Economic calculation problem - how serious is it?

[keenir]

Hmm...what did you think of the Classical Athenian solution? (that of saying "if you can afford X, you pay your taxes - or you bring in someone richer than you, and you have them pay the taxes")

so far as I can see (yes, big qualifier there *g* ), that would encourage the wealthy to be more against other wealthy, than against the poorer people. but would it work nowadays?

So far as I can understand, the idea was that you could refuse to pay only on the grounds that someone richer wasn't paying.

But you seem to be envisioning some form of vigilantism. This would be kind of hilarious, but in any conworlding exercise you have to think about second-order effects. If the rich could be kidnapped and held for legal ransom,

O.O oh no no no, I didn't mean kidnapping or ransom or vigilantes, sorry.

I'll put it in an example: if I were wealthy enough to be able to buy & own - or to build and then own - a warship (maybe an aircraft carrier these days, i think I'd opt for one of those)...the IRS would say "okay, you can afford that, so we're going to ask you to pay your taxes this year."

I can either pay my taxes...

...or I can say "Wait, Malloc has even more money than I do. If I can convince Malloc to pay taxes this year, then I don't have to pay taxes this year."

(I think there was another option, in which I and Malloc agree to exchange with each other how much wealth each of us has...but I forget how that fit into things; sorry)

I need to re-find that original video; pretty sure it was by Blue over at OSP.

[Raphael]

O.O oh no no no, I didn't mean kidnapping or ransom or vigilantes, sorry.

I'll put it in an example: if I were wealthy enough to be able to buy & own - or to build and then own - a warship (maybe an aircraft carrier these days, i think I'd opt for one of those)...the IRS would say "okay, you can afford that, so we're going to ask you to pay your taxes this year."

I can either pay my taxes...

...or I can say "Wait, Malloc has even more money than I do. If I can convince Malloc to pay taxes this year, then I don't have to pay taxes this year."

(I think there was another option, in which I and Malloc agree to exchange with each other how much wealth each of us has...but I forget how that fit into things; sorry)

I need to re-find that original video; pretty sure it was by Blue over at OSP.

All fine and nice, but I'd still prefer simply confiscating everything above a hard upper cap. KISS. Yes, people would try to hide their fortune, but like with laws against murder, the point wouldn't be to completely end the banned thing, but just to make it a lot less prevalent.

[rotting bones]

Hmm...what did you think of the Classical Athenian solution? (that of saying "if you can afford X, you pay your taxes - or you bring in someone richer than you, and you have them pay the taxes")

so far as I can see (yes, big qualifier there *g* ), that would encourage the wealthy to be more against other wealthy, than against the poorer people. but would it work nowadays?

I'm not sure this idea scales above a small city state. Won't the capitalists who are best that hiding their own wealth while exposing that of others be pulling all the strings? We'll be seeing an explosion in corporate espionage. Ivy League grads would be roped in to work on expanding the theory of shell corporations beyond anything previously seen in history. The concept of wealth itself will float off into the ether, only to materialize when people least expect it.

[rotting bones]

I took Raphael as implying that Roosevelt made a mistake in letting the rich of his day keep the money they had left. He seemed to suggest that those same rich people started a plot to undermine Rooseveltian liberalism.

Now, that's possible, but I don't think it's what really happened. I gave some reasons above, including the direct actions taken by Reagan to remove the structures that supported Rooseveltian liberalism, and the increasing conservatism of high-paid factory workers. I'd also note that Mises & Hayek, huge influences on US conservatism, were not from the US.

I see. I was confused because proponents of systemic change aren't normally referring to individuals even while discussing them.

Or to put it even more abstractly: creating a social system that will work as planned for more than half a century is a very hard problem. The founders may have the necessary fire in their belly, but their great-grandkids, not so much.

In some sense, there is no system, only randomness. If we restrict ourselves to one corner of society, even bad ideas can be hard to dislodge.

About the best we can do is identify the failure points from the last attempt and reinforce the structure there.

The problem is that even though liberal democracy looks reasonable to the moderately wealthy, the poor don't agree with this assessment. Living under liberal democracy as it currently exists is so stressful that, at least at this point in history, most prefer to have nothing besides watching purveyors of 21st century common sense squirm rather than what the latter tell them they can reasonably have.

But you seem to be envisioning some form of vigilantism. This would be kind of hilarious, but in any conworlding exercise you have to think about second-order effects.

You said my proposal, which I thought was fairly reasonable, is conworlding too. Why is it that the left sees any change as conworlding when the right actually implemented their terrible idea of making bureaucrats fear every day they go to work? If harmful ideas can be implemented, we can try beneficial ideas too, no matter how much they diverge from the norm.

[malloc]

The problem is that even though liberal democracy looks reasonable to the moderately wealthy, the poor don't agree with this assessment. Living under liberal democracy as it currently exists is so stressful that, at least at this point in history, most prefer to have nothing besides watching purveyors of 21st century common sense squirm rather than what the latter tell them they can reasonably have.

Sure but how does a fascist dictatorship which categorically opposes anything that would help the poor represent an improvement over liberal democracy from the perspective of the poor? Is it simply a matter of spite, making the comfortable middle class hurt as much as them?

[rotting bones]

Sure but how does a fascist dictatorship which categorically opposes anything that would help the poor represent an improvement over liberal democracy from the perspective of the poor? Is it simply a matter of spite, making the comfortable middle class hurt as much as them?

Why not? They say they want to trigger the libs. I'm taking that at face value.

Why trigger the libs? They say they like the Joker film. I haven't watched that film, but based on what I've heard of it: They are stressed out by the fact that they don't seem to fit anywhere in society as it currently exists. They see attempts to benefit them incrementally as hypocritical attempts to snuff out their last embers of self-expression.

Hardcore Joker fans won't be into socialism. However, I'm not convinced that most people who are in this pit of despair can't be convinced to join a positive movement that tries big changes. Remember, Kamala Harris couldn't satisfactorily answer how her administration would be different from Biden's.

Of course, any movement that wants actual changes to the capitalist economic system would have difficulty finding donors.

[zompist]

The problem is that even though liberal democracy looks reasonable to the moderately wealthy, the poor don't agree with this assessment. Living under liberal democracy as it currently exists is so stressful that, at least at this point in history, most prefer to have nothing besides watching purveyors of 21st century common sense squirm rather than what the latter tell them they can reasonably have.

The past is a foreign country. You grew up in the plutocratic era, and believe me, I share your horror at plutocracy. But standard Marxist bromides just do not help in looking at Rooseveltian liberalism. It lowered the poverty rate from 40% to 10%. Every class got better off. In the 1937 elections, Roosevelt's Democrats got 77% of the seats in both House and Senate— which means the poor were voting for him. The marginal tax rate was 91% in the '50s, with the effect that managers were paid about 50 times their lowest workers' wages, instead of 300 to 500 times, as in the plutocratic era.

The big blotch on the record, the American original sin, is racism. The Democrats ultimately did the right thing and supported civil rights... which resulted in them losing their majority. Those rich conspirators couldn't have got anywhere without that switch.

But you seem to be envisioning some form of vigilantism. This would be kind of hilarious, but in any conworlding exercise you have to think about second-order effects.

You said my proposal, which I thought was fairly reasonable, is conworlding too. Why is it that the left sees any change as conworlding when the right actually implemented their terrible idea of making bureaucrats fear every day they go to work? If harmful ideas can be implemented, we can try beneficial ideas too, no matter how much they diverge from the norm.

The Republicans are conworlding too, only for evil purposes. They want libertarianism (another conworlding exercise) to eliminate the state power they don't care for, and totalitarianism to build up the state power they like. And tariffs in order to, I dunno, go back to the golden age of Hawley-Smoot. They're not very good conworlders: they make the noob mistake of assuming nothing will go wrong, and the world works the way they think it does. And they carefully avoid looking hard at how the world does work.

You can think about a better system— in case you haven't noticed, I do that too— but I recognize when I'm dreaming. It's easy to make up systems that work inside our own heads. A system that's been tried in the world will be more reasonable. I've talked a lot about worker-run businesses; I'm reassured that they've actually been tried on a large scale and seem to work fine. I fully expect the procedures would have to be modified if the idea was widely adopted.

[keenir]

But you seem to be envisioning some form of vigilantism. This would be kind of hilarious, but in any conworlding exercise you have to think about second-order effects.

You said my proposal, which I thought was fairly reasonable, is conworlding too. Why is it that the left sees any change as conworlding

would you prefer it be called "a thought experiment" or "an idle pondering" ?

[Ares Land]

I mean, suppose we tax the rich, get UBI or a reasonable equivalent, free education and welfare, decent trade unions, would that be enough and will people work the rest out by themselves? Or would it be valuable to aim for Project Cybersyn?

Repeating myself here, the problem with the first model is that it leaves a lot of rich people in place who both 1) have a strong motive to hate the economic and socioeconomic policies under which they live and 2) have the money to turn their hate into effective political action. That seems to have been what eventually destroyed the first model the first time we tried it.

It's not like I disagree with your idea of getting rid of oligarchs and not getting any again

But to offer an optimistic counterpoint, social-democracy is a lot more resilient than that, and it's not that easy to get rid of socially progressive measures.
Western Europe has free education, public healthcare and more generally an adequate welfare system. Even Thatcher couldn't get rid of the NHS. I don't really see a government managing to seriously damage these.
It's worth noting that Americans are similarly attached to Social Security, and despite Musk musing on the subject, I'm not sure they'll really dare touch it.

I really don't think the social democrat model has failed or that it's been destroyed.

The trouble with social democracy is that implementing reforms is horribly slow.
Part of it is the democratic process, which can't be helped, unless you're willing to go for violent revolution. Part of it is indeed due to rich people -- I've heart that called 'the money wall.' You can attack the money wall... the problem is attacking it is also slow.

The upside is that conservatives don't get to implement everything either, and what social democratic measures you can implement are here to stay.

Now there are two huge caveats to the above:

1. This mostly applies to Western countries, who are stable and sovereign. In other words, France, Germany or the US don't have to fear a Pinochet starting a coup with foreign backup. So this is a privileged perspective.
2. All of this is theoretical right now: as I mentioned a few times already, we have enough of a far right that most of public debate revolves around various forms of bigotry.

As for my second point, I can only agree with this:

The big blotch on the record, the American original sin, is racism. The Democrats ultimately did the right thing and supported civil rights... which resulted in them losing their majority. Those rich conspirators couldn't have got anywhere without that switch.

And that is true of most, if not all countries.
Isn't it the plutocrats' fault? Certainly -- but they couldn't have that kind of leverage if the racism wasn't already there.

[rotting bones]

I addressed all this.

The past is a foreign country. You grew up in the plutocratic era, and believe me, I share your horror at plutocracy. But standard Marxist bromides just do not help in looking at Rooseveltian liberalism. It lowered the poverty rate from 40% to 10%. Every class got better off. In the 1937 elections, Roosevelt's Democrats got 77% of the seats in both House and Senate— which means the poor were voting for him. The marginal tax rate was 91% in the '50s, with the effect that managers were paid about 50 times their lowest workers' wages, instead of 300 to 500 times, as in the plutocratic era.

20th century growth was the result of new discoveries, globalization, etc. Why are you betting that capitalism will keep growing by exploiting new markets? E.g. viewtopic.php?p=87926#p87926, etc. This is not a stable strategy.

And as you yourself said, the era of redistribution happened because the rich feared the Soviet Union. Today, large redistribution would just make them fly overseas.

The big blotch on the record, the American original sin, is racism. The Democrats ultimately did the right thing and supported civil rights... which resulted in them losing their majority. Those rich conspirators couldn't have got anywhere without that switch.

There are minority underclasses in all large countries. But that's not the cause of the economic anxiety that keeps stressed out people loyal to dictators.

Trump won the Latino male vote, some ultra-wealthy blacks like Ye are literally Hitler, etc. If America achieved racial equality, I would be equally likely to be exploited by white and black capitalists and landlords. This is of no consolation to me.

The Republicans are conworlding too, only for evil purposes. They want libertarianism (another conworlding exercise) to eliminate the state power they don't care for, and totalitarianism to build up the state power they like. And tariffs in order to, I dunno, go back to the golden age of Hawley-Smoot. They're not very good conworlders: they make the noob mistake of assuming nothing will go wrong, and the world works the way they think it does. And they carefully avoid looking hard at how the world does work.

Project 2025 is almost completely implemented, and it's insane. All I wanted was to create government jobs by something like a plebiscite to decrease the stress of finding a job. This might be the least ambitious proposal that has been suggested so far in the 21st century.

It feels like in the current intellectual climate, nothing is allowed if it's good and everything is allowed if it's evil.

You can think about a better system— in case you haven't noticed, I do that too— but I recognize when I'm dreaming. It's easy to make up systems that work inside our own heads. A system that's been tried in the world will be more reasonable. I've talked a lot about worker-run businesses; I'm reassured that they've actually been tried on a large scale and seem to work fine. I fully expect the procedures would have to be modified if the idea was widely adopted.

But they stop hiring employees after a point. Mondragon hired temp workers and exploited them instead. They have to do this to survive. It's the market mechanism that's at the root of the issue.

Meanwhile, there are people getting rich betting that economies will underperform from rising inequality, like in Gary Stevenson's book The Trading Game.

I feel like there's a disconnect between what the middle class thinks is happening in the world and what's actually happening out here. The fancy economists think that since liberal governments run a monetary system, if the government creates money, the poor are spending it. In reality, no one has any money to spend because the rich take it all and save it. There's a limit to how much money you can directly give the poor as long as there is work to be done. So why not just ask the people what work they want done and pay government employees to do the work?

[Ares Land]

There are minority underclasses in all large countries. But that's not the cause of the economic anxiety that keeps stressed out people loyal to dictators.

I've heard that explanation and I don't believe it at all.
Do you know any far-right voters? As it happens, I do. Let me stress this: they are not stressed out. Most of the time they're middle-class people with comfortable middle-class lifestyles.
It's just racism, misogyny and bigotry.

Project 2025 is almost completely implemented, and it's insane. All I wanted was to create government jobs by something like a plebiscite to decrease the stress of finding a job. This might be the least ambitious proposal that has been suggested so far in the 21st century.

What I don't understand is why you seem to reject, like, any other proposal but creating jobs by plebiscite? We can actually do several things, and multiple approaches is likely to be best.
Besides, I mean, the only proposal you seem to agree with is something that approximately zero political party is suggesting now. I do believe you found the shortest way to immediate political disappointment!

What you will find - though not in the US - is people arguing for more government jobs.
Moreover I don't see why there shouldn't be co-ops, government jobs, and a market economy and other options besides. First, introducing more options will be way easier than nationalizing and redistributing all companies. Second, this will actually allow us to have real world data on what works and what doesn't.

I feel like there's a disconnect between what the middle class thinks is happening in the world and what's actually happening out here. The fancy economists think that since liberal governments run a monetary system, if the government creates money, the poor are spending it. In reality, no one has any money to spend because the rich take it all and save it. There's a limit to how much money you can directly give the poor as long as there is work to be done. So why not just ask the people what work they want done and pay government employees to do the work?

I don't know what economists you read. The one I read are indeed aware of all that. I suspect you may be building a strawman.

As to why it doesn't happen... Like I said, getting anything even vaguely left-wing done is a chore. I wish there was a shortcut, but the only one I'm aware of is revolution, which doesn't have a great track record. And getting back to my first point, the racism is a major obstacle. We currently have to debate whether illegal immigrants eat dogs and cats, so talking economics in that climate takes major dedication.

[rotting bones]

I've heard that explanation and I don't believe it at all.
Do you know any far-right voters? As it happens, I do. Let me stress this: they are not stressed out. Most of the time they're middle-class people with comfortable middle-class lifestyles.
It's just racism, misogyny and bigotry.

But people do vote for the far right for the price of eggs. Americans think Republicans are better for the economy. They voted for Trump because inflation had made goods too expensive.

What I don't understand is why you seem to reject, like, any other proposal but creating jobs by plebiscite? We can actually do several things, and multiple approaches is likely to be best.
Besides, I mean, the only proposal you seem to agree with is something that approximately zero political party is suggesting now. I do believe you found the shortest way to immediate political disappointment!

Because it's the strategy that actually solves the problem. I feel like I'm in check and everyone is telling me to dance a jig for the moon god to get out of it.

What you will find - though not in the US - is people arguing for more government jobs.
Moreover I don't see why there shouldn't be co-ops, government jobs, and a market economy and other options besides. First, introducing more options will be way easier than nationalizing and redistributing all companies. Second, this will actually allow us to have real world data on what works and what doesn't.

That's what I have been saying I want for years. At one point, I posted a list like this and people still didn't get it.

I don't know what economists you read. The one I read are indeed aware of all that. I suspect you may be building a strawman.

I'm repeating what economists say about economics as a discipline: It's not a part of the mainstream economic models (Econ 101). It became a part of serious academic focus after ~2016.

Sophisticated blogs like Astral Codex Ten are still talking about Econ 101! See his recent post about why he doesn't believe in conflict theory. Edit: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-i- ... t-theorist

As to why it doesn't happen... Like I said, getting anything even vaguely left-wing done is a chore. I wish there was a shortcut, but the only one I'm aware of is revolution, which doesn't have a great track record.

No, it's very easy. You just have to do it like the Republicans did Project 2025.

And getting back to my first point, the racism is a major obstacle. We currently have to debate whether illegal immigrants eat dogs and cats, so talking economics in that climate takes major dedication.

Stop caring. Solemnly swear in the name of the devil you will give them a cat for their birthday and eat it in front of them while looking them in the eye. Rename your party to the Cat Eaters.

Edit: Evidence that none of it matters: https://youtu.be/FjGTldvIAK8?si=5CGdFqeN_wVxeCR2

[zompist]

I addressed all this.

The past is a foreign country. You grew up in the plutocratic era, and believe me, I share your horror at plutocracy. But standard Marxist bromides just do not help in looking at Rooseveltian liberalism. It lowered the poverty rate from 40% to 10%. Every class got better off. In the 1937 elections, Roosevelt's Democrats got 77% of the seats in both House and Senate— which means the poor were voting for him. The marginal tax rate was 91% in the '50s, with the effect that managers were paid about 50 times their lowest workers' wages, instead of 300 to 500 times, as in the plutocratic era.

20th century growth was the result of new discoveries, globalization, etc. Why are you betting that capitalism will keep growing by exploiting new markets? E.g. viewtopic.php?p=87926#p87926, etc. This is not a stable strategy.

Once again you want to respond to a made-up plutocrat in your head. It takes time to write these replies that you refuse to read. Why should I bother?

[Raphael]

Meanwhile, I'm wondering if one of my posts here might have been a bit overlooked because it is the last one on a page and the discussion quickly moved on to the next page:

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?t=1594&start=20

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=92913#p92913

[rotting bones]

Once again you want to respond to a made-up plutocrat in your head. It takes time to write these replies that you refuse to read. Why should I bother?

If it's irrelevant, I don't see how. I'm saying the dynamism of 20th century liberalism was caused partly by the introduction of inefficiency from new markets. As long as you have new sources of inefficiency, you can give every class enough of what it wants (with some additional motivation like the Red Scare). When capitalists struggle to find new inefficiency, class struggle heats up like it's doing now.

(Of course, there are always winners and losers under capitalism.)

[zompist]

Meanwhile, I'm wondering if one of my posts here might have been a bit overlooked because it is the last one on a page and the discussion quickly moved on to the next page:

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?t=1594&start=20

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=92913#p92913

Though it wasn't directly addressed to you, one of my points to rotting bones would be my main reply:

The big blotch on the record, the American original sin, is racism. The Democrats ultimately did the right thing and supported civil rights... which resulted in them losing their majority. Those rich conspirators couldn't have got anywhere without that switch.

I don't contest the idea that some rich men held a grudge against Roosevelt and bankrolled conservatism. But for fifty years, it didn't work. A number of things came together to produce Reagan.

I'd also note that the big names in midcentury conservatism tended to be wealthy, but hardly tycoons. They might be millionaires, but not billionaires. I don't think that's coincidence: the wildly successful tycoon generally likes things just as they are. It's the second-tier semi-rich guy you have to watch out for.

[zompist]

Once again you want to respond to a made-up plutocrat in your head. It takes time to write these replies that you refuse to read. Why should I bother?

If it's irrelevant, I don't see how. I'm saying the dynamism of 20th century liberalism was caused partly by the introduction of inefficiency from new markets. As long as you have new sources of inefficiency, you can give every class enough of what it wants (with some additional motivation like the Red Scare). When capitalists struggle to find new inefficiency, class struggle heats up like it's doing now.

What's offensive is that you take statements about the past, about a system we no longer have, and somehow conclude that I'm "betting on capitalism." I already told you I detest plutocracy, and I've been consistent on that for my thirty years on the net. You just seem to want to argue with someone who's not here.

[rotting bones]

What's offensive is that you take statements about the past, about a system we no longer have, and somehow conclude that I'm "betting on capitalism." I already told you I detest plutocracy, and I've been consistent on that for my thirty years on the net. You just seem to want to argue with someone who's not here.

Uh, capitalism is not a pejorative. Rooseveltian liberalism was liberal capitalism, which is what you seem to want to go back to. Personally, I'm not rooting for any system from the past.

You'll know when I'm trying to insult you. My sense of humor is very dorky.

PS. Just to be clear, by "capitalism", I mean organizing production on the basis of monetary profit.

[zompist]

What's offensive is that you take statements about the past, about a system we no longer have, and somehow conclude that I'm "betting on capitalism." I already told you I detest plutocracy, and I've been consistent on that for my thirty years on the net. You just seem to want to argue with someone who's not here.

Uh, capitalism is not a pejorative. Rooseveltian liberalism was liberal capitalism, which is what you seem to want to go back to. Personally, I'm not rooting for any system from the past.

How big do I have to write things before you read them?

Describing the past is not advocating for its return.


I could say more about what we could learn from the past and what we should reject, but again, why bother when all you want to do is argue with capitalists who aren't here.

[rotting bones]

I could say more about what we could learn from the past and what we should reject, but again, why bother when all you want to do is argue with capitalists who aren't here.

Honestly, this is mystifying. By "capitalism", I mean organizing production on the basis of monetary profit. You don't want any production to be organized on the basis of monetary profit or something? Capitalism is an economic system, not an insult. If you look at my big posts, you will find me saying that I want capitalist activity in the economy too:

I'm not against all capitalism either. I bear no ill will towards whatever markets survive the democratization of the economy, though having them be associated with the state sounds like a bad idea to me.

I want there to be an economic equilibrium between production based on monetary profit and popular acclamation.