|
On July 06 2010 13:57 L wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 13:36 jalstar wrote:You can use basic math to prove that the laffer curve exists in theory, but there's no evidence of it showing up in a real-world application. 1. Revenue as a % of GDP is too low for a peak to show up. 2. Too many other variables are involved. ![[image loading]](http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/0002xK-7283.gif) Uh, just a heads up, but you typically do not pick a single outlier as the only accurately followed point on your curve and leave the majority of the data completely unrepresented by the model.
Just a heads up, but that's the point. The graph disproves that Laffer's theory is currently in effect.
|
@Djzapz and roads example
Uhhh, I was thinking, how then would you fund for those roads that lead to hundred person towns all over America? Can those twenty family towns really afford to pay the burden for the one or two roads they'll need to use to get in and out? Also, what about Interstates? Maybe it would stimulate rail travel as a more economical means to haul products and build a much more widespread rail network, but can say... trucking companies and salesmen really afford a three-thousand mile stretch of road and all the byways it requires? The Federal Highway system was one of the biggest engineering projects of its day and also the one most in need of maintenance.
Maybe the fact that it's already there means that a private entity could possibly do the maintenance better than any government can, especially if the state-level road networks were indeed done in such a manner, but I'm afraid that the federal-level roads aren't as conducive to such private pricing efforts.
|
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +You mean the building of roads is something so impossible to do in private hands that we just need someone to force people to build them? The network certainly wouldn't be nearly as impressive but I'm sure some roads would get done. Show nested quote +What's so different in a million-dollar highway to a million-dollar building? The building affects a company's income significantly more directly than the road that leads to that building.
What use is a building if there's no road to it...
I mean, I think that's kind of obvious to anyone building any type of structure that you need the means to get to it... roads are no different than doors in that sense.
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +Do I make huge assumptions to say that the same money (or less) you give to the government could be given to a road-building agency through voluntary means? The agency would have a direct incentive through tolls and other voluntary means of collection, and would be in competition to other agencies...
What's so different about roads that makes the usual market competition impossible? Simple. If I have a small amount and I can either fund a small project (buying food) vs a big project which won't directly pay me back, I'll chose the smaller project, as would most people. This would slow things down considerably. I have no clue how you would argue otherwise.
Why's that bad?
You're choosing that project which can have a positive return, instead of being the careless government and blow a million dollars here and there making lousy distribution of resources, hell, it's not their money anyway.
A thousand entrepreneurs acting on self-interest can much better build anything than a monopolistic agency. I have no clue how you would argue otherwise. 
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +Oh so you mean we could tax all their money, or even none of their money, and the prices of stuff wouldn't change, because they'd take that hike/cut like men, and not do anything to preserve nor out-compete other entrepreneurs out of self-interest? If you lower the rich's taxes, they won't feel that they don't deserve the extra earnings. They won't equalize it by lowering their prices. If object A makes the most profit @ 1.99, they won't make it 1.90 just to be nice.
Did I say they'd lower prices out of kindness? I said other entrepreneurs would lower the prices and still have the same profit margin, while the competitor who did not will sell less.
Low prices happen because there's free market entry a.k.a. competition. If there's a profit margin to be made, someone's gonna enter and out-compete you.
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +You mean the government built the apartments, the businesses, the colleges...? Lots of them yes... Definitely.
How many you think?
I have no idea to be honest
But I'd guess <1%
And even then, it wasn't really Senator McCain going there and building the stuff, the government itself just reallocates the money to get it build. So still, it was technically the taxpayers who paid for it to be built just like everything else, aka the people who got their money stolen from.
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +I'm against any tax by principle. Even if you say it's necessary, I'll shout out "necessary for what?" Name one good country with no taxes. GG
Would you ask me the same thing were we in a monarchic world? I already said that's no argument.
There are no anarcho-capitalist countries in the world, and arguably there never was. Some say Somalia, I say they go study Somalia before saying that.
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +What are your ends that are so important to men yet so voluntarily unreachable that justifies coercion? No coercion involved ever. If you don't like it you can go away, that's always an option. They will NEVER keep you from leaving ever. Even if I did leave, it would be to another state anyways... so... yeah.
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +If technology today was at the point where we could transfer our minds into other bodies, does that mean that rape would be justifiable in that you could switch to another body for a certain sum of money? That analogy is a non-sequitur. A huge one.
It's not that bad, self-ownership is not that far from private property.
And in a futuristic world where you could exchange bodies for just as much as exchanging countries (tens of thousands of dollars at least), it fits perfectly.
The case in point is not what can I do after the stealing has been made, but the stealing itself...
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +Well if you read into praxeology, the premises are actually quite agreeable, and I think you'd agree that man would most often act on it's best interest. People agree with untrue things all the time.
That's nice. Can you point what's untrue about praxeology? Preferably without engaging in performative contradiction? (it's possible, but just saying, it's kind of awkward)
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +It just turns out that peace *is* in man's best interest. Violence is costly, especially in today's technologically enabled world where security and retaliation are so much more efficient in stopping it. That would mean something if people behaved in their best interest. I would like to suggest that you aren't. If there was a big red button for your kind of anarchy and pushing it made it happen, I'm sure you'd push it and nothing would happen as you would expect.
I haven't claimed certainty. All i have are certain tenants and theories that you are free to disagree with. I just ask that you be consistent as I try to be too.
On July 06 2010 13:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +Then how does a capitalist today does it?
Why does an entrepreneur saves or loans millions from a bunch of investors to make something so big that a single middle-class person can't understand? Personal profit. Show nested quote +...or are you saying there hasn't been billion-dollar projects in the private world so far Nothing that won't directly benefit the entrepreneur.
And what services you deem necessary today can't be profitable? Some service that only the government can acquire the revenue for, involuntarily?
|
On July 06 2010 14:13 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 13:57 L wrote:On July 06 2010 13:36 jalstar wrote:You can use basic math to prove that the laffer curve exists in theory, but there's no evidence of it showing up in a real-world application. 1. Revenue as a % of GDP is too low for a peak to show up. 2. Too many other variables are involved. Uh, just a heads up, but you typically do not pick a single outlier as the only accurately followed point on your curve and leave the majority of the data completely unrepresented by the model. Just a heads up, but that's the point. The graph disproves that Laffer's theory is currently in effect.
Just a heads up, but its terrible if that's the point. The graph doesn't disprove that Laffer's theory is in effect at all. Its just really bad circumstantial evidence, as:
1) its coordinate system isn't a good choice.
2) the curve could easily be threaded through the majority of the data, and the UAE point validates one of the starting assumptions.
|
No offense but I'm obviously talking to somebody who just makes a lot of assumptions and is obviously believes things without merits. Anarchy never worked, and when it happened it was quickly taken over by someone or some people.
I won't bother with point by point rebuttal again, I can bring up absolute facts but you'll always insist that human nature is magically different from what it really is and I can't argue with people who believe in unicorns.
|
On July 06 2010 13:52 jalstar wrote:I read all of this, and what you're saying, I believe, is that the government lowers the quality of everything it touches. That's 100% true. Yet the government also increases access to basic goods and services. The reason government-run things suck isn't because they're run by the government (that's a tautology) but because they're available to everyone. Society sometimes decides that it's better to give everyone some crappy stuff than to let the market give a few people good stuff and the rest no stuff.
I see.
But which is the least crappy?
Lighthouses, private roads (yes they exist), any private-public building that you can walk in freely...
I don't think they're necessarily crappy.
Private charity too, if that counts, isn't necessarily crappy either. Private things are only crappy as much as the owner allows it or wants it to be. With public-public, or rather state goods, it's likely to be more crappy because there's less incentive mechanisms for the government to take care of it... no profit motive for starters of course.
On July 06 2010 14:22 Djzapz wrote:
No offense but I'm obviously talking to somebody who just makes a lot of assumptions and is obviously believes things without merits. Anarchy never worked, and when it happened it was quickly taken over by someone or some people.
I won't bother with point by point rebuttal again, I can bring up absolute facts but you'll always insist that human nature is magically different from what it really is and I can't argue with people who believe in unicorns.
Sorry I wasn't of use to you...
|
Low prices happen because there's free market entry a.k.a. competition. If there's a profit margin to be made, someone's gonna enter and out-compete you.
And then the bigger company will buy out the out-competing company, not that a small business can maintain lower prices than a big business over a large period of time (economies of scale)
|
On July 06 2010 14:26 Yurebis wrote:Lighthouses, private roads (yes they exist), any private-public building that you can walk in freely... I don't think they're necessarily crappy. Private charity too, if that counts, isn't necessarily crappy either. Private things are only crappy as much as the owner allows it or wants it to be. With public-public, or rather state goods, it's likely to be more crappy because there's less incentive mechanisms for the government to take care of it... no profit motive for starters of course..
A lot of the solutions in the wikipedia link are paid for by taxes. If taxes are immoral how do you justify the existence of subsidized and other private-public cooperations.
|
On July 06 2010 14:30 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 14:26 Yurebis wrote:Lighthouses, private roads (yes they exist), any private-public building that you can walk in freely... I don't think they're necessarily crappy. Private charity too, if that counts, isn't necessarily crappy either. Private things are only crappy as much as the owner allows it or wants it to be. With public-public, or rather state goods, it's likely to be more crappy because there's less incentive mechanisms for the government to take care of it... no profit motive for starters of course.. A lot of the solutions in the wikipedia link are paid for by taxes. If taxes are immoral how do you justify the existence of subsidized and other private-public cooperations.
I don't, and sorry for passing a link which I didn't read (as I said I didn't)
I just figure that there ought to be voluntary solutions first, before jumping the gun saying "it's necessary"
I'm going to sleep, sorry for anything.
|
Private Roads are not feasible. Is there a toll booth at EVERY FUCKING ROAD? How can there be competition if if only one road can be in place at a time? There is but a single road in my neighborhood. How the fuck do you expect there to be 7+ companies installing their own road in that neighborhood?
This is the same reason why there is only one state owned/funded/controlled (not sure of the exact nature of the relationship) power and water utility in your area. Can you imagine having multiple power grids? Can you imagine 4 different entire infrastructures in a city? That would be chaos!
|
On July 06 2010 13:55 cucumber wrote:
A warning to anyone in this thread arguing against American conservatives:
You are dealing with the dumbest people you could possibly imagine. It's not that they can't understand how to think critically, it's that they have given up the exercise entirely.
These are a bunch of people who will relentlessly cite John Maynard Keynes for his ideas without actually having read him and realizing that he didn't actually agree with their stupid thoughts (see ,e.g., regulation).
These are also a bunch of people who often will argue with you if you suggest that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Fossils, apparently, were put there by Satan.
The American "conservative" experience has been so intellectually debased that it's going to take a long time to repair. And it's kind of sad. Because conservatives in the US, were more of them sane and/or not total intellectual morons, would have something interesting to say. The sane American conservatives are forced out. Unfortunately.
And we were doing relatively well on the "no retards in the thread yet" part.
Sigh.
|
On July 06 2010 13:16 CroOk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 19:42 Neobick wrote:
Edit: My definition of bias is only seeing things from one side, or giving one side an unfair advantage- Then you are making your own definition based on connotations of the word bias, which is really not what it means.
I learned about the Bayes rule (my teacher pronounced it similar to bias) in a mathematics course, which is about predicting future events using past data. I thought this might have been the origin of the word, but apparently not.
|
 discussing politics on the internet... people should know better
|
For people who believe some services are natural monopolies, heres some empirical evidence to the opposite:
https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf
and for the specific case of roads:
http://www.economicthought.net/2009/09/in-search-of-that-mythical-free-market-road-network/
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=202
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote:
Private Roads are not feasible. Is there a toll booth at EVERY FUCKING ROAD?
If you and I can realize how stupid that would be, the people with millions on the line certainly would too.
The separate road owners could sell/buy/merge their roads or share the same toll booth, or get paid by other means...
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: How can there be competition if if only one road can be in place at a time? How can there be competition of shoe-makers if there can only be one pair of shoes in a box at a time?
Sorry but that's a non-issue. If you mean real estate is too expensive in some areas to build new roads, then I'd agree, but it's very much circumstantial and it's up to the investors if they want to compete or not.
It's the free market entry that keeps prices down, not necessarily *having* a competing product or service all the time.
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: There is but a single road in my neighborhood. How the fuck do you expect there to be 7+ companies installing their own road in that neighborhood? I don't expect there to be any number of companies. There will be as many as investors want to try it out. If you're saying there's no profit opportunity to have competing roads there, sure I'll believe you.
What happens is, the company that owns the single road in your town is able to charge a bit more than usual. This is no different than what the state does today. It is in fact more prevalent today since the state is the sole regulator, price fixer, and virtually owner of all roads. We *have* a monopoly today. Why aren't you up in arms about that?
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote:
This is the same reason why there is only one state owned/funded/controlled (not sure of the exact nature of the relationship) power and water utility in your area.
To protect the consumer?
If the government is more efficient at doing x, then why can't it just do x and outperform everyone else without restricting competition out?
It doesn't matter if it's roads, water, electricity, law. A service is a service, it is something done by the hands of men.
And even if there was only one way to do x (and there isn't most of the time, but assuming), and x is a very desirable service, doesn't justify anyone to legally monopolize x. You can do better? Then buy off the infrastructure and manage it at greater profits. No need to restrict the competition that you say is less efficient. Prove it without mandate!
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: Can you imagine having multiple power grids?
Yes.
Whether that's desirable or undesirable is not of my concern; I didn't pay to put up the lines, did you? Whoever put them up is going to have a loss or profit, it's their investment.
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: Can you imagine 4 different entire infrastructures in a city?
Yes.
Again, the city ain't mine.
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: That would be chaos!
I doubt any entrepreneur would invest into an overcrowded market. There's something thats called the law of diminishing returns. It is usually noted in consumption but it's true on the supply side as well. The 4th, 5th, Nth company to enter has to provide something special and more valuable than the more established ones in order to sell anything. If you got nothing new, nor more efficient, then why would people bother to hire you? The infrastructures are just a plain loss. And if you and I can realize that, surely the people with millions on the line...
|
United States5162 Posts
I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind.
|
On July 06 2010 15:36 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 13:55 cucumber wrote:
A warning to anyone in this thread arguing against American conservatives:
You are dealing with the dumbest people you could possibly imagine. It's not that they can't understand how to think critically, it's that they have given up the exercise entirely.
These are a bunch of people who will relentlessly cite John Maynard Keynes for his ideas without actually having read him and realizing that he didn't actually agree with their stupid thoughts (see ,e.g., regulation).
These are also a bunch of people who often will argue with you if you suggest that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Fossils, apparently, were put there by Satan.
The American "conservative" experience has been so intellectually debased that it's going to take a long time to repair. And it's kind of sad. Because conservatives in the US, were more of them sane and/or not total intellectual morons, would have something interesting to say. The sane American conservatives are forced out. Unfortunately.
And we were doing relatively well on the "no retards in the thread yet" part. Sigh.
I think by conservatives he meant Tea Party conservatives... he described the member of the Tea Party movement pretty well.
|
On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote:
I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind.
There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 07 2010 02:37 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote:
I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind. There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it
And our country would suffer for it. Most people wouldn't have power or running water. There would be hardly any public sanitation. Look at any civilization that didn't have public works from the government, they didn't have any significant infrastructure.
|
On July 07 2010 02:37 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote:
I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind. There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it
On a paralel note, does government really needs to be something profitable ? something tells me that modern economics is a hoax, and we could fabricate money to build space stations out of nowhere
|
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." -Winston Churchill
I'll think with my brain while I'm young, I'll think with my pockets when I get older.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
