The Prioritization Process

My reply to David Eil's reply...

***************************

If Medium gives subscribers the option to spend their fees on the most relevant stories, and each month you spend on average $4 dollars on economics stories and $1 dollar on cat stories, then it would be reasonably to conclude that, in your little corner of the world, economics stories are more relevant than cat stories. If on average I spend $4 dollars on economics stories and $1 dollar on epiphyte stories, then it would be reasonably to conclude that, in my little corner of the world, economics stories are more relevant than epiphyte stories.

Thanks to our spending decisions, you and I would be far better informed about what’s more or less relevant in each other’s little corner of the world. Except, all the subscribers would be using their fees to signal which types of stories are more or less relevant in their little corners of the world. So we’d all be far better informed what’s more or less relevant in all our little corners of the world. Knowing the actual value of stories would help everybody make far better informed reading and writing decisions.

When everybody makes far better informed reading and writing decisions, then this will quickly and vastly improve the variety and quality of choices on the menu. The choices on the menu would be far more relevant to all our different realities. As a result, we’d all be as happy as a kid in a candy store.

Here’s Samuelson’s passage again…

But, and this is the point sensed by Wicksell but perhaps not fully appreciated by Lindahl, now it is in the selfish interest of each person to give false signals, to pretend to have less interest in a given collective consumption activity than he really has, etc. — Paul Samuelson, The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure

Yeah, this is about economics. But it is also about communication… and the problem with transmitting inaccurate information. It’s about the problem with fake news. If the amount of money that we spend on economics stories inaccurately communicates our demand for them, then of course the supply of economics stories will be suboptimal. For sure we’d prefer it if the supply of economics stories was optimal, therefore our communication should be accurate.

Just like with Medium, Netflix does not give subscribers the option to spend their fees on the most relevant content. Subscribers are not given the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. I don’t have the opportunity to use my fees to accurately communicate just how relevant economics shows are. As far as I know, there’s only one economics show on Netflix and it’s tragically terrible. Needless to say, I’m really not as happy as a kid in a candy store.

You can’t prevent everybody from substantially participating in the prioritization process and expect the supply of products to accurately reflect everybody’s priorities.

First we prioritize how we spend our limited money and then, and only then, will the supply of products accurately reflect our priorities.

I’m interested in knowing what your priorities are. You should be interested in knowing what my priorities are. We should all be interested in knowing what each other’s priorities are. We should all be interested in having the most accurate treasure maps.

Coercion And Consequences

Comments on: Finding Liberty Between Vulnerability and Coercion by Adam Gurri

****************************

Xero: The products at the grocery store aren’t equally relevant to my reality. Fortunately, I get to pick and choose which products I spend my money on. I have the chance to use my money to let the store know which products are the most important to me. The store offers me, and everyone else, the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. In other words, the store is a market.

The products (shows/movies) on Netflix aren’t equally relevant to my reality. Unfortunately, I don’t get to pick and choose which products I spend my fees on. I don’t have the chance to use my money to let Netflix know which products are the most important to me. Netflix does not offer me, or anyone else, the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. Netflix is not a market.

Coercion can be defined as preventing people from substantially participating in the prioritization process. With this definition, the government really does not have a monopoly on coercion. Netflix also engages in coercion.

However, the fact of the matter is that hardly anybody wants Netflix to be a market. So the real issue isn’t “delicately balancing” anything. The real issue is figuring out the rules of coercion. When is it beneficial to disregard how relevant things are to people’s reality? When is it beneficial to prevent people from substantially participating in the prioritization process? When does coercion truly make the world a better place for everyone?

Gurri: Coercion is making someone do something against their consent. Netflix certainly does not coerce anyone.

Xero: Netflix certainly doesn’t force me to subscribe. But if I choose to subscribe… does this mean that I necessarily consent to Netflix spending my money on products made by Michael Moore?

The government doesn’t force me to stay in the US. I certainly have the freedom to move to Canada. If I choose to remain in the US and pay taxes…. does this mean that I necessarily consent to the government spending my money on the drug war? If the government asked me… “Hey guy, do you consent to having your tax dollars spent on the drug war?”… my answer would be… “F no!!!”

The government and Netflix don’t care how relevant their specific products are to my reality. But I don’t choose to exit from their services because the alternatives sure aren’t any better. Also, in the case of the government, exit certainly isn’t cheap or easy…

Yes, you can change citizenship, but it takes years of paperwork, many thousands of dollars, and requires a total uprooting of yourself and all your work/family/friend connections. It’s a herculean labor even for those for whom it goes smoothly, and the hard experiences of so many immigrants demonstrates how exercising that choice rarely generates a smooth passage thereafter. So we live caught between that rock and the hard place of living under a government that may have nothing to do with how we want to live or be governed. – Ada Palmer, The Dystopian Question and Minorities of One

Preventing people from substantially participating in the prioritization process has a serious consequence. The consequence is a big disparity between the world we live in and the world that we want to live in.

Gurri: When you give Netflix your money, your consent no longer enters into how they use it.

When you do not give the US your money, they fine you or send you to jail. That’s coercion. If you don’t pay Netflix, they just cancel your service. The parallel simply doesn’t hold.

Xero: When you do not give the US your money, they fine you or send you to jail… because you’re using goods (roads, defense, etc) that you aren’t paying for. You’d be punished for stealing. Same thing if you somehow used Netflix without paying for it. I don’t know if anybody has necessarily gone to jail for stealing cable but some people have certainly been caught and punished for doing so.

So the parallel does hold. And again, whether we’re talking about Netflix or the government, the actual and real issue is that the products are not equally relevant to your reality. Is it beneficial when the money that you earn is spent on products that aren’t at all relevant to your reality? Is it beneficial when you’re prevented from substantially participating in the prioritization process?

Whether we’re talking about Netflix or the government… ideally you should be as happy as a kid in a candy store. There should be a gazillion products that are extremely relevant to your reality. But this ideal won’t be realized if you can’t pick and choose which products you spend your money on.

Basically, it’s less than useless to talk about coercion without considering the tangible consequences of coercion. Just like it’s less than useless to talk about theft without considering the tangible consequences of theft.

Gurri: Well I agree with your conclusion, but as usual you took a highly eccentric path to get there, hahaha.

Tax Choice Tax Rate

Reply to thread: Tax Choice - Pragmatarianism - Calling Xerographica

*************************************************

helmuth_hubener, your "final word" is missing one very important word... "congress". This thread, on the other hand, has (prior to this post) 19 instances of the word "congress". How do you explain this disparity?

In case I wasn't very clear the first gazillion times that I've explained this...

1. Tax choice is where people can choose which government organizations (GOs) they give their taxes to
2. Congress is in charge of determining the tax rate
3. Congress is a government organization (GO)
4. Therefore, in a tax choice system, taxpayers will be able to choose how much of their hard earned tax dollars they give to congress.

You (the taxpayer): Ah man, these public options really suck! I'm the complete opposite of a kid in a candy store!! I'm a depressed taxpayer in a public market!!! I'm a despondent adult in a crap store!!!!!!
Congress: Will you give us more of your hard-earned tax dollars if we raise or lower the tax rate?
You: Lower!!!!!!! For sure! Drop the tax rate to 1% and I'll give you all of my tax dollars!
Congress: How many other people are in the same boat as you?
You: To be completely honest... I really don't know. If I'm the only person in this boat, and you lower the tax rate to 1%, then more people will boycott you and your revenue will plummet.
Congress: We really don't want our revenue to plummet, we want our revenue to skyrocket!
You: Then decrease the tax rate marginally. If your revenue increases then you'll know that you're going in the right direction. Keep marginally, and gradually, decreasing the tax rate until your revenue starts to decrease.
Congress: That sounds like a really good plan!
You: I know! I'm a genius!


If taxpayers largely perceive a relative scarcity (shortage) of public goods... then they will perceive the necessity of a higher tax rate. So congress would increase its revenue by increasing the tax rate. If, on the other hand, taxpayers largely perceive a surplus of public goods... then they will perceive the necessity of a lower tax rate. So congress would increase its revenue by decreasing the tax rate.





In this video, the kid doesn't give his money to the pastry vendor. Why didn't he? Because evidently the kid perceived that there were more valuable things to spend his money on. From his unique perspective, with his unique set of preferences, in his unique situation/circumstances/environment...

relative scarcity of other goods (X) > relative scarcity of pastries (Y)

X > Y

If taxpayers, in a pragmatarian system, perceive that the...

relative scarcity of private goods (X) > relative scarcity of public goods (Y)

X > Y

... then they'll allocate their hard-earned tax dollars accordingly. They'll give more tax dollars to congress if, and only if, congress lowers the tax rate.

This is how and why markets work. Consumers use their cash to guide producers in the most valuable directions. Consumers are the compass. Right now this compass is not in the public sector...

The management of a socialist community would be in a position like that of a ship captain who had to cross the ocean with the stars shrouded by a fog and without the aid of a compass or other equipment of nautical orientation. - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price. - Mark J. Perry, Why Socialism Failed

You might be right that pragmatarianism is a crappy idea. But your critique to end all critiques doesn't even address the mindnumbingly simple process that will determine the tax rate in a pragmatarian system.

Speaking of bad ideas... here's the worst idea ever.

Personally, I think that consumers will be more honest in the public sector. More honesty means a more accurate compass. And a more accurate compass means more value will be created in the public sector. When the public sector creates more and more value... the tax rate will increase accordingly. Until we end up at a 100% tax rate.

Is my prediction wrong? I wouldn't be surprised! So please come up with a better prediction. Predict, using the stupid simple process that I outlined in this post, what the tax rate will end up being. Will it go up? If so, how high and why? Will it go down? If so, how low and why?

Why does consumer choice ensure a consistent supply of better options?

Why does consumer choice ensure a consistent supply of better options?

1. Consumers are willing to pay for better options
2. Producers want money

If we want to ensure a consistent supply of better public goods...then we have to allow consumer choice in the public sector.

Context: Dear Rothbard, The Government Isn't Beyond Repair

****************************************************

Do I look like Alex Ebert from Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros? It's his site not mine. I link to it because I support the general idea. Clearly Ebert's specific idea is different from my own.

When I first thought of people choosing where their taxes go...I figured they'd simply fill out a form when they paid their taxes. But when I spent more time thinking about it...I realized that if it makes sense for the public sector...then why doesn't it also make sense for the private sector? Except, it really doesn't make any sense for the private sector...which means that it really doesn't make any sense for the public sector.

If you perceive that there's a problem with the environment...then waiting until the end of the year to support the EPA makes as little sense as waiting until the end of the year to go to the grocery store. Markets work because people can address shortages whenever they valuate it worth it to do so. Would it make any sense for Home Depot to be open only one day of the month? Nope.

So, my specific idea is that people could shop in the public sector whenever they wanted to. You would simply go directly to the government organization's website and make a contribution. They'd give you a receipt and you'd submit all your receipts to the IRS by April 15.

And if you weren't happy with the tax rate...then you wouldn't go directly to congress's website and you wouldn't make a contribution to congress. If enough other people also boycotted congress...then congress would either change the tax rate or go out of business. Same thing if you weren't happy with the IRS. Same thing if you weren't happy with the DoD. Same thing if you weren't happy with the DMV. Same thing if you weren't happy with NASA. Shall I continue or do you get the idea?

Markets mean that producers cater to the preferences of consumers. Why? Because producers want our money. So creating a market in the public sector would mean that congress would want our tax dollars. So would the IRS. So would every other government organization. Therefore, it would behoove them to discern our preferences. If they fail to discern our preferences...then we will let them know by not given them our tax dollars. This would effectively communicate to them that they need to improve how they are using society's limited resources.

Would you be happy with the selection of items on the shelves in the public store? Of course not. It's a given that you would want better options. We always want better options. It's a fact that you would be willing to pay for better options. And it's a fact that producers want more money. What happens when we put these two facts together? We learn why consumer choice ensures a consistent supply of better options.

If you know this...if you understand this...then you should love the idea of creating a market in the public sector as much as I do. You would start a blog to help spread the idea. Doing so would help create a larger net...and with a larger net we would catch more fish. So are you going to start a blog? If not, then you don't love pragmatarianism as much as I do. If this is the case then let me know which part of consumer choice in the public sector you don't know/understand/appreciate.

Where Do Better Options Come From?

Reply to reply: Contrary to popular and academic belief, Adam Smith did not accept inequality as a necessary trade-off for a more prosperous economy

********************************************

I made my point.  And my point was painfully obvious.  Yet here you are wondering what my point is.  How can I make my point obvious enough for even you to understand?  Can I accomplish the impossible?  Only one way to find out.

We both want people to have better options.  Every person's gravestone should be able to say, "I was as happy as a kid in a candy store".  Life should be full of options that perfectly match your preferences...aka heaven.

In order to create heaven on earth...you have to understand where better options come from.  The owner of a candy store doesn't just *snap* his fingers and better candies magically appear.  He doesn't just go pick better candies from a candy tree.  There's a distinct and logical process that occurs.

The key to this process is consumer choice.  If kids can't choose which candies match their preferences... then candy producers won't know what the preferences of kids are.  If producers don't know what the preferences of kids are...then candies won't match kids' preferences.  So in the absence of consumer choice, kids would be sad in candy stores because the options really wouldn't match their preferences.  Life would be less like heaven and more like hell.

Right now you're so far in left field that you don't realize that the point of production really isn't to ensure that workers in candy factories are happy oompa loompas.  The objective really isn't to make oompa loompas happier...it's to make kids happier.

Maybe you want to argue that you can make kids happier by making oompa loompas happier?  If so...then why bother trying to convince Wonka that he's making a mistake by not paying his oompa loompas enough money?  If somebody refuses to pick up a gold nugget...are you going to stand there and argue with them?  If you're so certain that it's not fool's gold then you should have no problem making the effort to pick it up yourself.

If it's truly gold...then picking it up would not only give kids a better option...it would also give workers a better option.  How awesome is that?  You can become wealthy by giving people better options.  Of course, if it's not truly gold...then picking it up would be very costly.  Maybe you used your home as collateral for your business loan?  If so, then you'd lose your home.  As a knocker (liberal) you're not willing to take that risk.  So when the earth takes any steps closer to heaven...it's not because of knockers...it's despite them.

Crowdsourcing Linguistic Improvements

Calling all wordsmiths!  There's a new subreddit...Linvoid...dedicated to solving people's word problems.  

Here's how it works...

1. A "client" posts their word problem  
2. The crowd suggests better/new words
3. The crowd upvotes the best solutions
4. The winner gets a million dollars

I'm just kidding about the last one.  Too bad huh?

The conceptual foundation is that there's always room for improvement.  This is true whether we're talking about biology...or economics...or politics...or linguistics.

Let's take biology for example...specifically...orchids.  The orchid family is definitely my favorite plant family.  It's fascinating for several reasons...here are a few of them...

1. Orchids are the largest plant family.  There are around 30,000 different species.  
2. Orchids have more species of epiphytes than any other family.  In other words...most orchids grow on trees. 
3. A single seed pod can contain a million seeds.  That's a lot of seeds!  The seeds, which are like dust, are disseminated by the wind.  
4. In order to germinate...orchid seeds have developed a symbiotic relationship with microscopic fungus. 

Each seed is a unique combination of traits.  A unique combination of traits is a unique strategy.  So one orchid seed pod can contain a million different strategies.  This greatly increases the orchid's chances of success.

Now on to economics...

When a great company, or even a great merchant, has twenty or thirty ships at sea, they may, as it were, insure one another. The premium saved upon them all, may more than compensate such losses as they are likely to meet with in the common course of chances. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Now on to space exploration...

Luckily, tens of thousands of pioneers wouldn't have to be housed all in one starship. Spreading people out among multiple ships also spreads out the risk. Modular ships could dock together for trade and social gatherings, but travel separately so that disaster for one wouldn't spell disaster for all, says Smith. 

When 10,000 people are housed in one starship, there's a potential for a giant catastrophe to wipe out almost everyone onboard. But when 10,000 people are spread out over five ships of 2000 apiece, the damage is limited. - Sarah Fecht, How Many People Does It Take to Colonize Another Star System?

Now on to political parties (religion)...

The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or perhaps into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquility. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Now back to economics...

It is sufficient if all firms are slightly different so that in the new environmental situation those who have their fixed internal conditions closer to the new, but unknown, optimum position now have a greater probability of survival and growth.  They will grow relative to other firms and become the prevailing type, since survival conditions may push the observed characteristics of the set of survivors toward the unknowable optimum by either (1) repeated trials or (2) survival of more of those who happened to be near the optimum - determined ex post.  If these new conditions last "very long," the dominant firms will be different ones from those which prevailed or would have prevailed under other conditions. - Armen Alchian, Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory

Now back to orchids...

One would think that man could find enough variation in the orchid family, as it occurs in nature, to more than satiate his taste for variety.  Yet man's appetite for variety is never appeased.  He has produced over two times as many hybrids, in the past 100 years that he has been engaged in orchid breeding, as nature has created species in her eons of evolutionary effort. - Calaway H. Dodson, Robert J. Gillespie, The Botany of Orchids

Now back to economics...

More heads are occupied in inventing the most proper machinery for executing the work of each, and it is, therefore, more likely to be invented. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Do we need more varieties of orchids?  Do we need more varieties of words?

Should there be an orchid that can grow on trees in New York?  Should there be a word for organisms that can tolerate a wide range of temperatures?  We already have the latter..."eurythermal"...but not the former.

Is "eurythermal" better than "temperature tolerant"?   Is one word always better than two?  Is efficiency as important for linguistics as it is for epiphytes and economics?  Should we want to the most bang for our buck...the most magic for our moment...the most epiphany for our epiphyte...and the most wow for our word?

The more unique a term is...the more relevant the search results.  A perfect example is fhqwhgads.  On one hand...you really don't have to use quotes when you Google for fhqwhgads.  But on the other hand, good luck trying to remember how to spell it.  

It's easy enough to remember how to spell "hedge"...but a Google search will provide two very different results.  Adding the word "bets" will help eliminate shrubbery related results.

You can also search for the expression..."don't put all your eggs in one basket".  But simply searching for "eggs basket" will serve you a surplus of superfluous shrubbery.

Searching for "diversify" is probably the most efficient approach.  But is it possible to create a better word?  Is it possible to create a better orchid?  Of course!  There's always room for improvement.

Look around...do you see orchids growing on any trees?  Language has just as much room for improvement as the trees around you.  Now there's a place dedicated to finding and making linguistic improvements... Linvoid.  If we want to have a bounty of better words tomorrow...we'll have to throw a lot of words at today.  So start disseminating new words like an orchid disseminates seeds.

*********************************************

Discussion on Reddit: Can orchids provide a new model for language? Space exploration says yes!

The Beneficial Consequences Of Consumer Choice

There are zero search results for "The Beneficial Consequences Of Consumer Choice"

Reply to reply: Is This Forum A Market?

*************************************************

"Representative democracy" has zero to do with markets. It can't be turned into a command economy, because it's not a fucking economy. There's no trade involve, merely free distribution. It's no more a market than throwing things out of a window is. - Salandriagado

Representative democracy is where impersonal shoppers choose which items are placed in your shopping cart. For all intents and purposes it is a command economy.

I'm not giving you time. I am choosing to spend my time throwing my opinions around the internet. - Salandriagado

Of course you're giving me time. You're clearly allocating your time to this product that I created.

There is no trade involved, no exclusivity. This is no more a market than walking around outside shouting my opinions is. - Salandriagado

I agree that walking around shouting your opinions is not a market...any more than a song is a market. Products aren't markets.

If you walk around outside shouting your opinions...and people can choose to spend their time listening to your sermon on the mount...then it's a market.

If the sidewalk is full of street performers...and you can choose which performances you spend your time/money consuming...then it's a market.

If the bar is full of single ladies...and you can choose which ladies you spend your time chatting up...then it's a market.

If the class is full of students...and you can choose which students you spend your time studying with...then it's a market.

If the forum is full of threads...and you can choose which threads you spend your time replying to...then it's a market.

All forums, without exception, are markets. Why is that? Not a single person has attempted to answer this extremely straightforward question.

Consumer choice has logical and extremely beneficial consequences. Something happens to the supply of goods...

Variety? Skyrocket
Quality? Skyrocket
Cost? Plummet

If you eliminate consumer choice...then what do you think happens to the supply?

Variety? Plummet
Quality? Plummet
Cost? Skyrocket

If kids couldn't choose which candies they spent their money on...then what do you think would happen to the supply of candies?

Variety? Plummet
Quality? Plummet
Cost? Skyrocket

Right now consumers can't choose which public goods they spend their money on. But if they could...what would happen to the supply of public goods?

Variety? Skyrocket
Quality? Skyrocket
Cost? Plummet

The increase of demand, besides, though in the beginning it may sometimes raise the price of goods, never fails to lower it in the run. It encourages production, and thereby increases the competition of the producers, who, in order to undersell one another, have recourse to new divisions of labour and new improvements of art which might never otherwise have been thought of. The miserable effects of which the company complained were the cheapness of consumption and the encouragement given to production, precisely the two effects which it is the great business of political œconomy to promote. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

The Value Of Internalizing Costs

There is exactly one search result for "The Value Of Internalizing Costs"

Reply to reply on: Wars on Everything

****************************************************

Hah, thanks. That truly would be an awesome superpower! It's kind of easy to have a general picture of a world where incentives aren't perverse. We just work backwards...

Right now we have the invisible hand in the private sector. If we replaced it with the visible hand...what would happen to private goods?

1. Variety? Plummet
2. Quality? Plummet
3. Cost? Skyrocket

In the public sector we have the visible hand. If we replaced it with the invisible hand...what would happen to public goods?

1. Variety? Skyrocket
2. Quality? Skyrocket
3. Cost? Plummet

If we want people to internalize costs...then we have to help them understand that they will be better off if they do so. We have to show them that "lunches" only increase in value when consumers can clearly see the (opportunity) costs and choose accordingly.

One image that comes to mind is a long line of people waiting to go inside a restaurant to get a "free" lunch. The people walking out of the restaurant are smiling and oblivious to the fact that they are wearing only their underwear. Chances are good that they wouldn't have thought the deal was so great if they could clearly see what it would cost them.

The fact of the matter is...deals are never great when costs are externalized. If people can't shop around for the best deals...then there's absolutely no incentive for producers to offer better deals.

Another image has two candy stores. One candy store says "Internalized Costs" and the other says "Externalized Costs". There's a kid in each candy store. Which kid is happier? The kid in the EC store walks out with one "free" candy corn. The kid in the IC store paid $.25 and walks out with a huge bag of candies.

Lots of superpowers are nearly impossible to develop. I really hope that showing people the value of internalizing costs isn't one of them.

Clarifying The Dark Enlightenment

Jason Kuznicki wrote Zombie Apocalypse or Marginal Revolution? Nick Land, Neo-Reactionaries, and the Heterotic Society.

Nick Land replied

I replied to Land...

****************************************************

Xerographica

Lamb skewers, roasting chestnuts and roasting sweet potatoes...you know what I mean? The three things that actually smelled good on the streets of Shanghai. On the other extreme was stinky tofu. Ouch, my most of me. Dui bu dui?

Honestly I had to google HBD. According to the chick in charge...

To allow the mass immigration of peoples with very different historic mating patterns to Western nations is simply a recipe for disaster.

Errr...what? Maybe I skimmed too fast.

Would you guess that HBD chick has ever lived among people with very different historic mating patterns?

When I was stationed in Afghanistan for a year...for some reason I never got the impression that we should prevent them from immigrating to Western nations. Same thing when I lived in Panama...and China. Ola ni hao.

Deng Xiaoping went around saying that it didn't matter whether a cat was black or white...what mattered was whether it caught mice. Why does capitalism catch mice?

It's pretty easy...the quality and variety of goods really increases over time when people are free to not spend their money on crappy products. Because...as different as the people all over the world might be...everybody hates being ripped off.

If you understand this basic universal truth...then you should appreciate the value of creating a market in the public sector. So do you appreciate pragmatarianism? It's kinda got some dark enlightenment... clarifying the demand for public goods would destroy corporate welfare.

Nick Land

I like functional multicultural societies, and wouldn't live anywhere else. That seems entirely consistent with due respect to HBD chick's sensible policy advice (which will, of course, be completely ignored).

Xerographica

How long did it take you before you realized that the normally dressed ladies just standing on the side of the street were actually prostitutes? Well..."normally dressed" is relative. When I lived there in 2005 they all dressed like the 80s. A fashion lag time machine for sure.

See what I did Euthyphro? You want to avoid my good questions so I gave you a terrible question to avoid. Does it make you happy? Maybe you would prefer something like this instead...

You're not exactly dying to teach me - that much is clear. You were just on the point of doing so, but you turned aside. If you had given the answer, I would already be well versed in holiness, thanks to you. But as it is, the lover of inquiry must chase after his beloved, wherever he may lead him. Once more then: what do you say that the holy is, or holiness? Don't you say it's a kind of science of sacrifice and prayer?

LOL...too much fun. Maybe you're just trying to encourage me to buy your book on George Bataille? My database doesn't have a single passage by Bataille. It does have a few regarding Bataille though...

What is not in doubt is that the conclusions Mauss draws in the ‘Essai sur le don’, and the kind of liberal society he advocates in its conclusion, are a world away from Bataille’s formulation of a general theory of the economy beyond the sphere of utility. In the few pages he devotes to sacrifice in this work, Mauss writes: ‘The relationship that exists between these contracts and exchanges among humans and those between men and their gods throw light on a whole aspect of the theory of sacrifice’. As an explanatory principle, this is remarkably similar to Tylor’s analogy of ‘man’s dealings with man’, and comes to much the same conclusions. ‘The purpose of destruction by sacrifice’, Mauss goes on to say, ‘is precisely that it is an act of giving that is necessarily reciprocated’. - Simon Elmer

It's fun because it's the same conclusion that Euthyphro and Socrates danced around. Whether you're trading with a God or a man...or a prostitute...I'm sure you want the most bang for your buck. Right?

So what do you think? Should we create a market in the public sector? If not, then I'd love to hear why your preferred course of action will provide us with far greater blessings.

Nick Land

Apologies for evasiveness -- I'm not fully confident I'm understanding the question. If it's "Would full-blown anarcho-capitalism solve all these problems automatically" I'm strongly inclined to agree -- but the transition is important. You don't get to an-cap -- or anything like it -- by trying to take the (classically) liberal path at every fork. Anarchist migration policy combined with left-liberal welfare policy is worse than harsh illiberalism in all social dimensions.

Xerographica

Bu hao yi si. I'm sure it's my fault.

Anarcho-capitalism = destroying the public sector
Pragmatarianism = creating a market in the public sector

Good ole Rothbard and his button. What did Rothbard get right?

Individual valuation is the keystone of economic theory. (Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics)

Individual valuation... demonstrated preference... spending... sacrifice. As opposed to individual opinionation... contingent valuation... surveys... voting. Actions (spending) speak louder than words (voting). What we're personally willing to sacrifice... give up... exchange... trade... communicates far more than merely words alone. Spending provides accurate information about our true priorities/preferences...which is what the efficient allocation of resources depends on.

Rothbard correctly understood that without all our individual valuations...the government won't know what the demand is for public goods...

In the first place, how much of the deficient good should be supplied? What criterion can the State have for deciding the optimal amount and for gauging by how much the market provision of the service falls short? (The Myth of Neutral Taxation)

If the government can't even supply the optimal amount of milk...then there's no way that it can supply the optimal amount of national defense. Rothbard's conclusion was that we should eliminate the government.

His conclusion was completely wrong. This is because he believed that taxation and individual valuation were mutually exclusive...

There are fatal flaws in this idea of government-as-a-business. In the first place, a government service can never be run as a business, because the capital is conscripted from the taxpayer. There is no way of avoiding that. (The Business of Government)

Just because the capital is conscripted from taxpayers doesn't mean that we can't determine their true preferences. All that's required is to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. Doing so would create a market in the public sector.

For some more info...these two things are pretty short...

Pragmatarianism FAQ
Preference Revelation Problem

What really makes me laugh/cry is when anarcho-capitalists (always the natural rights type) try and use the currently atrocious quality/variety of public goods to critique pragmatarianism.

Hey Deng Xiaoping! You're an idiot for wanting to create a market in China! The quality and variety of private goods is pure crap! What's the point of consumer choice when the options are all terrible!???

Isn't that funny/sad? They don't understand the logical consequences of command economies. Which means that they don't understand the logical consequences of market economies. A kid goes in a candy store and fails to recognize that the variety/quality of the selection is the logical consequence of consumer choice. Take away consumer choice and the results will be predictable. Variety? Plummet. Quality? Plummet. Cost? Skyrocket. What do we end up with? Our current selection of public goods.

Are you confident that you understand the question now? Here it is again...should we create a market in the public sector?

Linvoid - A Word That Needs To Be Invented

Is there a word for words that need to be invented?   I don't think so...because if you google words that need to be invented you'll see results like "10 Words That Need To Be Invented" and "5 Words That Need To Be Invented".  If there was already a word for words that need to be invented then the results would be "10 Fhqwhgads" or "5 Linvoids".

So...since I'm on a word inventing roll (obamerate, obamertine)...

Linvoid (linguistic void) = a word that needs to be invented

A wordsmith is a "skilled user of words".  I think it would be more logical for a wordsmith to be somebody who creates words.  If somebody is skilled with words then they should be a wordwhiz...short for wordwizard.

"Coining" is to invent new words.  So somebody who invents new words is a coiner?  A newly coined word is a neologism...and neolexia is...

My comment on Arnold Kling's blog entry...What is to be Done?

*******************************************

Yeah, when my friend says something stupid I like to joke about getting a refund on public education.  Unfortunately I can't get a refund...which is exactly why public education is crappy.  That's the problem in a nutshell.

The quality of goods and services only really improves when people can choose not to spend their money on crappy products.  You'd figure this would be an easy concept to convey.  But I haven't seen any Youtube videos that wonderfully depict the logical and beneficial consequences of consumer choice.

I think a candy store would be a pretty excellent subject for a Youtube video.  The kid is so happy to be in the candy store because there are so many items that really match his preferences.  The video could illustrate the process by which the candy store came to have such a wide and wonderful selection.

I think part of the problem is that we might be missing a term.  If you could only choose one economic term to tell somebody to Google...which do you choose?  Consumer sovereignty?  Dollar voting?  Legal plunder?  Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs?  Opportunity cost?  Partial knowledge?  Market process?  Individual valuation?   Obamerate?  Obamertine?  Pragmatarianism?  Tax choice?

There's always room for improvement.  There's room for improvement in the available selection of candies and there's room for improvement in the available selection of economic terms.  If you create a better candy...you can make millions.  What happens if you create a better economic term?

*******************************************

Also on the topic of economic linvoids...

Reply to a reply on:  Everybody Hated My Comment On Wealth Inequality, But Nobody Said Why

************************************************

Here you are talking about economics so much.  It seems doing so matches your preferences.  This particular use of your resources (x) provides you with utility.  But I don't know how much utility it provides you.  Would it help if I knew what the opportunity cost is (y)?

I know what x is...but only you know what y is.  Whatever y is...I know that according to your preferences... x > y.  But y isn't always the same activity...right?  And whatever y is...I'm sure you engage in it sometimes.

In the bible it says that god loved the world.  Evidently the world matched his preferences...so it provided him with some amount of utility.  This in itself doesn't say much.  This is why the bible quantifies the love by saying that god loved the world so much that he was willing to sacrifice his only son to save it.  The opportunity cost wasn't insignificant.  We all know that y is extremely valuable...so if x > y...then x must be even more valuable.

Unlike opportunity cost, utility maximization doesn't tell us about sacrifice...so can it really help people understand why method 2 results in the most valuable allocation of resources?  Telling me that you love Klondike bars  just tells me that they provide you with utility.  It doesn't tell me much.  In order for me to have a clearer picture of your love for Klondike bars...I have to know exactly what you would be willing to sacrifice for them.

Why revealed preferences instead of demonstrated preferences?  Is it because you love Samuelson and hate Rothbard?  Do you know what Samuelson was trying to do with revealed preferences?  He used it to assume omniscience on the part of people who control the power of the purse.  If the king in method 1 is omniscient...then method 1 will produce at least as much value as method 2.

Samuelson's paper has been cited over 5000 times.  Do you know which one I'm talking about?  It provides the definitive economic justification for our current system.

Not sure if any of this will match your preferences...

1. The Logical Absurdity of Libertarianism - Partial Omniscience
2. Libertarians: Riding a Moral High Horse and Tilting at Windmills
3. S Is Never Going To Shrug...at this rate...

There's a process by which we arrive at the optimal amount of funding for the production of milk.  It can't simply be people choosing milk because it provides them with utility.  It has to involve people sacrificing other things that they also value.  For a long time I've referred to this process as "opportunity cost"...I envisioned a crowd of consumers...each one holding a scale...weighing the various uses of their own resources...choosing the most valuable one (at that exact point in time)...and sacrificing the alternatives.  But it's been a mistake to refer to this process as "opportunity cost" because, as you've helped clarify, opportunity cost isn't a process...it's just the best alternative foregone.  A "mundane" cost can't be a process.
Perhaps what I'm referring to is the market process...but I can't tell somebody to google "market process" and expect that they will "see" the process I just described.  If I tell somebody to google "market process" I can expect that they will be inundated by an ocean of irrelevant information.  It will be a waste of both our time.  The "invisible hand" is better... but it focuses more on self interest rather than weighing and sacrificing.  "Individual valuation" is good...but kings also engaged in individual valuation.

If there was a better term than "opportunity cost", "market process", "invisible hand" or "individual valuation"...then I'm sure I would have already learned of it by now.  Therefore, the logical conclusion is that I need a new word.  Something unique...so when I tell somebody to google it I can be confident that all the results will be relevant.

In a nutshell...

Opportunity cost, like a price, is a thing but  _________ is a process.  It's the process of everybody...

1. weighing the various uses of their own resources
2. choosing the most valuable use (and foregoing the other uses)

The result of this process is the optimal amount of funding for car washes, PETA, cancer research, national defense, welfare, etc.   If somebody understands this process then they will understand the importance of allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.  Conversely, if somebody doesn't understand the importance of pragmatarianism, then it's because they don't understand this process.