"I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong. Tax cuts don't equal growth."

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Cigar, Sep 28, 2017.

  1. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are plenty of market alternatives to social security,
    It did exist before the government took on the role.

    Examples: The Church. Charities and private insurance schemes.

    In the UK social security is relatively modern. It was nationalised in living memory. Prior to that it was provided by private insurers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure there are. They are just way worse for past SS contributors, better for recent ones.
    The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." SS was DESIGNED to give exorbitant returns to earlier recipients, declining returns to later ones. Not the way I would have done it, but that's politics. SS is a redistribution program tarted up as a quasi-Ponzi scheme, not a public service or infrastructure.
    It all is. But politics depends on voters. Sometimes voters are pretty conscientious about getting taxpayers' money's worth, but often they are not.
    A lot of public services and infrastructure are if not necessary, then at least very desirable as remedies for market failures. It's certainly money better spent than on bombing people in other countries or subsidizing rich, greedy, privileged parasites.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What market failures are they then?
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Free riders, principal-agent problems, externalities, market exchangeability restrictions, information asymmetries, etc. You know: the economics you can't understand, but feel you have to falsely accuse others of not even mentioning.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This amused me. This is all neoclassical economics!
     
  6. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your homework is to determine the truth.
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, well, even phlogiston theory talked about real elements and compounds. Even Lamarckism talked about real anatomical features. They just had erroneous conceptual frameworks, as neoclassical economics does.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That you don't any economics? Headmistress badge!
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    HAHAHAHA! You're so predictable. Isn't it strange how you fall into Econ 101 textbook space, quoting concepts word for word? Doesn't the neoclassical school get your "evil" tag now?
     
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those on and those close to retirement stay on the existing system. Privatization gives superior return and transfer to beneficiaries.

    Agreed.
     
  11. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funny stuff. The academic failure again on display.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What on earth are you trying to say? I never needed to know macroeconomics. Admittedly, it does reduce issues such as uncertainty (but I only cared about that when I became an old git). The problem is that you know nothing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you saying neoclassical economics lacks ANY valid concepts?
    It does. But even Marx knew 2+2=4
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not me! You though have suggested that its evil.

    And you say it again. The problem is straightforward. You've been playing some proper hardcore dungeons and dragons. From that you've convinced yourself that you're a paladin. Unfortunately paladins aren't necessarily clued up on economics!
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then why spew such absurd and disingenuous garbage?

    Oh, right: that's all you know how to do.
    I've stated that it is. Fascism is also evil. But Mussolini did get the trains to run on time. The advance of neoclassical economics over classical economics was marginalism, which Jevons used to refute the Labor Theory of Value. But from the outset, neoclassical economics was contaminated by invalid concepts, and has consequently been more useful in rationalizing injustice and evil than in enhancing economic understanding.
    <yawn> I've never touched it.
    :lol: Look who's talking! You have yet to offer any economics whatever; you just keep claiming -- falsely, of course -- that I haven't.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm just amused that you're so reliant on neoclassical economics for any actual economics!
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <yawn> You are still just makin' $#!+ up. Conditions of market failure are recognized by many heterodox schools of economics including the post-Keynesian and experimental schools, not just specifically neoclassical economics. If you knew any economics (you don't), you would know that.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't referred to heterodox market failures. Post Keynesians, for example, steal from the Marxists to embed crisis theory within their approach.

    The problem is that your approach is all so predictable. Like all Georgist wannabes, you allow your morality to dictate your tongue. You forget the need for considered application of economics. This is in full display when you become neoclassical all of a sudden, utimately showing you're just a slave of Econ 101
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course I have. You just falsely and disingenuously claimed that because the market failure conditions I identified are recognized by the neoclassical as well as heterodox schools, I was relying on the neoclassical approach and ignoring the heterodox when I had done no such thing. It is normal and routine for you to immediately essay such falsehoods and strawman fallacies when you have been demolished and humiliated, and have no answers.
    Too bad you have no economic analysis to contribute. Do at least try, for once!
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which ones? Let's see you play pretend!
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you aren't even pretending to have read what I wrote before you spewed your filth about it? Thought not.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't hide now. Refer to market failures, which aren't Econ 101, that you refer to!

    Good luck
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018

Share This Page