The bottom line is that voting is ALWAYS inferior to spending. For the longest time gay people couldnt get married. Why? Tyranny of the majority aka democracy. But what if the outcome had been determined by spending rather than voting? Perhaps we can imagine that, not too long ago, the anti-gay side would have outspent the pro-gay side. So the anti-gay side would have won anyways. But what would have happened to the money that each side spent? Clearly the pro-gay side would have had their money returned to them. Not only that but they would also have been given all the money that the anti-gay side spent. The money would have been distributed according to how much each person on the pro-gay side had been willing to spend. Does this make sense? Whichever side spends the most wins but the losing side gets a refund as well as all the money that the winning side spent. I refer to this as Democracy vs Clarity. That links you to a more fleshed out argument.
Is this really a serious idea you’ve spent time and effort developing in to a real-world practical system? I just want to know how gently to let you down.
While yours is not a system I would support, I do have a suggestion for you. If I where you, I wouldn't use actual dollars in your system. How about each citizen gets a prescribed number of "Voter credits". Crimes, violations and other bad stuff done in society cost credits. More credits can be gained by acts of public service, donating to help people in need and other good stuff. In this way the power of voting is bias towards those who do society good.
The money being referred to has been spent so where does the money come from to be redistributed to the losers? A somewhat more rational, yet also inane approach might be to recognize the fact that everything government does requires funding which is acquired by the taxes collected each year. 1. Amend the Constitution requiring the budget remain balanced each year. 2. Simplify the method of calculating the taxes owed. 3. Include a copy of the following years budget items allowing each taxpayer to distribute a portion of their tax payment to be applied to the budget items they wish to be funded, including repayment of the debt. 4. Eliminate or reduce the size of each agency taxpayers are unwilling to fund adequately. Elected politicians would then be tasked with carrying out the will of the people, making who is elected much less important as they would be confined to a spending budget created by the people who earn the money being spent by government. Those who want more say in the government could then pay even more taxes than actually owed to be applied where they would like.
I want you to like tax choice on facebook. You want me to like Bernie Sanders on facebook. So we use our WTP app and enter our bids... Xero: $3 dollars Ndividual: $1 dollar To be clear... we only see each other's bids after we've both entered our own bids. So it's a one shot deal. In this case... I would win... and you would lose. You would have to like tax choice on facebook. But, not only would you get your $1 dollar back... you would also get my $3 dollars. The $3 dollars is your compensation. However, it's fair compensation given that you were willing to accept (WTA) $1 dollar. So this would be a mutually beneficial trade. I'm not quite sure why you consider tax choice (pragmatarianism) to be more rational than replacing voting with spending. The goal of both system is exactly the same: reveal people's willingness to pay (WTP). In other words... the goal of both systems is to clarify the demand. What's "inane" about clarifying demand?
I don't use facebook. The only thing I was trying to show being more rational in my post was by requiring a balanced budget government would be held to spending only the revenue it received, and programs the taxpayers refused to apply little or no funding to would have to be reduced or eliminated. Clarifying demand is no big problem, especially when government is willing and able to spend more than the tax revenue it collects to provide what neither the recipients nor the government has the means of providing. The Federal debt on 07/01/1913 was $2,916,204,913.66, or about $29.99 per person. The average wage in 1913 was $1,296.00 per year, and my Grandfather once told me he earned $9.00 a week back then yet was able to buy a large piece of property and build the house he lived in on it without borrowing any money. Even my Grandfather, earning only $468 per year could have afforded to cover the per person debt owed by our government then which would have been about $120 for his family size, and still have survived. Today, the Federal debt as of March 31, 2016 stands at $19,264,938,619,643.07 or about $59,687.74 per person. The latest government figures I find published for the average wage by the SSA is for 2014 and is $46,481.52 per year. Today few families of four could afford to cough up their share, $238,750.96 of the debt owed to our government. Inflation, while appearing to make our debt and deficit spending acceptable, is like a dog chasing its tail, it doesn't matter how fast it runs the tail always remains an unachievable distance ahead. Until, or unless, we each including government begin to live within our individual means accepting our value presented to the societies in which we live all we are accomplishing is placing a much greater burden for our children to bear. Neither can we spend nor can we vote ourselves into prosperity if it results in living even more beyond our means.
I'm sure that you'd vote for fiscal responsibility. Right? And here you are spending your time promoting fiscal responsibility. But would you pay a penny for fiscal responsibility? Would you pay $1000 dollars for fiscal responsibility? Would you give your kidney for fiscal responsibility? Would you give your left nut for fiscal responsibility? Would you give my life for fiscal responsibility? Would you give your own life for fiscal responsibility? Would you say, "Give me fiscal responsibility or give me death!"? "Demand", in the context of the economics forum that this thread is in, can only be made clear by your willingness to sacrifice. Unless you disagree with Tabarrok's Rule.
The thread makes no sense and is based on a blog post with some suspect hypotheticals and analogies to make what strikes me as a tortuous non-argument.
I asked you how much you are willing to sacrifice for fiscal responsibility. Why didn't you answer the question? Do you not know the answer? Maybe you think that the answer doesn't matter? Maybe you're under the impression that it really doesn't matter how important fiscal responsibility is to you? Maybe, from your perspective, your honest and genuine and truthful valuation of fiscal responsibility is irrelevant and inconsequential? Or maybe you do believe that your honest valuation does matter... but that other people magically already know what it is? So, in this case... it's silly for me to try and ascertain your true valuation of fiscal responsibility because I already know your true valuation of fiscal responsibility? Let's review... You and I both want something to be brought to the market. We both want something to be brought thither. What do we want brought thither? We want fiscal responsibility to be brought thither. The less money we spend, the less likely it is to be brought thither. The more money we spend, the more likely it is to be brought thither. Clearly, it's ideal for you to have your cake and eat it too. You would like to keep your money and have everybody else spend their money on bringing fiscal responsibility thither. The thing is that I'm in the same boat as you. And so are most people. Which is a problem because then none of us gets to live in a fiscally responsible country. With this free-rider problem in mind, the other day I spent $100 dollars to "boost" this tax choice facebook post. Here's what that $100 dollars bought me... Reach: 3,075 people Post Likes: 126 Link Clicks: 2 Page Likes: 7 Was it fiscally irresponsible for me to spend this $100 dollars in this way? Yes? No? Yes? If so, then what's a more fiscally responsible way to help bring fiscal responsibility thither? Or perhaps what made it fiscally irresponsible was that I boosted the wrong message? That's entirely possible. Ok, so what message would you have boosted? What about this one... How much money would you be willing to spend in order to boost this message? Is there another message that you'd be willing to pay more money to boost?
Wow, this post has got my eye. Many things in this post that worry me, so let's begin. 1.) How does the money supply/monetary base actually increase? Government deficit spending or through commercial banks making loans, which creates deposits. (Reserves are a part of MB, not the money supply.) 2.) What makes you believe everything the government does required funding? Where do you think money comes from? Other then commercial banks making loans, we get dollars through government deficit spending. Balancing the budget year after year would simply mean the government drains dollars from the private sector, forcing us all to turn to private sector debt build up. (The clinton boom was driven by an unsustainable increase in private sector debt, which collapsed, and ultimately contributed to the recent recession.) 3.) I have absolutely no idea, by what mechanism, that taxes actually "fund" federal spending.
I think post #12 by Deckel was spot on, but to answer your question I would be willing to SACRIFICE ALL irresponsible and/or wasteful spending to achieve fiscal responsibility, and no amount of additional spending will achieve that. I would be willing to sacrifice dependency on government for my basic needs and wants with the exception only of criminal acts from within/beyond our borders by other individuals, groups of individuals or nations.
Deckel doesn't think that it makes sense to replace voting with spending. Therefore... he's against free-trade. And, evidently... so are you. Why are you against free-trade? Your answer is so far away from actually answering my question that it's almost funny.
Our modern system of 'democracy' can be summarized thusly: The problem comes when people who vote for a living outnumber people who work for a living. The riders on the gravy train outnumber the pullers of it. It becomes unsustainable, & is heading for collapse.
The only correlation of voting with spending is with the looting class.. when Law becomes an instrument of plunder. Otherwise, spending CAN be a normal function of govt, done to accomplish collective goals & projects. Justice, National defense, infrastructure, administration... these are all valid functions of an efficient collective process (aka, govt). BUT, if LAW becomes an instrument of plunder, to fleece the working man, then 'public service' becomes a magnet for corruption, & is filled with looters & scoundrels, enabled by mooching hordes who want free stuff from the treasury. This is unsustainable, & will drive a nation to collapse. That is the road we are on.
Sorry, I assumed that you had read/understood the OP. Right now we use voting to make some decisions. Voting allows us to quickly and easily discern people's preferences. The problem is that it doesn't reveal the intensity of people's preferences. This problem could be solved if we replaced voting with spending. Maybe another example would help? Back in the day we had prohibition. Lots of people voted for prohibition. Evidently this is what they preferred. So their preferences were known... but the intensity of their preferences was unknown. What would have happened if we had replaced voting with spending? People still would have gone to the voting booth. Except, it wouldn't be a voting booth it would be a spending booth. Rather than voting for, or against, prohibition, people would have spent their money for, or against, prohibition. To keep things super simple... let's imagine that there were only three spenders. I was willing to pay (WTP) $10 dollars for prohibition, you were willing to pay (WTP) $20 dollars for prohibition and Ndividual was willing to pay (WTP) $50 dollars against prohibition. My WTP: $10 dollars Your WTP: $20 dollars His WTP: $60 dollars To be clear... just like voting... spending would be done secretly. After we had all spent our money... the results would have been made public. In this case Ndividual would have won ($60 > $10 + $20). Alcohol would have remained legal. You and I would have lost. Except... there's a silver lining. First, we would have gotten our money back. Second, you would have received $40 dollars (2/3 x $60) and I would have received $20 dollars (1/3 x $60). Do you see the benefit of replacing voting with spending? With voting... one side always gets screwed while the other side really benefits. With spending.... both sides benefit. This would eliminate the problem with democracy. But to entirely solve the problem with government we would have to give taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes (pragmatarianism). Both solutions are beneficial because they both help clarify people's willingness to pay (WTP).
The spending you keep talking about has nothing to do with free-trade. Therefore... You have no idea where Deckel or I stand on free-trade. Stick to your topic. Wouldn't you agree, funny answers are befitting funny questions.
The topic of this thread is free-trade. With voting... a trade does not occur. But if we replaced voting with spending... then a trade would occur. Deckel doesn't think it makes sense to replace voting with spending... and you agree with him. Therefore... both of you are against free-trade. So again, why are you against free-trade?
1. I see this 'spending' part as active currently, & one of the problems with the republic. People 'spend' by donating to pacs, candidates, & issues that they care about.. this is the 'spending' part of the equation. 2. This principle is contrary to the equality of democracy.. it rewards the rich & minimizes the poor. Better to have blind justice.. an informed electorate voting for their own interests, instead of the moneyed elite dictating to the masses 'how it is going to be'. 3. 'Citizen Representatives' is how the founders solved the problem of conflict of interest, with a 'rotation of men' as a necessary part of the process. Instead, we have a ruling class.. promoted by a moneyed elite, who pull the puppet strings & control the propaganda. 4. A democracy is only as effective as the people voting in it. If it becomes filled with moochers & looters, they will corrupt the process & plunge the nation to collapse. 5. As long as the 'Great Fiction' is promoted & believed, it does not matter what system is used to manipulate the electorate. Voting & money are tied together, in the current scheme, & there does not seem to be an end in sight.
Voting is always a free lunch. Clearly you love democracy... so you want there to be free lunches. But then you rant and rave when so many people line up for a free lunch. The problem with free lunches will go away when people like yourself understand the solution... 1. Replace voting with spending 2. Allow people to choose where their taxes go You've read Bastiat? Great. Bastiat is wonderful. In fact, I created the Wikipedia entry for Legal Plunder. Unfortunately, as a result, I was banned from Wikipedia. Legal plunder is only possible when people have the option to reach into each other's pockets. The only way to eliminate this option is to... 1. Replace voting with spending 2. Allow people to choose where their taxes go Please, for goodness sake, make up your damn mind whether you want people to have the option to reach into each other's pockets.
As I see it, this forum is reserved for Political Issues with Economics & Trade being one of many sub-forums in which relevant issues are discussed. Voting is an action in which a trade does take place. If one candidate is promoting more spending and higher taxes while the other is promoting less spending and lower taxes voters are then trading their votes relative to which outcome they prefer. Your overly simplistic example seems to expose your view to be nothing more than a rich vs the poor situation, which it is not. "Deckel doesn't think it makes sense to replace voting with spending... and you agree with him." Therefore... we both disagree with your suggestion of replacing voting with spending, and have not voiced any opinion at all on free-trade. free trade - noun noun: free trade; modifier noun: free-trade international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.
