Marginal utility of money

Yep, it was in black and white. rich man is "dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units."They are the rich man's marginal units.

Because it is written in the example.

The English language sentence which says rich man is "dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units."

That is not appropriate at all. It is called skewing the figures when you use the wrong marginal unit. When you skew the study to justify something, you have wasted all of your time because a flawed study serves no real purpose.

 

As is lighting his cigars with $100 bills.

But who cares what the rich man would say his marginal unit is? We are analyzing what tax rate we should apply to the next $100 in marginal income. Not taking a poll on what rich guys think.

That is where your position is wrong.

My post is contradictory because it is written in the example?

You are getting more and more bizarre the more your arguments are getting feebler and feebler.

Why did I write that makes you think I don't understand that?

Why is it skewed? Who says it is not an appropriate marginal unit for analyzing tax policy?

How exactly am I "skewing the figures"

You're just arbitrarily making (*)(*)(*)(*) up because you can't defend you erroneous position.

 

That the $100 means less to the rich man IS WHY YOU DO NOT USE THAT AS THE RICH MAN'S MARGINAL UNIT. What the rich man deals with as a marginal unit is the only thing that matters.

Because if one does a study of marginal utility as a justification for higher taxes on the rich you have to use what the rich man would deal with as a marginal unit. You can't peg an artificial marginal unit to an individual. The only valid marginal unit is the one the individual will consider or deal with.

Why would we want to do that? The OP does not specify a marginal unit. It only says that basing higher taxes on marginal utility is not a good justification. Please note, nothing in the OP suggests a specific marginal unit.

There have been discussions in some areas as to the validity of the economic position that the marginal utility of money always diminishes as wealth increases, and which has been suggested that income taxes on the wealthy would be justification for much higher %s of income tax than even what the Administration wants to do.

My position is, as wealth increases the marginal unit itself increases proportionally such that the marginal utility of money either remains the same or increases. ​

I have not conceded that. It is my position that it does not make sense, that it is an improper justification.

Then don't bank it on marginal utility as the MU does not diminish as wealth increases. We don't need phoney and skewed calculations to justify anything.

Which you should read again as you have screwed up the whole idea.

I agree!

Actually, Reisman's example proved exactly the opposite, that the rich man would not use $100 as a marginal unit, rather he would deal with "mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units."

Nope, because the rich man does not deal with a $100 marginal unit.

You seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding basic English. I have never agreed that marginal utility would justify a higher tax on the rich. I have said WE DON'T NEED MORE JUSTIFICATION than the rich get more benefit from the infrastructure.

Yes, your whole approach is absolutely illogical.

Go ahead, quote the entire sentence.

You stopped quoting too soon. Here is the entire paragraph one more time.

Thus, we rationally want more wealth in order to be able to deal with marginal units of wealth of progressively larger size, and to be less and less concerned with units of wealth of any given size. In the spirit of the welcoming party allegedly once given by American millionaires to the famous nineteenth-century ]English defender of capitalism Herbert Spencer, the symbolic ideal is to be able to afford to use hundred-dollar bills to light one’s cigar—SIZE=3]while dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units [/SIZE] (those are the rich man's marginal units.)of one’s life.​

Look carefully at the bolded print. Do you understand what that says?

If you are concerned about using marginal utility to justify taxes you do.

If you had ever said anything even remotely associated with the OP, and if you said it correctly I would have applauded your efforts. You obviously do not understand what the OP is, what is mean by "as wealth increases the size of the marginal unit increases in value," or the pure English sentence, "English defender of capitalism Herbert Spencer, the symbolic ideal is to be able to afford to use hundred-dollar bills to light one’s cigar—SIZE=3]while dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units [/SIZE] (those are the rich man's marginal units.)of one’s life.

 

Of course you can. You're simply confused and don't understand marginal utility. And getting frustrated.

You keep making this erroneous statement. What you never explain is why. It shows your confusion and ignorance.

No you don't. You simply don't understand marginal utility and you are showing your lack of knowledge and confusion.

No one is pegging anything to an individual. You're just confused.

Of course that is silly. You're just ignorant of what marginal utility is.

And as you've now conceded, it is.

Exactly. It not only suggests it, but is a good argument for it, as we've seen.

I'm sorry. You've already conceded and we agree that $100 in marginal income has far greater utility to the starving man than the billionaire. You can't go back and change your position to suit your whim at the moment.

No you're just resorting to being disingenuous. You already conceded and we agree that based on "objective utility" the billionaire should pay a higher rate of tax than the starving guy

You aren't allowed to change your positions based on the whims of your argument. Sorry.

 

Yes, we know that your position does not make sense.

I'm sorry. You've already conceded and we agree that $100 in marginal income has far greater utility to the starving man than the billionaire. You aren't allowed to change your positions to suit your whim at the moment.

Yes, it is obvious your calculations are phony and skewed.

Reismann's words are black and white. Why don't you quit embarrassing yourself.

Actually, Reisman's example proved exactly the opposite, that the rich man would use $100 as a marginal unit to light his cigar. It's black and white. Quite embarrassing yourself.

The rich man uses $100 to light his cigar. You seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding basic English.

Not that it matters what he thinks about it.

Now you're just being disingenuous. You've conceded that based on "objective utility" the billionaire should pay a higher rate of tax than the starving guy

I have said that MARGINAL UTILITY IS A SOLID ARGUMENT FOR A PROGRESSIVE TAX.

Not at all, since you conceded the point that it is more logical under a marginal utility analysis that the rich guy pay higher taxes.

Of course. It says that the rich many uses $100 bills to light his cigar. It's black and white. Quit embarrassing yourself.

You conceded my point. That's good enough for me.

I understand exactly what it means. A $100 bill has the utility of a match to a billionaire, which is why it makes more sense to tax him at a higher rate than the starving man. Which you've already conceded.

Thanks for playing!

 

Why? Simple, as wealth increases the marginal unit increases in size. Whereas the poor man will deal with a marginal unit of $100 it takes a whole lot more for the rich man to consider the value of a marginal unit. As Reisman said, he would be dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units [/SIZE] (those are the rich man's marginal units.)of one’s life. Certainly not a measly $100 which is so insignificant the rich man gets more pleasure out of lighting a cigar with it instead of its value as money.

If one does a study of marginal utility as a justification for higher taxes on the rich you have to use what the rich man would deal with as a marginal unit otherwise the study is nothing but a phoney skewed piece of crap.

I am confused? Are you serious? It was obvious from the very beginning that you did not understand marginal utility and it was further obvious you did not want to understand marginal utility. The issues are simple, if the next marginal unit, what ever that unit is, satisfies the individual there is a positive marginal utility. What will satisfy a poor man is a unit which will take care of some of his basic needs. What will satisfy a rich man will be something much more valuable. In the case of the example the $100 would be satisfying to the poor man, but certainly not very satisfying for the rich man. That is why he would consider as his marginal unit mansions, yachts, or private railway cars as his significant marginal units. Now try to understand the OP in which I say I do not believe marginal utility is a good justification for high taxes on the rich. The point is, like Krugman, Diamond and Saez wants is to use DIMINISHING MARGINAL UTILITY as a justification for higher taxes because in their skewed studies they used to small a marginal unit such that they arrived at the conclusion they wanted before the study and knew what it would take for the rich to have a positive marginal utility. They engineered theories which would always come up with a false conclusion. Just as you are trying to do by insisting the rich man have a unit size he would never consider or deal with.

Amazing! You still won't accept the fact that it is I who understand what MU is, how it works and what is and is not reasonable about using it to justify taxes.

I do concede, that you are a functional illiterate when it comes to reading English and understanding economics.

 

It takes a real "hero" to take my quotes out of context.

I have not changed my position. I still agree with that.

What calculations? I don't recall having done any. What I have done is to post the quotes from Reisman which clearly says in easy to understand English that the rich man deals in Yachts, Mansions, and railroad cars as marginal units.

Yep, they are black and white,

Thus, we rationally want more wealth in order to be able to deal with marginal units of wealth of progressively larger size, and to be less and less concerned with units of wealth of any given size. In the spirit of the welcoming party allegedly once given by American millionaires to the famous nineteenth-century ]English defender of capitalism Herbert Spencer, the symbolic ideal is to be able to afford to use hundred-dollar bills to light one’s cigar—While dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units of one’s life."​

The highlighted words are Reisman's words in black and white.

The $100 may be the marginal unit for the poor man, but not the rich man who is dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units of one’s life.

Yep, the rich man thinks so little of the $100 bill that he uses it to light his cigar. It is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that if he burns it like a match it could never be the rich man's marginal unit.

It always matters what the individual thinks about what his marginal unit would be. It is the only way to determine how he feels about marginal utility.

Absolutely not! You are dreaming. The only reason the rich should pay higher tax rates is their extra benefits from the infrastructure.

And I disagree!

I have not conceded that point and I disagree!

Yep, the rich man used $100 to light his cigar.

I conced that your point is totally illogical!

Nope, I have not conceded it makes more sense to tax him at a higher rate because of utility. That statement is untrue.

I have enjoyed handing you your head on a platter. You really do need to learn to read more effectively and maybe study a little economics, because you have proved conclusively you know somewhere between zero and zilch. Come back and try again when you have learned something.

 

The only thing you are proving in this thread, is that you don't understand what a marginal unit is, or what marginal utility is, and that you don't have the English language skills to parse a sentence.

The example presented is that of a wealthy man using a $100 bill to light a cigar.
He isn't buying a yacht or a mansion or a railway car, he's lighting a cigar, those other things come at a different time.
Each one is a separate case, and no data is given on those cases, except the implication that each transaction involves a large sum of money.
But the image is that of a millionaire, in white tie and tails, at an elegant gathering, using a $100 bill, with great flourish to light a cigar and consuming the bill in the process.
If you had a clue about what a marginal unit was, you would understand that in that example, the marginal unit is $100.

Buying a yacht, a mansion or a railway car are three different examples, each with their own marginal unit.

It's pretty funny, that after over a year of pretending to know something about economics you still think that a marginal unit is something that a person has like a zodiac sign that someone might put in a personal ad
"Hi, My name is Sam, and I'm a Pisces, and my marginal unit is $23,490 , I like long walks on the beach and a glass of wine by the fire..."

 

When you understand the subject at a level half as well as my understanding, then get back to me.

Yep, an amount that would be a good marginal unit for the poor man.

All in the same paragraph and example. Whereas the $100 would be fine for a poor man, the marginal units for the millionaire who is "dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units." Clearly this proves conclusively that the millionaires marginal unit is what the example says it is, but you obviously have difficulty reading English.

Yep! and all the while dealing with much larger marginal units than the $100 bill. But then you don't understand what you read so you throw out the operative sentence of the example, "dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units."

Nope! And your insistence that the $100 is the marginal unit proves once again, you don't understand marginal utility or anything related to it, even after the clear English phrase TELLS YOU THAT THE MILLIONAIRE "is dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units." No guess work involved, no speculation involved, no calculations involved because Reisman TELLS US IN PLAIN ENGLISH WHAT THE RICH MAN'S MARGINAL UNITS WOULD BE. You just aren't smart enough to read it and accept it.

Yep, 3 different things, each a perfect marginal unit for the rich man."is dealing with mansions, yachts, and private railway cars as the significant marginal units." As anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see, Reisman uses the plural UNITS telling us that any one of those, as well and myriad other expensive items, marginal units would satisfy the rich man. You blew it again Goober. No matter how hard you try to blow a hole in my assertions which are fully supported by Reisman's theories you fail miserably.

Nope! The marginal unit is what ever the individual deals with, the next unit of value, whether it is a $100 bill for the poor man, or a yacht or mansion or railroad car for the rich man.

Hi, my name is David. I am a Sagittarius and the smallest marginal unit that would satisfy me and give me a positive marginal utility is in the neighborhood of $10,000 or any item of similar value. I don't take long walks on the beach but I do enjoy a glass of wine by a fire and I also enjoy going on my electric 4 wheeler into the forest near my home hunting wild pigs.

I'll say to you what I said to Iriemon, when you learn how to understand what you read in plain English and study economics such that you understand at least half of what I understand, get back to me. In the mean time, neither of you understand marginal utility well enough not to bore me.

 

Since you've already conceded that for a marginal increase in income of $100 the MU is far greater for the poor man than the billionaire, and you've already conceded that hat based on "objective utility" the billionaire should pay a higher rate of tax than the starving guy, the rest of your babble is really irrelevant. You've already conceded the points which irrefutably prove why MU is an argument for progressive tax, contrary to the claim in your OP and subsequent posts. Which are still baffling as to why someone who supposedly favors a progressive tax would strive to arduously against an obvious argument in favor of it.

You argument about what the rich man thinks is irrelevant. You've already concede that $100 in marginal income has far greater utility to the starving man than the billionaire. The fact that your own source proves he does in fact use $100 simply shows that even if we did consider his "marginal unit" you are simply flat out wrong. But for a MU analysis for tax policy purposes where the issue is at what rate of tax should be applied to the next $100 or $1000 in income, what he might think is a better marginal unit is utterly irrelevant.

 

Yep!

Wrong! I have not conceded that and I do not believe that any kind of utility, marginal or objective, will be reasonable justification for higher taxation on the rich guy. As in the OP, ONLY IF THE MARGINAL UTILITY DIMINISHES AS WEALTH INCREASES ARE CLAIMED AS JUSTIFICATION BY SOME PEOPLE, NOT ME.

 

My wife made an observation about me years ago when we participated in Marriage Encounter. It was, I never choose to get into conversation/discussion about things with which I am not completely versed. It is obvious that neither you or Goober choose to follow that simple rule.

 

Now you're simply being disingenuous.

http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/311142-marginal-utility-money-71.html#post1063032282

I said long ago it was a waste of time discussion with someone who won't be honest. We've obviously reached that point here.

 

I agree, why aren't you being honest? Go back, read the thread, there are some things you claim I conceded and the fact is I DID NOT CONCEDE THOSE POINTS AT ALL. If you are unwilling to check your work, determine the errors in what you claim I agreed with, then I have no interest in discussing the point with you.

If at some point in which your many many claims of what I conceded was answered it was nothing more than an oversight. Unlike you, I don't believe I am perfect.

 

"It takes a real "hero" to take my quotes out of context."

What you conceded is in black and white, I quoted your posts word for word verbatim.

Maybe someone else will think its worthwhile continuing a discussion with someone who is not honest.

 

You had better hope someone does, or you chatting on a forum will end immediately.

 

If you go back to a post of mine earlier than the one where I said Yep! when I missed part of what you said you would see that I had already told you I did not believe that the $100marginal unit was a good unit size for the billionaire and I have consistently said, from the OP on, that diminishing marginal utility of a rich man could never justify a higher tax.http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/311142-marginal-utility-money-71.html#post1063031700 I suspect if we were discussing objective utility in society we would agree the billionaire should pay a higher tax, but the marginal unit of $100 would still not be reasonable, or logical, or useful to the discussion.

 

I couldn't care less what you claim you believe.

You earlier made an outright concession (because the point was obvious) and now you're falsely denying it. It's black and white and everyone can see it for themselves:

Waste of time.

 

It was nothing more than your posts so bored me, and you kept repeating the same old same old line I missed what you said. And since you are trying to make points by using a misread on my part your crap is really weak. That WAS NOT A CONCESSION.
But I do agree with you, it is a waste of time. You haven't got the slightest idea about what marginal units are, how marginal utility works or how ridiculous it is to skew information in the hopes of justifying something it does not instead of using the great justification which already exists, and Iriemon, you are not smart enough to be educated on the subject of the discussion.

BTW, you will note out of this that I am man enough to admit when I make a mistake. When do you plan to start?

 

After I exposed Dnsmith's outright false statement which he continues here, now come the insults and ad homs. What a surprise.

Here's what Dnsmith now claims WAS NOT A CONCESSION:

Discussing with someone who isn't being honest is a waste of time.

 

It was not a concession. It was a mistake in reading your post in which that response was located. I have stated the opposite several times before that post and several times after that post. If you can't accept it when a mistake is acknowledged then you are not only ignorant of the subject, you are also a petty disagreeable little person.

 

You know what little person? I would rather make an occasional mistake in writing than to be so clueless about a subject as you are.

 

Ah. After first falsely denying that you made the exact concession you in fact made verbatim, now you admit you made the concession, but it was just a "mistake." Changing the story after being caught in the false statement. It's like the old saying, one lie leads to another.

Here you making the same "mistake" a few posts earlier:

And here you are making the same "mistake" in the post I already cited:

And here you are making the same "mistake" a few posts later:

So yeah. I'm sure it was just a "mistake".

 

People caught in their fibs typically start insulting the person who exposes them. I think the record establishes who's clueless here. I'll refrain from personal insults and let others decide for themselves.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/311142-marginal-utility-money-75.html#post1063039075
http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/311142-marginal-utility-money-74.html#post1063038683