Ttip

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Oh dear, it seems like you don't get it at all. Bastiat's point is that "industry/government service X provides Y employment" is not an argument for maintaining X, because the "unseen" effect of people not smoking anymore is that they would spend their money elsewhere.

It seems that you don't get it at all. Bastiate's argument was with people who thought that the broken window provided work for the glazer, and glass maker, so breaking the window was an economic good. I remember some moron suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was an economic good. Bastiate refuted such moronic suggestions.

The modern equivalent of that is that government would tax tobacco, and provide anti smoking services and other public goods (which are the seen).

The unseen are the pleasure of the smokers, and what they might have done with the money taken from them by government. You do realize that about 75% of the cost of a cigarette is taxes.

Originally posted by normbenign
It seems that you don't get it at all. Bastiate's argument was with people who thought that the broken window provided work for the glazer, and glass maker, so breaking the window was an economic good. I remember some moron suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was an economic good. Bastiate refuted such moronic suggestions.

The modern equivalent of tha ...[text shortened]... ken from them by government. You do realize that about 75% of the cost of a cigarette is taxes.

The unseen are the pleasure of the smokers, and what they might have done with the money taken from them by government. You do realize that about 75% of the cost of a cigarette is taxes.

This is not unseen since we already know what people would do with the extra money - without the added cost of tobacco due to taxation, people would spend their extra money buying even more tobacco. Taxes reduce consumption significantly. Their additional consumption of tobacco would generate additional social costs which if not met through taxes on tobacco would have to be met from some other source. The idea that all the costs arising from smoking fall to the person smoking is absurd. Even the evidence on secondary smoking alone ought to be enough to refute that thinking. Your line of thinking is absurd and so are the sources from which you take your line of thinking, notably that idiot Rand whom you were unable to defend effectively in another thread.

Originally posted by finnegan

The unseen are the pleasure of the smokers, and what they might have done with the money taken from them by government. You do realize that about 75% of the cost of a cigarette is taxes.

This is not unseen since we already know what people would do with the extra money - without the added cost of tobacco due to taxation, people would spend th ...[text shortened]... thinking, notably that idiot Rand whom you were unable to defend effectively in another thread.

Individual costs become social costs and are multiplied when government pays for the consequences of bad behavior.

Barely six years after the crash of the mortgage industry due to lax underwriting, a new law was passed, Fannie and Freddie remain in tact, and all of the incentives to write bad mortgages remain. Guess what? They're back at it again.

Again, you clearly have no idea of what Bastiat was saying.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp

The point is that intentional destruction of any part of an economy is not an economic good. It may benefit some part of the economy, but the unwarranted destruction causes more harm than the suggested good.

Originally posted by finnegan

The unseen are the pleasure of the smokers, and what they might have done with the money taken from them by government. You do realize that about 75% of the cost of a cigarette is taxes.

This is not unseen since we already know what people would do with the extra money - without the added cost of tobacco due to taxation, people would spend th ...[text shortened]... thinking, notably that idiot Rand whom you were unable to defend effectively in another thread.

This is not unseen since we already know what people would do with the extra money - without the added cost of tobacco due to taxation, people would spend their extra money buying even more tobacco.

No I wouldn't I'd spend the extra money on champagne and caviar. I'm sorry I can't agree with this. How much tobacco costs has no effect on how much of it I smoke. I simply costs me more to smoke the same amount.

This is, of course, no reason not to tax it. The U.K. government has every reason to attempt to recoup the costs to the N.H.S..