> Huh? I earn X dollars and because the company owes Bob Y dollars means I > earn X+Y dollars? Perhaps your thinking skills aren't quite what you think > they are.
Who is Bob? There is no need to consider anyone but a single worker.
Read what I wrote. During your career, you work x hours and get paid $y. Then you get paid $w over your retirement and the company gets no additional work. That means you were compensated $y+w for x hours of work. They are promising to pay you $y now and $w later. That doesn't mean it only costs the company $y for your labor!
Do you get it now? Maybe you shouldn't attack my "thinking skills" before you put a few brain cycles into what I'm saying.
So you solution to the problem is to make it worse? How about you ask the last 100 companies who left the US why they left?
The fact is, there are two strong forces pushing jobs offshore. First, programmers want too much money here. 10 years ago the systems analyst and the programmer were 1 position. Now the systems analysts does a few hours extra work to flesh out the documentation and ships the programmer position offshore for half the price. Programmers here want the same rates that they had when they were doing both positions, and that isn't going to work. The second, and bigger, issue is taxes. The US is one of the worst countries to headquarter your business from a tax perspective and -- surprise -- companies don't want to headquarter here. This isn't just coincidence.
So instead of making the problem worse by unionizing, how about working to fix the reasons companies are leaving? Unionizing will not work.
Is making the situation worse better than doing nothing?
Well, I think you might be attributing to IT jobs what should be attributed to shitty jobs. I am in IT and pull long hours all the time. I don't take advantage of it, but we can call a car service and expense it (this is a safety issue, though). We can also order food an expense it. Et cetera. I don't think there's anything special with your girlfriend's non-IT job. That's just good management.
I'm still saying the former situation is the rarity. When you get into a job where you are responsible and accountable for getting shit done, you really don't get a "oh gee, we gave it the ol' college try but couldn't get it done in time". You get it done.
> Unions haven't driven a single job overseas. Not one. You can blame executive > greed and "free" trade for that.
This is laughable. Unions (and taxes) drive up the cost of labor here, and you blame the business owners for moving to a lower-cost alternative. It's incredible how people on the left think that the price of labor can be increased and business owners will just say "Oh, ok. Guess we get should just take the hit on our profit margins." Even more incredible is the complete lack of attention paid to how higher priced jobs lead to FEWER jobs. It's called labor demand, and it's effected by price. You may have heard about it in Econ 101.
> No, union workers in Detroit do *not* earn $71 an hour. That figure is a lie, > created by adding up all the compensation paid to current workers and the > benefit costs to retired members, and dividing that by the current number of > workers.
Hey, nice math. Let's try some reality, though. If I am a worker and work for x hours and get paid $y for that work, and then I live retired without working for another z hours and get paid $w, what is my compensation? Well, I worked for x hours and I was paid $y+w.
So, as you can see, this "lie" is actually correct in every sense of the word "compensation" worth talking about. The thing that matters is how much it costs the company per 1 hour of labor. That is NOT just their hourly rate. I will agree that many people in the media do not understand what it means when the $70+ per hour rate is quoted, but that doesn't make it any less true for those of use who can actually think.
Good call. Take an overpriced industry that is quickly being outsourced and unionize it. That should work out perfectly with no long-term negative consequences.
So why are hours 41-60 magical? You are paid to do a job. If it takes 30 hours to do it or 60 hours to do it, that's what you get paid for. If you aren't happy with the hours, talk with management. But they have a choice just like you have a choice. They can pay you the same to work less, or they can find themselves responsible (which they usually are) and manage better, or they can kick you to the curb and bring in someone who WILL do the work for the amount of money they're paying.
It really is very simple. You just have to be aware of your choices and your employer's choices.
What are you talking about? I have a harder time thinking of non-government, non-union jobs (so basically outside of overpaid jobs -- that comment's for the flamebait mod!) where employees never do work outside of work hours.
Amazing how after all this you still have no idea what I'm saying. For your benefit, I'm going to assume you're doing it on purpose, because the alternative is much less favorable.
I did, actually. I said I'm on board as long as government plays by the rules everyone else in the market plays by and only spends money on things where it expects the return will be the same or higher than the cost. I really don't see what the problem is what that statement (never have), and yet you took issue with it:
Me: "The problem is that you have to show that it is good and show that it is useful and show that those benefits are a net gain after subtracting the costs."
You: "Are you seriously claiming that infrastructure doesn't have any economic benefit? Maybe you're a genius with some obscure and unexplained theory, but I don't know anyone who would agree with you. "
And the rest of this discussion is me saying something completely reasonable and then you responding as if I had said something completely different. I said the benefits outweigh the cost. You said you couldn't believe that I thought infrastructure had no benefit. I'm sure this sounds like a reasoned response to you, but it isn't.
I also said that hamburgers aren't "investments" because differentiating between an investment and anything else is arbitrary. You think a stock is an "investment" because you don't understand how stocks get priced. You don't understand that the expected return is already priced in the stock. You haven't thought about how I wouldn't sell you a gold coin that is worth $800 today but I expect with 70% certainty to be worth $900 tomorrow. You don't understand that I would only sell it to you for $870. This idea of future returns making this an investment is from people who weren't paying attention in 7th grade when they went over expected values.
There are only two reasons that transactions happen. First, you as the buyer think I as the seller have undervalued my item in some objective sense. Second, you as the buyer have personal preferences that cause your personal valuation in the subjective sense to deviate from my personal valuation and/or the objective valuation. This is how the market works. You can argue with me that 2+2 really does equal 5, and I'm not really going to be able to counter that, but it's just an argument tactic and doesn't change the facts.
I go back to my original comment...
Me: "The problem is that you have to show that it is good and show that it is useful and show that those benefits are a net gain after subtracting the costs."
Congratulations, though, on taking a very simple point and turning it into debating whether the ocean really is blue.
Hey, thanks for explaining topics I have already explained to you. You are describing transaction costs. Anyway, I would only repeat my comments about how assets have value regardless of whether you sell them, so I'll let you take the next thing I've already explained to you that you objected to at the time but now act like you're telling me something I don't know. It's been real.
I never said there was "no such thing" as wealth creation or destruction. I said that's not how the private market operates, and that isn't how government should operate.
I don't blame you for my "inconsistent arguments". I don't even blame you for your ignorance, refusal to consider what I'm saying, and desire to argue for the sake of arguing. This is slashdot, after all, and there certainly is value in working on one's arguing skills. Keep it up.
This is laughable. We've turned full circle. MY ENTIRE POINT is that the same rules SHOULD apply to government and it's completely illogical for government to spend when they don't get value for their spending. Incredible. I said this a number of comments ago:
"Again, no idea why people think the rules of microeconomics just don't apply when we're talking about government spending. It's ridiculous, and in my opinion leads to the bankrupt, overleveraged state our government is currently in."
> That's only if you assume that people always behave in such a way to > optimally accrue wealth without any other consideration, which they obviously don't.
Um, no. Actually, it's only if you assume that our economy doesn't run on the fuel of people constantly doing things that decrease their overall wealth.
> then tell me why we should be at all concerned with the government > spending money, since they'll always get something back of equal > value in return
You shouldn't be concerned, as long as the government is getting "back" what they should be getting back for the dollars they are giving to rich business owners. But just because they are getting *something* back, doesn't mean that's the case. That's where this discussion started. You may not remember what we were talking about before you started just trying to find one sentence in my response that you could think of an objection to.
I don't think you get it. It provides market forces to dissuade polluters from polluting, and if they so choose to still pollute, the monetary penalty will go toward projects which offsets their pollution, resulting in zero net increase in total societal pollution. Is it perfect? No. But saying that it "allows" polluters to pollute is what is naive (you didn't say this exactly, but the anti-COffset crowd does).
Well, damn. I'm glad the government knows what the best green tech is and that next week there won't be a breakthrough that makes this guy's investment obsolete. Can you think of any other green technologies the government subsidized in the way of tax credits but we know now are pieces of shit?
That makes no sense. If the thing you're trading didn't already have value, then you wouldn't be able to trade it. It doesn't matter if you actually trade it or eat it or throw it away.
> I had $10, I've eaten my hamburger, and now I am $10 poorer
My comment before that you obviously didn't understand was that if this were true, no one would ever consume anything. The economy does not function if what you say here is true. You don't earn money because your employer would be poorer for paying you. You don't buy stuff because you would be poorer for doing so. Your employer doesn't make money because no one is buying their products.
I really don't know how much clearer I can make this. Your understanding of economics doesn't work even in the most trivial sense. I have to believe you understand this at this point and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Removing a negative and adding a positive is the same thing. I guess that is a pretty "maniac" way of seeing an economy working, though.
Your problem is your narrow view of what "wealth" is, your ridiculous focus on government currency as the only measure of value, and your utter misunderstanding of what money even is (which makes your focus on it even more amusing).
The consumer purchased the hamburger because the consumer received as much or more enjoyment and sustained life from the hamburger than the consumer would have received from the money itself or anything else the consumer could have used the money for. This is not a loss of wealth; it is a conversion of wealth from paper government currency to enjoyment and sustained life.
This is how microeconomics works. These are not my ideas. Perhaps if you have a local community college you could take a Econ 101 course and understand things like demand, prices, and opportunity cost.
Getting tired of this, but I'll give it one last shot...
> When I spend $10 on a hamburger, it's generally not for the sake of investment. I'm > going to eat it. When I buy a TV, I'm buying it so I can use it, not so I can sell > it in several years for more than I payed. Wealth isn't independent of form.
You're drawing arbitrary lines between investment and purchase, like I said before. The time aspect is irrelevant, except that you have to worry about inflation and fluctuations in market value. You're still stuck on "money" as some magical wealth holder that is superior to anything else. Just like you don't have to sell money in order to realize its value, you don't have to sell the TV in order to realize its value and you don't have to sell the hamburger to realize its value.
> Like I said before, maybe you're some great misunderstood genius. If so, you > can mock me when you win the Nobel prize in economics for your incredible > ideas which everyone else on the planet thinks is nonsense. In the mean time, > I'll settle for listening to people who make a modicum of sense according to > any conventional thought.
I know it's a common tactic around here to act like what someone is saying is so crazy and outside the norm that it can't be right, but the fact is that I'm not saying anything profound; this is all common economic theory and incredibly fundamental. In your twisted world where you don't understand how an economy works, no one would ever buy anything because they would lose an amount of wealth equal to the price of the good.
> Well by that logic, no one should have ever made any laws or built any > infrastructure ever because, if it made sense to do it, it would have already > been done. Great! Lets all live in caves!
You are being disingenuous. I said the plans to do them would likely already be on the books.
> Of course for any given project, you have to justify the cost. Do you think > you're the only person who's ever thought about that?
No. But when it comes to government spending, for some reason I seem to be in the minority.
> you've been arguing all this time that fixing our bridges is equivalent to > buying everyone booze and you're saying now that you were just saying that you should be doing a > cost/benefit analysis before fixing a given bridge, and you expect to be > taken seriously?
You are either being disingenuous or you are a complete idiot.
> No, in my world, there are situations where refusing to spend money can end > up costing you more than if you spend money.
Good, then we are in agreement! The same rules apply to government microeconomics as they do in private sector microeconomics.
> you've spent the money on something, and that money isn't coming back to you.
Money is a quantification of value. It is a commodity. If you buy an ounce of gold for $853.90, you have not gained or lost anything except transaction costs. If you sell an ounce of gold for $853.90, you have not gained or lost anything except transaction costs. Whatever you bought, you could immediately turn around and convert it back into dollars, minus transaction costs. It's called an economy.
So it doesn't matter at all if somehow the return on your "investment" is in the form of dollars, gold, bread, enjoyment, or pig farts. Wealth is independent of its form (that's not to say all forms have the same transaction costs, though).
So, yes, it is you who is being arbitrary with your classifications of investment vs. purchase and wealth in enjoyment vs. wealth in time vs. wealth in dollars vs. wealth in whatever else. These are not radical ideas. I suggest you read an econ book instead of arguing fundamentals with me.
> I'm really having a hard time believing that anyone could be so short-sighted > as to believe that building infrastructure is not a worthwhile investment.
I'm having a hard time believing that after all this discussion you think that's anywhere near what I'm saying. Let me try to break this down: all I'm saying is that someone needs to show that the benefits outweigh the costs. My strong guess is that they DO NOT because if they did, the plans to do them would probably already be on the books.
> no credible economists anywhere who believe that building infrastructure isn't > economically important, or that the government shouldn't have a part of > planning/building infrastructure.
There are no credible economists anywhere who believe that first class tickets don't have value over coach class tickets.
I think you're just convincing yourself of that because you don't want to think.
> Both first class and coach class get you from point A to point B equally well
That has nothing to do with it except that you changed the situation to be "I'm buying a ticket because I have to get to point B or I lose $x". All I said was that there are two competing products, one of which is superior but costs more. In your world, the consumer always buys the superior product because only the benefits are relevant. I'm pointing out how silly this is.
> a airplane ticket doesn't really count as an "investment" unless you're > specifying some return on the money you've spent).
You can draw all the arbitrary lines and classifications as you want. An "investment" is a transaction like anything else. You buy something for $x and you reap $y benefits from it. I buy a stock if I expect to reap more benefits from it than I pay out. I buy a HD TV if I expect to reap more benefits from it than I pay out. The only difference is the former calculation is easier to talk about. But it's the same thing, and my "bad metaphor" shows exactly that. The monetary value of the difference between a coach ticket and a first-class ticket on the exact same flight is quantifiable. Most people would not buy a first class ticket at current marginal costs, but if offered a first class seat for an extra $5, most people would take it. There is positive value offered by the first-class seat; it's just not enough to justify the marginal cost.
> If I was claiming that the government should give me free booze and > slippers while they build infrastructure instead of just building > infrastructure, then your metaphor might begin to make sense.
Alternatively, if you'd spend half as much time thinking about the metaphor as you do thinking about ways to dismiss it, then my metaphor might begin to make sense (to you).
> "You have to get across the country in under 10 hours or you'll lose a few > thousand dollars. Do you buy a thousand dollar plane ticket?"
You're still ignoring the real decision. It's not really the case that you "must" get there in 10 hours. If you aren't there in 10 hrs there will be consequences that can be valued at $x. Should you buy the ticket? Well, that depends. Is $x more or less than $1000.
My metaphor isn't a bad metaphor. It makes no difference if it's a "luxury version" vs a normal version of the same product we're talking about or instead a decision between spending your money on investment A or investment B.
Again, no idea why people think the rules of microeconomics just don't apply when we're talking about government spending. It's ridiculous, and in my opinion leads to the bankrupt, overleveraged state our government is currently in.
Slashdot Mirror
> Huh? I earn X dollars and because the company owes Bob Y dollars means I
> earn X+Y dollars? Perhaps your thinking skills aren't quite what you think
> they are.
Who is Bob? There is no need to consider anyone but a single worker.
Read what I wrote. During your career, you work x hours and get paid $y. Then you get paid $w over your retirement and the company gets no additional work. That means you were compensated $y+w for x hours of work. They are promising to pay you $y now and $w later. That doesn't mean it only costs the company $y for your labor!
Do you get it now? Maybe you shouldn't attack my "thinking skills" before you put a few brain cycles into what I'm saying.
So you solution to the problem is to make it worse? How about you ask the last 100 companies who left the US why they left?
The fact is, there are two strong forces pushing jobs offshore. First, programmers want too much money here. 10 years ago the systems analyst and the programmer were 1 position. Now the systems analysts does a few hours extra work to flesh out the documentation and ships the programmer position offshore for half the price. Programmers here want the same rates that they had when they were doing both positions, and that isn't going to work. The second, and bigger, issue is taxes. The US is one of the worst countries to headquarter your business from a tax perspective and -- surprise -- companies don't want to headquarter here. This isn't just coincidence.
So instead of making the problem worse by unionizing, how about working to fix the reasons companies are leaving? Unionizing will not work.
Is making the situation worse better than doing nothing?
Well, I think you might be attributing to IT jobs what should be attributed to shitty jobs. I am in IT and pull long hours all the time. I don't take advantage of it, but we can call a car service and expense it (this is a safety issue, though). We can also order food an expense it. Et cetera. I don't think there's anything special with your girlfriend's non-IT job. That's just good management.
I'm still saying the former situation is the rarity. When you get into a job where you are responsible and accountable for getting shit done, you really don't get a "oh gee, we gave it the ol' college try but couldn't get it done in time". You get it done.
> Unions haven't driven a single job overseas. Not one. You can blame executive
> greed and "free" trade for that.
This is laughable. Unions (and taxes) drive up the cost of labor here, and you blame the business owners for moving to a lower-cost alternative. It's incredible how people on the left think that the price of labor can be increased and business owners will just say "Oh, ok. Guess we get should just take the hit on our profit margins." Even more incredible is the complete lack of attention paid to how higher priced jobs lead to FEWER jobs. It's called labor demand, and it's effected by price. You may have heard about it in Econ 101.
> No, union workers in Detroit do *not* earn $71 an hour. That figure is a lie,
> created by adding up all the compensation paid to current workers and the
> benefit costs to retired members, and dividing that by the current number of
> workers.
Hey, nice math. Let's try some reality, though. If I am a worker and work for x hours and get paid $y for that work, and then I live retired without working for another z hours and get paid $w, what is my compensation? Well, I worked for x hours and I was paid $y+w.
So, as you can see, this "lie" is actually correct in every sense of the word "compensation" worth talking about. The thing that matters is how much it costs the company per 1 hour of labor. That is NOT just their hourly rate. I will agree that many people in the media do not understand what it means when the $70+ per hour rate is quoted, but that doesn't make it any less true for those of use who can actually think.
Good call. Take an overpriced industry that is quickly being outsourced and unionize it. That should work out perfectly with no long-term negative consequences.
So why are hours 41-60 magical? You are paid to do a job. If it takes 30 hours to do it or 60 hours to do it, that's what you get paid for. If you aren't happy with the hours, talk with management. But they have a choice just like you have a choice. They can pay you the same to work less, or they can find themselves responsible (which they usually are) and manage better, or they can kick you to the curb and bring in someone who WILL do the work for the amount of money they're paying.
It really is very simple. You just have to be aware of your choices and your employer's choices.
> In any other job it's unthinkable
What are you talking about? I have a harder time thinking of non-government, non-union jobs (so basically outside of overpaid jobs -- that comment's for the flamebait mod!) where employees never do work outside of work hours.
Amazing how after all this you still have no idea what I'm saying. For your benefit, I'm going to assume you're doing it on purpose, because the alternative is much less favorable.
I did, actually. I said I'm on board as long as government plays by the rules everyone else in the market plays by and only spends money on things where it expects the return will be the same or higher than the cost. I really don't see what the problem is what that statement (never have), and yet you took issue with it:
Me: "The problem is that you have to show that it is good and show that it is useful and show that those benefits are a net gain after subtracting the costs."
You: "Are you seriously claiming that infrastructure doesn't have any economic benefit? Maybe you're a genius with some obscure and unexplained theory, but I don't know anyone who would agree with you. "
And the rest of this discussion is me saying something completely reasonable and then you responding as if I had said something completely different. I said the benefits outweigh the cost. You said you couldn't believe that I thought infrastructure had no benefit. I'm sure this sounds like a reasoned response to you, but it isn't.
I also said that hamburgers aren't "investments" because differentiating between an investment and anything else is arbitrary. You think a stock is an "investment" because you don't understand how stocks get priced. You don't understand that the expected return is already priced in the stock. You haven't thought about how I wouldn't sell you a gold coin that is worth $800 today but I expect with 70% certainty to be worth $900 tomorrow. You don't understand that I would only sell it to you for $870. This idea of future returns making this an investment is from people who weren't paying attention in 7th grade when they went over expected values.
There are only two reasons that transactions happen. First, you as the buyer think I as the seller have undervalued my item in some objective sense. Second, you as the buyer have personal preferences that cause your personal valuation in the subjective sense to deviate from my personal valuation and/or the objective valuation. This is how the market works. You can argue with me that 2+2 really does equal 5, and I'm not really going to be able to counter that, but it's just an argument tactic and doesn't change the facts.
I go back to my original comment...
Me: "The problem is that you have to show that it is good and show that it is useful and show that those benefits are a net gain after subtracting the costs."
Congratulations, though, on taking a very simple point and turning it into debating whether the ocean really is blue.
Hey, thanks for explaining topics I have already explained to you. You are describing transaction costs. Anyway, I would only repeat my comments about how assets have value regardless of whether you sell them, so I'll let you take the next thing I've already explained to you that you objected to at the time but now act like you're telling me something I don't know. It's been real.
I never said there was "no such thing" as wealth creation or destruction. I said that's not how the private market operates, and that isn't how government should operate.
I don't blame you for my "inconsistent arguments". I don't even blame you for your ignorance, refusal to consider what I'm saying, and desire to argue for the sake of arguing. This is slashdot, after all, and there certainly is value in working on one's arguing skills. Keep it up.
This is laughable. We've turned full circle. MY ENTIRE POINT is that the same rules SHOULD apply to government and it's completely illogical for government to spend when they don't get value for their spending. Incredible. I said this a number of comments ago:
"Again, no idea why people think the rules of microeconomics just don't apply when we're talking about government spending. It's ridiculous, and in my opinion leads to the bankrupt, overleveraged state our government is currently in."
Absolutely incredible.
> That's only if you assume that people always behave in such a way to
> optimally accrue wealth without any other consideration, which they obviously don't.
Um, no. Actually, it's only if you assume that our economy doesn't run on the fuel of people constantly doing things that decrease their overall wealth.
> then tell me why we should be at all concerned with the government
> spending money, since they'll always get something back of equal
> value in return
You shouldn't be concerned, as long as the government is getting "back" what they should be getting back for the dollars they are giving to rich business owners. But just because they are getting *something* back, doesn't mean that's the case. That's where this discussion started. You may not remember what we were talking about before you started just trying to find one sentence in my response that you could think of an objection to.
I don't think you get it. It provides market forces to dissuade polluters from polluting, and if they so choose to still pollute, the monetary penalty will go toward projects which offsets their pollution, resulting in zero net increase in total societal pollution. Is it perfect? No. But saying that it "allows" polluters to pollute is what is naive (you didn't say this exactly, but the anti-COffset crowd does).
Well, damn. I'm glad the government knows what the best green tech is and that next week there won't be a breakthrough that makes this guy's investment obsolete. Can you think of any other green technologies the government subsidized in the way of tax credits but we know now are pieces of shit?
capital gains? nom nom nom about 4 hours ago from web
Where's the -1, Spoiler Alert mod when you need it
That makes no sense. If the thing you're trading didn't already have value, then you wouldn't be able to trade it. It doesn't matter if you actually trade it or eat it or throw it away.
> I had $10, I've eaten my hamburger, and now I am $10 poorer
My comment before that you obviously didn't understand was that if this were true, no one would ever consume anything. The economy does not function if what you say here is true. You don't earn money because your employer would be poorer for paying you. You don't buy stuff because you would be poorer for doing so. Your employer doesn't make money because no one is buying their products.
I really don't know how much clearer I can make this. Your understanding of economics doesn't work even in the most trivial sense. I have to believe you understand this at this point and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Removing a negative and adding a positive is the same thing. I guess that is a pretty "maniac" way of seeing an economy working, though.
Your problem is your narrow view of what "wealth" is, your ridiculous focus on government currency as the only measure of value, and your utter misunderstanding of what money even is (which makes your focus on it even more amusing).
The consumer purchased the hamburger because the consumer received as much or more enjoyment and sustained life from the hamburger than the consumer would have received from the money itself or anything else the consumer could have used the money for. This is not a loss of wealth; it is a conversion of wealth from paper government currency to enjoyment and sustained life.
This is how microeconomics works. These are not my ideas. Perhaps if you have a local community college you could take a Econ 101 course and understand things like demand, prices, and opportunity cost.
Getting tired of this, but I'll give it one last shot...
> When I spend $10 on a hamburger, it's generally not for the sake of investment. I'm
> going to eat it. When I buy a TV, I'm buying it so I can use it, not so I can sell
> it in several years for more than I payed. Wealth isn't independent of form.
You're drawing arbitrary lines between investment and purchase, like I said before. The time aspect is irrelevant, except that you have to worry about inflation and fluctuations in market value. You're still stuck on "money" as some magical wealth holder that is superior to anything else. Just like you don't have to sell money in order to realize its value, you don't have to sell the TV in order to realize its value and you don't have to sell the hamburger to realize its value.
> Like I said before, maybe you're some great misunderstood genius. If so, you
> can mock me when you win the Nobel prize in economics for your incredible
> ideas which everyone else on the planet thinks is nonsense. In the mean time,
> I'll settle for listening to people who make a modicum of sense according to
> any conventional thought.
I know it's a common tactic around here to act like what someone is saying is so crazy and outside the norm that it can't be right, but the fact is that I'm not saying anything profound; this is all common economic theory and incredibly fundamental. In your twisted world where you don't understand how an economy works, no one would ever buy anything because they would lose an amount of wealth equal to the price of the good.
> Well by that logic, no one should have ever made any laws or built any
> infrastructure ever because, if it made sense to do it, it would have already
> been done. Great! Lets all live in caves!
You are being disingenuous. I said the plans to do them would likely already be on the books.
> Of course for any given project, you have to justify the cost. Do you think
> you're the only person who's ever thought about that?
No. But when it comes to government spending, for some reason I seem to be in the minority.
> you've been arguing all this time that fixing our bridges is equivalent to
> buying everyone booze and you're saying now that you were just saying that you should be doing a
> cost/benefit analysis before fixing a given bridge, and you expect to be
> taken seriously?
You are either being disingenuous or you are a complete idiot.
> No, in my world, there are situations where refusing to spend money can end
> up costing you more than if you spend money.
Good, then we are in agreement! The same rules apply to government microeconomics as they do in private sector microeconomics.
> you've spent the money on something, and that money isn't coming back to you.
Money is a quantification of value. It is a commodity. If you buy an ounce of gold for $853.90, you have not gained or lost anything except transaction costs. If you sell an ounce of gold for $853.90, you have not gained or lost anything except transaction costs. Whatever you bought, you could immediately turn around and convert it back into dollars, minus transaction costs. It's called an economy.
So it doesn't matter at all if somehow the return on your "investment" is in the form of dollars, gold, bread, enjoyment, or pig farts. Wealth is independent of its form (that's not to say all forms have the same transaction costs, though).
So, yes, it is you who is being arbitrary with your classifications of investment vs. purchase and wealth in enjoyment vs. wealth in time vs. wealth in dollars vs. wealth in whatever else. These are not radical ideas. I suggest you read an econ book instead of arguing fundamentals with me.
> I'm really having a hard time believing that anyone could be so short-sighted
> as to believe that building infrastructure is not a worthwhile investment.
I'm having a hard time believing that after all this discussion you think that's anywhere near what I'm saying. Let me try to break this down: all I'm saying is that someone needs to show that the benefits outweigh the costs. My strong guess is that they DO NOT because if they did, the plans to do them would probably already be on the books.
> no credible economists anywhere who believe that building infrastructure isn't
> economically important, or that the government shouldn't have a part of
> planning/building infrastructure.
There are no credible economists anywhere who believe that first class tickets don't have value over coach class tickets.
Do you get it yet?
> Like I said, it's a bad metaphor
I think you're just convincing yourself of that because you don't want to think.
> Both first class and coach class get you from point A to point B equally well
That has nothing to do with it except that you changed the situation to be "I'm buying a ticket because I have to get to point B or I lose $x". All I said was that there are two competing products, one of which is superior but costs more. In your world, the consumer always buys the superior product because only the benefits are relevant. I'm pointing out how silly this is.
> a airplane ticket doesn't really count as an "investment" unless you're
> specifying some return on the money you've spent).
You can draw all the arbitrary lines and classifications as you want. An "investment" is a transaction like anything else. You buy something for $x and you reap $y benefits from it. I buy a stock if I expect to reap more benefits from it than I pay out. I buy a HD TV if I expect to reap more benefits from it than I pay out. The only difference is the former calculation is easier to talk about. But it's the same thing, and my "bad metaphor" shows exactly that. The monetary value of the difference between a coach ticket and a first-class ticket on the exact same flight is quantifiable. Most people would not buy a first class ticket at current marginal costs, but if offered a first class seat for an extra $5, most people would take it. There is positive value offered by the first-class seat; it's just not enough to justify the marginal cost.
> If I was claiming that the government should give me free booze and
> slippers while they build infrastructure instead of just building
> infrastructure, then your metaphor might begin to make sense.
Alternatively, if you'd spend half as much time thinking about the metaphor as you do thinking about ways to dismiss it, then my metaphor might begin to make sense (to you).
Good luck.
> So you don't think that the economic boom in Somalia because of the influx
> of ransom money from pirating can be described as a "bubble"?
Should I feel like your comment has any relevance to what we're discussing?
> "You have to get across the country in under 10 hours or you'll lose a few
> thousand dollars. Do you buy a thousand dollar plane ticket?"
You're still ignoring the real decision. It's not really the case that you "must" get there in 10 hours. If you aren't there in 10 hrs there will be consequences that can be valued at $x. Should you buy the ticket? Well, that depends. Is $x more or less than $1000.
My metaphor isn't a bad metaphor. It makes no difference if it's a "luxury version" vs a normal version of the same product we're talking about or instead a decision between spending your money on investment A or investment B.
Again, no idea why people think the rules of microeconomics just don't apply when we're talking about government spending. It's ridiculous, and in my opinion leads to the bankrupt, overleveraged state our government is currently in.