Politics, economics and arbitrary transfers.
I was looking for an economics catagory but don't see one.
Politics will do.
I'm interested in something called arbitrary transfers. Basically any transfer of money without any goods or services in return.
It's a thing that exists in the economy in the form of transfer payments as taught in economics classes but also in non transfer payments as business markups, inheritance, large gifts, charitable organizations and also illegal forms like theft, in investment scams or fraud....
It's a big enough part of the economy that it's worth looking at and seems to be increasing in the government sector.
If arbitrary transfers are used to increase production, such as in China, they might have a geopolitical significance or for social programs as in ... The West...a disadvantage.
Generally an arbitrary transfer will have a beneficiary and a burden bearer...unless you die and leave your assets, then it doesn't matter.
And also possibly an enforcer as is the case with government transfer payments
So that's the economic issue of arbitrary transfers that I'm wondering if philosophy can address.
Politics will do.
I'm interested in something called arbitrary transfers. Basically any transfer of money without any goods or services in return.
It's a thing that exists in the economy in the form of transfer payments as taught in economics classes but also in non transfer payments as business markups, inheritance, large gifts, charitable organizations and also illegal forms like theft, in investment scams or fraud....
It's a big enough part of the economy that it's worth looking at and seems to be increasing in the government sector.
If arbitrary transfers are used to increase production, such as in China, they might have a geopolitical significance or for social programs as in ... The West...a disadvantage.
Generally an arbitrary transfer will have a beneficiary and a burden bearer...unless you die and leave your assets, then it doesn't matter.
And also possibly an enforcer as is the case with government transfer payments
So that's the economic issue of arbitrary transfers that I'm wondering if philosophy can address.
Comments (33)
Why do you think that if used for social programs, it is a disadvantage?
Presumably that's an investment in something tangible, or how could it increase production?
Investing in social programs is similarly earmarked for goods and services. Even if the program doesn't directly benefit the donor, a healthier labour pool and environment will.
I assume political donations are arbitrary transfers. That has some significance in political philosophy, as does making such transfers tax deductible. Also tax dodges in general, such as transferring assets offshore.
It may or may not be a disadvantage.
But I was thinking about opportunity cost.
Production could bring high return but the social programs wouldn't get done.
So supporting or not supporting social programs is a political perspective.
Arbitrary Transfers (AT)
Can work against consumers...
Here's an example,
A toaster costs 10 dollars wholesale.
A retailer marks it up to 11 and sells to a consumer.
The 11 dollars is the nessecary transfer (NT) for the transaction to occur.
If the retainer sells for 12 dollars, the price could be understood as 11 dollars (NT) and 1 dollar (AT).
That means the consumer was the burden bearer of the AT and the retailer was the beneficiary.
So with arbitrary transfers, it's not just a point of view but a need to understand the concept.
Political donation might be a special case of Arbitrary Transfers.
Is something gotten in return or is it really a donation with no return?
Tens of millions now days...
Okay. But there is always some kind of tangible interest in an arbitrary transfer, whether it's brand recognition for sponsoring a sporting event, or a tax shelter, or the expectation - but no contractual obligation - of political favours.
That doesn't cover the other question: What does this mean:
Quoting Mark Nyquist Are you talking about government subsidies to industry?
In any case, how does the spending of money relate to philosophy?
I am suggesting to be more aware of Arbitrary Transfers.
So in the US economy the organizations that can capture the most arbitrary transfer dollars will do the best. It might be obvious but profits tend to accumulate in certain sectors of the economy and Arbitrary Transfers can drive profitability.
I can speculate on China...Not sure but with centralized control it's possible that what would be corporate profits (AT dollars) in the US, might end up in central government control in China.
But the US economy has control features that are less than transparent.
Do the best... what?
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Especially as in your second example: an extra markup beyond overhead and handling.
But then, so can lots of other factors.
Still don't see the connection to productivity or philosophy.
Im not sure any transfer could be called arbitrary save for throwing a bunch of money in the air and letting anyone pick it up.
What my point is, if you use Arbitrary Transfers as a tool to understand the economy you will see things you missed before.
Let's say a consumer buys a 15 dollar toaster.
Consumers buy blind without knowing what the markup is. So by thinking in terms of arbitrary transfer the over view is the consumer paid 11 dollars NT and 4 dollars AT.
Something a consumer is likely unaware of.
So the retailers profit is the 4 AT dollars and is the beneficiary.
The consumer was willing to pay 15 dollars that included a 4 dollar AT. The consumer has a 4 dollar AT cost burden.
All useing my original example of a 10 dollar wholesale toaster and an 11 dollars NT cost from the retailer.
It's just a tool to use...
Oh, did you think we were all unaware of profit gouging, tax dodges and loopholes?
Even were that so, it still wouldn't be a philosophical question.
So you are opposed to arbitrary transfers?
Transfer payments?
I'm not opposed to support for the arts, endowments for museums, libraries and research, scholarships, charitable donations, sponsorship of public broadcasting, trust funds for veteran rehabilitation, addiction treatments, environmental initiatives, etc.
It all depends on the why and to whom for what purpose, donnit?
Philosophical question:
Are arbitrary transfers a philosophical question?
Describe why arbitrary transfers are philosophically significant:
Arbitrary Transfers such as transfer payments are political decisions and involve moral judgement.
But I thought it was an interesting topic.
It might have some usefulness in understanding the economy and varying perspectives.
Are you critical of the subject, 180 Proof?
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Donations can shape society. Simply moving money around usually does not.
This thread is a stretch. :roll:
Remittances also dwarf loans and foreign private investment, which is why wealthy countries don't tend to have much leverage here.
I did see economics wasn't listed as a subject heading.
We'll see want turns up.
I hadn't thought of remittances.
That is a big one.
Ok, people work in a wealthy nation, earn a wage and send a portion back to their home country.
The portion sent back is an arbitrary transfer.
If the worker works for.less than prevailing wages, the difference could be an arbitrary transfer in favor of the employer. Appears to be voluntary on the part of the worker or the best option.
That's an arbitrary transfer.
Bankruptcies....
No, I'm neither an economist nor a policy-maker.
What is arbitrary about them?
Even the US government is spending about half into transfer payments to individuals and businesses (mostly to individuals). This include Social Security, unemployment insurances, student grants, etc.
Welfare states do it even more.
Arbitrary because transfer payments are not direct payments.
A taxpayers has an involuntary commitment, the government sets policy and allocates and the beneficiarys need to be qualified.
Or the benefit could be funded by debt and the final payers are unknown.
And in cases like markups the arbitrary transfer is a variable factor in price.
Arbitrary Transfers come in many forms but are identified by a transfer of funds or resource with no benefits in return.
So in specific cases, like welfare the benefits can be targeted.
Property taxes are an arbitrary funding method as all beneficiaries are not property owners. Such as large proportions of school funding by property taxes.
Arbitrary because not all players have control...
Such as the defence budget? And, in fact, all funding for government agencies.
:up: Luxury goods are those. Also, brand names create ATs.
Same factory and production processes for the same goods, but packaged, labeled, and distributed differently (different demographics distribution, for example) create AT.
It is not a secret that the financial sectors, where high net worth consumers flocks, would have almost no limit on what they could charge for their services.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Here your description is vulnerable because almost everything we transact in we are not in control. Bundles and package deals remove the control of consumers, for example.
But most especially those charges sanctioned by government agencies. Property taxes and income taxes.
But how come no one is talking about HOA (homeowerns' association)? The organization that sets the monthly fee for homeowners living in certain communities. They have a lot of power over the homeowners -- they could, at times, take your property away. This fee is forever and nonnegotiable.
Good.
Add HOA's to the list.
Some might be well run but others might exploit.
To me, defense budgets are another category.
But AT principles apply.
Are we paying for something without a return or is the alternative an impossibility?
You never know what you're paying for with taxes. You are told some things; you see some effects of government spending, but you can never find out how much of the money is sunk into covert operations, how much is embezzled, how much is written off on expense accounts, how much is paid out in bribes and kick-backs.
I still have not been able to discover what it is you wanted to discuss.
People will.have different perspectives on arbitrary transfers.
Let's try three catagories.
Only Payers Out of AT's,
Net income = (earned income) minus (AT out).
Both Payers.Out and Benifitiaries of AT's,
Net income = (earned income) plus (AT's in) minus (AT's out).
Only Benifitiaries of AT's
Net income = (earned income) plus (AT's in).
A fourth catagory would be people not in any form of AT economy. Not a big group.
So perspectives will follow the group you are in.
Most of us are both Payers out and Benifitiaries.
What is it you wanted to discuss?
You.mentioned taxes.
We know what we pay but not were exactly it goes. And it diminishes as it is distributed.
So taxes and transfer payments are part of arbitrary transfers.
If it's not philosophy to you ...fine.
Maybe we are lucky or unlucky and transfers play a part.
Uh-huh.
So let's move on with Arbitrary Transfers.
Is democracy a haven for AT activity?
Vote your interests?
Promote the policy that moves money your way?