what's wrong with economics

[Roadkill]

Take it somewhere else, Johnny. I'm not interested in a Canuck nit-picking session.

 

[Santino]

I want to hear more of Johnny correcting Marx.

 

[Blagsta]

"Theft:
The action or crime of stealing."

Try to refuse to pay the income tax. If you do, you are put in prison. You cannot opt out or chose which services the tax goes to. Therefore, the income tax is the government stealing your money because you are not able chose whether this money can or can't be taken from you. Maybe a better word would be "extortion"

If you can opt out of using the services that tax pays for, then you may have a point. Good luck with that.

 

[Blagsta]

A civilized society would allow people the choice. Using force is wrong.

How would this "choice" work then?

 

[Santino]

Money and tax are inseparable parts of a single system. You can opt out of the system as a whole but you can't pick and choose which bits you use.

 

[tbtommyb]

"Theft:
The action or crime of stealing."

Try to refuse to pay the income tax. If you do, you are put in prison. You cannot opt out or chose which services the tax goes to. Therefore, the income tax is the government stealing your money because you are not able chose whether this money can or can't be taken from you. Maybe a better word would be "extortion"

Well yeah, because you've already used the services the tax pays for. That's not theft, it's payment for services rendered.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Take it somewhere else, Johnny. I'm not interested in a Canuck nit-picking session.

Then try to refrain from calling me 'anarcho-syndicalist' or whatever bullshit appellation it was you came up with.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

"Theft:
The action or crime of stealing."

Try to refuse to pay the income tax. If you do, you are put in prison. You cannot opt out or chose which services the tax goes to. Therefore, the income tax is the government stealing your money because you are not able chose whether this money can or can't be taken from you. Maybe a better word would be "extortion"

You have that 180 degrees the wrong way. It's the tax avoider who is the thief.

By staying in the country you agree to the laws and customs of that country. You can revoke your permission by leaving and becoming a citizen elsewhere. I can give you a list of countries where there's no income tax. You won't like living there.

A tax avoider is a thief because they take from the commons (using roads, bridges, schools, parks) without paying for them. If you don't contribute you're either a thief or perhaps more kindly.... a freeloader, a mooch, or a parasite. Should the rest of us consider you anything other than a criminal to be treated like one?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I want to hear more of Johnny correcting Marx.

That would make a change from you being fed it with a spoon.

Repeat after me: 'an enquiring mind is a dangerous thing'.

 

[ska invita]

Problem is, since the rise of neo-liberalism, 'non-orthodox' economists have been sidelined. IMO groups like the Post-Crash Economics Society are an encouraging sign that that might be starting to change.

the problem is, as has been said, the majority of people studying economics are hoping for a well paid job in banking, so i doubt there's much groundswell from students for a change save for a few here and there. Anyhow good luck to those trying to do it. Its not as if banking crisis is going to go away - theres bound to be another earthquake soon

They've got a website btw http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/

On the subject of changing economics from the inside there was an interesting if flawed book that came out last year called The Heretic's Guide to Global Finance - Hacking the Future of Money
http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745333502
...encouraging people to become shareholders and traders and somehow hack the system from the inside. I dont think its workable, and the practical suggestions don't amount to much from what i read, but i think the spirit of entryism its written in is a good one, and tries to break down that invisible wall that seems to keep economics as a preserve of neoliberals

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

A tax avoider is a thief because they take from the commons (using roads, bridges, schools, parks) without paying for them. If you don't contribute you're either a thief or perhaps more kindly.... a freeloader, a mooch, or a parasite. Should the rest of us consider you anything other than a criminal to be treated like one?

Problem is, the individual gets punished by the IRS - but the mega corporations who pay little or no tax, seem to get a free pass.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

... i.e. to allow the govt. to make the interest payments to private multinational lenders, servicing the gargantuan public debt created by govts. It would appear that one of the essential services of government, is enriching multinational banks.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/global-debt-guide-

Govt getting into debt so we don't have to.

If you're going to have a system of money based on debt, far better for the debt part to be held at the collective level, no? Do you have a better alternative?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Govt getting into debt so we don't have to.

Matters little, given that we're the ones who must pay the debt. And at least notionally, the government is 'us'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you're going to have a system of money based on debt, far better for the debt part to be held at the collective level, no? Do you have a better alternative?

The question isn't about a system of money based on debt, it's about the viability of a government running a country through the incursion of debt.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Matters little, given that we're the ones who must pay the debt. And at least notionally, the government is 'us'.

Matters a lot to debt collectors. It determines who they go to for their money.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The question isn't about a system of money based on debt, it's about the viability of a government running a country through the incursion of debt.

How else are you supposed to do it? What other means do you suggest for creating money?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Matters a lot to debt collectors. It determines who they go to for their money.

They go to our representatives for the money. They're the ones who signed up for the debt, ostensibly in our name.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How else are you supposed to do it?

Balanced budgets.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They go to our representatives for the money. They're the ones who signed up for the debt, ostensibly in our name.

yes. Exactly. As a collective, we are in a far better position wrt these buggers. They get to charge far less interest for starters.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Balanced budgets.

What are they and why are they desirable?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yes. Exactly. As a collective, we are in a far better position wrt these buggers. They get to charge far less interest for starters.

I'd rather our govts didn't spend more than they took in.

 

[8115]

Balanced budgets.

The most successful economies in history ran a debt. I can't remember the source for this. There was an anti-austerity article going around about a year ago that made the case quite convincingly.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What are they and why are they desirable?

You don't know what a balanced budget is? Your personal finances are going to be in trouble.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd rather our govts didn't spend more than they took in.

What? Always? Like whatever the rest of the economy is doing?

I'm the opposite. I'm all for govt spending more than it has if we are to continue with our mad system of money creation. Otherwise we the individuals have to do it. If nobody does it, you get depression.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You don't know what a balanced budget is? Your personal finances are going to be in trouble.

You make a mistake in separating off govt debt from other kinds of debt - business and individual debt. When considering an economy you have to look at all kinds of debt.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You make a mistake in separating off govt debt from other kinds of debt - business and individual debt..

We were discussing allocation of tax revenues.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We were discussing allocation of tax revenues.

No, you were mentioning something you called a 'balanced budget', then proceeded to explain that it was a consideration of govt finances somehow isolated from all the other aspects of finances within an economy. But that's meaningless.

Quite a good example of the problem with economics, really.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No,

Yes.

Read back a bit before you joined in.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

then proceeded to explain that it was a consideration of govt finances somehow isolated from all the other aspects of finances within an economy.

Which post number did I do that in?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

LBJ, you build some of the cutest little straw men that I've ever seen.