Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

All the King's Horses

by ChrisCook Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 05:34:32 AM EST

Thanks to an intro by Peter Jukes, I had this Budget critique published on the Labour List blog today.....

All the King's horses... | LabourList.org

As I watched Alistair Darling presenting the UK Budget yesterday it was the fact that the Conservative opposition were genuinely irate - as opposed to the normal ersatz indignation - that made me realise that this time Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again.

It's not because Darling has not the remotest idea how to solve the current problems that I was led to this conclusion. It was because the Opposition think that they have a solution, and that cutting expenditure is it.

For the last thirty years or so we have been in a recession disguised by the capability of the growing army of homeowners to use their homes as an ATM. This borrowing disguised the fact that most of the rewards from the technology productivity boom have gone to investors, and that earnings have been stagnant, at best.

We have seen the Mother of All Bubbles in property and private equity, caused by the outsourcing of credit risk by banks to "shadow bank" investors. The continuing deflation of this bubble, and the destruction of money which results, is a Black Hole draining credit out of the system.

No problem, say the voodoo policy makers. If the interest rate steering wheel has come away in our hands, we can still print as much money as we like and give the banks as much liquidity as they need by buying up their loans, including all the rubbish.

So now the banks are awash in funds, but they are still not lending. Why might that be?

A Lady Chatterley Moment

The answer is a form of financial pornography, which no decent newspaper would print until the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy saw the end of financial prurience about the mechanics of banks and banking in the Press. The Lehman debacle was a Lady Chatterley moment after which it has become successively both possible, and now almost mandatory, for journalists to heap ordure on the banks.

Now that governments are fully engaged in addressing the crisis, there is no shortage of credit. Treasuries and Central Banks between them can create as much credit as they like, and it may be spent or lent into circulation. Spending it on productive assets should help, for sure, but this won't stem the haemorrhage of credit from the system. More to the point, it won't make banks any more likely to lend.

The reason banks aren't lending is simply that there are not enough creditworthy projects or people left. The reason that people are no longer creditworthy is a toxic combination of compound interest on debt with private ownership of the finite supply of land. This has achieved once again - in spectacular style - what it has done periodically for thousands of years and has concentrated wealth in the hands of the few, at the expense of the many.

Mr Darling has now run out of money to spend, because the tax base - which consists mainly of taxes on earned income both individual and corporate - is collapsing with the economy. The Budget showed that he dare not increase the planned deficit still further and thereby run up yet more debt.

Systemic Fiscal Reform

The only solution is a completely new approach to taxation and spending: Systemic Fiscal Reform.

We have been here before, in 1909, with Lloyd George's People's Budget.  Historians tend to dwell on the successful introduction by that Budget of old age pensions, and the increase of income tax. But what led the the House of Lords to veto the Budget, for the first time in hundreds of years, was the proposed tax on Land Value, which was a direct attack on the privileges of the landed aristocracy who then comprised the Upper House.

This Land Value tax was the creation of perhaps the greatest political economist the United States ever produced - Henry George. The principle behind the tax is that those who have the privilege of exclusive rights of use of the Commons of land should compensate the rest of Society.

While this thinking was hugely popular - George's book "Progress and Poverty" sold in the millions - the privileged struck back by funding over a period of years a complete new Neo-Classical economics which discredited both George and his ideas and airbrushed him from history.

This was achieved by making assumptions - for instance, that only labour is productive, and that money (apart from cash) necessarily consists of interest-bearing debt created by banks - that are totally detached from reality.

By way of example, we are led to believe that when a factory is automated, the sole remaining operative, who switches the factory on and off, has magically become infinitely "productive".  Worse, we have the Public/Private rhetoric that baldly assumes that a nurse working for the NHS is unproductive, while the minute she does the exact same job for the particular legal construct known as the Corporation then she is magically productive. This is complete nonsense and serves to justify the otherwise unjustifiable. Orwell would have been proud at this use of language.

In addition to taxing the privilege of the exclusive use of the Commons of land, we might now extend the principle to the Commons of non-renewable resources generally, and carbon fuels in particular. And we may also make a levy on the privilege of Limitation Of Liability through applying a levy on gross corporate revenues.

Such taxes or levies on privilege, rather than people, are simple, fair, and pretty much unavoidable. They could be used to sweep away virtually all other taxes and all the huge costs in the public and private sector associated with enforcing them.

I don't expect either Mr Darling or the Conservatives to implement such a radical People's Budget any time soon. So what happens now? The Conservative spending cuts would lead to further defaults,  money destruction and Depression; whereas Mr Darling's path of money creation, and quantitative easing of the rich, leads directly to Inflation.

I argue that it will not be either. The emergence of the direct Peer to Peer connections of the Internet will enable the financial system to be by-passed through a viral process I refer to as Napsterisation - after the disruptive software which has changed the music industry for ever.

To paraphrase John Gilmore:

"The Internet interprets privilege as damage and routes around it."


Display:
The only solution is a completely new approach to taxation and spending: Systemic Fiscal Reform.

The emergence of the direct Peer to Peer connections of the Internet will enable the financial system to be by-passed through a viral process I refer to as Napsterisation - after the disruptive software which has changed the music industry for ever.

To paraphrase John Gilmore:

"The Internet interprets privilege as damage and routes around it."

I would love to share your optimism, except as a scientist, I want to see the data.  Would you please begin a diary series of people/businesses/institutions which are currently utilizing your ideas so that they seem practical/real, not just pie-in-the-sky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wp4O7v5320

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 07:35:45 AM EST
There are any number of businesses using the Peer to Peer approach.

In the finance field www.zopa.com and www.myc4.com are just two of many.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 07:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank You. Let me do some homework.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wp4O7v5320
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 07:52:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just visited your recommended sites.  Interesting.  Probably off topic but I saw this piece in the Sacramento Bee this morning.

Peter Keat: Co-op structure is a solution to meltdown


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wp4O7v5320
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 08:03:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
with some background on cooperatives. These types of organizations/structures have been around a long time. What is new is electronic sharing.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 08:06:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See my comment above.  If this keeps up, the ultra-wealthy will have to shut down the internet.  Can't afford to have the slaves getting uppity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wp4O7v5320
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 08:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent and very articulate exposition of a logic which will become increasingly inescapable.  I have some concerns, however:

  1. Taxes on business turnover rather than profit will advantage high margin, low volume businesses to the detriment of high volume low margin businesses.  This seems anti-progressive, as high margin businesses tend to provide services to the less cost conscious rich.

  2. Given that those who currently control the commons of land, carbon reservoirs, limited liability, media franchises and knowledge tend to be the most powerfully entrenched rich corporations and individuals - who in turn control the political system - how can we move the tax base from people to privilege without a revolution?  

  3. Given that most people owe their livelihoods to those who control these commons, how can we educate them to vote against their masters (and perhaps even their own private, immediate, self interests)?  For most people, their job trumps their vote every time - and thus privilege and power triumphs over people and democracy.  We need a political theory and process which can overcome this roadblock without violence.

  4.  I was once the Chairperson of a Community Council which attempted to take on one of the largest building materials companies in the world because of their illegal quarrying and dumping activities.  We were opposed in the High Court, by the regional public authorities (who had close working "relationships" with said company) and by many in the community who depended for their livelihood on that company.  Wealth generally wins these battles - although we scored a considerable victory.  Nevertheless community solidarity never fully recovered.  The greatest commons we have is the solidarity of our communities in the face of the divide and conquer tactics of those who can intimidate and buy off all who would oppose them.  Thus our ability to build and sustain strong communities is what will ultimate save or destroy us.


notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 08:45:57 AM EST
Good questions all, and of course my post was a response to the Budget and predicated on a continuing government/tax/spend paradigm.

As you know, I think that partnership working will gradually come to synthesise what Yunus calls "Social Business" operating Not for Loss out of the existing Public/Private or State/Corporate dichotomy.

Your first point I believe is addressed by the use of the guarantee society approach to trade credit. A charge for the privilege of limted liability is in fact congruent to a charge made for the use of a collective guarantee. Limited liability is simply a form of guarantee currently granted for nothing by the State as an intermediary.

Your second point is addressed through the transition I envisage through the disintermediation of the State, and the increasing role of self organisation to consensually provide services either not provided by the State or inadequately provided.

Your third point I see through a transition from representative to participative democracy. In that context I am working with Martin Davies, who has some very interesting ideas.

WalesOnline - News - Wales News - Party aims to sack politicians and swap Senedd for a citizen's assembly

A NEW "apolitical" party was launched in Wales yesterday, hoping to draw support from those disillusioned with conventional politics.

Writer and philosopher Martin Davies, founder of the Red Dragonhood design label, announced the formation of Newid (Change) during the Laugharne Weekend festival in Carmarthenshire.

Finally, in my view, the Community actually IS the Currency. That's where the value is.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 09:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Very exciting article about Davies, and the quotes therein.

Such a system would still require a non-political continuous management (read civil service). Although in my dreams, it would be possible to decentralize the civil service and give a little bit of work to do to everyone, napsterwise.

Civil Services basically do metrics. They collect information, collate it, analyse it and suggest how the metric information indicates changes in the society that require decisions.

In a demarchy, ordinary citizens are 'sortitioned' to represent a wide range of views in order to make these decisions. But it might be possible to sortition everybody! 10 million people giving 5 hours a week to citizenship is 30 million workdays a year.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 09:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect practical decision-making is very much non-trivial.

In the UK we have a culture of angry whininess rather than a culture of participation, so people would have to relearn practical participation - probably from school onwards. The older generation are probably beyond help when it comes to learning how to manage.

Also, statistical literacy is not high.

But here's an idea - let's say that as a side project to your EP site, there was a practical modelling 'game' which illustrated the consequences of economic and political decisions.

You want lower taxes? Okay - let's see what happens if you cut tax rates. Where do you cut them? What are the consequences on spending and social investment?

You can see where this is going. Rather than - or possibly as well as - putting out Think Tank PR in the usual way, you can turn this into a 'game', and get participation and increased insight at the same time.

Of course it has to be done properly. It has to look good, be at least somewhat sexy and fun, and not look or feel anything like the usual output you get from the EU PR machine.

But I like this idea. I think there's potential for something interesting there.

And you could extend the EP idea more directly - by having online debates on legislation to give people practical experience of arguments and influence.

And so on.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 10:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that could make it the most important blog in the world - your game idea, that is. After the game itself is developed, then the ETers translate it per the anti-Blair campaign. Such a project would probably make various ETers, plus the site itself, financially self-sustaining .

My only disagreement is with your characterization of the citizenry. Granted that I cannot speak for Brits, I have the impression that you are speaking generally. Maybe it's because I hear that all of the time here in the U.S.: the hicks, the rednecks, the unwashed masses, if you like.

All I know is that many of my friends and acquaintances have opinions that I find politically regressive, naive, and counterproductive; but I also find that discussion of issues and theories often changes those opinions over time.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 11:56:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have found it very useful to use simple concrete examples in discussions. The important thing is to make any concept graspable.

For instance one I have used about paper is that if we accept the fact that Europeans use on average around 300 kilos of paper fibre a year per capita, and in China the figure is 9 kilos, then if the per capita consumption in China was to rise to European levels, it would require 140.000 new paper mills to supply that increased demand. If people know the size of a paper mill, they then realize the size of the problem.

The biggest disconnect I have found is that people fail to understand big numbers. And not only that, but they fail to understand that individual actions which do not appear to them to be a problem, when multiplied a million times, become a huge problem.

For them, for instance, buying a plasma TV is a matter of choice: "I can afford it" even if it uses 6 times more electricity. And indeed one plasma TV has no effect on national electricity consumption. But when a million people buy a plasma TV, it needs a dedicated nuclear reactor.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 02:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sven Triloqvist:
The biggest disconnect I have found is that people fail to understand big numbers. And not only that, but they fail to understand that individual actions which do not appear to them to be a problem, when multiplied a million times, become a huge problem.
That is easily the biggest failure of mathematical education, along with the inability to conduct simple statistical reasoning.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 04:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How about diarying a list of links so that we can start building such a game?

If  we do this we are going to have to make sure that everything is absolutely spot on.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 12:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is actually an idea I have been discussing for a couple of years or so. It is based on new methods of tagged accounting that were aimed at transparency in corporate accounting, but could be applied to any 'budget'. The system enables such a game as 'what if?'. These discussions started in the Netherlands with a then advisor to the Dutch Tweede or House of Representatives.

There have been numerous very simplified interactive diagrams created, for instance, by the BBC. One of these was a 'game' that had the demand for electricity in a country as a constant. Then there were all the methods available in the country of supplying that electricity. The 'game' was, if faced by that demand, what is the best way to supply it. It wasn't very complex or deep, but it did illustrate the problems in a graspable way.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 02:12:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A college friend of mine became the Director of the Bureau of Trade Statistics in the Department of Commerce during the Nixon Administration and held that position into the mid '90s.  One of his primary responsibilities was maintaining the Bureau's computer model of the US economy as adapted to account for international trade.  I was fascinated by the idea of being able to "what if" policy options. With current models only a few people have the opportunity to make such queries.

It would seem that the explosion of computing power should make it possible to put such models into open source code that could run on relatively inexpensive platforms as a distributed computing system over a network or the internet.  Run in stand alone mode such a program would enable individuals to model the effects of various policies and events.  But a more interesting model might be a sort of economic "Second Life" where a multitude of separate agents take actions directed primarily towards the benefits to their particular institutional avatar and the combined effects on the individual avatars and the aggregate model of the economy could be observed.  This might require a greatly more powerful processor or it might be possible to accomplish via distributed processing.

I have a sense that this would likely give rise to useful management information and could lead to gainful employment for a whole new group of specialists.  Were it set up so that sub sets of the users could devise, employ and test new organizations and techniques in separate economy domains it could allow experimental meta-economics.  If these proved promising, they could be re-integrated into the basic group model and the effects of new agents acting on the existing system could be observed.

It might be important to brand, patent and copyright such software and commercialize it so as to make it more difficult to suppress or control by stasis seeking forces, or perhaps I am overly paranoid.  The overarching goal should be to make this as entertaining, exciting and insight generating as possible while protecting the open source nature and the right of all to use and modify the programs.  I do not know how to properly resolve these issues, let alone how to create the models.  But it seems to me that such programs could revolutionize the way we conceptualize and actualize our common culture.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 08:40:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
AFAIK, I'm the only one around here who has done something similar.  In my considered judgment this is a non-trival task.  Or, in English, "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here."

The problem isn't the computing power.  The problem is the software that tells the hardware what to do, when.  To go anywhere beyond a toy you'll eventually have to deal with phenomenological relevance and THAT, my friends, is a real bitch¹.  The usual method is to ignore it by building some flavor of Expert System.  Now the problem with that is well known: anything not specifically programmed is deemed irrelevant which runs you into all kinds of limitations.  The other method, which doesn't work either, is to implement some kind of a randomizer decision process.  In any event, eventually you run smack into the Lyapunov Exponent which can be this:

or this:

or this:

or this:

Depending on what is you're dealing with and how you're looking at it at any particular moment with your chosen methodology at that moment.  Each of the above graphs are a different way of looking at - call it - Information Integrity and each of them are "right," for a given value of right-ness, AND each of them are "wrong," for a given value of wrong-ness.  Because this is a factal dimension the right/wrong versus right-ness/wrong-ness is neither linear NOR Euclidean, nor is the seemingly straight forward right/right-ness and wrong/wrong-ness².  

Just to complicate everything further the relationship of semiots ('words') to semantic (what the word points at, what it "means" on another axis) is 1:Many.  Technically there's no theoretical limit giving 1:∞ but humans get around this through applying arbitrary limitations, e.g., grammar, and verbal negotiating, a computer don't know either.

To quote Drew, "Wheeeeeeeeeeee!"

Throwing a lot of people at the problem, the Open Source route, isn't going to do a damn bit of good IF the goal is a explanatory model.  Even people with decades of experience and adequate funding can't - really - do a proper job.  (Ladies and Gentlemen  of the jury I give you the IPCC Model and Report in evidence.)  And it is very much an open question if the most efficient way forward would be to build a Artificial Life system using genetic algorithms (with or without classifiers?) and let the little buggers build the model for you.  

Because in the final analysis, We don't know how to write a good model of the economy.  Various good and brainy people have tried over the years and bounced every time.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
¹  I could bore you to death with why.  Suffice to say, when faced with n-dimensional streams of data and the odd datum popping in with varying potential and actual affective and effective implications merely doing the comparison operations takes you out of Real Time user response.

²  To Them Wot Know .... yeah, but YOU try it in 50 words or less.  ;-)

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 11:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree. But surely this is an argument FOR distributed citizen decision-making, not against? If the 'expert-few' can't model the economy, then why would the 'amateur-many' decisions be less useful?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 03:00:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sven Triloqvist:
If the 'expert-few' can't model the economy, then why would the 'amateur-many' decisions be less useful?
What, the market knows best, now?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 04:08:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want to describe the brain as a market, then, yes ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 04:50:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AI metaphors are exceedingly bad when taken literally.

What I mean is that "experts can't know as much as everyone collectively" is the key fallacy behind market fundamentalism.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 05:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Generally AI metaphors are lousy even if you take them as AI metaphors.

</cynicism>


Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:06:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's probably what I meant to say :-)

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i think what no-one ever says is that you can't preview, prognosticate, or prophetise consistently about something as inherently nebulous or unpredictable as the sum of millions of individual choices.

it's a kind of Everest no-one has climbed, though many gaze at the summit longingly, and many have fallen off its slippery faces...

anyone that really consistently pulled it off would be able to name and number their income. with all that computers can do to ease our toil, it's understandable that man should want to use them to find the rosetta stone of economics.

until humans become completely linear creatures (too many heading that way imo), those who want to guarantee their winnings merely have to tithe a chunk to the lobbyists, pressuring politicians to hamstring regulators. it can get messy though, which is why everyone would like to find an algorithm to make them easy squillions, like a blackjack 'system'.

back to dreaming of the view from everest!

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 02:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Welcome to My World©

i think what no-one ever says is that you can't preview, prognosticate, or prophetise consistently about something as inherently nebulous or unpredictable as the sum of millions of individual choices.

No you can't.  What you can do is construct a decision-making environment that simulates¹ what might happen when this, that, or the other comes down.  Now, unregenerate cynics equate "simulate" with "pulling it out of the air."  I prefer to define it as "a systematic procedure resulting in a very informed guess."  :-)

Fortunately, there are certain patterns and breakouts - statistically, psycho-socially, and others - to human behavior that can help boundary the problem.  And, with a little bit of intellectual effort and humility, it's possible to get the general thrust of things.  Best example is Exponential Growth, if you've only got x amount of something, and you can only use x-y% of it then using the Growth rate it is possible to determine, more-or-less accurately, when you ain't got no more x.  When you ain't got no more x either you - and everybody else - does without or find a substitute.  That's a general law applicable across the whole range of human activities.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 12:34:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What, the market knows best, now?
Well, we have had markets longer than we have had writing and we have only recently tried to analyze these markets with mathematical or computer models.  Our brains have been dealing with complex, emergent phenomena for a long time.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:26:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's an argument for "democratizing" Model building, I guess.  Book published in the US last year comparing the Experts' forecasting with quality of forecasting.  Turns out the greater the "qualification," the more eddymacation the expert had in the area, the worse the accuracy of predictions.  That, at least, is the rumor.  I need to grab a copy, sit down, and read the sucker.  

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
by ATinNM on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 10:32:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's part of the process.

We have a strange idea, which seems apply almost exclusively to economics, politics and business, that experts are good at predictions.

In reality almost everyone is better at making predictions than the experts are.

There are two things happening here. One is that expertise isn't based on predictive ability, but on following the party line. It's a perfectly soviet system, where talking rubbish gets you immense rewards.

The other is the corollary that decisions are made by the people who are least competent to run it - because the goal isn't to make intelligent decisions, it's to maintain power differentials for as long as possible.  

If you had a modelling and prediction game you could find individuals who had a talent for intuitive modelling and insight and give them something useful to do. They wouldn't necessarily have to know how to build models out of differential equations, but they would have a better than usual batting average when it came to being right about the future.

These people would potentially be very, very valuable. Currently I suspect most of them are wasted in jobs which aren't ideally suited to their talents.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 12:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Make this a diary. Throw in a discussion of The Club of Rome's The Limits of Growth and their World3.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 04:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I read the Club of Rome report in 1975 and haven't had a chance to look at what they are up to recently; thus, my thoughts about their work are worthless.  Tell you what, why don't you add the CoR stuff making the diary a Mig/AT co-production?

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
by ATinNM on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 10:23:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Me like. I have a copy of the 2nd edition somewhere in my mother's flat and would like to get the 3rd edition and the details of the model.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 10:37:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Great exposition of the difficulties of modelling reality.  Just when you think you have all the key variables nailed down, something else pops up from left field.  

If our Government models of the economy were that good, predicting the sub-prime or derivatives crises should have been child's play.  Hell, many people did it without the benefit of a computer model.

The problem is that the assumptions you feed in tend to be regurgitated in a new more "objective" quasi-scientific axiomatic form - and come to be seen as the "natural" or "real" world - when all they were is assumptions, deliberate over-simplifications, for the purpose of making the system modelable.  

And sometimes, of course, they are much more than just over-simplifications, but deliberate political choices to emphasise some factors and ignore others because it suits a particular political agenda.  See the rise of neo-liberal economics to obscure the insights of Henry George who worked from different assumptions to achieve different objectives.

Having said all that, I would be a fan of making computer models/simulations of the economy more generally accessible, if only to better inform political debate.  The key thing to be aware of, howeverare the assumptions which underlie the model - as these can bias the entire result sets towards some options and against others.

Thus what is the impact of an increase in income tax on worker productivity is a valid question to ask.  But is it more or less important than: what is the economic impact of increased public expenditure on public health/education/social welfare?  And how do we measure the non-economic benefits of such expenditure?

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 07:26:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The ability to model a local political-economy has been around for a long time: SimCity does as good a job as one can expect given their limitations and methodology. And since,

On January 10, 2008 the SimCity source code was released under the free software GPL 3 license under the name Micropolis.

that's where I'd start my research.  If I was going to do something ... which I'm not¹.  

SimCity, as is, does a good enough job that it is widely used by urban planners, city planners, & etc. as a tool.  Idly projecting here but it seems to me a neural network-like construct having lots of nodes - 200 or 300 - running SimCity autonomously tossing in cross-communication plus "macro-economic" influences together comprising a first-hack Fitness Landscape would prove interesting.  The easiest way to add complexity to the Fitness Landscape is to build some - say 10 to 20 - analog computers, cross-linkable with A/D and D/A conversion to/from the neural net to simulate continuous data streams which the neural net nodes have to 'chunk' - both for data processing and across time.

As an added benefit, you'd get the first major non-von Neumann computer built in a long, long time.  Which, by the way, is something we desperately need as a research tool.  

¹  Unless somebody wants to pay me to do it.  This gun for hire.  I can be had.  :-)

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:04:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The ability to model a local political-economy has been around for a long time: SimCity does as good a job as one can expect given their limitations and methodology,..

Perhaps a model national economy, or series of national economies, could be constructed which consist significantly of the interactions of the city models, models of national social and economic policies, plus models of agriculture, mining and other resource extraction or harvesting activities.  Etc., etc.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:48:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is an interesting problem modeling resource extraction.  Resource extraction essentially it breaks into renewables and one-time consumables with the latter breaking down into recyclables, metals in particular, and use-once, e.g.,oil-as-energy.  

There's also two price points for the extractors:

  1.  Rape & Pillage, where the extractors do not have to pay for the ecological damage they create

  2.  Pay-for-It, where the extractors have to pay for the damage

The first is what we got.  The second is what we should be doing and, in some cases, is where we're headed.

So, how you program/process resource extraction depends on if the Model is what-we-got XOR "The Economy."

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 at 10:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's also two price points for the extractors

Creating a user choice or a continuum of choices between those two poles as a user option would rather quickly get the idea across to users in a city-state-with -hinterland basic Sim type game, especially with quarterly or yearly turn times.  Some versions of Railroad Tycoon modeled timber, coal, petroleum and uranium, along with associated industries, as available resource-industrial exploitation opportunities for the railroads.  Something like that could be incorporated, along with water and road transport.  Experienced game developers could probably produce addictive type games that would drive home the implications of some of the choices.  Call the game "Can you save the world?"

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 at 11:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Model ≠ Game

An accurate Economic Model would require hardware components that are not generally available.  Get around this by having the system internet 'savvy.'  Problem: this implies the Model will spend its time running -- let me put it -- "naive" simulations at the expense of more "interesting" ones.  For any given value of "naive" and "interesting."

It would also require running and managing a software system beyond the sophistication of the average computer user.  There's no getting around this one unless a 'brain damaged' version is released to the general public.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 12:04:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Were the system to incorporate a group of analog computers it would inherently require specialized hardware, anyway, and would be used for "serious" work by business, government and academia.  Game type applications would need to be rather restricted in scope, all digital but could be sold cheaply.  The idea there would be to get certain ideas across to the user with a sledge hammer.  Naturally that usually mangles something.

Your concerns regarding patents agree with my own experience.  And after you get one, it is only a license to sue.  Copyright may be more useful.  Putting patentable ideas firmly in the public domain is probably the best approach there.  Aside from possible profits I find the whole idea fascinating.  I only whish I were better able to contribute on the programming side.  But that is a hopeless prospect at this point in my life.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 12:29:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This thing is a Blue Sky pipe-dream.

My informed WAG is a project of this magnitude would require serious funding: at least in the $25 to $50 million range.  (Hardware engineering is incredibly expensive.)  And with a small chance of re-couping the $ injected.  Certainly no private funding would be forthcoming and we're not USDA Stamp-of-Approval Serious People® so government funding is out as well.

It might re-coup the money in spin-offs: games, books, seminars, & etc., but "might" cuts no checks.  


Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 12:48:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure what you are saying (in general) about modeling an 'economy': that it is impossible, too expensive, or something else?

Economies are modeled - they have to be modeled in some way, for governance. That is why there are national budgets, and offices of budget and management. Now, these models may be imprecise, contentious or too narrow, but they are used to predict the effect of changes in the rules of different types of transactions of citizens, companies, organizations, government and 'external transactions' (i.e. how these rules might interact with the rules of other budget systems in other nations).

However 'inaccurate' such national budgets may be, it is correct to say that building a parallel one would an expensive project. However, the Dutch government is already considering the use of XBRL to 'code' their national budget in such a way as to allow any citizen to play 'what if' with it. The mandated use of XBRL would also bring transparency to corporate accounting, because the tax authorities could also play 'what if' with those accounts. Stress testing, I suppose you'd call it ;-)

An explanation of XBRL is here. There's an XBRL conference in Paris 23-25 June.

So there may be a 'game' to be played in the future that does not require the building of the model.

TBG's 'game', as I understand it, is not about producing a perfect, but coarse, real 'what if' modeled budget, but a simulation of the budget decision processes so that citizens can better understand the processes and thus vote in a more informed manner. Lemonade Stand 3.0.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 03:17:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For a brief while in a prior incarnation I "managed" (more like conceived of and rode herd over) a project to develop a digital editor for the 3M Digital Audio Mastering System, a 32 track digital audio tape recorder.  The overall system design for the system had been developed by the BBC to allow digital transmission of 16 bit, 50 KHz program streams over the air to remote transmitters.  

It employed a Hamming Code to protect against lightning induced drop outs.  This involved taking two words a chosen interval apart, adding them into a check-sum and recording that check-sum down stream by the same interval.  As a consequence one could punch holes in the tape about the size of a paper punch and not loose any information.  The problem was that a tape splice edit produced a giant pop.

I spotted a TRW 16 bit multiply-accumulator that could operate with a 110 nano-second period.  Back-of-the-envelope calculations showed that one such device was sufficient to perform more than 32 channels worth of such operations in the 20 micr-second period of one 16 bit sample period.  "We" got a contract to develop such an editor from 3M and delivered a working system in about one year.

I hired one hardware and three software engineers on a part time consulting basis.  The programmers all worked for a local microprocessor based manufacturer of telephone transmission test equipment.  My hardware guy was a MIT EE who worked for aerospace.  This was an evenings and week-ends project and all kept their day jobs.  This was, IIRCC, 1978, and we paid our consultants $35/hr.  It was exhausting for them but they more than doubled their income for that year. Me, not so much.  I should have demanded their deal!

We were using Motorola 6800 microprocessors and I had partitioned the system into four separate, interacting processor systems.  One system consisted of the edit hardware, which executed digital cross-fades using stored PROM coefficient tables, MSI logic and the TRW chip, another was the tape machine controller, another was a SMPTE time code reader and sync machine that could synchronize two machines for assembly edits and the fourth was the user interface machine.

The actual cost of the whole project was around $500,000, including hardware.  3M eventually supplied us with recorders on which to test our system.  I don't know what "we" charged 3M.  I was "just" the project manager.  I understood the application and conceived the over all approach and then got burned for my efforts.  If "we" charged 3M $1,000,000 at that time it would not have been too outrageous.

In today's environment there are probably lots of guys and gals who would be quite happy to make $80,000 for a year's work and who have the knowledge but not the day job.  Make that $100,000, including paid medical of the caliber of Kaiser and one would have choices.  One or two hardware guys, depending on whether one engineer could adequately handle both the digital hardware and the analog function modules, two or three programmers and overhead and we would be under $2,000,000/year for development of the full blown "professional" system.  A secondary focus on a consumer type game could produce revenue within a year or so.

I have always liked blue skys.

 

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 01:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There may be some mileage in developing an Open Business model at the same time.

You'd need some start up cash - probably $500,000 or so - but you certainly wouldn't need $50m.

Second Life charges outrageous land rents - a lot of people are paying >$200/mth for a not very powerful virtual server.

I don't think cash is the issue. Nor are processor cycles - clouding should give you all the cycles you want. It might not give them instantly, but some lag wouldn't necessarily be a huge problem.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 06:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
¹  Unless somebody wants to pay me to do it.  This gun for hire.  I can be had.  :-)
Another reason to copyright and patent as possible.  Prior to release as open source why not provide fair compensation to the programmers?  

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 at 08:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't patent software in the EU.

Patents and copyrights are essentially unenforceable against Chinese companies in China.

Before you get a patent in the US the USPTO publishes the patent on the internet for "comments and objections."  DeepPockets, Inc. regularly scans the site files objections using their patent staff, and forces the applier into a complex, expensive, legal battle which small companies can't afford.  A filed patent that is rejected by the USPTO is automatically in the public domain, meaning DeepPockets, Inc. gets to use it for the cost of keeping their patent staff around, which they have to do anyway.

In short: if you have a good idea, Shut Up.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 at 11:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, why not set up one of Chris Cook's LLPs? If the thing makes money you get compensated, if it doesn't nobody loses anything but their time...

Chris, can we have the story of that film you made with an LLP, again?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 04:05:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, you can find it in here

Social Investment Business

The "Common Source" approach I advocate is outlined there, and that is to put IP into the hands of a Custodian, and then to encapsulate all the rights of use and usufruct/use value within a Master Partnership agreement or protocol.

The outcome is new form of co-ownership or Common Source property right of indefinite duration. Essentially the entire Creative Commons property relationship is then encapsulated within a Corporate personality.

The result is an enterprise model which is both Open and Closed. It is Closed because only LLP members can use it, and  Open because anyone who consents to the agreement may be a member.

It's worth pointing out that if all the stakeholders are members, then limitation of liability is unnecessary. That is why I wax lyrical about the LLP being the first example of an Open Corporate. (Cost)-Free limitation of liability is IMHO a very dubious add-on in terms of the public interest.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 06:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The easiest way to add complexity to the Fitness Landscape is to build some - say 10 to 20 - analog computers, cross-linkable with A/D and D/A conversion to/from the neural net to simulate continuous data streams which the neural net nodes have to 'chunk' - both for data processing and across time.

Analog computers with >90dB dynamic range working with 16 bit A/Ds and D/As could give really fine levels of resolution and speed.  And your point about non-Van Neumann modeling systems is important.  The ability of human controllers to make inputs to either the analog or digital models based on intuition or just trying to crash the system would also be valuable. This might be interesting enough for someone to write a grant for funding the initial phases.  What about Bob? :-)

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 at 11:57:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The neat thing, for us, about analog computers is they are "noisy."  Even the A/D and D/A conversions interject noise.  Great!  We're dealing with a thundering horde of lousy data and there's little point in pretending any different.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
by ATinNM on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 12:10:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know someone doing research into analog computers. They're much, much faster than anything that would be needed here. And - using his approach - very cheap too.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 06:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For a long time I've toyed with the idea of buiding an analog computer...

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 08:03:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The ability to model a local political-economy has been around for a long time: SimCity does as good a job as one can expect given their limitations and methodology. And since,
On January 10, 2008 the SimCity source code was released under the free software GPL 3 license under the name Micropolis.

that's where I'd start my research.  If I was going to do something ... which I'm not¹.  
How clean is the SimCity codebase?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 04:02:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How clean is the SimCity codebase?
And how well annotated is it?

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 04:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to the wiki article the Micropolis codebase is a reworked C++ version of the original C code of the X11 port of SimCity... So, there is hope...

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 04:03:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
predicted both the stock market slide and the financial debacle some months ahead of the events. You can read Williams' predictions without subscription in the archives on his web-site,  www.shadowstats.com  

Many of us here at ET and elsewhere recognized the 'signs' ahead of events, as well. I switched my 401k to a foreign-stock fund in time to enjoy a little bounce there, then into a gov't bonds/cash fund in time to save my financial butt - mostly because of discussions here and other similarly oriented blogs.

I'm not saying that I don't think that there are Black Swans, but I find the world a whole lot more predictable than not. Marx and Henry George may have had different perspectives, but I can still find salience in both.

In any case the economic 'game' can be 'won' in a variety of ways, but I want to found the system on both moral and practical bedrock: Solidarity and Sustainability. Don't we all?

I think that, if we start with that, we'll do well enough, whether the result is Chris' system, socialism, entrepreneurial capitalism, or some combination (which is my position). And with respect to this conversation I think that choosing some systemic approach allows us to 'cheat' the myriad curves into a path/math that is linear enough to both create a plan and to measure progress.

As to the current economic situations around the world - and the overall interplay of such - it's not that tricky. If we add the analyses and critiques of Krugman, Williams, Jerome, and most of the rest of us here - which share many elements - we cover the picture well enough.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:04:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would be a fan of making computer models/simulations of the economy more generally accessible, if only to better inform political debate.  The key thing to be aware of, howeverare the assumptions which underlie the model - as these can bias the entire result sets towards some options and against others.
The key to this would be having the code open source AND having an extensively and collaboratively annotated code.  The point of the endeavor would be to examine, test and refine the assumptions and how they are implemented in code.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:08:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Something in the LISP family... (before you roll your eyes at this, consider it includes LOGO and R...)

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 04:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, memories.  All your GNUS R belong to us.

Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
by budr on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 01:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no doubt that the problems are non-trivial.  An earlier vision of the same type of approach was Kenneth Arrow's vision of modeling societies, sometimes referred to as "Peasants under Glass" back in the '90s.  Were it easy it would have been done by now.

I don't think that a complete solution is necessary.  The one thing I remember from college is that complex equations are most easily solved at boundaries.  In the case of Raleigh's wave equation for acoustics, which involves the interrelations of pressure variations and the variations of air movement or "volume velocity," this is typically done at a rigid boundary or wall at which volume velocity is zero.  An amazing number of practical measurements and useful techniques come out of this simplifying assumption.

A similar approach might prove fruitful in economic modeling.  What I had in mind was a system of interacting agents in which the A.I. agents automated certain aspects of their response with other agents but in which the controller for each agent could intervene on whatever basis seemed appropriate to that controller.  The goal would be to define sub-sets of assumptions that would tend towards stability under a wide range of perturbations, including the desire of individual agent controllers, or players, to win.

In this fashion it may be possible to empirically move from very crude and simple systems to increasingly complex systems while maintaining stability.  In such a game I would at best be a mediocre player.  

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:03:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I had in mind was a system of interacting agents in which the A.I. agents automated certain aspects of their response with other agents but in which the controller for each agent could intervene on whatever basis seemed appropriate to that controller.  The goal would be to define sub-sets of assumptions that would tend towards stability under a wide range of perturbations, including the desire of individual agent controllers, or players, to win.

Well I want a sound reproduction system with 100% accuracy.  So ... GET TO WORK, dammit!

(LOL)

Your requirement are easy to 'spec' but - alas - a wee tad harder to accomplish.

;-)


Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I want a sound reproduction system with 100% accuracy.  So ... GET TO WORK, dammit!
Well, at least the initial phases of the "research", if carried out with a number of subjects, would be enjoyable, but the long term expenses would well exceed my budget, and my wife would object, to say the least.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:35:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of course for the audio reproduction system, in analog systems at least, been there, done that to a significant degree.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 12:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, guys, I'm hijacking this subthread from this point downwards and sending it here.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 03:50:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It might be important to brand, patent and copyright such software and commercialize it so as to make it more difficult to suppress or control by stasis seeking forces, or perhaps I am overly paranoid.

You make the source code open source so the codebase cannot be hijacked. But what you want to prevent is for someone to use the code to set up their own alternative game and through more successful branding, drown out yours and subvert the political purpose of creating the game in the first place.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 at 03:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. I'm not arguing that the privilege of limited guarantee shouldn't be taxed, but that it may be more regressive to tax on the basis of of turnover rather than profit.

  2. I'm not sure how the disintermediation of the state helps in the battle of people against privilege - in that the state, at least in a democracy, is the only avenue where, at least theoretically, the underprivileged are equal to the privileged. Cooperatives of various sorts have coexisted quite happily with capitalism red in tooth and claw without ever substantially challenging it.

  3. How/why will the transition from representative to participative democracy occur given that the destruction of the commons of community is precisely what capitalism is all about.  "There is no such thing as society" (Thatcher).  We are all employees/consumers/mortgagees/competitors now.


notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 10:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think we need to go beyond merely charging for limited liability.  Here in the US, we accord corporations civil rights as if they were persons, but we have yet to impose corresponding obligations, especially in the criminal arena.  There are corporate crimes, but they are not as extensive as personal crimes, and the punishments do not correspond.  There is no reason a corporation should not be subject to a full range of obligations and punishments, from fines to forfeiture (seizure of mechanisms and proceeds of wrongdoing) to "incarceration" (activities and protections suspended for the duration of the sentence) to the death penalty (entity terminated).
by rifek on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 07:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Seeing your thoughts become so concise and honed over time is thrilling. that others are beginning to listen adds to the drama.  

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 06:57:38 PM EST
Tempered in the ET furnace......

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 at 07:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And a belated congratulation on this latest example of the further dissemination of your ideas, Chris.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:52:54 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]