How Does the Invisible Hand Work?

[OneMale]

The taxpayer ought to determine this. They should be able to allocate funds to whatever government function they wish, including none. That, my friend, is the invisible hand at work.

Ah, clever! What separates a tax payer and a citizen voting to not pay taxes and is paid by taxation? Also within that framed idea why do institutions have rights by trademarks, patents, and copyrights every citizen must pay royalties to under civil law that makes it criminal to criticize civic definitions of authority in social frameworks of collective ideologies creating citizen/society's children psychologically, metaphysically, and metaphorically bound to honor rule of law that demands loyalty to ideologues writing the laws of the land.

Now here is why the World of Political theaters of heart, mind, and spirit must destroy the U.S. Constitution from within so those genders that understood liberty of sole results are never allowed to discuss understanding real within any society of reality.

Learn your place and earn rank by holding people into performing as character roles. i.e. entrepeneuralship. What is the middle class betweent ruling and ruled but management of the idea humans need classified by law so the few can rule the many and nobody knows who they are for sure.

Oh what webs are woven........... even in cyberspace.

 

[Centinel]

Ah, clever! What separates a tax payer and a citizen voting to not pay taxes and is paided by taxation?

I don't follow.

 

[OneMale]

I don't follow.

In the original Constitution one must have a vested interest to be able to vote on tax issues. Then progressives of societal evolution changed that law to convert the republic of ancestry to institutional control of what people are allowed to believe in, which is democracy through thugocracy of forming public opinion and getting out the vote to suppress liberty of sole existence to collective thinking characters need rights and characteristics must pay the price.

the invisible hand is a metaphor working in the sciences of metaphysics which are subliminal trade offs of understanding what is really going on and getting punished by losses of symbolic significance transforms genders into character role models being directed through vernacular written by people never in public view.

That is what being progressive is all about, forming the social identitey of the next generation in family, community, state, federal, and global. See, a dimension for every sense of physical instincts each having a existential meaning never to be compared in debate topics and separate issues to each level.

Ball of confusion by overloading thoughts with details in semantical what if. That is the other invisible hand of God. left and right, east and west, right and wrong legal and ethical, good and evil intentions.

Thing is always discussing left vs right, nobody focuses on top and bottom halves other than rank has it privileges or front and back halves tied to economic accomplishements in selling ity to real humans within what if good intentions character matters in the optics of spiritual and political debates as both sides have incomplete information...

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

In the original Constitution one must have a vested interest to be able to vote on tax issues. Then progressives of societal evolution changed that law to convert the republic of ancestry to institutional control of what people are allowed to believe in, which is democracy through thugocracy of forming public opinion and getting out the vote to suppress liberty of sole existence to collective thinking characters need rights and characteristics must pay the price.

Let me guess the solution: Origamis?

 

[Xerographica]

The taxpayer ought to determine this. They should be able to allocate funds to whatever government function they wish, including none. That, my friend, is the invisible hand at work.

But if you truly understand how the invisible hand works then you would also understand why advocating for anarcho-capitalism is completely unnecessary.

Here's why it is unnecessary to advocate for anarcho-capitalism. Let's say that taxpayers were only allowed to choose which government organizations received their own, individual, hard earned taxes. If taxpayers were truly satisfied with the private provision of X,Y,Z then why would they voluntarily allocate any of their own, individual, hard earned taxes to the public provision of X,Y,Z?

 

[Xerographica]

If a person is receiving free cheese from the government, why would he allocate any tax dollars to the free cheese department. He gets free cheese anyway, why not just free-ride and get the cheese that is paid for by other people?

In your scenario the person is paying taxes, therefore, the free-rider problem is not applicable. What you described is simply an example of a taxpayer division of labor.

What about a scenario where a person was receiving free government cheese but they weren't paying any taxes? Whether somebody was just mooching or truly deserving would be up to the Dept of Free Cheese and the taxpayers to decide. If you, as a taxpayer, felt that the Dept of Free Cheese was just giving free cheese to people that didn't really deserve free cheese then you would have the option to boycott the Dept of Free Cheese.

 

[imagep]

imagep, as I've already mentioned...taxpayers would still have the option to give all their taxes to congress. If, as you claim, congress truly does a good job of representing our interests...then why would you have a problem with allowing each and every taxpayer to substantiate your claim?

I never said I would have a problem with that. It would be an interesting experiment.

 

[OneMale]

Let me guess the solution: Origamis?

You have your symbols borrowed and I made up my own to see how philosophies divide a species of male and female lifetimes to become so self destructive and cannot figure out who is doing it to them with their own willing participation to play a role each generation humans remain male and female adopting character projections of other people's ideas.

What is larger than one's lifetime, physically? Continuation with being part of the added ancestry or remember in literature when every body learns how they were deceived in the same instant.

Origami helps me see real functions functioning, that allows me to find solutions to problems everybody else passes blame onto another societal play on words.

You are an educated fooled again for another generation. I cannot help those that are saving the means to their own self destruction. By their rights of character to deny I understand what real is.

And that is the invisible hand where nice guys finish last and no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[imagep]

The reason that I suggested that our system of government distribution decision making already acts as a defacto invisable hand is because generallly, when you really give it some some thought, the system we already have is pretty darn good. I know it's cool to be a government hater, really it's kind of macho, but usually all of this reinventing of the government is kinds of like reinventing the wheel. We already have the most successful system in the history of the world, it doesnt need reinventing - maybe some fine tuning, but not reinventing.

I've had executive experiance in two different types of organizations. As the ceo of a for profit company people don't usually second guess me too much. But as president of a non profit (well, it was actually my wife), I can tell you that people constantly second guess and critisize and constantly want to reinvent the wheel. It's mostly because they don't realize that the non profit actually has things under control. If a member of the non profit doesn't bother to show up to the meetings, they just assume that no decisions have been made, or that issues have not been resolved, and that planning hasn't been done.

A great example of this was when this lady who only occasionally volunteered to do anything showed up at a hospitality committee meeting. this committee had been planing for months. So the committee chairperson is giving a guided tour to the volunteers explaining where we were going to setup everything and that one lady who had left herself out of the loop started raising heck saying stuff like "you can't do that" and "it HAS to be done this way". Ultimately, she storms out and refuses to volunteer because she thinks that we are "stupid" and are "ruining everything" what she didn't realize is that hours and hours of careful thought and consideration had been given to the advanced planning. if she had bothered to come to the planning sessions, or to do some research or just to give the issues further thought, she would have realized that the people in charge were doing a perfectly fine job. It may have seemed crazy to her that we did things this way or that way, but the last thing she needed to be doing was to come in at the last minute and demand changes.

Sometimes it may not be on the surface apparent why we do things a certain way, but that doesn't mean that they are being done wrong, or that your idea is better.

Usually, when I see someone reinventing the wheel rather than just trying to fine tune something, it's because they are trying to fulfill a personal agenda, which may or may not be benefical to the group. sometimes such agenda is just pure selfishness.

 

[Tanzio]

The Invisible Hand is the management of intelligence.

 

[OneMale]

I know it's cool to be a government hater, really it's kind of macho, but usually all of this reinventing of the government is kinds of like reinventing the wheel. .

Why is it important to reinvent a wheel? To rediscover what was lost since it's conceptual commitment to time relativity. Where does time take a person trapped in this now moment between conception and death while always here in it physically as their sole result remains during their lifetime of adapting to the constant changes compounding the results here now, i.e. aging?

My point is, which wheel are you talking about? There are so many metaphors, and applications to choose from? The grinding wheel one holds their nose to for the greater good of humanity? What about cuting their nose off to spite their face metaphor going along with the grinding wheel.
Direct conflict with instincts and intellect where emotions will translate what the memories were trained to act upon.
Those that fail to regulate their own emotional translations between instinct/subconsciousness, and intellect/ability to assess the situation never staying the same outside the skin as well as within it will become regulated by those that have mastered it for them,i.e. society's child not ancestry's sole result that generation of continuence of genetic migration/survival of the species's lifetimes of sole results so far.
Now where eternity exists from? It is forever now that adds the details to it.

 

[TNAR]

i am saying that a representative group of that same population will result with approximately the same resource allocation as the invisible hand would. … My wife does the grocery shopping for our family. She is essentially our representative at the grocery store.

Your wife intimately knows each member of your family (what, three? four people?) whereas it is impossible for Congressmen to know the desires of each of the tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals he allegedly represents. Especially since the congressman is really only supposed to represent the desires of that portion which elected him to office. Therefore, he will essentially be diametrically opposed to the wishes of many individuals in his district.

TNAR, heh, you're sure interested in debunking a socialist system where taxpayers could directly allocate their taxes.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the misunderstanding and misuse of terms like “socialism” and “capitalism” and “free market”. High among these is the “socialism works in theory” claim so I try to clarify things whenever possible. My wife likes to tell me I’m manic.

Part of the value for your side is that offering Compromise B to liberals would force them to consider how the invisible hand works. This, in my opinion, would be priceless.

I can see the benefits of this and perhaps this is a step in the right direction but I’m not sure it would have the same conclusions as you believe.

Your critique of Compromise B is that it wouldn't allow competition between the public and private sectors. … If you donate money to the Red Cross...would you also allocate any of your taxes to FEMA?

You’re focusing on the allocation of resources as opposed to direct competition. Think of it from the perspective of the individual. Joe Schmoe needs someplace to live, food to eat, clothes to wear, entertainment to remove boredom, and income to provide all of these things. If he is able to choose between private housing and government housing then this is direct competition and I have no problem with it (provided, of course that the government housing obtains 100% of its funding through sales in the same manner as private housing). If he can go to the grocery store and can choose between Hunt’s ketchup and Government ketchup then we have direct competition (again, provided Gov’t ketchup does not receive subsidies or special regulatory privileges).

Simply allocating money to various agencies doesn’t cut it. This is the way that government budgets work and it certainly is not successful. Joe Schmoe has $50,000 to spend on his needs and the government claims $10,000 of it in taxes. So poor Joe is left with $40,000 on his needs and must allocate the remaining $10,000 on agencies like FEMA, DoD, DoJ, FAA, etc? There is no competition for funds in this manner. This sort of allocation could certainly result in budget shortfalls and an alteration of government structure but it wouldn’t change the underlying problems of government inefficiencies.

So what would happen if more and more taxpayers allocated their taxes to public healthcare? At some point the demand for private healthcare would decrease.

The problem with competition between public and private sectors is that they never compete on even ground. Public sector companies receive subsidies, regulatory benefits, monopoly/oligopoly privilege, loan guarantees, et cetera. Doesn’t seem like a fair fight to me.

Here's why it is unnecessary to advocate for anarcho-capitalism. Let's say that taxpayers were only allowed to choose which government organizations received their own, individual, hard earned taxes. If taxpayers were truly satisfied with the private provision of X,Y,Z then why would they voluntarily allocate any of their own, individual, hard earned taxes to the public provision of X,Y,Z?

I don’t think he was advocating anarcho-capitalism; in fact, it seems that he was suggesting the same thing as you simply in a different manner (which, coincidentally, was the same problem I had with your original assertion). Let me get this straight, you agree that a person should be able to allocate zero taxes to the government at all if they feel the services provided were not adequate or desired?

The reason that I suggested that our system of government distribution decision making already acts as a defacto invisable hand is because generallly, when you really give it some some thought, the system we already have is pretty darn good. … We already have the most successful system in the history of the world, it doesnt need reinventing - maybe some fine tuning, but not reinventing.

I agree and disagree. Yes, we have probably the best system of government in the world. Unfortunately, it has been massively skewed and corrupted over the years but overall it remains an excellent system of government. That said, there is plenty of room for enormous amounts of improvement. You say fine tuning, I say complete overhaul.

The great thing about a free market is that people are able to push the envelope and try new things. Mindboggling innovation has occurred because of the ability of a person to try something bizarre and unheard of. The thing that people never seem to realize is that innovation can and does occur in the field of government just as it can and does occur in the rest of our lives. People dream up new and unheard of processes and methods of performing functions. Technology allows new ways of doing things which previously would have been thought impossible.

We have an enormous population of individuals who are allegedly represented by a mere 535 people in the capital. This means that a single Representative acts for 720,000 individuals while a single Senator acts for a whopping 3,130,000 individuals! How in the world are they supposed to know “what’s best” for us? Why in the world are they even dictating to us how to live our lives? How are we supposed to believe that a bunch of career politicians in Washington, D.C. know more about what we need and desire than the career politicians within our own state or county or town?

You say you’ve had executive experience so you should be well-versed in the inefficiencies inherent in all top-down organizations. This has been and probably always will be the downfall of all massive organizations in the long run. Wal-Mart took out the giants of its day and a newcomer will likely take it out within our lifetime. People, companies, and governments get used to doing something one way and continue to do it that way because “it’s always been done that way” and before you know it, someone dreams up some fancy new doodad or method and POW, the big boys are lying on the floor bleeding.

Sometimes it may not be on the surface apparent why we do things a certain way, but that doesn't mean that they are being done wrong, or that your idea is better.

Absolutely; but the opposite is true as well.

Now where eternity exists from? It is forever now that adds the details to it.

My head hurts. I never understand a single thing you say. Sometimes I picture you sitting cross-legged in a small hut wearing only bright orange robes with a super long white beard and a bald head. Tell me I’m right!

 

[Centinel]

In the original Constitution one must have a vested interest to be able to vote on tax issues. Then progressives of societal evolution changed that law to convert the republic of ancestry to institutional control of what people are allowed to believe in, which is democracy through thugocracy of forming public opinion and getting out the vote to suppress liberty of sole existence to collective thinking characters need rights and characteristics must pay the price.

the invisible hand is a metaphor working in the sciences of metaphysics which are subliminal trade offs of understanding what is really going on and getting punished by losses of symbolic significance transforms genders into character role models being directed through vernacular written by people never in public view.

That is what being progressive is all about, forming the social identitey of the next generation in family, community, state, federal, and global. See, a dimension for every sense of physical instincts each having a existential meaning never to be compared in debate topics and separate issues to each level.

Ball of confusion by overloading thoughts with details in semantical what if. That is the other invisible hand of God. left and right, east and west, right and wrong legal and ethical, good and evil intentions.

Thing is always discussing left vs right, nobody focuses on top and bottom halves other than rank has it privileges or front and back halves tied to economic accomplishements in selling ity to real humans within what if good intentions character matters in the optics of spiritual and political debates as both sides have incomplete information...

Okay. Thanks for elaborating.

 

[Centinel]

If taxpayers were truly satisfied with the private provision of X,Y,Z then why would they voluntarily allocate any of their own, individual, hard earned taxes to the public provision of X,Y,Z?

They wouldn't, right?

 

[Centinel]

In your scenario the person is paying taxes, therefore, the free-rider problem is not applicable. What you described is simply an example of a taxpayer division of labor.

What about a scenario where a person was receiving free government cheese but they weren't paying any taxes? Whether somebody was just mooching or truly deserving would be up to the Dept of Free Cheese and the taxpayers to decide. If you, as a taxpayer, felt that the Dept of Free Cheese was just giving free cheese to people that didn't really deserve free cheese then you would have the option to boycott the Dept of Free Cheese.

I guess when the free cheese department runs out of money to produce cheese, they stop giving out free cheese. They can give out as much free cheese as taxpayers volunteer to pay for, and after that, the free cheese ends.

 

[OneMale]

My head hurts. I never understand a single thing you say. Sometimes I picture you sitting cross-legged in a small hut wearing only bright orange robes with a super long white beard and a bald head. Tell me I’m right!

Sorry, your imagination has run away with hopes that I am a real loon. I am not. Your head hurts from the instincts challenging being held in submission by your intellect.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

You have your symbols borrowed and I made up my own to see how philosophies divide a species of male and female lifetimes to become so self destructive and cannot figure out who is doing it to them with their own willing participation to play a role each generation humans remain male and female adopting character projections of other people's ideas.

What is larger than one's lifetime, physically? Continuation with being part of the added ancestry or remember in literature when every body learns how they were deceived in the same instant.

Origami helps me see real functions functioning, that allows me to find solutions to problems everybody else passes blame onto another societal play on words.

You are an educated fooled again for another generation. I cannot help those that are saving the means to their own self destruction. By their rights of character to deny I understand what real is.

And that is the invisible hand where nice guys finish last and no good deed goes unpunished.

Generational origamis are the solution?

 

[OneMale]

Generational origamis are the solution?

Unlike other art forms, origami follows contracting results folding into the next details always arriving within the same moment the contents that allow it all to happen exactly as it continues becoming self evident.

time doesn't change anything but opinions led by doubts composed in theory, theology, and fictional accounts of fracturing understanding into kingdoms of faith character matters socially colonizing like insects of characteristics in behavior as bees, ants, and termites.

Each serve a purpose in the natural balance of societal evolution making sure educated souls never want their sole lifetime back even at the costs of their own ancestors yet conceived, here in eternity's physical results so far.

Here is a timeline for you to reality of society from the dawn of civilization from eastern philosphies to western theologies and the end of times scenario. I Ching, Taoist, Maoists, and Nowism rising fast undercover using economic meltdowns and political uprisings, while people are loosing faith among all past beliefs.

 

[Xerographica]

I don’t think he was advocating anarcho-capitalism; in fact, it seems that he was suggesting the same thing as you simply in a different manner (which, coincidentally, was the same problem I had with your original assertion). Let me get this straight, you agree that a person should be able to allocate zero taxes to the government at all if they feel the services provided were not adequate or desired?

The taxpayer ought to determine this. They should be able to allocate funds to whatever government function they wish, including none. That, my friend, is the invisible hand at work.

The "including none" is the difference between anarcho-capitalism and pragmatarianism (Compromise B). In a pragmatarian system taxpayers could boycott every single government organization...except for one. Because...they have to pay taxes.

As I mentioned though...if you understand how the invisible hand works...and believe that the private sector can do everything better than the public sector can...then there's absolutely no reason to advocate for anarcho-capitalism. If the private sector can do X better than the public sector can...then there's no reason to believe that any taxpayers would allocate their taxes to the public provision of X. Therefore, the government would no longer receive enough funds to do X. This process would continue until there was only one government organization left.

With only one government organization left...then it would be up to the anarcho-capitalists to ensure that the private sector made this last remaining government organization completely redundant.

 

[Xerographica]

They wouldn't, right?

Correct. So does it make sense why it's completely unnecessary to advocate that taxes should be voluntary?

 

[TNAR]

In a pragmatarian system taxpayers could boycott every single government organization...except for one. Because...they have to pay taxes. ... With only one government organization left...then it would be up to the anarcho-capitalists to ensure that the private sector made this last remaining government organization completely redundant.

One single bureau which receives 100% of the tax income (again, who determines how much the tax is?) allowing it to be one massive organization. How does this solve anything? As it works itself down to a single entity it could branch out and supply a thousand new "services" to ensure that it gets funding over the other government agencies but this still doesn't suggest that it would be efficient or even needed. It's a novel idea but I don't see that it really solves anything.

 

[Deuce]

I hate to bring up the same point in every one of these threads but it's the same stupid idea and has the same glaring flaw:

Free market principles require several things to be present. A sufficiently-informed consumer, choice, and competition are some of the major building blocks and exactly none of those are present in this scenario. There's no Coke to the Department of Defense's Pepsi and you don't have a clue how much an F-15 costs nor how many F-15's are sufficient to protect the country's interests.

 

[Xerographica]

TNAR...let's say that you're my employee and I pay you $100 an hour to take care of 10 responsibilities. Assuming that all your responsibilities are equally valuable to me...what happens if, for whatever reasons, I gradually reduce your responsibilities one by one? Would I still pay you $100/hour to take care of 9 responsibilities? Perhaps...but your case for receiving $100/hour would be somewhat weakened. Would I still pay you $100 to take care of 8 responsibilities? Probably not. I'd probably reduce your pay to $90 or $85/hour.

Now...what are chances that I'd still be paying you $100/hour to only take care of 1 responsibility? If I paid you $100/hour to do 10 things then there would be absolutely no reason to pay you $100/hour to do 1 thing.

What should you do? You should do whatever society pays you the most to do. What should the government do? The government should simply do whatever we pay it to do. No more...and no less. Allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would allow us to conclusively determine what the proper responsibilities of government should be.

 

[Deuce]

TNAR...let's say that you're my employee and I pay you $100 an hour to take care of 10 responsibilities. Assuming that all your responsibilities are equally valuable to me...what happens if, for whatever reasons, I gradually reduce your responsibilities one by one? Would I still pay you $100/hour to take care of 9 responsibilities? Perhaps...but your case for receiving $100/hour would be somewhat weakened. Would I still pay you $100 to take care of 8 responsibilities? Probably not. I'd probably reduce your pay to $90 or $85/hour.

Now...what are chances that I'd still be paying you $100/hour to only take care of 1 responsibility? If I paid you $100/hour to do 10 things then there would be absolutely no reason to pay you $100/hour to do 1 thing.

What should you do? You should do whatever society pays you the most to do. What should the government do? The government should simply do whatever we pay it to do. No more...and no less. Allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would allow us to conclusively determine what the proper responsibilities of government should be.

Which sounds great in Candyland Libertopia, but in the real world this literally means people die. The government's role is not the same as a business, you can't just blindly apply business principles to something that isn't a business.

 

[Xerographica]

Deuce, do a quick search on this blog entry....Unglamorous but Important Things...for your username. Can you tell me how many times you are mentioned on that page?