Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 2:48 am
The best way to think about subsidies both positive or negative subsidies. When you pay a gas tax you negatively subsidize the fuel business to positively subsidize the construction business.

No, that is not the "best way to think about subsidies." That is an ad hoc, contrived definition of your own invention. A payment for a service rendered is not a "subsidy." The gas tax involves no "subsidies," either "positive" or "negative," to fuel suppliers, construction companies, or anyone else. Indeed, there is no such thing as a "negative subsidy."

Go back to the dictionary and look up the meaning of "subsidy" again.

The fuel business is a great example because it is a sea of negative, positive and cross subsidies. There are taxes on most parts of the business from refinery to pump, all sorts of restrictions, export subsidies import subsidies, pipeline subsidies strategic reserves, OPEC production cuts. It is a tidepool of subsidies with crosscutting currents.

Well, you're right about that. Just about every industry, and every other interest group noisy enough to be noticed by a politician, will receive some sort of subsidy --- i.e., a gift of money --- from the government, stolen from taxpayers, of course.

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 4:04 am
What I was hoping is that we'd get to the more philosophical questions of economics. So, with Twitter, we have the question of a public vs. a private good/service. If a service gets so large and reaches so broadly can it really be said to be private?

Yes. The size of the service and its customer base has nothing to do with the public/private distinction. The service is private if it was launched and financed by private persons with private capital; public if launched by government and financed with public funds (obtained through taxes).

And then, is a better way to regulate a media company benevolent dictatorship or democracy? In either case, how dangerous is it really if this good/service is misused?

Whether the regulations are imposed by a dictatorship or a democracy is irrelevant; what is relevant is the purpose, methods, and effects of the regulation. What counts as a "misuse"? Who decides what is a misuse?

Then there's the question of whether or not a private good/service should be understood to be truly private if it takes money from the public but is not economically viable on its own. If it threatens to go away, is it so useful that it should be propped up?

Useful to whom? If it is not viable on its own, then it is not useful enough, or to enough people, that they are willing to pay what it takes to maintain it, in which case it should go away.

Will we be talking about Elon Musk's Twitter Party in a few years.

Not likely. Either Twitter will still be around, because at least some people find it useful, or not, in which case no one will miss it.

It's all about cross-subsidy.

No, it isn't. Twitter (as far as I know) currently receives no subsidies, nor is Musk seeking any.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 29th, 2022, 1:36 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 29th, 2022, 4:37 am
Since taxes, unlike fees, go into a pot of money, from which a myriad of services are paid for, there is no practical way to calculate which services benefit which taxpayers despite your glib suggestion (sans examples) to the contrary.

Well, the latter part of that claim, that there is "no practical way to calculate which services benefit which taxpayers" at is simply false. Making such determinations is not even difficult, for most government programs, or for any of the "free lunch" schemes, which explicitly set forth who is eligible to receive them. Persons who, for example, do not receive food stamps, or HUD rent subsidies, or Pell grants, or Medicaid assistance obviously don't benefit from those schemes --- and, no, we don't count hypothetical and unsolicited "neighborhood effects" as benefits. Persons who don't attend operas don't benefit from NEA subsidies to opera companies; persons who don't ride Amtrak or local public transit systems don't benefit from subsidies to those services; persons who don't visit national parks don't benefit from the taxes they pay to support them. Etc. All such activities have counterparts in the "private sector," and like them, could be financed by ticket sales to actual users. But the masses want free lunches, and politicians must deliver them to win votes.

So I don't ride Amtrack in 2020, but I want to ride in 2021, you're supposing that track maintainance in 2020 plays no role in my ability to ride in 2021. Ridiculous on it's face. You seem to be unable to grasp that an opera company's efforts one year contributes to their ability to perform the following year.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of insurance (which is not commonly labeled as "theft") where folks pay premiums every year because their house may burn down one year (or hopefully never). This, of course addresses your example of food stamps.

I simply refuse to believe these elementary concepts elude your ability to understand them.

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 2:58 pm
So I don't ride Amtrack in 2020, but I want to ride in 2021, you're supposing that track maintainance in 2020 plays no role in my ability to ride in 2021. Ridiculous on it's face. You seem to be unable to grasp that an opera company's efforts one year contributes to their ability to perform the following year.

What a silly argument. The government should subsidize my favorite restaurant or movie theater to assure I'll be able eat or attend a movie next year? Railroads (and all other businesses) set prices for their services sufficient to cover maintenance and all other expenses. The customers who use those services pay for it. Amtrak can do the same --- charge its passengers whatever is necessary to cover its costs. If customers prove unwilling to pay those fares it ceases business. (Amtrak, BTW, doesn't do any track maintenance. They use the tracks of private railroads, who maintain them. Amtrak pays them a usage fee).

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of insurance (which is not commonly labeled as "theft") where folks pay premiums every year because their house may burn down one year (or hopefully never). This, of course addresses your example of food stamps.

Very familiar with the concept of insurance. Are you forgetting that insurance is voluntary, and purchased only by people who 1) face particular risks, and 2) have decided that the risk is great enough to justify the cost of the premiums? People who don't own houses do not buy homeowner's insurance; people who don't farm don't buy crop insurance. Nor do I buy crop insurance now in case I decide to become a farmer next year.

I simply refuse to believe these elementary concepts elude your ability to understand them.

You seem not to understand how insurance works. You can't use insurance to rationalize seizing money, by force, from Alfie to buy Bruno a train ticket, or Chauncey a ticket to the opera.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:46 pm

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 4:04 am
What I was hoping is that we'd get to the more philosophical questions of economics. So, with Twitter, we have the question of a public vs. a private good/service. If a service gets so large and reaches so broadly can it really be said to be private?

Yes. The size of the service and its customer base has nothing to do with the public/private distinction. The service is private if it was launched and financed by private persons with private capital; public if launched by government and financed with public funds (obtained through taxes).

Not true. First, there is a class of property with a large amount of stuff in it that is quasi-public. Best example is probably a restaurant parking lot. You're not really on private property legally when you're in a parking lot. You can't get a ticket for driving around like a maniac on a farm but you can get a ticket in a parking lot. Business owners can't have unsafe parking lots but farmers can blow up stuff if they feel like it.

Power companies are so huge and affect so many people that they are regulated as utilities. There's a reasonable argument that Twitter may be a utility - particularly some time in the future.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:46 pm

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 4:04 am And then, is a better way to regulate a media company benevolent dictatorship or democracy? In either case, how dangerous is it really if this good/service is misused?

Whether the regulations are imposed by a dictatorship or a democracy is irrelevant; what is relevant is the purpose, methods, and effects of the regulation. What counts as a "misuse"? Who decides what is a misuse?

Not talking about a form of government, talking about a form of management. Sorry that was unclear. The question is how best to react to what may be a misuse like, say, if the FSB was using the platform as a fifth column.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:46 pm

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 4:04 am
Then there's the question of whether or not a private good/service should be understood to be truly private if it takes money from the public but is not economically viable on its own. If it threatens to go away, is it so useful that it should be propped up?

Useful to whom? If it is not viable on its own, then it is not useful enough, or to enough people, that they are willing to pay what it takes to maintain it, in which case it should go away.

No, again things like highways (which were private at one time) and utilities are not allowed to stop service because the owners are done with them. That's what eminent domain is about.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:46 pm

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 4:04 am Will we be talking about Elon Musk's Twitter Party in a few years.?

Not likely. Either Twitter will still be around, because at least some people find it useful, or not, in which case no one will miss it.

I'm not so sure. Having a news outlet wedded to a political party and/or a prominent individual is very normal outside the US. And now we have Fox which is an unapologetic arm of the Republican party. Unsurprisingly the Fox model comes from outside the US.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:46 pm

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 4:04 am
It's all about cross-subsidy.

No, it isn't. Twitter (as far as I know) currently receives no subsidies, nor is Musk seeking any.

You're not going to understand economic subsidies with such a narrow, antiquated concept of them. Cross subsidies exist within businesses. Cross subsidies happen actively and passively. For example, if you get really popular on Youtube but you don't do advertising on your channel, it doesn't matter that much because the videos people watch before and after your videos. So Nord VPN is pretty much your advertiser whether you want them or not.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:19 pm

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 2:48 am
The best way to think about subsidies both positive or negative subsidies. When you pay a gas tax you negatively subsidize the fuel business to positively subsidize the construction business.

No, that is not the "best way to think about subsidies." That is an ad hoc, contrived definition of your own invention. A payment for a service rendered is not a "subsidy." The gas tax involves no "subsidies," either "positive" or "negative," to fuel suppliers, construction companies, or anyone else. Indeed, there is no such thing as a "negative subsidy."

Go back to the dictionary and look up the meaning of "subsidy" again.

Dude, the only reason I'm getting into subsidies is that Twitter is ECONOMICALLY subsidized in interesting ways.

As for what subsidies mean, here is an article I found in thirty seconds. [Warning: it is about climate change in part but I'm not making any point about climate change at all. It's just a good example of how economists think about subsidies]

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-c ... -subsidies

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:19 pm
Just about every industry, and every other interest group noisy enough to be noticed by a politician, will receive some sort of subsidy --- i.e., a gift of money --- from the government, stolen from taxpayers, of course.

We get it. Corrupt politicians steal from the good people to give money to the bad people so the bad people will vote for them. It's not a particularly telling analysis, but we get it. Okay?

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 5:28 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:46 pm
Yes. The size of the service and its customer base has nothing to do with the public/private distinction. The service is private if it was launched and financed by private persons with private capital; public if launched by government and financed with public funds (obtained through taxes).

Not true. First, there is a class of property with a large amount of stuff in it that is quasi-public. Best example is probably a restaurant parking lot. You're not really on private property legally when you're in a parking lot.

Dlaw, make one false claim after another. The only parking lots that are public are those owned by government. The owner of a restaurant parking lot may exclude anyone he wishes from using it ("Customer parking only"), convert it to another use, or sell it. That one ranks right up there with your "You give banks your money," your claims that "due process" has something to do with tax fairness, "corporations are required by law to benefit their rich owners," and, "Government subsidies [are] not taken by force."

Power companies are so huge and affect so many people that they are regulated as utilities.

No. They are regulated because 1) they require public rights-of-way to string their lines, and 2) because they are granted a monopoly within their service areas.

There's a reasonable argument that Twitter may be a utility - particularly some time in the future.

That is most unlikely. It is not a monopoly and requires no public right-of-way. Neither does it provide any essential service. Any regulations imposed upon it would be gratuitous, politically-motivated, and probably challenged.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 1:46 pm
Useful to whom? If it is not viable on its own, then it is not useful enough, or to enough people, that they are willing to pay what it takes to maintain it, in which case it should go away.

No, again things like highways (which were private at one time) and utilities are not allowed to stop service because the owners are done with them. That's what eminent domain is about.

That's fine. If the government wants to pay Musk the fair market value for Twitter then it can run it as it pleases.

You're not going to understand economic subsidies with such a narrow, antiquated concept of them.

Au contraire. YOU are not going to understand subsidies until you learn the meaning of that term. Payments for services rendered are not subsidies. Loans are not subsidies. Positive externalities are not subsidies. That "narrow, antiquated" meaning I gave is the meaning used throughout economics. Somehow, from somewhere, you've come up with a goofy, eclectic meaning.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 5:39 pm
Dude, the only reason I'm getting into subsidies is that Twitter is ECONOMICALLY subsidized in interesting ways.

Oh? What ways? By whom?

As for what subsidies mean, here is an article I found in thirty seconds. [Warning: it is about climate change in part but I'm not making any point about climate change at all. It's just a good example of how economists think about subsidies]

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-c ... -subsidies

Oh, there is no question that fossil fuel producers receive subsidies. Some of those "indirect" subsidies listed in that and similar analyses, such as environmental costs, are speculative and questionable, however. That article, BTW, relies on the commonplace meaning of "subsidy."

We get it. Corrupt politicians steal from the good people to give money to the bad people so the bad people will vote for them. It's not a particularly telling analysis, but we get it. Okay?

Not quite. They steal from anyone who has money, and hand it over to anyone who has a vote.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 9:04 am

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 4:04 am What I was hoping is that we'd get to the more philosophical questions of economics. So, with Twitter, we have the question of a public vs. a private good/service. If a service gets so large and reaches so broadly can it really be said to be private? And then, is a better way to regulate a media company benevolent dictatorship or democracy? In either case, how dangerous is it really if this good/service is misused?

Then there's the question of whether or not a private good/service should be understood to be truly private if it takes money from the public but is not economically viable on its own. If it threatens to go away, is it so useful that it should be propped up? If it's not economically viable, will it inevitably court controversy until it is just something political? Will we be talking about Elon Musk's Twitter Party in a few years. He wouldn't be the first to convert a media company into a political party.

It's all about cross-subsidy.

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 7:59 am ^These are exactly the issues I had hoped we might be discussing here.

Isn't what we're discussing here the purpose and function of government? If Twitter is a private company, but operating in such a public sphere, their behaviour should be monitored by the government, and, if necessary, moderated. I think this is one reason for government. [There are others, of course, but we're not really concerned with those in this topic, I don't think.]

No the govenrment shouldn't monitor Twitter as they'd only be doing so for the benefit of the government and the corporations they represent. The government would censor all speech they didn't like and it would devolve into a fascistic imposition of news the government likes (eg iraq has WMDs) and fascistic erasure of speech they don't like (eg Iraq DOESN'T have WMDs). Twitter already heeded the government when they listened to the FBI who lied and said Hunter's laptop was "Russian disinformation." A democratic non-fascistic society needs public discourse free from government regulation (outside of the breaking of laws), not the embracing of it

Henry Case wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 2:26 am No the govenrment shouldn't monitor Twitter as they'd only be doing so for the benefit of the government and the corporations they represent. The government would censor all speech they didn't like and it would devolve into a fascistic imposition of news the government likes (eg iraq has WMDs) and fascistic erasure of speech they don't like (eg Iraq DOESN'T have WMDs). Twitter already heeded the government when they listened to the FBI who lied and said Hunter's laptop was "Russian disinformation." A democratic non-fascistic society needs public discourse free from government regulation (outside of the breaking of laws), not the embracing of it

This is an American view, and it always surprises me. Your government are there because you (all Americans) voted for them, and put them in place to represent you. You are your government; your government are you. I.e. 'the' government are not an external invader that seeks to harm American citizens, they are your representatives, working on your behalf. If they aren't, don't vote for them! Embrace your government as your helper, your protector, etc?

I agree that government 'interference' should be kept to a minimum, but their observation and (where necessary) supervision is desirable, I think.

We did not vote for them to control and censor public discourse....that must be a European thing. And I am not my government and they are not me...that must be a thing you British embrace; of course you let racist royals into your government matters, so I'm not surprised you like such hegemony

And many of us didn't vote for the government in place, so your point is further erroneous...and no their observation and supervision in such matters is not desirable...outside of their constitutional purview

Putting aside the above racist claims about Europeans, the above post fails the logic test.

A private company has every right to set its own policies, within reasonable parameters set by the law. If users persistently breach a site's rules, then the owner have every right to suspend their accounts or ban them. If you visit someone else's home, it is arrogant and unethical to deliberately operate outside of stated house rules.

If you're referring to my post, there is nothing racist about what I said about Europeans

Also, while companies legally have the right to moderate as they see--just as Elon has the right to reduce moderation--these companies being monopolized public squares changes the ethics and functionalities of that

Henry Case wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 7:56 pmAlso, while companies legally have the right to moderate as they see--just as Elon has the right to reduce moderation--these companies being monopolized public squares changes the ethics and functionalities of that

Doesn't matter. It's privately owned. Musk spent many billions on Twitter so he has a right to operate Twitter as he sees fit within the bounds of the law, as did the previous management. He paid big money for that level of influence.

We can decry the fact that unelected large corporations are increasingly as powerful as governments, but it seems as though we are moving towards a variation of feudalism. Extreme inequality is worldwide, so it appears to be related to large populations, and there appears to be nothing anyone can do about it. If the poor rise up, they won't become rich, rather everyone would be poor.

Whatever, you need not worry because Musk has opened Twitter up.

Trouble is, extremists by definition are unusually motivated and tend to post far more than moderates. In an unregulated environment, this can lead to online meeting places being dominated by destructive extremists, which then drives off more moderate voices. In practical terms, moderates will effectively cancelled, be leaving the field open for feral elements to flourish.

Sorry, but spending billions on a company doesn't mean you can run it as you please. No company has that right.

And why are you talking about the poor becoming rich? That's not an issue here

That being said, I much prefer Musk's open management with less moderation to the old regime