Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Renton]

I just don't think it is a failure. The tulip REALLY WAS worth that much. Intrinsic value is mostly a fantasy. Did anyone other than speculators suffer harm? Maybe some tulip farmers lost their jobs, but they were likely serfs who weren't profiting at all from the bubble anyway.

[wufwugy]

No.

There is a distinct difference between systems with rules that change over time.



Rules-bound behavioral systems that change over time, like the meta game of poker for instance.

And actual natural evolution.



Because they're a science, practicing the scientific method. Every experiment moves a scientific field forward. Economics is not a science, though.

Markets are like this.

I think perhaps you're not understanding why I compare markets to evolution. Evolution is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time. The market is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time.

I'm confused on why you seem to disagree with this, so I don't have much more I can say.

[a500lbgorilla]

What happened was a spectacle. People thought they found a new honey, and the same old ancient drives that dictate what you do when you find honey had them pumping up that bubble.

[wufwugy]

Although Mackay's book is a classic, his account is contested. Many modern scholars feel that the mania was not as extraordinary as Mackay described and argue that not enough price data are available to prove that a tulip bulb bubble actually occurred

.

[a500lbgorilla]

Markets are like this.

I think perhaps you're not understanding why I compare markets to evolution. Evolution is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time. The market is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time.

I'm confused on why you seem to disagree with this, so I don't have much more I can say.

Evolution is. Our explanation and understanding of Evolution is very strong. You can look into the furthest reaches of the biological world and find that we're close on the money. And our understanding of how it works in an incredible testament to what happens when brilliant minds with a lot of information apply the scientific method.

When you talk about markets, you aren't talking on the same level. I've made this point a dozen times in a dozen different ways. What you're talking about is some imagined system that has rules for how every step will unfold. Rules like, people will allocate their money based on their preferences and so each person will allocate his surplus of work to another whose work they need and will keep it from another whose work they don't need. And so the system will grow those works that are needed and shrink those works that are not.

What that is is playing imagination games with rules, it is not anywhere close to the same plane as what happens when people discuss the mechanism of evolution.

The first link I shared shows how you can craft rules to make systems 'evolve', the second was an example of how people playing under the constraints of rules can evolve (which is where markets fit in), and both of them are a far cry from natural evolution and our understanding of it.

Basically, the thing you're missing is how hard it is to be right. How hard it is to guess the future.

[wufwugy]

"Bubble" is a false narrative. Nobody has yet described what they really are, and the data show they're not real. Example: several western countries are still running strong on their "housing bubbles" that never collapsed. Another example: the "China bubble" is suppose to collapse every six months. It continually defies this prediction and provides no evidence suggesting it will do otherwise.

There is a dark streak in the western psyche that when something goes good, it's too good to be real. The Federal Reserve is not unshackled by this delusion either. It believed the Roaring 20s was a bubble that needed to be popped, and we got the Great Depression out of their lunacy.

[a500lbgorilla]

.

Exactly what Economics is. An argument. Pick a side, if you want.

[Renton]

What happened was a spectacle. People thought they found a new honey, and the same old ancient drives that dictate what you do when you find honey had them pumping up that bubble.

Do you think speculators are this stupid, even in the 1600s? That there weren't shrewd ones who jumped ship early and made off rich? Any non-fool understands the risk involving in speculating during a possible bubble, and he accepts that risk or sells off. Yes there were apparently a lot of people who didn't see it coming, but I don't think its an inevitable consequence of lizard brain that bubbles happen. And finance has come a long way in 400 years. Also, the government has been directly responsible for the worst bubbles of the last 200 years, so again, I don't see a favorable comparison to market behavior in this regard.

[a500lbgorilla]

Do you think speculators are this stupid, even in the 1600s? That there weren't shrewd ones who jumped ship early and made off rich? Any non-fool understands the risk involving in speculating during a possible bubble, and he accepts that risk or sells off. Yes there were apparently a lot of people who didn't see it coming, but I don't think its an inevitable consequence of lizard brain that bubbles happen. And finance has come a long way in 400 years. Also, the government has been directly responsible for the worst bubbles of the last 200 years, so again, I don't see a favorable comparison to market behavior in this regard.

The bubble actually happened. Many someones fell on the stupid side of things.

[Renton]

The bubble actually happened. Many someones fell on the stupid side of things.

How do you know they were stupid? What if they they were making bets that had an 5/6 chance of winning X and a 1/6 chance of losing 4X? That's a perfectly profitable bet to make even if you lose big 1 out of 6 times.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm betting they were stupid because there's no reason to think they were smart.

http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psyc.../dp/006124189X

[wufwugy]

Evolution is. Our explanation and understanding of Evolution is very strong. You can look into the furthest reaches of the biological world and find that we're close on the money. And our understanding of how it works in an incredible testament to what happens when brilliant minds with a lot of information apply the scientific method.

When you talk about markets, you aren't talking on the same level. I've made this point a dozen times in a dozen different ways. What you're talking about is some imagined system that has rules for how every step will unfold. Rules like, people will allocate their money based on their preferences and so each person will allocate his surplus of work to another whose work they need and will keep it from another whose work they don't need. And so the system will grow those works that are needed and shrink those works that are not.

What that is is playing imagination games with rules, it is not anywhere close to the same plane as what happens when people discuss the mechanism of evolution.

The first link I shared shows how you can craft rules to make systems 'evolve', the second was an example of how people playing under the constraints of rules can evolve (which is where markets fit in), and both of them are a far cry from natural evolution and our understanding of it.

Basically, the thing you're missing is how hard it is to be right. How hard it is to guess the future.

People don't want evolutionary biology to be predictive, but they do want economics to be predictive. None of the "guessing of the future" matters with my analogy to evolution. If it did, I wouldn't make the comparison in the first place. The comparison I'm making is when you step back and look at how the entire system functions on a philosophic level. They both are about competition of variants that are selected for by their environments.

[a500lbgorilla]

People don't want evolutionary biology to be predictive, but they do want economics to be predictive. None of the "guessing of the future" matters with my analogy to evolution. If it did, I wouldn't make the comparison in the first place. The comparison I'm making is when you step back and look at how the entire system functions on a philosophic level. They both are about competition of variants that are selected for by their environments.

Yes, on a philosophical level, what you're doing is playing imagination games with rules. These rules-based systems change over time. You don't gotta bring evolution into this.

[wufwugy]

Exactly what Economics is. An argument. Pick a side, if you want.

The last thing we need to do is rehash this.

Just because economics is much more difficult to study than physics, doesn't mean what study we can do is hogwash. While it does mean there is more to debate (since there is more unknown), it doesn't mean that its inquiries require less rigor.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's like me saying that my lifting schedule is just like the 12 labors of Hercules.

[a500lbgorilla]

The last thing we need to do is rehash this.

Just because economics is much more difficult to study than physics, doesn't mean what study we can do is hogwash. While it does mean there is more to debate (since there is more unknown), it doesn't mean that its inquiries require less rigor.

Economics is incredibly strong at argumentation. Models, while always wrong, are usually better than any other game in town. Economics stands above everyone else at what it's trying to do, but don't forget its short comings.

[Renton]

I'm betting that they were stupid too because it was sixteen god damn hundred, but my point is that speculation during a possible bubble is not automatically stupid because the probability of the bubble bursting is not necessarily 1. As wuf mentioned, some of the housing "bubbles" have been inflating for a very long time now. In the same way, it is not automatically smart to take a position when a stock has dropped to 1% of its peak price. It can always go lower, and often it does.

If your point is that human nature makes people susceptible to making idiotic bets in either of these cases, I'm inclined to agree with that. But again, I don't consider it a limitation of markets. People are susceptible to drug addiction too, but that doesn't make drug prohibition any less of a disaster. Capitalism generally rewards profitable behavior and penalizes unprofitable behavior. What better answer to human frailty is there?

[wufwugy]

Yes, on a philosophical level, what you're doing is playing imagination games with rules. These rules-based systems change over time. You don't gotta bring evolution into this.

But I do because it suggests that markets are the same type of thing as something else that is widely accepted. That doesn't give markets veracity, but it does provide perspective about them.

I remember thinking "the way people are saying markets organize looks to me to be the same way species organize, so since the way it is said that species organize is true, maybe I should rethink my discarding of markets".

[a500lbgorilla]

If your point is that human nature makes people susceptible to making idiotic bets in either of these cases, I'm inclined to agree with that. But again, I don't consider it a limitation of markets. People are susceptible to drug addiction too, but that doesn't make drug prohibition any less of a disaster. Capitalism generally rewards profitable behavior and penalizes unprofitable behavior. What better answer to human frailty is there?

I don't consider it a limitation of markets or an expression of failure either. Just a feature.

And to the last question, I dunno, I'm still trying to get a full glimpse of our frailty.

[a500lbgorilla]

But I do because it suggests that markets are the same type of thing as something else that is widely accepted. That doesn't give markets veracity, but it does provide perspective about them.

I remember thinking "the way people are saying markets organize looks to me to be the same way species organize, so since the way it is said that species organize is true, maybe I should rethink my discarding of markets".

Yes, my point exactly. And when you look at the reasons to accept evolution versus the reason to accept markets, one is left desperately wanting.

And I contend that in a rhetorical sense, it does try to give them unearned veracity.

[Renton]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either. What about the life sciences that attempt to make sense out of unimaginable complexity? You've repeatedly cited psychology, which might as well be astrology compared to economics in the "is it a science?" department.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...is-a-scientist

Not really a rebuttal article, just an economist's pretty balanced take on the question.

[a500lbgorilla]

Newton's laws aren't even provable.

Newton was wrong. But for a wide range of natural phenomenon, he was close enough. And the trick is that we have a way for Nature to tell us this. Something we don't have in Economics.

Plus, I've already made this point. Models are always wrong, but usually better than anything else. If you're lucky enough to build your model on assumptions that are pretty well observed and steady, and if you're lucky enough to test all the consequences of your model against reality, then you're a science. But Economics is not so lucky.

[a500lbgorilla]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either. What about the life sciences that attempt to make sense out of unimaginable complexity? You've repeatedly cited psychology, which might as well be astrology compared to economics in the "is it a science?" department.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...is-a-scientist

Not really a rebuttal article, just an economist's pretty balanced take on the question.

PS I've seen this article before. Welcome to the world of argument. Every side can be fought for. It usually takes Nature to step in to settle the debate.

Look here, someone like me: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...-science-wang/

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Plank, a dude that was right in the face of a bunch of dudes that were wrong.

[wufwugy]

Yes, my point exactly. And when you look at the reasons to accept evolution versus the reason to accept markets, one is left desperately wanting.

I wouldn't argue with that. Though I'm not a fan of the disparaging language. The answer to "is evolution true?" is "about as true as you can get" while the answer to "are markets true?" (a weird question, but whatever) is "all signs point towards yes, but if you're picking the nits, it's not the most robustly known thing in the world".

And I contend that in a rhetorical sense, it does try to give them unearned veracity.

Sure. I think you could describe arguments that way.

[wufwugy]

Newton was wrong. But for a wide range of natural phenomenon, he was close enough. And the trick is that we have a way for Nature to tell us this. Something we don't have in Economics.

Plus, I've already made this point. Models are always wrong, but usually better than anything else. If you're lucky enough to build your model on assumptions that are pretty well observed and steady, and if you're lucky enough to test all the consequences of your model against reality, then you're a science. But Economics is not so lucky.

The thing is that while I'm okay with saying "sure" to this, I don't think this is the entirety of what's going on with your argument. Sometimes it sounds like you're saying "economics is really tough therefore economists don't know shit".

[a500lbgorilla]

The thing is that while I'm okay with saying "sure" to this, I don't think this is the entirety of what's going on with your argument. Sometimes it sounds like you're saying "economics is really tough therefore economists don't know shit".

Economics is really tough, therefore economists don't know shit.* They've a better sense than anyone not studying Economics, though.

Edit: Alright, I can't be so grandiose. They know some things. I'm pretty sure a lot of micro stuff is pretty solid.

*Let me put it this way: It's much easier to convince everyone that you're right, than to actually be right.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either.

The fundamental axioms of all fields are unprovable. What's your point?

It is a misconception that the goal science is to make "true" statements. Truth is beyond the realm of the scientific process. It never comes up. It's not that science is "unconcerned" with truth, so much as science is completely devoted to disproving false-hood. The notion that disproving falsehood is in any way logically linked with creating truth or finding truth is a non sequitur. Failure to prove statement false is not a proof that the statement is true. It's just an open door for another attempt to prove falsehood.

The goal of the scientific process is to make falsifiable statements and try as hard as we can to observe that they are false, and to report all experimental observations, without bias.

There is no such thing as an inertial reference frame?
SMH

***
@wufwugy: The intelligent things you have to say are all tainted by the knuckleheaded stuff you throw in when you get heated.

[wufwugy]

Look here, someone like me: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...-science-wang/

Sadly the first paragraph shows the author making at least two mistakes about macroeconomics. Then he goes to say macro isn't a science. He could be right, but we're not going to know that from people who get macro wrong.

Since he mentioned it a few times in the article, "forecasting" is not what macro does. To loosely quote from memory a macroeconomist, Scott Sumner, "If a model could predict a recession it would be changed so that the recession was no longer predicted". This means that recessions happening has no bearing on the veracity of macroeconomic claims. That's also assuming political policy is that which textbook economics might advocate in the first place, which is far from the case.

Macro uses the scientific method constantly. Every form of claim-making and discovery does. Some have just real shitty tools.

[a500lbgorilla]

Macro uses the scientific method constantly.

What is the scientific method?

[wufwugy]

[a500lbgorilla]

How does Macro use the scientific method?

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wufwugy: The intelligent things you have to say are all tainted by the knuckleheaded stuff you throw in when you get heated.

Sorry, upon re-read... this sounds like I'm being rude. I don't mean it to be harsh.

I mean that I'm trying to get some understanding of what you're saying, wuf. Every time I start to think you have a consistent point, you thrown in some comparison or analogy that leaves me thinking that you're just pushing a half-baked idea that you don't really understand and that you overvalue.

So I'm torn over what you're saying. I know you're a brilliant guy. I want to learn what you're passionate about. It's always good to dig someone's brain when they're talking about what they love.

I want to learn from you, but I have a personal hang up about the vagueness of your analogies and metaphors. That could be my problem. :/

***
It's absurd to say, XXX is not a science. Science is a process, and can be used by anyone in any field. If you have kids, or once were one, then you know the process of scientific inquiry starts very early. The hypotheses may be unstated, but the experiments and conclusions are quite real. It's always been the case that old statements are discarded for new statements. All the old statements were wrong, and it stands to reason that all the current statements will be old statements someday.

[wufwugy]

How does Macro use the scientific method?

One I've mentioned before.

In 2013, the US enacted fiscal austerity and monetary expansion. The Keynesians, headed up by Paul Krugman, said this this fiscal austerity would cost IIRC ~600k jobs over the next year. Market Monestarists, headed up by Scott Sumner, said it would not because of the monetary offset the Fed declared it would engage. Krugman said this would be a test of Market Monetarism (since Krugman loves the "us vs them" bullshit). Sumner said it wouldn't because clearly that's not how you test a dynamic broad system, but that it would be a test of the specific predictions and claims for why.

So, Keynesians said the economy would slow down in comparison to the fiscal austerity while Market Monetarists said it would stay the same or possibly speed up slightly because of the monetary offset. 2013 happened, it sped up slightly. Krugman acted like it never happened, Sumner continued doing what he does.

This is an example of forming a question, developing a hypothesis, making a prediction, running a test, and analyzing the results. It's a whole lot easier when you have a lab, but this is still the scientific method.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's absurd to say, XXX is not a science. Science is a process, and can be used by anyone in any field.

Were they being scientific when they rolled out this theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

When I say Economics is not a science, I say it because it cannot follow the process.

This guy basically lays out the process

http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/co...nomics/cn2qy3p

It appears the math professor couldn't handle the fact that in economics:

We have models, wherein all the rules and mechanisms are clearly defined;

We have the real world, where it's a lot harder to boil things down to a few transparent mechanisms.

We use the former to clarify our thinking about the latter.

Models are fully-articulated artificial economies where the researcher has full control over the preferences, the production functions, and the trading arrangements. We then figure out properties of those model economies, identify key transmission mechanisms, and poke them to see how they react.

Then we reason by analogy to the real world.

And if you think the assumptions don't reflect the real world along some first-order dimension, you build a competing model where you have different trading arrangements, or different utility functions, or different production functions, or whatever. Then you see how far from the benchmark your model takes you.

It's a very strong method, but it isn't the scientific method.

[wufwugy]

I mean that I'm trying to get some understanding of what you're saying, wuf. Every time I start to think you have a consistent point, you thrown in some comparison or analogy that leaves me thinking that you're just pushing a half-baked idea that you don't really understand and that you overvalue.

So I'm torn over what you're saying. I know you're a brilliant guy. I want to learn what you're passionate about. It's always good to dig someone's brain when they're talking about what they love.

I want to learn from you, but I have a personal hang up about the vagueness of your analogies and metaphors. That could be my problem. :/

It's not just you. I know I do this. Like everybody, I say things that make sense to me, but that doesn't mean they make sense to others. I also try to do more than one thing at a time, so I will often in one post say something clear, something speculative, and something in an attempt to rebut potential arguments against, all without clear transitions.

[a500lbgorilla]

One I've mentioned before.

In 2013, the US enacted fiscal austerity and monetary expansion. The Keynesians, headed up by Paul Krugman, said this this fiscal austerity would cost IIRC ~600k jobs over the next year. Market Monestarists, headed up by Scott Sumner, said it would not because of the monetary offset the Fed declared it would engage. Krugman said this would be a test of Market Monetarism (since Krugman loves the "us vs them" bullshit). Sumner said it wouldn't because clearly that's not how you test a dynamic broad system, but that it would be a test of the specific predictions and claims for why.

So, Keynesians said the economy would slow down in comparison to the fiscal austerity while Market Monetarists said it would stay the same or possibly speed up slightly because of the monetary offset. 2013 happened, it sped up slightly. Krugman acted like it never happened, Sumner continued doing what he does.

This is an example of forming a question, developing a hypothesis, making a prediction, running a test, and analyzing the results. It's a whole lot easier when you have a lab, but this is still the scientific method.

This is what an argument looks like. One that doesn't have any grounded experiment to fall back on.

There's an incredible book that really demonstrates what a Scientific argument looks like: The Histology of Neuroanatomy by Santiago Ramon y Cajal. Basically around 1900, new methods for treating and staining brain sections were discovered, these methods highlighted and lowlighted different aspects of the underlying neural structure. On top of this evidence, grand arguments were had about what any of it all meant. It really is a beautiful book that works through all the evidence, all the sorts of explanations for the evidence, how the best arguments were settled on by Cajal, and (outside of the book) how they were eventually demonstrated true.

There's no good in you and I fighting over Economics in this way until we agree on what a Science really looks like. This would be a great example of one to talk about.

[wufwugy]

Anytime you're able to say "this was wrong" or "this was right", you've engaged the scientific method.

Is it fair to say the scientific method has such a narrow definition that it must be conducted stringently in a lab while science communicators like DeGrasse Tyson say things like how kids engage the scientific method all the time?

[wufwugy]

Science is an argument.

[a500lbgorilla]

Science is an argument.

Yes, one were we tease Nature to settle it for us.

[a500lbgorilla]

Anytime you're able to say "this was wrong" or "this was right", you've engaged the scientific method.

Holy fucking no.

[a500lbgorilla]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

This is true.

[wufwugy]

Holy fucking no.

I meant to say science. The method is techniques. It's all still philosophically scientific discovery. Unless you want to say that "science" is exclusively formal.

[wufwugy]

Is this science:

"If I poke myself with this stick, I will feel pain." Commence poking, document feelings, evaluate them.

I say yes, I'm sure Rilla will mash keys to say no.

[a500lbgorilla]

I meant to say science. The method is techniques. It's all still philosophically scientific discovery. Unless you want to say that "science" is exclusively formal.

Science is exclusively the practice which allows us to turn natural reality into human understanding.

We've done this pretty successfully in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. When a physicist makes a human statement about gravity, it's pretty robust because of the methods we used to craft that statement. No statements in economics are crafted by this method.

Statements in economics are crafted through a method of rigorous argumentation and observation. But they fail to have a way to let Nature come in and have its say. There is no step that checks with Nature to make sure we're not way off base.

[wufwugy]

Humanity is nature. Society is nature. Money doing things is nature.

[a500lbgorilla]

Is this science:

"If I poke myself with this stick, I will feel pain." Commence poking, document feelings, evaluate them.

I say yes, I'm sure Rilla will mash keys to say no.

Sure, especially when you start going into "what if I poke myself with a finger. What if..."

Because you're testing your statements.

You've said like 4 different times in this thread that economists have a hard time experimenting on an Economy. This kid has an easy time experimenting on himself. You see the difference, of course.

[a500lbgorilla]

Humanity is nature. Society is nature. Money doing things is nature.

Yes, which is why you need the scientific method to explain them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Anytime you're able to say "this was wrong" or "this was right", you've engaged the scientific method.

If you say, "This was right," then you are not within the realm of scientific statements.

Once again: Failure to disprove is not the same as confirmation of proof.

Take the result over the Higgs Boson. They withheld publication of failure show there was NO Higgs Boson (at a specific energy) until their statistical significance was 5 sigma. That means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once. (In this case, the experiment includes the millions of trials they used to reach the 5-sigma significance, and not merely 3.5 million more trials.)

So the report didn't say, "We found a Higgs Boson." The report said, "We tried to show there there is no Higgs boson yet we continue to observe this anomaly in our results which is rather nicely explained by the theory of the Higgs boson. We were pretty sure that was a false reading, or a fluke or something else besides a Higgs. So we tested a million cajillion times and we simply can't shake this anomaly." We conclude that our experiment fails to disprove the existence of the Higgs boson.

This is NOT confirmation of the Higgs. (Understand that no Higgs boson has ever been directly detected. What has been observed is the decay of a high energy particle which is has an energy and lifespan predicted by Higgs and others.)

Saying there is a 0.00000001% chance that a statement is false is still infinitely more uncertain than saying that a statement is true.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're really both right here. Rilla wants the subjects of the study to be more rigidly controlled and all the operating factors to be specifically accounted for.

So does wuf.

Reality defies this.

Rilla: Then your statements are weak and you shouldn't hold them in such high esteem.

Wuf: Well, WTF, man! This beast is charging and we need to start understanding it by any means.

*characterization to emphasize my perspective

I agree with both.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah, but arguing with wuf could keep me alive for a century.

[wufwugy]

im a drug

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wufwugy: What are your thoughts on my ideas about pockets where other economic systems offer advantages over the prevailing system?

[wufwugy]

@wufwugy: What are your thoughts on my ideas about pockets where other economic systems offer advantages over the prevailing system?

I read over your posts twice and was unable to decipher exactly what your proposal is. I'd be happy to give my thoughts if you provide more clarity on what you're looking for.

[MadMojoMonkey]

One of the themes in the thread that I read is the one-sided, capitalism is the best, angle.

But all around me, I see examples of trade economics which are not based on the direct transfer of goods, even within the capitalistic society. It seems to me that there are pockets where different economic systems offer various advantages.

I'm curious if you agree to that statement, and could you elaborate?

By pockets, I mean anything from a household which shares all their goods, to a business that has shared office supplies, to executives and politicians making "you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" exchanges. Any example where non capitalism trade is chosen, even though we live in a capitalistic society.

Why do you think this choice is made?
What are the perceived advantages?
Are those perceptions amiss?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I read over your posts twice and was unable to decipher exactly what your proposal is.

I propose to educate myself about economics.

[wufwugy]

One of the themes in the thread that I read is the one-sided, capitalism is the best, angle.

But all around me, I see examples of trade economics which are not based on the direct transfer of goods, even within the capitalistic society. It seems to me that there are pockets where different economic systems offer various advantages.

I'm curious if you agree to that statement, and could you elaborate?

I think this is an astute observation. I'm gonna pull from a Milton Friedman lecture here, where he says that even the Soviet Union was a capitalist country, just not a free-market capitalist country. I think he was getting at the most basic criteria of "capitalism" in that it's about using capital for exchange. But I honestly don't know because that's a somewhat strange statement to me, especially since capital =! money. But whatever, he knew what he was talking about more than I do.

Regardless I think I know what you're getting at. I'll explain.

By pockets, I mean anything from a household which shares all their goods, to a business that has shared office supplies, to executives and politicians making "you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" exchanges. Any example where non capitalism trade is chosen, even though we live in a capitalistic society.

Why do you think this choice is made?
What are the perceived advantages?
Are those perceptions amiss?

I am oftentimes merging the definitions of capitalism and free-market economics in these threads. It seems natural to me since the contemporary definition of capitalism is where assets are privately owned, which it seems to me to necessarily mean it is a free market unless there are some extenuating circumstances that make it not so (like a "private" monarchy or something).


On to your question. It seems you're referencing a variety of different ways people organize themselves. You listed several examples, I'll list another: one corporation with one owner contrasted with another corporation where everybody shares ownership. There is an unknown quantity of different ways that people can organize themselves in a society.

The proposal of markets as an organizing principle is that it includes them all. It includes the ones we have, the ones we've thought about, and ones we haven't thought about. In a market, because people have the power of choice over their own circumstances, they are free to choose whichever organizational structure they want. We see this in our current societies since most aspects of our lives involve areas where we have a wealth of choice. When we talk about markets in political contexts, we're arguing for the margins, the areas in which that choice doesn't exist. The diagnosis from people like me is that we don't have that choice because of government mandates. The theory for why this can be the case is because government is a violence monopoly that collects revenues through taxation, which makes it largely immune to the desires of individuals and small groups. This is especially egregious to the pro-market person since it is individuals and small groups that innovate best.

When I say "market", I mean any area in which individuals are reasonably free to choose. When I say "capitalism", I usually just mean market, but that might be my confusing mistake. The TLDR is that I think markets include any variety of choices people may make.

[wufwugy]

I propose to educate myself about economics.

If you wish to go the textbook route, that is recommended and you would quickly become knowledgeable. If you want to go the "snippets from the pros" route, this is the best blog I know of: http://econlog.econlib.org/

Its encyclopedia section is legit. I read an example on Sumner's blog about marginalism, yet I had no clue why that example was one of marginalism. I read the wiki entry on it and was none the wiser. Then I read the econlib entry and it became clear. I also understood some other examples of marginal utility that I previously had not. It was nice to go from a state of confusion to understanding so clearly.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wufwugy

This is highly confusing. I think you should be more tedious when choosing your words when talking about these concepts.
A) It would make it easier to understand you
B) You can waste less time clarifying your statements
C) You'll sound like an expert who has deeply considered the concepts and understands them to the fullest

[wufwugy]

You think I should be more tedious?

I won't argue that I could be easier to understand. That's definitely true. Communication through text is a skill I feel I lack. There is probably a way that I could spend less time clarifying my statements. But I think the opposite of (C). It's because of how deeply I've considered these concepts that I feel free to call capitalism and markets the same thing. Granted, that is very confusing to others and doing so is a mistake on my part.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You think I should be more tedious?

I won't argue that I could be easier to understand. That's definitely true. Communication through text is a skill I feel I lack. There is probably a way that I could spend less time clarifying my statements. But I think the opposite of (C). It's because of how deeply I've considered these concepts that I feel free to call capitalism and markets the same thing. Granted, that is very confusing to others and doing so is a mistake on my part.

I mean you should be more tedious when choosing between these particular words to ensure that you use them in such a way that is in line with the definitions your audience assumes. Or choose to not use them when they will confuse the audience.

If you really believe that these concepts are identical, then I suggest to choose a word which best conveys that meaning and to use it consistently. I accept the onus of figuring out your intention, if you are consistent.


For me, Capitalism is not "the" market. These are very different things which are not even on the same conceptual plane.

Capitalism is one type of economic strategy. Socialism and communism are competing examples of economic strategies (or whatever terminology). These are strategies, or ideals, which are asserted to guide a network of wealth distribution.

The world market is the agglomeration of all wealth distribution networks, and is itself a single network. Likewise, all the subnets which compose it act independently to the extent that they have self-rule.I don't know at what point it's super-macro economics to consider the world economy as a single entity or sub-micro... as pertains to my questions of local pockets.

My point is that the idealogy which drives a human endeavor is not the human endeavor. Furthermore, I feel that it is dangerous and subtle to conflate the two.

[wufwugy]

I mean you should be more tedious when choosing between these particular words to ensure that you use them in such a way that is in line with the definitions your audience assumes. Or choose to not use them when they will confuse the audience.

If you really believe that these concepts are identical, then I suggest to choose a word which best conveys that meaning and to use it consistently. I accept the onus of figuring out your intention, if you are consistent.

They say that when somebody says you're doing something wrong, they're right. I'll keep what you say in mind.

For me, Capitalism is not "the" market. These are very different things which are not even on the same conceptual plane.

Capitalism is one type of economic strategy. Socialism and communism are competing examples of economic strategies (or whatever terminology). These are strategies, or ideals, which are asserted to guide a network of wealth distribution.

I intend to rustle your jimmies further :snickerface:

Capitalism is economics. Adam Smith created economics. Marx and his progeny is faux-economics. If it is thought that Marx, socialism, or communism adds to the understanding of economics (other than providing information about what doesn't work), then it is likewise that astrologists add to the understanding of astronomy and cosmology.

The world market is the agglomeration of all wealth distribution networks, and is itself a single network. Likewise, all the subnets which compose it act independently to the extent that they have self-rule.I don't know at what point it's super-macro economics to consider the world economy as a single entity or sub-micro... as pertains to my questions of local pockets.

I think this touches on something super cool.

My point is that the idealogy which drives a human endeavor is not the human endeavor. Furthermore, I feel that it is dangerous and subtle to conflate the two.

I do not think I am conflating the two. I think I'm arguing for the framework that drives the human endeavor.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Capitalism is economics. Adam Smith created economics. Marx and his progeny is faux-economics. If it is thought that Marx, socialism, or communism adds to the understanding of economics (other than providing information about what doesn't work), then it is likewise that astrologists add to the understanding of astronomy and cosmology.

This is more hogwash, really. I mean... I can assume that you have a point, but why do you make me pull it out of you?

Capitalism is not economics. I have already described many examples of economic exchange which are not capitalistic.

Tell me how me sharing things with my family is capitalism. We don't charge anything for the sharing, we don't expect anything in return, not even future sharing. There is trust between us which holds this bond in balance. This is a very micro-scale example, obviously, but I have explored less micro examples of market exchanges which are not based on the direct exchange of capital. Ergo, they are not capitalistic in nature, even though they are made by capitalists.

***
To equate what Marx wrote to any real-world government is a false comparison. To say that socialism and communism are identical is equally scandalous. Socialism is voluntary sharing. Communism is enforced sharing.

If you keep uniting words' definitions when there is practical and historical reason to treat the concepts separately, then that is a bold move which demands results. You're stripping nuance from these concepts. You need to show that the nuances are irrelevant, or at the very least distracting from a deeper understanding.

What is the benefit of this unified perspective on understanding things?

[wufwugy]

This is more hogwash, really. I mean... I can assume that you have a point, but why do you make me pull it out of you?

Capitalism is not economics. I have already described many examples of economic exchange which are not capitalistic.

Tell me how me sharing things with my family is capitalism. We don't charge anything for the sharing, we don't expect anything in return, not even future sharing. There is trust between us which holds this bond in balance. This is a very micro-scale example, obviously, but I have explored less micro examples of market exchanges which are not based on the direct exchange of capital. Ergo, they are not capitalistic in nature, even though they are made by capitalists.

I was just mostly trying to show you how frustrating I can be. I'm not sure I would want to argue that capitalism is economics even though I think I would make that case if I was pushed into a corner. I would do so by claiming that capitalism is the only branch that successfully describes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods. I think markets are the philosophy behind it all and are the best known framework to deal with when it comes to economic behavior.

Don't read too much into this. It would mean I've been way too successful with my arguments and I'm pushing the edge as much as I can.

***
To equate what Marx wrote to any real-world government is a false comparison. To say that socialism and communism are identical is equally scandalous. Socialism is voluntary sharing. Communism is enforced sharing.

If you keep uniting words' definitions when there is practical and historical reason to treat the concepts separately, then that is a bold move which demands results. You're stripping nuance from these concepts. You need to show that the nuances are irrelevant, or at the very least distracting from a deeper understanding.

What is the benefit of this unified perspective on understanding things?

There is less nuance to the concepts than it may seem. Socialism and communism have the same philosophic framework. Communism differs only in that it's more rigorous and an extreme version of the philosophy. Since the USSR fell, socialism has sprouted up in redefined ways by people who benefit from their capitalist roots yet don't seem to realize they're trying to give their socialistic emperor new clothes. The claim that socialism is not forced sharing arises out of the capitalist view, where capitalists would be free to share communally. Socialism is by definition forced sharing. Capitalism allows communal sharing.

I think a mistake people make is saying that instances where communal sharing is chosen is socialism. You can technically get away with this if you wish to disregard everything else at play. The reason is that markets are the reason why there can be choice for communal sharing, and markets are not a product of enacted socialism. I think it is disingenuous to argue for socialism by such a myopic definition. Historically it has been an entirely different thing. The world split in two because of it, and we're the progeny that lives to tell the tale of which side lost and which side won.

[wufwugy]

I think your desire to examine more than just "capitalism" is the right approach. I think it shows the type of intellectual rigor it takes to come to the right conclusions.

I call "non-capitalistic" behaviors philosophically similar to markets because of the amount of choice they involve and the lack of mandates. Granted, when families are viewed on a micro scale, this framework is not sufficient. My rationale is that children are children. However, when viewed as a whole, families exhibit market behavior just like any corporation.

[CoccoBill]

Giving money to the rich is a bad idea. I don't know of anybody who proposes doing that. [...] It should be clear that reducing tax rates is not giving anybody any money. It is reducing the amount taken from them, partly in an attempt to incentivize more work.

I don't think there's any practical difference between taking something and giving it back or not taking it in the first place.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxe...or-rich-1.aspx

When one group of people work more than another, you haven't "given" them anything. Their increased production benefits everybody. If we disagree with this, to be logically consistent, we should probably start doing things like blaming urban poverty on Asian Americans since they are more productive than other Americans. Clearly that would be ridiculous. Everybody benefits from increased production, and the people who benefit the most are those who do it personally. Redistribution just reduces production and makes everybody less prosperous.

The rich "working more" and "being more productive" sounds a bit emotionally loaded, different work is just valued differently, and different exchanges have different volumes. I don't see the volume (in material, economic or resource terms) of an exchange having any direct correlation with the productivity of the transaction. The US fiscal policy has long been to redistribute to the wealthy "job creators". Whether redistribution should be done at all is a separate issue.

This tells us that something is a certain way, not why that something is that way. These correlations don't tell us that redistributing funds could change things for the better. Marxism and the Soviet Union was dependent on the view that redistribution would change this sort of thing for the better. The USSR hit the ideology as hard as you could, and the entire thing collapsed into destitution because of it. To contrast this, supply-side reforms have overwhelming evidence showing they work in both industrial and pre-industrial nations. One need to look no further than China. But I will admit it's very hard to find this stuff for non-economists since the media never talks about them. I see it from time to time on economists' blogs, but I don't save them and they get buried.

The USSR was a dictatorial command economy with rampant corruption, it had very little to do with socialism or marxism. According to Marx socialism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution", and communism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If production and productivity is high enough to support everyone, why would there be a need for growth? Crime, for example, is mostly created out of need, and that would in theory remove the need. But I digress.

Like MMM said, to me this also feels like you're dodging and muddling my question about why is the distribution as it is. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you're talking about, and that I just lack the understanding. Again, my understanding is that the US tries to stimulate the economy by giving tax cuts to the rich, assuming it will trickle down to the poor and help everyone. The IMF says no. So, should I understand your comment about "the distribution being as it is, because it is as it is" as saying that there indeed is no trickle down?

BTW the discussion about economy being science made me think of this: https://xkcd.com/435/

[wufwugy]

I don't think there's any practical difference between taking something and giving it back or not taking it in the first place.

That is true in a sense, but I made my point in the context of redistribution.

The rich "working more" and "being more productive" sounds a bit emotionally loaded, different work is just valued differently, and different exchanges have different volumes. I don't see the volume (in material, economic or resource terms) of an exchange having any direct correlation with the productivity of the transaction.

Well, it's economics. Production and productivity are prosperity.

The US fiscal policy has long been to redistribute to the wealthy "job creators". Whether redistribution should be done at all is a separate issue.

It has not. It has been and is currently the opposite. Per capita, the rich pay more than everybody else and receive less in benefits/services. This difference is not by a little either. When you compare somebody who makes 10k to somebody who makes 10MM, our tax and welfare policies are off-the-charts progressive. The left says this is okay for two reasons: (1) the rich can bear it, and (2) the poor are oppressed. Neither of these are true. (1) is mildly true, but only in a vacuum. Yes, the richer somebody is, the more easily they can pay for necessities, but this has little bearing on the health of the economy. Redistributive policies distort incentives and hinder capital in some complex ways that make for an economy that works less well than otherwise. (2) is not remotely true. The poor's incentives and ability to improve their lot are greatly hindered by redistributive and most regulatory policies.

The USSR was a dictatorial command economy with rampant corruption, it had very little to do with socialism or marxism. According to Marx socialism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution", and communism was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If production and productivity is high enough to support everyone, why would there be a need for growth? Crime, for example, is mostly created out of need, and that would in theory remove the need. But I digress.

Production is not high enough to support everybody and it is unreasonable to think that society ever hits a constant where it would be. Furthermore, it is capitalism that brings these resources to people and puts them together in wonderful ways. It's capitalism that gives us every great piece of engineering we have. Would it not be foolish to at some point say "okay capitalism got us this far, but we should stop doing it so we can maintain the current status forever"? The irony is that the USSR tried that, and it went backwards.

The USSR was corrupt because it was centrally commanded. Socialism is also a central command. People are trying to tiptoe around it and say it's not, but the bottom line is that a society based in "social ownership" requires central command. This is seen in the US and in your country, where we all have "social ownership" through our vote, but that vote goes to a central command. We are lucky that our governments do not intervene in as many ways as the USSR did.

The real dichotomy to work with is state versus non-state. That's when we start seeing divergence in how the societies organize. The USSR fully embraced the concept of the state while the US (at least initially) mostly embraced the idea of a limited state. Every meaningful rendition of national socialism has embraced the state.

Like MMM said, to me this also feels like you're dodging and muddling my question about why is the distribution as it is. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you're talking about, and that I just lack the understanding. Again, my understanding is that the US tries to stimulate the economy by giving tax cuts to the rich, assuming it will trickle down to the poor and help everyone. The IMF says no. So, should I understand your comment about "the distribution being as it is, because it is as it is" as saying that there indeed is no trickle down?

The IMF study examines effects. Trickle-down does not mean that if the rich have more money then the poor will have more money. Trickle-down is not even a theory. It is a comment that was once made in an attempt to illustrate a way of understanding the effects of marginal tax rate reductions. When those marginal rate reductions have been put in place, the results have been great and quite "trickle-down-y". Most of the best stretches the US economy has had over the last 50 years were when marginal rates were reduced. The theory is sound and the data backs it up. The US has out-performed all the European countries that did not enact supply-side reforms over the last 40 years. The UK has recently been doing it, and it has been going great for them. Germany did it back in the 90s and it turned their horrible economy into the healthiest on the continent.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens. Removing taxes from the equation means the government is NOT beholden to the citizens to maintain the essential income it needs to operate.

So the gov't needs $ from the citizens. How shall the citizens choose to divide this burden among themselves?
Taking a flat tax across the board will cripple the finances of the lowest wage earners, while barely effecting the highest wage earners.
Sure this is fair... in a way... but there are other ways to be fair.

Do you propose a flat tax? What do you propose?

***
As a side note:

In America, the government is composed of citizens, elected by vote, with limited terms (in most cases). To call out the government as an "other" entity, of which you are not a part, is a personal choice here. We are all invited into the political sphere. Choosing to opt out and point fingers is your right. That choice says a lot about your commitment to your rant, IMO.

[wufwugy]

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens.

Taxes are indeed the most effective way to ensure the flow of money to the government, but they are not that effective at providing the power of mitigation by the citizens. This is backbone behind why some people favor a free market without government involvement. The arguments I've been making ITT and in other threads are based on the idea that citizens cannot mitigate policy that well when it is supported by taxes but that they can do so in a market system where choice is a powerful tool.

Removing taxes from the equation means the government is NOT beholden to the citizens to maintain the essential income it needs to operate.

I think you've got this backwards. Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore. Any government that could operate would be one whose revenues are by choice, and that is when it would be beholden to the citizens.

A tax regime has very little accountability to its citizens. Entities that gain from the choice from consumers have a ton of accountability to those consumers. This is why we see businesses all over the place constantly adapting to the wishes of their consumers, yet only once in a blue moon do we see the government adapt. Everybody applauds when SCOTUS finally made gay marriage legal, but the truth is that gay marriage would have been legal for any who choose it forever ago if there was no government involvement in the first place.

So the gov't needs $ from the citizens. How shall the citizens choose to divide this burden among themselves?
Taking a flat tax across the board will cripple the finances of the lowest wage earners, while barely effecting the highest wage earners.
Sure this is fair... in a way... but there are other ways to be fair.

Do you propose a flat tax? What do you propose?

I like a flat tax. It causes fewer market distortions, deters special interest rent seeking, and eliminates the "divide and conquer" strategy that is used to increase taxes by having multiple brackets.

The media is not accurate in their descriptions of flat taxes harming the poor. They almost never assess the real incomes and definitely never provide sound economic theory. The real incomes of the poor are higher than people think because of lots of redistribution and their social mobility is much lower because of the same redistribution and regulation. The claims that a flat tax hurts the poor are hush-hush about the fact that the only way it could is if it meant the poor received fewer benefits that they did not earn. A flat tax is a tax cut to everybody, which is the best sort of fiscal return to citizenry. No flat tax proposals I know about apply to people at the poverty level, and it's not like the redistributed benefits are helping the poor anyways. We have created so much welfare over time that if it worked the economy would be incredible.

I don't favor taxes on income or capital. Sales, property, employee-side payroll, and land are the most economically sound ones I know of, but they all have their drawbacks. Income and the various capital taxes incentivize some really crappy behavior and have the opposite effect than they're meant to.

***
As a side note:

In America, the government is composed of citizens, elected by vote, with limited terms (in most cases). To call out the government as an "other" entity, of which you are not a part, is a personal choice here. We are all invited into the political sphere. Choosing to opt out and point fingers is your right. That choice says a lot about your commitment to your rant, IMO.

But it's not. Nobody can opt out. We can choose to not participate in policy but we cannot choose to not participate in funding whatever policies are in place.

I bet if you went line by line in the laws of the nation, you would find you disagree with a hefty chunk of them, probably the majority of them. Then if you thought you wanted to change them, you would realize that your power to do so is tiny. This is where the market comes in. You would then have the ability to choose which businesses and policies you wish to support with ease. You could opt out of eating at McDonald's, but you cannot opt out of the monopoly on violence.

[Renton]

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens. Removing taxes from the equation means the government is NOT beholden to the citizens to maintain the essential income it needs to operate.

So the gov't needs $ from the citizens. How shall the citizens choose to divide this burden among themselves?
Taking a flat tax across the board will cripple the finances of the lowest wage earners, while barely effecting the highest wage earners.
Sure this is fair... in a way... but there are other ways to be fair.

Do you propose a flat tax? What do you propose?

A vast majority of what the government takes responsibility for would be better handled in the private sector through voluntary commerce. In my opinion the U.S. government's role should be much more limited than it is, but it seems like we should all be able to at least come to the agreement that $6 trillion in gross spending is excessive. That's 36% of the GDP. Do you honestly think that the benefits Americans are getting back from the state are comparable to that cost? And the saddest part is that 36% is actually low compared to most European countries.

As to how I feel about the tax code, I don't have that much of a problem wtih progressive taxation. The worst taxes are the corporate taxes which aren't really progressive at all, they're essentially a direct tax on economic growth, and growth happens to be crucial to people of all incomes. Inflation is another really awful tax that is regressive, affecting all of us equally, but hurting the poor the most as a percentage of their living standards.

I do see broad benefits to a flat tax purely from the perspective of greater simplicity. The unbelievably labyrinthine tax system causes a lot of people to evade or overpay without even knowing it, and allows the shrewd (often i.e. those who can afford excellent tax counsel) to dodge a lot of taxes. In other words, the more complicated the code is, the more regressive it necessarily is as well. The middle class gets fleeced in practice due to this.

In America, the government is composed of citizens, elected by vote, with limited terms (in most cases). To call out the government as an "other" entity, of which you are not a part, is a personal choice here. We are all invited into the political sphere. Choosing to opt out and point fingers is your right. That choice says a lot about your commitment to your rant, IMO.

The political system is well-insulated from the voter. Unless you one of the like 15% of the country who lives in a swing state, your vote doesn't even count. The legislature has had abysmal approval ratings for decades. The "is the country going in the right direction or the wrong track" poll has been wrong track by a landslide since the beginning of polling time. The government is absolutely a "they" entity. Every aspect of the U.S. government is a two party joke, all the way up to the SCOTUS, where practically every meaningful vote ever has been 5/4 based on whatever the party of the two-term president is.

The only way you can say that we take part of the credit for the actions of the state is if you're making the (flawed) argument that since we aren't in open French Revolution-style revolt, then we're in tacit approval of what it does.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Taxes are indeed the most effective way to ensure the flow of money to the government, but they are not that effective at providing the power of mitigation by the citizens.

IDK what you mean by power of mitigation, but it doesn't sound like the financial power to which I was referring. I did not mean to imply that financial was the only form of power at the gov't's disposal.

I think you've got this backwards. Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore. Any government that could operate would be one whose revenues are by choice, and that is when it would be beholden to the citizens.

So you just said that the ONLY way for public bureaucracy to make money is by taxation?
Have you heard of government owned industries?
You must have. So this use of language is intentionally misleading, or intended to to stir an emotional response.

{I deleted everything past this because it seems pointless to argue definitions over basic words that are common parlance.}

This conversation is not educational for me; I'm sorry if I wasted any of your time.

[wufwugy]

IDK what you mean by power of mitigation, but it doesn't sound like the financial power to which I was referring. I did not mean to imply that financial was the only form of power at the gov't's disposal.

You're suggesting that citizens being forced to finance the government is what gives them mitigation capacity. Unless I misread what you originally said.

So you just said that the ONLY way for public bureaucracy to make money is by taxation?
Have you heard of government owned industries?
You must have. So this use of language is intentionally misleading, or intended to to stir an emotional response.

Your point is included in what I said. A government owned industry would gather its revenues by consumer choice. If it was not by consumer choice, it would be taxation. In this case, the taxation would come by the means of forced consumption, but that still is a tax (SCOTUS ruled as much in the ACA case a few years ago).

I have not attempted to mislead or evoke an emotional response.

{I deleted everything past this because it seems pointless to argue definitions over basic words that are common parlance.}

This conversation is not educational for me; I'm sorry if I wasted any of your time.

I think we're just getting started. A week or so ago, it appeared to me that you said something along the lines of not being interested in understanding the philosophy and function of government. The confusion that you have with my post is what I think includes the philosophy and function of government. To repeat the main example: when you thought I hadn't considered government owned industries, I actually had because they fall into either category of consumer choice or forced consumption/taxation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A vast majority of what the government takes responsibility for would be better handled in the private sector through voluntary commerce. In my opinion the U.S. government's role should be much more limited than it is, but it seems like we should all be able to at least come to the agreement that $6 trillion in gross spending is excessive. That's 36% of the GDP. Do you honestly think that the benefits Americans are getting back from the state are comparable to that cost?

I'm not talking about how tax dollars are used or whether that use maximizes efficiency.

I wouldn't argue that the use of tax dollars maximizes efficiency in any way BESIDES the flow of money.

Although, I think history has shown every day for 150,000 years that nothing needs to be perfect in order for societies to run. It just needs to be good enough.

Do I wish taxes were used more efficiently? Yes. Am I bothered by the fact that there are inefficiencies? No.
The only stuff that bothers me is getting information out of context. Blah blah, so-n-so spent $XX,000 on a private jet. I used to care, but too many times, the context made me regret it. The world is complicated. I'm not claiming to understand how professionals could better do their job; I'm just curious as to what they do and why.

And the saddest part is that 36% is actually low compared to most European countries.

Don't be sad, bro. You can reconcile cognitive dissonance in other ways. I was raised Catholic; we train in guilt.

As to how I feel about the tax code, I don't have that much of a problem wtih progressive taxation. The worst taxes are the corporate taxes which aren't really progressive at all, they're essentially a direct tax on economic growth, and growth happens to be crucial to people of all incomes.

I'm not aware of the specific laws to which you refer.

My gut says:
Stifle a little growth vs. provide access to a slightly more robust infrastructure.
Surely there must be a balance.

Inflation is another really awful tax that is regressive, affecting all of us equally, but hurting the poor the most as a percentage of their living standards.

Inflation is a tax?

I thought inflation was... idk... a weird consequence of the free market and burgeoning wealth.

Are you sure it's a tax? Which state's representatives proposed inflation? What year?
Did wufwugy take over your account, too?

I do see broad benefits to a flat tax purely from the perspective of greater simplicity. The unbelievably labyrinthine tax system causes a lot of people to evade or overpay without even knowing it, and allows the shrewd (often i.e. those who can afford excellent tax counsel) to dodge a lot of taxes. In other words, the more complicated the code is, the more regressive it necessarily is as well. The middle class gets fleeced in practice due to this.

I can't argue that anything as complex as America's tax code is an absurd thing to call a law. If the citizens can't understand the law - which is reasonable since even tenured experts in economics only understand parts of it - then it's scandalous to expect them to understand how to follow the law.

Problem with the middle class is that almost everyone in America thinks they're middle class.
Most Americans think the classes are like this: impoverished < middle class < 1% - if they believe there's class in America at all.
Sorry, no.

The political system is well-insulated from the voter. Unless you one of the like 15% of the country who lives in a swing state, your vote doesn't even count.

We both know that the only way you get to vote for President is if you are in the electoral college.

I don't see how this ties in to taxes. It's the House of Representatives that creates all tax laws. The executive can only ask for something to be done. There is much precedent for this request to be ignored.

I don't really see how taxes tie in to making sense of an economic system with complicated non-capital trade mixed in with capital trade. Taxes provide capital for non-capital goods. This is a part of the economy. To say that business or people do not receive benefit from taxes is not swaying me.

I accept that some things for which we are taxed could be run better by private organizations, but I don't see why you feel that it's such a big deal.
(And I completely disagree on roads. Terrible idea. I'll pay taxes for roads, zoos, public parks, schools, libraries, police, fire, medical services, wildlife reservations, clean food, clean drinking water, clean air if it comes to it, etc.)


You tell me the system is broken, but at worst, I see a system that is sub-optimal.

The legislature has had abysmal approval ratings for decades. The "is the country going in the right direction or the wrong track" poll has been wrong track by a landslide since the beginning of polling time.

I hope you mean 1789, or thereabouts.

The government is absolutely a "they" entity.

That is your choice. Attend your community council meetings. Attend City Council meetings. Run for local office. Write your state legislators a letter. Schedule an appointment to meet with their staff, etc.
*sigh*
etc.

Every aspect of the U.S. government is a two party joke, all the way up to the SCOTUS, where practically every meaningful vote ever has been 5/4 based on whatever the party of the two-term president is.

Pros and cons. Two party hurts a third party, but what the parties stand for has swung 180 degrees over the years, so it's kind of a moot point to suggest that any particular ideology is excluded.

The only way you can say that we take part of the credit for the actions of the state is if you're making the (flawed) argument that since we aren't in open French Revolution-style revolt, then we're in tacit approval of what it does.

The only way? I am a verbose person.

Tacit approval? Doesn't sound very scientific.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're suggesting that citizens being forced to finance the government is what gives them mitigation capacity. Unless I misread what you originally said.

You did.

Your point is included in what I said. A government owned industry would gather its revenues by consumer choice. If it was not by consumer choice, it would be taxation. In this case, the taxation would come by the means of forced consumption, but that still is a tax (SCOTUS ruled as much in the ACA case a few years ago).

I have not attempted to mislead or evoke an emotional response.

If my point is included in what you said, then your use of words is misleading to the point of conversation stopping in every post.

"Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore."
False. Governments can operate using money from state-owned corporations. The consumers are outside the country, as the state exports all of the goods.

Any prevarication on your part to alter the meaning of that sentence after you posted it is a waste of our time.

I think we're just getting started. A week or so ago, it appeared to me that you said something along the lines of not being interested in understanding the philosophy and function of government. The confusion that you have with my post is what I think includes the philosophy and function of government. To repeat the main example: when you thought I hadn't considered government owned industries, I actually had because they fall into either category of consumer choice or forced consumption/taxation.

blah, blah...

That thing you wrote meant the opposite of the literal reading... again. I'm glad I wasted the time taking you seriously, just so you could tell me how you meant the thing you didn't write.

[wufwugy]

You did.

Then please clarify what you meant here:

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens.

If my point is included in what you said, then your use of words is misleading to the point of conversation stopping in every post.

I don't think that's the case. I have not improperly used words in this exchange.

"Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore."

Here's the full quote

Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore. Any government that could operate would be one whose revenues are by choice, and that is when it would be beholden to the citizens.

You are saying I said the first part but not the second part.

False. Governments can operate using money from state-owned corporations. The consumers are outside the country, as the state exports all of the goods.

This is consumption by choice. These state-owned corporations would be receiving revenues by the choice of the people in foreign countries to consume those exports.

That thing you wrote meant the opposite of the literal reading... again. I'm glad I wasted the time taking you seriously, just so you could tell me how you meant the thing you didn't write.

Maybe it was wrong for me to have earlier admitted that I have on occasion used a word or two in a way they're more extremely defined (while still being philosophically accurate), because it seems now you're seeing it where it isn't the case. I'm using standard definitions. It is the logic you use that I'm disagreeing with, yet it seems that you're brushing that off by assuming I'm just making up definitions or something.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is consumption by choice. These state-owned corporations would be receiving revenues by the choice of the people in foreign countries to consume those exports.

Then the government is not beholden to its citizens for its income.