Thread: Marginal Utility

Originally Posted by dnsmith

I am a moderate democrat, but I have to say AMEN to your post. Now, if the conservatives will come on board for good public education, universal medical care, aid to the truly needy and a program like FDR's CCC and WPA we can come to a more general agreement. It is my opinion that 99.9% of all the economic conspiracies and social hold back are bunk and junk. Same same for the conspiracies about 9/11, JFK's assassination, Robt K's assassination, MLK's assassination etc and et al.

And how are you going to pay for it all?

I am a State's Rights person. Pretty much most of what you mentioned should be the prevue of the States to decide what they want to do not the Fed.

Federal run public education - Failure
WPA was deemed UnConstitutional as was the CCC
The government cannot even run Medicaid, Medicare or VA Health right and you want them to do Universal Health Care? Take a look at Europe to see how that is going as well.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Whatever makes you think the government is capable of "good" public education? Seems like despite spending billions, does nothing but get worse, and yet most private schools yield considerably better results.

Whatever makes you think they'd be capable of handling universal health care either? Actually pretty much anything on a federal scale. We have the worst people in positions of power, not the best. How can you possibly get good results when the most corrupt typically get elected.

It is interesting how liberals want our government that is the most wasteful and allows more fraud, yet they want it bigger and bigger to do more. Thus creating more waste and fraud.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

And how are you going to pay for it all?

I am a State's Rights person. Pretty much most of what you mentioned should be the prevue of the States to decide what they want to do not the Fed.

Federal run public education - Failure
WPA was deemed UnConstitutional as was the CCC
The government cannot even run Medicaid, Medicare or VA Health right and you want them to do Universal Health Care? Take a look at Europe to see how that is going as well.

In Europe they get better health care, for half the cost, now that sucks, for health care providers, but it's good for everyone else.
Now that would go up, if the US stopped subsidizing all the medical research in the world, by paying more for drugs than anyone else in the world, and basically more for everything, but by us paying more, they get to pay less, and apparently, you like that...
You probably hate the fact that the VA provides a comparable quality of care to the private system for 40% less, and it probably kills you that Medicare costs less that private insurance.
Because it makes the dogma you hold so dear to your heart seem like .... stupidity

Originally Posted by goober

Guess again, When Eisenhower was president the top tax rate was 91%, Reagan tripled the debt, JFK raised the effective tax rate by dropping the top rates, but removing deductions.

No guessing involved. Eisenhower was the last president to balance a budget. JFK cut taxes and Reagan cut taxes. The fact that Reagan tripled the debt is irrelevant as his contribution to the economy was great. Reagan 1981 to 1989 added $1.900 trillion in 8 years. Obama raised the debt almost that much in 3 years 3 months. Get your facts straight, maybe you'll learn something. When the democratic party (my party) gets its head out of the excremental orifice of the lest wing fanatics maybe we can have a decent shot at reducing or eliminating the deficits altogether.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Whatever makes you think the government is capable of "good" public education? Seems like despite spending billions, does nothing but get worse, and yet most private schools yield considerably better results.

Whatever makes you think they'd be capable of handling universal health care either? Actually pretty much anything on a federal scale. We have the worst people in positions of power, not the best. How can you possibly get good results when the most corrupt typically get elected.

I said I want good public education, not for the federal government to run it. I also don't want a single payer universal health care. I just believe we should cover all of those who don't get it at work or can't afford to buy it.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

No guessing involved. Eisenhower was the last president to balance a budget. JFK cut taxes and Reagan cut taxes. The fact that Reagan tripled the debt is irrelevant as his contribution to the economy was great. Reagan 1981 to 1989 added $1.900 trillion in 8 years. Obama raised the debt almost that much in 3 years 3 months. Get your facts straight, maybe you'll learn something. When the democratic party (my party) gets its head out of the excremental orifice of the lest wing fanatics maybe we can have a decent shot at reducing or eliminating the deficits altogether.

So Reagan only spent 1,9 trillion in stimulus, if you account for that, the effect of the tax cut was less than zero.....

Originally Posted by Wlessard

And how are you going to pay for it all?

I am a State's Rights person. Pretty much most of what you mentioned should be the prevue of the States to decide what they want to do not the Fed.

So you believe the states should not handle a CCC or WPA program for the poor? I think they can. It is nothing more than making those getting assistance work for their money.

Federal run public education - Failurep

I don't want the feds running education. That is part of the problem.

WPA was deemed UnConstitutional as was the CCC

"Conservative Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined in the informal Conservative Coalition. By 1942-43 they shut down the WPA, CCC and other relief programs and blocked major liberal proposals. Roosevelt himself turned his attention to the war effort, and won reelection in 1940 and 1944." Doesn't sound like it was found to be unconstitutional from what I've read. Source it or give up the ghost.

The government cannot even run Medicaid, Medicare or VA Health right and you want them to do Universal Health Care?

Medicare works well as does Medicaid and the VA medical system was considered the best system in the states in recent surveys.

Take a look at Europe to see how that is going as well.

I agree that Canada, UK, and the rest of Europe have poor systems which cost a great deal and ration care.

Originally Posted by goober

In Europe they get better health care, for half the cost, now that sucks, for health care providers, but it's good for everyone else.

I lived in Europe for 16 years. I disagree with your comment based on experience. We have the best medical care in the world. All we need to do is distribute it to everyone.

..
You probably hate the fact that the VA provides a comparable quality of care to the private system for 40% less, and it probably kills you that Medicare costs less that private insurance. Because it makes the dogma you hold so dear to your heart seem like .... stupidity

Two things; The VA and medicare are both paid for by the recipients; the VA with blood and medicare with premiums for 40 or more years. I get care from both. They are better than any European or Canadian system by virtue of the quality of care and the convenience as well as wait time. But I will never hope to have a single payer, government run health care system based on my 16 years experiences in Europe working with local nationals.

Originally Posted by goober

In Europe they get better health care, for half the cost, now that sucks, for health care providers, but it's good for everyone else.
Now that would go up, if the US stopped subsidizing all the medical research in the world, by paying more for drugs than anyone else in the world, and basically more for everything, but by us paying more, they get to pay less, and apparently, you like that...
You probably hate the fact that the VA provides a comparable quality of care to the private system for 40% less, and it probably kills you that Medicare costs less that private insurance.
Because it makes the dogma you hold so dear to your heart seem like .... stupidity

New term there Goober? I see Dogma creeping into your posts more over the last week. Must have pulled that one from your learn a new word a day calendar.

I have several friends who are military and injured. One is 100% disabled and ever year or so the VA does a sweep and reduces him to 80%. He then has to fight either personally or with a lawyer a couple times to get reinstated as 100%. This is the nice VA you are talking about. He isn't the only one. I can only imagine what some Vets are doing who don't have my buddies support. Tell me the VA is doing good when we have 0 Veterans living on the street because their benefits have been cut over the years.

Europe has better health care? If you have extra money to pay for it. Half the cost plus higher taxes. Some countries over 50% to pay for it. You want to be in a 50% tax bracket or be able to shop around.

As for subsiding.. how about the US stop subsidies like EIC or for Wind Power and see what happens, both of which are direct payments to both places where as the oil company subsidies are tax breaks.

If it wasn't for US medical research people would still be dropping from polio and smallpox and other diseases that have ravaged humanity. The DaVinci would never have been finished because France couldn't afford to finish it and the US picked up the tab to help perfect it. We could have a full page on the forums of all the advances in medicine that are directly due to the US funding doctors for research.

Medicare may cost less but how many doctors are refusing new medicare patients now? Because the government fucks up the payments and makes an endless bureaucracy to make it harder to get paid.

But what you conveniently ignore is that I did NOT say that these programs should not be in place, I just said that they should not be run by the Federal Government. But don't let that get in the way of a nonsensical reply with no substance.

You say others present dogma, but you yourself are dogmatic about your precious Marginal Utility and Socialist values more so that anyone on the other side.

Originally Posted by goober

So Reagan only spent 1,9 trillion in stimulus, if you account for that, the effect of the tax cut was less than zero.....

That makes no sense.

BTW there were several veto Overrides by Congress under Reagan. Most of the 1.9 trillion actually came from them. Democrat controlled Congress overrides VETO, adding spending. But then again as usual don't let facts get in the way of partisan comments.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

No matter how much he tries, or even if someone who does not understand what the marginal utility of money agreeing with him, the last example Goober uses is absolutely false and does not comply with the actual definition he has cut and pasted.

Yep. But no matter how much we try, and as you have witnessed, he will never directly address the substance of our arguments, the data presented or grasp the fact that his dogma rests upon false premise after false premise. This idea of a “theory of the marginal utility of wealth or money” as Goober has tried to explain it was, I believe, first made famous by John Kenneth Galbraith in The Affluent Society, in the 50s. Goober’s arguments are not original and they have been rebutted before, with the necessary links and citations. As you saw with the income inequality thread anything that challenges his silliness he ignores. There is no indication that he would suddenly start addressing those challenges now.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by goober

Why is it that real, actual economists find marginal utility so obvious,

That would be the theory of the marginal utility of goods and services, not your twisted version that has no foundation.

and a certain group of posters (many having demonstrated complete ignorance of so many other topics)

That would be your opinion. We have already established that your opinion does not mean very much on the subject of economics and so many other topics.

reject it,

Other than Galbraith, who only played an economist in his books, who are the “real, actual economists” who embrace your version of the theory of the marginal utility of wealth or money? Since you first brought this up, those many months ago, I have presented both links and quotes of “real actual economists” ejecting your twisted version, yet you haven’t quoted anyone and you never present links. Your opinionated pronouncements are relevant how exactly?

knowing that if they accept what is a commonly accepted principle of economics, they might have to rethink their firmly held dogma, because it cannot logically exist in the same world as their dogma.

The theory of the marginal utility of goods and services is a commonly accepted theory of microeconomics. The theory of the marginal utility of wealth or money is not. The only acknowledged economist (though not a very good one) I know of who has waxed idiotic about your version of a theory of the marginal utility of wealth or money was John Kenneth Galbraith. Please present a list of these alleged “real actual economists” who embrace your twisted version. There’s got to be some wannabe Galbraith Keynesians out there who also wrote lovingly about your twisted version of a theory of the marginal utility of wealth or money.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Because it is so obvious. Who has rejected it? I certainly accept it, but it looks like though you say you respect it you have given examples of many things, none of which is marginal utility of money. None of it is dogma, it is only theory which most of us understand. It is time you try to understand what it is. First, don't mix up marginal utility of goods and services with the marginal utility of money, the marginal propensity to consume, the marginal utility to save with the marginal utility of money. You have written in circles around the various related theories yet have not put your finger on which is which.

So, we either must agree to disagree or come to a reasonable explanation as to which is which.

1. In economics, the marginal utility of a good or service is the gain (or loss) from an increase (or decrease) in the consumption of that good or service. Economists sometimes speak of a law of diminishing marginal utility, meaning that the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units. IE if you have 10 apples after one has eaten his fill by consuming 2 or 3 apples the marginal utility of apples diminishes.

2. To spend or not to spend? That is the question. And how much you do spend is what the marginal propensity to consume talks about. As the definition goes - it is the increase in consumer spending with an increase in disposable income. As the disposable income of the person increases, whether he chooses to spend it, or perhaps more accurately, how much he chooses to spend is his marginal propensity to spend.

3. Definition of marginal propensity to save: Proportion of a small change in disposable income that would be saved, instead of being spent on consumption.

4. Marshall constructed the demand curve with the aid of assumptions that utility was quantified, and that the marginal utility of money was constant (or nearly so). There are variables which tend to qualify the circumstances by which money retains its marginal utility as the quantity increases or decreases. Those variables refer to what that money can do for the individual beyond satisfying basic needs to live. Investment value, marginal value of transformation, marginal utility saving value or holding value are all determinants.

To suggest simply (as you have) that the marginal utility of money automatically diminishes as income passes the stage of providing a comfortable living standard would be wrong and would occur only in relationship to one single individual and what that individual does with his money.

All of this is obvious and most of it is being over looked in your partial and erroneous explanations.

One of the best rebuttals I have read against the Goober-Galbraith mythology of a theory of the marginal utility of wealth or money. Sadly and typically he'll ignore it and refuse to address any of its points.

tashi deleks,

M