Trickle-down theory once again proven wrong

[bluebird]

If you want to come to terms with your own greed and flaws, meditate or something.

Lol, I've tried but its terribly boring...

It's not about information.

Plato in the Republic talked about how...

Well, you certainly have a lot of it ;D
I think your point of view might have been lost in all of it. Are you arguing for trickle-down economics? Are you saying its not working in this country because people aren't virtuous enough and it has nothing to do with the system? Don't we need to modify/fix the system so it best suits the majority of people being governed by it?

I think it obvious we can do better here. I was pointing out that countries like Canada with a more socially focused democracy with more government regulation better take care of the majority of people living there. Your argument that its simply wealth of the country and the virtuous culture of the people isn't convincing. Perhaps my bias is too strong to understand. I'm not ruling that out.

Again just trying to venture out of my liberal bubble in a somewhat safe space here... Thanks.

 

[boji]

You may have conflated several items or issues

Maybe. Without links I was hoping someone would have seen the same lecture. 

Anywho the nuclear tech was either thorium (fast-spectrum as opposed to thermal reaction?) along with using liquid sodium as a coolant or some other highly efficient heat-absorbing fluid.  It was like a ted talk and they showed the nuclear reaction was controlled and stabilized in a composite material with a slow burn. It put a cap on heat runaway should cooling systems fail, and the spent fissile material was supposedly much safer too, and less of it, which likely included the absence of radiated water post-processing which I think gen IV systems still use.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Maybe. Without links I was hoping someone would have seen the same lecture. 

Anywho the nuclear tech was either thorium (fast-spectrum as opposed to thermal reaction?) along with using liquid sodium as a coolant or some other highly efficient heat-absorbing fluid.  It was like a ted talk and they showed the nuclear reaction was controlled and stabilized in a composite material with a slow burn. It put a cap on heat runaway should cooling systems fail, and the spent fissile material was supposedly much safer too, and less of it, which likely included the absence of radiated water post-processing which I think gen IV systems still use.

Without getting off into the weeds yes, more modern nuclear technologies are far safer. The smart people in that industry have been thinking about ways to improve it for several decades.

I am not sure some of the next generation nuclear powers are interested in cycles that don't generate fissile material, and the established nuclear powers don't need any more bombs to end life as we know it.

So don't tell your kids to major in nuclear power generation as a career choice.  :

JR

 

[boji]

I don't see anything about moderating capitalism with regulation relating to markets, only to social behaviors.

Something sticks in my craw here tho.  Surely social dynamics are influenced by markets. Normative behavior is ruled by market advantage, and absence of moral conduct is often rewarded when seeking ways to cut a slice for ourselves out of the American dream. If markets promote bad behavior, and hierarchy firewalls the ability to modify markets that would damage corporate earnings, what choice to wage slaves have but to demand social reform?

 

[dogears]

I think your point of view might have been lost in all of it. Are you arguing for trickle-down economics? Are you saying its not working in this country?

Trickle-down economics seems to be a contentious term. If you're asking me if I think cutting taxes produces economic growth, I'd say in general this is true. At a minimum it shifts dollars from the G to the I or C column in GDP.

If you're asking if I think a tax cut can be a Keynesian stimulus without causing increased inflation, I say yes. (This was the original premise of Laffer's tax cuts during the Reagan administration, and it worked).

Why do you think that our economic system isn't working in this country? I'm not convinced it's not working. I mean, I think you'd have to explain what you think the government is supposed to do, and then we can see whether or not what they're doing is working. Or if you say what you think an economy should do, we can see if it is working.

On the flat principle of produce the most economic utility for the most people, I think our economy works quite well.

because people aren't virtuous enough and it has nothing to do with the system? Don't we need to modify/fix the system so it best suits the majority of people being governed by it?

Flatly, no, people are not virtuous enough. Civic virtue is an unknown thing, no one in government seeks to maximize it. But I think that unlimited franchise is foolish. People should have to demonstrate some minimum amount of civic virtue to vote - even if that means having to actually intentionally register. Aristotle suggested you had to volunteer or show up for jury duty, for example.

But "modify the system" - which system? The US Federal Government or the economic market of the US? I know they impinge, but we need to be clear on what we're trying to do and why.  "Suits" is also a loaded word. What does that mean? Most wealth? Simplest life? Least amount of responsibility?

I think it obvious we can do better here. I was pointing out that countries like Canada with a more socially focused democracy with more government regulation better take care of the majority of people living there. Your argument that its simply wealth of the country and the virtuous culture of the people isn't convincing. Perhaps my bias is too strong to understand. I'm not ruling that out.

Such a strange thing to expect, want, the government to take care of you. Government is just your neighbors. What demand do you have on your neighbors by right? What demand do they have on you?

What government regulations do you think they do that you want here? And -- are those economic regulations or simply political?

 

[dogears]

Something sticks in my craw here tho.  Surely social dynamics are influenced by markets. Normative behavior is ruled by market advantage, and absence of moral conduct is often rewarded when seeking ways to cut a slice for ourselves out of the American dream. If markets promote bad behavior, and hierarchy firewalls the ability to modify markets that would damage corporate earnings, what choice to wage slaves have but to demand social reform?

I think markets are the output of social dynamics, not the other way around. Normative behavior is ruled by social advantage - and the market reflects this.

Whatever moral conduct may be rewarded or not is true under socialism or capitalism. Graft, greed, theft, immoral business dealings, all are possible under any system. Society regulates these - markets reflect them, when they can. Markets do not promote bad behavior; they reveal it.

Again, how do you want to modify markets? I keep seeing people say things like this, but what are you arguing for?

Wage slavery?? People are being forced to work against their will? I would like this one explained to me as well.

 

[boji]

I'm largely playing devil's advocate here, btw.

what are you arguing for?

That desires to effect change though social reform can be a byproduct of feeling like a cog in a wheel of systemic inequality.  Which is why I chose the phrase 'wage slave' because everyone has at one time or another had to deal with an executive or superior who was not really fit to be there. Not all ladders are climbed by competency, but rely on special access to information, social networks and services that are restricted to those with the right amount of income.

Regarding markets and human behavior I don't think it's an either/or, which is to say you are right, but I can also think of plenty of examples where the emergence of a technology or market makes people think and act differently even though that technology did not plan to be sold/received in such a way.

 

[dogears]

I'm largely playing devil's advocate here, btw.That desires to effect change though social reform can be a byproduct of feeling like a cog in a wheel of systemic inequality.  Which is why I chose the phrase 'wage slave' because everyone has at one time or another had to deal with an executive or superior who was not really fit to be there. Not all ladders are climbed by competency, but rely on special access to information, social networks and services that are restricted to those with the right amount of income.

Regarding markets and human behavior I don't think it's an either/or, which is to say you are right, but I can also think of plenty of examples where the emergence of a technology or market makes people think and act differently even though that technology did not plan to be sold/received in such a way.

You can’t fix humanity. You think socialism or whatever fixes the Peter principle or the wrong people getting promoted??

Or that central planning is somehow less sensitive to the law of unintended consequences than free markets?

 

[bluebird]

Such a strange thing to expect, want, the government to take care of you.

I don't expect the government to take care of me, I expect a group of people sharing resources to take care of each other. I make decent money and pay a lot of taxes living in California.  I donate to the United Way because I think most problems in society are attributed to children growing up in poverty. Growing up with abuse or neglect shapes a person for life. It bugs the shit out of me that we don't spend more on education, child care, community rec-centers etc.

Government is just your neighbors. What demand do you have on your neighbors by right? What demand do they have on you?

Is this the creed you live by?

Look, we all know how we feel about these things in broad strokes, these discussions are to try and understand why we feel differently about these things.

Trickle-down economics seems to be a contentious term. If you're asking me if I think cutting taxes produces economic growth, I'd say in general this is true.

Ok got it.

Why do you think that our economic system isn't working in this country? I'm not convinced it's not working.

Well obviously its working but its working way better for some people than for others. I keep saying, that inequality isn't as acute in other countries. They're population seems to be happier, healthier, less crime, etc. So why arn't we running our party more like theirs?
You already gave me your answer for that so no need to elaborate...

 

[dogears]

I don't expect the government to take care of me, I expect a group of people sharing resources to take care of each other.

Your first sentence negates the second.  The "group of people" is the government. "Each other" is you. People can voluntarily group and share resources all the time to help each other.

I make decent money and pay a lot of taxes living in California.  I donate to the United Way because I think most problems in society are attributed to children growing up in poverty. Growing up with abuse or neglect shapes a person for life.

This is admirable sentiment, and it's virtuous of you to do that. The United Way is an example of what I described above.

It bugs the sh*t out of me that we don't spend more on education, child care, community rec-centers etc.

"We"? Who is "we"? I pay $5,550 per year in local taxes to the local school district. I also pay $3,600 a year to the city and county, which funds parks and community centers as well as emergency services and utilities. That's just property tax! How much should "we" pay? Why is it always "we" and not "I"? What is stopping you from paying more? It seems to me "we" is really shorthand for "everyone else" or more likely "people with more money than me."

Who is best fit to decide where my money goes? You or me? I don't donate to the United Way. I donate to my church and other charitable causes. Should I force you to donate to my church? Should you be able to force me to donate to United Way? Is there a meaningful difference between that example and any tax-funded charity?

I have a big problem with federally-funded charitable giving. I have less of a problem with it on the state level, and even less on the local. Like you said, people who share resources can choose to take care of each other. The more localized this group is, the better, because that makes the choose part of that realistic. What's more, the US Constitution makes no provision whatever for this activity on the federal level. And until the 1930s the Federal Government actively avoided this type of involvement. Read about President Cleveland and the Texas seed bill.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/presidents-constitution/texas-seed-bill/

Is this the creed you live by?

Look, we all know how we feel about these things in broad strokes, these discussions are to try and understand why we feel differently about these things.

Yes of course. We humans are free. You don't have any more right to my labor than I have to yours. If you want to be a miserly jerk and donate nothing to no one, what business is that of mine? If I want to give all of my money to charity, what business is it of yours which charity and how much? It's always other people's money people want to spend - never content with their own.

My neighbors owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing. This is what makes charitable giving virtuous, good for the soul, good for both parties. For the person in need, it grants humility. For the person giving, an opportunity to practice charity.  Forced giving is not virtuous at all, and results in the exact opposite. The person in need views the giving as theirs by right; the person giving, taken without their consent.

Well obviously its working but its working way better for some people than for others. I keep saying, that inequality isn't as acute in other countries. They're population seems to be happier, healthier, less crime, etc. So why arn't we running our party more like theirs?

Of course it is working better for some people than for others. The entirety of our system is predicated on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That some will do better than others is guaranteed...it's a feature, not a bug.

Happier, healthier, less crime are interesting things, and I think each deserves a separate look.

We know, for example, that the biggest change in happiness comes after meeting basic needs. After that, there's very little improvement on wealth. So if we're trying to optimize happiness, I think the best thing to do is probably to treat it as a binary system - people either have basic needs met or not. 0 or 1. Trying to improve it economically after that is basically a waste.

Healthy, too, is difficult to tie into economic systems. To be honest, I'm not even sure that it is within the purview of government to try to economically incentivize people to be more healthy. Should we dissuade dangerous activities? Make sports illegal? Smoking, alcohol? And, at any rate, GDP correlates positively with life expectancy and negatively with child mortality. So in an extremely cursory view, we should perhaps consider that simply increasing average wealth is probably the quickest path to health. I think certainly from a historical view this is true.

Less crime is perhaps the most interesting. Did you know that violent crime and property crime rates in the US have dropped by half since the 90s? And crime is extremely geographical. You're something like ten times more likely to be the victim of a homicide in New Orleans or Detroit than in the US at large.  And the US, for example, has less than half of the violent crime rate as the UK (1/250 vs 1/100). In general, the US has about the same crime rate as other countries.

At any rate, I don't think these are questions that are addressed by economic regulation.

 

[bluebird]

Thank you for that. Its interesting that you make good educated points, and at the same time something deep down keeps going "well but...". Its hard to unlearn or un-peel the cultural and political onion that has grown within. So I will have to meditate on all that for a while.

 

[boji]

Thank you for that. Its interesting that you make good educated points, and at the same time something deep down keeps going "well but...".

haha agreed, a reluctant but necessary thanks, dogears

 

[dogears]

Thank y’all for the interesting conversation.

I have all but checked out of politics. I don’t think our system works any longer. It was broken for political gain. But it’s still interesting to theorize about.

 

[dogears]

Thought this as interesting / relevant.

https://youtu.be/27Tf8RN3uiM

 

[boji]

You can’t fix humanity.

btw after thinking about why this answer felt insufficient, I realized it's because I don't think humans are broken, per se.  Better to see our behavior in terms of ecology? Markets are that which select. Some markets act like kudzu, or can damage 'crops'. 
However I confess to have little knowledge about the pros/cons of centralized planning.

 

[dogears]

If people aren’t broken then why do they need to be told what to do? Not that I disagree with you by the way. Humanity doesn’t need to be fixed, because that implies someone needs to do the fixing, and who would that be?

The confusion arises in the idea that somehow we are better than us. It seems to me frankly illogical, never mind the inherent moral hazard.

 

[boji]

If people aren’t broken then why do they need to be told what to do?

Friedman's examples about the relationship between control and anarchy is interesting.  I don't know why some need to be told what to do more than others. The happy-go-lucky rollout of "atheist norms" leans on a paradox of first principles.

 

[living sounds]

If people aren’t broken then why do they need to be told what to do? Not that I disagree with you by the way. Humanity doesn’t need to be fixed, because that implies someone needs to do the fixing, and who would that be?

The confusion arises in the idea that somehow we are better than us. It seems to me frankly illogical, never mind the inherent moral hazard.

There's a confusion about human nature within all ideological strands. The specific confusion of free-market zeolots (neoliberals) is that people make rational choices by nature and leaving the market to itself automatically produces favorable outcomes. This philosophy conveniently aligns with the interests of business, so it has been promoted relentlessly by that side since the 70s, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.#Powell_Memorandum

 

[dogears]

There's a confusion about human nature within all ideological strands. The specific confusion of free-market zeolots (neoliberals) is that people make rational choices by nature and leaving the market to itself automatically produces favorable outcomes. This philosophy conveniently aligns with the interests of business, so it has been promoted relentlessly by that side since the 70s, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.#Powell_Memorandum

Is your basic premise then that most people are incapable of economic self governance?

 

[living sounds]

Is your basic premise then that most people are incapable of economic self governance?

Not even are consumers (people) really bad at making rational choices individually, the neoliberal assumption that they do the right thing in the aggregate (which will be better for everybody) is also not based on fact.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-irrational-consumer-why-economics-is-dead-wrong-about-how-we-make-choices/267255/
www.nber.org/papers/w18687.pdf?new_window=1

So even if people were acting in their own self-interest... which they are either not, or the capitalist system isn't working for them - since the bottom half of US Americans combined have negative net worth...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-23/the-wealth-detective-who-finds-the-hidden-money-of-the-super-rich?srnd=premium

... their actions wouldn't, by an "invisible hand of the market" lead to the best or even a long-term-stable outcome.

https://hbr.org/2012/04/there-is-no-invisible-hand

The right-wing has hammered their idea that government cannot do anything right for so long that people have bought into it. In reality it's always government that sets the grounds on which an economy works.