Bitcoin could bring about smaller governments - and that is a good thing

[marcus_of_augustus]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734206&download=yes

The most recent studies find a significant negative correlation: An increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5 to 1 percent lower annual growth rate.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844743534

Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson make a strong case that there is a robust negative correlation between government size and economic growth. They base that conclusion on a review of econometric literature using panel data for high-income countries.

..... elementary economic reasoning that tells us that economic costs of taxation rise approximately in proportion to the square of the tax rate provides a more powerful case against big government than the results of cross-country econometric studies.

.... The chapter of the book I enjoyed most is the one discussing the effects of high taxation on the choice between income-earning activities and non-income-earning activities. Economists usually view this as a choice between work and leisure and some even argue that high tax rates are likely to make people happier by inducing them to enjoy more leisure with family and friends rather than working. In the real world, however, when people are not earning income much of their time is spent on unpaid household chores. I doubt whether people obtain much more pleasure from housework and weeding the garden than from working for pay.

Seems like a solid empirical case is now being built for smaller governments ... long past time, imho.

[1714182636]

1714182636

[1714182636]

1714182636

[Carlton Banks]

I would like to see not just reduced government influence, but governments that cover smaller jurisdictions. I'd like to be able to know all my fellow citizens personally, or at least know them to say hello. That would be a very convincing way of producing societies where people really do behave responsibly and accountably. People need to be able to look their peers in the eyes, to know that everyone is truly depending on everyone else.

So, not just "smaller" in terms of influence, but smaller in the number of people they influence too. Almost every country in the world is vastly bloated when looked at this way.

[lepko]

Well that's what they did in appearance in 1913 to fool the people : instead of one single central bank they created a FEDERAL reserve bank with twelve banks to make people believe it would be better whereas there was one bank who leads : the bank of New York (aka Rockefeller).

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin could destroy the government, and with it the citizenship, the church, the debt and the economy, which was state- and debt-based from the beginning and growing rampant until today, until the end. Stateless communities do not grow economically. That would be a good thing! The destruction of the evil, and not only a reduction. That should be the ambition of real libertarism. A rebirth of the homo sapiens, who had been replaced by the homo oeconomicus theocraticus collectivisticus extincticus idioticus about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence. As soon as the self-sufficient, blood-related communities are back and the homo oeconomicus theocraticus collectivisticus extincticus idioticus disappears, Bitcoin will be obsolete and the planet is saved from the sixth great extinction that is unfolding with exponentially increasing speed.

[bitcoin carpenter]

I would like to see not just reduced government influence, but governments that cover smaller jurisdictions. I'd like to be able to know all my fellow citizens personally, or at least know them to say hello. That would be a very convincing way of producing societies where people really do behave responsibly and accountably. People need to be able to look their peers in the eyes, to know that everyone is truly depending on everyone else.

So, not just "smaller" in terms of influence, but smaller in the number of people they influence too. Almost every country in the world is vastly bloated when looked at this way.

+1

[marcus_of_augustus]

... it's always good to get the long-term, really extreme views as they de-radicalise, the lesser, but none-the-less currently 'fringe' views ... some needed perspective 

[og kush420]

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

[Carlton Banks]

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

Agreed. We need an entire cultural shift to back out of this corner, we cannot support resource or service monopolists and have any hope of it turning out well.

[justusranvier]

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

Nonsense.

Where do you think corporations get their limited liability, charters, and special privileges from? The Incorporation Fairy?

[Carlton Banks]

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

Nonsense.

Where do you think corporations get their limited liability, charters, and special privileges from? The Incorporation Fairy?

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

[justusranvier]

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

No, there is no line. There never was a line.

Corporations are creations of and effectively subsidiaries of government.

Saying that "when government power goes down, corporate power goes up" is nonsense, because corporations only exist because of government power. Without government there would be no corporations.

You've fallen into a common trap where the government fills the role of "good cop" and the corporations fill the role of "bad cop". The difference between them is a figment of your imagination.

[marcus_of_augustus]

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

Did you read the OP and the referenced paper?

Smaller governments are better for more economic growth ... or do you have some kind of problem with economic growth that you didn't spell out clearly?

[Carlton Banks]

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

No, there is no line. There never was a line.

Corporations are creations of and effectively subsidiaries of government.

Saying that "when government power goes down, corporate power goes up" is nonsense, because corporations only exist because of government power. Without government there would be no corporations.

You've fallen into a common trap where the government fills the role of "good cop" and the corporations fill the role of "bad cop". The difference between them is a figment of your imagination.

It sounds rather like you're arguing against my argument with.... my own argument? You're filling in more details, but it's still the same basic proposition: government and corporations are difficult to separate. Unless you're saying they're exactly the same organisation, which is not true, at least in presentational terms.

[TiagoTiago]

Government is just the most powerful corporation in the territory.

[Zarathustra]

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

No, there is no line. There never was a line.

Corporations are creations of and effectively subsidiaries of government.

Saying that "when government power goes down, corporate power goes up" is nonsense, because corporations only exist because of government power. Without government there would be no corporations.

Exactly. No state - no economy. Beyond the state, nobody needs an economy. Living beyond the state is living in self-sufficiency.

[Carlton Banks]

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

No, there is no line. There never was a line.

Corporations are creations of and effectively subsidiaries of government.

Saying that "when government power goes down, corporate power goes up" is nonsense, because corporations only exist because of government power. Without government there would be no corporations.

Exactly. No state - no economy. Beyond the state, nobody needs an economy. Living beyond the state is living in self-sufficiency.

Living in self-sufficiency is an economy. Economy has a broader definition than people assume, it's not just a state imposed value system, it's literally a resource management model. You'll need one of those to be self sufficient, or at least to do so effectively.

[J603]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734206&download=yes

The most recent studies find a significant negative correlation: An increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5 to 1 percent lower annual growth rate.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844743534

Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson make a strong case that there is a robust negative correlation between government size and economic growth. They base that conclusion on a review of econometric literature using panel data for high-income countries.

..... elementary economic reasoning that tells us that economic costs of taxation rise approximately in proportion to the square of the tax rate provides a more powerful case against big government than the results of cross-country econometric studies.

.... The chapter of the book I enjoyed most is the one discussing the effects of high taxation on the choice between income-earning activities and non-income-earning activities. Economists usually view this as a choice between work and leisure and some even argue that high tax rates are likely to make people happier by inducing them to enjoy more leisure with family and friends rather than working. In the real world, however, when people are not earning income much of their time is spent on unpaid household chores. I doubt whether people obtain much more pleasure from housework and weeding the garden than from working for pay.

Seems like a solid empirical case is now being built for smaller governments ... long past time, imho.

A recent study by J603 shows that China has one of the fastest growing economies and an authoritarian government.

another study by the same individual shows that Somalia, which has no central government, is growing slower than Haiti, which was destroyed recently.

Let's look at the top 25 (CIA World Factbook) and list their type of government. I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct? Because obviously the bigger the country, the more people in government, so it would be pointless to measure physical size.

Red countries are not fully democratic (they may vote but there might be restrictions). Green are.

Libya - Parliamentary Republic (although not everyone is allowed to run)
104.50
   
Sierra Leone - Democratic Republic    
19.80
   
Mongolia - Democratic Republic   
12.30
   
Niger - Democratic Republic (but the president was ousted in a 2010 coup and is still a prisoner)
11.20
   
Turks and Caicos Islands - Not a country   (owned by UK)
11.20
   
Turkmenistan - Dictatorship   
11.00
   
Panama - Democratic Republic   
10.70
   
Afghanistan - Islamic Republic (occupied by the US and others)   
10.20
   
Macau - Not a country (owned by PR China).   
10.00
   
Timor-Leste - Democratic Republic
10.00
   
Cote d'Ivoire - Democratic Republic (in the midst of civil war, many war crimes committed)   
9.80
   
Bhutan - Constitutional Monarchy
9.70
   
Papua New Guinea - Parliamentary Democracy
9.10
   
Iraq - Islamic Republic
8.40
   
Angola - Republic (President has absolute power)
8.40
   
Liberia - Democratic Republic (not purely democratic)   
8.30
   
Laos - Single Party Socialist Republic   
8.30
   
Uzbekistan - Presidential Republic (crack down on opposition)
8.20
   
Burkina Faso - Presidential Republic   
8.00
   
China - Single Party Socialist Republic
7.80
   
Rwanda - Presidential Republic   
7.70
   
Tajikistan - Presidential Republic
7.50
   
Mozambique - Democratic Republic
7.50
   
Zambia - Democratic Republic
7.30
   
Armenia - Democratic Republic (government controls media and discriminates against minorities)
7.20

It would appear as though the strength and power of government has nothing to do with growth.

[Operatr]

Bitcoin would remove the control of money from government, which in a world where they can't simply just print more money whenever they please. In a deflationary economy a government would have to be fiscally responsible and transparent. With Bitcoin the people have direct control on whether their government gets funding or not for its initiatives. I hope it leads to governments taking a crowdfunding approach. Since the practicality of taxing a Bitcoin infrastructure would be futile since there is no direct way to track transactions, this may be the only way a government gets funding in the not too distant future.

In a way Bitcoin is also the voting system of the future this this kind of fundamental change occurs. A government would actually then need full support of the public to fund its goals. I don't think there would be war in this world if they had to be crowdsourced.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct?

Wrong. It is necessarily based on an objective quantitative measure (you might be unfamiliar with such concepts if you are a touchy0felly type of analyst), percentage of GDP.

The "chinese miracle" you are getting all excited about many holes in it when put under the microscope, not the least of which is that the govt. is the only entity producing economic numbers ... and happens only in pockets of there economy (foreign corporate factories) where the authoritarian govt intentionally gets out of the way and allows the free market to work (usually through kickbacks and working around the central govt laws rather inside them).

[Zarathustra]

I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct?

Wrong. It is necessarily based on an objective quantitative measure (you might be unfamiliar with such concepts if you are a touchy0felly type of analyst), percentage of GDP.

The "chinese miracle" you are getting all excited about many holes in it when put under the microscope, not the least of which is that the govt. is the only entity producing economic numbers ... and happens only in pockets of there economy (foreign corporate factories) where the authoritarian govt intentionally gets out of the way and allows the free market to work (usually through kickbacks and working around the central govt laws rather inside them).

Within a stateless environment (communities in the rainforest, arctic tundra etc.), there is zero GDP Growth.
No state - no growth, but self-sufficiency.