Nope. It still has low marginal utility.

Again, just because you could find something to spend the money on doesn't mean the dollars have high marginal utility. Buying a professional sports franchise and starving to death are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Whether or not you're able to buy the team, your quality of life is essentially the same at $200 million as it is at $300 million.

Because you said so?

You obviously don't understand his point. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2014 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Because you said so?

Because common sense. From a quality of life standpoint, the difference between someone with hundreds of millions of dollars and someone with a sports team worth hundreds of millions of dollars is tiny.

OK.  Because you said so.  Got it.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2014 7:49:00 PM (view original):
OK.  Because you said so.  Got it.

Am I wrong?

No, of course not.  You're never wrong.  Correct?

Like everyone, I'm wrong all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Nope. It still has low marginal utility.

Again, just because you could find something to spend the money on doesn't mean the dollars have high marginal utility. Buying a professional sports franchise and starving to death are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Whether or not you're able to buy the team, your quality of life is essentially the same at $200 million as it is at $300 million.

Yet people that are **** broke still spend a great proportion of their income on cigarettes. What has more marginal utility, Moy's sports team or joeschmoe's smokes?

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Like everyone, I'm wrong all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

i can't find 1 credible source that stands behind the marginal utility "of income"... and IN PARTICULAR i can't find anything that compares the marginal utility of income 'spent' vs. the utility of actually 'saving' that money. It just seems you are using a 'spending only' based model that does not include saving as a possible outcome.

its like your cheeseburger analogy... your model doesn't account for someone 'saving' part of the burger for a future meal. It only accounts for eating 4, 5, 6 burgers in one sitting so obviously in that case the 5th and 6th burgers have less marginal utility than the first couple burgers. to put it another way... which has more utility... having enough food for one meal only OR having enough food to last a week?

Take a breath and think it through. If we taxed by taking one cheeseburger from everyone, who will have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 cheeseburgers that he's saving for later or the guy with only one cheeseburger?

Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2014 11:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Nope. It still has low marginal utility.

Again, just because you could find something to spend the money on doesn't mean the dollars have high marginal utility. Buying a professional sports franchise and starving to death are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Whether or not you're able to buy the team, your quality of life is essentially the same at $200 million as it is at $300 million.

Yet people that are **** broke still spend a great proportion of their income on cigarettes. What has more marginal utility, Moy's sports team or joeschmoe's smokes?

Oh, cool.  So, once one achieves not "starving to death", their money has lower marginal utility.   I suggest one can live on $500 a year.  Therefore, once one's income exceeds $500, they should contribute to the fund that allows the govt to run this place.   I suggest their percentage should be the same as everyone else.

Glad we could come to an agreement.

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 7:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 12:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Like everyone, I'm wrong all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

i can't find 1 credible source that stands behind the marginal utility "of income"... and IN PARTICULAR i can't find anything that compares the marginal utility of income 'spent' vs. the utility of actually 'saving' that money. It just seems you are using a 'spending only' based model that does not include saving as a possible outcome.

its like your cheeseburger analogy... your model doesn't account for someone 'saving' part of the burger for a future meal. It only accounts for eating 4, 5, 6 burgers in one sitting so obviously in that case the 5th and 6th burgers have less marginal utility than the first couple burgers. to put it another way... which has more utility... having enough food for one meal only OR having enough food to last a week?

Take a breath and think it through. If we taxed by taking one cheeseburger from everyone, who will have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 cheeseburgers that he's saving for later or the guy with only one cheeseburger?

So basically short our countries future for today.... You'd make a great politician.

For example - its that money 'on the sidelines' that gets used to fund start up businesses... Is it more important for an angel investor to feed 10 people today or create jobs for 200,000 people tomorrow?

According to BL, you obviously don't understand how it works.  Anybody who disagrees with it just doesn't understand.  BL has assured us that, while he's wrong on a lot of other things, he's spot-on correct with this.

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 7:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 12:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Like everyone, I'm wrong all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

i can't find 1 credible source that stands behind the marginal utility "of income"... and IN PARTICULAR i can't find anything that compares the marginal utility of income 'spent' vs. the utility of actually 'saving' that money. It just seems you are using a 'spending only' based model that does not include saving as a possible outcome.

its like your cheeseburger analogy... your model doesn't account for someone 'saving' part of the burger for a future meal. It only accounts for eating 4, 5, 6 burgers in one sitting so obviously in that case the 5th and 6th burgers have less marginal utility than the first couple burgers. to put it another way... which has more utility... having enough food for one meal only OR having enough food to last a week?

Take a breath and think it through. If we taxed by taking one cheeseburger from everyone, who will have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 cheeseburgers that he's saving for later or the guy with only one cheeseburger?

So basically short our countries future for today.... You'd make a great politician.

For example - its that money 'on the sidelines' that gets used to fund start up businesses... Is it more important for an angel investor to feed 10 people today or create jobs for 200,000 people tomorrow?

Can you answer the question?

If we taxed everyone one cheeseburger, who would have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 saved for later or the guy with one?