General economics discussion

#51
#51
nbakerld said:
Yes.

Basically, as long as the Federal Reserve is the lender of last resort and there are guarantees from FDIC, the risks and losses will be transferred to the taxpayer. Ron Paul doesn't like that last part.
Click to expand...


That's just the beginning of it.

The BIS (nazi banking) is the big dog and when they have their meetings, the head of the Fed doesn't attend all their meetings but is informed of BIS decissions and advised how to proceed with economic policies.

Add to that the fact that the lender of last resort to the World Bank and the IMF is the Federal Reserve and the American taxpayer is responsible for all those debts and you start to get the picture that the American citizen is relegated to peon status and the that he is the ultimate person who is responsible for those squandered monies.

There are other aspects that are adverse to the average American citizen but why go into that if you can't at first understand the above?


milohimself said:
Whoa dude, got your tin foil helmet on? This current education system we have, which came to be many generations after the time of Marx, up until forty years ago was a shining beacon for the rest of the world. I can name you any one of thousands of American individualist mavericks that are a product of American public education, went to public primary school, public secondary school and attended a public university.

There is a world of difference between the gsvol-esque Marxist paranoia in that post and the reality that our education system has been stagnant for forty years and produced many-a po' folk. Indoctrination, my ass.
Click to expand...

What a load of utter crappola. You trying to put a tinfoil hat on his post illustrates his point.

In 1905 JD Rockefeller had a study done to see how higher edeucation in America could be dumbed down and from that study, the results have been outstanding and you are a prime example of it's success.

progressingamerica: Who founded Fabian Socialism in the United States?

.....but Fabians in America would go on to have influence in at least two different Presidential Administrations. Walter Lippmann, who served in Woodrow Wilson's administration, was a Fabian. And Stuart Chase, who was a member of Franklin D Roosevelt's "Brain Trust" was also a Fabian.
----------------------------------

As a side note,(I know there's a lot of information here, but I hope some of you are following the links and the information bread crumbs) this explains why William Ayers decided to make the classroom the frontline of his revolution. He learned it from his predecessors.
Click to expand...

wolfsheepfabian.jpg

The Fabian Socialist shield.

The reasoning behind the wolf in sheeps clothing symbol was that every day people couldn't understand so they would be deceived into believing into following the socialist agenda which ultimately is a renewal of feudalism.

I submit that is what has happened to you and thusly you have become what some call a 'useful idiot.'

You illustrate that not only by your posts but by the blatently unfair way in which you monitor this board.
 
#53
#53
NEOCON said:
didn't realize it was gun point.

I fall under a very, very small segment of the population in my beliefs though that places me at odds with almost all parties. I believe anyone who gets up, works 40 hours, and does everything they can to survive should be given basic rights like health care.
Click to expand...

What happens if you don't pay what the government says you owe them?

Nobody has a "right" to anybody else's money. You have a right to free speech, expression, religion, a trial by jury, etc. You don't have the right to petition the government to take somebody else's money and give it to you.
 
#54
#54
How is that essentially any different from defense funding? There are millions of people with net zero or even less tax liability, yet if you have any federal tax liability, then you are paying for your own defense as well as theirs.
 
#55
#55
milohimself said:
How is that essentially any different from defense funding? There are millions of people with net zero or even less tax liability, yet if you have any federal tax liability, then you are paying for your own defense as well as theirs.
Click to expand...

That isn't wealth redistribution or taking from haves and giving to have nots in order to produce a desired economic outcome. That's providing "for the common defense" and benefits the mega rich as well as the dirt poor.

I'm a fan of getting rid of the income tax entirely. We have had no income tax for the majority of the time this country has existed. The problem is that you can't run a welfare state and foreign military empire like the ones we currently have without it.
 
#56
#56
05_never_again said:
That isn't wealth redistribution or taking from haves and giving to have nots in order to produce a desired economic outcome. That's providing "for the common defense" and benefits the mega rich as well as the dirt poor.
Click to expand...

Consider that defense could be viewed in economic terms, just like the allocation of any other service or good. Just like clean air, street lights and irrigation systems, national defense is a nonrival and nonexcludable good. If it were privately provided, you wouldn't have to pay for it, but if your neighbor did, you would reap the same benefits. It is definitive proof that there are certain services that lend themselves only to public provision and funding via taxation. Free-riding isn't the only example, but it is the one that fits here.

Considering that with what I mentioned earlier, that those with no tax liability and those who do pay taxes benefit alike from the military, that is by definition a redistribution of wealth. That particular redistribution of wealth just happens to be codified in the constitution.
 
#57
#57
milohimself said:
Consider that defense could be viewed in economic terms, just like the allocation of any other service or good. Just like clean air, street lights and irrigation systems, national defense is a nonrival and nonexcludable good. If it were privately provided, you wouldn't have to pay for it, but if your neighbor did, you would reap the same benefits. It is definitive proof that there are certain services that lend themselves only to public provision and funding via taxation. Free-riding isn't the only example, but it is the one that fits here.

Considering that with what I mentioned earlier, that those with no tax liability and those who do pay taxes benefit alike from the military, that is by definition a redistribution of wealth. That particular redistribution of wealth just happens to be codified in the constitution.
Click to expand...


Is there a definition for redistribution of wealth?

I don't see how defense spending can be lumped together with welfare, for example.
Welfare is a direct redistribution of wealth, where money is taken from one individual and given to another individual. Defense spending, on the other hand, benefits all citizens. There is no direct transfer of money from one individual to another individual.
 
Last edited:
#58
#58
Pepe_Silvia said:
Is there a definition for redistribution of wealth?

I don't see how defense spending can be lumped together with welfare, for example.
Welfare is a direct redistribution of wealth, where money is taken from one individual and given to another individual. Defense spending, on the other hand, benefits all citizens.
Click to expand...

First, I believe that there can be a value attached to anything.

Second, the national defense is a service provided by the government that benefits all equally (or some more than others, depending on how you view our forays into the middle east), yet some pay extensively for it while others pay nothing at all. The national defense is a public good and because the payment for that good is not equal, it is redistributed.

The point I'm trying to make is that all taxation and the disbursement of goods from military defense to infrastructure to health care and so on by the government is redistribution of wealth by definition.
 
#59
#59
Then the issue is with the current system of taxation and entitlements, not defense funding.

In principle, I don't consider tax money going to defense a redistribution of wealth. I consider paying for somebody else's healthcare, even if that other person pays taxes, to be a redistribution of wealth. Your other examples (clean air, street lights, irrigation) aren't nonrival goods like the military.
 
#60
#60
milohimself said:
Second, the national defense is a service provided by the government that benefits all equally (or some more than others, depending on how you view our forays into the middle east)
Click to expand...

Our forays in the Middle East aren't "national defense."

Wiki defines wealth distribution as "the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law."

The modern system of taxation and entitlements is wealth redistribution, not defense funding in principle.
 
#61
#61
05_never_again said:
Then the issue is with the current system of taxation and entitlements, not defense funding.

In principle, I don't consider tax money going to defense a redistribution of wealth. I consider paying for somebody else's healthcare, even if that other person pays taxes, to be a redistribution of wealth. Your other examples (clean air, street lights, irrigation) aren't nonrival goods like the military.
Click to expand...

They absolutely are, for the reason I provided in that post. It's the concept of free-riding. If one farm among a cluster of farms pays for irrigation to that area, then all farms adjacent to it benefit from that whether or not they paid for it. If I pay for a streetlight in front of my house, then all the other houses around mine benefit from having that streetlight. Every time I choose to walk or ride my bike somewhere instead of driving, then everybody would benefit from a minute but nevertheless present reduction in fossil fuel emissions. If the military were privatized and you had to pay for its services to protect your property, your neighbors property would be protected as well whether or not they paid for it. They are all fundamentally the same.

Clean air, water with which to grow crops, illumination from street lights and having an armed defense of your property are all goods and services of one form or another.
 
#62
#62
05_never_again said:
Our forays in the Middle East aren't "national defense."

Wiki defines wealth distribution as "the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law."

The modern system of taxation and entitlements is wealth redistribution, not defense funding in principle.
Click to expand...

The parenthetical about middle east military operations was a joke for anybody who is cynical about them.

National defense is a service paid for by a tax on the American people. In what form that tax is paid is another matter altogether. A tangible value can be placed on anything, certainly on the military.
 
#63
#63
milohimself said:
They absolutely are, for the reason I provided in that post. It's the concept of free-riding. If one farm among a cluster of farms pays for irrigation to that area, then all farms adjacent to it benefit from that whether or not they paid for it. If I pay for a streetlight in front of my house, then all the other houses around mine benefit from having that streetlight. Every time I choose to walk or ride my bike somewhere instead of driving, then everybody would benefit from a minute but nevertheless present reduction in fossil fuel emissions. If the military were privatized and you had to pay for its services to protect your property, your neighbors property would be protected as well whether or not they paid for it. They are all fundamentally the same.

Clean air, water with which to grow crops, illumination from street lights and having an armed defense of your property are all goods and services of one form or another.
Click to expand...

Why can't the farm pay for only its own irrigation? If it chooses to pay for the irrigation of the other farms around it, that's an act of charity, which is voluntary by definition. Almost inherent in the phrase "wealth redistribution" is that it's involuntary, so I don't think your example is accurate. If you want to pay for a light or a number of lights powerful enough to light up your own street as well as your neighbor's, that's another charitable act.

Why would your neighbor's property be protected if you only paid for the protection of your own? Your neighbor's property could be overrun in an attack and the security force would do nothing if they weren't paying for it themselves.

Your examples (street lights, irrigation) are goods that could realistically be provided in a competitive market. Some firms' street lights/irrigation could be better than others, firms could compete on price, etc.

Your biking instead of driving example is one of an externality. There is nothing redistributive about it.

Of course, some anarchists will make that argument about a military too.
 
Last edited:
#64
#64
Cases in which there is necessarily spillover, such as the ones I mentioned, would generally not lead to efficient outcomes. Irrigation, general defense, public light and clean air cannot be targeted towards one set of customers, and it's a completely unreasonable expectation that they would be provided from one for many as an act of charity in nearly any instance. Even when it would occur, it would not be in the economic self-interest of the person or company paying for it.

Those sorts of things, which are not limited to that list, are necessarily nonrival and nonexcludable, as such, private provision would ultimately lead to inefficient outcomes. The only way to ensure an efficient outcome would be public provision of those goods, paid for by taxes i.e. redistribution.
 
#65
#65
milohimself said:
Cases in which there is necessarily spillover, such as the ones I mentioned, would generally not lead to efficient outcomes. Irrigation, general defense, public light and clean air cannot be targeted towards one set of customers, and it's a completely unreasonable expectation that they would be provided from one for many as an act of charity in nearly any instance. Even when it would occur, it would not be in the economic self-interest of the person or company paying for it.

Those sorts of things, which are not limited to that list, are necessarily nonrival and nonexcludable, as such, private provision would ultimately lead to inefficient outcomes. The only way to ensure an efficient outcome would be public provision of those goods, paid for by taxes i.e. redistribution.
Click to expand...

The other products you mentioned could be targeted to a particular customer. Even the military theoretically could.

Clean air is not a "product" that is provided by a firm. On your property, you are free to pollute as much as you wish. If this pollution comes onto the property of others, you are an aggressor and the victim can take you to court for redress because you have violated his rights.

The way to ensure you have as efficient of an outcome as possible is to have the properties in question privately owned. I think it applies from both a moral and practical perspective.
 
#66
#66
05_never_again said:
The other products you mentioned could be targeted to a particular customer. Even the military theoretically could.

Clean air is not a "product" that is provided by a firm. On your property, you are free to pollute as much as you wish. If this pollution comes onto the property of others, you are an aggressor and the victim can take you to court for redress because you have violated his rights.

The way to ensure you have as efficient of an outcome as possible is to have the properties in question privately owned. I think it applies from both a moral and practical perspective.
Click to expand...
Could you imagine how ridiculous it would be to pick and choose whose property the military could defend? There is no way that could be accomplished efficiently short of the military sending a list to potential invaders of whose property is okay to attack and whose is off-limits. Either way, you are at least seeing defense as a service to which you can apply a specific monetary value.

And clean air is a product, you just explained why in your post. If the pollution I produce on my property spills over onto yours (which it inevitably will do because of the definition of what a pollutant is), then the fact that you could take me to court for redress, in which I would compensate you, implies there is a specific value that can be attached to clean air. That's the very basis on which things like cap and trade and carbon credits are founded.

Defense of private property on a moral basis is not what I am discussing. That's essentially Randian objectivism, which advocates that privatization of everything under the sun makes for the best outcomes for everybody because private property is the end, and any public property is definitively amoral. The justification of objectivism is the realm of utopian economics, which runs into scores upon scores of issues when they are implemented in reality.
 
#67
#67
Could you imagine how ridiculous it would be to pick and choose whose property the military could defend?
Click to expand...
I never argued that. I was just saying that you theoretically could. There are people out there who will. Under such an example, there's no picking and choosing. The people who pay get their property defended.

And clean air is a product, you just explained why in your post.
Click to expand...
Clean air is not a product. Can you go to a store and buy it? Can I sell it to you? Just because you can attach a value to something doesn't mean it's a product. You can attach a value to freedom of religion (i.e., how much better does that make living in this country as opposed to, say, Saudi Arabia). Does that make it a product?

Cap and trade does not buy you clean air. It sets a cap on carbon emissions and says that firms can trade the "right to pollute" under the cap. I can't go to the market and buy my clean air. I inherently have a right to it, provided I'm on my own property.
 
#69
#69
OrangeEmpire said:
As soon as you realize govt is failure, the better off we will be.
Click to expand...

Egalitarian Collectivism Sabotages Human Potential

Obama did not just happen! For over two generations, mainstream Americans have been bombarded with a three pronged challenge to the continuity of their values, culture & identity. These have included the absurd, yet oft repeated, lie of an equality of human potential; a direct attack on the ethnic pride & identity of mainstream Americans as unique peoples--coupled with the pretense that they are somehow guilty of causing most of the earth's problems;--and the promotion of a cynical Utilitarian view of Government, which imagines that despite a written Constitution--precisely intended to prevent such misuse of power--the Government has whatever power a majority desire, to address any & all problems of unhappy individuals.
Click to expand...
 
#71
#71
Holy crap, anarchy now please. This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shI5oOTMkMk&feature=plcp&context=C300cbf6UDOEgsToPDskJx_6LdNUfgfdiAJYctd6Xo[/youtube]
 
#74
#74
Just picked up "the benefit and the burden" by bruce bartlett and the theory of moral sentiments. Should have some good reading for a while
 
#75
#75
My friend who is inthe NYU law program just asked me an interesting question. He's studying anti-trust law and was wondering why sports cartels are lasting and successful (cartels always eventually fail, because members of cartel ultimately end up "cheating" on the agreement). I find this really interesting, and so I thought I would share what I learned in my sports Econ class:

The reason cartels are successful in professional sports is because there is a major distinguishing factor in this industry....Pepsi doesn't need Coke, the Red Sox need the Yankees. Sports aren't interesting without a competitor to hate. Hating the Yankees is almost as important as rooting for the Red Sox. And vice versa. In sports, Cartels make more money with the existence of competition.

And yes, sports do get special favoritism, but competition has arisen where feasible*. I think the problem is mostly that the established league has a fan following. Kind of like google+ totally failing because everybody already knows facebook, and they are comfortable with it. Google hasn't given them a reason to switch yet. It's not worth the trouble. Good luck making a successful competitor to the NBA without a team in NYC. So now you put a team in NYC, good luck getting anybody to care when they already have their beloved Knicks.

* The AFC and the NFC were 2 different leagues that merged. Same with the NL and the AL (MLB). When you build a successful competitor, it makes sense to merge (because overall, there's more revenue for the industry if Eli and Peyton occasionally play each other rather than playing in separate leagues), so competition between same-sport professional leagues isn't going to last.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top