[FoRK] Interesting analysis of entrepreneurship and risk
jbone at place.org
Fri Aug 29 06:13:53 PDT 2008
On Aug 29, 2008, at 1:49 AM, Bill Humphries wrote:
> Looking at my DVD shelf, I suddenly realized the scenario Bone was
> describing with respect to capital gains rates was "A Bug's Life."
Two last bits, then I hope to shut it down for the weekend... ;-)
> What a mess, we're to shove everyone but the investor class under
> the bus or Denis Hopper will blow it up.
First, the *only* people I see that anybody's said they want to "throw
under the bus" *are* evil "investor class" people and "corporate
interests" - whatever those are.
But of course that's important "for purposes of fairness."
On Aug 29, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Aaron Burt wrote:
>> So, yeah, maybe one *can* have commie unAmerican things like
>> Health Care or different tax structures, and still have a favourable
>> climate for business and innovation.
> Population of Canada, July 2007 est: 33,390,141
> Population of US, July 2007 est: 301,139,947
> It makes a big difference.
United States — GDP: $13.13 trillion (2006 est.)
Canada — GDP: $1.178 trillion (2006 est.) (purchasing power parity)
The point of these is, there are scaling laws for things like
distribution of resources, productivity per person, etc. for different
kinds of decision processes. It's harder to optimize social
satisfaction the larger the aggregate of people you try to apply (any)
policy to. (Another measure, which is more difficult to come by, is
the diversity in a given population. The closer to a monoculture, the
more assumptions you can make when optimizing the social welfare
It's also interesting to note that while Canada has 1/9th the people,
it only has about 1/11th the economic productivity. I.e., less
productive per person --- despite (arguably) far greater per cap
natural resources to draw on...
I may shock everyone by claiming this, but I actually have *no problem
whatsoever* with communism / socialism on smaller and more local
scales. In fact, I think it has some admirable historical successes
at e.g. the medium-size farm level. It's just that it doesn't scale
well and it doesn't sit well when it's coerced. Similarly democracy;
works better the more constrained the scale. When *any* system of
government or social organization grows in size it necessarily becomes
more coercive, starts to be less effective / efficient and
simultaneously becomes more generally objectionable...
More information about the FoRK