tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post3614085113316600090..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: Are the Rich Doing the World a Service?Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-47168963743640328802011-03-09T13:10:54.597-05:002011-03-09T13:10:54.597-05:00These issues matter far more than you are willing ...These issues matter far more than you are willing to admit. In the war analogy, 40% want to go chinese, 60% want to go mexican. The chinese offer 15% of the mexicans an extra fortune cookie if they do chinese. Now 55% want to go chinese. Relative strength of preference matters. And that's why I had chinese food for lunch.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-25867903773375288612011-03-09T11:45:40.223-05:002011-03-09T11:45:40.223-05:00I don't engage when a point is not in dispute....I don't engage when a point is not in dispute. Logrolling happens. Strategic voting happens. The judgments we make though are based upon our best guesses. We do that all day long in every other matter. We make choices every day without perfect knowledge.<br /><br />Do you think you cannot know what the military industrial complex would want with regards to the war in Iraq? Polls are imperfect. Strategic voting might provide a better alternative for them. You don't know the precise level of warfare they would want. Too much might exceed present capacity. Does this mean we are totally at sea and have no idea how they would prefer us to vote when it comes time to vote authorizing a war in Iraq?<br /><br />When everyone is hungry but they have different preferences about what to eat, do you really not know what to do? Does it make just as much sense to go to a hardware store as it does to go to a Mexican restaurant given the variant preferences I expressed last time?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-39409820625065909502011-03-09T10:43:25.698-05:002011-03-09T10:43:25.698-05:00You seem to not engage with the points I make at a...You seem to not engage with the points I make at all. Logrolling is a method that is used by congresspersons to generate policies that will impress their constituents the most. Strategic voting is constantly used. Given these realities, and the fact that they have been analyzed extensively, simply attributing policies to corporate influence seems naive.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-56734512239734394192011-03-09T09:59:00.097-05:002011-03-09T09:59:00.097-05:00I doubt you apply these arguments in your life. I...I doubt you apply these arguments in your life. It's as if you are among a group of people that want to go out to eat. One is vegetarian, one wants steak, another a buffet, another bbq. You have no idea what to do so you just go to the hardware store. I doubt you live your life that. But that's the life of a Senator as you portray it.<br /><br />There are unknowns. Are the polls perfect? Are trade-offs being considered? What precise policy among the millions that are generally preferred by the public should be implemented? But despite those unknowns our government seems to figure out the corporate preferred preference and implement it. And so we have NAFTA and IP rights that you oppose. I think Senators could figure out with some level of confidence what their constituents want. Not 100% confidence. But I think if you were to place a bet about what the public preference are you'd know where to put your money, depending on what state you were from.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-45356172120057085552011-03-09T09:11:14.836-05:002011-03-09T09:11:14.836-05:00I'll assume senator. I would say, no. There ar...I'll assume senator. I would say, no. There are at least three reasons. The first is that the poll could be in error. In this case, this isn't a serious objection, because the poll isn't especially close. The second reason is that many of the votes senators make are strategic. They will vote in a way that violates their immediate preference in order that their ultimate goal is reached. As an extreme example, suppose a bill was introduced that allowed for an invasion of Iraq, but only if thermonuclear weapons were used on Iraq first. Since everyone knows that the president would never use these weapons, voting for this measure would ensure that an invasion wouldn't take place. This is a silly example, but this type of strategic voting goes on all the time. Third, this poll doesn't give information about how the population feels about going to war without authorization, but getting extended unemployment benefits as well, or not going to war, but losing funding for a state highway. Logrolling is a reality of politics, and without knowledge of the trades that will be offered to various coalition members for their votes, and how voters would react to them, the single poll result you offered doesn't give complete information about how a senator should vote to reflect his constituency.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-4107228102715547312011-03-08T22:28:13.341-05:002011-03-08T22:28:13.341-05:00You can answer that one if you like.
Or you could...You can answer that one if you like.<br /><br />Or you could make the Senator a President if that helps.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-66451815545015873022011-03-08T20:29:23.767-05:002011-03-08T20:29:23.767-05:00Is your question, will a senator know how his cons...Is your question, will a senator know how his constituency would prefer for him to vote on any issue related to the invasion of Iraq given that particular poll?Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-89248087153270845342011-03-08T16:02:07.881-05:002011-03-08T16:02:07.881-05:00I don't see that you responded to what I wrote...I don't see that you responded to what I wrote.<br /><br />But let's try another example. The poll question was "Do you support the invasion of Iraq without UN authorization but with the support of a major ally." The polls show the public opposes 52 to 39%. So if you are a Senator would you say that there's no way of knowing what the majority of Americans want you to do?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-73468992595410620832011-03-08T14:46:09.504-05:002011-03-08T14:46:09.504-05:00The relevance is the difference between a slogan a...The relevance is the difference between a slogan and a policy. If, given any policy, a poll can be conducted that shows that a different policy is preferred by the majority, then what is the policy that should be enacted? There is no way to choose a policy based on polls that will reflect the "will of the people" as you define it.<br /><br />Claiming that the government only works for corporations is not true. Ron Paul and the tea party, who you disparage, did manage to get Audit the Fed in the public attention, and will likely reduce federal spending. None of these things are supported by corporations. It can be done. But if the changes you propose aren't likely to do it.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-73478924735842962782011-03-08T14:44:46.771-05:002011-03-08T14:44:46.771-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-644543997189994542011-03-08T13:18:54.161-05:002011-03-08T13:18:54.161-05:00I don't see the relevance of the fact that the...I don't see the relevance of the fact that there are many different ways to raise taxes on millionaires. There are also many different ways to cut compensation to teachers. What we see though is that our government implements policies that are among the infinite number preferred by corporations and not among the infinite number preferred by the majority of people.<br /><br />So sure, some might prefer that the top marginal rate is 60% and others might prefer it is 61%. What 81% of the population agree on is that it should increase some amount to resolve the budget crisis. What many in the corporate world agree on (probably not all of them) is that teacher compensation cuts should be implemented. There are different ways to do it. Those are details. But in the end they are still getting what they want.<br /><br />That's why as a strategy I support reducing the influence of corporations and increasing the influence of the public. You say reducing money in Washington wouldn't do the trick. You say we need to educate people. But the government is not responsive to people. It's responsive to corporations. That's why I think your strategy wouldn't work. The people have preferences already and they are not being implemented. You can change them to where their preferences would align with yours. Even then, since government is not responsive to people, it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't respond to the preferences of people because we already know they don't respond to preferences of people.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-53055406932837485622011-03-08T10:18:18.380-05:002011-03-08T10:18:18.380-05:00If the questions is: If Americans are given exactl...If the questions is: If Americans are given exactly two options for tax policies to implement, will there be a majority that favors one of those policies, then the answer is obviously yes. If the question is:Do a majority of Americans agree on a set of tax policies, then the answer is, less obviously, no.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-36029861901975086002011-03-08T09:31:34.776-05:002011-03-08T09:31:34.776-05:00What if we asked them if they supported raising ta...What if we asked them if they supported raising taxes on millionaires by increasing the top marginal rate to 60%? And the majority agreed. Would you still say that this is not a policy supported by a majority of Americans if 81% said they supported it? Because there is all kinds of polling data on support for policies even if you don't think that question qualifies.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-70225962300575074442011-03-08T09:15:50.580-05:002011-03-08T09:15:50.580-05:00Raise taxes on the rich isn't a policy, it'...Raise taxes on the rich isn't a policy, it's a slogan. That doesn't say which taxes should be raised, what level of income is rich, or what the rates should be. Cheeseheads had an opportunity to choose a basket of policies last year in a poll that mattered called an election, and they chose Scott Walker.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-57393378730512826462011-03-08T08:51:36.726-05:002011-03-08T08:51:36.726-05:00So when polls show that 81% of Americans favor rai...So when polls show that 81% of Americans favor raising taxes on millionaires in order to resolve the financial crisis in Wisconsin you say that it is not true that a majority of Americans favor this policy?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-84312409366614040612011-03-07T21:22:28.813-05:002011-03-07T21:22:28.813-05:00It is absolutely not true that there are policies ...It is absolutely not true that there are policies favored by a majority of Americans. You might show a poll that shows a majority for one position over another, but translating that into policy is not possible. There are an infinite number of policies that aren't considered in those polls, and even if a handful are considered it is unlikely that there will be any majority. <br /> <br />Would it make a difference if your tax money was given to Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in the world, a man who has pledged to give most of his money away in a way that doesn't depend on what the will of the majority of the American people is, and by most accounts is using his money pretty efficiently, or else given to a person who makes 10k a year working at Hardys, uses half the money he earns on drugs and beats his wife and kids? In this case I would rather have Bill take it. Who gets my money is independant of the wealth of the reciepient. At a moral level, I don't see a big difference though. It isn't like most of our tax money would ever be allocated to people that are low on the hierarchy of needs.<br /> <br />The way things ultimately change in America is through the electoral process. So the way to positive change is by electing people that endorse freedom. The path to doing that is educating individuals and politicians about the value of freedom, and using methods to increase the electoral power of freedom loving people. But it's hard.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-56437101553525362892011-03-07T18:48:21.168-05:002011-03-07T18:48:21.168-05:00How are you defining public will?
I say there are...How are you defining public will?<br /><br />I say there are policies favored by a majority of Americans. Do you say that's not true?<br /><br />I see you describing policies you prefer, but I'm not seeing a strategy for achieving them. Since the corporate sector doesn't want to reduce the allocation portion of government and our government is very responsive to their wants you can talk about how you'd like it to change, but if you don't offer a strategy for changing it I don't see the point.<br /><br />It makes no difference to you how your confiscated taxes are allocated? So whether they are given to Wall St billionaires or public school teachers makes no difference? Or maybe giving it to terrorists? Makes no difference?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-86969301971008352802011-03-07T18:19:10.517-05:002011-03-07T18:19:10.517-05:00I've said before that I don't believe that...I've said before that I don't believe that there is a public will in general, so I don't know how to answer the first question.<br /> <br /> As far as I remember, the opposition to NAFTA was due to fear of losing manufacturing jobs, not IP law. I would be interested to see polling data that showed people thought about patent law when evaluating NAFTA. I can believe that certain corporations influence the evolution of patent law, but probably the majority of people believe that patent law is both legitimate and helpful. <br /> <br /> The most helpful thing to do would be to reduce the size of the allocative portion of the government. At the same time, the judicial system needs to be maintained and stengthened. Many of the changes could depend on geography and other things.<br /> <br /> And I understand that lobbyists gain influence with the money they spend, but if my tax dollars are confiscated then it makes no difference to me whether it's given to a corporation or to some random guy.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-10771256814062493432011-03-07T17:31:06.158-05:002011-03-07T17:31:06.158-05:00Do you think these corporate lobbyists are wasting...Do you think these corporate lobbyists are wasting their $1.2 million salary on Chris Dodd? In other words this corporate lobbying, which according to Greenwald below leads to the conclusion that "only the very wealthy businesses can afford Senators and Congressman" is a pointless exercise?<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/02/doddJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-29895738395592513392011-03-07T17:19:28.416-05:002011-03-07T17:19:28.416-05:00But do you agree that the problem is that our gove...But do you agree that the problem is that our governments respond to corporate demands first and the public second?<br /><br />Do you also agree that the strengthening of the patent laws with regards to NAFTA was done at the behest of the corporate world over the desires of the general public?<br /><br />And if you don't think reducing corporate money from Washington would help, what would you suggest?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-78444586324512975812011-03-07T14:16:04.997-05:002011-03-07T14:16:04.997-05:00You claim that prohibiting funding for corporation...You claim that prohibiting funding for corporations would strenthen democratic influence. I doubt that this is true in general, and it isn't true in quite a few particular cases of which I'm aware. How public institutions work and what influences them are in the domain of public choice theory. If you would like to know more about this field, Tyler Cowen offered a reading list <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/public-choice.html" rel="nofollow"> here </a>Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-85461281188881054542011-03-07T13:30:55.626-05:002011-03-07T13:30:55.626-05:00The kind of policies you support tend to strengthe...The kind of policies you support tend to strengthen the corporate hand in government and lead directly to the strong patent laws that we have. And yes, I agree with you on patents. I think they should be eliminated.<br /><br />So for instance you support the Citizens United ruling. You don't oppose corporate lobbying generally. I support the opposite. On my side if we weaken corporate influence and strengthen democratic influence we can reverse these policies that you oppose.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-49712877157260574642011-03-07T12:34:01.781-05:002011-03-07T12:34:01.781-05:00I'm not sure what your position is now w/ resp...I'm not sure what your position is now w/ respect to patents. Do you think patents should exist but shouldn't be extended or that they shouldn't exist? Do you think it's worthwhile to discuss what an ideal system of law would be with respect to patents?<br /><br />You claim that there isn't any way to make the changes that I've stated becauase corporations oppose those changes. If that is the case, then there is no way to make the changes that you advocate either because corporations will oppose them. How do you get beyond that? You can't claim that "democracy" is the answer, because if corporations oppose democracy then it will never happen, according to you. And even if change was possible, it wouldn't be democracy, because I've shown you that there isn't any such thing as the will of the people.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-63477121103563774372011-03-07T09:54:42.432-05:002011-03-07T09:54:42.432-05:00Patent law is a perfect example of the problems wi...Patent law is a perfect example of the problems with the system you advocate. Why do we have such onerous IP laws? Corporations want them. The big screw the world over policy related to patents that I know is NAFTA. This extended patent protections throughout the entirety of North America, which really harms the poor in Latin America. Why did NAFTA pass? Because what matters is not the beliefs of the public, since the large majority of Americans opposed it, and I assume even larger majorities in foreign North American states opposed it. But it passes anyway because our government is only responsive to the wealthy class.<br /><br />If we had democracy we wouldn't have NAFTA and we wouldn't have extended these patent provisions that you recognize as problematic. So yes, I agree with you in the problem you've identified. The question is, what is the strategy for changing it? You support the Citizens United ruling, which takes the caps off of campaign contributions from corporations. There's no reason to expect anything other than precisely what we see. Patent protection enhances short term profits at the expense of long term growth. Corporations will lobby to extend such things. Democracy would pull in the opposite direction.<br /><br />As I see it stemming corporate influence is the only way to bring about changes in patent law, like the ones you would support.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-84553639646409784812011-03-04T16:24:02.009-05:002011-03-04T16:24:02.009-05:00I'm wouldn't claim that there is no inform...I'm wouldn't claim that there is no information in the growth numbers, but the amount of information is so limited that it might be worthless for what you want to do. You and HP certainly don't agree about the numbers as it stands, and you agree that the numbers (GDP) is only a proxy for what you would really like to measure, which is overall utility increase distribution. You add another layer of complexity by trying to determine what is a causal variable in determining both growth rates and income distribution. I think you would acknowledge that there are myriad variables that you ignore in doing this data analysis. You seem to want to lump "neoliberal policies" into one basket. There are many policies that are neoliberal. These include limiting trade restrictions, and monetary policy, as well as some other policies. There are ways to study these policies that give a more clear picture of causation. For example, to study the effects of free trade policies, you would try to analyze the statistics in situation where there are as few moving variables as possible, and look at the results. Even when you have situations where there are only a few variables the data can still be tricky to analyze, and in any case the goal is to compare the results to some predictive model. <br /><br />When you give the case of Koch, the relevant issue is how should property rights be defined for intellectual property. This is probably harder to define property rights for IP than it is for physical property, but patent law is an attempt at allowing for the known benefits of property rights to work for ideas. The basic idea is that people should be allowed the freedom to improve their own condition, while giving everyone the right incentive to promote positive externalities. I personally don't think that our current law does a very good job, and neither do you. The question I would ask is, what would you replace it with? The reason I think that IP law should be abolished is legion, but some of the reasons include legislative capture, the speed of technological progress, and the cost of enforcement. If you would like to know how to get to a better system than where we are with patents, I would say that reducing the length of patents is a good start. Another change that would be an improvement would be to change from a first to invent system to a first to file system. There are several other "market" solutions that have been discussed, including an auctions system for patents. All of them assume that there exist governments to enforce property rights. The goal is to define property rights by governments in the right way.Darf Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396174363474177403noreply@blogger.com