Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Raising Capital Gains For Fairness

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:08:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obama supporters, do you agree that Capital Gains should be taxed at a higher rate, 'for fairness', even if it reduces Capital Gains revenues?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:20:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:11:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
But if you raise Capital Gains... Investment will go down. If investment goes down then GDP will drop. If GDP drops unemployment will go up.

And if unemployment goes up, then people will die because they can't afford food, and unemployment will go down. See! It doesn't really matter what you do, nature will find an equilibrium.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 4:32:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:20:11 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:11:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
But if you raise Capital Gains... Investment will go down. If investment goes down then GDP will drop. If GDP drops unemployment will go up.

And if unemployment goes up, then people will die because they can't afford food, and unemployment will go down. See! It doesn't really matter what you do, nature will find an equilibrium.

The vast majority of those unemployed don't die.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:47:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

But in return tax dividends more, like other western countries.

We tax Capital Gains, making us #13 in Western nations.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:38:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:08:48 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Obama supporters, do you agree that Capital Gains should be taxed at a higher rate, 'for fairness', even if it reduces Capital Gains revenues?

The biggest misconception about capital gains is that it only applies to businesses. According to the IRS Capital Gains includes one's house, one's car, one's furniture, and any other form of capital a individual may own.

"IRS Tax Tip 2011-35, February 18, 2011

Did you know that almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset? Capital assets include a home, household furnishings and stocks and bonds held in a personal account. When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the amount you paid for the asset and the amount you sold it for is a capital gain or capital loss.

Here are ten facts from the IRS about gains and losses and how they can affect your Federal income tax return.

Almost everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure or investment is a capital asset.

When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the amount you sell it for and your basis – which is usually what you paid for it – is a capital gain or a capital loss.

You must report all capital gains.

You may deduct capital losses only on investment property, not on property held for personal use.

Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term.

If you have long-term gains in excess of your long-term losses, you have a net capital gain to the extent your net long-term capital gain is more than your net short-term capital loss, if any.

The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Capital gains and losses are reported on Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, and then transferred to line 13 of Form 1040.

For more information about reporting capital gains and losses, see the Schedule D instructions, Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses or Publication 17, Your Federal Income Tax. All forms and publications are available on this website or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).
"
http://www.irs.gov...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:42:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Kinda nice that the government is willing to take a gamble on the fiscal future of the country that capitalism in general will ALWAYS produce far more gains than losses.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:13:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 9:42:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Kinda nice that the government is willing to take a gamble on the fiscal future of the country that capitalism in general will ALWAYS produce far more gains than losses.

Two words: Great Depression.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:19:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:13:31 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:42:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Kinda nice that the government is willing to take a gamble on the fiscal future of the country that capitalism in general will ALWAYS produce far more gains than losses.

Two words: Great Depression.

Two words: The FED.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:20:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:19:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/21/2012 2:13:31 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:42:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Kinda nice that the government is willing to take a gamble on the fiscal future of the country that capitalism in general will ALWAYS produce far more gains than losses.

Two words: Great Depression.

Two words: The FED.

No, it was the unregulated casino ran amok known as Wall Street and high income inequality.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:33:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:20:33 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/21/2012 2:19:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/21/2012 2:13:31 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:42:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Kinda nice that the government is willing to take a gamble on the fiscal future of the country that capitalism in general will ALWAYS produce far more gains than losses.

Two words: Great Depression.

Two words: The FED.

No, it was the unregulated casino ran amok known as Wall Street and high income inequality.

Sooooo the Fed wasn't distorting interest rates so as to make higher-order capital investments SEEM attractive via lower interest rates mimicking the affects of increased consumer savings when in reality there was no such increase in consumer savings to back these signals? I forgot that the market was totally unregulated prior to 1929. And please educate me on what the "unregulated casino run amok" is supposed to mean?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:46:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But that's what the government loves to do. gamble with your tax dollars.
If you take a capital loss, you get a subsidy provided you are in a party donating union. If you take a capital gain, you get taxed. Stalin would be impressed on how american government penalizes enemies of the state.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.

On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 11:56:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.


On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.

Let me get this straight; you believe government intervention does not work in the real world, but you are also against the free market?
If one is not for a free market, they are either for intervention by the government or they are for socialism; the only logical conclusion is that you are a socialist. Am I correct?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 12:58:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 11:56:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.


On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.


Let me get this straight; you believe government intervention does not work in the real world, but you are also against the free market?
If one is not for a free market, they are either for intervention by the government or they are for socialism; the only logical conclusion is that you are a socialist. Am I correct?

Your dichotomous thinking is amusing. I've always liked how some people just lump "regulations" together as though there is no such thing as good and bad regulations, you're either for or against "regulations" in general.

You consider yourself an advocate of the free market, yes? Yet I highly doubt you are for zero government intervention. This would be an almost strawman position where property right and laws are unenforceable.

So we agree the government should intervene in the economy at some level. We just disagree how much and what type of intervention should occur.

Government intervention can work if applied lightly and with the intent of support the environment in which the free market operates instead of trying to counter free market operations. Essentially, it should limit itself to dealing with market failures.

A simple example is regulations that lower transaction costs as exemplified in Coase Theorem. The closer government regulation gets transaction costs to zero, the more likely they are to obtain "optimal" free market capabilities. That's why I am for the enforcement and creation of laws that say public companies must have a level of transparency.

That's why, for instance, I am for Insurance Public Exchange (condenses information for buyers, creating a "stock-market-like" scenario where a buyer can compare prices without exerting extra effort). This lowers costs of obtaining information on the buyers part. This reduces the information inequality and leads to what optimal free market results would be.

The problem with the vast majority of regulations are that they increase transaction costs through paperwork and other formalities. Sometimes they are needed (for instance, regulations allowing for a company to be audited to see if it is fraudulent means extra paperwork and bureacracy).

Am I still a socialist?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 8:50:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Having rules does not equate to having government regulation. The New York Stock Exchange has elaborate rules for listing stocks for trading under it's auspices. NASDAQ competes with a different set of rules. I agree that having having rules can lower transaction costs. People who buy stocks want information, so the Exchanges get business by facilitating that.

When does government worry about transaction costs? Currently the Federal bureaucracies are adding 10,000 pages of new regulations per month. Just knowing what rules apply represents a significant transaction cost. the result is that large organizations have literally hundreds of people attempting to parse regulations. It eliminates even medium size business from competing in many markets -- banking is in that stage.

It's not just the Feds. Local zoning rules can add years to building cycles, with enormous cost and risk.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:40:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 12:58:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:56:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.


On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.


Let me get this straight; you believe government intervention does not work in the real world, but you are also against the free market?
If one is not for a free market, they are either for intervention by the government or they are for socialism; the only logical conclusion is that you are a socialist. Am I correct?

Your dichotomous thinking is amusing. I've always liked how some people just lump "regulations" together as though there is no such thing as good and bad regulations, you're either for or against "regulations" in general.

You consider yourself an advocate of the free market, yes? Yet I highly doubt you are for zero government intervention. This would be an almost strawman position where property right and laws are unenforceable.

The Free market has nothing to do with property rights. The free market is against government intervention in the market. Government intervention includes things such as regulating contracts, instituting protective tariffs, bail outs, stimulus spending, and prohibiting the sale of certain items; it also includes instituting monopolies.

Plain and simple, the free market is against government manipulation of the markets. Protecting property rights does not manipulate the market, it rather protects the individuals within the market, without giving favoritism to one party over another.

So we agree the government should intervene in the economy at some level. We just disagree how much and what type of intervention should occur.

The government's only role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people. It has no place intervening in the economy; government manipulation of the economy will only cause long term economic issues.
Government intervention can work if applied lightly and with the intent of support the environment in which the free market operates instead of trying to counter free market operations. Essentially, it should limit itself to dealing with market failures.

A simple example is regulations that lower transaction costs as exemplified in Coase Theorem. The closer government regulation gets transaction costs to zero, the more likely they are to obtain "optimal" free market capabilities. That's why I am for the enforcement and creation of laws that say public companies must have a level of transparency.

Manipulation of contracts would only hurt the economy. If one attempts to lower transaction costs one would end up hurting the economy.

Minimum wage is a perfect example of how regulation of contracts hurt the economy. Minimum wage does not raise the pay of individuals below minimum wage, but rather it raises the qualifications needed to hire an individual. This makes it harder for someone to get their first job, and hurts the less qualified workers. Minimum wage also increases unemployment, especially for the younger, and less qualified workers.

There is a reason why a price or wage is what it is.

That's why, for instance, I am for Insurance Public Exchange (condenses information for buyers, creating a "stock-market-like" scenario where a buyer can compare prices without exerting extra effort). This lowers costs of obtaining information on the buyers part. This reduces the information inequality and leads to what optimal free market results would be.

The problem with the vast majority of regulations are that they increase transaction costs through paperwork and other formalities. Sometimes they are needed (for instance, regulations allowing for a company to be audited to see if it is fraudulent means extra paperwork and bureacracy).

Government protection against fraud is not interventionist, because the government is not manipulating the economy. Economic interventionism is when the government attempts to manipulate the economy; such as raising the prices of the international market with tariffs to favor local goods, or lowering the price of the local markets with subsidies to favor local goods over foreign goods.
Am I still a socialist?
No you are an interventionist.

There are several types of interventionism.

Keynesians favor stimulating the economy, and preventing business failure with bail outs.

Economic Nationalists favor protecting the national market, over foreign competitors.

Greens favor promoting environmentally friendly projects, by reducing the cost of green products, and funding green science.

Economic Populists favor lowering, or limiting the capabilities of larger companies, so that smaller companies can compete.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:41:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:40:01 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 12:58:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:56:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.


On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.


Let me get this straight; you believe government intervention does not work in the real world, but you are also against the free market?
If one is not for a free market, they are either for intervention by the government or they are for socialism; the only logical conclusion is that you are a socialist. Am I correct?

Your dichotomous thinking is amusing. I've always liked how some people just lump "regulations" together as though there is no such thing as good and bad regulations, you're either for or against "regulations" in general.

You consider yourself an advocate of the free market, yes? Yet I highly doubt you are for zero government intervention. This would be an almost strawman position where property right and laws are unenforceable.

The Free market has nothing to do with property rights. The free market is against government intervention in the market. Government intervention includes things such as regulating contracts, instituting protective tariffs, bail outs, stimulus spending, and prohibiting the sale of certain items; it also includes instituting monopolies.

Plain and simple, the free market is against government manipulation of the markets. Protecting property rights does not manipulate the market, it rather protects the individuals within the market, without giving favoritism to one party over another.

So we agree the government should intervene in the economy at some level. We just disagree how much and what type of intervention should occur.

The government's only role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people. It has no place intervening in the economy; government manipulation of the economy will only cause long term economic issues.
Government intervention can work if applied lightly and with the intent of support the environment in which the free market operates instead of trying to counter free market operations. Essentially, it should limit itself to dealing with market failures.

A simple example is regulations that lower transaction costs as exemplified in Coase Theorem. The closer government regulation gets transaction costs to zero, the more likely they are to obtain "optimal" free market capabilities. That's why I am for the enforcement and creation of laws that say public companies must have a level of transparency.

Manipulation of contracts would only hurt the economy. If one attempts to lower transaction costs one would end up hurting the economy.

Minimum wage is a perfect example of how regulation of contracts hurt the economy. Minimum wage does not raise the pay of individuals below minimum wage, but rather it raises the qualifications needed to hire an individual. This makes it harder for someone to get their first job, and hurts the less qualified workers. Minimum wage also increases unemployment, especially for the younger, and less qualified workers.

There is a reason why a price or wage is what it is.


That's why, for instance, I am for Insurance Public Exchange (condenses information for buyers, creating a "stock-market-like" scenario where a buyer can compare prices without exerting extra effort). This lowers costs of obtaining information on the buyers part. This reduces the information inequality and leads to what optimal free market results would be.

The problem with the vast majority of regulations are that they increase transaction costs through paperwork and other formalities. Sometimes they are needed (for instance, regulations allowing for a company to be audited to see if it is fraudulent means extra paperwork and bureacracy).

Government protection against fraud is not interventionist, because the government is not manipulating the economy. Economic interventionism is when the government attempts to manipulate the economy; such as raising the prices of the international market with tariffs to favor local goods, or lowering the price of the local markets with subsidies to favor local goods over foreign goods.
Am I still a socialist?
No you are an interventionist.

There are several types of interventionism.

Keynesians favor stimulating the economy, and preventing business failure with bail outs.

Economic Nationalists favor protecting the national market, over foreign competitors.

Greens favor promoting environmentally friendly projects, by reducing the cost of green products, and funding green science.

Economic Populists favor lowering, or limiting the capabilities of larger companies, so that smaller companies can compete.

economic populists also favor intervention for the workers, such as minimum wage.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 1:58:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 4:32:31 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:20:11 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:11:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
But if you raise Capital Gains... Investment will go down. If investment goes down then GDP will drop. If GDP drops unemployment will go up.

And if unemployment goes up, then people will die because they can't afford food, and unemployment will go down. See! It doesn't really matter what you do, nature will find an equilibrium.

The vast majority of those unemployed don't die.

They will if there is no welfare! And if they don't die somehow, then unemployment shouldn't be an issue! They can survive!
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 2:07:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:40:01 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 12:58:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:56:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.


On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.


Let me get this straight; you believe government intervention does not work in the real world, but you are also against the free market?
If one is not for a free market, they are either for intervention by the government or they are for socialism; the only logical conclusion is that you are a socialist. Am I correct?
The government's only role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people. It has no place intervening in the economy; government manipulation of the economy will only cause long term economic issues.
Government intervention can work if applied lightly and with the intent of support the environment in which the free market operates instead of trying to counter free market operations. Essentially, it should limit itself to dealing with market failures.

A simple example is regulations that lower transaction costs as exemplified in Coase Theorem. The closer government regulation gets transaction costs to zero, the more likely they are to obtain "optimal" free market capabilities. That's why I am for the enforcement and creation of laws that say public companies must have a level of transparency.

Manipulation of contracts would only hurt the economy. If one attempts to lower transaction costs one would end up hurting the economy.

Minimum wage is a perfect example of how regulation of contracts hurt the economy. Minimum wage does not raise the pay of individuals below minimum wage, but rather it raises the qualifications needed to hire an individual. This makes it harder for someone to get their first job, and hurts the less qualified workers. Minimum wage also increases unemployment, especially for the younger, and less qualified workers.

There is a reason why a price or wage is what it is.


That's why, for instance, I am for Insurance Public Exchange (condenses information for buyers, creating a "stock-market-like" scenario where a buyer can compare prices without exerting extra effort). This lowers costs of obtaining information on the buyers part. This reduces the information inequality and leads to what optimal free market results would be.

The problem with the vast majority of regulations are that they increase transaction costs through paperwork and other formalities. Sometimes they are needed (for instance, regulations allowing for a company to be audited to see if it is fraudulent means extra paperwork and bureacracy).

Government protection against fraud is not interventionist, because the government is not manipulating the economy. Economic interventionism is when the government attempts to manipulate the economy; such as raising the prices of the international market with tariffs to favor local goods, or lowering the price of the local markets with subsidies to favor local goods over foreign goods.
Am I still a socialist?
No you are an interventionist.

There are several types of interventionism.

Keynesians favor stimulating the economy, and preventing business failure with bail outs.

Economic Nationalists favor protecting the national market, over foreign competitors.

Greens favor promoting environmentally friendly projects, by reducing the cost of green products, and funding green science.

Economic Populists favor lowering, or limiting the capabilities of larger companies, so that smaller companies can compete.

When the government forces businesses to be truthful about their earnings, they are interfering with an information asymmetry. That's interfering with how the free market works. When the government says they will enforce a written contract, they are dramatically changing how the free market operates.

As Roy points out, regulations and rules CAN lower information inequalities and transaction costs under certain circumstances which would lead to more of a "free market" optimal solution than if a libertarian nut were to simply let the die fall wherever they may.

For instance, the use of Coase Theorem especially as it relates to the regulation of externalities. Instead of cap and trade or some other direct means of punishment, the government should enforce appropriate property rights so that interested parties can come to their own arrangements which internalize externalities.

The problem is that, as Roy points out, the government itself couldn't really give two sh!ts from last sunday as to whether or not it is raising transaction costs. That is why I am, as I said, against most forms of regulation.

Regulations that I am for are aimed towards market failures. For instance, I am for a law which says health insurance companies must offer at least a high-risk pool option for people with prior disabilities. Without this, the free market incentive is to select the less needy client instead of optimal quality and quantity. Another example is regulation related to public goods like radio stations before the XM era. Without some form of enforced exclusivity, the radio channels would nothing but a hiss of competing noises.

I believe regulations should focus primarily, if not entirely, on market failures. If the market is functioning appropriately, absolute minimal government interference is best.

So, Dan, which one of those categories of yours do I fit into?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 2:39:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 2:07:29 PM, Wnope wrote:

When the government forces businesses to be truthful about their earnings, they are interfering with an information asymmetry. That's interfering with how the free market works. When the government says they will enforce a written contract, they are dramatically changing how the free market operates.


Well someone makes fraudulent claims, the customer is not receiving what they purchased, and the contract as been violated. It does not change the dynamics of the free market, because fraudulent claims would eventually lead to a company's demise anyhow. What the government is doing is protecting the sanctity of the contract, without changing the dynamics of the contract it's self.

If I buy a horse online, and the person I bought the horse from ships me a donkey; I did not receive what I paid for, and the contract was violated. This is a case of fraud. If the government steps in to protect against fraud than the market has not been manipulated, the contracts within the market are simply being enforced.

If I buy a horse online, but the government comes along and says "animals must be purchased in person", than I am prohibited from forming an online contract, and the dynamics of the market has changed significantly.

It is not the Governments role to stipulate what a contract can say, or if a contract may be formed. It is the government's role to protect contracts, as the only role of government is the protection of life liberty and property.

As Roy points out, regulations and rules CAN lower information inequalities and transaction costs under certain circumstances which would lead to more of a "free market" optimal solution than if a libertarian nut were to simply let the die fall wherever they may.

For instance, the use of Coase Theorem especially as it relates to the regulation of externalities. Instead of cap and trade or some other direct means of punishment, the government should enforce appropriate property rights so that interested parties can come to their own arrangements which internalize externalities.

The problem is that, as Roy points out, the government itself couldn't really give two sh!ts from last sunday as to whether or not it is raising transaction costs. That is why I am, as I said, against most forms of regulation.

Regulations that I am for are aimed towards market failures. For instance, I am for a law which says health insurance companies must offer at least a high-risk pool option for people with prior disabilities. Without this, the free market incentive is to select the less needy client instead of optimal quality and quantity. Another example is regulation related to public goods like radio stations before the XM era. Without some form of enforced exclusivity, the radio channels would nothing but a hiss of competing noises.

I believe regulations should focus primarily, if not entirely, on market failures. If the market is functioning appropriately, absolute minimal government interference is best.

So, Dan, which one of those categories of yours do I fit into?

Again there are many types of interventionists.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 2:56:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 2:39:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 2:07:29 PM, Wnope wrote:

When the government forces businesses to be truthful about their earnings, they are interfering with an information asymmetry. That's interfering with how the free market works. When the government says they will enforce a written contract, they are dramatically changing how the free market operates.


Well someone makes fraudulent claims, the customer is not receiving what they purchased, and the contract as been violated. It does not change the dynamics of the free market, because fraudulent claims would eventually lead to a company's demise anyhow. What the government is doing is protecting the sanctity of the contract, without changing the dynamics of the contract it's self.

If I buy a horse online, and the person I bought the horse from ships me a donkey; I did not receive what I paid for, and the contract was violated. This is a case of fraud. If the government steps in to protect against fraud than the market has not been manipulated, the contracts within the market are simply being enforced.

If I buy a horse online, but the government comes along and says "animals must be purchased in person", than I am prohibited from forming an online contract, and the dynamics of the market has changed significantly.

It is not the Governments role to stipulate what a contract can say, or if a contract may be formed. It is the government's role to protect contracts, as the only role of government is the protection of life liberty and property.



As Roy points out, regulations and rules CAN lower information inequalities and transaction costs under certain circumstances which would lead to more of a "free market" optimal solution than if a libertarian nut were to simply let the die fall wherever they may.

For instance, the use of Coase Theorem especially as it relates to the regulation of externalities. Instead of cap and trade or some other direct means of punishment, the government should enforce appropriate property rights so that interested parties can come to their own arrangements which internalize externalities.

The problem is that, as Roy points out, the government itself couldn't really give two sh!ts from last sunday as to whether or not it is raising transaction costs. That is why I am, as I said, against most forms of regulation.

Regulations that I am for are aimed towards market failures. For instance, I am for a law which says health insurance companies must offer at least a high-risk pool option for people with prior disabilities. Without this, the free market incentive is to select the less needy client instead of optimal quality and quantity. Another example is regulation related to public goods like radio stations before the XM era. Without some form of enforced exclusivity, the radio channels would nothing but a hiss of competing noises.

I believe regulations should focus primarily, if not entirely, on market failures. If the market is functioning appropriately, absolute minimal government interference is best.

So, Dan, which one of those categories of yours do I fit into?

Again there are many types of interventionists.

For the sake of argument, let's say an instance of Coase Theorem (which I think should be a general guideline to whether a government should have regulation) exists where some transaction cost exists that the government can lower if they intervene.

The essence of Coase Theorem is that instead of initially allocating property rights to parties in order to internalize externalities, you instead allow parties to bargain and the efficient allocation will result regardless of initial allocation. It's really about as "free market" about externalities as you get without anarchy.

However, Coase Theorem comes with two important qualifiers: zero transaction costs and perfect information.

In reality, this is almost never the case. Something as simple as not having mail service or telephone service drastically raises transaction costs and information asymmetry between parties that are not extremely local.

Would you be against regulation which lowers transaction costs/information asymmetry in a Coase-like scenario? Neo-classical economics would predict the government intervention is closer in result to the predicted "free market" equilibrium than without government intervention.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 4:06:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 1:58:21 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:32:31 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:20:11 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:11:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
But if you raise Capital Gains... Investment will go down. If investment goes down then GDP will drop. If GDP drops unemployment will go up.

And if unemployment goes up, then people will die because they can't afford food, and unemployment will go down. See! It doesn't really matter what you do, nature will find an equilibrium.

The vast majority of those unemployed don't die.

They will if there is no welfare! And if they don't die somehow, then unemployment shouldn't be an issue! They can survive!

We'd have to assume then that there would be no charity, nobody would give money to the homeless, the person would have no friends or family that would help him/her out, and the person would have no source of wealth (ex: savings, assets, etc).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 4:08:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 4:06:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/22/2012 1:58:21 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:32:31 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:20:11 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:11:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
But if you raise Capital Gains... Investment will go down. If investment goes down then GDP will drop. If GDP drops unemployment will go up.

And if unemployment goes up, then people will die because they can't afford food, and unemployment will go down. See! It doesn't really matter what you do, nature will find an equilibrium.

The vast majority of those unemployed don't die.

They will if there is no welfare! And if they don't die somehow, then unemployment shouldn't be an issue! They can survive!

We'd have to assume then that there would be no charity, nobody would give money to the homeless, the person would have no friends or family that would help him/her out, and the person would have no source of wealth (ex: savings, assets, etc).

That sounds about right.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 4:11:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.


On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.

I recognize that there are market failures. However, it does not follow that because there are market failures that means that government intervention is desirable, since there are government failures. Why assume that the government will allocate resources efficiently if the market can not?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 4:14:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 4:11:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.


On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.

I recognize that there are market failures. However, it does not follow that because there are market failures that means that government intervention is desirable, since there are government failures. Why assume that the government will allocate resources efficiently if the market can not?

I see someone's been reading up on public choice.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 4:16:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 4:14:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/22/2012 4:11:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:30:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:30:28 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/21/2012 4:00:51 AM, Wnope wrote:
It needs to be drastically lowered (though not eliminated).

I will never have you figured out.

If we could somehow forcibly keep corporations inside the country at the point of a gun, then I might be for an increased corporate tax. Same with how the stimulus might have worked wonders if we could have put a gun to the head of the bankers and said "LEND, DAMMIT!"

Since this idealized scenario cannot occur, it makes no sense to be for it just because it might work in the ideal world.

Same thing with how current medicare payments work. I would be for the current medicare system if we lived in an ideal world where the system won't be so easily corrupted due to bad incentive structures. Since we live in reality, I would realistically support a drastic overhaul.


On the flipside, most of my disagreements with conservatives and libertarians come from their idealization of the free market. For instance, the free market as having complete information, equal social mobility regardless of race/sex/low SES, nothing but decreasing marginal returns/no path dependent phenomena, and lacking bank/lender related effects like "mark-to-market" pricing and other feedback loops. In reality, there is no set intersection between price and supply upon which a complex economy (includes fractional banking) will eventually rest until either supply or demand is shifted.

I recognize that there are market failures. However, it does not follow that because there are market failures that means that government intervention is desirable, since there are government failures. Why assume that the government will allocate resources efficiently if the market can not?

I see someone's been reading up on public choice.

I've known about public choice for awhile.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...