Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply

[Xerographica]

Generally people don't shop to shop...the motivation to go shopping is some real or perceived shortage of some service or good.

So they'll only start funding the police after they've laid off half their force due to lack of funds and after criminals really start going to town?

That sounds like a great system. I'm gonna invest in a crowbar and a ski-mask if they ever implement this.

It's all about incremental decisions...

Incremental decisions can be more fine-tuned than deciding which candidate's whole package of principles and practices comes closest to meeting your own desires. Incremental decision-making also means that not every increment of even very desirable things is likewise necessarily desirable, given that there are other things that the money could be spent on after having acquired a given amount of a particular good or service. For example, although it might be worthwhile spending considerable money to live in a nice home, buying a second home in the country may or may not be worth spending money that could be used for sending a child to college or for recreational travel overseas. One consequence of incremental decision-making is that increments of many desirable things remain unpurchased because they are almost–but not quite–worth the sacrifices required to get them.    - Thomas Sowell

[Bibliofagus]

LOL...why not just give your taxes to congress then?  Congress, our personal shoppers, would still be there for the people who had no interest in shopping for themselves.

That is not an answer to my question. I'll restate for your convenience:

Why in the world would anyone want to pay their taxes early?
Don't you have interest in your country? Shares? Ways to make money off money?

[Plu]

It's all about incremental decisions...

Incremental decisions require you to see the impact of the previous decision before you decide to increment or not. That doesn't work with a service that requires days, months, or even years before you see the effect of the previous decision.

Incremental decisions are great to decide "should I eat another piece of candy?" but they don't work for "should I buy a loaf of bread in the knowledge that somewhere between 0 and 15 loaves of bread have already been purchased by other people in my home, with no way of knowing how many we already have?"

[Xerographica]

LOL...why not just give your taxes to congress then?  Congress, our personal shoppers, would still be there for the people who had no interest in shopping for themselves.

That is not an answer to my question. I'll restate for your convenience:

Why in the world would anyone want to pay their taxes early?
Don't you have interest in your country? Shares? Ways to make money off money?

Maybe because they were certain that the sky was falling?  Maybe because a government agency came up with a really convincing advertisement?

[Plu]

So basically the two reasons you give are
A) mass hysteria
B) being tricked into doing something not in their favor

Great system.

[Xerographica]

So basically the two reasons you give are
A) mass hysteria
B) being tricked into doing something not in their favor

Great system.

This right here right now is the same system.  It seems pretty great.  You and I are both free to exit at any time.  What's not great about that?  

Capitalism is the best. It's free enterprise. Barter.  Gimbels, if I get really rank with the clerk, 'Well I don't like this', how I can resolve it? If it really gets ridiculous, I go, 'Frig it, man, I walk.' What can this guy do at Gimbels, even if he was the president of Gimbels? He can always reject me from that store, but I can always go to Macy's. He can't really hurt me. Communism is like one big phone company.  Government control, man. And if I get too rank with that phone company, where can I go? I'll end up like a schmuck with a dixie cup on a thread. - Lenny Bruce

[Plu]

Capitalism is, like the other crap you're spouting, great in theory, but worthless in practice. Like every system of trying to manage civilization for billions of people, it requires bits and parts from many different philosophies to work.

Because answering the question in the quote above is simple: what can this guy do if he's the president of gimbles? He can meet up with the other presidents and tell them to evict the guy from their stores as well. Then he can call up his workers and say "any man caught talking to this character is fired". And then he calls up the other presidents and tell them "anyone we fire can never be hired by any of us again".

And then, hey look, you're back to "one big company" only this time under the name of "capitalism", but the concept is the same. And no, "free market" won't help. There's simply more money to be made in a shared dicatatorship than in a free market. That's why we don't have a free market anywhere except in the shittiest places to live on earth.

[Bibliofagus]

LOL...why not just give your taxes to congress then?  Congress, our personal shoppers, would still be there for the people who had no interest in shopping for themselves.

That is not an answer to my question. I'll restate for your convenience:

Why in the world would anyone want to pay their taxes early?
Don't you have interest in your country? Shares? Ways to make money off money?

Maybe because they were certain that the sky was falling?  Maybe because a government agency came up with a really convincing advertisement?

Allright... Advertisements saying 'pay more taxes!'... Erm...
Paying taxes must be VERY popular in your country, given the fact that you seem to think that would work.

Furthermore it would not be in the best interest of the 'government agency' to advertise for early taxpayment. It would be in their interest to maximise taxes allocated to them, and in your system that would mean that they would want to appear/be underfunded for as long as possible. Until the day of the deadline to be precise. In the morning you put out a pressrelease: "The police in your county is going to dissapear if you don't pay up".

[LikelyToBreak]

Xerographica once again, despite my effort of explaining it to you, you have shown no understanding of the Federal Reserve and how it works.  Go and find my post about the Federal Reserve and educate yourself a little.  Federal Reserve could care less about feedback, they make money out of thin air, so why would they care about feedback.  

In economics, like most things in life, there are more than two choices about anything.  Like the safe sex analogy you put up, you could choose not to have sex or to just have sex with someone you knew was HIV free.  In your bakery example as well, if the baker lowered wages and the people could find other places to work, he would lose workers anyway.  Those who stayed, probably because they couldn't find any other work, then have to figure how to make ends meet with less money.  Which if they can't, they will turn to other ways of making money.  Like stealing from their employer, for instance.  They are not going to work until they drop from slow starvation.

Large corporations have a board of directors.  This board decides on the course of the company.  This board also wants money this quarter because next quarter they are going to sell their stocks and buy stock in another company.  So, they run the company into the ground for the short term profit and split.  How is that maximizing the use of our limited resources?

[surly74]

I see you're on the same page with Xenographica, although at least you didn't go all the way to la-la land with a billion dollars. 50K would be five times as expensive and would be more than most people make working, so it's an astounding disincentive to work. 10K is little enough that few people would elect to forego working in order to just live on the 10K. Thus we avoid 50 million people quitting their jobs.

What makes it unrealistic isn't the economics. Once you take into account that the stipend can be subtracted from social security and unemployment benefits, it would leave us paying taxes like the Swedes. They don't complain much because most of them think the benefits are worth it. What makes it unrealistic is that the USA doesn't have the political will to make it happen.

I'm sure there are better ways to do things. I'm only an armchair economist. The point of throwing out a proposal was to show that minimum wage is not the only way to address the needs of poor workers. I included a basic income that includes non-working citizens because I happen to think giving every citiizen at least a bare minimum to subsist on even if they can't hold down a job is a good idea. A sufficiently generous negative income tax could do the same without giving people without jobs a dime.

The US is at one end of the Capitalist spectrum with most other countries near the middle. Like anything else, Moderation is key. I'm not sure I'm on the same page as Xeno I think there are better solutions than handing out cash. Keeping more what you make no matter the hourly wage would make sense....raising personal exemptions for Income tax. If the first 10K you made wasn't taxed at all, at both the state or federal level that would help things.

I'm in favour of raising any minimum wage if personal exemptions aren't going to be increased. Either way purchasing power needs to increase. There is no reason to work when you are losing so much in tax if you are at a minimum wage job.

[surly74]

Large corporations have a board of directors.  This board decides on the course of the company.  This board also wants money this quarter because next quarter they are going to sell their stocks and buy stock in another company.  So, they run the company into the ground for the short term profit and split.  How is that maximizing the use of our limited resources?

What you described was insider trading...probably the one financial crime people get prosecuted for.

[LikelyToBreak]

surly74 wrote:

What you described was insider trading...probably the one financial crime people get prosecuted for.

How many examples can you come with?  And would they have been prosecuted under pragmatarnism?  After all, they are just voting with their dollars.

[surly74]

How many examples can you come with?  And would they have been prosecuted under pragmatarnism?  After all, they are just voting with their dollars.

Examples of insider trading prosecutions? There are some stats at the bottom of the article. Almost 700 cases opened in the year after the article was written.

//http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-growth/a-world-of-difference-on-insider-trading-prosecutions/article1360483/

Does pragmatarnism have anything to do with this? There wasn't a vote, do publically traded companies work under the philosophy of pragmatarnism? In fact they work the opposite...almost like little governments. You want a vote? own shares and vote in people. if you like what they do for you, in this case make you money, then you keep voting for them. Other wise they are voted out.

[Mister Agenda]

Please quote the part of my post that shows that I fail to grasp and understand the importance of being able to give others feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.

Either you grasp and understand the importance of being able to give people feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources...or you support minimum wages.  It can't be both...which is it?

False dilemma voiced from an inability to tolerate nuance. And I don't support minimum wages, brainiac.

Saying that they are 'simply' postive feedback is a claim that they aren't anything else. However, they are also what people live on.

This is what people live on ______ how well people use society's limited resources.  

Fill in the blank using one of the following signs...>,=,<[

No. Again, you rely on trying to limit the other person's options.

What people actually live on is really the supply of food, shelter, clothing...and this supply depends entirely on how well people are using society's limited resources.

And what do they use to obtain their supply of food, shelter, clothing... ? Hint: for most people, it starts with a 'w'.

Therefore, it's really NOT ok to be loosey goosey with the accuracy of the positive feedback we give each other.  Doing so simply diminishes the supply that we all need to survive.

It is okay to have less-than-perfect resource allocation if society as a whole decides that is a price worth paying for some other good, such as making sure some minimum amount of resources reaches the poor. We are allowed to make that choice.

Witholding food from your child when it doesn't behave is also 'postive feedback'. So it follows that you think there shouldn't be a limit on how much food a parent can withold from their child in order to secure the child's obedience.

Withholding food is negative feedback.

Since you keep referring to lowering wages or not purchasing things as positive feedback, I attempted to use your terms in hopes you would understand them. I see now that was foolish of me.

Giving your child an ice cream cone is positive feedback.  Obviously though parents have an obligation to provide a bare minimum to their children.  The parents made a choice to have kids...they should be responsible for their decision.

Society has made a choice to provide a bare minimum to wage earners. Due to the feedback effects you mention, I would prefer society do it a different way to minimize the disruption to efficient resource allocation.

But I do not have an obligation to provide you a bare minimum of positive feedback.

Clearly, you do have a legal obligation to do so.

I'm pretty sure you're not my child.  So if you want my positive feedback...then you'll have to earn it.

Evidently not. I can get your 'positive feedback' by being unable to provide for myself. You have no power to impose the negative feedback of witholding any benefits I may qualify for.

 

And if you don't think I'm giving you enough positive feedback...then either you try harder/smarter or you find somebody else who is willing to give you more positive feedback than I'm giving you.

You seem to be speaking from a fantasy land in which your desired system already applies. You're talking about how you wish it were rather than how it actually is.
 

It is an observable fact that pure market efficiency isn't the only thing we, as a society, value. As a society, we have demonstrated that we are willing to sacrifice some efficiency in resource allocation to secure other goods.

No, all we've "demonstrated" is that we want a free lunch.  And politicians take advantage of this fact to get into office.  Everybody, not just voters, want a free lunch.

Our poverty rate may be a little higher than we'd like, but we don't actually have enough people collecting benefits to make up a majority that can control our government through the sheer weight of their votes. The majority of productive citizens are willing to provide at least some assistance to the less fortunate through government programs. They don't want a free lunch, they don't want anyone going hungry and they're wiling to pay to prevent it.  

The only way to know what society truly values...is to prevent them from spending other people's money.  The challenge is showing people that more value is created when they can only spend their own resources.  This isn't an easy challenge, and I doubt I'm up for it....but it's fundamentally important.

If it's so important, do a feasibility study. You're never going to convince many people your system is best through mere argument. A successful demonstration is what you want.

The problem with a free lunch is that it is a fiscal illusion.  The lunch appears magically like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.  But you know that the magician didn't create the rabbit...the rabbit had to come from somewhere.

That is true...but you're the one who brought up free lunches, not me. I'm not under the impression that providing a basic income is cost-free.

With free lunches...voters don't know or care where the value was taken from. They are just happy that it didn't come from them.  But how could they possibly know that when they have no idea where exactly the value was taken from?  Sure, somebody who doesn't have to pay federal income tax won't have to pay for more welfare benefits...but those resources have to come from somewhere.

Most voters DO pay federal income tax...I suspect they've an idea where the money for social programs comes from.

Chances are good that it will be manifested in the form of more expensive commodities that they need to survive.  So in essence they are in fact worse off for voting for a free lunch.

The average voter IS worse off for voting for a free lunch. Your mistake is thinking they are unaware of that and would vote differently if only they knew they were paying for other people to eat.  

The only way we can ensure that voters are not actually made worse off...is to ensure that they can see the price tags.  Then, and only then, can they decide whether the benefit is worth the opportunity cost.

From whence comes our duty to make sure that voters are not actually made worse off by thwarting their votes?    

If I gave everyone a billion dollars (which would cause dramatic inflation as it would have to be merely printed rather than paid for honestly with taxes) you'd have no more influence than anyone else.

That wasn't the point.  The point was to try understand the problem of influence exceeding benefit.

You failed and continue to fail to make that point.

What you fail to grasp and understand is the difference between shifting existing resources and 'poofing' a billion dollars for everyone out champagne wishes and caviar dreams.

If shifts do not reflect the true preferences of consumers...then value is destroyed (resources are inefficiently allocated).

Consumers seem to be willing to allow some value to be destroyed in order to provide a safety net for those who need it. What right do you have to prevent them from making that choice?

Equalizing influence is an act, not an argument. The argument would be about the consequences of doing so. You still seem to be talking from your fantasy of everyone getting a billion dollars, rather than everyone getting $10,000; which is so far from equalizing influence that it's a ludicrous comparison. A billion dollars for everyone would cause severe damage to our society due to runaway inflation. $10,000 for everyone, taxed so that most people break even on spending power, would not have such a dramatic effect. It would be a disincentive on the margin of people who aren't willing to work in order to make more than $10,000 a year, but that it would be an overall detriment to the economy is by no means a given.

Listen, you don't evenly distribute your money for a reason.  You know what that reason is?  It's because you're not crazy.  Except, here you are thinking there's value in minimum wages.  A minimum wage is the same thing as you distributing your money more evenly.

I suppose if you make up your definitions as you go along, a basic income could be said to be the same thing as a minimum wage. Under that rule a goose could be said to be the same thing as a lion, but I can't stop you from doing that if you want to.

A basic income would allow wages to be set by market forces. A basic income would eliminate the need for much of the bureacracy surrounding social programs. A basic income would reduce the amount needed to be distributed for unemployment and social security benefits. A basic income wouldn't make keeping benefits a part-time job (talk about destroying value!). What I'm saying is that if society wants to provide for people less able to earn money it should be willing to do so directly rather than mandating businesses to do it.  

When you go shopping...your goal is not to evenly distribute your money.  Your goal is to maximize the amount of value you get for your money.  You want the most bang for your buck.  Therefore, you give your bucks to the people who give you the most bang.  Decrease the bucks you give them...transfer it to their employees...and you'll end up with less bang.  We all will.

In this case, what we are shopping for is provision for the less-advantaged. Maybe more people would be better-off if the government had stayed out of charity work in the first place, but we don't live in that alternate universe and can't know that for certain. We agree that minimum wages distort the labor market and increase unemployment. We disagree on it being the right of the citizenry to choose to do that. I propose a solution (just one of many possible ones) that mitigates the market distortion while still accomplishing the aim of the citizenry. You want to change the aim of the citizenry. If you want to do that, you'll have to show your way is better, not just proclaim it.

[Mister Agenda]

Xerographica, if your way for people to give feedback through allocating their money is clearly such a superior system, then why haven't people used their current method of giving feedback (voting) to institute just such a system?

Most people don't know that tax choice is a clearly superior system.  Once they get the memo then I'm sure they'd vote for it.  It might be a while though.  I'm still trying to figure out how to word the memo.

Give the job to someone who can write the memo with brevity and without arrogance and condecension. You're the worst salesman for tax choice I've ever encountered.