5 ms·

Decades of increasingly large and seemingly free lunches have gotten us to a point where people actually think there is such a thing. But there isn't. The mone

Decades of increasingly large and seemingly free lunches have gotten us to a point where people actually think there is such a thing. But there isn't. The money has always had to come from somewhere, and it's always had consequences. It's just that the consequences can't be swept under the rug anymore, and soon even the most fervent propaganda will fail to convince the masses that everything is alright and the economy is recovering (when in reality it's not, and it's not).

icebraining 11y ago
What's the evidence that the weak state of the economy is caused by those "free lunches"?
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Evidence? Isn't reasoning enough? Or do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    I would argue that the prolonged debate between well-educated and well-respected economists on the topic of government spending[1] indicates that reasoning alone does not lead to a single straightforward answer on the topic. Since reasoning alone doesn't lead to an obvious answer on this topic, then I would argue that yes, you do need evidence to back up your claims. > "do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?" It's obvious that there exists such a limit. However, the existence of that limit doesn't do anything to help us determine what amount of government spending is the most efficient. The claim that: 1) There is a maximum amount of government spending possible 2) Therefore, the current government spending is too high Has the same flaws as: 1) There is a maximum velocity that we can travel (c) 2) Therefore, the current highway speed limit is too high. [1] For example, there were a large number of respected economists that weighed in on both sides of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either. You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context. In ordinary life, efficiency involves maximizing output from input, right? A car can be more fuel-efficient than the previous year's model, and so on. So you want government spending to be "efficient", but all government spending represents a wasteful middle-man between people and their money and whatever goods and services they need. Therefore, all government spending is "inefficient" from the point of view of the people whose money governments spend. So I'd say that there's no such thing as efficient government spending. What's efficient is people paying for stuff on a free market with free and unhindered competition among providers. Surely you know how competition works, and results in lower prices and higher quality, right? In other words, free competition results in maximal "efficiency" in an economy. In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending.
      - ncallaway 11y ago
        > "Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either." The main difference being that evidence changes between 2009 and 2015. Maybe there is new evidence since then to really support your claim that I'm not aware of? Evidence is constantly changing. Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing. If the only basis we're working from is rational thought, then you should be able to reach the same conclusions that Aristotle did. Hence, the request for evidence. > 'You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.' I'm using efficiency specifically in the economic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency). I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms. Additionally, I'll be the first to admin that my economics background is merely some early econ classes in college and a general interest afterward. I'd be very interested to hear from any economics if I've badly mucked up any of these concepts. > "In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending." I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion. This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries. I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing. I'm happy to debate if the amount of government spending is currently too high or too low; I'm happy to discuss where the best place for it to be is. However, if you would seriously contend that the correct number is zero I think we may be too far apart on a base ideological level to continue this conversation in a productive way. At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.

icebraining 11y ago

What's the evidence that the weak state of the economy is caused by those "free lunches"?

sillygoose 11y ago
Evidence? Isn't reasoning enough? Or do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?
- ncallaway 11y ago
  I would argue that the prolonged debate between well-educated and well-respected economists on the topic of government spending[1] indicates that reasoning alone does not lead to a single straightforward answer on the topic. Since reasoning alone doesn't lead to an obvious answer on this topic, then I would argue that yes, you do need evidence to back up your claims. > "do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?" It's obvious that there exists such a limit. However, the existence of that limit doesn't do anything to help us determine what amount of government spending is the most efficient. The claim that: 1) There is a maximum amount of government spending possible 2) Therefore, the current government spending is too high Has the same flaws as: 1) There is a maximum velocity that we can travel (c) 2) Therefore, the current highway speed limit is too high. [1] For example, there were a large number of respected economists that weighed in on both sides of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either. You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context. In ordinary life, efficiency involves maximizing output from input, right? A car can be more fuel-efficient than the previous year's model, and so on. So you want government spending to be "efficient", but all government spending represents a wasteful middle-man between people and their money and whatever goods and services they need. Therefore, all government spending is "inefficient" from the point of view of the people whose money governments spend. So I'd say that there's no such thing as efficient government spending. What's efficient is people paying for stuff on a free market with free and unhindered competition among providers. Surely you know how competition works, and results in lower prices and higher quality, right? In other words, free competition results in maximal "efficiency" in an economy. In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending.
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      > "Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either." The main difference being that evidence changes between 2009 and 2015. Maybe there is new evidence since then to really support your claim that I'm not aware of? Evidence is constantly changing. Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing. If the only basis we're working from is rational thought, then you should be able to reach the same conclusions that Aristotle did. Hence, the request for evidence. > 'You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.' I'm using efficiency specifically in the economic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency). I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms. Additionally, I'll be the first to admin that my economics background is merely some early econ classes in college and a general interest afterward. I'd be very interested to hear from any economics if I've badly mucked up any of these concepts. > "In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending." I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion. This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries. I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing. I'm happy to debate if the amount of government spending is currently too high or too low; I'm happy to discuss where the best place for it to be is. However, if you would seriously contend that the correct number is zero I think we may be too far apart on a base ideological level to continue this conversation in a productive way. At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.