3 ms·

I don't know. Any answer I give would be worthless and based on feeling. It's a question for economists to answer. And there are good answers and things worth f

I don't know. Any answer I give would be worthless and based on feeling. It's a question for economists to answer. And there are good answers and things worth following, or at least trying, instead of letting tax rates be set by feeling which they largely are now.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
What would an economist be trying to optimize?
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  My point is simply like a lot of other things, government financial policy should be set based on science and understanding, not by politicians in power who feel they know best.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question. Science and understanding cant decide what you want and how much of it, it can only help you decide how to get what you want.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question. Disagree. It's the realm of philosophy at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean it is subjective. We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people. If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights, which is something already agreed upon by society; as is the goal of ensuring rights be equally enforced for each person, that they be respected as they should be - just starting from that is a pretty solid base that would result in real changes and is already consistent with societies desires.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        That is a very big if. We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements. There's broad disagreement in society about what people are entitled to, what their rights are, and what to do about rights when they come into conflict with each other. If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements You keep moving the goal posts. We have enough of a starting point with the UN charter of rights and freedoms. > If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case. It's the case that for a lot of things we know the best policies for many things. More competent government would go by what they suggest, will of the people be damned.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I don't think I'm moving the goal posts, just addressing points as you introduce them to the conversation. To be honest, I don't really understand your position. It seemed like you were claiming that Society has already decided what's best and now you say that the will of the people be damned. Who is the 'we' that knows what's best and how do you contrast that with the will of the people. >We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people. >If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights which is something already agreed upon by society The only way that I can make sense of it is that the 'we' you talk about is simply people that hold your belief system. It seems like you're saying that a competent government would simply do what you want and steamroll anyone who doesn't agree with you. I get that the idea of a tyrannical government that supports your personal views sounds attractive. You might even think you know what's best for other people. The conceit with this approach is that you don't actually know what other people want, just what you want.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

What would an economist be trying to optimize?

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
My point is simply like a lot of other things, government financial policy should be set based on science and understanding, not by politicians in power who feel they know best.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question. Science and understanding cant decide what you want and how much of it, it can only help you decide how to get what you want.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question. Disagree. It's the realm of philosophy at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean it is subjective. We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people. If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights, which is something already agreed upon by society; as is the goal of ensuring rights be equally enforced for each person, that they be respected as they should be - just starting from that is a pretty solid base that would result in real changes and is already consistent with societies desires.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      That is a very big if. We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements. There's broad disagreement in society about what people are entitled to, what their rights are, and what to do about rights when they come into conflict with each other. If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements You keep moving the goal posts. We have enough of a starting point with the UN charter of rights and freedoms. > If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case. It's the case that for a lot of things we know the best policies for many things. More competent government would go by what they suggest, will of the people be damned.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I don't think I'm moving the goal posts, just addressing points as you introduce them to the conversation. To be honest, I don't really understand your position. It seemed like you were claiming that Society has already decided what's best and now you say that the will of the people be damned. Who is the 'we' that knows what's best and how do you contrast that with the will of the people. >We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people. >If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights which is something already agreed upon by society The only way that I can make sense of it is that the 'we' you talk about is simply people that hold your belief system. It seems like you're saying that a competent government would simply do what you want and steamroll anyone who doesn't agree with you. I get that the idea of a tyrannical government that supports your personal views sounds attractive. You might even think you know what's best for other people. The conceit with this approach is that you don't actually know what other people want, just what you want.