Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-16 04:01:00 UTC
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
UPDATED NURSERY RHYME Tinker Tailor, Soldier Sailor Rich Man, Poor Man, Merchant
UPDATED NURSERY RHYME
Tinker Tailor, Soldier Sailor
Rich Man, Poor Man, Merchant, Thief,
Doctor, Lawyer, Bureau Chief.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-16 01:00:00 UTC
-
THE ‘RELIGION’ OF THE WESTERN REVIVAL (profound day for propertarianism) I have
THE ‘RELIGION’ OF THE WESTERN REVIVAL
(profound day for propertarianism)
I have been struggling with this problem for a few years now. But I finally saw the light today. I get it. I know how to communicate it. And yet again, truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-15 06:06:00 UTC
-
Ukraine. Easily own your home. No material taxes. No material medical costs. You
Ukraine.
Easily own your home. No material taxes. No material medical costs.
Your monthly outlay is food, utilities, transportation and entertainment. And the food is awesome. (And mothers actually take the time care for their children.)
That’s why low incomes here are less meaningful.
People – friends and family – are pretty good entertainment really.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-15 05:27:00 UTC
-
TRUTH, BEAUTY, MORALITY The greeks just couldn’t figure out what they meant by “
TRUTH, BEAUTY, MORALITY
The greeks just couldn’t figure out what they meant by “Goodness”.
I have. It’s productivity on the Obverse, and prohibition of free riding on the Reverse. It’s do not unto others that you wold not have done unto you: impose no cost is the fee for entry into the fruits of the commons, and heroism: contribution to the commons at self sacrifice, in exchange for status.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-15 03:19:00 UTC
-
THE GENETIC BIAS OF NORT SEA EUROPEANS: PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM Pathological Altru
THE GENETIC BIAS OF NORT SEA EUROPEANS: PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM
Pathological Altruism as a means of suppressing free riding.
I am pretty sure that I’ve nailed the theory of western exceptionalism. It’s probably partly genetic. But that’s not material. What’s material is that it can be codified in law, regardless of genetics.
Truth is a means of suppressing free riding.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-15 02:41:00 UTC
-
Untitled
http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.com/2015/05/beltany-stone-circle.html
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-14 09:17:00 UTC
-
Awesome
Awesome
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-14 07:10:00 UTC
-
MEASURES ARE A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC DISTRACTION The question is better served by how
http://www.aei.org/publication/are-middle-class-americans-significantly-better-off-today-than-in-1980/INCOME MEASURES ARE A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC DISTRACTION
The question is better served by how we spend our time, what we consume, and what we worry about, than any measure of income. Income is a poor proxy for measuring inter-temporal changes in consumption, and is only a useful measure of temporal asymmetry.
What is for example, the cost of not fearing the soviet union, the change in crime in Boston and new York?
Conversely, what is the cost of increase in political friction due to immigration? What is the cost of the conflict over Obamacare? What is the cost of maintaining the post-war empire (probably neutral). What is the cost of outsourcing? What is the cost of failing to reform education?
Income is the least important of these measures. And that is precisely why it’s the topic of conversation: because it is the least important but the most emotionally loaded topic. It is an elaborate pseudoscientific distraction for purely political purposes.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-14 06:00:00 UTC
-
(MaxSpeak) I’ll try to clarify MaxSpeak’s point: Physicists do not know the firs
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/economists-dont-have-physics-envy.htmlNoah, (MaxSpeak)
I’ll try to clarify MaxSpeak’s point:
Physicists do not know the first principles of the physical world, but they can usually construct operational proofs using mathematics – just as we can in mathematics construct proofs that at least test their hypothesis. This is because the universe can’t ‘choose’ to remain out of balance.
Even such, scientists still write in in operational language, with operational definitions, to illustrate that they are not adding information (bias) into their arguments.
But in economics, not only is the purpose of human though expressly to place the world out of balance so that we can capture the difference for our use, we DO know the first principles of human behavior – and each of us is an excellent subjective and sympathetic test of each and every rational decision in a transformational sequence.
Yet we do not demand ‘proofs’ in economics as we do in the physical sciences, mathematics or logic. A proof is not a justification. It is a form of criticism. It tells us that something *can* be operationally constructed, and therefore can exist.
If one cannot construct a bottom up (operational) proof, one cannot prove one’s phenomenon is existentially possible, and free of subjectively added information (bias).
The operational movements were successful in physics (Bridgman/Operationalism), mathematics (Hilbert and Brouwer/Intuitionism), and in psychology (various/Operationism). But in economics this movement failed (Mises/Praxeology).
One cannot warranty that an economic theory is true if one has not warrantied that it is operationally possible for humans to perform.
As such the sequence of theories (at least at the macro level) are self justifying, rather than critical (scientific) and well criticized.
At some point in the future Hayek’s prediction that the 20th century would be remembered as an era of mysticism (pseudoscience) in the social sciences will be common knowledge.
These subjects are non trivial, but MaxSpeak has touched on the central problem: once you assume the virtue of full employment the rest is just justification.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/economists-dont-have-physics-envy.html?
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-14 02:29:00 UTC