Are Congresspeople Omniscient?

[Xerographica]

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.

[Regnum Dominae]

No.

When has anyone actually claimed that except as a ridiculous straw man?

[New Octopucta]

There's absolutely no way that letting people decide where their taxes go could go wrong.

[Xerographica]

No.

When has anyone actually claimed that except as a ridiculous straw man?

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 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

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?

[Disserbia]

Despite the the ridiculous burning strawman at the beginning of the thread that I originally mistook for the Yosemite fire, I think I actually might agree with you. I'm not sure though.

[Gauthier]

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

[Saint Kitten]

Why does congress have the worst approval rating ever? Because people either vote for whatever party they joined, or they listen to whatever propaganda they show on TV. We have low ratings because people expect too much from the people they had to chose from. They expected them to be able to fix any problem but failed to realize that they are just corrupt humans.

[Genivaria]

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

Where the fuck did you get this nonsense?

[Saint Kitten]

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

Where the fuck did you get this nonsense?

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

Where the fuck did you get this nonsense?

Umm, we got it the first time?

[Aggicificicerous]

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...

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.

[Genivaria]

Where the fuck did you get this nonsense?

Where the fuck did you get this nonsense?

Umm, we got it the first time?

Double post, damn laggy computer.

[Genivaria]

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 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

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?

I fail to see what an economists says has to do with congress or our overall system.
Noone is assuming any such thing, your strawman is rather obvious to everyone.

[Xerographica]

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.

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. 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.

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.

[Purpelia]

All systems of government that rely on electing representatives*, even Athenian democracy rely on the notion that the ones chosen are while not all knowing at least knowledgeable and capable enough to do their job. So in a sense you are right. The question that you should be asking is if the system that is supposed to make sure they are is working.


* This also includes systems where the method of election is right of birth, religious or party affiliation etc.

[The Emerald Legion]

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.

They are also infinitely more shortsighted and stupid. The idea is that you pick a few of the people of quality, and set them at the head of the people who quite simply aren't as good.

Of course with the public vilification of the elite, and the exultation of the Joe Everyman... well, that system is facing some turbulence.

[Aggicificicerous]

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.

Source? Samuelson looks old, but I'm fairly sure the system was designed before he was around.

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.

Let's see it in his words, not yours.

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.

You have yet to provide any evidence that this system is based on Samuelson.

[Maurepas]

I'll go for it, but on one condition: You don't get to decide where your taxes go, only other people do. Nor do you get to decide how much you pay, only other people do.

Maybe that way Goldman-Sachs and others will actually pay taxes.

[European Socialist Republic]

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.

No, but I am. These politicians promise alot but never keep their words.
Vote for me as your Supreme Leader and I will never make any promises! But I shall keep my word.

[Divair]

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

Next.

[Xerographica]

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.

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 Perspective

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.

[Saint Kitten]

Umm, we got it the first time?

Double post, damn laggy computer.

Just checking

[Genivaria]

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.

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 Perspective

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.

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

[Otrenia]

What is this... I don't even...

[Greater Tezdrian]

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.

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

/thread

[Benuty]

They are human and nothing more.