Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I'm just saying you're making yourself sound silly now by not understanding simple economic principles such as how tax credits work. Let alone the complex things.

[wierd]

No more than you did earlier, by failure to comprehend closed systems, or implying infinite elasticity of products with natural scarcity.

[smjjames]

*invents nano-replicators*

BOOM!

Post-scarcity!

[wierd]

Not really.

"Invents free energy, and efficient matter-energy-conversion"

THAT gives post-scarcity.

[Reelya]

No, I said the current economy is not a closed system. I know what you were talking about, it's just completely irrelevant to the time scales and world we live in right now, thus it's irrelevant to bring heat death of the universe into the question of welfare payment structures.

The thing is, if economic growth exists at all, then talking about closed systems and zero sum is fundanmentally wrong.

[chaoticag]

Not really.

"Invents free energy, and efficient matter-energy-conversion"

THAT gives post-scarcity.

So basically... the sun?

[wierd]

Finite hydrogen fuel.

More, "Hey, we found out where the big-Bang's massive inflationary period energy came from! It is mathematically infinite! We found how to tap into it usefully!"

[chaoticag]

Billions of years of finite hardly matters. Alternatively, all civilization is useless because eventually the heat death of the universe will hit us. That is not a useful philosophy with which to manage an economy or a tax system.

[Reelya]

Wierd my point was that if your argument about closed systems was valid in any way whatsoever, then no economic growth would even be possible from this point onwards.

And hence the most efficient means of distribution would be rationing. The free market system throws out about 40% of the total food mass produced - because market pricing is based on a scarcity model. If we rationed that out (in an opt-in/opt-out) system, then you could carve that down to maybe 5-10% waste.

[wierd]

Reelya-- Our economy is only semistable because of constant population growth, driving up demand artificially, coupled massive availability inequality.

Your argument also conflates CURRENCY, with WEALTH, and VALUE-- which is, AGAIN, WRONG.

I can fenagle a way for you to legally owe me infinity dollars. Your actual ability to remit is moot-- by your metrics, you are then an infinite value resource!

[Reelya]

Nope, nope.

Remember my original argument pro-feeding kids was that less drop out of school, and less go to prison. you're paying for those kids who end up in prison. And that's not cheap. And don't tell me it's rare, because USA has a poor welfare system and coincidentally the largest per-capita prison population of any industrialized nation.

A full 1% of the country's adult population is behind bars. Each other adult is paying on average about $300 a year to keep people in prison. If a fraction of that money can be spent on feeding school kids and they get a better outcome and avoid prison, then you're gaining a net financial saving. Plus, there's one more productive person who's not being coddled in prison to split the costs with.

There are other benefits of having a healthy well-fed next generation, and those benefits are spread out to all corporations and parts of society, not just the parents of the kids. So it makes sense to feed our next generation.

[wierd]

Not something I discount.

Again, I take ideology #1-- Seeking optimal function of society.  Keeping the populace fed is essential to that goal.

I reject that this can be done while keeping "fairness" in the mix.

[Reelya]

Which specific policy are you against then?

Because "fairness" isn't a term or concept that I've used to justify any of the policies I mentioned.

What I have mentioned is fiscal multipliers on transferring capital to different parts of the economy, and that the data suggests that spending at the bottom and taxing at the top is the best combination to increase economic activity. Or, to put that inversely, tax cuts at the top funded by spending cuts or tax increases at the bottom will structurally shrink the economy.

To put this more visually: money tends to move upwards in the economy, so if you don't fix things, the money-pyramid gets top-heavy. And that's a gradual ongoing process. If you want stability, that money needs to be dispersed back down, and there's almost no incentive to do so. i.e. lasseiz faire capitalism ends in the long run with a very few people having all the currency, which is not sustainable.

And on increasing the fitness of school kids by ensuring nutrition, which reduces costs/problems and helps the economy later (more qualified graduates). Neither of those things needs justifying on the basis of "fairness".

[wierd]

Specifically:

In regard to "fairness" based approaches:
Hypocritical to institute arbitrary cutoffs based on income, when ability to provide for ones-self and family is dependent upon more than just your raw income. (It needs to factor in debts, and other obligations.) The system does not do this currently.  Fixing it would make the system impossible to manage.

In regard to welfare in general-- treating it like a sacred cow, instead of something that needs serious critical investigation and reform.

[Reelya]

Fixing it would make the system impossible to manage.

Well no, it would actually be cheaper and fairer to just give everyone the food without any background checks. If you do asset testing, that creates beaureacracy and overheads, reducing the amount of food you can actually serve.

If you just assume everyone is eligible for the food, then the price to taxpayers goes up a little, but not as much as the value of the food they're going to get, which is also cheaper than retail, since it's bought in bulk.

I mean, if you weren't getting the free meal now, but were paying the tax, then having them also offer to give you one of the meals would, at most, cost you (in tax) the same as the value of the meal you're going to get.