Are Congresspeople Omniscient?

[Xerographica]

Have you considered the possibility that there might be some things in life that might not be suitable for rationalization through the marketplace?

If it's funded then it's within the scope of economics. Government organizations are funded, therefore they are well within the scope of economics.

Proof that our system of representative government is based on Samuelson's theories, please?

His paper...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure...has been cited over 5000 times.

Or — as an alternative — proof that the people who wrote our Constitution based our system on the notion that the People's representatives were omniscient?

Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. - Frédéric Bastiat

[Xerographica]

Explaining government falls under the purview of political science, son.

We're talking about the rationale of having 300 personal shoppers decide how half our country's income is spent.

I hold a degree in economics and would have minored in political science, had the university at which I obtained my degree (over 30 years ago) offered minors. And yes, I've read Samuelson. He's pretty much required reading for economists.

So... what's your background in political science look like?

Who cares about background? If you've studied the topic then I shouldn't have to explain to you that Samuelson's paper is the most widely cited paper on the topic.

[Luziyca]

Hell to the fucking no. That said, they are way more omniscient than a teenager who claims to be more American than those living in the USA despite living in Finland.

Anyways, as for us proposing where our money goes, how about we could get one person from every state/province, and two from every territory (for the USA, it'd be 82 people (32 from the territories and 50 from the states) and in Canada, it'd be 16 people (10 from the provinces and 6 from the territories), chosen to the average person in that region (or people) and describe what they want to see funded, in a commission.

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm not sure what the OP intends to ask or have discussed.

Obviously congresspeople are not omniscient, no one is. Is there an implied definition, to be used for the purpose of this discussion, of let's say "effective omniscience," knowing all information they could possibly need to know to perform their jobs with optimum efficiency and effectiveness? Even by that definition, I'd contend no they aren't at all even that much, no matter how well-versed any politician might be or how many hyper-competent advisors they might have.

It just seems like quite a pointless question, and one whose answer is obvious. Is this seriously the only part of the discussion here, or is there something deeper that was a little too briskly glossed over?

What the OP wants is for us to say, "Oh, well, yes — people should be able to allocate their tax dollars to whatever they think their tax dollars should be spent on."

The OP wants us to then either ignore the fact that the wealthies 10% of Americans pay 70% of all income taxes and that close to half of all Americans pay no income taxes — or, alternately, just buy into the notion that it's right and proper for 10% of the Nation to effectively control 70% of the government while close to half have no say whatsoever in what their government does to them. It is an argument for plutocracy, based on a badly thought-out "market" justification in which it is assumed that such a plutocracy will be more efficient because markets are supposed to be more efficient.

[Xerographica]

What the OP wants is for us to say, "Oh, well, yes — people should be able to allocate their tax dollars to whatever they think their tax dollars should be spent on."

The OP wants us to then either ignore the fact that the wealthies 10% of Americans pay 70% of all income taxes and that close to half of all Americans pay no income taxes — or, alternately, just buy into the notion that it's right and proper for 10% of the Nation to effectively control 70% of the government while close to half have no say whatsoever in what their government does to them. It is an argument for plutocracy, based on a badly thought-out "market" justification in which it is assumed that such a plutocracy will be more efficient because markets are supposed to be more efficient.

No no no...I want people to assume that everybody is equally effective at using society's limited resources. In other words, I want people to be entirely delusional. Oh...that's not right. That's what you want. You want people to ignore the fact that some people are better at using society's limited resources than other people. You want people to assume that having resources is more important than what is done with them. And then you want people to blame the market when resources are inefficiently allocated.

[Alien Space Bats]

Have you considered the possibility that there might be some things in life that might not be suitable for rationalization through the marketplace?

If it's funded then it's within the scope of economics. Government organizations are funded, therefore they are well within the scope of economics.

That doesn't mean that their operation should be decided on the basis of market forces. Tell me: Can market forces determine the proper number of nuclear attack submarines the Navy should deploy to the Western Pacific, or the number of American servicemen who should be stationed on Korea's DMZ? Do you really want to try and make some kind of argument in favor of basing military deployments on the competing ideas of a myriad of uniformed decision-makers?

Proof that our system of representative government is based on Samuelson's theories, please?

His paper...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure...has been cited over 5000 times.

You do realize that our current system of government was established in 1788, whereas Samuelson's paper was written in 1954, right?

Many things have been said about Paul Samuelson, but I don't recall anyone ever claiming that he had a time machine.

<pause>

Do you want to try again to explain where our theories of government come from — before I flunk you?

Or — as an alternative — proof that the people who wrote our Constitution based our system on the notion that the People's representatives were omniscient?

Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. - Frédéric Bastiat

I don't recall Frédéric Bastiat playing a significant role in the creation of our system, either — which is really not surprising, considering that be wasn't born until 1801.

Who cares about background? If you've studied the topic then I shouldn't have to explain to you that Samuelson's paper is the most widely cited paper on the topic.

And I'm telling you I couldn't give a damn about the number of citations his paper has.

There's an obvious logical fallacy in your claim: You're asserting that because Samuelson's paper is the most widely cited paper on public finance, then our system of government is based on Samuelson's ideas.

That's clearly wrong.

Car and Driver is the most widely cited authority on automobiles.

Still, to the best of my knowledge, they've never built a single God-damned car; nor is it clear that automotive engineers base their design decisions on the opinions of the folks at Car and Driver. Then, too, the automobile itself was not invented "based on an idea by the editors of Car and Driver", now was it?

Generally speaking, the things that exist in our world are not the creations of the people who are best known for having attempted to describe them.

[Xerographica]

That doesn't mean that their operation should be decided on the basis of market forces. Tell me: Can market forces determine the proper number of nuclear attack submarines the Navy should deploy to the Western Pacific, or the number of American servicemen who should be stationed on Korea's DMZ? Do you really want to try and make some kind of argument in favor of basing military deployments on the competing ideas of a myriad of uniformed decision-makers?

What in the world? Yes, because a market means putting consumers in charge of Apple. Seriously? Are you kidding me?

You do realize that our current system of government was established in 1788, whereas Samuelson's paper was written in 1954, right?

Many things have been said about Paul Samuelson, but I don't recall anyone ever claiming that he had a time machine.

<pause>

Do you want to try again to explain where our theories of government come from — before I flunk you?

What are you talking about? Some theories are better than other theories. Samuelson's theory is widely regarded as the best economic theory for government.

I don't recall Frédéric Bastiat playing a significant role in the creation of our system, either — which is really not surprising, considering that be wasn't born until 1801.

Why do you keep talking about the creation of our system? Do you really not grasp that our understanding of economics has improved slightly since then?

[Alien Space Bats]

No no no...I want people to assume that everybody is equally effective at using society's limited resources. In other words, I want people to be entirely delusional. Oh...that's not right. That's what you want. You want people to ignore the fact that some people are better at using society's limited resources than other people. You want people to assume that having resources is more important than what is done with them. And then you want people to blame the market when resources are inefficiently allocated.

So your argument in favor of plutocracy is that the proven wealth and income of the Nation's top 10% makes them the best people to decide what society ought to do, while the proven poverty of the Nation's bottom 50% justifies their disenfranchisement?

[Alien Space Bats]

What are you talking about? Some theories are better than other theories. Samuelson's theory is widely regarded as the best economic theory for government.

Christ, am I going to have to break this down to basics for you?

Did Paul Samuelson write our Constitution? Yes or no?

I don't recall Frédéric Bastiat playing a significant role in the creation of our system, either — which is really not surprising, considering that be wasn't born until 1801.

Why do you keep talking about the creation of our system? Do you really not grasp that our understanding of economics has improved slightly since then?

You're talking about the foundation of our system, and in particular where we got the idea that Congress should have the power of the purse.

If you had any understanding of that system, you'd know that the power of the purse belongs to Congress because that's what we arranged in our Constitution.

So again I ask: Did Paul Samuelson write our Constitution? Yes or no?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oh look. It's this thread again. Still a stupid idea.

[Xerographica]

So your argument in favor of plutocracy is that the proven wealth and income of the Nation's top 10% makes them the best people to decide what society ought to do, while the proven poverty of the Nation's bottom 50% justifies their disenfranchisement?

Consumers are the best people to decide what society ought to do...and producers are the best people to figure out how society's limited resources can be used to make it happen. By limiting this sanity to the private sector, you're hamstringing producers and screwing consumers. Why do you want to do that? Do you think that the poor benefit when you waste society's limited resources?

[Ashmoria]

So your argument in favor of plutocracy is that the proven wealth and income of the Nation's top 10% makes them the best people to decide what society ought to do, while the proven poverty of the Nation's bottom 50% justifies their disenfranchisement?

Consumers are the best people to decide what society ought to do...and producers are the best people to figure out how society's limited resources can be used to make it happen. By limiting this sanity to the private sector, you're hamstringing producers and screwing consumers. Why do you want to do that? Do you think that the poor benefit when you waste society's limited resources?

how do I decide what is the best engine to put into the new fighter jet?

[Xerographica]

You're talking about the foundation of our system, and in particular where we got the idea that Congress should have the power of the purse.

Nearly 1000 years ago some barons stole the power of the purse from the king because they were fed up with him wasting their money on war after war. I'm really not talking about this.

If you had any understanding of that system, you'd know that the power of the purse belongs to Congress because that's what we arranged in our Constitution.

So again I ask: Did Paul Samuelson write our Constitution? Yes or no?

Right, because I'm going to really want to debate the economic rationale of the constitution instead of the economic rationale of the preeminent liberal economist. Are you serious? If you want to talk about the economic value of the constitution...then be my guest. But don't try and argue that it's something that I find value in discussing.

[Xerographica]

Consumers are the best people to decide what society ought to do...and producers are the best people to figure out how society's limited resources can be used to make it happen. By limiting this sanity to the private sector, you're hamstringing producers and screwing consumers. Why do you want to do that? Do you think that the poor benefit when you waste society's limited resources?

how do I decide what is the best engine to put into the new fighter jet?

You don't, you're a consumer...not a producer. You just decide for yourself whether the DoD is doing more harm than good. And if you don't want to figure it out then you'd simply just give your tax dollars to your personal shoppers (congress).

[Middleton St George]

"Are Congresspeople Omniscient" - No


If they were, our omniscient MPs would have done something about it!

[AiliailiA]

Degree? I have large degree of difficulty believing that the OP has had any formal education in the subject given that he's disagreed with very basic definitions/concepts such as (but not limited to) opportunity cost and the market itself. However, I've never seen him claim to have had either. As far as I can tell from his post "economics" is his hobby.

dunno about that his posts seem to me like an exited 18 year old who has just started uni a week ago, has skimmed his reading list and now thinks he knows the workings of the universe.

I may be completely wrong in my speculation however.

You are wrong. Xerographica did not "start uni a week ago and skim the reading list". Xerographica has been pushing the same barrow for a while now:

Tax Choice
Taking vs Trading
Prayer and Sacrifice
The Interests of Consumers are the Interests of Humanity
Helping Liberals Understand the Opportunity Cost Concept
Everyone is So Fluffy I Could Die!
A Libertarian, A Liberal and A Scientist All Agree On...?
The Value of a Watermelon?
My War vs Your Money!
John Holbo's Critique of Libertarianism
The Customer is King
Civic Crowdfunding
Can Economics Explain Human Sacrifice?
The BEST Salad Dressing Ever
Does Voting Allow You To Express Yourself?
The Pope Endorses Tax Choice
Wealth Equality vs Consumer Sovereignty
The Opportunity Cost of Eating, Sleeping and Copulating
Nietzsche, Austrians and Creative Destruction
Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
A World Without Prices or Profit
A Survey on the Importance of Prices
Children's Suffrage
Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?
Xero's Rule
Are Congresspeople Omniscient?

I didn't read them all. I posted in some of them. The salad dressing one really did seem to just be about salad dressing, and for the Children's Suffrage one Xero managed to hold off from making the point "this is why voting is stupid" for a page or so, and children's suffrage being one of my own pet subjects I set aside my better judgement and posted there.

Xerographica also started 6 Moderation threads. That's probably not relevant though.

[Esternial]

What's stopping me from saying "You're doing a good job, government, but I really want this iPhone" and just not pay taxes because I can?

[Risottia]

False, your current system isn't based on that assumption. That's why you have committee hearings with experts.

So you're calling Richard Musgrave a liar?

If by "calling someone a liar" you mean "disagreeing with someone's opinions", then yes, I do. I also think his opinions on the matter are a bunch of idiocies, and that some self-appointed "experts" are nothing but pundits trying to cater to the political faction they chose as a target area.

His paper...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure...has been cited over 5000 times.

Then surely you must agree fully with Aristotle, right?

[Xerographica]

What's stopping me from saying "You're doing a good job, government, but I really want this iPhone" and just not pay taxes because I can?

You bringing this possibility up would incentivize some taxpayers to give some of their tax dollars to the IRS.

[Xerographica]

If by "calling someone a liar" you mean "disagreeing with someone's opinions", then yes, I do. I also think his opinions on the matter are a bunch of idiocies, and that some self-appointed "experts" are nothing but pundits trying to cater to the political faction they chose as a target area.

So are all public finance economists liars?

[Risottia]

If by "calling someone a liar" you mean "disagreeing with someone's opinions", then yes, I do. I also think his opinions on the matter are a bunch of idiocies, and that some self-appointed "experts" are nothing but pundits trying to cater to the political faction they chose as a target area.

So are all public finance economists liars?

Not necessarily.
Are you just able to resort to strawmen? Because that's the second in a row. Really, you should learn some logic before even attempting at debating.

[Xerographica]

So are all public finance economists liars?

Not necessarily.
Are you just able to resort to strawmen? Because that's the second in a row. Really, you should learn some logic before even attempting at debating.

Can you name any public finance economists that aren't liars?

[Esternial]

What's stopping me from saying "You're doing a good job, government, but I really want this iPhone" and just not pay taxes because I can?

You bringing this possibility up would incentivize some taxpayers to give some of their tax dollars to the IRS.

Me bringing this up highlights what a stupid idea it is.

I'm actually overdoing it by bringing this up. It would have sufficed to say it' stupid.

[Des-Bal]

A group of 100 congressmen will never be quite as stupid as a group of 314 million citizens. Letting citizens decide how the country will be run is sort of like letting a child plan it's meals. It will shovel candy into it's mouth until it dies of diabeetus because even though it knows what it likes it doesn't appreciate the tradeoffs necessary to get what it needs.

[Xerographica]

Me bringing this up highlights what a stupid idea it is.

I'm actually overdoing it by bringing this up. It would have sufficed to say it' stupid.

It's pretty sad if equating pragmatarianism to anarcho-capitalism is overdoing it for you.