Republicans say poor people have it too good

[RGacky3]

They have it SOOOO good, that we have to tax them more.

ooRLVdOh7Pw

Unbelievable, they've even given up the narrative that they are against tax cuts, can ANYONE argue that they are not 100% the party of the rich and corporations.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Capitalist pigs...have they no shame? This is disgusting to me....

[Madslatter]

So how does this bullshit fit in with the Grover Norquist pledge. I'm pretty sure that was ALL tax hikes are prevented by signatories, not that it fooled any of us but I'd love to see that fucker's reaction. If any dems go along with this (and a few will) I am going to have a field day getting on the cases of my liberal friends.

[#FF0000]

okay. try it.

[RGacky3]

The tea-party is allready widely hated, as is the republican party, this just might be the straw that breaks the camels back.

The only problem is they have no where to go.

[Former Communist]

Even I as a capitalist find this ridiculous.

[CommieTroll]

Yeah, because its a luxury to be drowning in medical bills, rent, high costs of living and going to a degrading job that does not inspire you or help you creatively whatsoever.
At least its better than better than being a conservative, homophobic bigot with more money than you can spend.
Fucking Capitalist pigs, it's shit like this that makes me wonder why people still roll over for the bourgeois.

[Judicator]

can ANYONE argue that they are not 100% the party of the rich and corporations.

Why does everyone forget about the religious right?

[Le Rouge]

Why does everyone forget about the religious right?

The religious right can go straight into my ass.
Thank you for your comprehension

[Judicator]

The religious right can go straight into my ass.
Thank you for your comprehension

What?

[Le Rouge]

Firstly what do you mean by religious right? That it is justified for them to raise tax because of religious speculation?

[Le Rouge]

Oh shit. I misinterpreted your comment.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

This is absolutely disgusting

[CAleftist]

Cutting spending on the poor, raising taxes on the poor.

It has the same effect.

[rollshevik]

Yes, lets tax the people having trouble paying for food, seriously, these republicans logic makes no sense what so ever.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

You know, technically, if the Republicans did stampede the White House and implemented such taxes, we wouldn't have to pay them, if we were smart.

There is this little thing called evasion.

[rollshevik]

Lol, why not, the rich do it all the time and don't get caught. At least not until someone in power wants them behind bars for one reason or another.

[runequester]

Class warfare is alive and well. It's just only being fought by one side.

[Baseball]

The politics of it for the GOP is terrible, but the reasoning is solid; no gimmicks in the tax code. Temporary, targeted cuts are worthless; they never have the results its proponents seek. The payroll tax is supposedly for Social Security and the cut has neither stimulated the economy nor done anything to fix the shaky fiscal status of Social Security.

[Madslatter]

The politics of it for the GOP is terrible, but the reasoning is a load of shit; no gimmicks in the tax code for the poor, but forget about loopholes that help the rich evade their taxes.
Fixed that for ya!

[RichardAWilson]

The reasoning isn't solid. Reducing Marginal Rates during a recession isn't going to revive the economy because businesses and individuals are going to hoard instead of spending and investing.

Until aggregate demand is restored, the Fortune 500, which are sitting on $960 billion in surplus cash, aren't going to spend.

You're right that the temporary tax-cutting (I.e. White House Stimulus) hasn't worked. - Much for the same reason that lowering marginal tax rates wouldn't work.

Americans have used the savings (From the Payroll Tax Holiday) to pay down their bills (Charge Cards, Loans). A much more effective solution would have been making capital expenditures tax deductible (dollar for dollar) and investing in long term infrastructure.

Furthermore, TARP should have included a nationalization clause. A national commercial banking solution would have ensured that the banking system continued to provide much needed financing to farmers, small businesses and middle class consumers.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

The bottom fifty percent? They think taxing people who make less than ~$26,000 will raise money? BTW, yes, that is the median income in the US. I know, it is awful.

[RGacky3]

Why does everyone forget about the religious right?

The religious right loose all the time, the corporatocracy never does.


The politics of it for the GOP is terrible, but the reasoning is solid; no gimmicks in the tax code. Temporary, targeted cuts are worthless; they never have the results its proponents seek. The payroll tax is supposedly for Social Security and the cut has neither stimulated the economy nor done anything to fix the shaky fiscal status of Social Security.

What shaky fiscal status? Raise the cap ...

Also the reason the bottom 50% don't pay taxes is because they barely have any money, targed cuts don't work, but why not tax the rich first?

[Che a chara]

The sleazy, slimy Stuart Varney continues the demonisation and the war on the poor. He claims that the poor 'lack the richness of the spirit'. Fucking numbnuts.

Fox's Stuart Varney On The Poor: "Many Of Them Have Things, What They Lack Is The Richness Of Spirit" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108250029)

[RichardAWilson]

Fox News can go to hell.

[Tim Finnegan]

The sleazy, slimy Stuart Varney continues the demonisation and the war on the poor. He claims that the poor 'lack the richness of the spirit'. Fucking numbnuts.

Fox's Stuart Varney On The Poor: "Many Of Them Have Things, What They Lack Is The Richness Of Spirit" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108250029)
I thought Varney was meant to be a Christian of some sort or another? He needs to read more Jesus.

[Judicator]

Yes, lets tax the people having trouble paying for food, seriously, these republicans logic makes no sense what so ever.

One of the main negative impacts of tax is that it discourages work. This won't happen if you really need that next paycheck for food.



Cutting spending on the poor, raising taxes on the poor.

It has the same effect.

Nope. I might have a government program that spends $5,000 on a poor person, but he only values these services at $2,500. Taking this away only reduces their welfare by $2,500. Taxing them $5,000 would have twice the welfare reduction.


The religious right loose all the time, the corporatocracy never does.

If companies always won we wouldn't have as many regulations as we do.

[RGacky3]

One of the main negative impacts of tax is that it discourages work. This won't happen if you really need that next paycheck for food.


How does tax discourage work? Thats total bullshit, people don't work because they might starve dumb ass, people work to try and make a life. Its like like as soon as poor people manage to get middle class they just stop working.


Nope. I might have a government program that spends $5,000 on a poor person, but he only values these services at $2,500. Taking this away only reduces their welfare by $2,500. Taxing them $5,000 would have twice the welfare reduction.


WHat does that mean? "He only values these services at $2,500??" if a government program spends $5000 on a poor person, he gets $5000 of whatever it is, no one asks him what HE values it at because it does'nt amtter.

Taxing poor people takes more money out of the economy and makes it harder for people that already ahve it hard.

Are you really taking the line that poor people are just lazy?


If companies always won we wouldn't have as many regulations as we do.

You mean the regulatinos that get stripped constantly and build with purposely inserted loopholes? Look at the numbers, look at the legislation since the 80s, the corporatocracy allways wins.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Judicator, are you in college or have you just never had to have a job? Seriously, you're like the kid in forth grade that insists that Santa exists because he saw the cookies had been eaten on Christmas morning.

How does tax discourage work? I pay more in subway fare than in taxes. I pay more in bills to these wonderful phone and electric companies than to taxes. Or, are you arguing that taxes are disincentives for employers to hire more people... that's Obama's argument from the speech the other day and he's wrong too. Companies can have all the hiring bribes in the world and it won't do anything if they are sitting on their money and not investing as they naturally do during downturns.

[Judicator]

How does tax discourage work? Thats total bullshit, people don't work because they might starve dumb ass, people work to try and make a life. Its like like as soon as poor people manage to get middle class they just stop working.


The cost of leisure (say, spending a year abroad after college) is the wages you forego by not working. The higher the taxes, the less you forego, and the lower the cost leisure. Generally, when something is cheaper, in this case leisure, you consume more.



WHat does that mean? "He only values these services at $2,500??" if a government program spends $5000 on a poor person, he gets $5000 of whatever it is, no one asks him what HE values it at because it does'nt amtter.

It means that the poor person would be indifferent between having those services and $2,500 cash. If you give a poor person $5,000 worth of caviar, this is mostly a waste, since caviar is no more valuable to them than basic food staples, but costs (the government) a lot more.



You mean the regulatinos that get stripped constantly and build with purposely inserted loopholes? Look at the numbers, look at the legislation since the 80s, the corporatocracy allways wins.


Often isn't always, if you can even say that companies often win. Plenty of companies have antitrust problems (ATT/ T Mobile for example).

[RGacky3]

The cost of leisure (say, spending a year abroad after college) is the wages you forego by not working. The higher the taxes, the less you forego, and the lower the cost leisure. Generally, when something is cheaper, in this case leisure, you consume more.


What the hell? So your saying that the problem with the economy is that production is too low, people are taking too many vacations, and demand is too high and we need to stop consumption?

What planet do you live on?


It means that the poor person would be indifferent between having those services and $2,500 cash. If you give a poor person $5,000 worth of caviar, this is mostly a waste, since caviar is no more valuable to them than basic food staples, but costs (the government) a lot more.


Ok ... But the government does'nt do that, it provides social security and so on ... THings that markets do not provide.


Often isn't always, if you can even say that companies often win. Plenty of companies have antitrust problems (ATT/ T Mobile for example).

... They merged did'nt they? Yeah, they have to pass anti-trust laws, but overall, almost always the rich wing. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Aussie_Leftist]

disgusting, really.

[RGacky3]

BTW, this just shows that Judicator is'nt for low taxes bla bla bla, he's just for sucking off wealthy people and kicking poor people.

[DinodudeEpic]

Poor people in the USA......

Greasy rations that taste like crap. (McDonalds)
Losing your job
lowest living standards of the entire developed world
living in a crappy trailer or apartment
not getting a good education
teenagers taking drugs and in general being angsty
poor quality entertainment (Cheap and crappy TV shows everywhere. Crappy music.)
massive amounts of crime
zero consciousness (No union-joining, high amounts of superstitious beliefs like creationism and conspiracy theories)

Sure, the poor are doing SO good. Their living like KINGS! They are our masters. woot!
:rolleyes:

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

the rich dont have enough money. they need more, so lets tax the poor, so they can actually learn about leftism

hell, anything to speed up our overthrow.



capitalist pigs, if only Che where still alive :crying:

[RGacky3]

if only Che where still alive, or albert einstien http://www.revleft.com/vb/republicans-say-poor-t160192/revleft/smilies2/crying.gif

It would'nt make the slightest of difference.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The cost of leisure (say, spending a year abroad after college) is the wages you forego by not working. The higher the taxes, the less you forego, and the lower the cost leisure. Generally, when something is cheaper, in this case leisure, you consume more.



It means that the poor person would be indifferent between having those services and $2,500 cash. If you give a poor person $5,000 worth of caviar, this is mostly a waste, since caviar is no more valuable to them than basic food staples, but costs (the government) a lot more.



Often isn't always, if you can even say that companies often win. Plenty of companies have antitrust problems (ATT/ T Mobile for example).

Well done, you've read a business studies book.

Unfortunately, you are eschewing a vile prejudice in your comments. Fairly sure that £5,000 of caviar is equally wealthy to me as it is to Bill Gates. He'd eat it, i'd eat it. It's called sustenance. Or maybe I don't have 'richness of spirit' like he does, is that it?

But yeah, anyway, any idiot can see that regressive taxation is the thin end of the wedge.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

It would'nt make the slightest of difference.
true, but i would still like to meet him

and no, im not one of those
"ZOMG, CHE is HARDSCOPERFTW WOOT, HE ARE AWESOME!?!?!?!!!!!"

Albert Einstein would, because, if he said, ROFL, im Like LEftist, people would not think we are a joke

[Commissar Rykov]

Really isn't surprising the Republicans continue to do and say what they have always done. It isn't really that surprising they have been saying that people aren't really poor since you don't see people dying of starvation in the streets and they can afford things like refrigeration.

[Judicator]

What the hell? So your saying that the problem with the economy is that production is too low, people are taking too many vacations, and demand is too high and we need to stop consumption?

Since when is an explanation of the negative impact of taxes equivalent to an explanation of what's wrong with the economy as a whole?


Ok ... But the government does'nt do that, it provides social security and so on ... THings that markets do not provide.

It provides very expensive medical care to people who would never buy that same medical care if they were given cash instead.

Markets offer plenty of savings programs.


They merged did'nt they? Yeah, they have to pass anti-trust laws, but overall, almost always the rich wing. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The DOJ rejected it. Successful anti-trust suits are fairly common. Pharmaceutical companies, despite their best efforts, still routinely end up with billion dollar drugs rejected by the FDA. I can keep providing examples....but do you have any empirical support for "almost always" claim.

[Skooma Addict]

Markets offer plenty of savings programs.


But not everyone is smart enough to save when they are young. People who don't should be forced to save for when they are older.

[RGacky3]

Since when is an explanation of the negative impact of taxes equivalent to an explanation of what's wrong with the economy as a whole?


Because its empirically not true, look around the world.


It provides very expensive medical care to people who would never buy that same medical care if they were given cash instead.

Markets offer plenty of savings programs.


You could save a lot of money by allowing medicare to negotiate with providers, also, if they were given cash instead, your right they would get less meidcal care, because chances are they would'nt be able to afford it.

BTW, the US has a private healthcare system and it sucks compared to public ones, and you want the shitty private system to apply to older people as well?


The DOJ rejected it. Successful anti-trust suits are fairly common. Pharmaceutical companies, despite their best efforts, still routinely end up with billion dollar drugs rejected by the FDA. I can keep providing examples....but do you have any empirical support for "almost always" claim.

Just compare the wage growth in the last 40 years to corporate profits growth.

[Dimmu]

I love some research from Heritage foundation that says that almost 99% of US poor have access to fridges!!

Obviously you cant be a poor person if you have a damn fridge..

[RGacky3]

Obviously you cant be a poor person if you have a damn fridge..

The workers of the world produce all this wealth, and get a smaller and smaller percentage of what they produce, yet they cannot compain unless they rae destitute.

I bet 80 years ago right wingers were claiming the poor had it so great because they had light bulbs.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I bet 80 years ago right wingers were claiming the poor had it so great because they had light bulbs.During the depression they seriously argued that Oakiees weren't all that poor since they used cars to migrate to look for work. That's like being mugged and then when the robber doesn't take your wristwatch, he claims he gave you a watch.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I love some research from Heritage foundation that says that almost 99% of US poor have access to fridges!!

Obviously you cant be a poor person if you have a damn fridge..


Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

By Robert Rector (http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/R/Robert-Rector) and Rachel Sheffield (http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/S/Rachel-Sheffield)
July 19, 2011



Nearly two dozen dead as heat wave moves east | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-weather-idUSTRE76J5N120110720)

www.reuters.com/article/.../us-weather-idUSTRE76J5N120110720 - Jul 20, 2011 – CHICAGO (Reuters)

Notice the dates I underlined for when these were released. Nice job Heritage foundation.

"Are there no labor-houses to which they can be sent?"

"Why Scrooge, but 'tis Christmas Eve!"

[Demogorgon]

The cost of leisure (say, spending a year abroad after college) is the wages you forego by not working. The higher the taxes, the less you forego, and the lower the cost leisure. Generally, when something is cheaper, in this case leisure, you consume more.

That would be a good argument if it didn't get the relationship between work and leisure completely and utterly wrong. Leisure is often superior to work. Disentangled from technical terminology that means that if people have more money they will often take it as more leisure.

To put it in concrete terms, if you get a pay rise it is perfectly possible (and at certain income levels likely) that your response will be to work less. You can now afford what you want with less work and choose to take more time off as a result. Similarly a fall in income can make people work more so as to maintain previous consumption levels.

When it comes to the rich, they are naturally going to want to take pay rises as more leisure. Taxing them more will in all likelihood have them working more.

It means that the poor person would be indifferent between having those services and $2,500 cash.
What if it is a $5000 service the poor person values at $10000? That seems at least as likely to me and could well be an argument for increased Government expenditure.

[Demogorgon]

BTW, nobody has explicitly brought this up so I thought I would just throw it in there. Whenever right wingers claim that the poor have it good because they can afford this and that (TVs or (by Jove!) fridges) what they mean is that these goods are comparitively cheap enough that just about anyone can have them. When something is comparitively cheap, it means that they are cheap in comparison to something else. See where this is going?

The precise argument usually comes up when it is pointed out that real wages for many people have fallen since the seventies. The right points out that the poor in the seventies could not afford computers or whatever so poor people must be better off today. However all that means is that computers and the like are much cheaper relative to the things that poor people in the seventies could afford. Things that are much more expensive today. Put very simply there are may things that used to be easily within the grasp of poor people that are no longer affordable. That does not sound like the poor having it really good to me.

[Revolution starts with U]

How about this; if they have it so good, why don't you go poor and live like a king? You don't because they live like shit. It's a bullshit argument right on its face.

[Demogorgon]

How about this; if they have it so good, why don't you go poor and live like a king? You don't because they live like shit. It's a bullshit argument right on its face.
Yeah, I can't help thinking that every time this comes up. I had a debate with a Libertarian some time ago where he was claiming that people in third world countries with unpleasant jobs with long hours and poor pay actually had it good and they were there because they wanted to be and it was actually a good life for them and whatnot. I asked him if he would like to live like that. It didn't go down very well.

[Skooma Addict]

The worst thing about being poor in my opinion wouldn't even be the lack of necessities. It would be the negative social stigma which is unfairly put on poor people.

[Revolution starts with U]

For once, I agree with you Skooma :D
And it's usually that same social stigma that keeps people poor. Most of my family and friends are, or at least were, poor. There is a strong culture of "that will never happen" or "I could never do that." But when I hang out with my wealthier friends, the culture is a lot more "you can do anything you put your mind to."
And even the degenerates of the rich world (drug addicts, etc) do not have the same social stigma as the best of the poor world.
But, even tho I find their lack of social capital a large problem, the lack of necessities and/or economic capital is still a very big problem.

[Judicator]

But not everyone is smart enough to save when they are young. People who don't should be forced to save for when they are older.

Not saving is a victimless crime. What gives the government any right to force them to save? Is savings a unique example or do you think the government should force people to do whatever is "in their best interest?"


Because its empirically not true, look around the world.

You seem incapable of providing a response to the simple claim about the labor leisure tradeoff. Do you think that people have more than 24 hours in a day? Do you think that when something is more expensive, people consume more?



You could save a lot of money by allowing medicare to negotiate with providers, also, if they were given cash instead, your right they would get less meidcal care, because chances are they would'nt be able to afford it.

BTW, the US has a private healthcare system and it sucks compared to public ones, and you want the shitty private system to apply to older people as well?


Private insurance companies can and do negotiate with providers.

If you gave them money instead and they don't buy medical care, chances are they prefer cash! You say you support the poor, and here you are supporting policies to give them things they don't want.

Part of the poor US health outcomes are explained by our poor health habits. We are fat and the Japanese aren't, so it costs more to keep us healthy, but I think this topic is large enough for another thread.



Just compare the wage growth in the last 40 years to corporate profits growth.


Another non sequitur. We were talking about how often corporations come out ahead in getting favorable legislation, now you introduce the red herring of changes in profits.

[Skooma Addict]

Not saving is a victimless crime. What gives the government any right to force them to save? Is savings a unique example or do you think the government should force people to do whatever is "in their best interest?"Saving is not a unique example, but no, the government should not force people to do something just because "it is in their best interest." It is pretty much common sense that the consequences of forcing people to save are better than allowing them to go broke when they are old. The government should also force people to respect property rights, pay for national defense, pay for roads, pay for police ect. In some cases it makes sense for the government to use coercion, and in others it doesn't. Each person could decide for themselves when it is acceptable but in certain cases it should be pretty obvious.

[Judicator]

That would be a good argument if it didn't get the relationship between work and leisure completely and utterly wrong. Leisure is often superior to work. Disentangled from technical terminology that means that if people have more money they will often take it as more leisure.

To put it in concrete terms, if you get a pay rise it is perfectly possible (and at certain income levels likely) that your response will be to work less. You can now afford what you want with less work and choose to take more time off as a result. Similarly a fall in income can make people work more so as to maintain previous consumption levels.

When it comes to the rich, they are naturally going to want to take pay rises as more leisure. Taxing them more will in all likelihood have them working more.

[QUOTE=Demogorgon;2231744]What if it is a $5000 service the poor person values at $10000? That seems at least as likely to me and could well be an argument for increased Government expenditure.

Then they would have bought it already. If they can't afford it, then implicitly the stuff they bought previously (say food) was worth more than this supposed "$10,000 value" item.

At best, that's an argument for giving them cash rather than benefits, since with cash they will avoid spending on things that they don't value and spending only on things that they do value.


How about this; if they have it so good, why don't you go poor and live like a king? You don't because they live like shit. It's a bullshit argument right on its face.

Say I make $200k. A person making $100k has a comfortable life, but I wouldn't want to be him. Your argument is terrible.



Yeah, I can't help thinking that every time this comes up. I had a debate with a Libertarian some time ago where he was claiming that people in third world countries with unpleasant jobs with long hours and poor pay actually had it good and they were there because they wanted to be and it was actually a good life for them and whatnot. I asked him if he would like to live like that. It didn't go down very well.

"Good" is compatible with "worse than me."

[RGacky3]

You seem incapable of providing a response to the simple claim about the labor leisure tradeoff. Do you think that people have more than 24 hours in a day? Do you think that when something is more expensive, people consume more?


When people have more disposable income they consume more.

BTW, your not addressing the point I was talking about whats wrong around the world is that that taxes are too high, not at all, its the opposite, that wealth is too concentrated.


Private insurance companies can and do negotiate with providers.

Sure, and so should public insurance companies, the reason the republicans banned that was plain and simply just to make public insurance more expensive to justify privatizing it.


If you gave them money instead and they don't buy medical care, chances are they prefer cash! You say you support the poor, and here you are supporting policies to give them things they don't want.


So welfare? I'm saying public insurance can run much much better than private insurance, so we should have public, and that public insurance should be non-profit, overall the poor would be better off that way, than juts getting cahs and having to fend for themselves in a market stacked against them.

If you aks the poor if they'd prefer welfare or affordable/free healthcare ... I'm guessing they'd prefer the latter.


Part of the poor US health outcomes are explained by our poor health habits. We are fat and the Japanese aren't, so it costs more to keep us healthy, but I think this topic is large enough for another thread.


The japanese have public healthcare, public policy canæt change individual habits, unless your an authoritarian, but it can change the healthcare system.


Another non sequitur. We were talking about how often corporations come out ahead in getting favorable legislation, now you introduce the red herring of changes in profits.

regulations getting stripped over the last 40 years, markets opening up in the third world for corporate exploitation, corporate taxes dropping and loopholes being inserted .... I don't know how you wnat me to prove this, this is pretty much a given.

[Demogorgon]

Then they would have bought it already. If they can't afford it, then implicitly the stuff they bought previously (say food) was worth more than this supposed "$10,000 value" item.Would they? It is perfectly possible that they wouldn't be able to afford it as the price would rise if they had to buy it themselves. By this I mean that it is not neutral whether the government buys something or individuals buy something even if the Government is giving them money to do so and in many cases it is cheaper for the Government to do so. Healthcare is a good example. In this country the Government provides all healthcare (except optical and dental care which is just subsidised). It doesn't give us any money to buy it, it just provides us with a health service to use as needed. It costs the Government far less to provide this than it would private individuals as can be seen by the cost difference between here and places like America. Simply giving everyone the amount of money the Government spends on our healthcare would make us all worse of as the cost of healthcare would rise.

The same is true of other services as well. More recently we have found it is the case with education. The Swedish Government offers parents vouchers to send their children to private schools. The outcome is that is simply costs more to provide an equal or often inferior service than when children go to Government run schools.


At best, that's an argument for giving them cash rather than benefits, since with cash they will avoid spending on things that they don't value and spending only on things that they do value.

Sometimes it is better to give cash. Cash benefits are better than food stamps for example, but in many cases it is better to provide services as I demonstrated above.

Moreover people don't always spend on what they value most, there are a variety of different reasons people spend money and maximising utility is only one and not always the most important. You sound like you are in the early stages of an economics course. Things aren't as simple as the basic models you are given at the start and people are not simply rational actors. If your argument is that everyone is best off by being left to prsue their own interests you are simply wrong as that empirically does not maximise utility. Of course I know perfectly well that you are shortly going to abandon that line of argument and shift to value based arguments around a perverted notion of "liberty", but for the time being what you have offered as an argument simply isn't true.


"Good" is compatible with "worse than me."
That isn't what I asked him though. I didn't ask him if he would actively seek to change his current lifestyle for that one. Simply if he would be happy to live like that. Of course he wasn't, he then claimed that was because people in third world countries had different preferences from him and liked longer hours and lower pay. Evidently simply asking them what they wanted was not a good means of working out what people want.

[piet11111]

But not everyone is smart enough to save when they are young. People who don't should be forced to save for when they are older.

Not everyone is smart enough ?

What about those that do not make enough to actually save up money ?

The problem with being young is that you do not have shit and are paid less then the people that already have a few years at the company in their pocket.
You need to get a place to live insurance furniture a car food etc etc and then people also expect you to be able to save up money ?

[NeoSigurd]

They have it SOOOO good, that we have to tax them more.

ooRLVdOh7Pw

Unbelievable, they've even given up the narrative that they are against tax cuts, can ANYONE argue that they are not 100% the party of the rich and corporations.

I will argue they aren't 100% the party of the rich, more like 50%, the other 50% is the democrats. All of them are just part of the game, an unyielding specter to give the people the semblance of freedom when in fact, while they may not be slave, they are indentured servants at best and possibly even serfs.

[Revolution starts with U]

You seem incapable of providing a response to the simple claim about the labor leisure tradeoff. Do you think that people have more than 24 hours in a day? Do you think that when something is more expensive, people consume more?

I smoke more than I did when I first started smoking, even tho they have gotten more expensive and I have seen no meaningful increase in my income.
So yes, sometimes people consume more when things are more expensive.



Say I make $200k. A person making $100k has a comfortable life, but I wouldn't want to be him. Your argument is terrible.

Actually :lol: (and I didnt expect you to be smart enough to realize this) but that only strengthens my argument that poor is a relative term to rich. It does not exist on its own.
So what a poor person now lives better than many nobles during feudalism.. is it how YOU want to live? If not, then don't make the argument that they have it too good.

[Judicator]

Saving is not a unique example, but no, the government should not force people to do something just because "it is in their best interest." It is pretty much common sense that the consequences of forcing people to save are better than allowing them to go broke when they are old. The government should also force people to respect property rights, pay for national defense, pay for roads, pay for police ect. In some cases it makes sense for the government to use coercion, and in others it doesn't. Each person could decide for themselves when it is acceptable but in certain cases it should be pretty obvious.

So what's your argument for forced saving? You are just saying that "it's common sense that it's in their best interest," which is precisely the argument you just said was insufficient to warrant forced savings.

The list you've provided contains what are arguably public goods (non-rival and non-excludable goods). Private savings isn't a public good.


I smoke more than I did when I first started smoking, even tho they have gotten more expensive and I have seen no meaningful increase in my income.
So yes, sometimes people consume more when things are more expensive.

You are saying that because you smoke more while prices went up, prices caused you to smoke more? In other words, you thought "Wow, now that it's $8/pack rather than $4, I should smoke more?"


Actually :lol: (and I didnt expect you to be smart enough to realize this) but that only strengthens my argument that poor is a relative term to rich. It does not exist on its own.
So what a poor person now lives better than many nobles during feudalism.. is it how YOU want to live? If not, then don't make the argument that they have it too good.

Haha, you're the idiot. 100k is worse than 200k regardless of what other people are making.



When people have more disposable income they consume more.

BTW, your not addressing the point I was talking about whats wrong around the world is that that taxes are too high, not at all, its the opposite, that wealth is too concentrated.

You didn't address the point about taxes. Quid pro quo I suppose.

"Whats wrong with the world" is a moral judgment. I'm just talking about maximizing productivity and not distorting incentives.



If you aks the poor if they'd prefer welfare or affordable/free healthcare ... I'm guessing they'd prefer the latter.


Typical liberal arrogance, thinking you know what's best for everyone else. Free healthcare is economically equivalent to welfare, but with welfare you leave them the freedom to choose how to spend the money.



Sure, and so should public insurance companies, the reason the republicans banned that was plain and simply just to make public insurance more expensive to justify privatizing it.


Why should public health insurance companies exist at all? Do we also need public life insurance?



regulations getting stripped over the last 40 years, markets opening up in the third world for corporate exploitation, corporate taxes dropping and loopholes being inserted .... I don't know how you wnat me to prove this, this is pretty much a given.


If it's a given, why is it so difficult to prove? for example, do you think the total number of pages of active regulations have increased or decreased since 1960? We have a high effective corporate tax rate by international standards, in spite of all of this corporate control you're claiming...

[Decommissioner]

Yeah, I can't help thinking that every time this comes up. I had a debate with a Libertarian some time ago where he was claiming that people in third world countries with unpleasant jobs with long hours and poor pay actually had it good and they were there because they wanted to be and it was actually a good life for them and whatnot. I asked him if he would like to live like that. It didn't go down very well.

This also reminds me of a libertarian person I work with. Libertarians and right wingers in general seem to have a disconnect when it comes to their situation and the realities of others. That is "the poor have it easy!" while never considering what they would do if they themselves were actually poor.

The person I worked with had a bumper sticker that makes me laugh every time I think about it. It said "want to fix a problem? Start a business" :laugh: Makes me think "Yeah right dude, thats why you're working the same shit job I am? Why don't you start a business then if its so easy? Thats surely why I am not a business owner myself, it isn't because I lack the investment money but because I just enjoy living paycheck to paycheck!" It's unreal the mental loops right wingers have to go through to justify their ideology.

[Os Cangaceiros]

being poor is actually pretty expensive (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/08/america-s-poverty-tax-how-the-working-poor-get-stiffed.html)

[TheGeekySocialist]

Republicans are scum of the earth rats.

[Revolution starts with U]

You are saying that because you smoke more while prices went up, prices caused you to smoke more? In other words, you thought "Wow, now that it's $8/pack rather than $4, I should smoke more?"
That's not what I said at all, and you know it. So.. nice try, I guess.
But prices did go up and I consume more. I guess that really puts a damper on your idea that it doesn't happen.


Haha, you're the idiot. 100k is worse than 200k regardless of what other people are making.
Ya, and if you're the only one making 100k, than there is no better. So, once again, "rich" and "poor" are relative to each other.


Typical liberal arrogance,
You really showed your (lack of) intelligence on this one :rolleyes:

[Demogorgon]

You are saying that because you smoke more while prices went up, prices caused you to smoke more? In other words, you thought "Wow, now that it's $8/pack rather than $4, I should smoke more?"

Cigarettes wouldn't be my choice of example, though I suppose they could be if he was previously using other tobacco products, but there are plenty of cases where an increase in price directly causes people to buy more of it.


Typical liberal arrogance, thinking you know what's best for everyone else. Free healthcare is economically equivalent to welfare, but with welfare you leave them the freedom to choose how to spend the money.

Rather than accuse people of arrogance in presuming to know what people want, why not stop doing that yourself and actually ask people what they prefer? Opinion polls and voting patterns show things like publicly funded healthcare to be extremely popular. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that in this country it is the single most popular service. Full stop.

Moreover as I explained to you scrapping the service and giving people the money will make them worse off as the price of the service rises when the Government stops funding it.

[RGacky3]

"Whats wrong with the world" is a moral judgment.

No no no, I mean whats wrong with the eocnomy, why is it in a slump, why have economies ever crashed? Not taxes.


I'm just talking about maximizing productivity and not distorting incentives.


High income taxes on the rich actually incentives reinvestment rather than just paying yourself a bunch.

Poor people will work the same amount making more money, because they want to be middle class (obviously), even if they did work less, that would actually be good because we have massiave unemployment.

Look at worker productivity in countries where workers are heavily unionized and paid well, they are pretty damn high, and guess what, they also have good economies due to high demand.


Typical liberal arrogance, thinking you know what's best for everyone else. Free healthcare is economically equivalent to welfare, but with welfare you leave them the freedom to choose how to spend the money.


Errr no, its not what I think, its polls, poll after poll after poll shows that Americans want national healthcare.

Free healthcare is not welfare, its the commons, the commons is not welfare, its a society saying healthcare does not belong in the market place and it should be something that belongs to the commons, If free healthcare is welfare then I guess so are public parks.

What is welfare is voutchers, its welfare to healthcare corporations.


Why should public health insurance companies exist at all? Do we also need public life insurance?


Why should public health insurance companies exist? Because they are more efficient and give better results than private health insruance companies, public life insurnance? Sure if it workes better than private life insurance.

But I think both things belong in the commons.


If it's a given, why is it so difficult to prove? for example, do you think the total number of pages of active regulations have increased or decreased since 1960? We have a high effective corporate tax rate by international standards, in spite of all of this corporate control you're claiming...

We have one of the lowest corporate taxes paid though, because our corporate tax code is riddled with loopholes.

BTW, not all regulation is anti-corporate. But since the 1980s reagen and then clinton stripped away a ton of financial regulations, free trade agreements which mainly benefited corporations were signed.

There are tons and tons of legislation from 1970 to now, I don't know if you want a list.

[Che a chara]

So much for the right-wing propaganda of Obama's so-called "socialist distribution of wealth". It certainly hasn't trickled down to the 46.2million (who 'have it good') in poverty. - 'but let's fucking tax them some more anyway' :rolleyes:


Number of Americans in poverty hits record high (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14903732)

The number of Americans living in poverty rose to 46.2 million last year, nearly one in six people, according to the US Census Bureau's annual report.

The 2010 data shows the poverty rate at 15.1%, from 14.3% in 2009. The number of Americans without health insurance also rose slightly to 49.9 million.

The poverty rate was the highest since 1983, and tied with the level in 1993.

The number of Americans living below the poverty line has now risen for four years in a row.

The US definition of poverty is an annual income of $22,314 (£14,129), or less for a family of four, and $11,139 for a single person.

More poor children

The Census Bureau data also showed that poverty among black and Hispanic people was much higher than for the overall US population last year - at 27.4% and 26.6% respectively.

Outside of the poverty line, the average annual US household income fell 2.3% in 2010 to $49,445 (£31,228).

Even younger Americans were also strongly affected. Twenty-two percent of those under 18 were living under the poverty line - up from from 20.7% in 2009.

Reacting to the data, the Children's Leadership Council, an advocacy group, said: "The rising numbers of children living in poverty is a direct result of the choices made by political leaders who put billionaires before kids. America's children should be our top priority."

Among regions, the South had the highest poverty rate at 16.9% and the highest percentage without health insurance, 19.1%.

'Nobody hiring'

Mississippi had the highest share of poor people, at 22.7%, followed by Louisiana, the District of Columbia, Georgia, New Mexico and Arizona.

At the other end of the scale, New Hampshire had the lowest share, at 6.6%.

The slight rise in the number of people without health insurance - up by nearly one million - was mostly caused by losses of employer-provided medical cover in the weakened economy.

Congress passed a health overhaul last year to deal with rising numbers of the uninsured, but the main provisions do not take effect until 2014.

The figures compound a stagnant US jobs report in August, when the unemployment rate was at 9.1% for the second straight month.

In Fort Washington, Maryland, mother-of-five Nekisha Brooks told of her struggle to find work since being laid off from her job at telecommunications firm AT&T several months ago.

Ms Brooks told the Associated Press news agency: "I've been putting in job applications every day and calling around, from housekeeping to customer service to admin or waitresses, but nobody seems to be hiring right now."

Of the 6 worse off the states mentioned 5 are currently classified Republican -- Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, New Mexico and Arizona -- while New Hampshire, which had the lowest percentage of poor, is currently a blue state.

[Judicator]

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. So.. nice try, I guess.
But prices did go up and I consume more. I guess that really puts a damper on your idea that it doesn't happen.


My idea is that higher prices CAUSE lower consumption. The only alternative to this (what you must be claiming, since you are rejecting my claim) are that prices have no effect on consumption, or that prices CAUSE higher consumption.



Ya, and if you're the only one making 100k, than there is no better. So, once again, "rich" and "poor" are relative to each other.


If you're making 100k, any number that's larger is better... You might think you are rich (since you know nothing else), but that doesn't make it true.

If you're on the brink of starvation you're poor, regardless of what other people are making. Even if you are the "richest" among a bunch of starving people, you are still poor in an absolute sense.

Anyway, if you're saying that rich and poor are relative, they are relative to a particular group. What's the correct group to select for this comparison?


Cigarettes wouldn't be my choice of example, though I suppose they could be if he was previously using other tobacco products, but there are plenty of cases where an increase in price directly causes people to buy more of it.

Name a few common examples. Then publish an econ paper because they are generally very rare.


Rather than accuse people of arrogance in presuming to know what people want, why not stop doing that yourself and actually ask people what they prefer? Opinion polls and voting patterns show things like publicly funded healthcare to be extremely popular. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that in this country it is the single most popular service. Full stop.

So when we talk about "what people want" we are talking about goods and services, not laws. Obviously I disagree with many people about which laws should be passed, but I am not claiming that they agree with me on the correct policy. I'm saying they can keep their incomes and spend it on whatever they choose, without making any claim as to what choice is best.


Moreover as I explained to you scrapping the service and giving people the money will make them worse off as the price of the service rises when the Government stops funding it.

Let's consider a simple example:

Suppose the government subsidizes $100 dental checkups to the tune of $80 per checkup. Everybody gets two checkups a year and pays $40.

Now you stop funding checkups and give everyone $160 back. Now, whoever keeps getting a checkup is still out only $40 net, so they are no worse off. However, those that get fewer checkups, and spend the money on other things, i.e. they are better off.

[Revolution starts with U]

My idea is that higher prices CAUSE lower consumption. The only alternative to this (what you must be claiming, since you are rejecting my claim) are that prices have no effect on consumption, or that prices CAUSE higher consumption.

I am rejecting the claim that higher prices always cause lower consumption. They may, or they may not. But it's not any kind of law.




If you're making 100k, any number that's larger is better... You might think you are rich (since you know nothing else), but that doesn't make it true.

If you're on the brink of starvation you're poor, regardless of what other people are making. Even if you are the "richest" among a bunch of starving people, you are still poor in an absolute sense.

Ya, that's just now how it works w people and societies. Sorry to say it, but that's really what's important. Rich and poor are relative. The guy in the ghetto who actually owns his house is known as the rich guy of the neighborhood... even if he only makes 50k.

Anyway, if you're saying that rich and poor are relative, they are relative to a particular group. What's the correct group to select for this comparison?
They are relative to each other, at any given moment.

[Demogorgon]

Name a few common examples. Then publish an econ paper because they are generally very rare.

Off the top of my head designer goods, bus and train journeys and staple foods in poorer countries. These aren't the norm, but they aren't vanishingly rare either.


So when we talk about "what people want" we are talking about goods and services, not laws. Obviously I disagree with many people about which laws should be passed, but I am not claiming that they agree with me on the correct policy. I'm saying they can keep their incomes and spend it on whatever they choose, without making any claim as to what choice is best.

But it has already been shown to you that people don't want that policy much of the time. You are telling people that they must adopt what you want in the name of what you claim they want? Not a very strong position.


Let's consider a simple example:

Suppose the government subsidizes $100 dental checkups to the tune of $80 per checkup. Everybody gets two checkups a year and pays $40.

Now you stop funding checkups and give everyone $160 back. Now, whoever keeps getting a checkup is still out only $40 net, so they are no worse off. However, those that get fewer checkups, and spend the money on other things, i.e. they are better off.
Yes that's fine so long as we are making up examples, but in the real world dental checkups might become much more expensive.

For instance in the US healthcare (in terms of total cost per capita from whatever source) is more than twice as expensive as in Britain. Britain and the US are of fairly similar economic development. Services are usually a bit cheaper in the US but prices are generally comparable. Healthcare in Britain is of slightly higher quality than that of the US, but we'll just call it about equal for the sake of argument.

The difference in price comes from the fact that it is inherently far more expensive for the private sector to provide healthcare than it is for the public sector. In 2007 figures, the cost of healthcare in Britain was around two and a half thousand dollars per capita. In America it was around six thousand. if Britain were to stop providing free healthcare and instead give people the two and a half thousand dollars (obviously we use Sterling here, these are conversions), then presuming prices only rose to American levels (as I say services cost more here) people would on average be three and a half thousand dollars worse off. Who benefits there?

[Judicator]

I am rejecting the claim that higher prices always cause lower consumption. They may, or they may not. But it's not any kind of law.

So please provide an example where higher prices do not cause any change in consumption, or cause lower consumption.


Ya, that's just now how it works w people and societies. Sorry to say it, but that's really what's important. Rich and poor are relative. The guy in the ghetto who actually owns his house is known as the rich guy of the neighborhood... even if he only makes 50k.

What are you saying, that people desiring to be "rich" only want to be rich compared to their neighbors? I can move to Mexico and be richer than my neighbors. Are you saying that the person with 2 cows in a village where everyone else has 1 cow, is rich, even if everyone lives in abject poverty?


They are relative to each other, at any given moment.

What? Relative to who?


Off the top of my head designer goods, bus and train journeys and staple foods in poorer countries. These aren't the norm, but they aren't vanishingly rare either.

Let's take a staple food...corn. If the price of corn goes up in a poor country people will eat more wheat and less corn, same idea on bus service etc. Designer goods are expensive, but if doubling prices can produce increased sales for designer goods, why don't all designers double their prices?


But it has already been shown to you that people don't want that policy much of the time. You are telling people that they must adopt what you want in the name of what you claim they want? Not a very strong position.

Again, we're talking about goods and services, not laws. I would oppose wealth transfers from rich to poor on the basis of property rights, not because I'm claiming that the poor don't want money...


Yes that's fine so long as we are making up examples, but in the real world dental checkups might become much more expensive.

For instance in the US healthcare (in terms of total cost per capita from whatever source) is more than twice as expensive as in Britain. Britain and the US are of fairly similar economic development. Services are usually a bit cheaper in the US but prices are generally comparable. Healthcare in Britain is of slightly higher quality than that of the US, but we'll just call it about equal for the sake of argument.

The difference in price comes from the fact that it is inherently far more expensive for the private sector to provide healthcare than it is for the public sector. In 2007 figures, the cost of healthcare in Britain was around two and a half thousand dollars per capita. In America it was around six thousand. if Britain were to stop providing free healthcare and instead give people the two and a half thousand dollars (obviously we use Sterling here, these are conversions), then presuming prices only rose to American levels (as I say services cost more here) people would on average be three and a half thousand dollars worse off. Who benefits there?

In the real world I paid $100 for a dental checkup. We can talk about where prices might move, but let's talk about reality, where prices are now.

60% of US health spend is publicly funded, so it's hardly a public vs. private comparison. Who is to say its the private sector to blame, rather than the fact that the US does not really act as a monopsony when buying medical products, while the UK does. You're comparing more efficient government with less efficient government healthcare.

Let's consider a specific example of private sector medical care - LASIK. This is essentially unpaid for by government, yet costs have gone way down over time and technology has gotten better.

Do you think healthcare is unique in govt being able to provide it cheaper, or do you think if the federal government ran grocery stores they would also cost less?

[Revolution starts with U]

So please provide an example where higher prices do not cause any change in consumption, or cause lower consumption.

I did




What are you saying, that people desiring to be "rich" only want to be rich compared to their neighbors? I can move to Mexico and be richer than my neighbors. Are you saying that the person with 2 cows in a village where everyone else has 1 cow, is rich, even if everyone lives in abject poverty?

To put it simply, yes. As the saying goes; what wo/man would take all the treasures in the world if they had no one to share it with? I don't claim it as any kind of law, but yes, generally the desire to be rich is more accurately summed up as the desire to be better than your neighbor.




What? Relative to who?

To each other. Must I say it a fourth time?

[Demogorgon]

Let's take a staple food...corn. If the price of corn goes up in a poor country people will eat more wheat and less corn, same idea on bus service etc. Designer goods are expensive, but if doubling prices can produce increased sales for designer goods, why don't all designers double their prices?

For someone who has piously preached the virtue of the economics you have learned, you are now arguing against it. I appreciate that you are obviously very early into your economics course, but you should really have had a class on "perverse demand curves" following the one on "normal" ones. The examples I gave off the top of my head came straight off the top of my head because they are the standard textbook examples I learned way back when I was fourteen.

To turn to your claims, I can understand why you were confused about the first two examples, but a moments thought should have told you why I mentioned designer clothing. Why do you think designer jeans cost so much more than a perfectly good own brand pair from the supermarket? Such goods are called "goods of ostentation", people want them because of the high price tag.

As for staple goods, in a poor country alternatives are not always available. For an example in nineteenth century Ireland when the cost of potatoes went up, people consumed more as the rising price meant they could no longer afford things like meat and to compensate for this they bought more potatoes.

The last example was train journeys. The technical term for this is "inferior goods". If they become cheap enough, people use the savings from their train journeys to sometimes travel by Taxi or similar and hence will use the train less often.


Again, we're talking about goods and services, not laws. I would oppose wealth transfers from rich to poor on the basis of property rights, not because I'm claiming that the poor don't want money...

No, you are being inconsistent. You are saying people would be better off if they were simply given money rather than provided services as letting people always leads to the best outcomes. However we find out that asking what people want actually conflicts with another tenant of your faith. You can't have it both ways.


In the real world I paid $100 for a dental checkup. We can talk about where prices might move, but let's talk about reality, where prices are now.

60% of US health spend is publicly funded, so it's hardly a public vs. private comparison. Who is to say its the private sector to blame, rather than the fact that the US does not really act as a monopsony when buying medical products, while the UK does. You're comparing more efficient government with less efficient government healthcare.Not really. Healthcare in the US is provided by the market with the Government one of the participants. The fact that the cost to the US Government alone per capita is well above the entire per capita cost of the NHS is a good example of why the market should not be involved in health provision.

I know some zealots say the problem is too much Government involvement in the US, but that doesn't stand up to those pesky things called facts. In terms of cost of provision the US ranks behind every single developed country with Government funded healthcare.

Incidentally Universal Healthcare systems that use market provisions (that is to say compulsory insurance with Government coverage for the poor) also generally cost a hell of a lot more than those systems where the Government provides all healthcare.


Let's consider a specific example of private sector medical care - LASIK. This is essentially unpaid for by government, yet costs have gone way down over time and technology has gotten better.
Laser surgery has become cheaper and better because technology improves, not because it is left to the market. In this country such surgery is sometimes provided by the NHS and sometimes isn't. Essentially if there is a risk of the patient going blind or otherwise developing a disability the NHS provides it. If it is just as an alternative to wearing glasses or contact lenses, you pay for it yourself and get it through your optician. I believe it costs the NHS less to do it than it costs the private providers.

You didn't pick a very good example of something that has done well without Government intervention BTW. A considerable part of the technology was invented in the Soviet Union. You could hardly have had a Government [i[more[/i] involved.


Do you think healthcare is unique in govt being able to provide it cheaper, or do you think if the federal government ran grocery stores they would also cost less?
No I don't think healthcare is unique. I briefly mentioned education as another example the other day. Other examples include railways, postal services, sometimes heavy industries and so forth. I would not consider grocery stores to be one of these things (though I don't want them left to the capitalist market either), but supermarket chains may well be better if at least some of them were publicly run.

[Judicator]

I did


Your example of "high prices and cigarette purchases happen together" is not an example of higher cigarette prices causing higher consumption. Even you say so yourself:

I said: "You are saying that because you smoke more while prices went up, prices caused you to smoke more?"
You said "That's not what I said at all, and you know it."



To put it simply, yes.


This is simply false. Someone who is starving is poor, even if they are "less starving" than someone else. You can say they are richer than someone else, but that does not mean they are rich.



To each other. Must I say it a fourth time?


As above, the destitute are poor because they are destitute, not because their annual incomes are lower than those living in the west. If westerners all disappeared one day, they would still be destitute.


For someone who has piously preached the virtue of the economics you have learned, you are now arguing against it.

As for staple goods, in a poor country alternatives are not always available. For an example in nineteenth century Ireland when the cost of potatoes went up, people consumed more as the rising price meant they could no longer afford things like meat and to compensate for this they bought more potatoes.


Lol I'm familiar with giffin goods, the problem is that they are rare at best and could be nonexistent. The best examples economists have come up with are exceedingly rare, like potatoes during the irish potato famine you mention.



Why do you think designer jeans cost so much more than a perfectly good own brand pair from the supermarket? Such goods are called "goods of ostentation", people want them because of the high price tag.

Since we seem to like to use econ terms in quotes, the term for these is "Veblen goods" which are distinct from "Giffen goods." For a veblen good, people like it because of its price. For a giffen good, if you raise the price then quantity demanded goes up. This is a subtle distinction, so it’s not surprising you missed it. If you sold Ferraris for $50,000, they would fly off the shelves (so they aren’t giffen since quantity demanded goes up), but status-seeking rich people would probably choose a different luxury brand.


The last example was train journeys. The technical term for this is "inferior goods". If they become cheap enough, people use the savings from their train journeys to sometimes travel by Taxi or similar and hence will use the train less often.

Maybe if you use enough econ jargon you'll be right. Wait...nope. Inferior good means you consume less as income rises.


No, you are being inconsistent. You are saying people would be better off if they were simply given money rather than provided services as letting people always leads to the best outcomes. However we find out that asking what people want actually conflicts with another tenant of your faith. You can't have it both ways.

I am saying people are always as well off or better off with cash (specifically, they are better off having the cash price of a service than having the service). You are saying that by asking people what they want, sometimes they don’t want cash. Your statement is inconsistent with mine, and simply wrong. If people prefer the service, they can just buy the service with the cash given.


Not really. Healthcare in the US is provided by the market with the Government one of the participants.

Do you really think the UK invents and builds all of its own medical devices? This would be getting the private market out of health provision. They have a single payer system (100% government) versus the US with medicare/medicaid plus private insurance.


The fact that the cost to the US Government alone per capita is well above the entire per capita cost of the NHS is a good example of why the market should not be involved in health provision.

Because the US government is spending as much as the NHS on healthcare with worse results, the US should therefore spend more? The US would somehow reduce costs by preventing private companies from selling insurance?


Laser surgery has become cheaper and better because technology improves, not because it is left to the market. In this country such surgery is sometimes provided by the NHS and sometimes isn't. Essentially if there is a risk of the patient going blind or otherwise developing a disability the NHS provides it. If it is just as an alternative to wearing glasses or contact lenses, you pay for it yourself and get it through your optician. I believe it costs the NHS less to do it than it costs the private providers.

Technology has increased across the medical field, LASIK serves as an example of what happens to costs when people who are spending their own money care about prices.
Look at medical tourism…there is clearly an unmet need for cheaper, lower quality care, without burdensome government regulation. Why should the government decide what price-quality balance is best for everyone?


You didn't pick a very good example of something that has done well without Government intervention BTW. A considerable part of the technology was invented in the Soviet Union.

LASIK costs haven’t come down over time because of Soviet involvement, are you claiming they would have?


No I don't think healthcare is unique. I briefly mentioned education as another example the other day. Other examples include railways, postal services, sometimes heavy industries and so forth. I would not consider grocery stores to be one of these things (though I don't want them left to the capitalist market either), but supermarket chains may well be better if at least some of them were publicly run.

Heavy industry lol. East germany sure was a lot more productive than west germany.
Railways? Amtrak is a disaster, compared to private rail that’s profitable enough for Warren Buffet to invest.
Publicly run grocery stores? Look at the Soviet Union lol. Or for a less stereotypical example, the Pennsylvania liquor stores, which consumers overwhelmingly dislike (short hours, limited selection).

[Revolution starts with U]

Your example of "high prices and cigarette purchases happen together" is not an example of higher cigarette prices causing higher consumption. Even you say so yourself:

I said: "You are saying that because you smoke more while prices went up, prices caused you to smoke more?"
You said "That's not what I said at all, and you know it."

Ya, except I was never talking about rising prices causing more consumption. You said "Do you think that when something is more expensive, people consume more?"
My answer was that higher prices do not always cause lower consumption, sometimes things get more expensive and still people consume more.
You are really being quite the sophist about this....




This is simply false. Someone who is starving is poor, even if they are "less starving" than someone else. You can say they are richer than someone else, but that does not mean they are rich.

If everyone around you is starving, and you are not, I gaurantee you will be known as the rich guy in the neighborhood.
There is no such thing as absolute poverty. Only a sith deals in absolutes.




As above, the destitute are poor because they are destitute, not because their annual incomes are lower than those living in the west. If westerners all disappeared one day, they would still be destitute.

But would they be poor? If they had the highest living standards they would be referred to as the rich people of the world. Medieval peasants lived better than some in the overexploited world do today, are you saying they were rich?




Do you really think the UK invents and builds all of its own medical devices? This would be getting the private market out of health provision. They have a single payer system (100% government) versus the US with medicare/medicaid plus private insurance.

I find it funny the all or nothing approach of the right wing. You know, the states have been privatising and reducing the government (at least the parts responsible to the people) for decades now and shit has gotten far worse. And invariably the right wing response is "it's because we didn't go far enough."

[Judicator]

Ya, except I was never talking about rising prices causing more consumption. You said "Do you think that when something is more expensive, people consume more?"
My answer was that higher prices do not always cause lower consumption, sometimes things get more expensive and still people consume more.
You are really being quite the sophist about this....


Okay, you weren't, I was. Lots of hot air for nothing.

Statements on econ behavior are made "all else equal." Obviously if things go up in price and demand shifts, you don't know what's going to happen.



If everyone around you is starving, and you are not, I gaurantee you will be known as the rich guy in the neighborhood.
There is no such thing as absolute poverty. Only a sith deals in absolutes.


You guarantee it? Have you lived in such a community, or have any evidence to support this claim?

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the term "absolute poverty," look it up anywhere. There's nothing fake about starvation.



If everyone around you is starving, and you are not, I gaurantee you will be known as the rich guy in the neighborhood.
There is no such thing as absolute poverty. Only a sith deals in absolutes.





But would they be poor? If they had the highest living standards they would be referred to as the rich people of the world. Medieval peasants lived better than some in the overexploited world do today, are you saying they were rich?


The destitute are poor by definition.

Only someone with a relative definition of rich/poor would have to say the medieval peasants are "rich" if they are richer than other groups of people.



You know, the states have been privatising and reducing the government (at least the parts responsible to the people) for decades now and shit has gotten far worse. And invariably the right wing response is "it's because we didn't go far enough."


The states have been reducing the government? Lol well it sure isn't showing up in government spending statistics.

[Demogorgon]

Lol I'm familiar with giffin goods, the problem is that they are rare at best and could be nonexistent. The best examples economists have come up with are exceedingly rare, like potatoes during the irish potato famine you mention.
Nah, you just looked them up on Wikipedia. That's why the definitions you give are all based on the limited wikipedia pages (I looked over them just there).


Since we seem to like to use econ terms in quotes, the term for these is "Veblen goods" which are distinct from "Giffen goods." For a veblen good, people like it because of its price. For a giffen good, if you raise the price then quantity demanded goes up. This is a subtle distinction, so it’s not surprising you missed it. If you sold Ferraris for $50,000, they would fly off the shelves (so they aren’t giffen since quantity demanded goes up), but status-seeking rich people would probably choose a different luxury brand.

No, the Demand curve literally curves back round on itself. At a certain level increasing the price causes people to buy more. That doesn't mean that it is the case at all price levels, indeed none of the examples I gave apply at all price levels. The only example I can think of where an increase in price increases quantity demanded at any price is stocks and shares, though there are probably others. However we were talking about perverse demand in general.


Maybe if you use enough econ jargon you'll be right. Wait...nope. Inferior good means you consume less as income rises. That's one definition and the definition on the Wikipedia article, which is why you thought it was the only definition. You know how (or maybe not) there is a distinction between income elasticity and price elasticity? There is a distinction her too. Inferior goods can also refer to when a fall in price leaves more disposable income to buy something better. Like the train and taxi example.

Nothing I have said so far departs from neoclassical economics at all BTW. You claim to know economics, if you do then we ought to be able to debate where I differ from neoclassical economics. I am somewhat irritated that I am having to explain to you the side you are supposed to be one.


I am saying people are always as well off or better off with cash (specifically, they are better off having the cash price of a service than having the service). You are saying that by asking people what they want, sometimes they don’t want cash. Your statement is inconsistent with mine, and simply wrong. If people prefer the service, they can just buy the service with the cash given.

This is like talking to a brick wall. It has been explained to you multiple times that prices change when people rather than Governments buy services so you cannot make a direct comparison. Often things become more expensive. I gave you an example where it is better to give cash (cash over foodstamps) and several where it is better not to. The fact that your faith requires you ignore the change in prices doesn't mean they don't exist.

And that is before we go anywhere near the fact that people don't even maximise utility in their purchases anyway and hence cannot be said to automatically choose what is best for them.

Do you really think the UK invents and builds all of its own medical devices? This would be getting the private market out of health provision. They have a single payer system (100% government) versus the US with medicare/medicaid plus private insurance.

Because the US government is spending as much as the NHS on healthcare with worse results, the US should therefore spend more? The US would somehow reduce costs by preventing private companies from selling insurance?
[/quote]
Where did I say the US should pay more? What I said was that if the US ran its healthcare system like the British one it would become far cheaper. Hell even if it adopted one of the far less efficient Universal Systems like Germany it would still be cheaper.


Technology has increased across the medical field, LASIK serves as an example of what happens to costs when people who are spending their own money care about prices.
Do you think that laser surgery is the only example of improvements. All sorts of medical technology is improving rapidly. If the areas with least Government intervention were seeing the biggest advances we would see it happening. We don't.

LASIK costs haven’t come down over time because of Soviet involvement, are you claiming they would have?I pointed out the irony of your example as the technology was invented thanks to extreme Government involvement.


Heavy industry lol. East germany sure was a lot more productive than west germany.
Railways? Amtrak is a disaster, compared to private rail that’s profitable enough for Warren Buffet to invest.
Publicly run grocery stores? Look at the Soviet Union lol. Or for a less stereotypical example, the Pennsylvania liquor stores, which consumers overwhelmingly dislike (short hours, limited selection).
Are you blind? What did I say about grocery stores? Let's look shall we? "I would not consider grocery stores to be one of these things". I will point out though that the reason state run liquor stores are so awful is because they are deliberately designed to be like that in a pointless attempt to discourage heavy drinking.

As for your other claims, let's look at heavy industry first. I said Government run heavy industry was sometimes (not always) better based on the empirical evidence comparing comparable nations. That is the experience in capitalist countries. Britain had success with state owned heavy industries a lot of which were destroyed in privatisation. There are plenty of examples across Western Europe as well, including West Germany as it happens. Also to take a different and at the time much poorer example South Korea had enormous success with state owned heavy industry.

As for Railways, I am surprised you have the balls to make a claim that private railways are better given the evidence. Of course maybe you just don't know it. Britain is the ultimate example given the absolute disaster that was rail privatisation. Even the extreme advocates of privatisation admit that one was a mistake now. The same is true in other places as well. New Zealand for instance which had to renationalise. In continental Europe most railways simply remained state owned as the various Governments saw the disaster of having private rail provision. They generally function rather well.

Certainly better than Americas private railways which are hopeless.

[Judicator]

Nah, you just looked them up on Wikipedia. That's why the definitions you give are all based on the limited wikipedia pages (I looked over them just there).

Giffen goods aren't just rare on wikipedia, they are rare in general. The only examples found thus far are some staple foods in poor countries.


At a certain level increasing the price causes people to buy more. That doesn't mean that it is the case at all price levels, indeed none of the examples I gave apply at all price levels.

Where are all of the economists that have observed giffen behavior in the luxury goods market?



You know how (or maybe not) there is a distinction between income elasticity and price elasticity? There is a distinction her too. Inferior goods can also refer to when a fall in price leaves more disposable income to buy something better. Like the train and taxi example.


The part that makes it inferior is the impact of the new income on consumption. The fall in price also increases income, but they are separate effects.



And that is before we go anywhere near the fact that people don't even maximise utility in their purchases anyway and hence cannot be said to automatically choose what is best for them.


That's hard to say, given that utility gains are backed out from purchase decisions.



Do you think that laser surgery is the only example of improvements. All sorts of medical technology is improving rapidly. If the areas with least Government intervention were seeing the biggest advances we would see it happening. We don't.


Laser surgery is an example of better technology coupled with lower costs and a private market. Most other areas of medicine have better technology coupled with higher costs and government involvement. This isn't to say correlation=causation, but it warrants looking into.



Let's look shall we? "I would not consider grocery stores to be one of these things". I will point out though that the reason state run liquor stores are so awful is because they are deliberately designed to be like that in a pointless attempt to discourage heavy drinking.


You said grocery stores would be better off if the public had more control. The people in PA thought it would be in the public interest and it was a disaster.



Also to take a different and at the time much poorer example South Korea had enormous success with state owned heavy industry.


Of course we can both point to successes and failures all day long, this won't tell us whether the government run industry succeeded because of government or in spite of it.



As for Railways, I am surprised you have the balls to make a claim that private railways are better given the evidence. Of course maybe you just don't know it. Britain is the ultimate example given the absolute disaster that was rail privatisation. Even the extreme advocates of privatisation admit that one was a mistake now. The same is true in other places as well. New Zealand for instance which had to renationalise. In continental Europe most railways simply remained state owned as the various Governments saw the disaster of having private rail provision. They generally function rather well.


I guess if by "works" you mean "provides government subsidized service at much higher costs per passenger mile" then sure.

[Demogorgon]

Giffen goods aren't just rare on wikipedia, they are rare in general. The only examples found thus far are some staple foods in poor countries.

Where are all of the economists that have observed giffen behavior in the luxury goods market?

The part that makes it inferior is the impact of the new income on consumption. The fall in price also increases income, but they are separate effects.

Oh for heaven's sake just read this very simple explanation I googled. I am sick of explaining the same thing umpteen times. If you still don't get it, you aren't going to.

http://economics-11-12.blogspot.com/


That's hard to say, given that utility gains are backed out from purchase decisions.

Utility is something of an abstraction anyway. The problem with utility is you can't measure it. What you can do however is observe that there is no way consumers can be driven by it. If a consumer prefers good b to good a and prefers good c to good b then a utility maximising consumer must prefer good c to good a. But time and again it has been shown that that does not necessarily happen.


Laser surgery is an example of better technology coupled with lower costs and a private market. Most other areas of medicine have better technology coupled with higher costs and government involvement. This isn't to say correlation=causation, but it warrants looking into.

No it is becoming cheaper because it is being refined. The developments that are more expensive are the new treatments. They get cheaper too as they get refined.


You said grocery stores would be better off if the public had more control. The people in PA thought it would be in the public interest and it was a disaster.

No. I said I did not want it run by the Government, nor did I want it run by capitalists. And enough with the state liquor monopoly example. I told you why they exist, they attempt to make access to alcohol more difficult. They are not there to provide convenience to their customers.


Of course we can both point to successes and failures all day long, this won't tell us whether the government run industry succeeded because of government or in spite of it.
We can compare before and after and we can look at comparable countries that followed different policies. Both will bare out my point. Which is why those attempting to argue your position hate empiricism so much.


I guess if by "works" you mean "provides government subsidized service at much higher costs per passenger mile" then sure.
Different railways have different costs depending on country, but nationalised railways are far better for a number of reasons. The difference between the British railways before and after privatisation are revealing. After privatisation costs shot up, services were cut. Trains become slower and less reliable and here is the kicker: a considerable number of people died because it wasn't profitable to maintain sufficient standards of safety.

[Klaatu]

I don't know why they bring this up now, since they have already been effectively doing this for years (raising taxes on the working class)

That is, by reducing tax on the wealthy, someone has to pay the bills, so the working man has to pay. In other words, the tax burden has been shifted from those most able to afford to pay, on to those least able to afford to pay. I guess that's their brand of "freedom."

[Judicator]

What you can do however is observe that there is no way consumers can be driven by it. If a consumer prefers good b to good a and prefers good c to good b then a utility maximising consumer must prefer good c to good a. But time and again it has been shown that that does not necessarily happen.


Preferences are sometimes intransitive, so utility cannot explain anything?



I said I did not want it run by the Government, nor did I want it run by capitalists. And enough with the state liquor monopoly example. I told you why they exist, they attempt to make access to alcohol more difficult. They are not there to provide convenience to their customers.


"but supermarket chains may well be better if at least some of them were publicly run." Public ownership isn't government ownership? You'd have them run by private citizens, just not capitalists?



We can compare before and after and we can look at comparable countries that followed different policies. Both will bare out my point. Which is why those attempting to argue your position hate empiricism so much.


Right...like if you were to take comparable countries and look at their incomes compared to levels of economic freedom:

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Economic-Freedom1.jpg


The difference between the British railways before and after privatisation are revealing. After privatisation costs shot up, services were cut. Trains become slower and less reliable and here is the kicker: a considerable number of people died because it wasn't profitable to maintain sufficient standards of safety.

And with Amtrak the story is the opposite, you now have a railroad whose only profitable lines are the NE corridor...the rest of the lines wouldn't exist but for government subsidies. For that reason, I wouldn't be surprised if ticket prices went up under privatization (reflecting the actual cost of providing service).

[Revolution starts with U]

Statements on econ behavior are made "all else equal." Obviously if things go up in price and demand shifts, you don't know what's going to happen.
And maybe now you can see why I (many) view standard economics as the scientific equivalent to ptolemaic astronomy.




You guarantee it? Have you lived in such a community, or have any evidence to support this claim?

Yes. For most of my life, I had. And the guy/s and girl/s working at GM were the richest people you know... making maybe 50k/year. :rolleyes:
Not many on this site, I imagine, could win in a game of Prollier than Thou with me :lol:


Maybe you're unfamiliar with the term "absolute poverty," look it up anywhere. There's nothing fake about starvation.

Yes, and if you had ever faced that possiblity, I imagnie you might have a more empathetic outlook. But if you're eating once a week and Randy is eating twice a week, most WILL see Randy as richer than you... even tho you're both starving.







The destitute are poor by definition.

No arguments. But the inverse is not true. The poor are not destitute by definition.


Only someone with a relative definition of rich/poor would have to say the medieval peasants are "rich" if they are richer than other groups of people.

Compared to somoene starving in Ethiopia today, I would consider medieval peasants economically richer, yes. Compared to a modern prole, poorer.
Not everyoone starving is poor either... some of them are swami's :lol:




The states have been reducing the government? Lol well it sure isn't showing up in government spending statistics.

Ya, that's why I put it (at least where it's accountable to the people). They have been privatising public services, cutting back on welfare spending, and attacking Social Security like rabid dogs.
Are all these increases in spending not virtually all in defense of ruling class hegemony? The bailouts, the wars, the rising police state, etc.

[Judicator]

And maybe now you can see why I (many) view standard economics as the scientific equivalent to ptolemaic astronomy.


Because they control for other variables when looking at the relationship between two things?



No arguments. But the inverse is not true. The poor are not destitute by definition.


Good, we agree on something :lol:


Compared to somoene starving in Ethiopia today, I would consider medieval peasants economically richer, yes. Compared to a modern prole, poorer. Not everyoone starving is poor either... some of them are swami's

I don't know how many good health indicators are available for medieval peasants, but they were quite a bit shorter, likely explained by very poor nutrition. I had read 5'3" males in feudal Europe vs. 5'7" males in Ethiopia. At this point its kind of splitting hairs, they're both shit broke.

I suppose you'd have to add the caveat that their starvation is involuntary.


They have been privatising public services, cutting back on welfare spending, and attacking Social Security like rabid dogs. Are all these increases in spending not virtually all in defense of ruling class hegemony? The bailouts, the wars, the rising police state, etc.

Bailouts, (extra money for) wars, etc. are part of discretionary spending which is a fraction of the budget compared to aid programs. Social security, medicare will grow without anyone lifting a finger, because of the demographic/health changes in the US population.

I'd imagine the DoD budget gets bloated as well over time, but how do our foreign adventures ensure "ruling class hegemony" at home?

[RGacky3]

Social security, medicare will grow without anyone lifting a finger, because of the demographic/health changes in the US population.


Both paid for, but not necessarily, populations, as living standards increase, contract, as seen in europe.


I'd imagine the DoD budget gets bloated as well over time, but how do our foreign adventures ensure "ruling class hegemony" at home?

Appeal to patriotism, sending people off to war, boosts profits for certain companies, and so on and so forth.

[Demogorgon]

Preferences are sometimes intransitive, so utility cannot explain anything?

No, what I am saying is that you cannot make the assumption that people always seek to maximise utility because they do not.


"but supermarket chains may well be better if at least some of them were publicly run." Public ownership isn't government ownership? You'd have them run by private citizens, just not capitalists?

Ideally I'd have them run by the workers. In the short run it may be a good idea to have one supermarket chain run by the Government to force the others out of the cosy behaviour oligopoly encourages.


Right...like if you were to take comparable countries and look at their incomes compared to levels of economic freedom:

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Economic-Freedom1.jpg

All that is is dots on a graph not laeled to tell us what countries they were using. At any rate the Index of Economic Freedom is more or less a joke. It is completely arbitrary.


And with Amtrak the story is the opposite, you now have a railroad whose only profitable lines are the NE corridor...the rest of the lines wouldn't exist but for government subsidies. For that reason, I wouldn't be surprised if ticket prices went up under privatization (reflecting the actual cost of providing service).
No. America has private railway lines with the Government providing a service that the companies won't. Of course it won't be profitable if that is all it does. I am arguing for complete public ownership of the entire railway network as that is what empirical evidence shows works best. If the Government didn't provide the service you refer to, it would not exist at all. Hardly an argument for leaving it to the private sector.

[Revolution starts with U]

Because they control for other variables when looking at the relationship between two things?

That's not controlling for variables. That's dismissing variables as if they don't matter.



Bailouts, (extra money for) wars, etc. are part of discretionary spending which is a fraction of the budget compared to aid programs. Social security, medicare will grow without anyone lifting a finger, because of the demographic/health changes in the US population.

I'd imagine the DoD budget gets bloated as well over time, but how do our foreign adventures ensure "ruling class hegemony" at home?

Aid to the underclasses is like 20% of the federal budget. Social Security runs a surplus, you know this correct?
And seriously, how do our adventures overseas strengthen ruling class hegemony? Cheap oil, cheap labor, and a lucrative drug trade? DoHS and the Patriot Act? The "support our troops" appeal to emotion that makes the questioner of the war look like a dissident to the people?
Cmon brodimaggio.

[Judicator]

No, what I am saying is that you cannot make the assumption that people always seek to maximise utility because they do not.

There are certainly violations of EU theory, but what are the coherent theoretical alternatives? Behavioral econ is good at pointing out flaws, not so good at proposing robust alternatives.


Ideally I'd have them run by the workers. In the short run it may be a good idea to have one supermarket chain run by the Government to force the others out of the cosy behaviour oligopoly encourages.

Why do you think workers, or the government, would be any good at running grocery stores?



If the Government didn't provide the service you refer to, it would not exist at all. Hardly an argument for leaving it to the private sector.


Services that cost more than they are worth shouldn't exist. Being able to take an 8 hour train from Chicago to St. Louis isn't a necessity, there are plenty of private bus services.



That's not controlling for variables. That's dismissing variables as if they don't matter.


No, it's saying they have to be considered separately. Are you claiming that I was dismissing a variable with my use of ceteris paribus, or that it's completely wrong to use in any circumstance?

If the latter...you get all kinds of stupid conclusions like being in a hospital is dangerous, because people die there more often, when the mistake you're making is not considering separately 1) whether or not someone is in a hospital and 2) their health.


Aid to the underclasses is like 20% of the federal budget. Social Security runs a surplus, you know this correct?

I suppose if you shrink your definition of the underclass until their gains equal 20% of the budget, then yes. Anyway, given that the underclass pay like 0% of taxes, they are getting a pretty good deal.

Social security is apparently running at a deficit now: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html



And seriously, how do our adventures overseas strengthen ruling class hegemony? Cheap oil, cheap labor, and a lucrative drug trade? DoHS and the Patriot Act? The "support our troops" appeal to emotion that makes the questioner of the war look like a dissident to the people?


9/11 provided an excuse for the Patriot Act/DOHS expansion. Don't know how cheap oil helps the ruling class...poor people care the most about gas prices because they're poor and they spend a lot of their income on it.

If it does support the ruling class, it seems like a very roundabout way of doing so...compared to say a $2 trillion tax cut for the highest earners.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, it's saying they have to be considered separately. Are you claiming that I was dismissing a variable with my use of ceteris paribus, or that it's completely wrong to use in any circumstance?

Im saying Ceterus Paribus is largely BS, yes. It may be usefull in some places, but not many.



I suppose if you shrink your definition of the underclass until their gains equal 20% of the budget, then yes. Anyway, given that the underclass pay like 0% of taxes, they are getting a pretty good deal.

Social security is apparently running at a deficit now: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

No shrinking necessary, really.



9/11 provided an excuse for the Patriot Act/DOHS expansion. Don't know how cheap oil helps the ruling class...poor people care the most about gas prices because they're poor and they spend a lot of their income on it
Poor people are not making billions of dollars off the sale of ill-gotten oil.



If it does support the ruling class, it seems like a very roundabout way of doing so...compared to say a $2 trillion tax cut for the highest earners.

Which they are doing, and trying to do even more.
I mean Jesus man, are you really saying the expropriation of Iraqi oil was for the benefit of the people?!
You're just a sophist. Come back to me when you start to value truth above rhetoric. :rolleyes:

[Judicator]

Im saying Ceterus Paribus is largely BS, yes. It may be usefull in some places, but not many.

Because you think ceteris paribis isn't controlling for other variables, but in fact something else? Controlling for other variables is used in virtually every scientific or social science setting.


No shrinking necessary, really.

Social security has a redistributive component and it alone is 20% of the budget, medicaid is all redistributive, medicare benefits go to those largely to low income old people and low income disabled people.


Poor people are not making billions of dollars off the sale of ill-gotten oil

Nope, but they pay less at the pump. Plus, a $1 trillion war so you can give $50 billion in government contracts to Halliburton?


I mean Jesus man, are you really saying the expropriation of Iraqi oil was for the benefit of the people?!
You're just a sophist. Come back to me when you start to value truth above rhetoric. :rolleyes:

No, I'm saying low oil prices benefit the poor a lot.

The iraq war wasn't waged for the benefit of the poor, but how is that relevant to the impact of oil prices on the welfare of the poor?

I do care about the truth. I really want to know why you think low oil prices aren't good for the poor.

[RGacky3]

No, I'm saying low oil prices benefit the poor a lot.

The iraq war wasn't waged for the benefit of the poor, but how is that relevant to the impact of oil prices on the welfare of the poor?

I do care about the truth. I really want to know why you think low oil prices aren't good for the poor.

Its like outsourcing, you could argue its good for the poor because it depresses prices, but its not, because it depresses wages more.

the smae with the Iraq war, it depresses oil prices (if the poor have cars), but it also wastes all the money that could be used on stuff that REALLY benefits the poor, plus its mostly the poor that go and die.

Also the war is'nt about Oil prices, its not about lowering Oil prices, its about hedgemony over the oil producers.

[Demogorgon]

There are certainly violations of EU theory, but what are the coherent theoretical alternatives? Behavioral econ is good at pointing out flaws, not so good at proposing robust alternatives.

Sometimes the best we can do is admit that we don't know and commit to trying to find out. It is better to admit you are unsure and try to fix that than to persevere with something that is clearly wrong. The reasons that consumers do what they do are enormously complicated and varied. pretending that they can be explained simply is not helping.


Why do you think workers, or the government, would be any good at running grocery stores?

As luck would have it, I was able to find a post I made a couple of years ago on this very subject, saving me the bother of looking out the information again.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1556791&postcount=40

As for why I suggested the GOvernment run a supermarket chain in the short run and why I thought it would work. The reason is Oligopolist firms make (if we are to stick to neoclassical explanations) supernormal profits. This means there is leeway to charge a bit less and pay workers a bit more while still being profitable. A Government run firm can be instructed to do that. Its competitors then have to behave better in order to compete.


Services that cost more than they are worth shouldn't exist. Being able to take an 8 hour train from Chicago to St. Louis isn't a necessity, there are plenty of private bus services.

Even conventional neoclassical economics can tell us why the services should exist. They have positive externalities. In the case of trains I am on another continent and still benefit from people taking the train rather than driving or even taking the bus because it is better for the environment and that is just a pretty simple example.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Services that cost more than they are worth shouldn't exist. Being able to take an 8 hour train from Chicago to St. Louis isn't a necessity, there are plenty of private bus services.


Using roads the bus companies do not have to pay much to maintain due to them being tax funded, i.e. a subsidy. Oh--

[Demogorgon]

Using roads the bus companies do not have to pay much to maintain due to them being tax funded, i.e. a subsidy. Oh--
Yeah, I forgot to mention that. Funny how the most obvious points arte the easiest to forget.

Taken a bit further this point actually gives an example of how very little is really provided without some sort of benefit from the Government. A free market does not and cannot exist.