Just before they put up the Einstein quote I was thinking… “so that’s what insanity looks like.”
I was trying to make the argument the other day.
1. Money is a stand-in for trade.
2. Taxes take money from producers.
3. Using taxes to fund “job creation” is involuntary trade.
The idea being that the government is forcing producers to hire people they don’t want to do work they don’t need.
After arguing with my opponent (who reads this blog) for an hour, I discovered that we don’t even agree on the first two points.
Well Trent, often I don’t get your abstracts, but this one I can agree.
I discovered that we don’t even agree on the first two points.
Wow, that’s pretty bad. Did you at least find agreement on the color of the sky? I have to ask.
I’d set it up as
1. Money is an abstraction of value. It serves as as accounting tool to track an individual’s claim on value from society.
2. Taxes take value from people (producers as taxes are structured).
3. Using taxes to fund “job creation” is involuntary transfer of value, aka theft.
I think Peterh’s formulation of Trent W’s argument is a definite improvement, as it defines its terms in a way that prevents any argument over the meaning of “trade” or “money.” The “aka theft” bit is a good way of spelling out the implication of the claim, though as an argument, it will surely raise the hackles of those inclined to disagree.
Except it introduces the horrid concept of “society”.. some improvement.
I think Trent’s first point works just fine, as is — at least when you’re dealing with someone who needs to have such things explained to them, and the point of a bullet point is to interest the other person in the explanation.
Money is a stand-in for trade — specifically, barter. But at some point the barterer will find that the person who has what he wants doesn’t want what he has. We’ve all seen, I’m sure, those stories about trading goods or favors with a variety of people so you can finally offer the person you want to trade with, something he’ll trade for.
Money simplifies the issue; if I can offer him something he knows he can trade for something he wants, I don’t need to offer him that thing in particular.
Introduce abstract concepts and “claims on value from society” and the people who don’t already have college course credit in economic theory are going to give you the face-to-face version of tl;dr.
1. Money is a stand-in for trade.
A bit of a clumsy way to express it. Saying money is a medium of exchange is much harder to disagree with even if it doesn’t exactly emphasize the point you are trying to emphasize.
2. Taxes take value from people
Now you changed from talking about money to talking about taxes with the added ambiguity of value.
3… involuntary trade
Again, clumsy. May I humbly offer…
1) People use money as a medium of trade.
2) The government takes money from people by taxation.
First find out it they agree with these simplified premises, then…
3) The government is not likely to spend the money taken as the person they took it from would like. This is theft.
Now you can argue what percentage is theft (they will never agree to 100%.) Your goal is simply to have them agree it’s more than zero percent.
Perhaps simpler, 1) People use money to buy things. You need to keep these points so simple there is no argument wiggle room.
Again, clumsy. May I humbly offer…
1) People use money as a medium of trade.
Without people using it, there wouldn’t be money. If it must be put in flowery language, how about this? “Money is the lingua franca of barter.”
For the last time, he’s not a Keynesian. We’ve all seen the birth certificate….
McGehee is a cunning linguist? Does his girlfriend know? His wife? Where was he last Tuesday? Does he have an alibi? A chiwawa. Chihuahua?
Who came up with that silly spelling anyway…
Squirrel!
(Evidence that sometimes it’s best not to hit the submit button.)
Just before they put up the Einstein quote I was thinking… “so that’s what insanity looks like.”
I was trying to make the argument the other day.
1. Money is a stand-in for trade.
2. Taxes take money from producers.
3. Using taxes to fund “job creation” is involuntary trade.
The idea being that the government is forcing producers to hire people they don’t want to do work they don’t need.
After arguing with my opponent (who reads this blog) for an hour, I discovered that we don’t even agree on the first two points.
Well Trent, often I don’t get your abstracts, but this one I can agree.
Wow, that’s pretty bad. Did you at least find agreement on the color of the sky? I have to ask.
I’d set it up as
1. Money is an abstraction of value. It serves as as accounting tool to track an individual’s claim on value from society.
2. Taxes take value from people (producers as taxes are structured).
3. Using taxes to fund “job creation” is involuntary transfer of value, aka theft.
I think Peterh’s formulation of Trent W’s argument is a definite improvement, as it defines its terms in a way that prevents any argument over the meaning of “trade” or “money.” The “aka theft” bit is a good way of spelling out the implication of the claim, though as an argument, it will surely raise the hackles of those inclined to disagree.
Except it introduces the horrid concept of “society”.. some improvement.
I think Trent’s first point works just fine, as is — at least when you’re dealing with someone who needs to have such things explained to them, and the point of a bullet point is to interest the other person in the explanation.
Money is a stand-in for trade — specifically, barter. But at some point the barterer will find that the person who has what he wants doesn’t want what he has. We’ve all seen, I’m sure, those stories about trading goods or favors with a variety of people so you can finally offer the person you want to trade with, something he’ll trade for.
Money simplifies the issue; if I can offer him something he knows he can trade for something he wants, I don’t need to offer him that thing in particular.
Introduce abstract concepts and “claims on value from society” and the people who don’t already have college course credit in economic theory are going to give you the face-to-face version of tl;dr.
1. Money is a stand-in for trade.
A bit of a clumsy way to express it. Saying money is a medium of exchange is much harder to disagree with even if it doesn’t exactly emphasize the point you are trying to emphasize.
2. Taxes take value from people
Now you changed from talking about money to talking about taxes with the added ambiguity of value.
3… involuntary trade
Again, clumsy. May I humbly offer…
1) People use money as a medium of trade.
2) The government takes money from people by taxation.
First find out it they agree with these simplified premises, then…
3) The government is not likely to spend the money taken as the person they took it from would like. This is theft.
Now you can argue what percentage is theft (they will never agree to 100%.) Your goal is simply to have them agree it’s more than zero percent.
Perhaps simpler, 1) People use money to buy things. You need to keep these points so simple there is no argument wiggle room.
Without people using it, there wouldn’t be money. If it must be put in flowery language, how about this? “Money is the lingua franca of barter.”
For the last time, he’s not a Keynesian. We’ve all seen the birth certificate….
McGehee is a cunning linguist? Does his girlfriend know? His wife? Where was he last Tuesday? Does he have an alibi? A chiwawa. Chihuahua?
Who came up with that silly spelling anyway…
Squirrel!
(Evidence that sometimes it’s best not to hit the submit button.)