Economic Discussion from IOT

[Dachs]

Then why hasn't it happened yet? It's really a fairly trivial thing.

 

[JohannaK]

*looks around* You're asking ME? I'm not a mod or, you know, someone with power...

 

[Double A]

It's broadly similar to the NESing subforum insofar as it focuses on forum text-based strategy games, but the denizens of the IOT subforum largely refuse to merge with the NES subforum on the grounds that they have a unique community ("unique" is certainly a word you can use to describe it) and it would be submerged/destroyed by merging. Also it has a much higher proportion of...special people.

Not that I'm interested in defending the NESers, I haven't done anything meaningful there in like a year, but still.

We have fewer people but the same number of lazy spamming trolls.

It's a tough life. Fortunately, most of us have CK2.

 

[Tani Coyote]

So what I ask this crowd, if you are interested in analyzing this, was Obama's decision to push for private development of the Space Industry through government correct? Was it a necessary action to spur growth by overcoming such large barriers to entry that kept the private firms out of the market? Or was it big government waste and merely redistribution of wealth with no hope for economic payoff?

It was absolutely a good idea. The government made it viable for private firms (which are generally more efficient) to get into the market, eventually paving the way for the government to withdraw for the most part. Many brilliant inventions have their roots in the government's budget, and these tend to inevitably spin out into the private sector, which takes charge of things afterwards.

As a result, I view research subsidies as one of the best operations a government can do.

Essentially this just means they don't understand the private sector.

Governments have no incentive to spend wisely (due to political forces and the ease in which they can collect debt). Private actors generally do; those who don't go bankrupt and are replaced by more efficient competition, which is why it's important to make barriers to entry low.

Let us take a look at the way social services are set up in the United States. It'd be far simpler and far more efficient to simply institute a guaranteed minimum income, as it would let us fire immense amounts of unnecessary workers (efficiency), but said workers and a great deal of politicians (and the public) oppose this measure. Society places arbitrary value on having to work to be a contributing member to society, so much of the general public's not warm to the idea as well (despite the fact about 5% of the population cannot work anyway).

Ultimately it's a price to pay for a democracy and a functioning government. Dictatorship would be even more abusive, and if we had a balanced budget amendment, the government would be handcuffed and unable to do anything in times of crisis.

Your idea of limiting government is to allow both government and the private sector to tack your movements 24/7?

It's no different than what a lot of parents do to their kids (as my sister found out the hard - and humorous - way).

Anyway, I'm moreso arguing for the privatisation of highways. They're more niche than ordinary streets, so their being privately owned doesn't strike me as much of an issue. You don't want to be tracked? Don't use the highway.

Fuel taxes are far more efficient of a way to pay for roads.

But if the private sector can run the highways better than the state, why not give it to them? New technologies have made it far more viable than in the past. It will also let the government focus on other things; never mind the state can still subsidise the highways.

Roads in the towns and cities themselves would still remain public, naturally.

The biggest argument for fuel taxes that I can see is that they are impossible to evade; someone could drive on the highway without their e-tolling card.

Furthermore, Norway is the world's leader in electronic tolling. Norway being commonly seen as one of the world's most functional (and progressive) economies, I'm not seeing the "electronic tolling is bad" angle.

 

[Luckymoose]

Hmm, everything in this thread is silly and incorrect.

 

[Cutlass]

Governments have no incentive to spend wisely (due to political forces and the ease in which they can collect debt). Private actors generally do; those who don't go bankrupt and are replaced by more efficient competition, which is why it's important to make barriers to entry low.

That sounds good in a political science classroom. First year. But it does not actually have anything whatsoever to do with the way the world actually works. It's a lot like those people who say that we should have the state governments handle things instead of the federal government because they are closer to the voter and more efficient and yada yada. Well we all know what bullcrap that is, even if a lot of people won't admit it.

The point is that it is a stock argument, and a theoretical argument, and it entirely ignores real world experience in favor of theory. As if the theory that something "should be so" is equivalent to the real world that it is actually so.

It doesn't actually work.

Let us take a look at the way social services are set up in the United States. It'd be far simpler and far more efficient to simply institute a guaranteed minimum income, as it would let us fire immense amounts of unnecessary workers (efficiency), but said workers and a great deal of politicians oppose this measure. Ultimately, as good as democracy is, it carries its own set of problems (it would be worse under an oligarchy though).

Ultimately it's a price to pay for a democracy and a functioning government. Dictatorship would be even more abusive, and if we had a balanced budget amendment, the government would be handcuffed and unable to do anything in times of crisis.

Much of the reason social services are set up the way they are is because some portion of politicians don't want to people to receive social services at all. So making it as difficult as possible is one of their passive-aggressive responses to it.

It's no different than what a lot of parents do to their kids (as my sister found out the hard - and humorous - way).

Anyway, I'm moreso arguing for the privatisation of highways. They're more niche than ordinary streets, so their being privately owned doesn't strike me as much of an issue. You don't want to be tracked? Don't use the highway.

Not an option. I live within sight of the city center. I have no means of getting there except the highway. Unless I buy a helicopter.

The US is utterly dependent on the highways. Because of the economic theory of externalities, the economically rational way to pay for them is general taxation and fuel taxes. Everyone benefits, everyone should pay.

But if the private sector can run the highways better than the state, why not give it to them? New technologies have made it far more viable than in the past. It will also let the government focus on other things; never mind the state can still subsidise the highways.

What makes you think that the private sector can, or will, be more efficient? The history of privatization of public functions in the US over the past 30 years tells you that the taxpayer never benefits from it.

Roads in the towns and cities themselves would still remain public, naturally.

The biggest argument for fuel taxes that I can see is that they are impossible to evade; someone could drive on the highway without their e-tolling card.

Furthermore, Norway is the world's leader in electronic tolling. Norway being commonly seen as one of the world's most functional (and progressive) economies, I'm not seeing the "electronic tolling is bad" angle.

All tolls are bad because all tolls are a deadweight loss to the economy. And there is no technological fix to that. A fuel tax is extremely cheap and easy to administer. It costs next to nothing for the government to collect that tax. A fully electronic toll would require every vehicle to be tagged. Now leaving aside the fact that the government already has too much information about what people do.....

The private sector is one massive crapload worse!

Having that information in public hands is bad. Having that information in private hands is full justification for a killing rampage and violent revolution.

Big Brother is not the government. Big Brother is the private sector. Big government is a minor threat to my liberty. Big business is a major threat to my liberty. And anyone who can't see that cannot legitimately consider themselves libertarian in any sense of the word.

[/endrant]

Tolls are entirely a dead weight loss to the economy because instead of the cheap and easy to administer fuel taxes, now you have to tag every single vehicle in the country with a tracker. And then you have to build and maintain tacking devices at every entrance and exit from the roads. And then you have to have toll booths for those who are not tagged or the tags are not working. That slows down the roads, and wastes time and fuel. All of that cost is a deadweight loss to the economy. And not a small one, either.

Now you want a simpler social service program to not have useless workers in that industry, why do you want a complicated toll system to add useless antijobs to the transportation industry? You are contradicting yourself here. Either you are for useless jobs or you are against useless jobs. Make up your mind.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

It's broadly similar to the NESing subforum insofar as it focuses on forum text-based strategy games, but the denizens of the IOT subforum largely refuse to merge with the NES subforum on the grounds that they have a unique community ("unique" is certainly a word you can use to describe it) and it would be submerged/destroyed by merging. Also it has a much higher proportion of...special people.

Not that I'm interested in defending the NESers, I haven't done anything meaningful there in like a year, but still.

Meh, we have our ways, but I've played both NESes and IOT's so I dont really care. The real main difference is that you have alot of story based fantasy/nonearth/oneplayeroneguy games which we dont. We have megalomaniac nationalistic world conquering games.

 

[Dachs]

Which NESers also have, except with slightly different rules.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I know...in short our crazy people are Papa Doc crazy while your crazy people are Adolfs.

 

[SamSniped]

And there's Christos in both

 

[Angst]

It's broadly similar to the NESing subforum insofar as it focuses on forum text-based strategy games, but the denizens of the IOT subforum largely refuse to merge with the NES subforum on the grounds that they have a unique community ("unique" is certainly a word you can use to describe it) and it would be submerged/destroyed by merging. Also it has a much higher proportion of...special people.

Not that I'm interested in defending the NESers, I haven't done anything meaningful there in like a year, but still.

Wait, are we better than them? The end is nigh

That said, there's also too much resistance on the NESing subforum as well.

The libertarian tendency is worrying and unpleasant, however.

 

[JohannaK]

You can always come and try an IOT yourself.

 

[useless]

Libertarians...

 

[Angst]

You can always come and try an IOT yourself.

Currently running a NES though, aren't you in it?

 

[JohannaK]

Nnnnot really... I'm lurking in it.

 

[Angst]

O sure.

But as long as that's running, I won't start anything else.

The next thing will probably be a fantasy province based thing, if I ever make it so far.

 

[JohannaK]

Speaking of starting games. One day I should write a ruleset and really host that game I'm always saying I will do some day.

 

[Ailedhoo]

In observation of this thread...

This is a public forum when you post here you, in theory, make your posts available to the entire world, therefore your permission is entirely irrelevant.

This is a public forum but it has its own rules, including the Tavern rules such as "though will not flame" which being the Tavern is impossible because people like you just want to fight instead of debating.

Also asking is something we call "politeness."

Hmm, everything in this thread is silly and incorrect.

On issue of "public is always ineffective with no motivation while private is always motivated and effective" your judgement of this thread is not far off.

The libertarian tendency is worrying and unpleasant, however.

Libertarians...

Especilly the "we want free markets around so we support tyrants like Pinochet" ones.

Seriously: to hail Pinochet, a murdersome figure, as a hero like certain figures do...

He used to post here. We beat him down until he fled to the IOT backwater where he belongs.

For starters: the hate between IOT and NES is foolish, since we could unite to create greater political games. Also it would make it harder for Pinochet fans.

Second: the Pinochet fan should be given lessons in humanity.

Governments have no incentive to spend wisely (due to political forces and the ease in which they can collect debt). Private actors generally do; those who don't go bankrupt and are replaced by more efficient competition, which is why it's important to make barriers to entry low.

Because the world is run by simple generlaisations like this, as cleary the publci is ineffective and private is super.

It's no different than what a lot of parents do to their kids (as my sister found out the hard - and humorous - way).

Anyway, I'm moreso arguing for the privatisation of highways. They're more niche than ordinary streets, so their being privately owned doesn't strike me as much of an issue. You don't want to be tracked? Don't use the highway.

Perents are not a political organism like a goverment or corpoaration but are social actors in social scale. To use them as a justification is not noble.

And "don't use the highway" is a rather questionable taking for effectiveness. I am sorry but that is not a defence for a system of violation. I can link Luck's statement to what I just quoted as fully perfectly.

But if the private sector can run the highways better than the state, why not give it to them? New technologies have made it far more viable than in the past. It will also let the government focus on other things; never mind the state can still subsidise the highways.

"Public is bad: private is good" is a vibe I see behind this lines and it is a rather... questionable line. Why? Binnaries and generalisations, especilly as fuel tax does have effectiveness.

Also e-tolling goes against a person's privacy rights, is less cost effective than tax, there are better resources to spend on that chards which would require national wide goverment spending, etch, etch, etch.

Speaking of starting games. One day I should write a ruleset and really host that game I'm always saying I will do some day.

I look forward to see it and perhapes play it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Who likes pinochet?

 

[JohannaK]

ilduce, the lolbertarian which started this discussion.