The Fallacy of Centrism

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

The usual opening that I use when someone makes an incredibly silly claim like 'the free market is not inherently coercive' is "from where originates ownership of natural resources?"

[EuroStralia]

Yes, it's what a fair society would do.

I'd rather live in a society that has a very high standard of living, and a very strong safety net where everyone pays based on how successful they are within the society than the society you consider "fair"

https://fee.org/articles/why-taxing-the ... gLQkfD_BwE
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... rible-idea
https://www.hoover.org/research/wealth-tax-poor-idea
https://reason.com/2022/05/03/why-a-wea ... -bad-idea/

[Picairn]

As if governments does not spend the taxed money, increasing the demand.

What does that have to do with private individuals having an incentive to spend with more money in their pockets?

[Neu California]

I'd rather live in a society that has a very high standard of living, and a very strong safety net where everyone pays based on how successful they are within the society than the society you consider "fair"

https://fee.org/articles/why-taxing-the ... gLQkfD_BwE
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... rible-idea
https://www.hoover.org/research/wealth-tax-poor-idea
https://reason.com/2022/05/03/why-a-wea ... -bad-idea/

Op-ed from a mixed level factual source, and, really, focusing on yachts?
Opinion piece
Piece written by known Libertarian Richard Epstein who makes claims not borne out by reality.
Reason is a source that's full of crap.

https://equitablegrowth.org/taxing-the- ... llionaires.
https://impakter.com/taxing-the-rich-5- ... y%20should.

Also, you don't seem to want to respond to the fact that the countries with the highest Human Development Index tend to tax the rich highly, and those rich people haven't fled their countries.

[Picairn]

This is a false dichotomy. Nobody is empowered "at the expense of the state". No firm will be allowed to imprison anyone for a few gramms of grass in their pocket. Just like nobody will be allowed to steal half of your income without your consent. Power of one man over another does not exist in a free market.

Not a false dichotomy at all. Deregulation and privatization noticeably increase the power of corporations over the state, by handing over more and more of state assets to private corporations and their wealthy owners. Are we forgetting that Coca-Cola used paramilitary groups and thugs in Colombia to intimidate workers?

"Power of one man over another does not exist in a free market." Wait until you hear about this thing called "asymmetry of information", wherein sellers hold a distinct advantage over buyers in transactions, to the point the former can use it to their advantage.

[Ancaplstan]

Literally 5 minutes of research will uncover the fact that the countries with the highest rates of taxation also happen to be the same countries with the highest standards of living and lowest social inequality.

https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/10/464

"Furthermore, we found that countries with more complex tax systems with a high tax burden perform worse on certain macroeconomic indicators, mainly in southern Europe from a geographical perspective; however, these potentially more burdensome, higher-rate tax systems of more developed countries do not put these countries at a competitive disadvantage." - really?

What really correlates with high macroeconomic indicators is economic freedom.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanedk/a ... 459874723/

[Neu California]

Literally 5 minutes of research will uncover the fact that the countries with the highest rates of taxation also happen to be the same countries with the highest standards of living and lowest social inequality.

https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/10/464

"Furthermore, we found that countries with more complex tax systems with a high tax burden perform worse on certain macroeconomic indicators, mainly in southern Europe from a geographical perspective; however, these potentially more burdensome, higher-rate tax systems of more developed countries do not put these countries at a competitive disadvantage." - really?

What really correlates with high macroeconomic indicators is economic freedom.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanedk/a ... 459874723/

I note that you said nothing about standard of living, which is what NSCR was talking about.

[Picairn]

https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/10/464

"Furthermore, we found that countries with more complex tax systems with a high tax burden perform worse on certain macroeconomic indicators, mainly in southern Europe from a geographical perspective; however, these potentially more burdensome, higher-rate tax systems of more developed countries do not put these countries at a competitive disadvantage." - really?

Do you know what the study considered "macroeconomic indicators"? Point out where in this list named economic inequality or standards of living.

– Budget deficit of the central budget in % of GDP (GGdef)
– Change in GDP per capita compared with the previous year (dGDPPpC)
– Central budget debt in % of GDP (GGdebt)
– Unemployment rate (HUR)
– Consumer Price Index (CPI)
– Change in labour productivity (GDPHRWKD)
– Foreign direct investment (FDI)
– Current balance of payments in % of GDP (BOP)
– Central budget revenues in % of GDP (GGREV)

Also:

Figure 1 shows the most common composite indicator category for a given region. The complexity of the tax system is medium in northern and western Europe, as well as in North America and the EU Member States in eastern Europe, Asia, and Oceania. A tax system with low obscurity does not have a typical geographical characteristic, while a tax system with a high degree of sophistication was a feature mainly of southern Europe and, in 2019, South America.

So Nordic countries do not have the most complex tax systems, despite having generally high tax rates.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

So Nordic countries do not have the most complex tax systems, despite having generally high tax rates.

France, Denmark, Sweden... all countries with tax burdens at 40~45% of GDP and also some of the best countries in the world to live in. Compare, e.g., the UK and the Czech Republic in the 30s, the United States in the 20s, and such great places to live in like Colombia and Mexico where tax receipts are less than 20% of national income.

The trend is muddled a bit because of resource states (states that have a low tax burden because they raise most revenue from direct state ownership of industry rather than conventional taxation, e.g. Saudi Arabia) and commerce hubs (countries that appear to have a low tax burden because their GDP is wildly inflated compared to their actual economic productivity by international financial services, e.g. Ireland and Switzerland). But even taking those into account you get a fairly clear trend when you plot, say, self-reported life satisfaction to tax rates.

Obviously, since command economies have generally failed, there must be some optimum amount of state economic power beyond which further state control of economic resources is detrimental to human well-being. But given the available evidence, I'm fairly convinced that this point lies somewhere beyond taxes at 40% of GDP.

[Ancaplstan]

Not a false dichotomy at all. Deregulation and privatization noticeably increase the power of corporations over the state, by handing over more and more of state assets to private corporations and their wealthy owners.

The less government controls, the less it matters, who controls the government. Increasing the power of government can only lead to more power in hands of lobbyists, which it always did and there are stunning amount of government regulations, that where lobbied by big business. Basically all tarrifs and licensing laws can be a good example. They limit competition in favor of domestic firms of restrict entry of news firms in favor of old ones. This is why we see almost all of the lobbying efforts of big businesses concentrated around interventionist institutions and political parties, but not those who support radical deregulation of economy.

Are we forgetting that Coca-Cola used paramilitary groups and thugs in Colombia to intimidate workers?

Firstly this is a strawman, because Columbia is anything but a hyperderegulated economy where government privatized everything.
Secondly they ended up losing the lawsuit against Coca-Cola, after the court cited a lack of evidence to link the actions of the paramilitaries to the Colombian government and Coca-Cola.

"Power of one man over another does not exist in a free market." Wait until you hear about this thing called "asymmetry of information", wherein sellers hold a distinct advantage over buyers in transactions, to the point the former can use it to their advantage.

Asymmetry of information is an inherent feature of any system with the division of labor, where people specialize on completing different tasks, instead of doing everything by themselves. So if you want to get rid of asymmetry of information you would have to abolish the division of labor altogether. But market does not leave this problem unattended, it actually allows to minimize it, since under a free exchange of information consumers are completely free to share their experiences with using the products or to consult with experts on the topic, who can provide the information about downsides and upsides of various goods and services.

But even if we close our eyes and pretend that market absolutely cannot solve the asymmetry of information, better than alternatives, (which it can) then from this we cannot conclude anything about one man having power over the other, because this is simply not the meaning if the word. Just because I know about what I'm selling, more than my customers does not give me any power over them. A power is defined here as institutionalized ability to use physical aggression or a direct threat of if to force someone to act or not act. An example of power can be found in any actions performed by government, that involve taxation, price controls, licensing, tarrifs, or any other government regulations. Also it should be noted, that self-defensive actions do not count as acts of power, which was reflected in the definition, but I still want to emphasize it.

[Ancaplstan]

As if governments does not spend the taxed money, increasing the demand.

What does that have to do with private individuals having an incentive to spend with more money in their pockets?

You claimed, that reducing taxes increases inflation, because it increases demand. This is not true, since it may increase consumer demand, but it does not increase total spending, because government will spend less money after reducing taxation, unless it decides to increase its deficit.

[Picairn]

You claimed, that reducing taxes increases inflation, because it increases demand. This is not true, since it may increase consumer demand, but it does not increase total spending, because government will spend less money after reducing taxation, unless it decides to increase its deficit.

This rests on the assumption that government spending will be cut commensurately with increased consumer spending to prevent inflation, which has rarely happened. In reality, the cuts are not enough, or they don't exist at all, or the government finds itself in an emergency and raises spending.

Measures to increase private income and consumer spending almost always lead to higher inflation as a result of increased aggregate demand.

[Floofybit]

Taxes should be much higher for the wealthy and invested into the police force, healthcare, etc. We don't need tax cuts.

[Picairn]

The less government controls, the less it matters, who controls the government. Increasing the power of government can only lead to more power in hands of lobbyists, which it always did and there are stunning amount of government regulations, that where lobbied by big business. Basically all tarrifs and licensing laws can be a good example. They limit competition in favor of domestic firms of restrict entry of news firms in favor of old ones. This is why we see almost all of the lobbying efforts of big businesses concentrated around interventionist institutions and political parties, but not those who support radical deregulation of economy.

This is utterly hilarious. The less government controls, the more power is handed over to corporations and wealthy individuals. There exists an enormous movement to deregulate and privatize in the government, supported by corporations who stand to benefit the most. Just as an example, here is Trump's deregulation team with corporate and lobbyist ties.

Firstly this is a strawman, because Columbia is anything but a hyperderegulated economy where government privatized everything.
Secondly they ended up losing the lawsuit against Coca-Cola, after the court cited a lack of evidence to link the actions of the paramilitaries to the Colombian government and Coca-Cola.

Colombia's public utilities are highly privatized. Here is another example of Chiquita Brands paying terrorist groups in Colombia and actually got fined by the US State Department for that.

Asymmetry of information is an inherent feature of any system with the division of labor, where people specialize on completing different tasks, instead of doing everything by themselves. So if you want to get rid of asymmetry of information you would have to abolish the division of labor altogether. But market does not leave this problem unattended, it actually allows to minimize it, since under a free exchange of information consumers are completely free to share their experiences with using the products or to consult with experts on the topic, who can provide the information about downsides and upsides of various goods and services.

But even if we close our eyes and pretend that market absolutely cannot solve the asymmetry of information, better than alternatives, (which it can) then from this we cannot conclude anything about one man having power over the other, because this is simply not the meaning if the word. Just because I know about what I'm selling, more than my customers does not give me any power over them. A power is defined here as institutionalized ability to use physical aggression or a direct threat of if to force someone to act or not act. An example of power can be found in any actions performed by government, that involve taxation, price controls, licensing, tarrifs, or any other government regulations. Also it should be noted, that self-defensive actions do not count as acts of power, which was reflected in the definition, but I still want to emphasize it.

This is hilariously naive. Division of labour has nothing to do with sellers withholding important information about the product from buyers for the goal of gaining an advantage in sales. Asking consumers to consult experts before buying is a nonsensical ask, very few if any people consult a health inspector before buying food, instead they rely on government-mandated labels to see for themselves. Sharing experiences rely on their ability to spread far and wide against corporate counter-propaganda for boycotts to make an actual impact.

"Power is institutionalized" It is not. It is simply the ability to make other people do what you want, whether by coercion or influence.

[Union of States of America]

now, whenever I read a post by EuroStralia, I for some strange reaon hear it in Tucker Carlson's voice.

[Major-Tom]

I have no problem with folks who consider themselves "centrist" because their beliefs are rather eclectic, where they may be rather left-wing on one issue and rather right-wing on the other.

I have some beef with people who call themselves "centrist" for the sake of it; always trying to stake out the "most moderate" approach to any given issue. That's not enlightened, that's lazy.

[Page]

I have no problem with folks who consider themselves "centrist" because their beliefs are rather eclectic, where they may be rather left-wing on one issue and rather right-wing on the other.

I have some beef with people who call themselves "centrist" for the sake of it; always trying to stake out the "most moderate" approach to any given issue. That's not enlightened, that's lazy.

More than lazy, it's cowardly. To be a moderate is to implicitly believe that our society is basically fine, that besides a tax cut here or a liberty there, things are good, that the system is just a bit of fine-tuning away from the ideal.

It's an appealing position, I suppose, because the alternative is recognizing that the state of things is profoundly, extremely, radically terrible, that we could be doing so, so much better but we don't. To recognize that takes some guts.

[Uiiop]

Centrism as a personal choice from randos i respect but pundit centrism disgusts me.

[Nantoraka]

Determining whether or not someone hates centrists is a great way to determine whether or not that person is worth engaging with on the internet. Like tankies.

[EuroStralia]

now, whenever I read a post by EuroStralia, I for some strange reaon hear it in Tucker Carlson's voice.

I'm flattered.

[Grand matrix of Dues ex machina]

I think centrism means multi alignment. I am centrist. I support environmental policies and support renewable energy. But I also support nuclear energy. I support private business and private innovation. But I also support raising taxes for affordable health and education. I support LGBT rights but I also do not support blaming every problem on white male capitalists. I live in India and here both major political parties make a fuss about caste and religion. Left and right wingers don't want to listen to each other. They are both immature. Left don't care about economy and right don't care about social issues. In 60 yrs of leftist rule we became a model democracy but our economy went into the gutter and in the new right wing rule, the economy is booming but our democracy is in danger. Just because we don't have a centrist party to balance things out.
Believe me a little bit of centrism keep democracy stable. And both parties are authoritarian on top of that. INC is authoritarian left and BJP is authoritarian right. So hell yeah. Peace

[Australian rePublic]

As an actual centrist, no I am sick to death of being strawmanned by left wingers who have no idea what we actually believe despite having no idea. No, none of what's written in the OP is correct. Not one word.

I support what works. In Australia, most of the current system works. There are parts that don't work, which I actuvely want to change. Thinking that something works=/=opposing change for the sake of it. Why change something that works? I don't understand how one can look at someone who says "the current system is good" and conclude that it means "I hate change, reee!". No, we don't oppose change. Change is good if necassery We oppose fucking up things that work. The current system works, so leave it as is. I am very much open to change to the point where I would probably even die for change, if change were necassery. But unfortunately, change ain't necassery. Don't fix what ain't broke=/=I hate wll change. How anyone can draw that conclusion is beyond me.

And gosh, that poll is so bias that it nearly gave me an aneurysm.

Right winged politics=bad, but at least they know what we centrists stand for

[Uiiop]

As an actual centrist, no I am sick to death of being strawmanned by left wingers who have no idea what we actually believe despite having no idea. No, none of what's written in the OP is correct. Not one word.

I support what works. In Australia, most of the current system works. There are parts that don't work, which I actuvely want to change. Thinking that something works=/=opposing change for the sake of it. Why change something that works? I don't understand how one can look at someone who says "the current system is good" and conclude that it means "I hate change, reee!". No, we don't oppose change. Change is good if necassery We oppose fucking up things that work. The current system works, so leave it as is. I am very much open to change to the point where I would probably even die for change, if change were necassery. But unfortunately, change ain't necassery. Don't fix what ain't broke=/=I hate wll change. How anyone can draw that conclusion is beyond me.

And gosh, that poll is so bias that it nearly gave me an aneurysm.

Right winged politics=bad, but at least they know what we centrists stand for

What's your solution for both global warming itself and how to get the political capital to implement that solution?

[El Lazaro]

As an actual centrist

Lol

[Undemocacy]

As an actual centrist, no I am sick to death of being strawmanned by left wingers who have no idea what we actually believe despite having no idea. No, none of what's written in the OP is correct. Not one word.

American "centrism" is very different from Australia centrism. I mean, imagine if someone came to Australia and said that we should consider gun ownership a fundamental right.