Yuku free message boards

rubicon:

My gracious!

In my opinion, he is the Adam Smith of the Information Age.

Pilzer expounds the central concept that got us from hunter-gather to agricultural to industrial to information age. In a word, technology.

Now APT is in a sense a technology.

APT is the prime candidate for the emerging information age.

And just as information age technology is accelerating economic expansion worldwide, so too will APT facilitate this accelerated economic expansion, with all the attendant benefits to society.

As we speak, hundreds of millions of people in the developing economies are entering the middle class. This is not due to any windfall in available natural resources, but in economic progress resulting from new technologies.

We as Americans stand at the threshold of tremendous opportunity. APT can enable a quantum increase for our economy, to the tremendous benefit of all.

Glad to have you involved in this great discussion...

I want to tithe right now. Do I make my check out to Pilzer or APT or to technology? So many Gods too which to pay homage; what a conundrum.

I haven't heard such erudite effusions since I attended "Youth for Christ" meetings when I was young. Extrapolating, I can see APT getting us to Mars overnight. From one who rails about staying focused on the purpose of this blog site such euphoric exaltations raise the question of whether the purpose here is merely to cheerlead or to deliberate. Based on your outpouring this seems more of a "wave" than a discussion.

Impressive background, that of Mr. Pilzer. Haven't read his book, but do question the conclusion that because he expresses disagreement with Malthus, one whose theories have been accepted for a long time, he has all of the sudden rendered Malthus to the dust bin. Does it strike you that Pilzer, a bright, learned man, who decided to forsake the hallowed halls of learning for the world of enterprise and wealth seeking, might have ulterior motives. Most of those who enter the world of books and audio tapes for sale are not so much interested in enlightenment of thought as they are in the lightening of wallets. Often they have earned their riches in the wild, wooly, risky world of commerce and have decided to continue further wealth seeking in the safer venue of preying on the dreams of the common man. Given the story he relates about his father, one would expect that he would be giving away this knowledge and insight instead of selling it for a profit.

Technology is a wonderful thing. It is less the creator of advanced thought but more a facilitator. Great ideas emanate from the minds of men, not from machines. Technology has enabled faster applications; more efficient processes; the collection and dissemination of more information; the latter as much a curse as a blessing. Technology, on its own, has created little, it is a tool employed by learned men to streamline innovation. Had the hunter-gathers, in their time, had more technical knowledge of the physical and social world, they would have improved their methods of hunting and gathering; they would not have made a quantum leap to the information age.

Your worshipping of all your perceived benefits of technology has blurred your vision of reality. Emerging nations are benefitting and some, few, are moving to middle class status not due primarily to technological advances as due to cheap labor and free trade. Aside from improved communications systems, the shift in manufacturing to overseas is based on lower labor costs and elimination of tariffs; not technology, or more natural resources. This shift is driving economic growth in emerging, developing countries.

You continually get your tongue wrapped around your eye-teeth in thinking that economic enterprise is built around lower taxes. It is not. It is built around lower input costs, especially labor costs and higher profits. No doubt in those emerging countries a new wave of technology will eventually take them through our learning curve and will improve efficiencies and productivity. It will be interesting to see how those governments deal with the technology improvements because, once commenced, they will stem the tide of job growth and if not timed right could remand them back to 3rd world status from a perspective of the bulk of their population.

We always arrive back at the same basic question: Does an economic system exist to enhance the wealth of those who master it or does it exist to improve the plights of all mankind?

Spare us your ecstatic discoveries of a new Adam Smith based on reading one book. We have already established that even Adam Smith did not always agree with your views. A shortcoming of his rather than yours, I'm sure.

rubicon:

Given that your opening statement is one of opinion, and your opinion at that, I shall receive it with the import it deserves. Should there be any feeling of contrition on my part it might help if I new exactly which assertions are wild. As is your bent, you respond to an encylopedia of statements with one resounding, often absurd, proclamation. That which is unfathomable to you has very few bounds.

You do love that invisible hand reference. Perhaps if you understood that it is a purview of human nature you might better understand the concept. Human nature constantly evolves. What was true as posited yesterday may not necessarily be true today. Little in the venue of human nature is absolute; is constant in the long term. To a great extent it is man's ability to change and adapt that has facilitated his existence to this point. Going forward may be a different story.

I would have to suggest that Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave at the exhorbitant salaries of corporate executives today, coming at the expense of common laborers. I doubt that he would agree that eliminating jobs here and transferring them overseas inurs to the common good of our society. Maybe if we define the common good as the cheapest cost goods, he might accept the premise. If we expand our view of society to that of a worldwide society then his assertions might live on. His constant reference is to the good of society; one must presume that he was speaking of a specific society not a worldwide one. In his time there was not much concern for the plight of others outside the immediate society. This was true of most great thinkers of that time. Few were enraptured with the welfare of all mankind. Look at a section from his initial reference to the invisible hand:

As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.

In today's world that premise falls far short of reality. Smith was arguing that by pursuing self-interest, even based on greed, one's actions would indirectly provide societal benefit for all. If what is happening in America's economic processes today is still consistent with that premise, it is apparent that we have exceeded the limits of my ability to comprehend. More from Smith:

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

An interesting concept that has been embellished by many over the years. Since it appeals to your constant invocations of a divine intervention, your enamoring makes sense. When reading the wisdom of the great thinkers of previous generations it might help if you noticed how often they refer to the betterment of society as a goal as opposed to proclaiming the primacy of the individual.

As is usual you live in a world of extremes, where there is no middle ground. There is a very long continuum from living in a monastery on one end and continuing to soak in the warmth of free enterprise on the other. Mr. Pilzer relates a story about his father, portraying his father's concern for an employee, ergo his fellow man. He tells this story appearing to suggest his own concern for the welfare of all. Mr. Pilzer has been successful. He has made a lot of money. At what point is enough money, enough? At what point do those achieving great success return the favor with Noblesse Oblige. Self help, how to, books are written, by most, for financial reward, not from some obligatory notion to aid the less forunate. Selling audio tapes in addition is, to me, further evidence that the motives are not toward the common good. To the extent that somehow the common good is better served from his books and tapes, there the invisible hand lies. "Better served" is the arguable question there.

Promoting and advocating through reasoned debate is admirable; through "irrational exurberance"; less so.

One can only thank you profusely for your toleration of reasoned dissent. One could hope that it would be met in kind. Alas.

rubicon:

Individual actions guided by self-interest and morally bound by conscience and law produce the greater good that interventionist ideologies claim as their objective.

You should write revisionist history. Adam Smith made no reference to, morally bound by conscience and law, in his allusion to the invisible hand. You might assume that it's included but he did not mention it. In his time, given the smallness of community and the inablility of most to affect much beyond their immediate community it is highly likely that community stigmatization would have created a reliance on moral conscience. We are far beyond that scenario today. Laws, by their very nature, are interpretable and often leave wiggle room for someone to push the envelope and technically violate them. In today's world, moral conscience and laws are scant impediments to serving self-interests for economic gain. In a perfect world, moral conscience would negate a need for laws.

The invisible hand doctrine, if it ever truly existed, has gone the way of God and Mother Nature as agents of "good" behavior. If the economic gain is significant enough, and that can be a low threshhold, then we can ask forgiveness from God and we'll be long gone before Mother Nature catches up with us. The economic world is an amoral one. Actions taken are not specifically intentioned to harm others but rather are taken with the cavalier attitude of benign neglect. In fact the invisible hand doctrine is often invoked as justification for selfish acts. In today's world we seldom "back into" the common good.

Your problem is you want to play "God" and impose your notions of fairness and equality, and impose a penalty for "greed". The imperative of human liberty in its vital role in preserving human life and human advancement militate against your predilection.

It is not I who wishes to be the instrument of Godly powers. As with everything in a democracy it is the will of the people that will determine that which is fair and equitable. Currently, the will of the people, including even some of those of extreme wealth, is tending more toward my ideas than yours. It does not take a rocket scientist, nor a PhD in Economics, to see that what has been taking place in this country for the last 25 years, bears no resemblance to the common good, at least not our "domestic" common good.

Realize you are not much of a history buff but I have pointed out before that the period from the 40s through the 70s produced the greatest economic and technological advancement in history, with relative income equality, with very high marginal tax rates, and certainly with no impairment to human liberty. Your fanciful expressions are completely devoid of empirical or historical evidence. At best they are the rantings of an inobservant mind or, at worst, are the regurgitation of ideas from the self-help gurus.

Unlimited wealth as a concept is liberating. Individuals can achieve wealth without taking away from anyone else, because wealth is created. Further, the wealth creation process requires transactions which APT taxes in the exactly neutral flat percent of the dollar value.

I find it puzzling that you seem to exhibit no comprehension of the way real life operates. Few, if any, set out to achieve unlimited wealth. Few, if any, can even contemplate what unlimited wealth is. Most of those equipped with the talents and connections to acquire "great" wealth seek merely a living standard that provides for all that they want or might come to want. Those with less talents, though envious or jealous, do not necessarily desire unlimited wealth but simply an existence where all their wants and needs can be met without a concern for losing their jobs or livelihoods.

How exactly is wealth created?

If I own a piece of land for a period of years and that land becomes worth 1000 fold more than I paid for it, I have acheived a degree of wealth when I sell it, but only if someone else is willing to invest their wealth in my piece of property. If that someone seeks to achieve more wealth by building a shopping center on that property, chances are he has the power and influence, via his wealth, to achieve a rezoning, if necessary, to effect his plans. If I own a home next to that property, in which I am raising a family and minding my own business, it is likely that his shopping center will devalue my home and render extreme difficulties in my ability to sell should I desire to. Therefore he has detracted from my wealth.

If Mr. Pilzer sells a lot of books, he adds to his wealth from the profits on those books. People who buy his books are giving up some of their wealth to pay for his books. On a micro level this wealth exchange is miniscule; on a macro level, inuring only to the benefit of Mr. Pilzer, he adds much wealth from the sale of his books by taking a small amount of a lot of others wealth.

If I build a company and then take it public in an IPO; I accumulate significant wealth from the initial sale of my stock in my company. Those stock sales are exacted from someone else giving up some of their wealth to buy my stock seeking greater wealth for themselves. Now if the stock price continues to escalate, then he and I both add to our wealth, somewhat through creation, given that my stock did not previously exist. However the stock price doesn't escalate unless there are buyers waiting out there to pay a higher price for the stock; from their wealth. As conventional wisdom has it, with, perhaps, the exception of IPOs, stock trading is a zero sum game.

In the short term wealth is not created it merely changes hands. In the longer term one could argue that in a macro sense some new aggregate wealth is created. Even new products, Plasma TVs, faster computers, fancier gizmos, do not create wealth in the macro sense. Their introduction is successful and profitable because people shifted their spending from an another product option. These examples are not necessarily punitive. They are situations that evolve everyday and can, in some instances, improve the common good. If the wealth transfer or even creation inurs to the benefit of each individual and nothing is done with it to improve others lives then the common good has not been served.

We were advised that "trickle down" economics would lead to a lifting of all boats; that those with newly lowered taxes would invest in new businesses creating a plethora of new jobs and provide for the improvement of the common good. Didn't happen.

Further these examples point out that wealth accumulation does not occur without risks. Holding land for a long period of time and paying taxes on it is only beneficial, economically, if the land increases significantly in value. Attempting to sell books involves the risks that sales will not be sufficient to offset publishing costs. Mr. Pilzer will not suffer any losses from the endeavor, chances are he will have been paid an advance, contributing to those publishing costs, and will merely suffer from less profits than he anticipated. Even if no advance, he will only be out some time, no loss of his wealth. The IPO issuer runs the risk that he might be a billionaire today and a pauper tomorrow. He may salvage some rewards from his efforts, but the tech bubble experience, rendered many entrepreneurs broke without even their companies left and a huge number of hardworking employees left with no jobs.

This risk taking is the driver of economic growth. It is the provider of potential benefits to the common good. Under the current tax system this risk taking can benefit from the deductibility of business losses; somewhat mitigating risk. Under APT we will further add to the risk because the various activities involved will incur taxes regardless the success or failure of the venture.

And might I add that your "long continuum" is a slippery slope down the road to perdition?

What!!??

A continuum is nothing more than a line with various data points. At one end you have one extreme and at the other end another. Continuums are not proffered as value judgments; they do not suggest which data point has more value than another, they merely display, graphically, the list of possibilities. How you get to a slippery slope or a road to anywhere from that is beyond me. You need to learn to read and understand the words and not the cartoonish pictures your mind invents.

I have told you before no one is advocating egalitarianism. By limiting the exhorbitantcy of wealth accumulation we are only seeking to inject a real control for the common good and render the invisible hand to the same place in childhood fantasy as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

rubicon:

Please tell me what the point of all of this is. If I say "day", you'll say "night". What's to be accomplished? I know you want to debate. I apologize I can't accommodate you .

It is less that you say day, but rather that you say, under APT, "blue sky", 24/7. What is to be accomplished in any discussion other than a clarification or refutation of the assertions made? This site is titled, General Discussion, Webster defines discussion thusly: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate. Therefore our discussion is by definition, if not by nature, debate.

Admittedly, you and I often veer from a pure APT analysis to more general, obscure philosophical subjects. These can be seen as off-point but in a larger sense and a practical one they are the basic foundation of any government activities, taxation or otherwise. As I often assert these, non-APT specific, subjects are at the heart of what must be overcome for APT or any other major tax reform to even enter the sphere of general consideration. It has long been premised that any discourse between two or more parties will, after invoking 5 or 6 propositions/questions, be reduced to a discussion of religion or philosophy.

Promotion is an entirely different phenomenon. It seeks to avoid disagreement by positing positive declarations, generally appealing to emotions, which, either through attendant visual compliments (TV ads, formal presentations), or through attempts to espouse universal, absolute, often historical, sometimes ethereal, views that are considered less subject to dispute, to sell its object or idea. In a discussion arena, promotion can often fail because the audience may expect a more thorough explanation of the premises supporting the declarations, even when those declarations are thought to be universal or absolute.

No doubt I have more time, but I also believe completely in the necessity of supporting conclusions with facts or premises that logically lead to those conclusions. My opinions are personally strongly held but without explaining the thought process and/or facts that led me to those opinions, they are but promotion of my point of view. As such they are worth little more than the screen upon which I post them. To posit that my opinions are beyond question or that they are founded in some specific intuition or knowledge that only I possess, or that I believe are universally accepted as true, is an affront to all those reading them. It is only through a reasonable delineation of how my opinions were derived; how they developed; that I can objectively present them to an assumed intelligent audience as valid. Certainly this leaves me open to disputing arguments but requires that those arguments negate each or most of my premises. This is not accomplished by invoking terms like, moral authority or natural order or appeals to other value's related phenomenon. It is done by proposing points of disagreement and supporting those points with specific refutational data.

Objectively, and I do not intend this as demeaning, I have offered very sound refutation to many of your statements. The latest: Individuals can achieve wealth without taking away from anyone else, because wealth is created., is, perhaps, the best example. This does not make me brighter than you; it does not make me more knowledgable than you; it merely suggests that I have given more thought to the implications of your statements than perhaps you have.

Promotion works best in venues where disagreement cannot be immediately expressed.

I am not sure that we see a raft of potential supporters or negaters at this site. Though it is possible that some might come and read our sometimes vehement posts and decide against expressing an opinion, on the other hand, they do not have to read our discussion or can ignore it and can certainly post their own views as just an affirmation of APT or are free to ask any questions they may have. I doubt the voluminous nature of our discussion, in and of itself, is much of a deterrent.

Much is said by you and Dr. Hermann of the newness, complexity and lack of knowledge of APT as the reason for few professionals joining the thrall. Though difficult to search on Google, if you follow John M. Gunther's link to the MIT website, read his paper and then follow a couple of other links you will see that he has been a proponent of a transaction based tax since 1980. You will see that there was a symposium in 2000 (the occassion of the initial presentation of Dr. Feige's paper) where others proposed various tax schemes predicated on transaction based taxation. Scanning through the submissions to the, aforementioned, Tax Reform Council, reveals other transation based tax proposals. Apparently the idea is not that new and, though presented by bright, knowledgable people, seems to be very slow to garner much interest. I offer this not to refute APT outright but merely to suggest that either you haven't pursued other inputs to the issue or there is an aspect of disingenuousness in your explanations as to why there are not more proponents.

Despite Dr. Hermann's protests to the contrary, APT does have serious flaws, some foundational. I have pointed out some of them. Others here have done the same or have at least argued about the sales approach being employed. Casting us off as selfish or biased or surviving on conjecture is simply expressing a desire to dismiss or play down reasonable dissent. It is again, promotion not discussion.

I visit the site frequently and have no compulsion against weighing in on various posts. My responses can be polite, sophisticated or whatever, until I am greeted with responses that I feel insult my intelligence. At that point I can become like a snake in the grass.

rubicon:

My appeal to the better angels in you seems to be in vain.

I have no angels, better or worse, in me. I am a realist. I do not look at issues through rose colored glasses, enabling me to only see positives with no regard for the real life negatives.

You seem quite determined that the pernicious APT should be snuffed out before it can possibly take hold.

There is no need for me to attempt to snuff out APT before it takes hold. It appears to be pretty well snuffed out at this point.

Your posting here goes well beyond what is appropriate to this discussion forum.

I missed the rules and regulations, or maybe it was the Ms. Manners section, that defined what is appropriate for posting on this discussion forum. I didn't realize that only those espousing Valhallic praise for APT should dare to enter this hallowed portal. Your inability to discuss, beyond inane proclamations and the not so subtle insinuations that the rationale for APT emanates from some sort of extra world force, would not normally be the delimiter for everyone else's posting.

Your posts betray an ego out of control.

Do I have a strong ego? Some might say so; ok, many might say so, but it is I who post reams of justification for my point/counterpoint statements as opposed to those who exclaim self-evident truths which are only evident to themselves. Your problem is less an ego one that a superego one.

There's no give and take with you.

Amazing! You consistently ascribe to others that which you are most inclined to. I offer objections or questions and you choose to ignore them and respond with either a univeral condemnation of my motives or with an interjection of ethereal manifestations.

No one wants to dialog with you. Or more precisely, no one can dialog with you.

Choice is always a good thing. Those who do not wish to dialog with me are free to make that choice. I require no dialog, pro or con, to reassure me the validity of my views or to assuage my insecurities. Many can dialog with me, artfully, you seem unable to because you do not rely on reason and logic but rather through appeals to emotion, to feel good blather, supposedly, wrapped in inarguable postulates. You seem to absorb what you read but fail to assimilate it.

I was hoping at some point you would feel a cathartic sense of relief that you've already posted more words here than anyone else, and maybe mellow out from this point on. I still hold out hope, but it is a dim hope right now.

I am sorry, I don't keep track of the number of words I post. Word volume offers me no catharsis whatsoever. My catharsis is fed by thinking and ideas; by dissecting proposals or premises and wallowing in the detail minutiae behind them, or lack thereof. I am not a creative person by nature. My strengths lie in analysis, and at that I am very good. I could mellow somewhat if you didn't keep posting your incessant tripe. You use fewer words but that is because you have less to say that is worthwhile.

By the way, you should spend some time posting with the Fair Tax crowd. Many of them seem to share your temperament.

Hot dog! I may have to go there! Determining temperment through reading words must be another of your extra world powers. I am a fairly easy going guy. I am very gregarious and am a joy to most who know and have worked with me, even debating adversaries, because of my consistent adherence to humor, both self-deprecating and sarcastic. There is no greater emotion than laughter and nothing in life or death should temper it. My extreme, complete disdain for the Fair Tax and the fatuous arguments and lies supporting it, might cause my blood pressure to rise to unsafe levels should I engage with supporters of it, so perhaps I should remain here where the quality of debate/discussion is less vexing.

rubi:

Geez, thanks!