Comments on: How Much Blood The Vampire Sucks http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/ Sat, 17 May 2008 05:16:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: niloy http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7734 Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:39:56 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7734 I WENT THROUGH YOUR ARGUMENTS IT WAS VERY INTERESTING,CAN MrC.K.sir,give an explanation of the impoverished corrupted states of AFRICA,where govt officials siphons out large monies I WENT THROUGH YOUR ARGUMENTS IT WAS VERY INTERESTING,CAN MrC.K.sir,give an explanation of the impoverished corrupted states of AFRICA,where govt officials siphons out large monies

]]> by: Gaurav http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7727 Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:01:38 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7727 Cheers CK. And we understand that the logical fallacies, calculation mistakes and comprehension errors made by you during this discussion were in the heat of the argument and in no way reflect on your professional abilities. Cheers CK. And we understand that the logical fallacies, calculation mistakes and comprehension errors made by you during this discussion were in the heat of the argument and in no way reflect on your professional abilities.

]]> by: Gaurav http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7726 Wed, 15 Mar 2006 02:54:20 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7726 sid, Don't take the effort of pointing out that in your model, a malnourished individual is defined as one who doesnt use traps and is thus A. If B stops using traps to avoid the tax, he too becomes malnourished by this definition. That there are no X Y and Z who need to be brought in. CK however has, inspite of your describing the model in simple english, brought in X, Y and Z just so he can poke an imaginary hole in it. He knows it is nonsense. But it saves the time and the mental effort of thinking up a real argument for your model. sid,

Don’t take the effort of pointing out that in your model, a malnourished individual is defined as one who doesnt use traps and is thus A. If B stops using traps to avoid the tax, he too becomes malnourished by this definition. That there are no X Y and Z who need to be brought in.

CK however has, inspite of your describing the model in simple english, brought in X, Y and Z just so he can poke an imaginary hole in it. He knows it is nonsense. But it saves the time and the mental effort of thinking up a real argument for your model.

]]> by: Ck. http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7719 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:53:21 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7719 Exactly - redistribution compensates for the damage. The question that we as an electorate should ask is what kind of redistribution compensates for the damage such that there is no loss of wealth. I've never maintained that the government is the paragon of all virtue and efficiency. But I have looked far and wide for a better alternative - I've looked into libertarianism, flirted with dictatorship, considered Anarcho Capitalism - but so far have come up empty handed as to the best system. The saving grace of the present system (democratic government with some controls on the economy) is that it is democratically elected - you have a choice. Don't like the taxes, move to a country which has lower taxes (unfortunately don't think you will find one which has no taxes - maybe the Caymans). Don't like how your taxes are being spent - vote out the candidate wasting your money, think you can do a better job - run for election. None of these are easy but I really haven't seen a better way. Anyways I think I am done with this subject for the present. I thank all those who contributed to the discussion. It did get heated at points and ad hominem attacks were launched but from my side they were all in the heat of the argument no offense intended and none taken. You all are really a fine bunch of people and I enjoy the parry and thrust. Thanks for living up to the being the "Argumentative Indians" and to all those from other countries who participated. I'm sure the debate will rage on - or perhaps not but it has been enlightening for me. My point of view has not changed but I have learned more which is the point of all this after all. Cheers all. Until next time. Exactly - redistribution compensates for the damage. The question that we as an electorate should ask is what kind of redistribution compensates for the damage such that there is no loss of wealth. I’ve never maintained that the government is the paragon of all virtue and efficiency. But I have looked far and wide for a better alternative - I’ve looked into libertarianism, flirted with dictatorship, considered Anarcho Capitalism - but so far have come up empty handed as to the best system. The saving grace of the present system (democratic government with some controls on the economy) is that it is democratically elected - you have a choice. Don’t like the taxes, move to a country which has lower taxes (unfortunately don’t think you will find one which has no taxes - maybe the Caymans). Don’t like how your taxes are being spent - vote out the candidate wasting your money, think you can do a better job - run for election. None of these are easy but I really haven’t seen a better way.

Anyways I think I am done with this subject for the present. I thank all those who contributed to the discussion. It did get heated at points and ad hominem attacks were launched but from my side they were all in the heat of the argument no offense intended and none taken. You all are really a fine bunch of people and I enjoy the parry and thrust. Thanks for living up to the being the “Argumentative Indians” and to all those from other countries who participated. I’m sure the debate will rage on - or perhaps not but it has been enlightening for me. My point of view has not changed but I have learned more which is the point of all this after all. Cheers all. Until next time.

]]> by: Ravikiran http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7718 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:35:53 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7718 CK, your original point was that taxes do not damage the economy, they only redistribute wealth Now you are shifting the point to say that even though they damage the economy, it might still be worth the damage if the redistribution compensates for the damage. If you weren't so smart, I would have assumed that you were too dense to notice the shift. Now that by your own admission you are very smart, I must assume that you were planning to make fools of us. CK, your original point was that taxes do not damage the economy, they only redistribute wealth Now you are shifting the point to say that even though they damage the economy, it might still be worth the damage if the redistribution compensates for the damage.

If you weren’t so smart, I would have assumed that you were too dense to notice the shift. Now that by your own admission you are very smart, I must assume that you were planning to make fools of us.

]]> by: Ck. http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7715 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:11:22 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7715 Do I know you from somewhere Steven? Do I know you from somewhere Steven?

]]> by: Ck. http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7714 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:10:32 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7714 In response to Sid you said there were only three people in your economy - A, B and C but then say that there are other malnoursihed individuals so in fact there are more people in the economy that A, B and C . Is that correct? Let us call these malnourished people X and Y (correct me if I am wrong in this assumption) that do not happen to catch rabbits. So yes as a result of the tax on traps, the net production of rabbits goes down but here is the second half of the story that people ignore - where do the tax rabbits go? They go to X and Y who are malnourished and would die without the rabbits stolen/taxed (depending on your perspective) from B and C. The valid question then to task is what are the lives of X and Y worth to the island economy. Societies keep people alive even if the amount they are not contributing to the economy. For the sake of argument ignore the morality of the question of life. Is there anything that X and Y produce that is worthwhile to the island economy that it is worth the 20 rabbits a month? What if X now nourished by the 10 of the 20 rabbits he receives starts hunting his own rabbits or if Y now that his food needs have been taken care of creates more efficient traps. The question that A, B and C should ask is whether X and Y should be the ones to receive the tax rabbits and whether by giving X and Y tax rabbits, the wealth of the island (you said that money was not the measure) is increased. Now X and Y may sit on their behinds and do absolutely nothing except live off the hand out that they receive but A, B, C, X and Y have a democratically elected government. If A, B and C feel that the rabbit tax is unfair, they can vote out the government as they have the majority and elect one that imposes a lower tax. If they haven't voted out the government, then it shows that they don't think that the tax is unfair and contributes to the wealth of their island if not their individual wealth. In response to Sid
you said there were only three people in your economy - A, B and C but then say that there are other malnoursihed individuals so in fact there are more people in the economy that A, B and C . Is that correct? Let us call these malnourished people X and Y (correct me if I am wrong in this assumption) that do not happen to catch rabbits.
So yes as a result of the tax on traps, the net production of rabbits goes down but here is the second half of the story that people ignore - where do the tax rabbits go? They go to X and Y who are malnourished and would die without the rabbits stolen/taxed (depending on your perspective) from B and C. The valid question then to task is what are the lives of X and Y worth to the island economy. Societies keep people alive even if the amount they are not contributing to the economy. For the sake of argument ignore the morality of the question of life. Is there anything that X and Y produce that is worthwhile to the island economy that it is worth the 20 rabbits a month? What if X now nourished by the 10 of the 20 rabbits he receives starts hunting his own rabbits or if Y now that his food needs have been taken care of creates more efficient traps.

The question that A, B and C should ask is whether X and Y should be the ones to receive the tax rabbits and whether by giving X and Y tax rabbits, the wealth of the island (you said that money was not the measure) is increased. Now X and Y may sit on their behinds and do absolutely nothing except live off the hand out that they receive but A, B, C, X and Y have a democratically elected government. If A, B and C feel that the rabbit tax is unfair, they can vote out the government as they have the majority and elect one that imposes a lower tax. If they haven’t voted out the government, then it shows that they don’t think that the tax is unfair and contributes to the wealth of their island if not their individual wealth.

]]> by: Ravikiran http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7712 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:32:16 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7712 Really CK? In that case what did you aim to prove with your model? Really CK? In that case what did you aim to prove with your model?

]]> by: Steven http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7711 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:21:13 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7711 Pardon me for butting in but if you are the same CK who works for R&A and worked on the PHT Network then I do not think everyone even in the offline world holds your abilities in high regards and you know it. If you are a different CK, my apologies. Pardon me for butting in but if you are the same CK who works for R&A and worked on the PHT Network then I do not think everyone even in the offline world holds your abilities in high regards and you know it. If you are a different CK, my apologies.

]]> by: Sid http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7710 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:18:39 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2006/03/03/how-much-blood-the-vampire-sucks/#comment-7710 Ck, the fact that we use money is not really relevant if you want to understand the concept of deadweight loss, it exists even if the economy does not use money. Let us look at one such example, where things can be seen more clearly. Suppose we have an island with 3 people (A, B and C), where the only source of wealth is rabbit hunting. One of them is inefficient, and uses stones as hunting tool. The other two make rabbit traps and try to be more efficient. The entire production can be described as follows : A : 10 rabbits a month. B : 30 rabbits a month. C : 60 rabbits a month. Total production : 100 rabbits. Change of situation : A government (assume that it is a highly efficient, corruption free government) decides that some redistribution should be done in order to help malnourished people who do not use traps. It puts a tax on traps , 25 rabbits per month for people who use traps. Being utility maximising individuals, C continues to use traps and B starts using stones as using traps is not profitable for him any longer. Current production : 60 10 10 = 80 rabbits. Distribution of wealth : C - 60 -25 = 35, A and B - 10 12.5 = 22.5 Clearly there is a loss of 20 rabbits per month. Note that what government gets from tax (25 rabbits from C) is not a part of this deadweight loss, loss of C is offset by the gains of A and B. In a real economy the same thing happens whenever the government imposes a tax on a productive activity. The marginal producers are forced to switch to less productive activities, and the total production goes down, along with a part of consumer and producer surplus. This is a net loss to the society, and it exists even if you assume that your government consists of ultra efficient, corruption free bureaucrat gods. Ck, the fact that we use money is not really relevant if you want to understand the concept of deadweight loss, it exists even if the economy does not use money. Let us look at one such example, where things can be seen more clearly.

Suppose we have an island with 3 people (A, B and C), where the only source of wealth is rabbit hunting. One of them is inefficient, and uses stones as hunting tool. The other two make rabbit traps and try to be more efficient. The entire production can be described as follows :

A : 10 rabbits a month.
B : 30 rabbits a month.
C : 60 rabbits a month.
Total production : 100 rabbits.

Change of situation : A government (assume that it is a highly efficient, corruption free government) decides that some redistribution should be done in order to help malnourished people who do not use traps. It puts a tax on traps , 25 rabbits per month for people who use traps. Being utility maximising individuals, C continues to use traps and B starts using stones as using traps is not profitable for him any longer.

Current production : 60 10 10 = 80 rabbits.
Distribution of wealth : C - 60 -25 = 35, A and B - 10 12.5 = 22.5

Clearly there is a loss of 20 rabbits per month. Note that what government gets from tax (25 rabbits from C) is not a part of this deadweight loss, loss of C is offset by the gains of A and B.

In a real economy the same thing happens whenever the government imposes a tax on a productive activity. The marginal producers are forced to switch to less productive activities, and the total production goes down, along with a part of consumer and producer surplus. This is a net loss to the society, and it exists even if you assume that your government consists of ultra efficient, corruption free bureaucrat gods.

]]>