What evidence is there that Fed policy ever did any good? Why do we worship the Fed chairman?

[laughing dog]

Or further, if it can be shown, or if it is obvious, that this act if done widely would necessarily do clear damage to us all, i.e., to the whole society, to the vast majority, then it must be assumed at the outset, as a starting premise, that it would also be harmful if done on a limited scale, even in a very limited local scenario where only a small population would be affected.

There is no reason that assumption must be made because it is illogical to conclude that something that is harmful at a large scale must also be harmful on a limited scale.

 

[Togo]

The rule should be: If any act would clearly be bad for the economy if it were to be done on a large scale, we should assume that it would also be bad for the economy if done on a small scale, unless the proponents of it can prove otherwise.

Where is the flaw in this rule?

Well, you've just banned breathing.

Respiration, although fine in a limited context, is clearly damaging if done to the extent that all oxygen in the atmosphere is consumed, leading to massive die-offs of plants and animals.

And private enterprise

Selling things to people is fine to a limited extent, but once you start charging for everything, people will run out of money entirely, and find it impossible to live, thus creating a vast underclass slave race or mass starvation, both of which retard growth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The BURDEN OF PROOF is on those who advocate the questionable act, not on those who oppose it.

#61


laughing dog

Or further, if it can be shown, or if it is obvious, that this act if done widely would necessarily do clear damage to us all, i.e., to the whole society, to the vast majority, then it must be assumed at the outset, as a starting premise, that it would also be harmful if done on a limited scale, even in a very limited local scenario where only a small population would be affected.

There is no reason that assumption must be made because it is illogical to conclude that something that is harmful at a large scale must also be harmful on a limited scale.

Yes there is good reason for this assumption, unless those who advocate "this act" can prove otherwise, i.e., that it will produce a net benefit if done on a small scale.

I.e., the Burden of Proof is on anyone who advocates an act which we know would be harmful on a large scale. If they can give the proof that it is beneficial on a small scale, even though harmful on a large scale, then they have satisfied the reasonable demand.

But if they can give no such proof, then we should assume that the act would be a net harm if done on a small scale. Such as the Fed can give no such proof that QE or the suppression of interest rates has been a net benefit on a small scale, and so therefore we should assume that it was a net harm rather than a net benefit.

And also as Congress can give no proof that its "economic stimulus" was a net benefit rather than a net harm, and no one can give proof that a modest Minimum Wage is a net benefit rather than a net harm. And other examples where the government tries to manipulate the economy or the market and pretends it is doing more good than harm but can give no proof.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#62


Togo

The rule should be: If any act would clearly be bad for the economy if it were to be done on a large scale, we should assume that it would also be bad for the economy if done on a small scale, unless the proponents of it can prove otherwise.

Where is the flaw in this rule?

Well, you've just banned breathing.

No, I said "unless the proponents of it can prove otherwise"

You can prove that breathing on the smaller scale is necessary for survival. So the "rule" above does not ban breathing. It bans QE and "economic stimulus" programs and many other things, but not necessary things like taxes and traffic lights and breathing. All these are bad beyond a certain point, but necessary on a smaller scale. It can be proved.

Respiration, although fine in a limited context, is clearly damaging if done to the extent that all oxygen in the atmosphere is consumed, leading to massive die-offs of plants and animals.

You have given the proof that some breathing is necessary. But no one has given proof that some QE or some suppression of interest rates is necessary or a net benefit.

And private enterprise

Selling things to people is fine to a limited extent, but once you start charging for everything, people will run out of money entirely, and find it impossible to live, thus creating a vast underclass slave race or mass starvation, both of which retard growth.

Obviously it can be proved that some private enterprise is a net benefit. But no one can prove that some QE or some "economic stimulus" or some suppression of interest rates is a net benefit.

 

[Duke Leto]

Didn't we use to have this nutjob under the name of "Freetrader"?

 

[laughing dog]

#61


laughing dog

There is no reason that assumption must be made because it is illogical to conclude that something that is harmful at a large scale must also be harmful on a limited scale.

Yes there is good reason for this assumption, unless those who advocate "this act" can prove otherwise, i.e., that it will produce a net benefit if done on a small scale.

That is non-responsive. It is illogical to assume that something which is harmful on a large scale is also harmful on a limited scale because there are plenty of examples where that assumption is false. The burden of proof is on you to show what that assumption is reasonable. So far, you have not even come close.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#66


laughing dog

if it can be shown, or if it is obvious, that this act if done widely would necessarily do clear damage to us all, i.e., to the whole society, to the vast majority, then it must be assumed at the outset, as a starting premise, that it would also be harmful if done on a limited scale, even in a very limited local scenario where only a small population would be affected.

There is no reason that assumption must be made because it is illogical to conclude that something that is harmful at a large scale must also be harmful on a limited scale.

Yes there is good reason for this assumption, unless those who advocate "this act" can prove otherwise, i.e., that it will produce a net benefit if done on a small scale.

That is non-responsive. It is illogical to assume that something which is harmful on a large scale is also harmful on a limited scale because there are plenty of examples where that assumption is false.

Yes, but in all such examples the proponents of that "something which is harmful on a large scale" can prove the net benefit of it if done on a small scale. So yes, there are such cases where something on a small scale is a net benefit (even though harmful on a larger scale), but in ALL such cases you can PROVE it is a net benefit on the small scale, either with logic or with empirical evidence, and there is a requirement for the proponent of it to make the case.

Like the need to borrow and spend to pay for WW2 where there was a great need, or for general public programs, large and small. Or like the need to breathe, as Togo argued. But in all those cases it could be proved that there was a need and that it would be a net benefit to do the action (even though if done beyond some limit it would become a net harm).

The requirement is that those who promote a certain act (harmful if done on a large scale) must PROVE the need for it on the limited scale and that there is a net benefit from it.

If we know the act would be harmful on a large scale, then the proponents of the act must first PROVE or give strong evidence that it would be a net benefit if done on the smaller scale that they propose.

Congress and the Fed have never given good evidence or proof that their "stimulus" programs produce a net benefit when done on the limited scale that they have done. No one responding here has given any such argument to show that any "economic stimulus" program or measure by the Fed or by the Congress ever produced a net benefit.

We have many examples from experience (and from common sense) that actions that seem to produce a net benefit really do not, but actually produce a net harm.

I'll give some examples again:

Paying off blackmailers or extortionists is something that seems to produce a near-term benefit by getting hostages released or persuading the extortionists to not do the harm they are threatening. But paying them off leads to bad consequences eventually, and in the long-term there is always net damage done by paying off a blackmailer or extortionist or kidnapper.

Polluting a river in a limited way, such as only one person pouring some toxic substance into the river, may seem to do no harm and be a benefit or convenience to that one person, and there is no way to prove with EMPIRICAL DATA that there is a net harm, because it is too small to measure and no one victim can be found who was injured. But since we know it must be harmful if done on a large scale, we may therefore ASSUME that there is also net harm if it is done on a small scale. We cannot prove it with empirical data, but we know from common sense or logic that it is harmful even on a small scale.

Counterfeiting can definitely benefit some people in a local area who spend the extra money and "create jobs" with it, and if the counterfeiters are never caught and the money circulates through the economy, it may seem to be a net benefit, and there is no EMPIRICAL DATA to prove otherwise. And yet we know from common sense or logic that this must be a net harm to the economy, because of the inflation it causes, as we can clearly prove if it were done on a much greater scale.

And there are many more examples of this. I.e., examples of actions which SEEM to produce a net benefit on a small scale, which we know are harmful if done on a large scale, and which we know from logic or common sense must also be harmful on a small scale even if there is no empirical data to prove it.

So because of this fact of life which we know, we are right to question ANY act which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale and to demand that the proponents of the act prove that it would NOT be harmful (a net harm) if done on a SMALL scale. So the BURDEN OF PROOF is always on those who propose such an act (on a small scale) which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale.

The burden of proof is on you to show that that assumption is reasonable.

I have shown it. It is reasonable because we have many clear examples of behaviors which are harmful if done on a large scale, like the examples above, but which some people believe are a net benefit on a small scale, and yet we know these believers are wrong and that the act is also a net harm if done on a small scale.

Since we have so many examples of this, we are entitled to always demand proof from anyone proposing such an act (on a small scale) which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale. Just because the believer who wants to do the act would gain a special interest benefit or profit, or can show that certain parties directly impacted would benefit, is not sufficient evidence that the act would have an overall net benefit for society.

I.e., just because the polluter can show that he or his associates would benefit does not prove that the act of polluting the river would be a net benefit for society. Even if we can't give empirical data to show the harm from this 20 or 30 pounds of waste dumped into the river, because we can't identify the particular individuals victimized by it, does not prove there is no net harm. We can ASSUME there would be such net harm, because we know that there would be net harm if the pollution were done on a larger scale. So this polluter must first prove that there would be no net harm to people, the general population, before he can be allowed to dump his waste into the river.

So the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the one proposing to do such an act which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale but which we cannot prove empirically would be harmful if done on a small scale.

Why shouldn't this be a universal principle of law applying to all areas of economics?

Why should the burden of proof ever be on the opponents instead of the proponents of any such act?

 

[Togo]

Togo

Well, you've just banned breathing.

No, I said "unless the proponents of it can prove otherwise"

You can prove that breathing on the smaller scale is necessary for survival. So the "rule" above does not ban breathing.

Sure it does. You said if it does damage on a large scale, which this does, so we must assume it also does on a small scale, unless proponents can prove otherwise (that it doesn't do harm on a small scale). You can prove that it's necessary for survival, but that doesn't prove it doesn't do any harm, therefore we shouldn't do it.

...not necessary things like taxes and traffic lights and breathing. All these are bad beyond a certain point, but necessary on a smaller scale. It can be proved.

But it can't be proved. Because, in something like taxes or traffic lights, you're comparing two fairly ill-defined and poorly measured sets of harms and benefits. Let's say that traffic lights in a city save 300 people a year, decrease speed by 40% in urban areas, and cost 20 million dollars. There's no proof as to whether that's a good or a poor exchange, it depends entirely on what you value.

Let's take the rule you're proposing - if applied to everything in sight, even things where the benefit was uncontroversial but unproven (such as saving lives) it would cause immense harm. It could only make senses if applied to the kinds of policy decisions you're envisioning. Yet by your own rule you need to provide proof (not argument, but proof), that this rule would provide a net benefit if applied. You've not done that.

So with breathing, so too with something like QE. QE increases inflation, which is good for some people and bad for others. It also increases the money supply, which is good for some people and bad for others. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing depends on overall effect of the policy, which in turn depends on the situation to which it is applied.

In the case of an economic downturn, with a high danger of stagflation, tightening spending, and limited availability of liquidity causing businesses to go bust, the practice of QE increases inflation, loosens spending, and increases liquidity. So it looks like it might be a good thing to do. Obviously if your values and priorities are different, and your estimation of the effects are different, then you won't share that view.

 

[ksen]

Didn't we use to have this nutjob under the name of "Freetrader"?

yep

 

[dismal]

So, seven pages in and not much in the way of evidence. Lots of personal attacks. Shocking.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, but in all such examples the proponents of that "something which is harmful on a large scale" can prove the net benefit of it if done on a small scale. So yes, there are such cases where something on a small scale is a net benefit (even though harmful on a larger scale), but in ALL such cases you can PROVE it is a net benefit on the small scale, either with logic or with empirical evidence, and there is a requirement for the proponent of it to make the case.

Like the need to borrow and spend to pay for WW2 where there was a great need, or for general public programs, large and small. Or like the need to breathe, as Togo argued. But in all those cases it could be proved that there was a need and that it would be a net benefit to do the action (even though if done beyond some limit it would become a net harm).

The requirement is that those who promote a certain act (harmful if done on a large scale) must PROVE the need for it on the limited scale and that there is a net benefit from it.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. For example, the US involvement in WWII was a large scale event - it simply was no limited scale available.

If we know the act would be harmful on a large scale, then the proponents of the act must first PROVE or give strong evidence that it would be a net benefit if done on the smaller scale that they propose.

This literally makes no sense. If we KNOW an act is harmful on a large scale, then it is not possible to use inductive reasoning from a proof of a small scale benefit.

Congress and the Fed have never given good evidence or proof that their "stimulus" programs produce a net benefit when done on the limited scale that they have done. No one responding here has given any such argument to show that any "economic stimulus" program or measure by the Fed or by the Congress ever produced a net benefit.

People have given arguments to that effect. You have either ignored them or misunderstood them. Furthermore, at least one poster has asked to you what kind of evidence or proof you would consider, and you have yet to respond.

We have many examples from experience (and from common sense) that actions that seem to produce a net benefit really do not, but actually produce a net harm.

I'll give some examples again:

Paying off blackmailers or extortionists is something that seems to produce a near-term benefit by getting hostages released or persuading the extortionists to not do the harm they are threatening. But paying them off leads to bad consequences eventually, and in the long-term there is always net damage done by paying off a blackmailer or extortionist or kidnapper.

This is an unsubstantiated claim which certainly does qualify as a proof of anything. Paying off kidnappers may very well make it easier to catch them, which may give longer term benefits.

Polluting a river in a limited way, such as only one person pouring some toxic substance into the river, may seem to do no harm and be a benefit or convenience to that one person, and there is no way to prove with EMPIRICAL DATA that there is a net harm, because it is too small to measure and no one victim can be found who was injured. But since we know it must be harmful if done on a large scale, we may therefore ASSUME that there is also net harm if it is done on a small scale. We cannot prove it with empirical data, but we know from common sense or logic that it is harmful even on a small scale.

This is simply false. There are a number of pollutants that can be assimilated by the environment without producing harm to anyone.

Counterfeiting can definitely benefit some people in a local area who spend the extra money and "create jobs" with it, and if the counterfeiters are never caught and the money circulates through the economy, it may seem to be a net benefit, and there is no EMPIRICAL DATA to prove otherwise. And yet we know from common sense or logic that this must be a net harm to the economy, because of the inflation it causes, as we can clearly prove if it were done on a much greater scale.

That is the only example you have come up with some value. However, even there, whether or not the undetected counterfeiting causes problems in the longer run depends on a number of factors.

And there are many more examples of this. I.e., examples of actions which SEEM to produce a net benefit on a small scale, which we know are harmful if done on a large scale, and which we know from logic or common sense must also be harmful on a small scale even if there is no empirical data to prove it.

So because of this fact of life which we know, we are right to question ANY act which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale and to demand that the proponents of the act prove that it would NOT be harmful (a net harm) if done on a SMALL scale. So the BURDEN OF PROOF is always on those who propose such an act (on a small scale) which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale.

The burden of proof is on you to show that that assumption is reasonable.

I have shown it. It is reasonable because we have many clear examples of behaviors which are harmful if done on a large scale, like the examples above, but which some people believe are a net benefit on a small scale, and yet we know these believers are wrong and that the act is also a net harm if done on a small scale.

Since we have so many examples of this, we are entitled to always demand proof from anyone proposing such an act (on a small scale) which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale. Just because the believer who wants to do the act would gain a special interest benefit or profit, or can show that certain parties directly impacted would benefit, is not sufficient evidence that the act would have an overall net benefit for society.

I.e., just because the polluter can show that he or his associates would benefit does not prove that the act of polluting the river would be a net benefit for society. Even if we can't give empirical data to show the harm from this 20 or 30 pounds of waste dumped into the river, because we can't identify the particular individuals victimized by it, does not prove there is no net harm. We can ASSUME there would be such net harm, because we know that there would be net harm if the pollution were done on a larger scale. So this polluter must first prove that there would be no net harm to people, the general population, before he can be allowed to dump his waste into the river.

So the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the one proposing to do such an act which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale but which we cannot prove empirically would be harmful if done on a small scale.

Why shouldn't this be a universal principle of law applying to all areas of economics?

Because, as I showed, it is a not a universal principle.

Why should the burden of proof ever be on the opponents instead of the proponents of any such act?

Because you have not shown that your principle is reality-based or reasonable.

 

[Wiploc]

Yes, but in all such examples the proponents of that "something which is harmful on a large scale" can prove the net benefit of it if done on a small scale. So yes, there are such cases where something on a small scale is a net benefit (even though harmful on a larger scale), but in ALL such cases you can PROVE it is a net benefit on the small scale, either with logic or with empirical evidence, and there is a requirement for the proponent of it to make the case.

I'm curious, Lump. Can you name anything that is beneficial on a small scale that wouldn't be harmful on a large enough scale?

Oxygen, water, food, those will all kill you if you get too much.

You think everything should be presumed harmful on a small scale if they can be shown harmful on a large scale, but why should we make that assumption?

Lots of things are beneficial on a small scale. Are any of them not harmful on a large scale?

Maybe we should switch the burden of proof? Maybe anything harmful on a large scale should be presumed harmful on a small scale? I'm not really in favor of that, but it may make as much sense as the the burden of proof that you like.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#71


laughing dog

. . . but in all such examples the proponents of that "something which is harmful on a large scale" can prove the net benefit of it if done on a small scale. So yes, there are such cases where something on a small scale is a net benefit (even though harmful on a larger scale), but in ALL such cases you can PROVE it is a net benefit on the small scale, either with logic or with empirical evidence, and there is a requirement for the proponent of it to make the case.

Like the need to borrow and spend to pay for WW2 where there was a great need, or for general public programs, large and small. Or like the need to breathe, as Togo argued. But in all those cases it could be proved that there was a need and that it would be a net benefit to do the action (even though if done beyond some limit it would become a net harm).

The requirement is that those who promote a certain act (harmful if done on a large scale) must PROVE the need for it on the limited scale and that there is a net benefit from it.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. For example, the US involvement in WWII was a large scale event - it simply was no limited scale available.

I'll let Wiploc enlighten you on this point:

We ran up a lot of government debt during WWII. We used that money to save the world from Nazi oppression. Net benefit.

We could have run up a much higher debt, one that would have eventually collapsed our economy.

So that is one example of something that created a net benefit at one level, but would have been destructive at a higher level.

It was a large debt, but the debt could have been run up even higher. There was a limit to how high it should go in order to produce the needed revenue to deal with the threat. So in that sense it was a "small scale" -- i.e., compared to running it up even much higher. I.e., "large scale" and "small scale" is relative.

If we know the act would be harmful on a large scale, then the proponents of the act must first PROVE or give strong evidence that it would be a net benefit if done on the smaller scale that they propose.

This literally makes no sense. If we KNOW an act is harmful on a large scale, then it is not possible to use inductive reasoning from a proof of a small scale benefit.

Huh? The proof that it would be beneficial on a small scale doesn't disprove that it would be harmful on a large scale. It just proves that if it's done with the necessary limit, then there is a net gain or benefit to be realized, despite the net harm that would happen if it were to be expanded to a much larger scale. The proponents are arguing for the small scale act, which they prove is needed, and everyone recognizes the lmits that are necessary, i.e., to keep it limited to only what is needed, like to fight the war, or to pay for a needed public program. How does that not make sense?

Congress and the Fed have never given good evidence or proof that their "stimulus" programs produce a net benefit when done on the limited scale that they have done. No one responding here has given any such argument to show that any "economic stimulus" program or measure by the Fed or by the Congress ever produced a net benefit.

People have given arguments to that effect. You have either ignored them or misunderstood them.

But you can't give any evidence that "economic stimulus" measures ever produced a net benefit. All you can do is claim that someone somewhere made the case. But you can't name who made the case and what their argument was.

Of course you can dump a trillion dollars into the economy and create some jobs. But why not 2 or 3 trillion and create even more jobs? No one has made the case why it was necessary or beneficial to dump that 1 trillion into circulation but it would have been harmful to dump in 2 or 3 trillion. If you claim someone made the case for that, name who it was, or where they posted that argument. It is not true that "People have given arguments to that effect."

Furthermore, at least one poster has asked to you what kind of evidence or proof you would consider, and you have yet to respond.

WW2. We had to raise enough revenue to pay for the war buildup. "We used that money to save the world from Nazi oppression. Net benefit." (Wiploc)

That's an argument why it was necessary to run up some debt. Or Togo's argument that some breathing is necessary for humans to survive. That's a strong argument in favor of breathing.

"Respiration, although fine in a limited context, is clearly damaging if done to the extent that all oxygen in the atmosphere is consumed, leading to massive die-offs of plants and animals." (Togo)

These are examples of "the kind of evidence or proof" we need from someone who proposes that something is a net good if done on a limited scale.

Can't we prove the need for traffic lights, up to a point, for safety and improvement of traffic flow. But not traffic lights at every intersection. There's a limit. The proof or evidence is the obvious improvement in traffic conditions with limited traffic lights.

So it should be clear what kind of proof or evidence is required from those who propose the action on a limited scale but which would be harmful if done on a large scale beyond some limit.

We have many examples from experience (and from common sense) that actions that seem to produce a net benefit really do not, but actually produce a net harm.

I'll give some examples again:

Paying off blackmailers or extortionists is something that seems to produce a near-term benefit by getting hostages released or persuading the extortionists to not do the harm they are threatening. But paying them off leads to bad consequences eventually, and in the long-term there is always net damage done by paying off a blackmailer or extortionist or kidnapper.

This is an unsubstantiated claim which certainly does [not] qualify as a proof of anything.

It is substantiated by common sense. There may or may not be empirical evidence to prove that future blackmailers/extortionists/kidnappers are encouraged or incentivized when some of them are paid off. There probably is evidence in some cases.

But we don't need the empirical data to prove that this harmful result occurs. All we need is the general principle that people who have any ability to reason will decide to do whatever is known to work. If they are considering this kind of crime and hear of it working for other criminals, it obviously gives extra encouragement to them to try it. This is a good argument or proof. I.e., it is sufficient "proof" or a sufficient argument against paying off such criminals even though it can have a short-term benefit of buying them off from carrying out their threat.

Paying off kidnappers may very well make it easier to catch them, which may give longer term benefits.

That's irrelevant. The argument here is not about using the payoff as a trick to catch the kidnappers. That's different. We're talking about the simple practice of paying them in order to gain release of the hostages.

This has been done many times. There are currently many examples of this, and there's every reason to believe that it causes increased incidents of kidnappings, and these payoffs are not done as a trick to catch the kidnappers, but only for the short-term benefit of getting the hostages released.

If payoffs can be used as a trick to foil the kidnappers and catch them, then that lies outside the kind of example I'm giving. My example is that of kidnappers being paid off only for the short-term benefit and nothing more. Overall these payments do more harm than good, despite the short-term benefit.

Polluting a river in a limited way, such as only one person pouring some toxic substance into the river, may seem to do no harm and be a benefit or convenience to that one person, and there is no way to prove with EMPIRICAL DATA that there is a net harm, because it is too small to measure and no one victim can be found who was injured. But since we know it must be harmful if done on a large scale, we may therefore ASSUME that there is also net harm if it is done on a small scale. We cannot prove it with empirical data, but we know from common sense or logic that it is harmful even on a small scale.

This is simply false. There are a number of pollutants that can be assimilated by the environment without producing harm to anyone.

Most of them cannot be. There is harm, even though it may not be measurable, i.e., if it's only a few pounds total of the pollutant. But that doesn't mean there is no harm.

But if you can really prove that a certain "pollutant" produces no harm to anyone (if done on a small scale), then you have met the requirement, or "burden of proof" needed, to make the case that a small amount of this "pollution" should be allowed. However, I don't believe you that there is no harm to anyone. Just because the harm is too small to measure does not mean there is no harm. It is not "proof" to only be able to say that the harm is too small to measure.

So the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the one proposing to do such an act which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale but which we cannot prove empirically would be harmful if done on a small scale.

Why shouldn't this be a universal principle of law applying to all areas of economics?

Because, as I showed, it is a not a universal principle.

You haven't given a case where this rule does not apply. Give an example of something that we know would be a net harm if done on a large scale but that we should allow to be done on a small scale without requiring any evidence from the proponents that it would not also be harmful if done on the small scale. Unless you can give an example of this, you cannot say this isn't a "universal" principle, or a legitimate rule that should always apply.

Why should the burden of proof ever be on the opponents instead of the proponents of any such act?

Because you have not shown that your principle is reality-based or reasonable.

So, e.g., you mean that pollution has nothing to do with reality, and it's not reasonable to think a polluter might be doing some damage by dumping poisons into the air or water? It's not reasonable to care about such possible damage? How is this not based on reality or reason?

 

[Togo]

So the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the one proposing to do such an act which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale but which we cannot prove empirically would be harmful if done on a small scale.

Why shouldn't this be a universal principle of law applying to all areas of economics?

Because, as I showed, it is a not a universal principle.

You haven't given a case where this rule does not apply.

He has, so have I, you've not addressed any of them.

You've certainly not mentioned the evidence or proof you're supplying for the adoption of your burden of proof rule. Or does the rule not apply to itself?

 

[laughing dog]

It was a large debt, but the debt could have been run up even higher. There was a limit to how high it should go in order to produce the needed revenue to deal with the threat. So in that sense it was a "small scale" -- i.e., compared to running it up even much higher. I.e., "large scale" and "small scale" is relative.

That is a ridiculous argument. Using that logic, everything is "small scale" because it could have been larger. Or everything "large scale" because it could have been smaller.

Huh? The proof that it would be beneficial on a small scale doesn't disprove that it would be harmful on a large scale. It just proves that if it's done with the necessary limit, then there is a net gain or benefit to be realized, despite the net harm that would happen if it were to be expanded to a much larger scale. The proponents are arguing for the small scale act, which they prove is needed, and everyone recognizes the lmits that are necessary, i.e., to keep it limited to only what is needed, like to fight the war, or to pay for a needed public program. How does that not make sense?

Pay attention. If we KNOW something to be true, there is no need to engage in proof.

But you can't give any evidence that "economic stimulus" measures ever produced a net benefit. All you can do is claim that someone somewhere made the case. But you can't name who made the case and what their argument was.

You have ignored or dismissed any evidence. This is the third time I'll ask - what would you accept as evidence? The fact you evade answering this simple question strongly suggests you are unwilling to accept any evidence.

Of course you can dump a trillion dollars into the economy and create some jobs. But why not 2 or 3 trillion and create even more jobs? No one has made the case why it was necessary or beneficial to dump that 1 trillion into circulation but it would have been harmful to dump in 2 or 3 trillion. If you claim someone made the case for that, name who it was, or where they posted that argument. It is not true that "People have given arguments to that effect."

Early on in this thread, I presented the case that the QE was about saving jobs, not creating jobs. Furthermore, I argued that monetary policy is not an exact art, and that the Fed had to balance stemming the recession with exacerbating inflationary expectations. Finally, I pointed out that the economy is not some linear model where doubling something means doubling the outcome. You never responded.

These are examples of "the kind of evidence or proof" we need from someone who proposes that something is a net good if done on a limited scale.

Evidence usually refers to data.

Can't we prove the need for traffic lights, up to a point, for safety and improvement of traffic flow. But not traffic lights at every intersection. There's a limit. The proof or evidence is the obvious improvement in traffic conditions with limited traffic lights.

So it should be clear what kind of proof or evidence is required from those who propose the action on a limited scale but which would be harmful if done on a large scale beyond some limit.

Okay, then why are you asking about the effectiveness of QE? Clearly, the economy did not go further into the tank with limited QE so that is prove of limited QE's effectiveness.

It is substantiated by common sense. There may or may not be empirical evidence to prove that future blackmailers/extortionists/kidnappers are encouraged or incentivized when some of them are paid off. There probably is evidence in some cases.

Common sense indicates that paying blackmailers gives another avenue by which to track and arrest them, which should discourage them. So, your claim is false.

But we don't need the empirical data to prove that this harmful result occurs. All we need is the general principle that people who have any ability to reason will decide to do whatever is known to work. If they are considering this kind of crime and hear of it working for other criminals, it obviously gives extra encouragement to them to try it. This is a good argument or proof. I.e., it is sufficient "proof" or a sufficient argument against paying off such criminals even though it can have a short-term benefit of buying them off from carrying out their threat.

Ah

That's irrelevant. The argument here is not about using the payoff as a trick to catch the kidnappers. That's different. We're talking about the simple practice of paying them in order to gain release of the hostages.

No, it is not. The payoff is not a trick.

This has been done many times. There are currently many examples of this, and there's every reason to believe that it causes increased incidents of kidnappings, and these payoffs are not done as a trick to catch the kidnappers, but only for the short-term benefit of getting the hostages released....

The payoff has a dual purpose: hostage is released and it is avenue to track the kidnappers. And many times the kidnappers are caught. Sorry, your example does not show what you claim.

Most of them cannot be. There is harm, even though it may not be measurable, i.e., if it's only a few pounds total of the pollutant. But that doesn't mean there is no harm.

But if you can really prove that a certain "pollutant" produces no harm to anyone (if done on a small scale), then you have met the requirement, or "burden of proof" needed, to make the case that a small amount of this "pollution" should be allowed. However, I don't believe you that there is no harm to anyone. Just because the harm is too small to measure does not mean there is no harm. It is not "proof" to only be able to say that the harm is too small to measure.

Your beliefs are inconsistent with reality. For example, thermal pollution can dissipate quickly in water with no harm to people. Biogradeable waste may be quickly assimilated by the environment with no harm to anyone. So, once again, your example proves the opposite of what you posit.

You haven't given a case where this rule does not apply...

Yes, I did. And I repeated them above.

So, e.g., you mean that pollution has nothing to do with reality, and it's not reasonable to think a polluter might be doing some damage by dumping poisons into the air or water? It's not reasonable to care about such possible damage? How is this not based on reality or reason?

No, I showed your "principle" is not universally true. At least two posters have shown that your principle is not universally true nor reasonable.

 

[Wiploc]

You haven't given a case where this rule does not apply. Give an example of something that we know would be a net harm if done on a large scale but that we should allow to be done on a small scale without requiring any evidence from the proponents that it would not also be harmful if done on the small scale. Unless you can give an example of this, you cannot say this isn't a "universal" principle, or a legitimate rule that should always apply.

Ventilation. Two examples:

Houses: If you don't let some air flow into a house, everybody in there will eventually suffocate. But if you let too much air in, then heating and air conditioning will be expensive and ineffective.

People: If you never inhale, you die. But if you hyperventilate you will become mentally and medically distressed.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#72


Wiploc

. . . in all such examples the proponents of that "something which is harmful on a large scale" can prove the net benefit of it if done on a small scale. So yes, there are such cases where something on a small scale is a net benefit (even though harmful on a larger scale), but in ALL such cases you can PROVE it is a net benefit on the small scale, either with logic or with empirical evidence, and there is a requirement for the proponent of it to make the case.

I'm curious, Lump. Can you name anything that is beneficial on a small scale that wouldn't be harmful on a large enough scale?

Oxygen, water, food, those will all kill you if you get too much.

OK, you can argue that ANYTHING is bad if it's carried too far. No matter what. Too much love, too much justice, too much happiness, too much niceness, etc.

"Too much of a good thing."

The short answer is: no, that's not what I'm saying. Even if it sounds similar, what I'm saying is different.

The difference is something like this: You can get too much sodium or sugar in your diet vs. you can get too much fiber in your diet.

Yes, too much sodium or sugar or fiber can be bad. But isn't there an obvious difference? Have there been any cases of people getting too much fiber in their diet? Is this really a problem? True, in some abstract sense even too much fiber can be bad, but for practical purposes there is hardly such a thing as "too much" fiber.

In real-world experiences, there are many examples that make this point: there is a common illusion that something we see that is bad on a large scale is taken to be OK or beneficial if done here in this limited case before us, and the temptation is to do it because in this limited case it's little or no harm and someone we see here gets a benefit from it.

(This is the real basis for the decisions the Fed makes about QE and suppressing interest rates.)

And yet almost every example might be argued. All I can do is give a long list of examples and show that there is a pattern of this, and that therefore we should always require the proponent of something that is a clear harm if done on a large scale to make the case that it would be beneficial on the smaller or limited scale.

But this is about the cases where the harm done on a large scale is clear or obvious. Like too much sodium or sugar.

I'll just give a laundry list of examples, and the point is to show a PATTERN of this.

What about employees stealing small items in the workplace. Or a dishonest cashier who finds a way to cheat the system and make off with a few dollars. Don't they reason: It's only a small amount -- it won't be noticed. If we did it too much it would be harmful, but just this small amount is no big deal -- I need the money. Or I won't report the other guy -- he needs the money to pay his bills.

What about paying farmers not to grow crops. Conceivably there might have been some argument for this in some extreme limited condition, like some kind of soil conservation need, but wasn't virtually all of this harmful because it was done in order to limit production to drive up prices? If done to boost incomes of farmers, isn't it clear that this always did more harm than good, even in just limited amounts, or restricted to a small number of farmers? (Even if it did boost some farmers' incomes, didn't it do overall net harm to the economy, by penalizing consumers, and also those farmers who did not get the subsidies?)

Isn't it always bad, on a large scale or small scale, for the government to try to set prices of something? On a limited scale it is argued that there was a short-term need. But then isn't the supposed benefit also extremely limited to the point of not being worth it? Isn't there a temptation to say: Oh, just in this one case, just for this limited time or situation, we need these controls. Isn't this generally an illusion that backfires and really makes it worse rather than better?

Don't even left-wing politicians understand that you can't subsidize every victim group that comes clamoring to them for help? Though they make exceptions, aren't they constantly resisting demands from constituents who demand subsidies to help rescue this or that poor victim group? It's not possible to subsidize everyone. Every demand for such subsidy, however emotional, has to be resisted. Isn't there some kind of assumption, in theory, that those few who can make a real case, or prove that their need is unique, are the ones that might be accomodated, while most demands for subsidies have to be rejected? This mainly agrees with my principle, in that every small demand for a subsidy, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, has to be rejected as more harm than good, unless the demanding party offers some proof that their case uniquely qualifies by some cost-benefit standard.

Isn't the guy who "cuts in line" thinking that it's no big deal? Sure, not everyone can do it, but what's the harm if it's only me or just a small number?

What about the prejudice against ticket-scalpers and the attempt to make ticket-scalping illegal? Ticket-scalpers are speculators. Should ALL speculation be suppressed? What about antique dealers or pawn brokers? Should it be illegal to buy ANYTHING with the intent of saving it and then selling it at a higher price? What is this urge to single out certain speculators and suppress them, when we accept most speculators as legitimate businesses? Why do we think some good is served by cracking down on certain ones only, like ticket-scalpers? Isn't this an illusion, that some net good is gained by singling out certain speculators, perhaps because they are conspicuous in some way? We know we would do more harm than good if we criminalized ALL speculators. Why can't we see the net harm, on a smaller scale, of singling out any one select category of speculators? Why isn't this limited category of speculators just as legitimate as all the others, by adding their small contribution to the economy?

Is it good for the government to subsidize a sports stadium, to "stimulate" the economy? If so, why not also movie theatres and bingo parlors and bowling alleys and saloons and gymnasiums and golf courses and amusement parks and circuses and . . . ? Why do we limit the "stimulus" to only sports stadiums? It's obvious we would wreck the economy if we had the state subsidize every form of recreation or entertainment. Where should we draw the line? At the very beginning! Every such subsidy does just a little more increment of damage to the economy. There is no reason to single out one example, because it's more conspicuous, and say "Oh, here, let's subsidize just this one." No, there's no basis for making any exceptions. On a small scale or large scale it is always a net harm for the state to do these subsidies. (It could be justified on the logic that the state is officially adopting this sport, like baseball or football, as a good-in-itself for society, but not in order to "stimulate" the economy.)

And there are many other examples, including my earlier ones of extortion/blackmail and counterfeiting. Even the parking-meter Good Samaritans, who think they are doing some good on a small scale but who are undermining a legitimate practice of charging drivers who park their cars in areas where there is limited space.

These many examples illustrate a pattern of yielding to the "temptation" to gain a quick easy benefit, which is usually limited to a small number, but which if done on a large scale is obviously a net harm to society, and it's only an illusion that some net good is gained by limiting it to a smaller scale.

No, this is not the same as saying there can be "too much of a good thing." Because we're talking about many examples of a common pattern, and we can easily see that there is net harm when the questionable practice is done on a large scale, and there are real cases of it and constant effort to avoid going beyond the limit.

But there is not a problem too much oxygen or too much water. Yes, in theory there can be too much of these, but in the real world we are not having to resist the "temptation" to have too much of these. In the case of food there might be an analogy to what I'm saying -- too much making us fat or sick, and the illusion that only a little more is no harm.

But this is not the same as saying that everything good can be bad if done too much, which is largely theoretical and unrelated to real-world experience. That theoretical formula might not fit everything that is good. E.g., what about "too much" justice? Or "too much" good? It's not clear that every imaginable good or value can be expanded to some point where it would become a net harm rather than good.

It is better to limit the principle to real examples in practice.

You think everything should be presumed harmful on a small scale if they can be shown harmful on a large scale, but why should we make that assumption?

Unless it is proved otherwise, yes. Because there are so many examples of this, as I've given above. Since there are so many cases where someone is tempted to say, "Oh, just this one case is no harm" because they want some immediate personal gain from it, it's obvious that there is a pattern here of people demanding something because they see some direct limited benefit, while at the same time they don't notice the harm it does to someone else, like someone who has to pay the cost for their limited benefit.

So we should always demand proof from anyone who proposes something that we know clearly would be harmful if done on a large scale. If they can prove that it would really be a net benefit if done only within defined limits, then we might accomodate their proposed scheme. But the burden of proof is on them. If they cannot make the case, then the presumption should be that it would be harmful on a limited scale just as we see clearly that it would be harmful on a larger scale.

Lots of things are beneficial on a small scale. Are any of them not harmful on a large scale?

In some theoretical sense you might claim everything good becomes bad if it's done beyond some point. But that's theoretical. We should limit this to those things that are practical possibilities, or real experiences and real decisions that are made. There are real cases where something went too far. The examples I gave all relate to real cases where something was done and went too far and caused real damage.

We need to apply this to questions about price controls, inflation, minimum wage, "economic stimulus," pollution, crime prevention, debt, corporate welfare -- all issues where there are real cases of excess, where well-intended policies ended up doing more harm than good. And personal choices also, where wrong decisions are made, because the damage done was not obvious and the choice was made with a limited view to only the immediate benefit to be gained. So it's not about theoretical possibilities of some good hypothetically being carried too far, like too much happiness, or kids having too much fun.

Maybe we should switch the burden of proof? Maybe anything harmful on a large scale should be presumed harmful on a small scale? I'm not really in favor of that, but it may make as much sense as the the burden of proof that you like.

That IS the burden of proof I'm suggesting as a "universal" rule.

Did you mean to say "anything harmful on a small scale should be presumed harmful on a large scale"? That also sounds like a good rule.

So, if we know something is harmful when done on a small scale, we should presume that it is also harmful if done on a large scale. So the burden of proof is on the one who proposes doing it on a large scale. They have to prove that it would be a net benefit if done on a large scale even though it would be harmful on a small scale. If they can't make the case, we should reject their proposal, even though we have no empirical evidence that it would be harmful if done on the large scale.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#75


laughing dog

It was a large debt, but the debt could have been run up even higher. There was a limit to how high it should go in order to produce the needed revenue to deal with the threat. So in that sense it was a "small scale" -- i.e., compared to running it up even much higher. I.e., "large scale" and "small scale" is relative.

That is a ridiculous argument. Using that logic, everything is "small scale" because it could have been larger. Or everything "large scale" because it could have been smaller.

We're talking about real comparisons and real decisions or judgments about how much is too much. What is "ridiculous" about recognizing that "large" means larger than what you're comparing it to and "small" means a comparison to something larger?

In judging how much is too much we are always comparing a proposed larger amount to a smaller amount, or a proposed smaller amount to a larger amount. Within that context, a certain amount is identified as "large" and another as "small" -- but it's always possible that the "large" amount might also become "small" if the comparison changes or the proposals for more or for less are changing.

How does this relativity of size or amount affect our basic argument about how much is too much? Doesn't "too much" or "too little" still have the same meaning even though words like "large" and "small" are relative to what the amounts are being compared to? Don't we always know within the context what is meant by "large scale" and "small scale"?

Don't we know, e.g., that a minimum wage of $20/hour would be a "large scale" increase in minimum wage? And yet it still would be "small" if compared to a $40 or $50 / hour wage. How does relativity change the argument?

If we KNOW something to be true, there is no need to engage in proof.

What needs to be proved is that something we know is harmful on a large scale is actually a net benefit if done on a small scale. Those who know it's beneficial on a small scale, or who claim to know it, have to prove it to those who don't believe it.

But you can't give any evidence that "economic stimulus" measures ever produced a net benefit. All you can do is claim that someone somewhere made the case. But you can't name who made the case and what their argument was.

You have ignored or dismissed any evidence. This is the third time I'll ask - what would you accept as evidence? The fact you evade answering this simple question strongly suggests you are unwilling to accept any evidence.

Here would be evidence that "economic stimulus" works:

There are 2 countries which are virtually alike in every possible way we can observe. Except there is one difference -- Country 1 injects an "economic stimulus" every time most recognized "economists" say it is needed, and Country 2 never enacts an "economic stimulus" (i.e., an infusion of money into the economy without raising tax revenue to pay for it), and this continues for many years.

Since there are no other apparent differences between the two countries, then we can assume that any improvement in Country 1 over Country 2 must be due to the "economic stimulus" it keeps injecting. This would especially be strong proof if the improvement in Country 1 began shortly after this practice of "economic stimulus" began, and if the improvement continues, so that 1's higher living standard keeps increasing and the gap between 1 and 2 continues to widen with the ongoing continuation of "economic stimulus" policy.

This would be a strict standard of proof for empirical evidence. A lower standard of proof is possible, but as more and more variables enter into the scenario it becomes less and less possible to prove one way or the other if the "economic stimulus" works.

Those who claim to have the empirical evidence must show that they have controlled all the variables. I.e., they must give evidence that any improvement in Country 1 was caused by the "economic stimulus" and not by other factors.

Of course you can dump a trillion dollars into the economy and create some jobs. But why not 2 or 3 trillion and create even more jobs? No one has made the case why it was necessary or beneficial to dump that 1 trillion into circulation but it would have been harmful to dump in 2 or 3 trillion. If you claim someone made the case for that, name who it was, or where they posted that argument. It is not true that "People have given arguments to that effect."

Early on in this thread, I presented the case that the QE was about saving jobs, not creating jobs.

Even uncompetitive jobs that are paid more than they are worth? You did not make the case why it is necessary to save every job, no matter how uncompetitive or overpaid it might be.

Maybe you did prove that QE saved some such uncompetitive wasteful jobs. But you didn't prove how doing that makes the economy better.

I grant not only that you can save marginal uncompetitive jobs and even create them with QE and other measures that dump a trillion dollars into circulation.

However, this is only short-term. In order to preserve those uncompetitive jobs on into the future, it is necessary to continue the QE or other "stimulus" program as an ongoing subsidy into the economy, or as an ongoing cost, that someone has to keep on paying for. If those "economic stimulus" subsidies stop, then those same jobs that were created or saved will disappear later. That's why the Congress has to keep running up more and more debt without end. You know that if the Congress stops this and balances the budget, there will be huge job losses as a result. The opposite effect of dumping the trillion dollars into the economy.

The initial "stimulus" creates or saves some jobs. But after that beginning, it is necessary to keep the "stimulus" subsidies going in order to keep all those jobs that were created or saved by the first stimulus.

Furthermore, I argued that monetary policy is not an exact art, and that the Fed had to balance stemming the recession with exacerbating inflationary expectations.

But you gave no evidence or logic to show that the Fed succeeded in making the economy better by its balancing. You did not prove that saving a certain number of jobs was a benefit worth the cost of the higher inflation and higher government debt and punishment of those who save. You did not prove that the price we paid for saving those jobs was worth paying. Or show why, if those marginal jobs were so necessary, we should not have paid an even higher price and saved even more. You gave no reason for drawing the line here instead of there. You gave no basis for claiming that the Fed got just the right balance, or even came close. You gave no reason why the Fed should do this balancing at all, even to a small degree.

Finally, I pointed out that the economy is not some linear model where doubling something means doubling the outcome. You never responded.

But you never proved that the outcome we got was better than we would have got if the Fed had never engaged in this balancing and tried to increase "jobs" at the expense of consumers and those who save. You never gave any evidence that we got the optimum outcome by having the Fed suppress interest rates or infuse 1 trillion dollars into circulation and explain why this amount of QE was the right amount and another trillion would not have been better. You didn't prove that a certain amount of QE was good even though we know that a much larger amount would be bad. You didn't prove that the damage done at that level was a cost worth paying.

These are examples of "the kind of evidence or proof" we need from someone who proposes that something is a net good if done on a limited scale.

Evidence usually refers to data.

No it doesn't. There's often no "data" to prove something. There's also logic. There is nothing scientific about making a religion out of meaningless or non-existent data. You use the evidence or logic that exists. You don't demand "data" when none exists that is relative to what you're trying to prove.

You don't have "data" to prove that global warming is causing the recent weather disasters that have occurred. But there is good reason to believe it is a factor. When you can't control all the variables, you have to rely on other reasoning than just meaningless "data" that doesn't tell you what caused what.

Can't we prove the need for traffic lights, up to a point, for safety and improvement of traffic flow. But not traffic lights at every intersection. There's a limit. The proof or evidence is the obvious improvement in traffic conditions with limited traffic lights.

So it should be clear what kind of proof or evidence is required from those who propose the action on a limited scale but which would be harmful if done on a large scale beyond some limit.

Okay, then why are you asking about the effectiveness of QE? Clearly, the economy did not go further into the tank with limited QE so that is proof of limited QE's effectiveness.

No, we have no experience to show that it would have been worse without QE.

We know from experience (and from "common sense") what happens if there are NO traffic lights, and we know what it's like if there are TOO MANY. We have a basis for comparison and can control the variables, and we can see the improvements in traffic conditions, or deterioration, if we make the wrong decision.

But we have no way to compare what would have happened without QE. Or if interest rates had not been suppressed. We know the economy is better with little or no inflation and when people can save and earn some modest interest. The Fed takes away those benefits with their policies. We have no evidence that they made the economy improve with these practices.

It is substantiated by common sense. There may or may not be empirical evidence to prove that future blackmailers/extortionists/kidnappers are encouraged or incentivized when some of them are paid off. There probably is evidence in some cases.

Common sense indicates that paying blackmailers gives another avenue by which to track and arrest them, which should discourage them. So, your claim is false.

No, that's not my example. I'm talking about paying them off in order to bribe them not to do the damage they are threatening. I'm saying nothing about cases where they are paid as a trick to catch them.

I'm only referring to the practice of paying them off in return for the immediate benefit. Which is often done. And even when it does benefit the victim in the short term, it is a long-term harm to society. I'm saying nothing about cases where the payoff is a ploy done in order to catch the blackmailer. That's completely different than the example I'm giving.

That's irrelevant. The argument here is not about using the payoff as a trick to catch the kidnappers. That's different. We're talking about the simple practice of paying them in order to gain release of the hostages.

No, it is not. The payoff is not a trick.

Whatever you call it is irrelevant. If you pay them in order to foil them and catch them later, that is different than what I'm talking about. I'm talking about paying the kidnappers in order to get them to release the hostages, which is frequently done. In other words, meeting the kidnappers' demands. Obviously you are not meeting their demands if you are using the payoff as a design to catch them later. If it works and they are caught later, then you obviously did not meet their demands. I'm talking about meeting the demands of the kidnappers. This always does more harm than good, even though there's an immediate short-term benefit to the victims or their families, who want the demands to be met for their short-term benefit.

This has been done many times. There are currently many examples of this, and there's every reason to believe that it causes increased incidents of kidnappings, and these payoffs are not done as a trick to catch the kidnappers, but only for the short-term benefit of getting the hostages released....

The payoff has a dual purpose: hostage is released and it is avenue to track the kidnappers. And many times the kidnappers are caught. Sorry, your example does not show what you claim.

But I'm not talking about those cases. I'm talking about the far more common cases where they are paid off and the payoff does not lead to them being caught.

It is not true that paying off kidnappers usually leads to them getting caught and that they would not have been caught otherwise.

Prevention of kidnappings in the first place is a far better strategy, and for this it is necessary to not pay them off, except possibly with false currency or as a well-planned trick to catch them later where the probability of catching them is very high.

If paying off the kidnappers really leads to them getting caught, then we would see a decrease in kidnappings and this kind of crime would virtually disappear.

The real reason they are paid off is in order to gain the short-term benefit of the hostages being released, not as part of a scheme to catch them later.

There is harm, even though it may not be measurable, i.e., if it's only a few pounds total of the pollutant. But that doesn't mean there is no harm.

But if you can really prove that a certain "pollutant" produces no harm to anyone (if done on a small scale), then you have met the requirement, or "burden of proof" needed, to make the case that a small amount of this "pollution" should be allowed. However, I don't believe you that there is no harm to anyone. Just because the harm is too small to measure does not mean there is no harm. It is not "proof" to only be able to say that the harm is too small to measure.

Your beliefs are inconsistent with reality. For example, thermal pollution can dissipate quickly in water with no harm to people.

I said above that if you can prove there is no damage from some limited pollution, then maybe that limited pollution could be allowed. However, I think you're wrong that "thermal pollution" poses no threat of any kind to people. But in any case, my argument is that the one proposing to pollute on a small scale has the burden of proof to show that there would be no harm. Because there is clear damage on a large scale, then we should assume there is damage on a small scale also, unless the one proposing to do it proves otherwise.

Biogradeable waste may be quickly assimilated by the environment with no harm to anyone. So, once again, your example proves the opposite of what you posit.

That's a silly example. You're talking about litter, not pollution. I'm referring to toxic substances. These are obviously harmful when dumped on a large scale, and so we should assume there is also net harm if it's done on a small scale, even if there is no empirical "data" to prove it.

However, an argument can also be made against littering. Just because you litter on a small scale doesn't make it OK. It should be illegal to toss a banana pealing onto the sidewalk.

But further, the average person doesn't always know if the waste he's tossing onto the road or down the drain is biodegradeable. So it's good to have a general rule against littering in order to prevent some pollution and to discourage the "Oh, what harm is this one little scrap of waste?" attitude.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#74


Togo

So the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the one proposing to do such an act which we know would be harmful if done on a large scale but which we cannot prove empirically would be harmful if done on a small scale.

Why shouldn't this be a universal principle of law applying to all areas of economics?

Because, as I showed, it is a not a universal principle.

You haven't given a case where this rule does not apply.

He has, so have I, you've not addressed any of them.

Instead of claiming you did something back there, why not just do it again. Give an example where we should give in to someone's demand for something which we know would be a net harm if done on a large scale but which they are demanding to be done just for them on a limited scale and so they claim it must be OK.

Or maybe they believe it will be good for the economy because it will benefit some poor victim group or whatever and that's supposed to be good for society generally.

Give us an example of that, where we should grant their demand, even though they cannot give strong evidence that it would be a net benefit rather than a net harm as it would be if done on a large scale.

You've certainly not mentioned the evidence or proof you're supplying for the adoption of your burden of proof rule.

The rule should be adopted, or actually is already practiced somewhat, because it is a precaution against someone who wants something that is really for very LIMITED benefit and comes at a cost that is greater than the likely benefit.

There is a DANGER of this happening, or rather, it already happens a lot. We give in to some activist group, special interest, or ideological camp, who wants to impose some costly program onto us which will not produce a social benefit great enough to justify that cost. Aren't there many examples of this?

So by having this general rule, we prevent enactment of some such costly program. We require the proponents to prove that it would be a net benefit if done on the limited scale they propose. Since we know it would be harmful if done on a large scale, we are entitled to be suspicious of it also being a net harm if done on a small scale, because we have many examples of this, due to the temptation we have of seeing some limited direct benefit to be gained but not seeing the overall cost that comes with it, or the downside or negative side effects.

So why shouldn't we demand first that they prove there is no harm in doing this on the limited scale? The rule doesn't prevent a legitimate program that would provide a net benefit, because in that case the promoters of it are able to give the evidence and prove the merits of the limited program.

Don't policy-makers already do something like this anyway, at least partly?

Or does the rule not apply to itself?

How is this rule harmful if done on a large scale? Where has a rule like this done damage?

The rule is that anything that we clearly see is harmful on a large scale should be also presumed as harmful on a small scale unless those proposing it prove otherwise. But it's not clear that this rule itself would be harmful if practiced on a large scale.

I'm only putting forth a formal statement of the rule, and suggesting it's a good rule that should be followed more diligently than we do already.

 

[laughing dog]

We're talking about real comparisons and real decisions or judgments about how much is too much........blah blah blah......

You are confusing "large" with "larger than" and "small" with "smaller than". For example, 1 trillion larger is than 0.9 trillion and smaller than 1.1 trillion. Was QE of 1 trillion large or small?

Here would be evidence that "economic stimulus" works:

There are 2 countries which are virtually alike in every possible way we can observe. Except there is one difference -- Country 1 injects an "economic stimulus" every time most recognized "economists" say it is needed, and Country 2 never enacts an "economic stimulus" (i.e., an infusion of money into the economy without raising tax revenue to pay for it), and this continues for many years......

Iin other words, there is no evidence you will accept, since your standard is impossible in the real world.

Even uncompetitive jobs that are paid more than they are worth? You did not make the case why it is necessary to save every job, no matter how uncompetitive or overpaid it might be.

Maybe you did prove that QE saved some such uncompetitive wasteful jobs. But you didn't prove how doing that makes the economy better......

Even though you are now shifting the goalposts from "creating jobs" to "saving worthwhile jobs", it should be obvious that saving people's jobs during a recession helps them. It permits them to keep working and spending and saving. But your comment indicates a real lack of understanding of the workings of monetary policy. QE's main purpose was to stabilize the financial system and to keep interest rates low. Both of those channels work through the private sector. So, if you have a problem with "uncompetitive wasteful jobs" being saved, your beef is with the private sector, not QE.

No it doesn't. There's often no "data" to prove something. There's also logic. There is nothing scientific about making a religion out of meaningless or non-existent data. You use the evidence or logic that exists. You don't demand "data" when none exists that is relative to what you're trying to prove.

Logic does not usually work when one is talking about human activity.

You don't have "data" to prove that global warming is causing the recent weather disasters that have occurred. But there is good reason to believe it is a factor. When you can't control all the variables, you have to rely on other reasoning than just meaningless "data" that doesn't tell you what caused what.

You are right - at this point we don't have data that undeniably proves that global warming is causing the recent weather disasters. And that is a problem because there are many people who are unwilling to do anything without such proof.

No, we have no experience to show that it would have been worse without QE....

We have no experience in most places of no traffic lights and this level of traffic. And we do have the Great Depression when monetary policy did not act. So, you are simply wrong.

No, that's not my example. I'm talking about paying them off in order to bribe them not to do the damage they are threatening. I'm saying nothing about cases where they are paid as a trick to catch them....

Doesn't matter. Paying them off gives authorities another avenue to try and track them down. It is not my fault that your example logically rebuts your claim.

....That is a silly example.

Biodegradable waste and thermal pollution can pose real threats to an aquatic ecosystem. Both are taken seriously in the real world. It is ignorant to claim otherwise.

I'm referring to toxic substances. These are obviously harmful when dumped on a large scale, and so we should assume there is also net harm if it's done on a small scale, even if there is no empirical "data" to prove it.

I am not responsible for your lack of clarity. But, my examples of water pollution show your claim is false.

All in all, you have yet to show your "principle" is based on reasonable foundations.