Merged A Thread for AlexPontik to Explain his Ideas

[AlexPontik]

Explaining hard concepts using simple words is a mark of someone who really understands the topic. This is not the case here. Substituting known, and already simple words, to his unnecessarily specific terms for absolutely no reason is a problem.

Fun for example, we all have our own definition that doesn't need explaining. But to insert fun as the function of demand, as far as I can tell, is somewhere between dishonest and trying to be too clever. It doesn't add to the conversation, and also distracts from it mightily.

Fun, we all have our own definition that doesn't need explaining. Even for the murderers, the rapists, the liars? They don't need to explain themselves?

You may have a point on "But to insert fun as the function of demand", but you will need to explain yourself, in order for me to understand what you mean.
How? Do it in a funny way for all of us in the thread.

 

[AlexPontik]

It is the hallmark of somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Economists usually talk about "needs and wants". We only have the ability to satisfy a fraction of our needs and wants and must therefore choose which ones we will satisfy. This is known as the "economic problem".

Now if AlexPontik wants to start a discussion using this more widely known terminology then we might know if he knows anything at all.

Economists usually talk about "needs and wants", and forget about the "have to", which leads to the great "economic problem".
What is this "economic problem"?
Will we satisfy our needs and wants, by balancing them with our "have to(s)", so that we have fun?
Or will the ones who ignore the "have to(s)" lead the worlds, as most people only focus on their "needs and wants", until something goes wrong, as you all know?

 

[psionl0]

Economists usually talk about "needs and wants", and forget about the "have to", which leads to the great "economic problem".
What is this "economic problem"?
Will we satisfy our needs and wants, by balancing them with our "have to(s)", so that we have fun?
Or will the ones who ignore the "have to(s)" lead the worlds, as most people only focus on their "needs and wants", until something goes wrong, as you all know?

You are gobbledygookifying the subject again. "Have to" is not part of any economic equation.

 

[AlexPontik]

You keep saying this, which displays your complete lack of knowledge about economics. Demand does not equal "fun". No one can say that a demand for petrol or costly synthetic petrol was "fun" yet WWII Germany evolved that exact substitution demand curve.

Read above reply about fun and demand, where I explain why I don't think they are the same thig.

It is also pointless to economists. There is a demand cure for cancer drugs. Are you really claiming getting rid of cancer is fun?

Yes, getting rid of cancer is fun, if you have cancer. If others have cancer, still getting rid of cancer is fun.
Why? Because it's cancer, usually having cancer is not fun to people (or at least this is my experience).

What an amazingly stupid claim. Economics only works in modern history when civilisation evolved legal rights. What Ottoman slave, who could not own things or have money, wondered how "expensive" some commodity was?

The Ottoman slave who had to get some favor from his owner, some things the slave gets easier, some things are hard to get, but the Ottoman slave still wanted them. Why? Because the Ottoman slave wanted to have fun like any other human being.
And things are tricky for the Ottoman slave, the only thing the slave can trade, is the slave's obedience to the owner, according to what the owner thinks is the slave being obedient to the owner means.
The slave if patient, will in time find out how to be obedient according to what the owner thinks is obedience, and the owner has no reason to go further usually. Why? Because the slave does want the owner wants, unlike other people in the owner's life. Perhaps the owner wants to reward the slave, perhaps not, both cases can play out in reality. Why? Because the owner wants to think that what the owner does is justified, according to the owner's viewpoint.
And the last one, happens in a funny way in history, some find what seems to be happening around them, others get lost in some story they are telling themselves.
And I am trying to find, which of the two it is for me, isn't this funny to you?

Complete BS. In the long run the supply and demand curves reach equilibrium.

DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND EQUILIBRIUM IN MARKETS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES
https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofe...quilibrium-in-markets-for-goods-and-services/

[/QUOTE]
In the long run the supply and demand curves reach equilibrium, for products and services traded for a long time, as long as these products and services have to do with supply and demand, and no fun.
If these products and services apart from supply and demand, are also fun, then they become more valuable to people. Why? Because they are fun to people, what is it that you don't understand?
What on earth am I talking about?
Let's use examples.
Products who fall under supply and demand, and are not considered fun, are for example medicine.
Medicine which are more common like paracetamol, where free market competition takes place, reaches its equilibrium value, all similar medicine are around some price.
Products who fall under supply and demand, but are also fun, are for example fashionable clothes. Fashionable clothes, can have a spike in price when they are fashionable, a low when they are not, and perhaps one could claim that they reach an equilibrium in price on the long run, but...they may come back in fashion.
In short, the price for fashionable clothes depends on what is happening now, it doesn't matter what happened in the past.
For products and services which involve optimization of production and processes, supply and demand reach an equilibrium, as long as how fun are the products and services doesn't fluctuate in time.
For products and services which are fun, things become funny (and if pushed to the end not funny, until people learn, and stay where it is funny).

 

[AlexPontik]

I'm a socialist who believes in moderate socialist policies guided by evolving economic capitalistic laissez-faire equilibriums in the marketplace.

I'm dying to see how Alex integrates social benefit goods as "Fun". The military, police, the courts and so on.

I am quoting from here:
https://centers.stthomas.edu/nonprofit/services/

Let me know if this isn't what you mean by 'social benefit goods' (and if so what you mean):
"Simply defined, ‘social benefit’ goods or services result in positive social and environmental outcomes for society. Ideally, social benefit organizations help communities meet their own needs, over time. "

In short, 'social benefit good' is what is fun for the society/community/social group which it applies, and it needs to be fun for all three (society/community/social group).
When that doesn't happen conflict takes place, sooner or later.

 

[AlexPontik]

All people pay transaction sales tax which is totally different to income tax which low income households do not pay in economies with progressive income tax percentiles.

Taxation theory is that taxation should not interfere with the market place reaching an equilibrium point that would occur in the absence of any taxation. Therefore most governments use a variety of taxation methods, in combinations, such as income tax, sales tax, poll (head) tax or direct service tax.

Australia's economy was "off balance" as we had a manufacturing tax only on some products but no, across the board, sales tax. When "GST" was introduced, in 1999, across the board, the economy improved, as efficient equilibriums evolved again.

Drug dealers in the black cash economy started to pay tax as they bought consumer products in Australia and paid 10% GST!

Ok cool, so the people you refer to seem to pay taxes, so what is the argument which are trying to make?

 

[AlexPontik]

You are gobbledygookifying the subject again. "Have to" is not part of any economic equation.

For the "Have tos" it isn't for the "have not" it is, or did the economists forget that part?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Well, once I saw a civilization reduced to employees and employers, I thought we were heading towards a Marxist philosophy of theft of labor and undoing the accumulation of wealth in the hands of owners. But this is not where this went. I have no idea where it did go, however.

Where this goes, depends on what is fun for humans, and whether they are willing to behave to have fun.

Hi Alex.

I haven't read all of this particular pdf, but I think you'd be fascinated by Calhoun's Rat Utopia/Dystopia experiments.

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22514/1/2308Ramadams.pdf

You are still missing the point. You have highly specific definitions for absolutely no reason. If they are just people or humans, then defining them as kids or jokers, with oddly specific definitions, makes no sense. If you define kids to include everyone, why use kids in the first place? It already has a set definition, and trying to supplant an established term with one of your own creation is a bad idea, unless you are intentionally trying to create confusion.

I like to sometimes wonder why we make such a big deal about getting a licence and being allowed to drink and then suddenly are "an adult".

I'll let you think that through.

 

[psionl0]

For the "Have tos" it isn't for the "have not" it is, or did the economists forget that part?

"Have to" what? Are you claiming that "have not" is an antonym for "have to"?

 

[Leftus]

The people you refer to seem to not have to pay taxes, because this is what the law states.
If you are asking me is this right or wrong, I don't know it depends on the specific society. If people need a support from the state as wages can't support their families, and allow them to have fun in their lives, I do.
If the state ends up giving money to people but the budget cannot be balanced and the state has an ever growing debt, I don't.
But to balance where you draw the line for a specific case, you need the details of the specific case.

Once again, I'm not addressing the morality of the situation. I'm asking you how this reality of people not paying taxes yet still getting something from that taxing agency fits into your tit-for tat explanation of taxation

In order for the tax payers and tax collectors roles to exist, law exists which states that, as it is the state that collects taxes usually.
For creditors and debtors, there may or may not be law which states who is who, so there are cases where the agreement is written, and becomes a rule, or there are cases where the agreement is spoken.
When the agreement is broken and the agreement is just spoken, then you are closer to what happens on the street, when things go wrong. And what happens next is that people usually have some sort of conflict, which may resolve the immediate problems with the agreement, but is not very productive. Why? Because instead of having conflict you could be having fun if you behaved, this is why.

I'm going to go with "not even wrong" on trying to convert this nonsense into plain English.

Here is the scary part, my job is to take parts of the tax code and translate them into rules that normal people can understand. Well, normal in the sense they are programmers. So I'm used to, and dare I say a bit skilled, in taking something complex and putting it into plain English. Also, it's not that "fun" Pay is decent, let's me work at home, but it's not something I would do without the pay, ergo, not fun.

You do get to opt out, you leave society and go live in the woods, where no people live with laws to manage the scale of society and the agreements made.

No such land exists. Every scrap of dust is under state and federal laws, in the US. I could probably go to some place in North Africa and become a warlord, but that only adds to my problems. Somalia is still probably lawless enough to opt out, but then I'd be in Somalia, which is a problem.

Am still missing the point I am trying to make, and you are not?

No, you are being, at this point I'm going with intentionally obtuse. And, dare I say, abusing the word fun. I can't speak to you missing the point you are trying to make, because the point you are trying to make is on the "not even wrong" border. Nobody can make heads or tails of it, and you fail to convert it into a meaningful discussion. Some suggestions:

1 - Stop using words for which you've created your own definitions rather than currently accepted terms.

2 - Do some reading on the subject. Learn what the standard terms mean.

3 - Learn the basic structure of English. Paragraphs exist for a reason. No need for a hard stop after every sentence.

 

[Leftus]

I'm a socialist who believes in moderate socialist policies guided by evolving economic capitalistic laissez-faire equilibriums in the marketplace.

I'm dying to see how Alex integrates social benefit goods as "Fun". The military, police, the courts and so on.

I had some fun in the Marines. Got to shoot some guns, fire off some missiles, run through some really cool obstacle courses.

I want to see how, let's go with how landscaping or roofing in the Texas heat is "fun." 101 degrees F today. 38 degrees C to my international friends. With a 50% relative humidity? SIGN ME UP! all aboard the heat stroke party train!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Fun is what is fun for people, and what is not fun for people is not fun for them.
The phrase would be pointless to dolphins,

Wrong. Fun is an emotional experience. Animals are driven more by it than humans. They do what they like doing and avoid what they don't, even if in the long run doing 'not-fun' stuff would be more beneficial to them. To a dolphin, fun is the essential driver of its behavior.

The human idea of fun is the same, but unlike animals we don't need the instant gratification of something being 'fun' to motivate us. Much of what we do is not fun, but we know that doing it will eventually make our lives better, eg. growing crops or manufacturing products for future use.

but all people know that this phrase is true. How? It is a tautology, it is true and people know it by default.
from google: Tautology (in logic): a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

A tautology is not just a truth that everyone knows, it defines itself - which makes it worthless for analysis. You are saying that what is fun is fun, which tells us nothing about what is fun and what isn't, like saying 1 = 1.

So how does one find what is fun for him/her? By trying out things and observing if they are fun, and within some limits, things are usually fun for humans, and there is no further things that one can know about what is fun for him/her.

But people don't only do what is fun for them - in fact most of the time they don't. In modern economies we work at jobs we often don't enjoy in order to earn enough credit to purchase the things we need to survive. If we are lucky we get enough to have some fun too.

Any economic theory that relies on having fun as a motivator is bound to fail, because that isn't what mostly drives us.

But for the rest of times, most people know that you don't have to endure pain, and you are just having fun.
So what happens on the times when you have to endure pain? You weren't patient, and you are trying to do things which hurt you.

Nonsense. I have more fun than most people, but even I have to work occasionally to pay the bills. Due to Covid-19 my regular job was put on hold so I had to take what I could get. The job I got was very boring and physically demanding, but paid well. After 2 weeks I started suffering from RSI, but stuck to it because I needed the money. That job is finished now so I am recovering (and having fun!) until the money runs out - when I will probably have to do more not-fun stuff.

So I had to endure pain for a considerable time, and I had to be patient. If I had only been motivated by fun and tried to avoid pain, I would not have stuck to the job and not earned the money that allows me to have fun now.

Something is "too expensive" for one when one decides that it is too expensive for him/her, for whatever specific reasoning they have for the specific occasion.

Too expensive = too expensive? A worthless tautology.

for the economy to work, humans should behave in a way that is fun for them, so that they don't exhaust themselves in conflict. When they don't do that, they need to spend more time and effort to do stuff, this is what I mean.

So you are saying that the economy would improve if people only did what was fun for them? That is what happens in hunter-gatherer societies. They have a lot of fun, but their economies are poor. There is no way the planet can support 8 billion hunter-gatherers. If we went back to that then billions of people would die, the very opposite of having fun!

 

[Matthew Ellard]

As a matter of practice, the government doesn't print money at all. It prints and sells bonds. Base money only gets printed if the central bank decides to buy any of these bonds.

Yes. The government sells government bonds.

However I'm more interested in Tippit's economic transition equation or linear logic that allows a return to the gold standard, when China, Australia and Russia produce more gold than the USA.

Tippit said the price of gold would increase to match the size of the USA's national wealth......which would mean the same rise in price for gold produced in China, Australia and Russia. Therefore China, Australia and Russia would be able to "print more money" backed up by gold, regardless of the health of their economies and acquire more USA products for no logical reason.

I think you understand why I'm asking Tippit to set this out.

(In reality Ron Paul is a bit of a cult to attract extreme right wingers and his subscribers (victims) think they are enlightened when they can't actually set out the maths behind Ron Paul's claims)

Here is Ron Paul and his co-host Don Black owner of Stormfront White Action Power.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

In short, 'social benefit good' is what is fun for the society/community/social group which it applies, and it needs to be fun for all three (society/community/social group).
When that doesn't happen conflict takes place, sooner or later.

No, spending 2% of GDP for the military is a social benefit good.

How on Earth can you claim maintaining the military is "Fun"?

I'm showing you how your claims and definitions are worthless

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I want to see how, let's go with how landscaping or roofing in the Texas heat is "fun." 101 degrees F today. 38 degrees C to my international friends. With a 50% relative humidity? SIGN ME UP! all aboard the heat stroke party train!

I'm with you. Spending five years at university studying economics and tax law, while working at a day job and paying for those degrees, was hardly what I call "fun".

AlexPontik first appeared on essay writing forum talking about "fun". Somehow he thinks he has discovered some deep insight into economics and wants to tell the world.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

In the long run the supply and demand curves reach equilibrium, for products and services traded for a long time, as long as these products and services have to do with supply and demand, and no fun..

No. It is clear you haven't got a clue what any of these words mean.

PS Humans didn't evolve to have fun. Humans evolved to pass down DNA. This means eating, fighting, having sex and maybe some fun, if it allows for an evolutionary advantage. Do you know what evolution is?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

There is demand for fun, from people.
.

I can measure and construct a demand curve with ease. As price increases demand reduces with empirical measurements.

Tell me how you construct you BS "fun" curve?

You can't can you? It is total BS with no use in mathematically calculating and predicting economic behaviour.

 

[psionl0]

However I'm more interested in Tippit's economic transition equation or linear logic that allows a return to the gold standard, when China, Australia and Russia produce more gold than the USA.

A title search for "gold standard" in the Economics section reveals two threads: Returning to the gold standard and Why would anyone want gold standard?. Between two threads, you will find all of the arguments (including Tippit's) and counter arguments about a gold standard.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

A title search for "gold standard" in the Economics section reveals two threads: Returning to the gold standard and Why would anyone want gold standard?. Between two threads, you will find all of the arguments (including Tippit's) and counter arguments about a gold standard.

Good. That will make it easy for him to answer my question.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Between two threads, you will find all of the arguments (including Tippit's) and counter arguments about a gold standard.

Neither thread mentions Chinese, Australian and Russian superior production of gold compared to the USA.

It's like talking about WWII petrol production in Germany compared to the Allies and Germany claiming oil production should back international currencies.