Another economic question + one economist's take on economics

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
1

[From Dick Robertson, 2009.02.27.1640CST]

There was a slightly interesting article on the edit page the WSJ this morning, titled, “Is the Dismal Science Really a Science?” by Russ Roberts, “a research fellow at Stanford U’s Hoover Institute.”

Here are a couple quotations of his thesis:

“So many question and so little in the way of answers… There is no consensus on the cause of the crisis or the best way forward.”

“There were Nobel Laureates who thought the origianl stimulas package should have been twice as big. And there are those who blame it for keeping unemployment high… It makes you wonder why people call it the Nobel Prize in Economic Science.”

Etc.

Best,

Dick R.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:41 pm
Subject: Re: Another economic question
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.26.1740)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.26.1124 MST) –

Modern liberals, have the hubris to think they aren’t vulnerable to the temptations of power and even if they are pure on motives, they seem to forget that once that power is accumulated and freed of checks and balances, that they may lose an election, and someone else will have that power.

What I’m picking up from this is that you seem to associate “power” only with government. And from your previous posts it seem like you associate it in particular with a central government, but perhaps you are referring to all organizations called “government”. Is that right? I also assume that what you mean by “power” is the ability to control other people. Is that right, too? If so, then wouldn’t you agree that this kind of control occurs (and is abused) in other organizations besides governments: marriages, friendships, families, small businesses, corporations, political parties, think tanks, religious organizations, scientific organizations, etc, etc. Are you not equally concerned about abuses of power in these organizations? I certainly am. Does that make me an old time liberal (a la Jane Austen)? I hope so;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
> www.mindreadings.com

2

[From Frank Lenk, 2009.03.01.7:35CST]

I’m sorry I’ve been away from the discussion for so
long. My work projects are finally beginning to ease up, which means I
should soon have some time on weekends to work on my dissertation. I decided to
glance at my PCT email folder last night and found I had over 300 unread
messages!

I hope to gradually begin participating again, especially on
questions of PCT and economics. Obviously, I haven’t had time to
read all the posts. But I thought I might share a couple of links that
could be of interest.

This thread started with Bill asking where the money goes when
it is spent imprudently by the government – i.e., it is
“wasted.” For an unorthodox view of where money comes from
and where it goes, you might want to check out Warren Mosler’s site: http://moslereconomics.com/. Of
particular interest is his paper, “The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds,”
which I have attached. Disclaimer: Warren is a Wall Street trader
who also happens to fund the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, with
which several of the professors in my Ph.D. program are affiliated.

Bill also mentioned that he surprised by how much agent-based
economics literature there is. A good portal to that literature, as well
as agent-based modeling tools, is the ACE – Agent-Based Computational
Economics – website, found here: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/ace.htm

You will likely find, as I did, however, that most agents
in this literature don’t control for much, and certainly don’t
exhibit hierarchies of control.

Hope to be more engaged in the near future!

Frank

SDF.doc (208 KB)

···

From: Control Systems
Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Robertson
Richard
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:52 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: [CSGNET] Another economic question + one economist’s take
on economics

[From Dick Robertson,
2009.02.27.1640CST]

There was a slightly interesting article on the edit page the WSJ this morning,
titled, “Is the Dismal Science Really a Science?” by Russ Roberts,
“a research fellow at Stanford U’s Hoover Institute.”

Here are a couple quotations of his thesis:

“So many question and so little in the way of answers… There is no consensus
on the cause of the crisis or the best way forward.”

“There were Nobel Laureates who thought the origianl stimulas package
should have been twice as big. And there are those who blame it for keeping
unemployment high… It makes you wonder why people call it the Nobel Prize in
Economic Science.”

Etc.

Best,

Dick R.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:41 pm
Subject: Re: Another economic question
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

[From Rick Marken
(2010.02.26.1740)]

Martin
Lewitt (2010.02.26.1124 MST) –

Modern
liberals, have the hubris to think they aren’t vulnerable to the temptations of
power and even if they are pure on motives, they seem to forget that once that
power is accumulated and freed of checks and balances, that they may lose an
election, and someone else will have that power.

What I’m picking
up from this is that you seem to associate “power” only with
government. And from your previous posts it seem like you associate it in
particular with a central government, but perhaps you are referring to all
organizations called “government”. Is that right? I also assume
that what you mean by “power” is the ability to control other people.
Is that right, too? If so, then wouldn’t you agree that this kind of control
occurs (and is abused) in other organizations besides governments: marriages,
friendships, families, small businesses, corporations, political parties, think
tanks, religious organizations, scientific organizations, etc, etc. Are you not
equally concerned about abuses of power in these organizations? I certainly am.
Does that make me an old time liberal (a la Jane Austen)? I hope so;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken
PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
> www.mindreadings.com

3

[From Bill Powers (2010.03.01.0907 MST)]

Frank Lenk, 2009.03.01.7:35CST –

FL: This thread started with
Bill asking where the money goes when it is spent imprudently by the
government – i.e., it is “wasted.” For an unorthodox view of where
money comes from and where it goes, you might want to check out Warren
Mosler’s site:
http://moslereconomics.com/
. Of particular interest is his paper, “The Seven Deadly Innocent
Frauds,” which I have attached. Disclaimer: Warren is a Wall
Street trader who also happens to fund the Center for Full Employment and
Price Stability, with which several of the professors in my Ph.D. program
are affiliated.

BP: What a brilliant piece! I’m still looking for the flaws and not
finding them. Basically what he’s saying is that all the books have to
balance – except the government’s. I had begun to suspect something like
this but still thought there were unknown (to me) nooks and crannies of
the financial system that required the government’s books to balance,
too.
As Mosler says, and I now have to accept pro tem, it’s only real
goods and services we need to be concerned about, and inflation. Actually I always agreed with that part. If we see money as nothing
more than a voucher for converting one good into an equivalent amount of
another (the conversion factor is set by the distribution of personal
preferences and needs), all we have to worry about is our collective
ability to produce goods and services, the same ones we buy. Money is
just a convenience that allows us to produce one good to get credit we
can exchange for a different good.

Unfortunately, as every computer user knows, conveniences can also become
vulnerabilities which allow viruses to enter a system. In the economic
world those viruses consist of what is known as the financial system:
people whose primary aim is to accumulate as much credit as possible
without producing anything. They siphon off the gas being transfered from
one tank to another, which requires the hijacked gas to be replaced by
banks and ultimately the government.

As my father saw, that would actually not harm anything if that money
were spent on goods and services so it ended up back in circulation where
others could use it. But it’s not: enormous fortunes are built up –
“hoarded” is the word my father used – and remain out of
circulation since there is no market for that much investment.

But we can put even that aside, because the missing money will be
created.

What it comes down to, I’m beginning to see, is distribution. If one
person makes ten million dollars a year, and the median household income
is $46,000, that is equivalent to 217 households making the median
income, or 534 households making half the median income, and so on. The
household making $10 million per year has a claim to goods and services
217 (or 534) times as great as the claim a household with median (or half
the median) income has.

If that’s OK with everybody, then we have no problem except
productivity.

Of course it’s OK with the recipient of 217 times the median income, but
not with everybody else. Most of our social ills, I would assume, arise
from this disparity or even smaller ones. A major expense for the very
wealthy comes from the cost of protecting their wealth from others who
scheme to take it away from them. The quality of the very affluent life
is limited by the need to cluster the big houses on small lots with walls
around the community and armed guards screening those who enter and leave
through the gate as is done in prisons. The delicious feeling of
privilege, power, and superiority must be considerably diminished by
being forced to live in ghettos where everyone else has about the same
income, and the underprivileged are not visible for comparison.

FL: Bill also mentioned that he
surprised by how much agent-based economics literature there is. A
good portal to that literature, as well as agent-based modeling tools, is
the ACE – Agent-Based Computational Economics – website, found
here:

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/ace.htm

You will likely find, as I did, however, that most agents in this
literature don’t control for much, and certainly don’t exhibit
hierarchies of control.

BP: Yes. That defect in the models could be remedied if enough people
cared about it, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

After these comments were emitted, I did a little further checking and
found this, which rather reduces Mosler’s appearance of
infallibility:


http://www.meetwarren.org/

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.0049 MST)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.03.01.0907 MST)]

Frank Lenk, 2009.03.01.7:35CST –

FL: This thread started

with
Bill asking where the money goes when it is spent imprudently by the
government – i.e., it is “wasted.” For an unorthodox view of where
money comes from and where it goes, you might want to check out Warren
Mosler’s site:
http://moslereconomics.com/
. Of particular interest is his paper, “The Seven Deadly Innocent
Frauds,” which I have attached. Disclaimer: Warren is a Wall
Street trader who also happens to fund the Center for Full Employment
and
Price Stability, with which several of the professors in my Ph.D.
program
are affiliated.

BP: What a brilliant piece! I’m still looking for the flaws and not
finding them. Basically what he’s saying is that all the books have to
balance – except the government’s. I had begun to suspect something
like
this but still thought there were unknown (to me) nooks and crannies of
the financial system that required the government’s books to balance,
too.

It’s not completely brilliant, I saw some errors or more probably
obfuscation and spin, but it does a good job of questioning some
conceptions. I think after reading it you can better understand my
proposal. Recall my proposal to create money through direct deposit to
individual debit card accounts rather than through fractional reserve
banking or “quantitative easing” by Federal Reserve purchases of
treasuries. In my proposal, the governments books still have to
eventually balance, it is the peoples books that don’t, to the extent
that money is created.

I know you claim a zero reference level for fascism. Part of my near
zero reference level for fascism is support for a culture that is more
resistant to fascism. This method of creating money retains for the
people the power of the purse by requiring that the government must
come to the people via taxes for its funds. I don’t propose draconian
restrictions on balancing the budget akin to what the states are
subject to, but in the long run the federal government should have its
spending made manifest in taxes. Similarly, I was a little surprised
that your zero reference level for fascism appeared to be disconnected
from restrictions on the tools of fascism. You spoke demonizingly of
those who drive under the influence apparently without regard to my
point about government liberties with the protections against
unreasonable search and seisure, e.g., DUI checkpoints. Can you really
have a zero reference point for fascism and such a low reference for
risk from private parties at the same time.

Apologies for being behind on my email. I viewed nearly all of the
Olympics, so am far behind. If there are some issues in particular
that I should address, don’t hesitate to point me to the particular
email. I already know I want to address a couple issues raised by the
“innocent frauds” article.

Martin L

···

As Mosler says, and I now have to accept pro tem, it’s only
real
goods and services we need to be concerned about, and inflation. Actually I always agreed with that part. If we see money as
nothing
more than a voucher for converting one good into an equivalent amount
of
another (the conversion factor is set by the distribution of personal
preferences and needs), all we have to worry about is our collective
ability to produce goods and services, the same ones we buy. Money is
just a convenience that allows us to produce one good to get credit we
can exchange for a different good.

Unfortunately, as every computer user knows, conveniences can also
become
vulnerabilities which allow viruses to enter a system. In the economic
world those viruses consist of what is known as the financial system:
people whose primary aim is to accumulate as much credit as possible
without producing anything. They siphon off the gas being transfered
from
one tank to another, which requires the hijacked gas to be replaced by
banks and ultimately the government.

As my father saw, that would actually not harm anything if that money
were spent on goods and services so it ended up back in circulation
where
others could use it. But it’s not: enormous fortunes are built up –
“hoarded” is the word my father used – and remain out of
circulation since there is no market for that much investment.

But we can put even that aside, because the missing money will be
created.

What it comes down to, I’m beginning to see, is distribution. If one
person makes ten million dollars a year, and the median household
income
is $46,000, that is equivalent to 217 households making the median
income, or 534 households making half the median income, and so on. The
household making $10 million per year has a claim to goods and services
217 (or 534) times as great as the claim a household with median (or
half
the median) income has.

If that’s OK with everybody, then we have no problem except
productivity.

Of course it’s OK with the recipient of 217 times the median income,
but
not with everybody else. Most of our social ills, I would assume, arise
from this disparity or even smaller ones. A major expense for the very
wealthy comes from the cost of protecting their wealth from others who
scheme to take it away from them. The quality of the very affluent life
is limited by the need to cluster the big houses on small lots with
walls
around the community and armed guards screening those who enter and
leave
through the gate as is done in prisons. The delicious feeling of
privilege, power, and superiority must be considerably diminished by
being forced to live in ghettos where everyone else has about the same
income, and the underprivileged are not visible for comparison.

FL: Bill also mentioned

that he
surprised by how much agent-based economics literature there is. A
good portal to that literature, as well as agent-based modeling tools,
is
the ACE – Agent-Based Computational Economics – website, found
here:
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/ace.htm

You will likely find, as I did, however, that most agents in this
literature don’t control for much, and certainly don’t exhibit
hierarchies of control.

BP: Yes. That defect in the models could be remedied if enough people
cared about it, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

After these comments were emitted, I did a little further checking and
found this, which rather reduces Mosler’s appearance of
infallibility:


http://www.meetwarren.org/

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Rick Marken (2010.03.02.1100)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.0049 MST)--

I know you claim a zero reference level for fascism. Part of my near zero
reference level for fascism is support for a culture that is more resistant
to fascism.

Then you must have been going bananas during the Bush II
administration. I think that was the closest the US has ever come to
being a fascist state: the flag pins, the torture, the militarism, the
sexism (high opposition to abortion rights and homophobia are one of
the main characteristics of fascist states), the disdain for
intellectuals and the arts, the rampant cronyism (eg., Blackwater)
and, of course, the fraudulent elections (Florida, 200, Ohio, 2004).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

6

From Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.1413 MST)

[From Rick Marken (2010.03.02.1100)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.0049 MST)--
     
I know you claim a zero reference level for fascism. Part of my near zero
reference level for fascism is support for a culture that is more resistant
to fascism.
     

Then you must have been going bananas during the Bush II
administration. I think that was the closest the US has ever come to
being a fascist state: the flag pins, the torture, the militarism, the
sexism (high opposition to abortion rights and homophobia are one of
the main characteristics of fascist states), the disdain for
intellectuals and the arts, the rampant cronyism (eg., Blackwater)
and, of course, the fraudulent elections (Florida, 200, Ohio, 2004).

Best

Rick
   
Historical perspective helps here. The Wilson administration was probably the most fascist US government of the 20th century, and arguably a model for Italy, the USSR and Nazi Germany. Conscription, censorship, the sedition act and racial segregation of a previously integrated military were all far worse measures than any under Bush II. The Patriot Act did allow some seizures without a warrant and restricted freedom of speech with requads to knowledge of government investigations. Yes, I view waterboarding as torture, but I see boot camps imposed upon and innocent civilian population as far worse, the weeks being held in a camp, sleep deprived, verbal and physical abuse, conditioning to follow orders, etc.

Disdain for the arts hardly amounts to the use of arts for propaganda under FDR's NRA or as Obama has attempted with the NEA. You might want to read Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" to find out what an inspiration Wilson, Stalin, Mussolini and FDR were to others.

Martin L

7

[From Rick Marken (2010.03.02.1345)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.1413 MST)--

Historical perspective helps here.

Doesn't help me.

Yes, I view waterboarding as
torture, but I see boot camps imposed upon and innocent civilian population
as far worse

No accounting for taste (except by reorganization, I suppose).

Disdain for the arts hardly amounts to the use of arts for propaganda under
FDR's NRA or as Obama has attempted with the NEA.

Yep, FDR, Obama and Hitler; separated at birth.

You might want to read
Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" to find out what an inspiration Wilson, Stalin,
Mussolini and FDR were to others.

I think you and I see the world so completely differently that finding
a common meeting ground is just completely impossible.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

8

From Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.1456 MST)

[From Rick Marken (2010.03.02.1345)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.1413 MST)--
     
Historical perspective helps here.
     

Doesn't help me.

Yes, I view waterboarding as
torture, but I see boot camps imposed upon and innocent civilian population
as far worse
     

No accounting for taste (except by reorganization, I suppose).

Disdain for the arts hardly amounts to the use of arts for propaganda under
FDR's NRA or as Obama has attempted with the NEA.
     

Yep, FDR, Obama and Hitler; separated at birth.

You might want to read
Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" to find out what an inspiration Wilson, Stalin,
Mussolini and FDR were to others.
     

I think you and I see the world so completely differently that finding
a common meeting ground is just completely impossible.

Best

Rick
   
It is a shame that you are so fond of coercive means, if you at least believed in liberty, we could agree to disagree on just about any other issue. That is the beauty of liberty. I meet opposing ideas head on, on the merits, I don't hide my head in the sand. Perhaps a little more reading in history, philosophy and law will still help.

Martin L

9

[From Rick Marken (2010.03.02.1750)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.1456 MST)--

Rick Marken (2010.03.02.1345)--

I think you and I see the world so completely differently that finding
a common meeting ground is just completely impossible.

It is a shame that you are so fond of coercive means, if you at least
believed in liberty, we could agree to disagree on just about any other
issue. �That is the beauty of liberty. �I meet opposing ideas head on, on
the merits, I don't hide my head in the sand. � �Perhaps a little more
reading in history, philosophy and law will still help.

I am actually not fond of coercive means to achieve social ends though
I believe that coercion is sometimes necessary in order to deal with
people who are non-cooperative and ruining things for others; school
bullies, for example. As far as "believing in liberty", since I have
no idea what you mean by "liberty" (I had asked you what you meant by
"freedom" but apparently decided to hide your head in the sand on this
issue;-) I'll just have to answer given my own understanding of what
"liberty" seems to mean to the tea bagger set: something like "the
right to do whatever the heck I want". In that sense I don't believe
in liberty.

What I do believe in is "autonomy" and "community". By autonomy I mean
that I understand humans to be purposeful agents who set their own
goals internally, inside their brain and nervous system; goals cannot
be set for people by external events or agents. My belief in autonomy
comes from my understanding of people as hierarchical control systems.
I don't believe people _should_ be autonomous; I believe that they
_are_ autonomous, and they remain autonomous regardless of the nature
of the society in which they live. Humans remain autonomous even when
they are being coerced. The only way to make a person non-autonomous
is to kill him or her. To paraphrase one of my favorite movie lines:
Kill the brain and you kill the autonomous agent (or ghoul).

By community I mean that I believe people should cooperate for the
benefit of all. My belief in community comes from my own experience as
I developed into an adult. I learned some of it from my parents and
peers but I think a lot of it just came from seeing how well
cooperation works (in musical groups, sports teams, etc). This
experience has led me to value community. Unlike autonomy, I don't
believe that people necessarily _are_ cooperative; I believe they
_should_ be cooperative.

Community is a value; a principle perception that I control for.
Autonomy is a scientific theory: PCT. It's a system concept perception
that I control for.

I also admire individual ability and achievement; I admire people who
control well. But the individuals whose abilities and achievements
I've admired most were those who have have recognized the value of
community and used their abilities cooperatively, not just to enrich
themselves. For example, I consider education, health care,
transportation,emergency services and recreation (parks) as community
values that should be supported by community contributions: taxation.
Thus, I consider paying taxes to be part of being a cooperative member
of a community. So when I see very skillful, able people saying that
taxes are theft or that taxes are actually _bad_ for the community, I
am rather disgusted.

I am happy to engage you in a debate about opposing ideas. But I think
we'd have better luck if the debate were about scientific ideas rather
than values. Scientific ideas (from my point of view) are ideas that
can be tested empirically. So we can argue about whether or not people
are autonomous (in terms of the PCT model of autonomy) and get
somewhere (maybe). But we won't get anywhere arguing about matters of
taste, such as whether my taste for community is better or worse than
your taste for liberty (whatever that is).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

10

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.03.06.0311 MST) }

[From Rick Marken (2010.03.02.1750)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.03.02.1456 MST)--
     

  Rick Marken (2010.03.02.1345)--
       
I think you and I see the world so completely differently that finding
a common meeting ground is just completely impossible.
       
It is a shame that you are so fond of coercive means, if you at least
believed in liberty, we could agree to disagree on just about any other
issue. That is the beauty of liberty. I meet opposing ideas head on, on
the merits, I don't hide my head in the sand. Perhaps a little more
reading in history, philosophy and law will still help.
     

I am actually not fond of coercive means to achieve social ends though
I believe that coercion is sometimes necessary in order to deal with
people who are non-cooperative and ruining things for others; school
bullies, for example. As far as "believing in liberty", since I have
no idea what you mean by "liberty" (I had asked you what you meant by
"freedom" but apparently decided to hide your head in the sand on this
issue;-) I'll just have to answer given my own understanding of what
"liberty" seems to mean to the tea bagger set: something like "the
right to do whatever the heck I want". In that sense I don't believe
in liberty.
   
Apologies, I have not caught up with email that accumulated during the Olympics. I recall having answered what coercion was. The quantity or liberty or freedom is just the extent of the absence of coercion.

What I do believe in is "autonomy" and "community". By autonomy I mean
that I understand humans to be purposeful agents who set their own
goals internally, inside their brain and nervous system; goals cannot
be set for people by external events or agents. My belief in autonomy
comes from my understanding of people as hierarchical control systems.
I don't believe people _should_ be autonomous; I believe that they
_are_ autonomous, and they remain autonomous regardless of the nature
of the society in which they live. Humans remain autonomous even when
they are being coerced. The only way to make a person non-autonomous
is to kill him or her. To paraphrase one of my favorite movie lines:
Kill the brain and you kill the autonomous agent (or ghoul).

By community I mean that I believe people should cooperate for the
benefit of all. My belief in community comes from my own experience as
I developed into an adult. I learned some of it from my parents and
peers but I think a lot of it just came from seeing how well
cooperation works (in musical groups, sports teams, etc). This
experience has led me to value community. Unlike autonomy, I don't
believe that people necessarily _are_ cooperative; I believe they
_should_ be cooperative.
   
I agree that humans are social mammals. I believe examples you cite, musical groups, sprorts teams, etc are the natural scale of human organization. Other examples are the squad, the number of direct reports under a typical manager, etc.

Community is a value; a principle perception that I control for.
Autonomy is a scientific theory: PCT. It's a system concept perception
that I control for.

I also admire individual ability and achievement; I admire people who
control well. But the individuals whose abilities and achievements
I've admired most were those who have have recognized the value of
community and used their abilities cooperatively, not just to enrich
themselves. For example, I consider education, health care,
transportation,emergency services and recreation (parks) as community
values that should be supported by community contributions: taxation.
Thus, I consider paying taxes to be part of being a cooperative member
of a community. So when I see very skillful, able people saying that
taxes are theft or that taxes are actually _bad_ for the community, I
am rather disgusted.
   
It is strange that you don't realize that the richest are often the most cooperative. If you attend a few high school reunions, you quickly see that society rewards social intelligence far more often than academic intelligence. The real estate agents, the car dealers, the salesmen, the business managers are well represented among the most "successful". Participation in the market is cooperation, often with far flung strangers and with myriad connections that you will probably never need to be aware of. Those of us who aren't wealthy, often chose to stay more comfortably focused on a more intimate circle. Corporate CEOs and supply chain managers are the great coordinators of cooperation.

Having discussed those that have enriched themselves via cooperation and our disdain for them, lets turn our attention to those who enrich themselves via coercion. Hopefully we will view them with even greater disdain. Perhaps it will hearten you to know, that most of us who believe taxation is theft, also believe that taxation is necessary. The good news is that we tend to treat those tax dollars as a sacred trust, not to be squandered or used for private enrichment. Currently government jobs average about $20,000 more in average salary than private sector jobs, and have more luxurious benefit and retirement plans. Policemen and firemen are compensated much better than truck drivers for instance, even though driving trucks has a higher mortality and injury rate. Their retirement plans and those of public school teachers are breaking the budgets of the states and municipalities. Bureaucracies are capturing public funds to serve their own interests rather than those of the public. Public employee unions are capturing public monopolies paid for by public taxes for their own benefit. Private unions are also a source of coercive enrichment. This is demonstrated by this disparity in compensation between those unionized in predominately male vs predominately female occupations. Female dominated unions are generally limited to their legitimate market power and freedom of association. Male dominated unions are able to extort a premium through violence and the threat of violence and destruction, i.e., vandalism of property, intimidation of customers and "scabs", etc. I too value education, transportation, emergency services and healthcare, but like any good consumer, I am concerned that we are already paying too much for them due to government coercion and private enrichment at the government trough. We should be getting better service for half the cost. We should be being treated like customers rather than supplicants. Beaurocratic and other public jobs should not become entitlements. Private school teachers often work for far less money, and yet are far more responsive to students and parents. Public school teachers motivated by cooperation are often driven away by the frustrations of dealing with an uncooperative administrative bureaucracy.

I am happy to engage you in a debate about opposing ideas. But I think
we'd have better luck if the debate were about scientific ideas rather
than values. Scientific ideas (from my point of view) are ideas that
can be tested empirically. So we can argue about whether or not people
are autonomous (in terms of the PCT model of autonomy) and get
somewhere (maybe). But we won't get anywhere arguing about matters of
taste, such as whether my taste for community is better or worse than
your taste for liberty (whatever that is).

Best

Rick
   
I don't see community and liberty as conflicting. But I also don't confuse community with government or happily and unquestioningly paying taxes.

Martin L

11

[From Rick Marken (2010.03.06.0930)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.03.06.0311 MST) --

Apologies, I have not caught up with email that accumulated during the
Olympics.

Thank goodness. Since you said you don't hide your head in the sand, I
thought that perhaps your head had gotten buried in a teabag. Glad to
hear it was just a snowbank. I know all about that from having lived
in Minnesota for 12 years.

I recall having answered what coercion was. �The quantity or
liberty or freedom is just the extent of the absence of coercion.

So liberty is measured by the extent to which people are not trying to
coerce you. So liberty is reduced whenever there is coercion, such as
when you coerce a coercer, trying to prevent coercion. I think this is
the basis of Christianity, no? Turn the other cheek and all. You must
be a strong opponent of all war and gun rights. Why have guns if
coercion is the enemy of liberty? Or is it not coercion when you
coerce a coercer?

I agree that humans are social mammals. �I believe examples you cite,
musical groups, sprorts teams, etc are the natural scale of human
organization.

So national organizations are not natural? Who organized them? God? The Devil?

It is strange that you don't realize that the richest are often the most
cooperative.

I don't think a person's personal wealth has anything to do with their
cooperativeness (the degree to which they control for cooperation).

�If you attend a few high school reunions, you quickly see that
society rewards social intelligence far more often than academic
intelligence.

I don't believe society is an agent that "rewards" some people and not
others based on what they do. Society is an emergent perceptual result
of the controlling done by many individual perceptual control systems.

Corporate CEOs and supply chain
managers are the great coordinators of cooperation.

I agree. They are coordinators; but the business works because
everyone involved -- labor and management -- is controlling for
cooperation. The CEOs and supply chain managers are the coordinators
because the group has agreed to allow them to be. The group sees the
merits of letting someone be the "coxswain" while the others do the
rowing (the coordinated effort).

Problems emerge, I believe, when the coxswain -- the CEOs and
managers (and government leaders) -- start thinking of themselves as
uniquely important; the ones who are essential, doing the "real
work"; the one's who merit the lion's share of the fruits of that
coordinated effort. When they carry this fantasy too far you get
vicious "labor" disputes (the dispute involves both labor and
management) or violent revolution. Yes, the "coxswain" -- the
coordinator -- is essential, in business and government. But these
leaders are not the only ones who deserve credit for running the race.
When the coxswain is the only one who gets the medal the crew is
likely to start eying the guillotine over there in storage.

Hopefully we will view them with even greater disdain. �Perhaps
it will hearten you to know, that most of us who believe taxation is theft,
also believe that taxation is necessary. �The good news is that we tend to
treat those tax dollars as a sacred trust, not to be squandered or used for
private enrichment. �Currently government jobs average about $20,000 more
in average salary than private sector jobs, and have more luxurious benefit
and retirement plans. �Policemen and firemen are compensated much better
than truck drivers for instance, even though driving trucks has a higher
mortality and injury rate. � Their retirement plans and those of public
school teachers are breaking the budgets of the states and municipalities.
�Bureaucracies are capturing public funds to serve their own interests
rather than those of the public.

It sounds like government is just paying its employees better. Instead
of getting mad at how much governments pay their employees (for
services that serve the common interest) why not require all private
industries to pay their employees at least a "living wage". Then there
would be more income which would mean more taxes paid. Cooperation.
It's not just the law, it's a good idea.

> I too value

education, transportation, emergency services and healthcare, but like any
good consumer, I am concerned that we are already paying too much for
them due to government coercion and private enrichment at the government
trough.

I think that's your ideology colored perception of things. In terms of
health care there is nice, objective data that shows that government
provided health care, in the form of medicare, is much less expensive
than privately provided health care.

We should be getting better service for half the cost.

Actually, in terms of health care, people are getting just as good
service at less than half the cost.

We should be being treated like customers rather than supplicants.

In all my dealings with government service providers (mainly emergency
services and city infrastructure projects) I have never felt like a
supplicant; always like a respected customer (even when I was getting
a ticket).

Public school teachers motivated by cooperation are often
driven away by the frustrations of dealing with an uncooperative
administrative bureaucracy.

I completely agree with that. But that's not a problem unique to
public schools, believe me. Education in general has been screwed in
the US, I think, by the idea that it should be run like a business;
the workers (the teachers) are treated like crap and thus get little
respect from students and parents; and the overpaid administrators run
the place like management consultants. Education in this country has
gone completely south, which probably accounts for a lot of what's
going on here now.

I don't see community and liberty as conflicting. �But I also don't confuse
community with government or happily and unquestioningly paying taxes.

Just as long as you pay them!

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com