Citizen's Wage

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
eSOANEM
364 days more
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:40 am UTC

leady wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:No.

Stop talking about quintiles. We don't care about quintiles. We care about marginal tax rates and quintiles do about as good a job at talking about them as the mean does. It's completely irrelevant to anything.


I'll move to deciles then :)


For god's sake. I hope you're trolling. No finite nth-iles is an accurate way of measuring marginal tax rates. That's the whole point of using marginal tax rates.

Brent666 wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:You implied all investment would stop because there would be no incentive. I was arguing that there will still be investment.


Strawman.

I implied no such thing.

Oh look, I can do it too!


And I quote:

Brent666 wrote:
PAstrychef wrote:Who are we to decide who deserves food and who deserves to go hungry? Who are you to decide that one person is worthy of assistance and another one isn't ?
Do you envision a global welfare state free from conditions? The cost seems prohibitive. Sure, you can tax the rich, but who invests when they know their returns will be redistributed?


"but who invests when they know their returns will be redistributed?" Pretty clearly a rhetorical question there with the conclusion you're leading people to reach being "hey, that doesn't make sense, why would someone do that" i.e. "no-one".

Now, can we please debate logically rather than resorting to fallacies and rhetoric?

Brent666 wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:If the poor have no money to spend on goods then companies producing good targetted at them make no money and an investor in that company would make no return. If some of their profit is redistributed to the poor, they buy more goods and the investor makes a bigger return. Obviously at some point the amount redistributed is more than the increase in return but the point stands that redistribution at some level can increase the return (and profit) that investors actually receive.


Did you just invent an economic perpetuum mobile there? Whatever the poor spend has to come from somewhere, if it is financed by redistribution, then others have to be taxed by at least that amount. You can't make a net profit from that. Yes some companies gain more than they have to pay, but only at the expense of others who have to pay more than they gain from selling stuff to the poor.

Even worse, it reduces incentives of the poor to become more productive and incentives of those companies who will run a net loss to invest.

I think you could make an argument to prevent, say, malnutrition of poor children as a kind of investment in the quality of future employees etc., but of course for that you don't need an unconditional Citizen's Wage!


No I did not. People other than the investors also have some of their earnings redistributed. Because of this, it is possible for investors to have bigger returns in a system with some redistribution than they would have if there was no redistribution.

There is no increased amount of money in the system because of redistribution, but certain people will receive more of it (and, because the rich often end up with larger proportions of their wealth in bank accounts and therefore being invested, you see more of the money changing hands as cash for tangible goods (not that this is necessarily a good or bad thing)).

So yeah, it reduces the incentives to be productive but, those incentives do still exist and all of these parameters can be fine-tuned in order to produce a sufficient incentive.

I'd hope you could do more than make an argument to prevent malnutrition of children. Regardless, you don't need a CW to have a system that, in theory, prevents such poverty and I don't think anyone's claiming you do. A CW does however not have many of the problems that current systems do have (and introduces some of its own). Anyone who comes into this debate saying a CW will solve everything with no problems or that the CW will not solve anything and only make things worse either hasn't thought this through or is lying to try and win the argument as some sort of intellectual ego-boost. This debate should not be one side saying "it's the best thing ever" and the other saying "it's the worst" because both of those positions are idiotic. This debate should be about weighing the problems the CW would solve against the ones it would introduce.

leady wrote:
Thesh wrote:Are you saying because they take low-paying jobs, they reduce per capita GDP?


Yes absolutely I am asserting that an influx of new people all doing unskilled work in a high social cost state is very much a net negative to per capita GDP. They are going to consume massively more than they produce, just like the native unskilled workers do. I can't even see how thats debatable unless you buy into a whole heap of unlikely assumptions (they'll go home before getting old, the young working poor don't consume services and other known fallacies)


Emphasis mine.

So, given that a demand exists for these jobs, they will exist whatever and those jobs are almost certainly going to end up being filled with either native or immigrant workers. Given that that is true, comparing the cost/benefits to the economy of immigrants with them not existing and those jobs not being filled is utterly misleading. The relevant comparison is between those jobs being filled by natives and being filled by immigrants. If immigrants are a drain on the economy but a lesser one than if those jobs were filled by natives then they are still good for the economy because they reduce the drain.

I do not have any numbers to put to this and I suspect you don't either but if anyone does, I would be grateful.

ucim wrote:
PAstrychef wrote:We actively diminish the idea of sharing, insisting that people must behave in selfish ways...
No, that is not true. We (which "we"?) diminish the idea of being forced to share. Forcing one to share diminishes the idea of sharing. The freedom to say "yes" is meaningless without the freedom to say "no". But society itself does not diminish sharing. In many ways it embraces it.


Taxation and welfare funded by it are ways in which you are forced to share. No western society diminishes the idea of being forced to share. Many just dislike being reminded of that fact.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Brent666
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:38 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Brent666 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:10 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:So yeah, it reduces the incentives to be productive but, those incentives do still exist and all of these parameters can be fine-tuned in order to produce a sufficient incentive.

What is a "sufficient" incentive? Sufficient for what? I thought it was obvious we were talking about margins.

There is a point where the incentives are reduced so that the overall effect on poverty is worse than under the alternative policy of less redistribution. No one invests in those business models that make them lose more value than they gain, even if society gains more - no one except for strongly altruistic people who already have the option of becoming professional philanthropists!

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6490
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Azrael » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:11 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:Strawman.

Brent666 wrote:Strawman.


Stop it, both of you.

Brent666
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:38 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Brent666 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:12 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Strawman.

Brent666 wrote:Strawman.


Stop it, both of you.

We don't need you to tell us that, we're perfectly capable of communicating freely without your self-importance, thanks.

User avatar
eSOANEM
364 days more
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:24 pm UTC

Brent666 wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:So yeah, it reduces the incentives to be productive but, those incentives do still exist and all of these parameters can be fine-tuned in order to produce a sufficient incentive.

What is a "sufficient" incentive? Sufficient for what? I thought it was obvious we were talking about margins.

There is a point where the incentives are reduced so that the overall effect on poverty is worse than under the alternative policy of less redistribution. No one invests in those business models that make them lose more value than they gain, even if society gains more - no one except for strongly altruistic people who already have the option of becoming professional philanthropists!


By sufficient incentive I mean sufficient for enough people to be in work that the economy is happy and doesn't suffer a major crisis due to unavailability of work.

When determining the utility of redistribution, for low levels of redistribution the utility increases as the poor get enough to no longer be in poverty and gain additional security. At high levels of redistribution, the utility decreases because there is an insufficient incentive for people to enter work and the economy suffers. A CW can be tuned to stay near the peak where this sufficient incentive that the economy does not suffer enough to lead to a marginal reduction in utility.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 4938
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:11 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:What is best for individuals has to be limited by the needs of society overall.
I disagree strongly with the way this is phrased. I would say instead: "The harm an individual does to society in pursuit of selfish benefit needs to be limited (though not eliminated - mere breathing harms society too!)". There is an important difference between limiting how much an individual benefits (and handing the remainder to "society") and limiting the harm done to society by an individual (charging it out to the individual causing the harm).

It is yet to be shown (at least to me) how my making money and spending it inherently harms others, just by dint of my having more than they do.

And in any case, a CW takes money from one individual and gives it to another individual. It doesn't give money to "society" at all. The idea is that, somehow, "society" benefits more when people get somebody else's money than when people get to keep their own. Except for the utter fringes of society, I don't see that as defensible, and even at the fringes of society, I think it is problematic. People at the fringes need stuff other than money. Granted, money can buy some of that stuff, but just giving out free money is the wrong approach to the wrong problem.

eSOANEM wrote:Taxation and welfare funded by it are ways in which you are forced to share. No western society diminishes the idea of being forced to share. Many just dislike being reminded of that fact.
No, only welfare is such a thing, and the universal expansion of welfare is problematic. Welfare should be limited to the issues it is designed to mitigate, and should be in effect only to the extent that it actually mitigates those issues well enough.

Taxation is not about (the concept of) sharing at all. Taxation is a method by which individuals are jointly charged for work which inherently benefits even those who didn't volunteer to pay. It ensures that those who benefit from public works pay for them too. Things like road construction, the water infrastructure, national defense, and the cost of government itself come to mind. Whether welfare belongs in that category is a topic for discussion. It is not a given, and in any case becomes about welfare, not about taxation.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
eSOANEM
364 days more
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:38 pm UTC

ucim wrote:It is yet to be shown (at least to me) how my making money and spending it inherently harms others, just by dint of my having more than they do.

And in any case, a CW takes money from one individual and gives it to another individual. It doesn't give money to "society" at all. The idea is that, somehow, "society" benefits more when people get somebody else's money than when people get to keep their own. Except for the utter fringes of society, I don't see that as defensible, and even at the fringes of society, I think it is problematic. People at the fringes need stuff other than money. Granted, money can buy some of that stuff, but just giving out free money is the wrong approach to the wrong problem.


There is a finite supply of money. If person A is enormously wealthy and keeps that money in their bank account whilst person B is living in abject poverty, person A is causing harm to person B by limiting the amount of money available for person B and thus exacerbating their poverty.

A CW would not take money from one individual and to say it would is misleading. The CW takes from a very large group of individuals and gives back to everyone. It gives money to everyone who pays in and to those who don't pay in as well. It pays back a constant amount not related to the amount people pay in.

At no point is one individual's money being taken to pay another individual.

The idea is that society benefits because it reduces the capacity for the rich to horde large proportions of the money supply and frees up a larger proportion of the money supply than currently for feeding, housing and clothing the poorest which, for me, is certainly a benefit to society.

ucim wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Taxation and welfare funded by it are ways in which you are forced to share. No western society diminishes the idea of being forced to share. Many just dislike being reminded of that fact.
No, only welfare is such a thing, and the universal expansion of welfare is problematic. Welfare should be limited to the issues it is designed to mitigate, and should be in effect only to the extent that it actually mitigates those issues well enough.

Taxation is not about (the concept of) sharing at all. Taxation is a method by which individuals are jointly charged for work which inherently benefits even those who didn't volunteer to pay. It ensures that those who benefit from public works pay for them too. Things like road construction, the water infrastructure, national defense, and the cost of government itself come to mind. Whether welfare belongs in that category is a topic for discussion. It is not a given, and in any case becomes about welfare, not about taxation.

Jose


I was unclear there. Sorrry. I meant welfare funded by taxation.

The thing with the CW is that it does still only really combat the issues welfare is designed to face (at least in an implementation which removes untaxed income allowance) because anyone who currently has taxed income will simply see the CW affect their accounts exactly as a reworking of that income allowance whilst the very poorest will see it as welfare (albeit not arriving in lots of different sized chunks at different times and not with all sorts of different forms to fill in for each individual benefit).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby leady » Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:55 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:For god's sake. I hope you're trolling. No finite nth-iles is an accurate way of measuring marginal tax rates. That's the whole point of using marginal tax rates.


Oh I think thats a misuse of the word trolling, "being childish" would be far more accurate.

Emphasis mine.

So, given that a demand exists for these jobs, they will exist whatever and those jobs are almost certainly going to end up being filled with either native or immigrant workers. Given that that is true, comparing the cost/benefits to the economy of immigrants with them not existing and those jobs not being filled is utterly misleading. The relevant comparison is between those jobs being filled by natives and being filled by immigrants. If immigrants are a drain on the economy but a lesser one than if those jobs were filled by natives then they are still good for the economy because they reduce the drain.

I do not have any numbers to put to this and I suspect you don't either but if anyone does, I would be grateful.


I think you are missing my point, which that there is only demand for these jobs at these low wages precisely because they are effectively massively subsidised through the state. Given that these folks are subsidised, then increasing the number of minimum wage earners = more subsidy = less for everyone else (which is generally paid in access to social services by the domestic low paid). Now you are moving to idea that these jobs need filling, which is a known untruth. Take the UK from 2003 -2008 and you'll see that employment increases by 2M in the UK and in the majority (85%) taken by low paid immigrant labour, all the domestic folks just go on the sick or other bennies. Not supprisingly all that periods growth was illusionary debt growth as shown by 2008.

A citizens wage is just a version of scenario of the above (which to be fair is the UK reality), but is a trade off in the UK against the ludicrous benefit complexity costs. Strangely the current government has started down this path and the screams from special interests losing their own special slice of the welfare pie is pretty loud.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby leady » Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:06 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:There is a finite supply of money. If person A is enormously wealthy and keeps that money in their bank account whilst person B is living in abject poverty, person A is causing harm to person B by limiting the amount of money available for person B and thus exacerbating their poverty.


Yeah thats only because you don't understand what keeping money in a bank account means in practice - its not locked in a vault :)

The above might be true if a) most of the worlds assets were cash (they aren't by a long shot) and the rich controlled a disproportionate amount of the cash in society (they don't - they own assets) and they kept their cash in a matress rather than a bank (there is a pattern to these...)

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:20 pm UTC

Quick shot to eSoanem (and others from the U.K);

Given that you support a CW, do you support the Universal Credit that's being intorduced to the U.K at the moment? It's closer to a CW than what it's replacing, eliminates benefit cliffs and is designed to mimic having a salary so theres no culture shock on starting to earn.

I'm personally in favour of the UC because it has the advantages of a lump sum payment, eliminates the welfare trap, but doesn't have the moral failings of the CW (Subsidising parasatism by the lazy, as opposed to out-of-work)
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
eSOANEM
364 days more
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:38 pm UTC

leady wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:There is a finite supply of money. If person A is enormously wealthy and keeps that money in their bank account whilst person B is living in abject poverty, person A is causing harm to person B by limiting the amount of money available for person B and thus exacerbating their poverty.


Yeah thats only because you don't understand what keeping money in a bank account means in practice - its not locked in a vault :)

The above might be true if a) most of the worlds assets were cash (they aren't by a long shot) and the rich controlled a disproportionate amount of the cash in society (they don't - they own assets) and they kept their cash in a matress rather than a bank (there is a pattern to these...)


I'm well aware of all of that. The fact is however that the disproportionately large amount of money the rich have, which sits in the bank and gets invested by the banks in various different companies will not be seen by the poorest in society but instead get passed around between corporations and their higher-ups remaining, broadly, in a different sphere from the people living in or at greatest risk of poverty.

Ormurinn wrote:Quick shot to eSoanem (and others from the U.K);

Given that you support a CW, do you support the Universal Credit that's being intorduced to the U.K at the moment? It's closer to a CW than what it's replacing, eliminates benefit cliffs and is designed to mimic having a salary so theres no culture shock on starting to earn.

I'm personally in favour of the UC because it has the advantages of a lump sum payment, eliminates the welfare trap, but doesn't have the moral failings of the CW (Subsidising parasatism by the lazy, as opposed to out-of-work)


I actually hadn't heard of it before.

It sounds like a good idea and, if it works whilst maintaining an untaxed income allowance it is fairly good demonstration of the feasability of a CW. It doesn't have all of the benefits of a CW however because it will still require some degree of eligibility testing which increases the administrative overhead. This is absent in a CW.

Also, as the discussion has been over before, I (and most of the pro camp I think) are not convinced that "parasitism" will be as big a problem as the anti camp makes out or even that parasitism is a problem in and of itself.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby leady » Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:16 pm UTC

I'm afraid that with effective unemployment in most social democracies like the UK approaching 25% the stats would say otherwise.

look at spain / Italy / greece and you'll cry at the consequences



On the universal credit, I'm not a fan as its a welfare change rather than a solution, but I prefer it as a move in the right direction :)

User avatar
eSOANEM
364 days more
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:29 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'm afraid that with effective unemployment in most social democracies like the UK approaching 25% the stats would say otherwise.

look at spain / Italy / greece and you'll cry at the consequences



On the universal credit, I'm not a fan as its a welfare change rather than a solution, but I prefer it as a move in the right direction :)


Unemployment is the UK stands at 8% as of 2012 according to the CIA down 0.1% from 2011.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6490
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Azrael » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:22 pm UTC

Brent666 wrote:
Azrael wrote:Stop it, both of you.

We don't need you to tell us that, we're perfectly capable of communicating freely without your self-importance, thanks.

I'll take predictable responses for 800, Alex

You've been placed in the SB timeout corner. While there, hopefully contemplating the wisdom of talking back to moderators anywhere on the internet, please note that we enforce Item #12 rather rigorously.

morriswalters
Posts: 6438
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:53 pm UTC

ucim wrote:I disagree strongly with the way this is phrased. I would say instead: "The harm an individual does to society in pursuit of selfish benefit needs to be limited (though not eliminated - mere breathing harms society too!)". There is an important difference between limiting how much an individual benefits (and handing the remainder to "society") and limiting the harm done to society by an individual (charging it out to the individual causing the harm).
I don't know that I'm concerned with the individual at all. If society isn't stable then no one benefits.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby leady » Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:07 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:Unemployment is the UK stands at 8% as of 2012 according to the CIA down 0.1% from 2011.


Yeah you need to add in the extra 4m on incap and the other 4m economically inactive / given up / studying art at uni etc.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 4938
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:26 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:There is a finite supply of money. If person A is enormously wealthy and keeps that money in their bank account whilst person B is living in abject poverty, person A is causing harm to person B by limiting the amount of money available for person B and thus exacerbating their poverty.
Money is not a commodity. It is a lubricant.

People who are massively wealthy do not just sit on a pile of hundred dollar bills going "nyah nyah nyah". They spend that money - it's how they make more money. The spend it largely by investing in other companies, allowing them the liquidity to invent, develop, and produce more goods more efficiently, thus making life better for all. In doing so, they drive the economy, which also makes life better for all. As a side effect, it makes life better for those rich people too. I don't begrudge them that.

Yes, rich (or more to the point, powerful) people can also engage in shenanigans that make life worse. But in general, such activity does not benefit them in the long run.

eSOANEM wrote:A CW would not take money from one individual and to say it would is misleading.
It takes money from everyone, one at a time. It then gives money to everyone, one at a time. "Society" is made up of those individuals.

eSOANEM wrote:At no point is one individual's money being taken to pay another individual.
At every point is one individual's money being taken to pay another individual... for doing nothing.

eSOANEM wrote:The idea is that society benefits because it reduces the capacity for the rich to horde large proportions of the money supply
But reducing this ability harms society. It is precisely the ability of the rich to amass large amounds of money that allows large scale projects to happen. If we took all the money from the robber barons who built the railroads, and instead gave it out as a CW, we'd still have poor, and we wouldn't have railroads, so it would be harder to actually feed the poor.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11018
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Yakk » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:59 pm UTC

Jose wrote:People who are massively wealthy do not just sit on a pile of hundred dollar bills going "nyah nyah nyah". They spend that money - it's how they make more money. The spend it largely by investing in other companies, allowing them the liquidity to invent, develop, and produce more goods more efficiently, thus making life better for all. In doing so, they drive the economy, which also makes life better for all. As a side effect, it makes life better for those rich people too. I don't begrudge them that.

See, only the incompetent rich allow their investments to make life better for all.

When you invest in something and someone else gets profit from it, you are leaking a positive externality. If you instead capture that positive externality, you can increase your profits. When you sell a good to someone above that goods marginal value, you leak utility -- if you can charge each customer exactly what their marginal utility value for the product is (well, epsilon under it), you can increase your profit per customer without reducing your number of customers. Similarly, if your investment has negative consequences, the proper way a competent investor deals with the problem is to externalize the negative utility.

All three of these are great ways to generate lots of profit. And are the kind of thing that corporations and investors actively search for.

From airplane tickets (which have an opaque pricing model in order to charge different prices to different consumers, boosting the share of transaction's utility that the airline captures) to polluting industries, to lobbying government to change laws and zoning restrictions, to building companies around minimized labor costs and maximized labor unit interchangability, corporations are externalizing and utility maximizing machines.

Any positive externalities leaked are profits not realized, and a sign of incompetence. Any costs not externalized are similarly signs of incompetence. Any net utility captured by customers or workers is leaked profits, and again a sign of incompetence.

Fortunately, our capitalists are relatively incompetent, but they are getting more and more competent as time goes on. You can see this from the massive growth in productivity and profits in the USA, while salaries stay flat: companies are getting much better at ensuring that productivity growth is captured and not passed on to workers.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
eSOANEM
364 days more
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:32 pm UTC

leady wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Unemployment is the UK stands at 8% as of 2012 according to the CIA down 0.1% from 2011.


Yeah you need to add in the extra 4m on incap and the other 4m economically inactive / given up / studying art at uni etc.


Nope. Read their definition. "This entry contains the percent of the labor force that is without jobs. Substantial underemployment might be noted."

ucim wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:A CW would not take money from one individual and to say it would is misleading.
It takes money from everyone, one at a time. It then gives money to everyone, one at a time. "Society" is made up of those individuals.

eSOANEM wrote:At no point is one individual's money being taken to pay another individual.
At every point is one individual's money being taken to pay another individual... for doing nothing.


This is not how taxation works and you know it. The government doesn't say "oh hey, we don't have the money to pay this dude his CW, hey HMRC, go to some other dude and get him to pay his tax so we can pay this first dude". No, instead they work out how much it costs to pay everyone, they then collect all the money from everyone; it all goes into a big bucket and gets mixed up and then goes to everyone.

Once it gets paid to the government, you can't track it and so statements claiming that it is paid to one person are at best meaningless. Even if we could track the money, it's simple to show that the chance of the money paid to one person from the money in the bucket (which will all be jumbled up from various sources) coming from one person is virtually non-existant.

ucim wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:The idea is that society benefits because it reduces the capacity for the rich to horde large proportions of the money supply
But reducing this ability harms society. It is precisely the ability of the rich to amass large amounds of money that allows large scale projects to happen. If we took all the money from the robber barons who built the railroads, and instead gave it out as a CW, we'd still have poor, and we wouldn't have railroads, so it would be harder to actually feed the poor.

Jose


And yet railways got built in countries without robber barons...
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 4938
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby ucim » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:14 am UTC

Yakk wrote:See, only the incompetent rich allow their investments to make life better for all...
Trade is a win-win. If I have only rice, and you have only beans, we don't eat well. But if I trade some of my rice for some of your beans, we both eat better. Sure, I'm going to try to get more beans for my rice, and you are going to try to get more rice for your beans. But we'll agree on a trade that makes us both happy.

You may not like your cable bill, but if you are like most people, you still willingly pay it because you want your TV more than you want your money. Most people want TV very badly, and it is priced to reflect this.

eSOANEM wrote:This is not how taxation works and you know it. The government doesn't say "oh hey, we don't have the money to pay this dude his CW, hey HMRC, go to some other dude and get him to pay his tax so we can pay this first dude".
Of course not. But it is the net effect. Money is being taken from the fruits of my labor (and the labor of every individual), and then given back to every individual, for doing nothing at all. There's nothing magical about putting it all in a big bucket first.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby addams » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:59 am UTC

Do not forget how money has changed in the last fifty years.
Please, do not forget that.

What TV idol do you know that can lift 4X10 raised to the 12? Is it 12 now?
Did it bump up, Again?

How selfish is it wise to be?
You get yours? Where?

Not from the internet? Then Where?
From TV? ok. You win. TV is The Boss.

Money? Where?
What would it take to ease the suffering of the Poorest and Weakest?
Raise the Floor on Social Security. Then start working on working.

There are Loads of people that like to talk about working.
Keep 'em talking.

It is better to pay some Assholes to do nothing than to let them have Any say over Any one or Any thing.
I know some. Real Stars. Small fish in Small Ponds with Connections to Washington DC? (Assholes.)

You assholes are unwilling to bring the floor of Poverty up?
You are more than willing to support your Royals in a manner the Real Royals might be uncomfortable with.

I am in a foul mood.
What are you arguing against?

Are you frightened that the Old People will Bankrupt you?
What about those Black People? Will they be the cost that turns your money into something No One Can Have.

Because; You know about Black People.
When they give birth Black People sometimes come out!
Not always. If your mind is so small that it is not possible to think of having the wealth to care for other people;
Then you are not going to believe The Truth about Black People.

Like everything else, There are variations in the system.
Black Woman; Chinese Baby.
How does That Happen?

So Weird. North American Native Father; North American Native grand mother; Grand father half Black.
The Mom looks like her Dad's Dad. The Baby looks like everyone else.

Genetics? Who gets to live Free from Want?
I know; I know; Not only have I heard the argument,
I have made the argument.

What? She already has Great Skin! Great Hair. ok I see now it is a bit of a maintenance problem.
Still!! What? I should get extra Money for Ugly. It takes some cash to bring Ugly up to Standards.

We can think about the whole subject in a different way, If You Like.
We can think about what is Good for You. Because The Universe revolves around You.

You should be like a King. What you want is what you get.
You should never ever see Your Subjects in less than The Best.

That is going to take some Cash and You and I both know we will have protesters.
They will be hanging onto the rattiest things they have and Demanding to Keep Them.

Quietly; In the distance an man is going to sleep on clean sheets for the first time in Years.
Do you ever wonder? What do you Wonder?

Have you ever helped another person bathe?
We have old people out on The Streets, too weak to bathe themselves.
No help on The Horizon. No help from You. No help from The Government.

What part of That makes you Proud?
The man or woman that sits in The Oval Office can help The People with words, not deeds.

No one man or woman can be where need it at all times. No one person can do that.
If we listened to the Voice of Angels; What would we hear?

Would it be a Voice that Speed Talks the Dow/Jones report?
Would it be a Voice that says, "Reach out in Kindness."

"Your Government is one of many that has been washed away by the tide of Time."
"Your Money is not more important than you are. I hope."

As long as I am spouting crazy Talk.
If there were Angels, one might say, "Neither you nor your money is of Any interest to me. I am looking at unmet need."

I wouldn't want to be You.

You have the tools to help so many and bring Peace into The World. And; You! Refused!?
You better hope and pray there is No God.

So far, your prayers have been answered. You win.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Posts: 6672
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:11 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Yakk wrote:See, only the incompetent rich allow their investments to make life better for all...
Trade is a win-win. If I have only rice, and you have only beans, we don't eat well. But if I trade some of my rice for some of your beans, we both eat better. Sure, I'm going to try to get more beans for my rice, and you are going to try to get more rice for your beans. But we'll agree on a trade that makes us both happy.

You may not like your cable bill, but if you are like most people, you still willingly pay it because you want your TV more than you want your money. Most people want TV very badly, and it is priced to reflect this.
Did you not read Yakk's full post? I'm genuinely asking; it sounds like you just skimmed and picked this part out to offer up a thought-terminating cliche -- 'Beggars can't be choosers, cheaters never prosper, trade is always win-win'.

And even if you're right, I don't see what that has to do with anything; trade can still always be win-win and the rich getting richer can still be terrible for everyone who's not rich. Those are not two mutually exclusive possibilities.

I mean, Yakk made (what I think is!) a very well-thought out response and all you're offering up in reply is 'WELL, trade is always positive so you're wrong'.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby addams » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:20 am UTC

ech. Hippo;
Let the Rich be Rich.

Let the Poor live like Kings.
Remember Assops?

It is better to Eat Simply in Peace than Grandly in Fear.

Shoot! How did I get to Simple in Fear? (fuck)
never mind. i am moody today.

d
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 4938
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby ucim » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:42 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Did you not read Yakk's full post? I'm genuinely asking;
Yes, I read Yakk's post. The theme of it is that an investor looks for the best return (duh!) but also implies that there is no wealth being created through the trades that are involved (which include the business generated by the business being invested in). I dispute this; it is central to the idea of free trade in the first place.

The investor is not the only one involved.

Yes, the airlines try to get the best price for an airplane ticket. There is nothing wrong with that (although on a side note, a bit of a red herring, there is something creepy about their using Big Data to do it). I do the same thing; I try to get the value for my money when I buy an airline ticket. I'll check different airlines, different schedules, and I'll make my choice.

In the end, both the airline and I are enriched. They get money, I get transportation. But when I give them money, they have to work for it. They are obligated to provide me transportation.

The same thing is true when the airline pays me every two weeks. They expect me to show up every day and load the bags. They want to pay me less, I want them to pay me more. If they pay me too little, I'll work elsewhere. If they pay me too much, they'll hire somebody else instead. Between us, we'll agree to make the trade.

The problem with this model occurs when the sides are not evenly matched. Larger entities have leverage against smaller ones. But that's not something that a CW really addresses.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Posts: 6672
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:00 am UTC

ucim wrote:Yes, I read Yakk's post. The theme of it is that an investor looks for the best return (duh!) but also implies that there is no wealth being created through the trades that are involved (which include the business generated by the business being invested in). I dispute this; it is central to the idea of free trade in the first place.
At no point in Yakk's post did I read anything that implied that there is zero wealth being created through the trades that are involved in investment. Beyond the quoted portion, the word 'wealth' doesn't even appear in Yakk's post.

Or are you using the word 'wealth' in some sort of nebulous, non-precise, non-economic sense?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 4938
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby ucim » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:33 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:At no point in Yakk's post did I read anything that implied that there is zero wealth being created through the trades that are involved in investment. Beyond the quoted portion, the word 'wealth' doesn't even appear in Yakk's post.

Or are you using the word 'wealth' in some sort of nebulous, non-precise, non-economic sense?
Maybe I don't understand his (or her) point. By starting out with "See, only the incompetent rich allow their investments to make life better for all.", it sets the tone that the rich (another word for wealthy) do not allow their investments to make life better for all, if they can avoid it. It's followed by examples of attempting to maximizing profit. There is a disconnect there.

Both sides of a trade want the best outcome for themselves. But in the middle, where the trade happens, each gains. This, in aggregate, benefits all.

But I'll let Yakk explain his or her point better.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Posts: 6672
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:51 am UTC

ucim wrote:Maybe I don't understand his (or her) point. By starting out with "See, only the incompetent rich allow their investments to make life better for all.", it sets the tone that the rich (another word for wealthy) do not allow their investments to make life better for all, if they can avoid it. It's followed by examples of attempting to maximizing profit. There is a disconnect there.
Right, I got that you didn't like the tone; I'm just baffled that you've decided the tone is more important than the content.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:00 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
ucim wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:The idea is that society benefits because it reduces the capacity for the rich to horde large proportions of the money supply
But reducing this ability harms society. It is precisely the ability of the rich to amass large amounds of money that allows large scale projects to happen. If we took all the money from the robber barons who built the railroads, and instead gave it out as a CW, we'd still have poor, and we wouldn't have railroads, so it would be harder to actually feed the poor.

Jose


And yet railways got built in countries without robber barons...


The US had a particularly impressive railway construction era coinciding with those robber barons. It still has the worlds largest system. Not by a small margin either, well over double the next largest contender(China). It represents almost 20% of the world's railway.

And that's modern numbers...We've had a solid railway system for a while now. The numbers are only MORE advantageous for the US if you go back in history a bit.

Merely clinging to the fact that railroads exist elsewhere does not disprove the point.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby addams » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:02 am UTC

What?
Have you decided to Do something about the Poverty and Despair?

First we need a Panel to say it is So.
Is it So? Panel?

Is there Poverty and Despair in What the US media says is the RICHEST nation On Earth?

What Ya' going to do About It? Huh? What ya' going to do?
Don't touch That Dial! Don't do it! What ya' going to do?

Avoid the places the poor people go?
What? How about having a net of helping hands and arms to run into, Not away from.

The Government does not Have To be scary Assholes.
But; If that is what you have been praying for, your wishes have come true.

All Bow to The Pumpkin King? Who Are You?
Safe and Sound? Where?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 4938
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby ucim » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:11 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Right, I got that you didn't like the tone; I'm just baffled that you've decided the tone is more important than the content.
Because the tone sets the context for the content. It is the conclusion we are expected to draw from the content. I am stating that the implied conclusion does not follow from the content.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Posts: 6672
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:51 am UTC

ucim wrote:Because the tone sets the context for the content. It is the conclusion we are expected to draw from the content. I am stating that the implied conclusion does not follow from the content.

Jose
No, 'tone' is not 'the conclusion we are expected to draw from the content'. That is not at all what the word 'tone' means. And 'implied conclusion'? What are you talking about? There was no 'implied' conclusion; there was a directly stated conclusion.

Do you understand what the following words mean? 'Tone', 'Conclusion', 'Implied', 'Content'.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby leady » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:20 am UTC

It wasn't so much implied but stated that markets are completely "dog eat dog" and this is nonsense. You get far better outcomes in mutually beneficial trades and only idiots grind trading partners into the ground (cue irrelevent examples of inequitable trades....)

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:55 am UTC

leady wrote:It wasn't so much implied but stated that markets are completely "dog eat dog" and this is nonsense. You get far better outcomes in mutually beneficial trades and only idiots grind trading partners into the ground (cue irrelevent examples of inequitable trades....)


The labour theory of value has a lot to answer for here I think.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
eSOANEM
364 days more
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:04 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:This is not how taxation works and you know it. The government doesn't say "oh hey, we don't have the money to pay this dude his CW, hey HMRC, go to some other dude and get him to pay his tax so we can pay this first dude".
Of course not. But it is the net effect. Money is being taken from the fruits of my labor (and the labor of every individual), and then given back to every individual, for doing nothing at all. There's nothing magical about putting it all in a big bucket first.

Jose


I'm not claiming there is. I'm just trying to dispel the rhetoric you threw up around it of money from individuals going to specific other individuals which is inaccurate and a statement designed to make it seem more arbitrary and less just than it is.

ucim wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Did you not read Yakk's full post? I'm genuinely asking;
Yes, I read Yakk's post. The theme of it is that an investor looks for the best return (duh!) but also implies that there is no wealth being created through the trades that are involved (which include the business generated by the business being invested in). I dispute this; it is central to the idea of free trade in the first place.


There is no wealth being generated in trades. Stuff doesn't magically appear in trades; trading is a zero sum game. Utility can increase in trades (because trades will tend towards maximum utility) but this is very different from wealth (at least as long as we're using solid economic definitions of it).

Tyndmyr wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
ucim wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:The idea is that society benefits because it reduces the capacity for the rich to horde large proportions of the money supply
But reducing this ability harms society. It is precisely the ability of the rich to amass large amounds of money that allows large scale projects to happen. If we took all the money from the robber barons who built the railroads, and instead gave it out as a CW, we'd still have poor, and we wouldn't have railroads, so it would be harder to actually feed the poor.

Jose


And yet railways got built in countries without robber barons...


The US had a particularly impressive railway construction era coinciding with those robber barons. It still has the worlds largest system. Not by a small margin either, well over double the next largest contender(China). It represents almost 20% of the world's railway.

And that's modern numbers...We've had a solid railway system for a while now. The numbers are only MORE advantageous for the US if you go back in history a bit.

Merely clinging to the fact that railroads exist elsewhere does not disprove the point.


No, the point stands. That the US has a particularly large railway system should be no surprise. It represents a huge proportion of the world's economy (based on GDP (purchasing power parity), it's around 19%). The fact that this is almost exactly the same number as the proportion of the world's railway is not a coincidence. Bigger economies build more infrastructure. That's just obvious.

I did a brief analysis of the figures from the CIA comparing the relative strength in the correlation between %railway (by length), area and GDP of the countries with the most rail.

Obviously all these statistics are after the fact so are not necessarily representative of conditions before the railways were built.

Anyway, some of the statistics I was using (like unemployment rate or poverty rate) do not scale with "size" of a nation and so I also compared the statistics with the rail length corrected by the square root of the area of the country.

If a statistic scales with area and there is a genuine correlation with rail length, the correlation should be weaker when done to the corrected rail length. Likewise, if a statistic does not scale with area and there is a genuine correlation then the correlation should be stronger when done to the corrected length.

The statistics I was comparing were area, GDP, %ge consumption of the richest 10%, population, % unemployment and the % below the poverty line. Of these, only the first 2 and population scale with size.

With that in mind, the following apparently genuine correlations were apparent:

area correlates weakly (R2=0.5154) with rail length (no surprise there)
GDP correlates strongly with rail length (R2=0.8057) (again, no surprise)
%ge consumption of the richest barely correlates (R2=0.09 if enforcing monotonicity, R2=0.1115 otherwise (when it peaks at 27.8%))
Population correlates weakly (R2=0.4402)
Unemployment and percentage below the poverty line do not appear to have any genuine correlation.

(For reference, 2 sets of 20 randomly generated numbers had an R2 value of 0.0919)

GDP is clearly the best indicator of the length of railway whilst the wealth of rich appears to be almost no better an indicator of the length of railway than a random dataset. As such, if we accept the hypothesis that robber barons (and therefore high consumption of the richest) were entirely responsible for the creation of the railways, they must have subsequently disappeared in almost all the countries under consideration. This seems unlikely to me and so I find it far easier to accept that, in fact, the robber barons were not the driving force behind railway expansion that you believe them to be.

Again, those are modern numbers and lots of the countries I included there (the top 20 by length of railway) would almost certainly not have been there 50 or more years ago. Still, I suspect going further back starts to favour the UK even more than it does the US (correcting for area of course) and we did not have an obvious equivalent to robber barons.
Attachments
railways.xlsx
All the data I was using
(44.94 KiB) Downloaded 231 times
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11018
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Yakk » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:43 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Yakk wrote:See, only the incompetent rich allow their investments to make life better for all...
Trade is a win-win.

No, trade *can be* a win-win.
If I have only rice, and you have only beans, we don't eat well. But if I trade some of my rice for some of your beans, we both eat better. Sure, I'm going to try to get more beans for my rice, and you are going to try to get more rice for your beans. But we'll agree on a trade that makes us both happy.

Unless I'm good at trading. If I'm good at trading, I trade rice for your beans in such a way that you are at best marginally better off for having given up beans for my rice, and I'm much better off.

You go along with the trade because you are *marginally* better off, with the limit approaching zero.

Now, suppose my rice production causes run off that kills your beans. Your trading beans for rice gives me incentive to increase my rice production, which kills off more of your beans. So now the trade has made me *worse* off than I was before due to trade, because the rice producer has pushed the costs to an external payer (me) without my consent.

You could say "what if I don't buy the rice, if I'm so much worse off?" Well, there are many bean producers. As a whole, their trade with rice producers makes the bean producers worse off, but each bean producer would be worse off without trading. The costs (rice production damaging their collective bean production) is socialized, the benefit (getting rice so you don't starve) is localized.

Voluntary Trade, in the absence of externalities, almost always increases the total utility of the trading partners, but there is no guarantee which partner gains the utility.

Voluntary Trade, with externalities, and with one party being in a better trading position, can be extremely harmful to the partner in the worse position.
You may not like your cable bill, but if you are like most people, you still willingly pay it because you want your TV more than you want your money. Most people want TV very badly, and it is priced to reflect this.

This is a pretty useless example that utterly ignores what I'm talking about.

If you base your economics philosophy off of freshman micro economics (aka econ 101), you'll generate lots of really certain answers. These answers do not reflect the real world. Econ 101 teaches you that two way voluntary trade results in a positive utility, so long as certain requirements are met (no negative externalities, relatively low transaction costs, perfect information, relative advantage). In the real world, negative externalities are rampant, and information is usually highly asymmetric.

The core of this is that a competent capitalist will seek to capture almost all of the positive utility gained from a transaction, leaving the least they can in the hands of the other party. And a competent capitalist will seek to externalize negative utility, in order to increase profits and customers. Incompetent capitalists are what Adam Smith's "the wealth of nations" describes, and our capitalists are incompetent to various degrees.

But capitalism is a large scale optimization engine, and one thing it optimizes for is more competent capitalists.

The productivity of the first world has skyrocketed over the last 30 years, but 50%-80% of the population has seen stagnant or reducing wages, because capital is more competent at capturing the utility involved in employment. If the min. wage in the US had tracked productivity growth since 1980, it would be 15$-30$ today instead of 7.5$: that is how productive and efficient the US has become.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Posts: 6672
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:00 pm UTC

leady wrote:It wasn't so much implied but stated that markets are completely "dog eat dog" and this is nonsense. You get far better outcomes in mutually beneficial trades and only idiots grind trading partners into the ground (cue irrelevent examples of inequitable trades....)
So what you're saying is that our economy is largely driven by idiots?

User avatar
Thesh
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Thesh » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:19 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
leady wrote:It wasn't so much implied but stated that markets are completely "dog eat dog" and this is nonsense. You get far better outcomes in mutually beneficial trades and only idiots grind trading partners into the ground (cue irrelevent examples of inequitable trades....)
So what you're saying is that our economy is largely driven by idiots?


Let's observe the evidence. If demand declines, businesses lay off employees. Because businesses laid off employees, demand declines further. Because demand declined further, businesses lay off more employees. Because businesses laid off more employees, demand declines even further. And so on and so forth.

Yes, I think it is safe to say that the free market, when taken as a collective, is an idiot.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Posts: 6672
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:37 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
leady wrote:It wasn't so much implied but stated that markets are completely "dog eat dog" and this is nonsense. You get far better outcomes in mutually beneficial trades and only idiots grind trading partners into the ground (cue irrelevent examples of inequitable trades....)
So what you're saying is that our economy is largely driven by idiots?


Let's observe the evidence. If demand declines, businesses lay off employees. Because businesses laid off employees, demand declines further. Because demand declined further, businesses lay off more employees. Because businesses lay off employees, demand declines even further. And so on and so forth.

Yes, I think it is safe to say that the free market, when taken as a collective, is an idiot.
Just to clarify -- while I'm not certain of the validity of your point (not an economist! is something I would like to one day study, though!), what I meant was that our current economy does, in fact, seem to be driven by entities attempting to grind their trading partners into the ground.

The way you gain power in capitalism is through your trades. You make trades that both strengthen your economic position and weaken the economic position of your partners (while trying to maintain the possibility of future trades -- either by making them dependent on you as a trading partner, or making your trades slightly better [or make them just appear better!] than the competition -- PREFERABLY, you do both at the same time!).

Every dollar I get is a dollar you don't -- and that's another dollar I can put to use acquiring all those other dollars in your wallet. I mean, isn't that the very essence of competition in the market? Am I missing something?

Besides, if trades were always win-win, there'd be no economic losers! And if there's one thing I think we can all say for certain, it's that our economic climate has a surplus of people who are losing.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:28 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:No, the point stands. That the US has a particularly large railway system should be no surprise. It represents a huge proportion of the world's economy (based on GDP (purchasing power parity), it's around 19%). The fact that this is almost exactly the same number as the proportion of the world's railway is not a coincidence. Bigger economies build more infrastructure. That's just obvious.


And why, precisely, is our GDP so big? It hasn't always been. The era of the robber barons correlates with...a massive growth in GDP. A bigger economy HAS more infrastructure because it can afford to, and more infrastructure helps build a bigger economy.

So yes, the era of the industrialists is inextricably linked to our growth as a modern, wealthy nation.

I did a brief analysis of the figures from the CIA comparing the relative strength in the correlation between %railway (by length), area and GDP of the countries with the most rail.

Obviously all these statistics are after the fact so are not necessarily representative of conditions before the railways were built.

Anyway, some of the statistics I was using (like unemployment rate or poverty rate) do not scale with "size" of a nation and so I also compared the statistics with the rail length corrected by the square root of the area of the country.


So...why, exactly, is square root of area the most appropriate "correction"?

If a statistic scales with area and there is a genuine correlation with rail length, the correlation should be weaker when done to the corrected rail length. Likewise, if a statistic does not scale with area and there is a genuine correlation then the correlation should be stronger when done to the corrected length.

The statistics I was comparing were area, GDP, %ge consumption of the richest 10%, population, % unemployment and the % below the poverty line. Of these, only the first 2 and population scale with size.


Well, area, obviously. That and size are kind of the same thing. GDP and size do not correlate very well. Sure, the USA is huge and on the top end, but so is Dubai. Quatar, Luxemborg, Singapore, all pretty much at the top of GDP/population, are quite small.

Of course, if you're using raw GDP as opposed to GDP/population, then yes, that's trivially obvious. All three correlations are.

With that in mind, the following apparently genuine correlations were apparent:

area correlates weakly (R2=0.5154) with rail length (no surprise there)
GDP correlates strongly with rail length (R2=0.8057) (again, no surprise)
%ge consumption of the richest barely correlates (R2=0.09 if enforcing monotonicity, R2=0.1115 otherwise (when it peaks at 27.8%))
Population correlates weakly (R2=0.4402)
Unemployment and percentage below the poverty line do not appear to have any genuine correlation.

(For reference, 2 sets of 20 randomly generated numbers had an R2 value of 0.0919)

GDP is clearly the best indicator of the length of railway whilst the wealth of rich appears to be almost no better an indicator of the length of railway than a random dataset. As such, if we accept the hypothesis that robber barons (and therefore high consumption of the richest) were entirely responsible for the creation of the railways, they must have subsequently disappeared in almost all the countries under consideration. This seems unlikely to me and so I find it far easier to accept that, in fact, the robber barons were not the driving force behind railway expansion that you believe them to be.


So, you used data from NOW to prove a point about the 1800s.

And yes, the industrial age has passed by. We're in the information age, now. Building railways is no longer the grand endevour of our richest people. This should be relatively trivial to understand....so no, you cannot just assume that todays data applies to a bygone age.

Again, those are modern numbers and lots of the countries I included there (the top 20 by length of railway) would almost certainly not have been there 50 or more years ago. Still, I suspect going further back starts to favour the UK even more than it does the US (correcting for area of course) and we did not have an obvious equivalent to robber barons.


Google "Railway Mania", perhaps in conjunction with 1840. Your railways were built by private enterprise, and consolidated into larger empires same as ours were. Just on a smaller scale because the country isn't as big.

morriswalters
Posts: 6438
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:42 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Just to clarify -- while I'm not certain of the validity of your point (not an economist! is something I would like to one day study, though!), what I meant was that our current economy does, in fact, seem to be driven by entities attempting to grind their trading partners into the ground.
You wouldn't seem to have much need to trade with competitors. They might be whom you would like to see go out of business.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Liri and 4 guests