4 ms·

I don't think we should be making decisions based on principle; we should make them based on data. But in a nutshell, I think the $10 trillion debt is not a pr

by lukifer 18y ago

I don't think we should be making decisions based on principle; we should make them based on data. But in a nutshell, I think the $10 trillion debt is not a problem of public will run amok; rather, it is a reflection of how little influence public will has over the lumbering behemoth that is our government, compared to banks, military contractors, privatized prisons, industry lobbies, large unions, et al. It's a failure of our particular democratic process, not our system of taxation. Ultimately, I don't think there is a clear distinction between progressive taxation and socialism, in the same sense that there is no clear distinction between a fetus and a human. It's a spectrum, and there is no "correct" solution, but rather a large panoply of potential solutions, some of which are less bad than others. In my personal opinion, the progressive tax system we have right now is actually a pretty good one (corporate loopholes notwithstanding), and the changes that have been proposed are pretty damn minor (yes, it could be a slippery slope, but so can absolutely anything). What matters more to me is that the money raised by taxation of whatever kind is spent on smart things (education, infrastructure, technology R&D), and not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts).

jibiki 18y ago
> What matters more to me is that the money raised by taxation of whatever kind is spent on smart things (education, infrastructure, technology R&D), and not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts). My sentiments exactly. The US government can achieve efficiency when it gets its act together, but right now it seems kind of corrupt.
- robotrout 18y ago
  The US government is not corrupt. It is, however, a government. Governments do not achieve efficiency because they have no feedback mechanism to allow them to. Show me a machine or electronic circuit or software without feedback, and I will show you a system that either does not work at all, or, in order to work, has been over-engineered (that's code for not an optimal solution == inefficient). Complex systems must be closed-loop in order to be efficient, else, even if they magically were engineered optimally as open-loop, some non-linearity in the system will eventually undo that miracle. Governments are open loop. I like the circularity of your statement though. As soon as it's working well, then it will be working well!
  - jibiki 18y ago
    > The US government is not corrupt. Fannie Mae? > Governments do not achieve efficiency because they have no feedback mechanism to allow them to. Elections? Defaults? > I like the circularity of your statement though. As soon as it's working well, then it will be working well! I merely meant to point out that the government has the potential for greater efficiency.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      A single entity with hundreds of different concerns working on a multi-year feedback loop which only replaces individual participants beats thousands of different entities working on a single concern with a monthly (or daily) feedback loop which has a do-or-die result? hmmmm.
      - jibiki 18y ago
        I certainly didn't say that government is more efficient than business, I can't imagine where you got that from.
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        I merely meant to point out that the government has the potential for greater efficiency. I must be taking that quote out of context. Greater efficiency than what? Perhaps you meant that it has a potential for greater efficiency than something with no feedback loop at all? My fault. Didn't read far enough back in the chain. Apologies.
        jibiki 18y ago
        > Greater efficiency than what? Greater efficiency than it has now. I guess my point is that there are many worthy government projects, but increasing the tax base won't help, since the extra money will just end up being captured by the same interests that capture it now.
robotrout 18y ago
> I don't think we should be making decisions based on principle; we should make them based on data. I'm very sorry that you feel that data always trumps principle. I suspect if I changed the conversation to eugenics or honesty, you would claim that principle is more important than data. In fact, principle is an overriding concern with you, despite your protestations to the contrary. I wonder if I could ever get you to acknowledge that fact? Look at what you said. > not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts) All three of these things have substantial data to show why they are important. If you think that resources are not worth going to war for, than you have no idea what any war in the history of mankind has been about. Resources are the only thing worth fighting for, and indeed, are the only thing we do fight for. As for victimless hobbies, I assume you mean drugs. There's a lot of data that says it's harmful. How many meth users do you know? I know some. I agree that drugs should not be illegal, but I do that based on my principles of freedom, not data. The data actually supports the status quo. As for the "too big to fail" bailouts, I'm told there is substantial data on this as well, but again, in principle, I'd still let them fail. Your blanket statements prove that principle is more important to you than data. Principles are important, and as much as you claim otherwise, you and I are in the same camp on that one.
- lukifer 18y ago
  I don't mean to say that principles don't matter; they define your goals, not your methods. Design vs. implementation, as it were. You can go on as long you like about the kind of world you would like to live in, but the only thing that actually matters is what you can actually implement. (Not that personal principles aren't also important; I mean specifically on a large-scale, public policy level.) I suppose I should clarify, in that I don't mean solely data, which is subject to interpretation, but rather using engineering principles instead of making decisions based on gut-felt, emotionally charged belief systems. In each of the cases I mentioned, I think that the "principled" and the smart thing are synonymous: - Resource wars (and wars in general) often cost more than they benefit, particularly over the long-term. Burning oil to get more oil, resulting in diminishing the world's dwindling oil reserves even faster. Far more profitable to invest the peace dividend elsewhere. - Data consistently shows that drug usage goes down with decriminalization and treatment programs. It'd be an interesting philosophical debate of society-vs-individual if prohibition resulted in lower use, but it simply doesn't. It's harmful, expensive, and counter-productive. - The bailouts are admittedly more nebulous, but in short, we might have been better off if we had paid the cost of letting decrepit and irrelevant institutions fail. Paying their ransom may be the more practical choice right now, but we lose a large opportunity to clean our slate and reboot, even though the short-term cost might be high. (Okay, I confess, that one's 99% subjective opinion.) ;) Anyway, my original point was that principles are guides, not universal constraints, and one can believe in both social justice and rugged individualism. At the end of the day, there are no answers, only trade-offs.

by lukifer 18y ago

jibiki 18y ago

> What matters more to me is that the money raised by taxation of whatever kind is spent on smart things (education, infrastructure, technology R&D), and not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts). My sentiments exactly. The US government can achieve efficiency when it gets its act together, but right now it seems kind of corrupt.

robotrout 18y ago
The US government is not corrupt. It is, however, a government. Governments do not achieve efficiency because they have no feedback mechanism to allow them to. Show me a machine or electronic circuit or software without feedback, and I will show you a system that either does not work at all, or, in order to work, has been over-engineered (that's code for not an optimal solution == inefficient). Complex systems must be closed-loop in order to be efficient, else, even if they magically were engineered optimally as open-loop, some non-linearity in the system will eventually undo that miracle. Governments are open loop. I like the circularity of your statement though. As soon as it's working well, then it will be working well!
- jibiki 18y ago
  > The US government is not corrupt. Fannie Mae? > Governments do not achieve efficiency because they have no feedback mechanism to allow them to. Elections? Defaults? > I like the circularity of your statement though. As soon as it's working well, then it will be working well! I merely meant to point out that the government has the potential for greater efficiency.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    A single entity with hundreds of different concerns working on a multi-year feedback loop which only replaces individual participants beats thousands of different entities working on a single concern with a monthly (or daily) feedback loop which has a do-or-die result? hmmmm.
    - jibiki 18y ago
      I certainly didn't say that government is more efficient than business, I can't imagine where you got that from.
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        I merely meant to point out that the government has the potential for greater efficiency. I must be taking that quote out of context. Greater efficiency than what? Perhaps you meant that it has a potential for greater efficiency than something with no feedback loop at all? My fault. Didn't read far enough back in the chain. Apologies.
        jibiki 18y ago
        > Greater efficiency than what? Greater efficiency than it has now. I guess my point is that there are many worthy government projects, but increasing the tax base won't help, since the extra money will just end up being captured by the same interests that capture it now.

robotrout 18y ago

> I don't think we should be making decisions based on principle; we should make them based on data. I'm very sorry that you feel that data always trumps principle. I suspect if I changed the conversation to eugenics or honesty, you would claim that principle is more important than data. In fact, principle is an overriding concern with you, despite your protestations to the contrary. I wonder if I could ever get you to acknowledge that fact? Look at what you said. > not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts) All three of these things have substantial data to show why they are important. If you think that resources are not worth going to war for, than you have no idea what any war in the history of mankind has been about. Resources are the only thing worth fighting for, and indeed, are the only thing we do fight for. As for victimless hobbies, I assume you mean drugs. There's a lot of data that says it's harmful. How many meth users do you know? I know some. I agree that drugs should not be illegal, but I do that based on my principles of freedom, not data. The data actually supports the status quo. As for the "too big to fail" bailouts, I'm told there is substantial data on this as well, but again, in principle, I'd still let them fail. Your blanket statements prove that principle is more important to you than data. Principles are important, and as much as you claim otherwise, you and I are in the same camp on that one.

lukifer 18y ago
I don't mean to say that principles don't matter; they define your goals, not your methods. Design vs. implementation, as it were. You can go on as long you like about the kind of world you would like to live in, but the only thing that actually matters is what you can actually implement. (Not that personal principles aren't also important; I mean specifically on a large-scale, public policy level.) I suppose I should clarify, in that I don't mean solely data, which is subject to interpretation, but rather using engineering principles instead of making decisions based on gut-felt, emotionally charged belief systems. In each of the cases I mentioned, I think that the "principled" and the smart thing are synonymous: - Resource wars (and wars in general) often cost more than they benefit, particularly over the long-term. Burning oil to get more oil, resulting in diminishing the world's dwindling oil reserves even faster. Far more profitable to invest the peace dividend elsewhere. - Data consistently shows that drug usage goes down with decriminalization and treatment programs. It'd be an interesting philosophical debate of society-vs-individual if prohibition resulted in lower use, but it simply doesn't. It's harmful, expensive, and counter-productive. - The bailouts are admittedly more nebulous, but in short, we might have been better off if we had paid the cost of letting decrepit and irrelevant institutions fail. Paying their ransom may be the more practical choice right now, but we lose a large opportunity to clean our slate and reboot, even though the short-term cost might be high. (Okay, I confess, that one's 99% subjective opinion.) ;) Anyway, my original point was that principles are guides, not universal constraints, and one can believe in both social justice and rugged individualism. At the end of the day, there are no answers, only trade-offs.