Barstool Economics...

Noticias externas — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:44:33 GMT

A friend of mine sent this to me recently and it makes soooo much sense.  In light of the current

re: Barstool Economics...

BillN6 — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:15:56 GMT

Good article. See also

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

I always check Snopes for this sort of thing.

re: Barstool Economics...

zainnab — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:05:57 GMT

Yep. I am usually good about checking my sources but didn't in this case. Plus this one is wierd because the story isn't in dispute just who wrote it. Usually when I think of Snopes it makes me think of untrue things not inaccurate attribution.

re: Barstool Economics...

The Anonymous One — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:51:28 GMT

It makes sense, now all we need to do is genetically modify cannibis tree's to produce a legal high with the oxygen they naturally produce. From which neither of the 10 men would want to drink, as they would be f**ked. And! Neither would want to steal because of "one love." JAMMIN!

re: Barstool Economics...

mike oakey — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:16:45 GMT

Gosh oh gee. How do I debate such a straight forward and simple explanation of our tax system?

Let me try.

A "real" economist would have two problems with this "example":

1. It uses luxury as its model. A simple understanding of game theory shows that at the end of

the story, if the 10th man decides not to buy, then he has no leverage. No one "needs" beer. Our

government doesn't apportion luxuries.

2. There is no baseline. The assumption is that if you can't afford it, don't drink. When in reality,

what most of us are doing is working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare.

THAT is the baseline. Anything made above the price of these necessities could be subject

to the "beer" argument, but the result would end up with pretty much everyone paying as shown.

So it's ridiculous to use beer as the example. Why not use 60" plasma TVs or diamonds?

None of these represent the economic situation that most of us find ourselves in. Since the example

uses a luxury (beer) as its foundation, let's rewrite the story using a necessity: Oxygen.

HERE IS THE UPDATE TO THE STORY

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for oxygen and the bill for all ten

comes to $100. It would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men breathe each day and seem quite happy with the

arrangement, until one day, the richest man throws them a curve.

"I'm tired of paying the most when you all use the same amount of oxygen.

I'm not going to pay for you to get oxygen anymore. Go buy your own air."

the 1st and 2nd men (poorest) can't afford oxygen and die within minutes.

The 3rd poor man gets his wages reduced by his boss (the seventh man who needs to pay more now)

and can no longer afford oxygen either. He dies within days.

The 4th poor man, pays for oxygen and continues to breathe. How? He loves his wife and kids

and so to continue to allow them to breathe, he was driven to steal the rich man's car to pay for oxygen

for his family. Crime increases, not because men want "beer" and bling, but because they will do

anything to provide for their families. He gets caught and sent to prison where he earns no money.

His disabled wife and small children all die now that they have no provider of oxygen.

The 5th & 6th men make their living selling products (like food) and services to the first 4 men.

Having more than half of their customers die, they can no longer afford to stay in business.

They both close shop and die within weeks.

The 7th & 8th men own or work for companies that sell products and services to the 9th & 10th man.

Unfortunately, the workers they rely on to plant and harvest the crops, manufacture goods, and deliver

the services have all died. Within months, the 7th and 8th men die.

The 9th man has enough money to buy oxygen for a year. Unfortunately, the guy that refills oxygen bottles was man

number 1. The guy that maintains the regulators and oxygen safety equipment was man number 2. The owner of the trucking

company that delivers the oxygen was man number 7. Man number 9 dies in 4 months when the supply of safe, available oxygen disappears.

Now we come to good, ol' man number 10. The guy that wants to stop paying because he is blind to the value others bring to him and his lifestyle.

Man number 10 has stocked away 5 years worth of oxygen. He'll survive...at least for awhile. As long as

he can build his own roads, make his own electricity, maintain his own equipment, grow his own food, provide his own healthcare,

clean his own air & water, and protect himself from fire, flood, hurricane, and the occasional attack from

anyone else who might have survived and wants to take HIS oxygen.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system would

work if we let the short-sighted run our economy. The people who pay the highest taxes need to understand

that they truly get the most benefit when the people who supply, buy, and work for them can afford the necessities of life.

Bitch too much, attack the middle class and poor for not paying enough, and they just may

stop producing, showing up, or DIE.

David Stuck

Student of Life and Economics

For those who were naive enough to except the "beer" analogy, think about

where YOUR money goes and what would happen to you. (hint: You aren't the 10th man)

re: Barstool Economics...

steve — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:01:45 GMT

What would know about "Real economics" I bet your parents spent a lot to have "Keynesian"economics stuffed in your mush filled head.I think the point Barstool Economics is the stupidity of a Karl Marx progressive income tax. I think modern education is the opium of the masses. and I think your buzzed! But I do hope you have a good day!!! Steve