Clarifying Therapy

A hummingbird just thrust its beak into a small whitish Dendrobium nobile flower.  The orchid is growing and blooming on my tree... and I can see it from where I'm sitting... on a couch... inside the house... through a window.  The tree, orchid and hummingbird aren't inside the house.  They should be.  In a better world the line between inside and outside would be very blurry.

The weather is all kinds of wonderful today.  It's the middle of summer and I was woken up by the sound of thunder.  I thought it was an earthquake... :/   Such is California dreamin'.

There was an abundance of thunder and lightening... and even some rain.  I can't remember the last time we had a good summer thunderstorm.  Now its overcast, muggy and almost warm.  I love it.

I wish we had a thunderstorm once a week during summer.  Is that too much to ask?  Am I being greedy?  Sure, it might kill the native oaks but I'm sure there would be a net gain in biodiversity.  Pretty sure.  Then again... progress is a function of difference... and winter growing plants (Mediterranean) are the exception rather than the rule.

What's remarkable about the hummingbird visiting the Dendrobium flower is that the Americas have a monopoly on hummingbirds just like the Asias have a monopoly on Dendrobiums.  So it's kinda like an American trying Chinese food for the first time.  Kinda.

Since different kinds of animals are shaped differently, see different colors, are attracted to different smells and shapes, and so on, one can often make an educated guess as to the pollinator of a flower from the flower's features.  Thus, pollination ecologists speak of "syndromes."  Some people have scoffed at the syndromes because of insects that visit the "wrong" flowers and because of flowers that do not well fit into a single syndrome.  Still, the syndromes are quite useful, if one remembers that all sorts of animals, whether arthropod, avian, or primate, often stick their noses into something from sheer curiosity; such behavior is often adaptive for the animal.  There is no reason why a hummingbird should not occasionally visit a "butterfly" flower or a butterfly probe a "hummingbird" flower.  Indeed, these two types of pollinator are really very similar (from the flower's viewpoint), and often overlap in the types of flowers that they visit.  If a long-tongued bee wishes to sup nectar from what is primarily a butterfly flower, it will do so.  And if bees consistently visit these flowers more often than butterflies, it is likely that natural selection will shift the features of the plant population toward the bee-flower syndrome.  Similarly, hummingbirds are aggressive and inquisitive animals, occasionally probing in all sorts of flowers.  In general, though, when bees visit the flowers that are well-suited to bees, it is advantageous to both the pollinator and pollinatee.  - Robert L. Dressler, The Orchids

I couldn't remember if I had collected that passage.  I'm glad that I did.

Should the Americas have a monopoly on hummingbirds?  Should the Asias have a monopoly on Dendrobiums?

Given enough pollinators, all flowers are found.

Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.

The thing about therapy is that it's generally a one on one session between a client and a therapist.  Sometimes there's group therapy... which is a session with many clients and one therapist.  But I had the thought that, according to Linus's law, this ratio is really backwards.

It's a fundamentally basic rule that the more perspectives you apply to a problem... the more likely the problem is to be solved.  Watch...

The owner of the stock which employs a great number of labourers, necessarily endeavours, for his own advantage, to make such a proper division and distribution of employment, that they may be enabled to produce the greatest quantity of work possible. For the same reason, he endeavours to supply them with the best machinery which either he or they can think of. What takes place among the labourers in a particular workhouse, takes place, for the same reason, among those of a great society. The greater their number, the more they naturally divide themselves into different classes and subdivisions of employment. 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. There are many commodities, therefore, which, in consequence of these improvements, come to be produced by so much less labour than before, that the increase of its price is more than compensated by the diminution of its quantity. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Watch?  You can't watch that.  It's not a video... but it should be.  I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying concept... two heads are better than one... has already been illustrated in some video that I don't know of.  Have you seen such a video?  If so, let me know.

People go to therapy because they have problems.  In theory, they would increase their chances of having their problems solved by throwing more, rather than less, therapists/perspectives at their problems.  This is because no two therapists are exactly alike.  It's their differences which make it more likely that the bug will be found and squashed.  More differences cast a wider net.  More differences cover more ground.

Can you imagine group therapy with the ratio reversed?  There would be a dozen therapists and one client.  The client wouldn't just be getting a second opinion... they would be getting a dozen opinions.  How much variation would there be in opinions?

And if a dozen different therapists is better than one therapist... then why stop at a dozen?  If a mental health agency has 60 therapists... why not have them all take part in Linus's group therapy session?  There you are... on a couch... surrounded by 60 therapists asking questions and taking notes.

Clearly there's a definite role for technology.  Each client would be uploaded to a server that every therapist in the world would have access to.  Therapists could weigh in on any client.  And of course... demand would be clarified.  Therapists would have the opportunity to put their money where their opinions are.  If other therapists valued a suggested solution... then they would allocate money to it.  Whoever submitted the most valuable solutions would receive the most money.  Everybody would see the demand for every solution.

Perhaps the closest system is StackExchange.  The main difference being that StackExchange is missing demand clarity.  They use voting rather than spending to prioritize problems/solutions.  It's the difference between organizing information and efficiently organizing information.

Anyways, there are a lot of blanks that would have to be filled in.  This is just a summer brainstorm.

Dunkin Donuts Daydream

What a day for a Dunkin Donut daydream.  What a day for a Dunkin Donut daydreaming boy.

The other day I had a daydream.  I daydreamt that I was in a Dunkin Donuts.  Have you ever daydreamt about being in Dunkin Donuts?  Surely I can't be the only one?  Here's my excuse...

This is your brain on unread emails: does the information age stop us thinking straight?  I was tweated to that article... but it didn't fully catch my attention.  So while I'm reading it I'm also thinking about clarifying demand.

Clarifying demand is a central theme of this blog.  Why is it important to clearly see the demand?  Because...

Right now we can clearly see some of the demand.  But what we can clearly see is a drop in the bucket.  It's like capturing a minnow instead of a whale.

The single largest portion of this whale can be found in the public sector.  What is the demand for war?  We don't know.  We don't know the demand for war.  People have never been able to allocate... or not allocate... their taxes to war.  Therefore, we've never known the demand for war.  But we know the demand for Dunkin Donuts!

Donuts!  Does knowing the demand for donuts really matter?  Yes?  Could the government reasonably divine this demand?  Yes as well!?  Does anybody really believe this?  We should vote on whether the government should be in charge of supplying donuts like it's in charge of supplying war.  Would anybody vote no?  Why?  They trust their government with supplying the right amount of war... but not with supplying the right amount of donuts?  That would be... strange.

"Oh noes... the government is supplying too many donuts with sprinkles!"
"How's it doing with the supply of nukes?"
"Who cares man!?  The donuts are what's important!  What are we going to do with a surplus of donuts with sprinkles?!"
"Maybe it was a mistake to put the government in charge of donuts?"

What if everybody happens to be consistent with their trust and confidence and faith... oh so much faith.... in the wisdom of congress?  Then at worst, the government would be in charge of supplying donuts.  Will the government fuck this up?  Will they be able to know, better than you do, which donut you want, and when you want it?  Or maybe they'll know better than you?  How could you ever doubt their answer?

I hope this blog sets off a big donut debate.  THE Big Donut Debate.  Whether congress can spend taxes on donuts as effectively as they spend taxes on war.  This debate will be in history books until the end of time.  About how a ultra primitive society debated the idea of whether congress should also spend their taxes on donuts... and it was one of the most important debates ever.  Because, the debate opened their eyes.  And when that happened... that's when real progress began.  Discovering the importance of clarifying demand was infinitely more important than the discovery of fire, the wheel, language or any other major discovery.

Speaking of major discoveries... the other day I wondered who discovered that it was a good idea to ride a horse.  Who gets credit for this idea?  Some guy does.  It's hard to see it happening as an accident?  Blorg was climbing a tree... and happened to fall on a horse... and managed to ride it?  Or, Blorg was hunting a horse... he jumped on its back to kill it... but a lightbulb went on?  If not an accident, then maybe a dare?  Like, I dare you to tip that cow.  But... I dare you to ride that horse.  When were dares invented?

Perhaps animals were used as pack animals before somebody had the bright idea to ride them?  Do we know this answer?  I'm going to google it...

Ok, for sure horses were first used for meat.  Seeing an animal and thinking "Eat and live?  Or run away and live?"... seems pretty basic.  Seeing an animal and thinking, "maybe there's an opportunity cost to eating this animal?"... seems more complex.  Horses have more than one use.  Discovering the eating part was the easiest.  But what about the other uses?  Which came next... carrying things or people?

According to Wikipedia... Domestication of the horse...

The horses of the Ice Age were hunted for meat in Europe and across the Eurasian steppes and in North America by early modern humans. Numerous kill sites exist and many cave paintings in Europe indicate what they looked like.  Many of these Ice Age subspecies died out during the rapid climate changes associated with the end of the last Ice Age or were hunted out by humans, particularly in North America, where the horse became completely extinct.

Wow, did you know that last part?  I sure didn't.

It certainly wasn't obvious that eating horses has an opportunity cost.  For most early humans it was a rule that horses are for eating.  And then somebody broke that rule.  The only people who break rules are criminals.

But this criminal sure wasn't in North America.  As a result, humans in North America hunted horses to extinction.  None of them ever saw the truth that horses have alternative uses.  Their failure to see this truth stalled their progress.  Thank goodness we didn't have all our horses in the same basket.  Disparities in progress are the result of disparities in truth.  Less truth less progress.  More truth more progress.  Truth and progress depends on difference.  It took considerable difference for somebody to break the rule that horses are always for eating.  It's not just being or thinking different.  Difference is nothing without the freedom to act differently.  Economics is the study of action.

But what was this alternative action?  Was it carrying things... or people... same thing?  Kinda, but not really.  The Wikipedia article doesn't know which came first.

This part's pretty good though...

All of the dated chariot graves contained wheel impressions, horse bones, weapons (arrow and javelin points, axes, daggers, or stone mace-heads), human skeletal remains, and cheekpieces. Because they were buried in teams of two with chariots and studded cheekpieces, the evidence is extremely persuasive that these steppe horses of 2100–1700 BCE were domesticated. Shortly after the period of these burials, the expansion of the domestic horse throughout Europe was little short of explosive. In the space of possibly 500 years, there is evidence of horse-drawn chariots in Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. By another 500 years, the horse-drawn chariot had spread to China.

Can you imagine this idea/truth spreading?  "That guy is not eating a horse.  Wait...what?  Why isn't he eating the horse?  Or really?  Wow, I guess that does make sense.  A lot of sense."

One use turned out to be feeding horses to lions.  For entertainment.  When did humans begin to be entertained by other animals?  Are monkeys entertained by other animals?

Was man entertained by watching a lion attack a horse in the wild?  So entertained that he wanted to recreate the event?  The other day I did enjoy watching the documentary about how a great white shark was killed by a killer whale.  Except, it really wasn't much of a fight.  Some killer whale figured out that flipping a shark on its back made eating it a whole lot easier.

Humans eventually figured out that horses could be used for war.  Unfortunately, humans still haven't figured out the value of knowing the demand for war.

While the public sector is the largest single space where demand needs to be clarified... there are endless other smaller spaces where demand also needs to be clarified.  Like... Netflix.  We pay for a big bundle of content... so the demand for the individual components is unknown.

If you can effectively imagine all the places where demand is obscure... then you should appreciate the disparity between seen and unseen demand.  The disparity is massive.

All this, and a lot more, was a mental process that was running, more or less, while I was reading the article about thinking straight.  The article was written by Sophie McBain.  When I saw her picture I was hit with the impression that women writers are unusually attractive.  Eh.  Where did that come from?  That can't be right.  I'm sure it's not true that the average photo of some female writer will contain a face prettier than most.  And I'm even more sure it's not true that in reality female writers are prettier than females in other professions.

McBain's story contains this paragraph...

Crawford is taken aback by an advertisement that flashes up on a card holder just before he enters his credit-card pin, and the one stuck to the back of his fold-out tray on an aeroplane. In South Korea, bus passengers can be squirted with the smell of Dunkin’ Donuts just as they reach the shop. “In a culture saturated with technology for appropriating our attention, our interior mental lives are laid bare as a resource to be harvested by others,” he writes. To make things worse, modern technology seems to generate in us an ever-greater need for stimulation. We are addicted to our buzzing mobiles, our rapidly filling in-boxes and ­24-hour news. For all that we’ve gained, it can feel like we have lost something, too. “We don’t feel our attention is ours, and we complain about it,” Crawford writes.

This paragraph is how I ended up at Dunkin Donuts in a daydream.

I'm standing in a Dunkin Donuts.  And I have my phone with me of course.  I go to a website... and search for Dunkin Donuts.  Because, like everybody else, I'm curious to see the rest of the demand.  There's a list of "wishes" that customers have spent their money on.  I see that one of the wishes is that the employees would smile more.  I look up and...  the employees are smiling.  It makes me smile.  That's worth a few cents... so I allocate my money to this wish.  Another valuable wish is the music.  There's quite a bit of demand for better music.  I listen and realize that the music is worth shazamming... which is worth a few cents... so I allocate my money accordingly.  Nearly as valuable as the music is the style of the space.  I look around... and the style is nice.  Real nice.  Definitely worth supporting.  Also on the list is that the space should be open.  Right above it in value... the wish that the space should be more intimate.  I look around again... the space is somehow both open and intimate.  And the chairs look comfortable... which was also on the list.

Super high on the list was... healthy and tasty donuts.  Is that even possible?  Yes?  Yes.  Even higher on the list was "something new!".  Everything has diminishing returns.  Variety is the spice of life.

The highest (most valuable) wish on the list was... of course... more epiphytes.  Epiphytes have the least diminishing returns.  Inside the Dunkin Donuts there were epiphytes growing on most surfaces...hence the nice style...  and each order of donuts came with a neat little epiphyte.  They were all different... it was impossible to collect them all.  People, being all different, would frequently trade their epiphytes.  

The epiphyte that I received was a super cool succulent orchid with a bright red bloom.  It was attached to a branch which I hung from a stand on my table.  As soon as I did so, a brilliant hummingbird flew up and enjoyed some nectar from my orchid's flower.  I saw the flower's pollen stick to the bird's beak... and it flew over to another table where it pollinated another orchid in bloom.  A space for humans and hummingbirds to eat... was also a space for flowers to procreate.

What I might need to point out is that the money allocated to these wishes goes to the people responsible for submitting them.  It was valuable to submit the most valuable wishes.  And the only way to truly figure out the value of a wish was to submit it.

David Glasner said this...

It is the growth and diffusion of knowledge (both practical and theoretical, but especially the former), not the accumulation of capital, that accounts for the spectacular economic growth of the past two centuries. 

Peter Thiel said this...

We are biased toward the democratic/republican side of the spectrum. That’s what we’re used to from civics classes. But the truth is that startups and founders lean toward the dictatorial side because that structure works better for startups. It is more tyrant than mob because it should be. In some sense, startups can’t be democracies because none are. None are because it doesn’t work. If you try to submit everything to voting processes when you’re trying to do something new, you end up with bad, lowest common denominator type results.

Charles Darwin said this...

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Dunkin Donuts is subject to some demand.  I want it to be subject to the rest of the demand.  But what about the demand from within Dunkin Donuts?  Not democracy... or dictatorship... but demand.

Ellen Pao used to be the CEO of Reddit.  Not any more.  But the decision wasn't based on demand inside or outside Reddit.

Although, if there had been a net to capture all the outside demand... then I don't suppose anything would have prevented it from capturing all the inside demand as well.  Any Reddit employee could have visited the demand clarity website and allocated some money for or against Pao stepping down as CEO.

Ah.... I really love market imperialism.

What's the demand for a movie about the first person to realize that horses can be used differently?

Hillary Clinton vs Easterism and Builderism

Right now there are around 2500 search results for the word "easterism".  It's not readily apparent that there's a dominant definition.  So I'll throw my definition in the ring!

Easterism: the more people participating in the great Easter Egg hunt of life, the better!

Is this obvious?  A few facts...

1. Poverty precludes participation.  Not perfectly... but significantly.
2. Decentralization is discovery.  Here's my most relevant illustration...

Progress is a function of freedom.  The more freedom there is, and the more unique individuals fully enjoying this freedom, the greater the variety of paths taken... the more discoveries made... and voila!  Faster progress!  More prosperity!

Perhaps the easiest easterism example is China.  During Mao Zedong's centralization efforts... millions and millions of unique individuals were starving to death.  Needless to say, there wasn't an abundance of beneficial discoveries.  Then, in 1978, Deng Xiaoping took over and began gradually decentralizing the country.  As a result of an influx of capital/jobs... millions and millions of unique individuals were lifted out of poverty.  Now the world has added around a billion people to the Great Easter Egg Hunt.  Is the rest of the world going to massively benefit from this massive participation expansion?  Are the Chinese going to make discoveries that help humanity thrive?  That's the easterism theory!

There's always room for improvement... and the more people looking... the more beneficial discoveries that will be made.  Two heads are better than one.

So there I was, over at Medium, reading a story by Hillary Clinton... We need to raise incomes for hard-working Americans.  Clinton's story is, in terms of easterism and builderism, tragically incoherent.

Easterism

Here are some snippets related, more or less, to easterism...

I’ll also push for broader business tax reform to spur investment in America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas.

...

We are in a global competition, as I’m sure you have noticed, and we can’t afford to leave talent on the sidelines, but that’s exactly what we’re doing today. When we leave people out, or write them off, we not only shortchange them and their dreams — we shortchange our country and our future.

...

Trade has been a major driver of the economy over recent decades but it has also contributed to hollowing out our manufacturing base and many hard-working communities. So we do need to set a high bar for trade agreements.

...

As we pursue all these policies, we can’t forget our fellow Americans hit so hard and left behind by this changing economy — from the inner cities to coal country to Indian country. Talent is universal — you find it everywhere — but opportunity is not. 

...

And I believe that many business leaders are eager to embrace their responsibilities, not just to today’s share price but also to workers, communities, and ultimately to our country and indeed our planet.

...

To create fair growth, we need to create opportunity for more Americans.

As an added bonus... here's an easterism snippet from Bill Clinton...

It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics. Why? Because poverty, discrimination and ignorance restrict growth. When you stifle human potential, when you don’t invest in new ideas, it doesn’t just cut off the people affected — it hurts us all.

Builderism

Here are some snippets related, more or less, to builderism...

More growth means more jobs and more new businesses. More jobs give people choices about where to work. And employers have to offer higher wages and better benefits in order to compete with each other to hire new workers and keep the productive ones. 

...

Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth.

...

To get all incomes rising again, we need to strike a better balance. If you work hard, you ought to be paid fairly. So we have to raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama’s new rules on overtime. And then we have to go further. 

I’ll crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages.

...

Alongside tax reform, it’s time to stand up to efforts across our country to undermine worker bargaining power, which has been proven again and again to drive up wages.

...

I firmly believe that the best anti-poverty program is a job, but that’s hard to say if there are not enough jobs for people that we are trying to help lift themselves out of poverty.

...

What are the best ways to nurture start-ups outside the successful corridors like Silicon Valley?

...

To create fair growth, we need to create opportunity for more Americans.

Analysis

Why is Hillary Clinton so incoherent?  Because she's a liberal?  Because she's a politician?  Because she's a woman?  Heh.  I'm just kidding about that last guess.  Really!  I swear!  I'm protesting too much!

It's seriously sad though that we can't have coherent leaders.  Talent is everywhere... but only in America!  We only want Americans to have more opportunities!  And only in America!  And let's rid ourselves of short-term thinking!  Let's replace it with local thinking!  Talent is everywhere!  We need more jobs!  In America!  We need to make it harder and easier to start a business!  In America!  Workers benefit when employers compete for them!  Workers benefit from intervention!

Unfortunately, nobody can see the disparity between where we are and where we should be.  Except for me.  Trust me, it's a huge disparity.

Thank goodness for my blog!  And for all my readers!  And for Adam Smith!

The owner of the stock which employs a great number of labourers, necessarily endeavours, for his own advantage, to make such a proper division and distribution of employment, that they may be enabled to produce the greatest quantity of work possible. For the same reason, he endeavours to supply them with the best machinery which either he or they can think of. What takes place among the labourers in a particular workhouse, takes place, for the same reason, among those of a great society. The greater their number, the more they naturally divide themselves into different classes and subdivisions of employment. 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. There are many commodities, therefore, which, in consequence of these improvements, come to be produced by so much less labour than before, that the increase of its price is more than compensated by the diminution of its quantity.

... also...

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own.

See also:  Bernie vs Builderism

Me Being Unclear On The Importance Of Clarity

I’m mostly convinced, and this article supports me regarding architects, that opacity in communication is inversely correlated with the quality of the content. - Daniel Miessler, Stop Being Proud of Complexity

I wish that your rule was true! Then we could safely skip over any opaque writing and be utterly confident that we weren't overlooking an Easter Egg!

But think about a layman trying to read some programming code. It would be the epitome of Greek to him. This doesn't necessarily mean that the code is not conveying something important.

Check this doozy out...

Recall the strong path dependence of individual connectionist learning. The use of external memory systems helps ameliorate some of the effects of this path dependence by allowing achieved innovations ("redescriptions") to be transmitted between individuals. This allows the collective construction of representational trajectories that crisscross individual cognizers and hence increase the chance of a good idea finding a viable niche for further development. This is, of course, an old idea. But it is one whose value cannot be fully appreciated except in the context of our increasing understanding of the boundedness and extreme path dependence of individual reason. - Andy Clark, Economic Reason: The Interplay of Individual Learning and External Structure

Hah... what? I don't grasp everything that's going on here... but I like what I do grasp! It's definitely a good idea to increase the chances of good ideas finding fertile places to germinate, grow and benefit humanity. Honestly though I only really skimmed the paper. I'd like to read through it more carefully... someday.

The issue is that communicating and understanding are two entirely different skill sets. Some people have one skill but not the other... while some lucky bastards have both skills!

Personally, I'm a lot better at understanding than I am at communicating. Words fail me more often than not! There's always room for improvement though. But, on the other hand, a jack of all trades is a master of none. More breadth means less depth. Everybody learning to read/write programming language would shift their limited time away from other uses. However, everybody learning programming language would increase the rate at which programming languages were improved... which would decrease the time required to learn programming languages. Eh? Does English's rate of improvement depend on the number of speakers? But English doesn't seem like it's gotten easier to learn over time. I have no idea if that's true or not.

Anyways, regarding the distinct skills... one metaphor that comes to mind is playing volleyball... one person "sets" the ball... and another person "spikes" it.  It's a division of labor.  One person finds an Easter Egg... and another person clearly communicates why it's an Easter Egg. This clear communication increases the chances that other people will be able to perceive different and potentially beneficial uses of the Easter Egg.

Except, when there are a lot of balls being "set"... what are the chances that a clear communicator will "spike" the most valuable one?

Right now we use citations to determine a paper's importance. More citations means more importance. This is a defective system because, in the real world, importance is a function of sacrifice. And a citation isn't much of a sacrifice. Just like a vote isn't much of a sacrifice. Same thing with links. Here's a link to the most widely cited defense of government. The fact that I linked to this paper doesn't really clarify my demand for this paper. Well... I actually linked to the search results for this paper... the order of which was determined by links.

Eventually we'll switch over to putting our money where our citations, links, votes and likes are. When we quantify our interests then, and only then, will it be readily apparent which discoveries should be clearly communicated sooner rather than later. Personally, I'd spend a lot more money on this link...

Under most real-world taxing institutions, the tax price per unit at which collective goods are made available to the individual will depend, at least to some degree, on his own behavior. This element is not, however, important under the major tax institutions such as the personal income tax, the general sales tax, or the real property tax. With such structures, the individual may, by changing his private behavior, modify the tax base (and thus the tax price per unit of collective goods he utilizes), but he need not have any incentive to conceal his "true" preferences for public goods. - James Buchanan, The Economics of Earmarked Taxes

I'm certain that this passage is opaque to most people... but, based on my understanding of public finance, the content is very high quality. The content gets to the heart of the matter of government.

Samuelson said that we need taxes because, without them, people will lie about their valuations of public goods in order to save a buck...

Gov: How much do you value national defense?
Citizen: Does my payment depend on my answer?
Gov: Yes
Citizen: Then not very much

Buchanan pointed out that, if taxes were a foregone conclusion, then there's no point in lying...

Gov: How much do you value national defense?
Citizen: Does my tax obligation depend on my answer?
Gov: Nope, just your allocation
Citizen: Then, allocate 100% of my taxes to defense

The free-rider problem means taxation... it really doesn't mean allowing 500 congresspeople to allocate everybody's taxes. In other words, the free-rider problem really doesn't mean socialism.

Socialism would work if our valuations do not matter. However, our valuations do matter... which is why socialism does not work.

Clearly communicating with words is important... but words can never communicate as clearly as actions.  How we spend our money reflects our priorities... which reflect our preferences as well as our circumstances... which are constantly changing. So when we spend our money... we effectively communicate our preferences and changing circumstances to the rest of society... and limited resources freely flow in the most valuable directions.

So if you care about clear communication... then you should care about the fact that actions (spending) speak louder than words (votes, likes, links, citations, etc). Giving more weight to words results in a garbage in, garbage out situation.

John Quiggin: Clarifying Or Confusing?

My second favorite liberal, John Quiggin, recently shared another draft segment from his upcoming book... TISATAAFL.  Contrary to market economists... Quiggin argues that there is such a thing as a free lunch.  The basic problem with Quiggin's argument is that he incorrectly defines the original saying.

When an economist says that there's no such thing as a free lunch... he's saying that everything has an opportunity cost.  But "everything" doesn't truly mean "everything".  "Everything" means every allocation of a resource.  Every allocation of a resource has an opportunity cost.  This is fundamentally true because there isn't a single resource that can be allocated only one way.  Every resource can be allocated a gazillion different ways.  Because there isn't any resource that can be in two places at the same time, or used and unused at the same time...allocating a resource one way means that you must sacrifice the opportunity to allocate that same exact resource another way.

In theory... the fact that opportunity cost is all about allocations should be a given because economists, by definition, are all about how resources are allocated.  Economics isn't about what people say, it's about what people do.  And doing is allocating.

For example... right now I'm allocating my time to writing this blog entry.  Is there an opportunity cost?  Of course!  I'm sacrificing every single alternative use of my time.  Perhaps if I wasn't allocating my time to this blog entry I'd be allocating my time to attaching epiphytes to trees.  But here I am instead!  Evidently... right here right now... in this unique set of circumstances... a hot lazy summer sunny Saturday SoCal afternoon... my valuation of x is greater than my valuation of y.

x > y

This is really straightforward.  Yet, Quiggin gets this really wrong...

In this section, I’m working on Lesson 1, leading up to the point (my restatement of what’s usually called the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics) that an ideal competitive equilibrium is one in which there are no unexploited potential gains from technical improvements or mutually beneficial exchange. For reasons I’ve spelt out already I don’t want to use the term “Pareto-optimal” to talk about this. I also want to confine “efficient” to its normal meaning of “technically efficient” and avoid the common economist practice of extending this to cover various definitions of “market efficiency”. So, I’m talking about “free lunches” or, more formally, benefits with no opportunity cost.

According to Quiggin, there is such a thing as a free lunch because there are some benefits that do not have an opportunity cost.  Benefits that don't have an opportunity cost?!  Ack.  He then goes on to build his argument on top of this extremely flawed foundation.  The logical result is a continuation of confused comments.

So Quiggin is confusing... but he is in the right ball park at least!  Which is a big part of the reason that he's my second favorite liberal.

There's a lot more that I could say on the subject.  But circumstances have changed.  The sun went down... and the drought tolerant epiphytes that are growing on my trees are pretty thirsty.  Therefore...

x < y

Bernie vs Builderism

Reason recently published this critique... The Foolish Socialism of Bernie Sanders.  It's a good critique... but it's not a great critique.

Sanders supports redistribution because he wants to help the poor.  A. Barton Hinkle, the author of the critique, responds that conceit (top down control) results in shortages.

The poor are definitely hurt by a shortage of food and other necessities... but we need to clarify how they are helped by a wider variety of beer for example...

While Boston Beer Co., Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. and other large craft brewers continue to gain market share, the number of small breweries including nanobreweries at the other end of the spectrum is exploding, providing adventurous offerings to a new generation of beer drinkers who increasingly place a premium on locally produced beer. - David Sharp, Beyond craft brews: Just like foodies, beer geeks go local

A wider variety of products doesn't perfectly correspond to a wider variety of employment options.  But there's certainly quite a bit of correlation.  And the greater the variety of employment... the greater the benefit to the poor.

It's easy to think of the poor as a homogeneous group of people... but they really aren't.  They are all different.  This means that they aren't all going to maximize their individual growth and reach their peak personal potential in the same exact type of environment.  Therefore, it's imperative that we facilitate the creation of the maximum variety of environments.

Entrepreneurs create new environments.  An entrepreneur who starts his own microbrewery creates an environment that isn't exactly the same as all the other environments.  No two working environments are ever going to be exactly alike.  We should encourage, rather than stifle, environmental differences.

J.S. Mill probably put it best...

If it were only that people have diversities of taste, that is reason enough for not attempting to shape them all after one model. But different persons also require different conditions for their spiritual development; and can no more exist healthily in the same moral, than all the variety of plants can in the same physical, atmosphere and climate. The same things which are helps to one person towards the cultivation of his higher nature, are hindrances to another. The same mode of life is a healthy excitement to one, keeping all his faculties of action and enjoyment in their best order, while to another it is a distracting burthen, which suspends or crushes all internal life. Such are the differences among human beings in their sources of pleasure, their susceptibilities of pain, and the operation on them of different physical and moral agencies, that unless there is a corresponding diversity in their modes of life, they neither obtain their fair share of happiness, nor grow up to the mental, moral, and aesthetic stature of which their nature is capable. - J.S. Mill, On Liberty

Here's another way of thinking about it...

Ecological Homogenization - Part of the problem for our native bees is our human desire for neatness and uniformity. Pretty lawns with no bare spots. Non-flowering grass, or pollen-less flowers. Paved spots where a sand bank or brush pile may have been before. All places where a native bee might have made her home or found a snack. - Gwen Pearson, You're Worrying About The Wrong Bees

Diversity of niches is just as important for the economy as it is for the environment.  Maximizing niche variety maximizes the chances that diverse poor people will find spaces where they can thrive and make their unique contribution to humanity.  Diversity also helps us hedge against failure.

Would Bernie Sanders help the poor truly thrive?  Not a chance.  His strategy is purely superficial.  The cover of his book might look good but the content is considerable crap.  There's absolutely no awareness or recognition or understanding of the true importance of diversity.  Like all liberals he'll praise diversity without having a clue what it's good for.  As a result, Sanders' plans won't eliminate the massive barriers to entry... instead, his plans will enlarge these barriers... which will decrease the variety of available niches... which will decrease the variety of employment options available to the poor.  This will create a vicious cycle.

On a related note, here's my reply to The Untold Story Behind the Invention of the Microprocessor

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

What happened? Did I just read, and accidentally enjoy, an advertisement? How did this happen? Oh yeah…it’s because you “conveniently” put the “Sponsored by Intel” part after, rather than before, the content. As a result of your sneakiness…. now I have to go take a shower and try and scrub off the feeling of being so used. Don’t you know I live in Southern California? And there’s a drought going on? How bad do you feel now?

I sense a conspiracy. Just the other day I watched PBS’s Silicon Valley documentary on Netflix. Maybe it was sponsored by Intel as well? I don’t know… I didn’t read the credits.

I just looked at my computer…. which is so old. At the bottom of the tower is a sticker that says “Intel Inside”. For some strange reason I feel like buying a new computer… that also has an “Intel Inside” sticker.

Besides having “Intel” inside my computer… I also have a database. Inside this database is a table that stores my quotes collection. There are over 3000 quotes. It helps that I use tags. For example, if I filter the tags by “orchid” there are four results…

Recall the strong path dependence of individual connectionist learning. The use of external memory systems helps ameliorate some of the effects of this path dependence by allowing achieved innovations (“redescriptions”) to be transmitted between individuals. This allows the collective construction of representational trajectories that crisscross individual cognizers and hence increase the chance of a good idea finding a viable niche for further development. This is, of course, an old idea. But it is one whose value cannot be fully appreciated except in the context of our increasing understanding of the boundedness and extreme path dependence of individual reason. — Andy Clark, Economic Reason: The Interplay of Individual Learning and External Structure

Heh, what? Did that hurt your brain? If not, then you must have a lot of intel inside. Go ahead and make a comic to illustrate this quote. Send the bill to Intel.

I think it means something about my quote database (an external memory system)… and… sharing (transmitting) ideas… among more people… increasing the chance of a “good idea finding a viable niche for further development”.

Here’s the next result…

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. — Charles Darwin

Good ole Darwin. Hmmm… was Intel the most responsive to change? Or was it the most intelligent? Maybe it just got lucky?

Next result…

In the 60s at Fairchild everybody looks out there and says why are we sitting in the big city we should be out there panning for gold. Let’s go start our own chip company. Fairchild was like a seed pod and it just scattered new companies all over this valley. And that’s what really began what we think of as the modern Silicon Valley. — Michael Malone, Silicon Valley

Eureka! This is the quote that I was looking for!

Maybe you’re wondering why I choose the keyword “orchid”? A single orchid seed pod can contain around a million tiny seeds that are dispersed by the wind. Talk about hedging bets. Which is, in my estimation, a good part of the reason why the orchid family is one of the most successful families on the planet.

How would you illustrate a million seeds being dispersed by the wind? How much variation is there in distance traveled? How much variation is there in the goodness of the seeds/ideas? How much variation is there in cold/drought tolerance? How far do the apples fall from the tree?

Just in case you’re wondering… here’s the fourth result…

Market reasoning is deeply, essentially smarmy. We live, it insists, in a world that is optimized by the invisible hand. The conditions under which we live have been created by rational needs and preferences, producing an economicist Panglossianism: What thrives deserves to thrive, be it Nike or sprawl or the finance industry or Upworthy; what fails deserves to have failed. 

We all live our lives, we’re told, on these terms. If people really wanted a better world — what you might foolishly regard as a better world — they would have it already. So what if you signed up to use Facebook as a social network, and Facebook changed the terms of service to reverse your privacy settings and mine your data? So what if you would rather see poor people housed than billionaires’ investment apartments blotting out the sun? Some people have gone ahead and made the reality they wanted. Immense fortunes have bloomed in Silicon Valley on the most ephemeral and stupid windborne seeds of concepts, friends funding friends, apps copying apps, and the winners proclaiming themselves the elite of the newest of meritocracies. What’s was wrong with you, that you didn’t get a piece of it? 

Of course this is tyrannical. Of course this is false. Everyone is aware that market judgments are foolish and unfair. But what can you do about it? — Tom Scocca, On Smarm

w00t! I wonder if this guy has an “Intel Inside” sticker on his computer?

If I was a billionaire then I’d buy a million acres of land in Southern Texas and start an orchid reserve. I’d attach 100 million orchids to trees. If an average orchid has 10 seed pods per year… and each pod has a million seeds inside… then how many seeds would be dispersed each year? Errr… my maths aren’t too great. :( How long would it take for every tree in the US to be covered with orchids? Errr… which direction does the wind blow? What if the wind doesn’t blow north? Minor detail? How many people would I have to hire to manually carry the seeds north? Just like Johnny Appleseed…but different.

But I’m not a billionaire! Can I blame the market? What does that even entail? The market isn’t a sentient being… it’s just a bunch of people. Like me… but different.

A bunch of people haven’t put my ideas in their shopping carts. And nobody’s ever made a movie about J.S. Mill! He’s one of the most important thinkers ever… and there’s never been a movie about him!! Market failure!!! Where’s government intervention when you need it?

The government hasn’t made a movie about J.S. Mill… but it did put a man on the moon. And, as a result, we have Silicon Valley!

Here’s the best kept secret in the world. A better world happens when enough people truly understand the value of consumer choice. Then we’ll be able to choose where our taxes go. We won’t all choose the same… because we aren’t all the same. And that’s a good thing.

From where I’m sitting I can look out the window and see a crowd of ripe seed pods on the dozens of Tillandsia aeranthos growing on my tree. They are perfectly happy only getting watered, via drip, twice a week. And the hummingbirds are more than happy to pollinate the flowers. Happiness does grow on trees.

I was just kidding about the needing to shower part. I’m all about the charmercials. And the not showering. Oh man, I stink so good!

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

See also:  Rights vs Results

Streaming Thoughts On Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid

John Quiggin, my second favorite liberal, recently published this critique... John Locke Against Freedom.  I'd like to reply to it.  But then I decided to check and see if Netflix had recently added anything interesting.  Guess what I discovered?

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid

Here's the description...

A team of scientists sets out to find a rare orchid, unaware the flower is protected by deadly anacondas made even stronger by the mysterious plant.  

On the one hand, it's only 1.6 stars (out of 5) and I really should share my feedback with Quiggin (x).  But on the other hand, I do love orchids (y)!!!  

The opportunity cost of y is x.  But, right here right now... y > x.  Figured that I might as well share some streaming thoughts while watching the movie.  

The movie starts off pretty nice.  The opening scene is a zoomed out shot of some hilly jungle.  I love jungle.   I love nature.  The world needs more nature.  The world has a shortage of nature.  

The camera zooms in and I spot a tree fern.  It looks a lot nicer than three of my tree ferns.  Who plants tree ferns in Southern California?  Not just me!  With the mandated twice a week watering schedule because of the drought... three of my most exposed tree ferns are... getting crispy.  They might not make it.  

Crouched under the tree fern are some mostly naked natives.  In the movie.  Not in my yard.  

The natives are stalking a tiger.  A tiger?!  Woah, a mystery!  Where in the world are we?  Tigers are native to Asia and anacondas are native to the Americas.  The natives look a bit Asian... but more so than some American natives?   Yeah... perhaps.  

Some startled parrots just flew over a pond.  Parrots are pantropical but the parrots in the movie sure looked like American parrots.  I'm hardly an expert though.  

A disgruntled black monkey appears in the next scene.  I'm not a monkey expert either.  But it is howling so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's a howler monkey.  Kinda like the ones that I heard while stationed in Panama a million years ago.  

The tiger jumps over a native... because... it was running from an anaconda!  Now the native is running... not as fast as I would be running though.  

Because the native isn't running fast enough... the snake manages to grab him and lift him up in the air.  The native uses his knife to persuade the snake to drop him.  After which he runs, again... not so fast... but fast enough where he fails to avoid falling off a cliff into some water.  As he's falling we get a glimpse of what appears to be red flowered orchids growing on the cliff.  The first orchid that comes to mind is Masdevallia... which are from the Americas.  Except the downpour of red flower petals falling on the water are definitely not from a Masdevallia.

Now we're in the city.  :(  I miss the jungle already.  There's crowds of people and cars and buildings.  And a pharmaceutical boardroom... with some African American actor I kinda vaguely recognize.  Also there's a wonderfully "mixed" (maybe Hispanic, maybe African American) lady who I do recognize!  She's from Eureka!  

For some reason I'm infinitely better than my gf at recognizing actors.  I'd love to know why that is.  A fun theory is because she's Korean.  Even though she was raised by white people... maybe something in her nature prevents her from identifying Caucasian (broadly speaking) faces as well as I do.  Heh.  One way to test this theory would be to have both of us look at pictures of different faces... and then see how many and which ones we remember seeing.  Perhaps she's better than I am at remembering Asian faces?  Or maybe I'm just better at remembering all types of faces?  Perhaps I just have a better memory?  I'm sure this topic has already been studied... right?  If you know of any interesting studies then let me know. 

In the boardroom a powerpoint slide of the orchid is displayed.  The orchid is the Blood Orchid... Perrinia immortalis.  It's definitely not a real orchid.  The flower looks more like a wacky red trillium than an orchid.  The slide offers some basic info and a description that is hard to read.  But according to the guy giving the presentation... the orchid is from Borneo!  Well... that solves the mystery of which jungle we were in.  But now there's the mystery of how an anaconda ended up in Borneo.  The presenter says the orchid lies dormant for 7 years and then blooms for "just" 6 months.  Errr.. it blooms for just 6 months?  Hah.

It turns out that the reason the pharmacorp is interested in the orchid is because it could potentially be the fountain of youth.  The orchid family contains the key to immortality?  Totally plausible.  Orchids are all kinds of wonderful for so many reasons.  It's a long list that's bound to get a lot longer.  

Eureka lady is... skeptical.  Evidently she doubts the business model.  Another white guy in a suit is a bit more open minded.  He says, "that would be bigger than Viagra!"  I think I recognize him from this music video.

The boss gives the order to get our asses to Borneo and voila!  We're back in the jungle!  Yes!  Did you miss it?  I sure did.  Although, admittedly... Borneo wouldn't be my jungle destination of choice.  I'd prefer Bolivia or Madagascar.  Given that I live in a desert... I'm more interested epiphytes from drier habitats.  But the boss is the boss!

It's raining a lot in Borneo.  And we don't have a boat to get up river.  So now we're in a Borneo gangsta bar... of sorts.  I don't recognize the Asian guy we're talking to about a boat.  His English is good though and he introduces us to the captain of the boat... some white guy I don't recognize.  He's wearing a black cap.  

Mr. Black Cap wants to charge us $50,000 to get up river!  He's exploiting the heck out of us because he knows that the only reason we're talking to him is because nobody else is willing to transport us.  See... this is exactly why the Borneo government needs to impose price ceilings.  Evidently Borneo has a shortage of Krugmans.  What a coincidence... we have a surplus of Krugmans!  Let's send our Krugman to Borneo.  

Unfortunately, Krugman doesn't arrive soon enough to rescue us from exploitation.  :(  

Looking at the boat, Eureka lady remarks that she's seen prettier subway cars.  To which Mr. Black Cap replies, "she may be ugly but she puts out".  Heh.  What?  Now I'm trying to imagine an ugly boat that doesn't put out.  Somebody's going to have to draw me a diagram.  

A red truck pulls up and a black guy gets out.  A different black guy.  It's the guy from Bones.  See how good I am at recognizing faces?  What if I was the best in the world?  Surely somebody has to be the best in the world at recognizing faces.  

Our little ugly ship of fools sets off.  We've got a week to get to our prize orchid.  

The question is... who's going to survive?  

I'm guessing Mr. Black Cap (the ship captain), his Asian henchman... and maybe Eureka lady.  And maybe Bones.  Definitely the monkey.  The monkey is choosing an overhanging fruit (x) rather than staying on the boat (y).  Errr... and is now being chased by the snake.  And eaten.  Heh.  Stupid monkey.

It's the morning after... monkey's nowhere to be found... and Eureka lady manages to fall off the boat.  She's attacked by the snake?  Nope, a crocodile.  The captain pulls a crocodile Dundee.  And the monkey is still alive!  That's probably going to be the best twist in the tale.    

The engine dies and the boat goes over a waterfall.  Ooops.  Pretty white lady narrowly avoids being eaten by the snake.  And now it's jungle trekking time!  Get out your machetes!  We're on our way to get another boat.  A minor obstacle is a swamp.  That has an anaconda.  On the plus side there are some trees laden with epiphytes.  Not a bad trade off.  I'd be fine because I'd be out of the water climbing the trees inspecting the epiphytes.  

Our doctor got eaten.  :(  

Mr. Black Cap explains that it's an anaconda.  Unfortunately, he doesn't explain how anacondas ended up in Borneo.  C'mon director guy.  It wouldn't have been that difficult for Bones or somebody to say, "but I thought anacondas were native to the Americas...??"  And then Mr. Black Cap would have replied, "They are, but they've naturalized because pet owners release them after they get too big.  The same thing happened in Florida."

Did you read that article?  Another naturalized large constrictor... the Burmese python... is kept in check by fire ants...

One Burmese python at Trail Lakes, captured in the wild and kept in a large outdoor enclosure, was swarmed by fire ants that tunneled up from beneath her while she guarded her eggs. By the end of the day she and her brood had been reduced to little more than scales and bones. Given the ubiquity of fire ants in the Everglades, it’s imaginable that the ants are limiting the population growth of the pythons.

It's "funny" because the fire ants aren't native either.  

Unlike the python... the anacondas are viviparous... which means they give birth to live young.  They can just slither away when attacked by fire ants.  Although I'm having a hard time imagining an unenclosed mother python sitting there with her eggs while being eaten alive by fire ants.  Maybe she didn't get the memo about pars pro toto (part for the whole).  Lizards that sacrifice their tails to save themselves got the memo.  

The main concern with naturalized species is that they reduce biodiversity.  But it can't always be the case that introduced species will reduce biodiversity.  Or else Hawaii wouldn't have any biodiversity.  

The main thrust of current conservation efforts is to protect biodiversity.  But I think that in the future there will be a shift from protecting to creating.  If less biodiversity is bad, then more biodiversity is good.  If robbing the future of species is bad, then gifting the future with species is good.  The general rule is more niches means more biodiversity.  So the trick will be to create/fill more niches.  

Jungles have a lot of biodiversity because they have a lot of niches.  Trees create niches for epiphytes and epiphytes create niches for all sorts of life.  The goal should be to develop and proliferate the widest variety of epiphytes that can thrive on trees in drier/colder habitats.  This will get the biodiversity ball rolling.  More rolling.  More faster.  

Ok, let's see who the snake is going to eat next.  

Some debating whether to continue with the mission.  My vote is to continue.  What's your vote?  

More trekking... some leaches and spiders.  Turns out that the drunk captain of the backup boat is the next victim.  And somehow the boat manages to explode.  Shucks.  

Now our new plan is to try and find a village... of ex-headhunters.  Non-practicing headhunters.  

Oh noes, Mr. Black Cap clarifies that it might be anaconda mating season.  

In the village we find a big dead snake.  With a couple legs hanging out of its sliced open belly.  The rest of the villagers had bravely ran, boated, away.  The new plan is to build a boat.

Another twist.  In the village there's a carving of a snake eating the orchid flower.  Ah ha!  The snakes are so large because they live/grow forever.  Although it's not much of a twist because Netflix spoiled it in the description.  C'mon Netflix!  

This discovery rekindles the debate about whether to continue the mission.  The orchid expert guy (Jack) makes the excellent point that the orchid might not be around in another seven years because it could be slashed/burned.  Although, there's this "minor" assumption that we can't just collect the orchid and bloom it in cultivation.  

Jack gets mutinied.  

Turns out Mr. Black Cap used to be in the special forces.  At least that's what he tells the pretty white lady while they are sitting together by the fire.  Nothing like some jungle romance.  As opposed to jungle fever?  

And then the black guy finds a phone, and is about to call for help, when Jack makes him go nigh nigh with a spider he collected earlier.  Mr. Nigh Nigh then gets eaten by the snake... and Jack steals their newly built boat.  Now the rest of the group is going through the jungle trying to cut Jack off at the pass.  They all fall into a cave.  Asian henchman is next on the snake's menu.  Shucks.  

They barely escape from the cave and pretty white lady manages to machete chop the snake's head off.  Bones is doing a celebration dance when a second snake grabs him and quickly slithers off.  Mr. Black Cap chases and kills the snake with a really nice knife throw.  Bones is happy to be saved.  

Meantime, Jack finds the orchid... the group finds his raft... and he finds them.  Jack pulls a gun on them and they have a bit of a moral debate.  Which ends with Jack shooting Mr. Black Cap in the arm.  

Jack forces pretty white lady to crawl on log... over pit of mating snakes... to get flowers.  Again, I'm like, "hey, why are you just grabbing the golden eggs instead of the goose that's laying them?!!"  Nobody listens to me though.  

The two white guys have a bit of a scuffle... Jack falls into pit, gets paralyzed by spider... and eaten.  Pretty white lady also falls into pit of snakes... but she shows off her mad vine climbing skills.  The group somehow manages to kill all the snakes.  It's possible they destroyed the orchid in the process.  :(  

My survival prediction wasn't bad.  Yup.  

The moral of the story?  Movies that people aren't willing to pay for compete resources away from movies that people are willing to pay for.  If Netflix allowed its members to allocate their monthly fees, then I definitely wouldn't have allocated any of my money to this movie.  Instead, I would allocate my fees to movies and shows that I value a lot more.  Everybody else would do the same and resources would shift accordingly.  This improved allocation would create more value.  

Quiggin's Implied Rule of Economics (QIRE) states that society's limited resources should be used to create more, rather than less, value for society.  But Quiggin's Stated Rule of Economics (QSRE) states that fiscal stimulus is desirable when resources, like people, are unemployed.  

Let's say that unemployment is high.  Quiggin will cite QSRE.  He will argue that the government should spend spend spend to put people to work.  But if you suggest that a war would put unemployed people to work... Quiggin will kinda cite QIRE. 

Imagine if Netflix had a movie monopoly.  And actor unemployment was especially high.  

Quiggin:  Netflix should tax everybody (or borrow or print) to make movies to employ all these actors!  (QSRE)

Xero:  Yeah, Netflix should make a bunch of really bad movies!

Quiggin:  Well... not really bad movies.  (QIRE)

Xero:  Kinda bad movies?  

Quiggin:  Good movies?  

Xero: Better movies?

Quiggin:  Best movies?  

Xero:  How do we go about ensuring that Netflix spends "its" money making the best movies?

Quiggin:  Let's talk about Locke.  

Xero:  Ok

Quiggin:  Locke was bad because he supported slavery.  And property rights.  

Xero:  Property rights don't come from nature?

Quiggin:  No, they come from government

Xero:  So the government can take all our property?

Quiggin:  Sure

Xero:  And the government can enslave us?

Quiggin:  Sure

Xero:  That sucks.  

Quiggin:  Yeah.  

Xero:  So you support slavery and theft as long as the government does it?

Quiggin:  No.  

Xero:  So we should be protected from government theft and slavery?

Quiggin:  Yes

Xero:  How?  

Quiggin:  Liberalism.  

Xero: Can you be more specific?  

Quiggin:  Kinda like J.S. Mill's liberalism... but better.  

Xero:  I love J.S. Mill

Quiggin:  Me too

Xero:  Did you know he supported weighted voting?

Quiggin:  Nobody's perfect

Xero:  That's true.  I'm a fan of weighted voting as well.  And vote selling.  And tax choice.  

Quiggin:  Nobody's perfect

Xero:  That's true.  

Nobody's ever made a movie about J.S. Mill.  How is that not market failure?  Why doesn't Quiggin write a blog entry suggesting that the government spend money to correct this fundamental failure?  Maybe he's under the impression that the demand isn't there?  Maybe he's under the impression that we're the only two people who would pay to see a movie about J.S. Mill?   

If there's no demand for a movie about J.S. Mill... but the government supplies one anyways... then it's an instance of government failure.  The government violated QIRE.  It did not put society's limited resources to more, rather than less, valuable uses.  

By virtue of this impeccable economic logic... given that we don't truly know the demand for anything supplied by the government... nobody can ever ever ever claim an instance of government success.  

The government put a man on the moon?  Ok, it successfully put a man on the moon.  But what was the demand to put a man on the moon?  You don't know?  Then you can't know whether or not it was an instance of government success.  

That's the kicker.  Liberals want the government to do a lot... and they want us to take their word for it that the demand is there.  Well... the precious few liberals who understand that supply should match demand.  Then again, it's not like there are very many market types who understand the importance of knowing the demand for war.  Sigh.