http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/26/the-definition-of-structural-unemployment/In economics, what does STRUCTURAL mean? I’ll provide the Austrian answer. It makes sense. Will someone else try to provide one that makes sense for keynesianism?
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-27 09:56:00 UTC
http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/26/krugman-is-a-racist-dishonest-hack/Krugman is a racist, dishonest, political hack.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-27 09:51:00 UTC
Weighted by popularity, Krugman is the most dishonest public intellectual in America. He is a party hack at best. At worst he is nothing more than an anti-white racist. Of course he’s still dangerous. But libertarians and conservatives are dangerous too. Libertarians, because we believe that it is possible for a majority of humans to adopt a rational and meritocratic rather than sentimental and egalitarian political framework, and conservatives because they argue from sentimental, historical, and economic framework that they cannot articulate in rational language and as such, they do not even understand themselves — there is as much danger in stupidity and ignorance as there is in malice and dishonesty. Krugman got the prize for political reasons. Because he could influence the debate. People do listen to him. But until we unite libertarians and conservatives, and until we help conservatives articulate their social strategy the dishonest will win out over the ignorant. Krugman is an anti-white, racist, political hack, who uses an award given to him for political reasons and a podium with a broad reach to distort the public dialog in favor of his malicious agenda. He does not engage his critics. He simply repeats his invectives as a mantra for his supporters, in order to feed their confirmation biases.
Weighted by popularity, Krugman is the most dishonest public intellectual in America. He is a party hack at best. At worst he is nothing more than an anti-white racist. Of course he’s still dangerous. But libertarians and conservatives are dangerous too. Libertarians, because we believe that it is possible for a majority of humans to adopt a rational and meritocratic rather than sentimental and egalitarian political framework, and conservatives because they argue from sentimental, historical, and economic framework that they cannot articulate in rational language and as such, they do not even understand themselves — there is as much danger in stupidity and ignorance as there is in malice and dishonesty. Krugman got the prize for political reasons. Because he could influence the debate. People do listen to him. But until we unite libertarians and conservatives, and until we help conservatives articulate their social strategy the dishonest will win out over the ignorant. Krugman is an anti-white, racist, political hack, who uses an award given to him for political reasons and a podium with a broad reach to distort the public dialog in favor of his malicious agenda. He does not engage his critics. He simply repeats his invectives as a mantra for his supporters, in order to feed their confirmation biases.
But the sea also remains in dispute, with China and five other countries having claims to some or all of its islands, rocks and waters. It is also a cause of superpower rivalry. America asserts its own “national interest” in the freedom of navigation in the sea, and, like the South-East Asian claimants to the sea, sees China as the threat. For that, the ambiguity that shrouds China’s own position has much to do with it.
THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT CHINA’S POSITION a) It is strategically possible to cause china to surrender militarily through blockade of the south china sea (See Stratfor) because the country would rapidly both starve and economically collapse. b) China is an empire with significant internal frictions that would have vast internal consequences if the government was seen to fail, or even if it was seen to be weak. They are aware that fomenting rebellion would not be difficult. c) Chinese tactics (per Kissinger) are to delay, mislead, lie, and mollify until they have the advantage, then use the advantage to conquer either explicitly or by eliminating all possible options. All chinese culture is predicated on avoidance and deception until the opportunity presents itself (this was a cultural consequence of their geography). All western culture (Per Keegan) is predicated on quick resolution of disputes (likewise a consequence of geography, inferior numbers, and technology.) We cannot judge their actions by western standards ( the same is true of islam). We cannot judge their values by western standards. We cannot judge their strategy by western standards. Deception is the primary tactic in chinese strategic thinking because it is the primary tactic in daily life. (Sun Tzu) China is set to restore itself to middle-kingdom (the center of the universe around which all asian cultures revolve) in part to preserve itself as a political order, in part to preserve the privileges of the party members, and in part to assuage the vast chip on their shoulders for their repeated failures to adapt to modernity which is an affront to their self perception of superiority.
But the sea also remains in dispute, with China and five other countries having claims to some or all of its islands, rocks and waters. It is also a cause of superpower rivalry. America asserts its own “national interest” in the freedom of navigation in the sea, and, like the South-East Asian claimants to the sea, sees China as the threat. For that, the ambiguity that shrouds China’s own position has much to do with it.
THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT CHINA’S POSITION a) It is strategically possible to cause china to surrender militarily through blockade of the south china sea (See Stratfor) because the country would rapidly both starve and economically collapse. b) China is an empire with significant internal frictions that would have vast internal consequences if the government was seen to fail, or even if it was seen to be weak. They are aware that fomenting rebellion would not be difficult. c) Chinese tactics (per Kissinger) are to delay, mislead, lie, and mollify until they have the advantage, then use the advantage to conquer either explicitly or by eliminating all possible options. All chinese culture is predicated on avoidance and deception until the opportunity presents itself (this was a cultural consequence of their geography). All western culture (Per Keegan) is predicated on quick resolution of disputes (likewise a consequence of geography, inferior numbers, and technology.) We cannot judge their actions by western standards ( the same is true of islam). We cannot judge their values by western standards. We cannot judge their strategy by western standards. Deception is the primary tactic in chinese strategic thinking because it is the primary tactic in daily life. (Sun Tzu) China is set to restore itself to middle-kingdom (the center of the universe around which all asian cultures revolve) in part to preserve itself as a political order, in part to preserve the privileges of the party members, and in part to assuage the vast chip on their shoulders for their repeated failures to adapt to modernity which is an affront to their self perception of superiority.
One growing point of tension that I that has both semantic and substantive difficulties is whether or not we regard the situation in the mortgage markets as “structural.”
Karl, I would love it if you would solve this semantic problem. Because it’s material to the public debate. The technical definition is artificially narrow and as such leads to either dishonest (Krugmanian) or semantic rather than material debate. To Austrians, “Structural” means that we have misallocated financial capital and thereby caused a misallocation of human and fixed capital such that the cost of reallocating that capital is so high that the fixed capital may be ‘wasted’ and the human capital (human beings) cannot be put to productive ends because the learning curve and lifetime commitments of individuals cannot be altered by the market at ANY possible cost. This circumstance results in a permanent loss of competitiveness in relation to other societies what can allocate capital against the remaining productive workers. We see this as a permanent loss with human consequences. For example, the misallocation of human capital during both the tech boom and the housing boom mean that certain people obtained higher incomes in a short period of time but by doing so lost the opportunity to gain competitive skills (in relation to their ages) that had ongoing value to them. Furthermore, by implication, it means that those prior skills were of lower marketability than the skills that they might have possessed. The counter-arguments are that a) people are infinitely fungible (that’s not supportable) or b) we can keep misallocating capital from boom to boom as a means of redistribution, or c) this process is cumulative and causes permanent shifts toward financialization at the top and unproductive labor at the bottom, and production of inferior goods in the middle. I think you err on the side of (b). I think Austrians err on the side of (c). In more abstract terms I think this is a debate over the welfare of the bottom of society or the middle, with your side favoring the former and the austrians the latter. I also think your side considers this problem immaterial and Austrians (and conservatives) consider it cumulatively destructive. And of course, I disagree with your ‘belief’ that we can fix problems in the future. If that were true we would not have the polarization we do today – a polarization which is being solved, not by reason or argument but by differences in breeding rates and immigration.
One growing point of tension that I that has both semantic and substantive difficulties is whether or not we regard the situation in the mortgage markets as “structural.”
Karl, I would love it if you would solve this semantic problem. Because it’s material to the public debate. The technical definition is artificially narrow and as such leads to either dishonest (Krugmanian) or semantic rather than material debate. To Austrians, “Structural” means that we have misallocated financial capital and thereby caused a misallocation of human and fixed capital such that the cost of reallocating that capital is so high that the fixed capital may be ‘wasted’ and the human capital (human beings) cannot be put to productive ends because the learning curve and lifetime commitments of individuals cannot be altered by the market at ANY possible cost. This circumstance results in a permanent loss of competitiveness in relation to other societies what can allocate capital against the remaining productive workers. We see this as a permanent loss with human consequences. For example, the misallocation of human capital during both the tech boom and the housing boom mean that certain people obtained higher incomes in a short period of time but by doing so lost the opportunity to gain competitive skills (in relation to their ages) that had ongoing value to them. Furthermore, by implication, it means that those prior skills were of lower marketability than the skills that they might have possessed. The counter-arguments are that a) people are infinitely fungible (that’s not supportable) or b) we can keep misallocating capital from boom to boom as a means of redistribution, or c) this process is cumulative and causes permanent shifts toward financialization at the top and unproductive labor at the bottom, and production of inferior goods in the middle. I think you err on the side of (b). I think Austrians err on the side of (c). In more abstract terms I think this is a debate over the welfare of the bottom of society or the middle, with your side favoring the former and the austrians the latter. I also think your side considers this problem immaterial and Austrians (and conservatives) consider it cumulatively destructive. And of course, I disagree with your ‘belief’ that we can fix problems in the future. If that were true we would not have the polarization we do today – a polarization which is being solved, not by reason or argument but by differences in breeding rates and immigration.
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1108.htmlNEVER REJECT A SUPERIOR MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
The right has learned from the left. The left hates it. The problem is, that the right views these tactics as dishonorable. THey intuitively reject the ethics of the bazaar, in favor of the ethics of chivalry.
And that is the right’s vulnerability.
Never reject a superior technology.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-25 20:05:00 UTC
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full.htmlTHE EARTH IS FULL
Silly Progressive dependency upon Ponzi growth. Silly Progressive assumption about ‘creativity’. Our prosperity today is dependent almost entirely upon two technologies: fossile fuels and antibiotics.
The problem is not growth, it’s productivity. And that’s why the conservative social and economic structures are superior.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-25 19:42:00 UTC