Deadweight loss

[boedicca]

I'm amazed that her dog hasn't chewed off one of its legs to escape from her by now.

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you understand that you just proved that taxes and government subsides of any type are bad for the economy?

Explain your thinking.

Explain my thinking?

Did you read what you posted? Can you read at all?

Conversely, deadweight loss can also come from consumers buying a product even if it costs more than it benefits them. To describe this, let's use the same nail market, but instead it will be perfectly competitive, with the government giving a 3 cent subsidy to every nail produced. This 3 cent subsidy will push the market price of each nail down to 7 cents. Some consumers then buy nails even though the benefit to them is less than the real cost of 10 cents. This unneeded expense then creates the deadweight loss: resources are not being used efficiently.

Subsidies bad.

If the price of a glass of beer is $3.00 and the price of a glass of wine is $3.00, a consumer might prefer to drink beer. If the government decides to levy a beer tax of $3.00 per glass, the consumer might prefer to drink wine. The excess burden of taxation is the loss of utility to the consumer for drinking wine instead of beer, since everything else remains unchanged. Most notably the tax revenue from this consumer is zero.

Taxes bad.

Subsidies and taxes are deadweight on the economy because, all else being equal, they artificially reallocate resources.

Just in case you try to trot out raising taxes on both beer and wine, those taxes would normally be used to buy something of use to the taxpayer. This forces him to choose between the beer or wine and whatever else he would spend the money on.

Do we need to charge taxes? Yes. But they are not good for anyone, which is why they should be kept to a minimum, and we should completely eliminate subsidies, because they just eat up tax dollars that are too high anyway.

The taxes we raise should be spent on things that the governed society deems needed.

The whole idea of government is to give the people control over what their lives are like.

The taxes raised on taxing both beer and wine at the same rate would like any other taxes then be apllied to what the people agree they need to do as a society.

You have a political policy that sees taxes as BAD because you hate government.

No one ENJOYS paying any bill.

People do enjoy the benifits of paying those bills in the form of the service or item purchased.


Subsides are a tool to direct a small sector of our economy in a direction more benificial to the overall society desided by said society through the democratic process. It is NOT inherently bad. Tools are not bad or good by their mere exsistance.


Taxes are not proved bad in that example no matter how many times you claim they are. They again are a tool. The buyer gains back the taxes paid in services by the government.

Now would you like to deal with the FIRST example of the monopoly ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you think there is no differeance between the example and reality?


What happens if you tax both the beer and wine only a nickle.

people still buy both.

The tax amount in the example was three dollars to help you unedrstand the point.

Are you really so inept you think it was a suggestion of policy?

If you want to replace all current taxes with a 1.66% tax on beer and wine, you'll have my support.
Is there any level of beer and wine taxation that will reduce purchases?
What level might that be?

 

[syrenn]

Explain your thinking.

Explain my thinking?

Did you read what you posted? Can you read at all?



Subsidies bad.

If the price of a glass of beer is $3.00 and the price of a glass of wine is $3.00, a consumer might prefer to drink beer. If the government decides to levy a beer tax of $3.00 per glass, the consumer might prefer to drink wine. The excess burden of taxation is the loss of utility to the consumer for drinking wine instead of beer, since everything else remains unchanged. Most notably the tax revenue from this consumer is zero.

Taxes bad.

Subsidies and taxes are deadweight on the economy because, all else being equal, they artificially reallocate resources.

Just in case you try to trot out raising taxes on both beer and wine, those taxes would normally be used to buy something of use to the taxpayer. This forces him to choose between the beer or wine and whatever else he would spend the money on.

Do we need to charge taxes? Yes. But they are not good for anyone, which is why they should be kept to a minimum, and we should completely eliminate subsidies, because they just eat up tax dollars that are too high anyway.

The taxes we raise should be spent on things that the governed society deems needed.

The whole idea of government is to give the people control over what their lives are like.

The taxes raised on taxing both beer and wine at the same rate would like any other taxes then be apllied to what the people agree they need to do as a society.

You have a political policy that sees taxes as BAD because you hate government.

No one ENJOYS paying any bill.

People do enjoy the benifits of paying those bills in the form of the service or item purchased.


Subsides are a tool to direct a small sector of our economy in a direction more benificial to the overall society desided by said society through the democratic process. It is NOT inherently bad. Tools are not bad or good by their mere exsistance.


Taxes are not proved bad in that example no matter how many times you claim they are. They again are a tool. The buyer gains back the taxes paid in services by the government.

Now would you like to deal with the FIRST example of the monopoly ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The taxes we raise should be spent on things that the governed society deems needed.

If society, by which you mean people like you, deems we need something they are free to spend their money on it.

The government should only spend money on things that are absolutely needed that cannot be supplied by private enterprise.

The whole idea of government is to give the people control over what their lives are like.

You don't believe that, why say it? If you believed that you would have no problem if the government told you to go to church.

The taxes raised on taxing both beer and wine at the same rate would like any other taxes then be apllied to what the people agree they need to do as a society.

No, they would be like any other tax that artificially changes the allocation of resources. That was the entire point of the article you posted.

You have a political policy that sees taxes as BAD because you hate government.

No, I see it as bad because that is what common sense, and the article you posted, both tell me. You see it as good because you spout the same failed talking points. Taxes are a deadweight loss.

No one ENJOYS paying any bill.

I don't know about that. There are a lot of different people out there, and a lot of different methods of payment. I would be willing to bet that someone out there enjoys paying bills.

People do enjoy the benifits of paying those bills in the form of the service or item purchased.

This is where you fall short, again. It does not matter if some people enjoy the benefit of taxes, they are still a deadweight loss on the economy and market. We should not judge government services by how much people enjoy the benefit, or even how many people benefit, we should judge them only by the need for them.

Subsides are a tool to direct a small sector of our economy in a direction more benificial to the overall society desided by said society through the democratic process. It is NOT inherently bad. Tools are not bad or good by their mere exsistance.

Apparently you missed the point of the article you posted. Subsidies artificially deflate the price of the target of the subsidy, and cause people that would not benefit from it to buy it at the reduced price. That not only artificially changes the market, it actually increases the price by removing the market incentives that would help drive the price down.

Taxes are not proved bad in that example no matter how many times you claim they are. They again are a tool. The buyer gains back the taxes paid in services by the government.

Services that, if we run the government the way you say we should, the buyer never actually benefits from. Which means he does not get any return on most of his taxes.

Now would you like to deal with the FIRST example of the monopoly ?

Why should I? The monopoly described is an extreme that never exists in the real world. Neither does a perfectly balanced market where a product sells for exactly what it costs to produce. They are not examples, they are paramaers used to define the market, which is everything in between them.

 

[syrenn]

Having fun talking to a turnip QW?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The taxes we raise should be spent on things that the governed society deems needed.

If society, by which you mean people like you, deems we need something they are free to spend their money on it.

The government should only spend money on things that are absolutely needed that cannot be supplied by private enterprise.

The whole idea of government is to give the people control over what their lives are like.

You don't believe that, why say it? If you believed that you would have no problem if the government told you to go to church.



No, they would be like any other tax that artificially changes the allocation of resources. That was the entire point of the article you posted.



No, I see it as bad because that is what common sense, and the article you posted, both tell me. You see it as good because you spout the same failed talking points. Taxes are a deadweight loss.



I don't know about that. There are a lot of different people out there, and a lot of different methods of payment. I would be willing to bet that someone out there enjoys paying bills.



This is where you fall short, again. It does not matter if some people enjoy the benefit of taxes, they are still a deadweight loss on the economy and market. We should not judge government services by how much people enjoy the benefit, or even how many people benefit, we should judge them only by the need for them.



Apparently you missed the point of the article you posted. Subsidies artificially deflate the price of the target of the subsidy, and cause people that would not benefit from it to buy it at the reduced price. That not only artificially changes the market, it actually increases the price by removing the market incentives that would help drive the price down.

Taxes are not proved bad in that example no matter how many times you claim they are. They again are a tool. The buyer gains back the taxes paid in services by the government.

Services that, if we run the government the way you say we should, the buyer never actually benefits from. Which means he does not get any return on most of his taxes.

Now would you like to deal with the FIRST example of the monopoly ?

Why should I? The monopoly described is an extreme that never exists in the real world. Neither does a perfectly balanced market where a product sells for exactly what it costs to produce. They are not examples, they are paramaers used to define the market, which is everything in between them.

If you want truthnevermatters to reply to this, you have to send it to the HuffyPuffyPostie so they can issue the talking points to her.

 

[syrenn]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The taxes we raise should be spent on things that the governed society deems needed.

If society, by which you mean people like you, deems we need something they are free to spend their money on it.

The government should only spend money on things that are absolutely needed that cannot be supplied by private enterprise.

The whole idea of government is to give the people control over what their lives are like.

You don't believe that, why say it? If you believed that you would have no problem if the government told you to go to church.



No, they would be like any other tax that artificially changes the allocation of resources. That was the entire point of the article you posted.



No, I see it as bad because that is what common sense, and the article you posted, both tell me. You see it as good because you spout the same failed talking points. Taxes are a deadweight loss.



I don't know about that. There are a lot of different people out there, and a lot of different methods of payment. I would be willing to bet that someone out there enjoys paying bills.



This is where you fall short, again. It does not matter if some people enjoy the benefit of taxes, they are still a deadweight loss on the economy and market. We should not judge government services by how much people enjoy the benefit, or even how many people benefit, we should judge them only by the need for them.



Apparently you missed the point of the article you posted. Subsidies artificially deflate the price of the target of the subsidy, and cause people that would not benefit from it to buy it at the reduced price. That not only artificially changes the market, it actually increases the price by removing the market incentives that would help drive the price down.

Taxes are not proved bad in that example no matter how many times you claim they are. They again are a tool. The buyer gains back the taxes paid in services by the government.

Services that, if we run the government the way you say we should, the buyer never actually benefits from. Which means he does not get any return on most of his taxes.

Now would you like to deal with the FIRST example of the monopoly ?

Why should I? The monopoly described is an extreme that never exists in the real world. Neither does a perfectly balanced market where a product sells for exactly what it costs to produce. They are not examples, they are paramaers used to define the market, which is everything in between them.

I love it when idiots post stuff that disproves their claims. Poor TDM.

 

[Truthmatters]

The taxes we raise should be spent on things that the governed society deems needed.

If society, by which you mean people like you, deems we need something they are free to spend their money on it.

The government should only spend money on things that are absolutely needed that cannot be supplied by private enterprise. You do not get to deside what the American people vote for , you can only vote for yourself

The whole idea of government is to give the people control over what their lives are like.

You don't believe that, why say it? If you believed that you would have no problem if the government told you to go to church.
This doies not even make sense, Of course the whole purpose of the government our founders left us was to give the people power.


No, they would be like any other tax that artificially changes the allocation of resources. That was the entire point of the article you posted.
No the entire point of the article is to define deadweight loss. Taxes are not arificial they are tools like any other tool our government gives the people to have control over the powers that would enslave us in the search for yet more power


No, I see it as bad because that is what common sense, and the article you posted, both tell me. You see it as good because you spout the same failed talking points. Taxes are a deadweight loss.you see themn as bad and have given no good reason to see them as bad. They are a tool and tools are not good or bad they are merely ways to achieve what you want.




I don't know about that. There are a lot of different people out there, and a lot of different methods of payment. I would be willing to bet that someone out there enjoys paying bills.



This is where you fall short, again. It does not matter if some people enjoy the benefit of taxes, they are still a deadweight loss on the economy and market. We should not judge government services by how much people enjoy the benefit, or even how many people benefit, we should judge them only by the need for them.
The people can deside it how ever they want to deside it, you are just one vote


Apparently you missed the point of the article you posted. Subsidies artificially deflate the price of the target of the subsidy, and cause people that would not benefit from it to buy it at the reduced price. That not only artificially changes the market, it actually increases the price by removing the market incentives that would help drive the price down.Again they are tools to direct the market in a way that benifits whastever the people deside is best for them

Taxes are not proved bad in that example no matter how many times you claim they are. They again are a tool. The buyer gains back the taxes paid in services by the government.

Services that, if we run the government the way you say we should, the buyer never actually benefits from. Which means he does not get any return on most of his taxes.
How can you say no benifit was gained from the services when the example includes no discussion of the services? You see it is an example to help you understand the term and NOT a policy suggestion Why cant you be honest about that?

Now would you like to deal with the FIRST example of the monopoly ?

Why should I? The monopoly described is an extreme that never exists in the real world. Neither does a perfectly balanced market where a product sells for exactly what it costs to produce. They are not examples, they are paramaers used to define the market, which is everything in between them.

Oh so you ONLY deal with the things you want to deal with and then make up crap about them as you go along.



Tell us all why you think monopolies are an impossibility and never happen?

 

[Truthmatters]

The monopoly described is an extreme that never exists in the real world?


Where did you get this thinking from?

Who told you this lie?

 

[Truthmatters]

Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Examples of monopolies
The salt commission, a legal monopoly in China formed in 758.
British East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in 1600.
Dutch East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in 1602.
Western Union was criticized as a price gouging monopoly in the late 19th century.[88]
Standard Oil; broken up in 1911, two of its surviving "baby companies" are ExxonMobil and the Chevron Corporation.
U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922, though its special status is still in dispute as of 2009.
United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer holding company forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the 1960s, convicted of being an illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up in 1982.
De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s.
Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined by the European Commission in 2004 for 497 million Euros. [89] which was upheld for the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007. The fine was 1.35 Billion USD in 2008 for noncompliance with the 2004 rule.[90][91]
Joint Commission; has a monopoly over whether or not US hospitals are able to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Telecom New Zealand; local loop unbundling enforced by central government.
Deutsche Telekom; former state monopoly, still partially state owned, currently monopolizes high-speed VDSL broadband network.[92]
Monsanto has been sued by competitors for anti-trust and monopolistic practices. They hold between 70% and 100% of the commercial seed market.
AAFES has a monopoly on retail sales at overseas military installations.
State stores in certain United States states.
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA)
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh so you ONLY deal with the things you want to deal with and then make up crap about them as you go along.



Tell us all why you think monopolies are an impossibility and never happen?

Your post doesn't even make sense.

Did you read what I said at all?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The monopoly described is an extreme that never exists in the real world?


Where did you get this thinking from?

Who told you this lie?

Monopolies like that only happen if the government helps them eliminate the competition through regulation and rent seeking. Even them, black markets spring up to provide alternative means of supply. Monopolies never happen in the real world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Examples of monopolies
The salt commission, a legal monopoly in China formed in 758.
British East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in 1600.
Dutch East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in 1602.
Western Union was criticized as a price gouging monopoly in the late 19th century.[88]
Standard Oil; broken up in 1911, two of its surviving "baby companies" are ExxonMobil and the Chevron Corporation.
U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922, though its special status is still in dispute as of 2009.
United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer holding company forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the 1960s, convicted of being an illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up in 1982.
De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s.
Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined by the European Commission in 2004 for 497 million Euros. [89] which was upheld for the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007. The fine was 1.35 Billion USD in 2008 for noncompliance with the 2004 rule.[90][91]
Joint Commission; has a monopoly over whether or not US hospitals are able to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Telecom New Zealand; local loop unbundling enforced by central government.
Deutsche Telekom; former state monopoly, still partially state owned, currently monopolizes high-speed VDSL broadband network.[92]
Monsanto has been sued by competitors for anti-trust and monopolistic practices. They hold between 70% and 100% of the commercial seed market.
AAFES has a monopoly on retail sales at overseas military installations.
State stores in certain United States states.
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA)
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)

Every single example you listed was backed by the government, and has had to deal with illegal markets and competition. That even includes MLB.

By the way, AAFES does not have not a monopoly on all overseas military bases, NES covers the Navy and Marine bases.

 

[syrenn]

Oh so you ONLY deal with the things you want to deal with and then make up crap about them as you go along.



Tell us all why you think monopolies are an impossibility and never happen?

Your post doesn't even make sense.

Did you read what I said at all?

* raps knuckles on your think skull*

HHEELLLLLOOOO! Nothing liesmatters says makes any sense.

 

[Truthmatters]

The monopoly described is an extreme that never exists in the real world?


Where did you get this thinking from?

Who told you this lie?

Monopolies like that only happen if the government helps them eliminate the competition through regulation and rent seeking. Even them, black markets spring up to provide alternative means of supply. Monopolies never happen in the real world.

Now you are just making things up again

 

[Si modo]

The monopoly described is an extreme that never exists in the real world?


Where did you get this thinking from?

Who told you this lie?

Monopolies like that only happen if the government helps them eliminate the competition through regulation and rent seeking. Even them, black markets spring up to provide alternative means of supply. Monopolies never happen in the real world.

Now you are just making things up again

Another historically failed post by TM.

 

[Truthmatters]

History of monopolies in the United States. | EconEdLink

I think it may be you guys who failed history

 

[Si modo]

History of monopolies in the United States. | EconEdLink

I think it may be you guys who failed history

Another wiki link. Quelle surprise!