The Benefits of the Fair Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 09:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  It did not escape my notice that Frankksj did not address my comment when he asked me for a better tool to measure income inequality.

I stated, mean-normalized second-order dominance, or Lorenz dominance would be a better tool. Care to weigh in, Frank, with your wikipedia economics?

Careful now, Cathy. You're talking to a man who can read a dictionary here.

Not being a professional economist such as yourself, I won't presume to speak to economics. But I can speak to a knowledge of physics and math which practically defines "Dunning-Kruger effect".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 01:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not being a professional economist such as yourself, I won't presume to speak to economics.

This is what's so silly. You don't need any knowledge about economics at all, and it's so simple any kid could figure it out. Just ask Cathy, or any Keynesian economist, this basic question:

Q: Out of the 3,000 or so times the current monetary policy of a fiat currency has been tried over the past 1,000 years, can you name just one time when the system didn't collapse within 50 years, wrecking the economy, and particularly devastating the poor and middle class, leaving in its wake a lot of inequality?


All Keynesians, just like Cathy, will be left unable to come up with one example. Even if you don't know what a fiat currency is, and don't know anything about it's history, how fucking intelligent do you have to be to realize that if something's been tried 3,000 times, and it has a 100% record of failure, chances are if you try the same thing again you'll end up with the same result.

Albert Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

George Santayana: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Really, cjlr? You think that with your current education you're unable to figure out that if the advocates of a given policy concede it's been tried 3,000 times, and cannot come up with even 1 example where it wasn't a failure, well, chances are it's a bad policy.

And you call Cathy a "professional economist", but I asked her why, since 1971, inequality has been getting so bad. She insists it's coincidence that in 1971 we adopted an economy policy that's been 3,000 times and has ALWAYS led to inequality. No, the reason why the switch occurred in 1971 is because that's the year when women decided to enter the workforce. Really?

She also said the gini co-efficient is not useful for measuring inequality, and we should use a Lorenz curve. Just google it. The gini co-efficient IS simply how you draw the change in the Lorenz curve over time. Duh.

Seriously, Cathy is the poster child for what the universities are teaching about economics. You could learn more in a weekend reading Friedman, Hayak or vonMises.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 02:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(12-02-2014 01:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not being a professional economist such as yourself, I won't presume to speak to economics.

This is what's so silly. You don't need any knowledge about economics at all, and it's so simple any kid could figure it out. Just ask Cathy, or any Keynesian economist, this basic question:

Q: Out of the 3,000 or so times the current monetary policy of a fiat currency has been tried over the past 1,000 years, can you name just one time when the system didn't collapse within 50 years, wrecking the economy, and particularly devastating the poor and middle class, leaving in its wake a lot of inequality?


All Keynesians, just like Cathy, will be left unable to come up with one example. Even if you don't know what a fiat currency is, and don't know anything about it's history, how fucking intelligent do you have to be to realize that if something's been tried 3,000 times, and it has a 100% record of failure, chances are if you try the same thing again you'll end up with the same result.

Albert Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

George Santayana: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Really, cjlr? You think that with your current education you're unable to figure out that if the advocates of a given policy concede it's been tried 3,000 times, and cannot come up with even 1 example where it wasn't a failure, well, chances are it's a bad policy.

And you call Cathy a "professional economist", but I asked her why, since 1971, inequality has been getting so bad. She insists it's coincidence that in 1971 we adopted an economy policy that's been 3,000 times and has ALWAYS led to inequality. No, the reason why the switch occurred in 1971 is because that's the year when women decided to enter the workforce. Really?

She also said the gini co-efficient is not useful for measuring inequality, and we should use a Lorenz curve. Just google it. The gini co-efficient IS simply how you draw the change in the Lorenz curve over time. Duh.

Seriously, Cathy is the poster child for what the universities are teaching about economics. You could learn more in a weekend reading Friedman, Hayak or vonMises.

Yup. I'm a Keynesian. Because I subscribe to SOME Keynesian theories, I must subscribe to ALL Keynesian theories.

This is why i hate talking to you Frank. You mischaracterize EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 02:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  She also said the gini co-efficient is not useful for measuring inequality, and we should use a Lorenz curve. Just google it. The gini co-efficient IS simply how you draw the change in the Lorenz curve over time. Duh.

Really? I thought I said this:

(12-02-2014 09:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I, mean-normalized second-order dominance, or Lorenz dominance would be a better tool. But again, I'm sure you have no idea what that is.

Notice how I told you that you didn't know what that was. I am again, correct on this.

Let me help you. In the Gini-coefficient, generalized Lorenz curves are nondecreasing, continuous and convex,
, however, the Lorenz dominance which is a DIFFERENT FUCKING THING AND NOT PART OF THE GINI-COEFFICENT. The Lorenz dominance is equivalent to second-order stochastic dominance. Simply put - because I'm sure you still don't get it - the income distribution corresponding to the generalized lorenz curve is more egalitarian. It has been shown by Economists (Atkinson 1970) that Lorenz DOMINANCE translates into the partial ranking of distributions based on the set scale-free inequality indices that respect the principal of transfers.

You clearly do not understand the difference between Lorenz Equality and Lorenz Dominance. Go find yourself a dictionary and look this shit up. I'm not going to waste time on someone who does not care to learn (because he thinks he knows everything).

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 03:59 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 03:37 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Yup. I'm a Keynesian. Because I subscribe to SOME Keynesian theories, I must subscribe to ALL Keynesian theories.

Ah! You figured that out, eh?

Composition fallacies are so much easier than actually talking to people.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
12-02-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
Our economic system is deeply corrupted, flawed and only beneficial to the people who expand the monetary system (the central banks)

They are criminals. They manipulate the markets (libor, the current investigation by the germans into gold market rigging to name but two) and they get away with it with no criminal charges brought forward. They just get fined, yes they get fined big but who do you think pays for that???

Their greed knows no bounds and when the system fails they simply use quantitive easing (via government) to prop up the bubbles in an attempt to wipe out/counter the bad liabilities on their books. The first thing to go with budget cuts was your childrens futures.

This is not the first time this has happened. They use the mainstream to mash up the figures to make the general, uninformed public believe that the system is improving, when in reality it is beyond repair. I am incredulous to how they have held on for so long but I believe a greater depression is on the cards. After all they are getting into more and more debt, to get out of debt lol.

They still teach in economics classes flawed and outdated systems that have little to no bearing on how the system actually operates. They do not teach basic economic principles in schools (well they dont here in the UK)

They make money literally from nothing. Digits in a computer system making more digits in some cases. When a much fairer and balanced system would be through labour and goods produced ONLY, not algorithm computer systems that syphon money from the stock market.

Money is god, it is a faith based system that little understand or can comprehend in its entirety (I include myself in this statement)

Many have been quick to mock my idea, but I believe eliminating interest from the system would make it better. Dont make money through having money, make money by doing something.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
12-02-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 02:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q: Out of the 3,000 or so times the current monetary policy of a fiat currency has been tried over the past 1,000 years, can you name just one time when the system didn't collapse within 50 years, wrecking the economy, and particularly devastating the poor and middle class, leaving in its wake a lot of inequality?

That's not even a coherent question.

Current monetary systems have only existed for a couple decades. Unless you're arguing that Byzantine emperor Michael IV debased the gold content of the solidus on the advice of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Which, actually, I wouldn't even put past you.

Notwithstanding that economic cycles are dependent on a hell of a lot more factors than monetary policy.

And notwithstanding that all currency is fiat by definition, being no more or less than an abstraction of exchange value.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 04:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And notwithstanding that all currency is fiat by definition, being no more or less than an abstraction of exchange value.

How is gold, silver, bronze, etc 'fiat'? In the days when these were used as money, people valued them for their metal content, not because they had official markings.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 04:14 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(12-02-2014 04:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And notwithstanding that all currency is fiat by definition, being no more or less than an abstraction of exchange value.

How is gold, silver, bronze, etc 'fiat'? In the days when these were used as money, people valued them for their metal content, not because they had official markings.

It only has value as currency because it is socially agreed upon to have value as currency. That's the entire point of coinage as opposed to pure bullion.

Which itself only has "innate" value insofar as there is obviously some degree of scarcity associated with any given metal.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(12-02-2014 04:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not even a coherent question.... all currency is fiat by definition, being no more or less than an abstraction of exchange value.

Totally wrong. The question is coherent, it just seems you don't understand the difference between money and currency. Money is some medium of exchange that has agreed upon value, normally gold, but could be anything. Currency is when a bank, as a service, holds onto your money (gold) and gives you as a receipt a piece of paper, a claim check, that can be taken back to the bank and exchanged for money. This is called 'representative currency'. Since paper is more convenient to carry than gold, people use those paper receipts as money, to exchange goods and services. And after a while people get so used to it they forget the currency is a claim check for money. But if the bank tries to print more currency (ie claim checks) than they have money for the bank will collapse when people try to redeem their currency for money. Before 1971, US Dollars were simply claim checks for money (gold) redeemable at $35/ounce. That is NOT a fiat currency. The problem is Nixon started printed a lot of dollars (ie gold claim checks) to pay for Vietnam since that was more politically convenient than taxing the public to pay for a hugely unpopular war. The French and others caught on and said "OK, we're handing in our claim checks, give us back our money (gold)." Since Nixon didn't have enough gold to redeem all the claim checks (dollars), he, essentially, confiscated everybody's money, and told them the claim checks (dollars) were no longer redeemable for anything. They're just pieces of paper, worth only what people think it's worth. THAT is a fiat currency. It's a claim check that's no longer redeemable for money--just a piece of paper with no inherent value.

The only exception is Switzerland, which kept their franc pegged to gold throughout the 20th century. That's why Switzerland never had inflation, why gas, food, houses, etc., cost the same in 1990 as in 1970. As I mentioned in other posts, it also directly contributed to Switzerland's economic success.

This fiat system HAS been tried repeatedly. The first time was the Song dynasty in the 11th century. And it was done for EXACTLY the same reason Nixon did it--so they wouldn't have to raise taxes to pay for an unpopular war. Out of 3,000 attempts, the fiat currency has always failed within 50 years, leaving in it's wake economic ruin and a lot of inequality with all the wealth concentrated at the top, particularly among the bankers who got all the newly printed fiat currency.

So, your comment that all currency is fiat is flat out wrong. Just look it up in a dictionary or on wikipedia. Fiat currencies are actually the exception--not the norm. For 90+% of human history the world has used representative currency--not fiat currency--since fiat currency has always been such a disaster.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: