Tanstaafl Obama and Tesla...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

One of the risks of tabbed browsing, is that you'll find yourself with Talk Politics, the Oatmeal's ode to Nicola Tesla, The Technium, CNN.com, and some random Survivalist, Fitness, Sci-Fi Fandom, and Libertarian blogs all open in the same window and start to draw connections.

So the Survivalists and Libertarians are all in a tizzy about Obama's "You didn't build that" comment.

Now Examined in context, it’s pretty clear what the president was trying to say. It’s a re-hash of Elizabeth Warren's “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own” speech. Like Ms. Warren, Obama was making the argument that “wealthy, successful Americans” should pay a higher tax rate because they didn’t get to where they are without a lot of help from society. Now I suspect that several members of this forum have already stopped reading and rushed to the comments section to point that the line right before “you didn’t build that” was about roads and bridges – making it pretty clear that it was infrastructure the president was referring to, not businesses but no matter.

What matters is Tesla (or rather the internet's perception of him)


Tesla was a badass no question about it, perhapse on of the greatest inventors of this century if not ever. Unfortunately he was also completely unhinged. One of the more persistent internet narratives is that Tesla wanted to transmit free electricity to the people wirelessly but was stymied by an evil conspiracy of Wall Street Bankers and copper-wire salesmen lead by Thomas Edison.

The problem with this narrative is that electricity is never "free". You need a generator to move the electrons around and generate a differential. Without a way to meter the electricity how does that get paid for? Someone needs to mine transport ore, turn it into copper brass and steel, and then turn the copper brass and steel into a generator.

That's why "free" electricity was an economic non-starter, no Edison-lead conspiracy was needed.

"But wait!" i can hear the social democrats crying, "the government can pay for it." ok great, with what money? one must first have an income to pay taxes and Gerry the generator mechanic still needs to be able to pay his rent. What we're left with is a variation on the old chicken vs. egg problem.

Which leads us back to the Warren/Obama assertion.

It is a deflection from the real issue. In order to "tax the rich" you need rich people you can tax. With this in mind the government provides services. Things like police, firefighters, and infrastructure. The question we should really be asking is what's the economic value of these services, and is the government over or under-charging.

If you are successful in business how much of that do you owe your 2nd grade teacher?

If you win gold in the Olympics how much of that do you owe to your trainer's parents?

The knee-jerk conservative reaction is to lay it all on the individual because responsibility is empowering but the question needs to be asked.



PS: Before someone brings the whole Buffet thing...
If you think your tax rate should be higher you should pay more. The IRS accepts voluntary donations. Someone who says their tax-rate should be higher and isn't making said donations is a hypocrite pure and simple.

Comments

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

If you think your tax rate should be higher you should pay more. The IRS accepts voluntary donations.

I'm tired of seeing this argument. Please stop using it. Thanks.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Why?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Because I asked nicely? :P

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

If you would like to lower tax need, we're taking volunteers to stop taking public services.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Because our government is not a la carte. And because it's bad policy to try and fund public services by just asking and hoping people pay.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Who cares? If it was being done, then people wouldn't be talking about it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sigh, arguments based on science fiction and bizarre fringe nutbars' rantings and ravings? By this logic we should build a Gundam because Cthulhu.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Funny coming from a guy who quotes 40k in political discussions.

I refute your refutation. ;P

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Now that one makes sense to me.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This hand of mine glows with an awesome power...

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'd be happy with a flat or flatter tax code where rich people and I pay the same percentage on income, regardless of source.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I would too actually.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Such a system is inherently regressive, and I for one am opposed to all forms of regressive taxation.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Of all the things about Tesla, you think his wireless electricity is what Social Democrats will fall over themselves to defend? Really? That's weak, man.

The question we should really be asking is what's the economic value of these services, and is the government over or under-charging.

There is no quantifiable economic value. These things are indeed a money sink. The problem with conservatives is they believe the government should be run like a business, when that is the anti-thesis of what government services are. It's not a return on interest, it's not profit, it's about taking from that people and doing collectively what they couldn't individually, not for economic benefit but for social benefit. The government taxes me because I can't build or maintain a road by myself, but I would still like to use roads. I thought this was some pretty basic shit.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Of all the things about Tesla, you think his wireless electricity is what Social Democrats will fall over themselves to defend?

No it's the thing that I think best illustrates the fallacy of Warren and Obama's argument.

You've also failed to explain why paying taxes for things like roads and firefighters is fundementally different from paying for any other service.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

1) The problem with wireless electricity is not just that it cannot be "free". Also note that it is horribly inefficient (as compared to wired delivery) for transmission over any distance because of the pesky inverse square law. Any social commitment to provide subsidized power such that it appears free to the end user would be better served paying for power lines, just like businesses do.

2) " The question we should really be asking is what's the economic value of these services, and is the government over or under-charging" I would have thought that this is already an important part of the ongoing controversy. Any advocate of single payer that brings up the efficiency of medicare compared to insurance companies is comparing the cost of a service (spending on medicare) as compared to its market value (payments into private insurance). One may argue that the market value is distorted by various forces, or that the costs are similarly distorted. It is a heck of a Gordian knot, but it is part of the ongoing discussion.

3) Voluntary Taxation: Cries of "Shut up and pay extra if you want" miss the point, and indeed miss the point PURPOSEFULLY. I'm willing to up my contribution, but I'm not willing to be played for a patsy. I'll throw in to the pot if people at my income level ALSO throw into the port, and people above me in income throw MORE in the pot. the way we insure this, and prevent free riders, is via mandatory taxes.

Now, when a rich guy (like Stephen King here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html ) says "I need to be taxed more", that has significant moral authority, because they can't be dismissed as a freeloader looking for a handout. So, the political opposition has to find another way to dismiss them, and that's Christi's "Shut up and write a check!". In this way, the dismissal system is made complete.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm not willing to be played for a patsy.

Why do you see it that way?

If you think you should pay more and have the money to do so why wouldn't you?

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

So. What's wrong with making connections? :T

Let's demonize independent thought and all who practice it. You aren't living if you aren't allowing a pretentious purported expert to hold your hand, connect the dots for you, and indoctrinate you in terms of what you should think or believe.

Who dare some attempt to think about issues on their own. The nerve! I'm so offended not everyone is an automaton who mindlessly and brainlessly believes everything they see on MTV! : T

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

The government would presumably pay for it by charging a fee for electricity use, possibly based on property value/size or just a flat fee. We get charged for trash pick-up regardless of how much we throw away, after all.

In order to "tax the rich" you need rich people you can tax.

Yeah, like the guys who run FedEx and Google and Chesapeake, all of which exist almost solely due to government investment. Infrastructure (physical and otherwise) tends to lead to new types of business, which tends to lead to more rich people.

The question we should really be asking is what's the economic value of these services, and is the government over or under-charging.

Well, yeah.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah.

Note that it is a question very rarely asked.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Herpaderp, if you want war, you should join the Army too.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Some of us did you know.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

"It is a deflection from the real issue. In order to "tax the rich" you need rich people you can tax."

We had plenty of rich people before the Bush tax cuts. We had plenty of rich people when the highest tax bracket was 70%.


With this in mind the government provides services. Things like police, firefighters, and infrastructure. The question we should really be asking is what's the economic value of these services, and is the government over or under-charging."

And the answer is that these are woefully underfunded.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

There was a time when nuclear energy promised "electricity too cheap to meter." High cost radiation leaks were not part of the plan.

I have benn involved in a variety of projects where the employees worked their butts off to create wealth while the share holders sat on their asses clipping coupons.