[QUOTE=__HRB__;163474]Like every other good economist, I'm a minarchist. We're located in between the moderate classical liberals (like the Old Whig faction) and the anarcho-capitalists.

...

A minarchist argues, that if a market fails to provide a private good, then it is a bad idea for the government to provide it. If it costs $10 to make good X, but you are only willing to pay $5 for X, then the government will have to tax you $5, and subsidize X, so you'd buy it. You end up paying $10 which you value at $5. There are no exceptions to this.

...

A typical example of a public good (in the economic sense) is the Police. It's the Police' job to catch bad guys and put them in prison. All the bad guys in prison cannot hurt you, so whether you are paying the police or not, they are doing you a service.

...[/QUOTE]I will not comment on your statement that the only good economists share your opinions.

Your arguments about goods can be applied to police as well. The fallacy of your line of argumentation lies in the fact that you swap between individual benefits and general benefits.

I was quite surprised seeing the word socialism applied to some past USA politics. I fail to remember a period where there was no private ownership of the means of production for instance.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;163484]I will not comment on your statement that the only good economists share your opinions.
[/QUOTE]

Economics is still a young science, so you'll find many economists thinking they are able to make gold, like the predecessors of modern chemists. A good deal are outright frauds, but you don't seem to realize how many charlatans are selling you exactly the economic snake-oil you wish to hear.

[QUOTE=S485122;163484]Your arguments about goods can be applied to police as well.[/QUOTE]

I think you misunderstand (or I have not been clear about) the private/public qualifier.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good[/url]

The articles aren't bad. If you're willing to spend some time learning what tools economists use to analyze and predict human behavior, you'll realize that economics can be very much a science.

[QUOTE=S485122;163484]The fallacy of your line of argumentation lies in the fact that you swap between individual benefits and general benefits.
[/QUOTE]

It should be clearer now.

[QUOTE=S485122;163484]
I was quite surprised seeing the word socialism applied to some past USA politics. I fail to remember a period where there was no private ownership of the means of production for instance.
[/QUOTE]

You assume that ownership is the relevant criterion. But consider:

If the government owns 25% of the stock and collects the dividend, or takes 25% of the profits by taxation: in both cases 25% of the resouces have been socialized.

In 2005, at least 34% of the GDP was being socialized in the USA (it depends on how you count social security). IIRC, before the 'New Deal' it was 15%. Btw, Sweden 56% (and falling), Belgium 52% (and rising)

President Obama will spend $1.000.000.000.000 of money that we're supposed to earn in the future. That is $3000 per capita or 8% of the GDP.

Welcome to the Peoples Republic of America.

[quote=__HRB__;163458]I don't need a Strict Father or a Nuturing Parent anymore. If you are unable to lead a fulfilling life without a linear combination between a Strict Father and a Nuturing Parent, that is fine with me.

The problem is that because you don't want to live without a Strict Father and a Nuturing Parent making descisions for you, you assume that I shouldn't.[/quote]Wow, you certainly seem to be judging worldviews by their titles.

Do you think that the English language contains only words that are applicable to England, just because "English" is its name? Do you think "A Tale of Two Cities" was about the history of two urban centers?

You seem to have no idea what those two worldviews are about. Do you know what a worldview is?

[quote]To make matters worse, you have the audacity to demand that I pay for the Strict Father preventing me from having consentual sexual intercourse with other adults. You also expect me to pay the Nuturing Parent for taking away my property, and giving it back to me, if I 'deserve' it.[/quote]If you don't know what something is, why not just say so instead of going off on a riff that just confirms your ignorance anyway? Ignorance isn't a sin, but pretending that you know what something means when you really don't can lead to having folks laugh at you.

[quote=davieddy;163402]You're a good one to ask for a summary:smile:[/quote]Why? I'm missing the reference.

[quote]Can't you get my links in the US?[/quote]I wrote the bit about dialup and broadband to hint that I still have only a slow, dialup connection, over which I'm reluctant to download any video without first knowing what it's about. It wasn't about not getting your links or even about suspicion; it was about cost-benefit analysis of sinking time into the download.

[quote=__HRB__;163492]President Obama will spend $1.000.000.000.000 of money that we're supposed to earn in the future.[/quote]Did you ever criticize the past three Republican presidents for their $8,000,000,000,000 addition to our national debt?

[QUOTE=__HRB__;163492]The articles aren't bad. If you're willing to spend some time learning what tools economists use to analyze and predict human behavior, you'll realize that economics can be very much a science.
[/QUOTE]I wish I could find it in my history, I read an article in the last week that was very interesting. (Argh...I hate not being able to find stuff I've read but not saved a link to!) This article reported on a study that found that while you could have economic theory on one side to predict what people would do based on the economic value of things, on the other side you have, well, people. Based on the study, people make decisions based on the [B]perceived[/B] value of things, not solely on the [B]rational economic[/B] value of things. The upshot of which is that economists can predict, based on this policy or that policy, that people will behave one way, but people can behave unpredictably; in some cases, even acting against their best interests based on how they [I]percieve[/I] something.

[QUOTE=schickel;163559]I wish I could find it in my history, I read an article in the last week that was very interesting. (Argh...I hate not being able to find stuff I've read but not saved a link to!) This article reported on a study that found that while you could have economic theory on one side to predict what people would do based on the economic value of things, on the other side you have, well, people.[/QUOTE]

The basic premise is that rational behavior is an advantage, and that evolutionary optimization leads to more and more rational behavior. So the asumption of rational behavior is asymptotically correct and the bias will disappear over time.

All 'exact' science is essentially the study of good approximation. Pysicists routinely ignore relativistic and friction effects, when these are smaller than the error in measurement.

[QUOTE=schickel;163559]Based on the study, people make decisions based on the [B]perceived[/B] value of things, not solely on the [B]rational economic[/B] value of things. The upshot of which is that economists can predict, based on this policy or that policy, that people will behave one way, but people can behave unpredictably; in some cases, even acting against their best interests based on how they [I]percieve[/I] something.[/QUOTE]

Where did these people get funding?

I could have gotten the same results in a one-liner: a significant fraction of people plays the state lottery.


That we can't know what will happen when we do harebrained policy X is an argument against doing X, and an agrument for fiscal restraint.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;163554]Did you ever criticize the past three Republican presidents for their $8,000,000,000,000 addition to our national debt?[/QUOTE]

I hereby *heavily* criticise the last three Rebublican presidents for $8,000,000,000,000 addition to our national debt.

I wish people would stop arguing, that just because the previous Assholes-in-Chief put me $27.000,00 in debt, the current Asshole-in-Chief deserves to put me another $3.000,00 in debt, and I'm being unfair.

[quote=__HRB__;163607]I hereby *heavily* criticise the last three Rebublican presidents for $8,000,000,000,000 addition to our national debt.[/quote]But did you notice their deficit spending while it was happening, or did you, like many, never bother to add it up as long as a Republican was in office? Did you post any deficit criticism publicly during previous administrations?

[quote]I wish people would stop arguing, that just because the previous Assholes-in-Chief put me $27.000,00 in debt, the current Asshole-in-Chief deserves to put me another $3.000,00 in debt,[/quote]Then you'll be pleased to notice that I'm not offering that argument.

[quote]and I'm being unfair.[/quote]Well, that's what I'm trying to find out.

You see, I just saw an ABC news report where some Republican senators were loudly complaining about piling up national debt that would have to be repaid by future generations. I don't recall having heard those, or any other Republican senators who were in office the past 8 years, making the same complaint with the same vehemence while the Bush administration was piling up $5 trillion in deficits. (When I was a Republican 40 years ago, the GOP stood for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. Now, it doesn't, and hasn't since 1980.)

Since you seem to be critical of Obama about items other than deficit spending, I'm wondering whether you only discovered your aversion to federal deficits in the last couple of months or, if not, whether you decided to go public with your complaints in that regard only since Obama was elected.

[quote=cheesehead;163615]But did you notice their deficit spending while it was happening, or did you, like many, never bother to add it up as long as a Republican was in office? Did you post any deficit criticism publicly during previous administrations?[/quote]

I joined here 12/2008. I stopped complaining in 2005 after the sonofaturd got reelected. Where would the point be?

[quote=cheesehead;163615]Then you'll be pleased to notice that I'm not offering that argument.[/quote]

Wonderful. So, what *is* your argument, that it's OK for the mo********** in charge to put everybody $3000 more in debt, to solve the problem of everybody being too much in debt?

[quote=cheesehead;163615]You see, I just saw an ABC news report where some Republican senators were loudly complaining about piling up national debt that would have to be repaid by future generations. I don't recall having heard those, or any other Republican senators who were in office the past 8 years, making the same complaint with the same vehemence while the Bush administration was piling up $5 trillion in deficits. (When I was a Republican 40 years ago, the GOP stood for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. Now, it doesn't, and hasn't since 1980.)[/quote]

Under what rock have you been living?

[B]+++ Newsflash +++ Newsflash +++

Hypocrites discovered in the Senate! A team of scientist is on it way to document and study this unusual phenomenon. We now suspend Superbowl XLIV, so we can take you live to the US senate.

+++ Newsflash +++ Newsflash +++
[/B]
I'm convinced the only way Nixon was able to balance his budget, was through the "inflation tax" (google that term), and you have to go all the way back to Eisenhower until you find someone who did a comparatively good job.

[quote=cheesehead;163615]Since you seem to be critical of Obama about items other than deficit spending, I'm wondering whether you only discovered your aversion to federal deficits in the last couple of months or, if not, whether you decided to go public with your complaints in that regard only since Obama was elected.[/quote]

If complaining about the f***** a******* sending MORE troops to a country where we have no fucking business to be in the first place, makes me a White-Trash-Redneck-Conservative in your eyes, then so be it.

Becomming an Obama fanboi, won't wash off the guilt you bear for helping Nixon get elected.

[quote=Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2001:]"[B]Every nation has to either be with us, or against us[/B]. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."[/quote]

[quote=George "Dubyah" Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001]"[B]Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.[/B]"[/quote]

They all want to be Dark Lords. (Don't call Obama this, you racist!)

[quote=Obi Wan Kenobi to Darth Vader]
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
[/quote]

Q: The difference between Dianne Wilkerson and Ted Stevens?
A: You tell me.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;163628]
Becomming an Obama fanboi, won't wash off the guilt you bear for helping Nixon get elected.

...X...X

They all want to be Dark Lords. (Don't call Obama this, you racist!)

[/QUOTE]

Which anarchist school of thought are you advocating again?

[QUOTE=__HRB__;163628]
Q: The difference between Dianne Wilkerson and Ted Stevens?
A: You tell me.
[/QUOTE]

Dianne Wilkerson was not a US Senator.