Are Congresspeople Omniscient?

[Xerographica]

So you have nothing to show? I think we're done here.

The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure has been cited by over 5000 papers in the relevant field. And I've shown that Samuelson's theory assumes that congresspeople are omniscient...

Our discontent with the original Samuelson rule stems from its failure to account for tax payers’ response to public expenditure and taxation. The rule was derived for an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent government, a government which, by definition, need not consider people’s responses to its actions. Drop that assumption, restrict government to the choice of tax rates and public expenditures, and the response to its actions must be taken into account. - Dan Usher, Should the Samuelson Rule Be Modified to Account for the Marginal Cost of Public Funds?

I've shown plenty and you've shown absolutely nothing to disprove what I've shown.

[European Socialist Republic]

"Elected representatives aren't omniscient, therefore representative democracy is bad!"

[Xerographica]

Taxation is not positive feedback; it is what pays for the fucking schools and roads. It is a necessary evil.

And if we're better off allowing congresspeople to determine how many roads and schools should be supplied...then we're better off allowing congresspeople to determine how many cars and restaurants should be supplied.

Paul Samuelson, the guy who provided the best economic justification for our current system, agreed...

The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive. - Paul A. Samuelson

Clearly there's a problem with assuming that congresspeople can know, better than society itself, exactly how much benefit society derives from any given good/service.

[Greater Tezdrian]

I'm out. If all you're going to do is consistently whore out some economist than I have little reason to engage in debate.

[Xerographica]

"Elected representatives aren't omniscient, therefore representative democracy is bad!"

Elected representatives aren't omniscient, therefore we need a way to determine exactly how much the public values a military strike against Syria, the war on drugs, environmental protection, a wall between the US and Mexico, public healthcare and so on. We can easily determine the public's values simply by creating a market in the public sector and giving taxpayers the freedom to shop for themselves. Their spending decisions will reflect their values. As a result, we'll maximize the amount of value we derive from society's limited resources.

[Aggicificicerous]

Some explanations for our current system are better than others. Samuelson has provided the best economic explanation for our current system. Find another explanation that has been cited more than 5,000 times.

And you have yet to show us Samuelson's theory in his own words. You're just a broken record repeating the same useless quotes over and over. You've got nothing.

[Xerographica]

Some explanations for our current system are better than others. Samuelson has provided the best economic explanation for our current system. Find another explanation that has been cited more than 5,000 times.

And you have yet to show us Samuelson's theory in his own words. You're just a broken record repeating the same useless quotes over and over. You've got nothing.

Let me see if I can get this straight. You're basically arguing that Richard Musgrave and other respected economists completely misinterpreted Samuelson. And/or, you're arguing that your interpretation of Samuelson will be more accurate than their interpretations. Is this correct?

If so, then why not just read Samuelson's theory yourself? Did you miss the part where I linked you to it? Here it is again...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. There's his theory in his own words. Have at it and let me know where/how/why so many respected economists completely misinterpreted Samuelson's theory.

[Surfistan]

I don't know enough about Transdimensional Lizarmen physiology to argue about this.

[European Socialist Republic]

"Elected representatives aren't omniscient, therefore representative democracy is bad!"

Elected representatives aren't omniscient, therefore we need a way to determine exactly how much the public values a military strike against Syria, the war on drugs, environmental protection, a wall between the US and Mexico, public healthcare and so on. We can easily determine the public's values simply by creating a market in the public sector and giving taxpayers the freedom to shop for themselves. Their spending decisions will reflect their values. As a result, we'll maximize the amount of value we derive from society's limited resources.

The public can easily be manipulated.
A poll done in June 2007 asked people "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?" and compared it with previous polls.

The percentages at that time were: 41(Yes), 50(No), 9 (Don't know)

Previous numbers varied as far as: 49(Yes), 39(No), 12(Don't know)

The media will continue it's propaganda as usual. Honestly, if 46% of the population believes creationism is true and 1 in 5 thinks the sun revolves around the earth... And then I'm not even talking about those who think your President is a Muslim or a Marxist or was born in Kenya.

[Neo-Mlytoria]

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?

[Blasveck]

People aren't omniscient, so let's have a government/business/market/country/nation run by people!

[European Socialist Republic]

The Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson provided the definitive economic justification for government...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. It's been cited over 5,000 times. His argument basically boils down to the free-rider problem. It's a really reasonable argument. Of course everybody wants something for nothing. Everybody wants a free lunch. The problem is though that Samuelson "conveniently" assumes that government planners are omniscient...

How about you quote to us the part where Samuelson claims government planners are omniscient?

[Galborg]

SCOTUS judge said "We are not final because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final."

You gotta have some comite to make decisions otherwise nuffink gets done.

Either that comite consist of mortals with the danger that they might make mistakes
OR we sit around with our thumbs up our bums waiting for a comite of Gods do descend from Mount Olympus.
OR we wait until two Economists agree; for it is written 2 economists, 3 arguments.

Shakespeare is outdated. Henry IV "First, we hang the Lawyers." Hanging Economists is the updated version.

[Indira]

STRAWMANNNNNNNN!

[Pandeeria]

Are Congress people Omniscient? No.


I also smell a straw man in the OP.

[Infactum]

Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. (True/False)

False. Our (USA, I assume) current system is designed to produce the most wealth with limited resources, which can be done despite congresses non-omniscience. In the ideal case of course. I wouldn't go so far to claim that the house and senate are the utilitarian solution to governance, but it's at least a shot. See below.

If congresspeople can know, better than society itself, exactly how much benefit society derives from public education...then it has to be true that congresspeople can know, better than society itself, exactly how much benefit society derives from milk. So if we're better off allowing congresspeople to determine how much public education should be supplied, then we're also better off allowing congresspeople to determine how much milk should be supplied.

That doesn't follow at all. Determination of the allocation of a resource is highly dependent on the nature of the resource. I daresay that it would be easier to predict how much milk a given population would need than it would be to predict how much money should be spent on public education and where it should be spent.

The fact of the matter is...as a group, millions and millions of taxpayers have infinitely more insight/foresight than 300 congresspeople do. That's why we'd be infinitely better off by allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves exactly how much positive feedback (tax dollars) they give to government organizations.

The amount of foresight is irrelevant (and somewhat debatable depending on the congress critter, but I'll stipulate that for now), congress can choose "cooperative" options that self interested players cannot. Cooperative options (in many cases) can have such large payoff that they still produce more wealth despite being otherwise inefficient.

I believe I presented a version of this the last time we talked, but I have refined it some here. Consider the following prisoner's dilemma (with toy numbers, though the relative amounts are completely plausible):

There are 3 public programs A, B, and C and you and I each have to fund 1 of them with our $1 in tax money.

• Program A provides a benefit of $2 in tax funded programs to me and none to you
• Program B provides a benefit of $2 in tax funded programs to you and none to me
• Program C, if given $1 in funding, provides $1 to each of us. If given $2 in funding, is provides $2.50 to each of us

Now, questions:
-Which program should we each pick to fund if we were choosing independently? Clearly I should fund A and you B for a total benefit of $4
-What would an actor who controlled both our choices pick to maximize total value created? Our "Congress" would clearly give both our contributions to C for a total benefit of $5

The result is that congress can, in some cases, produce more value than independent actors. I can think of several situations where this model is reasonable - it is dependent on value created not being linearly dependent on cost, which is in many cases true.

But wait, you say, congress cannot efficiently apportion that value. This is correct, but as long as congress is more than 80% as good as the free market at apportioning value, it's a net benefit (this number can go much lower with more players and different numbers; I'm fairly certain I can construct a scenario that makes it true for any non-zero relative efficiency). We can quibble over whether or not the current implementation of the public budget is working in a utilitarian fashion, but you cannot say that a central authority governing the public budget is necessarily going to be worse than tax payers deciding.

[Lemanrussland]

I've never heard anyone say this. I think everyone realizes that you've set up this strawman so you an argue for anarchism/"a market in states"

The very concept of a market in states existing in a anarchic environment is not sound for several reasons.

1. Nation-states base their power upon geographic spaces, states will fight one another for control of land, resources, and natural barriers. States will not co-exist in a mutual geographic space.
2. The "international system" (the word is used loosely here) is anarchic, there is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions. States themselves must arrive at relations with other states on their own. There is no concept of private property, rule of law, or market freedom that exists between states universally. States respecting the private property or individual autonomy of those who choose to "leave the state/choose to do business with another state" is therefore not a given.

[Lemanrussland]

I've never heard anyone say this. I think everyone realizes that you've set up this strawman so you an argue for anarchism/"a market in states"

The very concept of a market in states existing in a anarchic environment is not sound for several reasons.

1. Nation-states base their power upon geographic spaces, states will fight one another for control of land, resources, and natural barriers. States will not co-exist in a mutual geographic space.
2. The "international system" (the word is used loosely here) is anarchic, there is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions. States themselves must arrive at relations with other states on their own. There is no concept of private property, rule of law, or market freedom that exists between states universally. States respecting the private property or individual autonomy of those who choose to "leave the state/choose to do business with another state" is therefore not a given.

And if you mean people should "directly allocate the taxes they pay to whatever government organization they wish" within a statist environment (similar to that one NS decision), they do this already through their elected representatives. They also do things like setting the rules of society, establishing things like tax rates, and actually managing the government agencies authorized by the law through their representatives.

Positive/negative feedback already exists in the form of votes for or against a representative and his/her policies.

[Ngelmish]

If representatives were making all or mostly decisions that the OP agreed with, this absurd thread would never have happened. The fact of the matter is that whenever people starting railing against representative democracy, they rarely are speaking from a position of philosophical disagreement. It almost always boils down to the fact that so long as one agrees with the decisions, one doesn't really care about what the decision-making process is, let alone called.

Fortunately, since most people live busy lives and have to take on some sort of specialized training to survive in this economy, we delegate the responsibility of direct democracy to our representatives based on the theory that their specialization gives them the kind of information that is needed to make decisions that we don't feel like we're expert enough to make. Whether or not that is demonstrably true in the case of every legislator ever is entirely beside the point.

[Xerographica]

Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. (True/False)

False. Our (USA, I assume) current system is designed to produce the most wealth with limited resources, which can be done despite congresses non-omniscience. In the ideal case of course. I wouldn't go so far to claim that the house and senate are the utilitarian solution to governance, but it's at least a shot. See below.

False? Therefore congresspeople do not know how much public education you'd prefer...therefore you have the freedom to decide for yourself how much of your own tax dollars you spend on public education. Except, this is obviously not the case. Why? Because our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. They already know how much you value public education. Therefore, there's no need for you to shop for yourself in the public sector.

That doesn't follow at all. Determination of the allocation of a resource is highly dependent on the nature of the resource. I daresay that it would be easier to predict how much milk a given population would need than it would be to predict how much money should be spent on public education and where it should be spent.

Either congress knows more accurately than society does how much benefit/value/utility society derives from any given good/service...or it does not. If congresspeople can reach inside your head and pull out values that you can't access...then this is true for any given good/service...public or private.

The amount of foresight is irrelevant (and somewhat debatable depending on the congress critter, but I'll stipulate that for now), congress can choose "cooperative" options that self interested players cannot. Cooperative options (in many cases) can have such large payoff that they still produce more wealth despite being otherwise inefficient.

Congresspeople can't know how much value that you'd derive from any option...cooperative or otherwise. When it comes to values, the only place that accurate answers can be found is within people themselves. How much do you value public education? Well, I'm pretty sure that the answer is under this rock. Nope, maybe it's in this alley over here. Nope, maybe it's in some book. Nope, maybe it's written on a cloud. Nope, maybe its in these chicken bones. Nope Nope Nope Nope.

How much you value public education can only be revealed by how much you're personally willing to sacrifice for public education. If you're not given the freedom to choose exactly how much you'll actually sacrifice for public education...then the answer cannot be revealed. If you think otherwise, then you're making the assumption, like Samuelson, that congresspeople are omniscient. Congresspeople will know exactly how much you'll sacrifice for public education even before you're given the freedom to do so. Therefore, there's no need for you to have the freedom to choose how your money is spent.

There's no need for taxpayers to demonstrate their preferences for public goods because people's preferences are "given". They are assumed.

Economic planning in a socialist system must necessarily founder on the rocks of ignorance. First, the data necessary to find out the pattern of production that best fits consumer preferences are never given, as often assumed by planning proponents. Second, and even more important, the central planner cannot obtain the necessary data. Much of the data on available resources, production alternatives, and consumer demand constantly changes as economic conditions change. Thus, decentralization is the only means of coordinating economic activity through which the specialized knowledge of individuals can be taken into account and used promptly. - E.C. Pasour, Consumer Information and the Calculation Debate

How, then, are demand functions revealed? It would be disingenuous, to say the least, in an exercise whose object is to discover how demand is revealed, to assume that, ex ante, centers of power know the preferences of consuming households. We must then begin our analysis of the forces that motivate citizens to reveal their preferences by focusing on a fundamental information problem. I therefore assume that as a consequence of imperfect information concerning the preferences of citizens, centers of power will provide, except by accident, goods and services in quantities that will be either larger or smaller than the quantities desired by consuming households at the taxprices they confront, and I show that these departures from optimality inflict utility loses on these households. - Albert Breton, Competitive Governments: An Economic Theory of Politics and Public Finance

[Cameroi]

omniscience is not a thing that exists anywhere in this physical universe. if it exists beyond it, that is speculative and unknown.

it does not however, take omniscience to observe, that killing people because people are killing each other, will not make any fewer people dead.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think the real question here is, are you a wizard?

[Cameroi]

I think the real question here is, are you a wizard?

we all have that potential in part. none of us in whole.

[United Dependencies]

They're not omniscient, but they do have access to quite a lot more information than your average person.

[Infactum]

False. Our (USA, I assume) current system is designed to produce the most wealth with limited resources, which can be done despite congresses non-omniscience. In the ideal case of course. I wouldn't go so far to claim that the house and senate are the utilitarian solution to governance, but it's at least a shot. See below.

Because our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient.

No, it's not. I went through some effort to demonstrate to you that, assuming we are pursuing a utilitarian system, our congress people need not be omniscient. I would like you to explain to me why the math in my scenario is incorrect or how it cannot apply to the real world. If you cannot do one of these things, then you must accept that allowing congress control of some public funds maximizes value. This fact is independent of any other arguments you make or quote, so please address it (I would really love to know if my understanding of game theory is wrong - I'm pretty sure I'm right, but it's always possible).

That doesn't follow at all. Determination of the allocation of a resource is highly dependent on the nature of the resource. I daresay that it would be easier to predict how much milk a given population would need than it would be to predict how much money should be spent on public education and where it should be spent.

Either congress knows more accurately than society does how much benefit/value/utility society derives from any given good/service...or it does not. If congresspeople can reach inside your head and pull out values that you can't access...then this is true for any given good/service...public or private.

Yes, but your contention relied on the assertion that congress knows better than the market in all cases or in none. That is not, a priori, a true statement and so your conclusion does not follow.

The amount of foresight is irrelevant (and somewhat debatable depending on the congress critter, but I'll stipulate that for now), congress can choose "cooperative" options that self interested players cannot. Cooperative options (in many cases) can have such large payoff that they still produce more wealth despite being otherwise inefficient.

Congresspeople can't know how much value that you'd derive from any option...cooperative or otherwise. When it comes to values, the only place that accurate answers can be found is within people themselves.

On a societal level, this is manifestly incorrect. Congress peoples' ability to determine optimal allocation may not be as good as the free markets' (again, I'll stipulate this, though I am not convinced it is true for all goods), but that doesn't mean that they can't be somewhat as good (say, 80+% as good...). Consider a congress who had to send 100 tons of food stuffs to two cities each with 10k people in them. Congress would likely send half and half. One of the cities would finish before the other, certainly, but certainly not more than 95% as fast (calories consumption spread of the human body isn't that big, and statistics are cool). This estimate would get better next time around with new data. The options are not "Market Level Allocation Efficiency" and "Uniformly Random."

Congresspeople can't know how much value that you'd derive from any option...cooperative or otherwise. When it comes to values, the only place that accurate answers can be found is within people themselves. How much do you value public education? Well, I'm pretty sure that the answer is under this rock. Nope, maybe it's in this alley over here. Nope, maybe it's in some book. Nope, maybe it's written on a cloud. Nope, maybe its in these chicken bones. Nope Nope Nope Nope.

How much you value public education can only be revealed by how much you're personally willing to sacrifice for public education. If you're not given the freedom to choose exactly how much you'll actually sacrifice for public education...then the answer cannot be revealed. If you think otherwise, then you're making the assumption, like Samuelson, that congresspeople are omniscient. Congresspeople will know exactly how much you'll sacrifice for public education even before you're given the freedom to do so. Therefore, there's no need for you to have the freedom to choose how your money is spent.

There's no need for taxpayers to demonstrate their preferences for public goods because people's preferences are "given". They are assumed.

Economic planning in a socialist system must necessarily founder on the rocks of ignorance. First, the data necessary to find out the pattern of production that best fits consumer preferences are never given, as often assumed by planning proponents. Second, and even more important, the central planner cannot obtain the necessary data. Much of the data on available resources, production alternatives, and consumer demand constantly changes as economic conditions change. Thus, decentralization is the only means of coordinating economic activity through which the specialized knowledge of individuals can be taken into account and used promptly. - E.C. Pasour, Consumer Information and the Calculation Debate

How, then, are demand functions revealed? It would be disingenuous, to say the least, in an exercise whose object is to discover how demand is revealed, to assume that, ex ante, centers of power know the preferences of consuming households. We must then begin our analysis of the forces that motivate citizens to reveal their preferences by focusing on a fundamental information problem. I therefore assume that as a consequence of imperfect information concerning the preferences of citizens, centers of power will provide, except by accident, goods and services in quantities that will be either larger or smaller than the quantities desired by consuming households at the taxprices they confront, and I show that these departures from optimality inflict utility loses on these households. - Albert Breton, Competitive Governments: An Economic Theory of Politics and Public Finance

Again we slip back to the notion that all endeavors are zero sum in value and goods (and that Congress people have zero knowledge of how much value a good would provide a person). Which is odd for someone arguing for some sort of the free market - that tends to presuppose that value can be created (A supposition I agree with). The whole point is that we can create more limited resources by cooperative action than we can by independent action. Even if these resources are managed less well than the market would manage them, they will still outperform the market in terms of absolute value, as the market wouldn't have as many goods to manage in the first place.