Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

[wufwugy]

This is a simplistic way of understanding organizational structure and accounting. It can be true, but it is not necessarily so. There is legal precedent on this. Different parts of an organization can be financially segregated to a degree to which this is a non issue.

Absolute financial segregation is a myth. I don't just mean within a legally recognized corporate organization, I mean in the absolute sense. If abortion is legal, any funding given to any entity will eventually fund abortion. As illustration, take a strip mall that holds an abortion clinic as a tenant. The other tenants rents are being suppressed due to a decrease in vacancy.

I'm happy to see that you're thinking in conceptual terms that need to be thought in. I don't have much input on this because finding an answer is unbelievably hard. In fact I don't think there is an answer.

Where do we draw the line? I don't know, probably where people want to draw the line. The concept I laid out regarding budgeting is pretty well modeled in economics, so I think it is reasonable to say that a law that says certain fund sources can't be used for certain things doesn't change much of the funding of those certain things since moving funds around to keep things the way they have been is pretty common. Economists have tried to study this a bit with food stamps, where the models say that making it illegal for this form of welfare to be used on alcohol and cigarettes shouldn't negatively impact consumption of such since the food stamp collectors will just move their funds around, spending less cash on food than they would otherwise since they can use stamps for food, letting them consume the same amount (sometimes more) of alcohol and cigarettes. The empirical results are mixed, as they always are in economics. I don't know any models that suggest what I described wouldn't be the case.

I do appreciate that you ended with an acknowledgement of how absurd your reading of the law is.

I wouldn't say that's absurd, but more the next step in logic to be taken even though it gets into "throw your hands up in the air" territory, where solving the problem has no easy or good answers.

Cool to note about this is that this type of problem is a good reason why it is better to restrict government intervention. This is because a democratic government has a duality of responsibilities that it cannot meet. For example, you mentioned public schools. A sufficiently intervened by government education system (which we have) means that the government has the responsibility to provide that service for all citizens. Yet, it is also the case that doing that means that those who fund it (taxpayers) are coerced into paying for things they do not want. Reducing government impact into lives and increasing the freedom of choice reduces this problem because it allows people to more effectively allocate their own resources to what they believe in.

The problem never goes away in entirety though. It's sorta like one of the premises of Loki's Wager. You can't say where the neck ends and the head begins, so you can't perfectly separate them no matter what.

[wufwugy]

Where do we draw the line? I don't know, probably where people want to draw the line. The concept I laid out regarding budgeting is pretty well modeled in economics, so I think it is reasonable to say that a law that says certain fund sources can't be used for certain things doesn't change much of the funding of those certain things since moving funds around to keep things the way they have been is pretty common. Economists have tried to study this a bit with food stamps, where the models say that making it illegal for this form of welfare to be used on alcohol and cigarettes shouldn't negatively impact consumption of such since the food stamp collectors will just move their funds around, spending less cash on food than they would otherwise since they can use stamps for food, letting them consume the same amount (sometimes more) of alcohol and cigarettes. The empirical results are mixed, as they always are in economics. I don't know any models that suggest what I described wouldn't be the case.

I should correct this. The models and studies are mostly about the difference in consumption choices between using cash transfers or food stamps. The models suggest using food stamps (that can't be used on alc/cigs) instead of cash transfers (that can be used on alc/cigs) would unlikely have any impact on consumption of alc/cigs. This is because recipients of cash transfers will consume what they want evenly across their total cash, and recipients who get food stamps instead tend to move the alc/cigs consumption to their other cash and move more of their food consumption to food stamps.

[wufwugy]

I should correct this. The models and studies are mostly about the difference in consumption choices between using cash transfers or food stamps. The models suggest using food stamps (that can't be used on alc/cigs) instead of cash transfers (that can be used on alc/cigs) would unlikely have any impact on consumption of alc/cigs. This is because recipients of cash transfers will consume what they want evenly across their total cash, and recipients who get food stamps instead tend to move the alc/cigs consumption to their other cash and move more of their food consumption to food stamps.

Even as regulations get more stringent, the welfare recipients who are targeted specifically to not abuse the system tend to develop clever ways of getting around the rules. One way is trading their food stamps at a discount on the black market for alc/cigs/drugs/cash

[boost]

Even as regulations get more stringent, the welfare recipients who are targeted specifically to not abuse the system tend to develop clever ways of getting around the rules. One way is trading their food stamps at a discount on the black market for alc/cigs/drugs/cash

Not that you were accusing me of being in favor of the current welfare system, but I think intuitively it makes sense and the data is coming in in support of no strings attached welfare.

[wufwugy]

Not that you were accusing me of being in favor of the current welfare system, but I think intuitively it makes sense and the data is coming in in support of no strings attached welfare.

What data are you referring to?

Here's economist Bryan Caplan on universal basic income (UBI):

Overall, the UBI probably gives even worse incentives than the status quo. Defenders of the UBI correctly point out that it might improve incentives for people who are already on welfare. Under the status quo, earning another $1 of legal income can easily reduce your welfare by a $1, implying a marginal tax rate of 100%. But under the status quo, vast populations are ineligible for most programs. Such as? You guys! If you're an able-bodied adult, aged 18-64, who doesn't have custody of any minor children, the current system doesn't give you much. Switching to a UBI would expand the familiar perverse effects of the welfare state to the entire population - including you. And if taxes rise to pay for the UBI, the population-wide disincentives are even worse.

When it comes to explaining how it is possible that UBI could benefit the country, it would need to be explained how UBI could increase incentives to produce.

[boost]

What data are you referring to?

Here's economist Bryan Caplan on universal basic income (UBI):





When it comes to explaining how it is possible that UBI could benefit the country, it would need to be explained how UBI could increase incentives to produce.

The most recent studies are still ongoing, but there's a pretty large one underway in Kenya at the moment. My understanding is that on the whole people have not cut back on work, but instead increased spending on improvements to their standard of living, started businesses, etc.

It's nice that Caplan is offering his view based on theory, but the results, so far, aren't in support of the theory.

[wufwugy]

The most recent studies are still ongoing, but there's a pretty large one underway in Kenya at the moment. My understanding is that on the whole people have not cut back on work, but instead increased spending on improvements to their standard of living, started businesses, etc.

It's nice that Caplan is offering his view based on theory, but the results, so far, aren't in support of the theory.

I would like to see the study. In my experience, the popular press tends to interpret these things in ways the studies don't justify. From what I know so far, these studies that I have heard about for quite some time have such different parameters than what would inform us about UBI results. Regardless, I am interested in reading the actual studies.

[BananaStand]

The most recent studies are still ongoing, but there's a pretty large one underway in Kenya at the moment. My understanding is that on the whole people have not cut back on work, but instead increased spending on improvements to their standard of living, started businesses, etc.

It's nice that Caplan is offering his view based on theory, but the results, so far, aren't in support of the theory.

Hate to do this, because you've been my biggest cheerleader as of late, but this post represents some cracked thinking.

I'm really not familiar with the Kenya situation. I have read some about similar programs going on in Europe. One of the major problems I see, is that the program is billed as "experimental". If you're referring to the Kenya program as "a study", then chances are it's been advertised as such. That insulates people against feeling entitled to the benefit. Rather, it is perceived as a "bonus".

So this "study" is rigged. It's artificially inflating income while not dis-incentivizing work. Once this program has been in place for a few decades, it's certainly reasonable to think that might start to fall apart. Once the benefit becomes perceives as a secure, guaranteed, entitlement, that's when the incentive to work starts to degrade.

And you can't put in a program like this for that long, and then take it back later. So the debate must absolutely occur in theory. Any real-life experiment is bull-shit....unless maybe it can show that the incentive to work lasted through say 50+ years. But there is no such data.

think about it like this....did savings fall off of a cliff after social security was enacted? Nope. People still saved. It took four generations for us to reach our current state where 1/3 of American adults can't pull together $1,000 for an emergency expense.

the program was really meant to support non-working women. They overwhelmingly lived longer than their husbands, and usually never worked a day in their life. How the fuck are they supposed to survive once they're widowed? It was enacted to start paying out after age 65, at a time when life expectancy for men was right about 65. So, now that feminism has happened, and two-income households are more common than not, you could argue that Social security is totally obsolete. But how the fuck do you stop the program now?????

How can you not infer the same result from UBI's? Rigged results early, consequences much much later, and the program becomes so entrenched, that even if it is proven to be an abject failure, you can never take it back.

One other thing to note. I mentioned that 1/3 of American adults couldn't pull together $1G on a day's notice. That's not even that bad. I recall some threads recently with some socialist libtards touting the greatness of Denmark, Shitserland and Scandanavian countries that provide citizens with tons of entitlements.

Wanna guess who is the world leader in household debt??