Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Progressive Economics - My philosophy

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 10:02:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe in a economic system, that stimulates the lower class while also protecting small business. Incentive's markets without directly interacting with them. Fueling economic growth through government stimuli.

If anybody wants to conflict or question me on my philosophy, then feel free.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:26:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What government stimuli? Do you have evidence that these "stimuli" are effective?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:43:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As regulations add additional fixed costs to industries, thus increasing the barrier to entry, thus keeping businesses from entering the market and protecting the richer, more established businesses who were already there, how does progressive economic strategy protect small businesses?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:13:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:26:57 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What government stimuli? Do you have evidence that these "stimuli" are effective?

WW2 would be one case. The government invested in small business and the lower class, which led us out of the recession. Government Stimuli is the spending we use to stimulate markets.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:16:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:43:23 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
As regulations add additional fixed costs to industries, thus increasing the barrier to entry, thus keeping businesses from entering the market and protecting the richer, more established businesses who were already there, how does progressive economic strategy protect small businesses?

Its hard to answer this question, as the whole paragraph relies on there being regulations on the first place. Regulations exist in every economy, and they don't always cause more fixed cost. If you can prove all regulations do, then we can talk. As I never said regulations in the first place.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:43:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:16:35 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:43:23 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
As regulations add additional fixed costs to industries, thus increasing the barrier to entry, thus keeping businesses from entering the market and protecting the richer, more established businesses who were already there, how does progressive economic strategy protect small businesses?

Its hard to answer this question, as the whole paragraph relies on there being regulations on the first place. Regulations exist in every economy, and they don't always cause more fixed cost. If you can prove all regulations do, then we can talk.

That's not necessary. The fact that regulations generally do is enough, and that's blatant from just looking at the nature of the regulations. They impose restrictions on what can and can't be done by the business to cut costs, thus increasing the cost to entry. They require things of the business that the customers don't necessarily care about, which requires the business to pay for something it didn't need.

An example of this just to make it clear how this works would be this: a few weeks ago, I organized a debate tournament at my school. The costs were going to be low, but due to school regulation, it was necessary for me to have a janitor there for the entire time that I was there, plus a few extra hours to clean up at the end. This ended up costing about 300 dollars. However, if it weren't for the regulation, it only would have been necessary for me to pay the janitors to stay for two hours after the event to clean up, thus lowering the cost to about 60-70 dollars. If that regulation were removed, more people would be able to afford to host events at the school.

As I never said regulations in the first place.

We are talking about progressive economics, right?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:53:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:43:50 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:16:35 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:43:23 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
As regulations add additional fixed costs to industries, thus increasing the barrier to entry, thus keeping businesses from entering the market and protecting the richer, more established businesses who were already there, how does progressive economic strategy protect small businesses?

Its hard to answer this question, as the whole paragraph relies on there being regulations on the first place. Regulations exist in every economy, and they don't always cause more fixed cost. If you can prove all regulations do, then we can talk.

That's not necessary. The fact that regulations generally do is enough, and that's blatant from just looking at the nature of the regulations. They impose restrictions on what can and can't be done by the business to cut costs, thus increasing the cost to entry. They require things of the business that the customers don't necessarily care about, which requires the business to pay for something it didn't need.

How fallacious. I need an explanation now on how progressive economics require more regulation, then per say, Austrian economics. You still haven't connected how progressive economics require more regulation, and even so, life examples are not sufficient evidence.

An example of this just to make it clear how this works would be this: a few weeks ago, I organized a debate tournament at my school. The costs were going to be low, but due to school regulation, it was necessary for me to have a janitor there for the entire time that I was there, plus a few extra hours to clean up at the end. This ended up costing about 300 dollars. However, if it weren't for the regulation, it only would have been necessary for me to pay the janitors to stay for two hours after the event to clean up, thus lowering the cost to about 60-70 dollars. If that regulation were removed, more people would be able to afford to host events at the school.

As I never said regulations in the first place.

We are talking about progressive economics, right?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:05:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:53:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:43:50 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:16:35 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:43:23 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
As regulations add additional fixed costs to industries, thus increasing the barrier to entry, thus keeping businesses from entering the market and protecting the richer, more established businesses who were already there, how does progressive economic strategy protect small businesses?

Its hard to answer this question, as the whole paragraph relies on there being regulations on the first place. Regulations exist in every economy, and they don't always cause more fixed cost. If you can prove all regulations do, then we can talk.

That's not necessary. The fact that regulations generally do is enough, and that's blatant from just looking at the nature of the regulations. They impose restrictions on what can and can't be done by the business to cut costs, thus increasing the cost to entry. They require things of the business that the customers don't necessarily care about, which requires the business to pay for something it didn't need.

How fallacious. I need an explanation now on how progressive economics require more regulation, then per say, Austrian economics.

That's literally a definitional thing. Austrian economics advocates a free market, and progressive economics advocates a regulated market.

life examples are not sufficient evidence.
And you're missing the point of the example. The example wasn't to say all regulations do this because this is what happened in my life example. It was just there to show you how regulations can add fixed costs to create barriers to entry.


An example of this just to make it clear how this works would be this: a few weeks ago, I organized a debate tournament at my school. The costs were going to be low, but due to school regulation, it was necessary for me to have a janitor there for the entire time that I was there, plus a few extra hours to clean up at the end. This ended up costing about 300 dollars. However, if it weren't for the regulation, it only would have been necessary for me to pay the janitors to stay for two hours after the event to clean up, thus lowering the cost to about 60-70 dollars. If that regulation were removed, more people would be able to afford to host events at the school.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:11:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:02:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I believe in a economic system, that stimulates the lower class while also protecting small business. Incentive's markets without directly interacting with them. Fueling economic growth through government stimuli.

If anybody wants to conflict or question me on my philosophy, then feel free.

You're displaying a common misconception. "Small businesses" are not inherently good. There are two sub-categories of small businesses: (1) start-ups [with growth potential] and (2) businesses that are just small [and have been for a long time, and always will be].

For example, when Google only had 15 employees, it was a "small business" that had a huge upside potential. In contrast, your local mom-and-pop donut shop is also a "small business" [that likely has ~15 employees], but it is never going to expand beyond that.

So incentives to *all* small businesses are extremely wasteful because the mom-and-pop stores aren't going to suddenly add a bunch of jobs to the economy. We should give tax cuts to small businesses who *hire* a certain amount of new people, not to all small businesses.

Anything beyond tax incentives is difficult. I know that you are a huge fan of subsidies, but the government is TERRIBLE at picking winners and losers (see, e.g., Solyndra). Approximately 90% of start-up companies fail. Do you really want to pour millions of dollars into a bunch of companies when 9 out of 10 won't exist in two years or so?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:12:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:43:23 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
As regulations add additional fixed costs to industries, thus increasing the barrier to entry, thus keeping businesses from entering the market and protecting the richer, more established businesses who were already there, how does progressive economic strategy protect small businesses?

There are a lot of "regulations" that exempt small businesses [Title VII, Obamacare, a lot of environmental laws, etc.]
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:15:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:05:52 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:


But yes, jifpop's response is inadequate. If a regulation does not exempt small businesses, it will act as an advantage to established businesses because it requires entrants to reach a certain size to even be viable to comply. Only big companies can compete for government contracts -- for example -- because the EEOC requirements are so stringent. A lot of small companies unwittingly violate multiple laws and get screwed because they can't afford to have an attorney on staff. Fun stuff.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:12:34 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:43:23 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
As regulations add additional fixed costs to industries, thus increasing the barrier to entry, thus keeping businesses from entering the market and protecting the richer, more established businesses who were already there, how does progressive economic strategy protect small businesses?

There are a lot of "regulations" that exempt small businesses [Title VII, Obamacare, a lot of environmental laws, etc.]

Right, but then it's a matter of the regulations essentially incentivizing businesses to stay small instead of expand and grow. With Obamacare, the businesses are in the clear, but suddenly once they have 50 full-time employees, they need to pay for health insurance for all of them, adding a huge cost to the business that it did not need to deal with before.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:21:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That being said, bluesteel, I'd certainly prefer the delayed regulatory costs for small businesses over the ones that keep the businesses from entering the market in the first place.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:23:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:19:44 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:12:34 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:43:23 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
As regulations add additional fixed costs to industries, thus increasing the barrier to entry, thus keeping businesses from entering the market and protecting the richer, more established businesses who were already there, how does progressive economic strategy protect small businesses?

There are a lot of "regulations" that exempt small businesses [Title VII, Obamacare, a lot of environmental laws, etc.]

Right, but then it's a matter of the regulations essentially incentivizing businesses to stay small instead of expand and grow. With Obamacare, the businesses are in the clear, but suddenly once they have 50 full-time employees, they need to pay for health insurance for all of them, adding a huge cost to the business that it did not need to deal with before.

True, but once a business scales to 49 employees, it is usually doing well enough that it wouldn't stop expanding just to avoid Obamacare. I mean, they'd have to run the numbers, but you're not going to give up on being a $30 million/yr business because you're scared of providing health insurance. Sure, some businesses with lower growth potential will stop at the 49, but I doubt it's determinative for most businesses.

But your point is a good one. Removing barriers is as much an "incentive" for small businesses as subsidies, but jifpop is a super-Keynesian so he believes that subsidies are way better than any other type of incentive [even though subsidies are the *least* efficient and most subject to bad political influences].
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:33:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:02:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I believe in a economic system, that stimulates the lower class while also protecting small business. Incentive's markets without directly interacting with them. Fueling economic growth through government stimuli.

If anybody wants to conflict or question me on my philosophy, then feel free.

Provide three specific plans showing what type of stimulus you mean.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:39:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Alright, I came back and saw a lot of posts. Let me explain Progressivism, as I made no claims yet.

1. Free markets must be regulated in order to ensure that either the poor or wealthy are to benefitted (Reread ClassicRoberts Posts. Sorry, skim read lead me to confusion)

2. Stimulating the lower and middle classes , to provide more social mobility.

3. Distributing wealth based on social factors, to lower the deficit.

Progressive economics are a newer philosophy, but I hope this sets the proper baseline for further questions. So by all means, ask.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:41:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
By redistributing wealth by social and economic factors, we ensure that small business survives while more wealth flows downward from the "to big to fail" corporations
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:47:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:33:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:02:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I believe in a economic system, that stimulates the lower class while also protecting small business. Incentive's markets without directly interacting with them. Fueling economic growth through government stimuli.

If anybody wants to conflict or question me on my philosophy, then feel free.

Provide three specific plans showing what type of stimulus you mean.

I'll give you three pushed for in the progressive era....

1, Federal income tax based on social status (What we now call a progressive tax)

2. Relief funds and subsidies (This was a form used to provide stimuli to smaller markets, or troubled ones)

3. Social Insurance

A modern day progressive policy in use is unemployment insurance.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:48:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It should also be noted, that like most economic policies, they fall under other philosophies, Progressivism is in reality, a smaller sect of Keynesian Economics.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:03:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:47:27 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:33:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:02:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I believe in a economic system, that stimulates the lower class while also protecting small business. Incentive's markets without directly interacting with them. Fueling economic growth through government stimuli.

If anybody wants to conflict or question me on my philosophy, then feel free.

Provide three specific plans showing what type of stimulus you mean.

I'll give you three pushed for in the progressive era....

1, Federal income tax based on social status (What we now call a progressive tax)

I don't really consider taxing the lower classes less to be a "stimulus," but okay..... It's more about egalitarianism.


2. Relief funds and subsidies (This was a form used to provide stimuli to smaller markets, or troubled ones)

So TARP was good? Corn ethanol subsidies are good? You'll have to be more specific here.


3. Social Insurance

A modern day progressive policy in use is unemployment insurance.

I take issue with calling government benefits "insurance," but sure, I support the government helping people out who have recently lost their job (with supplemental income and health insurance). But I also support incentives for people to look for work while on unemployment.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:28:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:03:02 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:47:27 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:33:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:02:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I believe in a economic system, that stimulates the lower class while also protecting small business. Incentive's markets without directly interacting with them. Fueling economic growth through government stimuli.

If anybody wants to conflict or question me on my philosophy, then feel free.

Provide three specific plans showing what type of stimulus you mean.

I'll give you three pushed for in the progressive era....

1, Federal income tax based on social status (What we now call a progressive tax)

I don't really consider taxing the lower classes less to be a "stimulus," but okay..... It's more about egalitarianism.

It can be interpreted as stimuli. As I said, progressivism is essentially a sect of Keynesian.


2. Relief funds and subsidies (This was a form used to provide stimuli to smaller markets, or troubled ones)

So TARP was good? Corn ethanol subsidies are good? You'll have to be more specific here.

Its something that the government has been doing for a long time. Bailouts, subsidies, and funding has been good in certain areas (i haven't seen a sane person argue this). The question will essentially come down to when and how much.


3. Social Insurance

A modern day progressive policy in use is unemployment insurance.

I take issue with calling government benefits "insurance," but sure, I support the government helping people out who have recently lost their job (with supplemental income and health insurance). But I also support incentives for people to look for work while on unemployment.

I also do. I think the word "insurance" fits nicely though. You can not collect on a claim if you don't actually lose your job. The government has accepted few claims, but we really don't have enough data yet, like we do for welfare. Government Unemployment programs are mandatory (Like meeting with your director), so you can't collect your payments without attending the government programs. I like to think of it as "If you let us get you a job, then we'll make sure your payed until we do".

The list of programs the government provides to people on UI is pretty extensive, so not much concern for me here. IDK about any other prevalent concerns, but I read the bill text a couple of times.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:38:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:28:35 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:03:02 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:47:27 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:33:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:02:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I believe in a economic system, that stimulates the lower class while also protecting small business. Incentive's markets without directly interacting with them. Fueling economic growth through government stimuli.

If anybody wants to conflict or question me on my philosophy, then feel free.

Provide three specific plans showing what type of stimulus you mean.

I'll give you three pushed for in the progressive era....

1, Federal income tax based on social status (What we now call a progressive tax)

I don't really consider taxing the lower classes less to be a "stimulus," but okay..... It's more about egalitarianism.

It can be interpreted as stimuli. As I said, progressivism is essentially a sect of Keynesian.


2. Relief funds and subsidies (This was a form used to provide stimuli to smaller markets, or troubled ones)

So TARP was good? Corn ethanol subsidies are good? You'll have to be more specific here.

Its something that the government has been doing for a long time. Bailouts, subsidies, and funding has been good in certain areas (i haven't seen a sane person argue this). The question will essentially come down to when and how much.

Roy will argue that Obama's stimulus plan was -- on balance -- a bad policy. A lot of the New Deal policies were bad. Some of the infrastructure projects were probably good, but paying people to dig holes and fill them up again was bad. I could even argue that paying for so many highways was bad cuz it committed the US to high maintenance costs, making us primarily dependent on cars since we can't spend much from our transportation budget on other things.

And yeah, most government subsidies are bad. The only ones I really support are for wind/solar and electric cars. The ethanol subsidies were terrible. Corn subsidies are bad. Unless you have global warming concerns (which is why subsidizing clean energy makes sense), subsidies are a very inefficient way to stimulate the economy. You're better off just lowering the corporate tax rate across the board.

tldr; government "stimuli" that *invest* in important things that facilitate business (like infrastructure and education) are good; government throwing money at people cuz "more spending always better" = dumb.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:53:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:38:11 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:28:35 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:03:02 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:47:27 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:33:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:02:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I believe in a economic system, that stimulates the lower class while also protecting small business. Incentive's markets without directly interacting with them. Fueling economic growth through government stimuli.

If anybody wants to conflict or question me on my philosophy, then feel free.

Provide three specific plans showing what type of stimulus you mean.

I'll give you three pushed for in the progressive era....

1, Federal income tax based on social status (What we now call a progressive tax)

I don't really consider taxing the lower classes less to be a "stimulus," but okay..... It's more about egalitarianism.

It can be interpreted as stimuli. As I said, progressivism is essentially a sect of Keynesian.


2. Relief funds and subsidies (This was a form used to provide stimuli to smaller markets, or troubled ones)

So TARP was good? Corn ethanol subsidies are good? You'll have to be more specific here.

Its something that the government has been doing for a long time. Bailouts, subsidies, and funding has been good in certain areas (i haven't seen a sane person argue this). The question will essentially come down to when and how much.

Roy will argue that Obama's stimulus plan was -- on balance -- a bad policy. A lot of the New Deal policies were bad. Some of the infrastructure projects were probably good, but paying people to dig holes and fill them up again was bad. I could even argue that paying for so many highways was bad cuz it committed the US to high maintenance costs, making us primarily dependent on cars since we can't spend much from our transportation budget on other things.

And yeah, most government subsidies are bad. The only ones I really support are for wind/solar and electric cars. The ethanol subsidies were terrible. Corn subsidies are bad. Unless you have global warming concerns (which is why subsidizing clean energy makes sense), subsidies are a very inefficient way to stimulate the economy. You're better off just lowering the corporate tax rate across the board.

tldr; government "stimuli" that *invest* in important things that facilitate business (like infrastructure and education) are good; government throwing money at people cuz "more spending always better" = dumb.

subway
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:10:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:53:14 AM, Mikal wrote:

subway

What?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:23:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:13:55 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:26:57 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What government stimuli? Do you have evidence that these "stimuli" are effective?

WW2 would be one case. The government invested in small business and the lower class, which led us out of the recession. Government Stimuli is the spending we use to stimulate markets.

Also, this is a horrible answer. If you look at the New Deal, we spent a *ton* of money on targeted projects and it had a near-negligible effect on the economy. WWII was what got us out of the Great Depression. But WWII was indiscriminate spending on *everything.* We hired every working male (and sent them to war). And we repurposed every factory for the war-fighting effort (to the point where there wasn't even enough nylon to make pantyhose because we needed it for parachutes). We can't start an all-out war every time we want to stimulate the economy, and WWII is unique to that period of history.

Subsequent wars have not been a benefit to the economy. "By examining the state of the economy at each of the major conflict periods since World War II, it can be seen
that the positive effects of increased military spending were outweighed by longer term unintended negative macroeconomic consequences. While the stimulatory effect of military outlays is evidently associated with boosts in economic growth, adverse effects show up either immediately or soon after, through higher
inflation, budget deficits, high taxes and reductions in consumption or investment. Rectifying these effects has required subsequent painful adjustments which are neither efficient nor desirable." [http://www.thereformedbroker.com...].

In the recent Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, there was *no* positive effect at all from the war spending. [same source].

tldr; we shouldn't trust the government to indiscriminately throw money at people. Not all government spending stimulates the economy in the long-run. We *pay* for stimulus spending with our tax money; government money isn't *free* money. Government investments in private industry make sense *only if* the government is better at choosing how to invest our money than we are. Except *we* are motivated by profit motive and *the government* is motivated by profit. There's no inherent reason the government is better at choosing winning projects than we are. The only type of government spending that is good is that which overcomes collective action problems, specifically investments in expensive infrastructure that all businesses need, but none wants to pay for on its own (transportation infrastructure, schools, and power lines are major examples).

//jifpop's worldview refuted
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:24:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 11:10:58 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:53:14 AM, Mikal wrote:

subway

What?

No idea.... I don't know even know whether he meant the restaurant chain or investments in subway systems.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:28:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
oops

*We are motivated by profit; the government is motivated by >politics<

This is reason enough to think that we would be better at choosing how to invest our money than the government is. You can't choose winners and losers based on who donates the most money to your political campaign. It's better to give the money back to VC firms, who have better ways of deciding which businesses to invest in.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:54:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:24:34 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2014 11:10:58 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:53:14 AM, Mikal wrote:

subway

What?

No idea.... I don't know even know whether he meant the restaurant chain or investments in subway systems.

Clearly the restaurant chain, duh.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:03:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm going to play some devil advocate here.

I think we can agree that innovation and improving efficiency are keys to economic growth. In fact, corporations and businesses can't capture all the benefits from this (known as a positive externality). Sure, companies like Google are able to rain in huge profits. Yet they are the exception, not the rule. Like you said, most start-ups fail so it would be absolutely asinine to start one yourself unless you're given subsidies. And even if your start-up fails, a bunch of failures are perfectly acceptable if businesses can learn from these failures, and realize that certain business models and methods don't work. As Thomas Edison said: "I didn't fail 100 times, I discovered 100 ways to do it wrong".

Furthermore, who cares if you have a bunch of failures, when the successes outweigh the cost of the failure.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:56:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 1:03:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm going to play some devil advocate here.

I think we can agree that innovation and improving efficiency are keys to economic growth. In fact, corporations and businesses can't capture all the benefits from this (known as a positive externality). Sure, companies like Google are able to rain in huge profits. Yet they are the exception, not the rule. Like you said, most start-ups fail so it would be absolutely asinine to start one yourself unless you're given subsidies. And even if your start-up fails, a bunch of failures are perfectly acceptable if businesses can learn from these failures, and realize that certain business models and methods don't work. As Thomas Edison said: "I didn't fail 100 times, I discovered 100 ways to do it wrong".

Furthermore, who cares if you have a bunch of failures, when the successes outweigh the cost of the failure.

I don't really get your point. Free government money for startups means more *bad* ideas. When a startup fails, it's usually Venture Capital money that disappears. VC's are much better at choosing winners and losers and hedging their risks than the federal government.

So you are incorrect that no one would ever begin a startup. With crowd-funding websites, it's even easier to gamble money that isn't your own. Even if people always gambled their own money, liberal bankruptcy laws (that let you keep your house and cars), create an incentive to take the risk on *good* startup ideas. But we don't want to incentivize bad and wasteful ideas.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)