|
FirstAscent
|
 |
April 07, 2012, 08:31:35 PM |
|
The purpose of taxes should be only to fund the government, not manipulate the market. Obviously tools can be used incorrectly, and this is my opinion. All taxes which fund the government manipulate the market. That's true, however some methods of taxing do so more than others. People should want their governments to avoid picking winners and losers as much as possible. You need to apply the bigger picture. Read this: See link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the
core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
April 07, 2012, 08:48:53 PM |
|
I think this is an interesting analogy:  The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients. |
|
|
|
|
|
stochastic (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2012, 10:21:50 PM |
|
I think this is an interesting analogy: The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients. Interested, link to source if you have it. |
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
asdf
|
|
April 07, 2012, 11:52:28 PM |
|
I think this is an interesting analogy: The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients. bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy. |
|
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
April 08, 2012, 12:06:09 AM |
|
bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy. "Bacteria" (as in populations of bacterium) can innovate, it's just ignorant to say otherwise. As for "grow their means of production", what is "means of production"? |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
April 08, 2012, 04:48:44 AM |
|
I think this is an interesting analogy: The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients. bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy. It is a bad analogy. Technology and it's increasing rate of innovation is the key which has allowed the free market to exploit the Earth's natural resources at an ever faster pace. Key concepts: - Overkill hypothesis (an example of technology causing massive changes to the environment) - Sumatran rhino (an example of diminishing supply failing to diminish demand) - Singularity (an example of accelerating trends which lead to increasing consumption) - Poaching (an example of resource depletion until there is no more) - Steady state economics (what is needed) - Big Oil (an example of the free market hindering progress and encouraging resource depletion) - Marketing/consumption vicious circle (an example of the free market sustaining its own excessive consumption) |
|
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
April 08, 2012, 04:54:00 AM |
|
Free markets have nothing to do with reality. Blaming the free market for something is delusional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
April 08, 2012, 05:02:54 AM |
|
Free markets have nothing to do with reality. Blaming the free market for something is delusional.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Attempt to demonstrate the truth of your statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
April 08, 2012, 05:14:26 AM |
|
A free market is a market where prices are determined by supply and demand. All taxes which fund the government manipulate the market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
April 08, 2012, 05:27:55 AM |
|
A free market is a market where prices are determined by supply and demand. All taxes which fund the government manipulate the market.
Please explain your theory within the context of the key concepts I enumerated four posts back. |
|
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
April 08, 2012, 06:42:51 AM |
|
I'm not sure debating the nuances of whether or not free markets actually exist is worth our time. I think if there are taxes, legal tender laws, bank holidays, etc there is no free market and participants should not be expected to act as if there was. It is a bad analogy. Technology and it's increasing rate of innovation is the key which has allowed the free market humans to exploit the Earth's natural resources at an ever faster pace.
Key concepts:
- Overkill hypothesis (an example of technology causing massive changes to the environment)
- Sumatran rhino (an example of diminishing supply failing to diminish demand)
- Singularity (an example of accelerating trends which lead to increasing consumption)
- Poaching (an example of resource depletion until there is no more)
- Steady state economics (what is needed)
- Big Oil (an example of the free market hindering progress and encouraging resource depletion)
- Marketing/consumption vicious circle (an example of the free market sustaining its own excessive consumption) Interesting, because to me this is why the analogy works. Humans have been "lab-culturing" (or domesticating) themselves on cheap energy for a number of generations now. I believe inflationary economic policies have accelerated this process, but the underlying driver is technology and cheap energy. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
April 08, 2012, 07:07:27 AM |
|
I'm not sure debating the nuances of whether or not free markets actually exist is worth our time. I think if there are taxes, legal tender laws, bank holidays, etc there is no free market and participants should not be expected to act as if there was.
...snip...
Markets only exist under the protection of some legal authority. Without that authority, the shops would get looted and contracts would not be honoured. Since it costs money to provide that legal protection, you can't have a free market without taxes. However, taxes don't have to be on the goods traded so they won't affect supply and demand in any meaningful way. So free markets are possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
stochastic (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2012, 09:16:03 AM |
|
bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy. "Bacteria" (as in populations of bacterium) can innovate, it's just ignorant to say otherwise. As for "grow their means of production", what is "means of production"? Guess they are a creationist... |
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
|
stochastic (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2012, 09:17:02 AM |
|
I'm not sure debating the nuances of whether or not free markets actually exist is worth our time. I think if there are taxes, legal tender laws, bank holidays, etc there is no free market and participants should not be expected to act as if there was.
...snip...
Markets only exist under the protection of some legal authority. Without that authority, the shops would get looted and contracts would not be honoured. Since it costs money to provide that legal protection, you can't have a free market without taxes. However, taxes don't have to be on the goods traded so they won't affect supply and demand in any meaningful way. So free markets are possible. So by your definition the black or grey markets are not free markets? |
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
April 08, 2012, 12:40:16 PM |
|
I'm not sure debating the nuances of whether or not free markets actually exist is worth our time. I think if there are taxes, legal tender laws, bank holidays, etc there is no free market and participants should not be expected to act as if there was.
...snip...
Markets only exist under the protection of some legal authority. Without that authority, the shops would get looted and contracts would not be honoured. Since it costs money to provide that legal protection, you can't have a free market without taxes. However, taxes don't have to be on the goods traded so they won't affect supply and demand in any meaningful way. So free markets are possible. Obviously without police you need to pay for security. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
April 08, 2012, 08:15:31 PM |
|
I'm not sure debating the nuances of whether or not free markets actually exist is worth our time. I think if there are taxes, legal tender laws, bank holidays, etc there is no free market and participants should not be expected to act as if there was.
...snip...
Markets only exist under the protection of some legal authority. Without that authority, the shops would get looted and contracts would not be honoured. Since it costs money to provide that legal protection, you can't have a free market without taxes. However, taxes don't have to be on the goods traded so they won't affect supply and demand in any meaningful way. So free markets are possible. So by your definition the black or grey markets are not free markets? Correct. Even where the goods are being traded legitimately, the price on the black market is pushed down by the lack of legal protection. |
|
|
|
|
JoelKatz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
|
|
April 08, 2012, 09:41:35 PM |
|
Correct. Even where the goods are being traded legitimately, the price on the black market is pushed down by the lack of legal protection. Down?! So drugs would cost more if they were legal? No, it's the reverse. Prices are pushed up by the need to provide your own protection and to compensate for the increased risks associated with a black or gray market. (Can't enforce contracts in court, might get arrested, etectera.) |
I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
|
|
|
|
asdf
|
|
April 08, 2012, 11:44:45 PM |
|
bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy. "Bacteria" (as in populations of bacterium) can innovate, it's just ignorant to say otherwise. As for "grow their means of production", what is "means of production"? Bacteria can evolve, sure, but not in one isolated "minimal media" experiment. If you put some humans in a box with some food and left them there then your bacterial story might be analogous to that. Means of production is land, labor, capital. In particular, bacterial do not have capital; machines, technology, etc. which can be used to increase the efficiency of production (get more value for a given unit of resource). As physical resources deplete, so will the efficiency with which we use them to produce value to the market. As various resources become more scarce, their price will increase, driving the market to more efficient alternatives (ie. renewables will become more economically viable). This process will not cease; the problem of finite resources is not a problem to a rich market economy, only to bacteria in a dish. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
April 09, 2012, 03:12:28 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2012, 04:19:55 AM by FirstAscent |
|
bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy. "Bacteria" (as in populations of bacterium) can innovate, it's just ignorant to say otherwise. As for "grow their means of production", what is "means of production"? Bacteria can evolve, sure, but not in one isolated "minimal media" experiment. If you put some humans in a box with some food and left them there then your bacterial story might be analogous to that. Means of production is land, labor, capital. In particular, bacterial do not have capital; machines, technology, etc. which can be used to increase the efficiency of production (get more value for a given unit of resource). As physical resources deplete, so will the efficiency with which we use them to produce value to the market. As various resources become more scarce, their price will increase, driving the market to more efficient alternatives (ie. renewables will become more economically viable). This process will not cease; the problem of finite resources is not a problem to a rich market economy, only to bacteria in a dish. Sorry, but the theory doesn't work so well in reality. As resources become more scarce and prices rise, there is still a minority that can afford the last of the resource, and it disappears forever. The free market did not save the near Blue Whale extinction from occurring in the mid 20th century. Regulations did. You might want to research Sumatran rhino horns to see how things really unfold. The reasons? 1. There's enough individuals who don't care if a resource is depleted as long as they can get their take. (Japanese whalers) 2. There's enough individuals who are ignorant of the future value of said resource for other uses. (Old growth forest depletion) 3. There's enough individuals willing to harvest the last of a resource precisely because of its super high price. (Sumatran rhino horns) 4. There's enough individuals who will insist that the resource isn't near being depleted. (Oil) 5. There's enough individuals who believe they need the resource eliminated to be successful in their business model (*Ranchers vs. wolves) * See wolves and riparian zones for number 5. This is actually a case of number 2 as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
