The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Xerographica]

Resources should be inefficiently allocated because... diminishing returns?

Resources shouldn't be allocated based on how strongly people feel about particular issues because of diminishing returns.

Do try to keep up.

Efficient allocation = the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it
Diminishing returns = the point at which the benefit of something starts to decline

For example, I like a lot of cilantro in my menudo. So adding more cilantro increases my benefit. However, there's a point where adding more and more cilantro provides me with less and less benefit.

Society is essentially a bunch of different ingredients. Combating climate change is one ingredient. We could continue spending more and more money on combating climate change. But at a certain point we'd start to get less and less bang for our buck.

The efficient allocation of cilantro and combating climate change is the allocation right before returns start to diminish.

Therefore, to argue that "diminishing returns" is an exception to the rule of efficient allocation is... well... funny.

[Camicon]

Resources shouldn't be allocated based on how strongly people feel about particular issues because of diminishing returns.

Do try to keep up.

Efficient allocation = the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it
Diminishing returns = the point at which the benefit of something starts to decline

For example, I like a lot of cilantro in my menudo. So adding more cilantro increases my benefit. However, there's a point where adding more and more cilantro provides me with less and less benefit.

Society is essentially a bunch of different ingredients. Combating climate change is one ingredient. We could continue spending more and more money on combating climate change. But at a certain point we'd start to get less and less bang for our buck.

The efficient allocation of cilantro and combating climate change is the allocation right before returns start to diminish.

Therefore, to argue that "diminishing returns" is an exception to the rule of efficient allocation is... well... funny.

Stop with the hackneyed examples, you're crap at them. Adding too much cilantro to your meal is not an example of diminishing returns, it's an example of ruining a perfectly good dish because you don't know how to cook.

Society is not a balanced diet, government is not a meal.

Yes, the efficient allocation of funds to combat climate change is that point at which the benefits of those funds do not give a return strong enough to justify their investment. That does not necessarily correlate with how strongly people feel about climate change, so using that as an indicator for efficient allocation is painfully stupid, at best.

[Xerographica]

Efficient allocation = the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it
Diminishing returns = the point at which the benefit of something starts to decline

For example, I like a lot of cilantro in my menudo. So adding more cilantro increases my benefit. However, there's a point where adding more and more cilantro provides me with less and less benefit.

Society is essentially a bunch of different ingredients. Combating climate change is one ingredient. We could continue spending more and more money on combating climate change. But at a certain point we'd start to get less and less bang for our buck.

The efficient allocation of cilantro and combating climate change is the allocation right before returns start to diminish.

Therefore, to argue that "diminishing returns" is an exception to the rule of efficient allocation is... well... funny.

Stop with the hackneyed examples, you're crap at them. Adding too much cilantro to your meal is not an example of diminishing returns, it's an example of ruining a perfectly good dish because you don't know how to cook.

What about adding more cowbell to a song?

Society is not a balanced diet, government is not a meal.

Getting the balance right is equally relevant to cooking and the economy...

However well balanced the general pattern of a nation's life ought to be, there must at particular times be certain disturbances of the balance at the expense of other less vital tasks. If we do not succeed in bringing the German army as rapidly as possible to the rank of premier army in the world...then Germany will be lost! - Adolf Hitler (1936)

Hitler decided for each and every German the vitality of the different public tasks. The same is true, more or less, of Kennedy...

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. - John F. Kennedy, Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs

My argument is that in no case can the government do a better job than a pragmatarian market at determining the true vitality of public tasks.

Yes, the efficient allocation of funds to combat climate change is that point at which the benefits of those funds do not give a return strong enough to justify their investment. That does not necessarily correlate with how strongly people feel about climate change, so using that as an indicator for efficient allocation is painfully stupid, at best.

If people could choose where their taxes go, then the amount of tax dollars that they'd spend on combating climate change would reflect how strongly they felt about it. But if any taxpayers perceive that they are getting less and less bang for their buck, then obviously they are going to care less strongly and, as a result, spend less money on combating climate change. Therefore, in no case is "diminishing returns" an exception to the rule of efficient allocation.

[Galloism]

I argued that the amount of resources allocated to any endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it.

I'm aware.

In other words, I argued that society's resources should be efficiently allocated.

No, you argued resources should be allocated by society's collective feelings. That's not the same as being efficiently allocated.

You might have well as said "we need air to live. In other words, Bill Nye is God."

You replied that combating climate change is an exception because... science. So I asked you whether religion should also be an exception and now you're not sure why I'm asking.

That's an accurate summation.

Imagine a strange society with only two goods...

1. combating climate change
2. religion

This society has one trillion dollars to divide between these two goods. My argument is that the money should be efficiently allocated. In other words, the amount of money allocated to each good should reflect how strongly society cares about it...

1. combating climate change = $700 billion
2. religion = $300 billion

However, you've argued that the rule of efficient allocation should not apply to combating climate change. Therefore... what happens? There aren't a lot of options. You can take money from combating climate change and give it to religion... or you can do the opposite. But whichever option you choose... you'd still be arguing that the rule of efficient allocation does not apply to both goods.

I don't see how it matters how a society with only those two goods allocates them, given they're all about to starve to death anyway.

Anyway, allocating based on feels isn't the same as efficient allocation. If we don't allocate enough to climate change we all die, and there's nothing efficient about that, even if that's how society truly feels.

[Camicon]

Stop with the hackneyed examples, you're crap at them. Adding too much cilantro to your meal is not an example of diminishing returns, it's an example of ruining a perfectly good dish because you don't know how to cook.

What about adding more cowbell to a song?

Society is not a balanced diet, government is not a meal.

Getting the balance right is equally relevant to cooking and the economy...

Properly balancing the flavour profile of a meal is not, in any way, analogous or equivalent to balancing a state's economy.

However well balanced the general pattern of a nation's life ought to be, there must at particular times be certain disturbances of the balance at the expense of other less vital tasks. If we do not succeed in bringing the German army as rapidly as possible to the rank of premier army in the world...then Germany will be lost! - Adolf Hitler (1936)

Hitler decided for each and every German the vitality of the different public tasks. The same is true, more or less, of Kennedy...

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. - John F. Kennedy, Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs

My argument is that in no case can the government do a better job than a pragmatarian market at determining the true vitality of public tasks.

Your "pragmatarian" nonsense has been shown to be just that, many times over.

Yes, the efficient allocation of funds to combat climate change is that point at which the benefits of those funds do not give a return strong enough to justify their investment. That does not necessarily correlate with how strongly people feel about climate change, so using that as an indicator for efficient allocation is painfully stupid, at best.

If people could choose where their taxes go, then the amount of tax dollars that they'd spend on combating climate change would reflect how strongly they felt about it. But if any taxpayers perceive that they are getting less and less bang for their buck, then obviously they are going to care less strongly and, as a result, spend less money on combating climate change. Therefore, in no case is "diminishing returns" an exception to the rule of efficient allocation.

Perception of the return does not change the return. If a person thinks that the return on government spending in education is not worth the investment of their tax dollars that doesn't magically change how much money it takes to keep class sizes at a 25/1 ratio.

[Neanderthaland]

Are you asking if it actually does, or if it's obliged to?

I'm asking whether or not it's beneficial. As in, you should brush your teeth before you go to bed...

1. True
2. False

Well then the answer to the first question is obviously false. Society should allocate only as many resources to an endeavor as are required for the endeavor's success, no matter how greatly it is valued.

Doing otherwise is simply inefficient.

[Xerographica]

I'm asking whether or not it's beneficial. As in, you should brush your teeth before you go to bed...

1. True
2. False

Well then the answer to the first question is obviously false. Society should allocate only as many resources to an endeavor as are required for the endeavor's success, no matter how greatly it is valued.

Doing otherwise is simply inefficient.

Society should allocate only as many resources to building a giant wall as are required for the endeavor's success, no matter how greatly it is valued? But what's your basis for allocating any resources to building a wall in the first place? Like lots of endeavors... a wall can be a small cheap endeavor (1' tall cardboard) all the way to a massive expensive endeavor (100' tall 10' thick steel). Same thing with space colonization and environmental protection and gene research and AI development. In all these endeavors it's less a matter of success and more a matter of progress. To say that we've successfully colonized space is to say nothing very specific. Do you mean that we've successfully colonized our solar system... our galaxy... 100 galaxies... 1000 galaxies... our universe... 100 universes? How you define success might be very different from how I define success.

My argument is that the amount of resources allocated to any endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it. This provides the basis for determining how many resources to allocate to any endeavor. So far you haven't provided a better basis. You haven't even provided any basis.

[Xerographica]

I argued that the amount of resources allocated to any endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it.

I'm aware.

In other words, I argued that society's resources should be efficiently allocated.

No, you argued resources should be allocated by society's collective feelings. That's not the same as being efficiently allocated.

We've been debating economics for so many years and you still don't know the definition of "efficient allocation". I'm sure it's my fault.

The problem is that you think that "efficient" means "correct". But it really doesn't. Lots of people buy cigarettes. Is it an efficient allocation? We can reasonably guess that smoking provides people with a decent amount of enjoyment. How much enjoyment does it provide them? It provides them with at least as much enjoyment as they are willing to pay for cigarettes.

But is lots of cigarettes being produced and consumed a correct allocation? Maybe not. Probably not. Science doesn't think so.

So there's a distinct difference between an efficient allocation and a correct allocation.

Efficient = SUBJECTIVE
Correct = OBJECTIVE

I don't see how it matters how a society with only those two goods allocates them, given they're all about to starve to death anyway.

I'm not surprised that you weren't able to answer the question.

Anyway, allocating based on feels isn't the same as efficient allocation. If we don't allocate enough to climate change we all die, and there's nothing efficient about that, even if that's how society truly feels.

Economics is all about values being subjective. "Efficient allocation" is an economics term. IT'S ALL ABOUT FEELS.

It's an efficient allocation for the amount of resources allocated to combating climate change to reflect how strongly society cares about the issue. But would it be a correct allocation? We have no idea because we have no fucking clue how strongly society truly cares about combating climate change.

If people could choose where their taxes go then we'd know exactly how strongly society truly cares about combating climate change. Here are the three possibilities...

1. society cares just as much as you do
2. society cares more than you do
3. society cares less than you do

The greater the difference between A. how much you care and B. how much society cares... the bigger a deviant that you are. Are you guessing that you're a big deviant when it comes to combating climate change? If so, what are you basing your guess on?

[Xerographica]

What about adding more cowbell to a song?


Getting the balance right is equally relevant to cooking and the economy...

Properly balancing the flavour profile of a meal is not, in any way, analogous or equivalent to balancing a state's economy.

Properly balancing ingredients in a dish is super analogous to properly balancing goods in an economy. Putting too much or too little salt in a dish is detrimental just like supplying too much or too little defense in an economy. The scale of detriment is obviously different.

If people could choose where their taxes go, then the amount of tax dollars that they'd spend on combating climate change would reflect how strongly they felt about it. But if any taxpayers perceive that they are getting less and less bang for their buck, then obviously they are going to care less strongly and, as a result, spend less money on combating climate change. Therefore, in no case is "diminishing returns" an exception to the rule of efficient allocation.

Perception of the return does not change the return. If a person thinks that the return on government spending in education is not worth the investment of their tax dollars that doesn't magically change how much money it takes to keep class sizes at a 25/1 ratio.

The issue is that neither of us knows how strongly society truly cares about public education. In this regard we're both super ignorant. I hate being ignorant... but you think it's bliss. Which is ironic given that you're a teacher. Well... you were failed by our education system and now you're a part of the vicious cycle.

[Grave_n_idle]

So there's a distinct difference between an efficient allocation and a correct allocation.

Efficient = SUBJECTIVE
Correct = OBJECTIVE

The list of terms you misuse pretty much increases every time you post.

[Grave_n_idle]

Efficient allocation = the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it

This seems to be the axiom on which all of your arguments hang, but it's false.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm aware.



No, you argued resources should be allocated by society's collective feelings. That's not the same as being efficiently allocated.

We've been debating economics for so many years and you still don't know the definition of "efficient allocation". I'm sure it's my fault.

The problem is that you think that "efficient" means "correct". But it really doesn't. Lots of people buy cigarettes. Is it an efficient allocation? We can reasonably guess that smoking provides people with a decent amount of enjoyment. How much enjoyment does it provide them? It provides them with at least as much enjoyment as they are willing to pay for cigarettes.

But is lots of cigarettes being produced and consumed a correct allocation? Maybe not. Probably not. Science doesn't think so.

So there's a distinct difference between an efficient allocation and a correct allocation.

Efficient = SUBJECTIVE
Correct = OBJECTIVE

People pay more for cigarettes than they do for corn, therefore we must plow under all the the cornfields and plant tobacco there.

Efficiency!

I don't see how it matters how a society with only those two goods allocates them, given they're all about to starve to death anyway.

I'm not surprised that you weren't able to answer the question.

Pot. Kettle.
Stone. Glass house.

Anyway, allocating based on feels isn't the same as efficient allocation. If we don't allocate enough to climate change we all die, and there's nothing efficient about that, even if that's how society truly feels.

Economics is all about values being subjective. "Efficient allocation" is an economics term. IT'S ALL ABOUT FEELS.

It's an efficient allocation for the amount of resources allocated to combating climate change to reflect how strongly society cares about the issue. But would it be a correct allocation? We have no idea because we have no fucking clue how strongly society truly cares about combating climate change.

If people could choose where their taxes go then we'd know exactly how strongly society truly cares about combating climate change. Here are the three possibilities...

1. society cares just as much as you do
2. society cares more than you do
3. society cares less than you do

The greater the difference between A. how much you care and B. how much society cares... the bigger a deviant that you are. Are you guessing that you're a big deviant when it comes to combating climate change? If so, what are you basing your guess on?

We should stop researching for a cancer cure, and put those doctors to work researching climate change.

Efficiency!

[Salandriagado]

,y
False. Points of diminishing returns exist.

Resources should be inefficiently allocated because... diminishing returns?

No, we shouldn't throw more resources than is effective at a thing just because people feel very strongly about that thing.

Resources shouldn't be allocated based on how strongly people feel about particular issues because of diminishing returns.

Do try to keep up.

Efficient allocation = the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it
Diminishing returns = the point at which the benefit of something starts to decline

For example, I like a lot of cilantro in my menudo. So adding more cilantro increases my benefit. However, there's a point where adding more and more cilantro provides me with less and less benefit.

Society is essentially a bunch of different ingredients. Combating climate change is one ingredient. We could continue spending more and more money on combating climate change. But at a certain point we'd start to get less and less bang for our buck.

The efficient allocation of cilantro and combating climate change is the allocation right before returns start to diminish.

Therefore, to argue that "diminishing returns" is an exception to the rule of efficient allocation is... well... funny.

Kindly stop using the word "efficient" to mean something completely different to what everybody else in the world uses it to mean. Note also that the amount that people care about things, especially climate change, is not the same as where the point of diminishing returns is. In particular, the former moves around, and the latter doesn't.

[Camicon]

Properly balancing the flavour profile of a meal is not, in any way, analogous or equivalent to balancing a state's economy.

Properly balancing ingredients in a dish is super analogous to properly balancing goods in an economy. Putting too much or too little salt in a dish is detrimental just like supplying too much or too little defense in an economy. The scale of detriment is obviously different.

Holy shit, no, a state's economy is not analogous to a meal except on the most basic "each has different components to it" level. A level of analysis which is entirely useless for everything except saying "a state's economy has different components to it".

Perception of the return does not change the return. If a person thinks that the return on government spending in education is not worth the investment of their tax dollars that doesn't magically change how much money it takes to keep class sizes at a 25/1 ratio.

The issue is that neither of us knows how strongly society truly cares about public education. In this regard we're both super ignorant. I hate being ignorant... but you think it's bliss. Which is ironic given that you're a teacher. Well... you were failed by our education system and now you're a part of the vicious cycle.

How strongly society feel about education should matter inasmuch as it lets the government know the level of quality for the service that the public wants. The public has no fucking clue how much money achieving that quality of service takes, because who the hell has the time or inclination to study that shit in their spare time? That's what we have bureaucrats for. So the people express whether or not they are happy with the service - with their words, like normal people - and then the government figures out how to improve the service through various means (restructuring the service, changing funding levels, etc).

Go take your high horse out to pasture, Xero. It's getting old, and it's not putting you in anyone's good graces.

[Xerographica]

Kindly stop using the word "efficient" to mean something completely different to what everybody else in the world uses it to mean. Note also that the amount that people care about things, especially climate change, is not the same as where the point of diminishing returns is. In particular, the former moves around, and the latter doesn't.

If you don't like my definition of "efficient allocation" then why don't you share what you believe is the correct definition?

[Galloism]

I'm aware.



No, you argued resources should be allocated by society's collective feelings. That's not the same as being efficiently allocated.

We've been debating economics for so many years and you still don't know the definition of "efficient allocation". I'm sure it's my fault.

The problem is that you think that "efficient" means "correct". But it really doesn't. Lots of people buy cigarettes. Is it an efficient allocation? We can reasonably guess that smoking provides people with a decent amount of enjoyment. How much enjoyment does it provide them? It provides them with at least as much enjoyment as they are willing to pay for cigarettes.

But is lots of cigarettes being produced and consumed a correct allocation? Maybe not. Probably not. Science doesn't think so.

So there's a distinct difference between an efficient allocation and a correct allocation.

Efficient = SUBJECTIVE
Correct = OBJECTIVE

You're confusing allocative efficiency, which is an economic term indicating preference-fulfilling allocation, with actual efficient allocation, which can be objectively measured scientifically. Hell, even the wikipedia article points out that allocative efficiency may not be pareto-efficient.

Allocative efficiency may be an efficient allocation in some circumstances.
Allocative efficiency may be an inefficient allocation in some circumstances.
Disregarding allocative efficiency may be an efficient allocation in some circumstances.
Disregarding allocative efficiency may be an inefficient allocation in some circumstances.

The opposite of allocative efficiency isn't inefficient allocation, just as efficient allocation and allocative efficiency aren't synonyms.

Also, economics isn't the one true God to be worshiped.

I don't see how it matters how a society with only those two goods allocates them, given they're all about to starve to death anyway.

I'm not surprised that you weren't able to answer the question.

I'm not surprised you give an example of a dying society and ask me what they choose to do.

Anyway, allocating based on feels isn't the same as efficient allocation. If we don't allocate enough to climate change we all die, and there's nothing efficient about that, even if that's how society truly feels.

Economics is all about values being subjective. "Efficient allocation" is an economics term. IT'S ALL ABOUT FEELS.

No, allocative efficiency is an economics term. Efficient allocation is not.

It's an efficient allocation for the amount of resources allocated to combating climate change to reflect how strongly society cares about the issue.

No, allocative efficiency would demand for the amount of resources allocated to combating climate change to reflect how strong society cares about the issue. However, if society doesn't care and it kills us all with a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect, that allocative efficiency was an inefficient allocation, as it would destroy all future economic activity forever.

But would it be a correct allocation? We have no idea because we have no fucking clue how strongly society truly cares about combating climate change.

If people could choose where their taxes go then we'd know exactly how strongly society truly cares about combating climate change. Here are the three possibilities...

1. society cares just as much as you do
2. society cares more than you do
3. society cares less than you do

The greater the difference between A. how much you care and B. how much society cares... the bigger a deviant that you are. Are you guessing that you're a big deviant when it comes to combating climate change? If so, what are you basing your guess on?

I really don't care. It takes X actions to protect the environment and avoid killing us all, so that's what we should do - whether society cares or not. We should use scientific study to determine what needs to be done and do it. The science doesn't change depending on peoples' feels.

[Galloism]

Holy shit, no, a state's economy is not analogous to a meal except on the most basic "each has different components to it" level. A level of analysis which is entirely useless for everything except saying "a state's economy has different components to it".

Next: a government is like my desk.

[Xerographica]

Properly balancing ingredients in a dish is super analogous to properly balancing goods in an economy. Putting too much or too little salt in a dish is detrimental just like supplying too much or too little defense in an economy. The scale of detriment is obviously different.

Holy shit, no, a state's economy is not analogous to a meal except on the most basic "each has different components to it" level. A level of analysis which is entirely useless for everything except saying "a state's economy has different components to it".

When you make a dish the challenge is to determine the optimal proportion of ingredients. But this is exactly the same challenge with economics...

It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

See the part about "proportion"? So again, proportions are just as relevant for economics as they are for cooking. In both cases the goal is to determine the balance that will maximize benefit.

The issue is that neither of us knows how strongly society truly cares about public education. In this regard we're both super ignorant. I hate being ignorant... but you think it's bliss. Which is ironic given that you're a teacher. Well... you were failed by our education system and now you're a part of the vicious cycle.

How strongly society feel about education should matter inasmuch as it lets the government know the level of quality for the service that the public wants. The public has no fucking clue how much money achieving that quality of service takes, because who the hell has the time or inclination to study that shit in their spare time? That's what we have bureaucrats for. So the people express whether or not they are happy with the service - with their words, like normal people - and then the government figures out how to improve the service through various means (restructuring the service, changing funding levels, etc).

Go take your high horse out to pasture, Xero. It's getting old, and it's not putting you in anyone's good graces.

Most libertarians don't want the government to supply education. You obviously don't agree with libertarians. You must be under the impression that, if the government stopped supplying education, that the supply of education would significantly decrease. You really don't want there to be a lot less education. Yet...

The public has no fucking clue how much money achieving that quality of service takes, because who the hell has the time or inclination to study that shit in their spare time?

Again, you really don't want there to be a lot less education. So even if you don't have a fucking clue about the necessary quality of education... clearly you do have a fucking clue about the necessary quantity of education.

My argument is that the supply of education should reflect how strongly society cares about it. Your argument is that the supply of education should reflect how strongly you care about it. Well... that doesn't sound quite right because obviously you are a member of society. So... your argument is that the supply of education should only reflect how strongly you care about it. That's not quite right either because... what about other liberals? So... your argument is that the supply of education should only reflect how strongly liberals care about it. Is this right?

I really wouldn't have a problem with your argument... if society only consisted of liberals. Obviously society does not only consist of liberals.

And obviously I'm not a liberal... or a libertarian... or a conservative. Yet, my argument is that the supply of education should reflect how strongly society cares about it. We are all eating the same "dish" so I think it really matters whether each and every member of society thinks it needs more or less education.

To put it as simply as possible... I think you're being really inconsiderate. And by "really" I mean really. You sit next to somebody on a park bench and start smoking. That's being inconsiderate. To be really inconsiderate you'd have to do the same thing to millions and millions of other people.

Can you stop being really inconsiderate?

[Camicon]

Holy shit, no, a state's economy is not analogous to a meal except on the most basic "each has different components to it" level. A level of analysis which is entirely useless for everything except saying "a state's economy has different components to it".

When you make a dish the challenge is to determine the optimal proportion of ingredients. But this is exactly the same challenge with economics...

No, it isn't. And I challenge you to attempt to take your ridiculous analogy any further than "they both have parts!".

See the part about "proportion"? So again, proportions are just as relevant for economics as they are for cooking. In both cases the goal is to determine the balance that will maximize benefit.

Proportions are relevant for everything. That's about as insightful a point as "the sky is blue", or "humans breathe oxygen".

How strongly society feel about education should matter inasmuch as it lets the government know the level of quality for the service that the public wants. The public has no fucking clue how much money achieving that quality of service takes, because who the hell has the time or inclination to study that shit in their spare time? That's what we have bureaucrats for. So the people express whether or not they are happy with the service - with their words, like normal people - and then the government figures out how to improve the service through various means (restructuring the service, changing funding levels, etc).

Go take your high horse out to pasture, Xero. It's getting old, and it's not putting you in anyone's good graces.

Most libertarians don't want the government to supply education. You obviously don't agree with libertarians. You must be under the impression that, if the government stopped supplying education, that the supply of education would significantly decrease.

Yeah, it would. Private education is expensive, and very few people can afford it. The vast majority of people were not educated, or even literate, before public education became commonplace.

The public has no fucking clue how much money achieving that quality of service takes, because who the hell has the time or inclination to study that shit in their spare time?

Again, you really don't want there to be a lot less education. So even if you don't have a fucking clue about the necessary quality of education... clearly you do have a fucking clue about the necessary quantity of education.

My argument is that the supply of education should reflect how strongly society cares about it. Your argument is that the supply of education should reflect how strongly you care about it.

No, that isn't my argument. My argument is that your analogies are stupid, and you don't understand how governments, or economies, work.

I really wouldn't have a problem with your argument... if society only consisted of liberals. Obviously society does not only consist of liberals.

You assume I'm a liberal because...?

And obviously I'm not a liberal... or a libertarian... or a conservative.

No, you're a "pragmatarian". A word which here means "some nonsense that Xero cooked up and refuses to critically evaluate for some reason".

Yet, my argument is that the supply of education should reflect how strongly society cares about it.

That's a stupid way of funding things.

We are all eating the same "dish" so I think it really matters whether each and every member of society thinks it needs more or less education.

Sure. And we invented this nifty thing called "language" to communicate that.

To put it as simply as possible... I think you're being really inconsiderate. And by "really" I mean really. You sit next to somebody on a park bench and start smoking. That's being inconsiderate. To be really inconsiderate you'd have to do the same thing to millions and millions of other people.

Can you stop being really inconsiderate?

That's really fucking rich, coming from the one who adamantly refuses to answer any question that would undermine the shit their spewing.

[Xerographica]

Hell, even the wikipedia article points out that allocative efficiency may not be pareto-efficient.

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

No government planner knows how much you value combating global warming. This is why we can be 99.99% certain that the amount of resources currently allocated to combating global warming is inefficient.

But what if we eliminated the government entirely? Would the amount of money that you spent on combating global warming accurately reflect your valuation? If so, then you would probably be the exception rather than the rule. The premise of compulsory taxation is that people will voluntarily pay less than their valuation of public goods. This means that in an entirely voluntary society, we can be around 70% certain that the amount of resources allocated to combating global warming would be inefficient.

So what if we simply allowed taxpayers to choose where their taxes go? Would the amount of money that you spent on combating global warming accurately reflect your valuation? Why not? You have to pay taxes anyways. As a result, the amount of resources allocated to combating global warming would be far more efficient compared to the alternatives.

We should use scientific study to determine what needs to be done and do it.

In order to have scientific study you first need to have scientists. How many scientists should study global warming? Are you going to use scientists to answer this question? If so, how many scientists? Are you going to use scientists to answer this question? If so, how many?

Right now a small group of elected non-scientists determines how many scientists should study global warming. You're certain that a few elected non-scientists will come up with a better answer than all the taxpayers combined. Do you have any scientific studies to prove this? Nope.

[Xerographica]

Yeah, it would. Private education is expensive, and very few people can afford it. The vast majority of people were not educated, or even literate, before public education became commonplace.

No, that isn't my argument. My argument is that your analogies are stupid, and you don't understand how governments, or economies, work.

Sure. And we invented this nifty thing called "language" to communicate that.

1. You acknowledge that you don't want less education.
2. You argue that the supply of education should not reflect how strongly you care about it.
3. You argue that language is how we communicate whether we want more or less education.

To be honest, it's really hard to debate somebody who is so incredibly incoherent.

[Datlofff]

Warthunder, World of Tanks and Life are all already pay2win. I don't see anything wrong about applying it to politics. Inb4 you have to purchase LiberCoins which have a strange exchange rate to vote for party stuff.

I'd say otherwise for war thunder, don't know much about world of tanks though. All the premium tanks and the eagles in the world won't stop you from getting rekt by a better pilot

[Camicon]

Yeah, it would. Private education is expensive, and very few people can afford it. The vast majority of people were not educated, or even literate, before public education became commonplace.

No, that isn't my argument. My argument is that your analogies are stupid, and you don't understand how governments, or economies, work.

Sure. And we invented this nifty thing called "language" to communicate that.

1. You acknowledge that you don't want less education.
2. You argue that the supply of education should not reflect how strongly you care about it.
3. You argue that language is how we communicate whether we want more or less education.

To be honest, it's really hard to debate somebody who is so incredibly incoherent.

1. I said that private education fails to serve society as a whole
2. I said that your analogies are stupid and you don't know what you're talking about.
3. Yeah, language is how people communicate. I'd say "case in point", but I'm honestly not sure whether or not you actually understand anything I type. Case in point.

Real rich.

[Xerographica]

Warthunder, World of Tanks and Life are all already pay2win. I don't see anything wrong about applying it to politics. Inb4 you have to purchase LiberCoins which have a strange exchange rate to vote for party stuff.

I'd say otherwise for war thunder, don't know much about world of tanks though. All the premium tanks and the eagles in the world won't stop you from getting rekt by a better pilot

I remember helping an ex with her WoW character. I'd catch fish and collect herbs. I thought it would be so cool if the WoW gold could be legitimately exchanged for real money. Then people could get paid real money to catch virtual fish and collect virtual herbs.

Are there any games like that yet?

[Salandriagado]

Kindly stop using the word "efficient" to mean something completely different to what everybody else in the world uses it to mean. Note also that the amount that people care about things, especially climate change, is not the same as where the point of diminishing returns is. In particular, the former moves around, and the latter doesn't.

If you don't like my definition of "efficient allocation" then why don't you share what you believe is the correct definition?

efficient
ɪˈfɪʃ(ə)nt/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.

Holy shit, no, a state's economy is not analogous to a meal except on the most basic "each has different components to it" level. A level of analysis which is entirely useless for everything except saying "a state's economy has different components to it".

Next: a government is like my desk.

Well, it's kinda like my desk: both are full of junk at the moment.