Are Congresspeople Omniscient?

[Pandeeria]

Are Congress people Omniscient? No.


I also smell a straw man in the OP.

[Pope Joan]

Congress knows what it needs to know, which is (1) how to please the financial backers, and much less importantly (2) how to please the constituents.

[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.

[Purpelia]

I see a horrible flaw in that system. It does not represent people equally. Those who are rich would in such a system simply by virtue of being rich and thus paying larger taxes have many times over the "voting" power of others. Thus instead of everyone money being used for everyone good you would have welfare funded by poor, burger flipping, 3 job holding single mothers and corporate subsidies funded by billions of dollars. Can you not see the social suicide in that?

There is a reason why modern states operate on the principle of collect -> divide -> distribute. And that is to ensure that what the people want and not only what they can pay for is satisfied.

[Quackquackhonk]

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

decidely false.

If congresspeople can know, better than society itself, exactly how much benefit society derives from public education...

congresspersons don't, and no assumption has ever been made.

[Quackquackhonk]

"Elected representatives aren't omniscient, therefore representative democracy is bad!"

Elected representatives aren't omniscient, therefore we need a way to determine exactly how much the public values a military strike against Syria, the war on drugs, environmental protection, a wall between the US and Mexico, public healthcare and so on.

...

don't we have a representative democracy? i always thought that was why we elect, reelect, and don't reelect congresspersons?

don't we usually complain to them whenever we want something to happen (or not happen)?

[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.

[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.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

A group of 100 congressmen will never be quite as stupid as a group of 314 million citizens. Letting citizens decide how the country will be run is sort of like letting a child plan it's meals. It will shovel candy into it's mouth until it dies of diabeetus because even though it knows what it likes it doesn't appreciate the tradeoffs necessary to get what it needs.

So the people you voluntarily give your money to on a daily basis don't appreciate the trade-offs necessary to supply what you're actually willing to pay for?

Right. Now you're getting it!

Public expenditures is one of those things in which crowdsourcing works really, really poorly.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Question to the OP: since you insist that crowdsourcing works, how would you feel about a modified system in which the tax money is collected, then distributed equally between all of the country's citizens and then each person allocates it? It would better represent the ideal of tax money being spent on behalf of all of the country's citizens, while also disabusing you that the money that goes to taxes is in any way 'yours.'

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Question to the OP: since you insist that crowdsourcing works, how would you feel about a modified system in which the tax money is collected, then distributed equally between all of the country's citizens and then each person allocates it? It would better represent the ideal of tax money being spent on behalf of all of the country's citizens, while also disabusing you that the money that goes to taxes is in any way 'yours.'

It would be great, as long as you first collected everybody's talents, skills, abilities, intelligence, insight, foresight and distributed these things equally between all of the country's citizens. Except, if you did this, then money would already be equally distributed.

Because we can't equally distribute skills...then you'd be royally screwing everybody by distributing money with complete disregard to how well people use society's limited resources.

Of course I'd love a surgeon's money...but arbitrarily giving me half his money implies that what I'm doing with society's limited resources is equally valuable. If it truly was equally valuable then I would already have the same amount of money as he does.

Spend a week evenly distributing your money and let me know whether you're better off or worse off as a result. You won't do it though. You know why? Because you're not crazy. You know very well that no two people provide you with the same exact amount of value...and your shopping decisions reflect this.

Even in this thread no two people are going to provide you with the same exact amount of value. How much value am I providing you by spending my time typing this? I can't know that. Only you can know that. If you don't value this exchange, then you're free to find another member who does provide you with value.

The process of shopping around for more value is priceless. Redistributing wealth destroys value that people made an effort to find.

If I provide you with maximum value...then how would you like half of the time you would have spent on me to be given to another member who doesn't provide you with any value? Clearly you wouldn't. But that's exactly what redistribution is. The incredibly valuable distribution results of millions and millions and millions of shoppers are disregarded by congress who've been given a mandate by voters to come up with a more valuable distribution. The system is beyond absurd. It might take a while but eventually people are going to come to their senses and realize this.

I think you may have misunderstood me. The money that would be distributed would be the money that is already collected in taxes. Since it is meant to be spent on behalf of the citizens of a country rather than on behalf of its taxpayers, you should have no problem including all the citizens' value preferences. After all, however successful a millionaire may be, there is no way he can know someone else's preferences, right? Or at least your own argument goes like that.

[Regnum Dominae]

No.

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

[Risottia]

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

False, your current system isn't based on that assumption. That's why you have committee hearings with experts.

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 utter idiocy. Knowledge isn't additive. At best, it's sub-additive.

[Risottia]

False, your current system isn't based on that assumption. That's why you have committee hearings with experts.

So you're calling Richard Musgrave a liar?

If by "calling someone a liar" you mean "disagreeing with someone's opinions", then yes, I do. I also think his opinions on the matter are a bunch of idiocies, and that some self-appointed "experts" are nothing but pundits trying to cater to the political faction they chose as a target area.

His paper...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure...has been cited over 5000 times.

Then surely you must agree fully with Aristotle, right?

[Risottia]

If by "calling someone a liar" you mean "disagreeing with someone's opinions", then yes, I do. I also think his opinions on the matter are a bunch of idiocies, and that some self-appointed "experts" are nothing but pundits trying to cater to the political faction they chose as a target area.

So are all public finance economists liars?

Not necessarily.
Are you just able to resort to strawmen? Because that's the second in a row. Really, you should learn some logic before even attempting at debating.

[Risottia]

Not necessarily.
Are you just able to resort to strawmen? Because that's the second in a row. Really, you should learn some logic before even attempting at debating.

Can you name any public finance economists that aren't liars?

If I could, that wouldn't imply that some (or even the majority) of them aren't liars.
If I could not, that wouldn't imply that I consider all of them to be liars - then again, by "calling them liars" meaning, as YOU do, "disagreeing with them" - because it could be because of a lack of data.
I refuse to play the petty games of someone that incompetent at debating.

Really, learn logic; you're only making a fool yourself here so far.

[Risottia]

If I could, that wouldn't imply that some (or even the majority) of them aren't liars.
If I could not, that wouldn't imply that I consider all of them to be liars - then again, by "calling them liars" meaning, as YOU do, "disagreeing with them" - because it could be because of a lack of data.
I refuse to play the petty games of someone that incompetent at debating.

Really, learn logic; you're only making a fool yourself here so far.

Hmmm...you have yet to name a single public finance economist.

That's exactly because of what I wrote above (now in red for your convenience). I'm not taking your bait, not even if it's red and it tastes like herring.
I guess you're not able to understand that, or not willing.

I think it's pretty clear that you're more the fool for pretending that you know anything about the subject.

Sure. Who am I to crush your sweet dreams?

Why not go educate yourself and come back when you can say something intelligent about the topic?

Because
1.this thread isn't your property and you don't get to tell people off.
2.I don't feel exactly compelled by your "witty" retorts, which amount to nothing but an admission of incompetence about debating - considering how the ONLY arguments you tried to oppose to mine were one ipse dixit and two strawmen. Or, if you prefer me to be more blunt so to make your understanding easier, you didn't give a single intelligent reply to my point.

[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.

[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?

[Saint Kitten]

Umm, we got it the first time?

Double post, damn laggy computer.

Just checking

[SaintB]

Omniscient? Most of them can't even figure out what hole they shit out of and what hole they talk out of.

[SaintB]

Omniscient? Most of them can't even figure out what hole they shit out of and what hole they talk out of.

I've watched C-span for more than 10 minutes as well.

So consider this; if those are the people that receive enough support to become our leaders how does that reflect on the masses? What ever could make you think that individually people could make better decisions on how their money is appropriated?

[SaintB]

So consider this; if those are the people that receive enough support to become our leaders how does that reflect on the masses? What ever could make you think that individually people could make better decisions on how their money is appropriated?

Are taxpayers the masses?

Yes

Taxpayers are the people who keep the masses fat, dry, and comfortable (FDC*).

They are also the masses... the taxes we pay directly come back to benefit us, and keep us all FDC.

How do taxpayers do that?

By paying taxes

Step 1: resources
Step 2: ?
Step 3: FDC

What's step 2? Imagine witches sitting around a boiling cauldron. They are trying to make a love potion? So they put in just the right amount of ingredients and voila...the result is a love potion.

What I'm trying to say is that everything that taxpayers make to keep us FDC...requires some magical combination of inputs/ingredients. The recipe will be ruined if they put in too much of one ingredient and not enough of another. Public goods are some of the ingredients that all recipes require.

Ok, but how many recipes are there? A gazillion different recipes? Maybe more? It's ridiculous to think that it's possible for a taxpayer to know all the recipes for all the goods/services that keep us FDC. Right? It's far more productive for each taxpayer to be an expert at one thing. This is the division of labor concept.

So rather than having 300 idiots (congresspeople) try and keep track of the optimal amounts of public goods that should go into all the gazillion different recipes...it's far more productive to allow each and every taxpayer to determine exactly how much of each and every public good should go into their own recipe. Therefore we should allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector. They'll spend their taxes on the inputs they need for their recipes...and we'll all be a lot more FDC.

*army infantry inside joke

While they may not be omniscient they have access to much more information than we do about how the resources are being directed and how much funding is absolutely required for this and that program, they also have teams of advisers and tax paying constituents like myself who can easily inform them of their budgetary concerns through correspondence. Those are resources the average person lacks, the average person wouldn't even have the ability to see what other people are earmarking their taxes for. This while the average congress critter might be a mouth breathing mutant man/pig hybrid they are still in a superior position to decide on how best to allocate taxes based on who needs what, who wants what, and what is actually what. Plus, who would correlate and collate all the earmarked tax funds when people choose their own allocations (a logistical nightmare by any standard)? A new government agency... how would we fund that? What are we supposed to do when we have 2 trillion dollars for defense and 20 million for parks and recreation? The current way is far better.

If you think of it it's all moot anyway since those mouth breathing mutant man/pig hybrids haven't even been able to agree on a budget for what is it... 6 years or something and we have to keep funding things with stop gap emergency funding measures that leave the money almost unaccounted for.

EDIT: Fixed broken quotes.

[Shnercropolis]

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

I can think of one, maybe.
Wait, no. nobody would be so self-centered as to only fund things that benefit them and nobody else!

[Sociobiology]

Right, you can't dictate to the Red Cross how they spend your donation...just like how in a pragmatarian system you wouldn't be able to dictate to FEMA how they spend your tax dollars. Shopping for yourself means that you choose which organizations you give your money to...it does not mean that you can dictate how they spend your money once you give it to them.

So you'll trust the head of a Government department or agency to omnisciently know how to use tax money, just not Congress?

I trust a specialist who's job is to know how to spend it more than I would Joe Blow who does not even know what NIST or the NSF is yes.
I trust the head of the CDC to know how best to spend the CDC's money then a guy off the street that thinks memory water can cure disease.