Are Congresspeople Omniscient?

[Fireye]

If Michelle Bwcawkmann and Louie Gohmert are omniscient, the human race is too stupid to deserve living.

You forgot Nancy Pelosi, if nothing else.

Tammy Duckworth, as well.

[Xerographica]

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).

How can congress possibly know the maximum value (optimal provision) in the absence of everybody's opportunity cost decisions? I know that McDonald's is successful because so many consumers are willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of their money for a Big Mac. You know that the DoD is successful because...? Because they produce x amount of bullets, y amount of tanks and z amount of aircraft carriers? Because they attack 5 countries per decade?

The government can successfully supply bullets...and I can successfully supply boogers. In the absence of people's opportunity cost decisions...one is equally as valuable/valueless as the other. We can both scream at each other that the value of one far exceeds the other. But the only way to determine the truth would be to allow consumers to decide for themselves. If they give the DoD more money than they give me, then clearly they value the government's bullets more than they value my boogers. Oh well, you were right about that. But are you right that consumers value bullets more than they value books for students?

A second point of broad consensus among critics stresses that publicness in consumption must not necessarily mean that all persons value a good’s utility equally, Mendez (1999), for example, illustrates this point by examining peace as a PG. Some policy-makers might opt for increased defense spending in order to safeguard peace. However, this decision could siphon off scarce resources from programmes in the areas of health and education. Other policy-makers might object to such a consequence and prefer to foster peace through just the opposite measure -- improved health and education for all. Especially under conditions of extreme disparity and inequity, the first strategy could indeed provoke even more conflict and unrest, securing national borders by unsettling people’s lives. - Inge Kaul, Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century

We all value things differently. Therefore, math can't reveal values...only sacrifice can. You can show me all the math in the world...but it's not going to accurately predict what a parent is willing to sacrifice for the well being of their children. Without that information, there is no "maximum value" or "optimal provision". There's simply a waste of resources that could have been put to more valuable uses.

[Aggicificicerous]

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?

I'm not arguing anything. I'm waiting for you to back your claims up first.

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.

You are making the claims with respect to what Samuelson is saying, so the onus is on you to back this up. I skimmed the article you posted. Nowhere does he claim congresspeople are omniscient. In fact, your critiques seem to have very little relevence to this article, and your posting a couple short quotes, no doubt taken out of context, does nothing to discredit it. Colour me unimpressed.

[Infactum]

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).

How can congress possibly know the maximum value (optimal provision) in the absence of everybody's opportunity cost decisions? I know that McDonald's is successful because so many consumers are willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of their money for a Big Mac. You know that the DoD is successful because...? Because they produce x amount of bullets, y amount of tanks and z amount of aircraft carriers? Because they attack 5 countries per decade?

(bolding mine)

On the first question: They don't have to. Our goal (I assume) is to maximize value, not efficiency of allocation. You have yet to find an error in my logic (indeed, I think the task impossible or I would not present it as "logic", but I could be wrong). Please let me know if you do.

I think I see the problem though. You have equated the two bold terms. Maximum value and optimal provision are only the same assuming the amount of things there are to provision is invariant. This is not true. We do not derive value from dollars, but goods and services, and the total amount of good and services available in a tax choice system is less than those available to a cooperative entity (for some goods and services).

The government can successfully supply bullets...and I can successfully supply boogers. In the absence of people's opportunity cost decisions...one is equally as valuable/valueless as the other. We can both scream at each other that the value of one far exceeds the other. But the only way to determine the truth would be to allow consumers to decide for themselves. If they give the DoD more money than they give me, then clearly they value the government's bullets more than they value my boogers. Oh well, you were right about that. But are you right that consumers value bullets more than they value books for students?

A second point of broad consensus among critics stresses that publicness in consumption must not necessarily mean that all persons value a good’s utility equally, Mendez (1999), for example, illustrates this point by examining peace as a PG. Some policy-makers might opt for increased defense spending in order to safeguard peace. However, this decision could siphon off scarce resources from programmes in the areas of health and education. Other policy-makers might object to such a consequence and prefer to foster peace through just the opposite measure -- improved health and education for all. Especially under conditions of extreme disparity and inequity, the first strategy could indeed provoke even more conflict and unrest, securing national borders by unsettling people’s lives. - Inge Kaul, Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century

We all value things differently. Therefore, math can't reveal values...only sacrifice can. You can show me all the math in the world...but it's not going to accurately predict what a parent is willing to sacrifice for the well being of their children. Without that information, there is no "maximum value" or "optimal provision". There's simply a waste of resources that could have been put to more valuable uses.

Once again, even if we stipulate that the market is the best way to apportion things for ALL goods and services, this does not mean it is the ONLY way that has any usefulness at all. I can tell you with fair certainty that spending government resources growing apples is better than spending those same resources paying people to systematically break every chair on capitol hill. Are you willing to argue that the market is the ONLY way to determine which one of those endeavors will produce more value?

[Xerographica]

Once again, even if we stipulate that the market is the best way to apportion things for ALL goods and services, this does not mean it is the ONLY way that has any usefulness at all. I can tell you with fair certainty that spending government resources growing apples is better than spending those same resources paying people to systematically break every chair on capitol hill. Are you willing to argue that the market is the ONLY way to determine which one of those endeavors will produce more value?

Yes, the market is the ONLY way to definitively determine which one of those endeavors will produce more value. Entrepreneurs make guesses. One entrepreneur guessed that selling rocks as pets would produce value. Another entrepreneur guessed that selling pooping dog toys would produce value. That's all we can do is make guesses...with various degrees of insight/foresight. Whether or not we guessed correctly...can only be determined by the opportunity cost decisions of consumers. Are consumers truly willing to give up the alternative uses of their $10 for a pet rock? I would have guessed no. Most people would have guessed no. Everybody with half a brain would have doubted the business model.

People are weird strange crazy bizarre absurd irrational and unfathomable. And we aren't exceptions. Therefore, we live and let live and allow people to decide for themselves what is worth their sacrifice. And for heaven's sake we drop the assumption that congresspeople are superior enough to skip this essential vetting process.

[Xerographica]

You are making the claims with respect to what Samuelson is saying, so the onus is on you to back this up. I skimmed the article you posted. Nowhere does he claim congresspeople are omniscient. In fact, your critiques seem to have very little relevence to this article, and your posting a couple short quotes, no doubt taken out of context, does nothing to discredit it. Colour me unimpressed.

Thank you for actually reading the paper. Maybe I was wrong that Samuelson argues that congresspeople are omniscient. So please tell me what exactly was the point of Samuelson's paper. Over 5000 papers refer to it...so surely it has a significant and noteworthy point. My judgement seems to be off...so please share your own judgement regarding the main thrust of Samuelson's argument.

[Infactum]

Once again, even if we stipulate that the market is the best way to apportion things for ALL goods and services, this does not mean it is the ONLY way that has any usefulness at all. I can tell you with fair certainty that spending government resources growing apples is better than spending those same resources paying people to systematically break every chair on capitol hill. Are you willing to argue that the market is the ONLY way to determine which one of those endeavors will produce more value?

Yes, the market is the ONLY way to definitively determine which one of those endeavors will produce more value. Entrepreneurs make guesses. One entrepreneur guessed that selling rocks as pets would produce value. Another entrepreneur guessed that selling pooping dog toys would produce value. That's all we can do is make guesses...with various degrees of insight/foresight. Whether or not we guessed correctly...can only be determined by the opportunity cost decisions of consumers. Are consumers truly willing to give up the alternative uses of their $10 for a pet rock? I would have guessed no. Most people would have guessed no. Everybody with half a brain would have doubted the business model.

People are weird strange crazy bizarre absurd irrational and unfathomable. And we aren't exceptions. Therefore, we live and let live and allow people to decide for themselves what is worth their sacrifice. And for heaven's sake we drop the assumption that congresspeople are superior enough to skip this essential vetting process.

But the point is that it doesn't have to be definitive. You have ignored the relevant portion of my post where I show that more goods and services are available to a congress (or any cooperative entity) than to a set of independent actors. Congress people don't have to be superior for this to be useful. Indeed, this can be more useful than the efficiency gains of the market for many goods.

[Aggicificicerous]

You are making the claims with respect to what Samuelson is saying, so the onus is on you to back this up. I skimmed the article you posted. Nowhere does he claim congresspeople are omniscient. In fact, your critiques seem to have very little relevence to this article, and your posting a couple short quotes, no doubt taken out of context, does nothing to discredit it. Colour me unimpressed.

Thank you for actually reading the paper. Maybe I was wrong that Samuelson argues that congresspeople are omniscient. So please tell me what exactly was the point of Samuelson's paper. Over 5000 papers refer to it...so surely it has a significant and noteworthy point. My judgement seems to be off...so please share your own judgement regarding the main thrust of Samuelson's argument.

Do your own homework. You made this thread, so we expect you to know what you're talking about.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

People are weird strange crazy bizarre absurd irrational and unfathomable.

So let's not have them decide how to allocate the nation's budget.

[Xerographica]

But the point is that it doesn't have to be definitive. You have ignored the relevant portion of my post where I show that more goods and services are available to a congress (or any cooperative entity) than to a set of independent actors. Congress people don't have to be superior for this to be useful. Indeed, this can be more useful than the efficiency gains of the market for many goods.

If it isn't definitive then it's merely conjecture. We'd be better off by attacking Syria. Maybe...yes...no? You make a guess and allocate your own resources accordingly. But please don't be so full of yourself that you're willing to gamble my own resources on your conjecture. Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot but I kindly ask that you abstain from shooting me in the foot.

If people are certain that a train is eventually going to crash, don't let your giant fatal conceit block them from getting off at the next station. Step aside and let them off. If the train crashes well...at least some people survived to make it to another destination. If the train doesn't crash...at least some people made it to the desired destination.

The only way around the essential value of hedging our bets is omniscience. And nobody's omniscient. Therefore, we're welcome to try and persuade the heck out of each other...but at the end of the day, if we can't convince people that our way is superior...then we have to let people go their own way.

[Maqo]

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.

1) Massive strawman

2) You are denying the division of labour and division of knowledge. It is possible for me to be the world's leading expert on widgets and have perfect knowledge about their supply and value, but know absolutely nothing about sprockets and their supply and value.

3) Congresspeople could probably very easily get the supply of milk pretty much right; and they would certainly get the supply right after a very short number of cycles. Milk is essentially a commodity, with demand not going to change much from year to year, and after two years congress would be just as good at producing the right quantity of milk as the free market is. Really, milk would be orders of magnitude easier to provide than public education, where the value derived is more transcendent.

4) They don't need to get the amount *exactly* right. They need to get it 'good enough', and create more value by taking advantage of collective buying power and methods of wealth creation that would be unavailable/unattractive to the free market.

5) ENORMOUS strawman.

[Xerographica]

Thank you for actually reading the paper. Maybe I was wrong that Samuelson argues that congresspeople are omniscient. So please tell me what exactly was the point of Samuelson's paper. Over 5000 papers refer to it...so surely it has a significant and noteworthy point. My judgement seems to be off...so please share your own judgement regarding the main thrust of Samuelson's argument.

Do your own homework. You made this thread, so we expect you to know what you're talking about.

So you read Samuelson's paper...and you're certain that he did not say that congresspeople are omniscient...but you don't know what he actually did say.

I've done my homework, I've read the paper and know exactly what it says. I've told you what it says and you say that I'm wrong. If you say that I'm wrong then tell exactly what the paper does say.

[Frisivisia]

Yes.

[Acsicurezza]

We need to abolish congress and give back representation to the representatives.

[Xerographica]

1) Massive strawman

Our system is not based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient, yet taxpayers are not allowed to choose where their taxes go. It just doesn't follow.

2) You are denying the division of labour and division of knowledge. It is possible for me to be the world's leading expert on widgets and have perfect knowledge about their supply and value, but know absolutely nothing about sprockets and their supply and value.

The division of labor is not a critique of consumer sovereignty. That you think it is reveals how little you know about how or why markets work.

3) Congresspeople could probably very easily get the supply of milk pretty much right; and they would certainly get the supply right after a very short number of cycles. Milk is essentially a commodity, with demand not going to change much from year to year, and after two years congress would be just as good at producing the right quantity of milk as the free market is. Really, milk would be orders of magnitude easier to provide than public education, where the value derived is more transcendent.

If they can get the supply "better" than consumers can, then obviously we should want them to determine exactly how much milk, forums and Brittney Spears is supplied.

4) They don't need to get the amount *exactly* right. They need to get it 'good enough', and create more value by taking advantage of collective buying power and methods of wealth creation that would be unavailable/unattractive to the free market.

In the absence of consumer decisions, how in the world can you know how close congress gets? What in the world are you comparing their decisions to? An alternate reality where taxpayers can shop for themselves?

[Aggicificicerous]

Do your own homework. You made this thread, so we expect you to know what you're talking about.

So you read Samuelson's paper...and you're certain that he did not say that congresspeople are omniscient...but you don't know what he actually did say.

I've done my homework, I've read the paper and know exactly what it says. I've told you what it says and you say that I'm wrong. If you say that I'm wrong then tell exactly what the paper does say.

\

Then why don't you share this knowledge with us as you should have done three pages ago? This is a waste of time.

[Uiiop]

om·nis·cient: knowing everything
Knowing where taxes go /=/ Knowing everything
Therefore Congressblokes aren't omniscient.
Besides despite what misinterpreted quotes you may have on you i'm sure that congresspeople have other people to do that for them so that they only know that broadly.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Our system is not based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient, yet taxpayers are not allowed to choose where their taxes go. It just doesn't follow.

Individuals' decisions are good for making decisions on small and personal things like the purchase of a carton of milk or a car, but are very, very bad at big things, like a million people having to decide whether to build a road or whether to declare war.

[Lemanrussland]

We need to abolish congress and give back representation to the representatives.

What.

[Geilinor]

People already do decide where their taxes go, by voting in representatives whom they agree with. We just need a more proportional and representative political system.

[Lemanrussland]

om·nis·cient: knowing everything
Knowing where taxes go /=/ Knowing everything
Therefore Congressblokes aren't omniscient.
Besides despite what misinterpreted quotes you may have on you i'm sure that congresspeople have other people to do that for them so that they only know that broadly.

He's basically using a variation on the arguments that Hayek and Mises (and even earlier, Max Weber) articulated in the 1920s and 1930s. In a nutshell, they said it is impossible for a central bureaucracy or group of representatives to efficiently provision goods and services on the behalf of others through central planning, because that would require knowing an unfathomable number of things about people's desires, needs, what they're willing to give for items, and so on. On the other hand, they say that the free price system is capable of doing this because of price signals. Information about all of these disparate circumstances are transmitted in a decentralized way through many market transactions, setting prices, rationing supplies, distributing income, and allocating resources automatically.

But instead of saying that goods provided or economic resources managed by government should be passed to markets, he says tax payers should instead choose to allocate their tax money where they wish (tax choice).

What I don't understand about his argument is how this system deals with the free rider problem. What if I want to use schools or roads, but not pay any taxes for it? If the OP could flesh out his argument and explain what the system in practice would look like, that would be nice.

Do you just get a tax return and fill out what you want? Are you obligated to provide a set amount of taxes to the state, but choose how it is allocated? Are your choices limited to certain things authorized by law?

[Infactum]

You still haven't responded to my initial situation (or, to my eyes, even attempted to refute it). So I have to ask, are you debating to seek truth and help others find truth, or are you debating to promote tax choice/pragmatarianism? I realize you likely believe these two things to be equivalent, but if I could prove to you that they weren't, which would you choose?

Also, just to confirm, you advocate utilitarian solutions? That is, the best policies are those that create the greatest good for the greatest number (for some suitable summing of goods/value)?

But the point is that it doesn't have to be definitive. You have ignored the relevant portion of my post where I show that more goods and services are available to a congress (or any cooperative entity) than to a set of independent actors. Congress people don't have to be superior for this to be useful. Indeed, this can be more useful than the efficiency gains of the market for many goods.

If it isn't definitive then it's merely conjecture.

Nothing is definitive. Including the market. It is merely the best way we have of allocating resources in many cases. If the market were definitive, you would not see crashes. The market isn't even very good. At least 50% of people cannot identify their preference in at least some situations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology) - see stats below table 1).

To test this definitive/conjecture dichotomy, would you say that the statements: "The Earth is Flat" and "The Earth is a Sphere" are equally wrong? Both are conjecture based on evidence, both are proven false, and neither is definitive.

If you can't answer yes to that question, then you must accept that their are varying levels of approximation. If you would like to call the Earth a sphere, you must accept that some levels of approximation are indeed very good.

For the record, I tend to think that the market is to "The Earth is an Oblate Spheriod" as Congress is to "The Earth is a Sphere" when we are talking allocation (not production!) of public goods. Both are pretty close, and the first is a little better. You'll note that both of these statements are false though.

We'd be better off by attacking Syria. Maybe...yes...no? You make a guess and allocate your own resources accordingly. But please don't be so full of yourself that you're willing to gamble my own resources on your conjecture. Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot but I kindly ask that you abstain from shooting me in the foot.

The military is an excellent example of how nonlinear return messes with market pricing. Lets say I could prove with relatively simple logic that the US pouring 70% of it's tax budget into attacking Syria would lead to 1000+ years of peace and prosperity for not only for the world, but for the US especially. Spending less than that would provide no effect other than dead civilians. Military operations usually need a minimum funding level, so while these numbers are extreme, the shape of the curve is not unreasonable.

It is almost a certainty that more than 30% of people would not fund it. We, apparently, cannot be convinced by simple logic (what should be the most convincing argument). You and I have both put some thought into this issue and have what we believe to be relatively straightforward/logical arguments, yet at least 50% of us are being irrational. This is a problem because how big of a gamble something is depends on how many people take that gamble; this is why I keep bringing up game theory and pointing back to my original situation. Public goods don't function like normal consumables, so applying standard economic heuristics to them is a bad idea.

If people are certain that a train is eventually going to crash, don't let your giant fatal conceit block them from getting off at the next station. Step aside and let them off. If the train crashes well...at least some people survived to make it to another destination. If the train doesn't crash...at least some people made it to the desired destination.

The only way around the essential value of hedging our bets is omniscience. And nobody's omniscient. Therefore, we're welcome to try and persuade the heck out of each other...but at the end of the day, if we can't convince people that our way is superior...then we have to let people go their own way.

Why? Why, in all cases, do we have to let people go there own way? If a person believes that burning down my house is best for everybody, then should I let them? Conversely, if putting one (otherwise innocent) person in jail for 1 day would save 90% of the population from painful deaths, should we let them walk free if they want to? If your answer to this is "property rights," then why are those for sure the best way to allocate resources, and why shouldn't violence be a perfectly valid negotiation tactic?

[The Republic of Llamas]

Just going to answer the question:
NO.
It's one of the two major flaws of democracy. Winston Churchill explains the second better than I ever could:
"The greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

So that means that politicians are stupid, but they tend to be better-informed than the average person. And seeing as how they're elected, they'll still mostly represent the interests of the people.

[Gauthier]

If Michelle Bwcawkmann and Louie Gohmert are omniscient, the human race is too stupid to deserve living.

You forgot Nancy Pelosi, if nothing else.

Tammy Duckworth, as well.

False Equvalency is a helluva drug.

Please source examples where they said something stupid on the scale of "The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the United States government" or "pregnant women are coming over to have terror babies".

[Maqo]

Our system is not based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient, yet taxpayers are not allowed to choose where their taxes go. It just doesn't follow.

They don't need to be omniscient. They just need to be good. They don't even need to be better than the average taxpayer, because with all the powers available to them as a government they are able to operate (in some circumstances) more efficiently with the same resources.

The division of labor is not a critique of consumer sovereignty. That you think it is reveals how little you know about how or why markets work.

Your premise is that, if congresspeople know the correct allocation of X then they should also know the correct allocation of Y & Z. Division of labour means that it is their job to know about X, but not to know about Y and Z.

If they can get the supply "better" than consumers can, then obviously we should want them to determine exactly how much milk, forums and Brittney Spears is supplied.

I never said they could supply it 'better'. They could get the quantity supplied correct. We leave it to the market because in this case they can probably produce more efficiently (in terms of uses of $/resources per output of milk).
Your continued conflation of cost & price & value & quantity, vague definitions of 'correctness' or 'efficiency', makes your arguments very unsound.

In the absence of consumer decisions, how in the world can you know how close congress gets? What in the world are you comparing their decisions to? An alternate reality where taxpayers can shop for themselves?

You do realise that taxpayers can talk to their representative, right? Citizens can express their opinions about the correct amounts of stuff?

But again, the government doesn't need to be perfect in all respects if it can be better in some even when it is worse in others.
Eg: 100 taxpayers go to individually to buy a school books. It costs them $10 each, for total spend of $1000. Efficiency is 100 books for $1000.
Government collects $750 in taxes to spend on school books. Because of bureaucracy, only 80% of the money ends up being spent. But because of their increased purchasing power, they get a 50% discount on the books. Efficiency is 120 books for $750.
The moral of the story is that with contrived examples you can prove anything the government didn't know the 'correct' quantity to supply, but still ended up being far more efficient than consumers would have been on their own.