A Resource Based Economy

[grondilu]

You were talking about "the entire economy of the world".   This was a grotesque oversimplification.

People produce. Production is rewarded. Most of that production is rewarded in the form of money. Money power is universally stolen from producers. Is the world economy not about production and consumption? Is there something I'm missing when people who manipulate numbers on wall street to make millions of dollars are doing something far more productive than someone building cars or serving food? Why is it that when these "money producers" (as opposed to "product/service producers") do their job extremely well, the economy falls into a massive recession? Why do governments seem to be constantly flabbergasted as to how this happens? And why do they think that the only solution is to "produce more money"?

Are you sure that it is really a grotesque simplification?

I don't care much about the things you're talking about.  Before bitcoin I owned gold.  So I was not much concerned about inflation, for instance.  Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's extremely biased to think Wall Street activity is representative of "the whole world economy".

I would not be surprised if the drug market in whole world represent much more money than WallStreet, for instance.  So your picture of an evil government-controlled economy does not fit well in my idea of what economy is.

Say the government steals 10% of each economic transaction in the world.  Well, that's 10% of the whole economy.  That's bad, sure, but that's not the entire economy of the world  (SIC).

Oh how cute you're calling the fairness of the power of money and production communism.

It's amazing how few people can see the forest for the trees when they think they're in the position to be the ones to benefit from a favorable type of money.

I think you seem weirdly totally obsessed with monetary subjects.  Seems that starvation is not your only fixed idea.

Gold exists.  And now Bitcoin exists as well.  So stop complaining.

[1715099488]

1715099488

[Etlase2]

And nearly every part of it is funny.  If the poor were worth stealing from, they wouldn't be poor.  What I usually see is the government stealing from anyone they can steal from, and bribing the poor to not wreck up the place.  Generally speaking, the rich have the means to protect themselves from this theft, while the middle class does not.

The food thing is only a mystery if you assume that everyone's time is valueless.

Ahh so it's all about the government for you; the fact that the rich and powerful and the government are intertwined has no meaning for you then? Or do you just shrug it off as "lol they can protect themselves by buying politicians to do favorable things for them"? Is it not the underclassmen that support the rich? Otherwise why do recessions even happen? Money doesn't just disappear.

Is the business cycle just a necessary consequence of capitalism? Blame it on credit, sure, but isn't it the people who produced all of these things which credit can buy? Is society really advancing when we are all mortgaging our lives away to the powerful? Does this really help anyone? How quickly would the collapse of western society happen if the countries we take advantage of for cheap labor were to suddenly resist?

I don't care much about the things you're talking about.  Before bitcoin I owned gold.  So I was not much concerned about inflation, for instance.  Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's extremely biased to think Wall Street activity is representative of "the whole world economy".

Are you so dense as to believe that it does not affect the whole world economy?

I would not be surprised if the drug market in whole world represent much more money than WallStreet, for instance.  So your picture of an evil government-controlled economy does not fit well in my idea of what economy is.

The Wall Street derivatives market is almost 400X the GDP of the US.

Say the government steals 10% of each economic transaction in the world.  Well, that's 10% of the whole economy.  That's bad, sure, but that's not the fucking whole worldwide economy.

You are an idiot.

[kjj]

And nearly every part of it is funny.  If the poor were worth stealing from, they wouldn't be poor.  What I usually see is the government stealing from anyone they can steal from, and bribing the poor to not wreck up the place.  Generally speaking, the rich have the means to protect themselves from this theft, while the middle class does not.

The food thing is only a mystery if you assume that everyone's time is valueless.

Ahh so it's all about the government for you; the fact that the rich and powerful and the government are intertwined has no meaning for you then? Or do you just shrug it off as "lol they can protect themselves by buying politicians to do favorable things for them"? Is it not the underclassmen that support the rich? Otherwise why do recessions even happen? Money doesn't just disappear.

Is the business cycle just a necessary consequence of capitalism? Blame it on credit, sure, but isn't it the people who produced all of these things which credit can buy? Is society really advancing when we are all mortgaging our lives away to the powerful? Does this really help anyone? How quickly would the collapse of western society happen if the countries we take advantage of for cheap labor were to suddenly resist?

You replied to my post, but I feel like I jumped into the middle of a completely different conversation.

There are many ways that the rich can avoid looters, being politically active is only one of them.  But yeah, in general I see government as the problem.  And by "government", I don't mean "government", I mean "you and me".

I'm not sure that I want to let you draw me into a discussion of the business cycle.  Parts of it seem natural, and parts seem artificial.  Without honest money on a global scale, it is hard to be sure about any of it.

I will say that cheap labor benefits from us, just like we do from them.  Division of labor, theory of trade, key concepts from economics 101.

[grondilu]

Are you so dense as to believe that it does not affect the whole world economy?

First you say that "the entire economy of the world is based around stealing from the poor", and now you say it affects the whole world economy.  Please clarify, because to me, this is not the same thing at all.

To me it seems that what you wanted to say is that there is a minority class whose economic activity is based on stealing from the poor in the whole world.    There is some truth in that.  This minority takes a bit from a lot of people.

But what you actually wrote was kind of reversed:  you said that the entire world economy is based on stealing from the poor.  This is silly.

The Wall Street derivatives market is almost 400X the GDP of the US.

I was comparing to the worldwide drug market.  And those derivatives are, by definition, based on other financial instruments, which can very well be "real" economic assets, with real economic activities behind, with real workers and production and so on.  So I'm not sure it makes your point.  It's probably quite a complicated subject anyway.

[Etlase2]

You replied to my post, but I feel like I jumped into the middle of a completely different conversation.

Because through your ignorance you think that the sides are actually reversed and things like welfare cloud this massive disconnect. Or, at least, that's the best I can gather from LOL.

There are many ways that the rich can avoid looters, being politically active is only one of them.  But yeah, in general I see government as the problem.  And by "government", I don't mean "government", I mean "you and me".

Political activism does not write laws, money writes laws. Political activism very, very rarely gets politicians elected; money gets politicians elected. "You and me" are a big part of the problem because most of "you and me" are completely uneducated as to what the problem is. So a "LOL" comment when I point out an incredible and simple societal disconnect in the "wealthiest country in the world" leads me to believe that you are totally cool with being uneducated as to what the problems with society are. I am not saying that the food that should be thrown out should be given away for free, I am saying that the fact that such a stupid side-effect of this economy exists means there is something wrong with the system. 99% of the 99% of OWS didn't even know what the fuck the problem is, just that there is a problem.

I'm not sure that I want to let you draw me into a discussion of the business cycle.  Parts of it seem natural, and parts seem artificial.  Without honest money on a global scale, it is hard to be sure about any of it.

What is natural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces?

I will say that cheap labor benefits from us, just like we do from them.  Division of labor, theory of trade, key concepts from economics 101.

The question was not who benefits, the question was how long would the collapse take when they decide to stop being the bitches of western society? They are going to eventually wake up and realize that producing money does not produce wealth, but producing money is the majority of what western society does. It is not a sustainable enterprise when there are no more people to walk over.

[grondilu]

They are going to eventually wake up and realize that producing money does not produce wealth, but producing money is the majority of what western society does.

This is true, but off topic.

[kjj]

You replied to my post, but I feel like I jumped into the middle of a completely different conversation.

Because through your ignorance you think that the sides are actually reversed and things like welfare cloud this massive disconnect. Or, at least, that's the best I can gather from LOL.

There are many ways that the rich can avoid looters, being politically active is only one of them.  But yeah, in general I see government as the problem.  And by "government", I don't mean "government", I mean "you and me".

Political activism does not write laws, money writes laws. Political activism very, very rarely gets politicians elected; money gets politicians elected. "You and me" are a big part of the problem because most of "you and me" are completely uneducated as to what the problem is. So a "LOL" comment when I point out an incredible and simple societal disconnect in the "wealthiest country in the world" leads me to believe that you are totally cool with being uneducated as to what the problems with society are. I am not saying that the food that should be thrown out should be given away for free, I am saying that the fact that such a stupid side-effect of this economy exists means there is something wrong with the system. 99% of the 99% of OWS didn't even know what the fuck the problem is, just that there is a problem.

I'm not sure that I want to let you draw me into a discussion of the business cycle.  Parts of it seem natural, and parts seem artificial.  Without honest money on a global scale, it is hard to be sure about any of it.

What is natural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces?

I will say that cheap labor benefits from us, just like we do from them.  Division of labor, theory of trade, key concepts from economics 101.

The question was not who benefits, the question was how long would the collapse take when they decide to stop being the bitches of western society? They are going to eventually wake up and realize that producing money does not produce wealth, but producing money is the majority of what western society does. It is not a sustainable enterprise when there are no more people to walk over.

Ignorant?  Are you sure you know what that word means?  I'll give you a hint, it does not mean "disagrees with me".  I kinda suspect that I can guess like 75% of your "side", or more, but I disagree with most of it.  Also, a thing does not qualify as "problems with society" or "something wrong with the system" just because you say so.

What is unnatural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces?  Try this on.  If merely producing something is as valuable as the product produced, wouldn't it make more sense to produce something else instead?  Something that is worth more than the value of the effort that went into production maybe?  Isn't that the whole point of production?

They would be back in the stone age by Friday, I suspect.  We'd be fine.  Ask yourself why they are in such fierce competition to be our "bitches".

P.S.  Study Chomsky.  He is much better at making this sort of nonsense sound good.

[Luno]

 to Etlase2: I was responding to earlier in this fast rolling thread about different society models.

You can only claim a stacked deck, if the game has rules! If laws against financial crimes and corruption are part of that rulebook you also have a wish for fairness. What is cheating? Can you in earnest claim that your scale of fairness would not shift if your "situation" was different? The 95% in Wall Street are the card stacking 20% of the western world to protest, if the Occupy movement takes off in the 3'rd world.

note: Hungry African boy with billboard: "Regulate Guy Fawkes now!".

A Society is the sum of the more or less free wills. The inertia of society is hard to influence, also for governments, global corporations or the Illuminati, take your pick.

The important point to teach yourself is not to give in to peer pressure because of your urge to feel part of a group or society. (Just had a talk earlier today about that with my oldest daughter). Whenever I feel discredited by the state, ex wife or my bank. I walk outside at night and stare at the stars and remind myself that this is the ultimate reality I'm living in. My preconception of being controlled by others or a group, is only an evolutionary programmed illusion from the forests, and in reality, I can choose to feel just as free as I choose to feel. Of cause, when I get back inside, The phone might confront me with the lesser kind of reality, but I know that all the abusive relations I engage in, are a result of a consenting compromise on my behalf from which I also benefit. I simply have to view society in general the same way. If you forget that your chain has no lock and only respond to external demands and expect your masters to be just and reward you if you do what they demand , you are truly a slave of your own mind. I don't say that mass manipulation doesn't exist and our genetics are not exploited by the fewer, but you are not being controlled by anybody, you might have been led to believe that you are, but you are not.

[Etlase2]

What is unnatural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces?  Try this on.  If merely producing something is as valuable as the product produced, wouldn't it make more sense to produce something else instead?  Something that is worth more than the value of the effort that went into production maybe?  Isn't that the whole point of production?

Did you forget about the value of trade? Economics 101. Trade costs little to nothing yet it increases the wealth of both parties to it.

They would be back in the stone age by Friday, I suspect.  We'd be fine.  Ask yourself why they are in such fierce competition to be our "bitches".

Oh hey look the condescension of billions of people. Not at all unlike the mentality of Wall Street.

What is the result, in your opinion, of "sound money"? Is it beneficial to society? If so, what benefits will society reap? Will wealth be distributed more equally? Will government have less power? What is the result that you clamor for yet scoff at when I mention the inefficiency of society? I am intensely curious.

[kjj]

What is unnatural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces?  Try this on.  If merely producing something is as valuable as the product produced, wouldn't it make more sense to produce something else instead?  Something that is worth more than the value of the effort that went into production maybe?  Isn't that the whole point of production?

Did you forget about the value of trade? Economics 101. Trade costs little to nothing yet it increases the wealth of both parties to it.

The only point you've made here is mine.  You produce something that is not directly valuable to you, and then you trade it to someone else to whom it is more valuable than anything else you could have made, and in return they give you something that is more valuable to you than the effort you put into producing that thing for them.

They would be back in the stone age by Friday, I suspect.  We'd be fine.  Ask yourself why they are in such fierce competition to be our "bitches".

Oh hey look the condescension of billions of people. Not at all unlike the mentality of Wall Street.

What is the result, in your opinion, of "sound money"? Is it beneficial to society? If so, what benefits will society reap? Will wealth be distributed more equally? Will government have less power? What is the result that you clamor for yet scoff at when I mention the inefficiency of society? I am intensely curious.

Are you saying that insufficient capital investment is a moral issue?  That pointing it out is the same as calling them inferior people?

Yes, I say that sound money is beneficial.  The primary benefit is de-funding governments by making taxes explicit.  I don't really give a fuck about the distribution of wealth, and find the notion of equality in such a thing nonsensical.

[sunnankar]

Yes, I say that sound money is beneficial.  The primary benefit is de-funding governments by making taxes explicit.

As Mises wrote:

It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights.

Additional articulation is that sound money protects against confiscation through inflation which is a form of taxation without representation.

Or as Alan Greenspan wrote in 1966:

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

[Etlase2]

The only point you've made here is mine.  You produce something that is not directly valuable to you, and then you trade it to someone else to whom it is more valuable than anything else you could have made, and in return they give you something that is more valuable to you than the effort you put into producing that thing for them.

What does this have to do with the business cycle then? Everybody up and down the line of production just has a mass bout of stupidity every now and then? This is just a natural side effect of capitalism?

Are you saying that insufficient capital investment is a moral issue?  That pointing it out is the same as calling them inferior people?

LOL here you go defending the production of money. You claimed they'd be "back in the stone age by Friday" without western investment. Do you not realize how condescending that is? Would Americans be "back in the stone age" without Wall Street?

The primary benefit is de-funding governments by making taxes explicit.

And what does making taxes explicit do other than raise the number of complaints about taxation? What does this solve? What would you like it to solve? Making taxes explicit is not some recipe for reduced taxation, after all.

I don't really give a fuck about the distribution of wealth, and find the notion of equality in such a thing nonsensical.

Obviously. I'm quite sure the lords and landowners of feudalism had no problem with it either. Note that I said "distributed more equally" not "distributed equally". Do you get the difference? You know that that "distribution" does not mean "taxing and handing out equally", right? Why don't you give a fuck about the distribution of wealth? You are perfectly content with the situation of the homeless and those that live in poverty? It's their fault, right? It's totally sane that 93% of the new income in the economy in 2009-2010 went to the top 1%, right? Even though a significant portion of those people were heavily involved in the massive economic collapse? All you care about is explicit taxes, after all.

[memvola]

You were talking about "the entire economy of the world".   This was a grotesque oversimplification.

People produce. Production is rewarded. Most of that production is rewarded in the form of money. Money power is universally stolen from producers. Is the world economy not about production and consumption? Is there something I'm missing when people who manipulate numbers on wall street to make millions of dollars are doing something far more productive than someone building cars or serving food? Why is it that when these "money producers" (as opposed to "product/service producers") do their job extremely well, the economy falls into a massive recession? Why do governments seem to be constantly flabbergasted as to how this happens? And why do they think that the only solution is to "produce more money"?

Are you sure that it is really a grotesque simplification?

Yup. You have some good points, but you need to tone it down. Even Marx (at times) said the Capitalist is in an unenviable position in our system (probably he was wrong about this too, though). Also, as grondilu said, what you're talking about is only some part of the picture. It probably dominates your view because it's the most comprehensible part, as it at least includes some kind of planning.

Economy is a hugely complicated system that no one really understands. It's not even entirely clear what it comprises. It's true that rich get richer as a rough generalization, but it's almost certainly not about the abstract top-down "economic system" that the world supposedly adheres to.

In other words, you won't be able to invent some planned system that will make power foci go away. Doesn't matter whether you try to drive money or even private property out. Power focus might be impossible to get rid of even with a bottom up revolution, unless we somehow reach a state of Deleuzian body without organs, which isn't at all desirable for any of us.

[kjj]

The only point you've made here is mine.  You produce something that is not directly valuable to you, and then you trade it to someone else to whom it is more valuable than anything else you could have made, and in return they give you something that is more valuable to you than the effort you put into producing that thing for them.

What does this have to do with the business cycle then? Everybody up and down the line of production just has a mass bout of stupidity every now and then? This is just a natural side effect of capitalism?

Are you saying that insufficient capital investment is a moral issue?  That pointing it out is the same as calling them inferior people?

LOL here you go defending the production of money. You claimed they'd be "back in the stone age by Friday" without western investment. Do you not realize how condescending that is? Would Americans be "back in the stone age" without Wall Street?

The primary benefit is de-funding governments by making taxes explicit.

And what does making taxes explicit do other than raise the number of complaints about taxation? What does this solve? What would you like it to solve? Making taxes explicit is not some recipe for reduced taxation, after all.

I don't really give a fuck about the distribution of wealth, and find the notion of equality in such a thing nonsensical.

Obviously. I'm quite sure the lords and landowners of feudalism had no problem with it either. Note that I said "distributed more equally" not "distributed equally". Do you get the difference? You know that that "distribution" does not mean "taxing and handing out equally", right? Why don't you give a fuck about the distribution of wealth? You are perfectly content with the situation of the homeless and those that live in poverty? It's their fault, right? It's totally sane that 93% of the new income in the economy in 2009-2010 went to the top 1%, right? Even though a significant portion of those people were heavily involved in the massive economic collapse? All you care about is explicit taxes, after all.

I would say that they make mistakes, and if they are slow to accept and correct their mistakes, the correction can be harsh.  If we use government to actively avoid having to face that correction, it will be even more harsh when it hits.

Capital is not money.  Nothing I said in that section was about money.  And again, you are the one saying that lack of invested capital is a moral issue.  Calling someone immature is only condescension if you believe that it is immoral to be young.

If you don't think that hidden taxes = more taxes, I doubt that I'll be able to convince you.  It seems like a pretty obvious thing, considering that every government everywhere throughout history has tried to hide taxes from the taxed.  Inflation, payroll withholdings, VAT, etc...

I don't care about the distribution of wealth because I don't know what the "right" distribution should be.

Please tell me, with as much precision as you can muster, that percentage of new income should have gone to the top 1%.  Heh, I find it funny that the article doesn't say top 1% by what measure.  Height?  Popularity?  Before you linked it, did you bother clicking through to the study itself to see what the author was talking about?  Or did you just start frothing at the mouth at the inequality that you didn't understand?

[Etlase2]

Yup. You have some good points, but you need to tone it down. Even Marx (at times) said the Capitalist is in an unenviable position in our system (probably he was wrong about this too, though). Also, as grondilu said, what you're talking about is only some part of the picture. It probably dominates your view because it's the most comprehensible part, as it at least includes some kind of planning.

My original reply was to grondilu implying that anyone who wants a better society is a communist. And flat out stating that to do so would be stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, yet when as it comes to production, society clearly runs on the opposite. It is such a narrow world-view, and on a board all about fixing one of the biggest problems of society (the broken system of money). It aggravates the shit out of me because it seems to make it obvious to me that people like bitcoin only because they think it will make them one of the wealth-stealers, and that's ok.

In other words, you won't be able to invent some planned system that will make power foci go away. Doesn't matter whether you try to drive money or even private property out. Power focus might be impossible to get rid of even with a bottom up revolution, unless we somehow reach a state of Deleuzian body without organs, which isn't at all desirable for any of us.

It isn't about a planned system. It's about identifying where the problems are and doing something about it. Obviously the more natural the better. While I'm not particularly fond of the idea of a resource-based economy, that does not mean that it is not worth discussion or that it needs to be dismissed as communism.

I would say that they make mistakes, and if they are slow to accept and correct their mistakes, the correction can be harsh.  If we use government to actively avoid having to face that correction, it will be even more harsh when it hits.

Sounds like you almost accept the Keynesian view of what causes the business cycle. The austrians think it's all about money and specifically credit. I dunno, it's hard to say when you blame it on "they".

Capital is not money.  Nothing I said in that section was about money.  And again, you are the one saying that lack of invested capital is a moral issue.  Calling someone immature is only condescension if you believe that it is immoral to be young.

You believe that asia or whatever outsourced areas are incapable of providing for society without "capital investment". Yet, as we have seen, this is usually a much stronger effect of things like communism and a lack of democracy on their society rather than a lack of investment from western countries. You seem to imply that they would be incapable of doing such things on their own, even though, say, Hong Kong flies completely in the face of this argument. You asked the question if insufficient capital was a moral issue. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I certainly did not say it.

If you don't think that hidden taxes = more taxes, I doubt that I'll be able to convince you.  It seems like a pretty obvious thing, considering that every government everywhere throughout history has tried to hide taxes from the taxed.  Inflation, payroll withholdings, VAT, etc...

lol how are payroll taxes and VAT hidden? I didn't say that hidden taxes didn't imply more taxes, I implied that unhiding them would just cause a rise in the obvious ones. You think government will be defunded, but you just assume this to be true without any evidence. And you never answered what the result would be. Not even the hope of smaller government. Change in taxation is not a change in society, it's a change in taxation. What beneficial effects are you hoping for? Do you see that I am trying to get at the root, not the superficial?

Please tell me, with as much precision as you can muster, that percentage of new income should have gone to the top 1%.  Heh, I find it funny that the article doesn't say top 1% by what measure.  Height?  Popularity?  Before you linked it, did you bother clicking through to the study itself to see what the author was talking about?  Or did you just start frothing at the mouth at the inequality that you didn't understand?

Am I supposed to take you seriously at all?

[Rassah]

Are you saying that insufficient capital investment is a moral issue?  That pointing it out is the same as calling them inferior people?

LOL here you go defending the production of money. You claimed they'd be "back in the stone age by Friday" without western investment. Do you not realize how condescending that is? Would Americans be "back in the stone age" without Wall Street?

Judging by the fact that we had to spend $700 billion to bail them out in order to avoid a complete catastrophe of Great Depression proportions (70%+ unemployment rate, etc), I guess yes?

[kjj]

I would say that they make mistakes, and if they are slow to accept and correct their mistakes, the correction can be harsh.  If we use government to actively avoid having to face that correction, it will be even more harsh when it hits.

Sounds like you almost accept the Keynesian view of what causes the business cycle. The austrians think it's all about money and specifically credit. I dunno, it's hard to say when you blame it on "they".

Capital is not money.  Nothing I said in that section was about money.  And again, you are the one saying that lack of invested capital is a moral issue.  Calling someone immature is only condescension if you believe that it is immoral to be young.

You believe that asia or whatever outsourced areas are incapable of providing for society without "capital investment". Yet, as we have seen, this is usually a much stronger effect of things like communism and a lack of democracy on their society rather than a lack of investment from western countries. You seem to imply that they would be incapable of doing such things on their own, even though, say, Hong Kong flies completely in the face of this argument. You asked the question if insufficient capital was a moral issue. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I certainly did not say it.

If you don't think that hidden taxes = more taxes, I doubt that I'll be able to convince you.  It seems like a pretty obvious thing, considering that every government everywhere throughout history has tried to hide taxes from the taxed.  Inflation, payroll withholdings, VAT, etc...

lol how are payroll taxes and VAT hidden? I didn't say that hidden taxes didn't imply more taxes, I implied that unhiding them would just cause a rise in the obvious ones. You think government will be defunded, but you just assume this to be true without any evidence. And you never answered what the result would be. Not even the hope of smaller government. Change in taxation is not a change in society, it's a change in taxation. What beneficial effects are you hoping for? Do you see that I am trying to get at the root, not the superficial?

Please tell me, with as much precision as you can muster, that percentage of new income should have gone to the top 1%.  Heh, I find it funny that the article doesn't say top 1% by what measure.  Height?  Popularity?  Before you linked it, did you bother clicking through to the study itself to see what the author was talking about?  Or did you just start frothing at the mouth at the inequality that you didn't understand?

Am I supposed to take you seriously at all?

"They" refers back to the previously used noun, in this case "everyone", for small values of everyone, meaning "the bulk of the people" or "society".  Regarding Keynes and Austrians, I think they are both wrong in general, mostly in the sense that they have convinced themselves that they know things that they don't really know.

I think that they most of the cheap labor parts of the world would be for a much rougher ride than the west if ties were severed.  Their economies are geared towards trade, not domestic needs, and I don't think they have the capital to change direction as easily as we could.  It would be bad, but my stone age comment was more hyperbole than a specific prediction.

You keep saying that I'm being condescending by pointing out the lack of accumulated capital in those parts of the world.  In my view, the lack of capital is not a moral issue, and I don't consider them morally inferior for it.  For it to be condescension to point that out, one would need to hold that lack of development is a moral issue.

P.S.  Hong Kong was under British rule until very recently.  Great example of local development.

How are payroll taxes and VAT not hidden?  Payroll taxes are money that is gone before you possess it.  It isn't something you have and then get taken away, it is just a number on the stub.  The emotional attachment is different, even if you are intellectually aware of them.  VAT is hidden by being rolled into the prices of things.

People act on the superficial all the time.  Many people are uneasily content paying their 50%+ taxes, because they are distributed and hidden.  If 100% of that money came into their hands, and then more than half was removed by force, there would be much more pressure from the people to reduce them, which is essentially the same thing as pressure to reduce the size of government.  I'm not sure which specific beneficial effects you are looking for me to list.  Do you want me to say that people with smaller governments are more rugged and self reliant?  I think that they are, and I think that those are virtues.

I don't care if you take me seriously at all.  I sure don't take you seriously.  Want to answer the questions in that last paragraph that you skipped?

[Etlase2]

I think that they most of the cheap labor parts of the world would be for a much rougher ride than the west if ties were severed.  Their economies are geared towards trade, not domestic needs, and I don't think they have the capital to change direction as easily as we could.  It would be bad, but my stone age comment was more hyperbole than a specific prediction.

Here you go throwing that capital word around again. What form of capital is it that you think that China or whomever cannot do without that only western society can provide?

P.S.  Hong Kong was under British rule until very recently.  Great example of local development.

whoas really? How about South Korea and Japan? Were they under US rule until very recently? Or did they advance into the information age at pretty much the exact same time as western society?

How are payroll taxes and VAT not hidden?  Payroll taxes are money that is gone before you possess it.  It isn't something you have and then get taken away, it is just a number on the stub.  The emotional attachment is different, even if you are intellectually aware of them.  VAT is hidden by being rolled into the prices of things.

So every tax is hidden because the government no longer knocks on your door for property taxes. Got it.

I'm not sure which specific beneficial effects you are looking for me to list.  Do you want me to say that people with smaller governments are more rugged and self reliant?  I think that they are, and I think that those are virtues.

I am not looking for anything specific. I want to know what you think the beneficence of less taxation is, since this is apparently the side effect of "sound" money. Apparently it's ruggedness and self-reliance. Strange how those don't seem to be economic-related virtues yet money is all about economics.

[kjj]

yet money is all about economics.

This is why I don't take you seriously.  Well, a lot of it.

[Etlase2]

Sorry, sorry, money is about ruggedness and self-reliance.