Should The Government Seek Donations?

[Greed and Death]

Nope. Nope. Nope. Don't care. Apparently not at all.

what does any of that have to do with whether or not you can donate to governmental units?


As far as I know it is. I don't know of any law against it.

Now certain governmental units may reject donations from certain people because of conflicts of interest and the risk of influence peddling. It would be of extreme conflict for the FBI to accept donations from a known drug kingpin, for instance.

That's why they donate to the politicians instead.

If only donations to Super PACs were tax deductible.

[CoraSpia]

In the UK, we pay tax on income, on corporate wealth, on interest we earn, on sales, on most goods, extra on fuel alcohol and tobacco, a fee to own a television, an increased rate of tax on purchasing houses, tax on air tickets, tax on emitions, taxes on employing people and indeed on being employed...why the hell would we like to pay more?

[Tyrolo]

In the UK, we pay tax on income, on corporate wealth, on interest we earn, on sales, on most goods, extra on fuel alcohol and tobacco, a fee to own a television, an increased rate of tax on purchasing houses, tax on air tickets, tax on emitions, taxes on employing people and indeed on being employed...why the hell would we like to pay more?

Damn son thats a lot of Taxes

Looks like yall motherfuckers need jesus

[Greed and Death]

In the UK, we pay tax on income, on corporate wealth, on interest we earn, on sales, on most goods, extra on fuel alcohol and tobacco, a fee to own a television, an increased rate of tax on purchasing houses, tax on air tickets, tax on emitions, taxes on employing people and indeed on being employed...why the hell would we like to pay more?

Damn son thats a lot of Taxes

Looks like yall motherfuckers need jesus

More like to be liberated the hell out of.

[Socialist Tera]

We already pay taxes, donations is not needed, it is too easily corruptible.

[Tyrolo]

Damn son thats a lot of Taxes

Looks like yall motherfuckers need jesus

More like to be liberated the hell out of.

Yeah...Because

[Alvecia]

In the UK, we pay tax on income, on corporate wealth, on interest we earn, on sales, on most goods, extra on fuel alcohol and tobacco, a fee to own a television, an increased rate of tax on purchasing houses, tax on air tickets, tax on emitions, taxes on employing people and indeed on being employed...why the hell would we like to pay more?

Damn son thats a lot of Taxes

Looks like yall motherfuckers need jesus

Or we can make do with our free healthcare.....

[SD_Film Artists]

Sounds like another way of saying "Taxes are theft!!11one"

No, because such vital infrastructure is an entitlement. You just don't get handed stuff on a platter irl without it having to come from another source already.

[Hladgos]

Govt. already gets taxes, it doesn't need to actively seek donations. However, there shouldn't be anything stopping people from donating, so that way companies and rich people the parts of the government they like! Yaaaay!

[Tyrolo]

Govt. already gets taxes, it doesn't need to actively seek donations. However, there shouldn't be anything stopping people from donating, so that way companies and rich people the parts of the government they like! Yaaaay!

Yaaaay! Corruption! Yaaaay!

[Xerographica]

I have this notion, and this is kind of a wild idea so you may want to sit down.

You could just tell people you appreciate them and you like their posts. Then you've communicated your preference. Then they don't have to be omniscient - just literate.

Sure... words can communicate preferences... but can they accurately communicate preferences? Not sure if you're familiar with this saying... actions speak louder than words.

For government agencies, you can use the link I provided to the treasury website to donate to any federal agency you want at any time.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong link... but I don't see anything about any federal agency. Can please reshare the link? Thanks.

You can also communicate your preferences by writing your representative. Again - no omniscience required. Just literacy.

Do you think the free-rider problem is applicable to democracy?

Whew, good days work gentlemen. Glad we figured that out.

Eh, I think we have a bit more work to do.

[Galloism]

I have this notion, and this is kind of a wild idea so you may want to sit down.

You could just tell people you appreciate them and you like their posts. Then you've communicated your preference. Then they don't have to be omniscient - just literate.

Sure... words can communicate preferences... but can they accurately communicate preferences? Not sure if you're familiar with this saying... actions speak louder than words.

I'd say it's at least as accurate as money. Money does not have the same value to all people, nor does money have anything more than a tangential relation to actual value.

I pay $40 per month for Internet, but given how much I make working using it, how much would I be willing to pay? What's it worth to me from a utilitarian standpoint?

Well, comparing local work with what I can get online, if I had no other choice, I'd probably pay $500-700 per month for it. I make about $1,000 per month more online than anything I could get local. With tax considerations, I'd still be money ahead at $700 per month.

Now, what do I pay? $40. Why? Because it's available to me for that price. If it was available at $20 I'd pay that. If it was available only at $100, I'd pay that. Why? Because actual value only establishes a cap - that's it.

Why would I pay for something I can get for free?

For government agencies, you can use the link I provided to the treasury website to donate to any federal agency you want at any time.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong link... but I don't see anything about any federal agency. Can please reshare the link? Thanks.

Go back to the treasury one. You send the money to the treasury and specify the agency.

You can also communicate your preferences by writing your representative. Again - no omniscience required. Just literacy.

Do you think the free-rider problem is applicable to democracy?

It applies to government services (hence the necessity of taxation), but not necessarily democracy as a concept. This is because voting is not a market action, as no goods or services change hands. Hiring the politician, once voted in, is a market action, but that's not quite the same thing.

Whew, good days work gentlemen. Glad we figured that out.

Eh, I think we have a bit more work to do.

That's because you think that everything, including farting, telling a joke, and clearing your throat, is a market. You haven't yet understood that for some concepts market principles don't apply.

Did you ever get that roll of nickels and start tipping your friends? one is curious how that worked out.

[Threlizdun]

Well, I suppose a de jure plutocracy would be easier to unite opposition against. That's the best thing I could say about that idea.

[Xerographica]

I'd say it's at least as accurate as money.

Even though words cost nothing... they communicate preferences just as accurately as dollars do? Saying is just as accurate as spending? Noooooooo. Talk is cheap. Sacrifice is meaningful. It's one thing to say that the environment is important. It's another thing entirely to willingly sacrifice a relatively huge chunk of your own cash in order to help protect the environment.

I pay $40 per month for Internet, but given how much I make working using it, how much would I be willing to pay? What's it worth to me from a utilitarian standpoint?

Worth depends on preference and scarcity. An orchid that has been on my want list for forever is on ebay for the first time ever. For sure I want to pay the starting bid. But, I thoroughly understand that the higher the winning bid is... the greater the incentive for suppliers to propagate this orchid in order to increase the supply.

Orchids in general are a lot more abundant than they used to be. This of course means that they are a lot less expensive than they used to be. The moth orchid is easily the most common orchid. People even throw it away after it finishes blooming. Back in the day though, the moth orchid was something that only extremely rich people could afford to buy. The moth orchids that they were willing to spend thousands on were ugly ducklings compared to even the plainest moth orchid available for a few bucks today.

Getting back to the orchid that's on ebay for the first time ever... I definitely want it to be a lot more abundant. Therefore, I should communicate my preference for greater abundance by paying a lot of money for this orchid. The problem is... there's no guarantee that supply will automatically adjust to my demand.

Why would I pay for something I can get for free?

Like I explained... you should pay more for something if you want it be more abundant. Do you want there to be more internet providers? Perhaps? But do you want additional internet providers more than you want additional dragon fruit growers? Out of everything that you want more of... how do internet providers rank in comparison?

People's wants are unlimited... but society's resources are limited. This is why spending communicates our preferences more accurately than speaking does. When you simply say that you want something... it's not certain whether you want it more than some other thing that you also want. So if you get what you say you want... then you might end up giving up something that you wanted even more. But when you spend your own money... then it is certain that what you purchase is something that you want more than some other thing that you also want.

It applies to government services (hence the necessity of taxation), but not necessarily democracy as a concept. This is because voting is not a market action, as no goods or services change hands. Hiring the politician, once voted in, is a market action, but that's not quite the same thing.

The free-rider problem is applicable to democracy because you can vote for politicians who promise to shift your tax burden to other people.

Everybody wants a free lunch. Politicians know this... and they exploit it to their personal advantage. Hence, the free-rider problem. Because speaking/voting/saying is less accurate than spending is... democracy means that greater wants are sacrificed for lesser wants.

That's because you think that everything, including farting, telling a joke, and clearing your throat, is a market. You haven't yet understood that for some concepts market principles don't apply.

Every allocation requires the sacrifice of alternative allocations. In order to avoid sacrificing the most valuable allocations... we need to know everybody's valuations... which is why accurately communicating valuations is necessary. Spending transmits more accurate info than speaking does. This is because every allocation requires the sacrifice of alternative allocations.

Did you ever get that roll of nickels and start tipping your friends? one is curious how that worked out.

Imagine if facebook allowed post tipping. How much would your friends/family tip your post if it informed them that you had given your kidney away to somebody who really needed it? Maybe they'd tip you a total of $300 dollars? They wouldn't be paying for your kidney... they would be paying you for giving your kidney away.

Would you receive more or less money if your post informed your people that you were engaged? What about having your first child? What about having your 10th child? What about having a vasectomy? What about getting a divorce?

A friend of mine posted her breakup on facebook and she received a lot of likes. You seem to think that this means that she would have received a lot of money. Maybe she would have? In any case... it was easier for her peeps to click the like button than it was for them to call, text or e-mail their approval. Facebook lowered the cost of liking something. People click the button. Eventually the cost of valuing will be lowered as well. And people will click a different button.

Right now you want to know how many people like your posts. But in the future you'll want to know how much people like your posts.

[Pope Joan]

Government can collaborate with and support the efforts of nonprofits and NGOs. Remember the "Thousand Points of Lights"? (which still exists)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points_of_Light

There's nothing wrong with this, you can support it or not, whatever you wish. Libertarians should be happy.

[The Two Jerseys]

Take the financial situation of your local public television station. Now imagine trying to imagine a national government running like that.

Every three months they replace the armed forces with old doo-wop groups for two weeks?

---

On a serious note, the US Treasury needs to reintroduce paper savings bonds. I know quite a few people who refuse to buy bonds now that they've gone over to electronic only, myself included.

[Galloism]

I'd say it's at least as accurate as money.

Even though words cost nothing... they communicate preferences just as accurately as dollars do? Saying is just as accurate as spending? Noooooooo. Talk is cheap. Sacrifice is meaningful. It's one thing to say that the environment is important. It's another thing entirely to willingly sacrifice a relatively huge chunk of your own cash in order to help protect the environment.

Except what is a 'huge chunk' varies considerably from person to person. For some of us, we will never pay for something we can get for free. Ever. For some people, spending $10 will mean they lose their home. For some, throwing $100,000 at it might be interesting just as an experiment.

If someone gives you a nickel, how do you know if it was a true sacrifice or if it was a mildly disguised insult?

If someone posts a 5 paragraph essay on how right and awesome you are, however, that takes a great deal of time. This is time spent by both the person barely holding things together and the man who wipes his ass with $100 bills. the amount of time spent is equal, so it is equally reinforcing from anyone.


As a secondary notion, if talk is cheap and worthless, doesn't that also mean that forum posts are worthless? Why should I pay for something you state yourself is worthless?

Alternatively, if forum posts are a market, and words have value that should be compensated, how is a complementary post not a barter exchange of values? One valuable post is given in exchange for another.

I pay $40 per month for Internet, but given how much I make working using it, how much would I be willing to pay? What's it worth to me from a utilitarian standpoint?

Worth depends on preference and scarcity. An orchid that has been on my want list for forever is on ebay for the first time ever. For sure I want to pay the starting bid. But, I thoroughly understand that the higher the winning bid is... the greater the incentive for suppliers to propagate this orchid in order to increase the supply.

Orchids in general are a lot more abundant than they used to be. This of course means that they are a lot less expensive than they used to be. The moth orchid is easily the most common orchid. People even throw it away after it finishes blooming. Back in the day though, the moth orchid was something that only extremely rich people could afford to buy. The moth orchids that they were willing to spend thousands on were ugly ducklings compared to even the plainest moth orchid available for a few bucks today.

Getting back to the orchid that's on ebay for the first time ever... I definitely want it to be a lot more abundant. Therefore, I should communicate my preference for greater abundance by paying a lot of money for this orchid. The problem is... there's no guarantee that supply will automatically adjust to my demand.

So there's absolutely no reason to pay more than you have to, given that supply does not miraculously increase if you pay more. it just makes you a fool of a consumer.

Why would I pay for something I can get for free?

Like I explained... you should pay more for something if you want it be more abundant. Do you want there to be more internet providers? Perhaps? But do you want additional internet providers more than you want additional dragon fruit growers? Out of everything that you want more of... how do internet providers rank in comparison?

People's wants are unlimited... but society's resources are limited. This is why spending communicates our preferences more accurately than speaking does. When you simply say that you want something... it's not certain whether you want it more than some other thing that you also want. So if you get what you say you want... then you might end up giving up something that you wanted even more. But when you spend your own money... then it is certain that what you purchase is something that you want more than some other thing that you also want.

But if you spend more than you have to on any service, then you are being LESS efficient. If you conserve and pay only what you have to, you have more money to spend on other things that you value.

It applies to government services (hence the necessity of taxation), but not necessarily democracy as a concept. This is because voting is not a market action, as no goods or services change hands. Hiring the politician, once voted in, is a market action, but that's not quite the same thing.

The free-rider problem is applicable to democracy because you can vote for politicians who promise to shift your tax burden to other people.

Everybody wants a free lunch. Politicians know this... and they exploit it to their personal advantage. Hence, the free-rider problem. Because speaking/voting/saying is less accurate than spending is... democracy means that greater wants are sacrificed for lesser wants.

Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. Given that each person's vote is equal while each person's monetary situation is NOT equal, as a function of averages, voting is MORE accurate than money, unless you put everyone's money in a single pool and then vote on how the pool is allocated collectively, with everyone having an equal vote.

Of course, that's not that different than what we do now.

That's because you think that everything, including farting, telling a joke, and clearing your throat, is a market. You haven't yet understood that for some concepts market principles don't apply.

Every allocation requires the sacrifice of alternative allocations. In order to avoid sacrificing the most valuable allocations... we need to know everybody's valuations... which is why accurately communicating valuations is necessary. Spending transmits more accurate info than speaking does. This is because every allocation requires the sacrifice of alternative allocations.

Why do you suggest spending transmits more accurate info than speaking does? You keep jumping to that conclusion, but other than blind assertions that money is more accurate 'just cuz', you have yet to prove it.

Did you ever get that roll of nickels and start tipping your friends? one is curious how that worked out.

Imagine if facebook allowed post tipping. How much would your friends/family tip your post if it informed them that you had given your kidney away to somebody who really needed it? Maybe they'd tip you a total of $300 dollars? They wouldn't be paying for your kidney... they would be paying you for giving your kidney away.

Would you receive more or less money if your post informed your people that you were engaged? What about having your first child? What about having your 10th child? What about having a vasectomy? What about getting a divorce?

A friend of mine posted her breakup on facebook and she received a lot of likes. You seem to think that this means that she would have received a lot of money. Maybe she would have? In any case... it was easier for her peeps to click the like button than it was for them to call, text or e-mail their approval. Facebook lowered the cost of liking something. People click the button. Eventually the cost of valuing will be lowered as well. And people will click a different button.

Right now you want to know how many people like your posts. But in the future you'll want to know how much people like your posts.

So you never bought that roll of nickels? I really wanted to know how that worked out.

[Xerographica]

Except what is a 'huge chunk' varies considerably from person to person. For some of us, we will never pay for something we can get for free. Ever. For some people, spending $10 will mean they lose their home. For some, throwing $100,000 at it might be interesting just as an experiment.

If someone gives you a nickel, how do you know if it was a true sacrifice or if it was a mildly disguised insult?

Why do I have to know the size of your sacrifice? The issue is whether you told the truth with your nickle.

Let's say that you're filthy rich and you gave me a nickle because you like pragmatarianism. If the nickle accurately reflects your personal valuation of pragmatarianism then you're telling the truth. If the nickle inaccurately reflects your personal valuation of pragmatarianism then you're not telling the truth. Why would you want my future behavior to reflect lies rather than the truth of your priorities?

Does the truth become any less valuable simply because you are not filthy rich?

Let's say that you're poor. You need new shoes... but you also need food. If food is truly a more important priority to you than new shoes... then wouldn't it be a problem if you communicated to society that shoes and clothes are equally important to you?

Again, nobody is omniscient. Nobody can reach inside your mind and pull out your true priorities. So if you fail to accurately communicate your true priorities... then society is going to shift its resources in the wrong direction.

If a poor person lies... then the size of the misallocation is going to be imperceptible. But if more and more poor people lie... the misallocation becomes more and more perceptible. Unfortunately, people will blame the misallocation on everything but their own lies.

As a secondary notion, if talk is cheap and worthless, doesn't that also mean that forum posts are worthless? Why should I pay for something you state yourself is worthless?

The fact that talk is cheap means that we can't trust people's verbal valuations. It doesn't mean that you can't value what people say.

Alternatively, if forum posts are a market, and words have value that should be compensated, how is a complementary post not a barter exchange of values? One valuable post is given in exchange for another.

So because you value my posts it automatically means that I value your posts? Again, benefit is in the eye of the beholder.

So there's absolutely no reason to pay more than you have to, given that supply does not miraculously increase if you pay more. it just makes you a fool of a consumer.

Yeah, in many cases it is foolish for people to accurately communicate their valuations. Therefore... what? Therefore... it isn't a problem when people inaccurately communicate their valuations?

If we can agree on the importance of accurate valuation... then the next step is to brainstorm ways that we might facilitate more accurate valuations. This thread is one such brainstorm. The EPA could put a donate button on its homepage. Doing so would make it easier for people to give their money to the EPA. Making it easier for people to give their money to the EPA makes it easier for people to more accurately communicate their valuation of a healthy environment.

But if you spend more than you have to on any service, then you are being LESS efficient. If you conserve and pay only what you have to, you have more money to spend on other things that you value.

I'm an atheist but there are a few things that the Bible gets right...

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? - Mark 8:36

What good are a dozen mansions when you're dying of cancer? What good are new shoes when somebody shoots you for them?

The goal should be arrange the system so that the allocation of society's limited resources is perfectly aligned with people's true priorities.

Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. Given that each person's vote is equal while each person's monetary situation is NOT equal, as a function of averages, voting is MORE accurate than money, unless you put everyone's money in a single pool and then vote on how the pool is allocated collectively, with everyone having an equal vote.

Even if people could cast their one vote for either more cancer research or more police... we still wouldn't know the correct ratio. Say the majority wants more cancer research and less police. Therefore...what? We should allocate 70% of the available funds to cancer research and allocate the rest to police?

Perhaps we could give every citizen 100 votes. The more votes they spend on cancer research... the greater the intensity of their preference. Except, if it makes sense for everybody to have equal votes... then why doesn't it make sense for everybody to have equal dollars?

The problem with everybody having equal influence is that everybody isn't equally rational. It behooves us to put society's limited resources into the most rational hands. This is true whether we're talking about seeds or guns.

Why do you suggest spending transmits more accurate info than speaking does? You keep jumping to that conclusion, but other than blind assertions that money is more accurate 'just cuz', you have yet to prove it.

Again with the Bible...

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

I don't think the story would have been so powerful if God had simply said that he really loved the world.

So you never bought that roll of nickels? I really wanted to know how that worked out.

What am I supposed to do... walk around with a pocket full of nickles? When giving a nickle is as easy and convenient as giving a "like".... then everybody's going to do it. The accuracy of communication will improve... people's behavior will improve accordingly... and society will derive more benefit from its limited resources.

[Atlanticatia]

No, that's silly. Just raise taxes if more revenue is required.

[Gristol-Serkonos]

I pay my taxes, thank you very much.

In return, I get my healthcare, education, and defence.

They don't need more donations from me.

[Xerographica]

No, that's silly. Just raise taxes if more revenue is required.

Just raise taxes if the EPA needs more money? But... how do you know that the additional revenue won't be spent on defense? What if the reason that that the EPA needs more money in the first place is because congress is giving too much money to the DoD?

I don't think it's silly for the EPA to ask the public for more money. The EPA would have to give the public a good reason. And then the public would be better informed regarding the importance of the the EPA.

Maybe you think that the public is adequately informed about the EPA? Are you adequately informed about the EPA? Off the top of your head... would you say that the EPA is receiving enough money?

[Galloism]

Except what is a 'huge chunk' varies considerably from person to person. For some of us, we will never pay for something we can get for free. Ever. For some people, spending $10 will mean they lose their home. For some, throwing $100,000 at it might be interesting just as an experiment.

If someone gives you a nickel, how do you know if it was a true sacrifice or if it was a mildly disguised insult?

Why do I have to know the size of your sacrifice? The issue is whether you told the truth with your nickle.

Let's say that you're filthy rich and you gave me a nickle because you like pragmatarianism.

If I'm filthy rich and give you a nickel, it was probably intended as an insult.

As in "when I go the bathroom and take a shit, I make more money than I think your post was worth".

EDIT: You know, now that I think about it, at the level my 401(k) is at right now, I might actually make more than a nickel in the time it takes me to take a shit. I'd have to sit down and do the math (which I'm not going to do), but that's a distinct possibility.

If the nickle accurately reflects your personal valuation of pragmatarianism then you're telling the truth. If the nickle inaccurately reflects your personal valuation of pragmatarianism then you're not telling the truth. Why would you want my future behavior to reflect lies rather than the truth of your priorities?

First, congratulations on hijacking your own thread from the government seeking donations to, yet again, the exact same topic as every other time you ever post a thread ever.

Second, I think you have failed to grasp the notion of misunderstood messages.

Does the truth become any less valuable simply because you are not filthy rich?

I'd just say the message transmitted and the message received may be vastly different depending on the different perspectives of the transmitter and receiver. For instance, if we're on our very first instructional flight, and I say we're going to stall the airplane to show you how to recover, but don't explain what a stall is, you're likely to think I'm going to turn off or choke the engine. This is because, in the context of a car with which you are familiar, that is what a stall is. In truth, I intend to break the smooth airflow over the wings and make the plane lose lift (temporarily).

I did not use the word stall incorrectly. You did not use the word stall incorrectly. It's just that, in certain contexts, messages can mean different things. This is as true with money as every other thing.

If I'm filthy rich and give you a nickel, that was probably intended as an insult, and you should go sit in the corner and think about what you've done. However, if I have barely enough food to survive and still spare a nickel for you, it's probably a pretty substantial complement.

Without knowing the circumstances of each individual donor, how do you know if they're complementing you or insulting you?

Words transcend such differences when properly expressed. Money does not.

Let's say that you're poor. You need new shoes... but you also need food. If food is truly a more important priority to you than new shoes... then wouldn't it be a problem if you communicated to society that shoes and clothes are equally important to you?

More likely, a person will buy cheaper shoes and cheaper food so they can get both. They NEED both. Or they will go to a soup kitchen to get food for free so they can buy shoes. This is because people aren't trying to communicate any greater message with money - they're just trying to survive.

Again, nobody is omniscient. Nobody can reach inside your mind and pull out your true priorities. So if you fail to accurately communicate your true priorities... then society is going to shift its resources in the wrong direction.

And your priorities are largely immaterial for economic efficiency. For instance, food and water are the highest priority for everyone everywhere at all times. Coming in at a close third is clothing, and then right behind it, shelter. A little beyond that, transportation. Yet, we take great efforts to allocate as little as possible to these things so we can focus our money on other things we want. A person doesn't drive a geo because they do not value being able to move around. They drive a geo because it's cheap and leaves more money for other things besides transportation.

If we truly DID spend the way we value things, food, clothing, shelter, and transport would be 99% of our budget, and we'd overpay for these things. Then we'd have nothing left to spend on TVs, cell phones, gaming systems, and other niceties. Our economy would be much worse off. It's best for economic efficiency if we allocate towards the most efficient use of our money, not the most money towards our highest priorities.

As a secondary notion, if talk is cheap and worthless, doesn't that also mean that forum posts are worthless? Why should I pay for something you state yourself is worthless?

The fact that talk is cheap means that we can't trust people's verbal valuations. It doesn't mean that you can't value what people say.

So maybe you should just value what I say back. If you don't, that's your problem not mine.

Alternatively, if forum posts are a market, and words have value that should be compensated, how is a complementary post not a barter exchange of values? One valuable post is given in exchange for another.

So because you value my posts it automatically means that I value your posts? Again, benefit is in the eye of the beholder.

Then don't go to a place where the only thing you're going to get back is other peoples' posts. Go make your own forum.

Incidentally, you said you were going to do that. How did it work out?

You're back, so I'm assuming not well.

So there's absolutely no reason to pay more than you have to, given that supply does not miraculously increase if you pay more. it just makes you a fool of a consumer.

Yeah, in many cases it is foolish for people to accurately communicate their valuations. Therefore... what? Therefore... it isn't a problem when people inaccurately communicate their valuations?

No. It's economics. People inaccurately communicate their true valuations all the time - on purpose. It's the basis for pretty much every profit-making endeavor ever. You almost can't run a business without inaccurately communicating your true valuations to your suppliers.

If we can agree on the importance of accurate valuation...

I Don't.

The EPA could put a donate button on its homepage. Doing so would make it easier for people to give their money to the EPA. Making it easier for people to give their money to the EPA makes it easier for people to more accurately communicate their valuation of a healthy environment.

I actually have no particular problem with this, provided Congress does not cut funding to rely on donations. It's a little convoluted to donate to the EPA if you want to. You have to send a letter to the treasury with a check made out to the treasury, and state that this money is earmarked for the EPA. A donate button would make that complicated process simpler.

But if you spend more than you have to on any service, then you are being LESS efficient. If you conserve and pay only what you have to, you have more money to spend on other things that you value.

I'm an atheist but there are a few things that the Bible gets right...

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? - Mark 8:36

What good are a dozen mansions when you're dying of cancer? What good are new shoes when somebody shoots you for them?

What does this have to do with deliberately paying the lowest price you can for a good? Your shoes, whether you pay $10 or $500, will have the same value in the eyes of the criminal if they're the same shoes. That's because they have no idea what you paid. Don't care.

Incidentally, if you pay the lowest price possible for your mansions, then you have more money to fight your cancer. Win-win.

The goal should be arrange the system so that the allocation of society's limited resources is perfectly aligned with people's true priorities.

No, the goal should be to arrange the system in such a way as to have maximum economic output in the areas of peoples' wants and needs, without allowing people to fall through the cracks and starve to death or die of exposure. This is the best possible outcome.

It's also an outcome which we continually strive for but may never reach.

Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. Given that each person's vote is equal while each person's monetary situation is NOT equal, as a function of averages, voting is MORE accurate than money, unless you put everyone's money in a single pool and then vote on how the pool is allocated collectively, with everyone having an equal vote.

Even if people could cast their one vote for either more cancer research or more police... we still wouldn't know the correct ratio. Say the majority wants more cancer research and less police. Therefore...what? We should allocate 70% of the available funds to cancer research and allocate the rest to police?

Perhaps we could give every citizen 100 votes. The more votes they spend on cancer research... the greater the intensity of their preference. Except, if it makes sense for everybody to have equal votes... then why doesn't it make sense for everybody to have equal dollars?

In the concept of an allocative funding pool, they all WOULD have equal dollars, effectively, once you average the votes.

The problem with everybody having equal influence is that everybody isn't equally rational. It behooves us to put society's limited resources into the most rational hands. This is true whether we're talking about seeds or guns.

You've provided no link between wealth and rationality. There is no proof that rich people are either more or less rational than poor people or middle class people.

You proposing a rationality test?

Why do you suggest spending transmits more accurate info than speaking does? You keep jumping to that conclusion, but other than blind assertions that money is more accurate 'just cuz', you have yet to prove it.

Again with the Bible...

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

I don't think the story would have been so powerful if God had simply said that he really loved the world.

You don't even understand why that sacrifice was made, but it was a legal issue rather than a blind sacrifice for no reason. If you want to make a theology thread, I'll explain it to you.

Suffice to say, if you tell your wife "i love you", it communicates accurately how you feel.

If you say "I love you" while cutting yourself to show just how much sacrifice you are willing to give, she'll probably think you need mental help and nothing you say should be taken at face value.

In order for a sacrifice to be meaningful, it must be necessary or helpful in resolving some issue.

So you never bought that roll of nickels? I really wanted to know how that worked out.

What am I supposed to do... walk around with a pocket full of nickles? When giving a nickle is as easy and convenient as giving a "like".... then everybody's going to do it. The accuracy of communication will improve... people's behavior will improve accordingly... and society will derive more benefit from its limited resources.

So you didn't ever buy the nickels to give to your friends when they tell a joke you like or make a salient point in conversation?

Xero, that's so hypocritical of you. I am disappoint.

Keeping a roll of nickels in your pocket is really easy, and if you get the old rolls (which banks usually still have), you can pop them easily one by one.

[Xerographica]

And your priorities are largely immaterial for economic efficiency. For instance, food and water are the highest priority for everyone everywhere at all times.

We're having a bit of a semantic problem here. From my perspective... a priority is whatever it is that you're willing to sacrifice for. Right now my priority is replying to you. I'm sacrificing/spending my time for the purpose of replying to you. I'm foregoing the alternative uses of my limited time. Prior to this activity my priority was to eat. Now that my stomach is full... eating is no longer my priority. Replying to you is my current priority... but it won't always be. After I reply to you I'm probably not going to immediately begin composing a reply to the same exact post of yours that I'm currently replying to. Instead, I'll do something else with my time. Whatever else I choose to do will be my priority.

From your perspective though... food is always the highest priority. Based on my understanding of the word "priority"... your statement gives me the impression that you're extremely obese. All you ever do is eat. Right now you're eating. When you reply to me you're eating. Somehow you even manage to eat when you sleep. Do you see the semantic problem?

You take "priority" to mean X and I take it to mean Y. How can we resolve this semantic problem?

How about if we use the term "most valuable option" (MVO) to mean Y? Right now my MVO is replying to you. Just a minute ago my MVO was to go to the bathroom. And before I started replying to you my MVO was to eat dinner.

Does this term work for you? If not, then would you like to suggest a better term?

Then don't go to a place where the only thing you're going to get back is other peoples' posts. Go make your own forum.

Incidentally, you said you were going to do that. How did it work out?

You're back, so I'm assuming not well.

Yeah, I did make my own forum. I successfully created/programmed the world's first micropayments forum. There's this one additional task that I need to do though and it's long and tedious. So here I am looking for any excuse to procrastinate.

I actually have no particular problem with this, provided Congress does not cut funding to rely on donations. It's a little convoluted to donate to the EPA if you want to. You have to send a letter to the treasury with a check made out to the treasury, and state that this money is earmarked for the EPA. A donate button would make that complicated process simpler.

Here's the link to the treasury that you shared. It doesn't say anything about earmarking. It says that the money will be put into the general fund.

What does this have to do with deliberately paying the lowest price you can for a good? Your shoes, whether you pay $10 or $500, will have the same value in the eyes of the criminal if they're the same shoes. That's because they have no idea what you paid. Don't care.

Incidentally, if you pay the lowest price possible for your mansions, then you have more money to fight your cancer. Win-win.

The free-rider problem is when deliberately paying the lowest price for a good results in the good being undersupplied. Do you think the free-rider problem is a real problem?

Here are some terms...

allocation = how much you pay for something
valuation = how much you value something

free-rider problem = allocation < valuation
forced-rider problem = allocation > valuation

Do you agree with these terms and their definitions?

Let's say that food is scarce. Because food is scarce... my valuation of food is high. But if I steal food then my allocation to food is far less than my valuation of food. And if everybody's allocation to food is far less than their valuation of food... then people will have far less incentive to grow food and food will be even more scarce.

Do you agree with this analysis? Does this make sense?

Hopefully you and I will agree that we don't want food to be undersupplied. And hopefully we'll also agree that we don't want food to be oversupplied. If we allocate too many resources to supplying food then this logically means that we didn't allocate enough resources to supplying other things.

You've provided no link between wealth and rationality. There is no proof that rich people are either more or less rational than poor people or middle class people.

You proposing a rationality test?

Do you evenly distribute your money? Of course not. You administer the rationality test... and, given that you unevenly distribute your money, evidently some people score a lot higher on your rationality test than other people.

You don't even understand why that sacrifice was made, but it was a legal issue rather than a blind sacrifice for no reason. If you want to make a theology thread, I'll explain it to you.

Every sacrifice is a trade-off... so if you think that a theology thread can provide more insights than an economics thread... then you're sadly mistaken.

Suffice to say, if you tell your wife "i love you", it communicates accurately how you feel.

LOLz.

If you say "I love you" while cutting yourself to show just how much sacrifice you are willing to give, she'll probably think you need mental help and nothing you say should be taken at face value.

In order for a sacrifice to be meaningful, it must be necessary or helpful in resolving some issue.

There's a word for an unhelpful sacrifice... "waste". If there's a drought... and you sacrifice some cattle to the rain gods... and it doesn't rain... then you wasted your cattle.

If you care about the environment... and you sacrifice some money to the EPA... but the EPA doesn't protect the environment... then you wasted your money.

Do you want to waste your money?

The EPA should ask the public for money because the public doesn't want its money wasted. By asking the public for money the EPA would be opening itself up to scrutiny. A lot of scrutiny. Congress's scrutiny is like one candle. The public's scrutiny is like the sun.

If the EPA is doing an effective job of protecting the environment then it should welcome the public's scrutiny. And it can welcome the public's scrutiny by asking the public for more money.

So you didn't ever buy the nickels to give to your friends when they tell a joke you like or make a salient point in conversation?

Xero, that's so hypocritical of you. I am disappoint.

Keeping a roll of nickels in your pocket is really easy, and if you get the old rolls (which banks usually still have), you can pop them easily one by one.

It was nearly 100 degrees today. This evening I grabbed a spray bottle and went around watering a few of my orchids.

My street is lined with very tall Mexican fan palms. They are absolutely naked. None of them have a single epiphyte on them. Next year, when my legion of Tillandsia aeranthos bloom and are pollinated by hummingbirds, I could take the dandelion-like seeds and attach them to every palm tree on my street. Then twice a week during summer... I would have to grab a few water bottles and go from palm tree to palm tree spraying the seedlings. After around three years they would be mature enough to bloom. The hummingbirds would fly from palm tree to palm tree pollinating the Tillandsias.

Would I have to ask my neighbors for permission to sow some Tillandsias seeds on "their" palm trees? I think that they are technically the city's trees. But I'm pretty sure that I'd have to ask my neighbors for permission. Uh... that would be a bit awkward. First I'd have to explain what an epiphyte is. And then they would probably assume that I was selling them. And then they would be suspicious that I was giving the seeds away. And then I would have to explain that I would water them.

Maybe I should start with the neighbors on both sides of me. They could share some seeds with their neighbors and so on.

What about theft? And do I really want to worry about walking around the neighborhood watering Tillandsias? My neighbors on my left take regular walks. Maybe I could persuade them to carry a spray bottle to water the Tillandsias on the palms. What if every neighbor walked around with a spray bottle watering the Tillandsias on the palms? Would it be weird for everybody to partially water everybody else's garden? Why stop with the street trees? Why not attach and water Tillandsias to any trees in the front yard? And why stop with Tillandsias? Every tree in every front yard on the street could have Tillandsias and orchids growing on them.

Carrying around a spray bottle watering Tillandsias is kinda like carrying around a roll of nickles and paying people. Tillandsias, unlike people, are stationary. Imagine if Tillandsias weren't stationary though. They would walk over and attach themselves to whichever palm tree was closest to the neighbor with the largest spray bottle. Just like people try and find the job that pays the most.

Just like people try and find the friend that pays the most? Walking from palm to palm giving the Tillandsias a thumbs up wouldn't work as well as giving them water. And it would be preferable if I could digitally, rather than manually, water the Tillandsias.

[Galloism]

And your priorities are largely immaterial for economic efficiency. For instance, food and water are the highest priority for everyone everywhere at all times.

We're having a bit of a semantic problem here. From my perspective... a priority is whatever it is that you're willing to sacrifice for. Right now my priority is replying to you. I'm sacrificing/spending my time for the purpose of replying to you. I'm foregoing the alternative uses of my limited time. Prior to this activity my priority was to eat. Now that my stomach is full... eating is no longer my priority. Replying to you is my current priority... but it won't always be. After I reply to you I'm probably not going to immediately begin composing a reply to the same exact post of yours that I'm currently replying to. Instead, I'll do something else with my time. Whatever else I choose to do will be my priority.

Then in the context of sacrifice, you definition of priority makes no sense. After all, if a person is not presently hungry, sacrificing food is no sacrifice at all. In the same way that sacrificing tickets to a Justin Beiber concert in favor of throwing money literally down the toilet is no sacrifice at all. Life is better that way.

From your perspective though... food is always the highest priority. Based on my understanding of the word "priority"... your statement gives me the impression that you're extremely obese. All you ever do is eat. Right now you're eating. When you reply to me you're eating. Somehow you even manage to eat when you sleep. Do you see the semantic problem?

Yes. You do not understand what priorities are. This is clear.

You take "priority" to mean X and I take it to mean Y. How can we resolve this semantic problem?

How about if we use the term "most valuable option" (MVO) to mean Y? Right now my MVO is replying to you. Just a minute ago my MVO was to go to the bathroom. And before I started replying to you my MVO was to eat dinner.

Does this term work for you? If not, then would you like to suggest a better term?

I don't even know where you're going with this.

Then don't go to a place where the only thing you're going to get back is other peoples' posts. Go make your own forum.

Incidentally, you said you were going to do that. How did it work out?

You're back, so I'm assuming not well.

Yeah, I did make my own forum. I successfully created/programmed the world's first micropayments forum. There's this one additional task that I need to do though and it's long and tedious. So here I am looking for any excuse to procrastinate.

Ah. Well, good luck with that.

I actually have no particular problem with this, provided Congress does not cut funding to rely on donations. It's a little convoluted to donate to the EPA if you want to. You have to send a letter to the treasury with a check made out to the treasury, and state that this money is earmarked for the EPA. A donate button would make that complicated process simpler.

Here's the link to the treasury that you shared. It doesn't say anything about earmarking. It says that the money will be put into the general fund.

Doing a little bit more research, I found a government memo showing what federal agencies were allowed to accept donations at the time of the memo, in 1963.

http://www.gao.gov/products/403961#mt=e-report

The EPA isn't on it. This is probably because the EPA wasn't actually created until 1970.

If want to know how to donate to the EPA, you can call the government accountability office. They can tell you how.

http://www.gao.gov/

The free-rider problem is when deliberately paying the lowest price for a good results in the good being undersupplied. Do you think the free-rider problem is a real problem?

No, the free-rider problem is when you benefit from goods, resources, or services and do not pay for them at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

For instance, if you give a fireworks show for money, and I camp out nearby and watch it without paying you, that's a free-rider problem. I'm receiving a service, which costs money to create, while not paying for it.

If I find some shoes that I would be willing to pay $100 for on sale, and then apply a coupon, and get them for $20, that's not a free rider problem. That's me being a thrifty consumer. The free-rider problem is an economic problem. The thrifty consumer is an economic perk. It drives manufacturers to create goods at the same or better quality for continuously cheaper prices. This is a good thing.

Here are some terms...

allocation = how much you pay for something
valuation = how much you value something

I'll allow it.

free-rider problem = allocation < valuation

Wrong. Free-rider problem = receiving service/good while not paying

forced-rider problem = allocation > valuation

Doesn't even make sense. Allocation > valuation means no transaction takes place because you choose not to engage in it.

Do you agree with these terms and their definitions?

The terms are fine. Your conclusions are wrong.

Let's say that food is scarce. Because food is scarce... my valuation of food is high. But if I steal food then my allocation to food is far less than my valuation of food. And if everybody's allocation to food is far less than their valuation of food... then people will have far less incentive to grow food and food will be even more scarce.

No, if you steal food you're a thief. It may have nothing to do with your valuations or everything to do with your valuations. You may VALUE the food high enough to pay for it, but not have the means to do so. If you are stealing it, it's because you're desperate to survive. Indeed, the thief may actually show a higher valuation of the food than the people with money to purchase it, because they're willing to risk imprisonment to get it. Risking imprisonment is a very high cost.

Do you agree with this analysis? Does this make sense?

Do not agree with the analysis because you've failed to take into account all costs within.

Hopefully you and I will agree that we don't want food to be undersupplied. And hopefully we'll also agree that we don't want food to be oversupplied. If we allocate too many resources to supplying food then this logically means that we didn't allocate enough resources to supplying other things.

Except by your cockeyed valuation concept that we should always pay what we value something, rather than what we can get it it, food will always BE oversupplied, as food and water are the most important things for humanity.

If we want food to be properly supplied at a reasonable price, we should be thrifty consumers.

Do you evenly distribute your money? Of course not. You administer the rationality test... and, given that you unevenly distribute your money, evidently some people score a lot higher on your rationality test than other people.

No, I administer the "do I want to buy this shit?" test.

Normally, unless I'm engaged in some kind of boycott, I don't even know who the ultimate recipient of the money is, and it's really hard to find out. Remember? YOU paid ME for your processor in your computer - a person who thinks your pragmatarianism concept is so absolutely full of shit that it could set some sort Guinness world record for largest giant steaming piles of shit.

I don't consider Donald Trump more rational because he has more money. I once had a cat who was slightly retarded that I'd consider more rational than Donald Trump.

Yet, I probably have, at some point, consumed goods produced by firms which Donald Trump is invested in. This is because I don't even know what he's invested in. Frankly, I have only a limited amount of fucks as to what people are invested in. I trade $5 for a box of paper towels. I don't consider who made the paper towels most of the time, and I'll bet neither do you.

Or you never would have bought that processor.

Every sacrifice is a trade-off... so if you think that a theology thread can provide more insights than an economics thread... then you're sadly mistaken.

Like I said, if you want to get into the details of the sacrifice and why it was the way it was, you can make a thread about it and I'll be glad to explain it to you.

LOLz.

Yes, talking to a spouse about how you feel?

Fucking absurd, right? You should pay him or her to properly express how you feel.

Definitely if you had really really good sex. That deserves payment. Amidoinitrite?

There's a word for an unhelpful sacrifice... "waste". If there's a drought... and you sacrifice some cattle to the rain gods... and it doesn't rain... then you wasted your cattle.

So hold up. If I engage in an unhelpful sacrifice, that's waste, yes?

I consider your micropayments to be unhelpful. Therefore, it is waste. Why are you trying to promote waste?

If you care about the environment... and you sacrifice some money to the EPA... but the EPA doesn't protect the environment... then you wasted your money.

Do you want to waste your money?

No. That's why I'll never get behind your stupid micro-payments idea. It's waste.

The EPA should ask the public for money because the public doesn't want its money wasted. By asking the public for money the EPA would be opening itself up to scrutiny. A lot of scrutiny. Congress's scrutiny is like one candle. The public's scrutiny is like the sun.

If the EPA is doing an effective job of protecting the environment then it should welcome the public's scrutiny. And it can welcome the public's scrutiny by asking the public for more money.

I seriously still have no problem with throwing a donate button up on the website. It's cheap, easy, and doesn't really harm anything.

It was nearly 100 degrees today. This evening I grabbed a spray bottle and went around watering a few of my orchids.

My street is lined with very tall Mexican fan palms. They are absolutely naked. None of them have a single epiphyte on them. Next year, when my legion of Tillandsia aeranthos bloom and are pollinated by hummingbirds, I could take the dandelion-like seeds and attach them to every palm tree on my street. Then twice a week during summer... I would have to grab a few water bottles and go from palm tree to palm tree spraying the seedlings. After around three years they would be mature enough to bloom. The hummingbirds would fly from palm tree to palm tree pollinating the Tillandsias.

Would I have to ask my neighbors for permission to sow some Tillandsias seeds on "their" palm trees? I think that they are technically the city's trees. But I'm pretty sure that I'd have to ask my neighbors for permission. Uh... that would be a bit awkward. First I'd have to explain what an epiphyte is. And then they would probably assume that I was selling them. And then they would be suspicious that I was giving the seeds away. And then I would have to explain that I would water them.

Maybe I should start with the neighbors on both sides of me. They could share some seeds with their neighbors and so on.

What about theft? And do I really want to worry about walking around the neighborhood watering Tillandsias? My neighbors on my left take regular walks. Maybe I could persuade them to carry a spray bottle to water the Tillandsias on the palms. What if every neighbor walked around with a spray bottle watering the Tillandsias on the palms? Would it be weird for everybody to partially water everybody else's garden? Why stop with the street trees? Why not attach and water Tillandsias to any trees in the front yard? And why stop with Tillandsias? Every tree in every front yard on the street could have Tillandsias and orchids growing on them.

Carrying around a spray bottle watering Tillandsias is kinda like carrying around a roll of nickles and paying people. Tillandsias, unlike people, are stationary. Imagine if Tillandsias weren't stationary though. They would walk over and attach themselves to whichever palm tree was closest to the neighbor with the largest spray bottle. Just like people try and find the job that pays the most.

Just like people try and find the friend that pays the most? Walking from palm to palm giving the Tillandsias a thumbs up wouldn't work as well as giving them water. And it would be preferable if I could digitally, rather than manually, water the Tillandsias.

Not sure what the hell that was all about, but I'm taking it you have not rewarded your friends with micropayments for their jokes and insights.

Why should we try your experiment if you aren't even willing to do the same with your friends?

[Saiwania]

I'm inclined to think no. Governments can and should just get whatever they need through taxes. Begging is one of the worst things anyone can possibly do with regards to money.