I mean…. Economics is an expression of behaviors, so “inflation” isn’t real- it’s a concept that represents a real phenomenon.
That said this is actually quite brilliant.
Economics reflects behaviors right? We are just describing the way people think and act in different situations concerning commerce.
Part of that can be said to be nature or instinct expressed through our thoughts and actions- but a larger component is social.
If you had a group of people who’s fundamental thought processes differed from our own or their culture significantly differed, their values and morals- our concepts of economics, many of them, fall apart.
So yes in fact. Theft is a way to change the system if economics. It’s speculative, but in a society where what we know as theft is normalized and even perhaps not criminalized or stigmatized- the face of commerce changes greatly.
Underlying concepts remain- scarcity, demand, but when you have instruments within the social confines to acquire those things without wealth, the economics changes.
Of course even within our own system theft is in theory a valid form of market pressure.
Mass theft can show that there is demand for a product but that the product is not priced to the market. This CAN lead to repricing or other relief, or it can lead to products no longer being available because their total cost to put to market exceeds the price people will pay. That isn’t always a bad thing of course. The ability to create “artificial demand” has been honed to a fine science and digital assets have opened new doors for that. Artificial scarcity and the ability to restrict or prevent product usage after purchase easily or force “subscriptions” and such for example.
So theft can possibly change the structure of commerce, in the least as an act of rebellion. As an example, as seen with various attempts at liquor prohibition, numerous political and social causes, and recently the move in many places to decriminalize or legalize certain drugs-
The power relationship requires that those being ruled submit to those in power. Modern democratic systems tend to favor attempting to avoid direct physical force or intimidation to coerce compliance.
The penalties for breaking the rules that empower those in power coupled with human social behaviors and rewards/punishments that take advantage if those social behaviors, will usually keep most people doing what the powerful require and desire for their benefit, and then some smaller benefit or illusion of benefit is provided to the masses to encourage further compliance.
However, when enough people gather in defiance of the rules set forth by the powerful, they are left two broad choices if they wish to keep their power.
The first option is to use mass punishment to instill fear and obedience-this is problematic. In the modern age such measures often backfire against those in power and in a democracy where the people play some part or believe they play a part in selecting leaders, mass retribution against the public is generally unwise to keep power. You are likely to become unpopular in their view and lose support, which if you are actually elected can cost you your power, and if you are there by illusion of election you’d still lose your power because maintaining that illusion of choice when the general public hated you for mass punishments would break all illusions that their voices mattered.
Such mass punishments are also disruptive to commerce and the systems of power and benefits, and if the will of the people isn’t broken by the first wave of punishments the situation can spiral out of control and end in not just your loss of power but in the crippling or destruction of the current ruling class. Placing fellow ruling members in a position of danger like that will generally make them see you as a problem to be dealt with, and now you have both the masses and the ruling class against you. That isn’t a good place to be regardless of the outcome of what happens next generally.
The other issue is perceptive. This is fairly simple. Most people do not operate convenience stores on Saturn. If you pass laws restricting or taxing convenience stores on Saturn, most people won’t care much or at all. If you increase taxes for sales of goods on Saturn but the same bill reduces paycheck taxes by 15% here on earth, most people will support the bill because they don’t care about Saturn but they do care about their take home pay.
This works with crime as well. Most people don’t care if you make it a crime to renegotiate a bond if that bond is worth greater than your total losses Yoy and the bond is not within 2 years of maturity and you are not a 401c. Because that’s gibberish anyway but most people would buy it because most people have little stake in those things.
So if you say “this is a bad thing. Criminals do it. We lock up people who do it to protect you…”
No one cares if it isn’t something they do and they don’t know anyone who does it.
Your average American doesn’t care about how various vehicle laws impact the enjoyment of millions of car enthusiasts because to most people a car is an appliance and not a hobby or interesting machine to tinker with or form of expression. Most people are perhaps even happy when a law passes that they feel will reduce the loud cars they have to hear or the tacky machines they see on the road or parked in the driveway across from them etc.
It’s a numbers game. Plastic bag bans and gas oven bans- these sorts of things that either literally make you a criminal for them or stigmatize it socially like it is something “bad people” do to “Hurt others.” Lots of people have gas stoves, they use plastic bags. They like to or find or convenient. Their parents did it and maybe their parents before them. They’re nieces and nephews, they’re best friends, that nice old guy down the street.
It’s hard to convince people that they themselves are criminals or their little old granny or nice coworker is let alone that ALL of them are.
So when you have something like weed or alcohol where legal or not so many people of such broad backgrounds use it- it gets hard to justify why you are saying those people are criminals that deserve to be locked up, and of course most of us don’t want to be locked up so we tend not to support laws that would make things we regularly do into criminal acts.
So the other option when something gets so pervasive is…
Give in. If you say something is illegal but enough people do it, your authority is meaningless. People aren’t listening. So you say it is legal and then you can claim people are doing it by your authority. Being the one to make something accesible that people like is usually good for your popularity and gives the appearance that you are working for those peoples interests when in fact you were simply powerless to stop it so had to either choose to fight a losing fight or give in to what people were already doing.
If enough people refused to pay inflated prices, it could in theory drive down the cost of things- but this is unlikely. Money or control of resources is a cornerstone of power and so threatening that money is usually dealt with harshly.
Skillful persons in power often turn these sorts of things into ways to make money- an example might be that theft was decriminalized under certain circumstances but then it became legally required or compulsory to have theft insurance, driving private industry, and a new tax system might be put in place to tax Stollen goods, which would then be taxed again if they were sold.
By using taxes to make the money back, the criminal act can be balled up into the customary understanding that taxes are a
Fundamental.
That’s a hyperbolic example but it illustrates the point that a combination of social engineering and cleverness tends to make it so that while circumstances and specifics may change, the larger systems tend to all work on the same basic principles.
Of course ownership isn’t real either, it’s a concept. Most things concerning human behavior “aren’t real” but are just how we describe and attempt to understand and navigate interactions between people.
That said this is actually quite brilliant.
Economics reflects behaviors right? We are just describing the way people think and act in different situations concerning commerce.
Part of that can be said to be nature or instinct expressed through our thoughts and actions- but a larger component is social.
If you had a group of people who’s fundamental thought processes differed from our own or their culture significantly differed, their values and morals- our concepts of economics, many of them, fall apart.
So yes in fact. Theft is a way to change the system if economics. It’s speculative, but in a society where what we know as theft is normalized and even perhaps not criminalized or stigmatized- the face of commerce changes greatly.
Of course even within our own system theft is in theory a valid form of market pressure.
Mass theft can show that there is demand for a product but that the product is not priced to the market. This CAN lead to repricing or other relief, or it can lead to products no longer being available because their total cost to put to market exceeds the price people will pay. That isn’t always a bad thing of course. The ability to create “artificial demand” has been honed to a fine science and digital assets have opened new doors for that. Artificial scarcity and the ability to restrict or prevent product usage after purchase easily or force “subscriptions” and such for example.
The power relationship requires that those being ruled submit to those in power. Modern democratic systems tend to favor attempting to avoid direct physical force or intimidation to coerce compliance.
The penalties for breaking the rules that empower those in power coupled with human social behaviors and rewards/punishments that take advantage if those social behaviors, will usually keep most people doing what the powerful require and desire for their benefit, and then some smaller benefit or illusion of benefit is provided to the masses to encourage further compliance.
The first option is to use mass punishment to instill fear and obedience-this is problematic. In the modern age such measures often backfire against those in power and in a democracy where the people play some part or believe they play a part in selecting leaders, mass retribution against the public is generally unwise to keep power. You are likely to become unpopular in their view and lose support, which if you are actually elected can cost you your power, and if you are there by illusion of election you’d still lose your power because maintaining that illusion of choice when the general public hated you for mass punishments would break all illusions that their voices mattered.
This works with crime as well. Most people don’t care if you make it a crime to renegotiate a bond if that bond is worth greater than your total losses Yoy and the bond is not within 2 years of maturity and you are not a 401c. Because that’s gibberish anyway but most people would buy it because most people have little stake in those things.
No one cares if it isn’t something they do and they don’t know anyone who does it.
Your average American doesn’t care about how various vehicle laws impact the enjoyment of millions of car enthusiasts because to most people a car is an appliance and not a hobby or interesting machine to tinker with or form of expression. Most people are perhaps even happy when a law passes that they feel will reduce the loud cars they have to hear or the tacky machines they see on the road or parked in the driveway across from them etc.
It’s hard to convince people that they themselves are criminals or their little old granny or nice coworker is let alone that ALL of them are.
So the other option when something gets so pervasive is…
Give in. If you say something is illegal but enough people do it, your authority is meaningless. People aren’t listening. So you say it is legal and then you can claim people are doing it by your authority. Being the one to make something accesible that people like is usually good for your popularity and gives the appearance that you are working for those peoples interests when in fact you were simply powerless to stop it so had to either choose to fight a losing fight or give in to what people were already doing.
Skillful persons in power often turn these sorts of things into ways to make money- an example might be that theft was decriminalized under certain circumstances but then it became legally required or compulsory to have theft insurance, driving private industry, and a new tax system might be put in place to tax Stollen goods, which would then be taxed again if they were sold.
By using taxes to make the money back, the criminal act can be balled up into the customary understanding that taxes are a
Fundamental.
Of course ownership isn’t real either, it’s a concept. Most things concerning human behavior “aren’t real” but are just how we describe and attempt to understand and navigate interactions between people.