- Sep 16, 2010
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
Ya, we get it, it's not a perfect system. But it's been proven, through our success as a nation, to be one of the best governmental systems ever designed.
Which one of these is true...?
A. You didn't read a single source I provided
B. You tried to read them but didn't understand them
C. You read them, understood them but disagreed with them
If it's C...then please copy and paste one of the passages and explain to me why the economist is wrong.
If it's B...then please copy and paste a passage that you didn't understand and I'll try and help explain it to you.
If it's A...then you're not genuinely interested in learning a damn thing about economics.
D. You cited your own inane ramblings.
Citizens aren't any closer to omniscient than their elected representatives.
he didn't say "producers", he said "citizens". You must have read what you wanted to read, and not what he wrote.
Think about something as simple as baking bread. If you're trying to bake bread...then I'm either helping you...or I'm not helping you. I'm either helping you use society's limited resources to realize your plan...or I'm not helping you.
Jehovah's Witnesses are either using society's limited resources to help you realize your plans...or they aren't helping you. Home Depot is either using society's limited resources to help you realize your plans...or they aren't helping you. The EPA is either using society's limited resources to help you realize your plans...or they aren't helping you.
Because nobody is a mind reader...you have to be free to use your dollars to indicate when somebody is using society's limited resources to help you realize your plans. This is exactly why taxpayers have to be free to shop in the public sector. Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector and markets give people the freedom to support the people who are supporting them. Markets ensure that society's limited resources are used to build the most mutually beneficial communities possible. Markets give consumers the freedom to incentivize producers to determine how they can use society's limited resources to help consumers realize their plans.
Here's the answer .... No one gives a ****.
Now deal with other people's points and arguments.
I am dealing with other people's points and arguments by pointing out that they have absolutely nothing to do with the model that our current system is based on. You would know this if you knew anything about public finance.
No you arn't ... they bring up valid points and you post a picture ....
You totally ingored Deuce's post pointing out your unsubstanciated assumtions, you didn't address those assumptions, much less defend them ... you just reposted your own strawman.
And you totally ignored imagep's post, just again reposting your're strawman Op.
And you responded to HOJ with a picture that you drew and asked him to interperate .....
What other response do you want from forum behavior like that other than being rightly called a clown.
What are you talking about? Did you not click on the links that I provided? The first and last go to my blog entries which contain numerous quotes from economists saying the same exact thing.
Of course producers aren't omniscient...which is why we need markets. A market allows consumers to communicate (via money) their preferences to producers. This is how producers know what consumers do...and do not...value. If producers were omniscient...then we wouldn't need markets.
Right now you're arguing that we don't need a market in the public sector because...
A. congresspeople are partially omniscient and/or...
B. the political process allows citizens to communicate their preferences
But both arguments are blatantly false. Click on the links in my OP if you're genuinely interested in reading what economists have to say about the topic.
You don't know anything about public finance...which is why you want to call me a clown rather than discuss public finance. It would be one thing if I didn't share any public finance information with you...but the OP has links to a plethora of information on public finance...none of which you are capable of discussing in an intelligent matter.
Specifically in this case externalities, or as HOJ points out, tragedy of the commons. These citizens with their hard earned dollars make act eminently rational with their dollar votes...and end up destroying themselves long-term. Reality, economics, society, are far too complicated for any individual to understand the impact of their individual choices in relation to themselves and others when the system is as complex as it is. I in fact largely rely on science to keep me healthy...I don't rely on the local villagers voting for the new donut shop with their dollars...
Interestingly enough the guy that coined the phrase, Garrett Hardin was opposing the welfare state for individuals who overpopulation and enjoy it at the cost to the commons...as well as private enterprise that profits individually but enjoys socialization of the cost. The issue here is that good guys finish last. The guys and gals who restrict their practice to be sustainable for example, can lose out to the person who slashed and burned, and then used government to bail them out, subsidize, whatever. Similar the poor who have a lot of kids and choose to not work or find low stress, low requirement jobs without the need to move to a big city or develop a reputation or a career, are similarly subsidized by everyone else to foster that lifestyle. How can one argument be both for and against, both parties ideology at the same time !?
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. - Matthew 6:21
Ok lets discuss it, I discuss it all the time, but it's a waste of time since you don't address the points anyone brings up.
First of all "partial omniscience" is just called "knowledge" it literally means "partially all knowing" it's a contradiction in terms.
The current system doesn't assume omniscience at all, all it assumes is that elected officials will be motivated by re-election which means the interests of all the citizens (no matter what their market power is) AS OPPOSED to capitalist's whose motivation is profit, and so care for the interests of the shareholders, and consumers only insomuch as they think how much money they can get from them.
It's no more or less assuming omniscience, it's assuming differences of interests, if you want to make the system more optimal, make it more democratic ... not more plutocratic.