If aliens arrived on our planet...would they want to trade with us or would they just take whatever resources they wanted? It's my firm belief that they would want to trade with us. Here's my logic... In order for an alien civilization to advance to the point that it could actually visit us...they would already have learned that progress depends on trading rather than taking. This is because taking destroys individual foresight and if you destroy individual foresight then you hinder progress. In very simple terms...two heads are better than one. We all have unique perspectives so we can see numerous uses of the same exact resource. Trading integrates perspectives which allows resources to be put to their most productive uses...while taking does the opposite. It seems highly unlikely that an alien civilization could efficiently allocate all the resources necessary to visit out planet...yet fail to appreciate that their progress was a direct result of integrating everybody's unique perspectives. Here on planet Earth we still haven't figured out that our progress depends on integrating people's perspectives. If we had figured this out then taxpayers would be able to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to...aka pragmatarianism. Once we understand why people's perspectives should matter...then we'll allow taxpayers to trade their taxes for public goods that they value...our rate of progress will increase...and visiting inhabited planets will happen sooner rather than later. With the understanding of progress under our belts...we would see the value in trading with the aliens rather than taking their resources by force. This concept was the point of Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window... Right now we allow 538 congresspeople to spend around $4 trillion dollars. Did they labor to earn that money? No...they did not. Taxpayers did. When we allow congress to spend money that they did not earn...the perspectives of millions and millions of taxpayers are blocked from determining how their money should be distributed in the public sector. As a result...progress is severely hindered. Yet, people see roads and schools...so they see their tax dollars at work. But they are simply seeing the SEEN...anybody can do that. The challenge is to try and see the UNSEEN. The unseen is the outcome of applying millions and millions of our most productive perspectives to the public sector. The next time you watch a movie in which the aliens take the resources they want by force...or vice versa...hopefully you'll understand that what you're watching is merely a reflection of our society's lack of understanding regarding the correlation between perspectives and progress.
The transaction costs associated with bargaining would be huge. It would be much more rational to avoid the market. If one cares about freedom one should never forget that economic analysis comes in two guises: exchange theory and conflict theory.
LOL...you and your "transaction costs". I think you post so much on this forum because you think that all the other possible activities have transaction costs that are just too great. Maybe someday you'll learn about opportunity costs. C'mon...you and I think so differently that I might as well be an alien. Yet, here you are exchanging perspectives with me.
An important issue in any bargaining context. It also provides us with an explanation for why the invisible hand is so often actively avoided. Opportunity costs can only inform us of the entry and exit decision. Strategy is beyond it! I would never bargain with you. It would be fruitless.
Reiver, that has to be one of the worst explanations for why the invisible hand is actively avoided. For a far better explanation we just need to consider Buddha's parable of the blind men touching different parts of an elephant. Because we have different perspectives...I think pragmatarianism is an awesome idea while you think it's a terrible idea. If I somehow managed to force you to help me promote pragmatarianism then I would be actively avoiding the invisible hand. Why? Because I would be certain that I could see but you were blind. In other words...I would suffer from conceit. That's why people actively avoid the invisible hand. They fail to realize that EVERYBODY has a limited perspective. But because I do realize that my perspective is limited...I'd tolerate your tax allocation decisions. You, on the other hand...because you fail to realize that your perspective is limited...you want to spend my taxes on your projects. That's no good. The biggest man made disasters throughout history have resulted from people who suffered from conceit. If you want me to spend my taxes on your projects...if you're certain that we will greatly benefit from your projects...then why not solely rely on persuasion? That's why the invisible hand works...it solely relies on persuasion. If somebody wants my money...then they have to persuade me that I will benefit from their product/service. They have to share their perspective with me. If I do benefit from their product/service...then I will continue to give them my money. If I fail to benefit...or the benefit isn't as large as they advertised...then I'll spend my money elsewhere. The result is that the most productive people end up with the most resources. And this is a good thing given that all resources are limited. So there you go...a far better explanation as to why people actively avoid the invisible hand...as well as an explanation as to why people should not actively avoid the invisible hand.
I don't particularly care if the whole institutionalist movement has passed you by without you noticing. Understanding the existence of hierarchy (and why the market is actively avoided) is a difficult business. We can't just rely on managerial theories of the firm, nor can we embed the analysis into a simple profit maximisation approach. Instead we have to focus on the costs associated with the market. Costs that don't just disappear because someone blubbers about some pragmatarianism tosh.
If you Google "pragmatarianism tosh" here's what you might find... "The idea that any of these candidates represent my interests is absurd." - Daniel Tosh If you want to talk about costs...then just allow somebody who does not represent your interests to spend your money for an entire day. How much will that cost you? Well...obviously you'll eliminate the transaction costs. You won't have to make the effort to get the most bang for your buck. Of course...you'll have to deal with the Principal–agent problem. Plus, you won't be able to eliminate opportunity costs. Without opportunity costs we'll never be able to ensure the efficient allocation of limited resources. In my opinion...the costs of allowing congresspeople to determine how public funds are distributed are far far far greater than the costs of allowing millions and millions of our most productive citizens to determine how their hard-earned money is spent in the public sector. So here's the deal. Let's just allow taxpayers to decide for themselves whether they give their own, individual taxes to congress...or whether they directly allocate their own, individual taxes. If they give their taxes to congress then clearly the transaction costs were too high. If they directly allocate their taxes then clearly the principle agent problems were too large and/or the opportunity costs were too great.
I wouldn't waste my time. This is just random use of economics vocab. You constructed a post that you thought could deliver the same guff you spew again after again. You just didn't realise that you actually attacked your own argument, essentially illustrating the problems associated with bargaining and the drastic consequences that can have on behaviour (be it the firm, government, or little green man)
But you would waste my time? If you wouldn't be satisfied directly allocating your own taxes...then that means that you must also want to allocate my taxes. But if I can't determine what is...or isn't...a waste of your time...then how can you determine what is...or isn't...a waste of my taxes?
Given you've just constructed a thread that destroys your own argument, your opportunity costs can't be too hampering.
You're willing to waste my time/money because you're certain that I'm wrong...but I'm not willing to waste your time/money because I'm not certain that I'm right. The best among us have doubts, the worst are always certain.
You waste your own time by tacitly attacking your own guff. You might want to increase the opportunity costs in your posts, exchanging those costs for a reduction in bounded rationality
I've read this over and over. I genuinely and honestly understand all the words and the concepts you used to write those two sentences...but the way you assembled them makes absolutely no sense. How do you increase the opportunity costs of one's posts? Uhhh... There's an opportunity cost associated with every single activity. For example...the opportunity cost of composing this post is pulling weeds in the garden. I can't simultaneously do both activities...therefore I have to prioritize and sacrifice one for the sake of the other. When you say that I should increase the opportunity costs of my posts...are you saying that I should put greater value on pulling weeds? In other words...are you telling me what my priorities should be? It's fine to tell other people what their priorities should be. But when we take their choices away from them...we partially destroy their perspective. When 538 congresspeople spend the taxes of 150 million+ taxpayers...they partially destroy their perspectives. Yet...the reason that taxpayers are taxpayers in the first place is because they effectively responded to our priorities. They effectively serve and protect our interests. If they don't effectively serve and protect our interests then we can choose not to continue to give them our money. What should my priorities be? There are a lot of things that I could be doing and should be doing. But I sacrifice those things in order to help people understand that we are shooting ourselves in the feet by allowing a small group of government planners, rather than our most productive citizens, to determine how taxes should be distributed in the public sector. I sacrifice those other things because I see the benefits of pragmatarianism just like you sacrifice your other things because you see the harm of pragmatarianism. But just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I would take away your choice in the matter even if I could. This is simply because I might be wrong. Therefore, if I can't persuade enough people to invest their time/money in pragmatarianism...then it shouldn't be implemented.
I've increased the opportunity costs from your posting by making you huff and puff with drivel. I don't personally like that (and there is a cost in that itself), but it may reduce your future desire to make these sort of threads where you attack yourself and blame others for the perversion. A merit good perhaps?
Yeah, the difference between you and I is that I understand that one person's trash is another person's treasure. You think I'm posting trash while I think I'm posting treasure. But can you imagine what the economy would look like if you personally had the power to prevent trash from being produced? Or what if 10 people had that power? Or 100 people? I'm not the smartest tool in the cookie jar...and you're welcome to quote me on that...but I'm smart enough to understand that it should be up to consumers to decide what should or shouldn't be produced. You know why? Because their money is their time and their time on this earth is too short not to have the liberty to try and maximize their benefit. And that concept is as applicable to the public sector as it is to the private sector. If taxpayers don't want to spend their taxes on a public good...then that public good should not be produced. The fact of the matter is...you're no better than a libertarian that wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. The only difference is...both of you disagree on which is which. Therefore, the "drivel" that I'm huffing and puffing about is called tolerance. And it's too bad that I'm not smart enough to show you how progress depends on tolerance. And it's really too bad that I'm the only one who's trying.
The difference? My position is based on a sound understanding of both competing and complementary political economic schools of though. Your position, in contrast, is based on coming out with a bogus argument. As shown by this thread, whwre you destroyed your own argument, you're finding it increasingly difficult to introduce that argument. That isn't diminishing returns, that is bounded rationality coupling with economic perversion
In a pragmatarian system taxpayers would have the option to just give their taxes to congress. Yet, despite your fixation with transactions costs...you obviously don't believe that taxpayers would choose to give their taxes to congress. You say that you have a sound understanding of economics...so let's hear your explanation as to why you would not choose to give your money to somebody else.
You've already received the required explanations for the error in your reasoning. I don't intend to feed the spam threading as you give your bogus argument again after again. I'm merely interested in how you've managed to attack your own argument
It seems you wish to spam your own thread. I don't understand such illogical behaviour. As I said, I'll only converse over the opening post and its inconsistency with your repetitive argument. Other than that. Have a good one (I'm sure I'll see you presenting the same ole guff time after time)
Spam my own thread...converse with you...what's the difference? Where's the inconsistency between my opening post and my argument? Trading incorporates perspectives while taking destroys perspectives. Progress depends on perspectives. Where did I ever contradict that argument? I never once said that I would spend your taxes/money/time against your will.
Why are you asking for repetition? You've already been told. Your opening post, without you realising it of course, advertises the importance of bargaining and its impact on economic behaviour. The market is avoided and we shift, in this circumstance, from exchange to conflict. Try embedding your silly argument within a game theoretical context!
The importance of bargaining? Well...yeah...that's inherent to trade. The buyer wants to purchase a product at the lowest price while the seller wants to sell a product at the highest price. They both want to maximize their return. When people bargain they try and find the price that both would be willing to settle for. That's trading...and it works because it integrates the unique perspectives of the participants into the distribution of limited resources. You can avoid trading...you can avoid markets...simply by taking. But, if you're smart enough to realize that taking has negative economic consequences...then how would an advanced alien civilization fail to realize the same thing? They traded with each other to the point they advanced enough to visit a distant inhabited planet...yet they would want to take our resources? Let's trade with people from other countries...but let's just take the resources from people from other planets? Are you telling me that an alien civilization could advance to the point that it was capable of visiting us...but they somehow missed the correlation between their development and trading? We've come a long way baby...but we have no idea how we got here? If you have no idea how you got here...then obviously you haven't come far enough. By the time an alien civilization was capable of visiting us...then they definitely would understand exactly how they got here...by trading not taking.
You've only shown that you don't understand the significance of bargaining costs. As they increase the probability of a market solution declines. And as that solution disappears as viable we will see action closer to a zero sum game, as illustrated in simple game theory focused on maximising welfare to the detriment of the other player
I want something that I can't afford...therefore I should just steal it? If I want something that I can't afford...why don't I just save up enough money so that I can afford it? If I can't afford something...but you truly believe that I should have it...then why don't you just pay the difference? If you can't afford to pay the difference...then you should just steal it? If you want something that you can't truly afford....then why don't you just save up enough money to pay the difference? If I'm a producer and I'm screwing consumers...then you know what happens? I give you a golden opportunity. I give you the opportunity to benefit consumers. You know what happens if you benefit consumers more than I do? They will give you more money than they give me. If they don't give you more money than they give me...then that means that you're the one who's actually screwing them.
