tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post1360338451736829752..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Abraham and Isaac Sitting on a Fence...gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8954851774424258052012-01-08T06:02:39.202-05:002012-01-08T06:02:39.202-05:00Gene,
After reading Bobs last two posts yesterday...Gene,<br /><br />After reading Bobs last two posts yesterday I am not so sure anymore of what Bob is trying to prove. Though his table shows exactly what I said. He has different people living in the same period of time but only some (Iris) got screwed. <br />And I think I know how he can construct the model that all people within one period are screwed. If he had taxed Iris and John with 50 apples each in period 9 then both had a lifetime consumption of less than 200 apples (Iris 191 and John 150 apples). So you even had one period of time in which all people currently living are worse off than normal. But this is unrealistic due to the numbers that are chosen in the example. Usually those who will hold the bonds will gain if there is no default. <br /><br />I also wrote one post that maybe one should look at the starting point of this discussion, the layman's opinion. According to Buchanan it is not about every person living in one period of time... Whatever, it seems Bob and Daniel also are not so sure of each other's and of Krugman's point.<br /><br />"The question on the table is: does it make a difference to future generations whether transfers are done through taxes or through debt?"<br /><br />Yep as I already said multiple times. Through borrowing the tax burden is in the future therefor Iris has no chance to oppose the initial government transfer from the past. And because of this present generations are less likely to oppose government transfer programs then they otherwise would. So they not only put the burden in the future, they have a tendency to put a even bigger tax-burden into the future. It's a democratic issue. It is a public choice issue. No one mentioned that so far.<br /><br />I think Krugman is basically right what he says but wrong as he interprets the layman's opinion. But probably I still miss the whole point..<br /><br />Still nice to see how dynamic such a multi-blog discussions can become, although not easy to follow.skylienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160738385436843080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-40424392828988152402012-01-07T12:39:14.357-05:002012-01-07T12:39:14.357-05:00@skylien: "You have to split the taxpayers up...@skylien: "You have to split the taxpayers up into individuals like Bob did in his example."<br /><br />Uh, no one in the debate argues that it is impossible, through government policies, to hurt some individuals and help others!<br /><br />The question on the table is: does it make a difference to future generations whether transfers are done through taxes or through debt?<br /><br />And one can only sensibly answer a question like that by looking at whole generations.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-18420563533827160482012-01-07T09:12:39.399-05:002012-01-07T09:12:39.399-05:00"Well, all of everyone's analysis of thes..."Well, all of everyone's analysis of these problems is from a macro viewpoint: Krugman's, Rowe's, Murphy's, mine, Kuehn's, Lerner's, etc: If you think the whole discussion is dumb, you are free not to join in. But instead, I think you have just missed the *point* of the discussion, which is, *on aggregate*, can the present impoverish the future by taking on debt? No one dounts that some people can win and some lose by re-distribution!"<br /><br />Yes maybe I am really missing the point, but it seems I am not the only one since you accuse Bob Murphy as well...<br />http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/01/future-generations-will-be-indebted-to-me-for-the-clarity-of-this-exposition.html#comments<br /><br />"But I have just showed that is not necessarily true! You can try to show how my examples are crazy, but it is rather impolite to simply ignore them!"<br /><br />I saw your example, and understood what you mean by it. And I didn't ignore it. It does exactly what I criticized. You aggregated all taxpayers together in one person! This shows exactly what I said, that in the aggregate it all looks the same. So this example didn't disprove but it confirms what I was saying. You have to split the taxpayers up into individuals like Bob did in his example. Although this seems to be exactly the point what I and Bob are missing according to you..skylienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160738385436843080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-15129314604436068062012-01-06T18:08:04.230-05:002012-01-06T18:08:04.230-05:00"For my point of view this is nothing else th..."For my point of view this is nothing else than a fallacy of composition."<br /><br />Well, all of everyone's analysis of these problems is from a macro viewpoint: Krugman's, Rowe's, Murphy's, mine, Kuehn's, Lerner's, etc: If you think the whole discussion is dumb, you are free not to join in. But instead, I think you have just missed the *point* of the discussion, which is, *on aggregate*, can the present impoverish the future by taking on debt? No one dounts that some people can win and some lose by re-distribution!<br /><br />"If you finance through borrowing in the present no one will feel the burden now, but only later in the future, when taxation is necessary to repay the loan."<br /><br />But I have just showed that is not necessarily true! You can try to show how my examples are crazy, but it is rather impolite to simply ignore them!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-4108056644295359622012-01-06T05:24:25.694-05:002012-01-06T05:24:25.694-05:00Gene,
For my point of view this is nothing else t...Gene,<br /><br />For my point of view this is nothing else than a fallacy of composition. When you are throwing the creditor and the debtor into the same basket you will obscure what happens. No matter what happens between the two in the aggregate it all looks the same. If the apples are paid back or not, though for the individual people that makes a huge difference.<br /><br />Say tax is only used for redistribution like assumed in all those examples. Then whenever someone is taxed he is burdened. Why? Because he gets nothing in return. Do you agree? <br /><br />So direct taxation means the burden of financing the redistribution is in the present. If you finance through borrowing in the present no one will feel the burden now, but only later in the future, when taxation is necessary to repay the loan. So as the tax also the burden was moved from the present into the future.<br /><br />It is right that from an aggregate point of view no real wealth was moved over time, but some people feel the burden. In the aggregate the total wealth a thief and I possess doesn't change when I get robed, but I am burdened right?<br />And this is the reason why it is a democratic problem. People tend to vote for governments who promise them gains without burden now! How can you do that? With borrowing.<br /><br />So my conclusion is that through borrowing you do burden future generations. You are not doing it in the aggregate, in this sense Lerner is right, but that is a mere fallacy of composition. You do it by letting the present generation decide how much taxation is necessary in the future without giving the future generation a vote in the decision.skylienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160738385436843080noreply@blogger.com