# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Satt's Paradox

## Xerographica

Satt's Paradox (SP) - smarter people have more money to spend than dumber people... yet... the vast majority of movies/shows on Netflix are dumber rather than smarter.

This economic paradox is "fun" on so many different levels...

1. Is SP even real? If it isn't, then there's no paradox. And you can't resolve a paradox that doesn't exist. 

1a. How is smartness being defined? 

1b. Is it even true that smarter people have more money to spend? Kinda maybe? The huge debate/concern regarding increasing income inequality seems somewhat relevant. 

1c. Is it even true that the vast majority of shows/movies on Netflix are dumber rather than smarter? Personally, I consider The Man From Earth, which I saw on Netflix, to be a good example of a smarter movie. It was full of history, science, philosophy and thoughtful discussion on religion. From my perspective... it was the best (that I know of) mix of entertainment and education. And it seems like there's a real shortage of shows/movies in this category. If you know of any others... then please don't hesitate to mention them! Given enough eyeballs, all Easter Eggs are shallow. 

2. If SP is real, more or less, then how would you explain/resolve it? 

2a. Perhaps smarter people demand far less entertainment than dumber people do? The opportunity cost of spending 2 hours watching a movie is far higher for a brain surgeon than it is for somebody who earns the minimum wage. 

2b. Perhaps smarter people prefer dumber entertainment? If you get paid to use your brain all day, then maybe you prefer your entertainment to be mindless rather than mindful. 

2c. Perhaps smarter people prefer nonfiction to fiction? 

2d. "I'm not saying that television is vulgar and dumb because the people who compose the Audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests." - David Foster Wallace

3. Assuming that the supply of smarter entertainment does indeed fall considerably short of demand... and assuming that this is a problem... then how could this problem be solved? 

I think I might have resolved SP and come up with the logical explanation/solution (verdict)... but if I share it... then maybe it will influence your own verdict? Of course I'd like to hear your thoughts on my verdict... but I'd also like to know what you come up with on your own. It's entirely possible that yours will be better than mine! This means that I'd prefer it if you allocated (at least initially) your intelligence to coming up with your own verdict.

So I'll share my verdict here.  This way, if you're so inclined, you can post your own verdict and then see how it compares to mine. You might have to ignore the replies at first as well... just in case anybody addresses my verdict.

----------


## acptulsa

Is it better to sell one widget each to all of ten percent of the population, or to half of ninety percent of the population?

----------


## AuH20

So-called Summer Blockbusters are painfully dumbed down.

----------


## idiom

Smart people don't watch TV? 

Television is an inferior good. People get cable and netflix when they can't afford alternate entertainment. Usage goes down in booms and up in busts.

----------


## KCIndy

I'm guessing that if there was a genuine and large demand for "smart" entertainment, the market would find ways to meet that demand.  

But let's face it - even the smartest people are going to need to kick the ol' noggin into neutral and coast for a while.  Maybe I should say *especially* the smartest people.  Or to put the "nerd" spin on it, allow me to quote Captain Kirk (in a conversation with Spock) from Star Trek's original series:  "The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."

I think even the smartest people enjoy what I call a good "popcorn and soda" movie.  You know the type.  Lots of explosions and chase scenes and gun fights and mindless action galore.  It's the kind of movie best enjoyed with about 75% of the brain switched off.  

Take _Independence Day_ (1996) as an example.  As someone who is a science and astronomy enthusiast, I can list a dozen reasons the movie just wouldn't work in the "real" world.  It's scientifically impossible, and that's that.  In fact, I can't think of a single science fiction film ever made that doesn't have some sort of crippling scientific inaccuracy, or at least unforgivable violations of common sense.

I don't care.  

Unless the movie is just howlingly bad, it's best to just kick back and enjoy the fun.  

After all, if I can forgive George Lucas (Star Wars) for one of the most heartbreaking "bad science" lines of all time (_It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs!"_) I can forgive -almost- anything.

----------


## Xerographica

KCIndy, I'm the only one who knows my demand for smarter movies/shows.  This thread, at best, reveals my opinion/sentiment.  It communicates my wish that there was a larger supply of smarter content.  But it certainly doesn't reveal my demand.

Demand can only be effectively communicated by buying/paying for things.  But I can't buy/pay for something that doesn't exist.  Nobody can.  

So there's a large amount of unmet demand.  Not just for movies... but for all sorts of things.  Producers can't know what consumers can't communicate.  Entrepreneurs really can't know what's locked away in all our heart of hearts.  All they can do is make educated guesses.  The "luckiest" ones stumble upon huge amounts of unmet demand and are rewarded for doing so.   This reward incentivizes other entrepreneurs to search for these large Easter Eggs... but there's really no guarantee that they will be found any time soon.  

My solution is to create a market in the public sector.  People would be able to shop in the public sector just like they can shop in the non-profit sector.  The only difference is that in the public sector there would be a mandatory minimum contribution... aka "taxes".  This solution is known as tax choice and/or pragmatarianism.    

With a pragmatarian system, I could be like... "Hey KCIndy, don't you wish there were a lot more smarter movies?"  If you replied, "hell yeah!"... then perhaps we could get a petition going to create a government agency dedicated to supplying smarter movies.  Then we could give this agency some of our taxes.  No single individual would bear all the risk.  

The market is kind of like the movie Field of Dreams... "if you build it they will come".  Entrepreneurs really hope that if they build something that enough people will buy it.  But obviously this dream doesn't always come true.  Entrepreneurs quite often guess wrongly.  They overestimate the demand and suffer the consequences.  

With pragmatarianism, there's absolutely no "faith" or guesswork involved.  Taxpayers would say, "here's my funds, start building!"  It would be kinda like print on demand.  Or civic crowdfunding.  The only difference is that there would be a minimum mandatory contribution in order to overcome the free-rider problem.  

And any movie that pragmatarianism produced would be a public good.  Anybody would be able to download it for free.  

This system would be better because it would facilitate communication.  It would give us the opportunity to share what's in our heart of hearts.  

Regarding the movie Independence Day... first you said that it's got a bunch of inaccuracies... but then you went on to say that you don't care.  

Clearly you were able to overlook the movie's failings... but I don't think overlooking failings is the same thing as not caring about them.  Everybody we know has one or more personal failings that we'd prefer it if they didn't have.  If we don't kick somebody to the curb then it's because their redeeming qualities outshine their failings.  But just because we don't kick somebody to the curb doesn't really mean that we don't care about their failings.  

I don't think you accepted Independence Day because of its failings... I think you accepted it despite its failings.  And it's kind of hard to imagine that you wouldn't have enjoyed the movie even more if it didn't have any of the failings that you noticed while watching the movie.  

Personally, I also enjoyed the movie.  But I would have _vastly_ preferred it if the movie had addressed "Xero's Rule".  My rule states that it's impossible for a civilization to reach the stars before they've realized that progress depends on difference.  

*President*: These darn aliens are attacking us?!  What in the world happened to Xero's Rule???
*Adviser*: Based on our research, here's why we think that these aliens are an exception to the rule... 

Entertainment and education really aren't mutually exclusive.

----------


## idiom

> KCIndy, I'm the only one who knows my demand for smarter movies/shows.  This thread, at best, reveals my opinion/sentiment.  It communicates my wish that there was a larger supply of smarter content.  But it certainly doesn't reveal my demand.
> 
> Demand can only be effectively communicated by buying/paying for things.  But I can't buy/pay for something that doesn't exist.  Nobody can.  
> 
> So there's a large amount of unmet demand.  Not just for movies... but for all sorts of things.  Producers can't know what consumers can't communicate.  Entrepreneurs really can't know what's locked away in all our heart of hearts.  All they can do is make educated guesses.  The "luckiest" ones stumble upon huge amounts of unmet demand and are rewarded for doing so.   This reward incentivizes other entrepreneurs to search for these large Easter Eggs... but there's really no guarantee that they will be found any time soon.  
> 
> My solution is to create a market in the public sector.  People would be able to shop in the public sector just like they can shop in the non-profit sector.  The only difference is that in the public sector there would be a mandatory minimum contribution... aka "taxes".  This solution is known as tax choice and/or pragmatarianism.    
> 
> With a pragmatarian system, I could be like... "Hey KCIndy, don't you wish there were a lot more smarter movies?"  If you replied, "hell yeah!"... then perhaps we could get a petition going to create a government agency dedicated to supplying smarter movies.  Then we could give this agency some of our taxes.  No single individual would bear all the risk.  
> ...


There's a surprise.

Back in reality, producers try putting out smarter products all they time, and dumber ones, and all the wacky niches inbetween. If nobody buy it the product is killed.

Its like you have no real understanding of the media market at all.

The boob toob is an inferior good. When content is marketed to apparently intelligent people, they don't put their money where their mouth is.




> And it's kind of hard to imagine that you wouldn't have enjoyed the movie even more if it didn't have any of the failings that you noticed while watching the movie.


The failings are there for practical reasons of writing, budget, and pacing.

It is very hard to write a scientifically accurate yet interesting movie about war with a species from another planet, mostly due to science. Suspension of disbelief is a magical thing, and fantasy and escapism are actually quite content to have Xero scientific basis. 

There is already Public funding for "high brow" content in many countries. Witness the BBC, NHK, Australias ABC, or TVNZ. Although I am starting to suspect you have never heard of the BBC or seen its content. They have very sophisticated mechanisms for investment of public funding. A lot more sophisticated than people voting on a website as might be suggested after giving Xero thought to the matter. Anything these organisations produce is broadcast and available for download for free.

The thing is, people still wouldn't want to buy the content, but they are happy with it and generally proud of the output. But they wouldn't chose it even after its available. 

Many great things will never be supported by a mass market, they require patrons and indefatigable visionaries. That is usually when the highest art is produced.




> But I would have vastly preferred it if the movie had addressed "Xero's Rule".


"The movie would have been a lot better if it had highlighted my great personal intelligence in front of a global audience"

Wow.

----------


## Xerographica

> There is already Public funding for "high brow" content in many countries. Witness the BBC, NHK, Australias ABC, or TVNZ.


If taxpayers in these countries could choose where their taxes go... would the supply of the "high brow" content increase or decrease?

----------


## idiom

> If taxpayers in these countries could choose where their taxes go... would the supply of the "high brow" content increase or decrease?


Decrease. It would be zeroed out in a heart beat. It is defended by the political class, the ones who genuinely believe in educating people. But its never popular. Its such a tiny slice of the budget, they can get away with it.

Smart/wealthy people read books, or pursue alternate recreation. They spend their time alternating between snowboarding, mountain climbing and wake boarding.

Television and Film, cable and Netflix, are inferior goods. You turn to them when you can't afford better things.

High brow pet projects get funded, but they aren't designed to be profitable. They compete for donor funding. It works very well at the moment in terms of high quality documentary work being produced.

Studios and actors with high art ambitions make blockbusters to fund their art projects.

Keep the population at large away from the funding of high brow media. They don't want it and will kill it all.

----------


## Xerographica

> Keep the population at large away from the funding of high brow media. They don't want it and will kill it all.


Shall we keep the population at large away from funding defense as well?  Is it really better to keep the power of the purse in the hands of a small group of elected representatives?  You should probably read Peter Boettke's most recent blog entry... Knowledge Problems and Computational Complexity in Pareto.  

After you read that then take this short test... The Satt.

----------


## idiom

> Shall we keep the population at large away from funding defense as well?  Is it really better to keep the power of the purse in the hands of a small group of elected representatives?  You should probably read Peter Boettke's most recent blog entry... Knowledge Problems and Computational Complexity in Pareto.  
> 
> After you read that then take this short test... The Satt.


The population at large seems to like defense spending, making your point irrelevant.

Setting a goal of making all arts government funded should seem an historically bad idea.

If you want to argue that people spend money on the wrong things, then for them to spend money on the same wrong things, you haven't fixed anything.

If you are going to limit their choice to things you approve of then why give them any choice at all, since they have Xero knowledge of what's good for them?

----------


## Xerographica

> The population at large seems to like defense spending, making your point irrelevant.


My point is that you think that the population "liking" defense has anything to do with the demand for defense.  Please do everybody a favor and learn about economics.

----------


## Xerographica

> Is it better to sell one widget each to all of ten percent of the population, or to half of ninety percent of the population?


Is it better to sell one car each to all of ten percent of the population, or to half of ninety percent of the population?  Well... given the fact that cars range in price from several thousand dollars all the way up to several million dollars... then clearly it's better to capture as much of the demand for cars as possible.  

Unfortunately, the pricing mechanism doesn't work as well at capturing the demand for movies as it does for capturing the demand for cars.  This is because movies, unlike cars, are non-rivalrous.  This means that the pricing mechanism only captures a tiny fraction of the demand for movies.  Is this an example of market failure?  No, it's a failure to understand how markets work.  

Nobody benefits when there's a disparity between supply and demand.  But in order to correct this disparity you have to understand how markets work.  Unfortunately, you don't understand how markets work and you consistently show little interest in correcting this deficiency.

----------


## acptulsa

So, is that the fourth time in this thread alone that you spammed your "pragmatarianism" blogspot?

It would work better if you weren't so arrogant about it, but you always have been that with your "earmark your taxes" brand of communism.  But there's a bright spot.  I'm sure you don't have to spam that blog much more to get yourself banned for life.




> Is it better to sell one car each to all of ten percent of the population, or to half of ninety percent of the population?  Well... given the fact that cars range in price from several thousand dollars all the way up to several million dollars... then clearly it's better to capture as much of the demand for cars as possible.  
> 
> Unfortunately, the pricing mechanism doesn't work as well at capturing the demand for movies as it does for capturing the demand for cars.  This is because movies, unlike cars, are non-rivalrous.  This means that the pricing mechanism only captures a tiny fraction of the demand for movies.  Is this an example of market failure?  No, it's a failure to understand how markets work.  
> 
> Nobody benefits when there's a disparity between supply and demand.  But in order to correct this disparity you have to understand how markets work.  Unfortunately, you don't understand how markets work and you consistently show little interest in correcting this deficiency.


And you can buy a trip to Cannes for ten bucks--including one box of Raisinettes?

Just because you're arrogant as hell does not mean I don't understand markets.  Especially the one you're pretending to be omniscient about.  I've studied how Erksine tried to sell cars in every price class by adding Pierce Arrow to his Studebaker empire, and lost his ass because he didn't have enough middle-priced cars to gain a cost advantage on components--the people who pay Pierce prices wouldn't put up with Studebaker-quality components.  I've studied how Packard did itself in, first by tarnishing its own brand with middle-priced 120s and 200s and Clippers which looked quite a lot like their line of status symbols, then by merging with Studebaker even though by then Stude's books had been written exclusively in red ink for some years.  I've seen the Imperial Division fail not because they weren't very fine cars, that looked different from Chryslers and had better suspension than Chryslers, but because Imperial had been a model of Chrysler so long people couldn't stop calling them 'Chrysler Imperials' and that alone prevented them from becoming status symbols.  I've seen how Alfred P. Sloan did the thing right, then watched his successors throw it all away by cutting corners.  I've seen how Mercedes quickly realized that they could sell cars with their quality mechanicals and standard styling, but with taxicab-plain interiors, in the rest of the world, but quickly came to understand that the U.S. auto market is too status-driven for that to work here.  I've forgotten more on that specific subject than you'll ever know.

But I don't see you showing any interest in completing _your_ education.  I just see you phishing for hits for your blog--and foolishly using the vinegar of your arrogance for bait, even though anyone who understood even the first fundamental principle of markets would have sense enough to use honey.  Gee, whiz.

----------


## Xerographica

> So, is that the fourth time in this thread alone that you spammed your "pragmatarianism" blogspot?


How many times have you clicked on this thread?  This forum works because people are free to enter and exit threads as they please.  This means that if you're in this thread then it's because you _choose_ to be here.  You're welcome to complain about my threads all you like.  But rather than trying to get me banned... which would prevent everybody from trading with me... why don't you just prevent yourself from trading with me?  




> And you can buy a trip to Cannes for ten bucks--including one snack?
> 
> Just because you're arrogant as hell does not mean I don't understand markets.


Prove that you understand markets by taking this test... The Satt - Economic Coherence Test.  If you do understand markets then that test will be really easy for you.  If you don't understand markets then you'll make up some excuse not to take it... or just ignore this entirely.

The government has an Achilles' heel.  It's the fact that a small group of elected representatives spend our taxes for us.  Do you know why this is the government's Achilles' heel?  It's because there's _absolutely no economic basis for this_.  None, zero, zilch, nada!  I know this for a fact because I've thoroughly researched the heck out of public finance.  I've done my homework.  I've read Paul Samuelson and all the other big name economists who've written about public finance.  

Pragmatarianism attacks the government's Achilles' heel.  The Satt Test is a wonderful attack on the government's Achilles' heel.  It says... 

"Sure, ok... you want your free-rider problem?  That's fine!  But we also have the free-rider problem in the non-profit sector.  And we also have the free-rider problem with Youtube.  So why don't we apply MMC + RC to the non-profit sector?  Why don't we apply MMC + RC to Youtube?  Why don't we apply MMC + RC to Netflix?  We have the free-rider problem a million other places outside the public sector.  So why do we _only_ apply MMC + RC to the public sector?  If it's so beneficial to have elected officials spend our money for us... then why don't we apply MMC + RC to anywhere and everywhere that there's a free-rider problem?"  

People can't answer the question.  It forces them to confront the absurdity of our current system.  

You should be helping me "spam" The Satt Test everywhere we can.  Instead, you want to make this a pissing contest.  As if you care about freedom more than I do.  Or as if my goal here is nothing more than arrogance and shameless self-promotion.  

When you attack me... please try and understand that you're attacking the guy who is doing his darndest to attack the government's Achilles' heel.  And if you don't think that RC is the government's Achilles' heel... then I'm all ears.  Tell me what part of the government makes a better target.

Is it taxes (MMC)?  Nope!!!  Unlike RC... the free-rider problem is based on the fact that we all want the most bang for our buck.  We all want a free lunch.  And with certain goods, like this thread for example,... we can consume them without having to pay for them.  So attacking taxes means attacking the fact that everybody wants a free lunch.  Except, the fact that everybody wants a free lunch is a wonderful weapon!  It perfectly explains what's wrong with democracy.  It also perfectly explains why markets work so well with cars, televisions and shoes.  So attacking taxes requires that we relinquish one of our best weapons.  It's the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the feet.  Our opponents really don't even have to attack us when we shoot ourselves in the feet.  

If not RC... and if not MMC... then what?  If you know of a better target then please throw it out there.  Because when it comes to something as important as advancing liberty and freedom... I really don't want to waste my limited resources barking up the wrong tree.  

And if you don't know of a better target... then the problem is your own ego.  Please don't let your ego prevent you from using all your intelligence, competence, and energy to attack the government's Achilles' heel.  The government's Achilles' heel is an easy target.  It really won't take very many of us to effectively attack it.

----------


## idiom

> Unfortunately, the pricing mechanism doesn't work as well at capturing the demand for movies as it does for capturing the demand for cars.  This is because movies, unlike cars, are non-rivalrous.  This means that the pricing mechanism only captures a tiny fraction of the demand for movies.  Is this an example of market failure?  No, it's a failure to understand how markets work.  
> 
> Nobody benefits when there's a disparity between supply and demand.  But in order to correct this disparity you have to understand how markets work.  Unfortunately, you don't understand how markets work and you consistently show little interest in correcting this deficiency.


You have absolutely zero proof of a disparity between supply and demand. Movies are hugely rivalrous. As is television.

You have shown here you have Xero clue about the market you want to 'fix'.

Go make a movie or build a TV station, or build 30 of them like I have. I have built TV stations and produced programming on nearly every business model known or imagined. From subscription to donation, advertising to government funded. I have built channels ranging from porn to religious, from sports to art and everything in between. I have built National government funded channels, and niche ex-pat language channels.

I can guarantee you have absolutely Xero business harping on about the business models of one of the lowest cost of entry, most wide open, most meritocratic markets around.

If you understand a market, you can succeed in it and make money in it. That is the test you should try.

----------


## Xerographica

> Movies are hugely rivalrous. As is television.


Might want to double check that... rivalry.




> You have absolutely zero proof of a disparity between supply and demand.


Consider this Youtube video... A Price is Signal Wrapped Up in an Incentive.  

With the current system... it has received X amount of dollars.  With MMC + CC it would receive Y amount of dollars.  Pick any MMC you want.

Would there be any disparity between X and Y?  If so, then why?  And which one would be closer to the actual demand?

----------


## idiom

> Might want to double check that... URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)"]rivalry[/URL].


Ah I wasn't using the economic term, the general attack from outsiders is that the industry tends towards oligopolies. The industry is generally extremely cut throat.

In economic terms, a Theater seat sold to one consumer can't be sold to another. The Bandwidth used to stream to one customer, can't used to stream to another. A Tower used to broadcast in one city can't be used to broadcast in another. The advertising space sold to one client can't be sold to another.

For most broadcast television, the product sold is the audience advertising time. You can only sell the 30 second slot once. Broadcast television is rivalrous.

For film, the main product being sold is theatre seats. There is a break between producers of movies and those who screen movies solely because of government intervention preventing vertical integration. In a free market, Cinema would also be rivalrous, but as the article says, its non-binary. In the gap, you can usually only sell to one distributor per geographic and temporal region. You cannot sell the product over and over, but its gooey.

And people don't seem to understand this, but Netflix has a cost for each additional viewer. Each one uses resources that can't be sold to another viewer.

The closest to non-rivalrous would be satellite pay-tv. It looks like it on the outside, but it has huge opportunity cost decisions due to extremely limited bandwidth. Here it is rivalrous on a customer segment level, you sell the bandwidth to one group of customer but not another at the same time. Management of the trade offs between which customer you choose to serve and which you won't is the heart of the business.

The Wiki article call free-to-air television a public good. It's wrong. The activity in non-excludable, but the product is highly excludable. The only product of free to air television is 30-second advertising slots.

The article insists that "It is generally accepted by mainstream economists that the market mechanism will under-provide public goods", yet many governments spend their time protecting television markets from over-provisioning, by limiting the number of commercial licenses. 

The article also seems to think that cinemas have infinite seating and that projectors grow on trees.




> Consider this Youtube video... A Price is Signal Wrapped Up in an Incentive.


"No single person knows these values" except for Xero, Who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Television and Film industries are massively failed markets screaming for government nationalisation, because Algebra says so.

----------


## Xerographica

> "No single person knows these values" except for Xero, Who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Television and Film industries are massively failed markets screaming for government nationalisation, because Algebra says so.


You're missing the point by a mile.  Let's review...

1. The government takes money (MMC) from millions and millions of taxpayers
2. Around 500 elected representatives choose (RC) how this money (that they haven't earned) is spent

#1: MMC is based on the free-rider problem
#2: RC is based on nothing

My overall objective here is to help people understand that the free-rider problem is nearly everywhere.  If it's beneficial to have MMC + RC in the public sector... then why isn't it beneficial to have MMC + RC for Youtube, Netflix and the non-profit sector?  Why isn't it beneficial to have MMC + RC for all the forums that people participate on?  Why does it make sense to only have MMC + RC for the public sector?  What's so special about the public sector?  Why is MMC + RC only beneficial in the public sector?  

I'm attacking RC and you're attacking me.  If you're attacking the guy who is attacking RC... then you're defending RC.  My guess is that you probably don't want to defend RC... which means that you're attacking me because you don't understand how the Satt Paradox/Test are attacks on RC.  

Look at The Satt - Economic Coherence Test.  Try and see it from the perspective of a liberal.  What does a liberal think is the correct answer to the following question?

5. Public sector

A. CS = MMC + RC + PRP
B. MMC + CC (+FRP?)
C. VC + CC + FRP

For a liberal.... the correct answer is "A"...

A. Current system = mandatory minimum contribution (MMC) + representative choice (RC)

But the free-rider problem is applicable to *all 9 other questions*.  So why would MMC + RC only be the correct answer for just _one_ of the questions?  There isn't a single liberal who would argue that Youtube or the non-profit sector should be MMC + RC.  This definitively and conclusively proves that liberals are economically incoherent.  

I've designed a simple test that easily and effectively proves that liberals are economically incoherent.  Yet, rather than helping me proliferate this test... you want to defend the market's effectiveness at supplying movies and shows.  

Yes, I'm attacking the market's effectiveness at supplying movies/shows/books/music.  But I'm doing so in order to prove that the free-rider problem is pervasive.  When I prove that the free-rider problem is pervasive... I prove that liberals are economically incoherent for not wanting to apply MMC + RC wherever there's the free-rider problem.  

Are you familiar with Aikido?  It's a martial art.  It's different from most martial arts because you use your opponent's attack against them.  If your opponent punches you... rather than blocking the punch... you step off the line of attack... and use their forward momentum and energy to throw them.  

The free-rider problem is what liberals use to justify the government.  It's their strongest punch.  Right now you're using your energy to try and block it.  They punch, you block, nobody wins.  It's been going on for a while.  

What I'm doing is flowing with the free-rider problem and using it to throw liberals.  I use their own attack against them.  And they are absolutely defenseless against this strategy.

But there are a lot of liberals and just one of me.  So it would be great if you would give me a hand throwing liberals.

----------


## acptulsa

First, you are a liberal.

Second, liberals don't care about people having and exercising control.  They want a tyranny so they can run it.

Third, a great many liberals are smart enough to see the same flaw in the system that we pointed out the last two hundred times you dropped by to spam us.  Millions will earmark for the Army or Navy--a rivalry will form--but no one will think to earmark for the Coast Guard, even though everyone wants one.  When all the popular departments are overfunded and actual important stuff is unfunded, they will ignore us and spend it how they want.  We will have taxation without representation, which is tyranny.  Our solution of cut government down to size and let people spend their money where they want and _when_ they want is far, far superior to your commu-Keynesian make 'em spend and make sure the government gets a cut of the action in your "free market".

I'm not trying to sell that crap.  I'd feel stupid.  I'd rather sell used Edsels.  So take your dry pseudo-equations that aren't even remotely mathematical and your attempts to camouflage what you're really saying because you know no one buys it and your bottomless can of spam and go throw your own liberals.

----------


## Xerographica

> Millions will earmark for the Army or Navy--a rivalry will form--but no one will think to earmark for the Coast Guard, even though everyone wants one.


Imagine if there was a market in the private sector.  What would happen if all the farmers spent all their money in Las Vegas?  We'd starve!  What would happen if all the farmers spent all their money on tractors?  We'd starve!  What would happen if all the farmers spent all their money on barns?  We'd starve!  What would happen if all the farmers spent all their money on hot-air balloons?  We'd starve!  

Farmers are so incompetent that we should elect people to spend their money for them!  Only a liberal like yourself would think that farmers are all so incompetent that they would throw their money away on things that they don't  need to successfully operate their farms.  

Right now I have to explain how markets work to you.  This is what makes you a liberal.  The fact that I have to share this passage by Adam Smith with you is what makes you a liberal...




> It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations


If farmers spend all their taxes on defense... (which is a stupid thing to assume that farmers would do without good reason)... and the subsequent loss of roads, bridges, police and every other public good did not hurt their profits at all... then yes, they wouldn't adjust their spending accordingly.  But if their profits were hurt... then they would alter the faulty distribution of their taxes.  

Because you're a liberal... I have to share this passage by Elizabeth Warren...




> 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. - Elizabeth Warren


Taxpayers got rich because of public goods.  Well... at least according to Warren.  If this is true, then nobody has more incentive and local knowledge than taxpayers do to ensure that the government supplies the most profitable balance of public goods.

You want the power of the purse to stay in the hands of a small group of government planners.  In case you missed it... that's socialism.  That's the visible hand.  That's exactly what a command economy is.  This is exactly what I'm attacking and you're defending.  

What you fail to recognize is that taxpayers are the people who you trust with your hard-earned *money* while congresspeople are the people who you trust with your hard-earned *votes*.  In other words, taxpayers are the people who represent your _true_ interests.  Preventing them from shopping for themselves in the public sector hurts your own interests.  You might as well hand a farmer your money and then shoot him in the foot.

----------


## acptulsa

So, farmers have to turn over not just their taxes--earmarked--but every penny they make?  I love to see a communist call a libertarian a liberal.  It's amusing.  Farmers don't need to give every penny to the government in hopes they get what they need to run their farm back.  It's stupid.  Something that would take three hours and no more paperwork than a credit card receipt will take three reams of paperwork and three months.

I knew you had gone off the deep end, but I didn't realize you were trying to give government all money and a monopoly on spending it.  That's insane.

And then you accuse me of wanting the power of the purse in central planners when I am the one who doesn't want one penny in a hundred in that purse.  I don't know if that's insanity or mere dishonesty, but either way your claim that I resemble your straw man is wrong, insulting and stupid.

Give all our money to the fedgov and tell them what you need for it.  And have faith, even though we were told millions of times over eighty years that, for example, the Social Security Trust Fund would never be touched, yet Dubya stole it and spent it on wars in 2005.  And you not only want me to approve and help sell this stupidity, you want to call me a commie because I want to give the government a pittance and restrict their activities to the very few things only the federal government can do (like common defense) while you want to give every penny to the bastards and hope and pray the farmers get their water bill paid and their tractor fixed before harvest time.

I don't know if it's more disgusting that you're libeling me in an abortive attempt to make this totalitarian scheme of yours look better or that you're setting us up for full-blown Stalinism and calling it a "market" because you trust the biggest crooks in society to spend our money the way we say to.  And I don't care, honestly.  You won't be getting the help you crave here.  You've been trying for years.  Has it worked even once?  Have you suckered one of us--just one--in the five years you've been trying?

Well, then.  Keep doing it over and over in the hope of a different outcome, then.  Knock yourself out.

----------


## Xerographica

acptulsa, you've been critiquing pragmatarianism all this time but now you need me to explain to you how it would work?  Why don't you learn how something works _before_ you critique it.... pragmatarianism FAQ.  

You're suffering from major economic incoherence.  You want to restrict the government to the few things that it can do well?  Like defense, courts and police?  Those are the only things that the visible hand is competent at supplying?  The visible hand knows how much defense to supply but it can't know how much milk to supply?  This means that you believe in partial omniscience.  And because you don't bother to educate yourself, you have absolutely no idea what I mean by that.  

_You_, one individual, want to narrow the government down to x, y and z.  I, on the other hand, want to allow millions and millions of taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.  

If you think your "answer" regarding the proper scope of government will be better than the answer provided by millions and millions of taxpayers... then you're suffering from a fatal conceit.

----------


## acptulsa

If you wrote those FAQ you need to wake me up when you learn to write in plain English.

I don't think government does anything well.  You are still stuffing straw in a suit and trying to call it me.  A coordinated common defense is something individuals would have a rough time doing.  What's more, the bulk of it would fall on border landowners but everyone would benefit.  The fact that I see a role for a federal government in this does not mean I'm happy about it.  And it certainly doesn't mean I think tyrants in Washington would do a competent job distributing milk.  Are you really incapable of understanding this simple concept?

The only thing that could be better than me limiting the scope of government would be millions of taxpayers simply refusing to pay one penny.  But, of course, you want the tax rate to be 100% because the government obviously spends money better than anyone else.  So you are the libertarian and I am the commie.  Good luck selling that tripe.

Now that I've set the record straight, I think I can allow you to libel me with your lies uninhibited.  Hope you are amusing with it.  That way you won't be completely useless.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Originally Posted by Xerographica
> 
> 
> My solution is to create a market in the public sector.  People would be able to shop in the public sector just like they can shop in the non-profit sector.
> 
> 
> There's a surprise.


I think I'm going to die of shock from that surprise.

----------


## idiom

> I've designed a simple test that easily and effectively proves that liberals are economically incoherent.  Yet, rather than helping me proliferate this test... you want to defend the market's effectiveness at supplying movies and shows.  
> 
> Yes, I'm attacking the market's effectiveness at supplying movies/shows/books/music.  But I'm doing so in order to prove that the free-rider problem is pervasive.  When I prove that the free-rider problem is pervasive... I prove that liberals are economically incoherent for not wanting to apply MMC + RC wherever there's the free-rider problem.


Your attack is incoherent.

And your solution is worse.

The media market doesn't have a free-rider problem. Attack something else. The main problems it has are with serious government intervention causing huge distortions, and being something of a low art.

----------


## Henry Rogue

Market failure mythology.  Subjective view of what should or shouldn't be, used as evidence of market failures.

----------


## Xerographica

> Market failure mythology.  Subjective view of what should or shouldn't be, used as evidence of market failures.


1. No two people value any given thread on this forum equally.  T/F
2. Payment is how we communicate how much we value something.  T/F
3. People aren't given the opportunity to pay for threads on this forum.  T/F
4. Thread producers aren't guided by the valuations of thread consumers.  T/F
5. The market works better when producers are guided by the valuations of consumers.  T/F

----------


## Xerographica

> I don't think government does anything well.


Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector.  This means that you could take your taxes and spend them on whatever it is that _you_ think that the government does _best_.  Everybody else would do the same.  

If you want to argue that we'd end up with too much... or too little defense... then please recognize that your argument would be a critique of _markets_.  

A farmer spending too much on defense is the same thing as a farmer spending too much on tractors.  If a farmer buys 100 new tractors when he really only needed 5... then we would say that he's incompetent.  But markets work because incompetent farmers make less money than competent farmers.  We'd be screwed if it was the other way around.  We'd be screwed if incompetent people had more control over society's limited resources than competent people. 

So with pragmatarianism, competent individuals would have more money to spend in the public sector than incompetent individuals.  They would be spending money that they earned through their competence.  

With the current system, and even with your ideal system, congresspeople would be spending money that they didn't earn through their competence.  In other words, with your ideal system, incompetent people would have more power in the public sector than competent people.  And they wouldn't have power over something like the supply of chewing gum... they would have power over the supply of war.

----------


## Xerographica

> And your solution is worse.


What's _your_ solution?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> 1. No two people value any given thread on this forum equally.  T/F
> 2. Payment is how we communicate how much we value something.  T/F
> 3. People aren't given the opportunity to pay for threads on this forum.  T/F
> 4. Thread producers aren't guided by the valuations of thread consumers.  T/F
> 5. The market works better when producers are guided by the valuations of consumers.  T/F


Answers:
1. Don't know, don't care.
2. Sure, unless payment is coerced. Then it communicates nothing.
3. Entrepreneurs discover profit. Feel free to start a pay per view forum. If you have success other forums will emulate you, if you fail, they will not. Markets don't fail, only market participants fail.
4. Every morning I produce a masterpiece, expending time and effort. I transport my product to the consumer via my kohler. In case you haven't figured it out, the consumer is the municipal sanitation department. Oddly enough they don't pay me for my produce. It must be a market failure. Or perhaps I'm not really a producer after all, but a consumer. The same can be said of forum posters, that they are in fact consumers. Deriving satisfaction from the fact that people read their words
5. To sell something, one must possess something.  Once your thoughts are made known, they could be in anyones possession. Much like flushing it down the toilet.

----------


## Xerographica

> 2. Sure, unless payment is coerced. Then it communicates nothing.


Let's say that Youtube started charging its members $2/month.  Would this count as coercion?  People could certainly exit/leave if they didn't want to pay.  

If Youtube allowed its members to spend their $2/month on any videos of their choosing... would this help the members communicate their values to each other?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Let's say that Youtube started charging its members $2/month.  Would this count as coercion?  People could certainly exit/leave if they didn't want to pay.  
> 
> If Youtube allowed its members to spend their $2/month on any videos of their choosing... would this help the members communicate their values to each other?


You must have missed the part where I wrote "Sure comma punctuation unless".

IIRC, Netflix once offered movies online and movies rentals delivered for Nine bucks a month, then they decided they wanted to know which service their customers valued more, so they started to charge Nine dollars for each. Many customers disliked this, as now they would have to pay 18 dollars for what they used to get for 9 or get half of the service that they used to get for the same amount. Fortunately as with any voluntary trade, the consumer had another choice. The choice of no longer trading with that particular entity.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

It is just a little sad to me to see Xero pop up again occasionally, still stuck in the exact same rut, still not having read anything nor learned anything, after all these years.

Read some books!  Learn some economics!  Have some respect for yourself!  You just are embarrassing yourself.  You're a modern circle-squarer.  Cure your ignorance and become an interesting person with something worthwhile to say.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> It is just a little sad to me to see Xero pop up again occasionally, still stuck in the exact same rut, still not having read anything nor learned anything, after all these years.
> 
> Read some books!  Learn some economics!  Have some respect for yourself!  You just are embarrassing yourself.  You're a modern circle-squarer.  Cure your ignorance and become an interesting person with something worthwhile to say.


I kind of admire his tenacity. If he put that much effort into a business, I should think he would be quite successful.

----------


## idiom

> What's _your_ solution?


Media creates millions of jobs and billions of profits. It is a driving force of many vibrant cultures.

Why does it need a solution?

----------

