by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:32 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Regnum Dominae » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:33 pm
by New Octopucta » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:35 pm
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:38 pm
Essential though the efficiency model of public goods [Samuelson] is as a theoretical construct, standing by itself it has little practical use. The omniscient referee does not exist and the problem of preference revelation must be addressed. - Richard A. Musgrave, The Nature of the Fiscal State
Determining the efficient level of public goods requires knowing consumer preferences. That knowledge is often assumed as given in theoretical models of optimal provision [Samuelson], but obtaining it is a major challenge when it comes to actual policy. - Richard A. Musgrave, Peggy Musgrave, Providing Global Public Goods
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Disserbia » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:46 pm
by Gauthier » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:49 pm
by Saint Kitten » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:54 pm
by Saint Kitten » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:58 pm
Genivaria wrote:Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. (True/False)
Where the fuck did you get this nonsense?
Genivaria wrote:Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. (True/False)
Where the fuck did you get this nonsense?
by Aggicificicerous » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:58 pm
Xerographica wrote: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...
by Genivaria » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:09 pm
Xerographica wrote:Genivaria wrote:Where the fuck did you get this nonsense?
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...Essential though the efficiency model of public goods [Samuelson] is as a theoretical construct, standing by itself it has little practical use. The omniscient referee does not exist and the problem of preference revelation must be addressed. - Richard A. Musgrave, The Nature of the Fiscal StateDetermining the efficient level of public goods requires knowing consumer preferences. That knowledge is often assumed as given in theoretical models of optimal provision [Samuelson], but obtaining it is a major challenge when it comes to actual policy. - Richard A. Musgrave, Peggy Musgrave, Providing Global Public Goods
The question is...how many passages do I have to share with you before you agree that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient?
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:11 pm
Aggicificicerous wrote:I don't know anything about Paul Samuelson. You're going to have to try a bit harder if you want to convince me that the US's system assumes congresspeople are omniscient.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Purpelia » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:13 pm
by The Emerald Legion » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:17 pm
Xerographica wrote:Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. (True/False)
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.
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.
by Aggicificicerous » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:18 pm
Xerographica wrote:The US system has to be based on some theory. Right? We don't just take people's money without having a reasonably good explanation. Samuelson is the guy that provided the theory that our current system is based on.
Xerographica wrote:According to his theory, there's no need to determine consumers' preferences for public goods because congresspeople already know consumers' preferences. In other words, our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient.
Xerographica wrote:If you want to argue that our current system is not based on this theory, then it's up to you to share exactly which theory our system is based on. It shouldn't be too difficult. If somebody comes up with a theory that our system is based on, then chances are good that they would have received a Nobel Prize in economics for doing so. So just review their work and find which ones focused on public finance.
by Maurepas » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:22 pm
by European Socialist Republic » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:22 pm
Xerographica wrote:Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. (True/False)
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.
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.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:28 pm
Aggicificicerous wrote:Source? Samuelson looks old, but I'm fairly sure the system was designed before he was around.
Aggicificicerous wrote:Let's see it in his words, not yours.
There is also the perennial problem of the revelation of public preferences for public goods and of people's willingness to pay. These issues have been ignored in some approaches, particularly Samuelson's. But the difficult issues they raise cannot be ignored. - Meghnad Desai, Public Goods: A Historical Perspective
Aggicificicerous wrote:You have yet to provide any evidence that this system is based on Samuelson.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Saint Kitten » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:28 pm
by Genivaria » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:29 pm
Xerographica wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote:Source? Samuelson looks old, but I'm fairly sure the system was designed before he was around.
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.Aggicificicerous wrote:Let's see it in his words, not yours.
In other economist's words...There is also the perennial problem of the revelation of public preferences for public goods and of people's willingness to pay. These issues have been ignored in some approaches, particularly Samuelson's. But the difficult issues they raise cannot be ignored. - Meghnad Desai, Public Goods: A Historical PerspectiveAggicificicerous wrote:You have yet to provide any evidence that this system is based on Samuelson.
Again, I can't show you an economic explanation for our current system that has been cited more than 5,000 times. This doesn't mean that one doesn't exist...it just means that I haven't found it. But I have studied public finance enough that if a more widely recognized theory existed, then chances are extremely good that I would already have run across some mention of it.
by Greater Tezdrian » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:34 pm
Xerographica wrote: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.
by Benuty » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:34 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dumb Ideologies, Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Juansonia, New Heldervinia, Port Carverton, Shidei, Statesburg, Vassenor
Advertisement