Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Untitled

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/books/review/war-and-gold-by-kwasi-kwarteng.html?smid=fb-share

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 08:32:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) –“Economics will not be a science until it is causal, and it

    (worth repeating) –“Economics will not be a science until it is causal, and it cannot be causal if it is immoral. And universalism is immoral because it is suicidal.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 06:30:00 UTC

  • ECONOMICS AND DISCIPLINARY IMMORALITY (profound) In Response to Peter Boettke on

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/opinion/paul-krugman-how-to-get-economic-policy-wrong.htmlKRUGMAN, ECONOMICS AND DISCIPLINARY IMMORALITY

    (profound)

    In Response to Peter Boettke on Krugman

    https://www.facebook.com/peter.boettke/posts/10154638641450389

    Krugman is wrong, and his narrative is wrong, because he is an immoral man. And as an immoral man he cannot grasp that men act morally, and therefore that economics cannot ignore morality as a causal property of human action.

    It is not the providence of economists to impose immorality on the world. But this is Krugman’s self-appointed position. Where most of us would make moral statements he simply substitutes accusations of stupidity or ignorance whenever morality interferes with temporary economic efficiency. He not only ignores morality, he crusades against morality. But why?

    Krugman is perhaps the best practitioner today of the Culture of Critique. And our failure to understand that this is his technique, is why so few people grasp that his systemic immorality, no different from say, Freud, Rothbard or Adorno, is for the purpose of advancing the fallacy that economics creates peaceful cooperation rather than has evolved to be merely warfare by mutually constructed means, rather than warfare by mutually destructive means. That we compete for our famly and tribe by means of production rather than destruction does not alter the fact hat we are competing for our family and tribe – and if we do not compete for our family and tribe, then evolution will punish us. And evolution is punishing anglo-europeans at present precisely for that failure.

    The anglo enlightenment fallacies of universalism (restated christianity), when combined with the cosmopolitan enlightenment fallacies (make the world safe for judaism’s separatism) allow us to imagine and perpetuate the pretense of universalism.

    However, the rest of the world practices not universalism but tribalism, nationalism, or cultism, and the only reason we have been able to fool ourselves into the fallacy of universalism is the anglo superiority in arms, and the conquest of the germanic civilization by the anglo.

    During the run-up to the crisis and for two years after, I systematically wrote responses to Krugman that stated that his ideas could not ever be accomplished because a democratic people would not tolerate immorality from their rulers, and a despot would not ever practice that immorality because it would weaken his power. There are no conditions under which any but an anglo-educated anglo-indoctrinated, enlightenment-fallacy individual would think otherwise. With the decline of the anglo-american empire has arrived, and will continue, the decline of the fallacy, if not religion, of anglo-american universalism, and the cosmopolitan fallacy of open borders, free trade, and economics as the justificationary basis of universalist religion.

    Krugman is wrong because he is non-predictive. 20th century Economics is not predictive because it is IMMORAL in that it does not incorporate morality or family. In fact just the opposite. Taken to most efficient levels, the family and morality would be destroyed and largely have been.

    This is a devastating criticism of economics as a profession. In particular, because there reason that contemporary macro economics is explicative but non-predictive of political action, is in no small part, not because economists are ignored, or because politicians do not understand the ideas and recommendations of economists, but because politicians understand that the public is a MORAL body, and must be, and always will be.

    Germans will not morally accept italian and greek corruption and laziness, and white americans will not tolerate redistribution to impulsive people of color – because they see the other’s behavior as immoral. The more conservative they are (and conservatism is a genetic bias, just like progressivism) the more tribally they will act to advance their kin.

    Until economics incorporates these fundamental realities of human behavior it will remain NON-CORRESPONDENT with demonstrated human action, and therefore unscientific, and ideologically biased.

    While I am very close to finishing the work of correcting libertarianism (liberalism), restating it analytically, and restoring it to its aristocratic egalitarian ethos, and laundering it of the enlightenment fallacies of universalism, equality of ability and interests, I hope to live long enough to put morality back into economics – which as practiced, and as advocated by Krugman (and Delong et al).

    Economics is merely warfare while producing instead of destroying. It is not a vehicle for christian universalism. And the world is returning to that natural order now that the anglo advantage in cultural warfare, economic warfare and military warfare, wanes.

    Man acts tribally and must act tribally, because those groups that do not act tribally are have been, and will be, eradicated by those groups that act tribally.

    This is a damning criticism of the field, and Krugman is a justifiably damned advocate of immorality. An advocate I hope some day is as justifiably reviled as every other practitioner of pseudoscience and obscurantism for immoral purposes.

    This may seem a radical position, but as Hayek advised and I have spent my life attempting to understand the reasons for, the twentieth century will be remembered as an era of re-emergent mysticism in the form of fallacious universalist beliefs justified by pseudoscience, perpetuated by correlations rather than causations.

    Which is the underlying problem of economics that Mises intuited but could not solve – because he was himself a victim of cosmopolitan fallacies. He sought to justify universalism, but created his own pseudoscientific verbalism like the other cosmopolitans.

    Economics will not be a science until it is causal, and it cannot be causal if it is immoral. And universalism is immoral because it is suicidal.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 06:30:00 UTC

  • PERSPECTIVE –“Federal anti-climate change spending is now running at $11 billio

    PERSPECTIVE

    –“Federal anti-climate change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 15:03:00 UTC

  • Romantic, Semi Poetic: The Great Unraveling – NYTimes.com

    Romantic, Semi Poetic: The Great Unraveling – NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/opinion/roger-cohen-the-great-unraveling.html

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 15:00:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2013/03/14/if-alan-greenspan-wants-to-end-the-fed-times-must-be-changing/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 14:46:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304418184900344

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 14:45:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119433/if-isis-not-islamic-then-inquisition-was-not-catholic

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 14:44:00 UTC

  • THE MEANING OF “AUSTRIAN” (as I understand it today.) (draft) Note: I’ve wanted

    THE MEANING OF “AUSTRIAN” (as I understand it today.)

    (draft)

    Note: I’ve wanted to put this together for some time, since I have some significant issues with the way that Boettke has written it – even if he has written the best to date. I believe this form of articulation is more analytical and less romantic. But this is still just a draft. And each bullet needs a paragraph of explanation. – Thanks.

    VALUE

    1) Value as incentive to act.

    2) Subjectivity of Value.

    3) Marginal Value.

    4) Opportunity Cost.

    5) Exchange as only test of value and therefore production or consumption

    6) Morality as voluntary exchange. (Propertarianism’s addition: productive, fully informed warrantied, exchange that is free of externality.)

    VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION

    1) Property. Without property one cannot choose between alternative actions available to him.

    2) Commodity money allows for the evolution of prices.

    3) Prices function as information about what others want and need.

    4) Information provides incentives. Prices make actions and resources commensurable, so that complex choices and planning are possible.

    5) With Property,Money,Prices,Information and Incentives, individuals can voluntarily choose to participate in production.

    6) If many people possess this choice, a polity can evolve the Voluntary Organization of Production. Without these choices, people cannot voluntarily organize production, and must be involuntarily organized. (It is not clear that all people prefer the voluntary organization of production, even if they prefer the rewards of living under a voluntary organization of production.)

    THE ORGANIZATION AND REORGANIZATION OF VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS

    1) Increases in participation in voluntary organization of production increase the division of knowledge and labor and by consequence their participation produces variations in productivity and prices.

    2) People Evolve complex organizations from Sustainable Patterns of Specialization and Trade.

    3) Changes in preferences cause alteration of the existing sustainable patterns of specialization and trade (Reorganization).

    4) Innovation (Discovery) provides incentives to alter the existing sets of preferences, and the existing organizations of production to satisfy those preferences.

    5) Changes in the scarcity of resources (Shocks) alter prices and by consequence alter preferences, and the existing organizations of production change in order to satisfy those changes in preferences.

    6) Changes in innovation, resources and preferences create opportunities for the satisfaction of preferences.

    7) People, and organizations of people, demonstrate flocking and schooling in response to opportunities.

    8) Business cycles evolve from the exploitation and exhaustion of opportunities available in the current organization of production, and the evolution of new opportunities in new organizations of production, and the need for the reorganization of the existing patterns of specialization into new organizations of production. (ie: equilibration is a fallacy of numeracy.)

    INTERFERENCE IN THE INFORMATION SYSTEM, ORGANIZATION, AND CAPITAL

    1) The state distorts information under Keynesian employment policy by flooding the market with cheap money and misinforming individuals as to what actions they should take.

    2) Unnecessary shortages of money also misinform individuals as to what actions that they should take.

    3) Economists and philosophers have not solved the problem of supplying money independent of shortages, (although it appears possible by increasing taxes along with interest rates).

    4) The cost of distortion is an opportunity cost between one possible set of affairs and another possible set of affairs. We just can never recover a lost set of affairs.

    5) Monetary prices may be neutral in the long run, but distortion of those prices produces externalities that are non-neutral.

    6) Distortions impact all capital Human capital (skills), Reproductive capital (family structure and gene pool), Normative Capital (inter-generational habits, values, traditions, myths), and Institutional Capital (Formal institutions, including the law). While economic activity may be easily quantifiable, accounting for gains or losses in the remaining forms of capital are not.

    PROPERTARIAN EXTENSIONS TO AUSTRIAN THEORY

    1) The first means of production is reproduction, and is the purpose for all other production.

    2) The organization of reproduction and the organization of economic production are interdependent, and for one to change so must the other.

    3) Moral rules are those that prevent parasitism: free riding, involuntary transfer (fraud), and imposed cost (theft and violence), and family structure heavily influences moral rules, which only property rights and law can change.

    4) Voluntary exchange requires the exchange is productive, fully informed, warrantied, and free of externality.

    5) Trust is the word we use for the feeling we have, when transaction costs (risks) of free riding, rent seeking, fraud, theft and violence are eliminated – leaving only error in forecasting of demand as the possible risk.

    6) Trust is developed by increasing the scope of property rights to exclude all actions that make free riding possible, and therefore eliminate transaction costs.

    7) The common (organic) law of property rights, being specific positive assertions of the general negative prohibition on parasitism in order to make cooperation rational, is the only means of scientifically (experimentally) evolving law that corresponds with morality.

    8) It is not clear that savers have a moral claim to appreciation of the value of currency from saving, albeit they do have a claim to against inflation of the currency. It is quite hard to argue otherwise.

    OPPOSITIES: AUSTRIAN (aristocratic) VS PSEUDO-AUSTRIAN (cosmopolitan).

    Austrian theory is broken into two branches: (a)The Cosmopolitan (Jewish) Branch (Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe) and (b) the Aristocratic (Hayekian) Branch (Hayek/Popper and as far as I know, myself).

    It may be novel idea or not, but the difference is largely in the Aristocratic use of the commons and high trust as a competitive strategy, and the cosmopolitan attempt to privatize all commons, and eschew high trust in favor of low trust, as a means of evolutionary strategy that COMPETES with the high trust producers of commons. In other words, the Misesian/Rothbardian if not Hoppeian Austrian branch produces behavior that eschews all commons. For these reasons, the Misesian/Rothbardian/Hoppeian branch is not an Austrian branch but a cosmopolitan competitor specifically articulated as an attack on the high trust aristocratic commons.

    In the early 2000’s I had assumed that I could reunite Mises and Hayek, because I understood that Hayek was speaking politically and Mises individually. But I did not at the time understand that these are competing and mutually exclusive social strategies. That the purpose of the Cosmopolitan strategy was to preserve levantine low trust, and to privatize all possible commons. That the aristocratic strategy is to produce commons because no other group has been able to.

    Hayek may have challenged the view among academics that fascism was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual. But just as we must mobilize one another for war, fascism was an effort to mobilize us against communism. So while it may be true that fascism and socialism possess common roots, but it is also true that war is not a process of exploration as is capitalism – it is a deliberate concentration of all production into fighting. And the fascist war against communism most likely saved the west.

    So, these two branches are not tastes. They are polar opposite propositions. They ask us to choose between levantine low trust morality and aristocratic high trust morality. And that is an easy choice.

    Only warriors can produce aristocracy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 14:15:00 UTC

  • (It is so much easier to write in Ukraine. No television. No distractions. Nothi

    (It is so much easier to write in Ukraine. No television. No distractions. Nothing else to do but work. I was in the states two weeks and could hardly do anything. I am in Ukraine one day and I do good work.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 13:26:00 UTC