Are Congresspeople Omniscient?

[Xerographica]

The problem is that there are services that may not be directly essential to the population, resulting in underfunding for said services.

NASA and Government Scientific Institutions come to mind.

That's how life works sometimes. Sometimes the indirectly essential gets sacrificed for the sake of the directly essential. If you didn't want this to happen, then the responsibility would be on you to persuade others to make indirectly essential services a higher priority.

But the public sector is HALF the economy. Which means that the private sector is half the economy as well. It should seem self evident that there's a ridiculous amount of indirectly essential private services/goods that get substantial funding. One person's indirectly essential service is another person's directly essential service. One person's trash is another person's treasure.

[Blasveck]

The problem is that there are services that may not be directly essential to the population, resulting in underfunding for said services.

NASA and Government Scientific Institutions come to mind.

That's how life works sometimes. Sometimes the indirectly essential gets sacrificed for the sake of the directly essential. If you didn't want this to happen, then the responsibility would be on you to persuade others to make indirectly essential services a higher priority.

But the public sector is HALF the economy. Which means that the private sector is half the economy as well. It should seem self evident that there's a ridiculous amount of indirectly essential private services/goods that get substantial funding. One person's indirectly essential service is another person's directly essential service. One person's trash is another person's treasure.

And if there aren't enough people who directly benefit from said services to properly fund it?

Or do you honestly expect a good majority of people to fund welfare and food stamp programs?

[Galloism]

But the public sector is HALF the economy.

You know, when you keep insisting 2/5 = 1/2, it makes us question if you understand enough mathematics to have even an elementary level understanding of economics.

[Xerographica]

But the public sector is HALF the economy.

You know, when you keep insisting 2/5 = 1/2, it makes us question if you understand enough mathematics to have even an elementary level understanding of economics.

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7% http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Economics does use the example of the all-knowing "social planner" who, according to most common models, would come up with the same optimal allocation of goods as if we just allowed the "magic of the market" to allocate them. That doesn't extend to the goods that the government is usually tasked with providing, though. Xero doesn't understand that distinction. Thus this stupid thread.

If you're going to claim something, then please substantiate it. Or, feel free to admit that what you're sharing has simply been pulled from your ass.

Have you ever taken an economics course? Or picked up a book on the subject? What I'm describing are the fundamental theorems of welfare economics. This is absolutely fundamental stuff (ho ho ho).

Under the assumptions of complete markets, price-taking behaviour and the local nonsatiation of consumer preferences (for every x ∈ X - the consumer's consumption set - and every ε > 0 there is y ∈ X such that || y – x || ≤ ε and y > x), the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics states that the market equilibria generated are Pareto optimal (no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off).

That's then extended to a welfare-maximising setting with the Second Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics, which states that the government can shift endowments in order to generate any equitable (in moral terms) price equilibrium without losing the condition of Pareto optimality. Basically, as I said, the assertion is that "magic of the market" can come up with the same optimal allocation as would any "benevolent social planner" - source from an introductory economics textbook.

[Blasveck]

You know, when you keep insisting 2/5 = 1/2, it makes us question if you understand enough mathematics to have even an elementary level understanding of economics.

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7% http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

Don't the top 10 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of the taxes?

That tends to tip the scale.

[Neo Art]

You know, when you keep insisting 2/5 = 1/2, it makes us question if you understand enough mathematics to have even an elementary level understanding of economics.

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7% http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

Wow. Whoever wrote that shit is almost as bad at math as you are Ausable.

[Neo Art]

No, seriously, I'm reading that link and it's not even "bad arguments" the math is just...wrong. It's absolutely, absurdly wrong. As in "math doesn't actually work that way".

You can't just add up percentages like that.

[Xerographica]

Have you ever taken an economics course? Or picked up a book on the subject? What I'm describing are the fundamental theorems of welfare economics. This is absolutely fundamental stuff (ho ho ho).

I don't want it in your own words. Find a credible paper on the topic and share the relevant passage. If you were actually knowledgeable about the subject, then you shouldn't even have to search for a relevant paper. You should already have plenty on hand to choose from.

[Uiiop]

Have you ever taken an economics course? Or picked up a book on the subject? What I'm describing are the fundamental theorems of welfare economics. This is absolutely fundamental stuff (ho ho ho).

I don't want it in your own words. Find a credible paper on the topic and share the relevant passage. If you were actually knowledgeable about the subject, then you shouldn't even have to search for a relevant paper. You should already have plenty on hand to choose from.

Wait...he cited a Wikipedia article. How's that his own words? I got a feeling that your glass house is projecting. So...
*Starts to throw stones on your house of cards n' glass*

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Have you ever taken an economics course? Or picked up a book on the subject? What I'm describing are the fundamental theorems of welfare economics. This is absolutely fundamental stuff (ho ho ho).

I don't want it in your own words. Find a credible paper on the topic and share the relevant passage. If you were actually knowledgeable about the subject, then you shouldn't even have to search for a relevant paper. You should already have plenty on hand to choose from.

I put it in my own words because I'm knowledgeable about it, but there you go. And here are some extensions of the simple theorems in situations where some of the assumptions do not hold if you're interested.

I learned about this in intermediate microeconomics. It's in every textbook. I don't need to have tonnes of papers on hand to substantiate because it's indisputably fundamental to the subject.

[Xerographica]

I don't want it in your own words. Find a credible paper on the topic and share the relevant passage. If you were actually knowledgeable about the subject, then you shouldn't even have to search for a relevant paper. You should already have plenty on hand to choose from.

I put it in my own words because I'm knowledgeable about it, but there you go. And here are some extensions of the simple theorems in situations where some of the assumptions do not hold if you're interested.

I learned about this in intermediate microeconomics. It's in every textbook. I don't need to have tonnes of papers on hand to substantiate because it's indisputably fundamental to the subject.

Why should I read your sources when you don't even bother to read them yourself?

Suppose our social planner tried to choose an efficient allocation of resources on his own, instead of relying on market forces. To do so, he would need to know the value of a particular good to every potential consumer in the market and the cost of every potential producer. And he would need this information not only for this market but for every one of the many thousands of markets in the economy. The task is practically impossible, which explains why centrally planned economies never work very well. - Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Macroeconomics

In case you missed it, our public sector is a centrally planned economy.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I put it in my own words because I'm knowledgeable about it, but there you go. And here are some extensions of the simple theorems in situations where some of the assumptions do not hold if you're interested.

I learned about this in intermediate microeconomics. It's in every textbook. I don't need to have tonnes of papers on hand to substantiate because it's indisputably fundamental to the subject.

Why should I read your sources when you don't even bother to read them yourself?

Suppose our social planner tried to choose an efficient allocation of resources on his own, instead of relying on market forces. To do so, he would need to know the value of a particular good to every potential consumer in the market and the cost of every potential producer. And he would need this information not only for this market but for every one of the many thousands of markets in the economy. The task is practically impossible, which explains why centrally planned economies never work very well. - Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Macroeconomics

Yeah, that's exactly what I've been saying. The Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics state that the market is just as efficient as an all-knowing, benevolent social planner at managing the provision of simple private goods. What I've said, again, is that the model in that form does not extend into those goods which do not have those attributes, such as public goods, or goods with externalities, free-rider problems or cross-period benefits, because of present-biased preferences. That's what Samuelson was talking about.

You haven't understood that distinction. That's the whole point.

In case you missed it, our public sector is a centrally planned economy.

And what? No. In that example, the government was centrally planning all allocations of private goods. It said nothing about public sectors in general. There were only private goods in that simple economy.

[Galloism]

You know, when you keep insisting 2/5 = 1/2, it makes us question if you understand enough mathematics to have even an elementary level understanding of economics.

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7% http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

Please see the bolded.

Also just read the link. The above was off the cuff.

Wow. It's frightening that anyone could be so bad at math. 2/5 = 1/2 is grade A work by comparison. I now give you props for being better at math than the person you linked to.

[Blakk Metal]

'Infinitely'!?!

Pretty much

You know how obviously inaccurate what you said is?

In order for a free market to exist, you need multiple competitors for the same product.

In a public sector market, there would be numerous government organizations competing for your tax dollars.

"I want you to tell me, clearly and honestly, without any semi-trollish bullshit, how an alternative agencies would get formed, and, furthermore, I want to know how this method would not easily be constricted."

Wealth =/= intelligence.

Wealth is a reflection of the kind of intelligence that consumers value.

That's manifestly wrong.

You first.

Democracy, the Market, and the Logic of Social Choice - Samuel DeCanio

That's more of an argument for anarchocapitalism than your stupid ideology.

I want you to tell me, clearly and honestly, without any semi-trollish bullshit, how an alternative agencies would get formed, and, furthermore, I want to know how this method would not easily be constricted.

What do you mean by alternative agencies? As in EPA1, EPA2, EPA3...EPAn?

Yes.

Also, stop quoting others. It's hella gay, dude.

I'd rather be hella gay than hella ignorant.

Is that an implied flame?

You know, when you keep insisting 2/5 = 1/2, it makes us question if you understand enough mathematics to have even an elementary level understanding of economics.

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7% http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

The epic fail in that statement makes California City look successful.

[Infactum]

First, you seem to make the mistake - again - of missing the middle ground. There are more that the two options: "congress knows nothings about preferences" and "congress is omniscient." Buchanan knows this.

Knowing something about preferences isn't good enough. I know you're a human male...therefore, I'll spend your money for you...on the same things that I spend my money on? Really? Your middle ground is resource allocation by hasty generalization. Seriously go shopping with somebody. When you do so, take note of the disparities between your preferences. Please report back the contents of your respective shopping carts.

Yes, the allocation of produced goods will be less efficient. I have never argued otherwise. For some goods, however, the government can create more of them than individual choosers. This has the possibility of balancing the lesser efficiency and even overcoming it. This means the less efficient, but cooperative, central government does better than the more efficient individuals in terms of utility. Indeed, I think it happens quite often, but until you accept the possibility I don't think that discussion is worth having.

Guessing the general shape is not impossible. To use your example, I'm pretty sure that most of the people who come to Subway want a sandwich.

Great, so allow taxpayers to make primary choices...and then have government organizations make the secondary and tertiary choices. Look over my latest exchanges with Yaltabaoth.

Private sector...

Primary choices - eating, sleeping, reading, working, playing
Secondary choices - if eating then...Taco Bell, Subway, McDonalds
Tertiary choices - if Subway then...Black Forest Ham, B.L.T., Cold Cut Combo

Public sector...

Primary choices - defense, environment, education, healthcare, transportation (taxpayer)
Secondary choices - if environment then...EPA (government)
Tertiary choices - if EPA then...habitat conservation, pollution reduction, (government)

Honestly, that's exactly the opposite of what would be useful. Government would be much better at guessing "primary" choices than it would at secondary or tertiary. I can predict the amount of food that San Francisco needs to eat in a year very accurately from some armchair stats (a professional government statistician would be even better). Predicting the number of Chicken sandwiches they want, however, is much harder.

For specialized public goods things would probably change, as those are more nebulous, but the principle holds. Averages of more general things are more stable than more specific things.

How do you define the word "mistake?"

How many different ways can you allocate the resources that you now have? Each possible allocation is going to provide you and others with a different amount of value. Because values are subjective, an allocation that might create value for you...might destroy value for others. So we're dealing with an x y graph...your value is on the x axis and other people's values are on the y axis. Can you figure out where mistakes would be on this graph?

I think I know what it is, but I want your definition. Would you agree with the definition "A mistake is acting in a way that fails to maximize your preferences/value?" If not, what is your definition.

In your language, the definition above corresponds to picking the farthest right point (highest x) as the only non-mistake.

Scientific side note - xy plot is a terrible way to represent that data. They should both be plotted against your allocation independently unless you have an excellent reason to do otherwise (looking for some sort of correlation maybe).

You don't get to assume you're right and insist I prove you wrong or agree with you. If I believed everything I couldn't disprove, I'd be Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Buddhist, and basically every other religion with vague enough teachings. That's why we put the burden of proof on the positive claim.

If you weren't making claims then I would agree that I should bear the sole burden of substantiating claims. But you're constantly claiming stuff. Whenever you claim something you should be prepared to substantiate it. If you claim there's some middle ground...then please substantiate it. If you claim that close enough counts for horseshoes, hand grenades...and how resources are used...then please substantiate it.

For the purposes of this argument thread, I have made no such strong claim. I have doubted your claim to have proven that "the opportunity cost concept" ensures optimal allocation for all public goods. I have done this first by showing that, in some cases, an imperfect congress can outperform perfect individuals. You rejected that, so I presented you a paper -proving- that an imperfect congress can outperform perfect individuals*. This amounts to a counter example unless you can prove that those assumptions never apply in the real world.

If congress can outperform the individual, then your "market of public goods" does not optimally provide in all cases. This contradicts your claim (point 1 from many posts back that you seem to use as universally applicable).

*The trivial extension here is that an imperfect congress can also outperform imperfect individuals.

I've claimed that, when it comes to facilitating input, the market process is far superior to the political process. Therefore, it's my responsibility to substantiate my claim...

Democracy, the Market, and the Logic of Social Choice

Facilitating input, probably. That paper brings up a good critique of the information available in the electoral system versus a market.

I'm not so sure this means that optimal provision is the necessary result transitioning to a market, however. Especially when the goods have externalities.

See section 2 of This paper by Amartya Sen. It discusses a brief overview of when the market is shown to work for private goods and what assumptions go into that. It includes citations of the important works if you want to google scholar them. One of the major assumptions is lack of "externalities." Public goods are (partially) defined by the fact that they contain positive externalities. Ergo, the canonical proof that shows markets maximize value (Or, to use your words "the opportunity cost concept") does not apply to public goods.

Except, if you had bothered to even read only the first opportunity cost passages that I shared, then you would know that your conclusion is categorically untrue...

In determining the marginal costs of producing a publicly provided good or service, it is important to emphasize that these are not simply financial or accounting costs, but economic or opportunity costs – that is, the economic value of the benefits that could have been obtained had the resources used to produce the good or service been used for their most highly valued purpose. - David Duff, Benefit Taxes and User Fees in Theory and Practice

The economic approach stresses the fact that any expenditure always has an opportunity cost, i.e. a benefit that is sacrificed because money is used in a particular way. For example, since biodiversity is threatened by many factors, but chiefly by changes in land use, measures of value denominated in monetary terms can be used to demonstrate the importance of biodiversity conservation relative to alternative uses of land. In this way, a better balance between 'developmental' needs and conservation can be illustrated. To date, that balance has tended to favour the conversion of land to industrial, residential and infrastructure use because biodiversity is not seen as having a significant market value. Economic approaches to valuation can help to identify that potential market value, whilst a further stage in the process of conservation is to 'create markets' where currently none exist. Market creation is the subject of a separate OECD initiative (OECD, forthcoming). - David Pearce, Dominic Moran, Dan Biller, Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation A Guide for Policy Makers

The notion of opportunity cost refers to the fact that the allocation of resources to biodiversity conservation necessarily means those resources cannot be allocated to something else. From an economic perspective, the money value of the resources allocated to conservation approximates the benefit that is sacrificed for conservation. Hence, for the instrumental value rule to be obeyed, it must be the case that the benefits (positive changes in human well-being) from conservation must exceed the costs of conservation (the well-being foregone). In essence, this is the resource allocation rule that would be used in economics. - David Pearce, Dominic Moran, Dan Biller, Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation A Guide for Policy Makers

While the philosophical debate is extensive, complex and largely confined to academic publications, it does have direct relationships to the practical problem of how to make decisions in a world where resources are limited. The relationships are sometimes weak, however, as with discussions that ignore the finitude of resources and hence the central place that has to be occupied by the concept of opportunity cost. Any practical decision-making criterion has to account for the benefits that are sacrificed by biodiversity conservation. This involves either a formal procedure, such as cost-benefit analysis, or some political process. - David Pearce, Dominic Moran, Dan Biller, Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation A Guide for Policy Makers

The economic approach is clearly not restricted to material goods and wants, nor even to the market sector. Prices, be they the money prices of the market sector or the "shadow" imputed prices of the nonmarket sector, measure the opportunity cost of using scarce resources, and the economic approach predicts the same kind of response to shadow prices as to market prices. Consider, for example, a person whose only scarce resource is his limited amount of time. This time is used to produce various commodities that enter his preference function, the aim being to maximize utility. Even without a market sector, either directly or indirectly, each commodity has a relevant marginal "shadow" price, namely, the time required to produce a unit change in that commodity; in equilibrium, the ratio of these prices must equal the ratio of the marginal utilities. Most importantly, an increase in the relative price of any commodity - i.e., an increase in the time required to produce a unit of that commodity - would tend to reduce the consumption of that commodity. - Gary S. Becker, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior

War costs a nation more than its actual expense; it costs, besides all that would have been gained, but for its occurrence. - J.B. Say, A Treatise on Political Economy

Once the option has been made for a public-sector project, still another choice must be confronted, and this also involves a choice-influencing cost, an obstacle to decision. Once currency has been issued, and the decision has been made to expand public-sector spending, the choice among separate public employments of the funds must be faced. The choice-influencing cost of the new post office building is the subjective value that the decision-maker places on the new school building that might be constructed instead. - James M. Buchanan, Cost and Choice: An Inquiry in Economic Theory

Even at the cost of lining up with Friedman, I’d be pleased if the idea that war is a mostly futile waste of lives and money became conventional wisdom. Switching to utopian mode, wouldn’t it be amazing if the urge to “do something” could be channeled into, say, ending hunger in the world or universal literacy (both cheaper than even one Iraq-sized war)? - John Quiggin, War and waste

Even where the explicit goals of the organization are to help non-donors, this rule—that the consumers guiding production decisions are the donors—still applies. Suppose, for example, the organization is a charity giving alms to the poor. In a sense, the purpose is to benefit the poor, but the actual consumers here, the guides to production decisions, are the donors, not the recipients of charity. The charity serves the purposes of the donors, and these purposes are in turn to help the poor. But it is the donors who are consuming, the donors who are demonstrating their preference for sacrificing a lesser benefit (the use of their money elsewhere) for a greater (giving money to the charity to help the poor). It is the donors whose production decisions guide the actions of the charity. - Murray Rothbard, The Myth of Neutral Taxation

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

In determining the application of the revenue sum derived, a second choice must be made between the satisfaction of alternative wants by public economy. If more is spent for armaments, less can be spent for education. - Richard A. Musgrave

But economic costs, as envisaged in the marginal-cost-pricing approach, are not simply accounting costs. The fundamental economic concept of cost is opportunity cost, or the value of the benefits that could have been obtained had the inputs been used for some other purpose. From this perspective, the cost of, say, a park does not consist simply of the tangible construction and operation costs recorded in financial accounts. Instead, the relevant cost is the (highest) value that the land would realize if it were used for some other purpose, such as logging or residential development. - Richard M. Bird and Thomas Tsiopoulos, User Charges for Public Services:
Potentials and Problems

But, no matter whether a particular society has a capitalist price system or a socialist economy or a feudal or other system, the real cost of anything is still its value in alternative uses. The real costs of building a bridge are the other things that could have been built with the same labor and material. This is also true at the level of a given individual, even when no money is involved. The cost of watching a television sitcom or soap opera is the value of the other things that could have been done with that same time. - Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

You've already sent me off on two wild source goose chase source trawls that have left me little better informed than when I started. You'll forgive me If I am suspicious of the efficacy of the third. If you think one of these demonstrates your point, please point me to it.

I just read 20 pages of a paper you suggested and you can't be bothered to read a dozen passages?

I'm sorry you read the entire paper. I tried to make it clear that I was pointing to the literature review, which contained a nice summary of known basic economic models.

I read your passages, I'll get to their nature below. There is another problem however.

None of your passages contradict my conclusion. It merely shows that public goods have an opportunity cost. I never disagreed with that. It does not show that your "opportunity cost concept" applies. Specifically it does not show that "By maximizing peoples' ability to consider opportunity cost, you are guaranteed optimal social provision." Indeed, from the literature review, it seems that maximizing peoples' ability to consider oppurtunity cost is only shown to result in optimal social provision in a relatively small selection of cases.

Do you know why paragraphs by themselves are all but useless as actual information?

Because you don't read them? Given that the very first paragraph I shared directly counters your argument, it should be abundantly clear that I categorically disagree with your assessment of their use value.

They're useless because you deprive them of context. I don't know what the people in them mean by the words they use without following the link and skimming/reading a large fraction of the paper/book. For example, Buchanan's model "public goods" are very different from the public goods we are discussing, and so comparing passages by different people that use the same words must be done with care.

1) Trivially false. Setting aside the impossibility of perfect model, you only include 2 goods, when nontrivial game theory results require 3+. The real public sector has more than 2 goods as well.

Do you really need me to add a third good for you? Ok, here you go...

Imagine a river right next to a soup kitchen. When you arrive at the soup kitchen to volunteer you notice that there's a group of people picking up trash along the river. You also notice that there's a group removing graffiti from a wall.

Excellent. Sally wants the graffiti removed, but tom wants a clean river. Both however would rather see the soup kitchen staffed than either option. The soup Kitchen only needs 1 staffer. When signing up for volunteer jobs, Sally and Tom are in a prisoner's dilemma/Chicken game against each other. Of course, our actors may be worse than perfect at maximizing their own goods (they may be imperfect and/or lack all of that information), but it would be an exceedingly special case where making people worse at maximizing their own value makes them better at social provision.

You fail note that the real game you're setting up is how these things are funded, which makes it misleading at best.

What are you talking about? Your game theory falls apart when time, rather than money, is donated?

At first, I thought it was less of a problem since people had more equal amounts of time than they pay taxes. Then I realized that was still wrong and it was still susceptible to problems.

Also, none of those goods have direct benefit to the volunteers, again excluding most nontrivial game theory.

A river free of garbage and trash doesn't have numerous direct benefits? If not, then throw in a volunteer opportunity that does have direct benefits in order to demonstrate your game theory in action.

Fair enough - I fixed that by adding preferences.

1) Of course not. Again, you confuse "some" and "all." Some of the lack of variety of public goods comes (probably) from the nature of public goods. Some of the variety of public goods might come from market forces. Those two statements are not contradictory.

Therefore, you agree that allowing taxpayers to shop in the public sector would greatly increase the quality/quantity/variety of public goods?

Quality - it depends on the good, but the more private the good, the more likely it's quality is to go up.
Variety/quantity - again, depends on the good, but I think overall the increase would be much more muted than the private sector

No, because you are attempting to derive the laws of economics from 1 data point and extrapolating. Consider the following two arguments:

Gravity makes things fall. Earth is a planet with gravity. Things on earth fall at 9.81 m/s2. We determine our law of physics is that planets with gravity have things fall towards them at 9.81 m/s^2. Mars is a planet with gravity. Therefore things on Mars fall at 9.81 m/s2.

Markets change the variety of goods. China has private goods. China's transition to a private market increased the variety of private goods. We determine our law of economics is that transitioning to a market increases the variety of goods. The USA has public goods. Therefore transitioning to a public market will increase the variety of public goods.

What is wrong with the first argument that isn't wrong with the second?

Beats me, what the F do I know about gravity? My ignorance when it comes to gravity is VAST. You know why? Because I spend all my free time studying economics. This is why I know that creating a market in the public sector will greatly increase the variety/quality/quantity of public goods. Consumers would incentivize the producers of public goods to do better and more innovative things with the resources they have. In other words, consumers drive abundance.

I was hoping you'd know that things don't fall at 9.81 m/s2 on Mars. That means something is wrong with the argument I made. The problem with the argument is that I tried to derive a law of physics from 1 data point. Similarly, the problem with your argument is that you tried to derive a law of economics from 1 data point.

You said "People wouldn't have to shop for themselves in the public sector if they didn't want to." Giving your money to congress is equivalent to choosing the cooperative option (indeed it is choosing the best knowable cooperative option for an honest congress). Therefore this statement is equivalent to "The prisoners wouldn't defect if they didn't want to, they could just both keep silent." Where "keeping silent" is cooperating with each other.

The idea that any of these candidates represent my interests is absurd. - Daniel Tosh

I don't know why Tosh gets it but you don't. What was your major again? Physics? Have you ever watched C-Span for more than 10 minutes?

Clearly Tosh does not value the security he is provided from the Canadian hordes. Or the police and court system that ensure societal stability and gives him a platform to make such pronouncements. Or, more likely, he fails to note that most of government spending is pretty well agreed upon and does pretty good things and we get up in arms about a small percent of how the government functions. Don't get me wrong, that small percent is important, but in general, congress critters represent interests relatively well (usually).

The contradiction comes when you say that you value something based on what your willing to sacrifice for it. You seem to agree that you value it more MORE, meaning that the value is disconnected from what you are willing to sacrifice. You seem to assume they're directly connected when you ask questions like "If you value the highway so much, why didn't you spend money on it?"

This definition has other problems as it makes your argument circular:

This, as I understand it, is your argument.
1) People's value of something is based on how much they sacrificed.
2) We can let people sacrifice to see how much they value things.
3) We know that they sacrificed for the things they value most because (1).

You're saying that there's a contradiction and a disconnect...but somehow you fail to understand that there's frequently a contradiction and a disconnect between people's words and their actions. You can't fill up your shopping cart and pay with words...you have to pay with actions...your sacrifice. Without knowledge of your sacrifice, we can't determine which uses of society's limited resources are the most valuable. This is true whether you fill your shopping cart up with private goods or public goods (1).

There is often a contradiction and a disconnect between what people say and how they act. This doesn't make it ok for you to have one in your demonstration of the efficacy of your system. Right now you define "optimal provision" as a system where people have the most choice in what to sacrifice (Because you say this is the only way to know utility functions and is always accurate and never contains systematic error). Then you point to a system where people have the most opportunity to sacrifice and claim it's optimally provided. This is a problem.

You must define optimal provision independent of your system (and preferably independent of peoples' willingness to sacrifice - we've just shown you know that utility functions and willingness to sacrifice aren't necessarily directly related). Otherwise your argument is circular.

1) We've just been through a long winded discussion over this. Asserting it again doesn't make it true.

But do all people benefit when the market is allocated "properly"? That is the question. The answer is not obviously yes.

It's not all or none. It's a matter of degrees. Far more people benefit when you put your mind to its more productive use. The market works because others can give you feedback on how productively you're using your mind. Take away this direct feedback mechanism, and you're left with the epitome of absurdity.

Ok, so if, when all people put there mind to it's productive use, the poorest 5% of society starved at the age of 40 from overwork, would you say that's the market only valued these people alive when they were young?

We can only predict the breadth and depth of market failure based on models and empirical studies. Knowing it is hard. This doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it however. We don't have a study that says cigarettes cause lung cancer in humans, so we don't "know" that. We don't have this study because it was determined that it was too likely to be true and would therefore the study would mean giving many people lung cancer.

Totally false. We could easily know the depth of market failure and the height of government success simply by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

That's what I said. By implementing it and letting it fail (or succeed), we determine how it would affect us. Until there's better reason to see how it would succeed, however, it's dangerously irresponsible. Just like making a bunch of people smoke cigarettes to see if they'd get cancer is dangerously irresponsible.

It is, of course, not desirable that anything should be done by funds derived from compulsory taxation, which is already sufficiently well done by individual liberality. - J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy

If education is sufficiently well done by individual liberty, then taxpayers won't spend any of their taxes on public education. The more money that taxpayers do spend on public education, the greater the depth of market failure and the greater the height of government success in terms of education.

Ahh, I see we disagree on the definition of market failure. I was saying the public market would fail.

[Orham]

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7%

The statement that the public sector accounts for half of economic activity is a statement about the proportional relationship between government expenditures and total economic activity. Why would we measure the total proportion of economic activity due to government expenditures by examining the estimated proportion of total 2013 tax receipts obtained from wealthy US citizens? Wouldn't examining overall government expenditures as a % of GDP make more sense as a measuring stick for determining the proportion of economic activity due to government expenditures?

This statistic was supposedly so critically important to validating your initial claim that the public sector in the US accounts for 50% of economic activity that you restated it outside your link. Explain that decision, because it doesn't make any sense at all to me. It's like trying to determine your height by counting the number of cashews in a bowl of mixed nuts.

[Xerographica]

This statistic was supposedly so critically important to validating your initial claim that the public sector in the US accounts for 50% of economic activity that you restated it outside your link. Explain that decision, because it doesn't make any sense at all to me. It's like trying to determine your height by counting the number of cashews in a bowl of mixed nuts.

What difference does the tax rate mean to you? Does it matter to you if the government spends 75% of your money? If so, why? In case you missed it, the main argument of my opponents has been that congresspeople are pretty good at guessing your preferences. If this is the case, then should you really care if the government spends most of your money?

[Galloism]

I have pointed out, which has been resoundingly ignored, that Xero wants the taxpayers to have a more "free market solution" to taxation that... actually doesnt exist anywhere in the free market, and, to my knowledge, has never existed.

<pause>

It has been brought up in this thread multiple times, by me, that the Fed is a single solid not for profit organization. This is true whether one uses the principle of legal ownership or legal control. This has never been effectively countered. It's simply been left to stand.

Since this has never had a single coherent argument against it, despite being raised several times, I think it's safe to accept it as true.

<pause>

Which brings us to our next point. No customer nor shareholder has the right in the free market, once paying their money to another person or for profit corporation for either products or shares, of determining exactly for what operations of the corporation or organization those funds will be used for. Even organization directors do not piecemeal decide what their 1/21 of the organizations funds will be used for.

Why, you ask? Well, that brings us to our final point.

Because they vote. They choose between budgets x, y, and z and take a board of directors vote. The majority carries, and one of the budgets is adopted for the coming year or years. They therefore have one unified budget that is both stable and, as best can be figured, appropriately assigned. Individual assignment without unified collaboration would lead to budget shortfalls in key sections, and, ultimately more waste at best, or corporate collapse at worst.

As much as I may think the Fed is too large, complete collapse of the fed is far worse. More waste is worse. As-is is a sufficiently workable solution.

[Orham]

What difference does the tax rate mean to you? Does it matter to you if the government spends 75% of your money? If so, why? In case you missed it, the main argument of my opponents has been that congresspeople are pretty good at guessing your preferences. If this is the case, then should you really care if the government spends most of your money?

Until you answer my question, I won't answer yours.

EDIT:

The question I'm asking is very simple and addresses a very specific argument you've made, Xerographica.

What does the estimated proportion of total tax receipts in 2013 paid by wealthy US citizens have to do with the proportion of economic activity due to government expenditures? You said that the public sector composes half the US economy, and when challenged with the argument that government activity actually only composes 2/5 (40%) of the US economy, you proceeded to parade out the claim that the estimated proportion of total tax receipts paid by wealthy US citizens in 2013 is about 59%. Hence my question about the relevance of that statistic for your point.

[Xerographica]

You said that the public sector composes half the US economy, and when challenged with the argument that government activity actually only composes 2/5 (40%) of the US economy, you proceeded to parade out the claim that the estimated proportion of total tax receipts paid by wealthy US citizens in 2013 is about 59%. Hence my question about the relevance of that statistic for your point.

It's only 1/10 difference between 4/10 and and 5/10. It's just more convenient to say "half" than "two fifths". It's not like my argument is suddenly only going to be relevant to Western Europe but not to the USA...

I suggest that this type of mechanism is an important explanation as to why public sector spending in Western Europe as a whole has increased from 35 to over 50 procent of GDP from 1970. - Assar Lindbeck, Overshooting, Reform and Retreat of the Welfare State

Now answer my question. If you're confident that congresspeople know your preferences well enough to spend half your money...then what argument would you have against them spending most of your money?

[Datfilwen Nogurfen]

You know, when you keep insisting 2/5 = 1/2, it makes us question if you understand enough mathematics to have even an elementary level understanding of economics.

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7% http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

Excuse me, but the math there is moronic. It's just impossible, you're paying around less than 10% of the good's price in taxes, which means you're paying around 90% to the private sector.

If 17+10+10+8+3+2+1+5 = *54/59*
then your contribution to the private sector is 83+90+92+97+98+99+95= 654 % OF YOUR INCOME

[Galloism]

You said that the public sector composes half the US economy, and when challenged with the argument that government activity actually only composes 2/5 (40%) of the US economy, you proceeded to parade out the claim that the estimated proportion of total tax receipts paid by wealthy US citizens in 2013 is about 59%. Hence my question about the relevance of that statistic for your point.

It's only 1/10 difference between 4/10 and and 5/10. It's just more convenient to say "half" than "two fifths".

So I looked up the US GDP. I just wanted to see.

Your approximation is approximately 1.5 trillion dollars off.

That's a pretty big math error.

If you're confident that congresspeople know your preferences well enough to spend half your money...then what argument would you have against them spending most of your money?

Congress doesn't spend half my money. They spend 0%. They also spend 0% of your money.

How you ask? Simple. Once I pay for a product or service, the money used is no longer "mine" in any meaningful sense. It's like asking why I'm ok with Exxon spending 10% of "my" money and why shouldn't I give them the other 90%.

That money, once I purchase the fuel, is Exxon's money, and they can spend it any way the elected Board of Directors chooses to spend it. If they do so poorly, they can be voted out at the next shareholders meeting.

Similarly, once you pay your taxes to the Fed, that money paid is not "yours" in any meaningful sense anymore. It belongs to the Federal government, and the elected congress can spend it any way it chooses. The voters can, at next election, replace them if their work was sufficiently unsatisfactory.

[New Chalcedon]

It's only 1/10 difference between 4/10 and and 5/10. It's just more convenient to say "half" than "two fifths".

So I looked up the US GDP. I just wanted to see.

Your approximation is approximately 1.5 trillion dollars off.

That's a pretty big math error.

If you're confident that congresspeople know your preferences well enough to spend half your money...then what argument would you have against them spending most of your money?

Congress doesn't spend half my money. They spend 0%. They also spend 0% of your money.

How you ask? Simple. Once I pay for a product or service, the money used is no longer "mine" in any meaningful sense. It's like asking why I'm ok with Exxon spending 10% of "my" money and why shouldn't I give them the other 90%.

That money, once I purchase the fuel, is Exxon's money, and they can spend it any way the elected Board of Directors chooses to spend it. If they do so poorly, they can be voted out at the next shareholders meeting.

Similarly, once you pay your taxes to the Fed, that money paid is not "yours" in any meaningful sense anymore. It belongs to the Federal government, and the elected congress can spend it any way it chooses. The voters can, at next election, replace them if their work was sufficiently unsatisfactory.

Silly Galloism - don't you know that the Federal Government never rightly has money? All the money it has is stolen or otherwise misappropriated, and truly belongs in the pockets of mega-corporations individual taxpayers!

[Galloism]

So I looked up the US GDP. I just wanted to see.

Your approximation is approximately 1.5 trillion dollars off.

That's a pretty big math error.


Congress doesn't spend half my money. They spend 0%. They also spend 0% of your money.

How you ask? Simple. Once I pay for a product or service, the money used is no longer "mine" in any meaningful sense. It's like asking why I'm ok with Exxon spending 10% of "my" money and why shouldn't I give them the other 90%.

That money, once I purchase the fuel, is Exxon's money, and they can spend it any way the elected Board of Directors chooses to spend it. If they do so poorly, they can be voted out at the next shareholders meeting.

Similarly, once you pay your taxes to the Fed, that money paid is not "yours" in any meaningful sense anymore. It belongs to the Federal government, and the elected congress can spend it any way it chooses. The voters can, at next election, replace them if their work was sufficiently unsatisfactory.

Silly Galloism - don't you know that the Federal Government never rightly has money? All the money it has is stolen or otherwise misappropriated, and truly belongs in the pockets of mega-corporations individual taxpayers!

I am starting to wonder if Xeno has any idea why "ownership" and "control" are important concepts in a discussion regarding whether a set of buildings belongs to one organization or many.