This is an excellent piece that explores the logical conclusion of leftist policies to restrict the free market. If we permit the government to ban a certain kind of light bulbs because they’re inefficient and we don’t really need them, why can’t they ban unnecessary air travel, coffee, or anything else?
And please, don’t even bother responding with “Well CFLs are just better in every way anyway.” If that were true, there would be no need to ban incandescents. The government didn’t have to ban horse carriages in order to promote automobile use. The market decided. As of right now, the market has decided that it prefers incandescent bulbs, but the government will throw you in jail if you try to sell them.
Nah, it took about a month. He went on some guiga rant and it was a huge "holy crap I actually agree with this guy on some stuff? time to bail" moment.
He literally thinks a girl who cries rape is worse than a violent rapist, then wonders why karma s***s on him so often. Not to mention thinking our government should legislate for moral reasons while being a raging gambling addict.
From: SmartMuffin | #008 Are excellent? Yes, I know. You're welcome.
The free market wants you to go away, so listen to your own ideas for once.
Plus you know full well these topics are on par with those useless topics Anagram used to make daily.
-- "Watching regs bash Ulti is like watching an ant colony revolt against a lawnmower." -Lucid Faia
Yeah, Congress blatantly abuses the Commerce Clause. I don't know about this law's specifics: does it ban purely intrastate production and sale of lightbulbs? Because if it does, that is stretching the Commerce Clause to its limits and probably well beyond.
does it ban purely intrastate production and sale of lightbulbs?
Several states have attempted to use this as a way to get around federal regulations. It's kind of ridiculous though. You have to produce the good entirely within and sell it entirely within your own state. Anyone who attempts to sell it outside of the state gets thrown in jail. Of course, our friends on the left think it's a good thing to throw people in jail for engaging in voluntary trade that violates the natural rights of nobody.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
The free market wants you to go away, so listen to your own ideas for once.
Plus you know full well these topics are on par with those useless topics Anagram used to make daily.
In a free market, you participate by buying or not buying stuff, not be voting or expressing your opinion. The equivalent to buying on this board is posting in his topics. If you or anyone else wants the topics to go away, the best way is to stop posting in them.
From: red sox 777 | #014 In a free market, you participate by buying or not buying stuff, not be voting or expressing your opinion. The equivalent to buying on this board is posting in his topics. If you or anyone else wants the topics to go away, the best way is to stop posting in them.
Except there are people like you who pretend to like him when he is literally guiga with a 5th grade vocabulary instead of 3rd.
Basically, his continuing to post here is proof he doesn't believe in the free market.
Except there are people like you who pretend to like him when he is literally guiga with a 5th grade vocabulary instead of 3rd.
Basically, his continuing to post here is proof he doesn't believe in the free market.
If I or anyone else post in his topics, what is it to you? I don't like Apple. So I don't buy their products. It's none of my business if other people buy Apple products or go into Apple stores. It's not like he's flooding the site or forcing you to read his topics.
A non-socialist econ instructor? How did they let that happen?
I'm pretty sure the free market being a good thing is taught in every Econ 101 class. It's, well, basic Econ theory.
You need much more advanced theory to even begin to explain in a theoretically sound way why socialist policies could work. There's a lot of disagreement among economists, but it is possible to make a reasonable argument for some of the policies, and there are smart, reasonable, economists who do so. Part of Obama's problem is that the theory that backs up his policies is far too complex to explain to the public, the vast majority of whom have had no Econ training beyond Econ 101. So he has to use the even more basic arguments that are easily rebutted by basic Econ theory instead.
Part of Obama's problem is that the theory that backs up his policies is far too complex to explain to the public
There's also the fact that it always ends in forced labor camps, mass starvation, and the execution of political dissidents. But no, your reason is good too.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Indeed, the theory he's relying on is flawed. Or at least the execution is flawed. The theory calls for government borrowing on the behalf of those who are unable to borrow. That would mean the poor. But it's being executed by giving out nothing to the poor and loads to banks who are quite able to borrow themselves. If you want people to go out and buy stuff, try sending poor people checks in the mail. Dunno if that would actually work, but it would have a much better chance than the current policy.
Trying to explain how Obama/Krugman's plan is supposed to work:
People want to spend each year a part of their expected lifetime income. If the amount that maximizes utility is higher than their current income + assets, they will need to borrow from their future income to do so. In a perfectly efficient market, everyone can borrow easily.
But in our current economy, people are scared and reluctant to lend, so many people cannot borrow or face prohibitively high interest rates that make it not worth their while to spend now. As a result, even though expected lifetime income stays the same, people cannot distribute their spending in an optimal way, and lifetime utility goes down. Most concerning for the country, current spending goes down.
This is where the US government steps in: the US government has excellent credit. It can command extremely low interest rates. So it borrows on behalf of people who can't borrow. The money must be repaid of course- and the only way to repay it is to have more tax payments in the future. So expected lifetime income still doesn't change- but people are able to spend the optimal amount now and later, instead of spending less than optimal now and more than optimal later. So people benefit. The country benefits by having more spending now, which stimulates the economy.
Some potential flaws: are there really that many people who want to spend more than their current income and cannot borrow the funds to do it? If there aren't, this theory is cooked already, but if there are, they're probably mostly poor, which brings us to the next problem....
The money is actually being distributed to large banks. These are the entities in the country most able to borrow themselves after the US government. They have no need for the extra money now. And they don't even want to spend now, because they can't find any good investments to make in the current economic climate.
This is where the US government steps in: the US government has excellent credit. It can command extremely low interest rates. So it borrows on behalf of people who can't borrow. The money must be repaid of course- and the only way to repay it is to have more tax payments in the future. So expected lifetime income still doesn't change- but people are able to spend the optimal amount now and later, instead of spending less than optimal now and more than optimal later. So people benefit. The country benefits by having more spending now, which stimulates the economy.
There's a lot of problems with this and I don't really have time to discuss it in detail, but here's a couple brief points.
1. Government transfer payments really only affect the very poor, yet the middle class (and the relatively wealthy for that matter) would undoubtedly ALSO like to be able to purchase more things than their current income allows. Before you say "well nobody will lend to poor people" be advised that is totally untrue. There is an entire market of payday loan shops for poor people which the government is trying to shut down.
2. A lot of the things government spends public money on are things that it has a monopoly on. It's not as if we have a scenario of "poor people would like to use roads, but can't afford to, so the government goes in debt to ensure there are public roads that are free." The poor people aren't sitting around saying "At least I don't have to pay for roads, therefore I'm satisfied with being poor" or any such thing.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
1. Government transfer payments really only affect the very poor, yet the middle class (and the relatively wealthy for that matter) would undoubtedly ALSO like to be able to purchase more things than their current income allows. Before you say "well nobody will lend to poor people" be advised that is totally untrue. There is an entire market of payday loan shops for poor people which the government is trying to shut down.
We're not talking about wanting to buy more things in an absolute sense: people always want to buy more things. We mean people want to reach their optimal spending amount based on their expected lifetime income. Payday loan shops charge absurd interest and basically no one should ever use them. It's like throwing money away. People can afford a lot more stuff if they're borrowing at 2% instead of 200% interest. At 200% interest, unless you're going to die of starvation, it probably increases your utility just to wait until later to buy stuff.
2. A lot of the things government spends public money on are things that it has a monopoly on. It's not as if we have a scenario of "poor people would like to use roads, but can't afford to, so the government goes in debt to ensure there are public roads that are free." The poor people aren't sitting around saying "At least I don't have to pay for roads, therefore I'm satisfied with being poor" or any such thing.
Indeed. If the Obama administration really believes in the theory, they should be giving handouts to the poor, not spending it on public works or giving it to banks.
Payday loan shops charge absurd interest and basically no one should ever use them. It's like throwing money away. People can afford a lot more stuff if they're borrowing at 2% instead of 200% interest. At 200% interest, unless you're going to die of starvation, it probably increases your utility just to wait until later to buy stuff.
Not according to them, or, you know, they wouldn't. I'm just curious, and this will sound like I'm trying to insult you or anything but I'm really not. Have you ever read any Mises or Rothbard?
Indeed. If the Obama administration really believes in the theory, they should be giving handouts to the poor, not spending it on public works or giving it to banks.
Ah, but that would require them to admit that individuals know best how to spend money for themselves. Think of the slippery slope there! Once you admit that, the government might as well not even exist. Here's a thought for you. Why don't we give people cash instead of food stamps?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Not according to them, or, you know, they wouldn't. I'm just curious, and this will sound like I'm trying to insult you or anything but I'm really not. Have you ever read any Mises or Rothbard?
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with Obama and Krugman! And yes, you are right that payday loan shops must make people better off because they would not exist otherwise. However, they do not make people very much better off. Government handouts followed by increased taxes later would help people a lot more than payday loan shops. If the difference is large enough, the theory could work, in theory.
As for Austrian economics, it's really out of vogue with economists currently (as is the classical Keynesian theory talked about a great deal in the public and in the media, but which economists basically universally agree is wrong). I haven't read Mises or Rothbard's original works, but economics isn't a subject where you really need to read original works- the important thing in economics texts is always the math equations, not the text. The text is just commentary. The theory stands or falls by the soundness of the math, and the reasoning/assumptions it employs.
Ah, but that would require them to admit that individuals know best how to spend money for themselves. Think of the slippery slope there! Once you admit that, the government might as well not even exist. Here's a thought for you. Why don't we give people cash instead of food stamps?
IMO we should definitely give cash instead of food stamps. It shows respect, and is morally the right thing to do. Economically speaking it also strictly dominates food stamps, because people can buy with cash anything they can with food stamps, and a lot more.
My impression of Obama's economic policy is that if there's a part of the theory he really believes, it's that financialization is a good thing. He's not a socialist because he hasn't demonstrated any desire to redistribute wealth to the poor. Even when the economic theory that could justify stimulus says to give handouts to the poor, he doesn't do it. That suggests he's not interested in redistributed wealth, except to the banks and 1% maybe. The big priority seems to be on preserving the status quo, and so we continue to spend trillions trying to put patches on a leaking ship.
I haven't read Mises or Rothbard's original works, but economics isn't a subject where you really need to read original works- the important thing in economics texts is always the math equations, not the text. The text is just commentary. The theory stands or falls by the soundness of the math, and the reasoning/assumptions it employs.
I literally just finished the chapter in Man, Economy, and State where Rothbard rejects mathematics as contributing anything useful to economics whatsoever. I just ask because it seems like you're fairly close to independently reaching the same critical analysis that they did: that economics is based entirely on human action.
IMO we should definitely give cash instead of food stamps. It shows respect, and is morally the right thing to do. Economically speaking it also strictly dominates food stamps, because people can buy with cash anything they can with food stamps, and a lot more.
So why don't we?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
red sox 777 posted... IMO we should definitely give cash instead of food stamps. It shows respect, and is morally the right thing to do. Economically speaking it also strictly dominates food stamps, because people can buy with cash anything they can with food stamps, and a lot more.
Yeah, so they can buy things like drugs instead of stuff they need like food.
--
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2636/ivotedphoenixyi0.png No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga
IMO we should definitely give cash instead of food stamps. It shows respect
when you need to leech off of everyone else because you literally can't even feed yourself you should feel disrespected. and given how many people on food stamps do turn around and spend half their money on gambling, alcohol, and tobacco there's more than enough ground to be distrustful. I'd like to say that this is because we give out too much money and limiting it more would force people to focus on necessities, but some people would starve themselves for their addictions.
I literally just finished the chapter in Man, Economy, and State where Rothbard rejects mathematics as contributing anything useful to economics whatsoever. I just ask because it seems like you're fairly close to independently reaching the same critical analysis that they did: that economics is based entirely on human action.
I'm assuming there's something deeper to that statement, because it's obvious that economics is based on human action.......that's what it's defined as the study of. The study of choice.
If he rejects math.......well, he's really far from modern economics then. Modern economics is all about math, it can be quite detached from reality at times. You literally can't solve any problems without using multivariate calculus.* I think I'd be pretty accurate in calling modern economics the application of math to life.
*For example, say an illiterate family in India is deciding whether to send their kids to elementary school or have them work on the farm. What will they do?
Answer: They will sit down and solve a multivariate calculus problem which will tell them the answer.
On an individual level, it seems patently ridiculous- basically unless you have a decent knowledge of math, you cannot be rational. The idea is that people will guess pretty close to what the theory says they should do, or at least given a large group of people the wisdom of crowds will prevail, which makes sense. But it is quite amusing nonetheless.
So why don't we?
The other posts sum it up. The middle class doesn't want to, so politically it isn't done. There's no economic reason for food stamps instead of cash, the real reason is moral outrage by the middle class.
From: SmartMuffin | #045 Yeah, so they can buy things like drugs instead of stuff they need like food.
If they truly need food more than drugs, then they would buy food.
The answer is social conservatism.
Although there is something to be said for a flaw in your logic here.
If someone is using drugs, they can easily view their habit as more valuable than food. Further you are presupposing that all people are rational actors and will not spend based on impulse or in an other irrational way, when it is easily demonstrable that people can and will behave irrationally as often as rationally.
Which is the flaw in nearly all economic theories- believing that a plurality of economic actors will always make the best most logical choices in a given situation.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?