4 ms·

> Government spending does improve the economy, but not as much as tax cuts do. If you give money back to the market, it is guaranteed to be spent efficiently.

by bendotc 17y ago

> Government spending does improve the economy, but not as much as tax cuts do. If you give money back to the market, it is guaranteed to be spent efficiently. That's debatable. For example, Moody's Economy believes otherwise (see page 9 of http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulu...). Now, I'm not saying one or the other is correct (I know enough to know I don't have the tools to judge), but you say this as a statement of fact when it's not a settled question at all. > Government spending involves special interests (spending that benefits a small amount of people at the expense of everyone) and incurs some wasteful spending. Example: John Murtha airport http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/murtha.airport/index... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/murtha.airport/index..... Yes, and so do tax cuts. In the US, we have a menagerie of various taxes and exceptions and brackets, etc., and it's very easy to tweak it to benefit special interests, like we have many times in the past. That doesn't invalidate the idea of passing tax cuts just like earmarks don't invalidate the idea of government spending. > I thought the article was good in comparing a household (something everyone can compare to) to a government made up of the people. No household could ever keep up that deficit without forcefully taking money from someone else. I'm not advocating for the deficit, but just because you like the analogy doesn't make correct. Likening a household's budget to the United States' budget is like likening a photon to a race-car: any similarities there are are very shallow, and you're likely to come away with huge misconceptions. This is actually precisely why I hate seeing economics articles on social news sites: it's a lot of propagation of (often wrong) ideas within a community of people with insufficient knowledge to be able to sort the good from the bad. I really wish we'd just stick to what we're good at, rather than getting into the subject of macroeconomics and politics around here.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
The problem with your argument is that there are huge sections of human knowledge in which we really don't know that much -- even experts. In fact, I'd wager there's a hell of a lot more stuff that's debatable than most people would be comfortable knowing about. I've said it before: I don't think any topics should be off-limits as long as people can reasonably discuss them. In fact, I think it's a test of a community to see what it can productively discuss and what it can't. Startups are full of people acting under intense pressure with incomplete information. As such, these topics are just little baby toys, artificial constructs of arguments that have little real impact on people's lives. Being able to have reasonable conversations about emotional and important things with incomplete information is something we should all strive for, not something we should be afraid of.
- bendotc 17y ago
  "The problem with your argument is that there are huge sections of human knowledge in which we really don't know that much -- even experts. In fact, I'd wager there's a hell of a lot more stuff that's debatable than most people would be comfortable knowing about." I don't see how this is a problem with my argument. I didn't claim that we should only discuss things about which we have complete information, I was instead suggesting that this community is so information-poor on this subject that we lack the tools to separate right from wrong or reasonable from unreasonable. I was also objecting to the claim of opinion as fact, which I find misleads (usually unintentionally, as often these opinions are believed to be fact). And to be clear, I'm not talking about us not being steeped in theoretical economics, but rather that most of us couldn't answer questions which have factual, discoverable answers, such as how modern banking works, how money is created, what the role and powers of the Federal Reserve are, etc. These are questions with real, factual answers, but the way these things work is often incredibly complex and counterintuitive, and cannot be gleaned from a couple hours with an introductory book or Wikipedia. And in case I'm coming across as being condescending, I'd just like to say that I don't consider myself to be an economist and I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to be an expert at everything. "I've said it before: I don't think any topics should be off-limits as long as people can reasonably discuss them." Agreed, and I have seen very few reasonable discussions of economics around here. "Startups are full of people acting under intense pressure with incomplete information. As such, these topics are just little baby toys, artificial constructs of arguments that have little real impact on people's lives." So, we may as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. "Being able to have reasonable conversations about emotional and important things with incomplete information is something we should all strive for, not something we should be afraid of." And forming or refining beliefs in the absence of information is something we should be afraid of, not strive for.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    And forming or refining beliefs in the absence of information is something we should be afraid of I think this gets to the heart of our differences. I don't know things, so I ask people. Or I take up positions which others can criticize. As part of a discussion, I learn more. If modern banking practices are germane, educate me on them. You, I think, seem to feel that there is some threshold of knowledge that one must reach in order to talk reasonably about something. I, on the other hand, acknowledge that more information is better than less, but that doesn't give me the freedom to not act on things. I learn by both conversing and experimentation. There is a concept called "strong opinions, weakly held" You might want to look into it. As a side note, the internet is full of folks spouting off about things they know little about. So is life. Democracy is built on the concept of average voters voting on policies about complicated matters. Either learn to deal with these topics as part and parcel of community life or prepare to be frustrated a lot.

by bendotc 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

The problem with your argument is that there are huge sections of human knowledge in which we really don't know that much -- even experts. In fact, I'd wager there's a hell of a lot more stuff that's debatable than most people would be comfortable knowing about. I've said it before: I don't think any topics should be off-limits as long as people can reasonably discuss them. In fact, I think it's a test of a community to see what it can productively discuss and what it can't. Startups are full of people acting under intense pressure with incomplete information. As such, these topics are just little baby toys, artificial constructs of arguments that have little real impact on people's lives. Being able to have reasonable conversations about emotional and important things with incomplete information is something we should all strive for, not something we should be afraid of.

bendotc 17y ago
"The problem with your argument is that there are huge sections of human knowledge in which we really don't know that much -- even experts. In fact, I'd wager there's a hell of a lot more stuff that's debatable than most people would be comfortable knowing about." I don't see how this is a problem with my argument. I didn't claim that we should only discuss things about which we have complete information, I was instead suggesting that this community is so information-poor on this subject that we lack the tools to separate right from wrong or reasonable from unreasonable. I was also objecting to the claim of opinion as fact, which I find misleads (usually unintentionally, as often these opinions are believed to be fact). And to be clear, I'm not talking about us not being steeped in theoretical economics, but rather that most of us couldn't answer questions which have factual, discoverable answers, such as how modern banking works, how money is created, what the role and powers of the Federal Reserve are, etc. These are questions with real, factual answers, but the way these things work is often incredibly complex and counterintuitive, and cannot be gleaned from a couple hours with an introductory book or Wikipedia. And in case I'm coming across as being condescending, I'd just like to say that I don't consider myself to be an economist and I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to be an expert at everything. "I've said it before: I don't think any topics should be off-limits as long as people can reasonably discuss them." Agreed, and I have seen very few reasonable discussions of economics around here. "Startups are full of people acting under intense pressure with incomplete information. As such, these topics are just little baby toys, artificial constructs of arguments that have little real impact on people's lives." So, we may as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. "Being able to have reasonable conversations about emotional and important things with incomplete information is something we should all strive for, not something we should be afraid of." And forming or refining beliefs in the absence of information is something we should be afraid of, not strive for.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  And forming or refining beliefs in the absence of information is something we should be afraid of I think this gets to the heart of our differences. I don't know things, so I ask people. Or I take up positions which others can criticize. As part of a discussion, I learn more. If modern banking practices are germane, educate me on them. You, I think, seem to feel that there is some threshold of knowledge that one must reach in order to talk reasonably about something. I, on the other hand, acknowledge that more information is better than less, but that doesn't give me the freedom to not act on things. I learn by both conversing and experimentation. There is a concept called "strong opinions, weakly held" You might want to look into it. As a side note, the internet is full of folks spouting off about things they know little about. So is life. Democracy is built on the concept of average voters voting on policies about complicated matters. Either learn to deal with these topics as part and parcel of community life or prepare to be frustrated a lot.