Some demands people make are "Crybaby" demands. But not all.
The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".
No, "crybaby economics" doesn't just mean someone demands more, like "a larger share" of something. Some such demands are legitimate.
the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas.
E.g., if you're mugged on the street and all your money is taken, you're entitled to complain that you "deserve" back what was taken from you. Or, if a deal is agreed to between 2 parties, in a contract they sign and which requires payment by one to the other, it's not necessarily "crybaby economics" for one to complain that the other violated the terms, or that one's "share" turned out less than what was agreed to.
Your examples are ridiculous because they do not deal with "deserve a larger share".
Yes they do. If you're robbed, are you not deprived of "your share"? You are short "your share" by the amount that was removed from you by the robber. For compensation a court would reward you back what was taken plus costs for any injury or inconvenience. If you never get compensated, then you never recover "your share" that was taken from you. How can you say the victim of this robbery is a "crybaby" for complaining that they're entitled to this compensation or restoration of "their share" of the total wealth which they had prior to being robbed? Even if the victim is mistaken in thinking that the compensation is possible, s/he still is not a "crybaby" for claiming that they wrongly lost "their share" and that they "deserve" it back if it were possible to recover it.
And isn't a party to a contract deprived of "their fair share" if the other party defaults by violating the terms? How is that one defrauded being a "crybaby" to demand compensation or damages? Didn't the ones defrauded by Bernie Madoff "deserve a larger share" than what he had left them with?
Aren't there many cases of someone getting ripped off by another? in both civil and criminal cases? Isn't the victim in each case deprived of "their fair share" of the property or assets because of the criminal or fraudulent behavior of the perpetrator? Doesn't that victim "deserve a larger share" than what that perpetrator left them with?
And doesn't the tax law mean that the government "deserves a share" of an individual citizen's wealth? How can taxes be required and be collected forcefully unless the amount collected is recognized as being the proper "share" that the state is entitled to, and which it "deserves" to have? And how is it not so that it "deserves a larger share" from a certain taxpayer who evaded paying? or if certain interests are rigging the system to escape paying a "share" proportional to the benefits they demand to be provided to them by the state?
"Crybaby Economics" means demanding something you're NOT entitled to, or something which you did NOT earn or gain through merit. It does not mean demanding something if you are entitled to it.
Whereas,
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
defines "Crybaby Economics" as demanding anything at all, including something you're entitled to.
There is such a thing as being entitled to something, or rightfully owning something, though being deprived of it, or deserving something because it's yours or you gained it legitimately. There is legitimate and non-legitimate demand for something or claimed ownership of something.
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
means that a slave is a crybaby for demanding to be set free, because he thinks he's entitled to a "larger share" in life than the slaveowner allows him.
You're wrong to imply that slaves were crybabies for demanding "a larger share" than was given to them by the economic or legal system in which they lived.
The term "Crybaby Economics" doesn't mean any demand at all for "a larger share" -- it means that someone demands something which inflicts an undue cost onto others in order to pay for it. There can be disagreement on what is an undue cost, or what the cost vs. benefit is when someone makes a demand. But you cannot brand every demand anyone makes as a "crybaby" demand simply because they claim to "deserve more" than they have or claim they got gypped or cheated, etc. There are legitimate demands for "more" or a "larger share" in some cases.
Not every demand for "a larger share" is a crybaby demand. As you're claiming when you say
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
Claiming to "deserve a larger share" is not
ipso facto a crybaby demand, or a case of "Crybaby Economics."
If it's true that
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
then the state is being a crybaby to require a tax evader to pay more or be prosecuted. It means anyone wanting tax loopholes to be eliminated is a crybaby. If that's what "crybaby economics" means, then even President Reagan was being a crybaby when he promoted tax law reforms to eliminate some tax loopholes for the rich.
Reforming tax law to require the rich to pay more is based on the premise that the state "deserves a larger share" of revenue from those taxpayers. But it's not "crybaby economics" to require the rich to pay more in cases where they're not paying enough. Not all demands to get "more" from someone are "crybaby" demands.
The word "crybaby" does not describe every possible demand anyone might make, or every possible complaint someone has that they "deserve" something or that they ended up with less than their entitlement.
No one said it did.
This statement says that:
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
It says that anytime someone demands "a larger share" of something, it's "crybaby economics," no matter how legitimate the demand might be. There is such a thing as a legitimate demand for "a larger share" of something, in some cases, and this is denied by the statement
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
which brands all such demands as "crybaby" demands, no matter how legitimate they may be.
The idea that the whole society "deserves" a "share" in the wealth of certain super-rich members, like oil tycoons etc., isn't necessarily a "crybaby" idea. (Maybe it is in some cases, but in other cases it is a legitimate idea.) These issues are settled by looking at all the facts, such as the social costs and benefits, and trying to maximize the benefits to everyone and minimize the costs.
"Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But not all demands are "crybaby" demands. Bernie's demand for a tax on Wall Street is not a "crybaby" demand like his China-bashing trade demands are.
Your word salad is special pleading for your crybaby economics because there is no
objective reason for your target recipients to get what you feel they deserve.
No, it's not "special pleading" to say one thing is right and another thing wrong. There are reasons to favor one but oppose another.
There are objective reasons to meet some demands and not others, or for some "target recipients" to receive what they demand and others not to. Trump and Sanders demand certain benefits to steel companies and auto companies, or pander to their demands, such as for higher protective barriers against imports. This is a crybaby demand because it benefits those companies only, and their workers, and imposes an undue cost onto 330 million U.S. consumers, thus inflicting damage onto the greater number while benefiting a small minority special interest.
But by contrast a tax on Wall Street would benefit the whole population equally by providing revenue far more efficiently than what is collected from income tax, so that a far greater fraction of each dollar collected would go to paying the budget expenses and a much smaller fraction paid toward enforcement of the tax collection. So this would benefit the whole country, not just a small special interest as with the bad trade policies.
So there are good reasons to favor one and oppose the other. It's not "special pleading" to agree on one point and disagree on another.
You are incorrect. You like to call "cry baby economics" policy proposals that allow people to receive more than what they create in the market even when there are reasons to favor those policies.
Let's take specific examples:
Autoworkers and steelworkers are paid more than they create in value, based on supply-and-demand. It would be easy to hire workers to do that work (based on competition only) and pay them only half or 2/3 as much. They are protected categories because they are
high-profile workers who get extra attention -- not because there is any greater need for them. (Also, they aren't necessarily the best example of crybabies, but just easy examples to use to make the point. It's obvious that they get special treatment in terms of being protected against foreign competition, such as Trump protected them with increased barriers against foreign competition.)
They
receive more than what they create in the market"
Yes, because of the extra protection against foreign competition. But
there are reasons to favor those policies
of paying them more than the value they create? What are those reasons? What reason ever is there to pay someone more than the value they create (based on market supply-and-demand)?
There is no shortage of autoworkers and steelworkers. The main reason to pay someone more is that there is a shortage of them, or not enough to meet the market demand. What other reason is there? Why should autoworkers and steelworkers in particular be paid more than their market value?
If you claim there's a special reason to pay autoworkers and steelworkers more than their market value, you have to tell us what that reason is.
There are reasons to pay NO ONE more than their market value. To pay certain workers more than their value causes a disincentive in the economy, to draw them away from where they're really needed. There are many places in the economy where we need those workers much more than we need them in auto and steel production. There will never be any shortage of steelworkers or autoworkers (as automation eliminates more and more factory jobs).
Today in the U.S. there is a much greater need for plumbers and electricians and firefighters, to name only a few categories where there is a shortage. What is the reason to attract workers away from plumbing and electrical work and firefighting, where they're needed, and into auto and steel manufacturing, where there is an oversupply of workers?
Unless you can answer this, you cannot claim there "are reasons to favor those policies" of paying autoworkers and steelworkers more than their market value. The only apparent reason is that these 2 job categories are very conspicuous, as traditional job types which have nostalgic interest, and we feel sorry for these workers, like they are heroes of some kind, similar to war heroes.
It's not that they aren't more valuable than some types, like cab drivers or fast-food workers, etc. But they're not worth the typical $30/hour wage level plus generous union benefits. What they are worth is whatever level the market would pay them, determined by the competition and other market factors. The more they need the government to protect them against competition, the greater is the discrepancy between their real value and what they're paid.
No one can give a reason why these or any other special category of worker or business should be entitled to protection against competition.
Every policy proposal has reasons driving its support and every proposal has reasons against it.
Then tell us what the reasons are for giving certain producers protection against having to compete. All you're saying is that there must be a good reason for it or it wouldn't be so. So by that logic, everything the government does is automatically the right thing to do, exactly, and not one detail should be changed, because whatever it is now has to be right because there has to be a reason for it, even though no one can say what the reason is.
We're entitled to an explanation why job-seekers should be drawn away from firefighting and plumbing and electrical work, where there's a shortage, and into auto and steel manufacturing, where there is no shortage. This is what we're doing, under protectionists like Trump and Biden and Sanders, and you can't give any reason for it, other than to just say "Every policy proposal has reasons driving its support" and so it must be the right thing to do. I.e., this system is "the best of all possible worlds," so don't question it.
Your proposal fits that category.
What category? My proposal is that no one should be paid more than their market value or be protected against having to compete, or protected from the forces of supply-and-demand. You're not answering why some categories of producers, e.g., steelworkers and autoworkers, should be protected against competition and paid more than the supply-and-demand value of what they produce.
It is an example of "crybaby economics".
What is? According to you, it is "crybaby economics" for the IRS to require the super-rich to pay what they owe. Or it's "crybaby economics" to want some tax loopholes eliminated. According to you, all taxpayer loopholes should be preserved, no matter what, and anyone who suggests eliminating a tax loophole is a "crybaby" for wanting those super-rich to pay a "larger share" -- because to ever require a "larger share" is "crybaby economics" according to you:
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
Your "maximizing the benefits to everyone" standard is ill-defined handwaving to justify your normative economics (or what people call "political views).
What is "ill-defined" about maximizing benefit to people?
"Benefits" are ill-defined. How are those "benefits" measured.
Of course in "Economics" it's not precise to quantify the "costs and benefits" and measure exactly how much harm and benefit is gained in every decision or every action taken. You could debunk any policy or action or any decision ever taken by any decision-maker, ever in history, by just saying they don't have a perfect method to scientifically measure each cost or benefit.
But we have to make the decisions somehow, and there are ways to approximate the costs and benefits. And measurements in dollars (or other monetary units) are used, as a convenience, to try to simplify it. Figures like GDP are used -- they are not precise, and there are philosophical shortcomings with any such quantities, or with "dollars" or other such units of measure. But the estimates are useful, and we have to use some measures or quantities for making the judgments.
It should not be difficult for you to understand that the demand for firefighters and plumbers today is greater than the demand for steelworkers. These basic facts can guide us in figuring out what the best policies are, even though we cannot precisely quantify all the costs and benefits of every act or decision. If you demand such precise measurement for every decision or judgment made, then there can never be any economic decision about anything.
You are not arguing against anything I've said, but against every economic decision or public policy ever made in history by anyone of any ideological camp.
Why are you against people benefiting? What do you favor instead?
I m not against people benefitting as a general rule. I am simply pointing out you are unwittingly displaying a blatant double standard.
Whatever you mean by that, I'll try to avoid doing it in the future.
In the meantime, why don't you make yourself useful and explain why certain categories of producers should be given special benefits the rest of us have to pay for, like protection against having to compete, and like being paid more than their supply-and-demand value in the market.
Braess's Paradox. I see that that Wiki page is much larger than the last time I looked; for example someone applied the Paradox to sports and quotes Helenio Herrera about soccer: "With 10 players our team plays better than with 11" Feel free to read the Wiki article and skip the rest of this post, which simply details a particular contrived example of the Paradox.
