General

Re: * August 2012 low content thread *

Gero — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:34:52 GMT

First since '52: No talk of war in GOP speech

Publisher of bin Laden book refuses to back down

The Triumph of the Reich-Publican Party

Re: * August 2012 low content thread *

Nielsio — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 01:39:47 GMT

Thanks Gotlucky. It's nice to know some people out there think this is important.

Re: * August 2012 low content thread *

gotlucky — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:36:32 GMT

DOJ Targeted Public Library for Lending E-Books 'Inaccessible' to the Blind

Re: * August 2012 low content thread *

gotlucky — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:34:04 GMT

Nielsio:

Returning to the cash register hypothetical, we are looking at a person with a reputation, that was built up through many years. This person most likely also has a career and prospects for the future. If he does not have an income through production and trade, then he may be relying on friends and family or other institutions who are investing in him. And after this event he has many thousands of purchases (trades) he wishes to make in the future. If he were to take an amount of money, all of this would be put in jeopardy. How much money gained now, that one may or may not get away with stealing, is it worth risking ruining one’s entire future?

Another element in this scenario is that the more money is taken, the higher the risk of being found out. This is because a big amount missing may be spot upon the owner returning, and he can run outside to ask other people about who was in his store. This further lowers the potential gain by stealing.

Gordon stated in his hypothetical that the person knew he wouldn’t be found out, but is that how reality works? How do you know there is no hidden camera? How do you know when the owner returns? How do you know nobody else will walk in? How do you know nobody will recognize you as you walk out? We do not know the future, and have to constantly speculate on it.

Great post, Nielsio. The key point to any action, whether it is social or adversarial, is that every individual calculates the costs and benefits. When someone is considering an action branded as criminal behavior, he has to calculate in terms of risk versus reward. By assuming away the risk of being caught, Gordon completely changes the analysis of the criminal-to-be. People don't just consider the benefits and rewards, they also consider the costs and risks for their actions. So while in that particular scenario the invididual might decide to be a thief, all we can learn is that the benefits outweighed the costs for that particular individual.

I do want to point out, that in one sense, Gordon didn't assume away risk, as he said, "You have good reasons to think he won’t be able to catch you." He does use the word think, but I think you are right that he really is changing the rules of the game nonetheless. Just because you think you won't get caught doesn't mean there isn't risk. So either the thief-to-be considers the gains worth the risk or he doesn't (I'm not dealing with people who are against theft, as they just consider the costs to always outweigh the benefits).

Re: * August 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:33:06 GMT

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/emergency-tax-rich-roils-britain-163209092.html

Deputy Prime Minster Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal-Democrat Party, has proposed a one-time tax on the wealth (rather than the incomes) of high-net-worth Britons. The details aren't clear, but Clegg says the country is facing an economic war caused by a prolonged recession, and needs to tax the rich in order to avoid social unrest.

Also known as "screw it, we just want your money."

Also, "one-time"? It's never one-time.

Re: * August 2012 low content thread *

Nielsio — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 04:33:03 GMT

My new article:

David Gordon and the Cash Register Thought Experiment

Re: * August 2012 low content thread *

Clayton — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 04:19:10 GMT

Great Mises daily... congratulations Daniel James Sanchez.

Ron Paul has taken a snowball and turned it into an avalanche. The opportunities are endless. If there were just one thing I could get all the young people that RP has activated to think about, it would be political disaggregation (secession) and reducing the territorial size of government to localize it and increase the say that individuals have in the policies they are subjected to. Imagine an alert, activated minority of the public, fully aware that the world will not end if the Federal government were simply disbanded outright. I think that's a worthy goal in terms of "what next?"

Clayton -

Re: * August 2012 low content thread *

Clayton — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 02:37:21 GMT

LRC blog linked to a speech given by the Queen to Parliament back in May. She refers to the Parliament as "My Government". There are a lot of people who - incredibly to me - actually believe that the Queen has no political power. "She's not a part of the government." Well, duh, she's not a part of the government just like she's not a part of Buckingham Palace - she owns the Government, it belongs to her, it is her property. "My Government." And she has governments in more than a dozen other territories around the world.

Clayton -