Another economic question

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
61

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.23.1225 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.02.23.1644 UT) –

BP earlier: The main feature of
this model that is different from other models is the assumption that
managers and consumers are control systems and seek specific levels of
goods and wealth.

BG: This suggests to me that you were concerned with developing an
equilibrium model of the economy. I only note this because the current
economic gyrations reveal the limits of equilibrium models. This is not
intended as a criticism, simply an observation.

I didn’t have equilibrium in mind, but as it happens in the latest model
the system does come to equilibrium after long enough. I think that by
playing with parameters like gain I could get it to oscillate
spontaneously. As it is, when first turned on with default parameters,
there is a period in which some variables go one way, then the other way,
then return to the first direction again, and only after several more
excursions, settle down to final values.

I haven’t put any disturbances into the model yet. That would be the best
way to reveal instabilities. Here’s a screen shot of the behavior of
Econ005 right after it’s turned on for the first time.

1758b90.jpg
1758b90.jpg823×668 147 KB

In effect, this shows the behavior after some large initial disturbance
that leaves the system far from equilibrium. There is no growth in this
system, nor any seasonal effects – lots of missing features which can be
added a few at a time to see what difference they make.

I attach the diagram mentioned in the instructions as well as the
instructions. I’ll post the zipped program again if anyone wants it
(including Delphi source code).

Best,

Bill P.

econ004a.bmp (79.4 KB)

Instruct005.doc (18 KB)

62

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.23.1250)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.20.1634 MST)

Rick Marken (2010.02.21.1000)--

I presented the data as a question: why the heck do economists think
that increasing taxes reduces growth?

It is the microeconomic changes in behavior from increasing taxes.

I presume this means that someone has observed that increasing taxes
on individuals reduces the amount that these individuals produce.
COuld you send me a reference to that research? Don't you find it
amazing that this (purported) micro-economic effect doesn't show up in
the macro-economic data? If raising taxes on N individuals reduces
each ones productivity then shouldn't this show up as a decline in the
average productivity of the N individuals?

When someone is engaging in nationalist rhetoric and demagoguing
the rich as arguments for a more coercive policy, I don't need rigorous
statistical proof for these things.�I merely need to weave a plausible
alternative explantion of the facts. The evidential standard for proposing
freedom rather than coercion is lower.

Really?

The fact is that Martin L. doesn't seem to care all that much about data. I
think most free-marketers don't care about or even like data very much. Why
would they? When the data contradict everything you believe about economics
then one of the best policies is to ignore it. That's just basic PCT.

Once again, all I have to do is weave a plausible alternative story.

You don't even have to do that Martin. You apparently know all the
answers already.

If the Democrats want to suck the productive elements of society dry, then
they must take a lesson from the USSR and prevent them from escaping while
they still have any juice in them.

Actually, they just have to take a lesson from FDR (not USSR).
Economic growth, which is a measure of how well the productive
elements of the society are doing, has _always_ been greater during
Democratic than during Republican administrations. Of course, this is
just macro-economic data and can be safely ignored. We don't need no
stinkin' data;-).

Depressions may hit the extremely rich particularly hard

This is great material for a Republican fund raiser!

Were there no government or federal reserve policies that contributed to the
concentration of wealth?

Of course. That's the whole point of the graph. The distribution of
wealth was fairly stable from about 1933 (when FDR came in) until 1981
(when Reagan came in). It looks a lot like Reagan's "supply side", low
tax policies, which still have credibility (based on the belief that
taxes are recessionary) led to a re-concentration of wealth at the
top. There was, indeed, a class war and the rich won;-)

I do like freedom, and appreciate that at least a plausible case can be made that it
works better than coercion.

I would like to know what you mean by "freedom" and "coercion". When I
go to work, for example, am I free (because I can do whatever I want)
or coerced (because there will be consequences if, say, I go to the
beach instead of show up at class).

Democrats like to distort the market in ways that create perverse incentives

PCT shows that there is no such thing as an incentive (an external
events that causes a behavior). The idea that some events are
incentives is an S-R illusion.

and then blame the people for following those incentives off a cliff.

So Republicans know how to control behavior correctly, using the
proper incentives, and Democrats don't.

Even the simple models we already have, predict such results,

Then they must be S-R models. S-R models can predict behavior quite
well when they act in a world without disturbances [See Bourbon and
Powers (1999) Models and their worlds. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 50, 445-461].

Best

Rick

···

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

63 
Martin Lewitt (2010.02.23.1521 MST)

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.23.1250)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.20.1634 MST)

Rick Marken (2010.02.21.1000)--



I presented the data as a question: why the heck do economists think
that increasing taxes reduces growth?

It is the microeconomic changes in behavior from increasing taxes.

I presume this means that someone has observed that increasing taxes
on individuals reduces the amount that these individuals produce.
COuld you send me a reference to that research? Don't you find it
amazing that this (purported) micro-economic effect doesn't show up in
the macro-economic data? If raising taxes on N individuals reduces
each ones productivity then shouldn't this show up as a decline in the
average productivity of the N individuals?

It is in the behavior of firms and investors. Increasing the tax rate
increases the cost of capital. Wikipedia says it well: “For an
investment to be worthwhile, the expected (risk-adjusted) return on capital must be greater than
the cost of capital.” It also increases the tax advantage of
interest on debt. Debt financing is an example of tax avoidance
behavior, that might be uneconomic in the sense that more of it exists
because of tax policy rather than pure economic decision making.

This is something taught in every business school, so managers are
trained to consider rates of taxation, when evaluating cost of capital
and making investment decisions.
Yes, assuming we share a preference for not being coerced.
If we share the value of non-coercion, all I have to do is raise doubts
that the coercion is truly necessary. Plausible doubt is all that is
needed.
FDR had to keep people from escaping to gold by confiscating it. BTW,
unemployment was at its highest in 1937.
And a logical conclusion from the peak in concentration of wealth just
before a depression. It was a surprising result, I expected the
wealthy to weather depressions fairly well. The federal reserve did its share. I was surprised that the Democrats
were oblivious to this. You should listen to congressional hearings on
C-Span. The federal reserve chairman is seldom questioned when he is
discussing wage increases and the returns to labor as signs of
inflation. This, even after more than a decade of productivity
increases and stagnant wages.
Coercion is the initiation of the use of force or the threat of force.
Natural consequences are not a normative issue. The non-coercive
behavior of others may raise normative issues, but obviously coercion
isn’t one of them.
I don’t see incentives as causal either. But they can influence which
choices are made, if they are considered by decision makers.
Hopefully, Republicans are just more humble, and try to be aware of
how measures might alter the incentives and have unintended
consequences. Martin L

···

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_capital



When someone is engaging in nationalist rhetoric and demagoguing
the rich as arguments for a more coercive policy, I don't need rigorous
statistical proof for these things. I merely need to weave a plausible
alternative explantion of the facts. The evidential standard for proposing
freedom rather than coercion is lower.

Really?




The fact is that Martin L. doesn't seem to care all that much about data. I
think most free-marketers don't care about or even like data very much. Why
would they? When the data contradict everything you believe about economics
then one of the best policies is to ignore it. That's just basic PCT.
Once again, all I have to do is weave a plausible alternative story.

You don't even have to do that Martin. You apparently know all the
answers already.



If the Democrats want to suck the productive elements of society dry, then
they must take a lesson from the USSR and prevent them from escaping while
they still have any juice in them.

Actually, they just have to take a lesson from FDR (not USSR).
Economic growth, which is a measure of how well the productive
elements of the society are doing, has _always_ been greater during
Democratic than during Republican administrations. Of course, this is
just macro-economic data and can be safely ignored. We don't need no
stinkin' data;-).



Depressions may hit the extremely rich particularly hard

This is great material for a Republican fund raiser!



Were there no government or federal reserve policies that contributed to the
concentration of wealth?

Of course. That's the whole point of the graph. The distribution of
wealth was fairly stable from about 1933 (when FDR came in) until 1981
(when Reagan came in). It looks a lot like Reagan's "supply side", low
tax policies, which still have credibility (based on the belief that
taxes are recessionary) led to a re-concentration of wealth at the
top. There was, indeed, a class war and the rich won;-)



I do like freedom, and appreciate that at least a plausible case can be made that it
works better than coercion.

I would like to know what you mean by "freedom" and "coercion". When I
go to work, for example, am I free (because I can do whatever I want)
or coerced (because there will be consequences if, say, I go to the
beach instead of show up at class).



Democrats like to distort the market in ways that create perverse incentives

PCT shows that there is no such thing as an incentive (an external
events that causes a behavior). The idea that some events are
incentives is an S-R illusion.

and then blame the people for following those incentives off a cliff.

So Republicans know how to control behavior correctly, using the
proper incentives, and Democrats don't.



Even the simple models we already have, predict such results,


Then they must be S-R models. S-R models can predict behavior quite
well when they act in a world without disturbances [See Bourbon and
Powers (1999) Models and their worlds. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 50, 445-461].
Best
Rick
64

from Martin Lewitt (2010.02.23.1721 MST) –

The write-up gave me an appreciation for how complicated the
simulations will have to be to capture all the features of interest.
Note that their firms only use debt financing, so can’t assist in
evaluating the tax effects on the cost of capital. That would require
the availability of equity financing and stock markets and equity
investors. Since business managers must make assessments of what the
stock price will be in response to their announcement of an equity
issue, the algorithms might be complicated.

Martin L

···

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.23.0626 MST)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.22.2000MST) –

ML: I was certain that
this type
of simulation had been done before. A search on

microeconomic simulation site:.edu

returned 165000 hits on google. What you described is an agent
based simulation, here is a link to one called Aspen

[

http://www.colby.edu/economics/faculty/mrdonihu/mcs/aspen.pdf](http://www.colby.edu/economics/faculty/mrdonihu/mcs/aspen.pdf)

I had forgotten, that I had read about this particular simulator while
I
was at the lab, until I saw this link. The relevance of PCT would
be to improving the realism of individual agents. But could enough
real PCT data be gathered to improve over a simple parametrized
stochastic representation of the agents.

Excellent find! I knew there was such a thing as agent-based economic
theories, but those I found were concerned with investment strategies
and
playing the markets. This is the first one I’ve seen that actually gets
down to the level of institutional agents and the real-time
interactions
among them, including consumers (“households”). They’ve
considered all the factors I used in my model and a lot more (I planned
to get to the rest eventually, but didn’t know enough to know what
should
be included). Just what I was hoping to get from our PCT economists, in
vain. I think I’ve been searching on the wrong term: macroeconomics
rather than microeconomics. I see that the authors call their model a
microeconomic simulation, though the results they get are very
macroeconomic.

Basu, Pryor, and Quint, the authors, are not listed on the web pages
about faculty at Colby. Do you know when this paper was published? It
doesn’t contain any dates. Or where any of the authors might be right
now? I’d like to get in touch with them, since they would obviously be
favorable to my approach, and PCT might prove useful as a better model
than the “rational expectations” one I keep coming across. It
would be lovely to work with people who start out on my side. Once you
get rid of rational expectation, the PCT model falls right into
place.

Of course maybe their modeling efforts have drawn the same kind of
enthusiastic support that mine have, and were abandoned. In any case,
I’d
like to write to them. I’ll try asking some of the Colby faculty who
are
still there.

Oops, I just found a “Rich Prior” at Sandia National
Laboratories and a mention of their program, “Aspen.” I’ll try
him first.

Best,

Bill P.

65

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.23.0116 UT)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.23.1521 MST)

Hopefully, Republicans are just more humble, and try to be aware of
how measures might alter the incentives and have unintended
consequences.

Ah, yes. The humility of Republicans is legendary. I particularly admire the way they sell their belongings and give the money to the poor. True Christians. I’m a little choked up…

Bruce

66

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.23.1930)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.23.1521 MST)--

Rick Marken (2010.02.23.1250)-

I presume this means that someone has observed that increasing taxes
on individuals reduces the amount that these individuals produce...Don't
you find it amazing that this (purported) micro-economic effect doesn't
show up in the macro-economic data?

It is in the behavior of firms and investors.

So it's the reduced productivity of firms and investors that doesn't
show up in the macro-economic data. I thought GNP included the goods
and services produced by firms and investors.

Increasing the tax rate increases the cost of capital.

If you say so. But it doesn't seem to reduce production (measured as
GDP or GNP). Indeed, the correlation between growth in production
(dGDP/dt) and capital gains tax rate since 1928 is quite high: 0.5. If
you lag the correlation so that you're correlating capital gains tax
rate now with growth, say, 4 years in the future, the correlation goes
down to .23. I can't get the correlation to go negative, though, even
if I look at the relationship with a lag of 10 years (r = .12).

FDR had to keep people from escaping to gold by confiscating it.� BTW,
unemployment was at its highest in 1937.

It takes a long time to correct the results of Republican policies. My
data show that since 1948 (the first year for which I have
unemployment data) unemployment has _always_ been lower at the end
than at the start of Democratic regimes and it has _always_ been
higher at the end than at the start of Republican regimes.

I'm not saying Democratic policies are perfect (I was out there
yelling "hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today") but the data
show overwhelmingly that Democratic policies always tend to move us in
what I consider the right (correct) direction economically (lower
unemployment, lower child poverty, higher growth, lower deficits,
higher wages, etc) while Republican policies tend to move us in the
wrong one. I think the electorate basically knows this but they
sometimes vote Republicans anyway because the Republicans are very
good at demagoguery (appealing to the fears and prejudices of the
people, such as the fear of government itself).

I would like to know what you mean by "freedom" and "coercion"...

Coercion is the initiation of the use of force or the threat of force.

I agree. Now what is freedom, from your perspective?

PCT shows that there is no such thing as an incentive (an external
events that causes a behavior). The idea that some events are
incentives is an S-R illusion.

I don't see incentives as causal either.� But they can influence which
choices are made, if they are considered by decision makers.

OK, then incentives are like disturbances to a controlled variable. It
is possible to control behavior using such disturbances. See "the
parable of the rubber bands" in B:CP.

So Republicans know how to control behavior correctly, using the
proper incentives, and Democrats don't.

Hopefully,� Republicans are just more humble, and try to be aware of how
measures might alter the incentives and have unintended consequences.

So Republicans are humble controllers and Democrats are not? So is
your idea of freedom that you prefer to be controlled by humble
dictators rather than arrogant ones?

Best

Rick

···

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

67

[Martin Taylor 2010.02.24.01.52]

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.19.1945)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1932 MST)

     Dang government. The tea party movement at least gives us some hope of
putting this bloated government back within its constitutional bounds.
     

Oh, really. By cutting the big ticket items like Medicare and Social
Security. Yep, get rid of all that bloat that feeds those fat old tea
partiers. No, the tea partiers just want the tea for free; not taxes
but don't touch my Medicare. Those people are beyond awful.

Interesting that the original Boston Tea Party was a manifestation of private self-interest, tea provided by the British being a competitor to the lucrative tea smuggling trade (in contrast to the myth that it had something to do with oppressive taxation). That seems somehow appropriate in the context of this thread.

Martin (T, not L -- the bar on my letter is on top :slight_smile:

68

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.24.0430 MST)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.23.1521 MST) --
> > [From Rick Marken
> > (2010.02.23.1250)]
> > RM: Don't you find it amazing that this (purported) micro-economic effect
> > doesn't show up in the macro-economic data? If raising taxes on N
> > individuals reduces
> > each ones productivity then shouldn't this show up as a decline in the
> > average productivity of the N individuals?
> ML: It is in the behavior of firms and investors.  Increasing the
> tax rate increases the cost of capital.  Wikipedia  says it
> well:  "For an investment to be worthwhile, the expected
> (risk-adjusted)
> [return on
> capital](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_capital) must be greater than the cost of
> capital."    It also increases the tax advantage of
> interest on debt.  Debt financing is an example of tax avoidance
> behavior, that might be uneconomic in the sense that more of it exists
> because of tax policy rather than pure economic decision
> making.

BP: This sounds like citing theories, not observed facts. There may be
some wizened little bookkeepers in very large corporations who are paid
for thinking this way, but I doubt very much that this sort of
calculation often figures into business decisions. What you're saying
here is simply describing what the theory of rational decision making
says *must be* happening. Simon, on the other hand, got himself a
Nobel prize for finding out that the managers he studied don't go through
this decision-making process or try to maximize return on investment.
They set goals and try to achieve them. This finding has had remarkably
little effect on the beliefs of economists and conservative politicians.
But that is to be expected; economists and their friends generally don't
like facts very much. Unreliable things, facts. You can't always count on
them to support your position.

Now if you want to say that taxes theoretically have a certain effect on
profits, I would have no argument, and would simply ask to see your model
demonstrate this. But I would expect the model to take into account all
the things that taxes buy -- the roads and bridges and schools and
hospitals and firemen and policemen (and their equipment) and so on down
the line of benefits every person and business enjoys every minute of
every day. A businessman who doesn't want his profits taxed will be
required to explain why he shouldn't help pay for all these benefits that
he and his company enjoy and use. In computing profits, he should add
these benefit in. Sure, taxes eat into profits, but they eat into wages
and dividends and interest and all other income. Buying groceries has
that effect, too. This is part of the cost of living. Specific examples
don't always make sense, of course, but there are means of adjusting the
system to make it work better. A knee-jerk objection to taxes is just the
selfishness of immaturity.

> [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_capital](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_capital)
> 
> 
> This is something taught in every business school, so managers are
> trained to consider rates of taxation, when evaluating cost of capital
> and making investment decisions.

Yes, they're taught by the same people who subscribe to the rational
decision making theory. Whether they actually do as they were taught is
another question, and in some cases that have been studied, apparently,
the answer is that they don't. Here is a lovely discussion of why people
probably don't go through all those contortions of making rational
decisions, economic style:

 

[
http://www.udel.edu/communication/COMM356/pavitt/chap12.htm

](http://www.udel.edu/communication/COMM356/pavitt/chap12.htm)But maybe they should. The way to convince me of that, if my
convictions matter, is to construct a model on which we can all agree,
and show that in fact the effect of taxes conforms to theory in ways we
can verify. Just telling me all these things are true doesn't make much
of a dent in my skepticism. People tell me that all sorts of things are
true; if they were all correct, the universe would disappear in a puff of
contradictions. Why should I believe what you're saying? That's what any
scientist would ask.

So it all comes down to models. If you don't have a working model that
will demonstrate your point, you don't have  a leg to stand on.
Plausibility is a con-man's specialty. Common language is a
snare.

Best,

Bill P.
69

From Martin Lewitt (2010.02.24.1321 MST)

[Martin Taylor 2010.02.24.01.52]

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.19.1945)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1932 MST)

     Dang government. The tea party movement at least gives us some hope of
putting this bloated government back within its constitutional bounds.

Oh, really. By cutting the big ticket items like Medicare and Social
Security. Yep, get rid of all that bloat that feeds those fat old tea
partiers. No, the tea partiers just want the tea for free; not taxes
but don't touch my Medicare. Those people are beyond awful.

Interesting that the original Boston Tea Party was a manifestation of private self-interest, tea provided by the British being a competitor to the lucrative tea smuggling trade (in contrast to the myth that it had something to do with oppressive taxation). That seems somehow appropriate in the context of this thread.

Martin (T, not L -- the bar on my letter is on top :slight_smile:

I know it was just a legend that it had something to do with taxation without representation.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." -- Maxwell Scott from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

Martin L

70

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.24.19150]

Bill Powers (2010.02.24.0430 MST)--

A businessman who doesn't want his profits taxed will be required to explain
why he shouldn't help pay for all these benefits that he and his company
enjoy and use. In computing profits, he should add these benefit in. Sure,
taxes eat into profits, but they eat into wages and dividends and interest
and all other income. Buying groceries has that effect, too. This is part of
the cost of living. Specific examples don't always make sense, of course,
but there are means of adjusting the system to make it work better. A
knee-jerk objection to taxes is just the selfishness of immaturity.

Nice point. I think the reason I get so exorcised about this myth
about taxes being recessionary (and the data show that it is a myth)
is that it can serve as a nice cover for the selfishness that is the
real basis of the objection to taxes. It's like the kid in third grade
who doesn't want to share the crayons. If the kid is smart he will
tell his classmates that sharing the crayons would just set up a cycle
of dependency. So by not sharing he's really helping them out. I'm
afraid I can't take credit for this idea; I saw something like it in a
New Yorker cartoon years ago, proving that what used to be a joke is
now conservative economic dogma.

Best

Rick

···

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

71

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.25.1100)]

Bill Powers (2010.02.24.0430 MST)–

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.23.1521 MST) –

ML: It is in the behavior of firms and investors. Increasing the tax rate
increases the cost of capital. Wikipedia says it well: “For an investment
to be worthwhile, the expected (risk-adjusted) return on capital must be
greater than the cost of capital.” It also increases the tax advantage of
interest on debt. Debt financing is an example of tax avoidance behavior,
that might be uneconomic in the sense that more of it exists because of tax
policy rather than pure economic decision making.

BP: This sounds like citing theories, not observed facts. There may be some
wizened little bookkeepers in very large corporations who are paid for
thinking this way, but I doubt very much that this sort of calculation often
figures into business decisions.

The following is a letter to the LA Times today that is pertinent here, I think:

I have more than 40 years of experience as an owner, principal and consultant to a wide variety of small businesses. I can guarantee that no small business will ever hire an extra employee to get a tax break. They will hire new people when their order books are full again.

The only people who think this boneheaded idea will work are those who have never had to manage a profit-and-loss statement – Congress and economists.

Note that it is demand (order books full) that drives business decisions, not tax breaks. And the only way to increase demand is to provide consumers with the money needed (through good wages or generous unemployment insurance) to buy what they need (and want). It’s just simple closed-loop economics.

Best

Rick

···

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

72

from

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.25.2054 MST)

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.24.0430 MST)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.23.1521 MST) --
> > [From Rick Marken
> > (2010.02.23.1250)]
> > RM: Don't you find it amazing that this (purported) micro-economic effect
> > doesn't show up in the macro-economic data? If raising taxes on N
> > individuals reduces
> > each ones productivity then shouldn't this show up as a decline in the
> > average productivity of the N individuals?
>     ML: It is in the
> behavior of firms and investors.  Increasing the
> tax rate increases the cost of capital.  Wikipedia  says it
> well:  "For an investment to be worthwhile, the expected
> (risk-adjusted)
> [return on
> capital](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_capital) must be greater than the cost of
> capital."    It also increases the tax advantage of
> interest on debt.  Debt financing is an example of tax avoidance
> behavior, that might be uneconomic in the sense that more of it exists
> because of tax policy rather than pure economic decision
> making.

BP: This sounds like citing theories, not observed facts. There may be
some wizened little bookkeepers in very large corporations who are paid
for thinking this way, but I doubt very much that this sort of
calculation often figures into business decisions. What you're saying
here is simply describing what the theory of rational decision making
says *must be* happening. Simon, on the other hand, got himself a
Nobel prize for finding out that the managers he studied don't go
through
this decision-making process or try to maximize return on investment.
They set goals and try to achieve them. This finding has had remarkably
little effect on the beliefs of economists and conservative
politicians.
But that is to be expected; economists and their friends generally
don't
like facts very much. Unreliable things, facts. You can't always count
on
them to support your position.

Hmmm, I think you are extrapolating beyond Simon’s work. He was
discussing how decisions were made in the face of uncertaintly,
complexity and incomplete knowledge. The cost of capital is available
to business decision makers, and is not a large source of the
uncertainty. They probably would want the estimated returns to exceed
it by some healthy margin to account for uncertainties and then select
projects by the type of satisficing process that Simon describes.

Now if you want to say that taxes theoretically have a certain effect
on
profits, I would have no argument, and would simply ask to see your
model
demonstrate this. But I would expect the model to take into account all
the things that taxes buy – the roads and bridges and schools and
hospitals and firemen and policemen (and their equipment) and so on
down
the line of benefits every person and business enjoys every minute of
every day. A businessman who doesn’t want his profits taxed will be
required to explain why he shouldn’t help pay for all these benefits
that
he and his company enjoy and use. In computing profits, he should add
these benefit in. Sure, taxes eat into profits, but they eat into wages
and dividends and interest and all other income. Buying groceries has
that effect, too. This is part of the cost of living. Specific examples
don’t always make sense, of course, but there are means of adjusting
the
system to make it work better. A knee-jerk objection to taxes is just
the
selfishness of immaturity.

You haven’t experienced roads, bridges, hospitals, firemen and
policemen very much if you think every person enjoys them every minute
of every day. I’ve had policemen perjure themselves in traffic cases,
and also think that recreational drug use is none of their business,
and oppose DUI checkpoints on constitutional grounds. Our volunteer
fire department was replaced over the objections of the community.
Among the volunteers were a neighbor and a real estate agent who knew
the floor plan of my house and exactly what rooms my children would
have been sleeping in. Now it is manned by professionals with
lucrative pensions, strangers who commute from the other side of the
mountain and probably don’t have the personal vehicles required to get
to their jobs in winter weather. As to roads, the same stretch of
freeway has been reconstructed about 6 times in 15 years, due to senior
Senators who can’t think of anything better to do with their earmarks.
I’m sick of the orange barrels. I homeschooled three children, and
consider it almost child abuse to institutionalize them in factory
model schools. I suspect that I am also paying for these
abominations not just directly through taxes but through costs passed
on by the businesses I patronize as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_capital

This is something taught in every business school, so managers are
trained to consider rates of taxation, when evaluating cost of capital
and making investment decisions.

Yes, they’re taught by the same people who subscribe to the rational
decision making theory. Whether they actually do as they were taught is
another question, and in some cases that have been studied, apparently,
the answer is that they don’t. Here is a lovely discussion of why
people
probably don’t go through all those contortions of making rational
decisions, economic style:

[
College of Arts & Sciences

](College of Arts & Sciences)But maybe they should. The way to convince me of that, if my
convictions matter, is to construct a model on which we can all agree,
and show that in fact the effect of taxes conforms to theory in ways we
can verify. Just telling me all these things are true doesn’t make much
of a dent in my skepticism. People tell me that all sorts of things are
true; if they were all correct, the universe would disappear in a puff
of
contradictions. Why should I believe what you’re saying? That’s what
any
scientist would ask.

So it all comes down to models. If you don’t have a working model that
will demonstrate your point, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Plausibility is a con-man’s specialty. Common language is a
snare.

Best,

Bill P.

The cost of capital is probably figured from mathematical formula with
a few market data rather than more complex models. Think of it as more
of a filter, more projects qualify for funding at a lower cost of
capital. Simon’s work was about the limitations of rational decision
making, not the abandonment of it, when it can easily be applied.

Martin L

73

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.26.0729 MST)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.25.2054 MST) –

ML: Hmmm, I think you are
extrapolating beyond Simon’s work. He was discussing how decisions
were made in the face of uncertaintly, complexity and incomplete
knowledge. The cost of capital is available to business decision
makers, and is not a large source of the uncertainty. They probably
would want the estimated returns to exceed it by some healthy margin to
account for uncertainties and then select projects by the type of
satisficing process that Simon describes.

BP: How many small businessmen do you think apply this sophisticated an
analysis of the cost of capital and the estimated returns? I’m sure they
spot markets and think they can take advantage of them, but if they do
this by rational decision making, they’re on uncertain ground. Only about
half of them survive five years, according to “SCORE”:

[
http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html

](http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html)

···

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

Small Business Impact on the Economy

The estimated 29.6 million small businesses in the United
States:

  • Employ just over half of the country’s private sector workforce
  • Hire 40 percent of high tech workers, such as scientists, engineers
    and computer workers
  • Include 52 percent home-based businesses and two percent
    franchises
  • Represent 97.3 percent of all the exporters of goods
  • Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms
  • Generate a majority of the innovations that come from United States
    companies

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy,
September 2009Small Business Survival Rates

Small Business Openings & Closings in 2008:

  • There were 627,200 new businesses, 595,600 business closures and
    43,546 bankruptcies.
  • Seven out of 10 new employer firms survive at least two years, and
    about half survive five years.
  • Findings do not differ greatly across industry sectors.

Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy,
September 2009
Survival and Longevity in the Business Employment Dynamics Database,
Monthly Labor Review, May 2005. Redefining Business Success:
Distinguishing Between Closure and Failure, Small Business Economics,
August 2003.

BP: So the theoretical wizardry and high-power business magic among most
businessmen is largely a myth, and I expect the same is probably true in
big businesses as well. Existing small businesses are failing about as
often as new ones are started. Maybe they go through the same rituals as
the businesses that succeed, but if so that would indicate that it’s not
the rituals that make the difference. The idea that some entrepreneurs
are so incredibly skilled that they are worth millions upon millions of
dollars per year to a company is propagated mainly by those entrepreneurs
– that’s their one really above-average skill. The rest is mostly
superstition (in its technical sense) and bluff. If you’re CEO when the
company happens to be making money, you claim the credit even if you have
no idea why the big success happened. And you try very hard to believe it
was because of some clever idea you had (and that most people in the
company ignored while saying “Yes, boss”).

ML: You haven’t experienced
roads, bridges, hospitals, firemen and policemen very much if you think
every person enjoys them every minute of every day.

BP: Oh, but I have. Every slice of bread I toast was brought to the local
grocery store by trucks driven by licensed drivers obeying traffic laws
and using roads and bridges maintained by taxes – and something similar
is true of the toaster, the materials that built the house I live in
(which meets safety regulations and other building specifications), and
so on. When I go shopping this morning I will use the roads and bridges
and traffic lights, and I will look at the labels required by law on the
food I buy and I will park knowing I am insured against crazy drivers,
and will carry an oxygen bottle replenished from a properly specified LOX
tank outside my house, replenished by a guy in a truck who comes every
two weeks (and who kindly throws onto my front porch the newspaper
delivered by a delivery truck every morning before sunrise). If you just
open your eyes and look around, you will realize that practically
everything you see was thought up, made, and placed by somebody using
means supported by tax dollars, including roads and bridges and a lot
more. If you take all this stuff for granted, of course, you won’t notice
it.

I’ve had policemen perjure
themselves in traffic cases, and also think that recreational drug use is
none of their business, and oppose DUI checkpoints on constitutional
grounds.

Well, I think your recreational drug use is definitely my business if it
makes you run your car in to my car or me, or if I have an accident
trying to avoid your happy wanderings at 80 miles per hour through a stop
sign, or if you start hanging about schoolyards selling junk to support
your habit or robbing the places where I shop and driving the prices up
or doing any of the stupid things druggies do to make life worse for the
rest of us or their parents, wives, and children who will need our help
sooner or later. If you just want to sit in a room by yourself and giggle
or stare at a wall, that’s up to you, but what you do to get the drugs,
who you get them from, and what you do to other people (me and those I
care about) are all certainly my business – I’m telling you they are,
not arguing about it or trying to persuade you. I claim the right to
protect what I value. Being an old man, I’m glad I can get a cop to do it
for me. Most of the cops I have met have been ordinary decent
people.

ML: Our volunteer fire
department was replaced over the objections of the community. Among
the volunteers were a neighbor and a real estate agent who knew the floor
plan of my house and exactly what rooms my children would have been
sleeping in. Now it is manned by professionals with lucrative
pensions, strangers who commute from the other side of the mountain and
probably don’t have the personal vehicles required to get to their jobs
in winter weather. As to roads, the same stretch of freeway has
been reconstructed about 6 times in 15 years, due to senior Senators who
can’t think of anything better to do with their earmarks. I’m sick
of the orange barrels. I homeschooled three children, and consider
it almost child abuse to institutionalize them in factory model
schools. I suspect that I am also paying for
these abominations not just directly through taxes but through costs
passed on by the businesses I patronize as well.

Stupid jerks do show up in all sorts of places, including the police
force and government. I’ve met them too. But so do good, conscientious,
competent, smart people show up, doing their best to help people live
happy lives free from fear and despair. If you focus on the jerks and
judge everyone by the behavior of the jerks, you’re going to end up with
a pretty distorted view of human nature, much like a cop who never meets
anyone but criminals and is therefore suspicious of everyone. You’ll
decide that if you don’t look after Number One, nobody else will, so why
shouldn’t you do whatever you please and screw 'em all. And inevitably
you’ll become one of the jerks.

The cost of capital is probably
figured from mathematical formula with a few market data rather than more
complex models. Think of it as more of a filter, more projects
qualify for funding at a lower cost of capital. Simon’s work
was about the limitations of rational decision making, not the
abandonment of it, when it can easily be applied.

Probably? Then you don’t know any better than I do how it’s actually
done. Rational decision making has its place, I’ll agree, but it’s not a
very good way to handle unexpected events, to avoid or take advantage of
them, and it never includes all the variables that make a difference. I
think it’s much better to be prepared in a general sense: be alert, be
skilled, be practiced, be flexible. Correct the errors that really occur
when they show up, not the errors you anticipated. Use the means at hand,
not the means you planned a week ago to use that don’t happen to be
available just now. Certainly lay in supplies, sell the surplus, keep a
sharp axe handy, send a letter saying “If I should have what seems
to be an accident …” and so on. But don’t relax in the belief
that rational decision making will get you very far.

Best,

Bill P.

74

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.26.0850)]

Bill Powers (2010.02.26.0729 MST)–

Stupid jerks do show up in all sorts of places, including the police
force and government.

Don’t they though;-)

I’ve met them too. But so do good, conscientious,
competent, smart people show up, doing their best to help people live
happy lives free from fear and despair. If you focus on the jerks and
judge everyone by the behavior of the jerks, you’re going to end up with
a pretty distorted view of human nature, much like a cop who never meets
anyone but criminals and is therefore suspicious of everyone. You’ll
decide that if you don’t look after Number One, nobody else will, so why
shouldn’t you do whatever you please and screw 'em all. And inevitably
you’ll become one of the jerks.

Bullseye!

I think one of the main philosophical distinctions between liberals and conservatives is supposed to be in their view of “human nature”. Liberals see human nature as intrinsically good, conservatives see it as intrinsically bad (original sin and all). Of course, PCT would say that both of these views are misguided; humans are intrinsically controllers, neither intrinsically good nor bad. But perhaps “liberals” are the controllers who control for noticing the good, conscientious,
competent, and smart controlling done by other controllers while conservatives are the controllers who control for noticing the “jerky” controlling done by other controllers. . Perhaps that’s why, although neither liberal nor conservatives understand human nature (unless they understand PCT), conservatives tend to be jerks. Of course, that wouldn’t explain the behavior of one fellow who recently left CSGNet, so never mind;-)

Love

Rick

···

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

75

from Martin Lewitt (2010.02.25.2054 MST):

Small businesses don’t have access to the stock markets, so you are
correct, their cost of capital is not complicated by the option to
raise equity capital. But they are suppliers to larger corporations
with access to stock markets and they are competitors with larger
corporations for access to credit. So their cost of capital will be
impacted.

Martin L

···

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.26.0729 MST)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.25.2054 MST) –

ML: Hmmm, I think you
are
extrapolating beyond Simon’s work. He was discussing how decisions
were made in the face of uncertaintly, complexity and incomplete
knowledge. The cost of capital is available to business decision
makers, and is not a large source of the uncertainty. They probably
would want the estimated returns to exceed it by some healthy margin to
account for uncertainties and then select projects by the type of
satisficing process that Simon describes.

BP: How many small businessmen do you think apply this sophisticated an
analysis of the cost of capital and the estimated returns? I’m sure
they
spot markets and think they can take advantage of them, but if they do
this by rational decision making, they’re on uncertain ground. Only
about
half of them survive five years, according to “SCORE”:

[
http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html

](http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html)

Small Business Impact on the
Economy

The estimated 29.6 million small businesses in the United
States:

  •   Employ just over half of the country’s private sector workforce

  • Hire 40 percent of high tech workers, such as scientists,
    engineers
    and computer workers

  • Include 52 percent home-based businesses and two percent
    franchises

  • Represent 97.3 percent of all the exporters of goods

  • Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms

  • Generate a majority of the innovations that come from United
    States
    companies

    *Source: U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy,
    September 2009

  • Small Business Survival Rates

Small Business Openings & Closings in 2008:

  • There were 627,200 new businesses, 595,600 business closures
    and
    43,546 bankruptcies.

  • Seven out of 10 new employer firms survive at least two years,
    and
    about half survive five years.

  • Findings do not differ greatly across industry sectors.

    *Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy,
    September 2009
    Survival and Longevity in the Business Employment Dynamics Database,
    Monthly Labor Review, May 2005. Redefining Business Success:
    Distinguishing Between Closure and Failure, Small Business Economics,
    August 2003.

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

BP: So the theoretical wizardry and high-power business magic among
most
businessmen is largely a myth, and I expect the same is probably true
in
big businesses as well. Existing small businesses are failing about as
often as new ones are started. Maybe they go through the same rituals
as
the businesses that succeed, but if so that would indicate that it’s
not
the rituals that make the difference. The idea that some entrepreneurs
are so incredibly skilled that they are worth millions upon millions of
dollars per year to a company is propagated mainly by those
entrepreneurs
– that’s their one really above-average skill. The rest is mostly
superstition (in its technical sense) and bluff. If you’re CEO when the
company happens to be making money, you claim the credit even if you
have
no idea why the big success happened. And you try very hard to believe
it
was because of some clever idea you had (and that most people in the
company ignored while saying “Yes, boss”).

ML: You haven’t
experienced
roads, bridges, hospitals, firemen and policemen very much if you think
every person enjoys them every minute of every day.

BP: Oh, but I have. Every slice of bread I toast was brought to the
local
grocery store by trucks driven by licensed drivers obeying traffic laws
and using roads and bridges maintained by taxes – and something
similar
is true of the toaster, the materials that built the house I live in
(which meets safety regulations and other building specifications), and
so on. When I go shopping this morning I will use the roads and bridges
and traffic lights, and I will look at the labels required by law on
the
food I buy and I will park knowing I am insured against crazy drivers,
and will carry an oxygen bottle replenished from a properly specified
LOX
tank outside my house, replenished by a guy in a truck who comes every
two weeks (and who kindly throws onto my front porch the newspaper
delivered by a delivery truck every morning before sunrise). If you
just
open your eyes and look around, you will realize that practically
everything you see was thought up, made, and placed by somebody using
means supported by tax dollars, including roads and bridges and a lot
more. If you take all this stuff for granted, of course, you won’t
notice
it.

I’ve had policemen
perjure
themselves in traffic cases, and also think that recreational drug use
is
none of their business, and oppose DUI checkpoints on constitutional
grounds.

Well, I think your recreational drug use is definitely my business if
it
makes you run your car in to my car or me, or if I have an accident
trying to avoid your happy wanderings at 80 miles per hour through a
stop
sign, or if you start hanging about schoolyards selling junk to support
your habit or robbing the places where I shop and driving the prices up
or doing any of the stupid things druggies do to make life worse for
the
rest of us or their parents, wives, and children who will need our help
sooner or later. If you just want to sit in a room by yourself and
giggle
or stare at a wall, that’s up to you, but what you do to get the drugs,
who you get them from, and what you do to other people (me and those I
care about) are all certainly my business – I’m telling you they are,
not arguing about it or trying to persuade you. I claim the right to
protect what I value. Being an old man, I’m glad I can get a cop to do
it
for me. Most of the cops I have met have been ordinary decent
people.

ML: Our volunteer fire
department was replaced over the objections of the community. Among
the volunteers were a neighbor and a real estate agent who knew the
floor
plan of my house and exactly what rooms my children would have been
sleeping in. Now it is manned by professionals with lucrative
pensions, strangers who commute from the other side of the mountain and
probably don’t have the personal vehicles required to get to their jobs
in winter weather. As to roads, the same stretch of freeway has
been reconstructed about 6 times in 15 years, due to senior Senators
who
can’t think of anything better to do with their earmarks. I’m sick
of the orange barrels. I homeschooled three children, and consider
it almost child abuse to institutionalize them in factory model
schools. I suspect that I am also paying for
these abominations not just directly through taxes but through costs
passed on by the businesses I patronize as well.

Stupid jerks do show up in all sorts of places, including the police
force and government. I’ve met them too. But so do good, conscientious,
competent, smart people show up, doing their best to help people live
happy lives free from fear and despair. If you focus on the jerks and
judge everyone by the behavior of the jerks, you’re going to end up
with
a pretty distorted view of human nature, much like a cop who never
meets
anyone but criminals and is therefore suspicious of everyone. You’ll
decide that if you don’t look after Number One, nobody else will, so
why
shouldn’t you do whatever you please and screw 'em all. And inevitably
you’ll become one of the jerks.

The cost of capital is
probably
figured from mathematical formula with a few market data rather than
more
complex models. Think of it as more of a filter, more projects
qualify for funding at a lower cost of capital. Simon’s work
was about the limitations of rational decision making, not the
abandonment of it, when it can easily be applied.

Probably? Then you don’t know any better than I do how it’s actually
done. Rational decision making has its place, I’ll agree, but it’s not
a
very good way to handle unexpected events, to avoid or take advantage
of
them, and it never includes all the variables that make a difference. I
think it’s much better to be prepared in a general sense: be alert, be
skilled, be practiced, be flexible. Correct the errors that really
occur
when they show up, not the errors you anticipated. Use the means at
hand,
not the means you planned a week ago to use that don’t happen to be
available just now. Certainly lay in supplies, sell the surplus, keep a
sharp axe handy, send a letter saying “If I should have what seems
to be an accident …” and so on. But don’t relax in the belief
that rational decision making will get you very far.

Best,

Bill P.

76

from Martin Lewitt (2010.02.26.1124 MST)-

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.26.0850)]

Bill Powers (2010.02.26.0729 MST)–

Stupid jerks do show up in all sorts of places, including the
police
force and government.

Don’t they though;-)

I’ve met them too. But so do good, conscientious,
competent, smart people show up, doing their best to help people live
happy lives free from fear and despair. If you focus on the jerks and
judge everyone by the behavior of the jerks, you’re going to end up
with
a pretty distorted view of human nature, much like a cop who never
meets
anyone but criminals and is therefore suspicious of everyone. You’ll
decide that if you don’t look after Number One, nobody else will, so
why
shouldn’t you do whatever you please and screw 'em all. And inevitably
you’ll become one of the jerks.

Bullseye!

I think one of the main philosophical distinctions between liberals and
conservatives is supposed to be in their view of “human nature”.
Liberals see human nature as intrinsically good, conservatives see it
as intrinsically bad (original sin and all). Of course, PCT would say
that both of these views are misguided; humans are intrinsically
controllers, neither intrinsically good nor bad. But perhaps “liberals”
are the controllers who control for noticing the good, conscientious,
competent, and smart controlling done by other controllers while
conservatives are the controllers who control for noticing the “jerky”
controlling done by other controllers. . Perhaps that’s why, although
neither liberal nor conservatives understand human nature (unless they
understand PCT), conservatives tend to be jerks. Of course, that
wouldn’t explain the behavior of one fellow who recently left CSGNet,
so never mind;-)

Love

Rick

Bullseye, almost. Christians are probably with the conservatives due
to the “fallen nature of man”. Sarah Palin says as much in her book.
I don’t you have to go as far as “instrinsically bad” to support the
conservatives’ essentially classical liberal perspective. Humans on
ly have to not be universally good when in power, and unfortunately
those who want power are the more likely to gravitate to it, and they
seem the most vulnerable being corrupted by it.

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. Liberals control for jerks in power too, they just think
the danger is in letting someone else have power, not in the
accumulation of power itself. Liberals have replaced the divine right
of kings with the divine right of well intentioned liberals in power to
do good… Classical liberals instituted checks and balances because
they believed in the rights of individuals instead of the right of
power. Power doesn’t need its rights protected anyway, does it?

Martin L

77

[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

78

[Shannon Williams (2010.02.26 22:30 CST)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.26.1740)]

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?

Martin does not control against power in these organizations. He
controls for environments such that: if he does not like the
environment he thinks he can just 'walk away' from it. Government
scares him because he cannot 'walk away' from it. He controls for
perceptions of indepence and autonomy. Government is an overwhelming
threat to these perceptions.

Shannon

79

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.27.0844 MST)]

Shannon Williams (2010.02.26 22:30 CST) --

Martin does not control against power in these organizations. He
controls for environments such that: if he does not like the
environment he thinks he can just 'walk away' from it. Government
scares him because he cannot 'walk away' from it. He controls for
perceptions of indepence and autonomy. Government is an overwhelming
threat to these perceptions.

Amateur long-distance psychoanalysis is insulting and arrogant, as well as likely to be quite wrong. If you want to know what Martin's motives are, ask him, and if he thinks they are any of your business, he'll tell you.

Best,

Bill P.

80

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.27.0825)]

Bill Powers (2010.02.27.0844 MST)–

Shannon Williams (2010.02.26 22:30 CST) –

Martin does not control against power in these organizations. He

controls for environments such that: if he does not like the

environment he thinks he can just ‘walk away’ from it. Government

scares him because he cannot ‘walk away’ from it. He controls for

perceptions of indepence and autonomy. Government is an overwhelming

threat to these perceptions.

Amateur long-distance psychoanalysis is insulting and arrogant, as well as likely to be quite wrong. If you want to know what Martin’s motives are, ask him, and if he thinks they are any of your business, he’ll tell you.

Martin rarely answers what I consider my most basic questions-- he has never answered my question about what he means by “freedom”, for example – so it’s hard to have a coherent discussion with him. I don’t think Shannon was doing psychoanalysis (aren’t you doing long distance psychoanalysis by guessing that she is). I’ll engage in a bit of psychoanalysis myself and guess that Shannon was probably controlling for seeing Martin’s answer to my question about how he feels about “power” in organizations other than government and was kind of “filling in” what she expected to hear in order to keep the ball rolling or to get Martin to correct her. So thank you, Shannon. I don’t think you were being insulting or arrogant. But I would like to hear what Martin has to say about why his concern about power seems to be focused only on the federal government?

Best

Rick

···

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