That's fine, but it is not true that all government action must be inefficient in 100% of situations.
Yes it is. Any basic analysis of supply and demand curves will prove this. The free market by definition results in the most efficient allocation of resources because it represents the collective wills of individuals.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
The most efficient allocation is the one that makes the most people better off by the most amount. Now, it can be difficult to say which allocation is most efficient, because we cannot tell how much better off a person is under one allocation or another, just that he is better off.
However, if we have 2 allocations, A and B, and every single person is equal or better off under A than under B, then we can say that A is more efficient than B. Game Theory, as discussed in the examples that have been cited to you, shows exactly such possible scenarios.
learn2economics
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
It's also efficient to kill all of the old people because they drain on society's resources
efficiency is not the be all end all
--
The box says "Online Gameplay not rated by ESRB", I should be able to trade my phallic named Wobbufetts to a bunch of 8 year olds. - MarvelousGerbil
It's also efficient to kill all of the old people because they drain on society's resources
efficiency is not the be all end all
It might be, but you'll never be able to show that it is with economic theory. Let's call the gain to each non-old people +100 utiles. The loss to each old person could be -200 utiles, or -2000 utiles, or -6.673x10^11 utiles, or -72 megaparsecs*kilometers^(-1)*hertz*hours utiles. It can be arbitrarily high, so we could never determine if it was efficient or not.
However, if we find a case A where every single person is at least just as well off as with B, and at least 1 person is better off, then we can say that A is more efficient than B.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
What everyone wants is for someone else's money to go towards helping the homeless or the sick or the unemployed. Well guess what, you don't have any right to someone else's money, whether the majority agrees with you or not.
I'm willing to spend my money to help homeless if the rich are also willing to do so
what I'm not willing to do is watch myself get taxed more and watch the rich get taxed less when I make such a small % of the country's income, which is basically how it seems to work here
they cut taxes on the rich only, then say "we can't afford to help homeless people or have affordable public transportation" and then sneer if we complain and say "well why don't you pay for it then." I make about $1000/mo after everyone pays me. I cannot feed the homeless and myself. there's dudes out there who can though.
You have no right to spend my money. Whether "you" represents you individually or 99% of the country.
Thankfully, most of the world doesn't feel the same way as you do, or we'd live in one hell of a terrible society. Hell, even in pre-history, that wasn't a held view. The idea of people possessing things is somewhat recent and not common to all societies, and even within them they have always been allowed to possess things by either some sort of anarchic natural law (in which case you could be beaten and your property taken) or a society which protects the right to most of your property (including anything of value beyond purely monetary) but exacts some of it in exchange. Welcome to the adult world!
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being unwilling to help the poor individually, but willing to help it if everyone chips in. As an individual there's little I can accomplish to fight poverty without ruining myself. Without the guarantee that my action would be matched by others, I have far less reason to do it. Whether you like it or not, this is how many humans operate, which is why tax money for the poor is supported much more widely than there are people willing to donate significant percentages of their income to charities for the poor.
-- The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion
Did you just simultaneously appeal to a tribalistic sense of property not existing and somehow declare that complex government bureaucracy of redistributing income to the poor was a natural state of affairs? Are those not completely and totally contradictory arguments?
Look, you can cloak it in all the mathematics and wordplay you want. The simple fact is that you are willing to steal money from someone to spend it on how you deem best fit. That is disgusting. You think it's morally acceptable for you to steal my property and give it to someone who "needs" it more (based on your definition of need or course, since there cannot ever be an objective definition of "need")? What about stealing my money to give to the dictators who rule over poor people in other countries? What about stealing my money to buy a predator drone with which to kill the poor people in other countries? When does it stop being a moral virtue and start being a moral crime?
What CAN'T the government steal my money for? Is there any limit?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Maybe in fact, people don't want to spend money on any of those things. Maybe they just want to take it from you. Because they're greedy and selfish and they want you to suffer. Mwahahaha.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Joking aside, of course they do. When Nintendo creates a game like Ocarina of Time, they are creating value out of thin air. When you write a book, you are creating value out of thin air.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #110 Maybe in fact, people don't want to spend money on any of those things. Maybe they just want to take it from you. Because they're greedy and selfish and they want you to suffer. Mwahahaha.
Then they should admit that they aren't charitable, but rather, they are the most primitive form of tribal warlord. Grunt. Point. Rock.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SmartMuffin posted... Yes it is. Any basic analysis of supply and demand curves will prove this. The free market by definition results in the most efficient allocation of resources because it represents the collective wills of individuals.
Well...no, there are some pretty inefficient businesses, and if you don't think so, then you probably haven't worked for very many companies. What the free market ensures is that the most inefficient businesses will go bankrupt, and we're left with moderate inefficiency. Say...60% efficiency. It's consistent, and more importantly it adapts very quickly, with previous monoliths being torn down if they are no longer needed.
But publicly traded companies are actually not capable of reaching 100% efficiency. Too much of their budget goes into dividends and ads and executive bonus checks and money removed from the system as "profit" to be re-invested elsewhere. Notice, for instance, that many countries with socialized health care are considered to have more efficient (dollar-wise) health care systems than the US.
Actually...consider the USSR. It started out inhumanly efficient--literally going from a third world country to an industrial superpower in about 10 years. Capitalism literally could not accomplish that. But the USSR also stopped adapting--doing things like manufacturing the same car for 40 years with no modifications. What was once an efficient car became a very inefficient expensive car as the rest of the world adapted and the USSR did not. This nicely demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of capitalist and socialist efficiency models.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Joking aside, of course they do. When Nintendo creates a game like Ocarina of Time, they are creating value out of thin air. When you write a book, you are creating value out of thin air.
You don't make the money by making the game though, you make the money by selling it.
--
My bracket wasn't good enough to beat SuperNiceDog's in the GameFAQS Rivalry Rumble. Congrats! This is Yesmar.