Merged A Thread for AlexPontik to Explain his Ideas

[Masque]

5. The kids who produce and the kids who consume
6. The kids who are creditors and the kids who are debtors
7. The kids who collect taxes and the kids who spend the taxes

8. Fat kids
9. Skinny kids
10. Kids that climb on rocks
11. Tough kids
12. Sissy kids
13. Even kids with chicken pox

(I'm sorry. Something just came over me.)

 

[Joe Random]

This happens in accordance to their position in society, and the bigger they grow, the more time and effort needs to be spend to trade, up to the point where the economy goes in a cycle, and returns back to reality.

"If we learn to care for others, to respect others we’ll learn how to care for, to respect our country."

 

[Roger Ramjets]

snip...

Where else have you spammed this?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh what the Hell. Kids In The Hall - That's America

 

[AlexPontik]

5. The kids who produce and the kids who consume
6. The kids who are creditors and the kids who are debtors
7. The kids who collect taxes and the kids who spend the taxes

Let the kids grow up and add about 100 different kinds of kids and you will start to get a model that resembles a modern economy.

5. All kids produce and consume, these are part of the actions kids do in order to trade.
6. Kids who are creditors have other kids working for them to repay their debt, and debtors work for the creditors, because they owe them money.
7. Taxes works like creditors and debtors.

What I am trying to say, is however complex a case I can think of, kids remain divided between employers and employees.
You may be absolutely right that there is a case of kids who are part of the economy and fall outside of those four observations, and actually please do, I am not making a claim I am right here, but I am trying to find where I am wrong.
For the time being, it seems to me the economy consists of:
1. kids who work for other kids = employers
2. kids for who other kids are working = employees
3. the actions all kids do for each other = trade
4. the current rules trying to define what is allowed and what is not = law

Again, to all of you, it's more than possible that I am wrong, but I simply am trying to find a specific case, where that is so, hence the post.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Some kids bundle the milk-money accounts of other kids into complicated financial instruments that spectacularly collapse the entire playground economy, resulting in a surplus of milks that no kid can afford.

 

[Leftus]

I'm not sure that there was anything about economics in there, or what could be called an Essay. More of making a mess with a keyboard.

The failure to define words used in a non-standard setting, doesn't help. Jokers, Kids, for example have values in the English speaking world, and I don't think you are using them that way. So why use them at all? You should be working towards clarity, and not away from it.

This fails as an essay.

 

[bruto]

I'm not sure that there was anything about economics in there, or what could be called an Essay. More of making a mess with a keyboard.

The failure to define words used in a non-standard setting, doesn't help. Jokers, Kids, for example have values in the English speaking world, and I don't think you are using them that way. So why use them at all? You should be working towards clarity, and not away from it.

This fails as an essay.

Looking back, it seems to fail the originality test too.

 

[Orphia Nay]

5. All kids produce and consume, these are part of the actions kids do in order to trade.
6. Kids who are creditors have other kids working for them to repay their debt, and debtors work for the creditors, because they owe them money.
7. Taxes works like creditors and debtors.

What I am trying to say, is however complex a case I can think of, kids remain divided between employers and employees.
You may be absolutely right that there is a case of kids who are part of the economy and fall outside of those four observations, and actually please do, I am not making a claim I am right here, but I am trying to find where I am wrong.
For the time being, it seems to me the economy consists of:
1. kids who work for other kids = employers
2. kids for who other kids are working = employees
3. the actions all kids do for each other = trade
4. the current rules trying to define what is allowed and what is not = law

Again, to all of you, it's more than possible that I am wrong, but I simply am trying to find a specific case, where that is so, hence the post.

Yes, good answer.

Never mind the schoolyard bullies.

 

[Leftus]

7. Taxes works like creditors and debtors.

This is a prime example of your abuse of definitions. Creditors and debtors have a common meaning. Taxes don't work like that at all. Taxes, on the whole, are transactional. So do explain, using the common definition of the words, to explain your meaning, or define terms you are using that are outside common meanings.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

What I am trying to say, is however complex a case I can think of, kids remain divided between employers and employees.

Economic theory requires the use of standardised terminology. This allows the use of basic theories, to be integrated within more complex economic hypotheses, without having to define every input again.

For example, is a household that receives income from a trust, that is distributing existing capital, an employee or an employer? It is neither, yet the household consumes and thus contributes to the economy's demand curves of certain consumables.

Various Simple Economics Glossaries
https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/teaching/Glossaries of Economic Terms/Principles (General)

 

[Safe-Keeper]

6. Kids who are creditors have other kids working for them to repay their debt, and debtors work for the creditors, because they owe them money.

It... didn't work like this when I grew up.

 

[AlexPontik]

This is a prime example of your abuse of definitions. Creditors and debtors have a common meaning. Taxes don't work like that at all. Taxes, on the whole, are transactional. So do explain, using the common definition of the words, to explain your meaning, or define terms you are using that are outside common meanings.

creditors and debtors existed prior taxes, when small groups of humans where living as tribes, they didn't have money, but "I do this for you, you do that for me".
In my experience of life, "I do this for you, you do that for me", in the specific case where "this"="this now" and "that"="that in the future specified time for this specific occasion", you get creditors and debtors.
Taxes come when groups get larger, and organised government is needed to keep society working. Still taxes are "I do this for you, you do that for me" , where "this"="overall government aid to society" (which can be unsatisfactory or satisfactory depending on the times), and "that"="giving a percentage of your income".

The definition I use have the purpose of being general, disregarding how large or small the group is, or what knowledge prerecorded or not.
For the time being, it seems to hold true to me, but I may be wrong, and this is what I am trying to find out.

 

[AlexPontik]

Economic theory requires the use of standardised terminology. This allows the use of basic theories, to be integrated within more complex economic hypotheses, without having to define every input again.

Respectfully, it doesn't seem to me to be this way.
Any theory requires the use of standardised terminology, as you write, on which I agree.
However for this standardised terminology to be sufficient, so that the theory formed is verifiable in reality, and not just someone's thoughts, needs to be simple.
How simple depends on the field of study (for mathematics it may not appear simple to non mathematicians, but for mathematicians, it is the simplest they can think).
For economics, the field that is studied, is the behavior of humans in society as they do things for one another. To describe this, it needs to do so in a way that humans in society can understand, as it describes what they do.
And it seems to me that humans know what the below mean
"I do this for you, you do that for me" (<--the way any economy works),
"Either me or you don't do their part" (<--they problem any economy faces, in varying scales, and with varying consequences, sometimes necessary)
"You do that for me, I do whatever I want for you" (<--the problem any economy faces, when humans misbehave, for which theories are for the ones who are causing the problems, the rest want a solution)

For example, is a household that receives income from a trust, that is distributing existing capital, an employee or an employer? It is neither, yet the household consumes and thus contributes to the economy's demand curves of certain consumables.

Various Simple Economics Glossaries
https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/teaching/Glossaries of Economic Terms/Principles (General)

A household that receives income from a trust that is distributing existing capital is an employer.
Here's why I say that.
A trust that is distributing existing capital, in practice has money and has people work for these money (usually organised in companies of varying sizes/products/services).
Why?
If these people don't work for the trust as the trust expects, they don't distribute them capital.
For the above to happen, the trust doesn't need to know the people who they put their capital in person, they need proof that these people work for them as they expected, and the usually measure this by profits (but there are more variables taken into consideration).
The household that receives income from a trust, is the employer of the trust, since they as well have the option to move their money, and because of this the trust has to work as the household wants.
Usually the household measures that by profit, but in the case of a household, there are more variable taken or not taken into consideration (a household can stay with a trust out of habit or out of laziness, but a trust usually doesn't do so with companies who don't profit).

 

[AlexPontik]

It... didn't work like this when I grew up.

Well, how did it then?
Let us all here hear your description, I am always open to learn something new. It usually stops me from doing stupid things, like spending time writing on forums, but I guess this time I need some schooling, so go ahead, how do creditor and debtors work according to your experience?

 

[Leftus]

Taxes come when groups get larger, and organised government is needed to keep society working. Still taxes are "I do this for you, you do that for me" , where "this"="overall government aid to society" (which can be unsatisfactory or satisfactory depending on the times), and "that"="giving a percentage of your income".

The definition I use have the purpose of being general, disregarding how large or small the group is, or what knowledge prerecorded or not.
For the time being, it seems to hold true to me, but I may be wrong, and this is what I am trying to find out.

Sorry, but that is not how income taxes work at all. There are plenty of people who don't pay income taxes at all. And I'm not talking about non-filing, I'm talking low earners. There is no exchange going on there at all. They don't do the "this" but they get the "that." And it totally ignores consumption or use taxes. There is no explicit exchange. I buy a shirt, pay a tax, what is the "that" I'm getting for that sales-tax?

Sorry, but I still don't understand why you are using words like "kids" and "jokers" which have a limiting definition to a subset of people when you are trying to be general? If you are trying to find out, use common words with common understanding.

 

[Leftus]

Well, how did it then?
Let us all here hear your description, I am always open to learn something new. It usually stops me from doing stupid things, like spending time writing on forums, but I guess this time I need some schooling, so go ahead, how do creditor and debtors work according to your experience?

I think his point was that "debtors" don't work for "creditors" as a rule. They may work for anyone they want. That's dangerously close to loading 16 tons.

 

[dann]

What do you get?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

However for this standardised terminology to be sufficient, so that the theory formed is verifiable in reality, and not just someone's thoughts, needs to be simple.

The application of complex economic theory using standardised terminology is called "Econometrics". It is very common.

For economics, the field that is studied, is the behavior of humans in society as they do things for one another.

Basic supply and demand curves are psychological metrics.

.....and it seems to me that humans know what the below mean..."I do this for you, you do that for me"

Monkeys do the same thing as it is evolved behaviour. It is called "equity theory in psychology". Humans still give votive gifts to the gods in the subconscious belief the gods will be obliged to give something back.

A household that receives income from a trust that is distributing existing capital is an employer.

No. It is a consumer receiving wealth transfers.

A trust that is distributing existing capital, in practice has money and has people work for these money

Pre-existing capital means the money already exists.

(a household can stay with a trust out of habit or out of laziness, but a trust usually doesn't do so with companies who don't profit).

It is clear you don't know what a trust or company is.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

creditors and debtors existed prior taxes, when small groups of humans where living as tribes, they didn't have money, but "I do this for you, you do that for me".

Complete crap. 30,000 years ago I had to transfer one in five sheep to the village chief when it was born (tax). The chief didn't keep a debtors or creditors ledger , did he?