From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:14:18 GMT

In <1992Nov06.230354.32556@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: So do I need to apologize because I know more about economics that you
>: do?  Well, pardon the hell out of me.

>It depends on what your purpose for being here is.  If it's to impress
>everybody with your knowledge, it's not working.  If it's to convey information
>to other people, then it would be nice if you'd take off the "I'm an economics
>god, you're not worthy" broken record, and back up your statements with 
>substance.  If you can't explain your assumptions behind your claim that
>full-costing and free-riders applies to gasoline, then don't make the claim.

Sorry to inject a little reality into your tirade, but I simply don't
care to type in several chapters of a book to try to explain it to
you, when you don't want to believe it in the first place (see the
past discussion on the definition of 'flat tax').

>No, you don't have to explain the terms in great detail--I can (and did) look
>them up.  If you can't describe these assumptions in one paragraph, then I
>submit to you that you're bullshitting, never mind a thousand pages.

Submit all you like.  It's one rhetorical device to avoid examining
things yourself.  And so, I will submit that YOU are bullshitting.

>: >The government doesn't use gas tax money to do anything about air 
>: >pollution.  
>: 
>: What the government currently does is irrelevant to a discussion of
>: tax policy as a corrective action insofar as full costing goes.  The
>: government makes no effort to impose full costing via tax policy.
>: However, last time I checked the discussion was over hypothetical
>: changes, not over what we're doing now.

>OK.  You tell me -- why do we pay taxes RIGHT NOW on gasoline?

Consider it a 'use tax' for highways and such, John.  Note that
agricultural users and long-haul trucks that pay separate road taxes
don't pay those fuel taxes (in general).

>: >Are you talking about road maintenance?  
>: 
>: In part.  Also about impacts on other economic choices from land use
>: for highways and roadways, the cost of injuries and deaths caused by
>: automobiles to society, the impact (cost) to others when one more
>: person elects to use roadways during a peak use period, and a number
>: of other things.

>Note that gasoline doesn't do any of these things, so why do we pay taxes on
>gasoline?  If I have an electric car, I get a free ride.  If I put gasoline
>in my lawn mower, I'm paying for nothing.  Shouldn't externalities be 
>handled at the closest point to which they occur?  You know where this is
>leading of course -- users fees.

Yes, but you can't make every street a toll street, with collection on
every block at slightly different rates.  This is the problem with
user fees.  Effective full costing in their collection is simply not
practical, and other than that, you don't get the infrastructure built
in the first place under the typical user fee system.  

>: funniest is that libertarians almost inevitably don't really
>: understand the concept because their whole philosophy ASSUMES that the
>: market is already imposing full costs on consumers.

>If it doesn't, it's usually because of government intervention or wealth
>redistribution.  The cost to register your car in most states has nothing to
>do with how much pollution it generates or how much wear and tear it puts on 
>the roads.  WHY?

Irrelevant, John.  The road wear and tear is charged in the gasoline
(which I've heard people suggest is the way to put in place a 'user
fee' for roads, since collecting it on individual roads is cumbersom
or impossible).  And no, market failures aren't typically (or even
"usually") because of government intervention or wealth
redistribution".  

>: and unfortunately, the market DOESN'T impose such costs.  Hence
>: consumers make non-optimal choices on allocation of economic
>: resources, buying 'too much' of one thing and 'not enough' of another.

>If they do, then they'll have too much of one thing and not enough of another.
>Stuff happens.  Better luck next time.

Thank you for the demonstration that despite having looked at it and
having read it, you still don't understand the idea behind full
costing and what it is supposed to fix (or behind such simple concepts
as economic efficiency and pareto optimality).  The problem is that,
given the ability to effectively shove off the external costs on
someone else, there is no 'better luck next time' because there are no
market forces to change the situation (unless the guy who is having to
breath the shmutz from your factory takes a gun and blows your brains
out). 

>: >people who buy gasoline, but don't use public roads?  
>: 
>: Any significant user in that class has never had to pay the fuel taxes
>: in the first place.  

>Why do I have to be a "significant" user to avoid paying for something I don't
>use?  The obvious answer is to "tax" the people who use the ROADS if you want
>to pay for the roads, not people who buy gasoline.

Too cumbersome.  Please describe a toll system for ALL ROADS that
doesn't require stopping to pay the tolls, that prevents use if you
don't pay, that doesn't get in the way, etc.  Note that you ALREADY
are stopped in order to pay for the gasoline.

>: Horseshit.  If you understood what full costing means, you wouldn't
>: have to 'guess' because what I'm talking about pretty much falls out
>: of understanding the concept.

>They way you explain how full-costing applies to a particular thing is to 
>give examples of the indirect costs.  Instead, you do your little superior dance
>around the issue.

Only because you've shown that attempts to explain generally fall upon
deaf ears (once again, see the discussion on the definition of 'flat
tax') and because I don't care to wind up with wrists the size of legs
from typing in books.

Hey, John.  Teach me everything there is to know about computers HERE
ON THE NET, RIGHT NOW.  I don't want to have to get or read any books.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23188 talk.politics.misc:59064 tx.politics:7117