Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

For those still scratching their heads over MMT, here's a useful primer from the folks over at Naked Capitalism.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/what-is-modern-monetary-theory-or-mmt.html

The essential insight of Modern Monetary Theory (or “MMT”) is that sovereign, currency-issuing countries are only constrained by real limits. They are not constrained, and cannot be constrained, by purely financial limits because, as issuers of their respective fiat-currencies, they can never “run out of money.” This doesn’t mean that governments can spend without limit, or overspend without causing inflation, or that government should spend any sum unwisely. What it emphatically does mean is that no such sovereign government can be forced to tolerate mass unemployment because of the state of its finances – no matter what that state happens to be.

Virtually all economic commentary and punditry today, whether in America, Europe or most other places, is based on ideas about the monetary system which are not merely confused – they are starkly and comprehensively counter-factual. This has led to a public discourse about things like budget deficits and Treasury debt which has become, without exaggeration, utterly detached from reality. Time and time again, these pundits declaim that hyperinflation is imminent, that interest rates are on the verge of an uncontrollable upward spike, and that the jig will be up for sure just as soon as the next T-bond auction fails. But even though, time after time, it is the pundits’ prognostications which fail, no one seems to take any notice. This must change. A reality-based economics is needed to make these things make sense again, and Modern Monetary Theory is here to put everyone on notice that a quite different jig is the one that’s really up.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Who don't they filibuster?

Question though on appointments. I know Obama's not appointed a lot of judges but has it gotten better? I hate hearing stories in which Reagan or Bush appointees are making decisions. It will be nice to in a few years hearing Obama judge ruling on stupid GOP laws.



Glad it still is doing something

there were 68 executive-level vacant positions at the end of Obama's first term. About 10% of the judiciary was also unfilled (90-100 judgeships).

 

[speculawyer]

For those still scratching their heads over MMT, here's a useful primer from the folks over at Naked Capitalism.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/what-is-modern-monetary-theory-or-mmt.html

That is a good summary. But even the MMTers acknowledge that there are limits. You will eventually hit hyperinflation if you are not responsible.

But that said, we are not near such limits. We can look at countries such as Japan that have much greater debt loads . . . and they still struggle to do things in order to intentionally cause inflation! (Because they want to debase their currency in order to increase exports.)

 

[Rocket Scientist]

People making less than $20k would have almost twice as much say as they do now, as a group. Blacks typically lag 5-8 points behind whites in voter turnout (2008 is obviously a special case). All these trends are worse in off years, I believe.

The income charts is pretty shocking, wow. Didn't know almost all rich people voted. Though it shouldn't have been surprising. It's funny because this is one thing you won't see in any ''how to get rich'' or ''how i got rich'' books. ''Vote'' aka ''make politicians reflect and act on your interests'' should be pretty high on the list.

Poor people would dominate politics.

 

[Hitokage]

That is a good summary. But even the MMTers acknowledge that there are limits. You will eventually hit hyperinflation if you are not responsible.

But that said, we are not near such limits. We can look at countries such as Japan that have much greater debt loads . . . and they still struggle to do things in order to intentionally cause inflation! (Because they want to debase their currency in order to increase exports.)

Fortunately, the yen has gotten weaker lately.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Fortunately, the yen has gotten weaker lately.

The poor Japanese are going to have to pay more for designer clothing though! (Read all the clothing manufacturers are increasing prices, figure mentioned was around 18%, pretty significant it seems).

 

[adamsappel]

Instead the WH tries to propose moderate republican fixes while actual republicans demand far right hack-n-slash proposals. As I said, I really don't think there's any real interest on Obama's part to cut the deficit in a smart way that avoids benefit cuts and doesn't focus nearly entirely on tax revenue. I get the impression this is all about image and legacy, nothing more. It's no wonder the White House continually points to Reagan and Tip O'Neil "fixing" social security as a blueprint; if they fixed it, why do we need to cut benefits now?

Obama wants to actually have legislation passed. He proposes things that reasonable people should agree on, or at least be somewhere in that neighborhood of agreement. And perhaps folks like Boehner and McConnell would agree with those things, but not when proposed by Obama and not with the Tea Party braying behind them. I wish Obama would take more of a liberal stance on issues, but I never fooled myself into thinking he was a liberal.

That red stuff looks like the blood of patriots.

This chart looks like something Big Sicily ginned up. Does it have any basis?

 

[TheLaughingStock]

This post is confusing, since America's not really primarily conservative if the last few elections are any sign, but I will assume you're counting Obama as a conservative. If all the unregistered and unlikely voters had turned out for the last election, Obama would have won by double digits -- and third parties would have taken upwards of 8% of the vote. So there would, at the very least, be a big shift leftwards AND a significant movement towards viable third parties.

I do count Obama as a center-right. Where can I read about your statement regarding turnout and Obama's projected margin of victory? Interested in taking a look. Following link is from Pew's president in a short take about the 2012 election.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578113231375465160.html

Despite their weak candidate, Republicans increased their share of the presidential vote among many major demographic groups. Compared with 2008, they made significant gains among men (four percentage points), whites (four points), younger voters (six points), white Catholics (seven points) and Jews (nine points). Mr. Romney also carried the independent vote 50% to 45%. Four years ago, independents voted for Mr. Obama 52% to 44%.

Republicans can take some solace from these gains. In addition, only 43% of voters this year said they wanted an activist government (compared with 52% in 2008), and 49% continued to disapprove of Mr. Obama's health-care law (compared with 44% approving).

In short, the current American electorate is hardly stacked against the Republican Party. But Republicans should recognize that, on balance, Americans remain moderate—holding a mix of liberal and conservative views. They generally believe that small government is better and that ObamaCare is bad. But the exit poll shows that 59% believe abortion should be legal, 65% support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and a surprising plurality support legalizing same-sex marriage in their states.

Threading the ideological needle with this electorate is vital for the Republicans in the future—and for the Democrats, too.

 

[pigeon]

I do count Obama as a center-right. Where can I read about your statement regarding turnout and Obama's projected margin of victory? Interested in taking a look.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578113231375465160.html

Here's the USA Today article where they surveyed unlikely and unregistered voters:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/non-voters-obama-romney/57055184/1

The projection was just quick math, but it's easy to see that if turnout went from 60% to 100% and the people added favored Obama by 20 points that he'd break double digits.

It's apparently a surprise to many (my mother-in-law was shocked), but most Americans who don't vote are generally to the left of consensus.

 

[Gotchaye]

That is a good summary. But even the MMTers acknowledge that there are limits. You will eventually hit hyperinflation if you are not responsible.

But that said, we are not near such limits. We can look at countries such as Japan that have much greater debt loads . . . and they still struggle to do things in order to intentionally cause inflation! (Because they want to debase their currency in order to increase exports.)

I think this is right in general but wrong on the specifics. It's relatively easy to achieve close to a given level of inflation; you just need to be able to convince people that you actually want that level of inflation and are willing to see that it happens. Japan just doubled its inflation target to 2%. They haven't previously tried for significant inflation, not that 2% is significant inflation.

Ultimately inflation is driven by expectations more than anything else. What you're doing this year is a lot less important than what people think you're going to do in the next ten years, although of course what you're doing this year can be taken as a strong indication of your future plans. You get out of control inflation when people don't believe you when you say that you're going to stop expanding the money supply. It's very hard for a modern developed nation like Japan or the US to be unable to rein in inflation expectations because it's known that the people who make the real decisions about monetary policy in these countries are the same people who are much more scared of inflation than unemployment.

 

[empty vessel]

It's apparently a surprise to many (my mother-in-law was shocked), but most Americans who don't vote are generally to the left of consensus.

This is true.

 

[zero shift]

.
It's apparently a surprise to many (my mother-in-law was shocked), but most Americans who don't vote are generally to the left of consensus.

People who constantly get fucked tend to not care about the political system.

 

[Eric_S]

WSJ on US companies shifting money abroad in order to evade taxes.

U.S. companies are making record profits. And more of the money is staying offshore, and lightly taxed

A Wall Street Journal analysis of 60 big U.S. companies found that, together, they parked a total of $166 billion offshore last year. That shielded more than 40% of their annual profits from U.S. taxes, though it left the money off-limits for paying dividends, buying back shares or making investments in the U.S. The 60 companies were chosen for the analysis because each of them had held at least $5 billion offshore in 2011.

The practice is a result of U.S. tax rules that create incentives for companies to maximize the earnings, and holdings, of foreign subsidiaries. The law generally allows companies to not record or pay taxes on profits earned by overseas subsidiaries if the money isn't brought back to the U.S...

...The amount of money at stake is significant, particularly when the U.S. budget deficit is high on the political agenda. Just 19 of the 60 companies in the Journal's survey disclose the tax hit they could face if they brought the money back to their U.S. parent. Those companies say they might have to pay $98 billion in additional tax—more than the $85 billion in automatic-spending cuts triggered this month after the White House and Congress couldn't agree on an alternative.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that changing the law to fully tax overseas earnings would generate an additional $42 billion for the Treasury this year alone. Congress enacted a temporary tax holiday in 2004, prompting companies to repatriate $312 billion in foreign earnings. The law was intended to stimulate the U.S. economy, but studies found that few jobs were created and most of the money was used to repurchase shares and pay dividends. Another such holiday is considered unlikely in the next few years...

 

[KtSlime]

People who constantly get fucked tend to not care about the political system.

Which works out great for the rich, since they revel in the political system and fucking over the people.

 

[Black Mamba]

I do count Obama as a center-right. Where can I read about your statement regarding turnout and Obama's projected margin of victory? Interested in taking a look. Following link is from Pew's president in a short take about the 2012 election.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578113231375465160.html

These kinds of articles are misleading. Romney gained in percentage over McCain mostly because some white Obama voters stayed home from 4 years ago. They didn't choose to vote Republican. When you decrease one side, you increase the other (in terms of percentages) by default.

And some stayed home 4 years ago who would be Republican voters.

I'd argue Romney basically gained an insignificant amount of voters this past election given population increase. In the states at play, Obama increased his vote totals, too.


But Presidential politics is not the same as actual beliefs. When you actually survey people about what programs they support in detail, you find out they are not as conservative as the GOP wants you to believe.

Republicans don't want to cut spending. And the majority align with the Dems on social policy:

Read my article on some of this here: http://deadheatpolitics.com/2013/01/24/is-the-era-of-liberalism-really-back/

And more on spending cuts: http://www.businessinsider.com/fisc...ts-medicare-eligibility-obama-boehner-2012-12

 

[CyclopsRock]

Well, sure, but in that case making something "off-limits" is kind of meaningless. You're not wrong to say that this policy will forever lock soda away from those people who are happy to pay the current price for soda but not one cent more than the current price, but that's not exactly a suspect class -- it's a very small group whose membership is constantly fluctuating and which can easily be left by even a tiny increase in, say, annual income. So why should we care?

Well then I ask again what the purpose is. It doesn't need to be "locked away" indefinitely for it to be considered a restriction on access. And if the goal is actually to stop people doing what they want by making it financially non-viable for them to do so, why not make it more than $0.01? Why not 5c? or 20c? or $10? When does it actually become a restriction on liberties, rather than something that can be blithely shrugged off by those who it'll never practically affect in any way but who do, nonetheless, write the law? I suspect it's because, like most things like this, the actual point is to act as a revenue earner - even if the nominal use of that money is to run health campaigns and raise awareness about how this thing you enjoy that we've just made it harder for you to access is hurting you and that, really, it's for your own good you stupid little idiots.

On a related note, http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...-for-new-round-of-bothering-you-2013030561827

THE UK’s health record will lead to a new era in being bothered constantly.

Statistics show the UK is falling behind other European countries at not ignoring doctors or creepy government health campaigns.

Now the government has pledged to reverse the trend by giving more money to doctors and commissioning a series of creepy health campaigns.

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt said: “We’re also going to need lots of new laws about food and alcohol and tobacco that will be devised by people with a form of OCD that can only be described as ‘raging’.

“It is going to be unbelievably annoying. Don’t you just hate it here? Still, what are you going to do about it? A big fat nothing, that’s what.”

He added: “I’ve commissioned a poster that shows a healthy young woman with dead eyes doing a star-jump and the slogan ‘Love your heart’. But the words ‘love’ and ‘heart’ will just be heart shapes. It is going to be absolutely everywhere.”

Dr Julian Cook, a public health expert, said: “We want everything to be insanely expensive, except for this bag of apples. You will all have to fight over the bag of apples.”

The new laws will include a statutory right for doctors to phone you continually in the middle of the night, shouting at you about crisps, before you finally just rip the phone out of the wall and lie there seething in the dark until it is time to get up.

 

[Chichikov]

On a related note, http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...-for-new-round-of-bothering-you-2013030561827

Man, the English version of The Onion sucks more than the Daily Currant.
It's like none of them understands why The Onion is funny.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Man, the English version of The Onion sucks more than the Daily Currant.
It's like none of them understands why The Onion is funny.

We have lots of funny news satire stuff*, the Mash is just shit.

*Don't ask me to post any because I can't be bothered.

 

[Aaron Strife]

PPP: Kay Hagan leading all Republicans (9 tested) by 10-19 points.

 

[Clevinger]

People who constantly get fucked tend to not care about the political system.

what did zero shift get banned for?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Man, the English version of The Onion sucks more than the Daily Currant.
It's like none of them understands why The Onion is funny.

I couldn't disagree more, though I suspect it has something to do with the Mash's lampooning typically being from a right wing perspective and the Onion's being from the left.

 

[PhoenixDark]

PPP: Kay Hagan leading all Republicans (9 tested) by 10-19 points.

Hard to get too confident so early, with NC unemployment near 10%. Hopefully that rate goes down over the next year, and the senate gets at least a couple things done.

I'm definitely hoping Violetta Fox wins the primary though, to ensure an easy win.

 

[pigeon]

Well then I ask again what the purpose is.

Presumably to reduce the consumption of soda, i.e., to restrict access. Although consider also my other point about the behavioral benefits of forcing people to order two sodas to drink more, because many people won't. Is this psychologically restricting access?

It doesn't need to be "locked away" indefinitely for it to be considered a restriction on access. And if the goal is actually to stop people doing what they want by making it financially non-viable for them to do so, why not make it more than $0.01? Why not 5c? or 20c? or $10? When does it actually become a restriction on liberties, rather than something that can be blithely shrugged off by those who it'll never practically affect in any way but who do, nonetheless, write the law?

Well, I mean, eventually? By this definition any time the government does anything it can be considered a restriction on liberty because it will affect the price of SOMETHING and thus "financially restrict access" to it for some slice of the population. I understand that you're a libertarian, but you can't really expect us to accept libertarianism as true for the sake of argument! As I asked you in the last post -- why should we care that this group of people suddenly can't buy large sodas? Why is this "restriction on liberty" actually a problem?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

what did zero shift get banned for?

I'm guessing the Israëli bus thread.

 

[Chichikov]

I couldn't disagree more, though I suspect it has something to do with the Mash's lampooning typically being from a right wing perspective and the Onion's being from the left.

I don't think The Daily Mash has a conservative slant, and I definitely not seeing it in the story you posted.

 

[Snake]

what did zero shift get banned for?

For his posts in This Thread.

His posts read like satire to me, but who knows these days.

 

[alstein]

PPP: Kay Hagan leading all Republicans (9 tested) by 10-19 points.

Wow, it would get closer by 2014 though. No need to feel confident on that.

In other words, it's sounding like I'm going to get my 30 days sequestration to be fired notice on Monday. At least the worry will be over soon.

 

[Gotchaye]

Well then I ask again what the purpose is. It doesn't need to be "locked away" indefinitely for it to be considered a restriction on access. And if the goal is actually to stop people doing what they want by making it financially non-viable for them to do so, why not make it more than $0.01? Why not 5c? or 20c? or $10? When does it actually become a restriction on liberties, rather than something that can be blithely shrugged off by those who it'll never practically affect in any way but who do, nonetheless, write the law? I suspect it's because, like most things like this, the actual point is to act as a revenue earner - even if the nominal use of that money is to run health campaigns and raise awareness about how this thing you enjoy that we've just made it harder for you to access is hurting you and that, really, it's for your own good you stupid little idiots.

I'm not sure it ever becomes a genuinely concerning restriction on liberties, but you're missing the point.

It's not to "stop people doing what they want by making it financially non-viable". The point is just to nudge people towards consuming less of particular things. Obviously the line between this sort of nudge and essentially banning something by placing a very high tax on it is fuzzy, but there's clearly a distinction.

"It's for your own good you stupid little idiots" is also a silly framing here. Most people who drink lots and lots of soda aren't idiots and do actually understand that soda is bad for them. In fact, if you ask them, they'll often express a desire to drink less soda, or at least to be healthier in general. It shouldn't be controversial to point out that people's short-term decisions often don't make sense in the context of their expressed long-term goals. People typically experience this as a failure of will. And so it makes a great deal of sense to limit our ability to choose certain things in the short-term in order to better enable us to reach long-term goals. If you want to lose weight, it's a bad idea to keep a bowl of M&Ms on your desk, even though the presence of the candy doesn't make it any more difficult not to eat candy, in some sense. There are short-term decisions I make that, in retrospect, I regret making a particular way as often as I do. It is good for me, by my own lights, for my incentive structure to be altered in such a way that I choose differently some fraction of the time.

I understand that it is a little paternalistic (in the bad sense) when people who haven't bought a 16 oz soda in the last decade vote to tax them. Undoubtedly there are some people who do this out of a "these people can't be trusted to make their own decisions" attitude. But a small added cost is a terrible way to force big changes in the behavior of people who have no desire to change, so it's just not very problematic. And there are people who it can genuinely help, even by their own lights, by shifting their incentive structure around and helping them to avoid temptation.

 

[Gotchaye]

I couldn't disagree more, though I suspect it has something to do with the Mash's lampooning typically being from a right wing perspective and the Onion's being from the left.

The humor just doesn't really work for me because the dystopian policy described simply isn't very dystopian. The right-wing criticism of government paternalism is that it leads to tyranny, but no one's coming close to advocating for mandatory fat camp. So you get weak satire like this where even the absurdist parody of the policy is merely "bothersome". At least in the US, it often seems like the right-wing vision of liberal dystopia is just really annoying rather than genuinely oppressive. It's a slipper brushing against a human face, forever.

As a commentary on incompetent application of decent ideas, it kind of works. As a satire of the whole project of liberal paternalism, it's self-defeating.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Wow, it would get closer by 2014 though. No need to feel confident on that.

In other words, it's sounding like I'm going to get my 30 days sequestration to be fired notice on Monday. At least the worry will be over soon.

Hard to get too confident so early, with NC unemployment near 10%. Hopefully that rate goes down over the next year, and the senate gets at least a couple things done.

I'm definitely hoping Violetta Fox wins the primary though, to ensure an easy win.

No reason to be overconfident, but it's definitely not a bad place to start out in.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

But PD said

President Obama rejected the Republican Party's calls for a balanced budget, saying it would require slashing entitlements, during an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his budget proposal Tuesday, which aims to balance the budget in 10 years.

“My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance," Obama said. "My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue."

Obama also criticized Ryan's budget for slashing entitlements like Medicaid. “We’re not gonna balance the budget in ten years because if you look at what Paul Ryan does to balance the budget, it means that you have to voucherize Medicare, you have to slash deeply into programs like Medicaid, you’ve essentially got to– either tax– middle class families a lot higher than you currently are or you can’t lower rates the way he’s promised,” he said.

“So it’s really, you know, it’s a reprise of the same legislation that he’s put before.”

The interview will air Wednesday on "Good Morning America" and "Nightline."

 

[CyclopsRock]

Presumably to reduce the consumption of soda, i.e., to restrict access. Although consider also my other point about the behavioral benefits of forcing people to order two sodas to drink more, because many people won't. Is this psychologically restricting access?



Well, I mean, eventually? By this definition any time the government does anything it can be considered a restriction on liberty because it will affect the price of SOMETHING and thus "financially restrict access" to it for some slice of the population. I understand that you're a libertarian, but you can't really expect us to accept libertarianism as true for the sake of argument! As I asked you in the last post -- why should we care that this group of people suddenly can't buy large sodas? Why is this "restriction on liberty" actually a problem?

Well perhaps it isn't, but it should be acknowledged as such. It's why I don't understand the responses in this thread dismissing the paternalism arguments as if they're just paranoid mumbo-jumbo from the right.

But since you asked why we should care that people can't buy large sodas (which isn't actually a topic I've discussed here, I've been talking about taxing it, which is a slightly different thing, but I'm happy to run with it) my answer is this: Because, basically, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to stop people making bad decisions. That's the person in question's responsibility, and I think measures like this result in a deterioration of that responsibility. I think that people will be more inclined to think, when finding that something dangerous is legal, thinking "Well, they banned 24oz cups of Coke - how bad can this be?" And it continues the expansion of the government stated not what you are allowed to do, but what you should be doing. Soda's bad for your health, I think we all agree with that. So's not exercising. So's not eating enough vegetables. So's staring at a computer monitor all day. Would you support the government mandating that the PS4 (and all TV's) automatically went into standby once an hour. You can switch it straight back on, but it acts as a disincentive. This isn't a reductio as absurdum argument as per my previous Ferrari one - this is the exact same rational thought process.

Not everyone wants to do what's best for them, and I don't think the government should have any sort of veto over that - be it in directly banning, or restricting via higher costs or annoyance.

 

[The Librarian]

Hard to get too confident so early, with NC unemployment near 10%. Hopefully that rate goes down over the next year, and the senate gets at least a couple things done.

UE rate isn't a be all, end all, PD.

Well perhaps it isn't, but it should be acknowledged as such. It's why I don't understand the responses in this thread dismissing the paternalism arguments as if they're just paranoid mumbo-jumbo from the right.

But since you asked why we should care that people can't buy large sodas (which isn't actually a topic I've discussed here, I've been talking about taxing it, which is a slightly different thing, but I'm happy to run with it) my answer is this: Because, basically, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to stop people making bad decisions. That's the person in question's responsibility, and I think measures like this result in a deterioration of that responsibility. I think that people will be more inclined to think, when finding that something dangerous is legal, thinking "Well, they banned 24oz cups of Coke - how bad can this be?" And it continues the expansion of the government stated not what you are allowed to do, but what you should be doing. Soda's bad for your health, I think we all agree with that. So's not exercising. So's not eating enough vegetables. So's staring at a computer monitor all day. Would you support the government mandating that the PS4 (and all TV's) automatically went into standby once an hour. You can switch it straight back on, but it acts as a disincentive. This isn't a reductio as absurdum argument as per my previous Ferrari one - this is the exact same rational thought process.

Not everyone wants to do what's best for them, and I don't think the government should have any sort of veto over that - be it in directly banning, or restricting via higher costs or annoyance.

If we aren't too careful the government may tax skateboarding soon.

 

[CyclopsRock]

As a commentary on incompetent application of decent ideas, it kind of works. As a satire of the whole project of liberal paternalism, it's self-defeating.

They have a pretty notable history in writing articles about the incompetence of government and bureaucracy and how they want to be left alone to enjoy their lives without the government interfering constantly. I don't think they're making any allusions to it being "dystopian" (your word, not theirs), which is why their "next step" example is just a doctor phoning you up in the middle of the night. It's annoying, that's their point, not that it's criminally harmful.

 

[CyclopsRock]

UE rate isn't a be all, end all, PD.

If we aren't too careful the government may tax skateboarding soon.

Well, joking aside, it's hard to see the rationale behind taxing something on the grounds of its health implications purely on the basis of the cost to the government, and not doing so on other dangerous things like skateboarding, skiing, boxing, unprotected anal sex with malaysian prostitutes etc. Obviously, everything in this list would hit me particularly hard, which is the main basis behind my rightward slant.

I understand that it is a little paternalistic (in the bad sense) when people who haven't bought a 16 oz soda in the last decade vote to tax them. Undoubtedly there are some people who do this out of a "these people can't be trusted to make their own decisions" attitude. But a small added cost is a terrible way to force big changes in the behavior of people who have no desire to change, so it's just not very problematic. And there are people who it can genuinely help, even by their own lights, by shifting their incentive structure around and helping them to avoid temptation.

I appreciate the effort you went to in your reply, thanks.

I'm not sure that the bolded above should have been used, though - "and" seems more appropriate. I think I've replied above with most of what I'd have written here, but I also don't think it's the role of the government to help people out with their own lack of will power - the obvious reason being that it's a hell of a blunt instrument for the government to wield.

 

[CyclopsRock]

sorry, trip posted!

 

[Aaron Strife]

I like how Colorado passed a civil unions bill today and no one gives a shit. Clearly it's still a partisan issue (only 2 Republicans voted in the affirmative) but to me it's a clear sign that conservatives have retreated on this issue in all but the southern states. Civil unions used to be a compromise supported by liberals, deferring to "Marriage is a man and a woman," which Republicans refused to support all the same - and now it's the other way around.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

The projection was just quick math, but it's easy to see that if turnout went from 60% to 100% and the people added favored Obama by 20 points that he'd break double digits.
.

Many thanks for the article. I underestimated the mixture of liberal and conservative views. Do you feel the US is primarily liberal leaning or that public policy would dramatically shift left if there was compulsory voting? Skim through these links when you get a chance.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/21/us/if-nonvoters-had-voted-same-winner-but-bigger.html

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/nagler/leighley_nagler_midwest2007.pdf

http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/turnout.pdf

http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/bubbadubya.pdf

 

[The Librarian]

Well, joking aside, it's hard to see the rationale behind taxing something on the grounds of its health implications purely on the basis of the cost to the government, and not doing so on other dangerous things like skateboarding, skiing, boxing, unprotected anal sex with malaysian prostitutes etc. Obviously, everything in this list would hit me particularly hard, which is the main basis behind my rightward slant.

Aren't you from the UK? How is what we do going to affect you?

And if you can't see the difference in rationale (or rather, lack thereof) between taxing soda and taxing people for anal sex...I don't know why I'm conversing with you.

I guess if the government really wanted to, they could repeal the fourth amendment, hire workers to live (that is, watch) with loving couples to ensure the government's tax policies are enforced. I assume such a tax would be based on total time of said type of intercourse. Or would it vary based on income and number of partners?

 

[The Librarian]

Shit! Now I'm worried about an anal-sex tax.

Other future taxes I'm worried about is a Wearing A Dress tax. Nooooooo

 

[PhoenixDark]

But PD said

And yet he's not proposing anything specific to put people back to work. Just random austerity (chained CPI, Medicare cuts) that barely addresses the deficit and does nothing for jobs. How come there's never any discussion of actual reforms that strengthen benefits without cutting them? Every debate is always on conservative territory: how much should we cut, Social Security (which isn't even contributing to the deficit) benefits are on the table, etc. Which means any "compromise" will end up to the right.

I don't think he wants to balance the budget for the sake of balance. He just wants to get a big deal done to secure his legacy among the bipartisan=always good crowd. That's my personal view because for the life of me I can't determine why a democrat would constantly want to cut people's Social Security benefits.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

And yet he's not proposing anything specific to put people back to work. Just random austerity (chained CPI, Medicare cuts) that barely addresses the deficit and does nothing for jobs. How come there's never any discussion of actual reforms that strengthen benefits without cutting them? Every debate is always on conservative territory: how much should we cut, Social Security (which isn't even contributing to the deficit) benefits are on the table, etc. Which means any "compromise" will end up to the right.

I don't think he wants to balance the budget for the sake of balance. He just wants to get a big deal done to secure his legacy among the bipartisan=always good crowd. That's my personal view because for the life of me I can't determine why a democrat would constantly want to cut people's Social Security benefits.

Sorry but I honestly don't have a problem with the very top earners having to pay more when it comes to medicare and not getting as much in SS.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm not sure that the bolded above should have been used, though - "and" seems more appropriate. I think I've replied above with most of what I'd have written here, but I also don't think it's the role of the government to help people out with their own lack of will power - the obvious reason being that it's a hell of a blunt instrument for the government to wield.

But it's not that blunt of an instrument. That's the whole basis for saying that it's a terrible way to change behavior for people who don't want to change. That a bottle of regular soda costs $2 instead of $1.50 is just not much of an imposition; it's the sort of thing most people would barely notice unless they're drinking incredibly unhealthy amounts or they're seriously weighing whether to get a bottle of regular or diet (or some other, presumably healthier, drink).

I just have a hard time seeing why the government shouldn't be doing that. What's the collateral damage?

And this is the big difference a good paternalistic policy and a bad one. The good one doesn't really hurt anybody. It's not annoying in anything like the way interrupting all TV shows every so often with two minutes of dead air to encourage people to go outside would be. It's just a very small added cost that people don't have to think about any differently than if HFCS just happened to become more expensive to produce.

I absolutely think there's such a thing as an overly-annoying policy, and it's good to be on guard against those. But it's just not the case that any government intervention is a priori too annoying. Policies should be judged on a case by case basis; come up with a way of encouraging people to exercise or practice safe sex that isn't really annoying in unfortunate ways and I'll listen. Taxing unsafe sex seems really hard to implement without a lot of annoying intrusion, as Dax says. Probably the better bet would be to do something to make condoms more available, plus PSAs. I don't really have an objection to that.

You wrote elsewhere about paternalism causing a "deterioration of responsibility". Is there any reason for thinking that this actually happens? This just seems very weird. The implied claim here is that people are better off for having the choice to buy large sodas, even if they are worse off if they actually choose to buy large sodas, because by exercising willpower in this instance they become better at making good choices, I guess. My understanding of the relevant science is that the opposite is true, and that in general being made to exercise willpower makes one more likely to succumb to temptation later on. This is also basically the consensus of literature and religion, isn't it? Repeated temptation weakens the will rather than strengthening it. I suggest that if we want people to be maximally responsible, we ought to allow them to not be tempted when temptation is avoidable.

Edit: And is anyone else's FireFox broken recently? Seems like half of the internet causes the whole browser to hang and be completely unresponsive for two minutes while the page loads. I'm on Chrome now and it's awful. If I refresh the page after writing a post I lose everything I wrote.

 

[Gruco]

1. Short term utility vs long term. You're right it distorts short term utility in the short term but if people were thinking long term properly they might change their utility functions to begin with. Since soda has many negative effects its possible the distortion created by the tax is simple filling the away erratic information gap. And even if not, it's at least forcing them to take the longer term view. This is good.

Yeah, this is the flavor of the right argument. Basically hyperbolic discounting or any other kind of time-inconsistent preferences get you welfare-improving sin taxes.

 

[speculawyer]

I like how Colorado passed a civil unions bill today and no one gives a shit. Clearly it's still a partisan issue (only 2 Republicans voted in the affirmative) but to me it's a clear sign that conservatives have retreated on this issue in all but the southern states. Civil unions used to be a compromise supported by liberals, deferring to "Marriage is a man and a woman," which Republicans refused to support all the same - and now it's the other way around.

No one should give a shit. It is too late for that kind of separate but equal schtick.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sorry but I honestly don't have a problem with the very top earners having to pay more when it comes to medicare and not getting as much in SS.

Now you're talking about means testing, which we both seemingly agree on. I know most of GAF is against it, and while it doesn't raise much money over 10yrs I'd be fine with it. But I am completely opposed to chained CPI which will proportionally hurt poorer SS recipients.

I'm guessing we would both prefer to see the income cap eliminated or raised on SS. Unfortunately I'm not sure I've ever heard Obama discuss this as president.

 

[Piecake]

Now you're talking about means testing, which we both seemingly agree on. I know most of GAF is against it, and while it doesn't raise much money over 10yrs I'd be fine with it. But I am completely opposed to chained CPI which will proportionally hurt poorer SS recipients.

I'm guessing we would both prefer to see the income cap eliminated or raised on SS. Unfortunately I'm not sure I've ever heard Obama discuss this as president.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the payroll tax and stick it on capital gains

 

[Jackson50]

Shit! Now I'm worried about an anal-sex tax.

Other future taxes I'm worried about is a Wearing A Dress tax. Nooooooo

Not sure if serious, but the enforcement of a buggery tax would be prohibitively costly. A dress tax might be feasible, though.

Many thanks for the article. I underestimated the mixture of liberal and conservative views. Do you feel the US is primarily liberal leaning or that public policy would dramatically shift left if there was compulsory voting? Skim through these links when you get a chance.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/21/us/if-nonvoters-had-voted-same-winner-but-bigger.html

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/nagler/leighley_nagler_midwest2007.pdf

http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/turnout.pdf

http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/bubbadubya.pdf

Most analyses evince moderate electoral benefits for Democrats. In addition to Citrin, Schickler, and Sides, Highton and Wolfinger identify a moderate electoral benefit. But the second article examines the difference in policy preferences between voters and nonvoters, and on that dimension the gulf is much greater. Therefore, common methods of extrapolation on socioeconomic indicators might underestimate the electoral benefits. Sides provides some insight on the discrepancy. Also, one caveat that Sides mentions, and I find relevant as it might underestimate the magnitude of higher turnout-

Another consideration here is that social science may not be able to fully comprehend the effects of something like compulsory turnout. How would this kind of shift change the political landscape? We don’t really know. For example, we don’t know if this would affect how candidates and parties position themselves and the kinds of messages they send. It’s possible that the aggregate preferences of the entire electorate might be more different than those of voters today, in part because of campaign effects. And it is also possible that elected leaders would pursue different policies while in office, given the expanded electorate to which they would have to answer once the campaign begins.

 

[Chichikov]

Now you're talking about means testing, which we both seemingly agree on. I know most of GAF is against it, and while it doesn't raise much money over 10yrs I'd be fine with it. But I am completely opposed to chained CPI which will proportionally hurt poorer SS recipients.

I'm guessing we would both prefer to see the income cap eliminated or raised on SS. Unfortunately I'm not sure I've ever heard Obama discuss this as president.

Explain to me the point of means testing please.
You're going create a bureaucracy, you're going to have to submit forms to social security, you're going to have a create an enforcement mechanism, you'll have to take citizens who don't comply to court, and for what?
How is it preferable than having the rich pay a bit more?
Even for rich people, does it matters all that much if I pay 20 and get 10 back or if I pay 10?

 

[Owzers]

In a time span of 2 minutes, Hannity accuses Obama of not cutting any spending AND then when the talking got switched over to Florida and how "paul ryan won over seniors" and Juan Williams had to break it to them that Obama won Florida, Hannity closed the segment by saying Obama is the one that cut Medicare. Juan tried to get in how Ryan's budget, the budget Hannity was praising, also keeps those Medicare cuts but the segment ended.

It would have been nicer if Hannity ended the segment by putting his hands over his ears and singing loudly. Hannity's next segment was with Giuliani where he goes on to say that if Obama were smart, he'd ask Giuliani to be his national security adviser or head of the DoD.

And those 15 minutes were about all of that show i could stand tonight.