Nobel Laureate calls for steeper tax cuts

[Xequat]

OH, hehe, sorry about that, Robert. Didn't mean to jump on you like that, then. It's just hard to pick up on subtleties from a single line of text, so I try to just read what's there more than what other meanings there could be.

OK, see this is where we can see that even educated people can disagree. I am a capitalist. It's not because I live in a capitalist society; I mean, I'd still like big TV's and steak if I lived in a communist state. But, yes, I believe that people are selfish. It would be nice to live in a place where everyone cared as much about advancing society and their fellow man as much as themselves, but it would take a lot more than changing our market structure to accomplish that. Sure, the Chinese probably think that communism is the way to go because of the "systemic observational error" you mentioned, so what you're saying about me being ina capitalist society and therefore being pro-capitalists makes sense on paper. All I can do is assure you taht I honestly try to look at the other side, and I think I have shown that I do somewhat by calling communism idealistic instead of plain stupid or crappy or negative in some other way and not backing it up. Becuase idealistic is not a negative word.

"And then too, "idealism?" Now that's comedy--you're worshipping as necessary an economic system grounded on swapping around pure symbols, but I'M idealistic? You're relying upon an untested and untestable assumption that human beings are NATURALLY greedy, and I'M idealistic? You're postulating that, "big TVs," and "steak," are the pinnacle of existence, and I'M the silly guy? Dr. Commie prefers his fantasies to yours, thank you."

I prefer your fantsies, too...I've said as much several times. I used big TV's and steak as an example of unnecessary, but plain nice things to have. But people are willing to work extra for them. I think it's fair to allow a person to work more or come up with a great idea and market on their own, then reap the benefits while someone who has ability but chooses not to use it doesn't get anything extra in return. But I also think that the governemnt should provide at least necessities for those who can not provide for themselves. You still haven't said how my ideas are idealistic and yours aren't, though. Yours are based on the idea that people aren't naturally selfish and mine are based on the observation that people like stuff, By definition, the theoretical of the two is idealistic because it is based on ideals. I see what you're saying about trading monetary symbols around for goods and services, but the reality that it happens is, simplistically, what I base my ideas upon.

As far as "I'm wealthy and you're screwed" goes, here is where I become idealistic. I believe that everyone has a pretty fair shot at making it big. If you have a grand idea and are willing to put in the hours, you can make it, too. Just because one person is wealthy doesn't mean that nobody else can be wealthy, too.

By the way, I'll watch "They Live" again, but does that French book have an English translation? I can't read French.

 

[Xequat]

Robert: I do not understand what you are saying. You're too deep.

Hehe, he is deep. In the time it took me to respond, two other posts were made. Maybe I'm just slow.

 

[heretic888]

Ahem. Three things I'd like to add:

1) The notion that humans are inherently, undeniably, inevitably 'selfish' is not a notion backed by science. Piaget, Kohlberg, and Gilligan would chuckle at such statements. In fact, the entire idea that there is some kind of monolithic, preset 'human nature' to begin with is pretty silly.

Contextualism and developmentalism are the way to go, laddies, not absolutism (or relativism either, bleh).

2) Rob's certainly right in that we trade around symbols for good and services --- as opposed to directly trading goods and services for themselves. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but....

3) I think capitalism has its merits. I think socialism has its merits, too. I also think they both have their shortcomings. Nuff said.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The notion that humans are inherently, undeniably, inevitably 'selfish' is not a notion backed by science. Piaget, Kohlberg, and Gilligan would chuckle at such statements.

I can't speak for Piaget and Kohlberg, but Gilligan, being the affable dunce that he is, would NEVER say anything negative about Mr. and Mrs. Howell.

One ought to ask Ginger, Mary Ann, the Professor and the Skipper whether they think humans are inherently selfish before one starts chuckling at anything, Heretic. Personally I'm convinced had it not been for that Harvard snob and his uppity wife, they'd have all gotten off that island a heck of a lot sooner.


Sorry. All this election year hoopla has gotten me so frazzled I'm finding it difficult to take anything seriously at the moment.



Regards,

Steve

 

[auxprix]

OOO, Econ... this is my element.

The overriding sentement among economists is that Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's as good as we can do. Bear in mind that very few would say that a pure capitalism is the correct way to go. A pure capitalism would mean almost no government programs (that includes ecucation and law enforcement, etc.) aside from national defense. There are those that believe in this, but they are in the vast minority. Most believe that public works (socialism) are acceptable, but where private enterprise can be used, it should be.

Now, just because you are socialist doesn't mean that you can avoid econ theory. The same principles apply in both Socialism and Capitalism. Now, I believe that people are definately driven by selfishness. It's just that when people hear me say that, they think that I'm saying "people only care about themselves." Not true. People who volunteer and give their lives to serve others do so because they feel good about it, and it has value to them. The value could be the comfort they get from what they do among other things. This is what economists mean by selfishness. Even the most selfless acts are selfish.

Now, the reason why Economists don't like socialism is that central planning does not have the ability to respond to demand nearly as well as the market system. There is a reason the USSR fell, and it wasn't Reagan as Ann Coulter would have you believe. The economic planning put too many resources into the future (capital goods) and ignored the needs of the present (consumer goods), which they had done their entire history. It finally caught up to them.

Because of this, a socialism has yet to stand for an extended amount of time. I personally believe that one never will, but who knows...maybe...

Anyways, onto the economist. I think he's going by the Laffer curve, which states that at a certain point, raising taxes will actually lower government revenue. I'm not going to get into the specifics (I'm a little long winded already) but the theory is valid and appears to work. I disagree that it would help the US economy to lower taxes more than they currently are, but there are experts on both sides of the fence. This one economist doesn't speak for all.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Please show me where I argued that people are NATURALLY anything, especially naturally cooperative. That's not even vaguely what I grounded my argument upon. I grounded my argument on the logic of historical development.

2. Wait a minnit--econ is your bailiwick and you believe in the Laffer curve? Of course economists believe in capitalism--that's what they study, what they know, what they're selling. That's why we encounter hilarities like, "market planning---" there is no market planning. Don't you even read the "Wall Street Journal?"

3. By our standards, countries like Holland, and France, and all the Scandinavian countries, are socialist countries. Check their standards of living, their educational levels, their health stats--not to mention the productivity of French workers, which is higher than ours--and get on back to me about just how nifty we are.

 

[Makalakumu]

3. By our standards, countries like Holland, and France, and all the Scandinavian countries, are socialist countries. Check their standards of living, their educational levels, their health stats--not to mention the productivity of French workers, which is higher than ours--and get on back to me about just how nifty we are.

The statistics I have seen have not shown this. Workers in the US work longer hours for less pay and less vacation. We have a world of endless work in this country!

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, we do. And the average French work now has higher productivity rates nonetheless.

Makes ya wonder, don't it?

 

[Xequat]

Robert, where did you find that information, please? I can't find it. I found some stuff saying that the French productivity has increased recently at a higher rate that in the US, but I can't find anything saying that their productivity is better than ours.

 

[auxprix]

1. Please show me where I argued that people are NATURALLY anything, especially naturally cooperative. That's not even vaguely what I grounded my argument upon. I grounded my argument on the logic of historical development.

2. Wait a minnit--econ is your bailiwick and you believe in the Laffer curve? Of course economists believe in capitalism--that's what they study, what they know, what they're selling. That's why we encounter hilarities like, "market planning---" there is no market planning. Don't you even read the "Wall Street Journal?"

3. By our standards, countries like Holland, and France, and all the Scandinavian countries, are socialist countries. Check their standards of living, their educational levels, their health stats--not to mention the productivity of French workers, which is higher than ours--and get on back to me about just how nifty we are.

I don't know if you are addressing me or not, but I think that I should respond to 2 and 3.

2) I believe in the laffer curve, yes. Most economists do, but the discrepency is that some think that the US should tax more, others think less. The laffer curve itself said that if you tax too much, people will put in less work because they aren't making enough to justify their labor. I don't think that we are at that level yet though.

Do I read the wall street journal? No, I prefer the british publication "The Economist." Much more balanced, and I'm more into international econ than domestic.

Now, another thing that I disagree with is the statement "Economists are taught Capitalism." It makes it sound like economists don't understand other finantial systems. Now, I'm not naive. I know that I was taught Economics from people who believed in the free market system. But the rules are universal, and just because a nation is socialist doesn't mean that the rules of supply and demand no longer apply.

You said something about Market planning, I don't know if that was directed at me or not... But there is market planning, and there has to be, if trade is not free. As I said, Russia didn't get the Capital/Consumer goods balance right, and no government is able to.

3) No no no, I didn't say that they are socialist. Yes, they do support an agenda that is slightly more Leftest than the US, but they are Market Economies. I also think that they would be in better shape if they inched a little bit more to the free market.

OK, our numbers are a little different. You say that France has a higher productivity than the US, but in EVERY material I've read, the big three productive nations right now are U.S., Germany, and Japan. Germany and Japan have great manufacturing, U.S. has a great service sector. Paris is an important financial center of Europe, but I've heard little praise about its productivity.

 

[heretic888]

But the rules are universal, and just because a nation is socialist doesn't mean that the rules of supply and demand no longer apply.

Uhhhh... no.

The "marketist" rules of economic exchange are not universal by any means. They are pretty much a novelty of the Western industrial nations, as any good anthropologist will tell you. Think those rules tell us much about how the Trobrianders go about their exchanges?? Nope.

I suggest reading "Exchange" by Jon Davis, for a more cross-cultural point of view. Laterz.

 

[auxprix]

Uhhhh... no.

The "marketist" rules of economic exchange are not universal by any means. They are pretty much a novelty of the Western industrial nations, as any good anthropologist will tell you. Think those rules tell us much about how the Trobrianders go about their exchanges?? Nope.

I suggest reading "Exchange" by Jon Davis, for a more cross-cultural point of view. Laterz.

Affraid so. Every economy has the forces of supply and demand at work. When prices are not fixed, the price fluctuates to find the equilibrium. If the price is fixed at a level that does not reflect the demand, there will be a Shortage or Surplus.

Now, if we take the medium of exchange out completely, there is still demand to be supplied. This isn't a western novelty, it's the basics of traid.

 

[Xequat]

I'm not an economist, but I do remember from school the Law of Supply and Demand. It's not a theory, it's a law. That's why I call it idealistic to believe that we can change things as you seem to hope. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that we can do a lot of things, but the law of supply and demand is based on pragmatism and observation, not hope. I'd like to see it go away and we can love each other and not worry about money or items, etc, but that's a long way off, I believe.


The thing is, the idea of supply and demand is natural. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that. For example (and I don't know much about animals, but you'll get the point), we see certain animals attack smaller ones. Why? Because they know they can win. Same thing with economics...we take the path of least resistance, which means that when the prices go down, the demand goes up because it's cheaper and there is less resistance to our wallets, so to speak. Now, say we go to a system where everything is payed for no matter how much we work. Many people will take the path of least resistance and do as little as possible to get by because they know that they're covered any way. But if we have a system, as we pretty much do now, whereby people can work as hard as they want and be rewarded appropriately (I know it's not perfect and people are sometimes rewarded disproportionally to their work...Cincinnati sports teams, I'm talkin' to you ) then I think that that will provide more incentive for people to work than entitlements.

 

[heretic888]

Affraid so. Every economy has the forces of supply and demand at work. When prices are not fixed, the price fluctuates to find the equilibrium. If the price is fixed at a level that does not reflect the demand, there will be a Shortage or Surplus.

Now, if we take the medium of exchange out completely, there is still demand to be supplied. This isn't a western novelty, it's the basics of traid.

Once again, I actually suggest reading the source I referenced.

Your claims are, well, not true and bely a Western ethnocentrism that is all too common. There are actually quite a lot of running jokes in anthropological circles concerning "marketist" theorists that try and make their ideas paradigmatic for all of mankind.

Suffice to say, the "marketist" rules of exchange only apply to marketist countries. And, even then, only in a half-real sort of way, considering they basically ignore all the cultural values and meaning that go into exchange in any culture (not, that's a bit more cross-cultural).

Laterz. :asian:

 

[auxprix]

Once again, I actually suggest reading the source I referenced.

Your claims are, well, not true and bely a Western ethnocentrism that is all too common. There are actually quite a lot of running jokes in anthropological circles concerning "marketist" theorists that try and make their ideas paradigmatic for all of mankind.

Suffice to say, the "marketist" rules of exchange only apply to marketist countries. And, even then, only in a half-real sort of way, considering they basically ignore all the cultural values and meaning that go into exchange in any culture (not, that's a bit more cross-cultural).

Laterz. :asian:

Of course I'm not going to read it. I could post plenty of books for you to read as well, but I would never expect you to do so so I won't bother. I'm a busy college student in the middle of a senior project and study abroad, and I'm sure you have other things to do as well.

Now, lets reduce this (I hate reducing, but it's the only way I can get my point through without getting too technical or long winded). If we live on an Island where all there are only bananas to eat, then we're going to want bananas. If there is a banana shortage, we will be willing to give up more for them, since we are in greater need. This is a gross simplification of the concept I'm talking about, and I refuse to believe that this was ever not the case. Hell, there are ancient recordings of this happening everywhere from China to the Mideast to Europe.

 

[Xequat]

Exactly. It's our job to paraphrase what we believe and quote the source if necessary, but to expect someone to go out and read a book because it contains something that we believe and others don't is unreasonable, and a little insulting. I'm sure the jokes in the elitist little "anthropolgical circle" are quite hilarious to those who happen to think like that, but not so funny to those who disagree. I could tell all kinds of jokes about John Kerry or George Bush and someone would think they're funny. If you wat something to read, I suggest reading my previous post; I don't know how I could have made it any clearer.

Supply and demand are laws of nature. If we can evolve past these laws and break them by coming up with utopia, then yayyyyy humanity, but we can't do that unless we acknowledge that these laws exist. I can appreciate the huminstic philosophy you embrace, because when it comes to psychology and general philosophy, I lean that way myself.

 

[heretic888]

Now, lets reduce this (I hate reducing, but it's the only way I can get my point through without getting too technical or long winded). If we live on an Island where all there are only bananas to eat, then we're going to want bananas. If there is a banana shortage, we will be willing to give up more for them, since we are in greater need. This is a gross simplification of the concept I'm talking about, and I refuse to believe that this was ever not the case. Hell, there are ancient recordings of this happening everywhere from China to the Mideast to Europe.

From Exchange:

"My conclusion is that the 'market principle' is not and never has been an autonomous reality. When exchanges are really free from control people do their best to create monopolies, to do insider trading, to eliminate risk and to exclude outsiders who might bring in competition and something approximating supply and demand. That is scarcely the market principle, but rather what market operators would really like: an easy life, with as little competition as possible, if you please. A secondary and incidental conclusion is that the rhetorical contrast made by some politicians and theoriticians in Britain and the USA, between the state and the market, assumes antagonism when there is in fact mutual dependence: the market, the Blue Economy produces revenue." (page 73)

"Supply and demand" are not "natural principles" or "natural laws". They only take place when human manipulation and control allows them to. In other words, governmental regulation. They are social constructions. And, as such, they only take place in particular social situations.

Davis provided many examples of exchange systems that do not conform to standard 'marketist' priniciples, including the Trobriand Islanders' yam exchanges, the Tiv of Nigeria, and the Zuwaya of Libya. The latter two, by the way, actually have marketplace economies yet still don't conform to the neo-classical economist theories.

He also demonstrated how several exchanges in Western societies don't conform to these either. Neo-classical economists, for example, have typically regarded the ritual exchange of Christmas gifts as an 'imperfect' form of economy since supply and demand are void there. You have any idea how many exchanges we go through a day that the marketist principles can't say a word on??

The problem, again, is trying to reduce exchange --- which is a social behavior that has legal, religious, political, and emotional consequences --- into a material transition of goods, services, and cash. Just ignore the fact that money itself is a cultural symbol.

The attempt to turn your culture's rules and belief systems into a universal standard is, again, what is called ethnocentrism in anthropology.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Now me, I'm a big fan of symptomatic, self-justifying cultural bias--especially this one, which is why Marx made fun of it as playing, "about the same part in Political Economy as Original Sin in theology."

 

[heretic888]

Heh. Careful, Rob. Davis brought up a brief psuedo-criticism of Marxism, too. :uhyeah:

 

[auxprix]

From Exchange:

"My conclusion is that the 'market principle' is not and never has been an autonomous reality. When exchanges are really free from control people do their best to create monopolies, to do insider trading, to eliminate risk and to exclude outsiders who might bring in competition and something approximating supply and demand. That is scarcely the market principle, but rather what market operators would really like: an easy life, with as little competition as possible, if you please. A secondary and incidental conclusion is that the rhetorical contrast made by some politicians and theoriticians in Britain and the USA, between the state and the market, assumes antagonism when there is in fact mutual dependence: the market, the Blue Economy produces revenue." (page 73)

"Supply and demand" are not "natural principles" or "natural laws". They only take place when human manipulation and control allows them to. In other words, governmental regulation. They are social constructions. And, as such, they only take place in particular social situations.

Davis provided many examples of exchange systems that do not conform to standard 'marketist' priniciples, including the Trobriand Islanders' yam exchanges, the Tiv of Nigeria, and the Zuwaya of Libya. The latter two, by the way, actually have marketplace economies yet still don't conform to the neo-classical economist theories.

He also demonstrated how several exchanges in Western societies don't conform to these either. Neo-classical economists, for example, have typically regarded the ritual exchange of Christmas gifts as an 'imperfect' form of economy since supply and demand are void there. You have any idea how many exchanges we go through a day that the marketist principles can't say a word on??

The problem, again, is trying to reduce exchange --- which is a social behavior that has legal, religious, political, and emotional consequences --- into a material transition of goods, services, and cash. Just ignore the fact that money itself is a cultural symbol.

The attempt to turn your culture's rules and belief systems into a universal standard is, again, what is called ethnocentrism in anthropology.

Laterz. :asian:

This is an argument against market competition, not supply and Demand.

As for the christmas thing. Look to my quote about selfish selflessness.

Very well, Supply and Demand are not natural occurances, as you say. If you mean what I think you mean, they involve a social structure. I believe this structure is Trade. And where there is trade, there are the forces of supply and demand. If I'm missunderstanding you in any way, let me know.

We aren't debating the high level stuff here. I'm talking about the simplest of economic principles. Supply and Demand, Shortage and Surplus. Even in a government controled economy, they are still there. If there is any sort of price fixing, they are there. Where there is trade, there is supply and demand.

I'm going to end this post, as I am extremely drained from midterms. I'm sorry it's so thin. I'll come back soon and post something more substantial.