My post popular articles? They’re on fashion. Yep. My next most popular articles? On relationships and sex. Of course. Next most popular articles? On business. Yep.
Why do I bother writing about Political Economy and Economic Philosophy?
I studied fine art. I studied art history. I can render, I can sculpt, I can design architecture. I can write hella-good art criticism. (It’s almost impossible to study fine art any longer in the west.)
I also studied painting. But I can’t paint. I’ll never be able to paint. Ever. I just don’t have the color sense. But I studied painting anyway, despite the fact that I’m terrible at it.
I choose political economy to write about (what institutions, both formal and informal allow people to cooperate in large numbers to produce prosperity – or not produce it. I choose economic philosophy to write about (what’s possible to accomplish with numbers, and what’s not). I choose political philosophy to write about (how people make decisions as groups, and what decisions they will make.) I choose Cultural Economics to write about (how different informal cultural value judgements have vast consequences.)
I write about what people don’t care about. It’s a sickness. It must be. 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMAWe Aren’t Meant To Be Friends.
Men spend time with women to place a put on an option for sex. That’s the reason. That’s the only reason. Even if it’s a long option. Even if it’s an infinitely long option. Time is a cheap put. (Women’s gracious illusions to the contrary.) Somewhat interesting and intelligent women decrease the cost of the put. Hot dull women increase the cost of the put. Unattractive women decrease the utility of the return on the put. But its all about the put. Women just aren’t that interesting. Male empathy tends by way of testosterone to make them ‘feel’ abstractions, machines, and processes, not people – something few woman ever seem to be able to grasp.
Now, if you find an educated and successful and honest woman over 50 or so, who was very attractive in her youth, she’ll give you a similar story about men: Mainly, that you should ‘try an athlete, try a troublemaker, try a musician’, to get ‘it’ out of your system, and then find yourself a decent man who w…
Found out that I got a lawyer disbarred. It can actually happen. I’m surprised. It was years ago. I hadn’t followed the process. But at least in egregious circumstances the system works. (Think creative billing as in ‘the Firm’.) I took out the whole company, one person in jail. Lawyer disbarred. CEO had to forfeit all his assets. FWIW: deca-millionares are generally from the middle class, made their money in business and have a reputation for being honest.
Democracy is Irrelevant for The Creation Of Prosperity. http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/12/democracy-is-irrelevant-for-the-creation-of-prosperity/
http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/12/democracy-is-irrelevant-for-the-creation-of-prosperity/Democracy is irrelevant. Property rights, the common law, manners, ethics, morals and truth telling, which support property rights are what is required for a wealthy country.
“We don’t let children play with matches. It’s dangerous. Not just for them, but for everyone else. They can burn down the whole house. For the same reason, we shouldn’t let Keynesians play with money. They burn the civilization to the ground while they cheer the bonfire, congratulating themselves on having made heat for everyone.” — (Me.)
The world needs cartoons it seems. In macro economics, these ‘cartoons’ consist of a set of standardized charts the goal of which is to inform policy makers as to the actions required of their monetary policy for the purpose of reducing unemployment by fooling people into spending by using disinformation about their current ‘wealth’. However, like anything else, what you choose to chart either assists or harms in making your case – charts confirm or deny your biases. The current charts used in macro economics reflect the belief that human beings are uniform – at least in the aggregate. Meaning that we’re equal in ability and in our productivity. Which in turn implies a requirement for democratic socialist policies instead of classical liberal policies. This use of aggregates justifies the progressive political presumption. The use of individual statistics on the other hand, justifies freedom, property rights, and all sorts of politically incorrect ‘isms’.
THE IS-LM, and IS-MP CHARTS
Macro economists rely upon these two charts to emphasize either monetary policy and spending for the purpose of creating ‘demand’.
Or monetary policy and spending for the purpose of targeting an interest rate for the purpose of making sure the country isn’t artificially short of cash.
HAYEK’S TRIANGLES
Hayek created charts to show differences in production cycles.
GARRISON’S DIAGRAMS
Roger Garrison created a series of charts to show the intertemporal effect of money and interest – effectively representing the Austrian view graphically.
IS-MP AND THE INTERTEMPORAL MISALLOCATION OF HUMAN CAPITAL
Show how monetary policy, and in fact, all intervention, misallocates human capital.
(UNDONE)
POLITICS
The nolan chart describes the political spectrum. Nolan’s wonderful chart is constructed to construe decision making as a matter of choice between neutral consequences, rather than as a preference between forms of redistributing the gains from trade and exchange – without which there would be nothing to exchange.
KINSELLA’S EVOLUTIONARY CHART
DOOLITTLE’S POLITICAL SPECTRUM CHART
These Axis describe a four sided pyramid with the state on the top. (For the unwashed massess — Axis vs Axes: The plural of axis is “axes”, pronounced ‘AK-SEEZ.)
The Property Economy
X – Axis: State-Monopoly on property VS individual property rights and individual claims on rewards from trade. Libertarian/Commercial/Calculative/Middle Class
Y – Axis: State-Monopoly on gains in production VS Shareholder rights, and shareholder claims on rewards from trade. Progressive/Theological/Rational/Lower Class
The Opportunity Cost Economy
Z – Axis: Formal Institutions: State-Monopoly on behavior (law) VS Voluntary Behavior (religion/philosophy)
Alpha – Axis: Informal Institutions: Opportunity Costs Required (Norms – highly uniform manners, ethics, and morals VS no uniform manners, ethics and morals). Conservative/Military/Legal/Upper Class
(UNDONE: I’ll update this page ater when I get the diagram done.)
TIME PREFERENCE VS POPULATION PREFERENCE IN POLITICAL PREFERENCE, THEN OVERLAY WITH THE HUMAN SENTIMENTS
And then show how time and population preference are gender driven, and class driven.
Then I can show how time preference relates to political preference, and the allocation versus misallocation of human capital..
THREE TYPES OF COERCION AND THE SOCIAL CLASSES
Then show the ‘three types of coercion’ which is implicit in this chart, and universal to the rest of my work.
PER CAPITA GDP AND IQ
Noting the difference between verbal and mathematical.
EDUCATIONAL EFFECTS ON IQCLASS, RACE AND IQGENERATIONAL CYCLES
“I actually think this issue brings up extremely deep philosophical questions that virtually no one I can find wants to engage in.”
What are you talking about?
No one wants to engage in those conversations? You haven’t posted an issue yet that hasn’t been addressed in the past century pretty thoroughly. Or at least, you should engage a few libertarian intellectuals.
I think you mean, that it is impossible to affect the political dialog by framing policy questions by other than political means. There is only ONE political spectrum (progressive to conservative) but there are TWO political AXIS (incorrectly stated by Nolan) consisting of Individual Property Rights (Economic Freedom per Nolan), and Pseudo-Shareholder Appropriation Of Returns (Personal Freedom per Nolan).
***And so you yourself are framing the question falsely.***
Which is why you can’t get serious traction with your arguments (despite being the best blogger on center-progressive political economy).
Now, you’d have to answer your own question here: why is it that a) people don’t frame it the way you prefer, and b) why is it that you frame it the way that you do?
It’s the progressive vision versus the conservative vision. ie: you see the world as a run-rate system that has it’s own momentum that is unstoppable and the fruits of which can be siphoned and shared without consequence. Conservatives view the world as a struggle to concentrate capital resting on a fragile edifice that has been constructed by irrational but successful means, and which can be disassembled and lost without constant vigilance.
Counter-intuitive results are produced on both sides of the aisle. For example, online pornography drastically reduces sex crimes – it seems obvious now, but it didn’t then. Cheap fattening food, cheap music, cheap movies and cheap video games, and easy access to pot give the unwashed proletariat something better to do than alcohol, hard drugs, violence, crime, rebellion and hanging on street corners like they did until fifteen years ago. Increasing incarceration and increasing punishment (especially three strikes) works to reduce crime. Eliminating the permanent welfare dependency decreased dependency. The inter-temporal redistribution system (social security) created a dependency bubble.
The purpose of politics is to win control of the bloody hand of government so that your alliance of minorities can seek rents on the other alliance of minorities instead of working in the market for mutual gain — like we libertarians of the classical liberal bent recommend, by treating society as a portfolio of human capital that must be constantly improved for the benefit of all.
All of us want the benefits of the market without the risks of participating in it. People seek to game the market through political rent seeking, through saving enough to live off their savings and investments, to under-consuming so that they have more leisure time. The market is hard.
An article on slate that says that men are homophobic when watching pornography. In other words, this is another feminist-appealing anti-male rant.
The straight male performer must be attractive enough to serve as a prop, but not so attractive that he becomes the object of desire.
Complete nonsense. It’s all about self image and arousal.
Men need to feel dominance. Men are aroused by feelings of dominance over a woman, for the same biological reason women are attracted to alphas that will dominate them (sexually) without being too threatening. Women have a sort of ‘marginal difference in attraction’ depending upon their degree of ‘alphaness’ in relation to other women. They are aroused by men that fit into the spectrum of ‘alphaness’ that is a comparative advantage without being a threat. Women ‘sort’ men that way. (It’s obvious isn’t it?)
In porn, men don’t sort much. They take almost every single opportunity. In life, men take any opportunity that won’t harm their reputation with other men. Women take only those opportunities that won’t harm their reputation with other women.
So, in pornography, it’s that men are ‘unaroused’ by the presence of a more dominant male who they see as a competitor, and therefore reduces their sense of dominance at that moment.
In pornography, men want a stand-in that they can empathize with where they feel dominant. (Just as they feel by watching sports. This is the side effect of our ability to imitate.) Romantic, patient interludes are a female arousal bias not a male one. In fact, Men need to be taught romantic sexual behavior as a skill. It’s not native to male behavior, which thanks to testosterone is more aggressive, and far less patient.
Women demonstrate their alpha desires too — just in different circumstances. Just as women who run cooking shows ‘can’t be too attractive’ or just as Oprah is a ‘safe’ counsellor to middle class white women. (Yes, those are both facts we have a lot of statistical data to support.)
Its the same for both sexes. We need situational dominance. We need to feel our self image is fulfilling to us in relation to other human beings. It’s about the feeling of dominance (or not) that comes from our self image when imitating through observation.
One commenter Lucas states the problem quite clearly:
“I can’t speak for the rest of the men out there but my personal opinion is that watching a woman have a good time and thoroughly enjoying herself is what attracts me to the porn to begin with and I really don’t care what the dude looks like because I’m not watching the porn because of him I’m watching it because of her”
(This article bothered me. It’s yet another self congratulatory absurdly feminist progressive framing of inter-gender relations that is counter to the facts. Men aren’t afraid of being turned on by homosexuality. They just viscerally react to it they way women react to sex with a dirty naked old man, with open bleeding sores, covered in vomit. It’s not complicated. It’s just gross. )
“The United States is becoming more educated faster than the economy would absorb educated workers.”
Actually, that statement would attribute value to education that is not demonstrated by the numbers in the market. It would just as likely suggest that ‘education’ has lost it’s meaning, and that being ‘educated’ is becoming disconnected from being ‘productive’ where ‘Productive’ is determined by the return on one’s skills in the marketplace. Islamic countries misallocate human capital too — by educating people in “islamic studies”. Just as westerners do by educating people into the vast literature and pseudoscience of the democratic mythos. We are still educating people as if they’re farm workers moving into industrial labor as if it’s 1949, and in college in particular, educating the middle class as if they are entering a world of comparative privilege – and the market is demonstrating the folly of it.
If the absolute number of ‘hard’ degrees has remained constant since 1963, while the percentage of the population with degrees has increased so dramatically, then we cannot have kept pace with technology that increasingly requires hard degrees.
SOLUTION?
The market is smarter than planners, politicians and economists.
ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESSIVE FAILURE
And this is the second post on Modeled Behavior in three days that illustrates what’s wrong with solving for employment using monetary policy instead of solving for inter-temporal productivity using ALL AVAILABLE POLICY. It assumes that inter-temporal redistribution of money for the purpose of increasing consumption regardless of productive ends has NO EFFECT on future productivity. (Thats the whole problem with Keynesianism isn’t it?) It’s the great progressive failure, It demonstrates the failure of progressive policy. It demonstrates the folly of the progressive hijacking of Keynesian ideas — just as progressives – democratic socialists – have hijacked the world ‘liberal’. (Keynesianism has become synonymous with irrational progressive philosophy despite that it does not have to be.) Progressivism is the philosophy of kicking the can down the road until the entire economy collapses from long term misallocation of human capital. From that perspective the IS-MP approach is even more destructive than IS-LM.
FWIW: I’m not an anarchist, but a neo-classical liberal using Austrian methodology. Austrianism is a methodology of observation using Propertarian analysis. Austrian methods have been adopted by people with libertarian sentiments. Libertarianism is a philosophy that is an outgrowth of Catholic Natural Law, which is an a restatement of greek philosophy, which in turn is the science of ‘observation’ of human behavior. From this standpoint, Keynesianism is UNSCIENTIFIC because it denies the observation of some factors in order to provide confirmation of other factors. The purpose of the entire progressive project is the accumulation of state power using methods that produce consequences that are harmful to the polity over the long term. There is no free lunch. There is no ‘natural momentum’ to innovation in an economy. Consumption also consumes differences in innovation that make consumption possible. You can borrow across time, but it’s either an investment or a loss, and both investments and losses are cumulative.
BTW: There is nothing that can be expressed in mathematics that cannot be expressed in human language. There is quite a bit that can be expressed in human language that cannot be expressed in mathematics. This is because mathematics is a process of maintaining ratios, and language is a process for determining causality.
Curt
