The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.

How much of this deal do you agree with?

Most to All
2
50%
Most
1
25%
Half
0
No votes
Some
0
No votes
Some to None
1
25%
 
Total votes: 4

mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm Also, what do you want to optimize with that money? Red’s administrating would probably be better at championing environmental causes, for example, compared to the owner of a logging corporation, but the logging corporation would be better at providing affordable wood and jobs (assuming it doesn’t have a monopoly).
What you say I would call "resolving prisoner's dilemma" whenever you identify one, and some environmental regulations are good example of such actions. That still doesn't explain why you need to focus on taxing "the rich".
That said, many "problems" could be resolved without interventions per se. In your example of logging company, if there are solid property laws and the company has a warranty that no one will take its land anytime soon, it can cultivate the land, rather than exploit it, as an investment. The funny fact is we are quite good at providing affordable wood right now. In Western countries forrest area generally is stable or increases, and it decreases in countries without the rule of law. Amazonian forrest is being exploited not because of greedy corporations (at least it's not the core of the problem*), but because it's no mans land and no one cares.

* You can expect corporations and people in general to be greedy, the solution should aknowledge that fact, not try to change human "nature".
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm They are incentivized to spend their money efficiently for their financial interests.
Which is directly related with providing highest quality goods, that satisfy needs of customers, for the lowest possible price. Inability to satisfy consumers hurts their financial interests immediately.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm Policy makers are incentivized to spend tax payer money to seem or be in favor of taxpayer interests.
The difference is that you are forced to pay taxes and then you wait in hope that policy makers will spend it reasonably. When you pay "the rich" for the product you more or less satisfy your need for the price you think is right, and may not even care what "the rich" will do with the money. It works quite well in most cases. On the other hand we saw a system, that tried to guess and satisfy almost all needs of the society, fail everytime. I don't think we should mimic such a system.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm In order for that to be problem the increased cost of X would have to be greater than the value of government programs to people. Would you agree that people benefit more from government roads than they would from only private roads even if goods may cost more? Why?
I'm not sure that private roads would cost more than state roads, though the fact that there is no single country that has working network of private roads (AFAIK) leans me towards saying that roads should propably stay public, or at least some hybrid solution is better. It could be a good example of prisoner's dilemma that should be solved.
It's similar case with other areas, where the infrastructure is expensive or takes a lot space, and there is not much room (like literally - physically) for competition. Water supply, power supply, etc. But again, right now these things usually are public, or some hybrid solution is in place. We can discuss gray areas of policy making, just like discussion on veganism may hover around clams, roadkills, and grass fed long-lived happy meat and eggs from backyard hens. I don't think Red wants "the rich" to pay higher taxes to finance already existing solutions(?).
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 6:36 amThat still doesn't explain why you need to focus on taxing "the rich".
Do you know another small group of people to fund projects?
mkm wrote:In Western countries forrest area generally is stable or increases, and it decreases in countries without the rule of law. Amazonian forrest is being exploited not because of greedy corporations (at least it's not the core of the problem*), but because it's no mans land and no one cares.
Do you mean lack of regulation or do you mean that South American countries are lawless?
mkm wrote:You can expect corporations and people in general to be greedy, the solution should aknowledge that fact, not try to change human "nature".
Agreed.
[rich people spending money efficiently] is directly related with providing highest quality goods, that satisfy needs of customers, for the lowest possible price. Inability to satisfy consumers hurts their financial interests immediately.
Agreed, but I ultimately care about the sum. Do you believe that there is evidence that this drop in quality and hike in price causes people to suffer more than Red's governmental policy (or welfare in general) would help them? And no matter your response, Red could still just tax those ventures of the "rich" that won't lower their quality of life (e.g. useless stuff like toys).
mkm wrote:The difference is that you are forced to pay taxes and then you wait in hope that policy makers will spend it reasonably. When you pay "the rich" for the product you more or less satisfy your need for the price you think is right, and may not even care what "the rich" will do with the money.
Agreed.
mkm wrote: It works quite well in most cases. On the other hand we saw a system, that tried to guess and satisfy almost all needs of the society, fail everytime. I don't think we should mimic such a system.
How do you account for European systems then? Do you think the people of Europe would be better without their social programs? We can pick some arbitrary country if it would be helpful.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm In order for that to be problem the increased cost of X would have to be greater than the value of government programs to people. Would you agree that people benefit more from government roads than they would from only private roads even if goods may cost more? Why?
I'm not sure that private roads would cost more than state roads, though the fact that there is no single country that has working network of private
mkm wrote:[stuff I agree with][...]I don't think Red wants "the rich" to pay higher taxes to finance already existing solutions(?).
Right, but these at least somewhat functional solutions can give him reasonable inspiration.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Lay Vegan »

@Red Thanks for the clarification. I'm largely in support of the Red Deal.
mkm wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 6:36 am I'm not sure that private roads would cost more than state roads, though the fact that there is no single country that has working network of private roads (AFAIK) leans me towards saying that roads should propably stay public, or at least some hybrid solution is better. It could be a good example of prisoner's dilemma that should be solved.
Most private roads are a nuisance to maintain, given that they aren’t “private” in the sense that trespassing private property constitutes a criminal offense (using private roads would only be a civil offense). Most private roads are just lawsuits waiting to happen, especially if it runs through private property.

Imagine I own a home along a private road, would I have the right to bar public access? Moreover, how do you equally distribute the cost of maintenance and upkeep? What if the road is 1 mile long, but I only need to use the first 300 ft to access my property? What if I own a summer house along the road, should l have to pay for snow removal in the winter? These are all lawsuits waiting to happen. I must admit, it’s hard to imagine the nation’s entire network of roads being operated in this manner.

Public roads are by no means perfect, but the state is probably a lot better at maintaining our roads than private citizens.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Red »

Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 8:02 pm @Red Thanks for the clarification. I'm largely in support of the Red Deal.
'Largely'?

Oh yeah, I'll respond more tomorrow, but I quickly wanted to say that, I can tolerate having so many absurdly rich people (it can be beneficial even to have them) if we didn't have so many people living in poverty.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 4:01 pm Do you know another small group of people to fund projects?
Why does it have to be small group? Do roads need to be maintained with money of some small group? Why not collect money from all people who use roads?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 4:01 pm Do you mean lack of regulation or do you mean that South American countries are lawless?
Propably both. Lack of strong property laws that incentivise cultivation instead of exploitation. That's kind of lack of regulation and being lawless.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 4:01 pm Agreed, but I ultimately care about the sum. Do you believe that there is evidence that this drop in quality and hike in price causes people to suffer more than Red's governmental policy (or welfare in general) would help them? And no matter your response, Red could still just tax those ventures of the "rich" that won't lower their quality of life (e.g. useless stuff like toys).
You may think collectively, but each person rather thinks individually. Opposite to the awfully common believe, rich people don't spend so much money on "toys", most of their capital is in investments.
EDIT: Here

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/where-t ... money.html

you can see that the more someone is "worth", the more % of his "worth" is in investments. For billionaires things you could call "toys" (liquid+residence+other assets+vehicles) make up less than 8% of their worth on average, and I'm being generous.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 4:01 pm How do you account for European systems then? Do you think the people of Europe would be better without their social programs? We can pick some arbitrary country if it would be helpful.
It may be true that life is more careless in Western Europe, but I'm not sure whether it's sustainable. Simplifying things a little bit, you need to tax working people to give money to unemployed, but then there are more people who decide that their 8 h/d work sucks and cease to work, then you have to squeeze more money form these, who still work, effectively lowering their salaries and giving them motivation to stop working too, and so on. Maybe there is an equilibrium, which means that there is the core of the society that will stay productive despite high taxes and wellfare programs. Or maybe not. And automatization is not there yet, so we still have to rely on working people to sustain the society.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm Right, but these at least somewhat functional solutions can give him reasonable inspiration.
Well, I try to discuss how reasonable they are, right now it's "rich guys gimme money", based on poor information and false stereotypes on "the rich".
____________
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 8:02 pm Most private roads are a nuisance to maintain, given that they aren’t “private” in the sense that trespassing private property constitutes a criminal offense (using private roads would only be a civil offense). Most private roads are just lawsuits waiting to happen, especially if it runs through private property.
Of course it would need overhaul to work properly, including granting some policing power to owners of the road.
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 8:02 pm Imagine I own a home along a private road, would I have the right to bar public access?
Propably, public roads can be closed too. In many countries you have to pay to use highways, otherwise you can't access them. Many cities' centers are open only for public transportation. It's the problem of public and private roads alike.
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 8:02 pm Moreover, how do you equally distribute the cost of maintenance and upkeep?
Is it equally distributed in the case of public roads? Why should it be so?
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 8:02 pm What if the road is 1 mile long, but I only need to use the first 300 ft to access my property? What if I own a summer house along the road, should l have to pay for snow removal in the winter? These are all lawsuits waiting to happen. I must admit, it’s hard to imagine the nation’s entire network of roads being operated in this manner.
That's why there was invented concept of servitude. And why the concept of paying to use something is so shocking?
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 8:02 pm Public roads are by no means perfect, but the state is probably a lot better at maintaining our roads than private citizens.
At least rules should be clearer and the way of payment is less complicated and unified. As I said I'm leaning towards the same conclusion and I don't really want to argue about this, but I don't see it's clear-cut.
____________
Red wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 9:47 pm Oh yeah, I'll respond more tomorrow, but I quickly wanted to say that, I can tolerate having so many absurdly rich people (it can be beneficial even to have them) if we didn't have so many people living in poverty.
Well, you are not the first to think it's as simple as transferring money from "the rich" to "the poor". Spoiler: it's not. We cover it partially in our exchange with Cirion.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 6:12 amWhy does it have to be small group? Do roads need to be maintained with money of some small group?
If there are less people paying taxes, less money needs to be spent paying for punishing those who don't pay.
mkm wrote:Why not collect money from all people who use roads?
Because they have significantly less money and the ability to rebel.
mkm wrote:Propably both. Lack of strong property laws that incentivise cultivation instead of exploitation. That's kind of lack of regulation and being lawless.
Interesting. Do you have any countries that you would point to as having better policy for this issue?
mkm wrote:You may think collectively, but each person rather thinks individually. Opposite to the awfully common believe, rich people don't spend so much money on "toys", most of their capital is in investments.
You misunderstood what I said. I did not mean that they should be taxed for buying toys, I mean their toy selling business should be taxed.
mkm wrote:And automatization is not there yet, so we still have to rely on working people to sustain the society.
Do you think the welfare state is feasible with automation?
mkm wrote:Well, I try to discuss how reasonable they are, right now it's "rich guys gimme money", based on poor information and false stereotypes on "the rich".
Wew lad :P
mkm wrote:
Red wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 9:47 pm Oh yeah, I'll respond more tomorrow, but I quickly wanted to say that, I can tolerate having so many absurdly rich people (it can be beneficial even to have them) if we didn't have so many people living in poverty.
Well, you are not the first to think it's as simple as transferring money from "the rich" to "the poor". Spoiler: it's not. We cover it partially in our exchange with Cirion.
To be clear I don't care about income inequality, I care about improving the quality of life of the poor and middle class, not bringing down the rich for them.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:06 am If there are less people paying taxes, less money needs to be spent paying for punishing those who don't pay.
Do you think that it's as easy to punish, let's say, Mark Zuckerberg, as any other citizen? If not, then why pissing off not as many, but more powerful people, is better than pissing off many people, but not powerful?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:06 am Because they have significantly less money and the ability to rebel.
I wouldn't be so sure. Rich guys propably have more meaningful and "behind the curtain" ways to rebel.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:06 am Interesting. Do you have any countries that you would point to as having better policy for this issue?
As I said, most of Western countries, where the forrested area don't drop or rises.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:06 amYou misunderstood what I said. I did not mean that they should be taxed for buying toys, I mean their toy selling business should be taxed.
And why is that? And what's toys now may be a common utility in the future and the only way to bring the prices down and advance th technology enough is to "let" "the rich" have them and pump money in that sector. Cars were "toys" once, and now everybody has them. PCs were toys, and now everybody has one in their pocket. Or it's toys too?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:06 am Do you think the welfare state is feasible with automation?
Of course. Automation would mean that to some extent there is basically no conflict about resources.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:06 am
Wew lad :P
:D
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:06 am To be clear I don't care about income inequality, I care about improving the quality of life of the poor and middle class, not bringing down the rich for them.
Yeah, but it seems that there is a poor realization that widespread wealth doesn't come from redistribution by government, but technology and rational allocation of resources. Even in "dreaded" times of the industrial revolution, wellbeing rose even for "the poor", without government social programs.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:21 amDo you think that it's as easy to punish, let's say, Mark Zuckerberg, as any other citizen? If not, then why pissing off not as many, but more powerful people, is better than pissing off many people, but not powerful?
No, but I still think the sheer quantity of people outweighs it. I doubt that there is a person in the United States the military could not capture.
mkm wrote:I wouldn't be so sure. Rich guys propably have more meaningful and "behind the curtain" ways to rebel.
Do you mean tax evasion? I don't think most rich people see that it is easier to pay taxes than wage war because as we've agreed, they've got a keener sense of rational self interest and the American military budget is fucking huge.
mkm wrote:As I said, most of Western countries, where the forrested area don't drop or rises.
Sorry for being dumb and asking again. Thanks too!
mkm wrote:And why is that?
Because what isn't necessary to the common people will not hurt them once more expensive.
mkm wrote:And what's toys now may be a common utility in the future and the only way to bring the prices down and advance th technology enough is to "let" "the rich" have them and pump money in that sector.
If something has such potential for demand, forward thinking investors will pursue it anyways. There may be a higher threshold for entry, but only a ridiculous degree of taxation would justify not investing in an obviously useful venture.
mkm wrote:Cars were "toys" once, and now everybody has them.
What, really? :?:
mkm wrote:PCs were toys, and now everybody has one in their pocket. Or it's toys too?
It is possible to reassess and a separate law could mandate it.
mkm wrote:Yeah, but it seems that there is a poor realization that widespread wealth doesn't come from redistribution by government,
The European welfare state clearly shows that it can and does.
mkm wrote:but technology and rational allocation of resources.
These are other significant factors. Also, allocation by who?
mkm wrote:Even in "dreaded" times of the industrial revolution, wellbeing rose even for "the poor", without government social programs.
Agreed, but I find it difficult to compare the industrial era to the modern first world. The technology for the welfare state was much less developed in the industrial era than it is now and there are also far more people now.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Red »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:02 pm I don't know, but the answer lies in countries with rehabilitative prisons: whatever crimes have the lowest percents of rehabability are worth death penaltying. The diplomatic choice would be to let your constituents choose the exact percentage, but I wouldn't be comfortable not executing anyone who has over a 25% chance of failing rehabilitation. I would also recommend executing people who are insane or retarded that commit crimes some arbitrary amount below this percentage.
But I can't do this arbitrarily man. We're running a country here, not a business.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:02 pmIf you can regulate prostitution, you can require that only vegan condoms be used and that all prostitutes are checked for all diseases regularly: all by the business.
That sounds like a good idea, but again, vegan condoms aren't terribly effective.

We have to ask ourselves, why would someone become a prostitute? For financial purposes? We'd have to find ways to educate them to get better, and more useful jobs, much like people who work at McDolan's.

And what about the blokes who are willing to pay money to sleep with a prostitute? We should teach them that having sex has its risks.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:02 pm
So for math classes would material be taught from the axioms up? I'm just not sure that most high school math classes (except Geometry) can be understood without first arbitrarily accepting everything or having some intuitive but informal reason for accepting everything? I think such an approach is feasible for the rest of the subjects though.
Math may be a bit different, I ain't too sure 'bout dat.

Again, I'm not going to enforce the methods used for my policies; I'd get the advice of experts to help decide which methods would be the most effective.
@Lay Vegan, You've said that you studied psychology, right? Maybe you can help here?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

Red wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 3:50 pm
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:02 pm I don't know, but the answer lies in countries with rehabilitative prisons: whatever crimes have the lowest percents of rehabability are worth death penaltying. The diplomatic choice would be to let your constituents choose the exact percentage, but I wouldn't be comfortable not executing anyone who has over a 25% chance of failing rehabilitation. I would also recommend executing people who are insane or retarded that commit crimes some arbitrary amount below this percentage.
But I can't do this arbitrarily man. We're running a country here, not a business.
Cut offs like this will always be arbitrary, whether you set them or not.
Red wrote:We have to ask ourselves, why would someone become a prostitute?
Because there is a demand for prostitution.
Red wrote:We'd have to find ways to educate them to get better, and more useful jobs, much like people who work at McDolan's.
Until automation is there, these jobs need to be filled.
Red wrote:And what about the blokes who are willing to pay money to sleep with a prostitute? We should teach them that having sex has its risks.
You can always require them to have checks that they have to pay for and put on their driver's licenses, to pay special taxes, and to do other unpleasant things that they'd much rather not do.
Post Reply