EPTI got a real kick out of this
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1473
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Iodem
United States1173 Posts
I got a real kick out of this | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
one thing people have to understand is that the government always has an influence, whether it is regulation or deregulation. as long as there is a change in the level of government, that dynamic change itself is important. even if deregulation is the long term, ideal equilibrium good move, you still might get bad results if you are unlucky, or bad with the implementation. for instance, giving vast rent seeking power to certain actors. the pendulum, so to speak, has swung pretty far in the way of reckless destruction. the guys with more mobile money and knowledge are naturally the winners in this scenario. however, that does not make a society. you have to ultimately make it a sustainable system. if current trends continue, healthcare will suck up 20% gdp, the poor will either be dying, revolting or supporting dangerous demagogues. the rich will be off in some space colony. it's pretty serious. | ||
|
Reedjr
United States228 Posts
On November 13 2012 13:19 Iodem wrote: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions I got a real kick out of this Most of those secession petitions are well behind the legalizing cannabis petition. I guess we should really look out for that impending civil war after the entire country gets just fucking baked. Although, that is pretty much the story for the WKUK Civil War on Drugs... | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
now you're talking about an imperfect world. the scenario was a perfect world without need for regulation, so there would be no regulatory capture or rent-seeking (the bargaining power of buyer and seller would be the "regulation", and there is no rent-seeking in a perfect world). and without outside investment there can be no business that isn't self-funded, their job isn't to create the high returns, but to bet on those returns. economic rent is deserved, otherwise there would be no drive or ability to create the product. your mistake is in thinking that the worker deserves anything more than what he and his employer can agree upon, the corresponding point for the buyer and seller of the labor. higher wages would be a natural result of a perfect business (at first, but then would hit the ceiling), and lower costs also would be the natural result (until they hit their floor). @sam!zdat I oversimplified a bit... sue me. that's the real world application of the theory. @XoXiDe it's not so simple as decentralizing everything only because of the necessary costs of living in an imperfect world. allocation is always more efficient the closer you get to the local need, and most efficient when handled directly by the one who needs the resource. edit: regulation causes rent-seeking, deregulation kills it. (simplification, but it holds true enough to be stated as it is) | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On November 13 2012 13:28 sc2superfan101 wrote: @sam!zdat I oversimplified a bit... sue me. that's the real world application of the theory. No, it's not an oversimplification, you just literally don't have the first clue (it's ok, you're an American and there's a lot of lies left over from cold war etc.). I don't have time to argue about it right now though. User was warned for this post edit: yeah, I deserved that. edit: communism is about neither the disparagement of mental labor nor the advocation of equal pay for all members of society | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anyway when you concede that you are ignoring reality i'm not sure you can do much else to worsen your position. edit: the irony of judging whatever you believe by ideal while communism by those who fly its flag... i mean pinochet etc. edit: regulation causes rent-seeking, deregulation kills it. (simplification, but it holds true enough to be stated as it is) you do realize property rights, is the prime social imprint of 'regulation'? there is no rent seeking without that so i guess you are right. for the wrong reasons. i'm not taking your advice for what my mistake is btw when you can't even figure out simple stuff like "economic rent is deserved, otherwise there would be no drive or ability to create the product" is precluded from the very definition. economic rent is by definition the value above opportunity cost etc. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
your problem is a failure to appreciate the political nature of the existing situation, which then enables you to identify government as an external change that is entirely new to the whole system. this dichotomy you have between "market" and government is itself false. that's basically it. the distinction is useful in a given limited context, such as imminent government action. but the effects of government power, and power in general, is ever present. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 13 2012 13:28 sc2superfan101 wrote: @ oneofthem: now you're talking about an imperfect world. the scenario was a perfect world without need for regulation, so there would be no regulatory capture or rent-seeking (the bargaining power of buyer and seller would be the "regulation", and there is no rent-seeking in a perfect world). and without outside investment there can be no business that isn't self-funded, their job isn't to create the high returns, but to bet on those returns. economic rent is deserved, otherwise there would be no drive or ability to create the product. your mistake is in thinking that the worker deserves anything more than what he and his employer can agree upon, the corresponding point for the buyer and seller of the labor. higher wages would be a natural result of a perfect business (at first, but then would hit the ceiling), and lower costs also would be the natural result (until they hit their floor). @sam!zdat I oversimplified a bit... sue me. that's the real world application of the theory. @XoXiDe it's not so simple as decentralizing everything only because of the necessary costs of living in an imperfect world. allocation is always more efficient the closer you get to the local need, and most efficient when handled directly by the one who needs the resource. edit: regulation causes rent-seeking, deregulation kills it. (simplification, but it holds true enough to be stated as it is) Wait, but then you're ignoring economies of scale. For example, I can buy a candy bar for a dollar from the store. However, my school can buy ten thousand candy bars for maybe $2,000 with a bulk discount for the student population. In addition, local money, let alone one man's money is not going to be able to build things like highways which benefit many people in many ways. Unfortunately as we've seen, the invisible hand doesn't work too well. Communism is actually built on the idea that there will be a superabundance of wealth in the system because people produce a surplus of goods that will naturally be distributed in a way where everyone will get at least what they need. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
only by recognizing power can you appreciate the contribution of economics proper. it is a system of decisionmaking under constraints. the thinness of it is both a theoretical strength and a limiting factor on policy implication. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On November 13 2012 12:20 Adreme wrote: Also California basically governs by ballot initiative anyway which is why they are basically screwed. Putting so many things to ballot does have its drawbacks, but one of the great things about it is that tax increases get passed. We get asked "Do you want to raise taxes?" and if we say yes, no political agenda can get in the way. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 13:57 urashimakt wrote: Putting so many things to ballot does have its drawbacks, but one of the great things about it is that tax increases get passed. We get asked "Do you want to raise taxes?" and if we say yes, no political agenda can get in the way. Yet on the flip side we get Prop 13 and we end up wasting tons of money campaigning for these initiatives. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On November 13 2012 14:00 Souma wrote: Yet on the flip side we get Prop 13 and we end up wasting tons of money campaigning for these initiatives. I didn't spend any money campaigning for a prop and I'm fairly certain the government doesn't campaign for the props. There definitely are entities that do campaign for them but that's their business and I would be hesitant to tell them they're wasting their money. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 14:05 urashimakt wrote: I didn't spend any money campaigning for a prop and I'm fairly certain the government doesn't campaign for the props. There definitely are entities that do campaign for them but that's their business and I would be hesitant to tell them they're wasting their money. Nah, the government doesn't but unions and businesses do. I would prefer it if teachers' unions did not have to spend millions of dollars campaigning against things they shouldn't have to campaign against in the first place (not on this scale, anyway). Same goes for other interested parties who would be better off not having to spend money that could go to something else that's productive (like, I dunno, improving their business). It's doubly ridiculous when the same initiatives repeatedly rear their ugly heads just to waste people's time, effort and money. This stuff should be decided on by our representatives. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On November 13 2012 13:28 sc2superfan101 wrote: @ oneofthem: now you're talking about an imperfect world. the scenario was a perfect world without need for regulation, so there would be no regulatory capture or rent-seeking (the bargaining power of buyer and seller would be the "regulation", and there is no rent-seeking in a perfect world). and without outside investment there can be no business that isn't self-funded, their job isn't to create the high returns, but to bet on those returns. economic rent is deserved, otherwise there would be no drive or ability to create the product. your mistake is in thinking that the worker deserves anything more than what he and his employer can agree upon, the corresponding point for the buyer and seller of the labor. higher wages would be a natural result of a perfect business (at first, but then would hit the ceiling), and lower costs also would be the natural result (until they hit their floor). @sam!zdat I oversimplified a bit... sue me. that's the real world application of the theory. @XoXiDe it's not so simple as decentralizing everything only because of the necessary costs of living in an imperfect world. allocation is always more efficient the closer you get to the local need, and most efficient when handled directly by the one who needs the resource. edit: regulation causes rent-seeking, deregulation kills it. (simplification, but it holds true enough to be stated as it is) This has been the main issue throughout this thread with what you say. The statements you make are made in absolute terms which is never the case nearly 99.99% of the time, almost everything is not black and white. When I talk about costs of decentralization I'm not only talking about efficiency at the local level. There are lots of other issues that decentralization creates for local and state governments that can produce negative outcomes. I'm not saying decentralization or privatization is bad, it many cases it works, but in others, its not the best idea. Different locales have varying degrees of professionalism and experience when it comes to running their governments, globalization has an impact on local and state governments, pushing more responsibility on them haphazardly is counterproductive. Many local governments try themselves to contract out work and privatize to varying degrees, this works sometimes, and doesn't in many cases, there has a been a large contracting back-in to government because of failures with oversight and experience in managing contracts and understanding how to work with the private sector at the local level. Allocation of resources and efficiency is sometimes better closer to home, it will never be always, and never has been, in the real world at least. There is a lot of data and research out there to read and understand, it's not as easy as 1, 2, 3. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'll just briefly say that there are results now (new stuff) that suggest a simple equilibrium analysis overestimate the number of optimal strategy firms even in a perfect market, and thus tend to underestimate the profit level (rent level) and monopolistic power. the reason for this is that in an equilibrium model, you assume the number of firms to be exogenous, but in the real dynamic world, where firms enter the market one by one, each one in fact makes it less profitable for the next guy to enter. [Steve Keen & Russel Standish (2006):"Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A critique of neoclassical theory"] this should be added to the known conditions (entry barrier etc etc etc) and also the idea that new things are always risky there are some other stuff that im too sleepy to type out | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 13 2012 15:20 oneofthem wrote: this question of when it is proper to consider a market solution is deeply important and interesting. besides the empirical uncertainties, there is the question of when is the neoclassical standard methodology of equilibrium analysis appropriate. i'll just briefly say that there are results now (new stuff) that suggest a simple equilibrium analysis overestimate the number of optimal strategy firms even in a perfect market, and thus tend to underestimate the profit level (rent level) and monopolistic power. the reason for this is that in an equilibrium model, you assume the number of firms to be exogenous, but in the real dynamic world, where firms enter the market one by one, each one in fact makes it less profitable for the next guy to enter. [Steve Keen & Russel Standish (2006):"Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A critique of neoclassical theory"] this should be added to the known conditions (entry barrier etc etc etc) and also the idea that new things are always risky there are some other stuff that im too sleepy to type out This is extremely noteworthy and is actually a huge problem with American taxation. Corporate classification happens on the state level, and despite being 50 states, most have come to accept the same ones (the race to the bottom has logical consequences here). It makes corporate structural reform nigh impossible, which makes taxation reform extremely difficult (due to pass-through taxation status). Combined with flat corporate tax rates, it makes entry difficult. I'm not sure I know the answer to this; you can't simply make a progressive tax rate for corporations. But without attacking this problem, any corporate structural or tax reform is pointless in the long run. It'll score you points with Democrats, I'm sure, but it won't actually solve the problem. | ||
|
Maxyim
430 Posts
On November 14 2012 02:12 BluePanther wrote: This is extremely noteworthy and is actually a huge problem with American taxation. Corporate classification happens on the state level, and despite being 50 states, most have come to accept the same ones (the race to the bottom has logical consequences here). It makes corporate structural reform nigh impossible, which makes taxation reform extremely difficult (due to pass-through taxation status). Combined with flat corporate tax rates, it makes entry difficult. I'm not sure I know the answer to this; you can't simply make a progressive tax rate for corporations. But without attacking this problem, any corporate structural or tax reform is pointless in the long run. It'll score you points with Democrats, I'm sure, but it won't actually solve the problem. Corporate tax rates are not flat; you may be thinking about capital gains / dividends. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
![[image loading]](http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ttjKR26b.BRCGSdTMhogsg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesideshow/ht_eric_hartsburg_2_jef_121026_wmain.jpg) Look, I found someone who went more all-in on Romney than Karl Rove. Source "I was trying to make politics fun. I didn't change no lives; I'm no hero. But I shed blood for this campaign, and I'm glad to know that I did all that I could." | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
The tattoo isn't subtle. At around 10 square inches, the ink can't be covered up Oh apparently he has an enormous head because I was mistakenly thinking that was like.. 2 square inches. Ok. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On November 14 2012 02:12 BluePanther wrote: This is extremely noteworthy and is actually a huge problem with American taxation. Corporate classification happens on the state level, and despite being 50 states, most have come to accept the same ones (the race to the bottom has logical consequences here). It makes corporate structural reform nigh impossible, which makes taxation reform extremely difficult (due to pass-through taxation status). Combined with flat corporate tax rates, it makes entry difficult. I'm not sure I know the answer to this; you can't simply make a progressive tax rate for corporations. But without attacking this problem, any corporate structural or tax reform is pointless in the long run. It'll score you points with Democrats, I'm sure, but it won't actually solve the problem. You could incentivise the entry into markets through temporary tax-credits, cheaper loans for production facilities etc. IIRC, companies in europe have mostly given up on competing on work-force prices and they focus mostly on other costs related to doing business. Corporate tax is one significant area of expenses where you can make improvements and frankly, from a european standpoint, it has always baffled me that individual tax is lower than corporate in USA. Not even the socialists (the communist-wing was against it.) in Denmark are discussing raising the general corporate taxes from 25 %. Many companies only start to realize the advantages of the western system as opposed to SEA and even eastern europe, after they have been there and moved back to the country with the "highest taxation in the world", because it is "more profitable". | ||
| ||
