Printable View
http://www.agorafinancial.com/iousa.html
Haven't seen it but it reminds me of the arguments going on in Canada in the early 90's on a much larger scale.
Ultimately it comes down to this:
1) either pay more taxes for the services you enjoy if you want them
2) cut the services until you have no deficit (or more so if you want tax cuts).
(or a combination of the above).
In the end those are the only viable options. The longer one postpones either option the more expensive it will be to fix later.
Pulling out of the Iraq war (which will in the next 4 years happen regardless of which President is elected) will help. However, the best way for america to eliminate it's debt is simply to abolish the idiotic social security system that costs like half of government expenditures.
All the social security system does is discourage people from saving for their futures which results in low saving, thus low investment as saving must equal investment (in a closed economy, but even though america is in an open economy, this rule still seems to apply very well if you want to look at empirical evidence). Anyway, america has like the lowest savings/investment rate in the world and this is a huge hinderance to america's long term prosperity and long-term steady state of output. America's rate is like 12%; Canada's is like double that at 24%; most of Europe is in the twenties or thirties; and Japan has an insane investment rate at something like 30-40%.
If you accept the general truth of the solow model, and if you accept that the portion of national income from physical capital is ~33% then it should be clear that in order to maximize the long-term, non-investment based GDP (such as consumption, government spending, etc.) then your country should have a savings/investment rate of ~33%.
The sad truth is that the american culture is becoming too spend/borrow oriented and americans are having bigger and bigger debts and spending like there is no tomorrow and this culture is reflected in their government. America both needs to reduce their debt and look for ways to encourage greater savings and investment such as abolishing social security, abolishing the capital gains tax, reducing income and corporate taxes (especially on the rich) and maybe moving to other taxes such as a consumption tax or more pigovian taxes.
"then your country should have a savings/investment rate of ~33%."
I agree that people should save more. Maybe 33% isn't a viable target for everyone though although as an overall average that feels right to me. When I had a lower income level I would definately starve/be evicted if I would have tried to save that much.
I don't necessarily agree that abolishing taxes would really encourage people to save more on it's own. A lot of people have a tendancy to spend as much as they get so it is also a cultural/attitudinal adjustment that would need to get place. Usually taxes are cuts are done with the intention to encourage individuals to *spend*.
I don't see how reducing corporate taxes (or taxes on higher income levels) encourages saving from the general population either. Reducing corporate taxes can be beneficial but it doesn't necessarily equate to higher savings. Odd that you are using taxes as an argument yet the countries whose savings rates you are comparing ot the US have higher taxes for the most part.
(Well vs Canada it's debatable because it's a different tax structure/logic so in some cases taxes are actually lower in canada once you take into account all other fees one must pay, also Canada has had almost no budget deficits for the past 15 years (with one exception) is working on reducing debt)).
What I have seen work in terms of reducing debt was:
1) leave taxes alone, cut expenditures, generate a surplus pay down debt
2) use interest savings on lower debt to pay down debt/reduce taxes/bribe the electorate
Oddly this doesn't end the debate over taxes/spending etc
"Maybe 33% isn't a viable target for everyone though although as an overall average that feels right to me."
Yeah, I was suggesting that be the overall average, I in no way was trying to imply otherwise. Clearly some people will want to save less/more. More specifically the rich tend to save/invest a higher percent of their income than the poor for obvious reasons.
"I don't necessarily agree that abolishing taxes would really encourage people to save more on it's own."
You're reading me wrong. It's not abolishing taxes in general but rather abolishing specific taxes (such as income) and replacing them with other taxes (such as consumption).
"I don't see how reducing corporate taxes (or taxes on higher income levels) encourages saving from the general population either."
Because in the case of higher income levels, people with higher income save/invest a larger portion of their income than poor people (i.e. have a lower propensity to consume). Therefore, a reduction in taxes on the rich will result in a larger increase in savings/investment than a reduction in taxes on the poor. As for corporate taxes, reducing corporate taxes increases the profits that corporations get, which means that shareholders gain more for their investments. This increases the demand for loans and as a result results in an increased interest rate which means it is more attractive for people to save, so basically you get more saving/investment.
"Odd that you are using taxes as an argument yet the countries whose savings rates you are comparing ot the US have higher taxes for the most part."
For the last time, it's not about overall tax levels but the types of taxes. The US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and one of the highest income tax rates, but has a very low consumption tax. You are looking at taxes as either high taxes vs. low taxes and that all taxes are the same. However, all taxes are different and they have different effects on the economy. The US could greatly benefit from a tax shift (i.e. same revenue generated, just from different sources) if it moved away from income and corporate taxes and to other taxes specifically consumption or pigouvian.
"abolishing specific taxes (such as income) and replacing them with other taxes (such as consumption)." As in sales tax?
One has to tread lightly with that one as it's easier to circumvent (read black market) than income tax. If people were more honest then yes I agree 100%.
Regarding reducing taxes on the rich.. yes then those people save more.. I'm not sure that solves the problem though. Unless by saving you also mean investing in things other than the bank then it's possible.
" As for corporate taxes, reducing corporate taxes increases the profits that corporations get, which means that shareholders gain more for their investments."
This isn't what has actually been observed in practice though (and this isn't an argument against lowering corporat taxes). Other possible impacts include increased retention of earnings/capital expenditures/acquisitions or increased competitiveness through lowering of prices. Not that these are bad things. It really depends on how widely held the corporation is amoung other things.
"The US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and one of the highest income tax rates, but has a very low consumption tax"
Except in some cities that have their own annoying sales taxes..:P
"One has to tread lightly with that one as it's easier to circumvent"
You just need proper law enforcement. Besides, would you rather tax income rather than consumption which helps criminals (as criminals don't pay income tax but still have to buy groceries)?
"I'm not sure that solves the problem though."
Solves what problem? The problem of low investment? Sure it will (atleast help).
"Unless by saving you also mean investing in things other than the bank then it's possible."
What's wrong with saving your money in a bank? Do you really think that your money just sits there and does nothing? Why do you think banks offer interest for your money? It doesn't just sit there, rather, the banks use your money to invest in things and then get a return on your investment. Saving your money in a bank increases investment and banks add economic efficiency so i'm not sure why you don't like saving money in banks.
"This isn't what has actually been observed in practice though"
Err, yes it is. If you tax a corporation's profits then investors in that corporation gain less for their investments and this makes investing in that corporation less appealing.
"and this isn't an argument against lowering corporat taxes"
How is that?
The Truth:
Rich people are not the government.
They do not build roads, pay for the military and generally finance the nation's infrastructure.
Taxing the rich less will deprive the government of some valuable income from the greatest source of income.
Furthermore, providing no social security discriminates heavily against the poor.
Some poor people, especially if they have lots of children and provide proper care for them simply don't make enough income to save significantly.
We are already experiencing some problems with low population. Lets not make it worse by setting up policies that will heavily penalise people who actually have lots of children.
Also, some people get unlucky and see their savings go down the drain for various reasons (law suit, medical condition, etc).
Social security is there for a reason.
I agree that people not saving is a problem, but providing no social security is not a valid solution.
Many people are so hooked to spending that they will spend away their income regardless.
"Rich people are not the government."
No they aren't. I'm not sure why you thought I implied that.
"Taxing the rich less will deprive the government of some valuable income from the greatest source of income."
Do you people not understand what a tax shift is? Are your brains so conditioned that you only understand high taxes vs low taxes? It's like this, you reduce taxes from a bad tax source (ex. income taxes) and increase taxes on a good tax source (ex. consumption taxes) so that government revenue remains the same.
"Furthermore, providing no social security discriminates heavily against the poor."
It does? How?
"Some poor people, especially if they have lots of children and provide proper care for them simply don't make enough income to save significantly."
And we should be encouraging poor people to breed like rabbits why? Do you think society should reward people who have a zillion kids? Having a kid is a choice, and people should be responsible for their actions; they can either have a child or be richer, their choice.
"We are already experiencing some problems with low population."
We? We being who?
"some people get unlucky and see their savings go down the drain for various reasons"
Haven't these people heard of insurance? Damn they are stupid. And how is a lawsuit unlucky, usually you do something against the law to get one.
"Social security is there for a reason."
Yes, it's there to buy votes from old people and screw up the economy in the process. It takes up half of government expenditures and that money could be used in much better ways such as being spent on health, education or deficit.
"Many people are so hooked to spending that they will spend away their income regardless."
And you want to reward this behaviour, why? And if consumption looks less appealing to savings (which it can if you change your tax sources) then people will save more if the reward is better relative to consumption.
>No they aren't. I'm not sure why you thought I implied that.<
Because you implied that giving the rich a tax break would lead to a better economy with more investments.
I disagree. Investors looking for #1 do not necessarily make a better country.
When some rich dude decides to use his capita to produce in some third world country, it doesn't make for a better economy.
When some rich dude decides to look for a company's short term gains at the expense of long term to quickly increase stock prices, it doesn't make for a better economy.
When oil companies try to stiffle research in alternate energy sources for cars, it doesn't make for a better more self-reliant country.
When companies sue the government for trying to make stricter laws concerning the dump of hazardeous material, it definitely doesn't make for a better country.
Rich people are no better than poor people and will care to the extent that it makes them rich, but not necessarily to the extent that it contributes to the prosperity of everyone.
Thats why increasing the amount of spare capita in their hands is not the solution.
>It does? How?<
Because they are the ones likely to need social security from time to time.
>And we should be encouraging poor people to breed like rabbits why? Do you think society should reward people who have a zillion kids? Having a kid is a choice, and people should be responsible for their actions; they can either have a child or be richer, their choice.<
Yes, this is the exact mindset that makes countries like the US or Canada dependant on immigration to replenish their populations.
Guess what will happen when all third world countries are industrialized and have the same mindset... hmmm, possible extinction of the human race anyone?
Maybe you don't care, but I'm gonna grow old some day and I certainly hope there will be a plentiful new generation to take over and provide much of the work labor we take for granted.
>We? We being who?<
US, Canada. Lots of Western countries.
>Haven't these people heard of insurance? Damn they are stupid. And how is a lawsuit unlucky, usually you do something against the law to get one.<
In the US, people get law suits for the stupidiest of things.
I used to think you could only get sued for things you deliberately did wrong.
Heck, no. You can get sued for not predicting the oddest of possibilities. Heck, if a thief breaks into your home and hurts himself, he can sue you.
As for insurance, not everybody can afford it.
>Do you people not understand what a tax shift is? Are your brains so conditioned that you only understand high taxes vs low taxes? It's like this, you reduce taxes from a bad tax source (ex. income taxes) and increase taxes on a good tax source (ex. consumption taxes) so that government revenue remains the same.<
We already have consumption tax in Canada, except for the most basic of stuff (like essential food).
Maybe you think increasing the price of bread by 50% in tax is a good idea, but it will only hurt the poor.
Tax on revenue is fair since almost everyone has a declarable revenue and everyone owes the government for services provided.
>It takes up half of government expenditures and that money could be used in much better ways such as being spent on health, education or deficit.<
Well, the place I live in is different from the place you live in, because health and education are pretty high in the lists of priority for government spending.
However, we still don't let our old people starve on the street.
>And you want to reward this behaviour, why? And if consumption looks less appealing to savings (which it can if you change your tax sources) then people will save more if the reward is better relative to consumption. <
You don't get it.
You think that excessive consumers are analysing their shoping habits rationally.
I assure you that they don't.
They would consume excessively, even if the price of things was doubled (but the lowest income slice of the population would see some of their basic needs unsatisfied).
Bravo Magn, saved me time typing out how wrong he is. :)
"Because you implied that giving the rich a tax break would lead to a better economy with more investments."
Yes, it would lead to more saving/investment, thus a higher amount of physical capital, thus a more productive economy due to that additional physical capital. I'm not sure how you think that implies that rich people are the government. Maybe you are confused between private investment and what it is classified as and government expenditures. Maybe this will help you understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp
"Investors looking for #1 do not necessarily make a better country."
What a 'better country' is is abiguous and varies from person to person. Some people hate progress and like to live in the stoneage and view low standards of living as a better country. However, what isn't abiguous is that greater saving/investment increases the capital stock which increases output per worker and results in a higher GDP.
"When some rich dude decides to use his capita to produce in some third world country"
I hope you mean capital rather than capita otherwise that sentence doesn't really make sense... An investor looking for the highest return to his investment is diverting resources to more productive sectors of the economy thus increasing the size of the economy. In the case you mentioned such a decision would increase the GDP in the country being invested in and the GNP in the country the 'rich dude' lives in.
"When some rich dude decides to look for a company's short term gains at the expense of long term it doesn't make for a better economy."
Poor business decisions rarely do result in a better economy. Not really sure what your point was.
"When companies sue the government for trying to make stricter laws concerning the dump of hazardeous material, it definitely doesn't make for a better country."
What? Enforcing the rule of law is bad for the economy? Since when? Are you implying that the law should be enforced and that people that break the law should be prosecuted?
"Rich people are no better than poor people"
Again this is abiguous moral nonsense and whether someone is 'better' than someone else depends on the context and in what way.
"and will care to the extent that it makes them rich, but not necessarily to the extent that it contributes to the prosperity of everyone."
Congradulations, you figured out that market faliures exist! Just like the rest of your post you state random facts and make no connection to how they support your arguement or event attempt to define what you are arguing (because I certainly can't figure it out).
"Thats why increasing the amount of spare capita in their hands is not the solution."
The solution to what exactly? And what do you mean spare capita? I was talking about the physical capital stock but clearly as you have said capita as opposed to capital twice now it is unlikely a typo. Are you saying that we shouldn't sew people togeather to make them two people thus giving them more spare capita and this wouldn't be a solution to whatever problem you haven't defined. I'm really confused; you are not making sense.
"Because they are the ones likely to need social security from time to time."
Who needs what is abigous and what someone 'needs' depends on perspective. And rewarding people who do not save for their future's is not helpful to the economy as it discourages saving/investment.
"Yes, this is the exact mindset that makes countries like the US or Canada dependant on immigration to replenish their populations."
And immigration is bad how??? What are you, some xenophobe/racist who doesn't want these countries to change their ethnic background? Immigration is a wonderful thing, why produce your own people and spend resources to raise them early in life when you can just get immigrants to come instead?
"What will happen when all third world countries are industrialized... possible extinction of the human race anyone?"
Wait, so according to you having third world countries industrialize and increase their standards of living / reduce poverty will make the human race somehow extinct...
"Maybe you don't care"
I don't. Next poorly constructed paragraph...
"US, Canada. Lots of Western countries."
Canada and the US are not experiencing any population problems at all. Their populations are growing and will continue to grow. As for countries that are/will experience significant population decline (japan, germany, russia) all they have to do is actually allow immigrants into their country like north america does.
"In the US, people get law suits for the stupidiest of things."
Yes they do. So don't break the law!
"Heck, if a thief breaks into your home and hurts himself, he can sue you."
Your fault for having such a dangerous house, geez!
"As for insurance, not everybody can afford it."
No, not everyone can afford every insurance. That's why you get a job to earn money so you can buy things.
"We already have consumption tax in Canada, except for the most basic of stuff (like essential food)."
I know we do. But thanks to that idiot Harper and his vote-grabbing GST cut it's only 5% now, plus we have the PST which ranges from 0%-8% depending on your province. That's nothing. We should have like a 20%+ consumption tax on non-essentials and significantly reduce or abolish corporate and income taxes.
"Maybe you think increasing the price of bread by 50% in tax is a good idea, but it will only hurt the poor."
1. Everyone eats bread so not only the 'poor' will be hurt by a tax. 2. Everyone is already hurt by the income tax (except the lazy people who don't work) so who cares? 3. You can make consumption taxes exempt on some goods (such as essentials; food, clothing, etc.) so you don't have to tax bread.
"Tax on revenue is fair since almost everyone has a declarable revenue and everyone owes the government for services provided."
What is 'fair' varies from person to person. Personally I don't think that it's 'fair' that criminals and lazy people get to avoid income tax when they pretty much wouldn't be able to avoid sales taxes but whatever. However, I don't care what is 'fair' because that doesn't interest me; the only thing I care about is what is good for the economy and consumption taxes are better than income taxes.
"Well, the place I live in is different from the place you live in"
You don't even know where I live so how can you make that assertion? I said that in america half of government revenues go to the social security system and that somehow implies that I live in america?
"However, we still don't let our old people starve on the street."
We being who?
"You think that excessive consumers are analysing their shoping habits rationally."
Rationally, irrationally, doesn't matter. They still respond to incentives and changing taxes will distort their behaviour.
"They would consume excessively, even if the price of things was doubled"
If prices doubled they would only consume half as much and would pay way more taxes if that doubling was due to consumption tax. This is bad how?
"Bravo Magn, saved me time typing out how wrong he is. :)"
Bravo Swirvin' Brids, you made a completely useless post that adds nothing to the conversation. *Waits for mods to come to delete the useless post because they said they would delete such pointless, add-nothing-to-the-conversation posts.*
>Yes, it would lead to more saving/investment, thus a higher amount of physical capital, thus a more productive economy due to that additional physical capital. I'm not sure how you think that implies that rich people are the government. Maybe you are confused between private investment and what it is classified as and government expenditures. Maybe this will help you understand:<
Let me put it in cruder terms:
Our society is capital driven.
Whoever controls the capital controls what is being done in our society.
If you take capital away from the government and give it away to the rich, then you reduce what the goverment can do in our society and increase what the rich can do in our society.
>What a 'better country' is is abiguous and varies from person to person. Some people hate progress and like to live in the stoneage and view low standards of living as a better country. However, what isn't abiguous is that greater saving/investment increases the capital stock which increases output per worker and results in a higher GDP.<
I wouldn't call the production of random stuff to satisfy artificially created needs progress.
Saving/Investment is only good to the extent that what is being invested in is worthwhile for society as a whole.
>Poor business decisions rarely do result in a better economy. Not really sure what your point was.<
My point is that this is rich people screwing up the market to make more money.
>Congradulations, you figured out that market faliures exist! Just like the rest of your post you state random facts and make no connection to how they support your arguement or event attempt to define what you are arguing (because I certainly can't figure it out).<
I think you are deliberately showing some bad faith in trying to understand what I'm posting.
Swirvin' Birds seems to have gotten it right away.
>Again this is abiguous moral nonsense and whether someone is 'better' than someone else depends on the context and in what way.<
In my book, someone who is able to balances his needs with the needs of others is better than someone who is mostly self-centered.
You are using the terminology yourself, if less directly, because you are implying that the rich should have more money to invest meaning you attribute some sort of moral value to the rich and imply that somehow, they will look out for society's best interest.
I'm telling you this is not so. History has shown this time and time again.
>The solution to what exactly? And what do you mean spare capita? I was talking about the physical capital stock but clearly as you have said capita as opposed to capital twice now it is unlikely a typo. Are you saying that we shouldn't sew people togeather to make them two people thus giving them more spare capita and this wouldn't be a solution to whatever problem you haven't defined. I'm really confused; you are not making sense.<
I was tired. I meant capital.
>Who needs what is abigous and what someone 'needs' depends on perspective. And rewarding people who do not save for their future's is not helpful to the economy as it discourages saving/investment<
I'm talking about the very poor.
Those who don't have a lot of money to save to begin with, let alone go shop for DVDs.
Please, try to put yourself in a different context then yours, or we're wasting our time here.
Everybody has basic needs (food, a home, etc). This isn't ambiguous. Again, I think you are showing some bad faith.
>And immigration is bad how??? What are you, some xenophobe/racist who doesn't want these countries to change their ethnic background? Immigration is a wonderful thing, why produce your own people and spend resources to raise them early in life when you can just get immigrants to come instead?<
How about, because it makes us dependant on other countries making children to subsist?
Furthermore, immigrant bring some of their baggages with them, including their hatred for some other cultures.
A few years ago, we had an open fight at university between jews and palestinians that resulted in a full scale police intervention and the university closing down for the day.
Of course, if immigration is something we need as opposed to a privilege granted, then we can't afford to be as discriminating as to whom we let in.
>Canada and the US are not experiencing any population problems at all. Their populations are growing and will continue to grow. As for countries that are/will experience significant population decline (japan, germany, russia) all they have to do is actually allow immigrants into their country like north america does.<
The only reason we are not experiencing population problems is because we became dependant on immigration from poorer world countries who are actually making the children that we aren't.
>Wait, so according to you having third world countries industrialize and increase their standards of living / reduce poverty will make the human race somehow extinct...<
If we don't change our mentality concerning having children, yes.
>Yes they do. So don't break the law!<
You didn't even read what I posted.
This will be my last reply to your posts.
>Your fault for having such a dangerous house, geez!<
Yes, I should make sure all the knives in the house are properly dulled so that nobody can injure themselves.
>We being who?<
Quebec, obviously.
>Rationally, irrationally, doesn't matter. They still respond to incentives and changing taxes will distort their behaviour.<
Not when they are shoping to fill an emotional void, it won't.
Additionally, I guess it didn't occur to you that a lot of people aren't inclined to be interested in managing money, not even when the money is their own.
I can tell you for a fact that many people I know will see a 100$ bill in their pocket dwindle to nothing by the end of the day and wonder: cheez, where did the money go?
>the only thing I care about is what is good for the economy and consumption taxes are better than income taxes.<
Okay, well, this is where our point of views diverge.
I guess going further is pointless.
I can't say I'm sad to terminate this exchange.
Have fun making money.
>Bravo Swirvin' Brids, you made a completely useless post that adds nothing to the conversation. *Waits for mods to come to delete the useless post because they said they would delete such pointless, add-nothing-to-the-conversation posts.*<
Dude, the way you're posting is really starting to irritate me.
"Our society is capital driven."
No it isn't. Our economy is driven by all factors or production, not just physical capital. But you said society rather than economy; again that is poorly defined.
"If you take capital away from the government and give it away to the rich."
Ok, I think you are confused as to what exactly physical capital is. Physical capital includes things such as tools, infrastruction, machinery, electronics, etc. to help people be more productive and are used in combination with labour and other factors of production (land, energy, human capital, etc.) to produce goods. The government does in no way control physical capital nor can they 'give physical capital away'. The vast majority of investment comes from the private sector in all but communist states. Higher supplies of physical capital result in higher output/GDP because they make workers more productive (as you can do more work if you have more/better capital).
"I wouldn't call the production of random stuff to satisfy artificially created needs progress."
Nah, progress would be the increase in production overtime, not the production itself.
"Saving/Investment is only good to the extent that what is being invested in is worthwhile for society as a whole."
I don't care what is worthwhile in your poorly defined 'society', all I care about is the economy. Investors seek the highest returns to their investments as possible thus investments generally go to the more productive sectors of the economy. Higher capital stocks result in greater production per worker, thus higher GDP, wages and standard of living.
"My point is that this is rich people screwing up the market to make more money."
That's not a point, that is a statement. Ok, so some rich people will sometimes lie/break the law to get richer (ex. enron). That is relevant how?
"I think you are deliberately showing some bad faith"
I'm an atheist, I don't have any faith. Faith is irrational belief in things without evidence. I'm not going to irrationally believe you make sense when you don't.
"in trying to understand what I'm posting"
All I see in your posts is a collection of false statements with no coherent structure and in no way trying to support a central idea/arguement. All I am doing is correcting your false statements.
"In my book..."
You have a book. That's nice. I care why?
"you are implying that the rich should have more money to invest meaning you attribute some sort of moral value to the rich and imply that somehow, they will look out for society's best interest."
I'm implying all those things? Really? I never knew that! All I said was that the rich have a lower propensity to consume than the poor (this is an empirically proven fact; poor people spend more of the additional income on consumption). I then said that a reduction in the income taxes on the rich would have a greater impact on the physical capital stock than a reduction in income taxes on the poor due to this difference in the propensity to consume. As for me attributing moral values to anything, that's impossible; I'm an atheist, I don't have morals.
"History has shown this time and time again."
Shown what?
"I'm talking about the very poor."
That doesn't change the fact that 'need' is ambigous.
"let alone go shop for DVDs"
Pfft! DVD's... It's all BlueRay now. BlueRay ftw!
"try to put yourself in a different context then yours"
I'm not putting myself in anyone's context. All I am doing is making observations about the economy and correcting false statements.
"Again, I think you are showing some bad faith."
Again, I'm not a theist. I don't have faith.
"How about, because it makes us dependant on other countries making children to subsist?"
And interdependance is neccesarily a bad thing why? And do these other countries somehow control how many children their people have. Can they suddenly say, 'Oh, sorry! No more children for you' and use it as a bargaining chip or something?
"Furthermore, immigrant bring some of their baggages with them, including their hatred for some other cultures."
Blah, blah, blah. More xenophobic nonsense.
"A few years ago, we had an open fight at university between jews and palestinians"
I don't care about your silly anecdotal evidence.
"we can't afford to be as discriminating as to whom we let in."
Even more xenophobic nonsense.
"we became dependant on immigration from poorer world countries"
No country is dependant on immigration. Countries allow immigration cause it benefits them; that is all.
"who are actually making the children that we aren't."
I don't care where children come from. They could come from a magical stalk for all I care.
"If we don't change our mentality concerning having children, yes."
Who is we? The human race? I never knew that the human race had a single mentality towards having children. I thought that varied from individual to individual.
"You didn't even read what I posted."
Yes I did. How else could I reply?
"This will be my last reply to your posts."
I doubt that, but whatever.
"Quebec, obviously."
So Quebec doesn't have homeless people? Really? Cause everytime I go to quebec I see some homeless people.
"I guess it didn't occur to you that a lot of people aren't inclined to be interested in managing money"
If they don't, fine, that's their choice and they should suffer the consequences of that choice. And the market and society should definatly penalise people for making stupid choices such as not managing money.
"I can tell you for a fact that many people I know will see a 100$ bill in their pocket dwindle to nothing by the end of the day"
Yes, many stupid people exist, I agree. I care why?
"Okay, well, this is where our point of views diverge."
So you are going to disagree with most of modern economic theory and pretty much any credible economist and you think that income taxes are better for the economy than consumption taxes. Do you have any justification for this at all? What is the mechanism that causes this?
"I guess going further is pointless."
Indeed, because that might actually require the involvement of your brain.
"Dude, the way you're posting is really starting to irritate me."
Dude, I really don't care.
>No it isn't. Our economy is driven by all factors or production, not just physical capital. But you said society rather than economy; again that is poorly defined.<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society
>Ok, I think you are confused as to what exactly physical capital is. Physical capital includes things such as tools, infrastruction, machinery, electronics, etc. to help people be more productive and are used in combination with labour and other factors of production (land, energy, human capital, etc.) to produce goods. The government does in no way control physical capital nor can they 'give physical capital away'. The vast majority of investment comes from the private sector in all but communist states. Higher supplies of physical capital result in higher output/GDP because they make workers more productive (as you can do more work if you have more/better capital).<
Solid assets and money are interchangeable in our society.
If the government has money, then he can convert it to diverse assets (workers, infrastructure, etc).
>Nah, progress would be the increase in production overtime, not the production itself.<
No, it is what is produced is important.
Spending money to produce WMDs is not progress.
Spending money to produce a better education system with a more educated populace is progress.
>I don't care what is worthwhile in your poorly defined 'society', all I care about is the economy. Investors seek the highest returns to their investments as possible thus investments generally go to the more productive sectors of the economy. Higher capital stocks result in greater production per worker, thus higher GDP, wages and standard of living.<
Economy is not a self-contained unit. It doesn't exist in vacuum.
You can't just talk about economy without talking about surrounding social factors, else whatever conclusions you reached will be very limited.
>That's not a point, that is a statement. Ok, so some rich people will sometimes lie/break the law to get richer (ex. enron). That is relevant how?<
That is relevant to the point that they can't be trusted with everything.
Some basic infrastructure (the education system, the police, healthcare, the exploitation of natural ressources and many others) need to be controlled by the government and the government needs capital to run these things.
>I'm an atheist, I don't have any faith. Faith is irrational belief in things without evidence. I'm not going to irrationally believe you make sense when you don't.<
Incorrect.
Being an atheist requires as much faith as believing in God as you can't prove or disprove the existenc of God.
If you want to go with what requires the least faith, then you have to be an agnostic.
Furthermore, given that nothing can be shown with absolute certainty, faith in some things need to be established, otherwise, nothing will be achieved.
Being aware that a certain degree of faith is required, however, allows oneself to be critical of his own view and produce stronger arguments in a debate such as this one.
>All I see in your posts is a collection of false statements with no coherent structure and in no way trying to support a central idea/arguement. All I am doing is correcting your false statements.<
No, what you are doing is using the same recycled argumentation centered mostly around a self-contained economy and adding to it the erronous belief that everyone should run their life the way you do and possess the same set of skills that you do (which btw is a very curious thing to do for an atheist or maybe not, given that hardcore atheists are in many ways not so different from hardcore believers or various religions).
>Shown what?<
That rabid economic expansion driven solely by human cupidity can lead to disaster.
>I'm an atheist, I don't have morals.<
Na, you think that you don't, but you do and herein lies the problem.
You believe that productivity and the accumulation of capital is a goal in itself and the only intelligent one.
>
I'm implying all those things? Really? I never knew that! All I said was that the rich have a lower propensity to consume than the poor<
Yes and no.
The rich don't consume as much directly.
However, they tend to try to manipulate events in order to get richer and much evil has been done in that name.
>Again, I'm not a theist. I don't have faith.<
Yes you do mr "I am in denial".
>Pfft! DVD's... It's all BlueRay now. BlueRay ftw!<
BlueRay are so expensive. DVDs are much cheaper.
If I really want a movie badly, I'd rather pay 6$ for it giving that the DVD level of quality suits me just fine.
>That doesn't change the fact that 'need' is ambigous.<
I just defined it, but if you need a strict definition, look at Maslov's pyramid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%...archy_of_needs
>I'm not putting myself in anyone's context. All I am doing is making observations about the economy and correcting false statements.<
That won't work.
You have to look at different slice of the populace in terms of wealth and see how different economic mesures will affect them.
If you double the price on goods with taxes and half of the lower income populace starves to death, thats not good.
Beyond the obviously inhumane situation they'll live, you'll also have riots, general discontentment and an elevated rate of criminality on your hands.
Anyways, I have other things to do with my time and I find your argumentation kinda degenerates as you go further so I'll stop here.
"Solid assets and money are interchangeable in our society."
Yes, that's called liquidity. And stop using the term society. It is abigous and poorly defined and no giant wiki link will change that.
"If the government has money, then he can convert it to diverse assets (workers, infrastructure, etc)."
The government can't own workers. That's called slavery.
"Spending money to produce WMDs is not progress.
Spending money to produce a better education system with a more educated populace is progress."
Spending money on education increases the supply of human capital in the economy and increases the long term output of the economy; WMDs don't do that. I'm not really sure why you consider total output 'progress' rather than the change over time and then talked about education and WMD.
"Economy is not a self-contained unit. It doesn't exist in vacuum."
Many economic variables can be measured. GDP and GNP are good examples. I'm not really sure why they have to 'exist in vacuum'. But you keep making bizzare claims and contradictions so I'm used to it.
"You can't just talk about economy without talking about surrounding social factors, else whatever conclusions you reached will be very limited."
Conclusions are always limited in their usefulness. What's wrong with that?
"That is relevant to the point that they can't be trusted with everything."
What group can be trusted with everything? What's your point?
"Some basic infrastructure (the education system, the police, healthcare, the exploitation of natural ressources and many others) need to be controlled by the government"
I wouldn't say that these things *need* to be controlled by the government (again 'need' is arbitrary); however, to maximize economic efficiency and economic welfare government intervention in these areas is justified. In the first 3 cases you have significant positive externalities associated with those sectors of the economy; in the 4th case intervention can be justified if the environment is affected or if the natural resource is a common good.
"and the government needs capital to run these things."
No, the government just needs money.
"Being an atheist requires as much faith as believing in God as you can't prove or disprove the existenc of God."
Yeah, sure it does...
"If you want to go with what requires the least faith, then you have to be an agnostic."
I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. Why is it one or the other?
"given that nothing can be shown with absolute certainty, faith in some things need to be established, otherwise, nothing will be achieved."
Nonsense. Faith is belief without evidence. You can still believe in things that you are not absolutely sure about without faith because you might have some evidence to justify that belief.
"and produce stronger arguments in a debate such as this one."
This is a debate? Really? I thought it was more like me correcting you on your false statements and that's about it.
"centered mostly around a self-contained economy"
I support 'self-contained' economies? Really? And here I thought open economies with trade and labour mobility were good and added economic efficiency. I'll just add that to the list of things I didn't know I suppored.
"the erronous belief that everyone should run their life the way you do and possess the same set of skills that you do"
Wheretf did this come from? What's with all these bizzare accusations. I haven't said anything about how others should run their lives, all I have stated is what is best for the economy.
"given that hardcore atheists are in many ways not so different from hardcore believers or various religions."
Yeah, sure they do... And i'm sure they worship dead jesuses and ped-- (wait, can't say that or OMAC will censor me) and i'm sure they blow up buildings and start witch hunts as well.
"That rabid economic expansion driven solely by human cupidity can lead to disaster."
Cupidity? Yes well I agree that economic expansion driven by someone's love life isn't a good idea. Oh, you mean stupidity! So stupid economic decisions are bad? Wow! Way to go Capn Obvious! What's your point?
"Na, you think that you don't"
No, I really don't have morals. I'm not constrained by them like other people.
"You believe that productivity and the accumulation of capital is a goal in itself and the only intelligent one."
No, I assure you that there are other factors of production in addition to those ones.
"The rich don't consume as much directly."
Ah so you agree that rich have a lower propensity to consume than poor people. Wow! You agree with my simply, blatantly obvious statement that somehow caused all your posts and these random accusations of what you think I believe.
"they tend to try to manipulate events in order to get richer"
Yes, there are criminals out there. What's your point? Actually why bother asking, you never have any point.
"Yes you do mr "I am in denial"."
Of course I'm in denial; I'm an atheist; I deny the existance of god.
"BlueRay are so expensive. DVDs are much cheaper."
Pfft, that's what they said about DVDs vs VHSs.
"I'd rather pay 6$ for it giving that the DVD level of quality suits me just fine."
$6 dollars for a movie in montreal? Damn Quebec is poor!
"I just defined it, but if you need a strict definition, look at Maslov's pyramid."
Ooh! Maslov's pyramid! I've never heard of that before! Oh wait I have! What are you, an art's student / philosophy student / former IB student?
"You have to look at different slice of the populace in terms of wealth and see how different economic mesures will affect them."
Why? Why must I look at different social classes of the population? I don't care about specific people at specific times, all I care about is the long-run economic utility of the economy as a whole.
"If you double the price on goods with taxes and half of the lower income populace starves to death"
Yes, that would definatly happen if you weren't smart enough to make food consumption tax exempt. There are positive externalities associated with the nutrition of food so it would make sense to subsidise food rather than tax it.
"thats not good."
No, having people die results in a lower supply of labour and you also lose all the human capital that was associated with them.
"Beyond the obviously inhumane situation they'll live, you'll also have riots, general discontentment and an elevated rate of criminality on your hands."
Yes, yes you will. What is your point?
"so I'll stop here."
Yeah, sure you will. I so totally believe that. My belief that you will stop posting here is up there along with my belief in god.
>Yes, that's called liquidity. And stop using the term society. It is abigous and poorly defined and no giant wiki link will change that.<
You need something that is loosely defined to describe something that is complex beyond clear definition.
The term society is still applicable to describe a list of varying factors (beyond economics) that unite a population body in a certain territory.
Differing philosophers have tried their hands at it. Imo, the most successful of them probably was Regis Debray.
>The government can't own workers. That's called slavery.<
Well, forgive my loose wording, but I meant the work done by the worker which can be bought.
I still think you are playing along the wording and little nitpicks in order to avoid discussing the meat of the matter.
>Spending money on education increases the supply of human capital in the economy and increases the long term output of the economy; WMDs don't do that. I'm not really sure why you consider total output 'progress' rather than the change over time and then talked about education and WMD.<
But the matter is still there.
You can increase production capacity all you like, but it is all for naught if mores are such that most of what is produced is garbage.
>Conclusions are always limited in their usefulness. What's wrong with that?<
Well, there is limited and there is severely limited.
If you limit the scope of your vision to economics, you'll have a very hard time arguing about politics which must take other matters into consideration too.
>Many economic variables can be measured. GDP and GNP are good examples. I'm not really sure why they have to 'exist in vacuum'. But you keep making bizzare claims and contradictions so I'm used to it.<
What I mean is that economy is influenced by diverse factors (including religion, war, how much education is valued, social ranking, the list goes on and on).
You can simply look at the economic variables and think they give you plenty of information to see the whole, but the economy is not the whole, it is a piece of the system.
>Conclusions are always limited in their usefulness. What's wrong with that?<
Well, its like saying: We will never be perfect so lets never try to improve ourselves.
Its a pessimistic take.
Our conclusions will never be infinite in scope, but that doesn't entitle us to sit on our Laurels and not try to increase it.
>What group can be trusted with everything? What's your point?<
The government at least, is elected and has to answer to the electorate.
In my view, thats more reliable than a group of wealthy individuals who isn't.
>to maximize economic efficiency and economic welfare government intervention in these areas is justified<
You know, part of the philosophical idea is transcendence or to go beyond the models we make to represent reality and come up with better ones.
I think you've become a bit fixated on the economic model and should try expending your horizons.
>I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. Why is it one or the other?<
By definition an atheist believes that god can't exist.
An agnostic just asserts that he can't know either way.
You can't both believe that a god doesn't exist and admit that he might, but you can't be sure.
>No, the government just needs money.<
Not if the government controls certain companies.
>This is a debate? Really? I thought it was more like me correcting you on your false statements and that's about it.<
Thats not possible.
You tend to limit yourself to economics and therefore, what you can correct me on is severely limited.
>You can still believe in things that you are not absolutely sure about without faith because you might have some evidence to justify that belief.<
And what constitutes evidence?
What you see with your senses?
Can you bring me any solid justification that some supra genius entity is not simply creating a fake reality for you to live in, fooling you at every turn?
>I support 'self-contained' economies? Really? And here I thought open economies with trade and labour mobility were good and added economic efficiency. I'll just add that to the list of things I didn't know I suppored.<
See? Tunnel vision, I'm telling you.
I'm not talking about self-contained as in no outside trade.
I'm talking about self-contained as in: the concept of 'economy' existing by itself without other things to support it.
>Wheretf did this come from? What's with all these bizzare accusations. I haven't said anything about how others should run their lives, all I have stated is what is best for the economy.<
You called people who can't save idiot.
I'm not prepared to make that claim.
I think they might be limited in that respect and might need assistance or a solid change of mindset, but I wouldn't be prepared to say that they have no intellect.
>Yeah, sure they do... And i'm sure they worship dead jesuses and ped-- (wait, can't say that or OMAC will censor me) and i'm sure they blow up buildings and start witch hunts as well.<
Actually, I find atheists most amusing in their attempts to oppose organized religion.
I mean, what is the point of outright offending religious folks when there is nothing to be gained from the offense?
Some (such as yourself) go further and get the funny notion that because we can't be sure of a creating god, ethics should go out the window dismissing any value it might have for a specie that need to live in organized society.
>Cupidity? Yes well I agree that economic expansion driven by someone's love life isn't a good idea. Oh, you mean stupidity! So stupid economic decisions are bad? Wow! Way to go Capn Obvious! What's your point?<
No, I mean cupidity.
The desire of amassing wealth for the sake of amassing wealth.
The view of money and possessions as an end rather than a mean.
>No, I really don't have morals. I'm not constrained by them like other people.<
Such a noble pursuit.
One then has to wonder how it is that they didn't throw you in jail and throw away the key already if you organized your life in this way.
Must have been fear that kept you in line.
>Of course I'm in denial; I'm an atheist; I deny the existance of god.<
Then, you can't be an agnostic. Sorry.
>Ah so you agree that rich have a lower propensity to consume than poor people. Wow! You agree with my simply, blatantly obvious statement that somehow caused all your posts and these random accusations of what you think I believe.<
Yes, they also encourage the use of credit cards (even, or actually, especially when they know the owner of the card is an irresponsible spender) and bombard us with ads in order to leech at our income with useless gizmos.
>Yes, there are criminals out there. What's your point? Actually why bother asking, you never have any point.<
No, I'm sure that in your rigid economic view of the world, I don't have much of a point to make.
Like I said before, this discussion with you is a waste of time.
shame on me for perpetuating it.
>Yes, that would definatly happen if you weren't smart enough to make food consumption tax exempt. There are positive externalities associated with the nutrition of food so it would make sense to subsidise food rather than tax it.<
you'd have to go beyond food.
You'd have to make one for clothing, housing, basic furniture and other basic commodities I can't think of right now.
I'd be a buraucratic nightmare.
>Ooh! Maslov's pyramid! I've never heard of that before! Oh wait I have! What are you, an art's student / philosophy student / former IB student?<
Actually, the model is of interest in that it is true enough that if lower level needs are not met, higher level considerations go out the window.
But if you must know my curriculum, I hold a bachelor of computer sciences and also a specialization in statistics.
I like perusing works in philosophy and history as a hobby, because I'm aware that my scientic interest is too narrow to make me a balanced person if I hold myself only to it.
"The term society is still applicable to describe a list of varying factors (beyond economics) that unite a population body in a certain territory."
Blah, blah, blah. I don't care. This is an economics thread; don't know why you want to turn it into a philosophy thread. Oh wait, maybe you don't know any economic theory and therefore have to turn to your inferior philosophy to determine what you believe is best for 'society'.
"I still think you are playing along the wording and little nitpicks in order to avoid discussing the meat of the matter."
That's what I do.
"You can increase production capacity all you like, but it is all for naught if mores are such that most of what is produced is garbage."
If what you are increasing production in is not valued by the economy then you aren't increasing production are you. By production I mean economic output as in GDP.
"Well, there is limited and there is severely limited."
Recognizing the limits of your conclusions that you can make given the method of arguement is a good thing.
"If you limit the scope of your vision to economics, you'll have a very hard time arguing about politics which must take other matters into consideration too."
Pfft! No it doesn't. Ok, maybe politics involves alot of lying and various fallacies such as appealing to emotion, circular reasoning and strawmen arguements as well as following your irrational political ideology in order to be elected. But do you think those populist morons that are elected into power know what is best for society? No, they just follow their idiotic political ideology.
"What I mean is that economy is influenced by diverse factors (including religion, war, how much education is valued, social ranking, the list goes on and on)."
I think you fail to understand the distinction between classical economics and non-classical economics and what exactly falls under the field of economics.
"The government at least"
The government can be trusted with everything? Really? Have you not heard of government corruption?
"is elected and has to answer to the electorate."
Nah, it's elected to follow it's idiotic political ideology by more idiots who believe in this ideology.
"In my view, thats more reliable than a group of wealthy individuals who isn't."
These individuals follow predictable patterns and their choices are controlled by market forces.
"You know, part of the philosophical idea is transcendence or to go beyond the models we make to represent reality and come up with better ones."
Incorrect. That's called the scientific method!
"I think you've become a bit fixated on the economic model and should try expending your horizons."
My horizons are wide. I just value economic theory over philisophical nonsense when discussing the economy.
"By definition an atheist believes that god can't exist."
Incorrect, atheists believe that god doesn't exist, not that it can't.
"An agnostic just asserts that he can't know either way."
Indeed they do.
"You can't both believe that a god doesn't exist and admit that he might, but you can't be sure."
Of course you can. You can know that you are not absolutely certain but still hold beliefs about that subject. I can see an empty cup and believe there is no water in it but I cannot know with 100% certainty.
"And what constitutes evidence? What you see with your senses?"
Yes.
"Can you bring me any solid justification that some supra genius entity is not simply creating a fake reality for you to live in, fooling you at every turn?"
No.
"I'm talking about self-contained as in: the concept of 'economy' existing by itself without other things to support it."
You are too vague. What are these 'other things'.
"You called people who can't save idiot."
Well of course they are idiots. However, that in no way implies that I want to force people how to live. They should have the free choice to make this decision; I just believe that the market and your economic structure should not reward / penalise bad behaviour.
"I think they might be limited in that respect and might need assistance"
Yes, and what is a better assistance than distorting their incentives to make it more favorable to do productive behaviour. Say, 'If you save, i'll give you a $100 dollar tax credit" or something.
"Actually, I find atheists most amusing in their attempts to oppose organized religion."
moi aussi.
"I mean, what is the point of outright offending religious folks when there is nothing to be gained from the offense?"
What do you mean there is nothing to be gained? Their reaction is priceless... Ok, maybe I can put a price on it but it's quite valueable.
"Some (such as yourself) go further and get the funny notion that because we can't be sure of a creating god, ethics should go out the window dismissing any value it might have for a specie that need to live in organized society."
Nah, even if there were a god ethics should still go out the window.
"The desire of amassing wealth for the sake of amassing wealth."
And such a noble goal that is!
"The view of money and possessions as an end rather than a mean."
No, money is a means to whatever end you desire; people need money to fufil their desires be it climbing mount everest, going on a tropical vacation, or getting a suicide vest to blow yourself up in the name of allah. Obtaining more money means more means to achieve whatever end you desire; thus more ends can be achieved.
"One then has to wonder how it is that they didn't throw you in jail and throw away the key already if you organized your life in this way."
Because I didn't break the law, duh. What, are you endorsing thought police now?
"Must have been fear that kept you in line."
Indeed, fear is a wonderful thing.
"I don't have much of a point to make."
I'm glad you agree.
"You'd have to make one for clothing, housing, basic furniture and other basic commodities I can't think of right now."
Yep, what's your point?
"I'd be a buraucratic nightmare."
I'll assume you typed It'd rather than I'd. Yes, it's such a beuraucratic nightmare that we already do it through the GST! And it certianly wouldn't be more of a beuraucratic nightmare than filing income taxes *sarcasm*.
"the model is of interest in that it is true enough that if lower level needs are not met, higher level considerations go out the window."
Indeed, that is true. Your point?
"But if you must know my curriculum, I hold a bachelor of computer sciences and also a specialization in statistics."
McGill?
"I'm aware that my scientic interest is too narrow to make me a balanced person if I hold myself only to it."
Why must someone aspire to become a 'balanced' person?
Oh, and fyi, incase you were confused earlier, Canada doesn't have a social security system in the sense that the americans do, thank non-god! Only that loser province Quebec does.
>Blah, blah, blah. I don't care. This is an economics thread; don't know why you want to turn it into a philosophy thread. Oh wait, maybe you don't know any economic theory and therefore have to turn to your inferior philosophy to determine what you believe is best for 'society'.<
Plz, don't be naive.
It is human nature to philosophize.
Your firm stance in a primary economic perspective is a philosophy in itself.
>That's what I do.<
So I see.
>If what you are increasing production in is not valued by the economy then you aren't increasing production are you. By production I mean economic output as in GDP.<
So you increase production to increase production.
This is all very circular.
>Pfft! No it doesn't. Ok, maybe politics involves alot of lying and various fallacies such as appealing to emotion, circular reasoning and strawmen arguements as well as following your irrational political ideology in order to be elected. But do you think those populist morons that are elected into power know what is best for society? No, they just follow their idiotic political ideology.<
For you, I imagine that would be the case, yes.
Human civilization is a bunch of numbers to be crunched right?
As much as the idea might sound appealing to someone in my field, I must reject it as incomplete.
>I think you fail to understand the distinction between classical economics and non-classical economics and what exactly falls under the field of economics.<
Then, enlighten me. That would be your first worthwhile comment in this entire exchange as far as I'm concerned.
>The government can be trusted with everything? Really? Have you not heard of government corruption?<
Yes, look where that got the liberals.
>Nah, it's elected to follow it's idiotic political ideology by more idiots who believe in this ideology.<
Yes, its so much more rational to increase the production for the sake of increasing production.
Of course, the above is not an ideology in itself, no. Keep kidding yourself.
>Incorrect. That's called the scientific method!<
You think modern science came out of a vacuum?
Tsk tsk.
Before modern science, there was philosophy.
It might interest you to know that Newton's main work was called Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
>My horizons are wide. I just value economic theory over philisophical nonsense when discussing the economy.<
Which is itself the only significant factor of human civilisation in a non-existent society,
Where is your horizon exactly? I fail to see it.
>Of course you can. You can know that you are not absolutely certain but still hold beliefs about that subject. I can see an empty cup and believe there is no water in it but I cannot know with 100% certainty.<
Well, given that you will shape all of your actions around the belief that the cup has no water, one can conclude that the belief is very strong.
>You are too vague. What are these 'other things'.<
Religion, culture, language, accumulated knowledge, values, I'm there are quite a few others which I'm not recalling at this very moment.
>Well of course they are idiots.<
No, they are not.
You have no sense of ethics, remember?
There is no right or wrong action. If there is no right or wrong action, then you cannot attribute a desirable course of action that the intelligent individual will be able to discern.
You are in denial with yourself.
Anyways, Enough for today.
"It is human nature to philosophize."
Ok... Your point?
"Your firm stance in a primary economic perspective is a philosophy in itself."
Pfft! Call it what you want, but it only makes sense to use economic tools when discussing issues concerning the economy.
The only reason you resort to using philosophy to evaluate economic policy is because you lack the economic tools to examine that policy. I have both economic and philosophical tools to examine that policy, you don't, that is why I use different tools than you.
"So you increase production to increase production. This is all very circular."
... I think you misread my comment. I was responding to your earlier comment. I was saying that producing garbage won't increase economic production because it isn't valued by the economy.
"Human civilization is a bunch of numbers to be crunched right?"
Yep, we are all just one giagantic song resonating in an eleven dimentional world. (that was a reference to super string theory in case you didn't get it)
"As much as the idea might sound appealing to someone in my field, I must reject it as incomplete."
Of course models are always (or almost always incomplete). That's why you must always try to improve them to more closely approach reality.
"Then, enlighten me. That would be your first worthwhile comment in this entire exchange as far as I'm concerned."
Ok, classical economics makes alot of assumptions primarily that humans are rational beings that generally look out for their own best interests in order to make their models. However, in non-classical economics alot of those assumptions are thrown out or put to the test and non-classical economics tries to incorperate the irrational behaviour of humans and it's effects on the economy. It's an ever growing and ever changing field that is very tied to sociology.
"Yes, its so much more rational to increase the production for the sake of increasing production."
Not for the sake of increasing production; the sake could be anything you want it to be. Maybe it could be to afford better education, or perhaps to advance health care to make people live longer, or maybe to fund research into new areas of study and advance your knowledge. No matter what your desired ends are, you need means to get there and having more production capabilities gives you more means. We wouldn't be able to have this conversation if there wasn't a strong enough economy to be able to develop and support the internet.
"Before modern science, there was philosophy."
What's your point?
"Where is your horizon exactly? I fail to see it."
Well that's because they are too wide to see, duh.
"Well, given that you will shape all of your actions around the belief that the cup has no water, one can conclude that the belief is very strong."
The only reason people have beliefs is precisely for methodological (yes that's a word) reasons. People need beliefs in order to make decisions it is part of our nature. I believe the pen I am holding now is blue so I can make decisions based on that belief; I believe that the internet is real so I can make decisions about whether to type this post; I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, so I don't have to worry about the world ending, etc. I don't believe in god so that I don't have to make decisions regarding him/her and can focus my decisions on other things.
"Religion, culture, language, accumulated knowledge, values,"
Personally I don't really value religion or culture but it's often included in non-classical economic models. Language is a way we communicate and is included in both all the time in economic theory. As for knowledge, knowledge is a form of human capital; an increase in human capital increases production, therefore more knowledge is good for the economy, thus knowledge is desireable.
"You have no sense of ethics, remember?"
I said I don't have morals.
"If there is no right or wrong action, then you cannot attribute a desirable course of action that the intelligent individual will be able to discern."
I reject the premise that an action needs to be right or wrong in order for it to be desireable. Lots of actions that are percieved as wrong are considered desireable and lots of actions that are percieved as right are considered desireable as well.
Also, everything I said at the begining of this thread I guarantee you is correct (with regards to economic theory) and is completely in line with many accepted economic models such as the solow model and modern economic theory.
Ok, I won't debate over all the nitpicks we were debating, because frankly, I consider it a waste of time.
so for the sake of my time, I'll get to the meat of the matter.
I discussed your point with my cousin who has a Phd in economics and here's his take:
Overly increasing tax on product and decreasing tax from the rich is stupid because:
a) The rich likely won't invest more anyways since if they don't have the capita to invest in what they want, they'll just borrow it
b) The rich already have big tax breaks and a lot of ways to avoid paying taxes so they don't need more tax breaks
c) The rich are more likely to invest it abroad than at home
d) Consumers buying is creating jobs and fueling the economy. If things are more expensive through taxes, customers will buy less, companies will make less money and shrink, lots of jobs will be lost and whatever money the government made from tax on products, he will lose from tax on income since there will be less workers.
There were a couple of other points he made, but these are the ones I remember the most.
"I discussed your point with my cousin who has a Phd in economics"
Yeah... Sure you have a cousin.
"The rich likely won't invest more anyways since if they don't have the capita to invest in what they want, they'll just borrow it"
Rofl @ failure to understand the loans market.
"The rich already have big tax breaks and a lot of ways to avoid paying taxes so they don't need more tax breaks"
Yay at your use of using the word 'need' again. I don't care if the rich 'need' it or not; that doesn't change the fact that it's good for the economy in the long run.
"The rich are more likely to invest it abroad than at home"
While empirical evidence tends to disagree (i.e. countries with higher savings tend to have higher investment when in theory investment should be independant of savings in open economies)... Even if that were true, so what? Finding a higher return to your investment results in a higher GNP.
"Consumers buying is creating jobs and fueling the economy."
Nice work at confusing short term economics with long term economics.
"If things are more expensive through taxes, customers will buy less, companies will make less money and shrink, lots of jobs will be lost"
No duh, taxes hurt the economy (except pigouvian taxes). What's your point?
"whatever money the government made from tax on products, he will lose from tax on income since there will be less workers"
If you increase taxes on consumption, you increase government revenues (duh), unless you are on the wrong side of the laffer curve (which is unlikely and very rare in economics). Of course that's not why consumption taxes are better than income taxes. It has nothing to do with government revenues, with distribution of wealth or economic output in the short run. The difference is entirely it's effect on the economic output in the long run by making savings more appealing and increasing saving, thus investment, thus the capital stock, thus output per worker, thus GDP, thus standard of living.
"There were a couple of other points he made, but these are the ones I remember the most."
Yes, i'm sure your 5 minute 'discussion' enlightened you so much *sarcasm*.
>Yeah... Sure you have a cousin.<
I don't care if you believe me.
The point is, I'll believe my cousin who is family and has credentials before I believe some stranger off the internet who could be anyone pretending to be anyone.
Since you're trying to convince me (nobody except the two of us seem to care about this conversation to comment anyways so its mostly us 2), you should adapt to this reality or move on.
Anyways, he comes from Saguenay Lac St-Jean and I don't see him very often so you should consider yourself complimented that I cared enough to spend some of the limited time I have with him to approach this topic.
>Rofl @ failure to understand the loans market.<
Go into more details. This answer is very short and vague.
>Yay at your use of using the word 'need' again. I don't care if the rich 'need' it or not; that doesn't change the fact that it's good for the economy in the long run.<
Idem previous comment.
You are not giving a whole lot of justification.
>While empirical evidence tends to disagree (i.e. countries with higher savings tend to have higher investment when in theory investment should be independant of savings in open economies)... Even if that were true, so what? Finding a higher return to your investment results in a higher GNP.<
If the money is not invested in the country, then the wealth is going somewhere else.
Depending on how nationalistic you are or how you don't care, it could be fine, but the government, who is looking out for the interests of his country, should definitely try to counter this.
(The above argumentation is mine)
I remember another thing he said: The economic policy you setup also has a lot to do with your values. Its hard to argue economic policies with someone if you don't share these core values.
>Nice work at confusing short term economics with long term economics.<
Short and vague.
If you're not willing to invest the time to elaborate, you won't convince anyone.
Again, don't count on the fact that your credentials (if any), can be trusted.
>If you increase taxes on consumption, you increase government revenues (duh), unless you are on the wrong side of the laffer curve (which is unlikely and very rare in economics).<
He argued that this is not so, since you will buy less and the economy will shrink as a result.
>Of course that's not why consumption taxes are better than income taxes. It has nothing to do with government revenues, with distribution of wealth or economic output in the short run.<
This is again, not very convincing.
Elaborate.
>The difference is entirely it's effect on the economic output in the long run by making savings more appealing and increasing saving, thus investment, thus the capital stock, thus output per worker, thus GDP, thus standard of living.<
According to me, workers won't save more (they'll just spend twice as much for the same goods).
According to my cousin, there will be less workers when the economy shrinks, meaning more people who need wealfare support, less taxable source and less money for the companies who make the goods to reinvest in the economy.
>Yes, i'm sure your 5 minute 'discussion' enlightened you so much *sarcasm*.<
More than these last few days talking with you.
Now, either step it up or I will move on.
"I'll believe my cousin who is family and has credentials before I believe some stranger off the internet who could be anyone pretending to be anyone."
Or maybe you should believe the facts regardless of who tells them to you. Rofl @ the appeal to authority fallacy.
"he comes from Saguenay Lac St-Jean and I don't see him very often"
Again, more appeal to authority fallacy.
"Go into more details. This answer is very short and vague."
Ok, you said:
"The rich likely won't invest more anyways since if they don't have the capita to invest in what they want, they'll just borrow it"
So according to you / your interpretation of what your 'cousin' said, the rich would invest the same if they had more money because if they didn't have the money they would just borrow it anyway. This is nonsense because from a macroeconomic perspective saving must equal investment. If the rich 'borrow' money then where do you think they get it from? If they borrowed money from the someone then that same money couldn't be borrowed by someone else, you only have so much money to borrow and that depends on the equalibrium with the supply and demand for loans in the market for loans (the price of the market being the interest rate of loans). Also, generally the rich don't 'borrow' money. They save their money and places like banks generally do the investing. Anyway, the rich have a lower propensity to consume (therefore a higher propensity to save) thus my original statement that tax cuts on the rich would result in a larger increase in the capital stock is correct.
"You are not giving a whole lot of justification."
What, do you want me to start from the beginning? How much exactly do you know? Maybe I can work with that.
"Its hard to argue economic policies with someone if you don't share these core values."
That is nonsense. Physicists that don't share core values can debate each other, Biologists that don't share core values can debate each other, so why not Economists?
"the government, who is looking out for the interests of his country, should definitely try to counter this."
So the government should try to prevent a higher GNP?
"Short and vague."
You were confusing long term and short term economics. You said that we shouldn't increase taxes on consumption because it would reduce aggregate demand by preventing people from buying as much (well that is essentially what you said). In the long run you consume what you produce and the consumption taxes make saving more favourable which increases the capital stock and long term output. You are confusing short term fluctuations in aggregate demand with the effect on the long term physical capital stock.
"don't count on the fact that your credentials (if any), can be trusted."
Even more of the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.
"He argued that this is not so, since you will buy less and the economy will shrink as a result."
So according to him, consumption taxes are on the right side of the laffer curve? Is that what he said? In pretty much any developed nation (especially north american ones), we aren't even close to the right side of the laffer curve. So if you or 'your cousin' has evidence that consumption taxes are on the right side of the laffer curve please present that evidence.
"workers won't save more (they'll just spend twice as much for the same goods)."
The change in behaviour depends entirely on their utility curves. But generally with each additional dollar a person has, they will consume portion of it and save another portion. Also, i'm not really sure how this response was related to my earlier comment about the effect of a tax shift on the capital stock thus output. What do workers 'saving' have anything to do with it? Are you somehow stupid enough to assume that a worker's physical capital depends entirely on how much they save and not what others save?
"According to my cousin"
Again, an appeal to authority.
"there will be less workers when the economy shrinks, meaning more people who need wealfare support, less taxable source and less money for the companies who make the goods to reinvest in the economy."
Yes, that generally happens. What is your point?