quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

Actually I support a 100% tax for all personal incomes over somewhere in the range of $1.5-2 million.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

My ability to earn does not mean you have a right to it.

My ability to earn however does carry some responsibilities with it. I'm happy to pay those burdens, given the alternatives. Overall, my combined tax rate runs around 37% or so. Given what I receive in exchange (safety, national parks, a modest social safety net), that's not so bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

When I vote to be taxed at a slightly higher rate than I was earlier in order to finance acceptable access to health care, I have not given up my liberty. I have, though, allowed someone the chance to live long enough enjoy his.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

When I vote to be taxed at a slightly higher rate than I was earlier in order to finance acceptable access to health care, I have not given up my liberty. I have, though, allowed someone the chance to live long enough enjoy his.

While you may be satisfied with this, what about those of us who would rather keep more of what we earn and would rather buy something other than what the government tells us we have to buy? Why should you be forced to give your earnings to pay for someone who has not earned?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad

What does this have to do with taking what I earn to give to someone else?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Like others before me have said, that's a wonderful idea that doesn't work in practice. I wish it were workable and pray every day it might be one day. However:

1) there are too few Christians today to meet the need.
2) even if there were enough, charitable contributions decline in recessions - EXACTLY when the need is largest.
3) this tends to make our recessions deeper and more damaging in the long run.
4) because of that, people go hungry,poorly sheltered, and even die.
5) it's a nice thing to say, but as a society we are not doing this today. There is no reason to think we will in the future.
6) there is also no reason that the uncharitable should not help bear some of the burden. Charity is an obligation whether we recognize it or not.

There are days I feel like this argument is just lipstick intended to gloss over the fact that we all naturally want to avoid a potentially expensive obligation.

quote:

charitable contributions decline in recessions

quote:

so I guess you root for the Sheriff of Nottingham

quote:

Yup, so lets make sure we only watch out for ourselves and not worry about anyone else or any kind of fairness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Therefore, is the Robin Hood creed really immoral or are the current systems improper applications of that creed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

Robin Hoods creed was to the take from the rich and give to the poor. This sounds like an honorable motto for those who seek egalitarianism, the belief that all should be equal. This creed has been used to justify a system that takes resources from one group of people and gives it to another. In fact, there are cases where it has been proposed that resources be taken from all and distributed based equally or as the need arises. Given this econiomic schematic the rich support the poor, following the creed. Also, the poor support the poor, something within the acceptable range of the creed. Third, it requires the rich to support the rich, an option that is of no consequence to the creed. However, it also requires the poor to support the rich, which violates the premise that it claims to support.

A couple of examples are the present social security and medicare systems. Therefore, is the Robin Hood creed really immoral or are the current systems improper applications of that creed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Who gets to decide?

Unfortunately, I individuals on some issues make decisions that are logical at the individual level but illogical at the collective level.

For example - let's look at highways. If we left the financing and payment for them up to individual choice, they wouldn't get built. As an individual, I could choose not to pay for it but still be able to drive on it. Freeloading is the term economists use.

quote:

Another example: pollution control. Everyone is better off breathing clean air, but if I am an individual factory owner, it makes no sense for me to employ pollution control equipment, raise my production costs, and put myself at a competitive disadvantage unless everyone else does it along side me. What makes sense for the country fails to make sense for me unless someone intervenes to keep the playing ground level so I can do the right thing.

quote:

The reason capitalist economics works is that it accounts for the basic selfishness and sinfulness of the human character. It assumes we are greedy with unlimited wants. A republic like ours will work as well - as long as we account for the fact that individuals will frequently make decisions that run counter to everyone's interest but their own. For situations where this is likely, governmental influence is both necessary and beneficial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Of course I've heard of tort lawyers, and I am aware of the common law principles at stake and the economic motivations those induce. Those however dont address the fundamental issue. (Remember, I'm an economist by training.)

quote:

Torts don't solve the issue of externalities - it merely shifts the problem from producers to consumers. ("Externalities" would be econo-speak for situations where people creating the problems or enjoying the benefits are able to shift the cost and make someone else pay for them).

If there is a corporation (let's pick on Exxon for now) that's polluting, I as an individual consumer might be able to sue Exxon, but they would rapidly exhaust my resources in the process. I would bear 100% of the cost and risks of the lawsuit, but would gain a very very small portion of the benefit. Everyone else would be free to freeload off my efforts. After all, why would someone help pay to sue Exxon? If I win, they gain the benefit and if I lose, they pay no costs. The success of the lawsuit doesn't depend on any one person's participation since we are all individually too small to matter, so freeloading like this is very easy to do. The problem becomes that everyone acting rationally would freeload - and as a result the suit never happens. What makes sense at the individual level becomes perverse at the aggregate level.

quote:

I would likely not even TRY to sue. It's the same problem, just put back on the consumer instead of the producer. The effect is the same.

True, there are such things as class action suits, but I would have to file a class action suit against each individual polluter or a subset thereof. The problem simply moves up the food chain and becomes one of the motivations of one or another larger subsets within the population. It never really ever goes away. The names of the parties change, but the basic problem stays. A legislated solution of some sort really does become the most efficient solution all the way around.

quote:

As far as the definition of capitalist economy, the basic premise of self interest and unlimited wants is not a definition of capitalism - it's a basic and prerequisite condition for it. If it weren't for self interest and unlimited wants, a marxist solution would actually be feasible from a theoretical economic point of view. We know that doesn't work - precisely BECAUSE people are self interested and unlimited in their desires.

quote:

That's actually one reason that I picked economics as a field of study to begin with - it described the world around me fairly well and agreed with what the bible has to say about human nature. We are selfish and greedy creatures by nature. Economics works as a theory because it accounts for that in ways that a lot of other social sciences (i.e. much of psychology and political science) does not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

1) On externalities:
This is not a phenomenon of scale - it happens independent of scale whenever there is no mechanism to prevent freeloading. It's equally as descriptive of the collective groups behave as it is individuals. Merely saying that people can group together to solve issues via scale doesn't make the problem go away.

quote:

3) As far as relying on statistical models of human behavior -
The models we rely on to justify an essentially capitalist structure don't have to be that complex, and nor do they necessarily relate to controlling anything. The simplest models are just descriptive of some basic features of human character. Generally, all we are saying is that: a) as the price of a thing decreases, people will ask for more of it, and b) as the price of a thing increases, producers will want to make and sell more of it.

That's really about all that's necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Thought if a way to explain it better.

Prices are really just information. Prices reflect nothing more than the relative scarcity of a products components, the cost of of putting them together, and the demand fornthe benefit it provides.

If a cost or a benefit isn't included in the price, the market is trying to allocate resources based on bad information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: relady

quote:

If people can get by on $1600 a month, great.

What a GREAT country we live in! Where it's not only ok, but considered ethical and Christian to pay people no more than they need to "get by". Getting by is not prospering.

quote:

I'm glad to see that the morality and ethics of the world are still doing fine.

They are! And the majority of the evangelical world is buying right into it and calling it Christian. It's really amazing to watch.