4 ms·

Of course no truly creative solutions are allowed in the puzzle. It really only serves to illustrate how impossible it is if you stay within the bounds of the c

by zaphar 16y ago

Of course no truly creative solutions are allowed in the puzzle. It really only serves to illustrate how impossible it is if you stay within the bounds of the current political climate. Not to mention it's a rather limited view of the problem not really taking into account the various feedback loops each option has when it feeds back into the economy and thus back into taxes collected. Even with all of that said though I like seeing these kinds of exercises brought to the public to raise their awareness of the issues. I really don't envy our gov't leadership trying to solve this problem. The sheer number of variables make it almost impossible to truly predict the result of any action.

Encosia 16y ago
I agree that it's too simplistic to ignore the chain reaction of side-effects those changes would have. I also agree regarding creative solutions, though how would you even begin to put a user-friendly interface on that? That said, it was not difficult to find an acceptable solution. As I started, I thought the moral of the exercise was going to be how hard a problem this is. As it turned out, I had a solution less than 2/3 of the way into the list.
- Benjo 16y ago
  If you could quantify the actual effect each change would make, it wouldn't be that hard politically to reach an actual solution. The problem is that political noise makes it very difficult to convince anyone that you are making a reasonable estimate.
- eru 16y ago
  They bias you towards spending cuts, by putting them first on the list. At least that's how I felt. (But I am more in favour of spending cuts anyway.)
- jorgeortiz85 16y ago
  Yes, but given all the interests groups affected by the choices, could you get 2/3rds of the Senate to agree with your solution?
  - Encosia 16y ago
    Maybe not. At the same time, they eventually aren't going to have a choice, and waiting only deepens the inevitable cuts. I don't subscribe to any of the Beck-type fear and paranoia, but I do believe our legislators are going to find their employer insolvent if they don't work together to get our finances in order.
devmonk 16y ago
Agreed. What if we: - Developed and focused on a small set of specific goals for the U.S. government. - Eliminated most of the IRS and replace our current taxes with a graduated sales tax. - Cut the myriad of handouts to various organizations that our government makes in one form or another every year. - Developed and supported sustainable agriculture. - Eliminated the public education system but provided allowances such that every child can get an education tailored to their abilities and desires, and advance at their own speed rather than the speed of their class. - Eliminated most of the FDA, DEA, and other enforcement agencies, with the exception of the FBI, and allow our judicial system to imprison employees of companies found responsible for knowledgeably harming citizens simply using trial by jury, and replace bail/monetary remedies with prison sentences only. - Focused efforts on planetary defense and colonization of other worlds via a beefed-up NASA whose purpose is to support private space enterprise. - Allowed individuals at businesses to be sued rather than the company itself, for which there would exist no legal entity. Of course, they won't do these things, but since they are asking...
- eru 16y ago
  > - Allowed individuals at businesses to be sued rather than the company itself, for which there would exist no legal entity. Interesting. What problem would this proposal solve? You had this legal situation earlier in the US. The problem was, that the consumer could not pinpoint who to sue. That's a horrible incentive to make the structure of who did what in your company totally non-transparent.
  - devmonk 16y ago
    But the current remedy of a non-human legal entity is that the entity can be sued and affect many people adversely who weren't responsible for the wrong. We need a different remedy, like the ability for a citizen to sue every citizen belonging to an organization together if the organization was found responsible for the wrong. Then those citizens not responsible in that organization would have to have witnesses and documentation to prove that they were not responsible for the wrong. And instead of sueing, I think that prison sentences would work better. Putting all responsible persons from a company into prison would get people's attention. Also, citizens and lawyers producing substantial litigation without merit would be imprisoned.
bilbo0s 16y ago
"...it's a rather limited view of the problem not really taking into account the various feedback loops each option has when it feeds back into the economy and thus back into taxes collected..." This would be a difficult thing to do. What would be an acceptable model for these feedback loops? Given that, at the end of the day, the budget MUST balance. Let's say we all agreed that cutting taxes X%, would have a Y% chance of increasing tax revenue Z% over W number of years. How do we know that? Or, more precisely, what is the probability ratio that we assign that node in the decision tree? Y, right. Now if Y is not 1, then we do not KNOW that the budget will be balanced at date W. My point is, when modeling economic feedback loops 'Y' is rarely 1. So I think what they are saying is, given the serious nature of the current economic shortfalls, they will confine the discussion to only those cuts whose savings can be assigned a probability ratio of 1 in the decision tree. I think they would readily concede that this leads to 'non-creative' solutions. But the output of that decision tree is also guaranteed to work if implemented.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  Nothing on that list has an obvious probability ratio of 1. This is world politics, not a computer simulation. Most government services provide a safety net for minimal-income workers. You take that away, the lower class could quickly become insolvent, threatening our entire social structure. Obviously I'm specifically hitting entitlement, but all government services have people who rely on them, and in most cases the government does them more efficiently than private business can. Military spending secures the US role as world superpower. You take that away and businesses working abroad have a much harder time creating factories with exploitative labor pricing. Prices rise. There is a possible good outcome where factories are forced back into the states, but it's a gamble. Take that stuff away, there's barely 100 billion worth of cuts with a probability ratio with anything approaching 1.
  - eru 16y ago
    > Military spending secures the US role as world superpower. You take that away and businesses working abroad have a much harder time creating factories with exploitative labor pricing. Prices rise. Sounds very outlandish to me. But then, by that understanding, say, Germany is probably just freeriding on American oppression.
Retric 16y ago
impossible? I fixed the budget before getting 1/2 way down the list. I am fairly liberal and I am more than willing to gut medicare let alone the minor changes they are suggesting.
- zaphar 16y ago
  sure you fixed it by ignoring political realities and making choices purely based off of how much money each choice would free up. It's easy if you do it that way. Now try and do it in a way that isn't political suicide and doesn't put the nation at risk abroad.
  - flogic 16y ago
    Well political realities make it almost impossible. Not putting the nation at risk is doable.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  I am very liberal and managed to do it by making modest reductions in military expenditure, capping Medicare, giving a 2015 date for Iraq/Afghanistan withdrawal, and returning most taxes to Clinton levels.
- dagw 16y ago
  Balancing the budget is trivial. Balancing the budget AND getting re-elected, that is tricky part.
tibbon 16y ago
On this concept of feedback loops- do politicians take them into account? Looking at US politics, I strongly feel that members on both side of the aisle look primarily at what is immediately accessible and rarely at long term effects or accountability. Sure, they make drafts, bills laws and propositions that mention things to take effect at some far out date- but that doesn't really mean that they are themselves looking at realistic feedback loops, but rather just what charged issues they can drive against the other side to appease their constituency on their far side. Take DADT, or Same-Sex Marriage. The feedback loop of realistic long-term consequence of them items against other people are likely close to zero. Facts reported in a (leaked) report due to Obama soon seem to point that the effect on the armed forces would be minimal- in my guess probably similar to integrating minorities into the armed forces. The long term effects would be the increased mental health of valued service members, and an increased pool of people that could serve. Yet, R's rally against it, pointing to odd and unfounded rhetoric that is held firmly in just keeping things frozen culturally and socially. They don't look at the long term effects, or even at the fact that some homosexuals might consider voting for them if they backed the bills. It is possible that this isn't the best example, but do politicians really look at feedback loops and probability? No, I don't think so. They look at the feedback onto the next election and that's about it.
- barrkel 16y ago
  They look at what they're motivated to look at, and the people who elect them, in the large, only see headline soundbites in campaign literature. Democracy has relatively little incentive to look at the long term or second-order effects, especially long term benefits that have short term costs. Instead, policies wander back and forth like a pendulum, going too far in each direction, and only changing direction in response to crises. Occasionally the oscillation gets too extreme, and very bad things happen.

by zaphar 16y ago

Encosia 16y ago

I agree that it's too simplistic to ignore the chain reaction of side-effects those changes would have. I also agree regarding creative solutions, though how would you even begin to put a user-friendly interface on that? That said, it was not difficult to find an acceptable solution. As I started, I thought the moral of the exercise was going to be how hard a problem this is. As it turned out, I had a solution less than 2/3 of the way into the list.

Benjo 16y ago
If you could quantify the actual effect each change would make, it wouldn't be that hard politically to reach an actual solution. The problem is that political noise makes it very difficult to convince anyone that you are making a reasonable estimate.
eru 16y ago
They bias you towards spending cuts, by putting them first on the list. At least that's how I felt. (But I am more in favour of spending cuts anyway.)
jorgeortiz85 16y ago
Yes, but given all the interests groups affected by the choices, could you get 2/3rds of the Senate to agree with your solution?
- Encosia 16y ago
  Maybe not. At the same time, they eventually aren't going to have a choice, and waiting only deepens the inevitable cuts. I don't subscribe to any of the Beck-type fear and paranoia, but I do believe our legislators are going to find their employer insolvent if they don't work together to get our finances in order.

devmonk 16y ago

Agreed. What if we: - Developed and focused on a small set of specific goals for the U.S. government. - Eliminated most of the IRS and replace our current taxes with a graduated sales tax. - Cut the myriad of handouts to various organizations that our government makes in one form or another every year. - Developed and supported sustainable agriculture. - Eliminated the public education system but provided allowances such that every child can get an education tailored to their abilities and desires, and advance at their own speed rather than the speed of their class. - Eliminated most of the FDA, DEA, and other enforcement agencies, with the exception of the FBI, and allow our judicial system to imprison employees of companies found responsible for knowledgeably harming citizens simply using trial by jury, and replace bail/monetary remedies with prison sentences only. - Focused efforts on planetary defense and colonization of other worlds via a beefed-up NASA whose purpose is to support private space enterprise. - Allowed individuals at businesses to be sued rather than the company itself, for which there would exist no legal entity. Of course, they won't do these things, but since they are asking...

eru 16y ago
> - Allowed individuals at businesses to be sued rather than the company itself, for which there would exist no legal entity. Interesting. What problem would this proposal solve? You had this legal situation earlier in the US. The problem was, that the consumer could not pinpoint who to sue. That's a horrible incentive to make the structure of who did what in your company totally non-transparent.
- devmonk 16y ago
  But the current remedy of a non-human legal entity is that the entity can be sued and affect many people adversely who weren't responsible for the wrong. We need a different remedy, like the ability for a citizen to sue every citizen belonging to an organization together if the organization was found responsible for the wrong. Then those citizens not responsible in that organization would have to have witnesses and documentation to prove that they were not responsible for the wrong. And instead of sueing, I think that prison sentences would work better. Putting all responsible persons from a company into prison would get people's attention. Also, citizens and lawyers producing substantial litigation without merit would be imprisoned.

bilbo0s 16y ago

"...it's a rather limited view of the problem not really taking into account the various feedback loops each option has when it feeds back into the economy and thus back into taxes collected..." This would be a difficult thing to do. What would be an acceptable model for these feedback loops? Given that, at the end of the day, the budget MUST balance. Let's say we all agreed that cutting taxes X%, would have a Y% chance of increasing tax revenue Z% over W number of years. How do we know that? Or, more precisely, what is the probability ratio that we assign that node in the decision tree? Y, right. Now if Y is not 1, then we do not KNOW that the budget will be balanced at date W. My point is, when modeling economic feedback loops 'Y' is rarely 1. So I think what they are saying is, given the serious nature of the current economic shortfalls, they will confine the discussion to only those cuts whose savings can be assigned a probability ratio of 1 in the decision tree. I think they would readily concede that this leads to 'non-creative' solutions. But the output of that decision tree is also guaranteed to work if implemented.

lukeschlather 16y ago
Nothing on that list has an obvious probability ratio of 1. This is world politics, not a computer simulation. Most government services provide a safety net for minimal-income workers. You take that away, the lower class could quickly become insolvent, threatening our entire social structure. Obviously I'm specifically hitting entitlement, but all government services have people who rely on them, and in most cases the government does them more efficiently than private business can. Military spending secures the US role as world superpower. You take that away and businesses working abroad have a much harder time creating factories with exploitative labor pricing. Prices rise. There is a possible good outcome where factories are forced back into the states, but it's a gamble. Take that stuff away, there's barely 100 billion worth of cuts with a probability ratio with anything approaching 1.
- eru 16y ago
  > Military spending secures the US role as world superpower. You take that away and businesses working abroad have a much harder time creating factories with exploitative labor pricing. Prices rise. Sounds very outlandish to me. But then, by that understanding, say, Germany is probably just freeriding on American oppression.

Retric 16y ago

impossible? I fixed the budget before getting 1/2 way down the list. I am fairly liberal and I am more than willing to gut medicare let alone the minor changes they are suggesting.

zaphar 16y ago
sure you fixed it by ignoring political realities and making choices purely based off of how much money each choice would free up. It's easy if you do it that way. Now try and do it in a way that isn't political suicide and doesn't put the nation at risk abroad.
- flogic 16y ago
  Well political realities make it almost impossible. Not putting the nation at risk is doable.
Locke1689 16y ago
I am very liberal and managed to do it by making modest reductions in military expenditure, capping Medicare, giving a 2015 date for Iraq/Afghanistan withdrawal, and returning most taxes to Clinton levels.
dagw 16y ago
Balancing the budget is trivial. Balancing the budget AND getting re-elected, that is tricky part.

tibbon 16y ago

On this concept of feedback loops- do politicians take them into account? Looking at US politics, I strongly feel that members on both side of the aisle look primarily at what is immediately accessible and rarely at long term effects or accountability. Sure, they make drafts, bills laws and propositions that mention things to take effect at some far out date- but that doesn't really mean that they are themselves looking at realistic feedback loops, but rather just what charged issues they can drive against the other side to appease their constituency on their far side. Take DADT, or Same-Sex Marriage. The feedback loop of realistic long-term consequence of them items against other people are likely close to zero. Facts reported in a (leaked) report due to Obama soon seem to point that the effect on the armed forces would be minimal- in my guess probably similar to integrating minorities into the armed forces. The long term effects would be the increased mental health of valued service members, and an increased pool of people that could serve. Yet, R's rally against it, pointing to odd and unfounded rhetoric that is held firmly in just keeping things frozen culturally and socially. They don't look at the long term effects, or even at the fact that some homosexuals might consider voting for them if they backed the bills. It is possible that this isn't the best example, but do politicians really look at feedback loops and probability? No, I don't think so. They look at the feedback onto the next election and that's about it.

barrkel 16y ago
They look at what they're motivated to look at, and the people who elect them, in the large, only see headline soundbites in campaign literature. Democracy has relatively little incentive to look at the long term or second-order effects, especially long term benefits that have short term costs. Instead, policies wander back and forth like a pendulum, going too far in each direction, and only changing direction in response to crises. Occasionally the oscillation gets too extreme, and very bad things happen.