Slashdot Mirror

You are right. You should read this book. It backs up your exact points. http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

It is a form of it.

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

"basic income" is nothing more than a min wage.

In the GP story. Perhaps the guy who had 100 bucks would have hired the second guy to mow his lawn? Thus a thing is created instead. Instead it is just taking the money from the first to give to the second with nothing created. Most people would call that theft.

Perhaps we can ask the GP if they would be willing to take half of their money and give it away. I mean they should be cool with giving it away right? They obviously do not need it. But but but the GP will say "i do not have enough". Hmm curious you can ask others to do it but are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. I mean all we are asking for is half.

Here GP I will help you out http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homeless+...

It is a form of it.

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

"basic income" is nothing more than a min wage.

In the GP story. Perhaps the guy who had 100 bucks would have hired the second guy to mow his lawn? Thus a thing is created instead. Instead it is just taking the money from the first to give to the second with nothing created. Most people would call that theft.

Perhaps we can ask the GP if they would be willing to take half of their money and give it away. I mean they should be cool with giving it away right? They obviously do not need it. But but but the GP will say "i do not have enough". Hmm curious you can ask others to do it but are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. I mean all we are asking for is half.

Here GP I will help you out http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homeless+...

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

This book describes the exact reason ill thought out processes can do the exact opposite of what you are trying to do.

Once you understand the real idea of scarcity and plenty you can begin to understand greed. Once you understand that you can see why people act the way they do.

But leave it to the spyocrats at google to think they are doing a good thing.

Ok you think all economics that does not agree with your world view is 'ayn rand'. She was brilliantly wrong because she put the idea that only '1%rs' can create value. That is fundamentally wrong and dead easy to prove wrong.

Gov spending is the broken window fallacy. Hidden behind rhetoric, name calling, and appeal to authority. If you want to learn about it I can not recommend this book enough. http://steshaw.org/economics-i... Specifically chapters 4-6

Did you know for the past 8 years it has been nearly impossible for corporations to issue bonds at a rate that is in line rate with the risk they are putting forth? Why? Because the gov has basically frozen risk out of the system with its bond buying programs. When they start to unwind it the sucker/president stuck with it will be blamed. You will see major companies stock value fall as they have not been putting for the risk into the market but onto the tax payers backs. My guess is if a republican wins you will see them start to unwind it. If a democrat wins it will be put off until mid next year 'with careful consideration'.

Here is a good way to talk to the people who have convinced themselves that the broken window fallacy is a good idea.

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

We have over the years done exactly what we should not do. We reap short term gains for extreme long term losses. Then think if we just do it again this time it will be ok. I humbly predict in 15 years we are bailing out GM again.

Here is a good way to talk to the people who have convinced themselves that the broken window fallacy is a good idea.

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

We have over the years done exactly what we should not do. We reap short term gains for extreme long term losses. Then think if we just do it again this time it will be ok. I humbly predict in 15 years we are bailing out GM again.

Here is a good way to talk to the people who have convinced themselves that the broken window fallacy is a good idea.

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

We have over the years done exactly what we should not do. We reap short term gains for extreme long term losses. Then think if we just do it again this time it will be ok. I humbly predict in 15 years we are bailing out GM again.

Here is a good way to talk to the people who have convinced themselves that the broken window fallacy is a good idea.

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

We have over the years done exactly what we should not do. We reap short term gains for extreme long term losses. Then think if we just do it again this time it will be ok. I humbly predict in 15 years we are bailing out GM again.

Here is a good way to talk to the people who have convinced themselves that the broken window fallacy is a good idea.

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

We have over the years done exactly what we should not do. We reap short term gains for extreme long term losses. Then think if we just do it again this time it will be ok. I humbly predict in 15 years we are bailing out GM again.

Taxes are exactly the wrong way to do this.

It seems like a good idea. Until you realize what exactly do they do with taxes? We see the big ticket items sure. But there are zillions of other ways we are being ripped off.

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

We over and over do exactly the wrong thing to save the world. Which ends up doing the opposite.

I make a grand prediction here. They gain and lose nothing by removing this tax. Other than a cost that their public must shoulder. The producers are not going to eat the cost that is for sure.

sigh...

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

Destroyed things to bring value.

sigh...

http://steshaw.org/economics-i...
http://steshaw.org/economics-i...

Destroyed things to bring value.

This is just years of bad tax incentives coming home to roost.

http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html

I wanted to move there in the mid 90s. Before the tech boom. Even then with a *good* job I knew it was unsustainable. I could live somewhere else in a decent sized house. Or on a postage stamp with 1/4th the size house for 2-3x the cost. Then on top of that a 1-2 hour commute every morning.

It did not take a serious amount of thought to realize they had created a very negative feedback loop of helping everyone yet not helping anyone.

but we went BACKWARDs in the last couple of decades
Hardly. We have even *MORE* social programs (you may have noticed Detroit went under from the weight of them). What we also have is crippling costs. But the money is not actually fixing the problem. Jobs people can do is what we need at a rate the market can bare. There will be a small portion of our population that is incapable of doing a job. However at this point we have somewhere between 7-14% unemployment depending on whos numbers you read. Somewhere between 30-45% employed but working poverty. Yet our answer always seems to be 'throw more money at it'. That is clearly not working.

We have gov who is wasting trillions of dollars on a war machine that has 0 accountability. We then somehow magically think that they are doing good with money when it is in a social program.

We need 1950s income tax rates back;
Can you prove that will work? Or are you just hoping it will work because you saw it somewhere? There is 0 proof that confiscating everyone's money will fix the issue other than make everyone equally miserable. We tried 'lets pass this and see what we get' and we now have 3x insurance rates and people being put onto medicade (read about how medicade is a loan not a social program and families losing their homes).

But maybe if we just give them a few more trillion they will get it right this time? Right?

Sorry about being harsh. But your ideas have been tried. They do not work. In fact they usually hurt the very ones you want to help unfortunately. Take a bit of time and read economics in one lesson. It is far from perfect. But it highlights many mistakes our gov has been making for many years in the name of helping people. Then going on to do the exact opposite. Your ideas are good. However, they only work *very* short term. Long term they turn around and do the exact opposite.

What Cal is seeing now is a side effect of rent control and a fixed purchase price tax burden. People can take up housing and live there at a low rate for a long time. Those houses are effectively removed from the market. This creates a shortage in the remaining houses. Those remaining houses now have a much higher market distorted value. It is why you see a 1200 sq ft house which anywhere else in the country would be a low income 100k house going for 1-2 million dollars.

Exactly. Governments aren't very good at getting value for tax payer's money, as this example (and plenty of others), shows. This served no public good (i.e. it wasn't building a common use road, or providing a social service), it was purely commercial venture. A government won't have done appropriate due diligence on this because "who cares, it's only $500k". An individual would have, and even if they didn't, they'd have only lost their own money. http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/