Normally, I detest the stereotypical convention of the portrayal of evolution as a progressive process — it’s so linear and simple-minded — but somehow it fits perfectly with this example.
The forward march of Republican history
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Would the one for Democrats be saying “more taxes” over and over as the creature grows to the size of the moon? Seriously, PZ, read a good macroeconomics book one of these days.
The Republican Party has shifted more and more every year into the territory of an old vinyl record, repeating the same few lines without consideration of anything else going on in the world around.
Although, to be fair, I suppose the Democrat version should have them all bickering and arguing, unable to find a unified voice.
Yes, any good economics book would show how the RepublicanTs have it all wrong, as they have since Reagan’s voodoo economics that started this disaster. When they aren’t spouting ‘tax cut’ they yammer about deregulation, the other part of their silly nonsense.
I predict I know exactly where this thread goes and probably some of the players that take it there.
Come on OqO, it doesn’t take an economics degree to realize that cutting taxes reduces expenditure on public services which means worse public services. Which means the USA under Republicans.
Come on, PZ. Where’s your sense of bipartisanship? Isn’t that supposed to be the pinnacle of political virtue?
I hope we are continuing the ban on Libertarians…
Actually they also say “deregulation” and “Jesus.”
Keep in mind that we did just elect a president that promised tax cuts for “95%” of Americans as is touting a stimulus package with about $300 billion in tax cuts. Does he get elected if he doesn’t make that promise? We’ll never know. But who was the last president to be elected after saying that we needed to raise taxes on the middle class?
Rev. BDC:
I’m gonna join in. I bet you couldn’t’ve predicted that.
I really wish there was a method of empirically studying the effects of certain actions on the economy, instead of relying on a bunch of ivory-tower elitists who publish books of pure “theory” based more on speculation and wishful thinking than reality.
(I just *had* to use “ivory-tower elitists” in a sentence. It’s kind of my fatwa envy, since neocons get to use it all the time.)
Should be “and is touting”. That’s what I get for commenting during my 25 min lunch ‘hour’.
Nope, but I never claimed to predict all the players.
Republicanism hasn’t always been about a straight line. There has been an occasional stop in an airport restroom.
I would suppose that this refers to the current republicans, rather than the republicans of the old… ?
OqO #1
You must have skimmed the macroeconomics book, OqO. You apparently missed the part about lowering expenses when lowering income.
A major cause of the federal deficit that Obama inherited was the Republican program of lowering taxes while fighting an expensive war. Conservatives rant about “tax and spend liberals.” I don’t see how “charge it and owe it” is a better economic policy, especially when Republicans were acting like a 14 year old girl let loose in the mall with Mom’s credit card.
If you want to discuss macroeconomics or fiscal policy, OqO, I’m more than happy to participate. I should warn you, however, that I am a professional economist.
@JasonTD (#9)
Calling Republicans “RepublicanTs” is about as mature as calling Democrats “DemocraPs.”
HAHAHAHA republicans falling off the cliff!!!
I’m no economist, but I am reading this book right now, which explains a lot of what has happened economically over the last 30 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
Most Repubs will claim they did not evolve
and that the “Cut Taxes” loop is part of God’s design.
In other words:
Unintelligent Design
Oh Dear, Newfie, please tell me you’ll keep reading other books on economics once you finish. In the spirit of economic bipartisanship, Barack the uniter and all that, I can recommend a few to ‘balance’ out Naomi Klein.
For Newfie, but open to anyone really.
Everyone here raise there hands if they think that increasing tax rates always results in increasing tax revenue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
AfricanGenesis in 3…2…1…
I am not touching this subject here (too hostile an environment) — economic history already shouts volumes enough on its own for the de facto relationship between the prosperity (and employment) enjoyed by a nation’s citizenry and the level of their taxation — if only folks would notice!
Matt at #22 said:
I took a macroeconomics course about five years ago. During a lecture about competing economic theories a student (who later was self-identified as a Reagan Republican) asked about the Laffer Curve, since the professor hadn’t yet mentioned it. The professor paused, looked out from over his glasses, and said something along the lines of “The Laffer Curve is crap economics, and won’t be taught here.”
He didn’t explain why he thought it was unworthy of discussion, but I did enjoy watching the student sputter in exasperation. (I also enjoyed getting a higher grade then he, even though he was a business major and I was a history major.)
@#22
Ah the Laffer Curve, voodoo economics’ favourite whipping boy.
I believe AG is on a 24 hour suspension right now. However I notice Matt (whom I have killfiled) has posted. I suspect he’s claiming that Naomi Klein’s The Shock Treatment is wildly unbalanced and offering Milton Freedman and the Cato Institute as a remedy.
I don’t think that. The perfect tax amount will never be found, because economies aren’t static.
Matt, I don’t know if I’ll read many books on economics, but this one is an interesting read, and is not so much economics as a view of recent world events.
My next book will be, Your Inner Fish. I’ve seen it advertised here on Pharyngula, and the reviews appeal to me.
I consider myself an economic libertarian but I also live in reality, and in reality tax cuts do no good for closing businesses and people losing their jobs. In a deflationary spiral, supply side economics does fuck all of good.
Heh. That’s actually pretty damn funny.
Matt: I take it you are, of course, an unbiased critic of Ms Klein?
While I disagree with her thesis (I don’t think all of the crises were necessarily fabricated) I do not disagree with her conclusions (that the crises were used to push a free market agenda)
In hindsight it is obvious that the crises mentioned in her book were leveraged opportunistically by uber-free-market ‘movers and shakers’ to foist their perspective on our governing institutions.
The worry for me is that such insanity is now the orthodoxy.
The solution to the discussion is simple: Ideology is ALWAYS wrong.
Whatever economic action is taken should be based on the best available evidence at the time. That means a mixed economy. Sometimes the government is involved, and sometimes they’re not; simply depends on the circumstance.
That’s true.
So why not cut taxes some taxes that might actually help, like tobacco? For some reason, I don’t hear a lot of that from the republicans right now.
Basically, they want tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts, regardless of whether they will have any benefit.
@ 18: I am laughing with you!!!
Paul Krugman and Lane Kenworthy have some interesting thoughts on The New Laffer Curve Logic and the Lack of Evidence for It.
Matt @8: The Laffer curve certainly illustrates an important concept, and the argument that we’re on the right side of the curve may have held some water a few decades ago. However, to the extent that Republican advocacy of tax cuts is connected to their effect on revenue, the desire is typically for revenue to decrease (pursuant to the thoroughly discredited “starve the beast” model). More commonly, though, the argument is that tax cuts somehow lead to job creation, even though that was tried in 2003 and failed miserably. Some people need to realize that there are more variables involved, and that tax revenues don’t just disappear from the economy, but rather have the potential to stimulate it via government spending.
Bringing the Republicans in on a discussion of fiscal policy would be a lot more interesting if they would vary their solutions based on the situation at hand.
What is interesting is watching Greg Mankiw try to walk the line between his ideological and partisan loyalties and his background as a good economist. It’s like watching Episode III of Star Wars, only with less fire and more graphs.
Newfie, Your Inner Fish is next on my reading list as well. It looks great.
Pablo, can you elaborate a little bit on why you think we should be specifically cutting tobacco taxes? I’m just curious.
Sean Carroll has one of the better smack-downs of the Laffer Curve that I’ve seen.
#1:
Probably not, but the creatures would be invertebrates.
And are you Jesse Helm’s long lost son?
profstampede@17
I much prefer DemoNcrats, myself. Get a little fundie flavor in that childishness.
That about sums it up!
Thought experiment time.
The amount spent so far on economic stimulus. 700B Tarp + (estimated) 820B
1.5 Trillion.
How much is that in Federal Tax revenue? For the sake of discussion lets say 6 months worth.
Now, imagine no one paid federal taxes for the next six months. Anyone stimulated by that thought?
Tony,
Ms Klein is a bit hysterical linking Pinochets disappearing tactics to Milton Friedman, as if thats a repudiation of his economics, as if he kidnapped and tortured himself. all that said, I agree Pinochet shouldve stood trial. Kissinger too.
I also agree with Ms Klein on the negative out come for Sri Lankan fishermen on the coast of ___? (cant remember) they had an organic subsistence economy, a natural disaster wiped them out, in came international money, World Bank, IMF, and built hotels. The fishermen were offered jobs as bell hops if they were lucky.
The solution, though, is one I wonder if Ms Klein would consider. Disband the World bank and the IMF. Something tells me she prefers something more centralized, with more power, permanently run by the right people who believe what she believes. Dont fret Tony, she’ll get that, minus the ‘permanently’, before I get my solution.
Regarding Laffer, you all can do your own homework. Its pretty simple, check out the historical revenue collection curve, then check out the historical tax rates. One fluctuates quite a bit, the other not so much. Why?
Personally, I don’t think we should be cutting tabacco taxes, or any, for that matter. But if we DO insist upon cutting taxes in these times, why not cut some that will provide stimulus? As in the comment I responded to, cutting income tax doesn’t do any good if people are out of work.
Why tobacco in particular?
OqO’s feelings have been hurt (#1). It’s quite sad to see a slave defending his master’s right to own him. (I know, maybe OqO is not a slave but a wealthy satisfied dude. In that case I’m sure he won’t mind).
Just read Pablo and Natalie’s comments. Illustrates the paradox of the Sin Tax that Dems find themselves in.
Conservative: Lets lower taxes on cigarettes. Poor people smoke more and die sooner, this is unfair to them.
Liberal: But then cigarettes would be cheaper and people would smoke more. This is unarguably bad.
Conservative: (hmmmmm, I think I see an opening) Implied in your response is an understanding of the relationship between cost and demand and if we could just transfer that acknowledged relationship to….
Liberal: LA LA LA LA LA LA not listening anymore.
You’re right Matt. We are not listening to you.
Your point? I think I know it but please go right ahead.
Hey Matt, where are the conservatives proposing to lower taxes on cigarettes?
Republican tax cut proposals are always about cutting income and capital gains tax rates.
Newfie, bookmark these morsels of mental fiber for a balanced diet for when your done with Naomi. You be the judge.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128903.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/129535.html
Matt, let’s simulate it. An out of work person making $0 annually, at 90%(over inflated figure) income tax, pays $0 in taxes annually. Now, reduce this to zero, and now they are only paying $0 in taxes annually! Nice!
Anyone working, most people are cutting back anyways and paying off debts, saving money. Tax cuts right now will not stimulate the economy, as most people are going to squirrel it away in case they lose their job, and as more job cuts are being announced, that chance continues to increase for just about everyone.
I’ve also never seen sin tax cuts coming from Republicans.
No idea why the name came up “Matt” when I was responding to Matt?
Second Rev. BigDumbChimp @4.
Pablo,
I would emphasize I used the word Conservative. Not all Republicans qualify, specially these days. to your question:
Arkansas; Dems largely for raising cig taxes, Repubs largely against.
http://arkansasnews.com/?p=25198
PA; Rendell taxes cigs at 1.35 per pack, raising them on other sins, tobacco products and video poker. Repubs against.
Need more? Google is your friend.
Since tobacco taxes came up, our “no new taxes” governor, Tim Pawlenty, went along with a raise on the tobacco tax a few years ago, but he kept calling it a “health fee” in order to say he kept his promise to the MN Tax League that he wouldn’t raise taxes.
What a joke! I am glad I quit some years ago as a good percentage of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is taxes.
AfricanGenesis in 3…2…1…
Heh. I spent some time smacking AG around toward the end of one of the University of Vermont threads last week –
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/university_of_vermont_students.php#commentsArea
It’s often car-wreck-hypnotic to watch libertardians trip over their own feet while pretending to understand economics (or much of anything, for that matter).
Matt @55
thats a part of the simulation and there is some truth in that. Heres another part, if I have a job and suddenly I have another 13% or so take home pay, I am more likely to spend. Those places where I spend will need workers. I’ll let you take it from here.
FTR, I support increasing unemployment insurance, extending food stamps. I even support some infrastructure reinvestment; bridges to fix, potholes in old roads to be filled — as opposed to new roads lain, bad news from a green perspective. And when they are fixed, then what for the worker? Unemployed again?
Keep in mind the cause of all this. Easy money and malinvestment. We are encouraging more of this, not less. The disease cannot be the cure. Letting prices fall to their true cost is. Dont be fooled folks, the inflationists rely on you for giving them political cover. The creature from Jekyll island: one conspiracy you can believe in.
Another thought experiment.
How many people here believe the best way to save for retirement is to put money in a savings account/CDs? Why is this a bad strategy?
We are all speculators now.
So Matt, what part of that “Repubs against raising taxes” corresponds to a tax cut?
Matt: your continued ideological posting removes all doubt from my mind that you might be crafting your statements after due consideration of all the relevant facts!
Regarding tobacco taxes – you do recall that tobacco is not a good thing. That its unfettered consumption has increased healthcare costs in every US state (and elsewhere, but that is, for the moment, irrelevant to this comment). That the lobbies who pushed hardest against taxes were the manufacturers themselves?
I know you’re not really concerned with tobacco taxes – you are simply trying to impose your own narrow ideologically frozen libertarian perspective on everything you say.
You are now killfiled, ‘cos I’ve heard enough libertard rants to last a few lifetimes.
Tony, perhaps you were bluffing on the killfile silliness. If so, Im not a Libert@$!@n.
read my earlier comment and see
>>>FTR, I support increasing unemployment insurance, extending food stamps. I even support some infrastructure reinvestment; bridges to fix, potholes in old roads to be filled.
Matt – your last comment made before killfile. you said, regarding roads and infrastructure
The whole reason we’re in this mess with infrastructure is that necessary repair and maintenance was ignored. The vital lesson is that we need to continue to invest in our infrastructure.
But I don’t suppose a libertard will understand that need for continued government investment.
OK, Matt -I’ll play.
You’re not a libertard. What rings your bell?
(In defense of my earlier assessment: You support libertard economics; you seem to be equally antagonistic towards repubs & Dems; you appear to be antagonistic towards taxes in general; you suggest ‘freezing all taxes’ in place of the TARP/Stimulus spending)
FYI — most libertarians recognize a need for ‘catastrophic insurance’ – which might charitably include unemployment insurance and food stamps – just make sure there are limits in place, eh? SO your statement did not immediately suggest any revision to my assessment.
Tony, on my better days Im a good goverment liberal. Problem is ive been in search of good government most of my life. Im not opposed to lending a hand via government. I rarely see honest discussion (from politicians) on the best way to do it.
Yes, its true that from where we float now as a country I think we ought to sail Liberta$@!n-ward. Thats not the same thing as tearing everything down.
President Obama said that Gov programs that do not work ought to be cut. Nothing warms my heart more, cant wait to see the chopping list.
Heres a suggestion. The Tax levied to fight the war. Not the Iraq war, the Spanish-American war. The war that ended 111 years ago.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/07/02/spanish-american-war-tax-on-telephone-service-continues-today/
Mission creep, Tony. Its all mission creep and it is rarely corrected. I dont want to start completely fresh, but we need to do more cutting before we do more growing in the Gov.
Tony – besides, the point of “stimulus” package is to STIMULATE the economy, i.e. get it going again, not carry the dang thing.
It’s amazing, people who are all opposed to government programs as a long term solution are now insisting that the government provide permanent work?
If you’re really trying to make a data-based connection on this, I’d suggest something more likely to yeild useful results. Like trying to find the face of Jesus in your toast.
It depends. Are you concerned about having a job in the future? The actual data indicates that most of that 13% is going straight into savings.
Presumably, most of those people are able to get jobs in normally functioning economy. You seem to believe that we’re at full capacity and the natural state of these people is to be unemployed. I have no idea why.
BWAHAHAHAHAH!
Have to agree. Tobacoo is the single stupidest example you could have come up with. The only reason its taxed in the first place is because the government doesn’t have the fracking guts to create real recovery programs, and its legal, so they can’t jail the thousands of people that smoke it, like they do with Pot. Admitting that its a “solvable” health problem, with no secondary legitimate usages, which requires getting everyone to stop using it, and taking “valid” steps to remove it from the market is **never** going to happen, so instead they tax it, to pay for the medical costs that accrue as a result, so they don’t have to spend money for other things on paying *those* costs. End result, the people smoking *still* would rather spend $5 for a pack of cigs, even with taxes, rather than quit on their own (Gosh! Never saw that coming!), or feeding their own damn kids.
This is not an example of something you could “lower” to get more money. You lower it, the secondary costs for health benefits “goes up”, which means you still lose any money that might have been saved by cutting the tax. Its like.. your in the middle of the ocean with two life boats, and some idiot keeps insisting that people get out of them, because its more important to have half a boat full of fish, than keep people alive. Only, they then notice that the other boat has more fish, so they have to shove someone overboard, so they have room to get more into it. Your so damn worried about the damn fish, your missing the point of *having* life boats. Isn’t it just “possible” that emptying the third boat of all the damn luggage you also insisted you take with you, when the boat sank, might get you “both”, without basically robbing everyone of one thing, to give them something that is completely chindogu (A thing of questionable value, like a toilet seat that resizes itself to fit your ass, or an umbrella with a remote control). Who the heck are you actually helping with this kind of thing?
And, really, that is the problem. Too many politicians have visions that end at the tip of their own noses. Palin with her idiot bridge, because spending on light rail systems, which isn’t “localized” to their own back yard, is, to her type, just stupid. If its some pet project, petty vice, silly thing they don’t see the sense of denying, or the long term idiocy of, they are all for it, because they can’t see past the end of their own noses, to what the real result is. Past politicians did things like building Hoover Dam, *most* modern politicians would be lucky to imagine building a 1/4 size non-working “replica” of the damn dam, on some silly assed presumption that everyone will want to come see it, and thus everyone will “flock” to their own home city/state (its always their own city/state, even if their working in the fracking federal government), and thus boost “their” economic situation. Everyone else gets ignored, and there is no telling them that the idea is fundamentally idiotic to start with. Oh, and, if its someone like Matt, they would probably also insist on lowering Tobacco taxes, since they planned to make the entire thing out of tobacco leaves, or something… lol
The very idea of trying to see the bigger picture is lost in all the idiot ideological guess work, grand visions of “past” imaginary golden times, and blinding ignorance of basic reality, like “my” local city, which prides itself on fighting against “Meth”, by having a drug bust 1-2 times a week… **Rational** people would ask, “Are we actually losing, since we keep having to make more busts?”, irrational ideologues say, “We are winning, because look at all the drug busts we are making!” I.e., like the tobacco BS, see only the theoretical “positive” side of the issue, and blindly ignore what might really happen, or is happening.
Two reviews from a Libertarian magazine. Noted. Got any reviews from any Fascist, Communist or Socialist magazines?
I’ve not finished the book, but thanks for your dismissal of it. Some people deny biological evolution if it doesn’t meet their world view, that doesn’t mean that their views will shape mine.
Using tobacco to illustrate that my economic opponents do understand the relationship between cost and demand, sometimes.
Good summary on the Tobacco protection racket government has created, motivated by their need to rely on Tobacco settlements as state revenue.
Money quote:
Colorado government should no longer send the mixed message to citizens that “We want you to stop smoking” because it’s terrible for your health, but, “We need you to keep smoking” to pay for government programs.
http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=7&SubSectionID=7&ArticleID=7573&TM=59605.05
Tony, lets pretend that your following comment here was shared with you by your party in state legislatures around the country.
>>>Regarding tobacco taxes – you do recall that tobacco is not a good thing.
Wouldnt they tax it 50$ a pack, 100$ a pack to make this bad thing go away? Thats unequivocally good, right?
The answer to that question lies in both the implications of the Laffer curve on revenue and its consequences on state budgets.
You can bet state legislatures have found that sweet spot on the Laffer curve regarding tobacco taxes.
But wait – I thought that cutting taxes should INCREASE the tax revenues, right? So then increasing the taxes on tobacco should decrease the state’s tax revenue, yes? According to the tax cut mantra, Colorado could get more revenue by cutting their tobacco tax –
If it were all about revenue, and the tax cuts increase revenue stuff is true, then it would be that Colorado is not maximizing their tobacco tax revenue.
Pablo
>>>I thought that cutting taxes should INCREASE the tax revenues, right?
Not in all cases and never said so, obviously if taxes are 0% there is no revenue. Depends which side of the curve your on.
Wow Matt, don’t hurt yourself jumping to conclusions there.
How exactly did you determine my political philosophy from my question?
Qwerty:
I remember that. He got into a bit of a spot trying to call it a fee, since the state’s settlement with the tobacco companies forbids the state from levying anymore texes/fees to pay for tobacco’s health impact. That was funny.
Newfie, I assure you on the points that I agree with Mrs Klein I did not get from Reason magazine.
Wanna read a more sympathetic review, try http://www.counterpunch.org
Even assuming I wouldn’t be putting my entire 13% hypothetical tax cut into savings in case my job gets cut, which is a bad assumption, I wouldn’t be buying MORE stuff with the “extra” money. I’d probably spend about 1% of that, but on things like romaine lettuce rather than iceberg, and free-range meat instead of not free-range. This added spending isn’t going to create more jobs, because I haven’t bought MORE products, just different ones that are a tad more expensive. All I’ve changed is which farmer goes out of business.
Ive got the stimulus bill figured out folks. Come along for the ride.
1. Raise cigarette taxes high in your state. This will
2. Increase the incentive for a black market, opening the doors to smuggling, not unlike the illegal drug market (the hole is dug)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/01/national/main505112.shtml
4. Then, get tough on crime and hire more Policeman to fight the new smuggling crime. (the hole is filled)
Increased revenue and more police, a stimulus two-fer.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Mh1TZAM-AWU/SYwF0YKJ8RI/AAAAAAAACF8/aww70zC9FcA/s400/taxcuts2.png
Matt – so now you are claiming that “not cutting taxes” is actually raising taxes?
Well, I guess it is consistent with your “opposed to tax increase” is the same “cutting taxes” nonsense.
Pablo, arguing for cutting cigarette taxes here.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/balko-040407.html
and here
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=10006
good stuff on smuggling in the second link.
Not sure I get your point though. Are you defending Republicans who’ve caved on cigarette taxes? Remember, I said conservative in my posts. I know full well many Republican politicians have given up the “cut taxes, cut spending” mantra. Thats why I voted Obama, I prefer Democrat flavored big gov. to Republican big gov. Doesnt seem to be much else to choose from these days.
Tax cuts – Bush’s tax cuts were SUPPOSE to stimulate the economy and job growth. Did they do this? No. Also, he is the only president to cut taxes during a war. Wars are expensive. And, contrary to the stupid idea that the Iraq war would pay for itself, it has cost us BILLIONS.
Tobacco taxes – I quit smoking; so, I don’t much care how much they go up. But anti-smoking politicians like to blather about the percentage of smokers who will quit for each additional $.25 of tobacco tax. They NEVER say the other half of this which is how much additional revenue they know will come into a state’s coffers.
Tax and spend Democrats – I got sick of hearing this as I know that “borrow and spend Republicans” will, in the long run, cost more than “tax and spend Democrats.”
Our whole economy is based now upon borrowing and spending. Not just to gov’t, but individuals. No one seems to want to save money to buy something. We’d all rather buy it now and pay for it later.
Also, at election time, it seems the candidate who can promise the most in gov’t spending with the least in tax burden will get elected. So, in some ways, we are ALL reponsible for this mess.
Enough ranting.
I did like the cartoon and thought it right on! I am tired of the Republicans whose “tax cuts” never do what is promised.
So PZ, thought anymore about banning Libertarians and Randians from comments (and their Reaganite, Thatcherite, Friedmanite congeners)?
#84: “the stupid idea that the Iraq war would pay for itself, it has cost us BILLIONS.”
I was kinda thinking the bill will end up being at least a tril, maybe two.
The cartoon is inaccurate. That GOPer should be dragging America with him when he falls off a cliff.
Some time ago, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial in support of the Laffer curve. Good Math, Bad Math debunked it.
Matt: I thought I had you figured – but you’re even more batshit than the average libertarian we get here. Suddenly a side comment about tobacco becomes your entire manifesto. You say you’re not libertarian, but you reference ‘research’ from the Cato Institute.
Either you are a libertarian in denial, or you are indeed that duck.
Dude, you need some professional help.
Tony,
The tobacco comments I made were to illustrate people get supply, demand and cost. I tried responding to Pablo’s comments, which frankly, I didn’t fully understand. Regarding the Cato article, he wanted people calling for cigarette tax cuts, I gave them to him fully admitting Republicans in various state legislatures have all but given up the ghost on that idea. So I read Cato, so what? I read the Nation, Counterpunch, Reason, Slate, Secular Right and The Raw Story too. What I need to read, what you got?
Not in denial at all, I said in a previous post that yes, I think we ought to move Liberta&!@$n-ward in politics based on where we aretoday. I could give you a long list of things I support which would make the Cato folks cringe. However, the idea that lassez-faire economics is what got us into this current mess is just false. We havent really had that since 1913, we have had less of it since. Not blaming it on democrats any more than I blame republicans, they both return the love to their special interest rent-seekers all day long. As Ive said many times here, I voted Obama because on the things on which I agree with –torture, gitmo, war, privacy, transperancy— he’s more likely to deliver. The Repubs hardly try any longer when they are in power, which is to say when it actually matters to cut taxes and spending and they are the worst double talking, fair-weather federalists.
This stimulus money does have to come from somewhere. We are either borrowing it from our future, meaning we will pay it back at some point in time with less to spend, thereby ‘depressing’ the economy later, or we are conceding inflation to the future where the money supply is increased and dollars dont go as far. It has largely been the latter in history, its what we’re doing right now, only in real economic boom times such as a few of the Clinton years (Hooray I said something nice about a Democrat) have we paid down on the national debt. Tony, im taking you for a liberal. I do not say that with scorn. You fancy yourself sticking up for the little guy, yes? Well, deflation — which is what all our economic leaders are trying to stop— helps the little guy. It brings prices of things like houses down the level the little guy can afford. Why do you think all these asset-heavy rich guys are fighting it so bad? I like Obama, I swear. But this policy, continued from the Bush Administration, is largely constructed to help the bankers first.
There are things Libertarians argue fore I think Liberals could go for. You guys joke about the gold standard, I dont argue its the best economic solution, but it has its selling points. Governments on strict revenue budgets cannot make endless war. Plus the little guy’s dollars would actually maintain some purchasing power over the years, encouraging actual saving, and discouraging speculation schemes by the people who can least afford it if it goes wrong (retirees and near retirees). Again, I know a strict interpretation of the constitution doesn’t go too far in these quarters, but please consider if congress had to actually carry out their constitutional duties and vote on the decision to go to war, as opposed to voting on funding troops who have already been sent there (thus being much easier manipulated by a war mad Prez and his cheering media), you would almost certainly see less of it. And we citizens would have a much more responsive lever to pull if our congress displeased us.
Some of the things Ive said above have now been relegated to the Libertarian fringe in some peoples minds. Keep in mind though, the shifting historical perspective on policy. The gold standard, or at least the right to purchase things in gold and silver, was written into the constitution (Article I, section 10) and so was the declarative power of war to congress. These things were once considered quite “Liberal”. Now it is considered fuddy-duddy conservatism or the dreams of the radical fringe to fight to preserve them.
You must have skimmed the macroeconomics book, OqO. You apparently missed the part about lowering expenses when lowering income.
No, I seem to have missed the part where the cartoon said anything about expenses. Oops, it didn’t. Or are you claiming I said that? All I’m doing is having a laugh at the economic innumeracy of most progressives.
Keep in mind that we did just elect a president that promised tax cuts for “95%” of Americans as is touting a stimulus package with about $300 billion in tax cuts.
Now, now. Don’t confuse the progressives with facts. They befuddle easily.
“The Laffer Curve is crap economics, and won’t be taught here.”
So? Professors say a lot of asinine and idiotic things every minute of every day. They’re just human beings with biases and faults. There’s nothing so mysterious or controversial about the Laffer curve. If you have 0% tax, you have 0 revenue. If you have 100% taxes, well, you also have 0 revenue because everyone is out of business and jobs. Somewhere between those two is a revenue peak. Denying that is ideological braindeadness of the highest order. But then again progressives love the 2+2=5 arguments.
When c-span shows republicans like Ted “that’s the way it is” Poe, mouth-breathing on the House floor like a broken record, “cut taxes, cut taxes, cut…”, the looping thought, “sit down and shut up”, screams in my head. What a disgusting political party.
OqO’s feelings have been hurt (#1).
Um… what?
It’s quite sad to see a slave defending his master’s right to own him. (I know, maybe OqO is not a slave but a wealthy satisfied dude. In that case I’m sure he won’t mind).
Seriously, what were you high on when you posted that? Or are you naturally stupid? Maybe you don’t need chemicals?
OqO @91,
IANAE, but I consider not all the benefits of enterprise are not necessarily taxable. (Fringe Benefits Tax acknowledges this)
Additionally, I note I’d rather be taxed 99% and have a high standard of living than be taxed 1% and having a poor standard of living. The tax rate per se is not particularly significant to me.
The reason a Gold standard is considered absurd now, Matt, is that, in case you haven’t noticed, a lot of countries use it for more than money, and thus its “commoditized”. Its value drops or falls based on a) supply and b) demand. Thus, it is fundamentally no different than if we based money on a “stock in oil” standard. The only thing going for it is the principle that gold isn’t, unlike oil, ever going to run out. However, it doesn’t “prevent” inflation, devaluation, do to someone making it more available, etc. And, to be quite clear, that is a “huge” issue. Because you can’t just arbitrarily demand that they not produce X amount of gold, because it would devalue it Y amount, since there may be a real world “industrial” reason why you “need” the new gold in the market. Only, oops, if that is the case, then it become “commodity” again, and suddenly its “value” isn’t rock solid, and unchanging, but based on the same economics as basis the dollar on what dollar can “buy” in the first place.
In other words, if the only thing that a gold standard gives you is, “Well, its shiny, heavy, and I can buy stuff with it, if I don’t have paper money.”, but next week your 16oz of gold is worth half as much, that isn’t any different than saying I once had a bit of paper that said I could buy $1 of stuff with it, but now it only buys 50c. You might as well argue that it should be based on oranges, in that at least you can eat the orange, if you can’t buy something else with it. lol
Science Pundit, #40
I’d like to see the work that produced the respective lines. When numbers lie it is most often a lie of omission.
If you have 0% tax, you have 0 revenue. If you have 100% taxes, well, you also have 0 revenue because everyone is out of business and jobs. Somewhere between those two is a revenue peak. – OqO
Or multiple peaks, or a wide plateau. And of course the curve is shifting all the time due to multiple factors, some under government control and some not. In other words, the fact that you have zero revenue at either extreme tells you precisely fuck-all about the effect of raising or cutting taxes in realistic case – let alone shifting the tax burden between rich and poor, or income and consumption.
We’ve just had three decades of the entire world following right-wing nostrums – privatise, deregulate, remove capital controls, cut top tax rates, whack up CEO salaries, weaken trades unions and the welfare state. Result: the biggest financial crash since 1929 – probably longer – and a likely global slump. Your “ideas”, such as they are, have been tested to destruction. Now fuck off and let someone else have a go – they can hardly do worse.
Yes, Kagehi the GS has its problems. I dont deny it. We could stake the dollar to both gold and silver, or to a basket of commodities. The point is to declare the dollar to be actually representative of something and to keep the governments feet to the fire and provide one to one exchange on it, like we used to do until Nixon closed the gold window.
Hard to really argue against it on inflation though relative to the mess we have with fiat money. Example, in Britain, for 120 years, the price to mail a letter rose 2.5 times. Since they decoupled the pound from silver that cost has risen 77 times in nominal terms.
Yawn, more economics by idiots.
The problem is, you see, that most people follow the following train of thought:
1. After eight years of George Bush, America’s economy is screwed up.
2. George Bush followed free-market economic policies.
3. Therefore, free-market economic policies are bad.
There are two problems with this argument. One is that (3) is an invalid inference; it’s a correlation-cause confusion, because there were many factors which caused the present economic crisis, some of which preceded George Bush by many years.
The other is that premise (2) is simply not true. George Bush did not follow free market policies. Nor, really, has any Republican president in the last fifty years (Reagan made some progress, and was genuinely committed to free enterprise, but he didn’t go nearly far enough).
Republicans pay lip service to the free market, but they don’t, in general, really understand it. They confuse “pro-market” with “pro-business”, when, in reality, the two things are not only different but diametrically opposed. They lash out against corporate welfare and pork-barrel spending, but are more than happy to support these things when it benefits their district or their corporate sponsors and lobby groups.
So rather than trying to defend Republicans, I will make some suggestions (both economic and non-economic) about how to make America a better place.
(1) Do as Milton Friedman suggested, and take away the Federal Reserve’s discretion; make them follow a defined rule, year on year, as to the money supply.
(2) End all bailouts. If a bank – or any other company – fails, let it go to the wall. Then, rather than spending billions of dollars bailing it out, spend those billions of dollars on giving handouts directly to all the savers, employees, etc. who’ve lost their livelihoods.
(3) Cut the US’s crippling corporate tax rate (the second highest in the OECD). Better still, abolish corporate tax entirely.
(4) Abolish the FDA’s power to ban “unapproved” drugs from being used. If a terminally ill patient has no other chances left, and wants to take the risk of trying an “unapproved” drug, he or she should have the right to do so. David Friedman’s highlighted how many people die unnecessarily while waiting for the FDA to approve drugs which could have saved their lives. And the lengthy approvals process puts the companies out-of-pocket and therefore drives up the price of prescription drugs.
(5) Scrap public education. Rather than spending $10,000 per capita providing schools for students, just give a handout of $10,000 per child to every family in America and let them spend it on their child’s education however they choose – secular school, religious school, homeschooling, etc.
(6) Settle this pointless debate about same-sex marriage once and for all, with a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is a private matter and is outside the jurisdiction of the states. If any two (or three, or four) consenting adults want to declare themselves “married”, I don’t give a damn; it doesn’t affect anyone else’s life, and is no business of government. Insofar as any legal recognition of marriage is needed (for tax, benefits, inheritance purposes, etc.), there should be no restrictions (other than children and the mentally incompetent) on who can be recognised as married.
(7) Abolish the DEA and most federal drug laws. Leave drug law and enforcement to the individual states, and let them liberalise it if they so choose.
And my prediction begins to come true.
#100 sounds like a recipe for a christian takeover for much of the US. I can imagine a generation in which religious and homeschooled children would be the norm following shortly after. How very “wild west.”
The notion of a Laffer curve having any basis in reality has been destroyed for years – it never was any more than a crank idea. Anyone with a reasonable background in mathematics should know that.
And many of us knew you would be proven right. Walton has a blog. All you libertarians who simply must talk politics and economics feel free to discuss these topics ad nauseum at Walton’s blog. Just spare us your inane chatter.
People who make too little to pay federal income taxes still pay taxes.
Unless they get paid under the table, they pay payroll, Medicare and Social Security taxes (yes, even those illegal immigrants who use fake SSNs — that money gets taken out and they never collect it because they’re using fake SSNs). They pay sales taxes and bottle deposits. If they buy booze or cigarettes, they pay sin taxes as well as sales tax. If they have a car, they pay registration fees and taxes on gas and repairs — or, if they do the repairs themselves, they pay taxes on the parts and tools. If they pay utilities, they pay various taxes on the service. If they drive on toll roads, they pay for that. If they pay rent, their rent covers part of the landlord’s real estate taxes — and if they own a home, even if it’s a trailer, they pay taxes on that. Lotto ticket? Goes into a state fund.
Really, in order to not pay taxes *at all* in this society, you’d have to be homeless, get all your income from panhandling, and only buy nontaxable food. And you’d have to take illegal drugs rather than drink.
Funny how the libertarians are always concerned about the poor people who “don’t pay taxes,” but ignore the fact that many, many rich people don’t pay income taxes, either. Well, as Leona Helmsley said, “Taxes are for little people.”
And did David Friedman bother to investigate how many people might have died from taking unapproved drugs if there was no approval process?
This might be one of the stupidest things you have ever advocated. Public schools are required, by law, to take all students. Private schools have no such requirements. What happens the only private schools in town refuse to admit my child because s/he is, say, disabled, or gay, or not their religion? Are these parents supposed to homeschool and support themselves and their children on a measly $10,000? And what about parents who, honestly, aren’t really qualified to teach their children.
You are truly of the deep end if you want to abolish public education. Public education made the United States what it is. The system may have it’s problems, sure, but your suggestion seems akin to tearing down a house because there’s a leak in the ceiling.
Economics, like evolution, does not have an intelligent designer.
And did David Friedman bother to investigate how many people might have died from taking unapproved drugs if there was no approval process? Natalie
Ah, but you see that’s irrelevant. If desperately sick people take drugs offered for sale in a free market without intensively researching whether they have been properly trialled – well, that’s their look-out; no-one is coercing them, so there can’t possibly be any cause for complaint.
/”libertarian” moron mode
Ah, but you see that’s irrelevant. If desperately sick people take drugs offered for sale in a free market without intensively researching whether they have been properly trialled – well, that’s their look-out; no-one is coercing them, so there can’t possibly be any cause for complaint.
To clarify, I wouldn’t scrap food and drug labelling laws. A drug company would still only be allowed to describe its products as “approved” if they had gone through the full government-mandated testing process.
But imagine you’re a terminally ill person. All the approved remedies have failed, and you are inches from death. Your doctor is aware of a new, unapproved drug which has not yet been declared safe; it might kill you, but then again it might save your life. Under the current law, even if you know the risk and choose willingly to run that risk rather than face certain death, you’re not allowed to take it. This is what I find objectionable.
Walton, there is no law to prevent the terminally ill person from synthesizing the drug themselves. But that is impractical for most people.
The company that is running the drug through clinical trials usually has a Composition of Matter patent, which means they own all commercial rights to that substance. So no one can legally make the drug except for personal use. And until the material is approved, it is under the control of the company, not the FDA. The company may allow usage under a “compassionate use” provision in the law, and this has been done in a few cases, mostly AIDS drugs. But they usually don’t (1) due to possible lawsuits if there is any trouble, and (2) a limited amount of API for clinical trials.
Walton, that sounds more reasonable, but think it through. There are going to be hordes of cranks, and outright scumbags, preying on the terminally ill and desperate by offering their unapproved drugs; and for that matter on people who could perhaps recover with approved treatments, but are persuaded the unapproved alternative is a miracle cure. For crying out loud, we know there are already many such people, offering non-drug treatments and killing many of their patients either directly, or more often by persuading them not to have proper treatment. moreover it’s not just about people making choices for themselves, but for their children, and for sick relatives unable to make decisions. However, I see no reason why there should not be special procedures for allowing patients medically certified as terminally ill and beyond the help of current fully-tested treatments, access to treatments that have not yet been fully tested, but are certified as having some chance of working.
Walton, among other libertarian inanities, said
WTF?
Maybe you’ve never held a real job with a real corporation or been involved with real corporate finance?
In reality, the posted rate bears absolutely no resemblance to actual taxes paid. The US corporate tax code has so many exclusions, loopholes, allowances, and exceptions that even I can drive a truck through most.
Most corporations manage to reduce their exposure to corporate taxes, significantly, without negatively impacting their ability to compete. (If your argument had any direct merit in terms of competitiveness, we would all be under the thumb of Scandinavian corporations)
Why don’t you look at actual effective tax rates? Maybe because your argument would look less than convincing, perhaps? In real terms the US has one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world.
Tony, tony, don’t go confusing Walton with facts! He knows the TRUTH. A year ago it was the TRUTH of Christianity, now it’s the TRUTH of libertarianism, a year from now, who knows – but it will be the TRUTH.
The problem is, you see, that most people follow the following train of thought:
1. After eight years of George Bush, America’s economy is screwed up.
2. George Bush followed free-market economic policies.
3. Therefore, free-market economic policies are bad.
There are two problems with this argument. One is that (3) is an invalid inference; it’s a correlation-cause confusion, because there were many factors which caused the present economic crisis, some of which preceded George Bush by many years.
The other is that premise (2) is simply not true. George Bush did not follow free market policies. Nor, really, has any Republican president in the last fifty years (Reagan made some progress, and was genuinely committed to free enterprise, but he didn’t go nearly far enough).
Bilge. As I’ve pointed out several times, we’ve had three decades of moving in the direction you want, and the result has been global financial disaster. Your claim that if this trend had just gone further everything would be hunky-dory is completely unjustified – it’s simply a leap of faith. You’ve actually told us this yourself in effect, by asserting that the basis of your views is a deontological commitment to your idea of freedom, and that you will not deviate from this unless given conclusive proof that a particular good cannot be achieved without doing so – a demand which is, of course, impossible to meet in a any socio-political context. So in effect, you have told us that when you resort to arguments supposedly on the basis of empirical evidence, you are arguing in bad faith; and your persistent ignoring of facts inconvenient from your point of view confirms that this is indeed the case.
@Nerd of Redhead-
Walton has a blog.
Yikes! I just went there and took a look; he has a post that, I shit you not, opens with the following line –
“I’ve always admired conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh.”
If we had never heard of him before now, that line alone would tell us everything we would ever need to know about him.
Yes, deflation is great for the little guy if by “little guy” you mean people who sit on cash and loan out money and don’t depend on economic activity to get by.
Recommendation: Sharpen your sword a bit before challenging Bernanke and Romer to a duel.
There’s a reason why the call it *nominal* terms. The reason is that it doesn’t matter what the price level is. If things cost twice as much and you make twice as much, you’re exactly as well off as you were before. The costs of inflation have nothing to do with the price level and everything to do with uncertainty.
I weep for the future if this Internet economics craze actually catches on and ends up informing any more of our public leaders beyond the ones it has already ruined.
Knockgoats:
Bilge. As I’ve pointed out several times, we’ve had three decades of moving in the direction you want, and the result has been global financial disaster. Your claim that if this trend had just gone further everything would be hunky-dory is completely unjustified – it’s simply a leap of faith.
No. We have not had three decades of moving in the direction I want, nor has that got anything to do with the current financial crisis. The present crisis, like every other major crisis in history, was caused first and foremost by failures of monetary policy – which is a government monopoly.
You’ve actually told us this yourself in effect, by asserting that the basis of your views is a deontological commitment to your idea of freedom, and that you will not deviate from this unless given conclusive proof that a particular good cannot be achieved without doing so – a demand which is, of course, impossible to meet in a any socio-political context. So in effect, you have told us that when you resort to arguments supposedly on the basis of empirical evidence, you are arguing in bad faith; and your persistent ignoring of facts inconvenient from your point of view confirms that this is indeed the case.
No, I didn’t say that. What I said was that, because I am deontologically committed to individual freedom and limited government, the prima facie presumption is always that any expansion in government is a bad thing. However, this presumption can be rebutted by compelling evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, an expansion in governmental power is urgently needed to resolve a particular problem. Nowhere did I call for “conclusive proof” (which, as you correctly point out, will never be available in the realm of economics and social sciences). I merely contend that, if you want to use the coercive power of the State to take away more of my freedom, autonomy or property, you need to justify why. I don’t think that’s such an unreasonable demand.
Yep, checking back in this comment thread is indeed circling the drain. I wonder who’s fingers are on the handle jiggling it?
Eric Saveau at #115: If you read the rest of the opening paragraph, you will find that said line was rather intended to be ironic.
Walton@120:
From your #87 on “A plea to the godless community” (my emphasis):
“I believe in freedom, from a deontological standpoint. I believe in the sanctity of private property, self-ownership, and the importance of keeping coercive interference in people’s lives to a minimum. I believe that voluntary transactions, to mutual advantage, are inherently superior to forced obedience to the commands of government.
I therefore will always oppose any expansion in the size and power of government, unless those who advocate it can conclusively prove that there is no other possible way to avoid significant human suffering.”
We have not had three decades of moving in the direction I want, nor has that got anything to do with the current financial crisis. The present crisis, like every other major crisis in history, was caused first and foremost by failures of monetary policy – which is a government monopoly.
Garbage. The direction you want is more of the economy in private hands, destruction of the welfare state, less government control over economic activity. That is exactly what has been happening for the past three decades – with the entirely predictable and indeed predicted result of a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the rich, and particularly financiers. The removal of controls on financial activity imposed after the last great crash, primarily the US Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and similar acts both in the USA and other countries, is what enabled the multi-trillion dollar tower of CDOs, CDSs and other opaque “financial instruments” to be constructed. It is this that turned a housing price crash in the USA into a global financial crisis.
Ah, I didn’t realise I’d used the words “conclusively prove”. I apologise, it was poor wording on my part, but it wasn’t what I meant.
I disagree entirely with your analysis of the financial crisis, but I doubt there’s much benefit to arguing it, since we’ll just go round in circles.
Knockgoats, you are wrong, Bush has regulated as much as any President in three decades. Here are numbers to prove it. Summarized in Reason, research done by the CEI.
Money quote, cuz it makes Clinton look good:
“The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.”
http://www.reason.com/news/show/130328.html
Saveau#60,
You are shameless, don’t you realize people might actually go to that link, and not just accept your characterization?
Natalie#106,
“Are these parents supposed to homeschool and support themselves and their children on a measly $10,000? And what about parents who, honestly, aren’t really qualified to teach their children.”
And where did these parents get their education?
AG @124
Where indeed? Did your education prepare you to design and administer age appropriate specialized lessons in math, science, language arts, foreign languages, economics, sport, art, music, and dance to children of all different ages? Do you really think that what you remember form fourth grade qualifies you to teach ten-year-olds?
Teaching is a specialized profession just like whatever it is you do for a living. Are you really advocating for the end of public education? What kind of society would follow from such a decision?
@africangenocide-
You are shameless, don’t you realize people might actually go to that link, and not just accept your characterization?
Whether they went to the link mattered not to me; I saw that line and left with a shudder. If Walton intended it ironically, as he claims, then it only means that that particular post is minutely less batshit insane and fact-free than the rest of his dribblings. That’s not much of an endorsement.
Matt
my emphasis
A word to the wise. Instituting a massive bureaucracy (homeland security) that invades the private lives of every american (and non-american) everywhere is not regulation, it is totalitarianism.
You will note from the research, no doubt, that the vast majority of Bush’s regulation is aimed at controlling and restricting citizen’s freedoms. Consider that in light of other regulation which seek to restrict corporate infringement of citizen’s freedoms.
One area that did attempt corporate restriction was a total fuck-up: Sarbanes-Oxley simply (hah!) caused every single (publicly held or accounting) business in the US to be painted with the same brush that only the most egregious (ENRON?) deserved. It is poorly thought out and even more poorly implemented. It is reporting for the sake of reporting – and like ISO xxxx, adherence means absolutely nothing. It simply means that you re-engineered your business to satisfy the reporting requirements. At. Great. Ongoing. Cost.
For the largest businesses, it was a minor blip.
For the smallest it is a HUGE fucking albatross.
Whoop-de-doo!
Can we get some more false equivalency here. we seem to be running out!
The stimulus bill is passed and its all over but the crying for fiscal conservatives. If history is any guide just getting it behind us may be a piece of good news though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23bartlett.html?_r=1
Theo#125,
“Do you really think that what you remember form fourth grade qualifies you to teach ten-year-olds?”
When you homeschool, you don’t need to be qualified. I’ve unschooled three children, two have been straight A students at university, and the third probably will be. One attended part of the 1st grade. None had any other schooling until they took the GED and SAT for entrance to college. I was teacher dependent for math when I was in school, public schools tend to create teacher and peer dependency. My children learned math pretty much on their own. They take off once they learn to read. If you are interested, you might want to read John Holt “Why Johnny Can’t Read” and “Growing Without Schooling”. Also another book I was influence by was “Better Late than Early”, about how children receive formal schooling when they are too young, and that time is mostly wasted, because they can catch up with a few months, years later when their minds are ready.
Guess what. It doesn’t take a school to raise a child.
Ah, I didn’t realise I’d used the words “conclusively prove”. I apologise, it was poor wording on my part,
but it wasn’t whatI meant it, but now it’s inconvenient so I’m going to pretend I didn’t.I disagree entirely with your analysis of the financial crisis, but I doubt there’s much benefit to arguing it, since
we’ll just go round in circlesI actually know sod-all about it. – WaltonFixed for you.
Tony C,
“A word to the wise. Instituting a massive bureaucracy (homeland security) that invades the private lives of every american (and non-american) everywhere is not regulation, it is totalitarianism.”
I think you have your beaurocracies confused. Are you sure your not thinking of the NSA? It existed before homeland security. Homeland security basically just consolidated some departments.
Matt,
Do try to keep up: I’m not arguing “Bush bad, Clinton good”, as you’d have noticed if you actually paid any attention to what I wrote. Even if “reason” could be trusted, which it can’t, such figures are of no significance without a detailed breakdown of what was regulated and what deregulated. The deregulation I singled out was the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 – i.e., signed by Clinton, though pushed mainly by Republicans (and Greenspan) and passed by a Republican-dominated Congress. This opened the loophole that led to Enron’s collapse, and also removed hedge funds and investment banks from oversight to ensure they had the assets to cover the bets they were making. This is the deregulation that matters – the deregulation – and hence, hypertrophy and consolidation – of large-scale finance capital. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (also pushed mainly by Republicans, also signed by Clinton), which allowed the consolidation of commercial and investment banks, also contributed to making the tower of CDOs, CDSs etc. possible. So has the removal of capital controls in other countries, the flourishing of unregulated tax havens, the growth of “private equity” powered by the vast increase in wealth at the top – and at the expense of everyone else.
“Guess what” is that Libertarian for “I’ll pray for you”?
Should I take your glowing testimonial about your own remarkable children’s experience to mean that everyone who unschools their kids will have similar results? I had a student a couple of years back who had never been to school. She was 16, spoke a language which she could not read nor could she do simple arithmetic. I wonder if she caught up and went to college?
Anecdotes are like aphorisms anyway.
I’d still like to know what you think a society without public education would look like and how it would function. Do you really it wouldn’t be dominated by religious schools?
“When you homeschool, you don’t need to be qualified.”
That’s why kids who are home schooled are great at memorizing and shitty at thinking – they really struggle with taking standard ideas, especially in mathematics, and figuring out out to apply them to situations that aren’t just like the scores of identical problems on which they’ve practiced.
the rest of your comments are just as reasoned as the quote I put at the top of this post.
dean#134,
The quote that you say isn’t reasoned, is a legal fact in most states, why would it have to be reasoned?
I mean that it isn’t reasonable that any intellectual misfit can homeschool children and stunt 99% of their joy of learning.
dean#136,
“unschooling” specifically seeks to allow children to follow their interests. Try to remember what you felt like when summer ended, and you didn’t have time to read and follow your interests anymore. Unschooling is like those summers. What little formal schooling is engaged in is just two or three hours a day, and is based upon the child’s interests. That is less time than the homework worksheets take that the schools send the kids home with. Children should be schooled at home rather than institutionalized, if they have parents that care.
Most new homeschool parents don’t feel competent to teach reading. It turns out that is because the schools had not taught most them to read. “Phonegraphx” makes the point that it was the best minds of their time that invented our phonetic alphabet system, but we expect children to guess how it works, and the amazing thing is, that a few actually guess right!! Most don’t and get run into trouble when they get to the new academic subjects where the context they rely upon for guessing is also unfamiliar to them. Even if the english system did not have silent gutterals and the great vowel shift cluttering it, it still wouldn’t be a good idea to have the children guess how it works.
“Most new homeschool parents don’t feel competent to teach reading.”
should be
“Most new homeschool parents aren’t competent to teach.”
Dean,
“Most new homeschool parents aren’t competent to teach.”
you should add
“but they somehow outperform the professionals”
AG,
just so we’re clear, at what point do you consider homeschool parents stop exceeding the performance of professional teachers?
Personally, and to put it mildly, I strongly doubt that many parents can teach chemistry, mathematics, biology, physics, English, history, etc. as well as a professional teacher by, say, junior high school.
That’s leaving aside any benefits relating to socialisation and independence from parents, the existence of which you don’t even acknowledge.
Knockgoats: In other words, the fact that you have zero revenue at either extreme tells you precisely fuck-all about the effect of raising or cutting taxes in realistic case – let alone shifting the tax burden between rich and poor, or income and consumption.
I never said it did. I merely said there was a peak somewhere. More than one peak? Sure. I imagine it would vary from area to area and from culture to culture. You seems to want to perceive me as some sort of opposing ideologue for some reason.
Knockgoats: Now fuck off and let someone else have a go – they can hardly do worse.
Wow. How old are you? Of course, I didn’t exactly advocate the policies you hate so much, but it’s so much easier just to label me, put me in a pigeonhole I don’t belong and swear at me. Standard issue ideologue. Always arguing against some archetypal bogeyman if someone dares question even a single precious belief of yours.
John Morales#140,
“That’s leaving aside any benefits relating to socialisation and independence from parents, the existence of which you don’t even acknowledge”
Of course I don’t acknowledge those benefits, because they don’t exist. The schools either have no socialization at all, with talking forbidden at means, long queues which “teachers” patrolling with paddles, or they have bad socialization with sexual pressures, texting, fowl language, peer culture controlling the schools, being mocked for being a nurd or “acting white” and teachers picking on unpopular kids in order to appear cool.
Homeschool kids can usually relate to older kids, adults and younger children better than those institutionalized in the age segregated factory model system.
One of the key advantages homeschoolers have over the “professionals” is that they don’t have to use the “tools” of the professionals. They can use real books instead of “textbooks”. There has never been any proof that a professional teaching a “lesson plan” to the median is better than the student reading for that hour. Real books giving some story and depth to history are so much better than the dumbed down fact oriented texts. Instruction individualized to childrens interest and pace is so much better than the factory model. We only used texts for mathmatics, and it was hard to find good ones. But the children were able to teach themselves. It can be frustrating for the parents who were looking forward to teaching them math, to discover they weren’t needed for more than a few hours total.
Some parents do make the mistake of trying to do “school” in the home, complete with little desks, textbooks and hickory sticks. They run the double risk of turning their kids off of learning just like the schools, and stressing their relationships with their children. Their kids often opt to go to school by junion high or high school.
You guys are not politicians so you don’t have to be shilling for the teachers unions.
AG @142, thanks for the partial response.
I see.
…
Um, congratulations on your exceptional children.
Uh-huh.
Ok, I guess that answers me.
John Morales#140 continued
“Personally, and to put it mildly, I strongly doubt that many parents can teach chemistry, mathematics, biology, physics, English, history, etc. as well as a professional teacher by, say, junior high school.”
What makes you think teaching is required for learning. We love reading aloud and history is especially amenable to that. I didn’t enjoy history at all, until I married an Elizabethan history nut, and discovered it was far more interesting than was taught in the schools. Parents are not setting up labs and lecturing, but that isn’t really necessary. If you were interested in science, think back to how little you really learned in school, you had already read about newton, copernicus, einstein, priestly, black holes, supernovas, electrons, mesons, quarks, internal combustion engines, turbines, mitochondria, bacteria, dinosaurs, etc.
When I look back on my formal high school chemistry, all that was really new was balancing molar equations and calculating enthalpies. In biology, I remember covering a couply new phyla, I hadn’t paid attention to before, and being so frustrated by the shallowness of the coverage that I checked out special texts on them, and I recall being more interested in rotifers in the microscope than the bacteria we were supposed to be paying attention to. I don’t remember learning anything I didn’t already know in high school physics. My learning took place in the summers, and in the evenings when there wasn’t too much homework. I always appreciated most the teachers that didn’t assign homework. Children have so many resources available today, especially with all the specialty channels on history and science, and excellent BBC and A&E miniseries.
Learning does not require teaching. For the unschooler, the role of the parent is more that of the reference librarian and as an example of life long learning. Parents don’t need to fear that their coverage may have been incomplete and missed some “fact”. If their children have learned how to learn they will be able to fill any gaps themselves. Futurists are predicting they will have to change careers and retrain several times in their life anyway.
There can be learning without teaching.
I think Africangenesis has a point here. Personally I learnt to read, and was an active reader, before I started school, and was years in advance of my age when it came to literacy. In primary school I learnt far more science, history, etc. from my own independent reading than from anything we learnt in formal lessons. School only started to be intellectually challenging at GCSE level (age 15-16); and even at that stage, I learnt more from reading the textbooks than from actually attending the lessons. Even at A-Level (age 16-18) I did most of my effective learning independently, and felt that the lessons were substantially a waste of time (there were some classes in which I knew more than the teacher).
My brother, who is in secondary school, tells me they’ve now introduced a subject at his school called “Key Skills”, which is basically IT dumbed-down. Any idiot can get 100% on the exam with minimal effort. Yet they make him sit through an hour a week of lessons in basic computer use that any barely-functioning human being already knows how to do.
The practical purpose of school is not to teach and impart knowledge. Rather, it’s a disciplinary institution, intended primarily to control children and get them used to dealing with things they hate. And the discipline isn’t even effective; the amount of bullying, even in good schools – I went to quite a good school – is massive. Although most teachers, by and large, are decent, well-meaning people, most of them can’t cope with the job.
That said, I wouldn’t get rid of schools. Some parents really can’t be trusted to educate their children, and others simply wouldn’t have the time or the resources. But I do believe in absolute school choice. Let anyone set up a school, and give it per capita funding for every student who goes there. The free market will maintain standards, since useless schools will go out of business.
Some parents really can’t be trusted to educate their children, and others simply wouldn’t have the time or the resources. But I do believe in absolute school choice. – Walton
Right: so some parents can’t be trusted to educate their children, but they can be trusted with “absolute school choice”. Yes, Walton, that makes about as much sense as most of the drivel you come out with.
Walton,
I think your example about computer skills is telling. There are probably nearl a billion people using the internet now and they didn’t have to go back to school or be formally taught. It also seems humans can transmit culture and use tools without having to try very hard, or even understanding what they are doing. I’m constantly amazed by teens who can text vacuous messages with remarkable speed and customize their phones and myspace pages is ways I’m sure would take me hours because I’d waste time trying to understand it. They customize their first person shooter internet games with dozens of “cheats”, yet have little sign of having any academic success or interests. The intelligence isn’t lacking, but obviously the peer culture has overrun the schools, with its priorities and values.
Those parents who can’t be trusted to educate their children are usually glad to pawn their children off on the schools. You may not be able to trust them to choose the best school, but with any luck, the most convenient school is probably not the worst. Cultural transmission by word of mouth may also guide their choice.
I actually agree with quite a lot of what africangenesis and Walton say about the authoritarian nature of schooling – but neither homeschooling nor “absolute school choice” is in any way a sensible alternative – because many parents will be more authoritarian, or plain incompetent, than the public schools they take their children out of. Now we know africangenesis believes parents own their children, and in practice Walton appears to think the same. This is where we disagree: in many cases the state needs to intervene to protect children from abusive or neglectful parents. That’s not without serious problems either of course – it can intervene wrongly. The problem is that “libertarians” can only ever see one side of any question. On the whole a well-funded public education system, with the right to opt out but with oversight to make sure the alternative being used is not abusive or grossly inadequate, looks like the best option.
Knockgoats,
It isn’t enough “many parents will be more authoritarian, or plain incompetent, than the public schools”. Even this “many” will be a far smaller minority than are harmed by authoritarian, or peer culture dominated public schools. Even that small minority that are worse off with their parents will at least almost universally learn to read, so they will have no excuse to play the victim the rest of their lives, even if they have to make up some ground as adults.
Now we know africangenesis believes parents own their children, and in practice Walton appears to think the same. This is where we disagree: in many cases the state needs to intervene to protect children from abusive or neglectful parents.
No, I don’t believe parents “own” their children. I would merely argue that parents are, on average, more able to provide appropriately for their child’s needs than legislators and state bureaucrats are. However, I would agree with you – as would most people – that in extreme cases of abuse, children should be protected from their parents.
Classical liberalism is founded on the value and autonomy of each individual. Yet, as Milton Friedman points out, “[w]e do not believe in freedom for madmen or children”; since these people cannot look after themselves and their own interests, paternalism is inescapable. But I would rather, in general, that such paternalism was exercised by their own families than by the state – simply on pragmatic grounds, as the state is extremely bad at knowing how to run people’s lives.
On the whole a well-funded public education system, with the right to opt out but with oversight to make sure the alternative being used is not abusive or grossly inadequate, looks like the best option.
I don’t think we’re in major disagreement. I was, perhaps, rather too extreme to say “abolish public education” (though I was trying to provoke interesting discussion, and I’ve certainly succeeded in that regard). I wouldn’t simply shut down schools and wait for the market to provide an alternative; that would be intolerably disruptive and would screw up a lot of children’s education in the short term. So I basically agree with you: a public education system, with the right to opt out. Where we probably differ, however, is that I would advocate that public and private schools should have to compete on an equal footing; so parents who send their children to a private school should be able to receive public funding to do so, through what is infelicitously known as the “voucher” system.
Africangensis@123,
I went back to the thread Eric Saveau linked to. You were hammered. One of the simultaneously amusing and infuriating things about you is that you never recognise it when this happens.
So I basically agree with you: a public education system, with the right to opt out. – Walton
Which is what we have.
Where we probably differ, however, is that I would advocate that public and private schools should have to compete on an equal footing; so parents who send their children to a private school should be able to receive public funding to do so, through what is infelicitously known as the “voucher” system. – Walton
What private schools in the UK have at present is a huge public subsidy, because they are treated as charities rather than the commercial businesses they are. I would remove this. I’m not necessarily against a voucher system, but any school that benefits from this public money should be subject to more than the minimal regulation necessary for all schooling (including homeschooling). This would include elected representatives from the local community on a supervisory board.
“One of the simultaneously amusing and infuriating things about you is that you never recognise it when this happens.”
You are right I don’t unless it is made pretty clear. Did you notice Saveau conceding that he was wrong at all? I just decided to let him have the last post, I hope that doesn’t make you think I was conceding the point.
On the topic at hand. The alternative to the parents owning the children is usually the state, and we’ve seen what happens when the state thinks it owns people, you get things like conscription, you get the state exempting itself from liability for child abuse in the schools. Just trying getting Child Protective Services to go into the schools to correct neglect and abuse. The parents at least have a well established and documented interest in seeing their children survive to pass on their genes, the state is often more concerned with its own survival and is willing to sacrifice individual lives to its own cause.
Re:RevBigDumbChimp @101,
Given the original post, it was like predicting the sun would rise the next day. ;) These threads degenerate so fast because so many posters aren’t really interested in exchanging and discussing ideas, but in “hammering” those with different ideas. And despite what many here think, it’s not just the libertarians that are like this.
Did you notice Saveau conceding that he was wrong at all? – Africangenesis
No, possibly because he wasn’t.
The alternative to the parents owning the children is usually the state Africangenesis
Er, no. The actual alternative – that is, the situation as it actually exists – is that no-one owns them; they are normally in the care and control of their parents or other guardians, but the state has the power to intervene in certain ways and circumstances.
Knockgoats,
“but the state has the power to intervene in certain ways and circumstances.”
The state has the “power” to intervene in anyway that it wants we have to hope that it accepts and exercises constraint. There is at least a biological basis to parental care and investment in the child. There are 200 to 300 million years of evolution behind parental interests being tied to those of the child except in extreme circumstances. The breakdowns are rare despite being hyped by mass media and society. Where is there any scientific evidence that the interests of the state will more reliably coincide with those of the child than the interests of the parents will? Lets recall that this is a science and biology blog. I shouldn’t be the only one interested in how biology and human nature might inform the choice of a social structure that will allow human diversity to flourish. The state for some reason is assumed to be benevolent and to have the common good in mind, without any scientific basis and despite the infrequency of episodes of peace, much less any evidence of omniscience and benevolence. The state is apparently just believed in like a god, albeit a roman or greek god that is admited to have a few faults.
The state has the “power” to intervene in anyway that it wants – Africangenesis
Crap. The state is constrained by laws, and individuals or corporations can take it to court to enforce those laws.
Where is there any scientific evidence that the interests of the state will more reliably coincide with those of the child than the interests of the parents will?
You are simply reverting to the obviously false assumption that the only alternatives are complete state power or no state power. I’m not going to bother with the rest of your stupid blather, because it all depends on this false assumption.
“Crap. The state is constrained by laws, and individuals or corporations can take it to court to enforce those laws.”
Faith in the state again. We were talking about “power”. The power is not constrained by laws, and taking the state to court, unless the state chooses to recognize the constraints. In the US there is a constitution that is frequently ignored. Parents are constrained by biology. The state is constrained only by a frequently violated culture of recognizing and honoring constraints. There is a wide range between complete state power and no state power. The question becomes is there any scientific basis for trusting the state with this much control of the education of youth and this level of intervention in the parent child relationship. It is about where the balance is now, and which direction it should it go. Should it be assumed that the states interests will coincide with those of the childs better than the biologically and culturally based parental interests. Does science have a contribution to make to the discussion?
Why don’t all you libertardians go over to Walton’s blog for your stimulating (yawn-yawn-yawn) discussions. We Pharyngulites would appreciate that.
Faith in the state again. – Africangenesis
It’s not faith. It’s observing multiple actual real-world instances of the state submitting to legal judgements against it. See the difference? (Don’t bother to answer that, I know you won’t, and will just repeat the same crap again.)
Parents are constrained by biology.
The fact that parental behaviour has evolved under selection does not imply that it is going to respect the interests or preferences of the child. Suppose, contrary to fact, parents always acted to maximise their their inclusive fitness (the only thing selection could work towards). This could well mean giving or selling their daughter to a powerful older man, as actually happens in many societies. Are you OK with that? Presumably so, since you regard children as their parents’ property, and are happy to let them sexually mutilate their daughters.
Africangenisis, Im with ya almost completely. Then knockgoats said this
>>>Presumably so, since you regard children as their parents’ property, and are happy to let them sexually mutilate their daughters.
Is this the lowest blow ive seen on a blog not known for amicability between opposing viewpoints? Or do I need reconsider your thoughtfulness?
Matt,
I didn’t see Knockgoats bring that up. It is a complete mistatement, and out of context. I believe I said that the United States should not go to war with various African countries to prevent female genital mutilation from occurring, and rather than being “happy” I opposed male genital mutilation also. Or maybe I was willing to go to war and Knockgoats wasn’t. Perhaps he can point to the actual context, and we can see if he properly characterized my position. He doesn’t always see things the way I do, even when they are right there in text and background.
thanx for not jumping to conclusions
Africangenesis, somehow I suspected that was the case. I am going to jump to conclusions and guess if this happened in America or Great Britain (im assuming you live in one of these countries) engaged in these tribal practices you would condemn them and support proper legal sanctions.
That you dont believe the West ought to force its cultural norms on others does not imply you approve of other norms. Not a complicated point, really.
None of this is to dismiss the complicated nexus between parents, children, the state, and liberty. Clearly parents raise their children better than state actors do. Clearly a few parents abuse their children, physically and mentally. Clearly the state must step in sometimes, and clearly this will be controversial. The debateable points are what constitute abuse. Spanking, the switch, a belt, a beating? Modern American liberals have nearly defined it as all four. Mental/emotional abuse is much harder to judge. Dawkins floats the meme that religion encroaches the abuse line and here he and I part ways. I wonder, knockgoats, do you believe religious schooling, complete with sky-gods and creationism, rises to the level of child abuse? If you had your way, king for a day, would you make secular education universal and mandatory?