BWE
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote | And exactly HERE is why ignorance of economics is hurting you. Presumably, these polluters are producing some product. They are selling it successfully, or they wouldn't be in business. Pollution reduces their costs. This reduction in costs means more money for something else. Let's say they use their savings to lower their prices. You purchase (in all ignorance) the least expensive, highest quality products you can. Theirs is one of them, BECAUSE they pollute. By purchasing their product, you are "lending your vote" in favor of their practices. Equally important, by NOT buying the more expensive product from the non-polluter, you are punishing him for absorbing the cost of being clean.
|
Which is why my morality ought to dictate more stringent regulation. A double edged sword to be sure. I don't see how this is ignorance of economics.
| Quote | Now, lets shuffle the cost structure around a little bit. Let's reduce your taxes by the amount of the food stamps and other subsidies. You now have more money to spend. Let's raise WalMart's prices enough so that WalMart is now paying their employees enough so they don't NEED food stamps. Are you happy now? Yes, morally you are overjoyed.
And what has happened? Effectively, nothing at all. YOUR money is still being spent (but now through high prices rather than taxes) making WalMart's employees better off. You can spend it through taxes, or you can spend it through higher prices, or you can spend it through a higher risk of theft (burglary) by desperately poor people, etc. But now matter how you cut it, the same economic value as ever is coming out of your pocket. The ONLY thing you have gained is smug moral gratitude. You smote the wicked, you did! |
No, what has happenned is that the other companies who feel responsible for their employees can compete against walmart on a level playing field. The walmart employees have health benefits so they can be more productive members of my community all at no cost to me. I would pay for this but I get it free. What a bargain!
| Quote | | Of course, I didn't tell you MY definition of fair, I asked you to specify yours. I notice you haven't done so. You have CALLED your preferences "fair" but carefully not said what that means. |
First, I didn't call them "fair" by any standard other than my personal preference and that is why I didn't elaborate: It doesn't matter what I think fair is, it only matters that I form my opinions and base my actions on what I think is "fair". Personally, what I think is "fair" is that all economic activity is taxed equally at enough to assure the solvency of exceptional public education and recreation (National parks and wildernesses). That could be interpreted as a sort of a steve forbes flat tax I guess but remember, I am a biologist, not an economist. I don't mind if people get fabulously rich but I do mind if people get fabulously poor. I could work out a complicated policy position that would temper these ideals with practical solutions but I don't need to in order to stil behave according to my morals.
I am not sure about smokers average income. I am under the impression that smoking is more prevalent in lower income groups but I do know that lottery purchasing is far more prevalent in low income families. I sat in on our city club meetings about expanding video poker in portland and we were shown some grisly statistics. I'm sure you can imagine.
Is there something wrong with the "fairly normal human need to assign values to everything"?
| Quote | | You need to ask, if this money were not taken from the super wealthy in income tax, where would it go? Into the stock market? But then it would suffer capital gains tax. Into consumption? But then it would suffer sales and excise taxes. Into building a factory? But then the employees would be paying the taxes. So the money WILL end up in the public coffers one way or another. |
-website-
Let me say this about that: There may be economists who say that deficits don't matter but If I don't pay my visa bill off completely every month I get charged interest. That is less efficient. If I borrow money at one rate and invest it at a higher rate I am making money, the gov't doesn't do this.
And, my moral stance again, I don't feel much regret if people who use inherited money to make more money have to pay more tax. I do care if they are taxed to pay for the war. I do care if they are taxed to pay for some other things too. But my morality is what I use to determine what I think is a worthwhile thing to spend public money on and my morality dictates that we all pony up until "my" priorities are met. If I have to pay more taxes that's ok as long as every one else does too. Also, speaking of my morality and introducing rational self interest again, doesn't increased spending on education help the economy? What about increasing the funding for the SBA? That surely would help the economy.
But in the end, being a biologist and not an economist, I am most concerned with sustainability rather than how big we can grow the economy. Maybe that's easy to say from my comfortable position but, there you have it, it's a good thing one side doesn't control all the government isn't it.
--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far
The Daily Wingnut
|
