Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason: Veronique de Rugy on the Final Stimulus Package
Here's the good news about the
final stimulus package: The $246 million tax credit to Hollywood
that made its way to the initial House bill and was removed in the
Senate version didn't make it to the final bill. That, writes
Veronique de Rugy, is pretty much it for the good news.
Doomsayer|2.13.09 @ 4:24PM|#
The other good news is that the government probably won't actually be able to spend all that because it will shove the Dollar off a cliff.
|2.13.09 @ 4:27PM|#
$125 million for rural communities to combat drug
crimes
Tanks and APCs for Everyone !
Wheeeeeee!!!
|2.13.09 @ 4:28PM|#
I finally bit the bullet and bought a gold hedge earlier this
week.
Can we finally be done with any jibber-jabber about Disaster
Capitalists? After this spectacle, it should be pretty clear that
the Disaster Capitalist is a mythical breed, but the Disaster
Socialist is riding high.
Orange Line Special|2.13.09 @ 4:31PM|#
Odd that Reason can't do better than this. I guess whining about the stimulus is where the real money is at.
|2.13.09 @ 4:35PM|#
$8 billion for high-speed railways (This amount is 4 times higher than the one voted on Tuesday in the Senate bill)
|2.13.09 @ 4:36PM|#
I mean what happened in those 3 days that made them realize they actually needed 4 times the amount they originally asked for ?
|2.13.09 @ 4:44PM|#
"It [the bill] violates many of President Obama's
promises.
Who could have foreseen THAT?
By the way, there is absolutely no mention in the article about the
stealth Universal Health Care provisions that are included in the
Bill, and that once signed into Law will become mandatory:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
Mike M.|2.13.09 @ 4:45PM|#
Just another day in the glorious workers' paradise of the U.S.S.A. Time to start drinking copious amounts of vodka.
|2.13.09 @ 4:48PM|#
$10 million to combat Mexican
gunrunners
Very important provision in the bill. There are simply too
many guns in Mexico . . . in the hands of her law-abiding
citizens. Big concern there . . .
Oh, was is supposed to be for stopping Mexican gunrunners from
selling guns to mobsters and criminals? Not a chance.
|2.13.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Total spending amounts to $792 billion, with $570 billion in
direct spending and $212 billion in tax provisions. These numbers
don't include the massive amount of interest that will accrue on
the increased debt. If we include that, the total amount comes to
$1.14 billion.
Either you're really bad at math or that's a typo. What do I
win?
|2.13.09 @ 4:56PM|#
The United States House of Representatives passed The Obamanible One's Economic Stick-it-to-us Bill today. And y'all thought that whole Friday the 13th, bad luck thing was just a silly superstition, didn't you?
bill|2.13.09 @ 4:59PM|#
Forget the pork. What about all that stuff about doctors having to ask the government for permission to give you a treatment?
|2.13.09 @ 4:59PM|#
Hmmm. The Clinton administration was heavily in the pocket of publishers and of Hollywood. Interesting (though not particularly important) if this shows that the Obama administration isn't. Though that may not be the case--this is more Congress than the president, it appears.
|2.13.09 @ 5:00PM|#
You are right. It's a typo. Not that I am very good at math either. Thanks for letting me know.
|2.13.09 @ 5:04PM|#
Forget the pork. What about all that stuff about
doctors having to ask the government for permission to give you a
treatment?
It must have slipped the author's mind, I would guess . . .
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
creech|2.13.09 @ 5:08PM|#
The stock market sure saluted the bill---by declining 82 points. Why no Hollywood bailout? You don't think the actors were going to limit their annual salaries to $500K do you? A month on location is worth $30million while 24/7 for 365 trying to save a failing bank aint worth the cost of cab rides in NYC.
|2.13.09 @ 5:33PM|#
From Why the Stimulus Plan Won't Work
[...][T]he thinking behind stimulus legislation assumes
that the government is better at spending $800 billion than the
private sector. When President Obama says, "We'll invest in what
works," he means, "unlike you bozos."
The president's faith in Washington is charming, but politics
rather than sound economics guide government spending. Politicians
rely on lobbyists from unions, corporations, pressure groups, and
state and local governments when they decide how to spend other
people's money. By contrast, entrepreneurs' decisions to spend
their own cash are guided by monetary profit and loss. That's
likely to work better and certain to produce more
innovation.
But being motivated by profit-seeking is simply too crass and
pedestrian and "Ewwwwww" for most State worshipers. They believe in
such abstractions as "Community" and "The Greater Purpose" and
other religious motivations. Il Duce [Obama] is certainly their new
prophet.
|2.13.09 @ 5:42PM|#
From the same article,
Robert Higgs, offered an even more thoroughgoing critique
[of the New Deal] in an excellent 1992 Journal of Economic History
paper. After challenging the conventional portrayal of economic
performance during the 1940s, Higgs concluded that "[World War II]
itself did not get the economy out of the Depression. The economy
produced neither a 'carnival of consumption' nor an investment
boom, however successfully it overwhelmed the nation's enemies with
bombs, shells, and bullets." Breaking windows in France and Germany
didn't bring prosperity in America.
The reason for that is because the factories were not turning
consumer goods people wanted, instead churning out tanks and planes
meant to do nothing really desirable or valuable for the individual
except to kill "the enemy".
In a discussion with Joe, he mentioned that people must have forgo
their own preferences for a "greater purpose", which meant in this
case, showering "the enemy" with bombs and bullets. I answered that
people had little choice but to make bombs and planes, considering
that the government was crowding out all investment in other
things. People REALLY suffered a lot of privation during those
years, MORE so than during the 30's (!!). What took the US out of
the Great Depression was the rapid reduction in government
expenditures, which allowed private enterprises access to capital
to spend in capital goods. Again, Joe thought those goods were
available already thanks to government and the war, just showing
his total lack of knowledge on how capital is gathered and how
capital goods are obtained - maybe the machine tools were
available, but most jigs and tooling were useless for consumer
goods. Private enterprises had thus to spend a considerable amount
of money in retooling for cars, appliances and other goods that
people wanted, not being able to get into a fully restored economy
until after 1946 (!) So for all intents and purposes, the Great
Depression actually lasted 16 years!!
And Il Duce wants to lead everybody to that path again ...
|2.13.09 @ 5:45PM|#
Oh, but Il Duce is just doing what "The Community" wants . . .
Right, Neu?
The Community must have whispered its "needs" into The Prophet's
ears...
MNG|2.13.09 @ 5:45PM|#
"By contrast, entrepreneurs' decisions to spend their own cash
are guided by monetary profit and loss."
Maybe in Candyland.
There are all kinds of triggers of business decisions that are
guided by a variety of emotions, only one of which is monetary
profit/loss. Ted Turner once spent tons of money trying to put
Vince McMahon out of business because Vince turned down his offer
to buy his company. There have been many derivative lawsuits over
some rich old fart deciding that oodles of money will be given to
some museum to be named after him. Etc.
MNG|2.13.09 @ 5:48PM|#
A big enough organization or concern can waste a ton of money on
all kinds of irrational and stupid stuff and whether it just fine,
in some sense never being "chastised" by "the market."
"The Community must have whispered its "needs" into The Prophet's
ears..."
Were you not around in November?
Chad|2.13.09 @ 5:59PM|#
Doing some quick math, the "pork" on de Rugy's list looks to
amount to about $40 billion dollars, or $130 for each
American.
You know what? I would much rather have the stuff on that list than
a new pair of black shoes and a Naruto DVD, which is what I would
buy if you forced me to spend $130 on non-necessities.
If $130 buys everything on this list, government is an awesome
deal.
|2.13.09 @ 5:59PM|#
There are all kinds of triggers of business decisions that
are guided by a variety of emotions, only one of which is monetary
profit/loss. Ted Turner once spent tons of money trying to put
Vince McMahon out of business because Vince turned down his offer
to buy his company.
MGN, how do you know that such was the motivation behind Ted
Turner's decision to "drive Vince McMahon" out of business?
Besides this, the company he runs IS driven by the profit/loss
test, otherwise it would not have reason to seek advertisers or new
subscribers.
There have been many derivative lawsuits over some rich old
fart deciding that oodles of money will be given to some museum to
be named after him.
That is an individual's choice, MGN, no different than your choice
of movies to watch.
A big enough organization or concern can waste a ton of money
on all kinds of irrational and stupid stuff and whether it just
fine, in some sense never being "chastised" by "the
market."
Like, let's see . . . G.M.? Chrysler? They wasted a ton on money on
irrational and stupid stuff, i.e. appeasing the UAW. Looking at
their valuation, it is pretty clear to me the market DID chastise
them . . . But you may have a good example.
Were you not around in November?
Yes - Does the fact that Il Duce is in power mean the "Community"
asked The Anointed One for $800 Billion to be siphoned into
oblivion?
|2.13.09 @ 6:02PM|#
Maybe in Candyland.
That's MNG-speak for "I do not know economics and yet I opine about
the subject"
|2.13.09 @ 6:11PM|#
Unfortunately, nothing about our situation (a government bought
and paid for by the leading bankers) indicates this is anywhere
near the "final insult" to the taxpayers.
It is just one more installment in the Bailout Game: If you manage
a big bank, make risky loans. If the loans pay off, you get lots of
interest. If the loans default, shove the losses onto the taxpayers
through increased taxes and inflation. Get Congress to repeatedly
agree to this to 'save the people' from massive job losses and
general economic chaos. The perfect holdup! No dangerous gunplay
needed, and the payoff is billions of dollars each time,
accelerating now to trillions!
European banks are collectively $24 trillion in the hole (16.3
trillion euros). The ECB is going to print up this amount of money
and give it to the banks (some in the form of 'loan guarantees'),
thereby destroying the value of that currency.
The US is in a similar situation, but the numbers have not been
publiciized yet.
Expect the 'solution' to be a new fiat currency. Then the cycle can
be renewed for another generation or two.
The middle class? Fuck the serfs.
Daniel Reeves|2.13.09 @ 6:11PM|#
From Why the Stimulus Plan Won't Work
[...][T]he thinking behind stimulus legislation assumes that the government is better at spending $800 billion than the private sector. When President Obama says, "We'll invest in what works," he means, "unlike you bozos."
No, not spending, but managing. The point of the stimulus is to
make up for what the private sector isn't spending. You've
heard of the paradox of thrift, right? It's just unfortunate that
government sucks at spending money, which is why non-spending
alternatives e.g. inflation and tax cuts are something I prefer
more, or at least to a modest extent. I guess that's the
libertarian side of me, but most of you probably think I'm a
huge-ass socialist. Because the world is only comprised of
libertarians and socialists.
|2.13.09 @ 6:13PM|#
If $130 buys everything on this list, government is an
awesome deal.
Government is not just what's in the list. There's the matter of
the unfunded liabilities represented by Social Security, Medicare
and the new Prescription Drug system. Those liabilities will add up
to $50 Trillion USD by 2050.
|2.13.09 @ 6:14PM|#
Just another day in the glorious workers' paradise of the
U.S.S.A. Time to start drinking copious amounts of
vodka.
Better make that Victory Gin, Mike M.
|2.13.09 @ 6:19PM|#
No, not spending, but managing. The point of the stimulus is
to make up for what the private sector isn't spending.
The private sector IS spending - it has to. What it is NOT doing is
investing in worthless projects like it did during the bubble.
Therein lies the difference.
You've heard of the paradox of thrift, right?
Yes, it is a Keynesian red herring. Supposedly, during good times,
you may save, but during BAD times you have to spend like crazy,
because saving means you are not spending and,
according to Keynes, it is spending that drives the economy. In
reality it is SAVINGS which fuels the economy, not spending.
It's just unfortunate that government sucks at spending money,
which is why non-spending alternatives e.g. inflation and tax cuts
are something I prefer more, or at least to a modest
extent.
Inflation and tax cuts without spending cuts just reduce the value
of savings, i.e. it destroys capital.
The solution (which State worshipers and other enemies of freedom
hate) is sound money, a substantial reduction of the government and
letting the markets liquidate and reorganize the investments.
Chad|2.13.09 @ 6:21PM|#
It's just unfortunate that government sucks at spending
money
Compared to what? The private markets? You have to be joking. What
have the private markets been putting our massive fortunes into the
last couple of decades?
1: McMansions
2: SUVs to drive to said McMansions
3: Credit-default swaps built upon the insane mortgages underlying
the McMansions
4: Cheap Chinese Crap to fill said McMansions
5: Highly efficient methods of sending our jobs and dollars to
China in return for said Cheap Chinese Crap.
You know what? The government could dole out the stimulus billions
by handing a blind monkey some darts and a dartboard, and couldn't
possibly do worse than your oh-so-beloved private markets did.
|2.13.09 @ 6:30PM|#
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve banking cartel -
joined at the hip with Treasury. The government handing out
billions to the politically well connected. A tax code that
consumes half of all income, when you include federal, state and
local levies. A tax code that is used for 'soclal engineering' of
mass human behavior.
And Chad calls what we have a 'private market'.
What we do have, is a private market in political influence
peddling.
Kolohe|2.13.09 @ 6:38PM|#
You know what? The government could dole out the stimulus billions by handing a blind monkey some darts and a dartboard, and couldn't possibly do worse than your oh-so-beloved private markets did.
Which is why the Soviet Union won the cold war and North Korea has
a much higher standard of living than their southern neighbor.
|2.13.09 @ 6:46PM|#
MNG
"By contrast, entrepreneurs' decisions to spend their own cash
are guided by monetary profit and loss."
Maybe in Candyland.
It's certainly true that corporate executives can do stupid or
bizarre things with their shareholders money but they always have
to answer for their actions, unlike the gov't which may be voted
out if they are so stunningly incompetent that it can't be ignored
but otherwise face no real penalty.
Additionally, a private or publicly held company isn't funded by
the people whether they want to fund it or not. Big difference.
|2.13.09 @ 6:49PM|#
Chad, you're an idiot and it's hard to know where to start so
I'll just point out what would should be obvious -- gov't uses
public money, private sector squanders THEIR OWN cash.
Christ on a cracker . . .
|2.13.09 @ 6:50PM|#
Chad,
Sorry to break it to you, but each of the things you're bitching
about in your list above is a consequence of the fed's inflation
and/or our government's brain-dead tax policy which makes it
advantageous to move jobs overseas.
We were regulated right into this mess, just like every other
fiat-money boom and bust cycle.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 6:51PM|#
1: McMansions
2: SUVs to drive to said McMansions
3: Credit-default swaps built upon the insane mortgages underlying
the McMansions
4: Cheap Chinese Crap to fill said McMansions
5: Highly efficient methods of sending our jobs and dollars to
China in return for said Cheap Chinese Crap.
The only good economy is one that only trades in crap that chad
likes.
|2.13.09 @ 6:51PM|#
In reality it is SAVINGS which fuels the economy, not
spending.
Well, to be precise, it's savings that provides capital to fund
economic growth. That is to say, deferred spending.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Chad,
It is wrong to put all of private industry in one basket. I haven't
spent or invested any money on the above. There are a number of
regional banks which consistently made sound investments and have
since been invited to take over some of their failed
competitors.
Clearly those indiviudals and institutions with poor judgement need
to be divested from their capital. One probelm with the government
spedning is it allows those instutitions to persist.
To be fair, all governments shouldn't be put in one basket either.
The US and European governments suck at spending money; whereas the
Sing may do a halfway decent job. Unfortunatley, the scale of the
bad governments misinvesment is much greater and not everyone can
choose where they inhabit.
|2.13.09 @ 6:55PM|#
C'mon, that's just Reinmoose posing as a silly lefty troll again as Chad. He sometimes really overplays it to make it painfully obvious; I mean, no one is that vapid.
|2.13.09 @ 6:55PM|#
The US and European governments suck at spending money;
whereas the Sing may do a halfway decent job.
The Singapore government is very frugal, and they take corruption
far more seriously than any of their neighbors. Still, the main
advantage Singapore has is not that their government is efficient,
but that they understand what government shouldn't do.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve banking cartel
- joined at the hip with Treasury. The government handing out
billions to the politically well connected. A tax code that
consumes half of all income, when you include federal, state and
local levies. A tax code that is used for 'soclal engineering' of
mass human behavior.
And Chad calls what we have a 'private market'.
When the government finally starts paying bankers to murder people
I know the first thing I am going to blame for all that needless
random death will be the "private (free?) market".
Cabeza De Vaca|2.13.09 @ 7:10PM|#
Since there isn't a weekend thread anymore I will post it
here.
Tell these Congo villagers the right to bear arms isn't
important.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/1.1375055-1.1375055
|2.13.09 @ 7:16PM|#
Chad,
"It's just unfortunate that government sucks at spending
money."
Compared to what? The private markets?
Yes, compared to private INDIVIDUALS and private companies. The
author explains that the motivations are entirely different.
You have to be joking. What have the private markets
been putting our massive fortunes into the last couple of
decades?
You're confusing markets with the decisions of a few individuals,
Chad. By the way, the market is just the name given to the network
of transactions and decisions made every day by humans. This means
there is no need to use the adjective "private" when referring to
the market.
1: McMansions
2: SUVs to drive to said McMansions
3: Credit-default swaps built upon the insane mortgages underlying
the McMansions
4: Cheap Chinese Crap to fill said McMansions
5: Highly efficient methods of sending our jobs and dollars to
China in return for said Cheap Chinese Crap.
I sense a lot of envy in your tirade. Don't you like it when people
buy big houses?
You know what? The government could dole out the
stimulus billions by handing a blind monkey some darts and a
dartboard, and couldn't possibly do worse than your oh-so-beloved
private markets did.
Considering that the housing bubble and the boom-bust cycle were
creations of government's intervention and the FED, there is a
sense of irony in your statement that dart-throwing monkeys could
not do worse than a market manipulated by the government and the
FED.
|2.13.09 @ 7:24PM|#
On January 8, 2009 while explaining the causes of our economic woes, then President-elect Obama said
Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve.
Expect me trot that quote out a lot over the next four years.
Chad|2.13.09 @ 7:24PM|#
Matthew | February 13, 2009, 6:49pm | #
Chad, you're an idiot and it's hard to know where to start so I'll
just point out what would should be obvious -- gov't uses public
money, private sector squanders THEIR OWN cash.
And what fantasy world do you live in where when your fellow
countrymen squander trillions, it has no effect upon you?
Once upon a time, I used to think like you. Then I grew up. The key
concept where I disagree with you (and the old me) is your idea of
"their own money". I have come to the realization that there is in
fact little relationship between how much people earn and how much
they create, especially among the rich. Getting rich is more about
gaining control of the systems that arise among large groups, and
then funneling a large share of the earnings of many into your own
pocket.
My taxes are far too low to cover all that has been given me. I
have no right to complain.
alan|2.13.09 @ 7:28PM|#
I was one of those who said last Summer that Obama would be too
smart and too shrewd to overreach and endanger the chance of a
second term with a roll of the dice, but damn, I could not have
been more off of that mark if I had just came here from Mars.
Three factors I misjudged, 1) Obama's intelligence. Not that
impressive. He reminds me of a few Ivy League graduates I know who
are terribly conventionally minded, and who get by parroting the
mores of their tribe. I'm already tired of many of his speech
patterns.
2) The roll of the dice may work to bribe enough people. However, I
still doubt this will prove to be the case. When the recovery
comes, it will likely still leave the Rust Belt behind given the
fundamental unsoundness of the political economy of those states.
So, if trends continue, they will likely kick Obama to the curve if
all they get is substantial public largess but little in the way of
productive gain that most of the rest of the Nation enjoys in a few
years down the road after the recovery.
3) The left is far more leftest than I thought, or far more lemming
like than I thought. If you are an honest left-centrist at heart
this bill would be anathema to you. Apparently, there is the right
and there is McCain in the center, and anything left of McCain
stands about a light year away in that direction.
|2.13.09 @ 7:29PM|#
is in fact little relationship between how much people earn
and how much they create
Call it a cop out if you want, but I'm not going to spend my time
arguing with anyone who believes in the economic equivalent of '2 +
2 = 5'.
Chad|2.13.09 @ 7:31PM|#
Francisco Torres | February 13, 2009, 7:16pm | #
Yes, compared to private INDIVIDUALS and private companies. The
author explains that the motivations are entirely
different.
Yes, the motivations are different. And between the two, I prefer
the government's motives, which are egalitarian.
You're confusing markets with the decisions of a few
individuals, Chad.
A few? Find me an American without anything on my list and I'll
find you a flying pig.
I sense a lot of envy in your tirade. Don't you like it when
people buy big houses?
Indeed I don't. Suburbia is an unsustainable waste that undermines
our community, health, and environment.
Considering that the housing bubble and the boom-bust cycle
were creations of government's intervention and the FED, there is a
sense of irony in your statement that dart-throwing monkeys could
not do worse than a market manipulated by the government and the
FED.
Still clinging to the crackpot belief that this is all the Fed,
Fannie and Freddies fault, eh? Yep, they just held guns to the
heads of millions of speculators and forced them to behave like
idiots.
|2.13.09 @ 7:34PM|#
1: McMansions
2: SUVs to drive to said McMansions
3: Credit-default swaps built upon the insane mortgages underlying
the McMansions
4: Cheap Chinese Crap to fill said McMansions
5: Highly efficient methods of sending our jobs and dollars to
China in return for said Cheap Chinese Crap.
Lefties are so cute when they gen envious and angry.
|2.13.09 @ 8:06PM|#
Chad,
Yes, compared to private INDIVIDUALS and private companies. The
author explains that the motivations are entirely different.
Yes, the motivations are different. And between the two, I
prefer the government's motives, which are
egalitarian.
I don't understand why would "egalitarian" motives be preferable
for you to, let us say, your own motives, or mine. As to the
"egalitarian" motives, just how far do you think egalitarianism is
sufficient for you, Chad? What would be the common denominator that
would satisfy your sense of fairness? Because unless you can prove
the government has the same benchmark as you do, it may choose to
lower your standard of living to a level much lower than the one
you enjoy right now. Would you be comfortable with the government's
motives STILL?
You're confusing markets with the decisions of a few
individuals, Chad.
A few? Find me an American without anything on my list and
I'll find you a flying pig.
Why would I have to provide proof for YOUR assertions is beyond me.
However, I can say I do not live in a McMansion (whatever that is
supposed to mean); I live in a 890 Sq Ft appartment; and at the
same time, I do not live in a rat's hole. So, what is your level of
comfort when it comes to categorize a home, Chad? Do I live in a
McMansion by your standards, or not?
I sense a lot of envy in your tirade. Don't you like it when
people buy big houses?
Indeed I don't. Suburbia is an unsustainable waste that
undermines our community, health, and
environment.
Ahh, I see - with you it is not only envy, it is also obtuseness.
How does having a big home undermine "our community"? What makes
you think those things are "unsustainable"? Do you feel less
healthy because someone has a big backyard, or did you just throw
that one into the pile of absurdities?
Still clinging to the crackpot belief that this is all
the Fed, Fannie and Freddies fault, eh? Yep, they just held guns to
the heads of millions of speculators and forced them to behave like
idiots.
Well, Chad, you also sin of being disingenuous and ignorant of
economics. There is the Community Reinvestment Act whose powers
were expanded in the 1990s and was used to bludgeon lenders to lend
to people with no credit standing - that IS the gun in their head.
There is also the fact that the FED artificially lowered the
interest rates to below the market rate, enticing people to seek
loans and companies to invest in (get this)
unsustainable investments.
There is also the fact that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae guaranteed
mortgage lending which lowered the risk aversion of otherwise more
cautious lenders - this does not mean lenders idiots for lending to
unqualified borrowers, they acted rationally under the assurances
from the government.
DannyK|2.13.09 @ 8:09PM|#
I have to say, I was really expecting better discussion of the
stimulus plan from Reason. Veronique de Rugy's argument seems to
boil down to:
1) Ricardian equivalence means that government can NEVER create
true stimulus, no matter if there is unused productive capacity in
the system.
2) The stimulus includes money for things like school construction
and environmental cleanup, and these activies do not count as
economic activity. Plus, they're mockable!
3) Tax cuts are the only way to stimulate the economy. If I don't
have to pay corporate income tax, I'll keep making cars even if
there's nobody buying them.
None of these arguments seems at all respectable to me. Can't you
do better than this?
|2.13.09 @ 8:24PM|#
I have to say, I was really expecting better
discussion of the stimulus plan from Reason. Veronique de Rugy's
argument seems to boil down to:
1) Ricardian equivalence means that government can NEVER create
true stimulus, no matter if there is unused productive capacity in
the system.
Why would it matter that there is "unused productive capacity",
Danny? What if that capacity is unused because it is unprofitable,
i.e. wasteful?
Let's say you have a lot of untapped productive capacity to
manufacture fishnet t-shirts. Would you say that the government has
to step in in order to get this untapped capacity moving to make
fishnet t-shirts?
2) The stimulus includes money for things like school
construction and environmental cleanup, and these activi[ti]es do
not count as economic activity. Plus, they're
mockable!
Oh, man, I love it when clumsy debaters come up with strawman
arguments! The author was not singling out these activities, Danny,
but nevertheless, they do count as economic activity, as in
wasteful economic activity. The problem is one of economic
calculation - how do you apply money to school construction or
cleanup in the most efficient way? You're just given money, so how
do you know how to apply it where it will be more effective?
3) Tax cuts are the only way to stimulate the economy.
If I don't have to pay corporate income tax, I'll keep making cars
even if there's nobody buying them.
Tax cuts are mentioned whenever people talk about stimulating the
economy because people's standard of living tends to increase when
their money is not taken by force every year. It's a common sense
thing . . .
None of these arguments seems at all respectable to me.
Can't you do better than this?
I can do one better - it will not work because economic activity is
NOT about spending, is about PRODUCTION, and in order to produce,
you need SAVINGS. So the answer is to SAVE, not to SPEND.
|2.13.09 @ 8:29PM|#
Alan-
There are regular posters here who actually believe that acceptance
into, and graduation from, an Ivy necessarily means
brilliance.
I can't get over how so many overrate Obama's mind. He sure has
trouble completing a sentence without a lot of filler such as
um.... and aahh.... and you know. Not the most mellifluous
guy.
Sure, he has delivered some very good speeches when reading from a
prepared text via the teleprompter. However, he is not a very good
orator. His former pastor is a dynamite orator.
|2.13.09 @ 8:33PM|#
Yes, the motivations are different. And between the two, I
prefer the government's motives, which are egalitarian.
Bwahahahahahaha!
Dude, the government's motives are NOT egalitarian. The government
is made up of individuals who are as much driven by self interest
as any private market actor. The only difference is that they have
a gun to back their choices, and private actors have to rely on
voluntary transactions.
|2.13.09 @ 8:34PM|#
I was one of those who said last Summer that Obama would be
too smart and too shrewd to overreach and endanger the chance of a
second term with a roll of the dice,
As it happens, way back when he first floated that "national
service" idea it seemed to me that he might just be cocky enough to
lose the election.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 8:37PM|#
Chad,
My taxes are far too low to cover all that has been
given me. I have no right to complain.
Did you ask to be given those things? If you were, then certainly
you're in cahoots with the government to steal from someone else
(the government does not produce wealth, it can only take it, i.e.
steal). Instead, if you're just given these things without asking,
then certainly you should try to give them back or pay for them. On
the other hand, if you're MADE to use these things (i.e. the
government makes it mandatory to use its services and goods), then
a great wrong is being imposed on you and you SHOULD complain,
unless you like to have wrongs imposed on you.
|2.13.09 @ 8:38PM|#
I prefer the government's motives, which are
egalitarian.
So, seeking power over other people is your idea of
egalitarianism?
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 8:45PM|#
John,
[Asking Chad]:So, seeking power over other people is your idea
of egalitarianism?
Chad has not thought this one very profoundly. I believe he thinks
only in soundbites and platitudes. If government was really
motivated by egalitarianism, then lowering everybody's standard of
living would be a proper policy for them to follow, to the point of
privation for everybody equally, but I do not think that's what
Chad has in mind. I may be mistaken and he REALLY expects Il Duce
to reduce all of us to living in caves, but I do not think so.
alan|2.13.09 @ 9:03PM|#
unused productive capacity
What an entirely arbitrary concept. If your company grew for
several years and then there was a slump, whatever the high measure
happened to be, regardless of the previous rate of growth, would be
your company's unused productive capacity as a piece of the total
aggregate unused productive capacity. From that arbitrary point we
are suppose to assume that any thing below that point nullifies
concerns we have about the opportunity cost no matter the
inefficiencies which are introduced when resources that are already
employed to productive activities are diverted to make the new boss
happy.
Johny Nowhere|2.13.09 @ 9:04PM|#
Francisco,
Perhaps Chad is aware that the average Guatemalan makes about $3000
per year, and thinks it's only fair that we all make $3000 per
year.
I bet, egalitarian that he is, he already lives on $3000 per year.
That might explain his hatred for McDonalds housing.
alan|2.13.09 @ 9:07PM|#
ha! I wondered where that phrase went. Wound up on the tail end of the first sentence. Scanned it, but still missed it.
alan|2.13.09 @ 9:11PM|#
I wonder if any of the government loving stooges here ever bother to report either their income on pot sells or the sales tax from purchasing pot? You can do that in lot of states, guys, in case you are wondering.
alan|2.13.09 @ 9:27PM|#
libertymike,
In my sophmore year, I tutored a guy who dropped out of Harvard in
his junior year. It did not take me long to realize I had a more
solid educational foundation coming out of my high school than he
had in his three years at the most prestigious college in the land.
I don't exaggerate. It was really that pathetic.
Also, my criticism doesn't come from envy. It is an emotion I'm not
capable of possession. I went to an affluent high school and I was
one of the poorest kids there, and most of my friends were (and
shit, still are) richer than I am. I simply don't care.
The point is, the elite status of a school would not bother me if
the social trends that pollinate from those schools were not so
destructive of the forms of progress that actually have a positive
impact on our lives.
Bingo|2.13.09 @ 9:31PM|#
3000 sq ft houses must be some sort of odd baby-boomer/gen-x dream-come-true. You guys must live boring lives, I'll take an apartment and mobility over being chained to a piece of property in the suburbs.
Chad|2.13.09 @ 9:31PM|#
I don't understand why would "egalitarian" motives be
preferable for you to
Because two people with $50,000 per year are a lot happier than one
with $10,000 and one with $90,000. Is that hard to
understand?
Just how far do you think egalitarianism is sufficient for you,
Chad?
There is no good way to quantify it. But I'll know when I am close,
and right now, we aren't within a country mile. Scandanavian
countries are in the right ballpark though.
t would be the common denominator that would satisfy your sense
of fairness? Because unless you can prove the government has the
same benchmark as you do, it may choose to lower your standard of
living to a level much lower than the one you enjoy right
now.
I already lower my "standard of living" and give lots of my wealth
away in order to make up for the fact that the government doesn't
do it for me. There is almost no chance that the government would
ever take so much from me than it is more than I am willing to
give. My taxes, and everyone elses', should increase by about 5% of
our income as soon as GDP growth recovers. And for the top 1%,
taxes should go up even more.
I would I have to provide proof for YOUR assertions is beyond
me. However, I can say I do not live in a McMansion (whatever that
is supposed to mean); I live in a 890 Sq Ft appartment; and at the
same time, I do not live in a rat's hole. So, what is your level of
comfort when it comes to categorize a home, Chad? Do I live in a
McMansion by your standards, or not?
I noticed you said nothing about Cheap Chinese Crap and credit
default swaps, both of which I am sure you owned (though you
probably didn't know much about the latter).
I sense a lot of envy in your tirade. Don't you like it when
people buy big houses?
I make plenty of money. My emotion towards people with over-sized
consumption isn't envy, it is loathing.
How does having a big home undermine "our
community"?
Living in Europe or Japan (as I have) and get back to me. You will
understand. Big houses sprawl everything out and isolate us from
one another while diminishing community centers.
What makes you think those things are
"unsustainable"?
Wow. You can't see why a housing pattern based on heavy consumption
of fossil fuels for both heating and transportation is
unsustainable?
Do you feel less healthy because someone has a big backyard, or
did you just throw that one into the pile of
absurdities?
Suburbs making walking and biking difficult and generally remove
them from our daily lives. Hence, we become fat and unhealthy.
Again, live abroad for a while and see the difference (and all the
hot chicks).
Well, Chad, you also sin of being disingenuous and ignorant of
economics. There is the Community Reinvestment Act
I am well aware of the CRA. It was 1% of the problem. So were Fanny
and Freddie. And the other 97%....
Yes, those otherwise "cautious" lenders were forced to follow
Fannie and Freddie right over the cliff. Indeed, they jumped
first!
Bingo|2.13.09 @ 9:34PM|#
I guess I feel the same way as Chad does but I think that
government is the problem and not the solution, and that the crash
of the housing bubble is indicative the "suburbs everywhere!" model
is unsustainable.
I also think the government is trying to prop up the unsustainable
status quo and will end up failing miserably.
|2.13.09 @ 9:42PM|#
I prefer the government's motives, which are
egalitarian.
You don't know the government's motives. You infer them, based on
what you hear politicians tell you, and assuming when they speak
they are not lying. No one can know another person's motives,
unless he is a mind reader.
What are the observable results of government policy? Trillions of
dollars in bailouts to the financial elite, the money taken from
the working class and those foolish enough to lend their savings to
the government. Based on the results of government action, which
are headlined daily in the press, this is the most anti-egalitarian
transfer of wealth in history.
I have no right to complain.
And yet, here you are, complaining.
Orange Line Destroyer|2.13.09 @ 9:47PM|#
Chad probably is one of the lads who depends on the dole. Yeah
Chad the Community Reinvestment Act was 1% of the problem. Wouldn't
you lend 700,000 to someone who earned 10,000 a year cleaning
houses?
Wasn't it responsible for the government to push subprime
loans?
How can anyone blame the government for counting as income:
-unemployment checks
-foodstamps
-welfare
No problem there, why theswe were sound policies.
Please no more mincing. I have a weak stomach. Obama has pushed
through this disaster along with his sheep. The bottom of the gene
poll will suffer in the long term, the better prepared will ride it
out and may even prosper as much as Obama and his cronies.
You asked for it, now I hope you get it good.
Chad|2.13.09 @ 9:47PM|#
Francisco Torres | February 13, 2009, 8:45pm | #
Chad has not thought this one very profoundly. I believe he thinks
only in soundbites and platitudes. If government was really
motivated by egalitarianism, then lowering everybody's standard of
living would be a proper policy for them to follow, to the point of
privation for everybody equally, but I do not think that's what
Chad has in mind. I may be mistaken and he REALLY expects Il Duce
to reduce all of us to living in caves, but I do not think
so.
No, I do not believe in making everyone poor. I don't even support
too many direct wealth transfers from rich to poor (only for basic
necessities). What I do support is huge investments in
infrastructure, such as transportation, water, and energy systems,
R&D, schools, libraries, parks, museums, etc that everyone can
use, and are mostly paid for by the well off through taxes. If
these are robust and well-funded, even our "poor" are rich, despite
their relative paucity of discretionary cash. I also support
very strong conservation and environmental protection
measures. We should be aiming for 100% renewable electricity by
2020 and renewable transportation by 2035, and putting massive
money behind this. We should also be protecting much more land,
though I am not stupidly strict about the meaning of "protect". For
example, I would have no problem drilling in ANWR if we charged
high royalties and used 100% of the royalties and taxes revenues to
fund renewables and public transport. Same goes for the outer
continental shelf.
Bingo|2.13.09 @ 9:50PM|#
What I do support is huge investments in infrastructure, such as transportation, water, and energy systems, R&D, schools, libraries, parks, museums, etc that everyone can use, and are mostly paid for by the well off through taxes. If these are robust and well-funded, even our "poor" are rich, despite their relative paucity of discretionary cash. I also support very strong conservation and environmental protection measures. We should be aiming for 100% renewable electricity by 2020 and renewable transportation by 2035, and putting massive money behind this. We should also be protecting much more land, though I am not stupidly strict about the meaning of "protect". For example, I would have no problem drilling in ANWR if we charged high royalties and used 100% of the royalties and taxes revenues to fund renewables and public transport. Same goes for the outer continental shelf.
Yeah, speaking of unsustainable systems...
Bingo|2.13.09 @ 9:51PM|#
Government-funded monorails and broadband for everyone. Free
healthcare! Public housing projects, renewable energy by
2020!
Pretty realistic outlook there, chappie.
alan|2.13.09 @ 9:56PM|#
Well, Chad, you also sin of being disingenuous and ignorant of
economics. There is the Community Reinvestment Act
I am well aware of the CRA. It was 1% of the problem. So were Fanny
and Freddie. And the other 97%....
Yes, those otherwise "cautious" lenders were forced to follow
Fannie and Freddie right over the cliff. Indeed, they jumped
first!
It was perfectly rational for them to do this because they knew
that the securitized mortgages after all there was virtually no
personal risk involved. It doesn't even make since for credit
rating agencies to give a low score assessment when even a default
is guaranteed not to lose you money. Who backs these high risks
mortgages?
Why, that would be that government you are so sweet on.
So you have lived in relatively affluent Europe and Japan. Big
deal, I have spent a lot of time in Mexico City where I have
relatives. The last thing they need are people who think like you
do.
BTW, a forced 100,000 even split will get you 50/50 exactly once if
successfully carried out. Beyond that, you'll starve to death.
alan|2.13.09 @ 10:01PM|#
err, I'm beginning to wonder what this submission box does with
erased text . . .
That should read,
It was perfectly rational for them to do this because there
was virtually no personal risk involved.
|2.13.09 @ 10:11PM|#
two people with $50,000 per year are a lot happier than one
with $10,000 and one with $90,000.
So, given one person who earns ten grand, and another who earns
ninety grand, you propose to rob the latter of forty grand and give
it to the former?
Have you considered that someone who produces 90 grand worth of
goods and services that people are willing to pay for, is likely to
sharply reduce his efforts if thugs like you rob him of 44% of his
earnings? Likewise, if the person whose efforts are worth ten grand
is going to get a free forty grand for doing nothing but snivelling
for it, how likely is he to improve his skills and become more
productive?
Is that hard to understand?
Like most of the trivially stupid ideas of the left, it's very easy
to understand, but it's simply wrong.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 10:13PM|#
No, I do not believe in making everyone poor.
Believe it or not, that's what you're advocating. See Cuba, North
Korea, and many other historical examples.
-jcr
Chad|2.13.09 @ 10:14PM|#
BTW, a forced 100,000 even split will get you 50/50 exactly
once if successfully carried out. Beyond that, you'll starve to
death.
I mean, yeah, look at all the starving Swedes....
You vastly over-estimate the dead-weight loss associated with
taxes. It is around 20%. So in practice, we have a choice between
one person at $10,000 and one person at $90,000, and one person at
$35,000 and one person at $60,000. The latter would result in a
much happier population.
In essence, the government pays a 20% premium on everything it
does....and many things are worth a 20% premium.
Bingo|2.13.09 @ 10:20PM|#
Chad: your idea is as unrealistic and unsustainable as everyone having a $600,000 McMansion full of appliances paid with credit and an SUV in the driveway.
|2.13.09 @ 10:20PM|#
I mean, yeah, look at all the starving Swedes....
The Swedes don't go nearly as far as you're advocating. If they
did, they would starve like the North Koreans do, and the Chinese
and Russians used to.
You vastly over-estimate the dead-weight loss associated with
taxes. It is around 20%.
You must have a different defiinition of "dead-weight" than most
people do. For starters, I'd have to consider the interest paid on
the national debt and the money wasted on maintaining the global
military empire as dead weight.
-jcr
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:29PM|#
"The stock market sure saluted the bill---by declining 82
points."
Guess the headline on the local rag?-"Stock market declines despite
promise of $800 billion".
Who knows, maybe, just maybe, Wall Street Traders have become more
farsighted.
Chad|2.13.09 @ 10:29PM|#
John C. Randolph | February 13, 2009, 10:20pm | #
The Swedes don't go nearly as far as you're advocating. If they
did, they would starve like the North Koreans do, and the Chinese
and Russians used to.
Didn't I just advocate the Scandanavian models? Their social
systems are approximately correct in terms of breadth.
You must have a different defiinition of "dead-weight" than
most people do. For starters, I'd have to consider the interest
paid on the national debt and the money wasted on maintaining the
global military empire as dead weight.
I am using the definition we all learned in Econ 101. I am sure you
remember it, correct?
Taxes on productive behavior have a "dead weight" loss when they
discourage that behavior, diminishing the profit of the taxpayer
while not netting the government any money. The amount of value
lost this way is about 20% of the total tax receipts. It is
essentially a hidden tax, but a managble one. The dead-weight
increases as your tax rates increase, eventually becoming so large
that tax receipts actually go down as you increase the tax rate.
This is the origin of the Laffer curve that so many conservatives
yap about but only 1% understand. The problem with their argument
is not that the Laffer curve doesn't exist, but rather that we are
nowhere near the peak. Neither are the Swedes. The peak is
somewhere around 70% tax rates, which are nowhere near what we have
now (though there are a few situations where marginal tax rates do
approach this level, which is a problem).
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:30PM|#
"The latter would result in a much happier population."
Somehow, I think a one-third reduction in one's effective income
would piss that person off.
MNG|2.13.09 @ 10:32PM|#
"That's MNG-speak for "I do not know economics and yet I opine
about the subject""
Torres seems to think that he knows it all about economics, which
is a bit disconcerting since he seems to know very little about
fields like behavioral economics (which details how many irrational
decisions people make in market transactions) and institutional
economics (which describes how historical accident or cultural
mores can be more important to the success of many concerns than
rational decision making guided by the market). In reality
economics is a very wide field and the kind Torres espouses as
"economics" is one perspective of many competing ones (and probably
a minority one at that).
The fact remains that businesses make irrational decisions all the
time and NEVER learn their lesson because as long as some other
decisions they made that turn out to work make more than the bad
decisions lose they will see themselves as gaining (for example,
they may irrationally discriminate against women, but also have a
great distribution scheme, and while they could have made even more
if the did not do the latter they are consistently making
increasing profits from the effects of the latter decision and thus
never entertain that the former decision is irrational and hurting
them).
They can also make bad decisions and still never feel any
chastisement from "the market" due to certain historical accidents
and conveniences (I know a resteraunt that everyone agrees has
subpar service and makes idiotic decisions in marketing and such,
but because of its location [which at one time would have been
neither a plus or minus but now is in a prime traffic area] it
simply does not lose money).
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:35PM|#
"In essence, the government pays a 20% premium on everything it
does"
First of all, the government doesn't pay this premium, it is payed
by taxpayers/the economy at large.
"and many things are worth a 20% premium."
Well, Chad, if you would be more specific about what those things
are, maybe we could talk. Just off the bat, I don't really consider
increased economic equality to be worth a dime.
alan|2.13.09 @ 10:36PM|#
I mean, yeah, look at all the starving Swedes....
You vastly over-estimate the dead-weight loss associated with
taxes. It is around 20%. So in practice, we have a choice between
one person at $10,000 and one person at $90,000, and one person at
$35,000 and one person at $60,000. The latter would result in a
much happier population.
In essence, the government pays a 20% premium on everything it
does....and many things are worth a 20% premium.
Except, you are not advocating mere European style high levels of
taxation. Your statement assumes a radical egalitarianism where all
parties no matter the productive value of their actions are
distributed the same amount of money. That is the path of the early
Maoist and Khmer Rouge and that path is clearly marked DEATH.
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:37PM|#
"I know a resteraunt that everyone agrees has subpar service and
makes idiotic decisions in marketing and such, but because of its
location [which at one time would have been neither a plus or minus
but now is in a prime traffic area] it simply does not lose
money"
MNG,
I know the traffic in Maryland is bad, but is it really so bad that
people can't drive to a restaurant that doesn't suck?
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:38PM|#
alan,
I think you're being just slightly melodramatic.
That path may be marked stagnation, wussiness, parasitism, etc. but
death is unlikely in most Western nations.
MNG|2.13.09 @ 10:39PM|#
Oy, I meant to write "while they could have made even more if
they did not do the FORMER..."
Actually, Mangu-Ward (or was it Howley) did a post on this a while
back comparing some business owner's nutty preference for shag
carpeting in his offices (when he could have chosen another that
would maximize his profits more) and discriminating against women
(in both cases if he had chosen otherwise he could have better
maximized his profit, but humans are'nt willing to sacrifice
everything for ever increasing gains in profit maximization: as
long as they are making money overall they will see their practices
as validated to a great extent). As long as the effects of the
other many choices this business owner makes keep his irrational
carpet preferences or woman hating tendencies from undercutting the
firm too much they can just plow right ahead with such irrational
nonsense and thos waiting for the market to fix everything will
turn blue holding their breath...
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:40PM|#
I mean "death" in the "massive earth-shaking disaster that
leaves the nation's economy in shambles while ruled by dictatorial
thugs".
For now, it seems that death is fairly certain, at some point, for
everyone.
Now I'm depressed. Must find drink.
MNG|2.13.09 @ 10:41PM|#
"but is it really so bad that people can't drive to a restaurant
that doesn't suck?"
Walking urban traffic.
But I've seen the same thing with all kinds of places off highway
exits, or on the "good" side of an intersection that does not allow
U-turns, etc
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:43PM|#
Arguing back and forth about taxes, socialism, and race relations is tiresome. I'm thinking about simply throwing in the towel and embracing the new social democracy. After all, I'll probably not be around when it finally hits the fan, and I don't have kids, so I don't really have to worry about the future, and I never did like dealing with my health plan or retirement plan.
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:44PM|#
Maybe I'll take up the cause of pot legalization. Then I can smoke a jig and be pleasantly unaware of anything that would normally piss me off.
|2.13.09 @ 10:48PM|#
I guess that's the libertarian side of me, but most of you
probably think I'm a huge-ass socialist. Because the world is only
comprised of libertarians and socialists.
Oh, no - not at all! We know that in between libertarians and
socialists there are all those liberals and conservatives who are
only a little bit pregnant. ;-)
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:53PM|#
I don't use the Laffer curve. It's too government-centered. It's only focused on what would be good for government revenues, rather than taxpayers and the economy at large.
alan|2.13.09 @ 10:54PM|#
I don't know, but I think you raised the drama higher than I did. I may be concerned about the jackboot, but the idea of living under the reign of a fancylad like Tony Blair sends some serious shivers down my spine. It is Friday 13, so I understand if you are being ghoulish.
alan|2.13.09 @ 10:58PM|#
BTW, In essence, the government pays a 20% premium on everything it does....and many things are worth a 20% premium, do you mean, the government paying out a 20 percent premium to you, or you paying a 20 percent premium to the government. Your word choices are a bit non standard.
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:58PM|#
alan,
To be perfectly honest, since I'm in my forties, I expect to be
dropping dead about the time social security goes bust. And I'm
just in a morose vein today, as I've had a severe headache since
the morning, coupled with my customary insomnia.
|2.13.09 @ 10:59PM|#
I don't understand why would "egalitarian" motives be
preferable for you to [I complete here the whole paragraph] your
own motives, or mine
Because two people with $50,000 per year are a lot happier
than one with $10,000 and one with $90,000. Is that hard to
understand?
Indeed, yes, it is HARD to understand. WHAT two people, and how do
YOU know that both making $50,000 are a lot happier than two making
different incomes? The $50,000 sounds mire like your own subjective
threshold of an income you find acceptable, but that does not mean
that the two people you talk about are going to be happy with that
level.
Just how far do you think egalitarianism is sufficient for you,
Chad?
There is no good way to quantify it. But I'll know when I
am close, and right now, we aren't within a country mile.
Scand[i]navian countries are in the right ballpark
though.
If there is no good way to quantify it, then how can you justify
striving for it? By the way, Scandinavian countries do not have
egalitarian societies, they live under fascist systems (i.e. a
welfare State-big business amalgam)
I already lower my "standard of living" and give lots
of my wealth away in order to make up for the fact that the
government doesn't do it for me.
Knowing just a bit about marginal utility law, I know you are
mistaken when thinking you are actually lowering your standard of
living. Your standard of living is whatever you are comfortable
with according to your value scale, even if you went as far as
living in a cave.
There is almost no chance that the government would
ever take so much from me than it is more than I am willing to
give.
Chad, clearly you do not know how to think logically. If the
government takes your money ANYWAY, regardless of your wishes, then
what difference does it make how much you're willing to give or
not? The only way YOU can know how much you're willing to give is
if you have WILL, that is, you have the option - in
the case of taxes, you do not. The coercive actions of the
government already affects your value scale no matter what you
think.
My taxes, and everyone['s] else, should increase by
about 5% of our income as soon as GDP growth recovers. And for the
top 1%, taxes should go up even more.
Why 5%? Why not 10%, or even 20%? Why the "top 1%", why not the top
2%? Or 10%? Or why not the top 50%? Weren't you looking for the
egalitarian society?
I noticed you said nothing about Cheap Chinese Crap and credit
default swaps, both of which I am sure you owned (though you
probably didn't know much about the latter).
What is clear is that you have little idea of what you're talking
about. I have no reason to think that your prejudices about Chinese
made goods are intelligent. And I did not own swaps, I did not
place my money on the fiat currency - I purchased gold and
silver.
I make plenty of money. My emotion towards people with over-sized
consumption isn't envy, it is loathing.
Uh, ok. So you loath people who over-consume . . . "over" consume
compared to whose consumption? I assume you use yours as a base
line. How is that different from envy?
How does having a big home undermine "our community"?
Living in Europe or Japan (as I have) and get back to me. You will
understand. Big houses sprawl everything out and isolate us from
one another while diminishing community
centers.
I lived in worse places (Monterrey in Mexico, Juarez, Santa Cruz
CA), and I still do not understand your issues. Don't you think
diminishing community centers are "diminishing" because people
don't really want them?
What makes you think those things are "unsustainable"?
Wow. You can't see why a housing pattern based on heavy
consumption of fossil fuels for both heating and transportation is
unsustainable?
No, Chad, I can't, because unlike you, I am not ignorant - If and
when fossil fuels become less available, people will switch to
other sources as these become more affordable. It HAS happened many
times before.
Suburbs making walking and biking difficult and
generally remove them from our daily lives. Hence, we [sic] become
fat and unhealthy. Again, live abroad for a while and see the
difference (and all the hot chicks).
The thing, Chad, is that you are talking nonsense. Suburbs actually
do NOT make it difficult to walk or ride, it just makes walking or
riding more recreational than a necessity. I have seen very healthy
people live in suburbs and very fat people live in housing
projects. What is going on is that you are applying your own
preferences when judging the preferences of others, in other words,
you're just being prejudiced. People LIKE living in suburbs,
otherwise they would live in different dwellings. Whether they grow
fat or not is a matter of their choices and habits, and not
necessarily their dwellings.
I am well aware of the CRA. It was 1% of the problem. So were Fanny
and Freddie. And the other 97%....
Yes, those otherwise "cautious" lenders were forced to follow
Fannie and Freddie right over the cliff. Indeed, they jumped
first!
Ok, I have to say, this is the nuttiest thing I have read - you are
telling me that a very powerful piece of legislation which was
mandatory to follow, meant only 1% of the problem? And why 1%?
MlR|2.13.09 @ 10:59PM|#
alan | February 13, 2009, 7:28pm | #
Thank you for your honesty Alan.
I hated McCain, but I saw every one of those three things.
Including the Democrats' ongoing about face on the War on Terror.
They're nothing but corrupt opportunists, with better press
coverage.
economist|2.13.09 @ 10:59PM|#
alan,
Like I said previously, the government doesn't pay out the premium.
Taxpayers and the economy at large pay it.
economist|2.13.09 @ 11:01PM|#
Francisco Torres,
"By the way, Scandinavian countries do not have egalitarian
societies, they live under fascist systems"
Could we avoid the fascist-crying, please? There's plenty to
criticize about the Scandinavian systems without hyperbole.
Chad|2.13.09 @ 11:02PM|#
Except, you are not advocating mere European style high
levels of taxation. Your statement assumes a radical egalitarianism
where all parties no matter the productive value of their actions
are distributed the same amount of money. That is the path of the
early Maoist and Khmer Rouge and that path is clearly marked
DEATH.
I am not calling for communism. I am calling for total tax rates of
55-60% rather than the ~35% we have now. We don't need more
McMansions and Chinese crap. We need high speed long-haul trains
connecting robust local train systems, an upgraded "smart" electric
grid, a phase-out of coal power, more money spent on community and
public property, and a public health care system. In case you
haven't noticed, our wonderful semi-private model is an expensive
cluster-@#$#, and a purely private model is politically impossible
even if it would work. Your only choices are our current hybrid
monstrosity or the public models of every other rich nation. The
latter wins hands down.
The Government|2.13.09 @ 11:02PM|#
"There is almost no chance that the government would ever take
so much from me than it is more than I am willing to give."
We would like 100% of your income and savings. Don't worry, we'll
make sure you don't starve to death.
economist|2.13.09 @ 11:04PM|#
"more money spent on community and public property"
Why, exactly, do we need more spending on community and public
property?
economist|2.13.09 @ 11:04PM|#
As for the train systems, I'm not in the mood for an Amtrak style cluster****.
economist|2.13.09 @ 11:05PM|#
And I love it when leftists argue that their model should be embraced, because the alternative is politically impossible. Who is making it impossible, I wonder?
economist|2.13.09 @ 11:06PM|#
I promise to stop posting in snippets like this.
"a phase-out of coal power",
Quick, Chad, tell me what we should phase to.
economist|2.13.09 @ 11:13PM|#
I've bludgeoned the thread to death, haven't I? Or is it merely in a coma?
|2.13.09 @ 11:15PM|#
You vastly over-estimate the dead-weight loss associated
with taxes. It is around 20%. So in practice, we have a choice
between one person at $10,000 and one person at $90,000, and one
person at $35,000 and one person at $60,000. The latter would
result in a much happier population.
Yeah, and some state actor is consuming that 20%. Skimming off the
top of the wealth transfer.
And whose idea was it? Oh year, the state actor that is doing the
wealth transferring.
Man, you are such a tool, Chad.
alan|2.13.09 @ 11:16PM|#
MNG,
There was a review of a recent book on behavioral economics posted
on Mises the other day. You may want to take a look.
Behavioral Economics: At
Odds with Freedom
and the comment section, some interesting posts concerning the
proper place of 'rationality' to economics.
Comments
I have to admit my last post was a poorly set up excuse to call
Tony Blair a fancylad, but he was, and I never tire of calling him
one.
Thanks MlR. For the record, I voted Barr, but I really didn't
expect Obama to be this reckless coming out of the gate.
|2.13.09 @ 11:19PM|#
Torres seems to think that he knows it all about
economics, which is a bit disconcerting since he seems to know very
little about fields like behavioral economics (which details how
many irrational decisions people make in market
transactions)
There is a good critique of so-called Behavioral Economics to make
it sound like a crock. The problem with Behavioral Economics is
that its advocates present the case of irrationality by
interpreting the replies to tests and surveys according to what
they expect is rational and what it not, without considering
alternative rationale or interpretation of the questions.
See:
http://mises.org/story/3322
The biggest problem is the conclusions from the advocates of this
type of social theory, in that a State is required to bring
rationality to human interactions. Problem is, they never seem to
explain how this State can be populated with people that are to
make rational choices, different from the irrational choices made
by everyday individuals.
Oh, MNG - I KNOW about these things.
and institutional economics (which describes how
historical accident or cultural mores can be more important to the
success of many concerns than rational decision making guided by
the market).
That's Marxian historicism, or a rehash of.
In reality economics is a very wide field and the kind
Torres espouses as "economics" is one perspective of many competing
ones (and probably a minority one at that).
Ah, MNG ... Trying to make the field meaningless by alleging there
are many diverse opinions. Obviously, they cannot be ALL correct,
but you muddle the waters by pointing out the existence of
these.
The fact remains that businesses make irrational
decisions all the time and NEVER learn their lesson because as long
as some other decisions they made that turn out to work make more
than the bad decisions lose they will see themselves as gaining
(for example, they may irrationally discriminate against women, but
also have a great distribution scheme, and while they could have
made even more if the did not do the latter they are consistently
making increasing profits from the effects of the latter decision
and thus never entertain that the former decision is irrational and
hurting them).
MNG, you're begging the question by assuming business make
irrational decisions - how can you know that? What's an irrational
decision, whatever YOU say it is [because that seems to be the
case]? Also, your example is spurious - what does it mean to
discriminate women? In what sense? How can you know a woman was
discriminated? And why would this be an example of irrational
behavior?
They can also make bad decisions and still never feel
any chastisement from "the market"
This is not the case, MNG - clearly, you seem to ignore the concept
of opportunity costs. A company that makes mistakes may STILL make
a profit, but there will be better profits forgo in lieu of those
mistakes. The market does chastise the company that makes
more mistakes by improving the market share of the
competition.
due to certain historical accidents and conveniences (I
know a resteraunt [sic] that everyone agrees has subpar service and
makes idiotic decisions in marketing and such, but because of its
location [which at one time would have been neither a plus or minus
but now is in a prime traffic area] it simply does not lose
money).
"Not losing money" does not equate to making MORE money by offering
better service. You are arguing from a false dilemma: That the
market either has to make or break a company, without taking into
account discrete steps in between.
Again, I KNOW what I am talking about.
|2.13.09 @ 11:26PM|#
Economist,
Could we avoid the fascist-crying, please? There's
plenty to criticize about the Scandinavian systems without
hyperbole.
Economist, I am using clear, very precise and adequate concepts to
describe without undue vagueness the type of political-economic
system the Scandinavians are living under. Accusing me of using
hyperbole is uncalled for.
Chad|2.13.09 @ 11:27PM|#
Indeed, yes, it is HARD to understand. WHAT two people, and
how do YOU know that both making $50,000 are a lot happier than two
making different incomes?
Plenty of studies have shown how happiness has a terribly weak
correlation with increased incomes beyond a modest level, after
which, only relative income really matters. In other
words, being rich doesn't make you happy. Being richer than your
neighbor does. And this isn't lake Woebegon....we can't all be
richer than average.
Just how far do you think egalitarianism is sufficient for you,
Chad?
Knowing just a bit about marginal utility law, I know you are
mistaken when thinking you are actually lowering your standard of
living.
Hence the quotes around "standard of living". I live well below my
means, give lots away, maintain a low environmental impact
lifestyle and purchase offsets for that which there is no way to
avoid yet.
Why 5%? Why not 10%, or even 20%? Why the "top 1%", why not the
top 2%? Or 10%? Or why not the top 50%? Weren't you looking for the
egalitarian society?
Actually, 20% is about right, but we can't make that big of a
change at once. Why the top 1%? Because that is about the point
where people are no longer getting rich from their own time and
labor, but rather from the portion of the system of capital and
other peoples' labor they have gained control of. Most of the GDP
gains in the last thirty years have been concentrated into the
pockets of the people controlling the system, not the people
working inside the system. Do you really believe that CEOs are ten
times as smart and hard-working as they were 40 years ago? Or will
you acknowledge that the system has changed and now concentrates
wealth even more strongly than before.
Uh, ok. So you loath people who over-consume . . . "over"
consume compared to whose consumption? I assume you use yours as a
base line. How is that different from envy?
I would be very happy if everyone used my consumption levels as a
baseline. My life is both carbon negative and sustainable.
Don't you think diminishing community centers are "diminishing"
because people don't really want them?
Where they exist, people love them. You don't see people saying
"Hey, lets rip up this nice downtown area and put up McMansions and
BigBox stores". The problem is that you can't just create the
former from thin air. They are non-linear and their value rises
exponentially with increasing density. The first store or business
there would have few customers. The second store would bring more
because it would have both its own and a few who dropped in while
heading to the first store. The third store snags its own plus
those from the first two, etc. Public transportation works the same
way. The first train station is worthless. The second provides
someplace to go, and back again, but that's it. But the
hundredth
station adds 99 trips one way and 99 trips the other.....198
possible trips from the addition of one station. In both these
cases, the system is great once it is big and robust enough. But
when it is small, its value is low, and it often dies. That is why
it requires a type of coordination that private groups cannot
provide.
The thing, Chad, is that you are talking nonsense. Suburbs
actually do NOT make it difficult to walk or ride, it just makes
walking or riding more recreational than a necessity.
A distinction without a difference. I cannot walk or ride to work,
nor is it even feasible to live close enough to do such. Even
"reacreational" riding is a pain in the rear, requiring me to drive
two miles to get to a nice place to do it (I can ride the two
miles, but it requires crossing some nasty intersections).
People LIKE living in suburbs, otherwise they would live in
different dwellings.
People have been moving the other way for some time, especially in
cities with good public transportation. And if we made people pay
the true cost of owning their McMansion, they wouldn't want to be
there anymore. Just wait a few years to when oil really gets
expensive....
|2.13.09 @ 11:35PM|#
I make plenty of money. My emotion towards people with over-sized consumption isn't envy, it is loathing.
Uh, ok. So you loath people who over-consume . . . "over"
consume compared to whose consumption? I assume you use yours as a
base line. How is that different from envy?
It is different than envy, because: it isn't that he wants what
others have - he just doesn't want others to have it. It's like the
story of the Russian peasant who didn't want his neighbor to get
cow. It's not that he wanted the cow for himself - he just didn't
want his neighbor to be better off than he. There's a reason
they're called peasants, ya know. ;-)
|2.13.09 @ 11:39PM|#
Chad,
I am not calling for communism. I am calling for total
tax rates of 55-60% rather than the ~35% we have
now.
Why those rates? What would be the purpose of doling that amount of
each person's resources to the government?
We don't need more McMansions and Chinese
crap.
Look, Chad, stop it with this "we" business. YOU may not want them,
from a sense of self-righteousness or simple envy, but each
person's preferences are NONE of your business.
We [again with that "we" crap] need high speed
long-haul trains connecting robust local train systems, an upgraded
"smart" electric grid, a phase-out of coal power, more money spent
on community and public property [sic], and a public health care
system [sic, very sic].
More money spent on community - after taking people's 57.5% in
taxes, or before?
In case you haven't noticed, our wonderful semi-private
model is an expensive cluster-@#$#, and a purely private model is
politically impossible even if it would work.
Chad, yours is an exercise in question-begging. What makes you
think a purely private system is "politically impossible"? If you
can have a private veterinarian system, surely there can be a
private medical system. As a matter of fact, there are purely
PRIVATE systems in many Latin American countries, like Mexico, that
are sufficiently cheap and good that American patients travel to
Monterrey (Mexico) for procedure, paying full price, and still
being cheaper for them than paying for the same procedures in
AMA-controlled America.
Your only choices are our current hybrid monstrosity or
the public models of every other rich nation. The latter wins hands
down.
False dichotomy, and, you're begging the question - the latter does
NOT win hands down, when people have to wait months to see a
specialist.
alan|2.13.09 @ 11:40PM|#
Chad, are you here because there is a part of you that hopes that we can change you? That is the message I'm getting especially after reading your last post.
|2.13.09 @ 11:47PM|#
Smartass Bob,
It is different than envy, because: it isn't that he wants what
others have - he just doesn't want others to have it.
Well, that is the very concept of envy. "If I can't have it [for
whatever reason], then nobody will!"
|2.13.09 @ 11:53PM|#
Chad,
I would be very happy if everyone used my consumption levels as
a baseline. My life is both carbon negative [?] and
sustainable.
I don't now why you have to be so worked out about what other
people do or how they live. A person that preoccupies himself so
much with other people's lifestyles is called a puritan. So, what I
can say about you is that you're a puritan - you certainly fit the
profile. And no, it does not mean you are an Anabaptist or a
Quaker, but your beliefs are just as zealous and religious in their
nature as those of the original Puritans. Most of the assertions
you made read as statements of faith, not fact or reason.
By the way, your lifestyle cannot be carbon negative, unless you
are currently losing weight - and if that is the case, I certainly
do NOT envy you.
|2.13.09 @ 11:55PM|#
We don't need more McMansions and Chinese crap.
Who the hell appointed you to decide what anyone else needs? Buy
what you want, and let other people buy what they want.
Scratch a liberal, find an autocrat.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 11:58PM|#
I would be very happy if everyone used my consumption levels
as a baseline.
You know what, Chad? You're being selfish as all get-out by
remaining alive and consuming any resources at all. Why don't you
take one for the team and do yourself in?
Somehow, the world would get by without one more self-righteous ass
like yourself.
-jcr
|2.14.09 @ 12:07AM|#
@Francisco Torres
Smartass Bob,...
Ahem. It's "S"ob - as in "son of a bitch."
Well, that is the very concept of envy. "If I can't have it
[for whatever reason], then nobody will!"
Oh? I thought envy was the wishing for what others have.
That's how it is generally used. Perhaps I am confusing it with
covetous.
alan|2.14.09 @ 12:17AM|#
Chad,
You have opinions, and that is groovy and all, but why do you
assume they should matter to others, and they should abide by
them?
|2.14.09 @ 12:20AM|#
A person that preoccupies himself so much with other
people's lifestyles is called a puritan.
I think H. L. Mencken's definition is the best:
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be
happy."
-jcr
economist|2.14.09 @ 1:02AM|#
Okay, so the thread was revived. But it has to be dead
now.
"My life is both carbon negative and sustainable(Puts wineglass
near ass, farts, and then lifts glass to nose and inhales
deeply)."
economist|2.14.09 @ 1:04AM|#
"By the way, your lifestyle cannot be carbon negative, unless
you are currently losing weight"
Maybe Chad has the writs of indulgence for environmental sin
otherwise known as "carbon offsets".
JB|2.14.09 @ 1:15AM|#
Well, it's also good news that it is now obvious to anyone with eyes that this president is a miserable failure.
|2.14.09 @ 1:31AM|#
Where they exist, people love them. You don't see people
saying "Hey, lets rip up this nice downtown area and put up
McMansions and BigBox stores".
Chad, don't you realize that what you are complaining about is
largely an unintended consequence of zoning?
If you put all the stores in one spot, and the houses in a
completely separate area, people have to drive to get to them.
Since they have to drive, they need parking space once they get
there. The downtowns became congested and unpleasant places to be -
so people abandoned them for suburban stores along the
highways.
That's how we got to big-box stores. The mononic zoning done by
city-planners who thought they knew what was best for society. Who
thought they could "plan" a city and decide what the right place to
put everything was.
People like you, Chad.
economist|2.14.09 @ 1:51AM|#
"In both these cases, the system is great once it is big and
robust enough. But when it is small, its value is low, and it often
dies. That is why it requires a type of coordination that private
groups cannot provide."
Actually, Chad, economies of scale are regularly harnessed in free
markets.
|2.14.09 @ 1:57AM|#
I think Chad deserves a cabinet position in Obama's
administration. He could be the new Minister of Morality! He'll
tell us all exactly how to live so we can create Shangri'la!!
Someone get Barry on the phone!
Get your nose out of my business Chad. If you want to live a
'carbon neutral' lifestyle, go for it. But don't presume to tell
the rest of us how we should go about Pursuing our own Happiness.
And get off your damn high and mighty horse.
Oh, economist just said it better than that. How's that glass of
Smug?
Elemenope|2.14.09 @ 5:13AM|#
This stimulus shit is rather boring, especially the part where
Torres thinks he has the keys to the kingdom of economics or
whatever. How about Epi or Warren or Neu Mejican get themselves to
a TV and watch the BSG episode that finally provides more question
than answers.
Holy shit.
Epi, I think you are going to seriously have to eat your words
about them not knowing where exactly they're going.
Nice episode Sartre reference FTW.
Chad|2.14.09 @ 7:56AM|#
"Actually, Chad, economies of scale are regularly harnessed in
free markets."
It depends. A real public transportation system would be on the
order of several trillion dollars. Even the biggest companies have
capital spending of a few billion. No company, or even group of
companies, could tackle a problem this size and get the system big
enough that it was self-sustaining. But it can be done. Japan is
case in point. Their system is almost entire private, but got off
the ground through a national system that was built big, and then
broken up and sold. Many private companies piggy-backed on the
national system. What they have now is cheaper, cleaner, safer,
healthier and usually more convenient than driving or flying.
By the way, your lifestyle cannot be carbon negative, unless
you are currently losing weight - and if that is the case, I
certainly do NOT envy you.
Why yes it can be, as long as through my actions, less carbon comes
out of the ground than otherwise would without me. It is neither
difficult or expensive to accomplish this.
But don't presume to tell the rest of us how we should go about
Pursuing our own Happiness.
Look, Chad, stop it with this "we" business. YOU may not want them,
from a sense of self-righteousness or simple envy, but each
person's preferences are NONE of your business.
When your pursuit of happiness or preferences quit dimishing the
quality of life of those around you and every generation that will
follow us, you may have a point. You will never accomplish
that.
Everything you do has consequences that affect others, now and
until the end of the earth.
Chad, don't you realize that what you are complaining about is
largely an unintended consequence of zoning?
Yes, zoning laws are part of the problem. Massive subsidies for
autos are part of the problem. The government pushed us in the
wrong direction, and now the government needs to push us back,
because the private market will never get us where we need to
go.
|2.14.09 @ 8:31AM|#
The government pushed us in the wrong direction, and now the
government needs to push us back
You were so close, and then you went right off into the weeds
again.
the private market will never get us where we need to
go.
Who are you to decide where anyone besides yourself "needs" to
go?
Get it through your power-hungry little mind, that when you
forcibly interfere with people's choices, bad things happen.
-jcr
|2.14.09 @ 8:34AM|#
When your pursuit of happiness or preferences quit dimishing
the quality of life of those around you
Gee Chad, I'm sure you diminish the quality of life for any number
of people on whom you inflict your pontifications. Should we
legislate to make you stop it?
-jcr
Chad|2.14.09 @ 8:35AM|#
John C. Randolph | February 14, 2009, 8:31am
Get it through your power-hungry little mind, that when you
forcibly interfere with people's choices, bad things
happen.
And when we don't interfere with other peoples' choices, worse
things happen. Therein lies the problem.
MNG|2.14.09 @ 9:31AM|#
"The problem with Behavioral Economics is that its advocates
present the case of irrationality by interpreting the replies to
tests and surveys according to what they expect is rational and
what it not, without considering alternative rationale or
interpretation of the questions." By considering alternative
rationale yada yada I guess you mean the ad hoc "just so" stories
the Austrians tell to make everything come out rational.
"MNG, you're begging the question by assuming business make
irrational decisions - how can you know that?"
No, by the standard of maximizing profits you youself bring up.
That's not how people act. Your beef with behavioral economics
seems to be that it actually takes seriously how consumers, firms,
etc., empirically make decisions, and it's not according to the
Candyland models and assumpetions the more simplistic Austrians
use.
MNG|2.14.09 @ 9:44AM|#
In any sense it takes some chutzpah for an Austrian to talk
about begging the question when one of the biggest criticisms is
that Austrians assume all kinds of things about how people act and
then interpret and re-interpret the actual data until they find
that people act that way, assuming that since people act according
to their initial assumptions that's the only possible explanation
and we need to keep thinking about it until we can "make it
so."
Why do people act in X way? Because it's the rational way to act.
How do you know that's the rational way act? Because they acted in
that way and people act in rational ways. And the circular beat
goes on...
BDB|2.14.09 @ 10:02AM|#
Good God Chad is the most self-righteous person I've ever seen on this forum!
BDB|2.14.09 @ 10:07AM|#
This is coming from someone, btw, who doesn't really care for McMansions or SUVs either, but if that kind of thing floats your boat I really don't care if you want to drive the Canyonero and live in an imitation mansion out in the 'burbs.
BDB|2.14.09 @ 10:08AM|#
As for "carbon neutral", are you talking about those horseshit "carbon offsets"?
|2.14.09 @ 10:21AM|#
And when we don't interfere with other peoples' choices,
worse things happen.
*sighs, bangs head on desk*
|2.14.09 @ 10:23AM|#
Good God Chad is the most self-righteous person I've ever
seen on this forum!
It's a tough call, and I don't want to mention any names......
|2.14.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Chad-
Tell us about the railroads. Are you of the opinion that the
transcontinental railroads in the United States had to be a
gigantic public works project? Just to clear: My question concernms
the 19th century construction of the same.
|2.14.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Then I grew up.
I would much rather have the stuff on that list than a new pair of black shoes and a Naruto DVD, which is what I would buy if you forced me to spend $130 on non-necessities.
I'm just sayin'.
Chad|2.14.09 @ 12:36PM|#
BDB | February 14, 2009, 10:08am | #
As for "carbon neutral", are you talking about those horseshit
"carbon offsets"?
They are not horseshit, especially the good ones. There is nothing
wrong, either conceptually or morally, with paying to have your
messes cleaned up rather than going a million miles out of your way
to avoid making them in the first place. All that matters is how
much carbon gets into the atmosphere, and because of me, there is
less than there otherwise would be.
And yes, I am self-righteous. I earn it every day. I always find it
funny when people bring this up, because it is a clear indication
that they haven't earned it.
|2.14.09 @ 12:55PM|#
paying to have your messes cleaned up
Right.
Paying, and paying, and paying.
Thanx, Congress!
BDB|2.14.09 @ 12:58PM|#
You rag on people for buying "crap", but you choose to spend your own money on environmental indulgences? Ooookaay.
BDB|2.14.09 @ 12:59PM|#
The kind of person that believes buying carbon credits does anything is the same kind of person that would give their money to Bernie Maddoff.
Mike M.|2.14.09 @ 1:02PM|#
Well, it's also good news that it is now obvious to anyone
with eyes that this president is a miserable failure.
Not to mention that he's a remarkable liar to boot.
Chad|2.14.09 @ 1:42PM|#
BDB | February 14, 2009, 1:02pm | #
BTW, Chad, are you for nuclear power?
I have no particular objection to one more generation of nuclear
power, IF it can do it without subsidies. Given the hundreds of
billions of dollars in subsidies it has received over the decades,
it surely should be able to stand on its own two feet by now. I
have no problem burying nuclear waste in federal lands in the
middle of the Nevada desert. Environmentalists and NIMBYs are just
being stupid about that one. Of course, it should be funded by the
power companies that use it.
Coal should be stripped of its subsidies as well, which would
immediately make it uneconomic. Each and every gigawatt-scale coal
plant in the country kills roughly ten people every year with its
soot and mercury. Imagine if we held the owners accountable...what
fun that would be. Yet somehow, it is ok to people if it is
abstract enough, just to save a few bucks a month on our electric
bills.
Natural gas would be economic without subsidy if its price didn't
spike when coal got shut down, which of course it would.
Wind is cheap, the price of solar will drop ~30% this year,
geothermal is making a big comeback, and the the "storage" and
"intermitency" issues are just bogeymen. We already have
gigawatt-scale pumped storage facilities on the grid, and can build
as many as we need.
|2.14.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Chad, are you for nuclear power?
I have no particular objection to one more generation of nuclear
power, IF it can do it without subsidies.
If it weren't for your anti-nuclear allies constantly harassing the
nuclear industry with frivious lawsuits deliberately
designed to escalate the costs of construaction, nuclear power
would do just fine.
Have the shit you complain about it a problem created by government
getting in the way, misappropriating resources, and creating
perverse incentives.
How about you trying getting government out of the way first? So
it's not stepping all over it's own feet trying to create
regulations to deal with the perverse results of other
regulations.
|2.14.09 @ 5:33PM|#
And when we don't interfere with other peoples' choices,
worse things happen. Therein lies the problem.
The problem is that people like you believe that you're entitled to
force your decisions on others. FUCK YOU, and every other
autocrat.
-jcr
|2.14.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Coal should be stripped of its subsidies as well, which
would immediately make it uneconomic.
That statement just oozes ignorance. Short of damming rivers,* coal
is the cheapest way to generate electricity. Unless you think the
Chinese and Indians are trying to electrify their respective
nations with the expensive stuff, their decisions should give you
doubts about the accuracy of the quoted statement. China's Three
Gorges project and the largest coal appetite in the world amply
demostrates that you are more than slightly misinformed on the
issue.
* We've dammed the best ones already and ther isn't always a
suitable river nearby.
Jordan|2.14.09 @ 5:36PM|#
Japan is case in point. Their system is almost entire private, but got off the ground through a national system that was built big, and then broken up and sold.
Do you have any idea how Japan's population density compares to our
own?
John C. Randolph|2.14.09 @ 9:58PM|#
Jsub,
Have you noticed the correlation between ignorance and the desire
to tell other people what to do? Chad's an excellent example of
it.
jcr
economist|2.14.09 @ 10:35PM|#
"The government pushed us in the wrong direction, and now the
government needs to push us back, because the private market will
never get us where we need to go."
We know the private market will never get us where we need to go.
What do you mean, have we tried it? What are you, some kind of
libertarian extremist?
And I love how the statists say "But ours is the GOOD kind of
statism. I promise WE won't screw anything up."
|2.14.09 @ 10:35PM|#
Chad said ( among other things): "Big houses sprawl everything
out and isolate us from one another while diminishing community
centers."
I find that strange considering the small, cheap house I grew up in
( which my parents sold for a whopping 35 grand in 1995) had a
bigger yard than most McMansions in my area. In fact a developer
wanted to buy our house and build 4 in the same area.
Maybe I just don't understand what sprawl or "isolate" mean here
but I guess you could replace "Big Houses" with "farmers, people
with families, people who enjoy a quiet lifestyle, people who want
their kids and pets to have a yard to play and run around, people
who garden, people who don't people peeping in their windows and
are not interested in communal living,etc." Believe it or not, not
everyone is from a big city with no houses. There are millions of
us who grew up in small towns with houses and yards with trees
where there were no "community centers" and people made the long
trek to downtown when necessary and did not envy the people ( often
on Section 8) crowded into small spaces.
In my area, mcMansions only increased the population density. So
maybe it brought the community center closer. I don't know.
Maybe instead of living in Europe or Japan try living in small town
USA somewhere.
economist|2.14.09 @ 10:36PM|#
J sub D,
Are you contradicting Chad again? Don't you know that if you don't
agree with him, you're ignorant and evil?
economist|2.14.09 @ 10:38PM|#
John C Jackson,
Now, really, are you suggesting that Chad's lifestyle might not be
morally and practically superior to everyone else's?
economist|2.14.09 @ 10:39PM|#
"Big houses sprawl everything out and isolate us from one
another"
I would love to be isolated from my neighbors in the condominium.
That's why, for the first time in six years, I'm actually looking
at real estate listings.
That, and low housing prices. Which are bad.
Chad|2.14.09 @ 11:45PM|#
If it weren't for your anti-nuclear allies constantly harassing the
nuclear industry with frivious lawsuits deliberately designed to
escalate the costs of construaction, nuclear power would do just
fine.
They aren't my allies (on that issue at least). But nuclear is not
cheap even with fairly rosey assumptions. Construction costs are
enormous even if fast-tracked, disposal and decon is a major
headache, and proliferation and security concerns worse than ever.
New nuclear is no longer cheaper than wind in most cases. I am
perfectly willing to let other people try with their own cash
though....right in my backyard if they want to. Actually they
started building one here decades ago and then the
NIMBY/environmentalist crew stopped it.
Do you have any idea how Japan's population density compares to
our own?
I have lived there, traveled there often, and my significant other
is Japanese. So yes, I understand their population density quite
well. I also understand, unlike you apparently, that the transit
systems amplify the density. Everyone and everything wants to be
close to the stations. And guess what, that means the stations
connect everyone and everything. It is a completely virtuous
circle.
Are you contradicting Chad again? Don't you know that if you
don't agree with him, you're ignorant and evil?
Not AND, but likely OR. Usually I am an optomist concerning people,
and I lean towards assuming ignorance rather than evil. Remember, I
used to be one of you guys, until I grew up.
Believe it or not, not everyone is from a big city with no
houses....Maybe instead of living in Europe or Japan try living in
small town USA somewhere
I have spent more than half my life living a few miles out of a
town of 700, where my neighbors (mostly relatives) were a quarter
mile down the road. That small enough for you?
The small town actually had as much community as any place I have
every lived. It is the suburbs that are the dead zone and bring
about the worst of everything.
zoltan|2.15.09 @ 12:02AM|#
That, and low housing prices. Which are
bad.
How so? We renters can finally afford houses that aren't an hour
away from the city!
Chad|2.15.09 @ 12:38AM|#
J sub D | February 14, 2009, 5:35pm | #
Coal should be stripped of its subsidies as well, which would
immediately make it uneconomic.
That statement just oozes ignorance. Short of damming rivers,* coal
is the cheapest way to generate electricity. Unless you think the
Chinese and Indians are trying to electrify their respective
nations with the expensive stuff, their decisions should give you
doubts about the accuracy of the quoted statement.
Most of coal's costs are not recorded on the books, making it
appear cheap when it is not. The right to dump the garbage produced
by your production process onto public property for free is a
subsidy, and in the case of coal, a massive one easily totaling
over a trillion dollars each year. 20-30 Americans and around
200,000 people around the world are killed prematurely by coal each
year. Millions more are sickened. Our waters are polluted by
mercury, making fish in some of even the most pristine places you
can think of dangerous to eat. And of course, the CO2 emissions,
which are slowly disrupting the planet's climate and acidifying the
oceans.
China and India are trapped into the same market failure that the
US is - the race to the bottom phenomenon. Coal is cheap "on the
books". If any one of us was to force coal to place its costs on
the books, our electricity prices and the costs of our goods and
services produced would jump. Of course, this is not a bad thing -
it would simply be the true prices being reflected. But now the
other two nations' goods would appear cheaper, and they would get
all the business. Only coordinated government action among all
nations can stop the downward spiral.
Oh wait, markets are supposed to fail in Libertarian world,
right?
One of my favorite market failures is literally beneath your
fingers right now. Why do we still have QWERTY keyboards? Hell, why
do the Japanese use QWERTY keyboards? Because of lock-in, which is
yet another market failure. QWERTY was designed to minimize jamming
in old mechanical keyboards, a noble and rational goal. Of course,
it makes no sense now, and keyboards that are optimized for typing
speed have been designed. But very few have ever switched to them,
because he cost of switching and being different from everyone else
is high. So we just stick with the old technology
indefinitely.
How does it feel to be touching a market failure right now?
economist|2.15.09 @ 12:47AM|#
"How does it feel to be touching a market failure right
now?"
Just fine, thank you. I like my QWERTY keyboard very much. And it's
not a market failure. It's a transition cost.
Chad|2.15.09 @ 8:21AM|#
Just fine, thank you. I like my QWERTY keyboard very much.
And it's not a market failure. It's a transition cost.
What's fine about a permanent ~10% reduction in your typing speed?
It's not just a transition cost. It is stronger than that, because
you do not capture the full benefit of transitioning unless
everyone else transitions too.
If only you transitions, you face high costs and few options due to
the low volumes of non-QWERTY keyboards. You would have to maintain
your QWERTY skills because you would still run into them all the
time. Your kids would need to learn both, one to use at home and
one to use at school. And your guests? They would just be
SOL.
Only a small fraction of the transistion cost is inherent - the
cost of replacing the keyboard and the time spent learning the new
keys.
Kreel Sarloo|2.15.09 @ 8:31AM|#
I used to be one of you guys, until I grew up.
Godamn - what an arrogant self righteous motherfucker.
Reinmoose|2.15.09 @ 11:27AM|#
I actually just now accessed this thread for the first time. I'll have to read back up to see what Bags is giving me credit for.
Reinmoose|2.15.09 @ 11:31AM|#
Oh my, no. I most definitely am not Chad.
Remember, I always drop some hint of my identity, usually in the
email field.
|2.15.09 @ 11:39AM|#
I have been watching Bloomberg's weekend news for the past
half-hour or so. The best part was when, immediately following Jim
Rogers' tirade about zombie banks, a GMAC Bank ad touting their
above-market CDs, came on.
And can we just summarily execute anyone who starts a sentence with
the phrase, "Only the government can...."
We'll start with Krugman; Geithner's on deck.
|2.15.09 @ 11:42AM|#
Do I bother to school Chad on electrical generation costs?
Or do I just ignore the blathering ignorance of someone who trots
out the QWERTY vs.
Dvorak myth thinking it will make him sound
knowledgeable?
I'll go with the latter.
economist|2.15.09 @ 11:47AM|#
Chad,
Private entities can and do take advantage of network
externalities. One way is by offering the first units at reduced
cost, to build a starting network. After that, people are willing
to pay more for the product or service, because they get more
marginal benefit from it. But you would have to convince these
companies that your proposal was worth the significant investment
that it would require.
economist|2.15.09 @ 11:50AM|#
J sub D,
Chad is arguing that externality costs associated with coal make it
non-cost-effective. On the one hand, not having sufficient
information, I can't really say whether Chad's wrong or right on
that point. However, drawing bad comparisons tends to reduce one's
credibility.
economist|2.15.09 @ 12:28PM|#
"I used to be one of you guys, until I grew up"
Y'see, that's funny, because growing did pretty much the opposite
thing to me. Back when I was in high school and college, I could
probably have been best described as a liberal technocrat. Later,
as I got into the real world, I came to realize that there were
reasons for the economic decisions people made beside "omg they're
so ignorant!" and my moderately liberal views gave way to more
conservative views. Then, when it became clear (starting ten years
ago and progressing) that most of the self-described conservative
public figures were batshit insane, unprincipled, AND
self-righteous, I gravitated more towards libertarianism.
Craig|2.15.09 @ 3:21PM|#
I wish everyone would stop calling it a "stimulus package" and start calling it what it really is -- a "spending package."
Craig|2.15.09 @ 3:30PM|#
My taxes are far too low to cover all that has been given
me. I have no right to complain.
My taxes are far too high for what little government provides that
I have any use for. Much of what they spend money on makes things
worse, and the beneficial things they provide could be provided
much more efficiently without government.
Craig|2.15.09 @ 3:32PM|#
Have you considered that someone who produces 90 grand worth
of goods and services that people are willing to pay for, is likely
to sharply reduce his efforts if thugs like you rob him of 44% of
his earnings?
Isn't that what already happens to pretty much everyone earning 90
grand?
Sir Meatgoggles|2.15.09 @ 3:48PM|#
The existential question now is - should we attempt to get our
hands in the kitty so we can at least offset our personal costs of
this fiasco?
It's like Ron Paul's stance on pork - he puts it into the bills he
knows will pass so he can still get his taxpayers their fair share
(as opposed to their federal dollars going elsewhere) while he
votes against the bills themselves.
As this specific legislation will cost us at very least $2800 per
person, should we at least try to get our own money's worth? Or
should we stand against it on principle and give $2800 to the
government while receiving little to nothing in return?
economist|2.15.09 @ 4:54PM|#
"My taxes are far too low to cover all that has been given
me."
At the risk of sounding Lefiti-ish:
"THE STATE is infinitely knowing, infinitely caring, and infinitely
merciful. THE STATE, from which all good things come, worthy of all
praise and thanksgiving, giveth and taketh away."
Chad|2.15.09 @ 10:56PM|#
Have you considered that someone who produces 90 grand worth
of goods and services that people are willing to pay for, is likely
to sharply reduce his efforts if thugs like you rob him of 44% of
his earnings?
As a single person earning almost exactly $90,000 pear year (with
virtually no capital gains), and living in an apartment and
therefore only using the standard deduction, I pretty much
represent the highest net tax rate you are going to find. Including
my employer's FICA contribution and my best estimates of how much I
spent on gas and sales taxes as well as the corporate taxes
embedded in the goods and services I purchased and the property tax
embedded in my rent, I came up with a total of $36000 in taxes
payed (14.5k federal, the same for FICA, 3.2k state, and a bit of
everything else). That would be a 40% net tax rate IF you assumed
that I really only made 90k. But since my 401k employee match and
health insurance (and other benefits) are not counted as income, I
really was paid just over $100k, so my net tax rate was actually
about 36%.
Remember, I am darned near the worse case scenario you could come
up with. "Rich" people usually make much of their income with
capital gains, and do not pay FICA on most of their incomes. Also,
since they spend a smaller fraction of their income than I do, they
pay less sales tax.
Now, would raising my net tax rate to 40%, or even 50%, convince me
to quit my job? Nope. I can't imagine almost anyone would do that.
That's why the deadweight is small.
On the other hand, my marginal taxes ARE an issue. Because of all
the deductions that phase out in the income bracket I am in, my
real net marginal tax rates are 65% or more. Indeed, if I take
advantage of the first-time homebuyer provision that just passed,
my real marginal rate may exceed 100%. Seriously. Both parties need
to understand that you can't have to many deductions or benefits
disappear over a narrow band of incomes, or you wind up with
absurdly high marginal rates. Right now, there are two income
brackets where this is a problem. One is the 70-90k bracket (for
individuals), where many deductions disappear. The other is about
1.5 times poverty, where many welfare benefits disappear.
Even with my crazy marginal tax rates, though, it does not affect
my job in any way. It does, however, largely discourage me from
finding odd jobs where I could add a few bucks to my income. So
there is a real deadweight, but it is only affecting a small
fraction of my potential income.
Chad|2.15.09 @ 11:14PM|#
J sub D | February 15, 2009, 11:42am | #
Do I bother to school Chad on electrical generation costs?
Or do I just ignore the blathering ignorance of someone who trots
out the QWERTY vs. Dvorak myth thinking it will make him sound
knowledgeable?
I love how you dig up something from a right-wing think tank, whose
newest data is from 1956, and think you have found something. Do
you think no one has looked into this since then? Keyboards are
quite different now anyway. Five minutes of googling is all it
takes to see exactly what I said - a modest speed increase, as well
as increased comfort due to less movement. The problems people
report are not the actual switchover, which takes a few weeks, but
rather issues like compatibility and having to switch back and
forth to QWERTY depending on what system they are using.
It would be beyond miraculous if the original arrangement was
anything close to optimal for typing speed. Yet we are still using
it a hundred years later....and indeed, people are using it when
they DON'T EVEN USE ROMAN CHARACTERS for their primary
script.
Just be glad the Chinese didn't invent the typewriter first....
Chad|2.15.09 @ 11:21PM|#
economist | February 15, 2009, 11:47am | #
Chad,
Private entities can and do take advantage of network
externalities. One way is by offering the first units at reduced
cost, to build a starting network. After that, people are willing
to pay more for the product or service, because they get more
marginal benefit from it. But you would have to convince these
companies that your proposal was worth the significant investment
that it would require.
And how are you going to do that with a $3 trillion dollar
nationwide electric or public transport system? Even a big company
has capital expenditure of a few billions in a typical year. Some
projects are far beyond the scope of any company that we would ever
want to exist. And certain types of projects just can't be built by
one company. A single company can build a mall or a Disney, but it
can't build a good downtown. There is something extra that eludes
them.
Why to do you pretend to live in a fantasy world where private
markets solve all problems optimally, when so many facts refute
this theory entirely? Part of it is that every time the markets
completely @#$@# up, you stretch and stretch and stretch until you
find some connection to government, and then assign the cause
there. Of course, that is downright silly, but I see it all the
time around here.
Chad|2.15.09 @ 11:32PM|#
Btw, here is a study of 5-6 year old children, QWERTY vs
Dvorak
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED313002&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED313002
"Although the children did not acquire proficient touch typing
skills, they did type accurate responses faster, keep their hands
positioned on the home row when they began typing, and show some
conditioning to key locations when using the Dvorak keyboard"
|2.16.09 @ 2:47AM|#
I pretty much represent the highest net tax rate you are
going to find.
What's really bizarre is that you appear to be aware of how badly
you're getting screwed, yet you still love Big Brother. Got a bit
of the Stockholm Syndrome, eh?
-jcr
|2.16.09 @ 2:50AM|#
Why to do you pretend to live in a fantasy world where
private markets solve all problems optimally, when so many facts
refute this theory entirely?
Who says they're optimal? What we have in the free market that's
missing in the command economy you want is the feedback mechanism.
Freedom requires no justification; when you propose to put a gun to
my head and make me do what YOU want instead of what I want, the
burden of proof for justification is yours.
-jcr
Chad|2.16.09 @ 6:43AM|#
John C. Randolph | February 16, 2009, 2:50am | #
Why to do you pretend to live in a fantasy world where private
markets solve all problems optimally, when so many facts refute
this theory entirely?
Who says they're optimal? What we have in the free market
that's missing in the command economy you want is the feedback
mechanism. Freedom requires no justification; when you propose to
put a gun to my head and make me do what YOU want instead of what I
want, the burden of proof for justification is yours.
There are numerous studies out there showing that we are no happier
than people in other developed nations, yet we consume about 1.5
times the resources as average. We are also among the most
unhealthy and graduating some of the stupidest students. It's
pretty hard to argue that our system is optimal when its so
destructive and produces so little.
And current events have just proven your model a catastrophic
failure....again.
|2.16.09 @ 10:14AM|#
There are numerous studies out there showing that we are no
happier than people in other developed nations, yet we consume
about 1.5 times the resources as average.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Is "Happiness per
Gallon" some new metric of which I am unaware?
It's pretty hard to argue that our system is optimal when its
so destructive and produces so little.
If you want people to take you seriously, don't say stuff like
this. It makes you look silly.
|2.16.09 @ 12:00PM|#
There are numerous studies out there showing that we are no
happier than people in other developed nations, yet we consume
about 1.5 times the resources as average.
Links?
And I note that you boast above about your high income, so
apparently you are not leading a low-impact lifestyle yourself.
Unless, of course, you are donating a large portion of your income
above and beyond your taxes to the government.
We are also among the most unhealthy
Oddly, our unhealthiest citizens are also our poorest citizens, the
ones who are leading the lifestyle apparently closest to your
ideal.
and graduating some of the stupidest students.
And those stupid students are graduating from government
schools.
It's pretty hard to argue that our system is optimal when its
so destructive and produces so little.
I would say its hard to argue that our system is destructive and
produces so little when it is so obviously one of the most
productive on earth.
It's pretty hard to argue that our system is optimal when its so
destructive and produces so little.
Chad|2.16.09 @ 5:46PM|#
P Brooks | February 16, 2009, 10:14am | #
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Is "Happiness per
Gallon" some new metric of which I am unaware?
Besides being a resounded refutation of our unsustainable
consumerist society?
http://www2.eur.nl/fsw/research/veenhoven/Pub1990s/90a-full.pdf
R C Dean | February 16, 2009, 12:00pm | #
And I note that you boast above about your high income, so
apparently you are not leading a low-impact lifestyle yourself.
Unless, of course, you are donating a large portion of your income
above and beyond your taxes to the government.
Yes, I donate lots. I save even more. What I consume is
deliberately chosen to be low impact. High-impact items that there
is no current substitute for, I offset, both with money and with my
volunteer time. And to top the cake, my career is related to energy
efficiency, and I will probably save far more energy via my work
than I would consume in a hundred lifetimes.
Oddly, our unhealthiest citizens are also our poorest citizens,
the ones who are leading the lifestyle apparently closest to your
ideal.
Those people are not even close to my ideal. Indeed, they are just
about the exact opposite. The poor comparitive health of Americans
has little to do with wealth. It has to do with uneven health care
spending, exceptionally poor habits, and environments which
re-inforce them.
And those stupid students are graduating from government
schools.
Our private schools have similar performance, so the source of
funding is not the issue.
I would say its hard to argue that our system is destructive
and produces so little when it is so obviously one of the most
productive on earth.
In case you missed it, we quit producing much of anything but
"financial innovations" about twenty years back. And yet we still
continue to mass-produce MBA's while China and India produce
engineers. Guess who is going to own who in a few decades?
Our "production" is largely a mirage anyway. We are drawing down
the massive supplies of life, energy, materials, and water that
were there before us. We do not place their depletion on the books,
resulting in an entirely false accounting.
Nor do we properly count the massive un-funded liabilities that we
keep heaping on our children. Add that in, and you quickly realize
that we really aren't making much headway at all.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245