A proposal for the next evolution of capitalism:

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is my proposal for the next evolution of capitalism:   Pareto Efficiency.  Marx Proposed the elimination of the capitalist class and the eventual triumph of the working class.  This view is a major fail   Pareto Efficiency  is  possible to reach (at least in the limit) and is objectively definable.

Please see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

At the very least we should attain weak Pareto Efficiency

Replace Marx  with Math. 

An important fact about the Pareto frontier in economics is that at a Pareto efficient allocation, the marginal rate of substitution is the same for all consumers. A formal statement can be derived by considering a system with m consumers and n goods, and a utility function of each consumer as ${\displaystyle z_{i}=f^{i}(x^{i})}$ where ${\displaystyle x^{i}=(x_{1}^{i},x_{2}^{i},\ldots ,x_{n}^{i})}$ is the vector of goods, both for all i. The feasibility constraint is ${\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}x_{j}^{i}=b_{j}}$ for ${\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,n}$. To find the Pareto optimal allocation, we maximize the Lagrangian:

${\displaystyle L_{i}((x_{j}^{k})_{k,j},(\lambda _{k})_{k},(\mu _{j})_{j})=f^{i}(x^{i})+\sum _{k=2}^{m}\lambda _{k}(z_{k}-f^{k}(x^{k}))+\sum _{j=1}^{n}\mu _{j}\left(b_{j}-\sum _{k=1}^{m}x_{j}^{k}\right)}$

where ${\displaystyle (\lambda _{k})_{k}}$ and ${\displaystyle (\mu _{j})_{j}}$ are the vectors of multipliers. Taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to each good ${\displaystyle x_{j}^{k}}$ for ${\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,n}$ and ${\displaystyle k=1,\ldots ,m}$ and gives the following system of first-order conditions:

${\displaystyle {\frac {\partial L_{i}}{\partial x_{j}^{i}}}=f_{x_{j}^{i}}^{1}-\mu _{j}=0{\text{ for }}j=1,\ldots ,n,}$

${\displaystyle {\frac {\partial L_{i}}{\partial x_{j}^{k}}}=-\lambda _{k}f_{x_{j}^{k}}^{i}-\mu _{j}=0{\text{ for }}k=2,\ldots ,m{\text{ and }}j=1,\ldots ,n,}$

where ${\displaystyle f_{x_{j}^{i}}}$ denotes the partial derivative of ${\displaystyle f}$ with respect to ${\displaystyle x_{j}^{i}}$. Now, fix any ${\displaystyle k\neq i}$ and ${\displaystyle j,s\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}}$. The above first-order condition imply that

${\displaystyle {\frac {f_{x_{j}^{i}}^{i}}{f_{x_{s}^{i}}^{i}}}={\frac {\mu _{j}}{\mu _{s}}}={\frac {f_{x_{j}^{k}}^{k}}{f_{x_{s}^{k}}^{k}}}.}$

Thus, in a Pareto optimal allocation, the marginal rate of substitution must be the same for all consumers.

Whoops.  Run that thru a Latex Translator. 

[Brant Gaede]

Lots of ruck.

Math won't displace a thug unless the math guy has a gun leaving us with the rule of the math guys.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

19 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Lots of ruck.

Math won't displace a thug unless the math guy has a gun leaving us with the rule of the math guys.

--Brant

I am proposing a goal to be implemented legally or at least peacefully.  

Assume hypothetically that all the players want a reasonable solution to heretofore unsolvable economic problems.  I say aim for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency#Formal_representation

It is a rational statement of the goal to be achieved.  If we can't get to it peacefully then all the worse for us.

[Brant Gaede]

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am proposing a goal to be implemented legally or at least peacefully.  

Assume hypothetically that all the players want a reasonable solution to heretofore unsolvable economic problems.  I say aim for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency#Formal_representation

It is a rational statement of the goal to be achieved.  If we can't get to it peacefully then all the worse for us.

Thanks for the translation, Mr. High Priest.

They used to use Latin. Sounds a lot better.

--Brant

you can't get there from here with that

[BaalChatzaf]

2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Thanks for the translation, Mr. High Priest.

They used to use Latin. Sounds a lot better.

--Brant

you can't get there from here with that

Oh really.  "you can't get...etc"

We got from Einstein's Field Equations to a working GPS  system. 

 

[Wolf DeVoon]

Pareto Efficiency is well-known in economics. David Friedman uses it. Nothing but utilitarianism, basis of Fabian (soviet) rule.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Marshal_Pareto/Marshal_Pareto.html

Alternative philosophy: Liberty as a human right

[BaalChatzaf]

12 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Pareto Efficiency is well-known in economics. David Friedman uses it. Nothing but utilitarianism, basis of Fabian (soviet) rule.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Marshal_Pareto/Marshal_Pareto.html

Alternative philosophy: Liberty as a human right

How does that translate into the management of the economy?  Liberty has a romantic sound but it is also a license for the strong to brutalize the weak. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

12 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How does that translate into the management of the economy?  Liberty has a romantic sound but it is also a license for the strong to brutalize the weak. 

HAHAHAHAHA, good one, Bob. Soviets destroyed their society, polluted it. What did the Free World do?

 

for the record:

Quote

As we look back over the long story of the nations, we must see that their glory has been founded upon the spirit of resistance to tyranny and injustice, especially when those evils seemed to be backed by heavier force. Since the dawn of the Christian era, a certain way of life has slowly been shaping itself among the Western peoples, and certain standards of conduct and government have come to be esteemed. After many miseries and prolonged confusion, there arose into the broad light of day the conception of the right of the individual; his right to be consulted in the government of his country; his right to invoke the law even against the State itself. Independent courts of justice were created to affirm and enforce this hard-won custom. Thus was assured throughout the English speaking world, and in France by the stern lessons of the Revolution, what Kipling called "Leave to live by no man's leave underneath the law." Now in this resides all that makes existence precious to man and all that confers honor and health upon the state. (Winston Churchill, October 16, 1938)

 

[BaalChatzaf]

6 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

HAHAHAHAHA, good one, Bob. Soviets destroyed their society, polluted it. What did the Free World do?

Unchecked liberty  does it again

[Wolf DeVoon]

Always interesting talking with you, however impossible. I dare you to name an instance of unchecked liberty in America.

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Unchecked liberty  does it again

 

[jts]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How does that translate into the management of the economy?  Liberty has a romantic sound but it is also a license for the strong to brutalize the weak. 

By management of the economy you mean top down. In a free market, economy is managed bottom up. Every time you buy anything or sell anything you are managing your own personal economy. The intelligent, self interested, respectful of rights interaction of millions of people, each managing his/her personal economy results in the economy. A so-called unmanaged economy is managed bottom up.

In a free market the strong help the weak. In the pyramid of ability, those below benefit from those above. Ayn Rand wrote a novel about happens when the strong go on strike.

---------------------

But all that aside. Why shouldn't the strong brutalize the weak? Are you getting soft in your old age? What happened to only the strong survive and the weak perish?

 

[Brant Gaede]

Bob doesn't do political or other philosophy. He does sound bites.

Liberty got a bad name in the sense Bob is alluding to because of the French Revolution and it's Reign of Terror.

"Liberty" is more used these days by libertarians and seldom by Objectivists. 

Generally it means "freedom from [tyranny]." This, of course, means freedom "from unchecked" liberty.

Bob is proposing a contradiction. The French lived it and are still semantically stuck in it.

(Or, liberty from the oppressing capitalist class--the communists in action.)

--Brant

 

[Wolf DeVoon]

2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

[liberty] means freedom "from unchecked" liberty

I'm puzzled, but I often am. I thought it meant private choice, trade, property, save or spend without asking the state for permission.

[Brant Gaede]

42 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

I'm puzzled, but I often am. I thought it meant private choice, trade, property, save or spend without asking the state for permission.

That's true enough. But on the next level down we are talking about individual rights' theory. And below that, ethics. Ethics, apart from their role in human rights--it's not a right to initiate force--is not the bailiwick of libertarians whose focus is political-economic.

Rand appealed to reason (applied to reality). She fell down with her ideal man worship. Man as a god or god like, aka John Galt. Her god should have been the god of reality. Thus you have this authoritarian barrier of a man god stuck right in between reason and reality. This is what I've started to call top-downism. John Galt as a god is weak stew compared to the God of Abraham and also to the man gods of the Nazis and communists put into their respective public weals by brute force. Thus conservatives have a hell of a lot more gravitas and staying power than Objectivists. What we need is the god of reality. God is reality. God is part of everything that exists. Animation is optional but at least implied because everything is in motion.

--Brant

I was working out of Bob's context

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Always interesting talking with you, however impossible. I dare you to name an instance of unchecked liberty in America.

 

I am happy to say that all our liberties are constrained by law and custom.

[Wolf DeVoon]

13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am happy to say that all our liberties are constrained by law and custom.

uh, 4000+ shootings in Chicago this year. I don't think they keep track of muggings and theft any more.

That doesn't matter, compared to all the lies, broken promises, drug use, etc. Maybe your liberty is constrained.

The magic negro did whatever he felt like by Executive Order

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

uh, 4000+ shootings in Chicago this year. I don't think they keep track of muggings and theft any more.

That doesn't matter, compared to all the lies, broken promises, drug use, etc. Maybe your liberty is constrained.

The magic negro did whatever he felt like by Executive Order

President	Total Orders	Order Number Range
George H. W. Bush	166	12668 - 12833
William J. Clinton	364	12834 - 13197
George W. Bush	291	13198 - 13488
Barack Obama	260	13489 - 13738...

40 more rows

 

Fewer than Bill or Dubya.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Doesn't matter what the orders were? You missed the major premise: Vote and lose liberty, win office and gain power.

[BaalChatzaf]

56 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Doesn't matter what the orders were? You missed the major premise: Vote and lose liberty, win office and gain power.

do did not say anything about the nature of particular E.O.s

Select and display the executive orders you consider to be particularly outrageous.  

[Jon Letendre]

"I'm not King"

(But no one will say a word or lift a finger, so I'll write this executive order making immigration policy out of whole cloth...)

[BaalChatzaf]

6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

"I'm not King"

(But no one will say a word or lift a finger, so I'll write this executive order making immigration policy out of whole cloth...)

The next president  will  unweave that whole cloth. 

[moralist]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 5:56 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Here is my proposal for the next evolution of capitalism...

Bob... you're a complete failure at even implementing "unevolved" Capitalism in your own life.

Now run along and cash your government checks.

Greg

[moralist]

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 9:37 AM, wolfdevoon said:

The magic negro did whatever he felt like by Executive Order

Your incisive wit never fails to amuse me.

Greg