Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply

[LikelyToBreak]

Xerographica wrote in part:

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?

This logical fallacy is called a false dichotomy.

Besides you still have not addressed how the top 1% er's in the Federal Reserve get their positive feedback by maximizing society's resources.  They can, and often do, get monetary feedback by selling short.

The minimum wage worker also gets feedback pretty damn directly by being fired, layed-off, or just let go, if the worker in question is not giving his employer at least as much back as he is paid.  Usually, the minimum wage worker has to make at least 50% more for their employer than what they are actually paid.

Anyway, work on learning logical fallacies and try to eliminate them from your writings.  Assuming you want your ideas to actually be accepted and aren't just trying to get people going with bullshit.

[Xerographica]

Xerographica wrote in part:

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?

This logical fallacy is called a false dichotomy.

How is it a false dichotomy?  Hmmm...maybe you're right.  I suppose you can say that you grasp and understand the importance of safe sex...but never use protection when you do have sex.  There is a possibility you really do understand the importance of safe sex but just don't care about the consequences.  

But at least with sex though there is a possibility that you might get lucky.  Just like with Russian Roulette.  The same could not be said with minimum wages.  The consequences will always be detrimental.  Like I said, if we want the most valuable output...then we have to input true values into the equation which determines how society's limited resources are used.  

Besides you still have not addressed how the top 1% er's in the Federal Reserve get their positive feedback by maximizing society's resources.  They can, and often do, get monetary feedback by selling short.

In a tax choice system, if you valued how the Fed was using society's limited resources, then you'd give them some of your taxes.  What percentage of taxpayers would give the Fed their taxes?  

The correct answer is...that you don't know.  You have absolutely no idea what the actual demand for the Fed is.  Does it matter?  Of course...just like it matters that you have no idea what wages would actually look like if the minimum wage was abolished.

If we don't know what the demand is for milk...then how can the optimum quantity of milk be supplied?  It can't.  Therefore, the wrong quantity of milk will be supplied.  We'd either have a shortage of milk or a surplus of milk.  And a surplus of milk is just as detrimental because those resources could have been used elsewhere.

Imagine meat was a public good.  The government was responsible for deciding how many animals should be killed for food.  The vegetarians, of course, would protest that too many animals were being killed.  Except, the vegetarians, just like the government, wouldn't know what the actual demand for meat was.  Would it matter what the actual demand for meat was?  

So I think rather than worrying about the Fed...you need to step back and ask yourself a bigger question.  Does it matter whether or not we know how much of any good or service is truly demanded?  Most economists would agree that it does matter.  Most people on this forum would disagree.  

The minimum wage worker also gets feedback pretty damn directly by being fired, layed-off, or just let go, if the worker in question is not giving his employer at least as much back as he is paid.  Usually, the minimum wage worker has to make at least 50% more for their employer than what they are actually paid.

Mr. Baker owns a bakery.  He's run the numbers and determined that he needs to cut his costs or he'll go out of business.  He looks at all his expenses and the only area where he can see some leeway is labor.  It turns out that he could keep the business running by reducing the wages of his minimum wage workers by $1.  The problem is...he doesn't have that option.  You know why?  Because you took it from him.  Except, you didn't just take it from him...you took it from his employees as well.  

Anyway, work on learning logical fallacies and try to eliminate them from your writings.  Assuming you want your ideas to actually be accepted and aren't just trying to get people going with bullshit.

Thanks, but I'm already familiar with logical fallacies.

[Poison Tree]

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?

[Plu]

The same could not be said with minimum wages. The consequences will always be detrimental.

Dude, do you even history? Do a quick side-by-side comparison of life just before and after the introduction of minimum wages, and then come back to apologize. We'll be waiting.

[Xerographica]

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.

[Plu]

Imagine, you can't even expect people to understand the basics of tax-choice, but you expect them to be able to figure out exactly how much money they need to give to each and every government agency so that they get exactly the level of care that they exactly know they need.

Sounds clearly superior alright  :roll:

[Xerographica]

Imagine, you can't even expect people to understand the basics of tax-choice, but you expect them to be able to figure out exactly how much money they need to give to each and every government agency so that they get exactly the level of care that they exactly know they need.

Sounds clearly superior alright  :roll:

There's a difference between understanding economics and knowing your priorities.  People know their priorities, and in a pragmatarian system, would be able to allocate their tax dollars accordingly.  This would determine how much funding each government agency received.  

As such, it would be nonsensical to say that important government organizations would be underfunded.  That's because the only measure of "importance" is how much people are willing to sacrifice for something.  If public healthcare received a lot of funding, then, and only then, could we say that public healthcare is important to society.  

But you'd be welcome to wave your hands at the crowd and tell them that their priorities were wrong.  In fact, that's kinda what I'm doing right now.

[Bibliofagus]

You'd imagine that it could be usefull to know how much resources were already allocated to what before deciding where to allocate yours...

[Plu]

People know their priorities

 :rollin:

Name your top 10 priorities. You have no fucking clue what they are. If you even post 1 (which you probably won't), it's just most likely something you made up on the spot depending on your current mood. No person with even a passing level of knowledge of economics would ever say people know their priorities. It's a well known fact that people have no idea what their priorities are. They just make shit up on the spot when you ask them.

Hell, you wouldn't even be able to list your top 5 favorite government agencies without making up a list in your head while you're reading my post. And I doubt you'd be able to list them even then. You probably don't even know most of them.

[Xerographica]

You'd imagine that it could be usefull to know how much resources were already allocated to what before deciding where to allocate yours...

At anytime throughout the year you could go directly to the EPA website and submit a tax payment.  I'm sure the EPA website would have a fundraising progress bar.

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

[Bibliofagus]

You'd imagine that it could be usefull to know how much resources were already allocated to what before deciding where to allocate yours...

At anytime throughout the year you could go directly to the EPA website and submit a tax payment.

Why would I want to pay early? Don't you have interest in your country?
I will be paying just in time. All smart people will.

[Plu]

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.

[Xerographica]

People know their priorities

 :rollin:

Name your top 10 priorities. You have no fucking clue what they are. If you even post 1 (which you probably won't), it's just most likely something you made up on the spot depending on your current mood. No person with even a passing level of knowledge of economics would ever say people know their priorities. It's a well known fact that people have no idea what their priorities are. They just make shit up on the spot when you ask them.

Pragmatarianism is definitely on the list.  You know that for a fact.  How do you know that?  Because clearly I'm willing to sacrifice so much time writing about it.

If people didn't know what their priorities were then they'd never make any decisions regarding how to allocate their resources...

We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly happy. He would not act; he would simply live free from care. - Ludwig von Mises

And it's only in observing how people allocate their resources can we have any insight into what their priorities are.  This is why economics is all about actions speaking louder than words.

[Plu]

Pragmatarianism is definitely on the list. You know that for a fact. How do you know that? Because clearly I'm willing to sacrifice so much time writing about it.

If people didn't know what their priorities were then they'd never make any decisions regarding how to allocate their resources...

See? You can't even place the one thing you're always whining about in a top 10. So much for "knowing your priorities".

[Xerographica]

You'd imagine that it could be usefull to know how much resources were already allocated to what before deciding where to allocate yours...

At anytime throughout the year you could go directly to the EPA website and submit a tax payment.

Why would I want to pay early? Don't you have interest in your country?
I will be paying just in time. All smart people will.

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.