Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–155 of 155 posts

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#151

Post by lapcat »

tharmas wrote: post #146
lapcat wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the confrontational tone? Your own original comment was confrontational and hostile: "The most egregious thing the Boomers did", "Either way it was the Boomers." It's not even a question of what the Reagan and/or Clinton administrations did. The problem with your comment was the absurdity of throwing around the "Boomers" stereotype. I think it's silly to blame everything on Boomers, a totally arbitrary slice of…

You're right, I was cavalier in my treatment of Boomers in my comment. I accept your criticism in that regard. Not all Boomers deserve blame. However, there was an embrace of laissez-faire economic philosophy that coincided with their "assuming the mantle". Many of them bought into Milton Friedman (Chicago school) economics and have refused to acknowledge what a massive mistake it was.

> However, there was an embrace of laissez-faire economic philosophy that coincided with their "assuming the mantle".

I dispute that Boomers ever assumed the mantle, as it were. They're a subset of the population. No generation has the mantle. Like I said, Boomers don't control the world.

Bill Clinton was the first Boomer President, so you might argue that they assumed the mantle then, but 1993 does not coincide with the embrace of laissez-faire economic philosophy. This occurred much earlier.

> Many of them bought into Milton Friedman (Chicago school) economics

Milton Friedman was born in 1912, a year after Reagan, and was an advisor to Reagan and to Margaret Thatcher, so I think it's quite a stretch to attribute this to Boomers. Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" was published in 1962, when the youngest Boomers weren't even born yet.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#152

Post by shuntress »

hellojesus wrote: post #150
shuntress wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course! A system of voluntary cooperation! We can work together as a community to decide how we use our resources in the most economically efficient way! Obviously people are busy so we can't expect every single person to work directly on every single decision so probably the first thing we would need is a way to, lets say, "elect" specific individuals who can be entrusted to make decisions on everyone's beha…

Very cute, but there is actually a difference: the gov is only supposed to provide public goods. Voting either directly or through a representative still can lead to a scenario where the gov steals from some to give to others. Here is a real-life example: I live in the Portland metro. A couple of years ago, voters decided to vote to tax my income above a threshold to pay for preschool for people who have incomes belo…

> the gov is only supposed to provide public goods

This is simply not how it works. "The Government" is just what it's called when The People work together to solve shared problems.

Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost.

I wouldn't pretend to have enough information to determine exactly how efficient Portland's redistribution of wealth through taxes and schools is, but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#153

Post by hellojesus »

shuntress wrote: post #152
hellojesus wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very cute, but there is actually a difference: the gov is only supposed to provide public goods. Voting either directly or through a representative still can lead to a scenario where the gov steals from some to give to others. Here is a real-life example: I live in the Portland metro. A couple of years ago, voters decided to vote to tax my income above a threshold to pay for preschool for people who have incomes belo…

> the gov is only supposed to provide public goods This is simply not how it works. "The Government" is just what it's called when The People work together to solve shared problems. Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. I wouldn't pretend to have enough information to determine exactly how efficient Portland's redistribution of wealth through taxes and schools is, but basic logic tells us…

> but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person.

I'm not arguing that having a greater number of educated people wouldn't be more productive. I'm arguing that redistributing wealth involuntarily is less efficient.

"""

Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each individual or entity in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency.

""" https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp

Robbing Peter to pay Paul necessarily leaves Peter worse off. The solution is not pareto optimal, and therefore cannot be a solution in a maximal efficiency.

Furthermore, in the daycare example, the solution necessarily creates deadweight loss. Robbing me to pay for someone else's daycare now increases daycare demand, which given a fixed supply, makes daycare more expensive for everyond, myself included. So not only am I paying for someone else's kids to go to daycare, but now I have to pay more for my kids to go to daycare to outcompete the demand they now present with their free money.

> Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost.

If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft?

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#154

Post by shuntress »

hellojesus wrote: post #153
shuntress wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the gov is only supposed to provide public goods This is simply not how it works. "The Government" is just what it's called when The People work together to solve shared problems. Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. I wouldn't pretend to have enough information to determine exactly how efficient Portland's redistribution of wealth through taxes and schools is, but basic logic tells us…

> but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person. I'm not arguing that having a greater number of educated people wouldn't be more productive . I'm arguing that redistributing wealth involuntarily is less efficient . """ Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every…

A community pooling money then using that money to buy things that the community needs is not "Robbing Peter to pay Paul". "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" means "shuffling debts around". That's not what is happening here.

> If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft?

This is why courts and judges exist. Obviously that would be an unreasonable tax under normal circumstances that no rational judge would uphold.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#155

Post by tharmas »

lapcat wrote: post #151
tharmas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I was cavalier in my treatment of Boomers in my comment. I accept your criticism in that regard. Not all Boomers deserve blame. However, there was an embrace of laissez-faire economic philosophy that coincided with their "assuming the mantle". Many of them bought into Milton Friedman (Chicago school) economics and have refused to acknowledge what a massive mistake it was.

> However, there was an embrace of laissez-faire economic philosophy that coincided with their "assuming the mantle". I dispute that Boomers ever assumed the mantle, as it were. They're a subset of the population. No generation has the mantle. Like I said, Boomers don't control the world. Bill Clinton was the first Boomer President, so you might argue that they assumed the mantle then, but 1993 does not coincide with…

I wasn't intimating that Friedman was a boomer. I was getting at that Milton Friedman's Economic Philosophy was fully embraced by the Boomers. And Reagan and Thatcher were fully endorsed by the Boomer generation.

Boomers are the first generation in American History to hand their successive generations a lower standard of living.

And under Bill Clinton the Boomers certainly did assume the mantle. They certainly were in control in all facets of society. Also, Boomers revitalized Ayn Randism. She was dormant, a forgotten relic until they began to embrace her philosophy.

Post reply on HN