For over a year now the "Bar Stool Economics" parable has been blogged about, posted,and emailed to the hoots and hollers of the right wing despite the fact that it is supposedly written by an Economics Professor (who doesn't exit).
Here is one version of the story. Read this first: BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Then read the response I wrote back to the last email version I received:
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS? HMMMMM...
Gosh oh gee. How do I debate such a straight forward and simple explanation of our tax system?
Let me try.
A "real" economist would have two problems with this "example":
1. It uses luxury as its model. A simple understanding of game theory shows that at the end of the story, if the 10th man decides not to buy, then he has no leverage. No one "needs" beer. Our government doesn't apportion luxuries.
2. There is no baseline. The assumption is that if you can't afford it, don't drink. When in reality, what most of us are doing is working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare. THAT is the baseline. Anything made above the price of these necessities could be subject to the "beer" argument, but the result would end up with pretty much everyone paying as shown.
So it's ridiculous to use beer as the example. Why not use 60" plasma TVs or diamonds? None of these represent the economic situation that most of us find ourselves in. Since the example uses a luxury (beer) as its foundation, let's rewrite the story using a necessity: Oxygen.
HERE IS THE UPDATE TO THE STORY
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for oxygen and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. It would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men breathe each day and seem quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the richest man throws them a curve.
"I'm tired of paying the most when you all use the same amount of oxygen.
I'm not going to pay for you to get oxygen anymore. Go buy your own air."
the 1st and 2nd men (poorest) can't afford oxygen and die within minutes.
The 3rd poor man gets his wages reduced by his boss (the seventh man who needs to pay more now)and can no longer afford oxygen either. He dies within days.
The 4th poor man, pays for oxygen and continues to breathe. How? He loves his wife and kids and so to continue to allow them to breathe, he was driven to steal the rich man's car to pay for oxygen for his family. Crime increases, not because men want "beer" and bling, but because they will do anything to provide for their families. He gets caught and sent to prison where he earns no money.
His disabled wife and small children all die now that they have no provider of oxygen.
The 5th & 6th men make their living selling products (like food) and services to the first 4 men. Having more than half of their customers die, they can no longer afford to stay in business. They both close shop and die within weeks.
The 7th & 8th men own or work for companies that sell products and services to the 9th & 10th man. Unfortunately, the workers they rely on to plant and harvest the crops, manufacture goods, and deliver the services have all died. Within months, the 7th and 8th men die.
The 9th man has enough money to buy oxygen for a year. Unfortunately, the guy that refills oxygen bottles was man number 1. The guy that maintains the regulators and oxygen safety equipment was man number 2. The owner of the trucking company that delivers the oxygen was man number 7. Man number 9 dies in 4 months when the supply of safe, available oxygen disappears.
Now we come to good, ol' man number 10. The guy that wants to stop paying because he is blind to the value others bring to him and his lifestyle. Man number 10 has stocked away 5 years worth of oxygen. He'll survive...at least for awhile. As long as he can build his own roads, make his own electricity, maintain his own equipment, grow his own food, provide his own healthcare, clean his own air & water, and protect himself from fire, flood, hurricane, and the occasional attack from
anyone else who might have survived and wants to take HIS oxygen.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system would work if we let the short-sighted run our economy. The people who pay the highest taxes need to understand that they truly get the most benefit when the people who supply, buy, and work for them can afford the necessities of life.
Bitch too much, attack the middle class and poor for not paying enough, and they just may stop producing, showing up, or DIE.
David Stuck
Student of Life and Economics
For those who were naive enough to except the "beer" analogy, think about
where YOUR money goes and what would happen to you. (hint: You aren't the 10th man)
Sunday
Monday
Who's Your Daddy? Conservatives vs. Progressives
Do you ever wonder what being pro-life has in common with being pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and pro tort-reform? What does a conservative position on taxation have to do with a conservative position on the environment?
And why do progressives have the exact opposite position on all of these issues? Why aren’t things more mixed up?
George Lakoff was wondering about connections. He couldn’t find them in the Bible, in schools, or in philosophy books. He found the connections in a most surprising place: the Family.
Lakeoff argues quite persuasively that to understand why conservatives and progressives are polar opposites on issues and are so “whacked out” about each others positions can be traced to views on the family. Specifically, a Strick Father model, or a Nurturing Parent model.
Let’s take a look at these 2 models:
The Strick Father Model (Ward Cleaver)
The Strick Father model utilizes a very traditional “50’s” version of the family.
The father has the primary responsibility of supporting and protecting the family as well as the authority to set overall family policy. Children are never coddled lest they become spoiled or dependent. Self discipline and self-reliance are taught, almost as tough love. Morality is based upon reward and punishment. Survival depends upon competition and individual strength.
The Nurturing Father Model (Cliff Huxtable)
A family of preferrably 2 parents but perhaps only one. If 2, the parents share household responsibilities. The primal experience is one of caring and being cared about. Living as happily as possible, deriving meaning from mutual interaction and care. Children develop best through positive relationships to others, contributing to their community. Empathy and responsibility are core values. Punishment is not as prevelant as understanding and caring
So if we understand the 2 Fathers, then let’s try to understand their position in relation to politics. Let’s assume the following:
- The nation is a family
- The government is a parent
- The citizens are the children
If we apply the Strick Father Model, then the Government would support and protect the citizens, never coddle or spoil its citizens lest they become dependent. Programs & policies reflect an environment where citizens are expected to be self disciplined and self-reliant. Morality is based upon Reward and Punishment. Survival depends upon competition and individual strength.
Sound familiar? That's a pretty good description of a Conservative’s ideal government.
If we apply the Nurturing Parent Model, a government provides care for those in need. Programs & policies reflect community care, helping individuals to develop. Empathy, fairness, and responsibility are core values. Punishment is not as prevelant as understanding and caring.
Progressives won’t argue that this describes a government they would like.
Seems like a perfect fit, doesn’t it? Now apply these models to any individual issue.
IMMIGRATION –
WARD: Illegal immigrants. Punish them for crossing. Protect us with a fence. Business must not be punished.
CLIFF: Economic Refugees shouldn't be punished. Illegal employers aren't playing fair. People working to survive should not be punished.
Every time you hear a Conservative try to frame his position on an issue, think about Ward Cleaver. Every time you hear a Progressive try to defend his position on an issue, think about Cliff Huxtable.
Does it allow you to explain away your objections to the other’s position? No, but it does allow you to understand the root ideology behind their position and helps you to begin a dialog to mediate. Don’t get angry. Understand their values and help them to understand your values. Solutions, compromise, and consensus are just around the corner.
I can’t begin to do justice to the words of Lakeoff. I encourage everyone to read his book, Moral Politics. You’ll never listen to the other side the same way again….
davestuck
Wednesday
What happened to Peace? 11 questions to ask Presidential Candidates
The speechs and questions (planted or not) are flying around here like crazy. Let's take a moment and craft a few questions that frame the issues differently. Here's my list of 11 questions I'd like to ask those nutty
Republicans and Democrats:
11 QUESTIONS I WISH SOMEONE WOULD ASK:
- Do you believe that the government should not restrict basic human rights, and if so, will you immediately reinstate the right of Habeas Corpus, require FISA court oversight for wiretapping, and ensure that American’s adhere to the Geneva Convention?
- If the largest burden on those at the bottom of our economy is healthcare, what is your plan to help “the least of our brothers”?
- Why don’t you talk about peace? Is America no longer the beacon on the hill?
- We have nothing to fear, but fear itself. What is your plan to change the environment of fear?
- In dealing with developing countries do you view the US as a Strict Father or a Nurturing Partner?
- What do you think of a strategy that would encourage manufacturing investments in Mexico (thereby growing a neighboring economy instead of China)?
- Can we build a 10 year plan to reduce our foreign oil dependency? What would that entail?
- Do you think the government should control who we can marry and who we can’t?
- Lobbyists and corporate money has co-opted Congress and the Presidential campaign. Will you push for dramatic campaign and lobbying reform and call out anyone who doesn’t vote to support a “clean” government?
- American schools are setup to advance students to each grade on an annual basis, based upon their age. Do you support a system that would advance students based upon their capabilities?
- In the business world, the people you tend to be nicest to are your customers and suppliers. Do you believe that a positive foreign policy would include making developing countries or potentially hostile countries our customers and suppliers?
If you get a chance to ask one of my questions to our candidates, let me know their answers. I'll post em here!
THE STUCK PLAN FOR IRAQ
Speaking of "Stuck", many of you have asked me what my thoughts are on Iraq. I'd love for our troops to be out as soon as possible, but morally I don't want us to break it and leave. Where is the answer? I'm not sure anyone is really out there listening, but since there are so many candidates trying to outline their leadership skills before the primaries, let's toss this out and see if it gets any play:
THE STUCK PLAN FOR IRAQ
- Define the Enemy
- Enact a Playground Rules Strategy
- Enlist (Get) help to Secure Borders
- Win Hearts and Minds (REALLY)
- Build a Transition Timetable
- Engage the Enablers
1. Define the Enemy
The first step towards winning a war (or more accurately prior to starting a war) is to define the enemy. As clearly and distinctly as possible.
There will always be terrorists in the Middle-East just as there are in our country. We can’t win a war against terror, any more than we can win a war against hate, anger, evil, or vindictiveness.
In this conflict, terrorists and freedom fighters can’t be defined by their uniforms or by which side of the river they stand. So our enemy is not “Terror”.
Defining the enemy lets the enemy (& allies) know our specific target. Clearly defining the enemy lessens the fear (in the streets of Iraq). Clearly defining the enemy increases allies.
Can anyone say it? "The enemy of a free Iraq is..."
IED components (roadside bombs) had components from:
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, France, Germany, US, Mexico, China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, and Korea.
I'm certainly not the best person to define the enemy, but to say "insurgents" only makes execution of the strategy tougher for our military, contractors, and Iraq's fighters. The Generals agree that Al-Qaeda (and for that matter Iran) is just a small part of the problem.
Bottom line is that all sides in this "civil" war fight us as they kill each other. If we can't easily define the enemy then we need to move to step 2:
2. Enact a Playground Rules Strategy. When children fight over playground turf, the options seem simple. Pick a side, split em up, sit them down together and find a resolution, or go home. Committing to any one of these strategies simplifies the process in the minds of all combatants and "interested parties". Pick one. Any. But pick one. Please?
3. Enlist (Get) help to Secure Borders
We went to the world and asked for help for invasion forces with limited success. But now the situation is different. We're not asking other nations to invade, but to help rescue Iraq. It's in the best interest of anyone who sells to, buys from, or lives in the Mideast. Now is the time to go to the world again. Our message this time, “Yes, we made mistakes but the truth NOW is that the Iraqi people are rebuilding their country. Many opposing factions want to spread death and prevent a free Iraq. We need your help to secure her borders during a defined period while they rebuild their government and Military forces.
If we make it clear that greed (and oil) are not our goals, then gathering several hundred thousand international troops can truly give Iraq some time to solve it's problems. The troops would act as border guards only around a tighter, but ever expanding geography. Not running missions, not driving down corridors of IEDs. Just keeping groups apart and others out. Certainly Iran would offer troops and we should encourage their use. It's a world stage. Let's invite others to be the heroes with us.
4. Win Hearts and Minds (REALLY)
If there’s one thing the U.S. does better than anyone on the planet: Marketing. We can entice millions of advertising-savvy American consumers to run to the store for the latest incarnation of Diet Coke or to dial their phones till their fingers bleed so they can vote for a pitchy dawg on American Idol.
Few will argue that many countries rush to embrace our culture because its youth is exposed to a taste of the amenities and luxuries that a democratic country can bring.
People will align with and fight for a cause that feeds their children and keeps them from harm. The martyr’s perfect afterlife is only attractive because it appears more easily attainable then safe streets, food, and freedom from oppression.
Fear and uncertainty fills the minds of today’s Iraqi. Is the local policeman a friend or foe? Because I am Sunni I am a target. Because he is Kurdish, he is my enemy. Who is in control? Where is my allegiance and if I align today will I be hunted tomorrow?
5. Build AND SHARE a Transition Timetable
Old argument? Maybe not. We all know that behavior can be changed with timetables. Curfews for teens. Tax time for adults. If the message is delivered properly (see item 4 above) then the target market will be the millions of Iraqis that don’t want to die.
Goals, people. Without goals and sub-goals we just have bureaucracy without control. An uncontrolled bureaucracy is called anarchy. If an Iraqi citizen knew that the US would leave by the end of July, then he would have to start making some decisions regarding his survival: Pick a side, move out, or ride it out and possibly die. I think that would be a bit of an incentive to me to act.
The argument has always been if we lay down a date for withdrawal then "the bad guys" will just wait around until we leave. What is missing from that argument is what "the good guys" in Iraq will do during that same period. There is no incentive for them to wait around to be slaughtered or oppressed.
Today, the choice is to fight along side us or hang-out and let the US do the work. The easier (and less painful choice) is usually made. Once we define that the choice is fight, flee, or die, then watch out. Sign-em up.
6. Engage the Enablers
It’s no secret that some factions in Iran, Syria, and other groups are either supporting, or encouraging a portion of the hostilities within Iraq. A border is not truly secure unless both sides deem it so. We must negotiate, encourage, and provide incentives to these neighbors to “play nice”. These countries can be shown that a stable Iraq is in their best interest.
Engaging the enablers also means finding credible mediators to sit with religious, tribal, and ethnic leaders in the region. When it comes to these folks, their history has always been "Engage me and I will talk. Ignore me and I will fight."
If our goal is not to use our presence to protect our interests in the oil economy and it's not to entice Iran to battle, then I believe 6 steps can help us create a self-sustaining Iraq in short order.
6 steps. Talk amongst yourselves. - dave stuck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)