I ask this from the perspective of the government. Why does it have any role in marriage? Why does it care the bonds and contracts people make, as long as they are not exploitative or illegal?
I've thought that marriage should be entirely ignored by government and left as a religious or cultural institution, to be decided however they feel like, and let government instead have a completely independent system of civil unions. If a church or society wants to define marriage one way or another, let it, the government should have no part in it at all.
But that still leaves the two-person bond recognized by government. Why should there be this special contract and legal arrangement between two people and only those two people?
That's a question I've never seen come up in the debate over gay marriage, but it seems critical. If we don't define the purpose of marriage/civil unions, how can we decide who can marry and how? It would be like trying to design and pave a road, without deciding where it should go.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Could government spending be profitable?
Economists speak of the multiplier effect of government actions in regard to taxes or spending. Recently I heard two claims on this, that a dollar spent circulates to a dollar and sixty cents of economic activity while a dollar of tax cuts circulates to a mere thirty cents. I doubt these are numbers that anyone will agree on, but there were two parts that stood out: first, that spending did a lot more than cutting taxes, second, that a dollar of spending creates more than a dollar of activity.
The second one made me think back to the cycling of money and what stops the cycle: taxes. By that I mean that the dollar is spent, some taxes taken out, the remainder spent, some taxes taken out, and so on. Eventually it will be whittled down to nothing, having returned entirely as taxes. This would seem to make spending neutral, as in theory it will always trigger that amount in increased taxes from economic activity. But there's another way for the money to stop moving: saving. At some point the entire dollar will be taxed or saved and it is the saving which prevents it from cycling fully around to balance the budget.
This suggests that the ideal way to stimulate an economy is to tax savings and then spend the revenues from those taxes.
On the profitable side, the newly flowing dollar and the resulting demand would encourage saved money to be invested, putting it into he flow as well, where it is taxed, and now the dollar of spending has freed up more than a dollar of incoming taxes. Profit! Also known as a surplus, the strangely forgotten opposite side of Keynesian economics.
The second one made me think back to the cycling of money and what stops the cycle: taxes. By that I mean that the dollar is spent, some taxes taken out, the remainder spent, some taxes taken out, and so on. Eventually it will be whittled down to nothing, having returned entirely as taxes. This would seem to make spending neutral, as in theory it will always trigger that amount in increased taxes from economic activity. But there's another way for the money to stop moving: saving. At some point the entire dollar will be taxed or saved and it is the saving which prevents it from cycling fully around to balance the budget.
This suggests that the ideal way to stimulate an economy is to tax savings and then spend the revenues from those taxes.
On the profitable side, the newly flowing dollar and the resulting demand would encourage saved money to be invested, putting it into he flow as well, where it is taxed, and now the dollar of spending has freed up more than a dollar of incoming taxes. Profit! Also known as a surplus, the strangely forgotten opposite side of Keynesian economics.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Not so much fun on the other side, is it?
Military chaplains debate their role without 'don't ask, don't tell'
Among the issues raised by chaplains, according to the report, is whether a change in policy would hinder ministers' religious expression, particularly for those faiths that consider homosexuality immoral.
Friday, December 3, 2010
"So your answer is, it's the spending of money that drives the economy"
Representative John Shadegg of Arizona recently said this, to mock the interviewer (skip to the fourth mention of unemployment benefits). In other words, this seems to imply that this Congressman does not think that the spending of money drives the economy. I will admit that I have never been to Arizona or the Capitol (I'm excluding when I was approximately 1 year old) so maybe I don't know that they use a barter-based economy, or an economy based on mutual cooperation and sharing, which we might call Communism, but I'm pretty sure that in both places they use roughly the same money-based economy as the rest of the United States, and the world.
But maybe I'm being intentionally unfair and I should approach this more objectively. What would be an economy not based on the spending of money? We could have one based on the production of goods, but with no one to consume them, that makes little sense, so even a production-oriented approach eventually needs people to spend money. Besides, it would be rather hard to motivate workers to produce if they did not have any money to spend; slavery hasn't exactly withstood the test of time. Or we could try a research-based economy, driven by knowledge and technology and just generally getting better at everything we know and do. I like the sound of that. But I have to wonder, how do the scientists eat, live, and move? I imagine they require things like food, housing, transportation, perhaps even entertainment, so that beyond this Utopian knowledge-based economy there must also be an economy based on physical production, which goes back to the production-based economy which requires: spending money.
I get that some people are market fundamentalists and believe that any government intrusion in markets must be bad, and so obviously they'd want to reject Keynesian economics of government stimulus spending. But surely they still have some basic understanding of things like people needing money to buy goods to encourage production which is the root of employment. In other words, an economy based on spending money. Or alternatively, the Chicago school which would advocate deregulation and tax cuts, possibly with some trickle-down economics for good measure, which operates partly on the idea that the rich will... spend money!
See a theme here?
Yea, economies need people to spend money. When demand is low, you can cut taxes to encourage spending or you can raise government spending to raise spending. Or you can clap your hands and say "job job jobs!" and make it all better. Republicans like Mr. Shadegg seem to prefer the third approach.
But he's not done yet. The interviewer followed up with this question: "Unemployment checks, people don't spend that money?" To which he responded "No, they'll spend as little of it as possible because they'll hang onto it as long as they can." An excellent point, if it were true. In fact it's the complete opposite of the truth. The long-term unemployed tend to have bills, debts, and all manner of pushed-back expenses. In other words, they are going to spend that money. They have no other choice. Spending that money is what keeps their heat on, their bellies full (or at least half-full, but they might see it as half-empty), and themselves in their homes. So the Congressman is 180 degrees wrong on this. Earlier he said that any extension must also be linked to tax cuts. Why? Well surely it cannot be to hope for trickle-down spending, since the wealthy have a habit of saving their money. Does he want it for investment? In the long term, investment would make sense, but in the short term, who is going to invest in a business if there's no demand for products? Maybe there would be more demand if people were spending money...
But maybe I'm being intentionally unfair and I should approach this more objectively. What would be an economy not based on the spending of money? We could have one based on the production of goods, but with no one to consume them, that makes little sense, so even a production-oriented approach eventually needs people to spend money. Besides, it would be rather hard to motivate workers to produce if they did not have any money to spend; slavery hasn't exactly withstood the test of time. Or we could try a research-based economy, driven by knowledge and technology and just generally getting better at everything we know and do. I like the sound of that. But I have to wonder, how do the scientists eat, live, and move? I imagine they require things like food, housing, transportation, perhaps even entertainment, so that beyond this Utopian knowledge-based economy there must also be an economy based on physical production, which goes back to the production-based economy which requires: spending money.
I get that some people are market fundamentalists and believe that any government intrusion in markets must be bad, and so obviously they'd want to reject Keynesian economics of government stimulus spending. But surely they still have some basic understanding of things like people needing money to buy goods to encourage production which is the root of employment. In other words, an economy based on spending money. Or alternatively, the Chicago school which would advocate deregulation and tax cuts, possibly with some trickle-down economics for good measure, which operates partly on the idea that the rich will... spend money!
See a theme here?
Yea, economies need people to spend money. When demand is low, you can cut taxes to encourage spending or you can raise government spending to raise spending. Or you can clap your hands and say "job job jobs!" and make it all better. Republicans like Mr. Shadegg seem to prefer the third approach.
But he's not done yet. The interviewer followed up with this question: "Unemployment checks, people don't spend that money?" To which he responded "No, they'll spend as little of it as possible because they'll hang onto it as long as they can." An excellent point, if it were true. In fact it's the complete opposite of the truth. The long-term unemployed tend to have bills, debts, and all manner of pushed-back expenses. In other words, they are going to spend that money. They have no other choice. Spending that money is what keeps their heat on, their bellies full (or at least half-full, but they might see it as half-empty), and themselves in their homes. So the Congressman is 180 degrees wrong on this. Earlier he said that any extension must also be linked to tax cuts. Why? Well surely it cannot be to hope for trickle-down spending, since the wealthy have a habit of saving their money. Does he want it for investment? In the long term, investment would make sense, but in the short term, who is going to invest in a business if there's no demand for products? Maybe there would be more demand if people were spending money...
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Net Neutrality is a Leftist Socialist Plot to Silence Dissent
True story.
Okay I lied. But that's okay. On the Internet you can say anything you want. Lies, deception, slander, and so much spin that it sends Superman back in time. It's a boon to the far right. And the far left. Extremists thrive on cheap, open places to lie, and the Internet is the best.
The Internet is also the biggest fact-checking machine in the world. It has facts and it has people who like to spend time comparing claims and those facts.
But these are all sissy 'freedom' arguments. So let's go with this instead: the Internet drove the massive economic growth of the 90s and continues to drive growth and efficiency.
I'm sure you know this already.
So instead let's look at what happens when people who either do not understand or do not appreciate the Internet attempt to influence and regulate it. I am of course referring to net neutrality.
Specifically, opposition to it.
The government has been meddling in the Internet since before it was born. In other words, it created the Internet and then shoveled money at it until it transformed the world. All the while it kept poking around in the Internet telling traffic to go wherever it wanted and told everyone to play fair. That was net neutrality, letting everyone talk at the same speed.
It wasn't a fairness doctrine. It was an awesome doctrine. It was an idea that made it so anyone could run a business or send an idea, or shop and listen. This was government regulation against regulation, essentially saying "No one will regulate this." That's net neutrality.
But people paranoid about government regulation either don't understand this or are actively and consciously working against the freedom of the Internet.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011220055
Okay I lied. But that's okay. On the Internet you can say anything you want. Lies, deception, slander, and so much spin that it sends Superman back in time. It's a boon to the far right. And the far left. Extremists thrive on cheap, open places to lie, and the Internet is the best.
The Internet is also the biggest fact-checking machine in the world. It has facts and it has people who like to spend time comparing claims and those facts.
But these are all sissy 'freedom' arguments. So let's go with this instead: the Internet drove the massive economic growth of the 90s and continues to drive growth and efficiency.
I'm sure you know this already.
So instead let's look at what happens when people who either do not understand or do not appreciate the Internet attempt to influence and regulate it. I am of course referring to net neutrality.
Specifically, opposition to it.
The government has been meddling in the Internet since before it was born. In other words, it created the Internet and then shoveled money at it until it transformed the world. All the while it kept poking around in the Internet telling traffic to go wherever it wanted and told everyone to play fair. That was net neutrality, letting everyone talk at the same speed.
It wasn't a fairness doctrine. It was an awesome doctrine. It was an idea that made it so anyone could run a business or send an idea, or shop and listen. This was government regulation against regulation, essentially saying "No one will regulate this." That's net neutrality.
But people paranoid about government regulation either don't understand this or are actively and consciously working against the freedom of the Internet.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011220055
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Prison as part of a debt to society
Now and then I hear the phrase "debt to society" used in combination with imprisonment, the implication being that people are sent to prison to fulfill the "debt to society" and then once that is complete, they may go free. This is a completely absurd concept.
Can you think of any other situation in which a debt is paid by the debtor losing huge amounts of time, and at major cost to the creditor? Let's imagine that the prison system really is a literal system of debts. A guy with an income of about $20,000 per year(arbitrary) is imprisoned, at a cost of about $22,000 per year (actual number). If we imagine a strange fantasy world in which the lost income of prisoners goes to the creditor (that being society), then at best society is still down $2000. In other words, the process of paying off the debt causes the creditor to lose even more money. Of course this will be different if the prisoner has a higher income. But of course a prisoner isn't generating any income because he's not at his job, so the actual income for the creditor is zero, resulting in a loss of $22,000 when attempting to regain a debt.
Does this sound ridiculous enough yet, this concept that prison is part of repaying a debt to society? Let's go further.
Imagine that you take out a mortgage. Then you default. You now owe a debt to the bank. The bank seeks to regain that debt. How? By burning down the house. See how completely absurd this is?
Why don't we treat the "debt to society" as an actual debt to be repaid? I mean money, not vague concepts like "justice". Not to dismiss justice, but if we're going to talk about debt, we might as well talk about something definite.
I propose that this debt be calculated by damage caused. That damage includes the stolen property, assets, money, etc. So if someone breaks a window (cost $500) to steal a stereo worth $200, the total crime is $700. This actually gives them a discount since it leaves out inconvenience and the police work cost. But I'm willing to let that go for now, for the sake of simplicity. Simpler is better for everyone except lawyers and fraudsters.
To repay the debt, the individual literally repays it from either bank accounts or future wages. This would be calculated to ensure that they are not financially ruined by the process but also so that they do not gain any benefit from the crime. For example, an individual cannot be forced to put it on credit, since that would put them into a cycle of debt, nor can they lose so much of future wages that they cannot afford basic living expenses. The goal is to repay the debt, not to drive them into crime just to pay for their previous crime.
If the individual is unemployed, well that's a tough one that I haven't figured out. Leaving the debt over them to be paid when they do eventually find work would discourage them from seeking over the table work. But just dropping the debt would encourage crime. Mandatory employment is more commonly known as slavery and would result in the crazy situation of criminals taking jobs from law-abiding citizens, possibly driving those same citizens into crime to get by, and well we can see how that's a path straight downhill. On a side note, we can see there how government oppression is encouraged, and to some, justified, by criminal behavior.
Crimes such as property damage fit easily into this system. Fraud and other 'theft-like' crimes fit as well, since they fall into a material loss category. Murder, rape, assault, or other non-property crimes are clearly difficult to fit into this and perhaps would be handled in a separate system.
The goal is to keep people out of prison, not because I like them, but because it's expensive and often hardens criminals. What could be more encouraging to a "fuck the system" attitude than spending five years locked up by that system?
It's more than a little bit idealistic, but imagine how much lower taxes could be if people weren't locked up. Imagine how much less crime there could be without large parts of the population being taught to hate orderly society. Or maybe crime wouldn't change. But at least the overall cost would be lower. At the least there's little interaction between prison terms and crime rates. Unfortunately being "tough on crime" is a politically useful stance, just like being "strong on defense", another stance which encourages huge amounts of spending for little to no benefit, but which is always politically safe. No one wants to be "soft on defense" or "weak on crime".
Can you think of any other situation in which a debt is paid by the debtor losing huge amounts of time, and at major cost to the creditor? Let's imagine that the prison system really is a literal system of debts. A guy with an income of about $20,000 per year(arbitrary) is imprisoned, at a cost of about $22,000 per year (actual number). If we imagine a strange fantasy world in which the lost income of prisoners goes to the creditor (that being society), then at best society is still down $2000. In other words, the process of paying off the debt causes the creditor to lose even more money. Of course this will be different if the prisoner has a higher income. But of course a prisoner isn't generating any income because he's not at his job, so the actual income for the creditor is zero, resulting in a loss of $22,000 when attempting to regain a debt.
Does this sound ridiculous enough yet, this concept that prison is part of repaying a debt to society? Let's go further.
Imagine that you take out a mortgage. Then you default. You now owe a debt to the bank. The bank seeks to regain that debt. How? By burning down the house. See how completely absurd this is?
Why don't we treat the "debt to society" as an actual debt to be repaid? I mean money, not vague concepts like "justice". Not to dismiss justice, but if we're going to talk about debt, we might as well talk about something definite.
I propose that this debt be calculated by damage caused. That damage includes the stolen property, assets, money, etc. So if someone breaks a window (cost $500) to steal a stereo worth $200, the total crime is $700. This actually gives them a discount since it leaves out inconvenience and the police work cost. But I'm willing to let that go for now, for the sake of simplicity. Simpler is better for everyone except lawyers and fraudsters.
To repay the debt, the individual literally repays it from either bank accounts or future wages. This would be calculated to ensure that they are not financially ruined by the process but also so that they do not gain any benefit from the crime. For example, an individual cannot be forced to put it on credit, since that would put them into a cycle of debt, nor can they lose so much of future wages that they cannot afford basic living expenses. The goal is to repay the debt, not to drive them into crime just to pay for their previous crime.
If the individual is unemployed, well that's a tough one that I haven't figured out. Leaving the debt over them to be paid when they do eventually find work would discourage them from seeking over the table work. But just dropping the debt would encourage crime. Mandatory employment is more commonly known as slavery and would result in the crazy situation of criminals taking jobs from law-abiding citizens, possibly driving those same citizens into crime to get by, and well we can see how that's a path straight downhill. On a side note, we can see there how government oppression is encouraged, and to some, justified, by criminal behavior.
Crimes such as property damage fit easily into this system. Fraud and other 'theft-like' crimes fit as well, since they fall into a material loss category. Murder, rape, assault, or other non-property crimes are clearly difficult to fit into this and perhaps would be handled in a separate system.
The goal is to keep people out of prison, not because I like them, but because it's expensive and often hardens criminals. What could be more encouraging to a "fuck the system" attitude than spending five years locked up by that system?
It's more than a little bit idealistic, but imagine how much lower taxes could be if people weren't locked up. Imagine how much less crime there could be without large parts of the population being taught to hate orderly society. Or maybe crime wouldn't change. But at least the overall cost would be lower. At the least there's little interaction between prison terms and crime rates. Unfortunately being "tough on crime" is a politically useful stance, just like being "strong on defense", another stance which encourages huge amounts of spending for little to no benefit, but which is always politically safe. No one wants to be "soft on defense" or "weak on crime".
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tax cuts for business
Eliminate payroll taxes and offset the revenue loss with a higher top tier tax rate. This makes job creation cheaper. It makes hiring cheaper. It makes business cheaper. It makes small business cheaper. The only people it hurts are the ones who are not creating jobs: the ultra-rich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
