AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ECONOMICS (reposted from economics group) (possibly

AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ECONOMICS

(reposted from economics group) (possibly profound for students of economics)

Why Stiglitz? He is a critique of BOTH Friedman AND the neo-Keynesians. So why is he important in my view? Even if he hasn’t solve ‘the big problem’? Because there isn’t a problem to be found, or a solution in where they’re searching for one.

THE BROADER PICTURE

But the take away from all of the recent economic debate, is that we have not solved the Austrian question of the business cycle (does government make it worse), or the Western Conservative question of the relationship between genetics and norms, and whether **any and all economic propositions** that do not account for genetic and normative differences are false. (And dysgenic for that matter.)

The progressive moral sentiments (female reproductive strategy – survival of offspring regardless of merit) and the conservative sentiments (male reproductive strategy – competitive families and tribes) are currently at war in politics, because by the introduction of women into the polity, the government no longer represents families with homogenous if paternal interests, but government has become a venue for the competition between not only races and classes, but also between male/meritocratic and female/dysgenic reproductive strategies.

This is the reason for the failure of democracy: while law must be practiced with individuals, the state must be practiced with families. The introduction of women into the government rather than into their own house of government, was as destructive as the dissolution of the differences between the monarchy, landed nobility, middle class businessmen (the commons), and our failure to add a house of proletarians (dependents).

With these two acts under the fallacy of equality of interest and ability we eliminated the possibility of government to function as a market between families with dissimilar economic interests, and instead, made it a venue for the conduct of oppression by one group of interests over another.

There are no adequate compromises, because as structured, current economics and politics produce undecidable propositions that we mistakenly assume are a problem which further analysis will solve by providing us with pareto optimums.

But this is an equivalent to the search for the philosopher’s stone, or the alchemical conversion of lead into gold. It is merely an exercise in collecting more data, of greater precision without adding insight.

The fact of the matter is that the enlightenment project has been a scientific success and a political failure – we cannot improve upon the family, the market, and houses of government that conduct exchanges of commons’ between classes of different material ability and interests.

We need not search for non-existent (platonic) Pareto Optimums. We must merely conduct exchanges needed to produce Nash equilibria that are calculable by individuals of their own volition. This will restore some eugenics to the society ad the expense of the lower classes. But that is to the benefit of all mankind even if it is not something everyone wants to hear, because it deprives them of the cheap status signal of looking down upon others and feeling higher by the mere existence of the inferior and unfortunate, rather than having to take risks and actions necessary to produce something by their own ability and hands.

There is nothing for economists to discover except this principle.

(I’ll be here waiting having tea with Hegel, when they do.)

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.

RANKINGS OF ECONOMISTS

Ranking of economists by citation.

https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.nbcites.html