group that, at the very least, has more insight into what people's needs on a whole actually are. You don't seem to share this line of thinking because the word "needs" does not even process in your head it appears. Your argument only makes sense if there are only "wants" that our money and taxes go towards, and there are no needs.

 Let's say that we keep a progressive tax rate, but instead of having your taxes simply be "x" amount going toward the govt., which then decides to allocate the pool of resources, let's say you can fill out a form and send your tax money to whichever programs you would like to support. I'm assuming this is the kind of thing you are talking about in regards to fixing the preference revelation problem, which is at least how it sounded in your blog. This is already much smarter than how most right wing economists would lay it out, who would prefer if there wasn't a "tax pool" that had an amount you had to pay. But would rather the person be able to choose whether to spend any at all on public goods.

Anyways, say we as individuals just decide to allocate how much we already would have spent on taxes anyways, to particular areas we deem fit, what might happen? The first problem is the free rider problem. Someone pays their $30 for the EPA to get support, but another person doesn't, yet they each get the same benefit. That's bullshit.

Second, you're expecting way, WAY too much from people to actually sit down and intelligently try and allocate resources. A person could have logical fallacies in their head that guide their process, which inevitably leads to the wrong choices. For instance, many people suffer from the fundamental attribution error, and don't quite understand causal responsibility, so they would likely just cut ANY AND ALL tax support that would go towards people other than those like themselves. They wouldn't pay for school support because they aren't in school. They wouldn't pay for certain regulations because either that regulation hinders them (for good reason) or they are not affected either way.

You give the example of two kids, one throwing lemons at cars and one selling them. But is this supposed to be glorified? I believe in the no-harm principle. Any action or inaction that causes more harm on a macro scale (taking into account means and ends) should not be allowed. Why should we allow people to make harmful choices whenever it infringes on people's *needs?* Granted, if a choice infringes on a person's wants, it's a different story. Happiness and how we find it is subjective, so I am completely libertarian when it comes to our expendable income. But our needs must be distinguished, which is something libertarians never seem to be capable of.

You at least agree with me that regulation/rules are a good thing for society to have, but that we need to be able to know if the ends justify the means for any given policy. If we give people choice votes for their taxes, I can picture a great deal of things that they would stop supporting. This may be due to preference, but it may also be due to ignorance or even apathy. There's only so much time in the day and an individual can be vigilant about so much. This is why I side with the government in determining our needs. They have a division of labor set up to explore such ideas that goes well beyond an individual's experiences. The individual's experience could lead them to saying "I don't have time or care for this, I'll just pile the money onto one thing that sounds nice and go home." There are also things that the majority would support that indisputably cause more harm than good. This is something I'm very sensitive to as a psychologist. So many people have the fundamental attribution error going on in their heads, that they likely have the attitude of letting people make their own choices in everything, and if severe harm results they just blame the victim. It's a fallacy because it doesn't understand how external factors are responsible for people's brains, rather than the individuals themselves. Nature and nurture, genes and experience, act as the catalysts, but people still are content to blame the victims, and develop a just-world hypothesis of not caring about anyone down on luck. This attitude, when taken into the chosen tax example, would quite clearly lead to more objective harm as people only care about themselves and those in similar situations.

I think the main problem is you are comparing utility maximization on the real market in terms of how people use their expendable income to have fun, and conflating that with what we as a society absolutely MUST have to function. The government knows nothing about what makes us happy as individuals, so they should stay out of our decisions in terms of how we spend disposable income or what we do in our free time. The government has some knowledge and ideas about what a society's needs are, which is pieced together from a variety of components. There's academic economic studies and research. There's moral implications that stem from psychology/neuroscience (no just-world/free will is an illusion). And there's a variety of cause/effect relationships that are researched which can provide insight into what outcomes will occur on a *macro* level if a law or something is changed.

Putting those onto the layman is a pretty bad idea from my standpoint. The layman doesn't satisfy the division of labor. Lay people are not economists, their ideas about the economy are either culturally conditioned or armchair ruminations about what they think makes sense. Lay people don't understand counter-intuitive aspects of cognitive psychology; see how religion persists to this day. See how they still somehow think things like your own beliefs or even your sexual preferences are somehow "choices," and it's no wonder they would extend that train of thought to think being in the upper .01% or not would likewise be a choice, and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to blame you for whatever predicament you end up in. And lay people don't have much, if any, research into understanding what changes occur on a macro level if a certain law is implemented or revoked. This is why things like the gun debate exist. Nobody knows outside of personal experience or "party line/brainwashing articles" which stimuli predict what. Personal experience doesn't show what happens on the macro level, as a general rule. It shows what happened to you once, and is likely to be wrong. There's also, again, armchair ruminations about what a person's intuitive ideas are on the subject, but these are extremely likely to be flawed. People use the term common sense to defend their intuitive rationalizations, but everyone's sense of intuition is different. One person thinks one thing makes sense, and another person thinks the opposite. And understand a cause/effect relationship on a macro level is not going to lend itself to common sense thinking. For instance: "I was spanked and I turned out fine", or "My parents never spanked me and I turned out fine." I'd trust a more scientific approach that studies what is, and now what we think to be so. Let's face it, common sense has been wrong so many times in the past. And what might people be relying on when they vote for the general public's needs? Their blanket intuitions and experiences, with maybe a slight piece of the puzzle taken from their own area of expertise.

Government certainly is not omniscient, and in some issues they may be just as clueless as the dumbass citizens, but the division of labor that gains expertise in different avenues (which turn around and act as advisers), the goal-oriented nature of trying to make policies that support a populace on a macro level rather than individuals who may fall prey to the "good for me, bad for all" problems, and otherwise just more big-picture thinking and a focus on the entire equation of people's well-being rather than utility maximazation on an individual level (which is evil because it just throws people's well-being to nature's whim) all makes me put more trust in a govt than solitary citizens.

Re: Re:
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2013, 01:42:52 PM »
Quote from: "NatsuTerran"
This premise of your argument falls apart once you realize that individuals have no clue what is best for them. The government is not omniscient about what people need, no, but they are an organized group that, at the very least, has more insight into what people's needs on a whole actually are. You don't seem to share this line of thinking because the word "needs" does not even process in your head it appears. Your argument only makes sense if there are only "wants" that our money and taxes go towards, and there are no needs.
If you go to a restaurant with a child...if they could order for themselves perhaps they would just order dessert...so you order for them.  But are taxpayers children?  Are taxpayers the least responsible people in our society?  They became taxpayers by consistently making irresponsible decisions?  

If society maximizes its benefits by having elected personal shoppers in the public sector...then there is no preference revelation problem and we would maximize our benefit by having personal shoppers in the private sector as well.  Why?  Because, just like God, they know our preferences better than we do.    

The market works because whether or not a producer truly knows what's best for me is ultimately up to me.   I get the last word.  I have the freedom to say "no thanks" to the people who try and sell me things that they are certain that I "need".  In other words, the market works because it's all about consumer sovereignty.  

Here I am trying to sell you consumer sovereignty and here you are saying "no thanks".  Clearly you value being able to say "no thanks" and clearly you have no idea how important easy "entry" and "exit" are to determining the most beneficial uses of society's limited resources.  

Is pragmatarianism the crazy train?  Should you have the freedom to decide whether you ride it or not?  Is this the only crazy train?  Does the private sector somehow have more crazy trains than the public sector?   Is war ever a crazy train?  

Quote from: "NatsuTerran"
Anyways, say we as individuals just decide to allocate how much we already would have spent on taxes anyways, to particular areas we deem fit, what might happen? The first problem is the free rider problem. Someone pays their $30 for the EPA to get support, but another person doesn't, yet they each get the same benefit. That's bullshit.
The free-rider problem is people simply trying to get the most bang for their buck...aka utility maximization.  It's logical that we all want to pay the least amount of money for the goods/services that we value.  That's why we shop around for the best deals.  If, rather than give their $30 to the EPA, a taxpayer gives it to public healthcare, then clearly they derive more value from increasing the supply of healthcare.  They think public healthcare is a better deal than public protection of the environment.  Maybe they're making a mistake... and maybe they know something that you don't.  

Markets allow resources to flow to where they create the most value simply because we have the freedom to spend our time/money on the things that we value most.  In other words, markets give us the freedom to communicate what our priorities are.  Resources cannot be efficiently allocated without this information.  You think government planners have access to this information...and/or their information is superior...and this faulty thinking is directly responsible for the greatest man made disasters throughout history.  

Quote from: "NatsuTerran"
Second, you're expecting way, WAY too much from people to actually sit down and intelligently try and allocate resources. A person could have logical fallacies in their head that guide their process, which inevitably leads to the wrong choices. For instance, many people suffer from the fundamental attribution error, and don't quite understand causal responsibility, so they would likely just cut ANY AND ALL tax support that would go towards people other than those like themselves. They wouldn't pay for school support because they aren't in school. They wouldn't pay for certain regulations because either that regulation hinders them (for good reason) or they are not affected either way.
A "mistake" diminishes your influence over how society's limited resources are used.  Society generally considers it a "mistake" to drop out of school.  Why?  Because you'll earn less and earning less diminishes your influence over how society's resources are used.  Do some people make more mistakes than other people?  Obviously.  So why would we want people who make the most mistakes to have more influence?  Why would we want to send more of society's limited resources the wrong direction?  We don't...which is why we use our hard earned dollars to reward the people who are using society's limited resources in ways that maximize our benefit.      

Quote from: "NatsuTerran"
You give the example of two kids, one throwing lemons at cars and one selling them. But is this supposed to be glorified? I believe in the no-harm principle. Any action or inaction that causes more harm on a macro scale (taking into account means and ends) should not be allowed. Why should we allow people to make harmful choices whenever it infringes on people's *needs?* Granted, if a choice infringes on a person's wants, it's a different story. Happiness and how we find it is subjective, so I am completely libertarian when it comes to our expendable income. But our needs must be distinguished, which is something libertarians never seem to be capable of.
Eh?  The  point of the example was to illustrate that there are numerous ways of using the same resource.  Clearly some ways are more beneficial than other ways.  There is a continuum...that runs from the least beneficial use all the way to the most beneficial use.  The market works because we all can use our dollars to communicate which uses benefit us the most.  That's the only way producers can truly know which uses are the most beneficial.  Is it glorious to use society's limited resources in their most beneficial ways?  Well...yeah.  Because there's nothing glorious, or beneficial, about wasting society's limited resources.  

Quote from: "NatsuTerran"
You at least agree with me that regulation/rules are a good thing for society to have, but that we need to be able to know if the ends justify the means for any given policy. If we give people choice votes for their taxes, I can picture a great deal of things that they would stop supporting. This may be due to preference, but it may also be due to ignorance or even apathy. There's only so much time in the day and an individual can be vigilant about so much. This is why I side with the government in determining our needs. They have a division of labor set up to explore such ideas that goes well beyond an individual's experiences. The individual's experience could lead them to saying "I don't have time or care for this, I'll just pile the money onto one thing that sounds nice and go home." There are also things that the majority would support that indisputably cause more harm than good. This is something I'm very sensitive to as a psychologist. So many people have the fundamental attribution error going on in their heads, that they likely have the attitude of letting people make their own choices in everything, and if severe harm results they just blame the victim. It's a fallacy because it doesn't understand how external factors are responsible for people's brains, rather than the individuals themselves. Nature and nurture, genes and experience, act as the catalysts, but people still are content to blame the victims, and develop a just-world hypothesis of not caring about anyone down on luck. This attitude, when taken into the chosen tax example, would quite clearly lead to more objective harm as people only care about themselves and those in similar situations.
Again and again, rather than making the mistake of dropping out of school...you stayed in school to become a psychologist.  You gave up momentary pleasure for future benefit and your income reflects how much other people value how you are using society's limited resources.  And how you spent your taxes would reflect your valuable and unique perspective on where there's the most room for improvement in the public sector.  

So why would you make responsible decisions in the private sector but not in the public sector sector?  Do you have split personality disorder?  Are you Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?  You know the difference between wants/needs when it comes to your "private" dollars but as soon as you have to decide how to spend your "public" dollars Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs goes right out the window?  In the private sector your locus of control is internal...but in the public sector it suddenly becomes external?  Your self-efficacy dissolves?  Fine, just like you're more than welcome to put your own life in God's hands, you're certainly more than welcome to put your own life in congress's hands.  Be my guest.  But please be respectful enough to allow me to make that decision for myself.  Let me decide for myself whether I'm a believer or an atheist.

There's no heaven...but heaven on earth is simply a matter of having the freedom to spend our own time/money on the things that make earth a closer match to our own perspectives on what heaven would be like.  Each spending decision is an attempt to bring the two into closer alignment.  The more you take away people's spending decisions...the more earth becomes the opposite of heaven.  

To make a long story short...there is no optimal without you.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Sal1981

(No subject)
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2013, 06:34:29 PM »
I don't live in the U.S. but in an European nation. The wealth (inequal) distribution has been affecting the economies of the whole world, since economies nowadays, for the most part, (barring a certain Stalinist regime) cross borders, barring whatever protectionism which exists (tariffs or whatever). Here the story repeats itself, wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, leaving the majority scraping to get by.

---

Me? I'm against the whole concept of money. Ideally there shouldn't even be any hoarding of wealth, but since people being people, scrounge to themselves whatever they can.

It should be towards a more old concept: bartering for goods and services, in the very least. No money, just whatever people wish to barter for. Ideally, money should just be a middleman for bartering; a promise to redeem it later for a goods or service. But this clearly isn't how it works, currently.

That's why I've I subscribe, in part, to the Technocrats vision of wealth. That we calculate the energy, the Joules, produced and socialistically distribute credits based on net energy production to the population. This changes the game of wealth entirely.

It's not that complex, basically we calculate how much energy we produce and use, and designate surplus energy as a marker for wealth. The calculation itself would take some serious number crunching (how much does a nuclear reactor produce, how much crop yield is there, that sorta thing), but would at most be more or less an estimate on how much energy is available to us.

Here's the ringer, credits expire. Since energy isn't some tangible thing, it would be annual. You'd get credits based on net production divided by the number of population. It would serve as money traditionally, but since it expires, no meaningful hoarding of credits could take place. Second, credits are assigned each to a certain citizen, so stealing credits becomes meaningless. It's not perfect, some flaws could be bartering credits for some other valuable (land or gold or whatever) and barter back after an expiration date.

There's a shitload more to Technocracy, and I'm merely scratching the surface of how credits would work.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

(No subject)
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2013, 06:58:20 PM »
I'm not going to respond point by point, but there are a couple things that I think you are seriously unable to comprehend.

"If you go to a restaurant with a child...if they could order for themselves perhaps they would just order dessert...so you order for them. But are taxpayers children? Are taxpayers the least responsible people in our society? They became taxpayers by consistently making irresponsible decisions? "

Libertarians always seem incapable of understanding things in a grey area. Let's look at some choice words here.

"are taxpayers children?" -Implying they are equivalent to children in terms of understanding.
"are taxpayers the LEAST responsible?" - Again, a statement of absolutes.
"became taxpayers by.. making irresponsible decisions?" Assuming that making responsible decisions makes you *responsible* in all aspects.

You really didn't understand what I said. There is not a "responsible" person and "irresponsible" person. There is a gradient. Children are not very knowledgeable about their needs, as you acknowledged. Likewise, we do not give them very many responsibilities. Adults can be said to be more responsible, but this does NOT extend to an absolute that they can therefore handle an infinite supply of responsibilities. They could become taxpayers by being responsible about making decisions *in that regard.* But they could be irresponsible in other areas of life that are crucially important. Just like a scientist could no a lot about their field but be very ignorant about other aspects of life that impact them. I am merely pointing out that there is no magical change in children and adults in terms of capability to be responsible in their decisions. It slowly adapts and shifts towards what they are capable of. I believe in holding individual burdens in check by the government.

Also, you've got to stop making "God" analogies. I find quite a bit in common with religion and libertarianism, notably the notion of free will and unlimited capabilities of individuals. But I don't mention anything about it.

"A "mistake" diminishes your influence over how society's limited resources are used. Society generally considers it a "mistake" to drop out of school. Why? Because you'll earn less and earning less diminishes your influence over how society's resources are used. Do some people make more mistakes than other people? Obviously. So why would we want people who make the most mistakes to have more influence? "

I really, really don't comprehend this part at all. And that really speaks to me as to how different our ways of thinking truly are. How does a mistake diminish your influence? How are people who make the most mistakes going to have more influence? Is this suggesting that lower income people would, under liberalism, have more money to voice their opinion over? Are you honestly insinuating that lower income people are "higher mistake makers?" and that higher income people are "lower mistake makers?" That's just sickeningly wrong. Someone has to fill the low tier jobs, and lower tier work does not at all reflect more mistakes. Or are you trying to say people who make mistakes would die off somehow, and fulfill a sickening goal of natural selection? Completely ignoring the moral issues, it wouldn't work because taxes go to public sector goals, which can turn around and bite anyone if they aren't fulfilled. But again, I really don't even understand what you were saying so my pre-rebuttals could be off the mark.


"So why would you make responsible decisions in the private sector but not in the public sector sector?"

I just explained this. What is so hard to understand about responsibility NOT being an on/off switch? Seriously this is getting aggravating. It's as simple as there being A LOT to know when it comes to making decisions in the public sector. You just COMPLETELY IGNORED the entire paragraph that you were rebutting. I went on and on about how, on the macro scale, there is a LOT of stuff to be vigilant about. Stuff that most Americans are ill-equipped to deal with not because we are irresponsible but because we are only able to be responsible about SO MUCH. There isn't an on/off switch, stop thinking in absolutes like a child. People have a limit to how many burdens can be placed on them. I make better decisions as they apply to my life because those decisions 1. Are easier for me to grasp as they directly relate to me, and 2. Don't apply to my needs on a macro scale which would require a much greater deal of foresight and exploration of a variety of subjects in order to comprehend.

"There's no heaven...but heaven on earth is simply a matter of having the freedom to spend our own time/money on the things that make earth a closer match to our own perspectives on what heaven would be like. Each spending decision is an attempt to bring the two into closer alignment. The more you take away people's spending decisions...the more earth becomes the opposite of heaven. "

And it's things like this that make right-wing economics synonymous with a business-worshiping, money-grubbing cult. Well-being is the only thing that matters. Believe it or not, a boosted economy is not a straight line answer to getting there. You could use your money in ways that might make you think you will be happier, but overall it makes you less happy. And again, you are ONLY looking at luxury and not necessity. It's like you see all money as expendable income, and don't assume that there must be a safety net that you should not go under. Even your example of mistakes had to deal with money, in terms of dropping out of school. That's not the kind of thing I had in mind at all. I can't further discuss this unless you actually weigh a sense of collective morals alongside a boosted GDP.

(No subject)
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2013, 08:20:01 PM »
NatsuTerran, right...a scientist knows a lot about his specific field but is ignorant of most other fields.  This is the division of labor concept.  But it's logically absurd to make the giant leap from the division of labor concept to a command economy...or as I refer to it as..."non sequitur economics".  The scientist primarily knows about rocket science...therefore...an elected official should decide how the rocket scientist spends his money?  The elected official should determine exactly how much money the rocket scientist spends on doctors, lawyers, housing, food, clothing, travel and entertainment?  That's absurd.  The market works because it's up to the scientist to decide for himself exactly how much of his own money he spends on products/services.  What's so difficult to understand about supply and demand?  

Regarding morality...do you think Mr. Scientist here has no moral code?  Is he completely amoral?  Is that why allowing him to choose where his taxes go somehow diminishes the influence of society's collective morals?  How can you have ethical consumerism if people aren't given the freedom to shop for themselves?  Pragmatarianism would produce far superior results because it would incorporate the true weight of everybody's morals.  

If you think a war is morally superior, then you'd have the opportunity to put your taxes where your morals were.  If you thought that a war was morally objectionable...then you'd have the freedom to boycott it.  What's difficult to understand about the importance of ethical consumerism?  

Regarding mistakes...how do you go from some people making more mistakes than other people to eugenics?  If you quit your day job and go to Hollywood to become an actor...would it be a "mistake"?  If it was a "mistake"...as determined by consumers...then you should be taken out of the gene pool?  Can you construct a more ludicrous straw man?    

In case you missed it...I'm not a libertarian...I'm a pragmatarian.  My goal isn't to kick most of the responsibilities of the government over to the private sector.  My goal isn't to decrease the amount of taxes that people pay.  My goal is simply to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.  Unlike yourself, I don't see people as liberals or conservatives...people's preferences/concerns/interests aren't black and white...they are shades of grey.  If taxpayers were allowed to shop for themselves then the supply of public goods would conform to the incredible diversity of people's true preferences.

Just like Mr. Scientist doesn't like wasting his money on defective products in the private sector...he wouldn't like wasting his tax dollars on defective goods/services in the public sector.  Whether we're talking about helping the poor or protecting the environment...consumers want results.  When they can shop for themselves they choose to pay the people who use society's limited resources to produce the best results.  What's so difficult to understand about how markets function as an essential feedback mechanism?  

In case you missed it...the question we're trying to answer here is how should we use society's limited resources.  Markets give consumers the freedom to support the producers who provide the best answers.  Non sequitur economies produce absurd results simply because consumers aren't given the freedom to spend their money on the products/services that most closely match their preferences.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(No subject)
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2013, 10:20:25 PM »
Unregulated free markets... the lie sold by to rich to the stupid... and defended by the gullible.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: Wealth distribution
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2013, 10:51:13 PM »
Ehem...
A friend just gave me this t-shirt..

I'd say it applies here. :-k
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

(No subject)
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2013, 05:02:17 AM »
Quote from: "Davka"
History tells us that whenever the vast majority of wealth/power is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority, the majority suffer as a result. No amount of free-market bullshit can change that.

And then you end up with "job creators" like Walmart paying their staff peanuts and expecting government welfare to pick up the slack.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

(No subject)
« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2013, 06:30:24 AM »
Well I see little has changed in the years I've been away.  :)
"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes also into you." ~F. Nietzsche (1844-1900)

Offline zarus tathra

Re: Wealth distribution
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2013, 01:08:37 PM »
History shows that the rise of mass warfare coincided with the rise of republican government, that democracy coincides with increased government control over the lives of the populace. It was not until the French Revolution came along that the government was bold enough to destroy the institutions that stood in the way of truly absolutist government. Notice how there wasn't a Napoleon until after the Revolution? That's not a mistake.

Read "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" and anything by Alexis De Tocqueville.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Offline Colanth

Re: Wealth distribution
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2013, 11:32:28 PM »
Julius Caesar?  Nero?  Absolutist government isn't a new idea.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Offline zarus tathra

Re: Wealth distribution
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2013, 08:30:25 AM »
Julius Caesar advocated massive grain distribution programs. He was a left-wing dictator. The Roman Empire had more than a million living on government food near the end of its life.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Re:
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2013, 05:06:48 PM »
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Max Borders posted a critique of this video over at FEE...You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  Here's the comment that I shared...

Imagine the exact same video but with the word "wealth" or "money" or "income" replaced with "skills" or "talent" or "ability". In a group of 100 people, a few people are going to be a couple standard deviations from the norm. They are going to be either really good looking or really ugly...really tall or really short...really intelligent or really stupid...really talented or really untalented.

The distribution of skills is essential to understanding the most important question: how should we use society's scarce resources?  No matter how you spin it...there's always going to be some people who are going to come up with far better answers. But unlike in the public sector, in the private sector each and every one of us has the freedom to dollar vote for the people who provide the best answers.

For example, imagine there's one kid who throws lemons at passing cars...and another kid who sets up a lemonade stand. They are both answering the question of how society's limited resources should be used.  The market works because we, the people, can use our own dollars to indicate which answer benefits us the most. The result is a distribution of resources that maximizes the amount of benefit we derive from society's limited resources.

On this blog entry...You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login...I shared over 50 relevant passages.  

If you're an advocate of free-markets and had to pick one passage to share with a liberal...which one would you choose? Here's the one passage that I would share...

Quote
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you're a liberal and had to pick one passage that you disagreed with the most...which passage would you pick?

Who is arguing "skills"? Or banning all in equity? Not me. But it is bullshit to argue that the private sector cannot be as abusive as a political party or a religion, all are run by humans and subject to corruption.

If you think the free market is so damned good without government ask the Bangladesh factory workers who died last month. Ask the Chinese sweat shop workers who are bullied by both their government and big business into working 16 hour days 6 days a week for almost nothing.

I really get sick of both the left and right missing the bigger picture. ANY ANY ANY monopoly of power will lead to abuse. I am for a free market, not a free for all market. Ayn Rand economics is as bad as Stalin's economics.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Wealth distribution
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2013, 05:10:45 PM »
Oh and when a "lefty" like me quotes a billionaire like Nick Hanour who says "More money in the worker's pockets is better for everyone". And when I point out companies like COSTCO who pay livable wages and allow unions, I get no credit.

It is a bullshit lie that the left is against a free market. We are against abuse of power and monopolies. Our wage gap is killing us and our economy is nothing but a race to the bottom.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Re:
« Reply #44 on: June 18, 2013, 03:59:56 AM »
Quote from: "Brian37"
Who is arguing "skills"? Or banning all in equity? Not me. But it is bullshit to argue that the private sector cannot be as abusive as a political party or a religion, all are run by humans and subject to corruption.
And who is arguing that the private sector is perfect?  In case you missed it, I'm a pragmatarian...not an anarcho-capitalist.  

Quote from: "Brian37"
If you think the free market is so damned good without government ask the Bangladesh factory workers who died last month. Ask the Chinese sweat shop workers who are bullied by both their government and big business into working 16 hour days 6 days a week for almost nothing.
Again...I'm a pragmatarian...not an anarcho-capitalist.  

Quote from: "Brian37"
I really get sick of both the left and right missing the bigger picture. ANY ANY ANY monopoly of power will lead to abuse. I am for a free market, not a free for all market. Ayn Rand economics is as bad as Stalin's economics.
Yeah, I also hate it when people on the left and right miss the big picture...which is why I'm a pragmatarian.  

So the question is...why aren't you a pragmatarian?  Why don't you want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go?  Is it because you've never heard of the preference revelation problem?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk