Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Why Can’t Progressives Learn? They Don’t Learn From “Fables”. And They Think Numbers Convey Objective Meaning.

    via This is Really Why the Economy Is Looking Up(Snarky) « Modeled Behavior.

    I remember some folks telling me that the Lehman bankruptcy would be no biggie. [Whaaaat? “That’s how capitalism works!”], they said.

    Seems they are right. You declare bankruptcy and badabing-badaboom a little over three years later everything is cleared up. Easy peasy.

    From CNBC

    One-time financial powerhouse Lehman Brothers emerged from bankruptcy on Tuesday and is now a liquidating company whose main business in the coming years will be paying back its creditors and investors.

    Lehman, whose September 2008 collapse is often regarded as the height of the financial crisis, will start distributing what it expects to be a total of about $65 billion to creditors on April 17, it said in a statement.

    That first group of payments to creditors, many of whom lost money in its collapse 3-1/2 years ago, will be at least $10 billion, Lehman has said previously.

    The move is a legal milestone, but does not indicate the immediate end of Lehman Brothers.

    We always said that after the storm had passed the seas would be calm, and here you go.

    [callout]A CONCEPTUAL GEM: …the knowledge necessary to estimate the risk in any investment is not reducible to numbers that are semantically portable between individuals and therefore not convertible to commodities.[/callout]

    But this *IS* how capitalism works. That organization will be gutted and torn apart and investors who supported their behavior will be punished. That we have created an institutional framework for the distribution of liquidity that cannot tolerate human failure is a comment about our foolhardiness in governance. The solution to banking is the Swiss method: if you invest in it you own it, since the knowledge necessary to estimate the risk in any investment is not reducible to numbers that are semantically portable between individuals and therefore not convertible to commodities. That strategy would lead to lower interests rates and near zero consumer interest rates. Of course, this would throw havoc into your innovations on the ISMP curve, but it would require we spend and provide liquidity differently than we recommend now. It’s the answer you know. Not MMT. Numbers are a knowledge problem. And yes, the purpose of the system is to teach us fables. You’re just a prisoner of your method, and the inherent assumption that smart people can solve complex problems. And that’s a convenient illusion. (This last bit is a reflection of one of his earlier posts that openly states that economic failure is not informative nor do we learn from it. Really. That’s his position. Really. I know. It’s crazy.)

  • TEN CURIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT CANADIAN SOCIAL SIGNALING It’s odd. I can walk aroun

    TEN CURIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT CANADIAN SOCIAL SIGNALING

    It’s odd. I can walk around Moscow, Paris, Istanbul, or rural Hungary and understand the cultural signals people are using. Why is it that Canadian signaling is so strange to me when it’s right next door and they speak the same language?

    (I’ve collected an interesting set of observations that foreign visitors make of the states. I’m trying to do the same for canada. The easiest country to understand is France. They have a fascinating signaling structure. But canada is hard to take apart for some reason — probably because I don’t know enough canadian economic history.)

    Most of this behavior is kind of charming. But the fact that it’s charming simply doesn’t explain WHY people develop these signals in the first place.

    1) Q: Why does every conversation about anything political end up using the Nazis as a counter example? It seems sort of ‘antique’. Or quaint. The world has moved on. Extremes are a way of actually avoiding complex issues. So I instinctually see it as a means of political self deception.

    A: I found an answer to this one: Canadians have an international sensibility and the only people one can criticize without fear of offense is the Nazis. (Of course they don’t realize that radical Islam is using the Nazi propaganda playbook and the communist social and economic strategy.)

    2) Q: Why is atheism worn like a badge of honor? Religion isn’t talked about in the states as much as it is here in eastern canada. It’s like canadians are more religious about not being religious than evangelicals are about themselves. Again, instinctually I see it as putting something down as an effort to raise one’s self up. But I suspect there is more of a reason for it. In Quebec I understand, because the church was so dominant in society. But I don’t understand the rest of canadian’s obsession with anti-religious statements. Is it a reaction to perceived american religiosity? (I don’t think canadians understand the economic value of american puritanism. It’s why we don’t have so much petty theft.)

    3) Q: Why do people wear their injuries like an affliction is a war wound, and the cast a medal? Is it to promote the virtue of their medical system? That seems to be the canadian ethos. Very strange to me. Is it part of the victims-as-heros meme?

    4) Q: Why is do Canadians grant each other the right to be oblivious? In most other germanic-language countries, you’re expected to be aware of those around you. In canada, waiting for someone to get out of the way is considered a sort of charity we should all be proud of. I mean, we all laugh at the Hindus and Asians for making shopping impossible. But what’s the deal with Canadians?

    5) Q: Decisiveness. Canadians need far more information in order to decide something than most other westerners. This surprises me. I’ll figure out where it comes from eventually. Actually, it’s more like they’ve taken British lower class skepticism and distributed it across the entire spectrum. There is really no upper class here. It’s strange. In the states we have at least two layers of them. In Russia (Did I say I loved Russia yet?) they do. Or at least they still have aristocratic sentiments somewhat like the Germans.

    6) Q: Customer Service. This is what people from other countries don’t understand about the states: the culture is the MARKETPLACE. That’s all we have in common. When you’re at your job, it’s ‘Game On’. When you go home you can relax. But we have high expectations of people who are ‘in the market’. Good customer service is a civic duty. It’s like french manners, or canadian deference, or german duty. In canada, people at work and home are little different. That’s why customer service is bad here, despite how nice people are. And really. They’re very, very nice. But why? Why didn’t they get the commercial social sentiment? I’m sure I can figure it out but I haven’t yet.

    7) Q: Product Selection: Why, if we’re just across the border, is everything more expensive, with less selection? I swear, it’s like the USA in the 1970’s. Outside of Toronto you can’t even buy nice furniture very easily. There has to be a reason for it. But selection here is terrible by contrast. Like the UK in the 80’s.

    8) Q: Health Movement. I know the health movement is a west coast thing that radiated outward, and as an Ecotopian (northwesterner) I have perhaps a odd expectation. But you literally cannot find food that isn’t saturated with every preservative and chemical on the planet. (Which for me is horrid.)

    9) Q: The Quaintness of Political Problems. Really. To travel around the world, read newspapers and journals, and blogs from around the world, and the read canadian newspapers and the MUNDANE content of most political discourse is just amazing. It’s like kids arguing over whether Darth Maul or Boba Fett is cooler. I mean, is it so peaceful, spacious, gentle and comfortable here that the locals have to make something to talk about? I went through a week’s worth of newspapers circling the factual stories. You could reduce the entire content to half a page. Such is the lot of being a resource-rich english speaking country bordered by a friendly superpower. But the question is WHY is this noisy discourse so important to Canadians. They all seem to participate and care about it… but is that because the outcomes are so indifferent? Is it all they have to build community about given that there are no external threats? I have to figure this one out. All I end up with is that canada is the most privileged country on earth right now.

    10) Q; Why less venomous racism? Living in Ottawa makes it very visible that the race problem is bigger in the states than I had thought. I understood that it was impossible to resolve in the states for historical reasons. But I didn’t realize how bad the problem was and how pervasive until I spent time here. Like the UK, the integration of blacks into society seems to be more successful than the states. I suspect this is largely an artifact of the power struggles in the states. But its painful. I still think affirmative action only exacerbates the problem.

    A couple of other things in perspective:

    0) Canada has roughly the same population as California. The population is centered along to the us-canadian border. the toronto-ottawa corridor is part of the “foundry’ culture, along with chicago, detroit, Cincinnati, new york, philadelphia. The Vancouver area is part of ecotopian culture along with san francisco, portland, and seattle. The plains provinces are indistinguishable from the US plains states, and they are culturally part of the “empty quarter” culture. Quebec is arguably its own civilization — and why english speaking canadians don’t support a quebec independence doesn’t make sense to me. Like their continental french peers, they are a blocking culture that is a hostile partner.

    1) Power and Weakness. Canada is next door to a gorilla. They don’t have to pay for military, especially per square mile — so it’s amazingly cheap to be canada. The Weak generally treat pacifism as a virtue. (see the USA vs Europe prior to 1860). I can understand this influence on canadian culture. They are very proud of their little military. It’s a symbolic force. But they treat it with dignity. I find it very appealing.

    2) Canada is unable to create innovative productivity because it is culturally too risk averse for widespread scale entrepreneurship. (Is it a cultural memory of being poor? A self concept of relative poverty that isn’t borne out by the facts? A class heritage?) And secondly, because they have a resource economy that makes high productivity unnecessary. But to pay for their social programs given the size of the country and the low population, they’ve been selling off land to immigrants like the USA did post civil war. This has not yet had the social impact in canada that it did in the 1930’s in the states. And they seem, like the english, to do a better job of integrating people than we do in the states, save for muslims, which don’t integrate anywhere in the english speaking world, even after three generations. This is probably what I see in the public discourse. I think the spatial stuff is just a remnant of ‘little england’. I know that Quebec was populated largely by members of the lower classes. Is the same true of english speaking canada? Was land that much cheaper here?

    3) Consumer banking in canada is like consumer banking in the states before 1980. It’s much better for consumers here. Business banking is … (Amateurish?) by contrast. But I’d venture that either switzerland or canada has the best consumer banking system. I mean, I could write a book about it.

    4) While there is a lot more petty crime in canada than the states (yes there is), the police are also a lot better here. Like the bankers they are here to help you. Cops in the states are there to punish and fine you. Bankers are there to soak you with fees. And that is the one thing about the USA that I have found simply intolerable. The militarization of the police force is more socially destructive than I would have predicted.

    Anyway, that’s my list of curious questions.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-07 15:34:00 UTC

  • Well, Yes The Left Hates The Constitution. But Scalia Is Just Using Absurdity for Illustrative Purposes.

    via Yes, They DO Hate the Constitution! « ACGR’s “News with Attitude”. I hate to stomp on bunnies, but nonsense like this doesn’t do our movement any good:

    However, her  fellow Justice, the supposedly ultra-conservative and strict constructionist Antonin Scalia is quoted as saying “The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours…we guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protest, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

    All I can think of saying is, Holy C&@p!

    It is very frightening that these “reputable” scholars and Justices do not understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution they have sworn to honor and uphold.  The drafters and ratifiers would be appalled at how the Supreme Court has “interpreted” a document meant to secure the rights of the people, not grant rights.

    In that quote, Scalia is being sarcastic. He’s saying that the constitution is insufficient a safeguard. A polity requires the people obey their own restraints. While property rights, and a constitution that protects them, and a judiciary bound to administer disputes according to them, are the necessary institutions for the defense of freedom, the institution that protects them is comprised entirely of the moral habits of the people and the people who administer those institutions in particular. We take for granted, that our suite of norms are natural to man. But they are special, and unique in the world, specifically because they are unnatural to man. Scalia is illustrating this point using absurdity. The left hates the constitution because on the one hand it gives them control of the government by semi-democratic means, but which does so on the premise of property rights. So they have their power, but are limited in the use of it. This internal conflict is traumatic for them. Conservatives are self obligated to remember their position as the group that acknowledges ever present scarcity. Libertarians are self obligated, as the intellectual wing of politics, to avoid making fools of themselves. (Not that we all haven’t done it in our careers.)

  • Well, Yes The Left Hates The Constitution. But Scalia Is Just Using Absurdity for Illustrative Purposes.

    via Yes, They DO Hate the Constitution! « ACGR’s “News with Attitude”. I hate to stomp on bunnies, but nonsense like this doesn’t do our movement any good:

    However, her  fellow Justice, the supposedly ultra-conservative and strict constructionist Antonin Scalia is quoted as saying “The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours…we guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protest, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

    All I can think of saying is, Holy C&@p!

    It is very frightening that these “reputable” scholars and Justices do not understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution they have sworn to honor and uphold.  The drafters and ratifiers would be appalled at how the Supreme Court has “interpreted” a document meant to secure the rights of the people, not grant rights.

    In that quote, Scalia is being sarcastic. He’s saying that the constitution is insufficient a safeguard. A polity requires the people obey their own restraints. While property rights, and a constitution that protects them, and a judiciary bound to administer disputes according to them, are the necessary institutions for the defense of freedom, the institution that protects them is comprised entirely of the moral habits of the people and the people who administer those institutions in particular. We take for granted, that our suite of norms are natural to man. But they are special, and unique in the world, specifically because they are unnatural to man. Scalia is illustrating this point using absurdity. The left hates the constitution because on the one hand it gives them control of the government by semi-democratic means, but which does so on the premise of property rights. So they have their power, but are limited in the use of it. This internal conflict is traumatic for them. Conservatives are self obligated to remember their position as the group that acknowledges ever present scarcity. Libertarians are self obligated, as the intellectual wing of politics, to avoid making fools of themselves. (Not that we all haven’t done it in our careers.)

  • Fables convey meaning, and numbers don’t. Prices reflect only moments. And progr

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/07/this-is-really-why-the-economy-is-looking-upsnarky-modeled-behavior/Um. Fables convey meaning, and numbers don’t. Prices reflect only moments. And progressives don’t learn from history, nor do they understand the sterility of numbers. Why? FALSE CONSENSUS BIAS.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-07 10:54:00 UTC

  • No, I Have No Problem With The War Against Iraq. I Have A Problem With Nation Building.

    I’ve been criticized today about my support for war. As a libertarian my tolerance for violence makes me an outlier. But I have no problem with war — at all. The war against Saddam was not a problem for me assuming that it was to create a base from which we could topple the Iranian government and its terror-exporting leadership. And that was my understanding of the intention of the Neocons. The absurd moralistic christian folly of post-war nation-building was simply ridiculous — a criminal stupidity born of ideological vanity and self-congratulatory christian sentiments. That was unforgivable. It still is.

  • No, I Have No Problem With The War Against Iraq. I Have A Problem With Nation Building.

    I’ve been criticized today about my support for war. As a libertarian my tolerance for violence makes me an outlier. But I have no problem with war — at all. The war against Saddam was not a problem for me assuming that it was to create a base from which we could topple the Iranian government and its terror-exporting leadership. And that was my understanding of the intention of the Neocons. The absurd moralistic christian folly of post-war nation-building was simply ridiculous — a criminal stupidity born of ideological vanity and self-congratulatory christian sentiments. That was unforgivable. It still is.

  • The National Review Reflects My Criticism Of The American Conservative’s Pacifism

    As a followup to my criticism of The American Conservative’s position on Iran, The National Review’s David French http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292767/legal-case-striking-iran-david-french states:

    There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iran attacked us long ago, and our forbearance to this point is neither required by international law nor does it bind us to continued forbearance. In fact, when a declared and hostile enemy escalates its military capabilities dramatically, that presents a direct challenge to American security and the security of our allies. The Left is attempting to delegitimize the classical legal framework for the laws of war. In their view, military action is to be viewed as a set of discrete responses to discrete acts — more like law enforcement than warfare. In other words, Iran’s long history of terrorist acts don’t constitute casus belli (a justification for war), they merely represent just cause for, say, an attempt to capture the specific terrorists responsible. Yet international law has never required this level of national restraint, and such restraint is not required under the U.N. Charter.

    So, while my libertarian friends may argue with me, I ask them to understand that my understanding of freedom is not based upon the presumption of non-violence. It is based on the presumption that property rights are created and maintained through the application of organized violence. And that markets were made by intention, and freedom a systemic desire of the manorial warrior system. My work is to propagate aristocratic liberty, not proletarian liberty. They need not be incompatible. The state is the enemy, not violence.

  • The National Review Reflects My Criticism Of The American Conservative’s Pacifism

    As a followup to my criticism of The American Conservative’s position on Iran, The National Review’s David French http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292767/legal-case-striking-iran-david-french states:

    There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iran attacked us long ago, and our forbearance to this point is neither required by international law nor does it bind us to continued forbearance. In fact, when a declared and hostile enemy escalates its military capabilities dramatically, that presents a direct challenge to American security and the security of our allies. The Left is attempting to delegitimize the classical legal framework for the laws of war. In their view, military action is to be viewed as a set of discrete responses to discrete acts — more like law enforcement than warfare. In other words, Iran’s long history of terrorist acts don’t constitute casus belli (a justification for war), they merely represent just cause for, say, an attempt to capture the specific terrorists responsible. Yet international law has never required this level of national restraint, and such restraint is not required under the U.N. Charter.

    So, while my libertarian friends may argue with me, I ask them to understand that my understanding of freedom is not based upon the presumption of non-violence. It is based on the presumption that property rights are created and maintained through the application of organized violence. And that markets were made by intention, and freedom a systemic desire of the manorial warrior system. My work is to propagate aristocratic liberty, not proletarian liberty. They need not be incompatible. The state is the enemy, not violence.

  • sentimental and pragmatic criticism of libertarians. Although I tend to apprecia

    http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/machete-libertarianism-media-misinformationGood sentimental and pragmatic criticism of libertarians. Although I tend to appreciate the diversity of libertarian rhetoric and see the practical value in having an ideologically intolerant wing of the movement.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-07 02:20:00 UTC