4 ms·

"Preferential attachment", to the level of detail that you have specified, is an observation that a thing occurs, not a mechanism, a reason or a force, or even

"Preferential attachment", to the level of detail that you have specified, is an observation that a thing occurs, not a mechanism, a reason or a force, or even an estimate of the rate. Modelling a process by circularly assuming that is how the process will work provides exactly zero information, and is how one comes to conclude that heavier objects accelerate under gravity faster than those lighter, or more analogously, the impossibility of aerostats, satellites and hyperbolic trajectories. Instead, I would like to encourage those interested to consider and discuss the similarities and differences between capital income taxes and wealth taxes, between taxation and non-voting ownership of an asset, and between voting and non-voting ownership. What is the average rate of return on capital and what is the volatility? What is the difference between the CPI basket and that of the implicit GDP deflator and why? Those are all interesting questions to ask and answer.

mjburgess 3y ago
Sure, but the level of abstraction "anti-capialist" ideologues are operating at isnt one where a non-pareto distribution of wealth is a necessary consequence of any system in which wealth accumulates simpliciter. All policies which affect the wealth distribution do so by moderating the gini coef, ie., the specific shape of the power-law -- they do not make it normal, uniform, etc. or however the ideologue would wish it to be. The "natural mechanism" of "fair procedures" in the case of systems wherein parts attach to other parts based on their current size (, success, etc.) is spiriling inequality in the extreme. All sane policy conversation is about how extreme. That bigger things get bigger isn't "capitalism's fault", as far as anything could be said here, all modern systems of economics and government seek to make the concequences of this process less extreme, rather than more. Eg., in the case of capitalism, it is essentially a mechanism for managing the extreme impact of risk (via limited liability companies), and a mechanism for addressing intergenerational rent-seeking (the historical way pref. attachment was "fought").
- Alpha3031 3y ago
  > All policies which affect the wealth distribution do so by moderating the gini coef, ie., the specific shape of the power-law -- they do not make it normal, uniform, etc. or however the ideologue would wish it to be. Again, you are assuming your conclusion, and you do not even do us the favour of stating premises, which is hardly conducive to a productive discussion (or, any, really). On the other hand, it is quite fundamental to welfare economics that under a few assumptions, some unrealistic and some less so (namely: perfect information, fully internalised externalities, absence of market power, local nonsatiation and convexity of preferences and production) it is possible to reach any point on the Pareto frontier. The policies required to reach a desired point in such a toy model is left as an exercise for the reader. Now, the actual juicy questions here are how things like market power, externalities and imperfect information affect this? Is the model still a good approximation? To what extent are we able to correct things, and do we even want to? If we do, how best to do it? > The "natural mechanism" of "fair procedures" in the case of systems wherein parts attach to other parts based on their current size Again, you assert that it's "natural" and "fair" as if the result is a foregone conclusion. If it is inevitable that dx be a f(x) ~ x then yes, that's an exponential. Why would it be unnatural or unfair for dx to be instead a function of y, some other factor that has no proportionality to x? You are stating as a conclusion and premise that financial wealth experiences preferential attachment unconditionally, that is in essence, circular reasoning. What is the actual mechanism, the force, and how irresistible is it really? Would resisting it simply divert its effects to something else, for example, concentration of political rather than economic power? Quite frankly, the dismissal of everything outside of a frankly ridiculously narrow space, where your model with an unspecified mechanism (which does achieve the results that you say it does) clearly must be an accurate reflection of the real world in all circumstances... Well, it gets old quite fast. If you really must use that model, describe and justify the accuracy of your proposed mechanism at least, if you please.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    In some sense i'm assuming wealth is a pref-A phenomenon, yes; not that "capitalism makes it so". There need be no formal argument here: all research into all wealth distributions in history are power-law; and a vast array of social phenomena are pref-A. And pref-A produces power-law. As an empirical matter, the burden of proof lies with those who say "there is some other process" to show it. Since the PA process is demonstrated without exception. Formally, why should we expect wealth to be a PA process? Well, formal arguments will always be toy and disappointing, but get someway to explaining what's observed empirically. But: Economic transactions are, roughly, exchanges of time. We have a fixed quantity of time each, and Alice offers some time to Bob, who offers some time to Eve... and so on. Wealth is your net ability to draw down on the time of others, as a function of time. By spending X amount, I can obtain Y time from P people. Assume, at t=0, everyone has an equal ability to draw down on the time of others, and an equal preference for exchanging their time (1hr for whatever it takes me to do, for 1 hr of whatever it takes you to do...). Now, since we have different rates of production and produce different things it becomes wasteful for me to spend 1hr for your 1hr when you dont make what i want; or someone else makes more of it faster. Our desire not to expend our own time needlessly, to waste our finite quantity of it, means we allocate it to where the ratio from ours/others is most efficient. That is to those who can draw down on the time of others most, we give some of our own; and to those who can the least, we give none. (To, roughly, quote Matthew). Simply in the pursuit of not having our 100 years wasted egregiously. And there are many compounding effects, not least this. For as soon as any inequality enters those who then have more can do more, and so become ever more effective at what they do. We will not work a month to buy a t-shirt when a t-shirt can be made in a factory for a minute of our time. It makes no difference that the factory is owned big Capital (omg!">?!?). And if we were to that, there could be no "factories" of this kind -- since allocating resouces according to what minises wasting our time gives us more time, without which we cannot develop anything new. All this is somewhat irrelevant however. As above, the burden is on those who say something else is conceivable to show (1) what their conception is; and (2) it is physically possible. If all alternatives amount to global coordinaton across the species such that we are each programmed Marxists acting like drones -- or, likewise, non-agression libertarians -- you're then talking about a different species. Wealth amongst the bees might be a little more normally distributed, for sure.

mjburgess 3y ago

Sure, but the level of abstraction "anti-capialist" ideologues are operating at isnt one where a non-pareto distribution of wealth is a necessary consequence of any system in which wealth accumulates simpliciter. All policies which affect the wealth distribution do so by moderating the gini coef, ie., the specific shape of the power-law -- they do not make it normal, uniform, etc. or however the ideologue would wish it to be. The "natural mechanism" of "fair procedures" in the case of systems wherein parts attach to other parts based on their current size (, success, etc.) is spiriling inequality in the extreme. All sane policy conversation is about how extreme. That bigger things get bigger isn't "capitalism's fault", as far as anything could be said here, all modern systems of economics and government seek to make the concequences of this process less extreme, rather than more. Eg., in the case of capitalism, it is essentially a mechanism for managing the extreme impact of risk (via limited liability companies), and a mechanism for addressing intergenerational rent-seeking (the historical way pref. attachment was "fought").

Alpha3031 3y ago
> All policies which affect the wealth distribution do so by moderating the gini coef, ie., the specific shape of the power-law -- they do not make it normal, uniform, etc. or however the ideologue would wish it to be. Again, you are assuming your conclusion, and you do not even do us the favour of stating premises, which is hardly conducive to a productive discussion (or, any, really). On the other hand, it is quite fundamental to welfare economics that under a few assumptions, some unrealistic and some less so (namely: perfect information, fully internalised externalities, absence of market power, local nonsatiation and convexity of preferences and production) it is possible to reach any point on the Pareto frontier. The policies required to reach a desired point in such a toy model is left as an exercise for the reader. Now, the actual juicy questions here are how things like market power, externalities and imperfect information affect this? Is the model still a good approximation? To what extent are we able to correct things, and do we even want to? If we do, how best to do it? > The "natural mechanism" of "fair procedures" in the case of systems wherein parts attach to other parts based on their current size Again, you assert that it's "natural" and "fair" as if the result is a foregone conclusion. If it is inevitable that dx be a f(x) ~ x then yes, that's an exponential. Why would it be unnatural or unfair for dx to be instead a function of y, some other factor that has no proportionality to x? You are stating as a conclusion and premise that financial wealth experiences preferential attachment unconditionally, that is in essence, circular reasoning. What is the actual mechanism, the force, and how irresistible is it really? Would resisting it simply divert its effects to something else, for example, concentration of political rather than economic power? Quite frankly, the dismissal of everything outside of a frankly ridiculously narrow space, where your model with an unspecified mechanism (which does achieve the results that you say it does) clearly must be an accurate reflection of the real world in all circumstances... Well, it gets old quite fast. If you really must use that model, describe and justify the accuracy of your proposed mechanism at least, if you please.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  In some sense i'm assuming wealth is a pref-A phenomenon, yes; not that "capitalism makes it so". There need be no formal argument here: all research into all wealth distributions in history are power-law; and a vast array of social phenomena are pref-A. And pref-A produces power-law. As an empirical matter, the burden of proof lies with those who say "there is some other process" to show it. Since the PA process is demonstrated without exception. Formally, why should we expect wealth to be a PA process? Well, formal arguments will always be toy and disappointing, but get someway to explaining what's observed empirically. But: Economic transactions are, roughly, exchanges of time. We have a fixed quantity of time each, and Alice offers some time to Bob, who offers some time to Eve... and so on. Wealth is your net ability to draw down on the time of others, as a function of time. By spending X amount, I can obtain Y time from P people. Assume, at t=0, everyone has an equal ability to draw down on the time of others, and an equal preference for exchanging their time (1hr for whatever it takes me to do, for 1 hr of whatever it takes you to do...). Now, since we have different rates of production and produce different things it becomes wasteful for me to spend 1hr for your 1hr when you dont make what i want; or someone else makes more of it faster. Our desire not to expend our own time needlessly, to waste our finite quantity of it, means we allocate it to where the ratio from ours/others is most efficient. That is to those who can draw down on the time of others most, we give some of our own; and to those who can the least, we give none. (To, roughly, quote Matthew). Simply in the pursuit of not having our 100 years wasted egregiously. And there are many compounding effects, not least this. For as soon as any inequality enters those who then have more can do more, and so become ever more effective at what they do. We will not work a month to buy a t-shirt when a t-shirt can be made in a factory for a minute of our time. It makes no difference that the factory is owned big Capital (omg!">?!?). And if we were to that, there could be no "factories" of this kind -- since allocating resouces according to what minises wasting our time gives us more time, without which we cannot develop anything new. All this is somewhat irrelevant however. As above, the burden is on those who say something else is conceivable to show (1) what their conception is; and (2) it is physically possible. If all alternatives amount to global coordinaton across the species such that we are each programmed Marxists acting like drones -- or, likewise, non-agression libertarians -- you're then talking about a different species. Wealth amongst the bees might be a little more normally distributed, for sure.