Post Aoc8OYbi6g0B6ip3aK by KimSJ@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by KimSJ@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AoZ7t36cayiKxLNQp6 by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-11-30T08:24:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
'The reason we’re in crisis is not because policymakers have been ignoring the advice of orthodox economists, but because they have been following it'...If you're intrigued by Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), then Dougald Lamont's blog post exploring why MMT is descriptive of the contemporary economy, not a prescription for its reform, will be worth reading (although it might take you a while to work your way through it).#economics #MMT h/t @Oxymetheus https://dougaldlamont.substack.com/p/if-mmt-is-wrong-why-is-it-so-much
(DIR) Post #AoZ7t4GaHQHGYX2tzU by KimSJ@mastodon.social
2024-11-30T09:31:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Oxymetheus A great read! The only sentence I disagree with is “In the financial economy, it is a zero-sum game, where the winner takes the losers’ money.” That’s not totally true. The financial economy has to make a profit, and it does so by extracting some of the profit from the real economy. It is in fact largely parasitical. Yes, some services such as insurance and currency hedging are worth paying for, but many are not, and in fact do great damage.
(DIR) Post #AoZ7t5FubPKlcjjsa8 by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-11-30T10:31:04Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@KimSJ @ChrisMayLA6 @Oxymetheus That the economy is not a zero sum game, is a modern, scientific fact. I do not know why this idea still persist? Very strange. Just look at how many new jobs have been created the past 100 years, and how many workers, displaced by shifts in technology, have been absorbed into new jobs, that didn't even exist before. Surely no one still believes that the economy is zero sum? The beauty of the capitalist system is that everyone wins on the whole.
(DIR) Post #AoZ8ZjkURKoPNENdK4 by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-11-30T10:38:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @KimSJ @Oxymetheus in the long-run.... & the benefits are (shall we say) unevenly distributed....
(DIR) Post #AoZ96GL2o9vLiOzIBs by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-11-30T10:44:41Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @KimSJ @Oxymetheus This is the truth and nature of markets. That is why they are the most fair system. However! As an aggregate, everyone has gotten it better the past 100 years. Have a look at Johan Norbergs book, the Capitalist manifesto, for a proof of this. Plenty of sources available in his book for his reasoning. He also shows that more leftist areas have been doing way worse, than the more free and capitalist areas of the planet.
(DIR) Post #AoaJb7HBkDDHHnUkIi by nicholas@aklp.club
2024-12-01T00:16:59.605185Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Every transaction generating profits must also generate consumer surplus. The only way this isn't true is with compelled transactions; e.g., theft or taxes, but I repeat myself. Every consumer gets more value from an iphone than what they paid apple to get it, and apple earns more money from every sale than what it cost them to produce it. Both sides receive benefits. The fact that this inherently adds value to the economy just by the transaction taking place is called gains from trade. You are confused by the fact that you have to weigh apple's profits against the consumer surplus of every iphone owner combined to balance the scale. It's easy to see apple's profits, it takes effort and thought to see the consumer surplus balancing the scale on the other side.
(DIR) Post #Aob7kOD19aPO7H9wB6 by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T08:15:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas @h4890 @KimSJ But the benefits are not equally useful in a capitalist society; yes, consumers gain use value from the trade otherwise they would not enter the arrangement (unless as you suggest, they are compelled); but the use values are non-fungable & decay; the monetary benefits however can be reused & earn further surplus. While everyone does gain, the effective benefits gained are uneven; in your case Apple can accumulate more benefit using the money earned; the consumer cannot!
(DIR) Post #Aob7kPKqxwGpbrpi1w by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-01T09:38:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ Ahh, but the consumer can use their phone to save time, become more efficient, call loved ones and business associates etc. which means that on top of the established value and benefit in the transaction, he becomes a more productive member of society as well. In the spirit of honesty and openness the counter argument I've heard from the lest if that marketing distorts the perception of value, and that is why companies "exploit" their customers who do not
(DIR) Post #Aob7uBakv147sfvxx2 by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-01T09:40:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ actually derive benefit from the product. And my own counter argument is that, they (the leftists) can see this, so there is no inherent law that should ban other people from seeing this, or, that the benefit (feeling good) still exists, or that the effects of marketing are enormously exaggereated. And finally, marketing that moves people away from free, informed consent, should be banned and illegal, or in a libertarian world, boycotted and shamed.
(DIR) Post #Aob9GUsXzU5a1VSTs8 by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T09:55:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ Oh I completely agree on the Q. of whether social scientists are able to see society better than those who experience it - seem paternalistic to suggest they do.But, while I think you're right such tech can make workers more efficient, this surplus is incompletely captured, and so actually is more a benefit to the employer.... I'm not saying consumers don't benefit, just the benefits (especially monetary) are skewed towards (in the case) Apple & other firms
(DIR) Post #Aob9jSBl4V0u4tFfWa by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-01T10:01:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ But if the benefits, by force, are tried to be made equal, a lot of the benefits disappear completely. Would you argue that no benefit is better than an unequally distributed benefit?
(DIR) Post #AobB3pI2zTXBTITIrA by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T10:16:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ Ah, yes well this is where we come back to our debate about the character of taxation - if you see taxation as violence perpetrated by the state, then yes I can see the logic of your argument; but of course, that's not how I see taxation at all (as we've discussed before).I certainly think unevenly distributed benefits are likely better than none, but that doesn't entail an acceptance of the current unevenness; that is what politics is all about (changing unevenness)
(DIR) Post #AobFIcyFTXJ5QMWZAe by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-01T11:03:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ True. I think we've hit an agree to disagree. For me politics is about how do handle common, public resources, and my choice of end goal, is to make sure that resources are used as efficiently as possible, to the benefit of the world. That's it. No values but efficiency and a high material standard of living. But yes, I think we hit agree to disagree territory.
(DIR) Post #AobG9IAtWcQcH4YGg4 by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T11:13:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ yes, I thought we had.... which is fair enough
(DIR) Post #AobHu0tbgWz4FXJ97I by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-01T11:32:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ So, I'm curious. Let's turn to the "meta". As you know, I believe taxation is violence, since if someone takes something from me, without my consent, that (ultimately) consists of an act of violence. How do you reason around that and what are your argument for that it is not violence? I don't think we examined this before. Or is it that you consider it violence, but that that violence is balanced by other benefits?
(DIR) Post #AobIGQGK3PTRIDcOrg by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T11:36:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ No I start from the position that while mandatory, taxation is the prices we pay for civilisation - the fact it is mandatory is an issue about collective action & free riders, not necessarily the coercive potential of the state.While in formal Weberian terms one might see any state action as (potentially) violent by virtue of enforcement capability, this to me mistakes the over-riding social value of the state as a mechanism that allows civilised interaction.
(DIR) Post #AobTGBSYBnkssXQVpg by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-01T13:39:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ Hmm, so the way you reconcile this with individuals doing the same thing being unethical, is that they are not civilized. So violence is acceptable if the purpose of it is to enhance civilization? Would that be a way to put it?
(DIR) Post #AobWNDP9egDOnjsn7A by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T14:14:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ Well, first of all 'violence' has degrees, of which legal compulsion is a relatively low (shall we say 'epistemic') level - and I know you want me to say 'yes' so that you can say... aha, colonialism/imperialism.So my answer is that legal compulsion within sovereign borders of a democratic state to maintain & enhance civilisation is I think morally acceptable...Invasion & violence abroad to 'bring civilisation' - not!
(DIR) Post #AobYhmKRiZ6eofc5eS by nicholas@aklp.club
2024-12-01T14:40:59.725964Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
No, this analysis misunderstands Consumer surplus. The extra value is not embedded in the iphone in this example, the extra value is stored in their wallets un the form of cash they would otherwise have been willing to spent on the iphone. Think about opportunity costs, in this case it's kinda like opportunity revenue, to coin a phrase. And that cash saves or spends just as well as any of the dollars in apple's bank account.
(DIR) Post #AobfvCT6XeefKZ0hQO by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T14:48:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas @h4890 @KimSJ How can they have opportunity revenue & spend it on the iPhone.... I understand the opportunity cost angle - they've bought a iPhone & not bought something else... on might argue then that there is a surplus over their opportunity cost of something less useful, but once the iPhone is bought that cash is no longer available, only the enjoyment of the benefit, which while potentially allowing value to be gained elsewhere is not as fungible as the cash Apple gained
(DIR) Post #AobfvDDtjg5Lfgu4MS by nicholas@aklp.club
2024-12-01T16:01:50.770959Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Consumer surplus is not measured in subjective utils, it is measured in dollars.There is some price that is the maximum price you would pay for an iphone. We know axiomatically that the iphone has even more utils for you than the maximum price, or else no transaction would take place, but we're not going to count the extra utils, we're just talking about the price. Now you go and actually buy the iphone, the different in cost from your maximum price to the sales price equals your consumer surplus. We know axiomatically that that number is below the lower-bound of extra 'value' you derive from the purchase over the sales price in concrete dollars without having to even reach utils. that extra cash stays in your bank account to invest or buy sneakers as is your whim.It's the phenomenon underlying price discrimination strategies as companies try to offer products as close to the maximum price for an array of different target consumer demographics. A 'spoiler package' on a sports car costs $4,000 for a $64 hunk of plastic bolted to the trunk to entice people with > $4,000 consumer surplus over the base body package to pay something closer to their maximum price. Or back to our iphone example, an extra 256gb of storage costs $200 in an iphone but you could buy a 256gb thumb drive on amazon for $12 with shipping and handling included.That extra cash in your wallet they're trying to get with their overpriced 'upgrades' comes out of the consumer surplus.
(DIR) Post #Aoblni081I08XHGfvU by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-01T17:07:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ So it seems to me that a big part of your position, would then depend on your definition of civilization. If not, nazi-germany, or other countries that suddenly get a national soclist majority would be justified in their actions. It seems to me that you accept a grey scale and problems of definition, in order to get taxation. While I on the other hand, am more principled, at the expense of (possible) realistic ways of living those values.
(DIR) Post #Aoblswl8Zo7RktknBI by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-01T17:08:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ As for colonialism, you must remember that I am on the right, so I do not acknowledge guilt as a currency to be traded across generations. ;) So in my book, I couldn't care less about colonialism and who was guilty of what. I tend to let the past be the past, and focus on the future, without any guilt or blaming instead. =)
(DIR) Post #AobnjMEpBxP1mzC9i4 by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T17:29:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ Yes I certainly do not see civilisation as a toggle switch - either on or off... there are graduations, which is why a state might support moves towards 'better' civilisation... (in their own country).
(DIR) Post #Aoc8OYbi6g0B6ip3aK by KimSJ@mastodon.social
2024-12-01T17:38:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @h4890@liberdon.com @nicholas Sometimes I think we spend too much effort trying to distribute benefits ‘fairly’. Which is fairer, a 45/55 split, or to spend 20 ensuring the split of the remainder is exactly 40/40?
(DIR) Post #Aoc8dDOhFMhhfaj008 by nicholas@aklp.club
2024-12-01T21:23:33.670149Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Quick question: do I get to be the one who gets the 20 for managing the split?? If so we better up that to 30 because right now it looks like it's shaking out to 40.3/39.7, but I think with just 10 more I can definitely get it to perfect 35/35.
(DIR) Post #AocV7dM7Uq63rEQgoC by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-01T17:27:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas @h4890 @KimSJ But this is the problem, as you say its 'measured' in dollars.... but once you've spent those dollars (or pounds where I live), no amount of valuing your benefits will actually buy you food. So unless there is some monetised benefit from owning the iPhone, while you benefit in notional dollars (computed through some economic modeller other), the benefit Apple gets in real dollars in fungible in market sense - measuring benefit in $ does make them spendable.
(DIR) Post #AocV7eGq5xT0h8xzDU by nicholas@aklp.club
2024-12-02T01:35:31.614479Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It's not the money spent on the iphone that is the consumer surplus, it's the money not spent on it that is the consumer surplus. I'm not sure where the disconnect is on this, this is really econ 101 stuff.Imagine you budgeted $1,000 to buy an iphone, but when you get to the store, the iphone is on sale for $700. Now you have the iphone that you valued at at least $1,000, AND you have an extra $300 to save or spend on something else out of the money you budgeted just for the iphone. You can understand in this scenario how the surplus works? You didn't spend it on the phone because the phone was less than you budgeted to spend on the phone? Yes, we're tracking?Very few people write down a budget for every item they purchase, they just have a number, one they don't even consciously think about most of the time that if milk or eggs or anything else is above, the balk and go 'I'll find that somewhere else, or wait for a sale' Okay? That number is their maximum price, and virtually everything everyone buys is some amount below the maximum price for that item. In effect, everything everyone buys is "on sale" all of the time from the maximum price. The difference between the maximum price and the sales price is the same as the $300 you saved buying the iphone; now you have the thing you valued at a higher price, AND extra money you didn't spend on the thing at the higher price. Here's a pretty picture that might help illiterate for you. You can see that the green area above the equilibrium price, but below the price where demand is 0 is the consumer surplus. It is exactly mirrored by the area below the equilibrium price, but above the price where supply is 0, which we normally call 'profit', assuming the supply boundary is the cost of goods sold. The two are equivalent, profit is not more better or specialer than consumer surplus, it's just a matter of the seen and the unseen.
(DIR) Post #Aod8pvtZp9wqJMC1ku by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-02T09:00:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ True. But the difficulty is, since civilization or upholding of civilization is the requirement for you to accept violence from the government, to define it. Some behaviour are justified, while others are not. What are the behaviours would you say, that justify violence from the government, and what behaviiours do not?
(DIR) Post #AodDskqJsCVofipmsa by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-02T09:57:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ I think here we need to go back to the definition of violence. As I've said while sate compulsion can be modelled as violence, I think we need to start with recognising that such violence may be socially beneficial; which is why democracy, and safeguards (such as human rights) are needed to balance the danger of over-reach of such potential state violence.Yes, there needs to be some democratic system for laying out the scope of such 'violence' but deliberation is key
(DIR) Post #AodSx19Egx4RiDAnEO by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-02T12:45:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ Would you agree to violence defined as "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property or agreements"?
(DIR) Post #AodT2G4sbvhBSodP3w by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-02T12:46:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ And when it comes to using democracy to protect from democracy gone wrong, how do you solve the problem of... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
(DIR) Post #AodcHPobaXXxayKBKS by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-02T14:30:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ I think you're moving in the right direction with that... I think if I was going to define (political) violence monopolised by the state it would look something like this:'using the threat of violence, imprisonment or other life changing sanction, to stimulate compliance with the state's agreed legal objectives'.I think the key here is seeing the state as habit a ladder of escalation up which it can move; its expensive to always use force; acquiescence is cheap(er)
(DIR) Post #AodcMkPYRNBOv89Ljk by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-02T14:31:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ This is where on requires over arching norms - such as a convention on human rights, or a written constitution, which has been previously been agreed (preferably via an earlier democratic process).
(DIR) Post #AodfG8jHvXSwB4v9cG by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-02T15:03:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ But that seems to me that in order to control the system, the same system is used, which sounds like quite a weakness. If the state is corrupt, (or becomes corrupt) using the state (or documents produced by the state) as insurance doesn't sound like a good insurance.
(DIR) Post #Aodg3KltwXoRiPbJ8S by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-02T15:12:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ Yes, I can see that; and perhaps that is a weakness in democracy, the system has to be (in a sense) self-correcting.... in the UK, we have definitely suffered from having people in Govt. who were not sufficiently inculcated into democratic norms that were prepared to abide them when to constrained what they wanted to do (Boris Johnson being a prime example.However, the desire for an externalised control I think (outside imperial forms) can only be fulfilled 1/2
(DIR) Post #AodgDrcwdreKVjQsKm by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-02T15:14:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ by either a set of norms of something previously agreed (such as a constitution).I think this is what being a social human in a democracy requires. If people are unable to be self-reflexive about how their direct/immediate interests must at times be constrained for the general good, then we are heading towards a world in which the word 'society' has been vacated of all meaning....2/2
(DIR) Post #AofBENqCACkk9nJllA by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-03T08:36:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ Given that Boris appeared, and in your case, perhaps Trump is another example, how would you reform the system, to decrease the likelihood of that happening? Even though I do not agree on a lot of this, I find it very stimulating to read about your thoughts on the topic, since these questions are so seldom thought about about the general population.
(DIR) Post #AofCqK76ZNplYUslKy by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-03T08:54:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ Its a really good Q.; someone else has already mentioned the US constitution has not in the end halted Trump.... and when I worked for Charter 88 a common criticism was to use the Soviet constitution as an example of the gap between (supposed) law & actual actions.As always I think one has to take the position that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good - the stronger the constitutional settlement, the harder it is to evade (but it'll never be impossible).
(DIR) Post #AofCwvIFFWlWbUEvz6 by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-12-03T08:56:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @nicholas @KimSJ p.s. as always the debate is stimulating; likewise as you know I don't agree with you on much, but I so like seeing a position I disagree with argued well - it helps me figure out exactly why we do differ, and that, for me, is a very valuable thing
(DIR) Post #AofgxpYp2uQTjrLJ1k by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-03T14:32:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ Yes, this is certainly the truth. I'm just a guy who is naturally drawn to perfection, and never resting on my laurels. To me it is fun, challenging and interesting to constantly challenge established truths about democracy being the best, how democracy can break down, how it can be improved, or even if it should be improved or maybe torn down? =)
(DIR) Post #Aofh4BWIJaVna7Bqmu by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-03T14:33:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas @KimSJ This is very much the truth. It makes the fault lines of the ideological divide much, much clearer. That in turn, helps one to fortify ones own arguments, and also, from a pragmatic point of view, see where there is common ground about questions in the real world, as opposed to the utopian world.
(DIR) Post #AohGjZlalJ3sCxmGw4 by KimSJ@mastodon.social
2024-12-04T07:20:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @h4890@liberdon.com @nicholas It seems to me that a weakness of the American system is the time it takes for legal processes to complete, which Trump has gamed perfectly to evade justice. I think the ‘convention’ that presidents cannot be prosecuted has been too widely applied. It is reasonable not to allow new cases to be brought (which would provide a way to distract him or her from their duties), but the convention should not apply to ongoing cases.
(DIR) Post #AohGjb43w7QkEXQXMe by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-04T08:47:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@KimSJ @ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas Not only in america. In most of the developed world. The law is a toy for politicians, corporations and wealthy people. Regular people have a slim to no chance of ever getting justice through legal processes except perhaps, in the most obvious of cases which rarely happen. I've been to court once, against the government, and it took me 1.5 year of lack of sleep and hard work. Utterly ridiculous. I won of course, but still, counting the time and sleepless nights
(DIR) Post #AohGpBiR5zJRLwyfKa by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-12-04T08:48:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@KimSJ @ChrisMayLA6 @nicholas it certainly wasn't worth it, and it was pretty far from what I'd call an efficient and humane justice system. The only consolation is that towards the end, every letter I sent with legal arguments, was analyzed and responded to by a committee of 5 lawyers representing the government, so at least I wasted 5 peoples lives per letter I sent.