4 ms·

> At the same time, if governments fail to efficiently tax their populations they end up having to go to war to plunder the resources they need to maintain thei

> At the same time, if governments fail to efficiently tax their populations they end up having to go to war to plunder the resources they need to maintain their countries instead. This is a pretty bold assertion. Do you have an example of this happening? If a country has all the resources it needs then it's not going to have to plunder resources. If it doesn't have to the resources it needs it either has to trade for them, borrow, or plunder as a worst case scenario. It has absolutely nothing to do with taxes. Also, with your logic, how do you afford an army to plunder resources if the reason for plundering is because they didn't "efficiently tax"? To go to war to plunder some resources, you need the resources. You can tax all you want but if you don't have the real resources you can't build an army. Taxes can put resources you already have to work but it can't create them out of thin air.

graderjs 4y ago
Take a read of [this book], it has plenty of examples throughout history (from ancient times to today). From memory, most recent example is I think Japan in WWII, and maybe Germany in both wars tho I can't recall clearly right now. The thesis is: expansionist tendencies arise because states fail to efficiently tax their populations so they seek wealth through plunder. Good question about where the money comes from first, I can't remember what the book said now but I'm sure there's possible solutions. Maybe: seize from the rich people in your own country first (likely by demonizing them ~ I think China did this to elites during the cultural revolution from memory from [another book]); the leaders are savvy enough to go to war before all the funds are gone; bootstrap by using emotive demonization of enemy and fear (I guess the Nazis did this to Jews before and during WWII) so you can be scrappy at first until you plunder some wealth and use it to upgrade and purchase more soliders. [that book]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9491855-why-the-west-rules-for-now https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9491855-why-the-west-rul... [that other book]: https://www.bookdepository.com/Mao-The-Unknown-Story-Jon-Halliday/9780099507376 https://www.bookdepository.com/Mao-The-Unknown-Story-Jon-Hal...?
- sofixa 4y ago
  > expansionist tendencies arise because states fail to efficiently tax their populations so they seek wealth through plunder. That sounds pretty much wrong, even if there are probably countries that did end up doing that. > From memory, most recent example is I think Japan in WWII, and maybe Germany in both wars tho I can't recall clearly right now. Yeah, no. The reasons for WWI are extremely complex, but Germany and Austria-Hungary not having enough tax revenue aren't in there. Slightly before WWII, Nazi Germany's economy was basically a Ponzi scheme with massive investments (in rearmament) that needed to financed somehow, and plundering neighbors and Jews was a good way of achieving that. Maybe a more optimised tax structure could have alleviated that, maybe. However putting that as the main, or anywhere near the top reasons, is foolish. Japan before WWII had a resources problem, and expansionist tendencies to correct that problem. However they were cut off from the global markets due to the invasion of China, and thus could no longer import the resources they needed and hadn't yet conquered, thus war. Again, nothing to do with taxes - Japan had money, it needed raw materials. So those books sound pretty bad. I'll see if i can find a free copy to skim because I'm interested in just how bad they are.
  - graderjs 4y ago
    Why does HN have to be about braggadocio? Thought it's about curiosity. If you make a point with certainty people trust it more than if you make it modally. But that's not about the facts or history. You haven't convinced me of your thesis, but I get you don't believe mine. That's OK. The world is a big place with lots of different opinions, especially on history, right? I think my view was similar to yours, and vaguer, before I read these books. They helped me understand a lot. Don't you think you should read the book (or books) before you dismiss it? Maybe you're smarter than me and all those other people and the guy that wrote the book? Maybe you're not? But how are you going to know until you read it? Maybe I am an idiot and I was duped by a really bad book (or books)? But maybe you are for dismissing it out of hand before it had a chance to work on you and you had a chance to look at the argument presented really well? I don't care what you believe. But I get that history matters, and it's an important topic. For me, that countries go to war because they didn't tax effectively is what the book convinced me of, and it fits my world view that there are basically simply forces underlying human behavior. Conflict is about resource competition. If you have enough (or more than enough), you're unlikely to risk or want conflict. Taxes are the main way states fund themselves (so it is OK to say it as the main or anywhere near the top reason, it's not foolish at all. But I think it is foolish to pretend there's complexity when there's not. That's how you get sucked into propaganda and narrative, and get manipulated by it. Don't you think?). Anyway, it makes a lot of sense. And all the racial/national/group hate is then manufactured in service to an economic motive. But I get your (or others') logic may clash with this, but maybe your logic is not expanded (or experienced with enough of the world / history) to know that? Maybe I haven't read enough books and so got duped by the ones that pretended to offer new insights and a simplistic perspective? But the book lays it out really clearly, and I loved that book. The arguments are also quite subtle, and complex, and backed by a lot of data I think, even if they're maybe contrarian in some cases. I think it has new insights. That's how I took it anyway, and I'm still very comfortable with that, and I think the book is a great resource, despite what you say and how confidently you (and others') say it. Because what do you really know? I'm going to trust this book, that lays it all out for me, more than you. Who are you anyway? What do you know about history? I don't know you or what you know. I get you don't want to take my word for it, and I respect that. I don't want to take your word for it either. I think you need to read the books to rebut the points made in the books. They can make it better than me right now and they have all the data and examples. A side note, it may have been Japan before invasion of China. But same point. Anyway, I hope you learn something!

graderjs 4y ago

Take a read of [this book], it has plenty of examples throughout history (from ancient times to today). From memory, most recent example is I think Japan in WWII, and maybe Germany in both wars tho I can't recall clearly right now. The thesis is: expansionist tendencies arise because states fail to efficiently tax their populations so they seek wealth through plunder. Good question about where the money comes from first, I can't remember what the book said now but I'm sure there's possible solutions. Maybe: seize from the rich people in your own country first (likely by demonizing them ~ I think China did this to elites during the cultural revolution from memory from [another book]); the leaders are savvy enough to go to war before all the funds are gone; bootstrap by using emotive demonization of enemy and fear (I guess the Nazis did this to Jews before and during WWII) so you can be scrappy at first until you plunder some wealth and use it to upgrade and purchase more soliders. [that book]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9491855-why-the-west-rules-for-now https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9491855-why-the-west-rul... [that other book]: https://www.bookdepository.com/Mao-The-Unknown-Story-Jon-Halliday/9780099507376 https://www.bookdepository.com/Mao-The-Unknown-Story-Jon-Hal...?

sofixa 4y ago
> expansionist tendencies arise because states fail to efficiently tax their populations so they seek wealth through plunder. That sounds pretty much wrong, even if there are probably countries that did end up doing that. > From memory, most recent example is I think Japan in WWII, and maybe Germany in both wars tho I can't recall clearly right now. Yeah, no. The reasons for WWI are extremely complex, but Germany and Austria-Hungary not having enough tax revenue aren't in there. Slightly before WWII, Nazi Germany's economy was basically a Ponzi scheme with massive investments (in rearmament) that needed to financed somehow, and plundering neighbors and Jews was a good way of achieving that. Maybe a more optimised tax structure could have alleviated that, maybe. However putting that as the main, or anywhere near the top reasons, is foolish. Japan before WWII had a resources problem, and expansionist tendencies to correct that problem. However they were cut off from the global markets due to the invasion of China, and thus could no longer import the resources they needed and hadn't yet conquered, thus war. Again, nothing to do with taxes - Japan had money, it needed raw materials. So those books sound pretty bad. I'll see if i can find a free copy to skim because I'm interested in just how bad they are.
- graderjs 4y ago
  Why does HN have to be about braggadocio? Thought it's about curiosity. If you make a point with certainty people trust it more than if you make it modally. But that's not about the facts or history. You haven't convinced me of your thesis, but I get you don't believe mine. That's OK. The world is a big place with lots of different opinions, especially on history, right? I think my view was similar to yours, and vaguer, before I read these books. They helped me understand a lot. Don't you think you should read the book (or books) before you dismiss it? Maybe you're smarter than me and all those other people and the guy that wrote the book? Maybe you're not? But how are you going to know until you read it? Maybe I am an idiot and I was duped by a really bad book (or books)? But maybe you are for dismissing it out of hand before it had a chance to work on you and you had a chance to look at the argument presented really well? I don't care what you believe. But I get that history matters, and it's an important topic. For me, that countries go to war because they didn't tax effectively is what the book convinced me of, and it fits my world view that there are basically simply forces underlying human behavior. Conflict is about resource competition. If you have enough (or more than enough), you're unlikely to risk or want conflict. Taxes are the main way states fund themselves (so it is OK to say it as the main or anywhere near the top reason, it's not foolish at all. But I think it is foolish to pretend there's complexity when there's not. That's how you get sucked into propaganda and narrative, and get manipulated by it. Don't you think?). Anyway, it makes a lot of sense. And all the racial/national/group hate is then manufactured in service to an economic motive. But I get your (or others') logic may clash with this, but maybe your logic is not expanded (or experienced with enough of the world / history) to know that? Maybe I haven't read enough books and so got duped by the ones that pretended to offer new insights and a simplistic perspective? But the book lays it out really clearly, and I loved that book. The arguments are also quite subtle, and complex, and backed by a lot of data I think, even if they're maybe contrarian in some cases. I think it has new insights. That's how I took it anyway, and I'm still very comfortable with that, and I think the book is a great resource, despite what you say and how confidently you (and others') say it. Because what do you really know? I'm going to trust this book, that lays it all out for me, more than you. Who are you anyway? What do you know about history? I don't know you or what you know. I get you don't want to take my word for it, and I respect that. I don't want to take your word for it either. I think you need to read the books to rebut the points made in the books. They can make it better than me right now and they have all the data and examples. A side note, it may have been Japan before invasion of China. But same point. Anyway, I hope you learn something!