Ignatz Mouse
Banned
And again the loaded language which does nothing to further the discussion.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I mean, this is an easy one, benji.
Assume for the sake of argument that government can be useful -- that the average citizen would gain more benefit from a dollar of government spending in a certain field than from a dollar of private citizen spending.
Coerce many citizens to contribute money to the government (some will do it voluntarily). Have the government spend that money in that field.
The citizens accrue a benefit which is larger than the benefit they would have accrued if that money was spent by private citizens. That benefit is reflected in their productivity, which leads to an increase in GDP larger than would have been seen otherwise.
The additional GDP increase is the effect of the fiscal multiplier. Basically, it's an experiment in the effectiveness of government.
First TV debate tonight for our senate race. Landrieu and Maness are attending, but Cassidy is skipping. I wonder if voters will dock Cassidy points for this..
Either way, it feels good to be back in debate season. And to be witnessing a race in my state that's actually competitive. Years of living in Texas made me miss this kind of thing..
Either way, it feels good to be back in debate season. And to be witnessing a race in my state that's actually competitive. Years of living in Texas made me miss this kind of thing..
benjipwns
Banned
U.S. has one of the highest tax compliance rates in the world too. If not the highest.
Fine, the world's largest "liberal democratic" government. It's probably true that China's Red Arrny alone is bigger.
The wealth wasn't redistributed, it just increased in certain places faster than in others. And the high growth came after the destruction of two continents. Look at the high growth in China and India as they come out of poverty.
I wasn't talking about money.
Again...when were these terrible unregulated monopolies that hurt consumers? Every instance is and has been backed with state power.
The "trust busting" was nothing but political power being expressed for favorites against those on the outs. That's why Teddy got pissed off when Taft enforced anti-trust law against U.S. Steel and others by the letter of the law. Taft wasn't following the spirit of the law as a tool to compel friendly relations between business and government.
Except that wealth isn't a finite preset pool. And you can only take one or two forms of it from one person and give it to another.
No, you're just manipulating prices and encouraging malinvestment then. Especially if you're using the Greenspan put.
So you don't consider the various middle classes to produce any actual wealth through their labor? I mean, we know the lower classes produce wealth and the upper classes produce wealth, but the middle classes have always been that magic engine of wealth creation by bridging the gap.
A man owns his labor because he owns himself. You're not going to find left-libertarians or right-libertarians disagreeing on this point.
And I'm considered left-libertarian in libertarian circles but yet I'm annoying as all hell. So that's another blow to your theory.
Ah yes, the nation's wealth. All wealth, all labor and all people are merely property of the state. Because the most powerful tribe (which claims to be acting in the name of the people's will...which nobody can agree on) said so.
But anarchy existing? that's crazy!!! The most powerful would control all the wealth and own people! All power would just aggregate into large powerful institutions!
How so? Rather than me, you, Ignatz and APK using our own wealth and capital to acquire from each other what we each wish that the other offers, Metaphor comes along and demands a share AND how we each should be distributed the goods and services on offer. Other than luck, how are us four better off with Met-Life taking a cut and distributing the goods in a way he deems more efficient even though he has almost no information about them. While each of us hold individual pieces of information that we utilize with one another to actually approach efficiently distributing the goods.
I can't see how Meticulous acting in his own interests with our labor is democratic and if Metrication is just getting a consulting fee to distribute our wealth as we already would have then he is an unnecessary party who merely serves to shift part of our labor's rewards to himself.
As for the government having particular knowledge in a field that surpasses its citizens individually, the military instantly comes to mind as an example, and I'm not too sure about their procurement procedures.
I'm going to dance like a goddamn demon when one of The Five finally retires. Every year, they seem intent upon giving me more reasons to look forward to it.
adamsappel
Member
It's PoliGAF moments like these where I realize empty vessel is still banned. Except I just checked and he's not! I thought for sure this argument would be a clarion call for him.
I'm not seeing any "theft by violence" references in benji's posts. Tsk tsk.
I'm not seeing any "theft by violence" references in benji's posts. Tsk tsk.
Third Strike
Member
Thom Tillis is vowing to spend taxpayer money to stop same-sex marriages from happening in North Carolina. Could this be the October "surprise" to sink him on election day? Wouldn't this really fire up the liberal and possibly independent base?
zero shift
Banned
No. Corporations don't pay all of their taxes.
That makes even less sense. France, Germany, and Belgium alone have a far bigger government than the United States.
Incredibly high tax rates, stronger minimum wage laws, and union visibility isn't examples of increased redistribution? We aren't talking about China or India we are talking about America.
He probably just got bored posting here after all these years.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I fail to see the distinction between wealth and money when talking about taxing and spending, and the implications I described.
If the wealthiest people save more than then spend and have more of the wealth, and less money is circulating, isn't is obvious that government spending is going to offset that to a degree?
If the wealthiest people save more than then spend and have more of the wealth, and less money is circulating, isn't is obvious that government spending is going to offset that to a degree?
Black Mamba
Member
Wait, Benji is an Austrian? Fucking hell.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
And don't think I won't!
I was honestly wondering a few days ago if reaction to the gay marriage cases would constitute an "October Surprise." The crazies getting riled-up, politicians seeking to placate their voting base, swing voters/moderates wondering why a GOP official would spend govt resources on something that they see as comparatively unimportant..
Benji conflating trickle down economics with Keynesian economics is just brilliant.
Bush was responsible enough to listen to economists who told him to pass TARP to save his crashed economy. So no, he wasn't a fanatical irrational libertarian which is a plus. But crediting him with listening to the fire department after he set fire to the house isn't really something to be lauded as a great achievement in governance.
Also, Progressives aren't a big boogeyman dude. The abolitionist movement, the women's rights movements, the current marriage equality movement, and the civil rights movements are all the definition of progressive movements and ideals.
Yes Progressives believe in a progressive tax system but so did Adam Smith. We also believe that lowered taxes for the rich along with certain kinds of deregulation create unnecessary and dangerous risk to the national economy - with the Great Depression and Great Recession as obvious real life examples.
This is obviously only one piece of the puzzle. But drops in rates for the wealthy during the 1920's and during the 2000's to levels that resembled rates similar to lower income brackets were followed within less than a decade by a huge collapse. Progressives don't believe that this is entirely a coincidence . Tax rate hikes during the 30's 40's and 90's on the rich followed by economic gains for the middle class and the country as a whole aren't a coincidence either.
Bush was responsible enough to listen to economists who told him to pass TARP to save his crashed economy. So no, he wasn't a fanatical irrational libertarian which is a plus. But crediting him with listening to the fire department after he set fire to the house isn't really something to be lauded as a great achievement in governance.
Also, Progressives aren't a big boogeyman dude. The abolitionist movement, the women's rights movements, the current marriage equality movement, and the civil rights movements are all the definition of progressive movements and ideals.
Yes Progressives believe in a progressive tax system but so did Adam Smith. We also believe that lowered taxes for the rich along with certain kinds of deregulation create unnecessary and dangerous risk to the national economy - with the Great Depression and Great Recession as obvious real life examples.
This is obviously only one piece of the puzzle. But drops in rates for the wealthy during the 1920's and during the 2000's to levels that resembled rates similar to lower income brackets were followed within less than a decade by a huge collapse. Progressives don't believe that this is entirely a coincidence . Tax rate hikes during the 30's 40's and 90's on the rich followed by economic gains for the middle class and the country as a whole aren't a coincidence either.
No, this will fire up the Tea Party and Republican base who let NC turn to shit in the first place.
Bad news for Dax.
The Librarian
Banned
I'M IN CALIFORNIA NOW, BITCHES
Bad news for Jerry Brown.
The Librarian
Banned
that's more like it
Aaron Strife
Banned
First I just want to note that this isn't an argument about fiscal multipliers, it's an argument about "does government have a function." We can certainly debate that, but I still think my point stands that, if government spending makes sense at all, then fiscal multipliers basically must exist.
Government is useful for creating infrastructure. It is useful for me to have a road that goes to where I want to go. But it's not particularly useful for me to build that road -- it's very unlikely to earn out over the course of my use of that road, before I die or my circumstances change such that I need a new road. So I probably won't build that road myself.
However, it might make sense for you, me, APK, and Meta, to get together, pool some capital, and choose one of us to use that capital to build a bunch of roads. Economies of scale means we'll get more road by pooling capital, and by building a road network rather than a road along a single path, the roads are more likely to prove useful to multiple individuals in the group and to remain useful when circumstances change.
Similarly, I am afraid of armed violence. I could solve this problem by hiring a man with a gun to live on my couch and shoot people who threaten me. But this is expensive for me, and it probably makes my neighbors more afraid of armed violence, not less afraid. They might respond by hiring men with guns themselves, which would make me more afraid, and I'd have to hire more people. This is obviously not super efficient for anybody who isn't a man with a gun. It is basically counterproductive for my neighbors to allow me to accumulate armed force by myself, even though I would like to do it to accomplish my goals.
It might be more reasonable for me to get together with my neighbors, pool some capital, and hire several armed men to defend us as a group against any outside threats. Obviously we'd need to choose one of us to manage these armed men -- we might do it by drawing lots, or by voting, and we might want to rotate this assignment. If I feel distrustful of your willingness to not have the armed men shoot me, I would probably not vote for you, so the manager is likely to be somebody who has the general confidence of the community. This way we can group together to accomplish a goal for all of us that, if one of us were to pursue on their own, would make that goal harder to achieve for the others. It's the heroic epic of the commons!
PhoenixDark
Banned
I would prefer a swift strike but this slow trickle of gay marriage approvals is perhaps more entertaining. The far right just doesn't get it. Abortion will likely always be divisive, whereas gay marriage is slowly becoming quite normal and has no actual impact on straight people's lives.
Gay marriage seems to be a terrible hill for the GOP to die on. The tide has turned, it's not big government but the courts moving things. It takes the focus away from everything else and it's a fight they're going to lose.
It seems the only people that should be fighting it are those that don't want to be in office. Your Palins, Huckabees, whatevers. Those that just want money.
It seems the only people that should be fighting it are those that don't want to be in office. Your Palins, Huckabees, whatevers. Those that just want money.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
GAO published a report about voter id law's effect on turnout.
They evaluated 9 nationwide studies, which all mostly took data from 2002-2006. 5 of those studies concluding no effect, 4 of them concluding an effect of 1.5 to 3.9 percentage points depending on the study. Those studies all grouped the voter ID states and compared it to the non-voter ID states.
They also included one study of Indiana's photo ID laws between 2002 and 2006 which had an increase in turnout by 1.8 percentage points but only 0.07 percentage points for counties with a greater percentage of minority residents and 0.29 percentage points for counties with a greater percentage of populations in poverty.
They then looked Kansas and Tennessee drop in turn out from 2008 to 2012 because both had no meaningful change in any margins of victory, minimal ballot questions in both years, and no other changes in election legislation beyond photo ID.
They then normalized the drop in turnout to Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine, which had no change in election legislation at all, and no meaningful change in margin of victories or ballot questions. Alabama and Arkansas are also both in extremely close geographical proximity to Kansas and Tennessee
Results are summed up in the following graphs. First graph shows results using 3 different sources of data. Second graph uses the Current Population Survey for its data, as it's the only one with demographic data.
I mean, we already know why Republicans care about going against their hatred of regulation and bureaucracy despite no evidence to show there's even a voter fraud problem. But it's always nice to have the empirical evidence to back it up, and this study seems really well done and non-partisan.
Sorry I had to basically write an article myself about it, but all the sources reporting on it are terrible about giving actual information, just the overly digested conclusion.
They evaluated 9 nationwide studies, which all mostly took data from 2002-2006. 5 of those studies concluding no effect, 4 of them concluding an effect of 1.5 to 3.9 percentage points depending on the study. Those studies all grouped the voter ID states and compared it to the non-voter ID states.
They also included one study of Indiana's photo ID laws between 2002 and 2006 which had an increase in turnout by 1.8 percentage points but only 0.07 percentage points for counties with a greater percentage of minority residents and 0.29 percentage points for counties with a greater percentage of populations in poverty.
They then looked Kansas and Tennessee drop in turn out from 2008 to 2012 because both had no meaningful change in any margins of victory, minimal ballot questions in both years, and no other changes in election legislation beyond photo ID.
They then normalized the drop in turnout to Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine, which had no change in election legislation at all, and no meaningful change in margin of victories or ballot questions. Alabama and Arkansas are also both in extremely close geographical proximity to Kansas and Tennessee
Results are summed up in the following graphs. First graph shows results using 3 different sources of data. Second graph uses the Current Population Survey for its data, as it's the only one with demographic data.
I mean, we already know why Republicans care about going against their hatred of regulation and bureaucracy despite no evidence to show there's even a voter fraud problem. But it's always nice to have the empirical evidence to back it up, and this study seems really well done and non-partisan.
Sorry I had to basically write an article myself about it, but all the sources reporting on it are terrible about giving actual information, just the overly digested conclusion.
Yep. I was initially peeved/irked/Diablosed {
} at SCOTUS' decision earlier this week, but.. this slow trickle on the Right has been funny to witness. Dragging out these temper tantrums can only help the Dems.theprodigy
Member
Yep. I was initially peeved/irked/Diablosed {
Actually see it the opposite way. Dems lose a platform to run on, and the establishment GOP will blame the court, leaving Republican candidates in moderate/left leaning states free to duck the question (let the courts decide), while Repubs in more reactionary states can use the issue against their Dem opponents. Extreme social conservatives might bitch, but they'll still vote for the anti-Obama candidate.
rocketknight
Member
Cassidy skipped the last one too. I think he's only doing two of the six that were proposed. I got a nice Cassidy-flavored Americans For Prosperity mailer addressed directly to me yesterday, which I guess is my fault for signing in with my real name when I go to these nutjobs' town hall meetings.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Democrats have huge advantage in Nebraska early voting
Nuts. Democrats could pick up NE-2 this year.
Nuts. Democrats could pick up NE-2 this year.
Sounds like their state legislature's gonna come down on all that voter fraud like a ton of bricks and restrict early voting next session...
Aaron Strife
Banned
Good news for Braley. Huh, that felt weird.
I've wondered about that.
The good thing? No matter what, this isn't over. Marriage could come to all 50 states, and social conservatives are going to find ways to fuck with gay couples. I just wonder how silly and creative they're going to get.
In terms of presidential nominee, I still think the GOP is hurt by this issue.
They nominate a conservative who's still fighting the marriage battle when it's over? Young & moderate voters notice and stay away.
Nominate a moderate who's ambivalent? Their base fractures, and enough of them stay home to tilt races to the Dems.
Should be fun to watch!
You have a far stronger stomach than I. Although I do like to run-up their mailing costs by signing-up for lots of newsletters.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Reince said Orman isn't allowed in the GOP caucus
Have fun losing the Senate, buddy
Have fun losing the Senate, buddy
What a buffoon. You'd think getting him to say his name backwards would be easier considering how dumb he is.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Might be a crafty move. Say Reince already knew Orman was never going to caucus with the GOP. Why would it help to let Orman continue to pretend like a vote for him might still be a vote for a republican? It might seem better to just remove all doubt and let all anti-democrat Orman supporters know a vote for him is a vote for Reid.
I mean, I don't think that'll work. Most people don't have a clue what caucusing even is, and don't usually like or trust what the other side says or does when they resort to wonky concepts like this. But I at least see where he's coming from.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
ENDA is more popular than gay marriage. They'll continue to have a LGBT platform to run on.
I always thought they would, but it's still hilarious to watch the GOP blow this election in real time. Fox News is going to be even more amazing than 2012, that bubble burst too early for them. This will be a slow, arduous, and agonizing descent into lunacy and eventually despair.
Jack Remington
Banned
I feel like IS-LM theory addressed all these stimulus questions years ago.
Why is there still any debate?
Why is there still any debate?
Man, it would be funny if the Dems won the senate with 51 seats, only possible with Orman.
theprodigy
Member
considering how the governor race in Kansas is going, I'll go with "not gonna work" (I'm sure Brownback wishes it did though)
Aaron Strife
Banned
50 even - Biden would serve as the tiebreaker.
Do'h! Forgot about that.
EDNA is nowhere the divisive topic gay marriage is.
Just imagine if Biden had to break ties on a regular basis, the salt would be legendary.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'd like a constant facecam of Paul Ryan every time this happens.
"It could have been me..."
Not that it'd ever be on serious legislation, unless Reid killed the filibuster.
Speaking of Papa Joe, this happened recently.
The man loves his ice cream, a lot. I'm going to miss him when he's out of office, I really am.
The man loves his ice cream, a lot. I'm going to miss him when he's out of office, I really am.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Goddamn that photo is amazing.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah Jan 2025 is gonna be rough.
YES!
Federal Court Blocks Texas Voter ID Law, Calling It A 'Poll Tax
This could still be appealed, but I'm still glad the judge is doing the right thing in recognizing the problem with the voter ID law.
Federal Court Blocks Texas Voter ID Law, Calling It A 'Poll Tax
This could still be appealed, but I'm still glad the judge is doing the right thing in recognizing the problem with the voter ID law.
zero shift
Banned
Good NPR listen about how Millennial are blue now, but are still up to grab with their allegiance.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked