Not too long ago I gave Paul Romer the opportunity to be my new favorite living economist. He didn't take the opportunity! Either he's not interested in being my new favorite living economist... or he's playing hard to get. I'm pretty sure that he's playing hard to get! Heh.
So I did some more homework and learned that he's a big fan of charter cities...
Here's a pretty puzzle for Romer...
Samantha is an American taxpayer who truly loves biodiversity. She learns that the EPA has a new policy that harms, rather than protects, biodiversity. Should Samantha have the freedom to boycott the EPA?
This is a trick question! Samantha already has the freedom to boycott the EPA. All she has to do is move to Canada. However, if she moves to Canada... she won't just be boycotting the EPA... she'll be boycotting her favorite restaurant, clothing boutique, used book store, botanical garden and a gazillion other organizations that she really enjoys and values. Plus, she'll have to quit her job, pull her kids out of school, sell the house and say goodbye to lots of friends and family. And then she'll have to learn Canadian!
So while Samantha does have the freedom to boycott the EPA... this freedom is extremely costly. The puzzle is... what, exactly, is the economic benefit of making it so hard and costly for Samantha to boycott the EPA? What, exactly, is the economic benefit of forcing Samantha to throw the baby out with the bath water?
This is my issue with charter cities. And it's really not a new issue. What would be new is if a proponent of charter cities actually addressed this issue. So here I am giving Romer this wonderful opportunity!
To be clear, of course I strongly support people's freedom to move anywhere for any reason. But it's an extremely blunt instrument. It's monolithic rather than modular. A modular system would give Samantha the freedom to only throw out the bath water. She would simply shift her taxes from the EPA to NASA or some other government organization with more beneficial policies. Rather than spend so much time and money to relocate herself and her family... she would just quickly and easily relocate her tax dollars. The transaction/opportunity costs of communicating her preferences would be vanishingly small. Making communication far less costly and far more accurate would be immensely beneficial.
By solely relying on the extremely blunt instrument of foot voting, cities have evolved at a glacial pace. Cities would evolve at an infinitely faster pace if they were fully subjected to the powerful and precise force of taxpayer choice. Less beneficial "traits" would quickly be identified and replaced with more beneficial "traits".
Anyways, I'm pretty sure that I'm right. Of course I might be wrong. If I'm wrong then I'd definitely appreciate knowing how and why I'm wrong! If I'm right then I'd certainly hope that Paul Romer would help make the case for pragmatarian cities. Then he'd definitely be my new favorite living economist!
Showing posts with label ethical consumerism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethical consumerism. Show all posts
Monday, August 1, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
The Most Important Reveal Ever
Reply to reply: The Demand For Defense?
*************************************************
If boycotting doesn't matter... then again, you're not critiquing pragmatarianism. If it doesn't matter how much money the people do not give the president... then again... you're not critiquing pragmatarianism.
In a pragmatarian system... the amount of money that a government agency receives would reflect the agency's credibility/legitimacy/necessity. If you choose to give the president your money... then you're giving him your stamp of a approval. You're verifying/vetting/vouching his particular use of society's limited resources.
Personally, I don't give my money to the NRA. Am I boycotting them? No. I simply believe that there are more valuable uses of my limited money. If you're a vegetarian... you don't buy meat. Are you boycotting the producers of meat? Yes. You strongly believe that there are far more valuable uses of your limited money.
If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody hears it, does it make a sound? If the constitution says we need a president, but nobody funds him, does he matter? If the law says that marijuana is illegal, but nobody funds its enforcement, does the law matter? If the law says that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, but nobody funds its enforcement, does the law matter?
Every single one of our laws was created without knowing the actual demand for them. Most people don't realize this because they don't think that there's any real difference between voting for something and spending for something. Voting for something reveals popularity. Spending for something reveals demand. Demand depends entirely on personal sacrifice. Voting in no way shape or form requires you to reach into your own pocket and put your own hard-earned money where your mouth is. As a result... many, maybe even most, of our laws are total bullshit. Allowing people to choose where their taxes go would clearly show us which laws are worth keeping and which laws were worth discarding.
We don't exist for the laws... the laws exist for us. We don't exist for the president... the president exists for us. And the only way that we can truly discern whether the people genuinely want the president to exist for them is by allowing everybody to choose where their taxes go.
It's not very significant to me that the president controls the hiring/firing of directors. You know why I'm not too worried about it? It's because, in a pragmatarian system, the taxpayers would control the president's funding.
Right now congress controls the tax rate. You know why I'm not too worried about it? It's because, in a pragmatarian system, the taxpayers would control congress's funding.
Let me geek out and quote Frank Herbert... "He who controls the spice controls the universe." In a pragmatarian system it would be... he who controls the funding controls the universe. And who would control the funding? Taxpayers.
Right now for most people it really doesn't matter how much money taxpayers would choose to give the president. This information isn't important to them. They aren't pragmatarians. They have absolutely no interest in knowing what the demand for the president is. Or they erroneously believe that voting reveals the demand for the president.
In order for a pragmatarian system to be implemented... enough people have to really appreciate the value of actually knowing the demand for the president. Enough people have to say, "It's a really huge fucking problem that we don't know the demand for the president or defense or environmental protection or public healthcare or cancer research or public education or space exploration or any other good supplied by the public sector!!!!" When enough people say this and believe it... then, and only then, will taxpayers be allowed to choose where their taxes go. So if, and when, pragmatarianism is implemented.... for most people it will be extremely meaningful and important to learn just how much money taxpayers are willing to give to the president. The amount of funding that the president receives will determine his fate. The president will know this. Taxpayers will know this. Everybody in the world will know this.
One time my girlfriend received a candle as a gift. This candle was a little different though because buried deep in the wax was a ring of unknown value. She was pretty happy to get the candle so she quickly set it on the coffee table and lit it. Then she went on youtube and started watching videos where people discovered which rings were in their candles. I think these are called "reveal" videos or something. Anyways, between the candle and the videos... I quickly fell asleep. I woke up shortly afterwards to find my girlfriend energetically trying to dig through the wax with a chopstick or something in order to get to the ring. Needless to say patience probably isn't her strongest suit. She couldn't take the suspense. It turned out the ring in her candle wasn't that valuable.
Actually... I might have mentioned something to her about the possibility of using a chopstick. I admit to being a little curious about the value of the ring. But as a pragmatarian... I'm infinitely more interested in knowing the value of the president and everything else in the public sector. The suspense is really killing me. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to cheat. I can't simply pay a psychic to tell me the true value of everything in the public sector. Instead, I simply have to try and persuade everyone that it would be really worth it to know the actual demand for public goods. I have to try and get them very interested in the "reveal". I have to try and persuade them to become pragmatarians.
So when you're critiquing a pragmatarian system... it's entirely necessary for you to appreciate that most people in the country will be extremely interested in the reveal. People in other countries will probably be very interested in the reveal. Maybe people on other planets will be tuning in to watch our first reveal. They will be reminiscing about their planet's very first reveal. They will be excited to compare the results of their first reveal with the results of our first reveal. For us on planet Earth it will be by far our most important "reveal" ever. People in other countries will want to have their own reveal. The suspense will be killing them.
Right now you're arguing that the reveal won't be that important. As if it really won't matter to the millions and millions of pragmatarians how valuable the president is. As if it could turn out that the president is entirely worthless... but it would still be business as usual. As if the people would say, "Ho hum, the president is worthless... nobody funds him... but no worries about him going about his regular business as if he was actually important to us. There's no problem with a worthless person living in the White House, flying around in Air Force one and meeting other presidents."
It still matters because people would still be very interested in the reveal. If it turned out that PETA was far more valuable... but you disrespected the reveal by shifting PETA's funding to the NRA... then people would disrespect you. And if people were not permitted to disrespect you... then clearly that would be a problem.
*************************************************
No, it really wouldn't, and it doesn't matter if they boycott the president or not. By removing Congress' power of the purse, and the budget bills that are thousands of pages long defining HOW each agency can spend its money, the president can simply redirect funds from one agency to another - including his own.
Boycott all you want. It doesn't matter. - Galloism
If boycotting doesn't matter... then again, you're not critiquing pragmatarianism. If it doesn't matter how much money the people do not give the president... then again... you're not critiquing pragmatarianism.
In a pragmatarian system... the amount of money that a government agency receives would reflect the agency's credibility/legitimacy/necessity. If you choose to give the president your money... then you're giving him your stamp of a approval. You're verifying/vetting/vouching his particular use of society's limited resources.
Personally, I don't give my money to the NRA. Am I boycotting them? No. I simply believe that there are more valuable uses of my limited money. If you're a vegetarian... you don't buy meat. Are you boycotting the producers of meat? Yes. You strongly believe that there are far more valuable uses of your limited money.
And no matter how much you "boycott" the president funding wise, the constitution doesn't change. The constitution only changes if you comply with the requirements for constitutional change. Namely, you need to get 2/3 of both houses of congress to pass an amendment, sending it to the states, and then get 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve it under the procedures established by those states. - Galloism
If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody hears it, does it make a sound? If the constitution says we need a president, but nobody funds him, does he matter? If the law says that marijuana is illegal, but nobody funds its enforcement, does the law matter? If the law says that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, but nobody funds its enforcement, does the law matter?
Every single one of our laws was created without knowing the actual demand for them. Most people don't realize this because they don't think that there's any real difference between voting for something and spending for something. Voting for something reveals popularity. Spending for something reveals demand. Demand depends entirely on personal sacrifice. Voting in no way shape or form requires you to reach into your own pocket and put your own hard-earned money where your mouth is. As a result... many, maybe even most, of our laws are total bullshit. Allowing people to choose where their taxes go would clearly show us which laws are worth keeping and which laws were worth discarding.
We don't exist for the laws... the laws exist for us. We don't exist for the president... the president exists for us. And the only way that we can truly discern whether the people genuinely want the president to exist for them is by allowing everybody to choose where their taxes go.
And barring thousand page funding bills, under your system, you can allocate whatever you want, but if you don't fundamentally change the structure of the government, the president can simply force redistribution of those allocations because he controls the hiring/firing of directors of those agencies. In order to do so, it would require a constitutional amendment, which requires vast political will, and a deep understanding of the current structure so it could be modified to suit your vision. This is why I keep harping on common ownership and control. If you do not change the common ownership and control of these agencies, your system will do nothing except give more power to the president. Full stop. - Galloism
It's not very significant to me that the president controls the hiring/firing of directors. You know why I'm not too worried about it? It's because, in a pragmatarian system, the taxpayers would control the president's funding.
Right now congress controls the tax rate. You know why I'm not too worried about it? It's because, in a pragmatarian system, the taxpayers would control congress's funding.
Let me geek out and quote Frank Herbert... "He who controls the spice controls the universe." In a pragmatarian system it would be... he who controls the funding controls the universe. And who would control the funding? Taxpayers.
Right now for most people it really doesn't matter how much money taxpayers would choose to give the president. This information isn't important to them. They aren't pragmatarians. They have absolutely no interest in knowing what the demand for the president is. Or they erroneously believe that voting reveals the demand for the president.
In order for a pragmatarian system to be implemented... enough people have to really appreciate the value of actually knowing the demand for the president. Enough people have to say, "It's a really huge fucking problem that we don't know the demand for the president or defense or environmental protection or public healthcare or cancer research or public education or space exploration or any other good supplied by the public sector!!!!" When enough people say this and believe it... then, and only then, will taxpayers be allowed to choose where their taxes go. So if, and when, pragmatarianism is implemented.... for most people it will be extremely meaningful and important to learn just how much money taxpayers are willing to give to the president. The amount of funding that the president receives will determine his fate. The president will know this. Taxpayers will know this. Everybody in the world will know this.
One time my girlfriend received a candle as a gift. This candle was a little different though because buried deep in the wax was a ring of unknown value. She was pretty happy to get the candle so she quickly set it on the coffee table and lit it. Then she went on youtube and started watching videos where people discovered which rings were in their candles. I think these are called "reveal" videos or something. Anyways, between the candle and the videos... I quickly fell asleep. I woke up shortly afterwards to find my girlfriend energetically trying to dig through the wax with a chopstick or something in order to get to the ring. Needless to say patience probably isn't her strongest suit. She couldn't take the suspense. It turned out the ring in her candle wasn't that valuable.
Actually... I might have mentioned something to her about the possibility of using a chopstick. I admit to being a little curious about the value of the ring. But as a pragmatarian... I'm infinitely more interested in knowing the value of the president and everything else in the public sector. The suspense is really killing me. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to cheat. I can't simply pay a psychic to tell me the true value of everything in the public sector. Instead, I simply have to try and persuade everyone that it would be really worth it to know the actual demand for public goods. I have to try and get them very interested in the "reveal". I have to try and persuade them to become pragmatarians.
So when you're critiquing a pragmatarian system... it's entirely necessary for you to appreciate that most people in the country will be extremely interested in the reveal. People in other countries will probably be very interested in the reveal. Maybe people on other planets will be tuning in to watch our first reveal. They will be reminiscing about their planet's very first reveal. They will be excited to compare the results of their first reveal with the results of our first reveal. For us on planet Earth it will be by far our most important "reveal" ever. People in other countries will want to have their own reveal. The suspense will be killing them.
Right now you're arguing that the reveal won't be that important. As if it really won't matter to the millions and millions of pragmatarians how valuable the president is. As if it could turn out that the president is entirely worthless... but it would still be business as usual. As if the people would say, "Ho hum, the president is worthless... nobody funds him... but no worries about him going about his regular business as if he was actually important to us. There's no problem with a worthless person living in the White House, flying around in Air Force one and meeting other presidents."
Imagine through mass mind control I could hire and fire directors of PETA and the NRA at my will, and the directors know this, and people MUST donate $100 amount to one of those two organizations by law. Does it matter which one? - Galloism
It still matters because people would still be very interested in the reveal. If it turned out that PETA was far more valuable... but you disrespected the reveal by shifting PETA's funding to the NRA... then people would disrespect you. And if people were not permitted to disrespect you... then clearly that would be a problem.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Worst Idea Ever
Reply to: Tax Choice Discussion Thread
*********************************************
Let me tell you the worst idea ever. Are you ready? The worst idea ever is the idea that some ideas are so good that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott them.
You think my idea is bad and you want to boycott it? Great! But if you can truly understand why your valuation of my idea matters... then you really wouldn't want to boycott it.
Right now you're choosing not to put pragmatarianism in your shopping cart. But what's pragmatarianism? It's the idea that you should be free to choose what you put in your shopping cart.
I want you to be able to shop for yourself in the public sector. Why? Because I want to subject the government to your scrutiny. It's a given that the government will be better with your scrutiny. Your scrutiny is so good. The absence of it from the public sector is no good.
Right now you can go to the mall and pick up, poke, prod and compare a gazillion frivolous products. You study the products for defects. You look for holes, nicks, scratches, dings, tears and problems. You actively search for errors. You pull up your vast mental database of past experiences and try and foresee potential complications. You're incentivized to closely examine and inspect the products because you don't want to flush your hard-earned money down the toilet.
Do I benefit from your active debugging of private goods? How could I not? For sure I'll benefit when you help fund a better vacuum cleaner. But I'd benefit a lot more from better healthcare, education and environment. Which is why I really want you to have the option to debug public goods.
I want to unleash you on the government. And if you choose to allocate your taxes rather than have congress allocate them for you... then evidently congress did not stand up to your scrutiny. And if you want to predict that congress isn't going to stand up to nearly everybody's scrutiny... then you might want to think twice about not putting pragmatarianism in your shopping cart.
*********************************************
Let me tell you the worst idea ever. Are you ready? The worst idea ever is the idea that some ideas are so good that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott them.
You think my idea is bad and you want to boycott it? Great! But if you can truly understand why your valuation of my idea matters... then you really wouldn't want to boycott it.
Right now you're choosing not to put pragmatarianism in your shopping cart. But what's pragmatarianism? It's the idea that you should be free to choose what you put in your shopping cart.
I want you to be able to shop for yourself in the public sector. Why? Because I want to subject the government to your scrutiny. It's a given that the government will be better with your scrutiny. Your scrutiny is so good. The absence of it from the public sector is no good.
Right now you can go to the mall and pick up, poke, prod and compare a gazillion frivolous products. You study the products for defects. You look for holes, nicks, scratches, dings, tears and problems. You actively search for errors. You pull up your vast mental database of past experiences and try and foresee potential complications. You're incentivized to closely examine and inspect the products because you don't want to flush your hard-earned money down the toilet.
Do I benefit from your active debugging of private goods? How could I not? For sure I'll benefit when you help fund a better vacuum cleaner. But I'd benefit a lot more from better healthcare, education and environment. Which is why I really want you to have the option to debug public goods.
I want to unleash you on the government. And if you choose to allocate your taxes rather than have congress allocate them for you... then evidently congress did not stand up to your scrutiny. And if you want to predict that congress isn't going to stand up to nearly everybody's scrutiny... then you might want to think twice about not putting pragmatarianism in your shopping cart.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Immoral Humans vs Immoral Robots
There are multitudes with an interest in peace, but they have no lobby to match those of the 'special interests' that may on occasion have an interest in war. - Mancur Olson
Reply to reply... Futarchy and Unfriendly AI
******************************************
He speaks about how it's obvious that nobody funds a evil AI. For some values of evils that's true. On the other hand it's not the cases we worry about. - ChristianKl
Not sure how you missed it... but I speak about how people should be able to choose where their taxes go. Maybe you missed it because I get swamped with downvotes?
Right now the government engages in activities that some people consider to be immoral. For example, pacifists consider war to be immoral. You think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with pacifists being forced to fund war. Instead of worrying about how pacifists currently have to give war a leg to stand on... you want to worry about how we're going to prevent robots from being immoral.
When evilness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder... it's just as futile to try and prevent AIs from being immoral as it is to try and prevent humans from being immoral. What isn't futile however is to fight for people's freedom not to invest in immorality.
Any case you worry about is a case where an AI that you consider to be immoral ends up with too many resources at its disposal. Because you're really not going to worry about...
1. ... a moral AI with significant resources at its disposal
2. ... an immoral AI with insignificant resources at its disposal
So you worry about a case where an immoral AI ends up with too many resources at its disposal. But that's exactly the same thing that I worry about with humans. And if it's exactly the same thing that I worry about with humans... then it's a given that my worry is the same regardless of whether the immoral individual is human, AI, alien or other.
In other words, you have this bizarre double standard for humans and AI. You want to prevent immoral AIs from coming into existence yet you think nothing of forcing humans to give immoral humans a leg to stand on.
******************************************
See also...
Don't Give Evil Robots A Leg To Stand On!
Holocaust - The Extremely Inefficient Allocation Of Jews
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Scott Sumner vs The Fed
Not sure if you've noticed, but I haven't dedicated many, errr... any... blog entries to monetary policy. This is because when it comes to monetary policy... I'm an expert. Hah. Nope. It's the other way around. I'm most definitely not a monetary policy expert. Just like I'm not an expert on the government's environmental policy. Or the government's foreign policy. Or the government's military policy. There are many things that fall under the current scope of government. Monetary policy is just one of them.
When I was a libertarian... I was interested in defending my perspective on the proper scope of government. But now that I'm a pragmatarian... I'm more interested in defending my perspective on how we should use the invisible hand to determine the proper scope of government.
So because I'm more of a big picture guy... I tend to skim... more than a bit... when it comes to Scott Sumner's posts over at EconLog. Sumner is most definitely a monetary expert. It's pretty easy to tell given that nearly all of his posts are on the topic of monetary policy.
Here's Sumner's most recent blog entry... Is Stanley Fischer too complacent? While skimming over it I imagined Sumner encouraging readers to boycott the Fed. I really enjoyed the image so here I am sharing it with you!
With the current system, I don't think that Sumner would ever say this. Right? How can we possibly boycott the Fed? At best we can write a strongly worded letter to the Fed...
Would Fischer really be inclined to take heed? Not according to Tabarrok...
I can't exit from the Fed, so why should Fischer listen? Maybe he'd listen to congress instead? So I should write my congressperson a strongly worded letter? If this was the only system that I'd ever been exposed to... then it might seem like a pretty decent system. But when I compared our political system to a market system... well... now I'm a pragmatarian.
With the current system... it would never make sense for Sumner, a monetary expert, to encourage a boycott of the Fed. No matter how complacent Fischer was... no matter how tight or loose money was... no matter how many wheelbarrows of cash it took to pay for one loaf of bread... with the current system it would never be logical for Sumner to encourage his readers to boycott the Fed.
It's got to be a huge problem that with our current system it will always be illogical for Sumner to encourage readers to boycott the Fed. Pragmatarianism would solve this problem.
In a pragmatarian system it would certainly be logical if Sumner ever encouraged people to boycott the Fed. This is because in a pragmatarian system people could choose where their taxes go. Anybody who had been cultivating the Fed with their cash... would easily be able to stop doing so (exit).
How bad would the government's monetary policy have to be before Sumner encouraged his readers to boycott the Fed? Kinda bad? Really bad? Super bad? And if Sumner did encourage his readers to boycott the Fed... how much money would the Fed lose? A little? A lot? If it was only a little... how many other monetary experts would have to support the boycott in order for the Fed to get the message?
Here's another good question... how many more people would pay closer attention to Sumner's expertise if we could actually choose where our taxes go? I often find myself explaining to people that pragmatarianism would eliminate rational ignorance.
I really want to live in a world where Sumner, a monetary expert, has the option to encourage his readers to boycott the Fed. I really want to live in a world where I can clearly see exactly what the demand is for the government's monetary policy. I really want to live in a world that has demand clarity rather than demand opacity. I really want to live in a world that's enlightened.
Sumner, a monetary expert, is wondering whether Stanley Fischer is too complacent. And I'm wondering whether Sumner would give any of his taxes to the Fed if he had the freedom to do so. Sumner's actions would speak a lot louder than his words do. His demand for the Fed is one piece that is missing from the puzzle. Unfortunately, it's not the only piece that's missing. Most pieces are missing from the puzzle. And then there's a big mystery when we experience economic problems.
In this video you can see puzzle pieces coming together...
Why are so many economists complacent about the fact that we don't know what the demand is for government policies? Just how great is "demand" anyways when we don't need it for monetary policy, environmental policy, military policy or any other government policy? If we don't need demand to determine the supply of money... then why do we need demand to determine the supply of milk, shoes and cars? Eventually economists are going to have to confront this question... let's just hope that they do so sooner rather than later.
See also...
Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic
Holocaust - The Extremely Inefficient Allocation Of Jews
When I was a libertarian... I was interested in defending my perspective on the proper scope of government. But now that I'm a pragmatarian... I'm more interested in defending my perspective on how we should use the invisible hand to determine the proper scope of government.
So because I'm more of a big picture guy... I tend to skim... more than a bit... when it comes to Scott Sumner's posts over at EconLog. Sumner is most definitely a monetary expert. It's pretty easy to tell given that nearly all of his posts are on the topic of monetary policy.
Here's Sumner's most recent blog entry... Is Stanley Fischer too complacent? While skimming over it I imagined Sumner encouraging readers to boycott the Fed. I really enjoyed the image so here I am sharing it with you!
With the current system, I don't think that Sumner would ever say this. Right? How can we possibly boycott the Fed? At best we can write a strongly worded letter to the Fed...
Dear Stanley Fischer,
It has come to my attention that it is entirely possible that you are too complacent. This concerns me a great deal. Please be more... diligent. If you fail to do so then I will be forced to... use stronger words.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen
Would Fischer really be inclined to take heed? Not according to Tabarrok...
It’s the threat of exit that makes people listen. - Alex Tabarrok, The Tragedy of Jonathan Kozol
I can't exit from the Fed, so why should Fischer listen? Maybe he'd listen to congress instead? So I should write my congressperson a strongly worded letter? If this was the only system that I'd ever been exposed to... then it might seem like a pretty decent system. But when I compared our political system to a market system... well... now I'm a pragmatarian.
With the current system... it would never make sense for Sumner, a monetary expert, to encourage a boycott of the Fed. No matter how complacent Fischer was... no matter how tight or loose money was... no matter how many wheelbarrows of cash it took to pay for one loaf of bread... with the current system it would never be logical for Sumner to encourage his readers to boycott the Fed.
It's got to be a huge problem that with our current system it will always be illogical for Sumner to encourage readers to boycott the Fed. Pragmatarianism would solve this problem.
In a pragmatarian system it would certainly be logical if Sumner ever encouraged people to boycott the Fed. This is because in a pragmatarian system people could choose where their taxes go. Anybody who had been cultivating the Fed with their cash... would easily be able to stop doing so (exit).
How bad would the government's monetary policy have to be before Sumner encouraged his readers to boycott the Fed? Kinda bad? Really bad? Super bad? And if Sumner did encourage his readers to boycott the Fed... how much money would the Fed lose? A little? A lot? If it was only a little... how many other monetary experts would have to support the boycott in order for the Fed to get the message?
Here's another good question... how many more people would pay closer attention to Sumner's expertise if we could actually choose where our taxes go? I often find myself explaining to people that pragmatarianism would eliminate rational ignorance.
I really want to live in a world where Sumner, a monetary expert, has the option to encourage his readers to boycott the Fed. I really want to live in a world where I can clearly see exactly what the demand is for the government's monetary policy. I really want to live in a world that has demand clarity rather than demand opacity. I really want to live in a world that's enlightened.
Sumner, a monetary expert, is wondering whether Stanley Fischer is too complacent. And I'm wondering whether Sumner would give any of his taxes to the Fed if he had the freedom to do so. Sumner's actions would speak a lot louder than his words do. His demand for the Fed is one piece that is missing from the puzzle. Unfortunately, it's not the only piece that's missing. Most pieces are missing from the puzzle. And then there's a big mystery when we experience economic problems.
In this video you can see puzzle pieces coming together...
Why are so many economists complacent about the fact that we don't know what the demand is for government policies? Just how great is "demand" anyways when we don't need it for monetary policy, environmental policy, military policy or any other government policy? If we don't need demand to determine the supply of money... then why do we need demand to determine the supply of milk, shoes and cars? Eventually economists are going to have to confront this question... let's just hope that they do so sooner rather than later.
See also...
Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic
Holocaust - The Extremely Inefficient Allocation Of Jews
Monday, July 14, 2014
Why Boycott The Entire Government?
Context: Anarcho-capitialism vs Pragmatarianism
**************************************************
This upvoted comment on this downvoted post indicates that most of you don't know what pragmatarianism is. Here's the comment...
With the current system, the only way to boycott congress is to not pay any taxes. But with a pragmatarian system, you could boycott congress without having to boycott the entire government. This is because in a pragmatarian system you could choose where your taxes go. Pragmatarianism is also known as tax choice and taxpayer sovereignty. Here's the FAQ.
Imagine if the only way you could boycott Starbucks would be to stop spending any money in the private sector. Would any of you boycott Starbucks? Probably not, it would be the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The only thing wrong with the government is that we can't boycott congress as easily as we can boycott Starbucks. Pragmatarianism would fix the only thing wrong with government. If you weren't happy with the tax rate...then you just wouldn't give any of your tax dollars to congress. As congress lost money...they would either fix the tax rate or go bankrupt.
Markets work because an organization's revenue directly depends on the amount of value it creates for consumers. Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector. This means that congress's revenue would directly depend on the amount of value they create for taxpayers. So congress would have the maximum possible incentive to create the maximum possible value for taxpayers. If creating the maximum possible value for taxpayers requires that congress drop the tax rate to 0%...then that's exactly what they'd do.
As I explained in my blog entry...Rothbard correctly diagnosed the problem with government (absence of individual valuation) but he recommended the wrong solution (abolishing the government).
Government, in short, acquiring its revenue by coerced confiscation rather than by voluntary investment and consumption, is not and *cannot* be run like a business. Its inherent gross inefficiencies, the impossibility for it to clear the market, will insure its being a mare's nest of trouble on the economic scene. - Murray N. Rothbard, The Fallacy of the 'Public Sector'
Rothbard was right that the government is not run like a business...but he was wrong that the government cannot be run like a business. The government can easily be run like a business simply by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
What are the alternatives? Seasteading? That's how you strike at the root of bad government? You're going to foot vote for the ocean because you don't like the tax rate? That makes as much sense as boycotting Starbucks by not spending any money in the private sector.
As Rothbard correctly argued...the root of bad government is the absence of individual valuation. Therefore, you strike at the root by promoting pragmatarianism.
**************************************************
This upvoted comment on this downvoted post indicates that most of you don't know what pragmatarianism is. Here's the comment...
Doesn't mention the cost of boycotting Congress. You can boycott Starbucks or Walmart and there is little cost to you. But the only way to boycott Congress is to not pay taxes. But ceasing to pay taxes results in a serious cost to you; jail and fines. If Americans could simply stop paying taxes with as little consequence as boycotting a restaurant they don't like we would see the real valuation of the government by the people. - thunderyak
With the current system, the only way to boycott congress is to not pay any taxes. But with a pragmatarian system, you could boycott congress without having to boycott the entire government. This is because in a pragmatarian system you could choose where your taxes go. Pragmatarianism is also known as tax choice and taxpayer sovereignty. Here's the FAQ.
Imagine if the only way you could boycott Starbucks would be to stop spending any money in the private sector. Would any of you boycott Starbucks? Probably not, it would be the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The only thing wrong with the government is that we can't boycott congress as easily as we can boycott Starbucks. Pragmatarianism would fix the only thing wrong with government. If you weren't happy with the tax rate...then you just wouldn't give any of your tax dollars to congress. As congress lost money...they would either fix the tax rate or go bankrupt.
Markets work because an organization's revenue directly depends on the amount of value it creates for consumers. Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector. This means that congress's revenue would directly depend on the amount of value they create for taxpayers. So congress would have the maximum possible incentive to create the maximum possible value for taxpayers. If creating the maximum possible value for taxpayers requires that congress drop the tax rate to 0%...then that's exactly what they'd do.
As I explained in my blog entry...Rothbard correctly diagnosed the problem with government (absence of individual valuation) but he recommended the wrong solution (abolishing the government).
Government, in short, acquiring its revenue by coerced confiscation rather than by voluntary investment and consumption, is not and *cannot* be run like a business. Its inherent gross inefficiencies, the impossibility for it to clear the market, will insure its being a mare's nest of trouble on the economic scene. - Murray N. Rothbard, The Fallacy of the 'Public Sector'
Rothbard was right that the government is not run like a business...but he was wrong that the government cannot be run like a business. The government can easily be run like a business simply by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
What are the alternatives? Seasteading? That's how you strike at the root of bad government? You're going to foot vote for the ocean because you don't like the tax rate? That makes as much sense as boycotting Starbucks by not spending any money in the private sector.
As Rothbard correctly argued...the root of bad government is the absence of individual valuation. Therefore, you strike at the root by promoting pragmatarianism.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Ethical Consumerism, Ethical Producerism and Ethical Builderism
Consumers choosing between producers improves the quality of products. Producers choosing between consumers achieves ... what? - Ailiailia, Oklahoma Restaurant: Not white, straight & rich? Screw youEh, Lincolnocracy kinda did a funny thing. He gave my "ethical producerism" a somewhat different spin..."arms companies not sell to regimes which routinely violate human rights". His use kinda makes sense though.
My intended meaning for ethical producerism was when you...
A. identify a business engaging in unethical practices
B. build a business to provide workers/consumers with a more ethical alternative
So ethical consumerism is the first step. You're going to boycott the racist restaurant in Oklahoma. Ethical producerism is the next step. You're going to build an ethical restaurant across the street from the unethical restaurant.
Uh, maybe I should use "ethical builderism" instead? "Builderism" is a really awkward word though.
Let me try again.
Ethical consumerism is the first step. You're going to boycott a sweatshop factory in India. Ethical builderism is the next step. You're going to build an air-conditioned factory across the street from the sweatshop factory.
When producers choose between consumers...and they aren't engaging in ethical producerism...then they are simply making a mistake. The question is...how big of a mistake are they making?
Let's say that I start a restaurant and I choose not to serve martians. Am I making a mistake? Maybe I'm being racist. Rayshist? Alienist? Martiast? In any case, it could be argued that I'm being unethical. But it's not a huge mistake because there aren't any martians around. So my financial loss is $0.
What happens though if martians start arriving on the planet? As each martian arrives on the planet...the size of my mistake increases. But as the size of my mistake increases...so does the financial incentive for somebody to engage in ethical builderism.
Of course, just because an Easter Egg exists...doesn't necessarily mean that it will be found or picked up any time soon.
Markets work because the kids aren't all tied together. As a result they cover more ground...which results in more Easter Eggs being found. This is why decentralized systems (markets) create more value than centralized systems (socialism). But even though more ground is covered in market-systems...it's still an imperfect system.
As a pragmatarian...I have absolutely no problem with the public sector also searching for Easter Eggs...as long as its up to taxpayers to decide for themselves whether what was found was truly an Easter Egg.
The more kids searching for Easter Eggs...the more Easter Eggs that will be found. And the more valuable the Easter Eggs are...the greater the incentive to find them.
Going back to my martian scenario...assuming martians need to eat...and assuming they have different food preferences...and assuming we can make food that matches their preferences...and assuming they have something of value that we want...then the larger the Easter Egg is...the less likely that it will be overlooked. But if the private sector overlooks it or doesn't pick it up...then I have no problem with the public sector supplying martian food...as long as taxpayers can choose where their taxes go.
So ethical consumerism/builderism in conjunction with pragmatarianism would allow the maximum freedom and create the maximum value.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Subsistence Agriculture vs Sweatshops
Nobody would consider working in a sweatshop to be a "good" option. So what does it mean when people choose that option? It clearly indicates that working in a sweatshop is their "best" available option. That tells us something about their other available options. For example...here's a photo I took of a young girl in Afghanistan gathering dung for a stone wall...
When liberals attack owners of sweatshops...they are attacking the people who give other people "better" options. That's not how you help people...that's how you screw both the people who need help and the people who are truly helping them. If liberals genuinely wanted to help people...then they would provide them with "better" options. For example...they could start air-conditioned factories.
Are air-conditioned factories really a "better" option than sweatshops? That should be up to employees and consumers to decide. But we certainly don't make any progress...and we certainly do not help people...by allowing the government to dictate who business owners hire and how much they pay them.
For more on this concept see...Biting the Hand that Employs You
When liberals attack owners of sweatshops...they are attacking the people who give other people "better" options. That's not how you help people...that's how you screw both the people who need help and the people who are truly helping them. If liberals genuinely wanted to help people...then they would provide them with "better" options. For example...they could start air-conditioned factories.
Are air-conditioned factories really a "better" option than sweatshops? That should be up to employees and consumers to decide. But we certainly don't make any progress...and we certainly do not help people...by allowing the government to dictate who business owners hire and how much they pay them.
For more on this concept see...Biting the Hand that Employs You
Monday, April 9, 2012
Divide and Conquer the Government
My response to....A Better System Than Pragmatarianism
***********************************
Everything boils down to people putting their own money where their mouths are. All things being equal...the problem with our current system is that voters do not have to put their own money where their mouths are. Therefore, to solve that problem we should simply give taxpayers the freedom to put their own taxes where their mouths are.
With that in mind...it's completely counterintuitive to pay congress in order to solve the problem of congress. If there's a problem with an organization then you boycott it (Dude, Where's my Ethical Consumerism?) and encourage others to do the same. The organization either changes or it goes out of business.
Clearly you're not going to be able to encourage every single taxpayer to boycott the government. But believe you me...every single taxpayer would be more than happy to boycott one or more government organizations. Liberals would be more than happy to boycott the military and conservatives would be more than happy to boycott everything but the military.
In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers would have the freedom to opt out of funding every single government organization...except for one. Once taxpayers have the freedom to opt out of funding specific government organizations...then that's all you really need. That was your biggest obstacle. At that point you simply need to go down the list and encourage taxpayers to boycott each and every government organization one by one out of existence.
When faced with an insurmountable obstacle...it's extremely helpful to break the insurmountable obstacle down into several smaller more manageable obstacles. That's the beauty of pragmatarianism...it allows us to divide and conquer the government.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Dude Where's My Ethical Consumerism?
My reply to Gary Chartier's reply to my comment on Matt Zwolinski's post on the New Student Libertarian Movement
*****************************
Dude, where's my ethical consumerism? Yeah, all that stuff you mentioned is boringly clear to me so let's try a topic that you're evidently not familiar with...ethical consumerism. What was so powerful about Charles Johnson's article? Nothing. Not a damn thing. You know why? Because he didn't even once mention ethical consumerism...and unfortunately neither did Rand Paul.
All Rand Paul had to do was ask Rachel Maddow if she would purchase goods/services from a business that engaged in discriminatory practices. Obviously she would have said no. Then he could have asked her if she would encourage a boycott of such a business. Obviously she would have said yes. Then he could have asked her, assuming that the business did not change its practices, if she would start a business to compete with the unethical business. What would her response have been? Obviously she can afford to start a business...so why wouldn't she have a responsibility to provide employment or products/goods to the people that were being discriminated against?
That would have been powerful. But why would Rand Paul just stop there?
It's not hard to guess where you would have wanted the conversation to go..."by far the worst thing governments do is to make war"... Violence, Wars, and States
Clearly Rachel Maddow is a huge supporter of consumers being allowed to engage in boycotts...and obviously she's against wars. So how would she have responded if Rand Paul had asked her whether taxpayers should be allowed to boycott wars? Would she have said no? Would she really argue that consumers should be allowed to boycott unethical businesses but taxpayers should not be allowed to boycott unethical wars? Perhaps she would have asked how taxpayers could possibly boycott unethical wars. Rand Paul's response would have been simple...by allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes.
Rand Paul, Charles Johnson...and Gary Chartier...dudes, where's my ethical consumerism? It sure wasn't evident in your own article. Although you did recognize that war represents a misallocation of resources...but do you really think that taxpayers wouldn't also recognize that it represents a misallocation of their own hard earned money? Do you really think that only you and Eisenhower grasp that war has opportunity costs?
*****************************
Dude, where's my ethical consumerism? Yeah, all that stuff you mentioned is boringly clear to me so let's try a topic that you're evidently not familiar with...ethical consumerism. What was so powerful about Charles Johnson's article? Nothing. Not a damn thing. You know why? Because he didn't even once mention ethical consumerism...and unfortunately neither did Rand Paul.
All Rand Paul had to do was ask Rachel Maddow if she would purchase goods/services from a business that engaged in discriminatory practices. Obviously she would have said no. Then he could have asked her if she would encourage a boycott of such a business. Obviously she would have said yes. Then he could have asked her, assuming that the business did not change its practices, if she would start a business to compete with the unethical business. What would her response have been? Obviously she can afford to start a business...so why wouldn't she have a responsibility to provide employment or products/goods to the people that were being discriminated against?
That would have been powerful. But why would Rand Paul just stop there?
It's not hard to guess where you would have wanted the conversation to go..."by far the worst thing governments do is to make war"... Violence, Wars, and States
Clearly Rachel Maddow is a huge supporter of consumers being allowed to engage in boycotts...and obviously she's against wars. So how would she have responded if Rand Paul had asked her whether taxpayers should be allowed to boycott wars? Would she have said no? Would she really argue that consumers should be allowed to boycott unethical businesses but taxpayers should not be allowed to boycott unethical wars? Perhaps she would have asked how taxpayers could possibly boycott unethical wars. Rand Paul's response would have been simple...by allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes.
Rand Paul, Charles Johnson...and Gary Chartier...dudes, where's my ethical consumerism? It sure wasn't evident in your own article. Although you did recognize that war represents a misallocation of resources...but do you really think that taxpayers wouldn't also recognize that it represents a misallocation of their own hard earned money? Do you really think that only you and Eisenhower grasp that war has opportunity costs?
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron...Is there no other way the world may live? - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953So here's my question to you, Gary Chartier. Do you support allowing taxpayers to engage in ethical consumerism? In other words...do you support allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)