A World Without Prices or Profit

[obvious Child]

I didn't ask you how many GOOD uses a resource could have. I asked whether any given resource could be used in more than one way.

And now you're just trolling. Furthermore, your stupid little comic is entirely off topic.

 

[Xerographica]

And now you're just trolling. Furthermore, your stupid little comic is entirely off topic.

It's entirely on topic. Anyways, I think it should be obvious that any given resource can have nearly an infinite amount of uses.

Next premise.

Are some uses of a resource more valuable than other uses? Or would you say that one use of your time is as good as any?

 

[Fisher]

You can play quarters with essentially any coin.

Also, quarters is disgusting. Beer Pong is way more sanitary.

Sure having a ball go from dirty hands and bounce all over the place, including the floor, is the healthier choice.

 

[obvious Child]

Sure having a ball go from dirty hands and bounce all over the place, including the floor, is the healthier choice.

Have you seen what's on money? Holy Hell. I'll take that dirty ball any day of the week over what's present on money, coins included. Also, it's much easier to sanitize a ball between uses then it is for quarters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20084997

 

[obvious Child]

It's entirely on topic.

Uh Huh. Because that's related to the lack of asset valuations in a medium of exchange. *rolls eyes*

Anyways, I think it should be obvious that any given resource can have nearly an infinite amount of uses.

You realize you are defending your argument on the basis that money has value because we can wipe our butts with it no?

That's how low your argument has gone.

There's no point in discussing anything with you anymore.

I'm only going to respond to either beer related discussions or people pointing out how you're argument is crazytalk. So don't bother quoting me.

 

[Xerographica]

There's no point in discussing anything with you anymore.

Clearly you agree that some uses of a resource are more valuable than other uses. You just decided that you have more valuable uses of your time than using it to discuss economics with me. You choose x rather than y. Why? Because you value x more than you value y. How do I know that? Because you choose x rather than y. Why? Because you value x more than you value y.

Plenty of individual valuation...and absolutely no prices involved. Therefore, we don't need prices to ensure that we derive the maximum amount of value from society's limited resources. All we need is for people like you to have the freedom to put their resources to their most valuable uses. And clearly, as you so nicely proved, you don't need prices to determine whether one use is more valuable than another.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So you want to start a butcher organization?

Mr. Butcher: Hi Mr. Cattle...I'd like to start a butcher organization
Mr. Cattle: Oh, that's really great! Where do you plan on starting it?
Mr. Butcher: Vegetarian City
Mr. Cattle: No cows for you

Fail, let's try again.

Mr. Butcher: Hi Mr. Cattle...I'd like to start a butcher organization
Mr. Cattle: Oh, that's really great! Where do you plan on starting it?
Mr. Butcher: Meat Lovers Heaven
Mr. Cattle: If you'd done your homework you'd know that I'm already invested in 10 butcher organizations there. No cows for you.

Fail, let's try again.

Mr. Butcher: Hi Mr. Cattle...I'd like to start a butcher organization
Mr. Cattle: Oh, that's really great! Where do you plan on starting it?
Mr. Butcher: Meat Lovers Paradise
Mr. Cattle: Great! I'm going to invest 10 cows in your organization. *hands Mr. Butcher 10 cows*

1 month later

Mr. Butcher: Here's a ton of positive feedback *hands Mr. Cattle a lot of money*
Mr. Cattle: Thanks! Have 20 cows! *hands Mr. Butcher 20 cows*

See...Mr. Cattle has cows to give because he doesn't waste his cows. He invests them wisely. Maybe not always, but more often than his competitors. If it turns out that you're one of the exceptions...if you waste the meat...then you're not going to receive a lot of positive feedback (money) from consumers...and Mr. Cattle is going to cut his loses.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....oh sorry, fell asleep tying to follow all that nonsense. Did you ask a question? Let me check...

The thing is...it sounds like you're imagining an extensive free-rider problem. Is the free-rider problem going to be so bad that nobody's going to want to give enough positive feedback (money) to the butchers? As a result, we're all going to become vegetarians?

Ok, here's my theory. If you think the free-rider problem is a serious and genuine problem...then with our current system...you'd probably be happy with a 60% tax rate. Am I close?

Oh, yes...guess you missed my prior response. No one gives a crap about positive feedback because that does not pay the bills. A clear exchange rate does. I offer this at a certain price and you take it or leave it. Leave it too often and I know I need to adjust my price. Take and and remain content and I know my price is fine and I can meet all my expenses AND afford to meet someone else's price for what I want. I'll encourage positive feedback with GOOD SERVICE and QUALITY PRODUCT. That will bring in more customers to pay my prices.

I don't have to put up with a 60% tax rate. I live in a society where I get to vote and no one who tries to raise my taxes that high will get re-elected. The next guy my peers and I vote in will make sure I pay a fair share and no more. If worst comes to worst, I'll emigrate.

 

[Xerographica]

I don't have to put up with a 60% tax rate. I live in a society where I get to vote and no one who tries to raise my taxes that high will get re-elected. The next guy my peers and I vote in will make sure I pay a fair share and no more. If worst comes to worst, I'll emigrate.

Let me see if I can get this straight. You argued that the free-rider problem would be pervasive in the world that I described...which is basically a world where every organization is a non-profit. Yet you don't think the tax rate should be 60% in our world.

Ok, what do you think the tax rate should be in our world? Also, in case you didn't realize this...but the tax rate is a reflection of how pervasive people perceive the free-rider problem to truly be. A large tax rate indicates that people perceive the free-rider problem to be a major problem. A small tax rate indicates that people perceive the free-rider problem to be a minor problem.

So what should our tax rate be?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Let me see if I can get this straight. You argued that the free-rider problem would be pervasive in the world that I described...which is basically a world where every organization is a non-profit. Yet you don't think the tax rate should be 60% in our world.

Ok, what do you think the tax rate should be in our world? Also, in case you didn't realize this...but the tax rate is a reflection of how pervasive people perceive the free-rider problem to truly be. A large tax rate indicates that people perceive the free-rider problem to be a major problem. A small tax rate indicates that people perceive the free-rider problem to be a minor problem.

So what should our tax rate be?

Sorry, I was not arguing the existence of your world. I plainly stated it is a fantasy world that cannot exist. Therefore I am not obligated to feed into the fantasy, only refute it's value vis a vis the real world in which I actually live. In the real world people seek personal profit from their labor...TANGIBLE profit. My tax rate in the real world should be between 10% and 20% of my earnings. That's all I am willing to pay for the general welfare.

 

[Xerographica]

My tax rate in the real world should be between 10% and 20% of my earnings. That's all I am willing to pay for the general welfare.

So you only feel that the free-rider problem is a small problem. Ok, what goods does it apply to? In other words, from your perspective, what should the government do?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Too many free-riders? Interesting. So with our current system...what do you think the tax rate should be?

I actually summed it up into a few points:
- Free-riders
- No motivation to innovate
- You need money to participate in international trade

The first and second points kind of tie in with each other. If everybody gets the exact same lifestyle and opportunities, whether he sits at home and plays x-box or is out busting his ass bettering the world, there is no motivation to innovate or work hard whatsoever. Even if only 10% of the current work force decided to stay home instead of working (which is unreasonably low considering most people hate their jobs), the shock to our economy would be catastrophic.

As for the third point, our entire society and economy is based on the principle of free trade with other nations. This model you've envisioned up has no functional way of incorporating this. I can guarantee the Germans are not interested in giving us fancy cars in exchange for facebook likes.

I see absolutely no reason that the tax rate should ever be above 10%. When you really think about what 10% of the entire US economy is, it's absolutely a mind-blowingly large amount of cash, and all that really needs to be done with that money is administrative tasks, judicial tasks, and military upkeep. The 40 something percent tax burden we have today is ridiculous.

 

[Xerographica]

I see absolutely no reason that the tax rate should ever be above 10%. When you really think about what 10% of the entire US economy is, it's absolutely a mind-blowingly large amount of cash, and all that really needs to be done with that money is administrative tasks, judicial tasks, and military upkeep. The 40 something percent tax burden we have today is ridiculous.

So you believe that the free-rider problem is only applicable to justice and defense? Every other good/service can be optimally supplied by either the non-profit sector or the for-profit sector?

If everybody gets the exact same lifestyle and opportunities

If you assume that scarcity isn't a real thing, then I could see how you might reach this conclusion. But if you don't assume scarcity away, then your conclusion is far from realistic.

As for the third point, our entire society and economy is based on the principle of free trade with other nations. This model you've envisioned up has no functional way of incorporating this. I can guarantee the Germans are not interested in giving us fancy cars in exchange for facebook likes.

I said that prices, not money, would be eliminated.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

So you believe that the free-rider problem is only applicable to justice and defense? Every other good/service can be optimally supplied by either the non-profit sector or the for-profit sector?



If you assume that scarcity isn't a real thing, then I could see how you might reach this conclusion. But if you don't assume scarcity away, then your conclusion is far from realistic.



I said that prices, not money, would be eliminated.

 

[Mach]

I see absolutely no reason that the tax rate should ever be above 10%. When you really think about what 10% of the entire US economy is, it's absolutely a mind-blowingly large amount of cash, and all that really needs to be done with that money is administrative tasks, judicial tasks, and military upkeep. The 40 something percent tax burden we have today is ridiculous.

I certainly feel that way too. I don't know if it's reasonably justified on my part (yet? ever?) but 10% is a done deal. 40%, enraging madness.

 

[imagep]

I certainly feel that way too. I don't know if it's reasonably justified on my part (yet? ever?) but 10% is a done deal. 40%, enraging madness.

I agree that an overall tax rate of 10% of our private sector economy seems like it should be ample to support government, but I see no reason that it should be a flat 10% tax on income derrived from work. Taxing work is really kind of a random thing to tax, and isn't really logical when you consider that any time you tax something you get less of it. It may be practical from the standpoint that each person would pay according to what they can afford to pay, but who is to say how much anyone in particular can afford to pay? While surely someone with a multimillion dollar income can afford a flat 10% tax without reducing their standard of living, any income tax at all on a minimum wage worker would be harmful to not only that worker, but also to our economy as it reduces demand. The income tax on work is a compromise system based upon the concept of "from each according to their means", but it is otherwise pretty much nonsensical.

We could easily have an overall tax rate as low as 10% of our economy, but there is no logic behind it being a flat 10% of our incomes derived from work, with no other forms of taxation.

I would be all for having no tax on productive work what-so-ever, and funding government by printing all the money that it can without causing more than two or three percent inflation, and eliminating all means tested benefits, and having significant reductions in a other parts of our government.

However, I am not opposed to having taxation in order to promote social change (as in taxes on tobacco, alcohol, fossil fuels, and recreational drugs), and to directly fund parts of our government by a direct or indirect tax in proportion to and individuals use of that government benefit (like a gasoline tax to fund roads and the policing of roads, and a head tax or property tax to fund general police services and education/homeland security, etc.).

 

[Xerographica]

I certainly feel that way too. I don't know if it's reasonably justified on my part (yet? ever?) but 10% is a done deal. 40%, enraging madness.

How about you Mach? Lots of libertarians using the free-rider problem to critique the scenario I described. You agree with them?

 

[Mach]

How about you Mach? Lots of libertarians using the free-rider problem to critique the scenario I described. You agree with them?

I think the scenario is too complicated to demonstrate any particular succinct point. Analyzing all the ways it does and doesn't make sense would take some time, which seems kind of like a tall task just to make a single point. Off the cuff, an example of broken is when the flour guy allocates more flour to the baker who got better feedback. What sense would that make? The baker does not necessarily want, or need more flour, why would he have more allocated to him just because the flour guy is following some rule to partition more to him based on feedback (revenue)? In reality, you place orders, and you may receive preferential treatment from your supplier because of any number of relevant factors including consistency of orders, relationship, price you pay/terms, reputation, etc. But again, too much to tinker with to make any clear point IMO. The strength of a hypothetical is when it changes as little as possible to illustrate an irrefutable conclusion IMO.

 

[Xerographica]

I think the scenario is too complicated to demonstrate any particular succinct point. Analyzing all the ways it does and doesn't make sense would take some time, which seems kind of like a tall task just to make a single point. Off the cuff, an example of broken is when the flour guy allocates more flour to the baker who got better feedback. What sense would that make? The baker does not necessarily want, or need more flour, why would he have more allocated to him just because the flour guy is following some rule to partition more to him based on feedback (revenue)? In reality, you place orders, and you may receive preferential treatment from your supplier because of any number of relevant factors including consistency of orders, relationship, price you pay/terms, reputation, etc. But again, too much to tinker with to make any clear point IMO. The strength of a hypothetical is when it changes as little as possible to illustrate an irrefutable conclusion IMO.

If you haven't already done so...check out this thread......

A = The bakery does not have price tags...but its "revenue" is determined by government planners.

B = The bakery does not have price tags. You put the baked goods in your basket, have your items scanned for inventory purposes and leave the bakery without having to pay. If you valued how the bakery was using society's limited resources, then at anytime you could go to their website, consider the alternative uses of your money (opportunity cost) and make a donation of any amount.

C = The bakery has price tags. You look at the prices and consider the alternative uses of your money (opportunity cost). If you decide the baked goods are worth more than the alternative uses of your money, then you'd put them in your basket, go to the check out and pay for them.

I'd like to know your thoughts on just how important price tags are to ensuring the efficient allocation of society's limited resources. So if you get a chance it would be great if you could share your thoughts on the thread I started on the topic.