tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post2211409233978078650..comments2024-03-18T21:47:59.134-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The "Tytler" Calumny -- Is Democracy Hopeless?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger140125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43513749612042496612021-09-22T15:32:08.462-07:002021-09-22T15:32:08.462-07:00If someone from the inside a simulation ‘hacks’ it...If someone from the inside a simulation ‘hacks’ it, might not that attract the owner, who may fix it or shut it down as a failed run?David Byrdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02976509918712485637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71271943219975344402013-09-25T10:24:49.391-07:002013-09-25T10:24:49.391-07:00Got to agree with 99.99% of this, David, and my on...Got to agree with 99.99% of this, David, and my only disagreement is semantic. You say that an oligarchic economy run by and for the very rich isn't capitalism. What you mean is that it isn't an ideal free-market economy a la Adam Smith. In that you are of course correct, but capitalism is EXACTLY what it is. A capitalist economy is one that is organized to maximize the returns on the investment of capital. "Free market capitalism" is an oxymoron. In fact, a socialist economy using the methods approved by modern-day socialists (worker-owned business and the spread of individual self-employment, rather than state-owned business) comes a lot closer to the free market ideal than capitalism ever has, ever can, or ever will.<br /><br />But that's a semantic quibble. On the whole, and on every point of substance, bravo.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06515817930457694455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67158963193315531042012-11-11T15:40:26.924-08:002012-11-11T15:40:26.924-08:00I think experience shows that in well-functioning ...I think experience shows that in well-functioning democracies people don't generally vote their own selfish interests. Even if Mitt Romney would cut my taxes and Barack Obama would raise them, my influence on that result is so diffuse that doing something better for me rather than what's best for the other 300 million Americans, just isn't worth sacrificing my own values. This seems to be how most people vote---they vote for what they think is best for the country rather than their own selfish interests. Of course, you can still be concerned that people see things from a narrow perspective and so they tend to think that what is good for them is good for everyone, but that's a lot different from actually voting for personal interest rather than the public interest.David desJardinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15205200038718576331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33897427337568384802012-11-11T12:43:05.150-08:002012-11-11T12:43:05.150-08:00Glass–Steagall!!Glass–Steagall!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82984881340434321852012-11-10T09:10:35.730-08:002012-11-10T09:10:35.730-08:00Another review: Ending the cycleAnother review: <a href="http://rodericke.com/tytler_cycle" rel="nofollow">Ending the cycle</a>Roderick_Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02169535715630771551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32287526860927838902012-10-19T20:15:15.972-07:002012-10-19T20:15:15.972-07:00The column does not analyze the Tytler Calumny as ...The column does not analyze the Tytler Calumny as much as use it as a spring-board for the author's viewpoints. Here are some of the errors.<br /><br />The first mistake is a literal reading of the Tytler Calumny as if it were a chemical equation, instead of a form of wisdom. For instance, those who invoke it are not trying to convince fellow citizens that the US should change it's form of government. They use it as a warning against government spending and dependence.<br /><br />When it states that the majority vote for benefits, this refers to a general trend like any other economic or philosophical statement. Attempts to point out the "one step back" in two steps toward fulfilling it seem petty. Does anyone really think our economy is more stable and growing faster now than 100, 50 or even 20 years ago.<br /><br />Although collapse is stated as a certainty, it doesn't define what encompasses the collapse, how long it will take or who would lose and come to power. Mixing in the unrelated 200 year cycle is a clever way to affix measurable failings to the Tytler. It’s irrelevant, but since it was raised... the author includes colonialism to use the 300 year figure for the US's age, but the formation of the federal government was a massive change as part of a revolution and is rightfully where the timeline for the 200 year collapse of the federal government would begin. To treat the formation of the US as a non-event belittles the constitution and war for independence. All that being said, people often cite the beginning of US collapse in the 30's, 70's or 80's and say it’s simply taking a century to play out.<br /><br />The second mistake is a mis-reading of the Tytler Calumny. The author jumps to the conclusion that "voters" refers to lower-income people, but the Tytler makes no such distinction. Maybe the author makes this leap because a majority of federal spending is on programs for low-income individuals, but that implies a practical acceptance of the Tytler which the author would deny. Instead, read the Tytler again with the idea that "voters" also refers to high-income individuals who use bureaucracy for their own gain. With that mindset, most of the article and comments actually argue for the validity of the Tytler.<br /><br />I believe this last point brings almost everyone on this page to some level of agreement: that where there is government, there are people who vote for favoritism, whether it is a CEO's tax exemption or a low earner's free cell phone. Or a solar company versus an oil company. In most cases, these individuals or businesses are not doing anything illegal or even immoral. Attempts at codifying against these examples have failed and will always fail. Votes are power. Money is power. In a free society, people use their power as they choose.<br /><br />Therein lies the acceptance for the brilliant framework of the constitution: the only way to limit the Tytler effect is to limit the power of the government. To keep citizens from voting themselves largess, government must not be allowed to grant it. But that onion's been getting peeled for over 2 centuries. So... a more practical point: if the government is a corrupt ball of red tape at 20% of GDP, why would anyone want to take it to 25%? Both sides have people that say "you vote in my guy and we'll spend the money in the right places", but there is no right guy. And if there was, he'd be bargaining with hundreds of other wrong guys. Then, his two terms would be up. There is no other solution to government dependence or corruption besides limits on the size and powers of government.<br /><br />I’m very curious: does the author disagree with the basic thesis of the Tytler that voters (rich or poor) generally use their vote to advance their own monetary interests? And can that be done to a point that an economy collapses?Nick, JCTNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16741977650250818142012-10-19T09:40:19.487-07:002012-10-19T09:40:19.487-07:00Earn more income to solve out all your financial p...Earn more income to solve out all your financial problems by simply Joining GDI Global Domains International <a href="http://www.freedom.ws/webincome5" rel="nofollow">Here</a> already 1000s of people worldwide are earning quiet fortunes, from their homes, even while they sleep. Are you next?<br />Use username "webincome5" as access code to see the presentation ..Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08293736664466572449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48284925908973905932012-10-12T19:03:12.097-07:002012-10-12T19:03:12.097-07:00I think it's a mistake to assume that extreme ...I think it's a mistake to assume that extreme penalties can deter malfeasance. Unless you also have perfect detection, in which case you don't need the extreme penalties. The problem with extreme penalties is they tend to be applied very inconsistently. Especially when the offense isn't (and can't be) clearly defined. Who decides what is "malfeasance"? It's pretty subjective, the more so the higher you make the stakes. Higher penalties generally mean you also have even bigger incentives, because there's more to gain by violating the rules if it's rare. Having systems that are themselves self-enforcing and self-regulating, is much more desirable.David desJardinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15205200038718576331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34212649631081579632012-10-12T19:00:58.523-07:002012-10-12T19:00:58.523-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David desJardinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15205200038718576331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85480708583361551162012-10-12T17:41:32.953-07:002012-10-12T17:41:32.953-07:00As to political leadership, democracy and the publ...As to political leadership, democracy and the public purse the core problem from Greece (Athens with others), Rome, Great Brittan, Soviet Union and now the United States is the huge cost of military adventures with no point.<br /><br /><b>Afghanistan for the later ones seems to be the perfect implosion inflection point</b>. <br /><br />Now as to the current privatization of various portions of public good, i. e. Social Security, Medicare and so forth. Perhaps some should merely attach a special set of penalties to permit the privatization. <br /><br />Ok here is the idea, dramatically increase the penalties to the private entities running any program on behalf citizens to be the beneficiaries. <br /><br />1.) Life Imprisonment for all Malfeasance as minimum punishment of all executives in the boardroom or direct reports to the board.<br /><br />2.) Absolute loss of all assets by those in the entity defined in #1 as a backstop to their risk inducements. FYI, if they skip the country, #1 becomes a military matter so we detonate bombs upon their exile and banish the country they go to from all access of modern air travel for a minimum of ten years for harboring. <br /><br />3.) To big to fail status of any institution tied to the entities will be stripped. Those entities go to forced liquidation, all records, e-mails become easily searched by Bing, Google and a variety of other engines. Intellectual properties all go into the public domain 100%, no exceptions, trademarks, copyrights and patents.<br /><br />4.) Anyone involved externally from the organization tied to the malfeasance on an individual basis will face a minimum of 10 years imprisonment, loose all intellectual property rights forever.<br /><br />Did that cover protections for privatization sufficiently? <b>Do we need to apply such stringent standards to officials in government going forward to assure the pay in's lead to equitable pay'outs for the beneficiaries</b>?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675781921906678898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39097877992790050142012-10-12T16:35:04.150-07:002012-10-12T16:35:04.150-07:00onward... to sonnets!onward... to sonnets!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46795841291427508802012-10-12T16:03:32.186-07:002012-10-12T16:03:32.186-07:00@Dr. Brin - What I enjoyed most about the debate i...@Dr. Brin - What I enjoyed most about the debate is that Ryan, asked several times to provide any detail as to how he would pay for his tax rate cut, simply refused.<br />Biden asked if Ryan'd commit to not eliminating the home mortgage interested deduction. Ryan refused.<br />Anything can happen from this point, but if the Obama campaign has any brains, it will exploit this to win the vote of every American with a mortgage. And deserve to.<br /><br />(Full disclosure: I'm an Obama partisan and a mortgageholder.)<br /><br />---<br />@Tacitus - if you're going to suggest Biden may have neurological difficulties, would you care to comment on the evidence of brain damage Romney sustained in his car crash in France? <br /><br />Of course, any of us could have a bomb in our brain and we wouldn't know it until it goes off, and perhaps not even then. This should be a cheering thought, since it should encourage us to enjoy life while we have it!<br /><br />@ jollyreaper said<i><br />"I'm not sure how the economics of your suburban farm would work out..."</i><br />Everyone must pick a solution that suits them. I grow things I need or find a need for what's already growing there. My land is small but in addition to classic fruits, I don't discard useful stuff such as pruned branches.<br /><br /><i>"Sprawl depends on cheap and abundant energy. ..."</i><br />Old-style sprawl, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about.<br />For example, about half my days, I don't need to leave my land; I work via the internet which is energywise pretty cheap. When my gas guzzler finally croaks (I won't waste the energy invested in building it) I'll go electric and be more overall energy efficient than when I was in a city apartment.<br /><br /><i>"...nobody walks anymore and all our jobs are sedentary so we have the problem of needing to add exercise to our day."</i><br />Excellent point, and that supports mine. Residents of urban warrens need to simulate normal healthy exercise with time at the gym, which is kinda funny when you think about it.<br /><br />Technically I suppose I'm in a city limits but this neighborhoods is all single-family housing. Some of the wasteful lawns are gradually converting to more complex and useful activities, e.g. flowers or food crops, and I'm far from the only work-at-home.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64103597645837253512012-10-12T12:30:22.229-07:002012-10-12T12:30:22.229-07:00I'd like to see Haruki Murakami win the Nobel....I'd like to see Haruki Murakami win the Nobel. I absolutely loved <i>A Wind Up Bird Chronicle</i>. Political TroubleMakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534081402379117958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9234815942173248922012-10-12T12:09:05.864-07:002012-10-12T12:09:05.864-07:00Forgot to post the link http://kenlevine.blogspot....Forgot to post the link http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2012/10/looper-vs-jetsons.htmlJonathan Rothnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77688262344247308902012-10-12T12:06:56.465-07:002012-10-12T12:06:56.465-07:00Essay here that echoes David Brin in that we need ...Essay here that echoes David Brin in that we need more optimistic SF, especially visual SF.Jonathan Rothnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43156927520527731802012-10-12T11:10:46.456-07:002012-10-12T11:10:46.456-07:00And this is what my nonpartisan friend (who does h...And this is what my nonpartisan friend (who does her best to keep my friend and I from going at loggerheads at each other on politics) had to say (reposted because she didn't want any paragraph breaks):<br /><br />My thoughts were that Biden won, to a degree. At the beginning of the debate, it looked like Ryan was going to take it: he was articulate and succinct. He said what he wanted to with poise and confidence, even with Biden silently laughing at him. However, later in the debate it looked like he was receiving pressure from both the moderator and Biden and he started to repeat certain lines that sounded a lot like slogans. Also, when the moderator brought up an interview with a decorated soldier and how this soldier was dismayed at all the mud-slinging during this campaign, Ryan did not change his tone and continued his accusatory statements toward his opponents. Biden got the hint and did not mention his opponents at all, that I can remember anyway. In general, Biden acted confident and maybe a bit laid back. He pushed when he needed, but otherwise he looked relaxed and secure. At least, most of the time; he was a bit tense going into the debate and relaxed as it went on. He also, as I intimated earlier, was able to sense where the debate was going and was able to move with it. He did not direct it, like Romney did in the last debate, he more followed the flow. I would need to do some fact-checking to see how accurate what they each said was, and I have suspicions on that account, but overall I feel they delivered their lines with confidence. The reason I say Biden won was mostly because of the flexibility he showed and how inflexible Ryan seemed later in the debate as Biden moved from accusatory to correcting to presenting an idea and Ryan started just repeating prepared lines and dialog. The closing argument for each really brought that home. Ryan sounded like he was giving a prepared speech and Biden was talking to us. I have been left feeling a bit conflicted about my vote. Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55309805259493825812012-10-12T10:55:30.666-07:002012-10-12T10:55:30.666-07:00On transparency:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo...On transparency:<br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/reddit-gawker-jezebel-and-the-predditors-war/2012/10/11/4e64b216-13e7-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.htmlJumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18647072292455319372012-10-12T10:47:45.383-07:002012-10-12T10:47:45.383-07:00Chinese writer wins Nobel.
Chinese government pra...Chinese writer wins Nobel.<br /><br />Chinese government praises writer.<br /><br />Chinese writer uses first interview to call for release of Liu Xiaobo, China's most famous pro-democracy campaigner (and fellow nobel lauraeate.)http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/mo-yan-wins-2012-nobel-prize-in-literature-academy-says.htmlIanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30345160199213635502012-10-12T09:38:11.236-07:002012-10-12T09:38:11.236-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26693442705924661052012-10-12T08:14:09.791-07:002012-10-12T08:14:09.791-07:00CNN had a long and rambling and very partisan view...CNN had a long and rambling and very partisan view that basically panned Biden. I was rather surprised to see it to be honest. Hmm... you know, I do have a friend who watched it last night and while her fiance is my very conservative friend, she does reserve the right to see things as she wants to (as so she should). I'll ask her.<br /><br />Rob H., who spent his time doing better things like reading the latest Ciaphas Cain novel by Sandy Mitchell (well worth reading!) and talking on the phone with a friend<br /><br />IonFro: when ions go retro with their hairstylesAcacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78089635574107866172012-10-12T07:32:49.278-07:002012-10-12T07:32:49.278-07:00Nosir.
I in fact adopted the moniker Tacitus2 to c...Nosir.<br />I in fact adopted the moniker Tacitus2 to contrast from a prior Tacitus who had some political opinions considered anathema here.<br /><br />The original Tacitus otoh is well worth a read for his political wisdom, Talthough I cannot do it in the original Latin.<br /><br />Tacitus2Tacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11036920521281668732012-10-12T07:12:10.969-07:002012-10-12T07:12:10.969-07:00Tacitus:
Did you run the Tacitus.org blog way bac...Tacitus:<br /><br />Did you run the Tacitus.org blog way back when? Political TroubleMakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534081402379117958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68924104982460085112012-10-12T06:44:57.613-07:002012-10-12T06:44:57.613-07:00Normal people did not watch the entire VP debate. ...Normal people did not watch the entire VP debate. Alas, I can give a summary.<br /><br />Both men tossed around numbers that the other found implausible. Both had some areas where specifics were not forthcoming despite some really specific questions (like do you support raising qualifying age for Soc Sec).<br /><br />Regards visuals they will in part be seen through partisan eyes. Progressives will laud Fightin' Joe and his passion. Conservatives feel Ryan performed well under pressure.<br /><br />Now, if there were any independents watching, and if indeed any still exist, their opinions would be fascinating. Recall that this is not only a soapbox for the views of their bosses, it is a showcase for the guy "a heartbeat away".<br /><br />Regards this I have a brief professional opinion.<br /><br />I can excuse the occasional moment of being tongue tied, both guys had 'em and speaking under pressure they will happen. A few stats were flubbed, more by Biden who sometimes mixed up millions, billions and trillions. This speaks in part to the imaginary quality of government finance.<br /><br />What worried me a bit, and makes me wonder if the old tales of Biden having some neurological issues, was his difficulty comparing Syria and Libya. It is a classic neuropsychiatric test to show similar items and to compare and contrast. Size, perspective, which is in front which behind. When Joe can't articulate the relative sizes and populations of the two countries it frankly worries me. He could have made the valid point that Syria is a much more difficult proposition with ease, but bogged down, spinning his mental wheels in middle eastern sand trying with little success to compare the two "objects"<br /><br />Most talking heads call this one a draw as of the morning after. We will see more relevant impressions over the next few days.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51167545434885577092012-10-12T06:14:58.062-07:002012-10-12T06:14:58.062-07:00I think a great way to break the cycle is a progre...I think a great way to break the cycle is a progressive tax on inheritable wealth, doesn't kick in until $x million. This will protect the little guy, especially Californians where modest family homes owned by teachers and firemen have appreciated to ridiculous sums. But the Koch Brothers never could have inherited daddy's business the way they did. <br /><br />This is John Raese, Republican, entitled scumbag millionaire. Below, a quote from a radio interview: <br /><br />LEWIS: Tell us a little bit about you and your business experience and how you got here.<br />RAESE: I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that’s a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country, which is a key part of my program.<br /><br />Yeah. I'd like to see this entitled scumbag actually work for a living. jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26323857758876586772012-10-12T05:52:49.168-07:002012-10-12T05:52:49.168-07:00Such as the dominance, in 99% of human societies, ...<i>Such as the dominance, in 99% of human societies, of small cabals of owner oligarchs, who passed on their property-based power to sons who never did a thing to earn it. The persistent-feudal pattern that Adam Smith and the American Founders strove so hard to break. Yes, I see the pattern-seeking allure.</i><br /><br />Assuming there's a feedback cycle - a network effect, so to speak - between wealth accumulation and political power, and assuming selection pressure advantage to passing estates down to children and kin, what's the means for a general populace to check against this imbalance? And <i>is</i> it an imbalance? We may not like the outcome, but power pyramids have been the norm since recorded history.Political TroubleMakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534081402379117958noreply@blogger.com