Left wing parties better for economic growth

[mustang19]

Again correlation =/=causation in regards to your second point. One example is all it takes to disprove an assertion.

But is there at least one example?

Pay me a thousand dollars to find one a developed country without significantly subsidized public infrastructure/education and I’ll crawl up and down every reference material I can find looking for it.

Don’t make me laugh. Infrastructure? Hong Kong? It’s frickin tiny. Also compulsory education didn’t happen in the US until the 20th century. I think we both know that the key to America’s and Hong Kong’s economic clout isn’t public education, which couldn’t teach highschool students a world map.

Things as simple as public roads, clean water, sewage and plumbing are quite important to urbanization. Actually, urban public infrastructure has some of the highest returns, if you believe corporatist lies. Education, for its part, is very important to fertility decline and demographic transition.

Compulsory public education began in Massachussets in 1852. By the end of the 19th cenutry, public schools outnumbered private ones. Make of that what you will.

Try stop giving them that paper. Then you see what happens to bad slaves.

You go to jail and the government takes your money. Then it spends that money to keep you in jail a while. Then you drive home on public roads listening to NPR propoganda to pick up your kids for school.

Don’t get me wrong. Taxes suck. But I don’t feel like opposing programs that increase my disposable income.

Can you explain to me how you think that voting for projects is in any way comparable to paying for services?

Never meant to suggest it was.

Firstly, no one who lives far from the project will vote for it. So it probably won’t get passed.

That’s true, and that’s why local government exists.

Secondly, entrepeneurs choose projects and their locations on the basis of profit and thus effective resource allocation,

Comparing public/private returns to capital, they do a worse job of it.

whereas politicians choose projects for their effects on re-election chances (See: Tennessee Valley Authority).

Parts of the TVA were a major screwup. One program from the 1930s, though, didn’t reverse the huge development gains from public infrastructure elsewhere.

Thirdly, voting is slow.

Anakin!

It’s better than no electoral representation at all.

Fourthly, will this voting be compulsory?

Nope.

Fifthly, those who are most affected by said project and least affected get the same amount of say in the matter.

Democracy can only make the majority of people happy. The monarchs, the Catholic Church, and feudal landowners were always pissed about that.

Don’t you realize that monetary transaction is voting? People vote on what services they value most by subscribing to them. You don’t need a political process to vote on things. The difference is no one gets stolen from.

By some definitions, but not by a democratic one. I’d take a vote to have say in my society any day over some private legal/monetary board I have no elected representation on. I’d say democratic systems have a pretty good record.

You missed the point, which is anyone can point to specific time periods, like early 19th century america and say that people were dirt poor farmers but this only reflects a lack of societal capital accumulation, not the efficacy of any economic paradigm. Once again, correlation =/= causation. In America’s case the all-saving holy highway project happened after America had become an economic powerhouse.

I don’t think I’m nearly done citing studies on the critical role of public investment in development.

Under the American System, starting in 1860, federal infrastructure investment began in earnest.

[Jargon]

@mustang19

But is there at least one example?

The James J Hill thing just served to show that there’s no law of ‘externalities’ which makes it impossible for infrastructure to be privately run. Off the top of my head I can’t think of one purely free market country that had infrastructure. But there was also never free market countries. Someone might argue that the gilded age was private infrastructure, but I won’t. According to one of the papers you linked, Britain’s rail system was private but I highly doubt that since the report was not detailed at all.

This is another correlation=/=causation and I think it’s more of a historical question. That question being the rise of statism. I find it a naive position to take that statism rose for the benefit of all.

Things as simple as public roads, clean water, sewage and plumbing are quite important to urbanization. Actually, urban public infrastructure has one of the highest returns. Education, for its part, is very important to fertility decline and demographic transition.

Ok. But every country has it. By that logic greece should be just as powerful as Hong Kong. But it isn’t. Because greece pays their people to scratch their asses and chew their fingernails. I don’t doubt that education is important to fertility decline. What’s your point there?

Compulsory public education began in Massachussets in 1852. By the end of the 19th cenutry, public schools outnumbered private ones. Make of that what you will.

There are no sources on your link. Come on.

You go to jail and the government takes your money. Then it spends that money to keep you in jail a while. Then you drive home on public roads listening to NPR propoganda to pick up your kids for school.

You seem pretty ok with that whole ‘jail’ part. What happens if you decide not to go to jail? What happens to your kids while you’re away?

Comparing public/private returns to capital, they do a worse job of it.

Private infrastructure is competing with ‘free’ monopolized infrastructure, that people have already paid for. Why would they pay for two? Of course it does.

Parts of the TVA were a major screwup. One program from the 1930s, though, didn’t reverse the huge development gains from public infrastructure elsewhere.

And notice how all those projects were in the areas with the lowest approval ratings. Hrmm. No projects in NE but plenty in Appalchia and SW, traditionally conservative areas.

Anakin!

Lol

It’s better than no electoral representation at all.

If a state is desirable.

Democracy can only make the majority of people happy. The monarchs, the Catholic Church, and feudal landowners were always pissed about that.

Do you believe that the tradition of rule suddenly changed with the advent of democracy? That suddenly the people are in charge now?

By some definitions, but not by a democratic one. I’d take a vote to have say in my society any day over some private legal/monetary board I have no elected representation on.

You represent yourself with your purchases. When things are unpopular, they die. What’s more democratic than that?

I’d say democratic systems have a pretty good record.

Hitler was voted in. Europe’s going to crash. As will America. All from the illusion that the people can rob their own coffers indefinitely.

Under the American System, starting in 1860, federal infrastructure investment began in earnest.

Most would dispute that classification of ‘federal’ infrastructure.

You really like Democracy huh?

[mustang19]

Ok. But every country has it. By that logic greece should be just as powerful as Hong Kong. But it isn’t. Because greece pays their people to scratch their asses and chew their fingernails. I don’t doubt that education is important to fertility decline. What’s your point there?

Industrialization is not compatible with a total fertility rate of 6 to 12 kids per woman. The “demographic dividend” from reduced fertility has been a major historical factor in development, through the Asian Miracle and back through the industrial revolution. Private and public education were both important to this. More studies?

There are no sources on your link. Come on.

Will PBS work?

Most would dispute that classification of ‘federal’ infrastructure.

Both federal and state governments funded internal improvements.

You represent yourself with your purchases. When things are unpopular, they die. What’s more democratic than that?

There have been some countries without government where the market was allowed to show its invisible hand. Things actually improved compared to the former tinpot dictatorship.

You seem pretty ok with that whole ‘jail’ part. What happens if you decide not to go to jail? What happens to your kids while you’re away?

Bad things. What happens under anarcho capitalism if you don’t pay your taxes? (Sorry, “legal agency membership fees.”) You have no legal protections at all?

It really doesn’t sound much different to me, other than the fact that you lose all your rights when your legal agency decides to drop you.

Private infrastructure is competing with ‘free’ monopolized infrastructure, that people have already paid for. Why would they pay for two? Of course it does.

That’s theoretically possible, I guess.

Do you believe that the tradition of rule suddenly changed with the advent of democracy? That suddenly the people are in charge now?

Don’t see any feudal landowners or Catholic priests in office anymore, except Republicans. Abandoning democracy doesn’t help.

You do represent yourself with purchases. Voting just gives most people more options.

Hitler was voted in. Europe’s going to crash. As will America. All from the illusion that the people can rob their own coffers indefinitely.

Hitler was voted in and became a dictator. Not much of an argument against democracy, or a good reason why anyone should abandon it because of a crisis.

You really like Democracy huh?

Yep. Voting rights and balance of powers is pretty sweet.

There may be historical incidences where authoritarian systems were able to avert disaster, but if they exist, these are pretty rare and not very applicable.

Let me edit that.

There may be historical incidences where nondemocratic systems were able to avert disaster, but if they exist, these are pretty rare and not very applicable.

[mustang19]

The James J Hill thing just served to show that there’s no law of ‘externalities’ which makes it impossible for infrastructure to be privately run. Off the top of my head I can’t think of one purely free market country that had infrastructure. But there was also never free market countries. Someone might argue that the gilded age was private infrastructure, but I won’t. According to one of the papers you linked, Britain’s rail system was private but I highly doubt that since the report was not detailed at all.

You know what? Let me rephrase the question.

I’m looking for a developed country (say, at least a quarter of US GDP per capita) which either 1) has a majority of its students under an unsubsidized private school system, or, 2) has a majority of its infrastructure supplied by unsubsidized private sources. Chile is a good example of a country that almost counts. It has a large private infrastructure stock, but one mostly capitalized through public pension funds.

And notice how all those projects were in the areas with the lowest approval ratings. Hrmm. No projects in NE but plenty in Appalchia and SW, traditionally conservative areas.

Technically, the American south was mainly democrat before about 1948, when the Republican “southern strategy” won them over with state’s rights and no federal involvement in antidiscrimination or the education system.

Private infrastructure is competing with ‘free’ monopolized infrastructure, that people have already paid for. Why would they pay for two? Of course it does.

Thought I would talk more on this. When I said “public and private capital”, I wasn’t comparing public and private infrastructure capital- just total public capital (which is mainly infrastructure) and total private capital (which is mostly other things). Private infrastructure capital is great if it exists. The problem is that cutting public capital doesn’t seem to do much to crowd back in private infrastructure.

About the earlier EZ Pass thing: electronic toll collection costs $100,000 per lane. If you can come up with a way to do the same thing for a few dollars, you could make a lot of money.

[Autolykos]

Mustang19, I’m still waiting for your explanation as to why I should get back to talking about the argument, when you’re not playing fair.

[Jargon]

@mustang19

Industrialization is not compatible with a total fertility rate of 6 to 12 kids per woman. The “demographic dividend” from reduced fertility has been a major historical factor in development, through the Asian Miracle and back through the industrial revolution. Private and public education were both important to this. More studies?

Population doubled in the gilded age.

Both federal and state governments funded internal improvements.

LMFTFY: funded private enterprise.

There have been some countries without government where the market was allowed to show its invisible hand. Things actually improved compared to the former tinpot dictatorship.

What’s your point here?

Bad things. What happens under anarcho capitalism if you don’t pay your taxes?

No one assaults you. Pretty great huh?

It really doesn’t sound much different to me, other than the fact that you lose all your rights when your legal agency decides to drop you.

I don’t care about ‘rights’, especially since you seem to intermingle them with entitlements. The difference between the two scenario’s is that in one you are owned. In the other you may choose one among many protectors or no protector at all (and protect yourself. Whoa that’s radical!).

Don’t see any feudal landowners or Catholic priests in office anymore, except Republicans. Abandoning democracy doesn’t help.

Please answer the question honestly.

You do represent yourself with purchases. Voting just gives most people more options.

Really Mustang? Voting gives people more options? How? It’s the other way around. Voting destroys options, forces all to a uniform behavior.

Hitler was voted in and became a dictator. Not much of an argument against democracy, or a good reason why anyone should abandon it because of a crisis.

Just sayin, Democracy isn’t holy.

Yep. Voting rights and balance of powers is pretty sweet.

There may be historical incidences where authoritarian systems were able to avert disaster, but if they exist, these are pretty rare and not very applicable.

Let me edit that.

There may be historical incidences where nondemocratic systems were able to avert disaster, but if they exist, these are pretty rare and not very applicable.

I don’t care for Democracy because it’s the idea that “we” get to vote on things. There is nothing that I want to ‘vote’ on and I don’t accept anyone’s ‘vote’ on me. A vote is an impotent claim on another’s life. We consume each other in voting.

[Jargon]

@mustang19

You know what? Let me rephrase the question.

I’m looking for a developed country (say, at least a quarter of US GDP per capita) which either 1) has a majority of its students under an unsubsidized private school system, or, 2) has a majority of its infrastructure supplied by unsubsidized private sources. Chile is a good example of a country that almost counts. It has a large private infrastructure stock, but one mostly capitalized through public pension funds.

I don’t doubt that there aren’t countries with private infrastructure. As mentioned before, free-market paradigms have not been practiced. Chile is not a good example. The cops were sent in to factories to beat and murder union organizers. Currency price-fixing. Also, mass privatization is never clean. It’s almost always the monopolists delight.

Technically, the American south was mainly democrat before about 1948, when the Republican “southern strategy” won them over with state’s rights and no federal involvement in antidiscrimination or the education system.

Conservative =/= Republican.

Private infrastructure capital is great if it exists.

Great, let’s demonopolize now.

About the earlier EZ Pass thing: electronic toll collection costs $100,000 per lane. If you can come up with a way to do the same thing for a few dollars, you could make a lot of money.

And 250 mb of storage used to cost $40.

[Esuric]

What exactly are we arguing about anymore?

After reading over the whole thread it seems like the subject has changed drastically from the OP.

Well first, he argues that nations which spend more on infrastructure tend to have higher GDP growth rates, but he has failed to demonstrate that GDP growth = actual economic performance. As I’ve already demonstrated, the Soviet Union had enormous GDP growth rates before it collapsed. Right now, China’s GDP growth rate is amongst the highest in the world and yet its unemployment is around 25% and the nation is literally littered with ghost cities and empty super-malls (torrential malinvestment).

Next, he has failed to respond to a question you raised earlier regarding the method of one of the studies. Specifically, it correlated “republican” and “conservative” governments with economic liberalism. But is this accurate? Can we really say the the governments of Bush 43, 41, Nixon and even Regan were truly liberal (in the classical sense)? He has to make that case.

And finally, he simply dismisses the broken-window fallacy. His argument is that we cannot measure it, but that’s precisely the point! You have to understand economic theory, how the market works (and how the government works for that matter) in order to understand the true opportunity cost of ad-hoc government economic interventionism.

All of these issues, at least as far as I’m aware, are still unresolved.

[mustang19]

I don’t care about ‘rights’, especially since you seem to intermingle them with entitlements. The difference between the two scenario’s is that in one you are owned. In the other you may choose one among many protectors or no protector at all (and protect yourself. Whoa that’s radical!).

I’m not excited about a system that might protect my rights depending on whether that legal agency choses to do it. There are times like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib that the government hasn’t done a very good job that, but on the whole there’s not much saying that private security companies like Blackwater or private prisons would do better.

Really Mustang? Voting gives people more options? How? It’s the other way around. Voting destroys options, forces all to a uniform behavior.

But that uniform behavior is in the interest of the majority and is covered by constitutional protections. That’s why the majority isn’t going to be much interested in your idea.

I don’t care for Democracy because it’s the idea that “we” get to vote on things. There is nothing that I want to ‘vote’ on and I don’t accept anyone’s ‘vote’ on me. A vote is an impotent claim on another’s life. We consume each other in voting.

I see it happen in voting booths all the time. But people really like keeping their roads and schools and pensions and Bill of Rights. Until you convince them to give up their entitlement to human rights, that’s the way it’ll stay.

Great, let’s demonopolize now.

Demonopolize a natural monopoly?

An individual rail line or power plant often has no competition within its service area.

Also, what happens when you don’t regulate utilities.

This paper investigates to what extent unregulated monopolies attempt not to evoke the introduction of
a formal price regulation by conforming to customers’ and authorities’ expectations. The evaluation
investigates if the price charged a utility is influenced by neighbours’ prices while controlling for
distance and relative size. The flexible nonlinear estimations, based on an instrumental variable
approach, find that the Swedish district heating utilities are insensitive to customer complaints but
significantly influenced by the passive monitoring by authorities. The conclusion is that the threat of
regulatory intervention has a significant effect on utilities real pricing behaviour which may serve as a
viable alternative to formal price regulation.

Please answer the question honestly.

The Church and the wealthy still have a lot of power in politics. But they had even more power before democracy. Not really an argument for a system where access to personal safety and political power is dependent on how much money you have to purchase them from a legal agency.

Well first, he argues that nations which spend more on infrastructure tend to have higher GDP growth rates, but he has failed to demonstrate that GDP growth = actual economic performance. As I’ve already demonstrated, the Soviet Union had enormous GDP growth rates before it collapsed. Right now, China’s GDP growth rate is amongst the highest in the world and yet its unemployment is around 25% and the nation is literally littered with ghost cities and empty super-malls (torrential malinvestment).

The business cycle is an especially bad problem with GDP. The thing is that the crash always reduces GDP eventually, and it’s a matter of picking a sufficiently long time period to look at. Empirical studies generally look over several decades.

Next, he has failed to respond to a question you raised earlier regarding the method of one of the studies. Specifically, it correlated “republican” and “conservative” governments with economic liberalism. But is this accurate? Can we really say the the governments of Bush 43, 41, Nixon and even Regan were truly liberal (in the classical sense)? He has to make that case.

If it’s possible that Republicans are less liberal than Democrats, or that Democrat state governments haven’t been found to increase equality or spend more, I’ll go back to talking about specific public investment policies.

And finally, he simply dismisses the broken-window fallacy. His argument is that we cannot measure it, but that’s precisely the point! You have to understand economic theory, how the market works (and how the government works for that matter) in order to understand the true opportunity cost of ad-hoc government economic interventionism.

There’s also an opportunity cost of not investing in public infrastructure.

The conclusion is that those states that have invested more in
infrastructure tend to have greater output, more private investment,
and more employment growth. This evidence supports results found in
earlier studies. The empirical work also seems to indicate that public
investment comes before the pickup in economic activity and serves as
a base, but much more work is required to spell out the specifics of the
link between public capital and economic performance.

[Esuric]

If you believe that Republicans are less liberal than Democrats, or that Democrat state governments haven’t been found to increase equality or spend more, I’ll go back to talking about specific public investment policies.

First of all, I don’t care about so-called “equality.” No one mentioned it. Next, can you please highlight the part that compares democratic spending v republican spending in the paper? The paper is rather long and I’m curious about the results.

The rest of your response is really just more of the same.

[mustang19]

First of all, I don’t care about so-called “equality.” No one mentioned it. Next, can you please highlight the part that compares democratic spending v republican spending in the paper? The paper is rather long and I’m curious about the results.

Sorry, wrong study. Here is one looking at the spending breakdown.

Page 24, looking at federal spending:

Finally, party control of congress clearly matters.11 All types of (government) programs grow more
rapidly when congress is under Democratic control.12

Here also.

We examine how turnover a ects tax revenues after including party control variables
in Table 7. In columns (1) and (2), increased turnover significantly increases the share
of tax revenue in income. Whereas turnover has no significant e ect on sales taxes, it
significantly increases the share of income taxes in state income. Thus, the signs and
magnitude of the e ect of turnover on fiscal policy variables are broadly consistent with
what we find above. In columns (1) and (2), the coecient of Democratic legislature is
13
positive, implying higher taxes for a Democratic legislature than for a divided legislature.
However, the e ect is not significant. A Republican legislature, on the other hand, has
significantly lower taxes than a divided legislature. The share of taxes is about 0.3% less
for a Republican legislature than for a divided legislature. In columns (5) and (6), whereas
Democratic control of a state legislature has significant positive e ect on income taxes,
the Republican control has an opposite e ect on income taxes. This is consistent with
Rogers and Rogers (2000) and Besley and Case (2003) who find significant partisan e ects
on fiscal policy. Whether the same party controls the state government and Whether a
governor faces a binding term limit have no significant e ect on the revenue variables. The
results are similar in Table 8, which considers the disaggregated categories of tax revenues,
after including the additional covariates. Turnover increases individual income taxes and
has no significant e ect on other categories of taxes. While Democratic legislatures have
significantly higher individual income taxes, Republican legislatures have significantly
lower selective sales taxes and corporate income taxes. Also, in column (6), a term-limited
Governor has significantly higher corporate income taxes compared to a Governor who is
not term limited.

The rest of your response is really just more of the same.

I agree. This has all been discussed at length.

[Jargon]

I’m not excited about a system that might protect my rights depending on whether that legal agency choses to do it. There are times like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib that the government hasn’t done a very good job that, but on the whole there’s not much saying that private security companies like Blackwater or private prisons would do better.

If you want to start a thread on private defense I’d be glad to talk there about it, but just think for a moment: Who do Blackwater and the prisons work for?

But that uniform behavior is in the interest of the majority

Hitler had a majority. So did Stalin.

and is covered by constitutional protections.

LOL

That’s why the majority isn’t going to be much interested in your idea.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - Mencken

I see it happen in voting booths all the time. But people really like keeping their roads and schools and pensions and Bill of Rights. Until you convince them to give up their entitlement to human rights, that’s the way it’ll stay.

What makes sense is not dependent on the opinions of others.

Demonopolize a natural monopoly?

Historically nonexistent. Find me one please

An individual rail line or power plant often has no competition within its service area.

Did you even read that?

Also, what happens when you don’t regulate utilities.

This paper investigates to what extent unregulated monopolies

Hm which ones?

attempt not to evoke the introduction of
a formal price regulation by conforming to customers’ and authorities’ expectations. The evaluation
investigates if the price charged a utility is influenced by neighbours’ prices while controlling for
distance and relative size. The flexible nonlinear estimations, based on an instrumental variable
approach, find that the Swedish district heating utilities are insensitive to customer complaints but
significantly influenced by the passive monitoring by authorities. The conclusion is that the threat of
regulatory intervention has a significant effect on utilities real pricing behaviour which may serve as a
viable alternative to formal price regulation.

Sounds very scientific.

The Church and the wealthy still have a lot of power in politics. But they had even more power before democracy. Not really an argument for a system where access to personal safety and political power is dependent on how much money you have to purchase them from a legal agency.

I didn’t mean to say at all that the agency has remained, but the modus operandi has. Power doesn’t simply relinquish. One shouldn’t delude oneself in thinking that because “the people elect their representatives”, that the people’s interests are being represented. Now instead of the church and the wealthy we have the state, an inaccessible faceless corporate bureaucracy wherein there is no clear enemy.

What is the market process to you? This whole ‘anarchocapitalism’ is for the rich is an absurdity. The market exists to provide goods on a mass scale to the masses. Poor people can eat steak, drive a car, and play with their iphones. People already pay for their legal services anyways. And law is a service because it employs people to that end. The difference is that people could choose their protector.

I think this will be my last response in this thread though. We are shooting shallow answers at each other on a dozen different subjects and much of the assertions you make require more work from me to upend than for you to sit on due to conventional knowledge on history. I am downhill from you trying to catch seven bowling balls with two hands. Things like “capitalism is for the rich” and “democracy is for the people”. I don’t think I’m convincing you anyways.

[Matthew]

We desperately need a discussion on methedology. That’s the clash here. Plenty of times Mustang19 takes for granted correlation as causation. He seems to think this is made up for by using certain statistical methods. I’m not familiar with them well enough to counter intelligently, but I’m gonna take interest in the subject over the next few weeks.

Anyway, that’s what I perceive to be the main point of contention. If Mustang’s methods (or rather the methods utilized in the papers) are fallacious, then I think the edge goes to us, as it seems pretty clear that properly deduced economic theory supports our conclusions.

[mustang19]

Historically nonexistent. Find me one please

Swedish utilities in the paper. One can always find some sanitation requirement or tax deduction to declare a firm an unnatural monopoly, but that is about the best example I can provide. When regulation decreases, rather than increases, market prices, that doesn’t suggest that this regulation reinforces market concentration.

What is the market process to you? This whole ‘anarchocapitalism’ is for the rich is an absurdity. The market exists to provide goods on a mass scale to the masses. Poor people can eat steak, drive a car, and play with their iphones. People already pay for their legal services anyways. And law is a service because it employs people to that end. The difference is that people could choose their protector.

Markets are great, just not at guaranteeing protection.

Just as people chose their protectors under your idea, they’re not entitled to protection either. It really depends on whether you value private property above everyone’s entitlement to health and safety.

I think this will be my last response in this thread though. We are shooting shallow answers at each other on a dozen different subjects and much of the assertions you make require more work from me to upend than for you to sit on due to conventional knowledge on history. I am downhill from you trying to catch seven bowling balls with two hands. Things like “capitalism is for the rich” and “democracy is for the people”.

I agree that things aren’t so simple. There are instances where democracy hurts the poor, and nondemocratic solutions can remedy this. I believe that there are also times when government can correct market failures which don’t hurt the poor or the rich, but everyone.

I don’t think I’m convincing you anyways.

I, for one, enjoyed your company. See you around.

We desperately need a discussion on methedology. That’s the clash here. Plenty of times Mustang19 takes for granted correlation as causation. He seems to think this is made up for by using certain statistical methods. I’m not familiar with them well enough to counter intelligently, but I’m gonna take interest in the subject over the next few weeks.

I am basically talking about time series analysis. I will try to answer any specific questions on these techniques.

Anyway, that’s what I perceive to be the main point of contention. If Mustang’s methods (or rather the methods utilized in the papers) are fallacious, then I think the edge goes to us, as it seems pretty clear that properly deduced economic theory supports our conclusions.

It is possible to theorize a situation where the returns on an investment are too widely dispersed over time and space to attract investment from its beneficiaries. In situations where this is so, a rationale for public infrastructure may exist.

[gotlucky]

@mustang19

Markets are great, just not at guaranteeing protection.

Just as people chose their protectors under your idea, they’re not entitled to protection either. It really depends on whether you value private property above human health and safety.

The government does not guarantee protection either. I’ll even throw you a bone and we can ignore all the governments in the world that would be called dictatorships. Let’s look at so called “free” nations. The poor do not have good police service. Most crimes go unsolved (especially because much of the crime is theft, which is quite difficult to solve). But even most murders go unsolved. Lot’s of these areas have started doing neighborhood watches to try to help curb crime because the police won’t or can’t do it.

If you would like to debate this further, start a new thread.

[mustang19]

The government does not guarantee protection either. I’ll even throw you a bone and we can ignore all the governments in the world that would be called dictatorships. Let’s look at so called “free” nations. The poor do not have good police service. Most crimes go unsolved (especially because much of the crime is theft, which is quite difficult to solve). But even most murders go unsolved. Lot’s of these areas have started doing neighborhood watches to try to help curb crime because the police won’t or can’t do it.

I’m not opposed to neighboord watches. In fact, many police stations assist NW programs. I’m not sure if the poor would be able to better afford private protection in the absence of the EITC and welfare.

If you would like to debate this further, start a new thread.

Too late for that.

[gotlucky]

I’m not opposed to neighboord watches. In fact, many police stations assist NW programs. I’m not sure if the poor would be able to better afford private protection in the absence of the EITC and welfare.

Stop taxing the poor (yes, sales taxes and property taxes and social security taxes affect the poor) and then they will have more wealth and resources to spend on protection if they so desire. If they would prefer to just police their neighborhoods themselves and keep their wealth, then that is their choice.

The problem with your statements are that you are creating a false dichotomy. Either the government protects or there is no protection. But this is clearly not true, as when the government fails to protect, people take it unto themselves to fulfill that role.

[mustang19]

Stop taxing the poor (yes, sales taxes and property taxes and social security taxes affect the poor) and then they will have more wealth and resources to spend on protection if they so desire. If they would prefer to just police their neighborhoods themselves and keep their wealth, then that is their choice.

Kind of.

Because the earned income tax credit (EITC) is refundable and the child tax credit (CTC) is partly so, the average effective individual income tax rate for the bottom two income quin-tiles in 2011 was negative; that is, the tax credits more than offset positive income tax liabil-ity, so that the average household in these quintiles received a net payment from the gov-ernment.

The problem with your statements are that you are creating a false dichotomy. Either the government protects or there is no protection. But this is clearly not true, as when the government fails to protect, people take it unto themselves to fulfill that role.

That’s been tried.

[gotlucky]

Kind of.

Are you saying that the poor are not effected by social security taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes?

That’s been tried.

Care to elaborate? I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

[mustang19]

Are you saying that the poor are not effected by social security taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes?

Property taxes require that you own property, and if you’re poor you probably don’t own a house. Not all states have sales tax (Florida!), and SS is net redistributive.

examples

Stone age, somalia, wild west, unstable regions, etc.