Bitcoin could bring about smaller governments - and that is a good thing - page 2.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3079

Quote from: hasle2 on August 19, 2013, 10:45:41 AM

Somalia has a tiny government and is a great place to raise a family right?? As J603 pointed out this is a common trend. Sorry but "small government" is a broken term that imo usually just means "I want to do whatever I want and f*** everyone else".

Not how it went down historically.

J603

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 16, 2013, 11:03:02 PM

Quote

I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct?

Wrong. It is necessarily based on an objective quantitative measure (you might be unfamiliar with such concepts if you are a touchy0felly type of analyst), percentage of GDP.

The "chinese miracle" you are getting all excited about many holes in it when put under the microscope, not the least of which is that the govt. is the only entity producing economic numbers ... and happens only in pockets of there economy (foreign corporate factories) where the authoritarian govt intentionally gets out of the way and allows the free market to work (usually through kickbacks and working around the central govt laws rather inside them).

So you're going by percentage of GDP? That measure makes no sense. If a country spends 100% of its money on the government and still has a GDP of 10 trillion then it has a large economy and a "large" government. Another country could also spend 0% of its money on the gov't and have a small GDP and small government.

I honestly do not understand what you mean by "big" or "small" governments then. I orginally assumed it meant regulation, since that makes sense, and theoretically a command economy would yield less growth and be more restrictive. But apparently you're going by percentage of GDP spent on government, which seems to have less correlation.

Edited because my post didn't make sense.

hasle2

full member

Activity: 122

Merit: 100

Somalia has a tiny government and is a great place to raise a family right?? As J603 pointed out this is a common trend. Sorry but "small government" is a broken term that imo usually just means "I want to do whatever I want and f*** everyone else".

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3079

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 16, 2013, 11:03:02 PM

The "chinese miracle" you are getting all excited about many holes in it when put under the microscope, not the least of which is that the govt. is the only entity producing economic numbers ... and happens only in pockets of there economy (foreign corporate factories) where the authoritarian govt intentionally gets out of the way and allows the free market to work (usually through kickbacks and working around the central govt laws rather inside them).

The chinese government must know that the validity of perpetual economic growth is actually a congame, but they have no choice but to announce some figure or other, purely because too many people believe the lie.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 16, 2013, 11:03:02 PM

Quote

I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct?

Wrong. It is necessarily based on an objective quantitative measure (you might be unfamiliar with such concepts if you are a touchy0felly type of analyst), percentage of GDP.

The "chinese miracle" you are getting all excited about many holes in it when put under the microscope, not the least of which is that the govt. is the only entity producing economic numbers ... and happens only in pockets of there economy (foreign corporate factories) where the authoritarian govt intentionally gets out of the way and allows the free market to work (usually through kickbacks and working around the central govt laws rather inside them).

Within a stateless environment (communities in the rainforest, arctic tundra etc.), there is zero GDP Growth.
No state - no growth, but self-sufficiency.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote

I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct?

Wrong. It is necessarily based on an objective quantitative measure (you might be unfamiliar with such concepts if you are a touchy0felly type of analyst), percentage of GDP.

The "chinese miracle" you are getting all excited about many holes in it when put under the microscope, not the least of which is that the govt. is the only entity producing economic numbers ... and happens only in pockets of there economy (foreign corporate factories) where the authoritarian govt intentionally gets out of the way and allows the free market to work (usually through kickbacks and working around the central govt laws rather inside them).

Operatr

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

www.DonateMedia.org

Bitcoin would remove the control of money from government, which in a world where they can't simply just print more money whenever they please. In a deflationary economy a government would have to be fiscally responsible and transparent. With Bitcoin the people have direct control on whether their government gets funding or not for its initiatives. I hope it leads to governments taking a crowdfunding approach. Since the practicality of taxing a Bitcoin infrastructure would be futile since there is no direct way to track transactions, this may be the only way a government gets funding in the not too distant future.

In a way Bitcoin is also the voting system of the future this this kind of fundamental change occurs. A government would actually then need full support of the public to fund its goals. I don't think there would be war in this world if they had to be crowdsourced.

J603

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 10, 2013, 09:54:15 AM

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734206&download=yes

Quote

The most recent studies find a significant negative correlation: An increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5 to 1 percent lower annual growth rate.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844743534

Quote

Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson make a strong case that there is a robust negative correlation between government size and economic growth. They base that conclusion on a review of econometric literature using panel data for high-income countries.

..... elementary economic reasoning that tells us that economic costs of taxation rise approximately in proportion to the square of the tax rate provides a more powerful case against big government than the results of cross-country econometric studies.

.... The chapter of the book I enjoyed most is the one discussing the effects of high taxation on the choice between income-earning activities and non-income-earning activities. Economists usually view this as a choice between work and leisure and some even argue that high tax rates are likely to make people happier by inducing them to enjoy more leisure with family and friends rather than working. In the real world, however, when people are not earning income much of their time is spent on unpaid household chores. I doubt whether people obtain much more pleasure from housework and weeding the garden than from working for pay.

Seems like a solid empirical case is now being built for smaller governments ... long past time, imho.

A recent study by J603 shows that China has one of the fastest growing economies and an authoritarian government.

another study by the same individual shows that Somalia, which has no central government, is growing slower than Haiti, which was destroyed recently.

Let's look at the top 25 (CIA World Factbook) and list their type of government. I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct? Because obviously the bigger the country, the more people in government, so it would be pointless to measure physical size.

Red countries are not fully democratic (they may vote but there might be restrictions). Green are.

Libya - Parliamentary Republic (although not everyone is allowed to run)
104.50

Sierra Leone - Democratic Republic
19.80

Mongolia - Democratic Republic
12.30

Niger - Democratic Republic (but the president was ousted in a 2010 coup and is still a prisoner)
11.20

~~Turks and Caicos Islands~~ - Not a country   (owned by UK)
~~11.20~~

Turkmenistan - Dictatorship
11.00

Panama - Democratic Republic
10.70

Afghanistan - Islamic Republic (occupied by the US and others)
10.20

~~Macau~~ - Not a country (owned by PR China).
~~10.00~~

Timor-Leste - Democratic Republic
10.00

Cote d'Ivoire - Democratic Republic (in the midst of civil war, many war crimes committed)
9.80

Bhutan - Constitutional Monarchy
9.70

Papua New Guinea - Parliamentary Democracy
9.10

Iraq - Islamic Republic
8.40

Angola - Republic (President has absolute power)
8.40

Liberia - Democratic Republic (not purely democratic)
8.30

Laos - Single Party Socialist Republic
8.30

Uzbekistan - Presidential Republic (crack down on opposition)
8.20

Burkina Faso - Presidential Republic
8.00

China - Single Party Socialist Republic
7.80

Rwanda - Presidential Republic
7.70

Tajikistan - Presidential Republic
7.50

Mozambique - Democratic Republic
7.50

Zambia - Democratic Republic
7.30

Armenia - Democratic Republic (government controls media and discriminates against minorities)
7.20

It would appear as though the strength and power of government has nothing to do with growth.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3079

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 16, 2013, 08:52:23 AM

Quote from: justusranvier on August 15, 2013, 05:04:07 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 15, 2013, 02:06:04 PM

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

No, there is no line. There never was a line.

Corporations are creations of and effectively subsidiaries of government.

Saying that "when government power goes down, corporate power goes up" is nonsense, because corporations only exist because of government power. Without government there would be no corporations.

Exactly. No state - no economy. Beyond the state, nobody needs an economy. Living beyond the state is living in self-sufficiency.

Living in self-sufficiency is an economy. Economy has a broader definition than people assume, it's not just a state imposed value system, it's literally a resource management model. You'll need one of those to be self sufficient, or at least to do so effectively.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: justusranvier on August 15, 2013, 05:04:07 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 15, 2013, 02:06:04 PM

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

No, there is no line. There never was a line.

Corporations are creations of and effectively subsidiaries of government.

Saying that "when government power goes down, corporate power goes up" is nonsense, because corporations only exist because of government power. Without government there would be no corporations.

Exactly. No state - no economy. Beyond the state, nobody needs an economy. Living beyond the state is living in self-sufficiency.

TiagoTiago

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Firstbits.com/1fg4i :)

Government is just the most powerful corporation in the territory.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3079

Quote from: justusranvier on August 15, 2013, 05:04:07 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 15, 2013, 02:06:04 PM

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

No, there is no line. There never was a line.

Corporations are creations of and effectively subsidiaries of government.

Saying that "when government power goes down, corporate power goes up" is nonsense, because corporations only exist because of government power. Without government there would be no corporations.

You've fallen into a common trap where the government fills the role of "good cop" and the corporations fill the role of "bad cop". The difference between them is a figment of your imagination.

It sounds rather like you're arguing against my argument with.... my own argument? You're filling in more details, but it's still the same basic proposition: government and corporations are difficult to separate. Unless you're saying they're exactly the same organisation, which is not true, at least in presentational terms.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: og kush420 on August 15, 2013, 11:10:03 AM

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

Did you read the OP and the referenced paper?

Smaller governments are better for more economic growth ... or do you have some kind of problem with economic growth that you didn't spell out clearly?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 15, 2013, 02:06:04 PM

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

No, there is no line. There never was a line.

Corporations are creations of and effectively subsidiaries of government.

Saying that "when government power goes down, corporate power goes up" is nonsense, because corporations only exist because of government power. Without government there would be no corporations.

You've fallen into a common trap where the government fills the role of "good cop" and the corporations fill the role of "bad cop". The difference between them is a figment of your imagination.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3079

Quote from: justusranvier on August 15, 2013, 01:23:17 PM

Quote from: og kush420 on August 15, 2013, 11:10:03 AM

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

Nonsense.

Where do you think corporations get their limited liability, charters, and special privileges from? The Incorporation Fairy?

You talk about it as if there's a hard delineation between government and corporate: the actual line is incredibly blurry. The separation of these roles is becoming increasingly meaningless.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: og kush420 on August 15, 2013, 11:10:03 AM

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

Nonsense.

Where do you think corporations get their limited liability, charters, and special privileges from? The Incorporation Fairy?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3079

Quote from: og kush420 on August 15, 2013, 11:10:03 AM

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

Agreed. We need an entire cultural shift to back out of this corner, we cannot support resource or service monopolists and have any hope of it turning out well.

og kush420

full member

Activity: 1050

Merit: 110

i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

... it's always good to get the long-term, really extreme views as they de-radicalise, the lesser, but none-the-less currently 'fringe' views ... some needed perspective

bitcoin carpenter

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 10, 2013, 10:44:00 AM

I would like to see not just reduced government influence, but governments that cover smaller jurisdictions. I'd like to be able to know all my fellow citizens personally, or at least know them to say hello. That would be a very convincing way of producing societies where people really do behave responsibly and accountably. People need to be able to look their peers in the eyes, to know that everyone is truly depending on everyone else.

So, not just "smaller" in terms of influence, but smaller in the number of people they influence too. Almost every country in the world is vastly bloated when looked at this way.

+1

Topic: Bitcoin could bring about smaller governments - and that is a good thing - page 2. (Read 3186 times)