RoR: Forum

Steve/Michael:

IBM technology was indeed a kind of rock solid Gold standard at one point. 60s? Dominant at university centers and corporations. It was reassuringly solid. Who can forget the sound of those cards being fed into a card reader? The sound of mechanical perfection. And when those 3270 terminals showed up? I can still see that skinny green font screaming up on the glass tube.

Their dominance was so complete, to the point(a vague memory)that folks sometimes referred generically to computers as 'IBM machines' just like XEROX and copy machines.

But their dominance did not keep a DEC from showing up in the 70s, to -briefly- become another kind Gold standard. I remember as a young engineer in the late 70s, with a 3270 bolted to my desk, getting our first LSI/11 based system for our development lab. We stuffed a VT-103 out of the Hamilton-Avnet catelog. Assembler, FORTRAN, BASIC compiler, overlay linker, VEDIT, TECO, ..and by early 80s, a C compiler was available. Full suite of data acquisition and control interfaces; here was something portable we could build complete DAS systems around and put them anywhere we needed them. The 3270s bolted to the desks up in the office seemed like relics from another age.

And yet, DEC repeated IBMs hubris; DEC never believed that micros would do to minis what minis had just done to mainframes, which is, push them into niches and replace them with adequately right sized iron for applications that were previously attacked with grossly oversized iron, just because that is all there was. DEC's view of its own LSI/11 hardware relative to their bread and butter minis was not even as forward thinking as IBMs view of their System/38 - AS400s relative to their mainframes. AS400 penetration into the mini domain was far greater than LSI/11 penetration into the eventual micro playing field. So in a way, IBM was much smarter about eating its own lunch than DEC even though, anybody who has ever seen one of those desktop VT103s stuffed with LSI/11 and RT-11 in the mid to late 70s compared to all the CP/M and DOS toys -- which were crude and incomplete rip-offs of RT-11 -- knows that the deciding issue wasn't quality or technology. And even DEC recognized that, but too late; by the time they saw the nature of the new micro playing field, they pushed not the next generations of their mature LSI/11 line and RT-11, but that 'me, too' PC-Rainbow crap, and got lost in the noise, because by then it was five years too late to play catch-up in a field they could have owned if they had been more willing to eat their own lunch. The DOS command line was glaringly similar to the RT-11 command line interface, in some cases, identical. But RT-11 was far more capable as an O/S. It wasn't a question of 'ease of use' -- the IBM PC took off even with DOS. It was a failure of vision in Maynard, and a victory of vision in Seattle by way of Cambridge.

There was a local steel fabrication plant that was doing payroll on its own mainframe ...and little else...pretty much up until the time it folded in the 80s. Must have seemed like a good idea at the time. In their case, it wasn't IBM, but in IBM's heyday as a dominant force, imagine the ease that their salesforce had in selling IBM. So, there was a lot of over-sized iron aimed at tasks; mainframes doing what minis could do or even what micros could do.

And today, folks still primarily doing word processing, spread sheets, database queries, and browsing are using iron that spends 99% of its time idling, waiting for the next fatfinger to do something, and yet, there are endless waves of hardware improvements enabling ever more fringe applications to justify all the new processing power.

So much of those overlapping stories have little to do with either the quality of IBM's or even DEC's technology. In DEC's strategic failure, we also see the workings of creative destructive capitalism; the human capital essence that was driving DEC operating systems largely ended up at Microsoft.

The most glaring lesson of IBM is that it has long survived DECs onslaught, and DEC didn't. But some of that admirable fact -- a century or so of continuity is a monumental achievement -- is mottled by its embrace of America's soft fascism, and rushing to Congress for legislative favors. As a necessity for survival?

Maybe that is just reflective of its ability to adapt, like a chameleon, to the rules of the current game, no matter how fucked up they get, but it speaks to a kind of reptilian efficiency: Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Lather, rinse , repeat.

regards,
Fred

Post 21

Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 9:10am

Maybe that is just reflective of its ability to adapt, like a chameleon, to the rules of the current game, no matter how fucked up they get, but it speaks to a kind of reptilian efficiency: Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Lather, rinse , repeat.

Fred, I love it! It's easy to agree when you're laughing.

There are, for me, three or four different IBMs. There are the scientists who were working away to break new ground. There were engineers of every kind and stripe, most of who were excited as kids and loved what they did and I loved working with them. There was the sales staff and they were fairly tolerable, for sales people, and well trained in the technology, for sales people. They worked hard to keep their customers happy.

And then there were people who borrowed deep into the political structure, and used those dirty, smoke-filled backrooms to do deals. I never met them - not my area - but they were the ugly part of IBM and I suspect they were there from early on (given IBM's history on sales to the government).

The IBM I had personal experience with was hardworking, intelligent, good-humored, and always made me feel like we were partners in an exciting adventure. I'm sure there was much of the same in most of the other companies... I just wasn't working with them. I suspect the entire industry was exciting back then.

Post 22

Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 9:44am

Steve:

three or four different IBMs.

That is such a good way to put it;

IBMs; plural.

I'm not trying to be funny. I think that is exactly right.

I've referred to this as 'the two Tribe problem' but two may not even be enough plurality in some cases.

My close friend/fellow engineer and I at lunch yesterday -- we've known each other since the late 70s -- were discussing that 'two tribe' issue at the place we used to work at together. It wasn't a question at all that there weren't talented people pulling together in that communal/corporate effort -- there definitely were, and even when the place blew-up, they largely landed on their feet elsewhere-- many in brand new startups--but in freshly chastised and wisened startups. Smaller. Much leaner. Much more entrepreneurial driven. Far fewer pure MBAs with their pockets full of wanna and perseverance on Excel. (There is a huge difference between someone who adds an MBA to some actual experience, and someone who is pure MBA; pure MBAs have been oversold in this nation.)

SO the freshly wizened have been living in niches. Sticking to the knitting. Staying out of the news. Not wanting to be victims of idiocy, thouigh sometimes, as in IRS 1706, the idiocy comes looking for you.

Everyone needs to be burned at least once, but there is always a fresh new crop to fleece.

Part of what America is going through, I think, is the end of that model of parasitism. Finally. But they aren't giving up the gig without a fight.

regards,
Fred

Post 23

Friday, August 3, 2012 - 3:45am

Steve in Post 19: You said that Ayn Rand claimed that creativity is not an economic enterprise. I asked for a reference... but in your last post you just repeat your assertion, and still no reference. Where did she say that?

"Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.
Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.
No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered.
His truth was his only motive.
His work was his only goal.
His work - not those who used it.
His creation - not the benefits others derived from it - the creation which gave form to his truth.
He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement."

The Creative Genius
Far above the millions that come and pass away tower the pioneers, the men whose deeds and ideas cut out new paths for mankind. For the pioneering genius to create is the essence of life. To live means for him to create. The activities of these prodigious men cannot be fully subsumed under the praxeological concept of labor. They are not labor because they are for the genius not means, but ends in themselves. He lives in creating and inventing. For him there is not leisure, only intermissions of temporary sterility and frustration. His incentive is not the desire to bring about a result, but the act of producing it. The accomplishment gratifies him neither mediately nor immediately. It does not gratify him mediately because his fellow men at best are unconcerned about it, more often even greet it with taunts, sneers, and persecution. Many a genius could have used his gifts to render his life agreeable and joyful; he did not even consider such a possibility and chose the thorny path without hesitation. The genius wants to accomplish what he considers his mission, even if he knows that he moves toward his own disaster.
Von Mises, Human Action, "Action Within the World" (1966 ed., pg 139)
http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf

You [MIchael] wrote,
But capitalism is amoral in the sense that the market rewards people who sell whatever other people want.
... But I think it makes much more sense to say that capitalism is moral BECAUSE it rewards people in proportion to their ability to satisfy wants. ... And why point a moral finger at the sellers for selling 'bad' things, and not at the buyers, who want these 'bad' things? ... This is like the third or fourth negative remark in just a few posts that you've made about capitalism ... I asked you what should be changed, or what should replace capitalism. But you've given no answer. ...

Half full, half empty, or twice as big as it needs to be. I could write a long essay on the nuances. I certainly do understand the value in an unfettered market that allows people to discover, create, and satisfy wants. The inventor above has no chance, except in an open society and capitalism is that. As you say, the deeper problem is what people want, not that others meet those perceived needs. To address that is the problem of publcizing and popularizing a philosophy. It is why Objectivism is different from Libertarianism. Both want the govenment to stop criminalizing recreational drugs. But given that, Libertarians would use them, whereas Objectivists would not.

We all have our utopias. I believe that in a world of reason and reality, professional sports would be incidental, and college sports would not serve as minor leagues for football and basketball. Instead of the automobiles we know built for Autobahns, we would have surface-effect vehicles. It would be impossible to bang your head on an open cupboard door or stub your toe on the couch in the dark. These failings are not the fault of economics, but of philosophy.

Any criticism of capitalism that I have offered was only to remind us that following the herd is as much an aspect of capitalism as it is of socialism. The problem is deeper than economics and politics. I fully and completely agree, though, Steve, that capitalism allows and encourages that different drumming which socialism condemns and criminalizes. Forty years ago, President Kennedy said that anyone who cannot see the difference should come to Berlin. Today, we have Cuba. If socialism held any promise whatsoever Cuba would be the capital of planet.

You [Michael] wrote,
As Hobbes (and Mises) pointed out: it is the buyer, not the seller, who sets the price.
Far be it from me to contradict Mises on economics, but I always look at the price as being set [by] the market which means the meeting of supply and demand. That is an average or aggregate number that couldn't be arrived at without both lots of buyers and sellers. As individuals, neither a particular buyer nor a particular seller can push a price onto the other that the other is unwilling to accept.

I agree that open exchanges are bilateral. I also point out that the person "buying" with "money" is actually "selling" a "commodity" or as we say, engaging indirect barter. That is true. Nonetheless, commonly enough, the person with cash accepts an offer or not, shops for value, waits for their price, and so on. Mises, of course, was fully aware of the subtleties.

As far as he gives and serves other people, he does so of his own accord in order to be rewarded and served by the receivers. He exchanges goods and services, he does not do compulsory labor and does not pay tribute. He is certainly not independent. He depends on the other members of society. But this dependence is mutual. The buyer depends on the seller and the seller on the buyer. Human Action (1966),"The Market" pg. 283

[but see also]

Competitive prices are the outcome of a complete adjustment of the sellers to the demand of the consumers. ... The whole economic process is conducted for the benefit of the consumers.
ibid. "Prices" pg 357

Our problem here is whether and to what extent other people determine your personal (moral) worth and Hobbes pointed out that in the marketplace, it is the buyer who sets the price. Whether Sears or De Beers they all must wait for buyers.

You [Michael] wrote,
Steve, the question here is whether your worth is determined by others. Rand said to always pass moral judgment. You seem to have no problem telling me your verdict. Do you determine my worth?
Do you have a problem with people making moral judgments? Should I not say what I think? I'm confused as to why are having trouble understanding what it means to determine worth. Honest. I still have no clue as to what your point is.

You set my worth (to yourself). I cannot demand a higher valuation than you are willing to give. The other side of the transaction still exists. I have awards in boxes because the givers valued me higher than I value myself. But, largely, as in the general market, the buyer sets the price and we are all buyers. We evaluate and value each other. That was Hobbes' point.

All that I've done, and usually, all that I ever do with your posts is to point out where they appear to be negative relative towards minarchy, capitalism, Ayn Rand or Objectivism.

Well, I have never found a passage of Rachmaninoff I did not like. Some things are above criticism. But minarchy could be monarchy for all the difference it makes. As long as the general "spirit" of a culture (Rand used the term, also) is fundamentally reasonable, realistic, and socially tolerant and therefore commercially open, the rest will follow. I know that you and I agree on the importance of the Enlightenment to the rise of capitalism that culminated in the late 19th century as a time of invention, prosperity, peace, and open inquiry, even though, that time lacked aspects that we expect of an open society today.

I ask questions when I don't understand what you've written and then I look for answers. I think that in this context (our posts, that is) we each 'determine' our own worth - and that is objective. And we each make our own evaluation of what worth was created - and given the nature of epistemology and psychology that evaluation will be a mixture of objective and subjective.

I agree 100%.

Post 24

Friday, August 3, 2012 - 6:22am

Michael,

Thank you for the references.

The deepest or strongest motivations of the major creators is one thing, but the wording you used, that creativity itself is not an economic enterprise is another - in the context of that post it looked like it was addressing economics and stating that creativity was without economic return - but I knew that wasn't the case, and wouldn't have been anything you would have intended. If your wording was acurate in that sense there would have been no increase in wealth from the days of the caveman forward - not as a product of creativity, not because of any economic enterprise that employed creativity. Reardon metal was a product of creativity AND an economic enterprise. That's why I asked.
----------------------

You wrote,

I could write a long essay on the nuances.

No comment :-)

Post 25

Friday, August 3, 2012 - 6:58am

Michael:

Any criticism of capitalism that I have offered was only to remind us that following the herd is as much an aspect of capitalism as it is of socialism.

I think the difference is, although the warts of capitalism are similar to the warts of socialism where those warts are really unavoidable imperfect naked sweaty apes and their shortcomings(most often uncovered as they seek unethical shortcuts,) the more fundamental warts of socialism are systemic: ultimately, socialism depends on forced association, and capitalism does not.

There is no ethical symmetry between advocating living rape free under rules of free association, and railing that we are all 'forced' to live under rules that preclude rape.

And that is ultimately why capitalism is not chocolate to socialism's vanilla. Take the same tribe of naked sweaty apes, warts and all, and force them to live under a paradigm of forced association, and those ever present warts will become highlighted with floodlights. Allow them to self-organize under polite rules of free association as -peers- living under freedom, not designated adult/child, which includes freely accepting the consequences of our own risk and choices, and those ever present warts will at least find some peace in seeking friend from fool, no matter how defined.

This is anathema to the existential terror which drives half of our tribe, overcome with their atavistic herd mentality genes and fearful that those who can will leave those who can't behind, and will step over their bodies in the gutter(like what period in America's history?) But the compromise of a safety net is not the socialism America is courting; that safety net is no longer aimed at the fringe few falling down at the bottom of the hills, plural, but broadly at the entire population under a model of massive forced association. That is, forced association with the utopic visions of the few. Sadly, although that once safety net is now sold as a trampoline, the only folks in sight jumping for joy are the carnival hucksters selling tickets for the ride(see real estate market in Northern VA, compare with Detroit.)

As this slide down the hill(by ever more of a once striving uphill population), the existential terror grows, as it must, and the existential terrorists take full advantage of that. As well, the closer we get to this massive tribal fail, the more rats on a sinking lifeboat behavior erupts, including the worst abuses of what used to be capitalism.

Our tribe broke it. Maybe our tribal success broke it; at the peak of our trajectory, at a great height, far from the powered ascent stage, we flailed and twirled and tumbled in mid-air and said, "Look! We can get away with anything, and still we don't hit the ground! We can still see so far...no matter what we do!" And for a brief few moments, utopists of all stripes dreamed that they could do better...right up until the moment of impact.

Can our tribe fix it? No evidence forthcoming.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 8/03, 7:03am)

Post 26

Friday, August 3, 2012 - 7:22am

Michael:

A federalist model of organization of 50 states does not preclude, for example, the good people of some village in Vermont from choosing a strongly socialist or even communist form of government. As long as the umbrella rule of free association is enforced, folks are free to vote with their feet and either flee to or away from that model of organization.

There is nothing, little in our federal constitution to prohibit that experiment from ever being run in our 200+ years.

And that experiment exposes socialism and communism precisely for what it is, because under no circumstances can it prevail if its victims are free to flee. This glaring fact is played out not just by the insistence that socialism be enacted nationally in fits and starts(else the experiment would be made explicit and the nature of the paradigm would be clear to all), but globally as well; as long as there is one free nation on earth, the rest of the tribal insanity could never build the walls high enough to keep their victims in place. 190 Socialist pissholes could not stand for long in a world with even one free America. Here: the rest of the world is for socialism. Build that socialist utopia.

Sorry; no can do. We can't build the walls high enough. Our victims keep fleeing because they believe there is somewhere they can be free. We need to chain them in place and ride them like tribal property ponies. We need to re-educate them, and make them believe that is why they were put on earth. To serve us and assuage our existential terror. That is what justifies our forced association ethics; that is what makes us Holy existential terrorists. We do not ever want to be put in the position of asking; we want to tell those who we depend on. They are not our peers living in freedom; they are ours to command, and our license is our need; their indictment is their ability. We will dispose of their excess value; we will define what is sufficiently charitable. They will provide. We all have our places in this order. Ours is ultimately to point the guns, because we can.

That explicit experiment with the barbed wire and armed guards in the old East/West Berlin made it clear.

And so, that one free nation has to be destroyed, and what used to be an external struggle to defend freedom has long devolved into an internal struggle. That once free nation has long been over-run.

regards,
Fred

Post 27

Friday, August 3, 2012 - 8:16am

Michael:

We can rail against the universe, and its cold, uncaring rules: like, it is hard to run uphill, it is easy to run downhill, and even when we try to stand still, we often end up sliding downhill.

The view at the top of the hills is much better than the crowded view at the bottom of the hills. Those are the cold, hard facts. But that view is so precisely because of the effort to get there.

These aren't capitalism's rules. This is the universe. Capitalism is the ethical response to those rules, not the enforcer. Socialism is the attempt to repeal them and turn those hills upside down.

We get up and go to work. We hate our boss. He tells us what to do. We have to listen to him or we lose our job. We have to work or we don't get paid. We must get paid or we can't obtain the means of our survival. We need our job. We'd like to work for ourselves, but we are unable to make enough money doing that. I mean, who needs algebra and calculus, anyway? And yet others have so much and seem to work so little. Surely that isn't fair?

The universe and its rules terrify some...apparently many. Maybe even most. And that is where politicians come in. Like most, politicians have little need for algebra and calculus, but they early learned how to simply count heads, and so, pandering to that sentiment -- "Relax, don't try so hard. Let out the belt. You've earned it(by showing up breathing and handing me your vote.) Here is the list of all the free goodies I will commandeer from others on your behalf. Vote for me."

Our political process is no deeper than that, nor more ethically justified, merely draped in speeches that avoid the phrase 'forced association' like the plague.

Fooling nobody, especially those most able to dodge the clumsy fork. And yet they keep trying, bringing us the current Gray Economies of Waiting...

Romney paid no taxes for the last ten years? You mean, other than the three million he already reported? If Obama paid anywhere near three million in taxes and another three million in charitable contributions in the last ten years, then he can throw rocks. If not, he should STFU with his smug bullshit.

I hope Romney didn't. I wish I had paid less. Especially if in the end it was being spent by a Pelosi or Reid or Frank or Obama or some other complete dufus.

Romney had a fully disclosed Cayman's Corp? So did I. That is how I pushed business overseas, the net result of which was American exports of American goods and services on the forever losing side of that ledger, and taxes ultimately paid to the US Treasury from overseas.

Does America broadly understand why the Cayman's exist? No. Here, it is used mainly for going nowhere boob-bait shows, like the current political meme. But how many times do we have to see this exact same movie?

Doing business in the Cayman's is an eye opener. The Cayman government is not only laissez-faire, but proactively cooperative in helping companies conduct business. The customs warehouse in Georgetown is fully integrated with DHL/FED EX.

I played it straight. I wanted to sleep at night. My US "S" Corp charged my Caymans Corp a yearly 'management fee', which showed up as income on my US "S" Corp, on which I paid taxes. The Caymans Corp acted as a sales/distributor for foreign business. It would bundle goods and services, hardware and software, and ship from Georgetown under its own label and customs paperwork. There were as many reasons for having that Caymans Corp as there were other nations in the world. It is a fluid banking center. It was a legitimate means of avoiding distribution restrictions(as in, Canadian manufacturers who could not sell directly to my US "S" Corp because of sales exclusivity agreements, even though the end use was not in the US, but had no such problems selling to the Caymans Corp. for reshipment to the same destination, because there were no such sales exclusivity arrangements affecting the Caymans.)

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for having a Caymans Corp when trying to push business overseas, and it is petty childish politics in the US that automatically paints them as turtle pirate tax dodging endeavours. And anyone who understands the reason that this part of the U.K.(!) is organized in this fashion has no trouble justifying their existence in their present form. The reason is, the real politik gap between the masses at home and their understanding of how business is actually done in the world. It is true, however, that maybe half of those Cayman Corps down there are -not- disclosed to their owners governments at home. This is the aspect of deliberate design that most folks don't understand. The UK government, when it set up the Caymans, understood this. Their calculation was that many would disclose, and others would not. The disclosed Corps are fully subject to passive asset repatriation rules. At most, taxes can be deferred from some years to others, but not fully avoided, and in the meantime, these entities are serving as 'grease' to increase business activity and exports, even from the owners native nations. The rules are such that, in order to 'shield' assets from the passive asset repatriation rules, the assets must be in a form that would be treated as 'tax free' if held at home. Which means...government or municipal bonds. Which means...the assets are already under control of the taxing authority back home. The Caymans is a 'capital honey pot' that provides a safety valve/pressure relief valve from the ... pony show being played out for the masses at home. The undisclosed corps? They are still investing those assets. The capital is not literally sitting in piles in the sand. And so, realpolitik governments understanding exactly what drives economies made the calculation, when human and dollar capital was fleeing the clumsy forks, that 75% of something was far better than 100% of nothing. By segregating laissez-faire capitalism so far away from the Vanguard of a new Red Dawn pony show for the masses at home, they could have their cake and eat it, too.

And in the case of the US and the Caymans, there was no more frequent flyer on the plane to Georgetown than Ted Kennedy, visiting daddy's rum running money.

regards,
Fred

Post 28

Friday, August 3, 2012 - 11:04am

Steve, thanks for the thanks. (This could become habitual.) Just to note that in #18 above, I opened with:

First, on creativity as an economic enterprise: I said before that one of my professors, Ron Westrum, made a special study of inventors. Successful inventors are not Gyro Gearloose types in attics and garages putting everything into One Big Idea that no one wants - although they do exist and can be successful. The successful inventor is a serial entrepreneur, holding several to many patents, and licensing, manufacturing directly, or contracting for, depending on the objective market needs. So, creativity can be an economic enterprise, Mises and Rand notwithstanding.

It think that it was on that basis that Joe Maurone or Dean Michael Gores took exception to the claim that creativity is not an economic enterprise. As a computer programmers, they would logically see themselves as creators and innovators in an obvious market for creativity and innovation. I think the general reply was that those markets exist, which is not the same thing as creation. As above, I see it from both sides.

Fred, thanks for the insight on the Caymans. I have said before that our accountant over the years always saw to it that we paid the most taxes possible. He helped to prosecute and convict our fomer employer Tax evasion was just one of the crimes, because as for many of these cheaters, the government is just some else they defraud in the normal course of business. The owner of the company (who avoided prison) once stood in my office and said, "I don't care who I cheat, there's $15,000 at stake." Barry overheard that from his office and it is one of the stories we like to tell each other from time to time.

It is on that basis that the government attempts to tar all "tax evasion" with the same brush. It is not just that we have to pay for the army and the national parks, but that we must also pay for anythng and everything they dream up at the price they set. One of the many good ideas that will never come to pass is a tax check-off.

I will pay whatever the law requires, as is my right, obligation, and duty, a small price to pay to live in a free country.... but let me put Xes where I want the money to go. Not just the list of 13 or 18 cabinet departments, but, you know, about 1000 pages of budget.... [Next]... [Next].... [Next].... Navy (check), Air Force (check), Army (not so much), Coast Guard (nope), National Parks (pass), NASA, (check), National Bureau of Standards (check), Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (no), FBI (yes), CIA (no), NSA (yes).

And in percentage, of course... You owe $1500 (say), so you begin tallying and the little counter runs down your balance until you spend it all on the government you feel you need.

But "tax evasion" as a crime?.... yeah, that's hard to agree to .... I mean, you are away from home, burglars strike. They take the TV and other electronics and smash up some of the china in the cabinet. They leave a note: "We could not find the jewels and cash, so we assessed you a fine to teach you a lesson." Seems like the same theory we have now: If you do not let them rob you, they punish you.

And this comes back to Hobbes. The government only cashes in on the common belief that we must all pay our way. And that's fair enough. We don't like shirkers. But they call it tax evasion, not asset protection. And of course, they never admit that the money not looted in taxes would by definition go to more productive investments, for better and wider social benefits.

Post 29

Friday, August 3, 2012 - 11:48am

Michael:

Ha! I'm a big fan of the 'long long form 1040.' But having thought it through, I realized that not everyone would elect to fill out 'long long form 1040.' What that means is, Congress would have two piles of money; the directed pile and the discretionary pile.

It would be easy to process; people wouldn't even need to get the math right. They could just fill out numbers. The IRS software would add up their totals, convert them to %, apply those % to their actual taxes paid, and fix the numbers, to come up with the 'directed' pile of the budget.

This is a very broad, pluralistic nation; the directed pile would partially fill out the budget from one end of the spectrum to the other...and then, the remaining discretionary pile would be used by our existing Congress to fill out the final budget using the existing political free-for-some until it looked exactly as it does today!

And so...in order to save money, and cut out the need to process the 'long long form 1040,' why can't you and I simply pretend that the taxes we pay go to support only those things we support, and call it a day? Because in the end, we are exactly where we would be if we implemented an optional 'long long 1040,' but without the added cost of processing it.

I can't get behind the alternative; compelling the nation to actually all fill out the 'long long form 1040.' That would be like punishment for many. And I don't imagine our republican form of government ever going for that. We are all about paternalistic checks and balances, electoral colleges and so on.

regards,
Fred

Post 30

Friday, August 3, 2012 - 6:29pm

Michael, you wrote:

As a computer programmers, they [Joe Maurone or Dean Michael Gores] would logically see themselves as creators and innovators in an obvious market for creativity and innovation. I think the general reply was that those markets exist, which is not the same thing as creation. [my emphasis]

Michael, they would have been right. Programming is often very creative. Because a particular market exists doesn't mean creativity isn't heavily used to fulfil it. And because one market for a given kind of software exists, doesn't mean that programmers don't create new markets by inventing new kinds of software, or just creatively improve the old software to the degree that it redefines the old market.

Post 31

Saturday, August 4, 2012 - 7:39am