RoR: Forum

A nice piece of work!
Thanks!
Sanctioned, of course.

(Have you ever seen Jerry Emanuelson's mathematical proof of Ricardo's Law of Association?)

Post 1

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 7:58am

Further thoughts on this subject...

Lets say we start with a society that is full of people who strongly vouch for the Capitalist way. People who produce more or equal to the values they consume. As a best of an example, the US between 1780 to 1910.

Lets say that despite the society has a strong majority for the Capitalist way, individuals in the society believe that it is good to be generous and donate their value to those in need. I say donate, using its definition that contrasts the definition of trade.

Then...

People who receive donations are acquiring more life sustaining and life generating value than they create. They can then reproduce like Tribbles in Star Trek, and not that their children will be exactly like them, but might I suggest that its more likely that their children will become moochers than productive people's children. Or put another way, I am proposing that productivity is significantly associated with genetics. And further I claim that people who produce less than they consume are likely to have children who have this trait.

Lets say that the productive people are so productive that a productive person can easily support the welfare more than one unproductive person. Reproducing like Tribbles, until there are so many of them that they become a serious hamper on the successfulness of productive people. Unproductive people become the majority of the population due to the generous donations of productive people.

Lets say we have a society where the use of force is governed by a majority of individuals in the society, where in other words the voting power of each individual is equal, no matter how productive they are. Such a society as described above will not choose the Capitalist way after the unproductive become the majority. I think such a society will fluctuate between moving towards the Communist way until lots of unproductive people die from lack of motivation to work, then moving towards the Capitalist way for a while in order to make it worthwhile for people to work again, until so many unproductive people again reproduce that the cycle continues. The equilibrium point that the fluctuation is centered around is completely dependent on to what extent productive people are willing to be taxed on their produce before they decide it is no longer worth working in the society.

So how can we make our society move towards the Capitalist way?

Can I first propose that preaching to the unproductive people is futile? You may convert a few of them, who will then die because they are unable to produce more than they consume, but most will ignore you and listen to their mooching friends, continue to mooch, and continue to tribble.

The solution is to preach to the productive people. Taxation to fund services that are not of equal value to you as the extent of value you are taxed is enslavement. Unproductive people are of no value worth donating to or being taxed for, because in the long run, they will enslave you. When you donate, or pay such taxes, you are in the long run performing a dis-service to yourself and other productive people.

If every productive person reduced their productivity for a period of time to the point where taxes did not apply to them, maybe for a year or two, then a lot of unproductive people would die, in fact, if performed without an exception, all unproductive people would die. Beyond that, since productivity has gone down so far, costs for goods and services would go up, and fewer people would be net productive, and even more people would die. Doesn't sound so great of a solution, and it just doesn't seem like such a strike could be coordinated.

So given that that is not going to happen, productive people have to choose for themselves to what extent their work is worthwhile given the level they are taxed. They have to determine what maximizes their gain and minimized their losses.

Got to get to work... Will continue later trying to come up with how to get from where we are to a more Capitalist society. Some quick thoughts:
- Productive people need to be able to defend their property without being singled out and devastated for defending themselves.
- Start a society where somehow each individual's voting power is more strongly associated with how productive they are.

Post 2

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 4:47pm

Comparing what you describe in your post to historical examples, you may want to look into systems where the voting franchise was limited to those people who were wealthy (eg, productive) enough to be able to own property (ie, real estate) and thus to pay the property tax.

You may also want to look into the reasons that were given for expanding the right to vote from landowners alone to something approaching universal suffrage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#Wealth.2C_tax_class.2C_social_class probably has some useful links. (For food for thought, consider voting not as a process to see who wins, but a way for the losers to find out for sure that they don't have enough supporters to stage a popular revolt.)

Post 3

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 5:23pm

Daniel,

***********
Comparing what you describe in your post to historical examples, you may want to look into systems where the voting franchise was limited to those people who were wealthy (eg, productive) enough to be able to own property (ie, real estate) and thus to pay the property tax.

You may also want to look into the reasons that were given for expanding the right to vote from landowners alone to something approaching universal suffrage ...
************

You are describing 2 things but conflating them -- 1) a move from the feudal system of serfs and landlords; 2) universalized suffrage

While these 2 things happened along with each other, you cannot gain insight from evaluating the voting of landlords and cross-examining it with the more universal suffrage. It's like you are conflating the political with the economical (viewing them as one and the same thing).

Ed

Post 4

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 5:58pm

Michael, in this, cheers.

Daniel, thanks for the link. I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_three-class_franchise. The Germans had a three tier system where the 5% most taxed got 1/3 of the voting power, next 13% got 1/3 of the voting power, and remaining 83% got 1/3. Wikipedia says the government in power was "conservative". Was the society capitalist? Next up was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution, in other words the Nazi revolution, the socialist revolution, the communist resolution, the moochers attacked the producers and took over the government and killed lots of people.

Tax weighted voting power sounds better than equal weighted suffrage. Here are some other ideas:
- Give every citizen 100 voting tokens. Allow citizens to trade tokens in the free market for a period of time before the vote. Runoff voting.
- Allow citizens to put their money in a voting brokerage account. On voting day, each citizen decides how much of their own money they will contribute to the government for each of the candidates. The candidate who was contributed the most money wins. The money that was contributed to the winning candidate is kept by the government. Citizens are given back any money in their brokerage account that was not contributed for the winner.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 7:00pm

Reading the history of Prussia (Germany 1701-1918), the government was never elected only by the three class vote. The king of Prussia actually had the most power, who was not elected but given throne by "hereditary right". So Prussia was not an example of what I'm looking for. At the end of the Prussian empire, wikipedia reads that the king started some foolish wars that lead to the end of the empire. Its difficult to read the wikipedia article because who knows what the authors meant by words like "conservative" and "liberal" etc.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Prussia#1918-32:_Democratic_bastion:

1918-32: Democratic bastion

The restrictive Prussian three-class franchise was abolished shortly after Kaiser William II abdicated. As a result, Prussia became a stronghold of the left. Its incorporation of "Red Berlin" and the industrialised Ruhr Area � both with working-class majorities � ensured left-wing dominance.
From 1919 to 1932, Prussia was governed by a coalition of the Social Democrats, Catholic Centre, and German Democrats; from 1921 to 1925, coalition governments included the German People's Party. Unlike in other states of the German Reich, majority rule by democratic parties in Prussia was never endangered. Nevertheless, in East Prussia and some industrial areas, the National Socialist German Workers Party (or Nazi Party) of Adolf Hitler gained more and more influence and popular support, especially from the lower middle class.

From reading this it is clear that the government before 1918 was much more capitalist, and from 1918 to 1932 it switched over to communism and then massive murderous thievery.

Then the next couple of paragraphs are funny: (obviously the authors are sympathetic to communism)

The East Prussian Otto Braun, who was Prussian minister-president almost continuously from 1920 to 1932, is considered one of the most capable Social Democrats in history. He implemented several trend-setting reforms together with his minister of the interior, Carl Severing, which were also models for the later Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). For instance, a Prussian minister-president could be forced out of office only if there was a "positive majority" for a potential successor. This concept, known as the constructive vote of no confidence, was carried over into the Basic Law of the FRG. Largely because of this provision, the centre-left coalition was able to stay in office because neither the far left nor the far right could possibly put together a majority.

In marked contrast to its prewar authoritarianism, Prussia was a pillar of democracy in the Weimar Republic. Most historians regard the Prussian government during this time as far more successful than that of Germany as a whole.

Anyways, at least in this case having a productivity associated voting weight is associated with electing more capitalist political candidates. Yet again this government differs from what I am looking for because it includes a dictatorial hereditary leadership.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 7:03pm

Dean,

- Allow citizens to put their money in a voting brokerage account. On voting day, each citizen decides how much of their own money they will contribute to the government for each of the candidates. The candidate who was contributed the most money wins. The money that was contributed to the winning candidate is kept by the government. Citizens are given back any money in their brokerage account that was not contributed for the winner.

I think I like that idea.

Ed

Post 7

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 5:12pm

The excerpt in post six strikes me as thinly veiled feudalism. The compensation of the office sought ought to be sufficient. No contributions whatsoever would level the playing field and possibly enhance integrity to the offices. As always the defeated side will complain about a spoils system, yet why should one accept 'help' from less than cooperative persons who can not see past the end of their noses.
   In any organization there are many divisions of labor. Whether one be a manager or a subordinate. Any dollar generated by said organization can be parceled out percentage wise to all functions of the company. Hopefully there will be a remainder Which then of course will be taxed. Possibly a portion can be written off for investing in the coming year.
Working people create wealth. What defines a working person? A productive one. So then what is productive? A productive manager is a person with the ability to find ways to keep his staff focused on the task. Do not expect help from the staff ,simply work. Civility, Manners and other behaviors may be evident yet the bottom line is a business relationship.
One hears so many persons saying they would like to work for themselves. Yet this is a misnomer, in reality one must provide a good or a service that is in demand. Sure one may retain stewardship over ones efforts but without a customer one is bankrupt. Generally speaking tying ones own shoes and performing ones personal hygiene would not even be possible with out some one else's business providing you the means to do so.
   One could say a productive person is one that can master their animal. This brings to mind a question as to which person was more productive, Robes-pierre or Napoleon.
   As for capitalism over communism our milk factories are a far cry from the days of yesteryear. Which leads us back to a tipping point over how much of the dollar earned in a corporate entity can be retained for personal use or reinvested in the company and/or workforce. Many a 'wage slave' are micro capitalists ,quite a number of them have college degrees.       Perhaps only a man like Will Rogers would appreciate the fact that you do not want to place sophists and snake oil salesmen between a cowboy and his cows during calving time.
Suppose Robin Hood was only enforcing survey law over sheriffs law. What then?
Some peoples opinion classifies Sophia's death as the first act of modern terrorism. I apologize for not being able to cite this statement , I picked it up blogging around. Wonder if President Wilson ever got to meet her.

Post 8

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 7:41am

Harley,

****************
The excerpt in post six strikes me as thinly veiled feudalism. The compensation of the office sought ought to be sufficient. No contributions whatsoever would level the playing field and possibly enhance integrity to the offices.
****************

But the "winner" (the elected) doesn't "keep the spoils" -- it goes to the federal budget, not to the man. Any election is a gamble, but the difference here is that voting citizens get to pick which gamble to make and -- and this is the kicker -- get to pick how much they gamble with.

In our current system, which really is a system of spoils, the elected consistently strike fear in the population (e.g., Bush--WMD's; Obama--economic collapse) in order to utilize the 'crisis-->individual sacrifice-->solution' mode in order to arbitrarily grab power and money for their friends and themselves.

Dean's idea would fix most of that kind of corruption by consistently reducing the federal bankroll for such things (by punishing bad or corrupt behavior and by rewarding good behavior). It's just a way for voters to put their money where their mouth is (and to pull it back when desired).

****************
As always the defeated side will complain about a spoils system, yet why should one accept 'help' from less than cooperative persons who can not see past the end of their noses.
****************

The first clause was dealt with above ("voter-bidding", by limiting what government can spend, reduces any "spoils"). The second clause seems to agree with Dean's idea. Indeed, "why should one accept 'help' from less than cooperative persons who can not see past the end of their noses[?]"

Why not make it so that you ONLY get to accept 'help' from those who trust you with their money (and in proportion as to how much they trust you with their money)? This is Dean's idea, in a nutshell.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/31, 11:13am)

Post 9

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 7:52am

Harley,

Feudalism is when some folks get to own land and property (by "birthright" or whatever) -- and when other folks don't (again, by birthright or whatever). It's a fossilized society with no class mobility whatsoever. It's a "haves" and "have-nots" society.

Under feudalism's rules, Dean's idea would lead to an oligarchy of the rich precisely because -- and pay attention here -- precisely because getting wealth isn't linked to being productive (read: being virtuous). By arbitrarily unhinging wealth from virtue, feudalism traps all folks into static economics and politics.

The rich don't get richer, and neither do the poor.

Only upon breaking out of such a wrong system, moving to something light-years more moral -- such as capitalism -- could man thrive.

Ed

Post 10

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 3:09am

I was working on a analysis of the same thing as I got here. My first model has similar results, but my second model takes into account quite a few more parameters, and the results are therefore also quite different. But even then, these models are way to simplistic to have any, not even a little, significance. On my third model, which takes into account personal productivity and two types of cheaters, by tweaking the parameters I successfully created two results: one showing an advantage (productivity) to capitalism, and the second one showing an advantage (productivity) to communism, to illustrate that the well known fact that you can choose the "winner" by modelling the game.

Reality is a lot complexer, and get even more complex when you look at both systems in a non isolated way.

Anyways, thx for the post.

P.S. And Dean plz! Tribbling? Productivity related to genetics? Even if it were true, and even if your distorted vision of welfare would allow unproductive people to have more children, the reality of all the factors on how our populations shift is much more complex... Posts like these are what give capitalism a bad name, and is one of the reasons why china is going to kick us in the ass.

Reason (and therefore education) is the path to a successful AND productive society.

In my opinion, in any given system, for the system or group as a whole to advance, there has to be a balance between individual "reward or wealth" and the groups wealth. I'll illustrate with a simple biology example:

Take any sample of a population, say a pack of wolves. There is a natural drive to be the strongest of your group. The strongest gets the prizes: food and to mate. This is good for the population as a whole, as the strongest of the group will mate and therefore with time "strengthen" the populations gene pool. But it's important for the population (and therefor, for the so called alpha wolf) not to weaken too much his rivals, for at least two obvious reasons:
a) social: the population itself competes against other populations. If you don't share "some" of the food, the pack as a whole will be weaker against competing populations (other wolf packs, or other enemies). b) genetically. Environments change, and therefore evolutionary pressure changes. That means what can be considered "strongest" today might mean "weaker" tomorrow. Wolfs with lighter fur where "stronger" when there was more snow, and puff, things change. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

Now it would be erroneous to try to apply "natural" mechanisms to economics 1 to 1, but at least there is some food for thought :)

Post 11

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 9:27am

I just re-read my article. I mistakenly mislabeled the game tables! Fixed now. :)

========================

Ashley,

I appreciate your interest. It sounds like you are interested in promoting Capitalism, which I'm very pleased with. Please don't take my fierce arguments as a personal attack. For now, I will show you more respect than you have shown me. Welcome to RoR. Maybe you would like to post your analysis? Particularly, "the second one showing an advantage (productivity) to communism".

"In my opinion, in any given system, for the system or group as a whole to advance, there has to be a balance between individual "reward or wealth" and the groups wealth."
"Groups wealth"? The group's wealth can increase by individuals in the group being productive and owning the products of their labor. Your wolf example left out the production side of the situation, and only talked about distribution. Optimal wolf pack:

The alpha doesn't withhold food from others in the pack to weaken the others. What portion has(/will) each member of the pack contributed(/expected to contribute) towards the success of the pack? This should determine the portion of the food to divy up to each member. Given there is enough food for the members, any member could become the alpha (given they actually have the genes/ability/motivation to be alpha). Alpha male is chosen by the females as their mate, because they want their children to be the most successful (acquiring the genes/ability/motivation of the alpha).

"Individuals don't evolve, populations do."
Not sure what you mean by this, or what your point is with this sentence.

"P.S. And Dean plz! Tribbling? Productivity related to genetics? Even if it were true, and even if your distorted vision of welfare would allow unproductive people to have more children, the reality of all the factors on how our populations shift is much more complex.
Hah, sounds like we have some strong disagreements of what is reality! Debate points:
1. Productivity is related to genetics. For example, compare a human to an ape... difference in learning ability mainly explained by differences in genetics. Or compare me to my classmates in high school. I'd listen to the lecture, assist the teacher when he made mistakes, not study, and get 100% on the psychology/math/science exam. My classmates were unable to identify when the teacher made a mistake, spent hours studying, and get 70-90% on the exam. You want to argue that the difference between the human and the ape, or me and my classmates, is not due to genes?
2. Welfare allows unproductive people to have more children, and prevents productive people from having more children. "distorted vision", sounds like a personal attack on me. For me to be wrong, you must claim that starving children in Africa would have the same success independent of whether the charities & US gov send them food and supplies. You must claim that when a poor woman takes her dying child to a hospital, and the hospital is required by law to save the child, even if the woman is unable to pay for the services... that the child did not somehow gain by this. You must claim that I haven't started a family yet because of some reason other than that I'm taxed 40% of my income and hence cannot accomplish both of my goals of starting a business and starting a family.
3. "All of the factors" are complex, and impact society's shift. I've singled out the wealth redistribution factor. Is this a suggestion that wealth redistribution is good given some other factor? Elaborate?

"Reason (and therefore education) is the path to a successful AND productive society."

Now we get into arguing about how to accomplish one of my greatest dreams, which is how to create a more capitalist society. My favorite subject!

I think others on RoR can attest to my change in position on this subject over the last few years. I started out thinking that educating the socialists maybe could work. Now I think educating the socialists is futile. Hence my carelessness in being Politically Correct (PC) in my posts, having little care of whether I insult the leeches. Sorry Ashley, its not "educate the beast". Its "starve the beast".

If*** producers want to reduce the amount of leeching, they need to either defend the products of their labor from the masses of leeches, or stop producing so much. Here education may come worthwhile, where we teach producers that productivity is a virtue, generosity is a vice, and the concept of "Sanction of the victim".

*** "If" because it may not actually improve a person's life if they increase security or decrease production. For one, human producers are very vulnerable to the leeching masses. In the US, if a producers is caught in not submitting his income to the leeches (taxes), his wealth is confiscated he is thrown in jail. With current technology, its much easier for leeches to discover producers who do not submit to taxes than it is for a producer to hide the discovery. With current technology it is much easier for the leeches to destroy the producer after such a discovery, than it is for the producer to evade. With the current level of leeching, for an entity like Microsoft, more is gained by Microsoft to continue being very productive despite the leeching.

"Posts like these are what give capitalism a bad name, and is one of the reasons why china is going to kick us in the ass."

A bad name eh? I'll just take that as an invalid argument and a personal attack. Which I have no time for. If china is going to "kick us in the ass", then its because they have a more efficient economy, hence a more capitalist one, and I'll move there. In points of social economic history, China is coming out of a phase of wiping out their leech population, while the US is maybe just now reaching its maximum percentage capacity of leeching individuals.

Post 12

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 10:07am

Dean:

China is coming out of a phase of wiping out their leech population, while the US is maybe just now reaching its maximum percentage capacity of leeching individuals.

'Phase' is the operative word with China. Mao made a mistake, as assessed by the later Deng Xiaoping, by trying to skip the required 'phase' of capitalism in China. Patient, with a long view, Deng put into motion the current liberal reforms. The current relative phase of capitalism in China is temporary. When they've build enough beast, and coincidentally overseen the demise of an America freshly embracing its own confused version of state breaking totalitarianism, they will go back to their own version of longe range state science of carcass carving.

Or, try to. They may learn (unlike America, so far) that their herdist tribal nonsense really doesn't work. They may watch America circle the utopic drain they once proudly stood around and recited forced praise to, and decide 'uhhhh...not so much.'

Or as Deng once said, China really doesn't care if it is a white cat or a black cat as long at it is a cat that catches mice.

As far as America being over-run, we didn't win the Cold War so much as caught the Cold. I may just lack the required vision, but I don't see any remedy for this now chronic and long term infection short of complete failure, which we are well on our way to. Though, what comes out of the other side of this train wreck politics is totally up for grabs and not a given, especially considering the nation's base.

Post 13

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 10:40am

Ashley,

Welcome to RoR.

On my third model, which takes into account personal productivity and two types of cheaters, by tweaking the parameters I successfully created two results: one showing an advantage (productivity) to capitalism, and the second one showing an advantage (productivity) to communism, to illustrate that the well known fact that you can choose the "winner" by modelling the game.

Will you please post your assumption parameters? For instance, were your "two types of cheaters" 100% cheaters and in all transactions? Did you run the model incorporating many successive generations?

Also, will you please share with us the name of the software that you utilized in order to get results for your computer models**?

Thanks,

Ed

**I'm assuming you didn't vary both personal productivity and cheating at the same time without the aid of computer software.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/18, 4:14pm)

Post 14

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 4:25pm

Ashley,

Reason (and therefore education) is the path to a successful AND productive society.

In my opinion, in any given system, for the system or group as a whole to advance, there has to be a balance between individual "reward or wealth" and the groups wealth. I'll illustrate with a simple biology example:

Take any sample of a population, say a pack of wolves. There is a natural drive to be the strongest of your group. The strongest gets the prizes: food and to mate. This is good for the population as a whole, as the strongest of the group will mate and therefore with time "strengthen" the populations gene pool.

But you are equivocating on the word "productive."

When Dean was talking about humans being productive, he was talking about them producing material values, not children. When you talk about wolves, though, you are talking about production as it is measured in producing "children" (viable cubs). In fact, all analogies using animals are weak -- because animals don't create values in the way that humans can.

Ed

p.s. Are you aware of the Game Theory findings showing reduction in population success as aggregate (absolute) tax rates rise above 15% (when the computer models are allowed to run over a period of many generations)?

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/18, 4:26pm)

Post 15

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 5:55pm

Ed,

Thanks, but please don't make it seem like I agree with your differentiation between humans and animals. I disagree with you on the subject, and I strive to to create a philosophy and laws that work well across the span of intelligence of life forms. I do this because I think that...

There is huge variation in intelligence from human to human. Through the future, I expect the variation of intelligence to increase. More dumber humans. Humans with genetically altered and improved brains. Human/computer interfaces which vastly improve a human's intelligence. Eventually computers that are more intelligent than humans, "silicon life forms". And of course the chance that we will run into aliens from outer space.

When I say productive, I mean an organism creating something that increases the success of its goals either directly or by exchangeable in the economy. Wolves actions are more emotional and preprogrammed. Yet a wolf tracking, barking, is "productive" to a wolf. Which is the same as a human hunter tracking, calling for help on his cell phone is "productive" to a human.

Post 16

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 6:06pm

Dean,

Just curious, how are the wolves receiving your philosophy? Are their philosophers and intellectuals showing an interest?

Post 17

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 6:39pm

I think you would know more than me, Mr. "Wolfer".

Post 18

Friday, March 18, 2011 - 11:38pm

Dean,

Ed,

Thanks, but please don't make it seem like I agree with your differentiation between humans and animals. I disagree with you on the subject ...

When I say productive, I mean an organism creating something that increases the success of its goals either directly or by exchangeable in the economy. Wolves actions are more emotional and preprogrammed. Yet a wolf tracking, barking, is "productive" to a wolf.

I thought you meant "productive" in the form of creating value or what economists might refer to as producing "transferable utility." For instance, you said this:

"Groups wealth"? The group's wealth can increase by individuals in the group being productive and owning the products of their labor. Your wolf example left out the production side of the situation ...

And, to me, that sounds just like you are talking about producing transferable utility. For instance, the very notion of a wealth increase calls to mind produced wealth (produced transferable utility). So, if anyone made it seem like you agree with me, it is you (by using inappropriate words).

Eventually computers that are more intelligent than humans, "silicon life forms".

Computers can't become intelligent in the human sense (as is required for their intelligence to surpass humans) because they are not in possession of a creative and volitional consciousness. You could only program "mock" creativity and "mock" free will into a computer. This would even be true for computers that can learn to program themselves.

Ed

Post 19

Saturday, March 19, 2011 - 1:24am