It's a very simple metric .... (total tax take)/ GDP.
I can't see how people are getting hung up about how to measure the size of govt ... unless they want to of course.
Topic: Bitcoin could bring about smaller governments - and that is a good thing (Read 3210 times)
August 24, 2013, 07:45:54 PM
August 24, 2013, 02:06:39 PM
The queston of large and small government is, at least for the non-zero government folks, a foggy concept. It is not good enough to speciffy a small government, for if a small government is better than a large government, an even smaller governement is better, and therefore no government at all is by extension the best. You have to be more specific.
There are three things government does: What nobody should do, what only governments can do and what either governments or private entities can do. The government obviously should stop doing what nobody should do, and government should leave that what private entities can do to those private entities. The reason is that the private entities are guided by rational self interest, and the government can not do better than that.
There are three things government does: What nobody should do, what only governments can do and what either governments or private entities can do. The government obviously should stop doing what nobody should do, and government should leave that what private entities can do to those private entities. The reason is that the private entities are guided by rational self interest, and the government can not do better than that.
August 24, 2013, 05:59:51 AM
The status of a poor nation with government: poor.
The status of a poor nation without government: still poor.
The lack of government will not automatically turn dirt into gold. All it does is come without the guarantee that government can fuck up a situation more than the situation was naturally fucked up before government involvement. If the Somalians want a better life, they'll seek it, and I believe everyone always actively seeks this; they do not need to vote in a democratic election to have a representative hold office in a palace constructed by another man's labor so he can sit and make the decision as to whether or not the Somalians want a better life, or if he wants a much better life paid for with the former promise on a string.
The status of a poor nation without government: still poor.
The lack of government will not automatically turn dirt into gold. All it does is come without the guarantee that government can fuck up a situation more than the situation was naturally fucked up before government involvement. If the Somalians want a better life, they'll seek it, and I believe everyone always actively seeks this; they do not need to vote in a democratic election to have a representative hold office in a palace constructed by another man's labor so he can sit and make the decision as to whether or not the Somalians want a better life, or if he wants a much better life paid for with the former promise on a string.
August 23, 2013, 03:49:50 PM
But governments are unique in the use and concentration of power. There's no doubt corporations take on a government-like power structure but a person can quit a corporation, a person cannot quit their government.
A person can, and often does, quit his government. It's called emmigration.
You have to be attractive enough to the government u liek better, but that's open market, just make yourself presentable. I did.
Quote
Do you think government IS society? I don't.
What made you assume that i do? That's crazy talk.
Government is government, society is society, two distinctly different words with distinctly different meanings.
You're right to not confuse the two. We're good here.
Quote
Yeah, no. Developing economic models is tough. Getting a lot of data from different countries and finding the casual relationships (through government reports that are probably lies) could take a long time. It might be fun though. 
In other words, u see no extant alternative?
August 23, 2013, 03:10:57 PM
But governments are unique in the use and concentration of power. There's no doubt corporations take on a government-like power structure but a person can quit a corporation, a person cannot quit their government.
Do you think government IS society? I don't.
Yeah, no. Developing economic models is tough. Getting a lot of data from different countries and finding the casual relationships (through government reports that are probably lies) could take a long time. It might be fun though.
Do you think government IS society? I don't.
Yeah, no. Developing economic models is tough. Getting a lot of data from different countries and finding the casual relationships (through government reports that are probably lies) could take a long time. It might be fun though.
August 22, 2013, 07:04:59 AM
Goverment size depends on several factors, not just the percentage of GDP it consumes. Economies with qualified human capital and technological advance will be able to sustain the government's siphoning of funds. The specific political institutions, such as democracy or dictatorship, don't determine size of government. It's indicative of government size but not conclusive.
Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers.1 Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose.2 Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.3
Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers.1 Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose.2 Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.3
(see quote for ref. ^^^)
1. Marx would likely disagree
2. Are you suggesting that taxes should be interpreted as losses? That the government/populace relationship is strictly parasitic, and tax money could be tossed in a bonfire, as far as economy is concerned?
3. Could you suggest an alternative? A way to collect & interpret such data you feel would be provably more descriptive or factual?
1. Yeah, but a lot of Marxist theory wasn't necessarily correct. Marx was right that the aristocracy was being replaced by industry. I think he was also right about his concept of ideology, that being certain classes determine what others think to exploit them. But Marx's solution was to inflate a central organization that redistributes profits from industry which is a phase of "brute communism". Marx said after "brute communism" there would be "absolute communism" which would consist of man as free from factory work and able to spend all his time pursuing his creative interests. The redistributing organization makes it's own ideology though, so his solution doesn't work. His labor theory of value in Das Kapital has been replaced by laws of scarcity in economics.
I pointed out that governments are not unique in abuse and concentration of power, making the first sentence meaningless. Historically, the workings of large corporations are similar to governments, and their use of power is also analogous -- from arguably evil (use of Pinkertons as private militias, company towns with usurious "company stores" and corporate-issued private currencies), to arguably socialistic and socially beneficial (Henry Ford's use of subsidized housing, child and medical care for his workers).
Quote
2. A lot of the government/populace relationship is parasitic. Every single cent that government takes in taxes originates somehow from people that actually make some good, or service the people that produce things. There is however problems with a lack of uniform law systems proposed by some anarchists, because if law isn't generally codified, personal protection agencies could get into a lot of conflict.
In that case the relationship between the brain and the stomach is also parasitic -- the brain produces nothing, relying on the stomach for its nourishment. Seeing the government as a parasitic entity is myopic, the dichotomy between it and society is false.
Quote
3. I think it would take a lot of studying to do that. Every government/economic relationship is different. It depends on GDP, private vs. public sector employment, the central bank's monetary policy and all the government interventions.
In other words, no?
August 21, 2013, 10:40:13 PM
Goverment size depends on several factors, not just the percentage of GDP it consumes. Economies with qualified human capital and technological advance will be able to sustain the government's siphoning of funds. The specific political institutions, such as democracy or dictatorship, don't determine size of government. It's indicative of government size but not conclusive.
Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers.1 Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose.2 Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.3
Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers.1 Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose.2 Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.3
(see quote for ref. ^^^)
1. Marx would likely disagree
2. Are you suggesting that taxes should be interpreted as losses? That the government/populace relationship is strictly parasitic, and tax money could be tossed in a bonfire, as far as economy is concerned?
3. Could you suggest an alternative? A way to collect & interpret such data you feel would be provably more descriptive or factual?
1. Yeah, but a lot of Marxist theory wasn't necessarily correct. Marx was right that the aristocracy was being replaced by industry. I think he was also right about his concept of ideology, that being certain classes determine what others think to exploit them. But Marx's solution was to inflate a central organization that redistributes profits from industry which is a phase of "brute communism". Marx said after "brute communism" there would be "absolute communism" which would consist of man as free from factory work and able to spend all his time pursuing his creative interests. The redistributing organization makes it's own ideology though, so his solution doesn't work. His labor theory of value in Das Kapital has been replaced by laws of scarcity in economics.
2. A lot of the government/populace relationship is parasitic. Every single cent that government takes in taxes originates somehow from people that actually make some good, or service the people that produce things. There is however problems with a lack of uniform law systems proposed by some anarchists, because if law isn't generally codified, personal protection agencies could get into a lot of conflict.
3. I think it would take a lot of studying to do that. Every government/economic relationship is different. It depends on GDP, private vs. public sector employment, the central bank's monetary policy and all the government interventions.
August 20, 2013, 04:02:41 PM
You seem to think that you're actually addressing what I've said, about 4 times now. You went off on your own tangent, all 4 times. Complaints about being too lazy to read 2 pages pale into comparison with the plain inability to correctly interpret 4 sentences.
For christ's sake, I asked you what you meant and you responded "small government, genius". I legitimately want to know what your point is. Just tell me.
I wasn't talking about the history of government in Somalia, I was highlighting that "failed state" != "small government", it's not such an imaginative leap to glean that from my original comment. I don't think Somalia got that way because of a relentless pursuit of laissez faire capitalism, do you? That guy seemed to be making that statement, and it was blindingly ignorant.
True, Somalia did not get that way because it had a small government to begin with. However, looking at it now it is one of (if not the most) the worst places on Earth, and coincidentally it has no central government.
North Korea, which has the most powerful government of anywhere (over its people at least) also has a terrible economy.
That user was simply making the point that small governments are not always beneficial. There is more to an economy than the size of the government.
In fact, from the 25+ examples I've made it appears as though size of government is irrelevant, regardless of how you measure it.
I think you're making an argument for quality over quantity, and I would agree, backdated to before my "Not how it went down throughout history" post
(I could've made the point much less ambiguously, that's a fair criticism, even if I do say so myself ) August 20, 2013, 02:42:43 PM
Goverment size depends on several factors, not just the percentage of GDP it consumes. Economies with qualified human capital and technological advance will be able to sustain the government's siphoning of funds. The specific political institutions, such as democracy or dictatorship, don't determine size of government. It's indicative of government size but not conclusive.
Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers.1 Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose.2 Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.3
Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers.1 Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose.2 Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.3
(see quote for ref. ^^^)
1. Marx would likely disagree
2. Are you suggesting that taxes should be interpreted as losses? That the government/populace relationship is strictly parasitic, and tax money could be tossed in a bonfire, as far as economy is concerned?
3. Could you suggest an alternative? A way to collect & interpret such data you feel would be provably more descriptive or factual?
August 20, 2013, 01:59:04 PM
Obligatory somalia reference http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf.
TLDR: Somalia's government was really shitty, in fact it was outright predatory, so when it collapsed Somalians' living conditions improved pretty significantly.
That doesn't really help with explaining whether we'd be better off (Western governments aren't nearly as bad).
TLDR: Somalia's government was really shitty, in fact it was outright predatory, so when it collapsed Somalians' living conditions improved pretty significantly.
That doesn't really help with explaining whether we'd be better off (Western governments aren't nearly as bad).
August 20, 2013, 10:20:11 AM
You seem to think that you're actually addressing what I've said, about 4 times now. You went off on your own tangent, all 4 times. Complaints about being too lazy to read 2 pages pale into comparison with the plain inability to correctly interpret 4 sentences.
For christ's sake, I asked you what you meant and you responded "small government, genius". I legitimately want to know what your point is. Just tell me.
I wasn't talking about the history of government in Somalia, I was highlighting that "failed state" != "small government", it's not such an imaginative leap to glean that from my original comment. I don't think Somalia got that way because of a relentless pursuit of laissez faire capitalism, do you? That guy seemed to be making that statement, and it was blindingly ignorant.
True, Somalia did not get that way because it had a small government to begin with. However, looking at it now it is one of (if not the most) the worst places on Earth, and coincidentally it has no central government.
North Korea, which has the most powerful government of anywhere (over its people at least) also has a terrible economy.
That user was simply making the point that small governments are not always beneficial. There is more to an economy than the size of the government.
In fact, from the 25+ examples I've made it appears as though size of government is irrelevant, regardless of how you measure it.
August 19, 2013, 07:59:44 PM
Goverment size depends on several factors, not just the percentage of GDP it consumes. Economies with qualified human capital and technological advance will be able to sustain the government's siphoning of funds. The specific political institutions, such as democracy or dictatorship, don't determine size of government. It's indicative of government size but not conclusive.
Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers. Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose. Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.
Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers. Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose. Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.
August 19, 2013, 03:16:19 PM
You seem to think that you're actually addressing what I've said, about 4 times now. You went off on your own tangent, all 4 times. Complaints about being too lazy to read 2 pages pale into comparison with the plain inability to correctly interpret 4 sentences.
For christ's sake, I asked you what you meant and you responded "small government, genius". I legitimately want to know what your point is. Just tell me.
I wasn't talking about the history of government in Somalia, I was highlighting that "failed state" != "small government", it's not such an imaginative leap to glean that from my original comment. I don't think Somalia got that way because of a relentless pursuit of laissez faire capitalism, do you? That guy seemed to be making that statement, and it was blindingly ignorant.
August 19, 2013, 02:45:42 PM
You seem to think that you're actually addressing what I've said, about 4 times now. You went off on your own tangent, all 4 times. Complaints about being too lazy to read 2 pages pale into comparison with the plain inability to correctly interpret 4 sentences.
For christ's sake, I asked you what you meant and you responded "small government, genius". I legitimately want to know what your point is. Just tell me.
August 19, 2013, 02:43:04 PM
You seem to think that you're actually addressing what I've said, about 4 times now. You went off on your own tangent, all 4 times. Complaints about being too lazy to read 2 pages pale into comparison with the plain inability to correctly interpret 4 sentences.
August 19, 2013, 02:36:51 PM
small government, genius
This is what you quoted:
"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"."
Historically what did not go down in this post? Let's go piece by piece.
"Somalia has a tiny government..." Happened/is happening.
"Great place to raise a family right"? Sarcasm.
"As J603 pointed out"... I did indeed point this out.
".. is a common trend." I'd say that historically this is true.
"Sorry but 'small government' is a broken term.. imo.. everyone else..." His opinion.
Everything in that quote went down historically in the way he described.
Are you saying that "small government" didn't go down "that way" historically? Which is what I asked you to clarify in the first place? Because it seems as though whether or not a government is small has nothing to do with the economy of a nation. Authoritarian governments can foster just as good an economy as states with no central government.
general history. assume generalities when specifics aren't given, it's logical
Look at my very first post in this thread. I named the top 25 countries in terms of growth and their type of government. That is as specific as it gets.
I don't see why I should have to repeat myself. If you can't be bothered to read the entire thread then you shouldn't respond asking for specifics. That is illogical.
In case you can't be bothered to read through a whopping two pages:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2945312
August 19, 2013, 02:30:02 PM
small government, genius
This is what you quoted:
"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"."
Historically what did not go down in this post? Let's go piece by piece.
"Somalia has a tiny government..." Happened/is happening.
"Great place to raise a family right"? Sarcasm.
"As J603 pointed out"... I did indeed point this out.
".. is a common trend." I'd say that historically this is true.
"Sorry but 'small government' is a broken term.. imo.. everyone else..." His opinion.
Everything in that quote went down historically in the way he described.
Are you saying that "small government" didn't go down "that way" historically? Which is what I asked you to clarify in the first place? Because it seems as though whether or not a government is small has nothing to do with the economy of a nation. Authoritarian governments can foster just as good an economy as states with no central government.
general history. assume generalities when specifics aren't given, it's logical
August 19, 2013, 02:13:51 PM
small government, genius
This is what you quoted:
"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"."
Historically what did not go down in this post? Let's go piece by piece.
"Somalia has a tiny government..." Happened/is happening.
"Great place to raise a family right"? Sarcasm.
"As J603 pointed out"... I did indeed point this out.
".. is a common trend." I'd say that historically this is true.
"Sorry but 'small government' is a broken term.. imo.. everyone else..." His opinion.
Everything in that quote went down historically in the way he described.
Are you saying that "small government" didn't go down "that way" historically? Which is what I asked you to clarify in the first place? Because it seems as though whether or not a government is small has nothing to do with the economy of a nation. Authoritarian governments can foster just as good an economy as states with no central government.
August 19, 2013, 02:02:14 PM
small government, genius
August 19, 2013, 01:29:56 PM
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.
Not how what went down historically?
August 19, 2013, 01:19:39 PM
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.
August 19, 2013, 10:04:33 AM
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.
August 19, 2013, 09:45:41 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".
August 17, 2013, 06:19:28 AM
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.
August 17, 2013, 03:36:03 AM
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.
August 16, 2013, 10:03:02 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).
August 16, 2013, 01:04:50 PM
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.
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.
August 16, 2013, 08:23:54 AM
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734206&download=yes
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844743534
Seems like a solid empirical case is now being built for smaller governments ... long past time, imho.
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.
..... 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
Turkmenistan - Dictatorship
11.00
Panama - Democratic Republic
10.70
Afghanistan - Islamic Republic (occupied by the US and others)
10.20
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.
August 16, 2013, 08:20:21 AM
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.
August 16, 2013, 07:52:23 AM
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.
August 15, 2013, 06:01:12 PM
Government is just the most powerful corporation in the territory.
August 15, 2013, 05:52:42 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.
August 15, 2013, 05:08:28 PM
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?
August 15, 2013, 04:04:07 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.
August 15, 2013, 01:06:04 PM
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.
August 15, 2013, 12:23:17 PM
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?
August 15, 2013, 12:18:27 PM
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.
August 15, 2013, 10:10:03 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.
August 10, 2013, 10:13:51 PM
... 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 
August 10, 2013, 04:55:17 PM
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.
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
August 10, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Bitcoin could destroy the government, and with it the citizenship, the church, the debt and the economy, which was state- and debt-based from the beginning and growing rampant until today, until the end. Stateless communities do not grow economically. That would be a good thing! The destruction of the evil, and not only a reduction. That should be the ambition of real libertarism. A rebirth of the homo sapiens, who had been replaced by the homo oeconomicus theocraticus collectivisticus extincticus idioticus about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence. As soon as the self-sufficient, blood-related communities are back and the homo oeconomicus theocraticus collectivisticus extincticus idioticus disappears, Bitcoin will be obsolete and the planet is saved from the sixth great extinction that is unfolding with exponentially increasing speed.
August 10, 2013, 02:49:12 PM
Well that's what they did in appearance in 1913 to fool the people : instead of one single central bank they created a FEDERAL reserve bank with twelve banks to make people believe it would be better whereas there was one bank who leads : the bank of New York (aka Rockefeller).
August 10, 2013, 09:44:00 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.
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.
August 10, 2013, 08:54:15 AM
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734206&download=yes
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844743534
Seems like a solid empirical case is now being built for smaller governments ... long past time, imho.
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.
..... 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.
Jump to: