A Survey on the Importance of Prices

[The Whit]

A=0
B= doesn't even make sense.  You cannot have a market or an economy without prices.  Prices are associated with opportunity cost.  If you have no opportunity cost, then you do not have scarcity.  If you do not have scarcity, you don't have the need to trade or economize.  

C=8.5 and only cause we're human.

...In poorly administered countries the option to ram your cheap car into an expensive one, and rob the hapless victim afterwards, is the best option in terms of ROI for the perpetrator.

Actually, in poorly administered countries (like Russia) the best option is to pretend to get hit by someone's car and sue their insurance.  If you hit someone and rob them, you could get serious prison time (if caught, and no doubt there would be a substantial effort).

Fify. Do you really believe people act out of 'goodness'? Do you ever watch the fucking news?

YES!  I believe in the goodness of people.  Evil is brought about by one thing: scarcity.  A society that is prosperous is also one that will be generous.  People like Bill Gates give a shit ton of money to charity every year.

Let's say I could take all your money in 10 seconds, without consequenses. That would be great value for me right? And it may well be that I will be spending it in a way that benefits the economy more that it would if you would be spending it.

WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES?  What world do you live in where you can change the world and yet somehow not?  If you take all of my money the inherent consequence is that I have no money, and you have a very little bit more.  If you're talking about legal consequences, then you might consider people's unwillingness to be around you when I tell them about what a fucking douche you are.  Maybe, I might plan to attack you back and take everything you have.  There is NO SUCH THING AS NO CONSEQUENCES!

Of course this means that there's no allocation of any resource to "the people", so anything that requires the government to allocate resources doesn't happen.

That means no roads, so nothing can get done.  (Try eating when there's no way to get food to the store you want to buy it from.)

WHAT?  Where would you send your tax dollars if you could control them?  I'd wager it'd look something like 20% to city, 40% to county, 30%to state, 10% to federal.

Who builds the roads!?  The counties or the state!  More of my money would go to the government bodies that fund the damned roads.  If we allowed people to control where their tax dollars went they'd spend it like they would anything else; what brings them the most value?  Who would contest a small tax to fund the governments if you could control where those dollars went?  If the roads are fine the people might shift their tax dollars to schools, parks, law enforcement, or libraries.

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

It also means no military, so unless you force the entire world to play along, a little country with a few hundred soldiers could overrun the US.

Right!  You obviously know absolutely nothing about my country.  In my small town of around 6,000 people I'd bet at least 70% own at least a shot gun (I've got a few guns myself).  A few hundred soldiers couldn't take my city unless they were in mechs.






To me, the idea of people controlling their tax dollars is probably the best god damned idea I've ever heard.  Possible, too with today's technology.  Without having to worry about funding and the ability to meet and discuss in video chat online, Federal legislative positions would be a part time job...mostly because there wouldn't be any money in it.

[Plu]

YES! I believe in the goodness of people. Evil is brought about by one thing: scarcity. A society that is prosperous is also one that will be generous. People like Bill Gates give a shit ton of money to charity every year.

Walmart, on the other hand, pays their employees so little that even with a fulltime job you can only survive if you get government assistance. And it's not like they have too little money to go around. Scarcity doesn't bring out evil. Greed does. And the greedy are also the ones who are best equipped to get rich and make others suffer for it.

WHAT? Where would you send your tax dollars if you could control them? I'd wager it'd look something like 20% to city, 40% to county, 30%to state, 10% to federal.

Who builds the roads!? The counties or the state! More of my money would go to the government bodies that fund the damned roads. If we allowed people to control where their tax dollars went they'd spend it like they would anything else; what brings them the most value? Who would contest a small tax to fund the governments if you could control where those dollars went? If the roads are fine the people might shift their tax dollars to schools, parks, law enforcement, or libraries.

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

You, and the other 90% of the people at the bottom of society, only have about 20% of the actual wealth. The remaining top 10% have the other 80%. What you would give your taxes to is close to irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is what the rich would give their taxes to, because they are the ones that actually impact things.

And they of course have no reason at all to fund things like public education (dumb people spend more money and their own kids can go to private school), a social safety net (it doesn't benefit them), public healthcare (you can just fly abroad if you have a medical problem) etc.
Even if the bottom 90% of the country would put all their assets together to try and support these 3 things (which is just stuff I can name off the top of my hat that would suffer) they would still not be able to generate enough money to keep them at their current levels.

[The Whit]

Walmart, on the other hand, pays their employees so little that even with a fulltime job you can only survive if you get government assistance. And it's not like they have too little money to go around. Scarcity doesn't bring out evil. Greed does. And the greedy are also the ones who are best equipped to get rich and make others suffer for it.

The reason why Wal*Mart can get away with low wages is because the economy is so shit it's the only option some people have, and scraps is better than starving.  If the economy were doing well wages would increase because of competition among companies.  Costco pays it's employees considerably well.

You, and the other 90% of the people at the bottom of society, only have about 20% of the actual wealth. The remaining top 10% have the other 80%. What you would give your taxes to is close to irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is what the rich would give their taxes to, because they are the ones that actually impact things.

And they of course have no reason at all to fund things like public education (dumb people spend more money and their own kids can go to private school), a social safety net (it doesn't benefit them), public healthcare (you can just fly abroad if you have a medical problem) etc.
Even if the bottom 90% of the country would put all their assets together to try and support these 3 things (which is just stuff I can name off the top of my hat that would suffer) they would still not be able to generate enough money to keep them at their current levels.

The only reason those top 10% have so much of the wealth is because they've been able to get the government to steal it from us in the form of taxes and inflation.  A lot of these rich people are still rich only because of the bail outs and Benny's quantative destruction of the value of the dollar.


What would you suggest?  We tax ourselves into prosperity?  That's like slitting your wrists cause you caught a cold.

[Plu]

The reason why Wal*Mart can get away with low wages is because the economy is so shit it's the only option some people have, and scraps is better than starving. If the economy were doing well wages would increase because of competition among companies. Costco pays it's employees considerably well.

The reason they will continue to be able to get away with it is because more and more jobs get replaced with machines, the overall population is soaring, and so there simply aren't and never again will be enough jobs to force companies into competition over labor.

The only reason those top 10% have so much of the wealth is because they've been able to get the government to steal it from us in the form of taxes and inflation. A lot of these rich people are still rich only because of the bail outs and Benny's quantative destruction of the value of the dollar.

Yes, that's probably a major part of it. But going even closer to the totally free, capitalist market isn't going to fix it. If you look at the world, living conditions for everyone are best in countries that go further into the socialist side of things (but not going too far with it, either) not closer to the free market. The more free a market, the more money will concentrate with the wealthy, because that's what realitistically happens with an economy at our current level of technology combined with capitalism.

What would you suggest?

Me? Not much. I'm not an economist. I can, at best, give reason why really naieve ideas wouldn't work and see what arguments are presented to deal with my situations. Unsurprisingly with this guy, the arguments are just repeating the exact same story over and over again and hoping that we'll forget the list of potential issues with this system we keep presenting.

We tax ourselves into prosperity?

Some of the countries with the highest tax rates in the world are also considered the best to live in. Tax is just money the government needs to operate, their usefulness depends entirely on how you use them. You currently live in an economy where the rich decide indirectly where the taxes go through bribing, and that's generating a shitty place to live. I'm not sure advocating a system where the rich can decide openly and freely where all the taxes go would really improve anything.

Also, don't forget that while it might be shitty government that got the rich people rich, if you switch systems now, they will still be rich. Any changes to the economic and political model will need to be applied to current reality, not a fictional starting point.

[Xerographica]

A=0
B= doesn't even make sense.  You cannot have a market or an economy without prices.  Prices are associated with opportunity cost.  If you have no opportunity cost, then you do not have scarcity.  If you do not have scarcity, you don't have the need to trade or economize.

A market is simply when you have demand, supply and choice.  This forum right here is a market.  There's demand...it matches our preferences to talk with random atheists...supply...100s and 100s of threads on various topics...and choice...it's up to you which topics you spend your scarce time on.  And if, as a consumer, you don't find any topics that match your preferences, then it's easier enough to become an entrepreneur and start your own thread.  If people choose to forego the other threads and spend their limited time on your thread, then you've given them a better option.  

Can resources be efficiently allocated in this market right here?  Sure, people are free to spend their limited time on the threads that provide them with the most value.  Therefore, we don't need prices for resources to be efficiently allocated.  

Do prices make it easy for you to know whether a product/good will provide you with the most value?  Let's see if we can figure it out.

Two for-profit bakeries.  They both sell the same exact type of bread.  But one bakery sells it cheaper.  So you buy the cheaper bread.  In doing so, you're giving the baker more influence over how society's limited resources are used.  The result is that we get more value from society's scarce resources.  

Two non-profit bakeries.  Is each owner going to use society's scarce resources exactly the same way?  If so, then it doesn't matter who you give your money to and get your bread from.  If not, then you give your money to whichever baker is making "better" bread.  In doing so, you're giving the better baker more influence over how society's limited resources are used.  The result is that we get more value from society's scarce resources.

Let's say that in a market economy without prices/profit, a young Thom Yorke worked in a bakery. But he also had a band on the side and a website where people could make donations. So he would receive money (positive feedback) for two different activities...baking and singing. He would be using society's scarce resources in two different ways.  He'd be hedging his bets.  Clearly though he would start to receive far more money (positive feedback) for his music making than for his bread making.  So he'd dedicate his time to making music rather than bread.  The result is that we get more value from society's scarce resources.  

To me, the idea of people controlling their tax dollars is probably the best god damned idea I've ever heard.  Possible, too with today's technology.  Without having to worry about funding and the ability to meet and discuss in video chat online, Federal legislative positions would be a part time job...mostly because there wouldn't be any money in it.

Nice!  If you get a chance check out the facebook page....tax choice...and the FAQ.

[Bibliofagus]

...In poorly administered countries the option to ram your cheap car into an expensive one, and rob the hapless victim afterwards, is the best option in terms of ROI for the perpetrator.

Actually, in poorly administered countries (like Russia) the best option is to pretend to get hit by someone's car and sue their insurance.  If you hit someone and rob them, you could get serious prison time (if caught, and no doubt there would be a substantial effort).

First of all: Way to miss the point dude. I was referring to what 'value' actually means in the lawless context this 'tax choice' is propagating.
Secondly: You ever heard of bribes? They are quite the rage in Russia.

Fify. Do you really believe people act out of 'goodness'? Do you ever watch the fucking news?

YES!  I believe in the goodness of people.  Evil is brought about by one thing: scarcity.  A society that is prosperous is also one that will be generous.  People like Bill Gates give a shit ton of money to charity every year.

Lolz. That's so naive it's actually cute. Kim Jung Il must also give half of his money to charity... Rich people never ever commit crime. Because... Bill Gates does what he does...
Sure thing dude.

Let's say I could take all your money in 10 seconds, without consequenses. That would be great value for me right? And it may well be that I will be spending it in a way that benefits the economy more that it would if you would be spending it.

WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES?  What world do you live in where you can change the world and yet somehow not? If you take all of my money the inherent consequence is that I have no money, and you have a very little bit more.  If you're talking about legal consequences, then you might consider people's unwillingness to be around you when I tell them about what a fucking douche you are.  Maybe, I might plan to attack you back and take everything you have.  There is NO SUCH THING AS NO CONSEQUENCES!

I'm sorry. I didn't realise you live in a world/country where all crime is being instantly solved, where every perp is known and punished.
I'm alas unfamiliar with any such places.

[Bibliofagus]

What's this 'value' you speak of?

You spend x amount of time on this forum.  The more time you spend on this forum, the less time you'll be able to spend on other things.  You don't randomly allocate your time.  You allocate your time according to the amount of benefit/enjoyment/utility/value you derive from each particular use of your time.  

Therefore, you maximize the amount of value you derive from your limited resources simply because you have the freedom to put your limited resources, in this case time, to their most valuable uses.  It's the same thing with money.  

Value for whom? Let's say I could take all your money in 10 seconds, without consequenses. That would be great value for me right? And it may well be that I will be spending it in a way that benefits the economy more that it would if you would be spending it.

It would be great immediate value.

Glad you recognise that.
There appears to be a gulf between what is best the best value for society, and what is the best value for the individual.
How are you going to solve this?

What are your thoughts on clientlism?

[The Whit]

Oh holy shit, here we go!

First of all: Way to miss the point dude. I was referring to what 'value' actually means in the lawless context this 'tax choice' is propagating.
Secondly: You ever heard of bribes? They are quite the rage in Russia.

Bribes are quite the rage in the US as well.  The only reason rich people bribe politicians is because their government is set up in a way that would reward them for doing so.  If you take the budget out of the hands of the politicians then you take away the power to redistribute government tax dollars into their businesses.  The only reason why rich people bribe politicians is because it has a positive return.  Some corporation can give someone on a certain board a couple hundred grand in campaign funds and improve their chances of landing contracts that are worth millions.

Lolz. That's so naive it's actually cute. Kim Jung Il must also give half of his money to charity... Rich people never ever commit crime. Because... Bill Gates does what he does...
Sure thing dude.

There's difference between a maniacal dictator and a guy who made billions from a product that is partly responsible for advancing our society.  Your argument is invalid.  Money does not make people criminals.

I'm sorry. I didn't realise you live in a world/country where all crime is being instantly solved, where every perp is known and punished.
I'm alas unfamiliar with any such places.

I'm not even going to waste my time...

Two for-profit bakeries.  They both sell the same exact type of bread.  But one bakery sells it cheaper.  So you buy the cheaper bread.  In doing so, you're giving the baker more influence over how society's limited resources are used.  The result is that we get more value from society's scarce resources.  

That's right.

Two non-profit bakeries.  Is each owner going to use society's scarce resources exactly the same way?  If so, then it doesn't matter who you give your money to and get your bread from.  If not, then you give your money to whichever baker is making "better" bread.  In doing so, you're giving the better baker more influence over how society's limited resources are used.  The result is that we get more value from society's scarce resources.

Both of those bakeries may be non-profit, but I'm still deciding based on market price vs personal value.  With these non-profit bakeries, how do they expand business?

Let's say that in a market economy without prices/profit (We've already determined that prices do not go away), a young Thom Yorke worked in a bakery. But he also had a band on the side and a website where people could make donations. So he would receive money (positive feedback) for two different activities...baking and singing. He would be using society's scarce resources in two different ways.  He'd be hedging his bets.  Clearly though he would start to receive far more money (positive feedback) for his music making than for his bread making.  So he'd dedicate his time to making music rather than bread.  The result is that we get more value from society's scarce resources.

What you're describing is the price/profit system.  Thom is going to switch from baking bread to playing music because there's more money in it.

The reason they will continue to be able to get away with it is because more and more jobs get replaced with machines, the overall population is soaring, and so there simply aren't and never again will be enough jobs to force companies into competition over labor.

Bro, do you even think?  What you're telling me is that you'd rather throw out all the machines Goodyear uses to make it's tires and have them hire people to do it by hand?  Like the price of tires wouldn't go through the roof (as if it isn't already there) and quality of those tires would decline immensely because humans are inherently less accurate and efficient than the machines Goodyear replaced those workers with.

Yes, that's probably a major part of it. But going even closer to the totally free, capitalist market isn't going to fix it. If you look at the world, living conditions for everyone are best in countries that go further into the socialist side of things (but not going too far with it, either) not closer to the free market. The more free a market, the more money will concentrate with the wealthy, because that's what realitistically happens with an economy at our current level of technology combined with capitalism.

You obviously know very little to nothing about economics.  The more free a market, the more free it's people...ALL of it's people.  The more a free market, the larger the middle class.  What the US has right now is not free-market capitalism.  It's crony capitalism.  There's a HUGE difference.

Some of the countries with the highest tax rates in the world are also considered the best to live in. Tax is just money the government needs to operate, their usefulness depends entirely on how you use them. You currently live in an economy where the rich decide indirectly where the taxes go through bribing, and that's generating a shitty place to live. I'm not sure advocating a system where the rich can decide openly and freely where all the taxes go would really improve anything.

Literally, WTF are you talking about?

Also, don't forget that while it might be shitty government that got the rich people rich, if you switch systems now, they will still be rich. Any changes to the economic and political model will need to be applied to current reality, not a fictional starting point.

No shit, Sherlock.  The rich would still be rich, but they wouldn't be stealing their wealth from me.

I don't have an inherent problem with people being rich.  If you provide a service or product that adds value to society then I don't really give a shit.  In an honest, free economy, those dollars would have been voluntarily given up in exchange for the product.  FFS look at Mark Zuckerberg.  A couple years ago he was another college kid.  Now he's a billionaire and facebook has always been free.

[Plu]

Bro, do you even think? What you're telling me is that you'd rather throw out all the machines Goodyear uses to make it's tires and have them hire people to do it by hand? Like the price of tires wouldn't go through the roof (as if it isn't already there) and quality of those tires would decline immensely because humans are inherently less accurate and efficient than the machines Goodyear replaced those workers with.

Assume less. I said nothing that even resembles this, anywhere. You're just imagining all sorts of things I might think. If you want to know what I think, ask me.

You obviously know very little to nothing about economics. The more free a market, the more free it's people...ALL of it's people. The more a free market, the larger the middle class. What the US has right now is not free-market capitalism. It's crony capitalism. There's a HUGE difference.

The only totally free markets I know of are in countries that are caught in perpetual civil war. Doesn't sound all that good to me. When you look at the list of countries considered the best to live in, there's a clear relation between "healthy mix of capitalism and socialism" and getting a good score. If you make a market completely free, big business will rape you up the ass ten times worse than they do now, and there'll be nothing you can do about it. The only thing protecting you now is government rules that disallow all manner of capitalist practices (monopolies, for one) that would completely suck you dry.

Literally, WTF are you talking about?

A system where people can decide where to put their taxes means that 10% of people can decide where 80% of the taxes are allocated. Do you think that they'll suddenly change from bribing politicians to being nice for society? They'll just continue doing what they're doing now: making sure all those taxes come back in profit for the company, rest of society be damned.

I don't have an inherent problem with people being rich. If you provide a service or product that adds value to society then I don't really give a shit. In an honest, free economy, those dollars would have been voluntarily given up in exchange for the product. FFS look at Mark Zuckerberg. A couple years ago he was another college kid. Now he's a billionaire and facebook has always been free.

I don't have an inherent problem with people being rich either, but I do have a problem with people fucking over the rest of society so they can add some more numbers to their bank account. And that's usually what rich people do; for many of them it's how they became rich in the first place. When you run a multi-billion dollar business and all your personal is on government aid to survive and you try to influence them into voting that very government aid away so the company makes more money, something is wrong.

Giving those people even more influence by directly allowing them to contribute nothing to social security and put all the money into more subsidies for their company is not going to end well. Think about how many public services you enjoy that are of no benefit to rich people. Most of those things will go away when free tax choice is introduced, because the people that benefit from them cannot afford to sustain all of them.

(As to facebook being free... that's only because facebook sells all your information to companies for marketing purposes. If we're going to talk economics, facebook comes at the cost of your privacy I guess.)

[Xerographica]

Both of those bakeries may be non-profit, but I'm still deciding based on market price vs personal value.  With these non-profit bakeries, how do they expand business?

Well...how does any non-profit organization increase its revenue?  They try and provide more value for more people.  If they make a mistake...if they provide less value...then they'll lose revenue...

For this is the salient point: private organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit, perform or lose their customers or their donors. When a private entity fails to deliver on its promise, or actually causes harm, it is held liable for the failure and pays the damages. When government fails, it gets a bigger budget and even more power. - Mary L. G. Theroux, Public and Private Responses to Katrina

If a non-profit bakery failed to perform then they would lose donors.  

Charitable organizations are better than government as a source of aid. First, it is easier for donors to hold charitable organizations accountable than it is for taxpayers to hold government accountable. A failed government program can go on forever. An ineffective charity has a more difficult time obtaining funding. - Arnold Kling, Libertarianism and Poverty

An ineffective non-profit bakery would have a more difficult time obtaining donations.

Another interesting finding of our analysis is that charitable fund-raising is highly profitable, with over $5 raised per dollar spent on fund-raising. While this number may strike economists used to profit maximization as somewhat high, it is perfectly in line with ideals of best practices promulgated by the charity watchdog groups and fund-raising professionals, as we show below. - James Andreoni and A. Abigail Payne, Is Crowding Out Due Entirely to Fundraising?

A non-profit bakery would be able to engage in fundraising/advertising if it wanted to increase its revenue.

The producer whose product turns out to have the combination of features that are closest to what the consumers really want may be no wiser than his competitors.  Yet he can grow rich while his competitors who guessed wrong go bankrupt.  But the larger result is that society as a whole gets more benefit from its limited resources by having them directed toward where those resources produce the kind of output that millions of people want, instead of producing things that they don't want. - Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

The non-profit bakery will gain revenue if it provides consumers with bread that that has the combination of features that are closest to what the consumers really want.  

The government should not help to save Chrysler, of course not. This is a private enterprise system. It's often described as a profit system but that's a misleading label. It's a profit and loss system. And the loss part is even more important than the profit because it's what gets rid of badly managed, poorly operated companies. When Chrysler loses money...it's got to do something. When Amtrak loses money it goes to congress and gets a bigger appropriation. - Milton Friedman

Unlike with our current government organizations, a non-profit bakery would lose revenue if it was badly managed and poorly operated.  

It's the stockholders of Exxon who ultimately are buying it. If they don't like what Exxon is doing with their money, they have a perfectly good alternative...they can sell the stock. And as the stock went down, if the stockholders didn't like it, they would pay somebody to change the policy which Exxon is following. We have a far greater degree of control over what Exxon does than we have over what a lot of our government corporations do. - Milton Friedman

Every person who made a donation to a non-profit bakery would be an investor...and if they didn't like what the bakery was doing with their money...they could invest their money elsewhere.  

What you're describing is the price/profit system.  Thom is going to switch from baking bread to playing music because there's more money in it.

Right, I'm describing a system of price/profit...but in the broad sense.  As Thoreau said, "The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it."  If what you gain is greater than what you give up, then you've profited.  If it isn't, then you've suffered a loss.  As an atheist I think it's tis tasty to quote the Bible...

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  -Mark 8:36

But the system that I describe won't have prices/profit in the narrow sense.  You wouldn't walk into a non-profit bakery and see price tags attached to their baked goods.  But maybe you'd see an obnoxiously large real time digital fundraising progress bar?  And if they were too aggressive in their efforts to get your donations, if they beat you over the head for your money and made your shopping experience very unpleasant...then you would just go to a non-profit bakery that was more refined in their approach to solicit your support.  Maybe after they scanned your selections they would place an info sheet in your bag which thanked you for choosing them and provided you information on their fundraising status.  Perhaps the sheet would provide some space to advertise/thank their biggest donors.  This would allow you to support the people who supported your favorite non-profits.

If you're interested in the topic...check out my blog entry...Civic Crowdfunding - Encouraging Participation.

[Xerographica]

A system where people can decide where to put their taxes means that 10% of people can decide where 80% of the taxes are allocated. Do you think that they'll suddenly change from bribing politicians to being nice for society? They'll just continue doing what they're doing now: making sure all those taxes come back in profit for the company, rest of society be damned.

Here's a hardcore liberal making the argument that the success of a business depends on public goods...

I hear all this, you know, "Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever."—No!  There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.  You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear.  You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.  You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.  You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.  You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.  Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.  But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.    - Elizabeth Warren

I have absolutely no problem with the argument that public goods are essential inputs.  My argument is that it's ridiculously idiotic to believe that Elizabeth Warren knows how much of each input a business owner needs to successfully operate his business.  

There are millions and millions of business owners and only 300 congresspeople.  We don't have these meddling middlemen because it's economically logical...we have them because nearly a 1000 years ago some barons doubted the belief that kings had divine authority.  Now it's time for the next step in our political/economic evolution.  It's time for you to doubt the belief that congress has divine authority.  Congress is not omniscient...they can't have more information than millions and millions of business owners.  In order for highly decentralized information to be put to use, we need consumers to be free to use their own money to communicate their concerns and circumstances...and we need producers to be free to take that information and utilize society's limited resources accordingly.  It's a highly dynamic process that you participate in and benefit from every day but you take it entirely for granted.  

And if you want to try and guess what government organizations the wealthy would donate their tax dollars to....then why not just look at what types of public goods they currently donate their money to...

It is well known that wealthy donors give to different causes than low income donors – more to education, hospitals and the arts, less to religion. - Yair Listokin and David Schizer, I Like to Pay Taxes: Lessons of Philanthropy for Tax and Spending Policy

[The Whit]

According to your description, I don't see any between option b and c.

[Xerographica]

Glad you recognise that.
There appears to be a gulf between what is best the best value for society, and what is the best value for the individual.
How are you going to solve this?

In order to determine best value...we can either rely on actions...or we can rely on words.  Actions are spending/sacrifice/exchanging/trading.  How much you're personally willing to sacrifice for something reveals how much you value it.  

Words are voting...surveys...hypothetical situations.  People simply tell us what they value.  For example, people say they want a war on drugs and then congress guesses how much people value a war on drugs.  But how accurately can congress guess the true values of millions of unique individuals?  If you want to argue that their guesses are more accurate than our own actions...then there's really no need to allow people to shop for themselves.  In fact, we're destroying value by allowing people to shop for themselves.  Congress should simply decide how much of every single good/service should be supplied.

But the truth of the matter is, congress cannot accurately guess the true values of millions and millions of unique individuals in unique circumstances.  Therefore there's a huge gap between people's true values and the guesses of congress.  The result is that value is destroyed.  We end up with far more drug war and not enough healthcare.  We end up with far more war on terror and not enough education.  

So if we want to know exactly how much society truly values each and every public good...then we should give people the freedom to act.  Taxpayers should have the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector.  They should have the freedom to decide for themselves how much they are personally willing to sacrifice for the public goods that they want more of.  

What are your thoughts on clientlism?

What are your thoughts on euergetism?  

Some have more power, control and influence than others...
 

In a market regime, some are made richer and some made poorer; in a command structure, some have greater authority and some less. It is equally clear that, in an all-market regime, wealth constitutes authority, and that, in an all-command structure, authority results in wealth. Also true, but perhaps less plain, is the fact that in mixed systems like ours people will use their distributional advantage in one medium to overcome their distributional disadvantage in the other by 'altering' or 'corrupting' that other medium. The use of money to influence or 'corrupt' those in authority is easy enough to understand, whether through bribes or campaign contributions.- Guido Calabresi

In a pragmatarian system, could you "corrupt" those in authority?  Imagine you're in charge of the EPA.  An extremely wealthy business owner offers to give your organization a shit ton of his tax dollars if you bend the rules for him.  Are you going to do it?  Maybe you won't get caught?  Maybe nobody would notice?  

Except, the fact of the matter is that you have millions of environmentalists giving their tax dollars to your organization.  They see, know and value exactly what you are doing with their money.  They can see and know because your organization is 100% transparent.  It's 100% transparent because they know and you know that corporations will want to influence you against the environment.  So if you want the trust of environmentalists...then you're going to have to be 100% transparent.  

But how much influence/power/control should the EPA have over how society's limited resources are used?  It's gotta be up to the taxpayers to decide.  Because allowing congress to decide adds an opaque layer that obscures the process by which influence/power/control is distributed.

Not that I'd want to get rid of congress though.  People shouldn't have to shop for public goods anymore than they should have to shop for any goods.  If they want to give their portion of the power to congress then power to them.  In fact, I think they should be able to give their taxes to specific congresspeople.  I'd love to know exactly how much power/control/influence society truly believes that each and every congressperson should have.  Can you guess which congressperson would receive the most money?  Can you guess which congressperson would receive the least money?

Jumping back to the EPA, assuming every country implemented pragmatarianism...can you guess which country would give it's own EPA the largest percentage of its revenue?  Would environmentalists be motivated to vote with their feet and move to this country that has so many citizens that place such a high priority on protecting the environment?  

Again, actions speak louder than words...

When you vote, the chance that you tip the outcome is near 0%, so you might as well just scream about your identity.  When you move, in contrast, the chance that you tip the outcome is near 100%, so you'd better consider cost and convenience. - Bryan Caplan, Expressive Voting, Emigration, and Alsace-Lorraine

There are, however, several other considerations that are sometimes mentioned in the context of revealed preference that do suggest a systematic and predictable bias in the divergence between actions and words (and by extrapolation between market and electoral preference), and these considerations are of more interest in the current setting. - Geoffrey Brennan, Loren Lomasky, Democracy and Decision

As was noted in Chapter 3, expressions of malice and/or envy no less than expressions of altruism are cheaper in the voting booth than in the market.  A German voter who in 1933 cast a ballot for Hitler was able to indulge his antisemitic sentiments at much less cost than she would have borne by organizing a pogrom. - Geoffrey Brennan, Loren Lomasky, Democracy and Decision

Furthermore, social scientists know that there is often a big gulf between consumers' answers to surveys questions and what they actually do when confronted with real choices involving real prices and the immediate circumstances of consumption. - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free

[Xerographica]

According to your description, I don't see any between option b and c.

Here's the difference between B and C...

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 paying.  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 the money, then you'd put them in your basket, go to the check out and pay for them.  

If you don't see any difference between B and C, then price tags aren't really necessary.  Go spread the word to the members of NationStates.

[Colanth]

Glad you recognise that.
There appears to be a gulf between what is best the best value for society, and what is the best value for the individual.
How are you going to solve this?

In order to determine best value...we can either rely on actions.

[/quote]The actions of individuals - society doesn't act.  How do you propose that we ensure that individuals act for the best value for society, not for the best value for themselves, when the apparent best values are different (even though the non-apparent best values - which most individuals are totally unaware of - are the same)?

IOW, how can we make sure that John, who doesn't own a car, contributes to road maintenance?  In his view, that's a waste of his tax money.  He - as an individual - doesn't need well-maintained roads.  When he starves to death, because the delivery trucks couldn't deliver food to the store he shops at, it's too late for him to change his mind.

When that problem repeats millions of times the nation crumbles and no one has to worry about taxes or efficiency, because a non-functioning system operates at 0% efficiency.