Charles Anthony Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 DAngeL, I agree with most of what you write and I find your closing statements: i have a low standard of living, but without my luxurays it would be even lower, so i support myself, and my mistakes. is that not a way you would live?to be most laudable. You should be proud of your accomplishments (however great or small they may be) so long as you are respecting your fellow man. Civilized society, like family, is an insurance scheme in which we share risks. Private markets for such insurance simply don't exist or have numerous problems and just don't work properly.In plain terms, a child suffers the luck of the draw in getting parents. As a society, we can do better. I agree that we can do better but I would still rather leave that task to private markets and charity. I do not think it is right to force others to be charitable if they do not wish to do so. Also, I do not trust governments to redistribute wealth fairly. I firmly believe that pure international free trade -- without government corruption or influence -- would lead to less poverty worldwide. Market forces would even things out -- that includes rich countries losing jobs to third world countries as we are seeing. Finally!!! The effect on the economy is not clear. Making the statement "tax spending = debt spending" is a fallacy.Charles, the effects of financing government purchases through taxation or borrowing have short run effects on currency, unemployment and so on. I won't deny that. In the long run, it doesn't matter.I am conceding defeat on this one because an economy's ability to afford taxation is a reflection of the state of the economy and its assets. Debtors will look at the state of the economy before lending anymore. You are not saying that a government can continuously borrow ad infinitum -- that is what I misunderstood. I think I finally understand your point -- correct me if I am still mistaken. [My cop-out excuse will be that I got confused by all of the different re-writes and edits of the actual fallacy. The opening post is not the same as what is found in post #13 and follow up. The actual wording of the fallacy appears in three different forms.]When I say the government may reach a limit in borrowing, that government will have also reached a limit in its ability to tax. I would like to expand on this further as it relates to the corollary: Corollary: We are spending now and borrowing from the future. (If we are in debt to the future and the world completely disappeared tonight, does that mean we could rip off the universe?) from post #13 which is indeed a common fallacy of right-wing-conservatives. [i hate using those political labels. This fallacy really does not fit well with either camp: right or left.] Public debt is an accounting phenomenon and not a real economic phenomenon. [Depreciation of physical assets comes to mind as an other accounting slight-of-hand.] When a government borrows NOW, the net real value is extracted from the present economy. The real value is balanced out by reshuffling the assets and the ability to borrow NOW elsewhere in the economy. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 1. Agreed. Equality is subjective. But I think we can all agree that life in a wheelchair or being blind is not easy. It's the equivalent of having your house burn down. Not the end of the world but a hassle. Usually, people have insurance to protect against such misfortune. Indeed, I agree that people generally have insurance to protect against unplanned and catestrophic events, but I would say that this is different than equality for equality's sake. More to come on the insurance analogy. 2. No other institution can finance this task properly. I think some other institution than government should be involved. It isn't so much the government's abilty to finance, it is the goverenment's power of force. It is not using its own financial means, it is basicly using force in order to redistribute wealth. There are other organizations which also do so. Charities come to mind. The main difference is that they don't employ force. Would we tolerate other organizations besides government using force to redistribute wealth? For example, would we want a utility to charge high rates in the "rich" area of town, and subsidize rates in the "poor" area of town? Would we accept as right, this kind of redistribution at an international level? Say the US, seized the oil wealth of Saudia Arabia and donated it to Somalia? Isn't the justificaiton the same? 3. Life isn't fair, true. But we shouldn't get used to that fact. Why? Because it's uncivilized. We don't know what the future holds. We don't know how our children or grandchildren will grow up. Before our birth, we didn't know into which families we would be born.Civilized society, like family, is an insurance scheme in which we share risks. Private markets for such insurance simply don't exist or have numerous problems and just don't work properly. In plain terms, a child suffers the luck of the draw in getting parents. As a society, we can do better. Personally I'd accept a scheme where risk of misfortune was shared in the same was as insurance. I don't think the way it is implemented today falls into that category. In insurance, you basicly pay for the carrier assuming the risk. The more the risk, the more you pay. There is no such analogy in society. People pass on risk to the government but essentially don't pay anythign to do so. One other difference is that insurance is generally voluntary. If I can cover the risk myself, I may opt not to purchase insurance, or purchase less. There is no such analogy in society. In short the insurance anlogy fails because high risk individuals assume all the benefits of insurance but may assume little of the costs. It is true the child suffers the luck of the draw in the parents it gets and has no choice in the matter. However the parents do. How about if we look at it a different way? If we want to ensure that all children get a relatively "fair" start in life, shouldn't we impose some obligation on parents, to only have children if they are capable of providing a adequate starting point? Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Renegade, thanks for these responses. It isn't so much the government's abilty to finance, it is the goverenment's power of force. It is not using its own financial means, it is basicly using force in order to redistribute wealth. There are other organizations which also do so. Charities come to mind. The main difference is that they don't employ force. Only force can guarantee such an insurance scheme - the potential for opportunistic breach is too great. Charity depends on voluntary payments. That's unlikely to be sufficient.Let me paint the picture clearly: Before your birth, what insurance policy at what what premium would you have bought to insure against what risks? You raise a good point that government could be the insurer but it need not be the institution to deliver the service. My car insurance company doesn't fix my car after an accident. For example, I would prefer private schools paid for with government money. Would we accept as right, this kind of redistribution at an international level? Say the US, seized the oil wealth of Saudia Arabia and donated it to Somalia? Isn't the justificaiton the same?These questions strike at the heart of the "civilized society/life as insurance" idea. By rights, we should pay for education of African children. More, we should take from rich Saudis and use their money (along with ours) to do this.When Jack Layton argued that it was criminal if homeless people sleep on Canadian streets, I thought his argument should be extended to the world at large. Personally I'd accept a scheme where risk of misfortune was shared in the same was as insurance. I don't think the way it is implemented today falls into that category. In insurance, you basicly pay for the carrier assuming the risk. The more the risk, the more you pay. There is no such analogy in society. People pass on risk to the government but essentially don't pay anythign to do so.The risk here exists before your birth. Before your birth, there's nothing you can do to reduce the risk. We're not talking about insurance premiums as an incentive.One other difference is that insurance is generally voluntary. If I can cover the risk myself, I may opt not to purchase insurance, or purchase less. There is no such analogy in society. In short the insurance anlogy fails because high risk individuals assume all the benefits of insurance but may assume little of the costs.Insurance is often not voluntary, for good reason. Before birth, no one knows if she/he is a "high risk" individual. They certainly know after birth and hence the need for compulsion. It is true the child suffers the luck of the draw in the parents it gets and has no choice in the matter. However the parents do. How about if we look at it a different way? If we want to ensure that all children get a relatively "fair" start in life, shouldn't we impose some obligation on parents, to only have children if they are capable of providing a adequate starting point?Here, you got me Renegade. With contraception, parents have even greater choice. Leftists might have had an argument before the invention of the pill but since then, the argument is more tenuous.It is cruelly unfortunate that I was born to incompetent parents but if the State bails me out, that's just an incentive to incompetent parents to have children. (At least to the extent that parents assume costs when they have children.) On a related point, I'm curious to understand why it seems that birth rates fall when the State assumes some of the costs of child-rearing. That's counter-intuitive and I'm not certain it's empirically the case. ---- Charles, you get my basic argument - right or wrong. We can't rip off the universe so we can't borrow from the future - except by leaving the future less than what we received from the past. (Think about that, Charles!) You are not saying that a government can continuously borrow ad infinitum -- that is what I misunderstood. I think I finally understand your point -- correct me if I am still mistaken. [My cop-out excuse will be that I got confused by all of the different re-writes and edits of the actual fallacy. The opening post is not the same as what is found in post #13 and follow up. The actual wording of the fallacy appears in three different forms.]When I say the government may reach a limit in borrowing, that government will have also reached a limit in its ability to tax. There is a rule (it has several variations, including some based on interest rates) that government debt should not grow faster than economic growth. Otherwise, government debt is a Ponzi scheme.I'll stay with a government's perceived ability to impose taxes to get the money to pay the coupons on the bonds. And as long as a government can send people to prison for non-payment of taxes, I'll expect governments to be able to borrow at the lowest interest rates going. Government bonds, not surprisingly, are the most secure and pay the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 I would like to link these two: On a related point, I'm curious to understand why it seems that birth rates fall when the State assumes some of the costs of child-rearing. That's counter-intuitive and I'm not certain it's empirically the case.---- Charles, you get my basic argument - right or wrong. We can't rip off the universe so we can't borrow from the future - except by leaving the future less than what we received from the past. (Think about that, Charles!) I heard an inspirational speaker say that -- within normal limits -- couples who do not have children are the ultimate selfish people. Humans are obligated to perpetuate their race and in so doing return a better person to the world to take their place. A couple who does not have children ends up just taking out of the world. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 I heard an inspirational speaker say that -- within normal limits -- couples who do not have children are the ultimate selfish people.I believe Isaac Newton and Albert Einsten had no children. But they left a tremendous gift to the future, far greater than most people who have had children.And what of Newton's and Einstein's parents, what gift did they leave to the future? Well, what of Newton's and Einstein's teachers? Newton famously said that if he could see far, it was because he sat on the shoulders of giants. Our contribution to the future is not merely genetic code. It is also how we teach our young. Such is our species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 I am glad that you correctly used the word "gift" as opposed to any other word which may connote responsibility. Despite my general agreement, I can not resist playing the devil's advocate. And what of Newton's and Einstein's parents, what gift did they leave to the future?For every gigantic gift, how many gullible fools waste away their hours to produce nothing in the end? I wonder if Newton's wife would agree with you -- I do not know if he was married or not, but the principle is clear -- if she found out that Leibniz practically made many of the same discoveries before him? I can also say that if one person did not make a discovery, surely somebody else would eventually -- can I not? Our contribution to the future is not merely genetic code. It is also how we teach our young. Such is our species.I truly agree. I understand that there are many different ways to "return a better person to the world" because we are more than just animals. However, the responsibility of raising a child -- not transferring genes -- is unique. I believe it is more profound than any other responsibility one could possibly have towards an other person. Parents are not making "gifts" to their children by raising them. Why do you think we do not hold children responsible for their actions in the same way as we do for adults? Why would we hold a parent responsible for the actions of a child? I think the reasons are characteristic of a "civilized society" moreso than any person's right to share in advances made by scientists. Where would a "civilized society" be if everybody thought their responsibility was outside of their family? Stepping back a bit yet still moving forward. There is a rule (it has several variations, including some based on interest rates) that government debt should not grow faster than economic growth. Otherwise, government debt is a Ponzi scheme.Economic growth? How in the world should we calculate that? Macro is just a politician's tool with which the bitter realities of micro can be concealed or fudged from the tax-payer. Government debt is exclusively the best Ponzi scheme in existance. I'll stay with a government's perceived ability to impose taxes to get the money to pay the coupons on the bonds.That Ricardo deal is a feable explanation and one of your original questions (If we are in debt to the future and the world completely disappeared tonight, does that mean we could rip off the universe?) can be reformulated to expose the hoax. I could ask: If we are in debt to the future and the world completely disappeared tonight, from where did the EXTRA real economic value (borrowing makes us all better off) of our current debt-spending arise? That is the proper question. Ricardo's reasoning explains how decisions might be made on the part of lenders. i.e., Why do they lend? It does not explain the real effect on the economy of that injection today and how assets are re-arranged when using a fiat currency. [The accountant just tells you what is due tomorrow.] And as long as a government can send people to prison for non-payment of taxes, I'll expect governments to be able to borrow at the lowest interest rates going. Government are the most secure and pay the least.Try to go back more than fifteen years and tell that to the people who lent money to the Russian Czar before the Bolsheviks took over or to the Mexican government. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Let me paint the picture clearly: Before your birth, what insurance policy at what what premium would you have bought to insure against what risks? The risk here exists before your birth. Before your birth, there's nothing you can do to reduce the risk. We're not talking about insurance premiums as an incentive. Thanks August. Let me try and address a couple of similar points that you make at once. It is true that basicly the risk exist before birth, however, the way I see it it should not be the child that pays the "premium" so that society (or government) takes on that risk. It should be the parents who are required to pay that permium, because they make the choice and bear the responsibility of bringing the child into the world. I view it as similar to a person buying a puppy. They are required to provide a wholesome enviornment for thte pet, furthermore they are required to assume any risks caused by their ownership of that animal. (for example medical treatment of the pet). They can offset that risk by purchasing insurance, however the responsibility for the premium is their own. Insurance is often not voluntary, for good reason. Before birth, no one knows if she/he is a "high risk" individual. They certainly know after birth and hence the need for compulsion. To be honest, as much as I'd like it to be voluntary, I can see an argument that it is compulsory. It is not completely true that no one knows if he/she is high-risk individual prior to birth. Their genetics and their enviornment are pretty much known prior to birth and both factor into an assessment of risk. Obviously much more is known after birth and as the child grows, so a more accurate assessment can be made. I could accept an argument for compulsion on the basis that some unforeseeable disasters are so large in scope that no individual can adequately assume the risk, so for fairness to the child, the risk must be passed to society. However, regardless of if the "insurance" is compulsory or not, the "premium" should be paid by either the individual or the parents as custodians for the individual and not borne by society at large. On a related point, I'm curious to understand why it seems that birth rates fall when the State assumes some of the costs of child-rearing. That's counter-intuitive and I'm not certain it's empirically the case. I have two theories: 1. When the state subsidizes child-rearing, they encourage more women who would otherwise be home bearing children, into the workforce. An example is a mother who has one or two children and puts them in subsidized care and re-enters the workforce. She is disincented from having further kids because it incurs incremental costs, however if she was home the short-term incremental cost would be very little. 2. It may not be a causitive relationship. Society grows richer as both spouses work, and birth rates decline. As society grows richer, it can now afford to subsidze the cost of child rearing. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 I'll stay with a government's perceived ability to impose taxes to get the money to pay the coupons on the bonds.I am bumping this because I have finally found the original article that first gave me this idea: Getting back to deficits, my question to you is this: Is there truly a deficit? The short answer is yes, but only in an accounting sense -- not in any meaningful economic sense. Let's look at it. If Congress spends $2.4 trillion but only takes in $2 trillion in taxes, who makes up that $.4 trillion shortfall that we call the budget deficit? Neither the Tooth Fairy, Santa nor the Easter Bunny makes up the difference between what's spent in 2005 and what's taxed in 2005. Some might be tempted to answer that it's future generations who will pay. That's untrue. If the federal government consumes $2.4 trillion of what Americans produced in 2005, it must find ways to force us to spend $2.4 trillion less privately in 2005. In other words, the federal government can't spend today what's going to be produced in the future. One method to force us to spend less privately is through taxation, but that's not the only way. Another way is to enter the bond market. Government borrowing drives the interest rate to a level that it otherwise wouldn't be without government borrowing. That higher interest puts the squeeze on private investment in homes and businesses, thereby forcing us to spend less privately. Another way to force us to spend less privately is to inflate the currency. Theoretically, Congress can consume what we produce without enacting a single tax law; they could simply print money. The rising prices, which would curtail our real spending, would act as a tax. Of course, an important side effect of doing so would be economic havoc. Some Americans have called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as a method to rein in a prolific Congress. A balanced budget is no panacea. For example, suppose Congress spent $6 trillion and taxed us $6 trillion. We'd have a balanced budget, but we'd be far freer with today's unbalanced budget. The fact of business is that the true measure of the impact of government on our lives is not the taxes we pay but the level of spending. Is There a Federal Deficit? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 -- as part of the Eleventh Fallacy: Free Trade means a race to the bottom and inspired by the following exchange: I try to avoid buying stuff made there, but it is well nigh impossible. The alternative is a Western world that would not be able to support its lifestyle and population. Both you and I would probably not be here today pecking at a computer otherwise. We may not even have been born. Is that because we would not have had Chinese mothers to give us birth? in the $3.4 billion for Four Big Airplanes -- Each of us kicks in $100 on average thread You are completely sidestepping the issue (i.e., our standard of living and our wealth depends on imports) and arguing a different one. No you will not because you CAN not. Do you need statistics to confirm the color of the sky? This is what you said: The alternative is a Western world that would not be able to support its lifestyle and population. Both you and I would probably not be here today pecking at a computer otherwise. We may not even have been born.You are sidestepping the issue. Does a decrease in lifestyle equal a reduction in children?Your question does not follow the point nor what I said and it is ridiculously vague. I will entertain it nevertheless but you will have to explain what you mean by "equal" first because your statement is so wishy-washy that it is fit only for a politician. There are no statistics on blue skiesProbably because we can all just look up and see for ourselves what color it is. However, I am sure... except how many we may or may not get. There *is* science involved as to why we have blue skies which is easily available....if there is a government grant for a statistical study to convince us of the sky's color, there will certainly be a statitician waiting to receive it and a socialist ready to dispense it. Rather than demanding a fabricated set of numbers to serve as a proof of a proof, might I suggest principles of economics and international trade which have been thoroughly established a few centuries ago? A lot of different sciences have been established through the use of logic and praxeology. Your fixation on statistics is unjustified. My point about asking "What color is the sky?" is that the answer is demonstrably obvious -- we do not need statistics. My point about the relationship between imports and our standard of living is that our dependence upon trade is demonstrably obvious. Practically everything around me is either a cheap foreign import or a derivative of one. My computer is a cheap Asian import. My car is a cheap Asian import. Please tell me "Made In China" is something you have seen before -- otherwise this discussion is absurd -- I can not explain "demonstrably visible" to you. Half of the food I eat is imported. The clothes I wear are imported. As far as lifestyle is concerned, there really is not a whole lot left. Here is some more news: the vast majority of people in Canada are imports. Immigrants come to Canada for a better life and they usually find it. Free and open trade translates into a higher standard of living. Do you need statistics for that? or does logic suffice? Show me the statistics on how a decrease in lifestyle ends up with fewer children.You are asking for statistics where statistics do not exist. Not everybody in Canada has excess money. If a Canadian can not pay for his child's food, clothing and shelter, what kind of lifestyle do you think child will live to enjoy? Are you ready to logically argue that ALL of our imports could be replaced with domestic alternatives AND we would be able to afford to live our lives exactly as they are now? Very few Canadians could survive in Canada without imports. Think about it. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Your question does not follow the point nor what I said and it is ridiculously vague. I will entertain it nevertheless but you will have to explain what you mean by "equal" first because your statement is so wishy-washy that it is fit only for a politician. Probably because we can all just look up and see for ourselves what color it is. However, I am sure... ..if there is a government grant for a statistical study to convince us of the sky's color, there will certainly be a statitician waiting to receive it and a socialist ready to dispense it. Rather than demanding a fabricated set of numbers to serve as a proof of a proof, might I suggest principles of economics and international trade which have been thoroughly established a few centuries ago? A lot of different sciences have been established through the use of logic and praxeology. Your fixation on statistics is unjustified. My point about asking "What color is the sky?" is that the answer is demonstrably obvious -- we do not need statistics. My point about the relationship between imports and our standard of living is that our dependence upon trade is demonstrably obvious. Practically everything around me is either a cheap foreign import or a derivative of one. My computer is a cheap Asian import. My car is a cheap Asian import. Please tell me "Made In China" is something you have seen before -- otherwise this discussion is absurd -- I can not explain "demonstrably visible" to you. Half of the food I eat is imported. The clothes I wear are imported. As far as lifestyle is concerned, there really is not a whole lot left. Here is some more news: the vast majority of people in Canada are imports. Immigrants come to Canada for a better life and they usually find it. Free and open trade translates into a higher standard of living. Do you need statistics for that? or does logic suffice? You are asking for statistics where statistics do not exist. Not everybody in Canada has excess money. If a Canadian can not pay for his child's food, clothing and shelter, what kind of lifestyle do you think child will live to enjoy? Are you ready to logically argue that ALL of our imports could be replaced with domestic alternatives AND we would be able to afford to live our lives exactly as they are now? Very few Canadians could survive in Canada without imports. Think about it. The question does follow the point. It was not vague but your answer certainly was. A child doesn't have "made in China" on it. Your argument about what kind of lifestyle the child will have is in no way related to how many children will be born in that lifestyle. You say there are no statistics that say more children are born in places with a poor standard of living. There are. Generally, places with a higher standard of living have fewer children. Africa has a higher birthrate than the developed world. My argument has never been that Canada can replace its imports. Look back at what I wrote. My argument is with the your statement which you say it is self evident that children are not born when the standard of living drops. As far as your "blue sky" argument, toss that in the garbage because all you are doing with that is using it to bash socialists as if they are the only ones that ask fundamental questions of science. Produce some evidence that fewer children are born if the standard of living drops. Otherwise, I think you are just talking out of your hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 You say there are no statistics that say more children are born in places with a poor standard of living. There are. Generally, places with a higher standard of living have fewer children. Africa has a higher birthrate than the developed world.No. Comparing your Canadian statistics with your "places with a poor standard of living" statistics is apples and oranges. However, it is superb trick played by statisticians to push an agenda. I challenge you to tell me exactly what you mean by "places with a poor standard of living" now. My argument has never been that Canada can replace its imports. Look back at what I wrote. My argument is with the your statement which you say it is self evident that children are not born when the standard of living drops.That is not what I said. Our Canadian population dynamic would not be the same. That is logical. We would not be able to support both our lifestyle and our population without cheap imports. That stands to reason. Statistics from any other country are irrelevant. That is more than obvious. It is physically impossible to produce statistics for Canada without cheap imports. That is toooo bad for people who demand statistics as proof. As far as your "blue sky" argument, toss that in the garbage because all you are doing with that is using it to bash socialists as if they are the only ones that ask fundamental questions of science.No, I will stick my "blue sky" argument back in your face because of your demand for statistics. I challenge you to justify your demand for statistics as proof. Here is some more news for you: this is not a statistical issue. This is an economic issue. Have you ever studied economics? because if you did, you would have (or should have) learned a hell of a lot of principles of international trade without ever having to resort to one ounce of statistics politcian's proof. Produce some evidence that fewer children are born if the standard of living drops. Otherwise, I think you are just talking out of your hat.No, it is just going over your head or you are not reading what you so wantonly quote. Should I re-quote your quote of my quote or should I just re-repeat everything I said before? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 No, it is just going over your head or you are not reading what you so wantonly quote. Should I re-quote your quote of my quote or should I just re-repeat everything I said before? You are full of crap. Moreso, when you don't back up what you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) It is true that basicly the risk exist before birth, however, the way I see it it should not be the child that pays the "premium" so that society (or government) takes on that risk. It should be the parents who are required to pay that permium, because they make the choice and bear the responsibility of bringing the child into the world.No, the child who succeeds should pay the premium - after the fact, like income tax.You play? You pay. Edited January 16, 2008 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) No, the child who succeeds should pay the premium - after the fact, like income tax. We were discussing who should assume the cost of "insuring" a child for events or environments beyond his control before his birth. In my view, it should be the parents. I you want to hoist those costs to the child after the fact, fine, however it has got no or a very tenous connection to their success. Further, our country doesn't assume the "insurance" cost of all births. Some people are born overseas and someone else assumes those costs. Similarly we can't collect all the after-the-fact costs, even if those individuals are capable of paying, as those indiiduals may no longer even reside in the country of their birth. The most direct way is to tie the decision by the parents to the cost being incurred. You play? You pay. Sure, but it is the parents doing the "playing", it is the parents who should do the paying Edited January 16, 2008 by Renegade Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Seventeenth Fallacy: Wars and Disasters are Good for the Economy and CorporationsJerry, you state one of the most ignorant ideas I have ever seen - and it is also frighteningly common. The efforts to provide defence are a cost to society. A country is richer when fewer people are involved in policing and defence. If a country doesn't need police or soldiers, then those people can do something else useful with their time. Canada benefits because we rely on Americans for our defence. Canadians can do something else useful instead of being soldiers. Wars (and hurricanes) are not good for a country's economy. Wars and hurricanes destroy. They kill. They make people waste their time preparing for the destruction, trying to avoid it or fixing the destruction afterwards. Foreign wars are not good for domestic economies or corporations. If Canada made cruise missiles and dropped them in the Atlantic Ocean, would this make Canada rich? This simple ignorance, and lack of common sense, frightens me sometimes. To follow up that idea, if the Canadian government pursued a policy of giving money to corporations to make cruise missiles and then dropped the missiles in the Atlantic Ocean, would Canada become a rich country? In the long run, would the corporations be successful? If you believe that, then African governments should start hiring African corporations to make cruise missiles - they'll be rich. Common sense says that making something and then dropping it in the ocean is a waste of time and energy. The US military is a burden, not a benefit. But what about shareholders of US corporations who make cruise missiles? It may be a waste of time for America to make cruise missiles, but the shareholders benefit. That's like students and farmers. If that's the game, there are easier ways to get government subsidies than making cruise missiles and dropping them in the ocean. The simple fact is that the US military is strong because many Americans are willing to pay for a strong military. Canadians have perhaps wisely chosen to spend our money elsewhere. These are choices countries make. But I disagree that military spending is good for a country, or even good for corporations in the long run. Making something and then exploding it hardly strikes me as a plausible get-rich-quick scheme. THE US is the largest supplier of military equipment in the world. Is it good for the country, maybe but it is very good for the people who run the companies and the investors. United Defense, one of those companies is making alot of people richer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Not entirely sure why this thread has been necromanced. But it's worth pointing out, like Inigo Montoya, that you keep using this word "fallacy". I do not think it means what you think it means. A fallacy is not just something you disagree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 THE US is the largest supplier of military equipment in the world. Is it good for the country, maybe but it is very good for the people who run the companies and the investors. United Defense, one of those companies is making alot of people richer. The US is also the largest grain exporter in the world. It is good for the country, and very good for the people who run agri-business. Bullets or bushels...your choice. Quote Economics trumps Virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) The US is also the largest grain exporter in the world. It is good for the country, and very good for the people who run agri-business. Bullets or bushels...your choice.Bullets or bushels, I fail to see how sending things out of a country help in any way the people in the country - unless we're referring to charity.If you believe otherwise, I have a garage that needs cleaning and you are welcome to come over and straiten things out. THE US is the largest supplier of military equipment in the world. Is it good for the country, maybe but it is very good for the people who run the companies and the investors. United Defense, one of those companies is making alot of people richer.If the purpose is to make some people richer, there are much easier and better ways of achieving that. Why have people go to all the trouble of designing and building cruise missiles? Just give them the money. We were discussing who should assume the cost of "insuring" a child for events or environments beyond his control before his birth. In my view, it should be the parents. I you want to hoist those costs to the child after the fact, fine, however it has got no or a very tenous connection to their success.No, we are discussing the myriad ways in which one's life can take different directions - all beyond the control of oneself.If a pre-birth insurance contract were possible, and knowing what you know now about life, how much would you have given up of your present good fortune to ensure that you would have avoided a fate far worse? I agree Renegade that our current social welfare measures are far from this principle in practice. You are also correct to say that family can provide much of this insurance scheme. But how can you insure yourself against the risk of being born to destitute or irresponsible parents? Not entirely sure why this thread has been necromanced. But it's worth pointing out, like Inigo Montoya, that you keep using this word "fallacy". I do not think it means what you think it means.A fallacy is not just something you disagree with. I'll admit that I had never seen necromancy used as a verb and I had to look it up. I occasionally resurrect this thread when it pops up on a search.These are fallacies not merely differences of opinions. And the title comes from a very good book written by Edwin Mishan entitled 21 Economic Fallacies. I believe John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term "conventional wisdom" and in that sense, they are common fallacies of intelligent people. I have picked them up from various posts to this forum. I'll agree however that I have botched their explanation and I doubt that I'll ever dispell them. Time and experience will do that. Edited January 17, 2008 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 No, we are discussing the myriad ways in which one's life can take different directions - all beyond the control of oneself. Ok, let's generalize and talk about the myriad of ways one's live can take different directions - all beyond the control of oneself. We seem to accept that responsibilty for an individual rest with the parent prior to the time that individual reaches adulthood. Their are many responsibilities for the individual we expect the parents to take on behalf of that individual, including the financial and behavioural. The cost mitigation of factors beyond the individual's control should also rest with the parents. If the parents are unable or unwilling to assume these responsibilites, they should not be undertaking to be parents. At some point, as the individual transitions to adulthood the individual assumes those responsibilteis from his parents. This includes financial and behavioural and also the cost of mitigating circumstances beyond his control. If a pre-birth insurance contract were possible, and knowing what you know now about life, how much would you have given up of your present good fortune to ensure that you would have avoided a fate far worse? It is really impossible to say. I suppose it really depends upon what is meant by a fate far worse. Would I afterthefact buy pre-birth insurance to insure that I inherited the genetics and circumstances I did? Probably not, afterall, with the luck of the draw I may have ended up being Bill Gates. As I have said before, even if this were possible I don't think it is an individual's responsibility. It is his parents. If he is born into favourable/unfavourable circumstances he should thank/curse his parents. With the decisionmaker relies the responsibilty. As the individual was not the decisionmaker, he should also not have the responsibilty. I agree Renegade that our current social welfare measures are far from this principle in practice. You are also correct to say that family can provide much of this insurance scheme. But how can you insure yourself against the risk of being born to destitute or irresponsible parents? If society thought it was important enough to mitigate against the risk of being born to destitute or irresponsible parents, they should enact and enforce leglislation to make sure only responsible and capable parents have kids. In addition parents should have to buy insurance on the child prior to birth to cover areas beyond their control. Today, we put very few barriers to destitute or irresponsible parents having kids and in many cases actually encourage them to do so. If all of this means fewer people have kids, so be it. At least it better assure that the ones that do have kids are more responsible and the kids have a better chance of success in life. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) These are fallacies not merely differences of opinions. And the title comes from a very good book written by Edwin Mishan entitled 21 Economic Fallacies. The books you like don't change the point. "Fallacy" most clearly means an inferential error, a procedural mistake in reasoning. In this sense, fallacies are acts you commit, not beliefs you hold. There is certainly another sense of "fallacy", on which it means a common but erroneous belief. Hence one might speak of the fallacy that Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world. But there's two things to say about this latter sense. First, it is better to simply call it a canard or an urban myth, since these will be less ambiguous terms. Calling simple beliefs or assertions fallacies seems to capitalize on the much more forceful -- ie., objective -- first sense discussed above. And second, this use of "fallacy" simply becomes vacuous if one uses it to mean "things that other people think but which I and others like me don't". Because then everything's a fallacy if you disagree with it. If one must use the term, it is best reserved for quite widely believed but decisively falsified propositions. Your examples, and those of Mishan as I recall, tend to be more of the "stuff I don't like" variety. If you've got good arguments against some views, then more power to you. But asserting their error by calling them fallacies accomplishes nothing except raising the question of why such legerdemain would be employed, if really good arguments were available. Edited January 18, 2008 by Kitchener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 The books you like don't change the point. "Fallacy" most clearly means an inferential error, a procedural mistake in reasoning. In this sense, fallacies are acts you commit, not beliefs you hold. There is certainly another sense of "fallacy", on which it means a common but erroneous belief. Hence one might speak of the fallacy that Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world. But there's two things to say about this latter sense. First, it is better to simply call it a canard or an urban myth, since these will be less ambiguous terms. Calling simple beliefs or assertions fallacies seems to capitalize on the much more forceful -- ie., objective -- first sense discussed above. And second, this use of "fallacy" simply becomes vacuous if one uses it to mean "things that other people think but which I and others like me don't". Because then everything's a fallacy if you disagree with it. If one must use the term, it is best reserved for quite widely believed but decisively falsified propositions. Your examples, and those of Mishan as I recall, tend to be more of the "stuff I don't like" variety. If you've got good arguments against some views, then more power to you. But asserting their error by calling them fallacies accomplishes nothing except raising the question of why such legerdemain would be employed, if really good arguments were available. I believe your opening statement is a fallacy."An inferential error or a procedural mistake in reasoning" is the result of a belief in fallacies. There is no sense of the word that fallacies are acts you commit. I cannot say because your understanding of the word fallacy is fallacious you will now commit a fallacy. The act is after the fact and result of a fallacy. Therefore, a correct statement would be, "Your belief in that fallacy resulted in an error or procedural mistake in reasoning." Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) As I have said before, even if this were possible I don't think it is an individual's responsibility. It is his parents. If he is born into favourable/unfavourable circumstances he should thank/curse his parents. With the decisionmaker relies the responsibilty. As the individual was not the decisionmaker, he should also not have the responsibilty.Should some parents have kids?It is really impossible to say. I suppose it really depends upon what is meant by a fate far worse. Would I afterthefact buy pre-birth insurance to insure that I inherited the genetics and circumstances I did? Probably not, afterall, with the luck of the draw I may have ended up being Bill Gates.If I'm born, what do I do?Renegade, I think that we can agree that car accidents are a bad thing. (1) It would be preferable to avoid them. (2) If one happens, it would be better if its results were less serious. IOW, (1) I would prefer to be born into a good family rather than a bad one. (2) If I'm born into a bad family, I hope that I have some chance of managing. Of course we should (1) discourage "bad" parents from having children. But if children are born even to "good" parents, (2) their livelihood is not guaranteed. Civilized society implies an insurance scheme. Yes, we should discourage car accidents but we should also admit that they happen and minimize the consequences to an individual. ---- There is certainly another sense of "fallacy", on which it means a common but erroneous belief. Hence one might speak of the fallacy that Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world.I'll go with that meaning of "fallacy".Your examples, and those of Mishan as I recall, tend to be more of the "stuff I don't like" variety. If you've got good arguments against some views, then more power to you. But asserting their error by calling them fallacies accomplishes nothing except raising the question of why such legerdemain would be employed, if really good arguments were available. I don't like? I think that I have good arguments - except that maybe I've botched their expression Edited February 4, 2008 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Should some parents have kids? Some should, some shouldn't. The ones that should have made assessmets of the risks involved in having kids and have agreed to undertake the responsibilites in being a parent. If I'm born, what do I do? You make the best of whatever circumstances and environment you are born into. Renegade, I think that we can agree that car accidents are a bad thing. (1) It would be preferable to avoid them. (2) If one happens, it would be better if its results were less serious.IOW, (1) I would prefer to be born into a good family rather than a bad one. (2) If I'm born into a bad family, I hope that I have some chance of managing. Of course we should (1) discourage "bad" parents from having children. But if children are born even to "good" parents, (2) their livelihood is not guaranteed. Civilized society implies an insurance scheme. Yes, we should discourage car accidents but we should also admit that they happen and minimize the consequences to an individual. I agree that an insurance scheme is necessary. Even with "good" parents there are risks which need to be mitigated. Where we may diverge is in who assumes the cost of insurance. The parents have made the decision, so they should assume the cost of the insurance premium, at least until such time the child is able to assume the cost of the premium themselves. In addition the cost of the premium should be commensurate with the risk being insured against. To use your analogy of the car accidents, yes some car accidents are unavoidable, however we should expect that the car operator is the one who pays the insurance premium because they are the ones which made the decision and accepted the responsibilty to operate the vehicle. IOW, insurance isn't the issue, it is in the amount of the premium and who pays which is the issue. If parents aren't the ones paying the premium, they are simply offloading the cost of their decisions onto someone else. Why would they even make responsible decisions if they aren't forced to bear the cost of those decisions. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) Welcome to an experiment, and a work in progress. The following points are common fallacies of posters to this forum. Common sense and intelligence diverge. If you disagree, want to participate and comment, go ahead and post. 23rd fallacy: There is a definition of what fallacious is other then what Lindsay and Paris do. 24th fallacy: The brain postulates meaning. 25th fallacy: Opinion. 26th fallacy: Knowledge. 27th fallacy: Truth. 28th fallacy: a Gun is not a fallacy symbol. Edited February 9, 2008 by Rue Quote I come to you to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 23rd fallacy: There is a definition of what fallacious is other then what Lindsay and Paris do. Paris was having a problem with her boyfriends dandruff and Lindsay said to her, "Paris, you need to get him some Head and Shoulders! Paris giggled and said...."Ok...ummm...What's Shoulders?" Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.