Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • QUIGGIN IS AT IT AGAIN. Some small percent of any thinker’s ideas survive the te

    http://johnquiggin.com/2015/06/15/john-locke-an-enemy-of-freedom/LEFTIST QUIGGIN IS AT IT AGAIN.

    Some small percent of any thinker’s ideas survive the test of time. We acknowledge these thinkers for their surviving ideas – the duration of an idea as a capital asset. Those ideas that do not survive the test of time are irrelevant.

    The only reason to argue that an individual is or is not morally something or other, is if one is attributing authority to the individual, rather than to the asset value of his surviving ideas.

    In other words, John’s post is an authoritarian and unscientific argument against an authoritarian and unscientific hypothesis.

    Aristotle was wrong about almost everything. But that does not diminish that of the thinkers in the age of transformation, that he was not more ‘right’ and therefore more influential than all other thinkers combined.

    He gave us a way of thinking. Locke gave us a way of thinking.

    (BTW: The Catholics were just as damaging to the Rule of Law as Locke and his contemporaries supposed. They were certainly catastrophically damaging to the American constitution and American rule of law. And that’s before we get to Socialism and Judaism. Australia, like Canada, is one of the most privileged nations on earth, and Australians are notorious for confusing and conflating virtue with luxury and signaling.)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 05:54:00 UTC

  • “Schwarzman is like the professional poker hustler who argues that laws banning

    http://angrybearblog.com/2015/06/paul-krugmans-argument-is-liquidated-when-its-specious-character-is-revealed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Hzoh+%28angrybearblog.com%29#sthash.lCm7hkY9.dpufOUCH!

    —“Schwarzman is like the professional poker hustler who argues that laws banning high stakes poker are bad for society. They certainly are bad for professional poker players.”— ibid


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 05:12:00 UTC

  • SLAPPING BRAD DE LONG 🙂 —“This meaning of “liquidity” isn’t market thickness,

    http://angrybearblog.com/2015/06/paul-krugmans-argument-is-liquidated-when-its-specious-character-is-revealed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Hzoh+%28angrybearblog.com%29#sthash.lCm7hkY9.dpufBITCH SLAPPING BRAD DE LONG 🙂

    —“This meaning of “liquidity” isn’t market thickness, nor is it deep pocketed arbitrageurs — it is ownership of a lot of liquid securities. This is the early 20th century meaning as in “liquidity preference” a phrase which is, as far as I know, used in the 21st century only by Brad DeLong.”—

    doh!


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 05:10:00 UTC

  • INTENTIONAL MANUFACTURE OF ODD BEAUTY (beauty)(diversity)(manospehere) —“Today

    http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/ashley-brokaw-profile/?emc=eta1&_r=0&utm_content=buffer62202&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=bufferTHE INTENTIONAL MANUFACTURE OF ODD BEAUTY

    (beauty)(diversity)(manospehere)

    —“Today, that person is less conventional and arguably odder-looking than ever before. Brokaw favors the kind of model more memorable than she is pretty. What fashion editors have long euphemistically called jolie-laide, she calls “strong.” The faces she chooses are sometimes merely a bit off-kilter but often undeniably weird and in some cases visibly asymmetrical. In print, they can seem outright radical, especially when compared to the burnished Brazilian goddesses and feline Russians of the recent past. —

    —“interracial marriage (oddness), a high G.D.P. (predictive of good teeth) and protein-rich diets (good for turning out tall but trim citizens).”—

    (h/t: Tyler Cowen)

    attn: Don


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 04:51:00 UTC

  • IS A SUBURBAN NATION (WE ARE WEALTHY) —“we are a suburban nation. If suburbani

    http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2015/06/durable-but-crumbling-urban.htmlAMERICA IS A SUBURBAN NATION (WE ARE WEALTHY)

    —“we are a suburban nation. If suburbanites pay the bulk of the taxes but the but bulk of the infrastructure is located in the crumbling center cities, then do suburbanites view these investments as spatial redistribution? I realize that suburbanites do travel to center cities but more and more suburbanites live and work in the suburbs and have little contact with the center city. Read Glaeser and Kahn 2004. “—


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 03:16:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-06-07/trade-and-trouble?utm_content=buffer787f5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 02:19:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://econ.st/1JO6FV4


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-14 18:03:00 UTC

  • AND RONDAZZO ON THE MORAL NARRATIVES OF ECONOMISTS REGARDING CAPITALISM Somehow

    http://econjwatch.org/file_download/847/RandazzoHaidtJan2015.pdfHAIDT AND RONDAZZO ON THE MORAL NARRATIVES OF ECONOMISTS REGARDING CAPITALISM

    Somehow I missed this paper from January. Just ran across it. It’s awesome. Read it. (Obvious).


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-14 12:38:00 UTC

  • Corporations were, like Limited Monopolies (IP), and like Letters of Marque, Limited Duration Contracts in the Public Interest

    [A] Month of Quotes on Corporatism by Tom Reeves

    —“…how corporations came about — they were all one-off, special purpose and limited-duration monopolies created in the public interest, not charters that the government let you file that were just like limited partnership agreements.”— Tom Reeves

    The same is true for Intellectual property (which we need to constrain), and Letters of Marque (which we need to restore).

    What is interesting, is that if they are not one-off’s, that means that they are not rational and calculable, right?

    —“moral suasion is a meaningful way for people to check each other’s damaging behavior. Before governments started creating corporations “in the public interest,” business enterprises were all intimately tied to communities, their owners were not absolved of potential personal liability, and common law provided effective means of halting damaging behavior entirely.”—Tom Reeves

    Restated: moral suasion evolved to raise the cost of each other’s imposition of costs, and therefore preserve the value of cooperation, and incentive to cooperate.

    —“We are swimming in moral hazard, risk socialization and needless polarization and conflict — because governments and the corporations they [create] interfere with truly voluntary transactions, catallaxy, and defense of person and property (both private and commons).”—Tom Reeves

    —“[Police] act in out-of-control ways largely because they are unaccountable in the sense they have little or no personal liability for what they do (and their departments/politicians will protect them if they misbehave). They’re a lot like crony capitalists, politicians and bureaucrats (all shielded by the hand of government). To fight corruption, bad behavior, “mistakes” and pervasive risk-socialization, we need to alter our institutional structures to demand more skin in the game from everyone. Right now, we are just playing games with who’s fat is in what fire, in ways that systematically advantage some while oppressing others.”—Tom Reeves

    —“Corporations are creatures of government; that’s why we keep running to government to beg our politicians and bureaucrats to “fix” things, rather than going to out neighbors to ask them to knock off stuff that harms members of the community.”— Tom Reeves

    —“Do you realize that crony capitalism and the mega regulatory state both are fuelled by the dynamic of unaccountability, lack of transparency, moral hazard and risk socialization that have been set in motion by governments selling masks of limited liability etc. to shareholders and those who inhabit the corporations that then grow?—Tom Reeves

    —“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”—Frédéric Bastiat (By Tom Reeves)


    “The term ‘catallactics’ was derived from the Greek verb katallattein (or katallassein) which meant, significantly, not only ‘to exchange’ but also ‘to admit into the community’ and ‘to change from enemy into friend’. From it the adjective ‘catallactic’ has been derived to serve in the place of ‘economic’ to describe the kind of phenomena with which the science of catallactics deals. The ancient Greeks knew neither this term nor had a corresponding noun; if they had formed one it would probably have been katallaxia. From this we can form an English term catallaxy which we shall use to describe the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market. A catallaxy is thus the special kind of spontaneous order produced by the market through people acting within the rules of the law of property, tort and contract.”
    (Hayek, F. A., 1982, Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 2, pp. 108-109).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallaxy

    —“Catallaxy” is just a term used to describe certain transactions (transactions where markets exist). It’s a tool, not a dogma, and has no tenets.I used the term the other day in a comment thread to point out that markets are destroying the environment, primarily because of property theft and risk externalization via government claims to own the oceans and indigenous resources and because government-made corporations are machines of risk-socialization. Austrian economics is quite useful to understanding how crony capitalism is destroying both society and our natural world.”—Tom Reeves

  • Defending Murray : Even Scott Sumner is the Victim of Selective Temporal ‘Mathiness’.

    RE: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/06/charles_murray_5.html [S]cott, Murray, like most conservatives, is studying, and conveying observations about our change in NORMATIVE capital, not income or consumption. Deviation from northern european traditional norms is a luxury good ( the absolute nuclear family, delayed marriage, delayed reproduction, high investment parenting, the manorial/protestant work ethic, hight trust from homogeneity, truth-telling/testimony ). RELATING YOUR POST TO ROMER’S ‘MATHINESS’ (a)While you haven’t read the book, the fact that you, who are one of our very best (IMHO), immediately assume the mainstream bias that income (an easily visible measure) is somehow meaningful rather than merely a justification of priors – and it provides a more valuable insight into the ‘mathiness’ of mainstream economics, than murray’s book does about the destruction of the family as the central unit of inter-temporal reproduction and temporal production that was in no small part, caused by that mainstream bias and ‘mathiness’. (b) No economic hypothesis can be ‘true’ in the sense that it is descriptively complete, and therefore free of error, bias, and deception, if we fail to account for the full spectrum of costs in the full spectrum of time frames. That is after all, the only measure of costs: opportunity costs. So solving for income or consumption demonstrates a selection bias, under the assumption that all negative externalities are less ‘bad’ than the ‘good’ produced by observable increases in income and consumption. In other words, if we stack all possible forms of capital by the length of the production cycle and it’s corresponding consumption or decay, then what is the net change? The conservative mind is biased to the long term, to saving, to risk, and to disgust. It is a reproductive strategy – a very masculine one perhaps – and the absolute nuclear family is central to it. And it was a very expensive reproductive strategy to develop – which is why was unique. He does not make the leap (not being an economist) to the extremely damaging suggestion that we move people to capital (a heavy industrial era bias) and it’s destruction of the family and its impact upon norms, instead of moving capital to people (a post-heaving-industrial economy) in order to preserve and expand normative capital. America’s dirty secret is that pervasive consumption is an insufficient reward for loneliness and isolation. Americans are heavily drug dependent for the sole reason that they are the most lonely and isolated peoples on earth, for whom the media is a poor substitute for friends and family. The absolute nuclear family is necessary, perhaps, but it can only persist within a civic society. The civic society is a product of the absolute nuclear family. It cannot exist otherwise. So what is the cost of the destruction of the family in pursuit of income and consumption? What will be the cost of 40% of american women on anti-depressants? Mathiness is most visible in the selection bias demonstrated by measuring temporally differential income rather than inter-temporarily differential consumption. But that is not the most important effect of quantitative pseudoscience: it is the destruction of long term capital in favor of short term consumption and the placement of faith in technology to rescue us from the consequences of it. So, it is not so trivial a question as you suppose. It’s an illustration of everything that is wrong with modern macro’s mathniess. It’s not the use of math. It’s measuring in favor of bias. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine