5 ms·

We are looking at it from different perspectives. You from the central planner's one. I'm from the position of an acting person, someone who doesn't believe any

We are looking at it from different perspectives. You from the central planner's one. I'm from the position of an acting person, someone who doesn't believe anyone owes them anything, but at the same time preferring to keep what's earned. Someone who's not bought into redistribution programs that spend $4 to redistribute each $1 (actual research for the US), or any involuntary redistribution schemes for that matter. > The argument is that cutting taxes will spur economic growth So what do I care for some abstract growth? If my well-being isn't rising, and it isn't if you take away through taxes, excises, indirect taxes half of what I earn with hard toil, not interested. > cover for their real goal of simply cutting social programs under the guise of “we can’t afford it” And that's a good thing.

jonathankoren 5y ago
You are putting a lot of words in my mouth and speaking with a lot of assumed authority for someone that just admitted that they don’t understand and most influential public policy in a more than a generation. It is the central economic dogma of a major political party. I find this doubly ironic because you go on to spout positions congruent with that party. Get off Parler, or whatever and read a history book, because Reagan’s economic policies echo even today. Even without a labeled time axis, there are countless economic charts where you can easily pick out 1981.
- janeroe 5y ago
  What an entitled moron you're. I'm not even from the States. Do you expect everyone on the planet Earth to learn policies of your government. That'd be too much honor.
  - dang 5y ago
    We've asked you before to stop posting flamewar comments and using HN for ideological battle. If you keep doing it, we will ban you. No more of this, please. Actually you're way, way over the bannable line already but I don't want to ban you and not the other person when as far as this thread goes you were behaving equally badly. If you don't want to be banned on HN, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, use the site as intended from now on, and drop the ideological warfare please. (No, we don't care which ideology you like or dislike. Either way, it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.
- dang 5y ago
  You have a long history of posting flamewar comments to this site and of seriously breaking the site guidelines. We've asked you repeatedly to stop, and you're still doing it. If you keep doing it, we will ban you. No more of this, please. If you don't want to be banned on HN, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, use the site as intended from now on, and drop the ideological warfare please. (No, we don't care which ideology you like or dislike. Either way, it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.
wolverine876 5y ago
Perhaps your personal welfare is strongly linked to and dependent on that of others. For example, you need roads, security, education, health care, food, electricity, communication, law, customers, vendors, employees, business partners, etc etc.
- janeroe 5y ago
  Too bad the government is terrible at all of those things.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    It is too bad, but it's your government. What are you doing about it? It's like the cliched response to complaints re OSS, but at least that's arguably not your and my responsibility; our government is. It's our job to care for it, make it work, and pass it to our kids in better shape than we got it. I find the government functions very well given it's necessarily a large institution (which all are bureaucratic and inefficient, including businesses) and perpetual (it can't go out of business and be replaced, but we do replace management!). Transportation infrastructure (roads, airports, etc.), food safety, education, science (NASA, NSF, NIH), courts, military, regulation of banks, national parks, etc. etc. Think of NASA - the greatest explorers in the history of humanity, with nobody even close - is a government agency. Government's biggest problem is the lack of participation from citizens and obstruction from the GOP. The post office delivered my mail fine for my entire life until the neo-reactionaries got hold of it and (intentionally, I think) ruined it.
    - janeroe 5y ago
      > It is too bad, but it's your government. "Too bad, but it's your monarch. He's anointed by God. You must care about him". Not really a very strong argument. > Think of NASA - the greatest explorers in the history of humanity, with nobody even close - is a government agency. USSR had dozens of space projects, all by a government ministry. Doesn't mean you'd want to cherish the regime and all its inefficiencies & injustices. And the Chinese government was building huge ghost cities where no-one lives at the greatest pace in human history, with nobody even close. Yet that isn't considered a positive achievement. The thing is governments are taking resources out of economy. People don't devour money, they'd spend them or invest anyway (using their own scale of preferences). They could go to a cafe, sponsoring this industry, to a journey, buy a new car, start a new business. But after the central authority takes that much away, there will be that much less for the industries of people's preference. That means new people wouldn't be hired, new car models created and produced, new enterprises started; no new building would appear that otherwise could. And the central authority will at best build something useful at twice the price; because private citizens are motivated to be efficient, the state bureaucrats don't. And at worst, the funds will be squandered, directed to their oligarchic pals, stolen.

jonathankoren 5y ago

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth and speaking with a lot of assumed authority for someone that just admitted that they don’t understand and most influential public policy in a more than a generation. It is the central economic dogma of a major political party. I find this doubly ironic because you go on to spout positions congruent with that party. Get off Parler, or whatever and read a history book, because Reagan’s economic policies echo even today. Even without a labeled time axis, there are countless economic charts where you can easily pick out 1981.

janeroe 5y ago
What an entitled moron you're. I'm not even from the States. Do you expect everyone on the planet Earth to learn policies of your government. That'd be too much honor.
- dang 5y ago
  We've asked you before to stop posting flamewar comments and using HN for ideological battle. If you keep doing it, we will ban you. No more of this, please. Actually you're way, way over the bannable line already but I don't want to ban you and not the other person when as far as this thread goes you were behaving equally badly. If you don't want to be banned on HN, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, use the site as intended from now on, and drop the ideological warfare please. (No, we don't care which ideology you like or dislike. Either way, it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.
dang 5y ago
You have a long history of posting flamewar comments to this site and of seriously breaking the site guidelines. We've asked you repeatedly to stop, and you're still doing it. If you keep doing it, we will ban you. No more of this, please. If you don't want to be banned on HN, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, use the site as intended from now on, and drop the ideological warfare please. (No, we don't care which ideology you like or dislike. Either way, it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.

wolverine876 5y ago

Perhaps your personal welfare is strongly linked to and dependent on that of others. For example, you need roads, security, education, health care, food, electricity, communication, law, customers, vendors, employees, business partners, etc etc.

janeroe 5y ago
Too bad the government is terrible at all of those things.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  It is too bad, but it's your government. What are you doing about it? It's like the cliched response to complaints re OSS, but at least that's arguably not your and my responsibility; our government is. It's our job to care for it, make it work, and pass it to our kids in better shape than we got it. I find the government functions very well given it's necessarily a large institution (which all are bureaucratic and inefficient, including businesses) and perpetual (it can't go out of business and be replaced, but we do replace management!). Transportation infrastructure (roads, airports, etc.), food safety, education, science (NASA, NSF, NIH), courts, military, regulation of banks, national parks, etc. etc. Think of NASA - the greatest explorers in the history of humanity, with nobody even close - is a government agency. Government's biggest problem is the lack of participation from citizens and obstruction from the GOP. The post office delivered my mail fine for my entire life until the neo-reactionaries got hold of it and (intentionally, I think) ruined it.
  - janeroe 5y ago
    > It is too bad, but it's your government. "Too bad, but it's your monarch. He's anointed by God. You must care about him". Not really a very strong argument. > Think of NASA - the greatest explorers in the history of humanity, with nobody even close - is a government agency. USSR had dozens of space projects, all by a government ministry. Doesn't mean you'd want to cherish the regime and all its inefficiencies & injustices. And the Chinese government was building huge ghost cities where no-one lives at the greatest pace in human history, with nobody even close. Yet that isn't considered a positive achievement. The thing is governments are taking resources out of economy. People don't devour money, they'd spend them or invest anyway (using their own scale of preferences). They could go to a cafe, sponsoring this industry, to a journey, buy a new car, start a new business. But after the central authority takes that much away, there will be that much less for the industries of people's preference. That means new people wouldn't be hired, new car models created and produced, new enterprises started; no new building would appear that otherwise could. And the central authority will at best build something useful at twice the price; because private citizens are motivated to be efficient, the state bureaucrats don't. And at worst, the funds will be squandered, directed to their oligarchic pals, stolen.