21 Responses to “How Shall I Spend Thee?”

1. Sue
   May 3rd, 2008 @ 1:37 pm

   I’m going to donate it to the local food bank. I know that’s not exactly what the prez had in mind, but there have been articles about how the food bank is busier than ever these days due to rising prices, the economy, etc.

   BTW, I made some comment about the stimulus check to a friend a couple of weeks ago and she said she wasn’t getting one because her income is over the limit. So by telling people you’re getting a check, you’re confessing that you are “poor” enough to qualify for it.

   You know, maybe I’ll save $50 of my stimulus check and take it to Forbidden Island and buy several delicious fruity cocktails. Mmm, cocktails!

2. Lisa
   May 3rd, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

   Walmart is cashing those checks for free, so that we can borrow money from China then go to Walmart and give it back to China by spending it on lead-laden toys and poisoned pet food. If you really want to spend it I’d recommend Hooters, you can get 20 wings and a bottle of Dom Perignon for just over $100. Personally, I’m giving my half to the Democrats.

3. InfK
   May 3rd, 2008 @ 6:38 pm

   It IS technically possible to send it back to the government, to be paid directly to the national debt. I forget the name of the place you send it to, but they don’t even send you a sticker or anything to show you’ve done it.

   As for rich people’s taxes, we know someone who had to buy a Range Rover a couple years ago in order to make their taxes come out even (not owe anything)… sadly for them, they already owned two Mercedes sedans and had trouble finding parking for it near their Beverly Hills home. (I wish I was either kidding, or exaggerating)

4. Phil
   May 4th, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

   What will you do with your rebate check?

   Let’s see… the government takes some of my money from me, then gives me a little of it back. Gee, I think I’ll put it back in my bank account where it came from originally. Tough decision.

   From a numbers standpoint, best case the government takes money from someone else and gives it to me. If I wanted to take money by force from someone else, which I don’t, I’m sure I could do it far more efficiently than the government can. Worst case, the government takes money from me and gives it to someone else. Again, when I want to give money to someone else, I’m sure I can do a better job of it than the government.

   The whole thing is so incredibly stupid. You’ve got two groups of people, which I’ll call Group A and Group B. Some people are in one group or the other, some in both, and some in neither. The government takes money using the threat of force from the Group A people. Or using actual force, as Wesley Snipes discovered when he was sentenced recently to three years in federal prison for three counts of willfully failing to file tax returns. (Yes, I understand taxes, generally speaking, are legal and morally and ethically valid, as is the threat/use of force by the government to enforce laws — and I have no problem with that. It’s still by force, though.) Then the government gives most of that money to the Group B people. The rest of the money is spent on advertising and distribution costs. Why on Earth would this stimulate the economy? You’re just taking money from one person and giving it another. Now the second person can spend it, yes, but the first person can’t. And Group A is more likely to include people who will spend money on, say, factory tooling or something else that improves the GDP for years or decades to come.

   Of course the point, doubtless, is not to stimulate the economy. It’s to buy votes. There are more people in Group B than in Group A. But politicians are not going to call it the “buy votes tax rebate”, are they?

5. 2fs
   May 4th, 2008 @ 8:49 pm

   While I agree that the “stimulus checks” are stupid, when you write “Why on Earth would this stimulate the economy? You’re just taking money from one person and giving it another” – uh, isn’t that what all financial transactions are? The theory is that in circulating, that money carries along with it various magical powers of profit, incentive, production, etc. (And, of course, every time I buy something from you, a portion of that sale goes to a government entity…)

   However, the notion that taxes are “your money” which the government takes and then (maybe) gives back to you is faulty. The money is not inherently yours or anyone else’s; the exchange of money takes place only under certain legally specified situations…and in a very real sense, it’s the government that guarantees that you actually do get paid. When you start asking who says when one person can and can’t require payment from another, it gets quite tricky. It’s not just a matter of contract, or agreement – since many financial transactions are, essentially, compelled. Still: it’s an oversimplification to say your salary is simply “y0ur” money. Your employer might well argue it’s their money, and they choose, because the market says it makes more sense for them to do so than not, to offer you some as compensation for your services. (The government’s role here, by the way, is to mandate certain payments, including certain kinds of compensation, including minimum wage laws, rules concerning overtime, rules concerning rightful compensation for high-level employees which might otherwise be recharacterized as something else to reduce tax burdens, etc.) Or you might be a Marxist and argue that, in fact, the monies that management and your employer take as profits, or invest, etc., are rightfully yours and your fellow workers’, and it’s only the government (and its power/threat of force) that allows the capitalists to keep it. Who’s right? You all are: depends on what economic system, which laws, and what beliefs are prevalent at the time.

6. Phil
   May 4th, 2008 @ 9:35 pm

   when you write “Why on Earth would this stimulate the economy? You’re just taking money from one person and giving it another” – uh, isn’t that what all financial transactions are?

   No, most financial transactions in the US are voluntary exchanges between parties, entered into solely on their own volitions and under their mutually-negotiated terms. They do not generally involve a third party acting against the will (and probably best interests) of one of the two other parties.

   The theory is that in circulating, that money carries along with it various magical powers of profit, incentive, production, etc.

   Oddly enough, I don’t see a lot of profit or production involved in taking money by force from one person and giving it to another.

   (And, of course, every time I buy something from you, a portion of that sale goes to a government entity…)

   Yes, when you buy something from me; but not when you simply take something from me.

   However, the notion that taxes are “your money” which the government takes and then (maybe) gives back to you is faulty. The money is not inherently yours or anyone else’s;

   Obviously you’re using a much different definition of property than I am, and different than what the US constitution and US contract and property law in general envisions. Under my definition of property, the money is fully and completely mine, unreservedly, until either I pay the tax or the government seizes the money after due process.

   the exchange of money takes place only under certain legally specified situations…and in a very real sense, it’s the government that guarantees that you actually do get paid.

   This is simply not true. If I buy illegal narcotics from a drug dealer, the exchange of money takes place. It’s clearly not one of those legally specified situations, nor does the government have any role whatsoever in guaranteeing that the drug dealer gets paid.

   When you start asking who says when one person can and can’t require payment from another, it gets quite tricky. It’s not just a matter of contract, or agreement – since many financial transactions are, essentially, compelled.

   I am at a loss at the moment to think of even one financial transaction that I’ve entered into in the past several years, other than those involving governments, that was in any way compelled. Indeed, I can’t think of a single non-government financial transaction that wasn’t a simple matter of contract.

   Still: it’s an oversimplification to say your salary is simply “0ur” money. Your employer might well argue it’s their money, and they choose, because the market says it makes more sense for them to do so than not, to offer you some as compensation for your services.

   Not at all. I have never had an employer “offer” me “some [money] as compensation for my services”. I have always negotiated an exchange, where a certain amount of services are traded for a certain monetary compensation. The employer and I voluntarily negotiate the terms of the contract and enter into it willingly. The money is, beyond any doubt in my mind, the employer’s money until such time as he pays me; at that point it’s my money. Once I perform the contracted services, the employer has a contractual obligation to pay me; but his money is still his until he fulfills that obligation by giving me payment.

   (The government’s role here, by the way, is to mandate certain payments, including certain kinds of compensation, including minimum wage laws, rules concerning overtime, rules concerning rightful compensation for high-level employees which might otherwise be recharacterized as something else to reduce tax burdens, etc.)

   I disagree. The government’s role here is to enforce contract law, thus assuring that the contract the employer and employee have voluntarily entered into with each other can be relied on. Generally speaking, the major function of government is to threaten and/or use force to compel compliance with certain rules. The idea is to avoid the use of force by individuals, which would otherwise be necessary in order to do things like enforce contract terms. While it’s true that the government also, and in my opinion completely unnecessarily, mandates the things you list, they really have nothing to do with financial transactions. They have to do with one set of people inflicting their will upon another set, without their consent.

   Or you might be a Marxist and argue that, in fact, the monies that management and your employer take as profits, or invest, etc., are rightfully yours and your fellow workers’, and it’s only the government (and its power/threat of force) that allows the capitalists to keep it. Who’s right? You all are: depends on what economic system, which laws, and what beliefs are prevalent at the time.

   Well, since the stimulus package is strictly a US function, one would presume that the laws and economic system are those of the US. In the US, one would certainly be wrong to argue that the money an employer takes as profit rightfully belongs to the employees (assuming, of course, that the employment contract contains no such provision). It doesn’t depend on what “beliefs are prevalent” in the US, it depends on what terms the employees and employer negotiated. Under US law, they are bound by the terms of the contract, as interpreted under the rules of contract law, and “who owns what” is clearly spelled out.

7. yellojkt
   May 5th, 2008 @ 6:40 am

   I don’t think I’m getting one, but that’s a good problem to have, so I’m not complaining. I am a little bitter about the fact that my wife who is an underpaid teacher never gets any tax benefits because I have a good job. I’d rant about that injustice more often if there were a way to make it not sound like whiny self-centered braggadocio.

8. Jestaplero
   May 5th, 2008 @ 8:13 am

   You’re just taking money from one person and giving it another. Now the second person can spend it, yes, but the first person can’t. And Group A is more likely to include people who will spend money on, say, factory tooling or something else that improves the GDP for years or decades to come.

   So, what are you saying? That under a more progressive tax scheme than we presently have, there would be less capital investment? I seem to recall that capital investment was pretty robust under Clinton, despite more progressive taxes. But the budget was balanced. So, we didn’t need to send out “economic stimulus” rebates and if we did we wouldn’t have to borrow it from the Chinese. In all, it seemed to me like a better way to run an air force, but I’m no economist, so what do I know?

9. Phil
   May 5th, 2008 @ 4:20 pm

   So, what are you saying? That under a more progressive tax scheme than we presently have, there would be less capital investment?

   No, I’m saying that, off hand, Group A is more likely to include people who will spend money on, say, factory tooling than Group B is. It’s kind of a “isn’t it ironic that…” sort of comment.

   I’m certainly not saying anything about what capital investment would be under a more progressive tax scheme, for two reasons.

   One, I doubt that anyone can predict what the ramifications of changes to an incredibly complex tax system would be. Certainly the US government has demonstrated, quite amply, their inability to do so. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say the government not only can’t predict the changes, but is unable to understand or quantify the results even after a change is made.

   Two, I don’t think the stimulus package has anything to do with taxes. Oh, they may say it’s a “tax rebate”, but just saying that doesn’t make it so. To my mind, a tax system is a method of getting money from people to fund the operations of government. In this case, though, no funding of the government is taking place. The government is simply taking money from one set of people and giving it to another. That’s not taxation. That’s redistribution of property. It’s long been said that one of the chief dangers of democratic systems is that The Many will vote to take money (or something of value) from The Few. That’s exactly what this is, except rather than having the masses actually vote, the politicians are acting for them (the US is a republic, after all).

   I seem to recall that capital investment was pretty robust under Clinton, despite more progressive taxes.

   Was it more or less robust than it would have been under different policies? You have no idea. Neither do I, not does anyone else. The best thing would be to try different policies and measure their effectiveness, then use the most effective one. You know, like businesses do all the time. For example, Wendy’s chose two cities where profits and revenues in stores had closely matched for years. Then they introduced hot dogs in one city, and left the other city the same. Sales of hot dogs were excellent. You might think that’d be good. But the data showed that profit was down in the city with hot dogs. Hot dogs were promptly removed from the menu. Unfortunately, the government rarely makes any effort to make accurate measurements. Even when data is available, it’s usually ignored.

   In all, it seemed to me like a better way to run an air force, but I’m no economist, so what do I know?

   An air force? What?

10. 2fs
    May 5th, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

    “However, the notion that taxes are “your money” which the government takes and then (maybe) gives back to you is faulty. The money is not inherently yours or anyone else’s”

    Obviously you’re using a much different definition of property than I am, and different than what the US constitution and US contract and property law in general envisions. Under my definition of property, the money is fully and completely mine, unreservedly, until either I pay the tax or the government seizes the money after due process.

    I’m speaking of before the money changes hands, not after. As you point out, it is government’s role to provide a threat of force against individuals’ own use of force to take, unlawfully, what is not theirs. But abstractly, “what’s theirs” is not as obvious as you suggest. One reason there are competing economic arguments is that it is not fundamentally clear to whom property belongs: for example, those who labor to make it, or those who provide the capital that underlies the structures (physical and economic) under which those laborers labor. If I make a cheeseburger for McDonald’s, it’s not mine just because I made it. McDonald’s, after all, paid for the meat, the buns, the grill, and the restaurant. On the other hand, without my (or someone’s) labor, there’s no cheeseburger, no food for sale, no profits. So who can has cheezburger? (Sorry – couldn’t resist that…)

    One solution is to compensate the laborer for labor, but not in ownership of what he produces, but in money – which can be freely exchanged for things other than, say, cheeseburgers. But how much should a laborer be compensated for his cheeseburger-making? Our system says, whatever the market says, with the employers trying to drive that cost down and workers trying to drive it up, and other forces doing their bit as well (scarcity, demand, etc.).

    The point is: Jesus did not come down from the skies and give a value to labor. We do that, and we do that given certain economic beliefs. When one set of beliefs prevails, we might (say) enact livable wage laws, tax higher-earning folks a greater percentage, etc. When other beliefs prevail, we might leave the employer utterly free to set those wages, with no minimum wage, no limits on conditions of labor, etc. Those are social realities, mutable and not given in the nature of money, yet they have everything to do with how we as a society decide whose money the money involved is.

    “I am at a loss at the moment to think of even one financial transaction that I’ve entered into in the past several years, other than those involving governments, that was in any way compelled.”

    Really? So you think that you could, if you wanted, decide to stop purchasing food, or seeds to grow your own food, etc.? I suppose you theoretically could – some people do withdraw almost completely from the economic system, and grow their own food – but most people do not and cannot, for various reasons. Any particular purchase may not be compelled, but in our society we are certainly compelled to make some purchases…which is to say, we’re compelled to make money. Which is to say, in “freely negotiating” with employers, we’re at a certain disadvantage, since with rare, specialized exceptions, there are many more people with the skills the job requires than are needed. (The exceptions are jobs that pay extremely well, because the skills they require are so rare.) There’s a structural advantage to capitalists to avoid full employment (even if it were possible), which is, of course, to preserve this power imbalance, which allows employers to choose employees, in most cases, rather than the other way around.

    Moving away from this kind of argument: you seem to be suggesting that most government functions are dubious, in that they rely ultimately on force and taking money, under threat of force, rather than on freely entered-into transactions. One problem with this: it seems people actually want the government to do this. Put in those terms, they probably wouldn’t say so…but put in terms of, the government will no longer maintain roads, collect trash, remove snow, ensure the safety of food, air, and water, etc., people would not be pleased. Okay, so let for-profit agencies – private corporations – provide those services. But is there actually profit in many of those? I don’t think there is – I think there are many necessities in life that cannot be relied upon to produce profit, and should not be left to profit-making agencies, since in many cases the desire for profit is set against the mission of the agency.

    Put another way: I don’t think you can derive a morality that would fit most people’s ideas of morals solely from letting everything try to exist in order to make a profit. Most people have limits as to what they will do to make a profit, even if a profit were possible – which is why most people do not whore out their beautiful underage daughters, even if they could make huge amounts of money doing so, even if a minimalist government withdrew from that arena of regulation and laissez the faire with it.

11. Phil
    May 5th, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

    But abstractly, “what’s their” is not as obvious as you suggest.

    Yes, it is. There are rules of law which spell out, quite clearly and in great detail, what belongs to who. These rules are enforced by force. These abstractions of which you speak have no reality and are not enforced. Now, one could argue about the moral validity of these laws based on how they came to be, but one would be hard pressed to argue about their actual existence.

    One reason there are competing economic arguments is that it is not fundamentally clear to whom property belongs: for example, those who labor to make it, or those who provide the capital that underlies the structures (physical and economic) under which those laborers labor.

    It is fundamentally clear to whom property belongs. As I just said, it’s all spelled out quite clearly.

    If I make a cheeseburger for McDonald’s, it’s not mine just because I made it. McDonald’s, after all, paid for the meat, the buns, the grill, and the restaurant.

    Correct. It’s McDonald’s cheeseburger, because they own all the ingredients. Through voluntarily-entered contracts, McDonalds has obtained full and unambiguous ownership of every atom in the cheeseburger. Further, through voluntarily-entered contracts, McDonalds has obtained your labor to assemble the cheeseburger. It’s quite clear that full ownership is vested to McDonald’s.

    On the other hand, without my (or someone’s) labor, there’s no cheeseburger, no food for sale, no profits.

    All of this is completely irrelevant to the ownership of the cheeseburger, whether assembled as a cheeseburger or still in components. The ownership of the cheeseburger has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is for sale, nor whether there are any profits or even expectation of profits.

    One solution is to compensate the laborer for labor, but not in ownership of what he produces, but in money – which can be freely exchanged for things other than, say, cheeseburgers. But how much should a laborer be compensated for his cheeseburger-making? Our system says, whatever the market says, with the employers trying to drive that cost down and workers trying to drive it up, and other forces doing their bit as well (scarcity, demand, etc.).

    I disagree completely. Our system says that the amount a laborer should be compensated for his cheeseburger-making is the amount that McDonald’s and the laborer have agreed upon, through free and voluntary negotiation. It is completely irrelevant what the market says labor is worth. For example, a McDonald’s may hire the owner’s son to make cheeseburgers at a wage far beyond that earned at any other McDonald’s. But the negotiation between the McDonald’s and the son is highly favorable to the son.

    The point is: Jesus did not come down from the skies and give a value to labor. We do that, and we do that given certain economic beliefs.

    No, we don’t. We have no say in the value of labor, other than when we contract to obtain or provide it and even then only to the value of that particular labor. Our economic beliefs have nothing to do with the value that others negotiate for labor. Again, the value of labor is set through voluntarily-entered negotiations between the laborer and he who seeks the labor.

    When one set of beliefs prevails, we might (say) enact livable wage laws, tax higher-earning folks a greater percentage, etc. When other beliefs prevail, we might leave the employer utterly free to set those wages, with no minimum wage, no limits on conditions of labor, etc.

    These are separate from the value of the labor. Taxing people differently based on their earnings obviously does not change the value of the labor. It merely changes the cost of government to those people. Minimum wage laws are more complex. I could explain them at length, but it would be… lengthy. Suffice for the moment to say they don’t affect the value of labor, in my opinion.

    So you think that you could, if you wanted, decide to stop purchasing food, or seeds to grow your own food, etc.?

    While the general nature of the type of transactions I engage in clearly has some degree of coercion, though I would call it necessity, each specific transaction does not. I may stop purchasing food from Alberson’s with little difficulty. I’ll just purchase it from Vons.

    Any particular purchase may not be compelled, but in our society we are certainly compelled to make some purchases…which is to say, we’re compelled to make money.

    It’s true that money is the generally accepted mechanism for exchange, and one would typically be hard-pressed to conduct all transactions using some other medium.

    Which is to say, in “freely negotiating” with employers, we’re at a certain disadvantage, since with rare, specialized exceptions, there are many more people with the skills the job requires than are needed.

    Quite a stretch. Sure, we pretty much have to negotiate in money, as opposed to, say, in rabbits. But most people would consider than an advantage, rather than something one is “compelled” to do. I certainly wouldn’t say that using money puts me at a disadvantage in negotiating with an employer. Then you leap inexplicably to the notion that nearly all job positions have many more people with the skills required than the positions available. Perhaps this is true, but once you factor in that most of those skilled people are unavailable for a given position, usually because they are working somewhere else, it becomes a moot point.

    There’s a structural advantage to capitalists to avoid full employment (even if it were possible), which is, of course, to preserve this power imbalance, which allows employers to choose employees, in most cases, rather than the other way around.

    I feel certain that capitalists have no control whatsoever over whether there’s full employment or not, and the idea that they somehow “preserve a power imbalance” is preposterous indeed. When employers choose employees, it’s largely because there are more people willing to take the easier path of being an employee than there are people willing to take the harder path of being an employer. Furthermore, instances of employees choosing employers abound. If I drive down any main street in this city, or any nearby city, I’ll see “help wanted” signs aplenty. Those signs are there because employees have not chosen to work for those employers. Indeed, I wouldn’t have to drive far to see signs in windows offering wages far above the so-called minimum wage.

    (The exceptions are jobs that pay extremely well, because the skills they require are so rare.)

    Somehow I doubt that working at In’n'Out Burger, which is one of those exceptions, is seeking employees to choose them because the skills they need are so rare.

    you seem to be suggesting that most government functions are dubious, in that they rely ultimately on force and taking money, under threat of force, rather than on freely entered-into transactions.

    I think you misunderstand me. It’s the non-dubious functions of government that rely on force and the threat of force. That’s the primary purpose of government. The dubious ones are the ones where there’s no need to rely on force, because they can be accomplished (if they need to be accomplished at all) through voluntarily-entered transactions, but the government does them anyway.

    One problem with this: it seems people actually want the government to do this.

    Some people do and some don’t. What the proper functions of government should be is a never-ending debate. Personally, I think there one’s test that narrows it down quickly. Is the function we propose to have government do so important that we would feel comfortable pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to do it? If so, it’s a good candidate for the government. If not, it’s a poor candidate. For example, if a person has been lawfully convicted of a crime and ordered to go to prison, would we feel comfortable having a government agent point a gun at them and force them into prison if they fail to go voluntarily? Most people would say yes. Would we feel comfortable having a government agent point a gun at one person and force them to hand some of their money over to another person, in order to “stimulate the economy”? Most people would say no.

    Okay, so let for-profit agencies – private corporations – provide those services. But is there actually profit in many of those?

    Basically, you’re saying that the government is more efficient at all those things than any other organization ever could be. That is, say the government is spending $x to, oh, control air traffic. You suppose that no organization could control air traffic for less than $x. Otherwise, the difference between what they could do it for and $x is the profit. Personally, I think there are few government-run activities that come even close to the efficiency of, say, Wal*Mart or McDonald’s.

    Put another way, you’d be completely comfortable changing the constitution to require the government to hand any given function over to private industry if the company could perform it for at least 10% less than the government is, right? Since that would never happen; there being no profit in these things. Mind you, for all government-performed functions, the public currently is paying the $x; so obviously they won’t have a problem continuing to pay $x. When an organization does it for 10% less than $x, the remainder would be profit, without costing the taxpayers an extra dime.

    I think there are many necessities in life that cannot be relied upon to produce profit, and should not be left to profit-making agencies, since in many cases the desire for profit is set against the mission of the agency.

    Well, here we have different views. Personally, when I think of the absolute worst things in the world, there is little doubt that they are caused by the absence of free enterprise. For example, hunger in third-world countries. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this is the result of governments in those countries having policies that are contrary to free enterprise. Property rights are not respected, and it is difficult to establish and run businesses. When property rights are respected and free enterprise is allowed to flourish, hunger vanishes or is at least greatly reduced. There is plenty of data to back this up.

    Put another way: I don’t think you can derive a morality that would fit most people’s ideas of morals solely from letting everything try to exist in order to make a profit.

    I think the result of letting far more things be handled by free enterprise and only a few things relegated to the government would be very attractive to most people’s notion of morals.

    Most people have limits as to what they will do to make a profit, even if a profit were possible – which is why most people do not whore out their beautiful underage daughters, even if they could make huge amounts of money doing so, even if a minimalist government withdrew from that arena of regulation and laissez the faire with it.

    Hmmm… I’m not following the overall logic here. Are you claiming that the availability of underage prostitution is so great a necessity of life that it shouldn’t be left to profit-making agencies?

12. Phil
    May 5th, 2008 @ 11:46 pm

    Somehow this cartoon springs to mind.
    Duty Calls

13. Flasshe
    May 6th, 2008 @ 6:56 am

    I’ve been quiet up till now, but I have to comment on this:

    I think the result of letting far more things be handled by free enterprise and only a few things relegated to the government would be very attractive to most people’s notion of morals.

    I’m not someone who believes that “all corporations are evil” but nor do I believe in the other extreme that free enterprise can fix everything. I have a good vantage point right now for viewing how government handles things vs how corporations do it, and neither can get it right. Corporations can be just as stupid in the way the they do things as governments, and I think it’s bit disingenuous to think that free enterprise provides enough oversight to make sure things get done efficiently and in the best interests of the people. (Not that government oversight is much better.) Ultimately, it’s the people behind the corporation or the government that you have to rely on, and there’s a lot of stupid and/or immoral people out there.

    Take Enron for example. Yeah, market forces eventually brought them down (with some help from the government), but they got away with not having an actual product or service for a very long time. And ended up ruining a lot of lives in the process. What if they had been in charge in of handling our national energy policy?

14. InfK
    May 6th, 2008 @ 7:13 am

    > What if [Enron] had been in charge
    > of handling our national energy policy?

    Yeah, just imagine…

15. Phil
    May 6th, 2008 @ 2:52 pm

    I’m not someone who believes that “all corporations are evil” but nor do I believe in the other extreme that free enterprise can fix everything. I have a good vantage point right now for viewing how government handles things vs how corporations do it, and neither can get it right. Corporations can be just as stupid in the way the they do things as governments,

    Ahh, but you’re missing a key point. Einstein supposedly once said that compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe. But then he also said e=mc² when e=c²m would have been less ambiguous. I’d say competition, as in the free market, is a more powerful force. When the government handles something, there’s no competition and no reason for them to do a good job. The whole point of having private enterprise perform functions instead of government is to have competing enterprises. Ideally, the public would be able to choose directly which enterprise they want to use, and would be aware of how much they’re paying. Second-best would be that the enterprises bid for the job, which means a lot of government involvement. Worst is having no choice with the government performing a function, and no idea how much you’re paying (indeed, the government is notorious for purposely hiding from the public how much they are paying).

    To give an example, here in southern California the government runs the DMV centers, where you can get a driver’s license. There’s really no reason why this couldn’t be handled by private competing companies. When I first moved here, I tried to make an appointment at the DMV, but the wait list was longer than the amount of time legally permitted for me to get the license. At the DMV, I stood in line, a line reaching well outside the door, for 20 minutes just to get a number. I had to wait well over two hours to start the process. In contrast, I can go to McDonald’s, or Burger King, or any of several other food places during the peak lunch rush and get food from my choice of vendors in just minutes. Usually fewer minutes than I stood in line to reach the take-a-number machine at the DMV. McDonald’s and Burger King are overseen by government agencies. Every week a couple of restaurants in the city are closed for a day because an inspector found a cockroach infestation or some other violation (that probably wouldn’t actually even hurt anyone). If there were privately-run DMV offices, I’d have my choice of companies to visit. Like restaurants, there’d be government oversight to make sure they’re not issuing licenses to illegal aliens (or, to make sure they do, if the local Democrats are in office). I might have to choose between a low-priced company that might not have the best service and a higher-priced one that’d get me right in and serve me a latte to boot. But at least it’d be my choice. I have no idea how much it cost me, as a taxpayer, to operate the DMV office during my visit. I bet it’s more than it cost to operate McDonald’s during my visit there.

    and I think it’s bit disingenuous to think that free enterprise provides enough oversight to make sure things get done efficiently and in the best interests of the people.

    The idea is to have the people, individually, make sure things get done efficiently and in their best interests, by choosing to do business with whoever they want. Not company oversight. The free market and competitive-feedback isn’t perfect, but it is vastly superior to every other system that has ever been tried. Just ask any Joe-off-the-street in Russia, especially one old enough to remember that Russia was a major food exporter before the Soviet Union. Ask him if he preferred the no-choice Soviet bread lines or choosing between, say, a McDonald’s or a Pizza Hut in Moscow.

    Take Enron for example. Yeah, market forces eventually brought them down (with some help from the government), but they got away with not having an actual product or service for a very long time. And ended up ruining a lot of lives in the process.

    That really doesn’t worry me. Enron is a good example of the rare exception. Sure, some companies break the law. Some, like Enron, get caught and people go to jail. But the same is true of governments. Government agencies often break the law; rarely do they get caught, and even more rarely does anyone go to jail. When someone says “graft” or “bribe” or “corruption”, in most people’s mind the first thought is a politician, government employee, or government agency. And rightly so, in my experience.

    What if they had been in charge in of handling our national energy policy?

    I’m not sure we even need a national energy policy. The energy policies I’ve seen so far are nothing to brag about.

    Speaking of energy, did anyone notice that Exxon recently made the largest single tax payment in the history of the US? Indeed, I suspect it was the largest single tax payment in history, period. Somehow it didn’t seem to make the mainstream news much.

    Side note to Flasshe: why doesn’t this site have a “preview” function?

16. Flasshe
    May 6th, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

    The hyperbole is deafening. Do you seriously believe that if DMV functions were outsourced to private contractors, there would be more than one and that drivers could choose between competing offices? The different companies would have to coordinate with each other at a very detailed level (to share client data, for example) and that’s just not doable. No, it would be a monopoly. A corrupt, inefficient monopoly – probably worse than the one it replaced.

    why doesn’t this site have a “preview” function?

    The corporation deemed it cost-prohibitive.

17. Phil
    May 6th, 2008 @ 6:31 pm

    Do you seriously believe that if DMV functions were outsourced to private contractors, there would be more than one and that drivers could choose between competing offices?

    No doubt in my mind whatsoever that outsourcing of MDV offices could be done in a way that results in multiple competing vendors.

    To illustrate, here there are multiple competing vendors for vehicle smog checks. I never have to wait in line for a smog check. And it’s way more complicated than what they did at the DMV after I waited almost three hours (checked that the VIN on the dash actually matched the VIN on the title). And that’s even without true competition (the prices are set by law, not by competition; the stations have to compete based on service satisfaction).

    The different companies would have to coordinate with each other at a very detailed level (to share client data, for example) and that’s just not doable.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but the smog check companies already do, in fact, coordinate data using the DMV’s database. So do car dealers, whose number is legion. Numerous government agencies coordinate using the DMV’s database too. It’s not only possible, it’s routine.

    why doesn’t this site have a “preview” function? -Phil

    The corporation deemed it cost-prohibitive.

    Well, at this price, I can’t complain. Much.

18. 2fs
    May 6th, 2008 @ 6:51 pm

    “coordinate data using the DMV’s database”…you mean the government DMV, the one that wouldn’t exist in Corporatopia?

    What’s interesting is that you, Phil, have a laser-sharp focus on facts-as-they-are even when I’m clearly trying to speak to a larger, historical, even philosophical perspective (statements along the lines of “the law is very clear whose money it is,” etc.). Yet in supporting what you believe in, you allude to principles that are, in fact, abstract and philosophical, as in the mysterious infallible workings of the market and speculations as to what people would or would not be comfortable compelling someone to do at gunpoint. (Note: what about healthcare? I’d say a lot of people would be perfectly comfortable holding a gun to the head of any medical professional who refuses to take care of their dying relative just because payment isn’t available – so by that test, government-supported medical care whee!)

    Another problem: those perfectly clear scenarios you mention are perfectly clear right now, right here, under laws of this nation. But if you give to government the authority to clarify and authorize those property relations (or why would you point to them, several times), then your argument about the “stimulus checks” evaporates: in this instance, the same government that makes laws defining property relations has merely done so, again…by declaring that, whereas previously tax laws were as they were, for this year only the aggregate tax intake will be drawn upon to distribute up to $600/person or $1200/couple to everyone below a certain income threshold – which does, effectively, redistribute some of that aggregate tax income. But then, if the government has the right to say who does and doesn’t own things, whose property is whose by what right and when, it follows that it also has the right to change tax laws and redistribute that aggregate collected total as it sees fit.

    I am now going to go read Douglas Adams instead.

19. Phil
    May 6th, 2008 @ 9:31 pm

    “coordinate data using the DMV’s database”… you mean the government DMV, the one that wouldn’t exist in Corporatopia?

    Personally, I’m in favor of the government running (or at least having control over) title databases, which would include the DMV. As a side note to Flasshe, I would like to point out that the credit card authorization network is one of the most complex and high-volume network/databases ever made. Activity is coordinated between companies like Visa and Discover who are direct competitors, in real time, in huge volumes, and virtually without delay or error; through literally millions of access terminals. It is far, far, far beyond any database any government has ever achieved. Yet you seem to think a simple DMV database is beyond private enterprise.

    What’s interesting is that you, Phil, have a laser-sharp focus on facts-as-they-are even when I’m clearly trying to speak to a larger, historical, even philosophical perspective

    Perhaps we are at times speaking at different levels of abstraction, I’ll grant you that.

    Yet in supporting what you believe in, you allude to principles that are, in fact, abstract and philosophical, as in the mysterious infallible workings of the market and speculations as to what people would or would not be comfortable compelling someone to do at gunpoint.

    I never said the workings of the market were infallible, indeed I think I said the opposite. That they weren’t perfect, but were better than anything else anyone has tried.

    Another problem: those perfectly clear scenarios you mention are perfectly clear right now, right here, under laws of this nation. But if you give to government the authority to clarify and authorize those property relations (or why would you point to them, several times), then your argument about the “stimulus checks” evaporates:

    I don’t think my argument evaporates. Perhaps we’re just at different abstraction levels again. I could have said it “is possible” to clearly define property rights, and that indeed the US has pretty much done so (as an example). I’ m not aware of any clearly defined documentation of how “society” would determine “the value of labor”. Obviously, the Soviet Union tried to do just that, but it was inconsistent and an abject failure.

    I think in regard to the stimulus checks I said it is not a tax refund, even though it’s called one, and at a more abstract level the money was not collected through taxation. The reality is the government took money from some people and gave it to others. I’m not saying that isn’t legal or that the government doesn’t have the right (presumably the moral right) to do so. So I’m not sure what evaporative argument you’re referring to here.

    I am now going to go read Douglas Adams instead.

    A worthy undertaking. But I think the government, or at least society, should decide what books are written and what books you will read. Wouldn’t want to leave something so important to the mysterious workings of the market.

20. Flasshe
    May 6th, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

    Yet you seem to think a simple DMV database is beyond private enterprise.

    Well, apparently it is in the state of Colorado, seeing as how they had to scrap the DMV computer system a vendor put together.

21. Phil
    May 7th, 2008 @ 12:35 am

    Well, apparently it is in the state of Colorado, seeing as how they had to scrap the DMV computer system a vendor put together.

    Just because one company can’t do something doesn’t mean there isn’t some other company (or hundreds of them) that can.

    That’s one of the beauties of competition. If McDonald’s tries to make hot dogs and fails, not only can I still get them at Wienerschnitzel, but it’s McDonald’s who pays the development cost. When the government fails to do something, not only do I have no other alternative (often), but I wind up paying for the failure (along with other taxpayers).

    In your link, hopefully Colorado won’t wind up paying the company that failed to produce. Bet they do, though. In which case it’ll be a failure for both the company and the government.

    Speaking of Colorado, I just read an interesting article in Forbes. It was about an oil find in Colorado, and the drilling company said they were willing to sell the crude oil for $30/barrel (the market price at the time was around $120/barrel). But they could find no buyers. Why? There’s no pipeline to move the oil to a refinery. But for the difference between $120 and $30, you’d think it’d be feasible to construct one. But the maximum amount one can charge to transport crude oil in a pipeline is set by Federal regulation, and it’s set so low no one will make a pipeline. So they just capped off the wells.

Comments are closed.

← Keeping Tabs On The Tabloids

Unplugging Toasters →