|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion.
Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism.
|
Agree with you Wegandi, and wanted to point out the irony of Jonny accepting a centralized big government subsidy program (turns out politics are not always Us v Them after all lol). I was going to say that I would play a card from his side and say I don't own a car and don't want to pay for everyone else, but I do use public transportation- usually walk though. :D
|
On May 13 2015 13:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices. This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. + Show Spoiler + No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people.
No, it's the exact opposite. Citing taxes paid for healthcare rounds out the math. A dollar paid in taxes for a dollar received in healthcare. What I'm doing is the same. A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits).
Like I said before, I'm generally skeptical of these sorts of things but they can be useful public policy options.
|
On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:26 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices. This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. + Show Spoiler + No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people. No, it's the exact opposite. Citing taxes paid for healthcare rounds out the math. A dollar paid in taxes for a dollar received in healthcare. What I'm doing is the same. A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits). Like I said before, I'm generally skeptical of these sorts of things but they can be useful public policy options.
They really can't. At best they are 0-Sum policy options, at worst they are massive policy distortions that warp the economy creating bubbles and enriching private interests at the expense of the public/taxpayers.
|
On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:26 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices. This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. + Show Spoiler + No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people. No, it's the exact opposite. Citing taxes paid for healthcare rounds out the math. A dollar paid in taxes for a dollar received in healthcare. What I'm doing is the same. A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits). Like I said before, I'm generally skeptical of these sorts of things but they can be useful public policy options.
You're simply stating a tautology. Of course if you give someone else someone else's money (in this case a company) their profits are going to increase ceteris paribus. That tells us nothing however. Why should the Government be in the business of deciding who should get what is essentially hand-outs that put them in an advantaged position compared to their competitors (e.g. Corporate welfare)? Doesn't sound too far off the Gosplan. Individuals should be making their own financial and monetary decisions, not bureaucrats, and not politicians. If people want what you're selling, they'll make it sustainable. You don't need subsidies - it's just another redistributive scheme to enrich political power players at the expense of the average person.
|
On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits).
Pharma?
Edit: although you did use 'or' so you're not wrong of course. :D
|
On May 13 2015 13:40 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices. This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. + Show Spoiler + No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people. No, it's the exact opposite. Citing taxes paid for healthcare rounds out the math. A dollar paid in taxes for a dollar received in healthcare. What I'm doing is the same. A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits). Like I said before, I'm generally skeptical of these sorts of things but they can be useful public policy options. They really can't. At best they are 0-Sum policy options, at worst they are massive policy distortions that warp the economy creating bubbles and enriching private interests at the expense of the public/taxpayers.
That is a lovely blanket statement you've weaved. I doubt it will keep you warm in the winter though 
A zero sum policy goal may valid, if that's what voters want (ex. help the poor). Putting idle resources to work, even if at the behest of the government, wouldn't be zero sum.
On May 13 2015 13:42 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices. This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. + Show Spoiler + No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people. No, it's the exact opposite. Citing taxes paid for healthcare rounds out the math. A dollar paid in taxes for a dollar received in healthcare. What I'm doing is the same. A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits). Like I said before, I'm generally skeptical of these sorts of things but they can be useful public policy options. You're simply stating a tautology. Of course if you give someone else someone else's money (in this case a company) their profits are going to increase ceteris paribus. That tells us nothing however. Why should the Government be in the business of deciding who should get what is essentially hand-outs that put them in an advantaged position compared to their competitors (e.g. Corporate welfare)? Doesn't sound too far off the Gosplan. Individuals should be making their own financial and monetary decisions, not bureaucrats, and not politicians. If people want what you're selling, they'll make it sustainable. You don't need subsidies - it's just another redistributive scheme to enrich political power players at the expense of the average person.
Gosplan was a bit more involved than that.
Also, a group of people can come together and do something economic in a free society.
On May 13 2015 13:47 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits).
Pharma?
What about?
Edit: higher compensation and higher profits would be the two I'd cite.
Edit: also a consumer benefit from more products being available.
|
On May 13 2015 13:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:40 cLutZ wrote:On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices. This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. + Show Spoiler + No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people. No, it's the exact opposite. Citing taxes paid for healthcare rounds out the math. A dollar paid in taxes for a dollar received in healthcare. What I'm doing is the same. A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits). Like I said before, I'm generally skeptical of these sorts of things but they can be useful public policy options. They really can't. At best they are 0-Sum policy options, at worst they are massive policy distortions that warp the economy creating bubbles and enriching private interests at the expense of the public/taxpayers. That is a lovely blanket statement you've weaved. I doubt it will keep you warm in the winter though A zero sum policy goal may valid, if that's what voters want (ex. help the poor). Putting idle resources to work, even if at the behest of the government, wouldn't be zero sum. Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:42 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices. This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. + Show Spoiler + No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people. No, it's the exact opposite. Citing taxes paid for healthcare rounds out the math. A dollar paid in taxes for a dollar received in healthcare. What I'm doing is the same. A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits). Like I said before, I'm generally skeptical of these sorts of things but they can be useful public policy options. You're simply stating a tautology. Of course if you give someone else someone else's money (in this case a company) their profits are going to increase ceteris paribus. That tells us nothing however. Why should the Government be in the business of deciding who should get what is essentially hand-outs that put them in an advantaged position compared to their competitors (e.g. Corporate welfare)? Doesn't sound too far off the Gosplan. Individuals should be making their own financial and monetary decisions, not bureaucrats, and not politicians. If people want what you're selling, they'll make it sustainable. You don't need subsidies - it's just another redistributive scheme to enrich political power players at the expense of the average person. Gosplan was a bit more involved than that. Also, a group of people can come together and do something economic in a free society. Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:47 screamingpalm wrote:On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits).
Pharma? What about? Edit: higher compensation and higher profits would be the two I'd cite. Edit: also a consumer benefit from more products being available.
Way to completely ignore the meat of my post and focus on the irrelevant bits. Good deflecting skills. You also know what I mean with what I said in response to your quip about groups (as if groups aren't merely a collection of individuals...).
|
On May 13 2015 13:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Edit: higher compensation and higher profits would be the two I'd cite.
Edit: also a consumer benefit from more products being available.
Fair points, but why are subsidies necessary to achieve this for an industry that makes windfall profits? Can't some of that be set aside for R&D or employee compensation? Just saying, lots of other things we could be doing with that money.
(Aside from the state subsidies to attract corporations locally, I can understand the point there)
|
On May 13 2015 13:42 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices. This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. + Show Spoiler + No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people. No, it's the exact opposite. Citing taxes paid for healthcare rounds out the math. A dollar paid in taxes for a dollar received in healthcare. What I'm doing is the same. A dollar gone in subsidies, a dollar received to someone else (lower prices, higher compensation or higher profits). Like I said before, I'm generally skeptical of these sorts of things but they can be useful public policy options. You're simply stating a tautology. Of course if you give someone else someone else's money (in this case a company) their profits are going to increase ceteris paribus. That tells us nothing however. Why should the Government be in the business of deciding who should get what is essentially hand-outs that put them in an advantaged position compared to their competitors (e.g. Corporate welfare)?
Because that's what idividuals have decided.
Doesn't sound too far off the Gosplan.
Sure it does. The Gosplan was much more than 'gubment did stuff'.
Individuals should be making their own financial and monetary decisions, not bureaucrats, and not politicians. Individuals are not equipped to make every decision on their own. Try building a skyscraper wherein every individual involved does their own individual thing. It won't work. You'll end up with a pile of rubble, dead bodies, and a lot of wasted money.
Or maybe you mean only private (e.g. public, but not government) bureaucrats and politicians can make decisions?
If people want what you're selling, they'll make it sustainable. You don't need subsidies - it's just another redistributive scheme to enrich political power players at the expense of the average person.
Or it is a scheme that individuals in a free society have decided they want.
|
Did Johhny just make the Libertarian>Facist switch in less than 48 hours?
|
On May 13 2015 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Edit: higher compensation and higher profits would be the two I'd cite.
Edit: also a consumer benefit from more products being available. Fair points, but why are subsidies necessary to achieve this for an industry that makes windfall profits? Can't some of that be set aside for R&D or employee compensation? Just saying, lots of other things we could be doing with that money. (Aside from the state subsidies to attract corporations locally, I can understand the point there)
Because 'windfall profits' are a political term that doesn't have much relevance to reality. Making drugs is expensive and unprofitable more often than not. The industry as a whole isn't a standout when it comes to profits.
|
On May 11 2015 12:20 IgnE wrote:
It is unfair to say jonny is a radical free market libertarian. He's a capitalist mandarin, an ideological pragmatist, reared on the classic textbooks. He studies bourgeois economics, thinks he's doing scientific work, and really believes that the work he's doing to manipulate economic statistics will help our titans of industry keep the growth coming for years to come.
You guys have issues with subtlety.
|
On May 13 2015 14:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 12:20 IgnE wrote:
It is unfair to say jonny is a radical free market libertarian. He's a capitalist mandarin, an ideological pragmatist, reared on the classic textbooks. He studies bourgeois economics, thinks he's doing scientific work, and really believes that the work he's doing to manipulate economic statistics will help our titans of industry keep the growth coming for years to come. You guys have issues with subtlety.
You're right about the pragmatist part, but I do not manipulate statistics and I was reared on modern books.
Edit: well I'd consider LotR to be a classic 
|
Some subsidies are bad. Most are not. You usually want to put money into things not being done that is useful 10-15 years down the line to start now and not then.
Alternative energy is probably the biggest category right now. There is nothing wrong with the current oil and coal for generating energy (except pollution and global warming). Though it seems we have decided to phase them out. To do that without collapsing things requires subsides to develop the alternatives. That is an example of a good one.
Another interesting case is space transport. Several private companies started up with part of their financial plan being government funding to develop from prototype to something useful that they then can sell.
|
On May 13 2015 14:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 12:20 IgnE wrote:
It is unfair to say jonny is a radical free market libertarian. He's a capitalist mandarin, an ideological pragmatist, reared on the classic textbooks. He studies bourgeois economics, thinks he's doing scientific work, and really believes that the work he's doing to manipulate economic statistics will help our titans of industry keep the growth coming for years to come. You guys have issues with subtlety.
lol nailed it.
All joking aside though, I appreciate the discussion Jonny. I might not agree with your conclusions, but I appreciate how knowledgeable you are on a variety of subjects. Cheers!
|
On May 13 2015 14:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 14:23 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 12:20 IgnE wrote:
It is unfair to say jonny is a radical free market libertarian. He's a capitalist mandarin, an ideological pragmatist, reared on the classic textbooks. He studies bourgeois economics, thinks he's doing scientific work, and really believes that the work he's doing to manipulate economic statistics will help our titans of industry keep the growth coming for years to come. You guys have issues with subtlety. You're right about the pragmatist part, but I do not manipulate statistics and I was reared on modern books. Edit: well I'd consider LotR to be a classic
Everyone is a pragmatist these days. That word has no meaning anymore.
|
On May 13 2015 15:34 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 14:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 14:23 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 12:20 IgnE wrote:
It is unfair to say jonny is a radical free market libertarian. He's a capitalist mandarin, an ideological pragmatist, reared on the classic textbooks. He studies bourgeois economics, thinks he's doing scientific work, and really believes that the work he's doing to manipulate economic statistics will help our titans of industry keep the growth coming for years to come. You guys have issues with subtlety. You're right about the pragmatist part, but I do not manipulate statistics and I was reared on modern books. Edit: well I'd consider LotR to be a classic Everyone is a pragmatist these days. That word has no meaning anymore.
Wegandi is not, he is a skyhigh idealist.
|
On May 13 2015 14:37 Yurie wrote:
Some subsidies are bad. Most are not. You usually want to put money into things not being done that is useful 10-15 years down the line to start now and not then.
Alternative energy is probably the biggest category right now. There is nothing wrong with the current oil and coal for generating energy (except pollution and global warming). Though it seems we have decided to phase them out. To do that without collapsing things requires subsides to develop the alternatives. That is an example of a good one.
Another interesting case is space transport. Several private companies started up with part of their financial plan being government funding to develop from prototype to something useful that they then can sell.
That's true, and also dino-chickens
|
On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism.
Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies compared to not being white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
