Jul 22 2011: Hi Nicholas, am I correct in interpreting your question loosely as whether today's wasteful culture will cost us our future if we don't mend our ways? If that's the case it depends on how much optimism you hold in man's potential. Can we be better today - yes. Is it going to cost us our future = no. I recommend Matt Ridley's Ted Talk "When ideas have sex" which begins with the following: "When I was a student here in Oxford in the 1970s, the future of the world was bleak. The population explosion was unstoppable. Global famine was inevitable. A cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment was going to shorten our lives. The acid rain was falling on the forests. The desert was advancing by a mile or two a year. The oil was running out. And a nuclear winter would finish us off. None of those things happened. (Laughter) And astonishingly, if you look at what actually happened in my lifetime, the average per-capita income of the average person on the planet, in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has tripled. Lifespan is up by 30 percent in my lifetime. Child mortality is down by two-thirds. Per-capita food production is up by a third. And all this at a time when the population has doubled."
Jul 22 2011: 1. You and your charitable brethren may choose to donate today, may choose to not donate next month. With the system of taxes at least the food stamps go out with near certainty. Your alternative is certainly plausible, but its not necessarily better.
2. Okay, agree to disagree
3. This could go on forever. I could contend that most modern rich people don't have their wealth concentrated in one geography i.e. they will only lose a fraction if they just abandon U.S. and seek asylum (or just move) elsewhere. Middle class and below will lose everything if U.S. gets destroyed, so will have more (or at least equal) reason to act. Again, there may be a smart Archimedes who will choose to get creative within the 2 year period, and there may not. Your 'rockefellers' may decide to contribute at the last minute or they may not. As with point 1, a standing military reduces the volatility in possible outcomes by extending the time frame and investment - any Archimedes working at any time could contribute his inventions to the army without the need for an announced attack. Taxes to fund the army also even out the burden (as much as possible) of a benefit that will clearly be accrued by everyone.
Jul 19 2011: 1. On your broader point of inequality, a part of govt activity is indeed directed at redressing inequality nature gave us specially with access to basic needs like food, shelter, etc (e.g. through taxing based on income and then providing food stamps, etc). If it was left to market forces, given it is economically unfavorable, there would be no special treatment for people in need of food who couldn't afford it. Most people would find this inhumane and support this redress by government (if they didn't they would create/vote for a party with a different view).
2. Agree with you in practice, though in theory a man with no income has no power in a markets model but has equal weight in a voting scenario.
3. That is an excellent question. Even though the 1938 German army is much weaker than modern armies, it is enough to damage U.S. if they don't take any action. Realizing this, I imagine U.S. citizens would have to come together to form a plan to defend themselves and execute it within 2 years. They would soon realize this will need expenditure to pay for the brains who will dedicate themselves to strategising the defense plan, and more of it for the execution. But who pays for this? Since it benefits them all, they would all have to contribute - barring the very poor who need it for basic needs, the slack being picked up by the rich (like our taxes today). But who would administer this collection and distribution? They would have to form (or elect) a governance body for this... In effect, they would have the rudiments of a defense department.
In reality, the question should be the same but assuming two modern nations. If U.S. abolishes it's state sponsored army today, what chance does it stand against an attack from North Korea? I agree that state armies have not always been successful in protecting its citizens, but they have been successful at other times and provide the best hope once a war is underway.
1. The fact that human race has survived with certain norms does not mean there is no room for improvement - I imagine women's participation rates in workforce as well as the quality of their jobs have both improved as a consequence of such laws. My point is that markets will not efficiently (or at all) allocate the "social" good to the extent that it contradicts the "economic" good. I chose maternity leave as an example of that as companies would discriminate against women in hiring to avoid those costs if there was no law. It may take a long time (if at all) before these disgruntled women are able to put up a strong enough economic demand for companies to change their policy. A law reduces this lag time.
2. Your point is quite interesting, never thought of it that way. I doubt that the poorest 1% of the population can create any economic demand - they may have compelling needs (e.g. homeless shelters) but if they can't pay for them who would want to cater to them? On the contrary, a man with billions of dollars can create sufficient economic demand for almost anything (e.g. trip to the moon) and markets will oblige with a supply. As for the merits of democracy, I believe it's still the most equitable form as all other forms of government end up with someone having more than 1/N influence over others. If your question was why do we need government at all then I believe a separate thread is needed.
3. I grant you that high levels of economy, wealth, technology are likely to be more effective deterrents to war than a strong military. But for whatever reason if a war is underway your best bet is still the presence of an effective military. Taking your example, World war 2 ended when a more powerful military entered the fray against Germany. But military is just an example, you could take immigration control / border patrol or police and the same questions apply.
Jul 17 2011: Thanks for posting this interesting topic.
1. Private companies are mandated to maximize shareholder value. It's hard to find incentives for them to bring about any social good if it conflicts with a profit motive and I feel in such cases government (or judiciary) may legitimately intervene e.g. paid maternity leaves as an extension to gender equality at work
2. As you mention in a previous post "company's goal is to make profit, government's goal is to get votes" - not everyone has equal wealth but everyone does have equal voting rights. I believe a private enterprise may be more efficient at execution of ideas or services, but governments need to play the crucial role of setting a framework in which profit mongering of free-markets does not imply ignoring the needs of poor.
3. Military: I see you begging the question why U.S. needs to spend so much money on it, but assuming that it needs to at least spend some money on a basic military we can ask whether it should be run privately or by government. If it was a private enterprise, who would pay for it? I know that if the military is to prevent an invasion into the country, it would save everyone in the country not just the ones who pay for the private protection; so what would be the incentive for everyone to fund the military? There are clearly parts which can be outsourced to private companies but the military as an institution still needs to be operated on tax payer's dime and hence the role of government.
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Western culture is wasteful. Is it fair to suggest that most people have to ask themselves what is worth more: luxuries or the future?
A reply on Conversation: The role of government
2. Okay, agree to disagree
3. This could go on forever. I could contend that most modern rich people don't have their wealth concentrated in one geography i.e. they will only lose a fraction if they just abandon U.S. and seek asylum (or just move) elsewhere. Middle class and below will lose everything if U.S. gets destroyed, so will have more (or at least equal) reason to act. Again, there may be a smart Archimedes who will choose to get creative within the 2 year period, and there may not. Your 'rockefellers' may decide to contribute at the last minute or they may not. As with point 1, a standing military reduces the volatility in possible outcomes by extending the time frame and investment - any Archimedes working at any time could contribute his inventions to the army without the need for an announced attack. Taxes to fund the army also even out the burden (as much as possible) of a benefit that will clearly be accrued by everyone.
A comment on Conversation: The role of government
2. Agree with you in practice, though in theory a man with no income has no power in a markets model but has equal weight in a voting scenario.
3. That is an excellent question. Even though the 1938 German army is much weaker than modern armies, it is enough to damage U.S. if they don't take any action. Realizing this, I imagine U.S. citizens would have to come together to form a plan to defend themselves and execute it within 2 years. They would soon realize this will need expenditure to pay for the brains who will dedicate themselves to strategising the defense plan, and more of it for the execution. But who pays for this? Since it benefits them all, they would all have to contribute - barring the very poor who need it for basic needs, the slack being picked up by the rich (like our taxes today). But who would administer this collection and distribution? They would have to form (or elect) a governance body for this... In effect, they would have the rudiments of a defense department.
In reality, the question should be the same but assuming two modern nations. If U.S. abolishes it's state sponsored army today, what chance does it stand against an attack from North Korea? I agree that state armies have not always been successful in protecting its citizens, but they have been successful at other times and provide the best hope once a war is underway.
A reply on Conversation: The role of government
1. The fact that human race has survived with certain norms does not mean there is no room for improvement - I imagine women's participation rates in workforce as well as the quality of their jobs have both improved as a consequence of such laws. My point is that markets will not efficiently (or at all) allocate the "social" good to the extent that it contradicts the "economic" good. I chose maternity leave as an example of that as companies would discriminate against women in hiring to avoid those costs if there was no law. It may take a long time (if at all) before these disgruntled women are able to put up a strong enough economic demand for companies to change their policy. A law reduces this lag time.
2. Your point is quite interesting, never thought of it that way. I doubt that the poorest 1% of the population can create any economic demand - they may have compelling needs (e.g. homeless shelters) but if they can't pay for them who would want to cater to them? On the contrary, a man with billions of dollars can create sufficient economic demand for almost anything (e.g. trip to the moon) and markets will oblige with a supply. As for the merits of democracy, I believe it's still the most equitable form as all other forms of government end up with someone having more than 1/N influence over others. If your question was why do we need government at all then I believe a separate thread is needed.
3. I grant you that high levels of economy, wealth, technology are likely to be more effective deterrents to war than a strong military. But for whatever reason if a war is underway your best bet is still the presence of an effective military. Taking your example, World war 2 ended when a more powerful military entered the fray against Germany. But military is just an example, you could take immigration control / border patrol or police and the same questions apply.
A comment on Conversation: The role of government
1. Private companies are mandated to maximize shareholder value. It's hard to find incentives for them to bring about any social good if it conflicts with a profit motive and I feel in such cases government (or judiciary) may legitimately intervene e.g. paid maternity leaves as an extension to gender equality at work
2. As you mention in a previous post "company's goal is to make profit, government's goal is to get votes" - not everyone has equal wealth but everyone does have equal voting rights. I believe a private enterprise may be more efficient at execution of ideas or services, but governments need to play the crucial role of setting a framework in which profit mongering of free-markets does not imply ignoring the needs of poor.
3. Military: I see you begging the question why U.S. needs to spend so much money on it, but assuming that it needs to at least spend some money on a basic military we can ask whether it should be run privately or by government. If it was a private enterprise, who would pay for it? I know that if the military is to prevent an invasion into the country, it would save everyone in the country not just the ones who pay for the private protection; so what would be the incentive for everyone to fund the military? There are clearly parts which can be outsourced to private companies but the military as an institution still needs to be operated on tax payer's dime and hence the role of government.