Gauthier wrote: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.
Advertisement
by Fireye » Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:54 pm
Gauthier wrote:If Michelle Bwcawkmann and Louie Gohmert are omniscient, the human race is too stupid to deserve living.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:13 pm
Infactum wrote: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).
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
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Aggicificicerous » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:22 pm
Xerographica wrote:
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?
Xerographica wrote: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.
by Infactum » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:29 pm
Xerographica wrote:Infactum wrote: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.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:44 pm
Infactum wrote: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?
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:49 pm
Aggicificicerous wrote: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.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Infactum » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:53 pm
Xerographica wrote:Infactum wrote: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.
by Aggicificicerous » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:54 pm
Xerographica wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote: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.
by Rainbows and Rivers » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:56 pm
Xerographica wrote:
People are weird strange crazy bizarre absurd irrational and unfathomable.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:05 pm
Infactum wrote: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.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Maqo » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:08 pm
Xerographica wrote: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.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:09 pm
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote: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.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Frisivisia » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:09 pm
by Acsicurezza » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:16 pm
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:19 pm
Maqo wrote:1) Massive strawman
Maqo wrote: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.
Maqo wrote: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.
Maqo wrote: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.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Aggicificicerous » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:19 pm
\Xerographica wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote:
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.
by Uiiop » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:23 pm
by Rainbows and Rivers » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:25 pm
Xerographica wrote: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.
by Lemanrussland » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:38 pm
Acsicurezza wrote:We need to abolish congress and give back representation to the representatives.
by Geilinor » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:40 pm
by Lemanrussland » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:54 pm
Uiiop wrote: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.
by Infactum » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:54 pm
Xerographica wrote:Infactum wrote: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.
by The Republic of Llamas » Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:02 pm
by Gauthier » Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:11 pm
by Maqo » Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:40 pm
Xerographica wrote: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.
Xerographica wrote: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.
Xerographica wrote: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.
Xerographica wrote: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?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dumb Ideologies, Elejamie, Likhinia, Port Carverton, Shazbotdom, Spirit of Hope, The Black Forrest, The Jamesian Republic, The Two Jerseys, Valyxias
Advertisement